But what was the real design of it all? Fully to answer this question we must carefully look at the line of policy which he previously pursued towards Popery, towards the Church of England, and towards Protestant Dissent. And here it should be premised, that the crushing of Monmouth’s rebellion in England, and of Argyle’s rebellion in Scotland, had swept away for a time all opposition to James’ title and authority,—had consolidated his power, and had encouraged him to attempt the experiment of ruling the nation as an absolute monarch: and let it also be remembered, that his despotic designs were intimately connected with his ecclesiastical polity.
His object with regard to Popery seems to have been, by a succession of bold attempts, to give it not only toleration, but an establishment in this country,—at least, an establishment upon terms of equality with the Protestant Church.[158]
JAMES’ POLICY.
The Judges, in the case of Sir Edward Hales, having decided in favour of the King’s dispensing power; and having also given it as their opinion, that the laws of England were the King’s laws, that it was an inseparable branch of his prerogative to dispense with penal statutes, and that of the reasons for doing so in particular cases he was sole Judge;—James immediately proceeded by Letters Patent, dated May the 3rd, 1686, to authorize Edward Sclater to retain his benefice, after he had, on the previous Palm Sunday, confessed his conversion to Romanism by attending Mass. He also allowed Obadiah Walker, a clergyman who had long secretly leaned to Popery, and now openly avowed his conversion, to retain his position and emoluments as Master of University College, Cambridge. By a still bolder stroke, the King dashed down the barriers which guarded admission to the Establishment, and conferred the Deanery of Christ Church upon John Massey,—a Roman Catholic priest, possessing neither learning nor ability,—who instantly decked an altar in the usual way for the celebration of Mass.
The two sees of Chester and Oxford fell vacant in 1686. James appointed to the one Thomas Cartwright, Dean of Ripon, a worthless sycophant, who might be expected to do anything to please his master; and to the other, Samuel Parker, already well known to the reader for his violent Tory and High Church publications.[159] “I wished,” says the King to the Papal Nuncio, Adda, “to appoint an avowed Catholic, but the time is not come. Parker is well inclined to us, he is one of us in feeling, and, by degrees, he will bring round his clergy.”[160]
1686.
Whilst James secured for his purpose tools of this description he did whatever he could to silence the voice of controversy against the Church of his affections. He caused the Lord Treasurer to reprove Sherlock, and to stop his pension for preaching against Popery;[161] and he wrote to Compton, the Bishop of London, commanding him to suspend the Rector of St. Giles, Dr. Sharp, who had engaged in a pulpit contest with a Roman Catholic priest. This last interference involved consequences more mischievous than itself. It had long been in the mind of the Sovereign to revive the Court of High Commission, as an efficient agent for the control of the clergy. To any one else, the Act of Charles II., confirming the abolition of that Court by the Long Parliament, would have been an insurmountable barrier, yet despising such reasons as would have guided other men, James gradually brought himself to the determination of re-establishing that odious tribunal. The lawyers told him that what he proposed would be found to be unconstitutional. His Ministers shrunk from committing themselves to so perilous an act, but Sharp’s affair fixed his decision. Compton, son of the Royalist Earl of Northampton, himself once an officer of the Guards, had with something of a soldier’s gallantry and dash, opposed the Government, from his seat in the House of Lords; and when receiving the King’s command for the suspension of Sharp, he had declined to take that step without a trial of the denounced clergyman, and had also, by mere private influence, arranged for his submitting to a period of silence. This conduct on the part of the prelate provoked the King to end his hesitation, and to revive the very Court, which had been a chief cause of his father’s ruin. The New Commission conferred an indefinite spiritual jurisdiction, in this case the more dangerous from its being indefinite.[162]
JAMES’ POLICY.
1686.
It was to cover England and Wales; it was to be for the reform of all abuses, contrary to the ecclesiastical laws of the realm. It gave authority to summon before it such ecclesiastical persons of every degree as should offend in any of the particulars mentioned, and punish them accordingly, by depriving them of their preferment, and by inflicting ecclesiastical censures and penalties. It brought within its scope suspected persons to be proceeded against, “as the nature and quality of the offence, or suspicion in that behalf” should require. It prescribed summary excommunication and deprivation for all persons, who should be obstinate or disobedient; and it brought within the control of the Commissioners, the Universities, Cathedrals, Collegiate Churches, Colleges, and all ecclesiastical Corporations whatever, with the power of obtaining and examining all kinds of documents touching those foundations. This formidable instrument was addressed to seven Commissioners, four laymen, and three Bishops. Jeffreys, now Lord Chancellor, was President, and with him were associated the Lord Treasurer, the Lord President, and the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench. The three Bishops named were Sancroft, of Canterbury; Crew, of Durham; and Sprat, of Rochester. The Primate at once saw the illegality of the measure, yet had not firmness enough to do more than excuse himself, on the ground of ill-health, from attending the Board. This engine, contrived for the widest action, was precipitately brought into play, to meet the particular emergency of Compton’s case. The Commissioners summoned him before them upon the charge, that he had not suspended the obnoxious Rector according to Royal command. First, Compton objected to the tribunal itself as illegal, an objection which the Commissioners instantly overruled. Instead of persevering in that objection, and thus commencing at once a constitutional struggle, which was both imminent and necessary, the Bishop quietly gave way, and proceeded to plead that he had, in fact, complied with His Majesty’s injunctions. To have suspended Sharp formally, he contended would have been illegal; to prevent Sharp from preaching, he represented as the only thing possible under the circumstances. This line of defence reflects no honour upon the defendant, it simply sheltered him from personal injury, without raising any question of principle. It virtually surrendered the liberties of the Church, and appears altogether unworthy of the occasion. Nor did it avail for the protection of the accused. The Commissioners pronounced him guilty, and for his “disobedience and contempt” suspended him from his Episcopal office, permitting him, however, to retain his revenues and his residence. The Bishop of Peterborough, with the Bishops of Durham and Rochester, were directed to execute the sentence.