Not having even the fragment of a speech from Danby on the subject of this measure, I can form no positive opinion as to its origin and motive. My conjecture is, that there was a mixed motive of principle and policy, for obtaining a parliamentary recognition of the justice of the cause of Charles I., or rather a condemnation of "the great rebellion ;" and thus identifying the cause of the court and minister with that of the cavaliers.

But writers treat this test as if Danby were the author of it.* Now, the declaration against taking up arnis against the king, or persons commissioned by him, had been framed soon after the Restoration, and was already required of all persons serving in the militiat, from the lieutenant of a county to the private soldier; of all persons in holy orders, and of all non-conforming ministers.§ The promise not to attempt alterations in church or state was not exacted from the militia, but it was in the clergyman's oath; and also in that of nonconformists, with a special disavowal, in this latter case, of the solemn league and covenant.

By Danby's bill, this test, in both its parts, was to be taken by all privy counsellors, magistrates, and members of parliament; certainly a great extension, but one which was recognised in principles by the previous acts; for, if resistance were to be abjured by the whole standing military force of the country, and all teachers of religion, it surely could not be deemed lawful in those who held civil offices. Was a statesman and a legislator to hold resistance lawful, at the same time that he required an abjuration of it from those who could make it most effectual, and from those who could most widely inculcate it?

I do not affirm that the proposers of the present bill used these arguments: I only wish to shew that the

* Burnet says, "the test that lord Danby had contrived, as was formerly mentioned." I do not know to what earlier passage he alludes. 13 & 14 Chas. II. c. 3. sect. 17, 18.

Ib. c. 4. sect. 9, 12.

16 Chas. II. c. 3. sect. 2.; and see Baxter's Proposals, p. 215. ante.

measure was not a novel and unheard-of attempt at the establishment of the doctrine of passive obedience.

The declaration against changes in church and state was required of ecclesiastical, but not of military persons; probably, because the latter had no means of effecting them, except by arms, which they disclaimed. We shall see presently that this, the more objectionable part of the oath, was neutralized.

The bill was opposed upon obvious reasons: the general inexpediency of tests, especially as exacted of the members of a legislature; the possibility of a case, in which resistance, even in the name of a king, might be justifiable and necessary; the imprudence and injustice of binding down a parliament against alterations, while every new law is in effect an alteration. Of the declaration against resistance, a French writer says, with great reason, that it is "one of those propositions,” entirely metaphysical, the mere examination of which is in itself an evil." *

Shaftesbury and his friends judiciously and adroitly avoided these troublesome topics, and founded their opposition rather upon general objections and particular and speculative difficulties, which might, under various contingencies, be occasioned by the exaction of the test.†

The duke of York, Burnet tells us, was against the bill; but Danby made no attempt to conciliate the duke, or the romanists, by any concession injurious to the established religion; on the contrary, no sooner was it suggested during the discussion, that no papist would object to an oath, obliging him only to maintain the church government, without any mention of religious doctrine, than the promoters of the bill made an addition to their test, binding the taker against endeavouring any alteration of the protestant religion as now established by law in the church of England."§ And

* Histoire de la Révolution de 1688 en Angleterre, par F. A. J. Mazure, p. 141. One clause was altered thus in consequence of these criticisms:"Commissioned by him according to law, in time of rebellion or war, and acting in pursuance of such commission."- Lingard, p. 323. Parl. Hist. liv. § Lingard, xii. 323.

Parl. Hist. iv. p. lv,

it is surely more reasonable to attribute to this insertion, than to any cajoleries of Shaftesbury, the conduct of the catholic peers; who, though said to have been at first unwilling to oppose the king, or reject a monarchical test, finally joined, one and all, in the opposition which was made to it by the country party.

With equal readiness, the treasurer, upon its being objected that the exclusion of peers for the refusal of a test, or from any cause, from the house in which they had hereditary seats, was an infraction of their birthright, consented to expunge that penalty.

was

Another important modification of the test adopted by the peers at an early period of the proceeding, in order to secure freedom of debate and vote in parliament; and this proviso was, by the special influence of Danby* made part of the declaration.

Locke's letter † describes some interesting discussions upon that part of the oath which affected the church; and Shaftesbury made very clever speeches, shewing the necessary vagueness of all descriptions of the protestant religion; but these only produced a more stringent obligation to support the church of England as established by law.

