[142] The following remarks by Dalrymple are worth insertion:—“Although in history the causes of events should be pointed out before the events themselves are related, yet a contrary method becomes sometimes necessary. There were various causes of these disappointments. The Church party was by far the most numerous in Parliament, many being Tories in the Church who were Whigs in the State. A number of members who had deserted their duty in Parliament, returned, and took their seats during these debates, in order to protect the Church from the invasion—as they called it—which was making on her. The assistance of the Dissenters against Popery, and in defence of liberty, was now no longer needed; and their short-lived connections with the late King were recollected. Ancient antipathies with new jealousies started up in the minds of the Tories, and both were increased by the freedoms with which some of the Whig Lords, particularly Macclesfield and Mordaunt, treated the Church in their speeches and protests; for even those could not bear to hear her treated with indecency, who had never attended to her tenets. Of the Whig party of the established communion, many looked upon matters of religion with indifference, and thought, that the toleration in favour of all opinions would be the more easily maintained in proportion to the greater numbers who stood in need of it. Of the Dissenters themselves, many of the Presbyterians were afraid lest they should weaken the strength of their party by dividing the Dissenting interest; and the more rigid Sectaries looked with envy at that participation of honours in Church and in State, which the Presbyterians were to obtain, and from which they themselves were to be excluded. There were a few in Parliament too, of firm minds and remoter views, who, reflecting that the Dissenting interest had been always as much attached to liberty, as the Church of England had been to prerogative, thought that opposition and liberty would be buried in the same grave, and that great factions should be kept alive, both in Church and in State for the sake of the State itself.”—Dalrymple, i. 318.
[143] Hunter’s Life of Heywood, 200.
[144] The following entries in the Hist. Register, Williams’ MSS., relate to subsequent conversations and rumours on the subject:—Wednesday, June 12. “Mr. John Howe, the Nonconformist, had some occasion to go to Hampton Court, and His Majesty seeing him, was pleased to call him to him, and speak to him much to this purpose: ‘That he hoped the Indulgence Bill did fit them well.’ Mr. Howe answered, ‘It did so, and they had some purpose to return His Majesty their humble thanks for it, if it was his pleasure that they should do.’ The King answered, ‘That he was very well satisfied of their good affection to his person and Government, that were mostly concerned in that Bill, and therefore on that account it was not needful.’ His Majesty said to this purpose, ‘He wished the Comprehension Act might also pass.’ Mr. Howe answered, ‘So did he, heartily, if it might be of latitude sufficient to answer its ends,’ etc. Saith His Majesty, ‘What clauses must be in it to make it to answer its end?’ ‘Amongst others, a clause that may allow for the time past such ordination as is allowed in Holland and other Reformed Churches, for we can never concur to any clause that condemns their ordination. And besides, in Queen Elizabeth’s time the Parliament did allow of ordination by Presbyters’ (13 Eliz., c. 12). Saith His Majesty, ‘It is a very good suggestion, and there is great reason they should grant all now, they did then, and more.’ This, and much other respective discourse of this kind, His Majesty was pleased to move to Mr. Howe.”—Saturday, June 22. “There has been some consideration had of the Comprehension Bill for the fortnight last past. The Bishops seem to have entrusted the Bishop of St. Asaph and the Bishop of Salisbury in that affair. Mr. John Hambden manageth it together with them, and Mr. Spanhemias (the son of the famous Spanhemias) doth very much concern himself in it. Of what latitude he is in point of Conformity I well know not, whether he fall off to the Conformists as Mr. Alex (Allix) and other Frenchmen. They seem to be contented to allow of Presbyterian ordination till 1660 or 1662; but the most that are living were ordained since then, and so will be kept out. The form of subscription is yet somewhat unsatisfactory. It were very well if the Bill were quite laid aside, or were made of latitude enough to answer its ends. His Majesty shows himself very well affected to it, and would be very glad that it should pass, so as to make those concerned easy.”
[145] Parl. Hist., v. 263. It is greatly to be lamented that the debates on many important questions of the period are totally lost, and those reported are given in such a confused state as to be in some cases unintelligible. Such is the case with the debates here noticed. Reporters were proscribed. In 1694 a news-letter writer, named Dyer, was summoned by the House of Commons, and reprimanded for reporting their proceedings.
[146] See Toleration Act, in Appendix. The following passage occurs in the Entering Book, May 25:—“I do not understand the mystery of it, nor the true reason why the Lords Spiritual, and those Lords and Commons of their sentiments, did pass that Bill; some say the Bishops passed it with that latitude, concluding it would have been stopped in the Commons’ House, and the Commons would not stop it, because then the imputation of persecution would have been laid upon them. But I think there was some greater reason, that at that time induced them to pass it. Certain it is the Devil’s Tavern Club did call for it, and did promote the passing of it. Nota.—And its as certain, that they do now heartily repent they have passed it, and if it were not passed they would stop it.”
Amongst the Camb. MSS. (Strype Cor., iii. 191) I find this note addressed to Strype: “I desire you will give your Deanery notice, that I shall be glad to meet them at Woodford upon Thursday, the 26th of this instant, at nine o’clock in the morning, to confer about the Act of Toleration. Be pleased to employ the Apparitor to summon them, and he shall be satisfied for his pains by, Sir, your assured friend and brother,
“H. London.
“June 19, 1689.”
[147] Life, by Lord King, 341. Preface to Letters on Toleration, 1765. Locke remarks, in a letter dated June 6, 1689, “You have no doubt heard before this time that Toleration is at length established by law, not perhaps to the extent which you, and such as you, sincere, and candid, and unambitious, Christians would desire; but it is something to have proceeded thus far. By such a beginning, I trust that those foundations of peace and liberty are laid on which the Church of Christ was at first established.”—Familiar Letters, 330.
[148] Ralph, ii. 225.