[41] Kennet quoted in Neal, iv. 496.
[42] Dec. 30, 1680. “The Commons have before them a Bill of comprehension and a Bill for indulgence. The latter is proposed very full and clear, requiring nothing but subscription to Thirty-six Articles, and taking a test against Popery. This hath been read twice, and is before the Committee. The former moreover requires the use of Common Prayer, and, I think, as proposed even relapses almost all other things that almost anybody scruples. This has been read twice and passed the Committee. Opinions about these Bills are various. All that I have heard of, who desire comprehension, desire indulgence also for others, though multitudes desire indulgence that most fervently oppose comprehension. This begets great misunderstandings.”—Entring Book, Morice MSS., Dr. Williams’ Library.
On the 24th of December a clergyman was charged before the House of Commons with saying that the Presbyterians were such as the very devil blushed at, and were as bad as Jesuits, and otherwise denying the Popish plot, throwing the same on Protestants. It was resolved that he should be impeached.—Journals.
[43] Both read the first time Dec. 16.—Journals. The Bill for toleration was read a second time Dec. 24.
[44] The Lords desired the concurrence of the Commons in the amendments which they had made to this relief Bill Jan. 3. See Journals of both Houses.
[45] Burnet (i. 495) says the Clerk of the Crown withdrew it from the table by the King’s particular order.
[46] Journals, Jan. 10, 1681. Eachard, Rapin, Burnet, and Calamy quote or mention two resolutions on this subject, as passed at the same time by the Commons—the first, that the Act of Elizabeth and James against Popish recusants ought not to be extended against Protestant Dissenters—the second, that which has just been noticed. It is the only one respecting toleration, recorded in the Journals for that day.
[47] I have, in the history of this whole affair, followed the Journals; and they show the inaccuracy, more or less of Burnet, Eachard, and Neal. Even what Sir William Jones says in his Vindication (Parl. Hist. iv. Appendix) is scarcely consistent with the records of the Houses.
[48] “The Court was at Christ Church, and the Commons sat in the schools, but were very much straitened for room, there being a very great concourse of members.” “Many of the discontented members, of both Houses, came armed, and more than usually attended; and it was affirmed there was a design to have seized the King, and to have restrained him till he had granted their petitions.”—Reresby’s Memoirs, 243, 245.
[49] March 24, Parl. Hist. iv. 1308.