It was proposed to limit the obligation to abstain

*So says Locke, (Parl. Hist. Ixi.). The lords had resolved, on May 3. "That there shall be nothing in this bill which shall extend to deprive either of the houses of parliament, or any of their members, of their just ancient freedom and privilege of debating any matter or business which shall be propounded or debated in both or either of the said houses, or at any conferences or committees of both or either of the said houses of parliament, or touching the repeal or alteration of any old, or preparing any new law, or the redressing of any public grievance; but that the said members of either of the said houses, and the assistants of the house of peers, and every of them, shall have the same freedom of speech, and all other privileges whatsoever, as they had before the making of this act." And these words were afterwards added to the test:-"And I do take this oath according to the true meaning of this act, and the proviso contained in the same."

+ Page lvi.; and Lingard, xii. 321.

According to Lingard, the oath was finally settled thus: "I, A. B. do declare that it is not lawful, on any pretence whatsoever, to take up arms against the king; and I do abhor the traitorous position of taking arms by his authority against his person, or against those that are com missioned by him according to law, in time of rebellion and war, and acting in pursuance of such commission. I do swear that I will not endeavour any alteration of the protestant religion, now established by law in the church of England, nor will I endeavour any alteration in the government, in church or state, as it is by law established." —p. 323.

from alterations in religion by the insertion of the words, "by force or fraud." Against this Danby spoke ; but the great philosopher who records the debate, has not acquainted us with the reasons which he assigned. The proposed addition would have neutralised the oath, since no special security is required against force or fraud; yet without some such words the oath was assuredly liable to the objection made to it, as shutting out all improvement.*

The test bill never went beyond the house of lords: a question of privilege arose between the two houses, which occasioned a prorogation. This question, if not raised, was no doubt contested more obstinately by the commons, with a view to defeat the bill.+ Shaftesbury, according to Burnett, boasted of having raised it, and though others assured the bishop that "it happened in course," Andrew Marvel teaches us that the commons, though clearly in the wrong, kept up the controversy with factious views: "The lords," he says, "according to their undoubted right, being the supreme court of judicature in the nation, had, upon a petition of Dr. Shirley, taken cognizance of a cause between him and sir John Fagg, a member of the house of commons, and of other appeals from the court of Chancery, whether in good earnest, which I can hardly believe, or rather some crafty parliament men among them, having an eye upon the test, and to prevent the hazard of its coming among them, presently took hold of it, and blew the coals to such a degree that there was no quenching them."

I know not what part Danby took in the proceedings

"This bill, as we humbly conceive, does strike at the very root of government, it being necessary to all government to have freedom of votes and debates in those who have power to alter and make laws: and besides the express words of this bill, obliging every man to abjure all endeavours to alter the government in the church, without regard to anything that rules of prudence in government, or Christian compassion to protestant dissenters, or the necessity of affairs, at any time, shall or may require, upon these considerations, we, humbly conceiving it to be of dangerous consequence to have a bill of this nature, so much as committed, do enter our dissent from that vote, and protestation against it."- Protest of Shaftesbury, Buckingham, Clarendon, and others, April, 1675. Lords' Journ. xii. 668.

† Parl. Hist. iv. 737.

+ II. 75.

of the house of lords upon this occasion; he is entitled to a share in the commendations which have been bestowed upon the king.* Charles called the two houses before him, ascribed their differences to the designs of men who desired a dissolution of the parliament, and recommended to them a free discussion. To an address from the lords for the removal of the lieutenant of the Tower, who, receiving contradictory mandates from the two houses, had obeyed the commons, by declining to produce at the bar of the house of lords the prisoners committed by the other house, the king answered, through lord Danby, that "he had considered the circumstances of the matter, and was not satisfied how with justice he could remove him."+ Shortly afterwards, no hope existing of an amicable adjustment, the king finished the session in a short and judicious speech.

In that session nothing was done in the way of supply. The king having recommended a consideration of the state of the navy, a bill was brought in for appropriating the customs to that use, but it did not proceed.+

He

The king opened the next session of parliament § after an interval of three months, with an exhortation to the two houses, at least to postpone their quarrels until some public business should have been done. particularly recommended to them whatever might "tend to the security of the protestant religion as it is now established in the church of England." In asking for supplies, to take off anticipations upon the revenue, and for building ships, he said, though the war has been a great cause of these anticipations, yet I find by a late account I have taken of my expenses, that I have not been altogether so good a husband as I might have been, and as I resolve to be for the future, although at the same time, I have had the satisfaction to find that I

* Lingard, xii. 326.

Journ. ix. 315. 323. 330.

66

† June 9. 1675. Parl. Hist. iv. 738.

Fourteenth Session, Oct. 13. 1675. Parl. Hist. iv. 740. Lingard, 327.