Whilst the two Bills for Comprehension lay upon the Commons’ table, the Commons concurred with the House of Lords in an address expressing gratitude for His Majesty’s repeated assurances to maintain the Church of England, and praying that he would continue his care for the preservation of the same; and that, according to ancient practice, he would issue writs as soon as convenient for calling a Convocation of the Clergy, to be advised with in Ecclesiastical matters. “It is our intention,” they add, “forthwith to proceed to the consideration of giving ease to Protestant Dissenters.”[133] The reference here is to what is called the Toleration Bill.
COMPREHENSION.
By the Parliamentary address to the King, requesting him to summon Convocation for advice in Ecclesiastical matters, the Lords and Commons foreclosed the possibility of doing any more at present in reference to Comprehension. The two Bills on the subject were shelved, and debates on the point dropped in both Houses.[134]
At whose door lay the responsibility of defeating this particular attempt at the solution of a long-agitated question? The responsibility must be divided. It is difficult to get at a thorough knowledge of the views and aims of different parties interested in the subject. The spirit of intrigue, a habit of insincerity, and an employment of double-dealing, which cast such thick clouds around what was in many respects a “glorious Revolution,” influenced the minds of those who took part in the proceedings. Credit may be given to such men as Compton, Burnet, and others, for an honest intention to promote union; but I am at a loss to understand the Earl of Nottingham,[135] who introduced the Bill to the Lords, and who, being a High Churchman, must, one would suppose, have been inimical to at least some of its provisions. Still more difficult is it to understand the conduct of certain nonjuring Bishops, who, before they withdrew from the House, moved in favour of a comprehension, as well as the connivance of Sancroft, in allowing his name to be mentioned in connection with it. Reresby says some of the Prelates who supported the Bill did so more from fear than inclination;[136] and Burnet declares, “those who had moved for this Bill, and afterwards brought it into the House, acted a very disingenuous part; for while they studied to recommend themselves by this show of moderation, they set on their friends to oppose it; and such as were very sincerely and cordially for it, were represented as the enemies of the Church, who intended to subvert it.”[137]
1689.
As to the Nonjurors, it was believed at the time that they would not have been dissatisfied if any innovation upon forms, or any encroachment on clerical authority, had furnished a pretext for dividing the Church. But this belief was indignantly denounced afterwards as utterly false by one of the Nonjurors.[138] The whole atmosphere seems to have been laden with duplicity; and when the measure came down to the Lower House, with the apparent sanction of the Upper, there is reason to believe that if not the parents, yet the nurses and sponsors of the Bill had no objection to have the child perish in its cradle. Some, charged with this kind of infidelity, excused themselves on the ground of what they called the manifest partiality shown by certain of the Court Lords to the Dissenters.[139]
COMPREHENSION.
The objections offered by some of the Lords related to the details, not to the principle of the Bill, and no formal opposition seems to have been made to it by the Commons. They had appeared at first friendly enough to the general measure, and when they abandoned it, they did so under cover of desiring a meeting of Convocation, which might efficiently deal with the subject. The hapless infant died, not from violence, but neglect; not through blows dealt by an open enemy, but from want of nursing on the part of those pledged to cherish it.
The treachery, or apathy, of the Commons can be accounted for when we remember the character of the House and the circumstances of the times: as we have seen, but few Nonconformists—not more than twenty or thirty Presbyterians—could be counted among the members. The vast majority were Churchmen—some, Tory Churchmen, looking with a sinister eye upon the whole affair; some, Whig Churchmen, liberal in a limited degree, but opposed to the principle of Dissent: they cared much more for the Episcopalian Establishment than for what was called the Protestant Religion; they had little or no sympathy with the religious sentiments of the Nonconformists; they were unable to enter into their scruples; they were afraid that concession might endanger their own community; and they looked with apprehension upon the nonjuring movement. Much mischief was foreboded from that quarter, should such alterations be made as would countenance the idea that the Establishment under William and Mary was giving up its Episcopalian distinctions. Such an idea would strengthen the counter schism; for the Nonjurors might be expected to make capital out of the circumstance, and claim no small honour for maintaining Episcopalianism in its integrity. Another circumstance doubtless contributed to the turn affairs took in the Lower House.
1689.