Whilst these plots were common talk, and indignation against Romanism was fomented in a thousand ways, the Corporation of Bristol made the following presentment:—
EXCLUSION BILL.
We lament that “at this time more heats and animosities should be fomented among us, than hath been since His Majesty’s most happy restoration, which gives us just cause to suspect, however such men cover themselves under the umbrage of zeal and religion, that they are influenced by Jesuitical principles. For the Jesuits have not a fairer prospect of bringing us under the tyranny of Rome, than by continuing and carrying on of differences among ourselves. Divide et impera is their maxim. From this evil spirit and principle this city hath been represented as ill inclined to His Majesty’s person and Government, our worthy mayor, a person of unquestionable loyalty to the King, and of exemplary zeal for the Church, [being] traduced as fanatically disposed, and all those true sons of the Church of England who have any moderation towards Dissenting Protestants, to be more dangerous to the Church than the Papists themselves, when we cannot but think that a hearty union among all Protestants is now more than ever necessary to preserve us from our open and avowed enemy.”[29]
Union amongst Protestants at such a time seemed to be dictated by reason and policy, but Churchmen who looked with neighbourly kindness upon Nonconformists were apt to be suspected of laxity of principle and a want of zeal; and the very paper from which I have given an extract is endorsed as a “seditious presentment.”
1680.
In the month of October, the Exclusion Bill reappeared and passed, all the argument and eloquence of the members from day to day, through long sittings, being devoted to this question. Interwoven with the debate from beginning to end, like dark threads in shot silk, are references to the recent Popish plot and its attendant circumstances. Whilst treated as a legal and political question,[30] its ecclesiastical bearings were most prominent and most vital, in the estimation of zealous Protestants both within and outside the walls of Parliament.[31] The central point in this controversy, whatever might be its political relations, and however it might be mixed up with party interests, was of a religious nature. Had the Church not been united with the State, had all Christian congregations been left to their own resources, and been exempt from Government control, the case would have been very different, though even then religious considerations would have certainly become mixed up with the question; but, as it was, with such an interlacing between things political and things ecclesiastical, with the King as supreme temporal Ruler of the Church, and Defender of the Faith, to have a Roman Catholic placed in that position justly appeared to Protestants not merely as inexpedient, but as totally unreasonable and absurd. The ecclesiastical argument formed the stronghold of the exclusion policy, and its opponents could by no sophistry overturn it. Still they had much to say. They praised the Duke as a man of ability, who had fulfilled important naval duties, and deserved well of his country. The attempt to set such a man aside, a man with so much decision of purpose, and with so many friends, they contended, would incur the risk of plunging Great Britain into another civil war. And beyond all personal and national reasons against his exclusion, they took the high ground—so dear to the Stuart race—of the Divine right of kings, and denounced the attempt to deprive the heir apparent of his crown as nothing short of robbery and wickedness.[32]
EXCLUSION BILL.
The Bill carried in the House of Commons met an adverse fate in the House of Lords. Shaftesbury did his utmost for its support, and the Country party amongst the peers gallantly rallied around him, but after a telling speech from the Earl of Halifax, the measure was defeated by 63 against 30. The division took place at the then late hour of eleven o’clock at night, the King being present, and the whole being described as “one of the greatest days ever known in the House of Lords.”[33] In the large majority against the second reading, appeared no less than fourteen Bishops, who, for the course they adopted, were charged with tearing “out the bowels of their Mother the Church.” They upheld the doctrine of Divine right, in opposition to the Protestant zeal of the day, which looked in a different direction, and they thought that limitations, such as the King and the Court party were willing to impose upon the legitimate successor to the crown, would suffice to preserve the Reformed Church in its integrity and its supremacy.
CHAPTER III.
To prevent breaking the continuity of the narrative, an incident has been passed over requiring some notice.