1649-1685. had been established at the restoration to be dissolved, and the CHARLES II. component members of the new ministry were more disposed to religious toleration, and the design was to act on the principle of the declaration of 1660, so that presbyterian ordinations should pass sub modo. An address voted that the laws against non-con formists and papists should be But the sentiments of the commons towards religious dissenters were such, that all attempts at conciliation were rendered abortive, and they voted an address to the king, to put in execution all the laws against non-conformists and put in execution. papists; and afterwards a bill was passed and sent to the lords, but which failed, in consequence of a prorogation, having for its object the continuance of the existing penalties against frequenters of conventicles". In 1670, the Conventicle Act having expired, Stat. 22 Charles II., c. 1, was passed, which reduced the penalty to 58. for the first offence of being present at a conventicle, and to 10s. for all subsequent ones; but imposed a fine on the preacher of 207. for the first, and 401. for each future offence; and in case the preacher fled, it made any one present liable to pay a portion of his fine, not exceeding 107., and subjected the owner of the premises to a fine of 207., and the magistrates who neglected to enforce the provisions of such law were liable to certain fines 38. The Conventicle Act, Stat. 22 Charles II. c. 1. punishment of In consequence of this enactment, spies and informers mul- Improper tiplied; the dissenting clerical ministers found it necessary to the non-conformabscond; houses were entered by force, and searched without ists. ceremony; and the inmates were dragged to prison, and condemned to pay fines. The quakers, persisting in the exercise of their religious rites, two of their preachers, Penn and Mead, were indicted for a riot, and, because a jury acquitted them, the jurors were fined forty marks each, and committed to prison; and the prisoners, though acquitted, were severely punished for contempt, in refusing to be uncovered in the presence of the court 39. During the war with Holland, serious alarm had arisen that the malcontents had leagued themselves with the enemy; and Charles, for the purposes of conciliation, published, in 1672, a 36 Kennet, 293. Baxter, 23. Pepys' Diary, Dec. 21, 1667. 38 Burnet, 449-451. 39 1 Burnet, 471. 6 State Trials, 951-1036, 2 Sewell, 259-271, Neal, c. 8. 7 Lingard, 505. 1649-1685. CHARLES II. declaration, stating that the experience of twelve years had proved the inefficacy of coercive measures in matters of religion; that he found himself obliged to make use of that supreme power in ecclesiastical matters, which was not only inherent in him, but had been declared and recognised to be so by several statutes and acts of parliament; that it was his intention and resolution to maintain the Church of England in all her rights, possessions, doctrine; and government; that it was moreover his will and pleasure that all manner of penal laws in matters ecclesiastical, against whatsoever sort of non-conformists or recusants, should be from that day suspended; and that, to take away all pretence for illegal or seditious conventicles, he would license a sufficient number of places and teachers for the exercise of religion among the dissenters, which places and teachers so licensed should be under the protection of the civil magistrate; but that this benefit of public worship should not be extended to the Catholics, who, if they sought to avoid molestation, must confine their religious assemblies to private houses 40. Suspension of penal laws in matters ecclesiastical. Dispensing powers denied to the king. Answer of the king. In 1673 it was contended in parliament that the royal authority was bounded by the same limits in ecclesiastical, as in civil matters; that the king might remit the penalties of the offence, but he could not suspend the execution of the law; and, after a lengthened debate, it was resolved, by a majority of one hundred and sixty-eight to one hundred and sixteen, that "penal statutes in matters ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by acts of parliament," and which was embodied in an address to the king". To this address Charles replied, that he was sorry they had questioned his ecclesiastical authority, which had never been questioned in the reigns of his ancestors; that he pretended to no right of suspending any laws concerning the properties, rights, or liberties of the subject; that his only object, in the exercise of his ecclesiastical power, was to relieve the dissenters; and that he did it not with the intention of avoiding the advice of parliament, but was still ready to assent to any bill which might be offered to him, appearing better calculated than his declaration to effect the ends which he had in 40 2 Collier, 895. Baxter's Life, iii. 99, 101. Kennet, 313. 4 Parl. Hist. 515. 7 Lingard, 531. 2 Hallam's Const. Hist. 528. 41 Com. Journ. February 10, 1673. view, the ease of all his subjects, and the peace and establish- CHARLES II. ment of the Church of England. vote the answer insufficient. 1649-1685. The commons voted this answer insufficient: and a second The commons address informed him, that "he had been misled by his advisers, that the power of suspending statutes in matters ecclesiastical had never been claimed nor exercised by his ancestors, and that they prayed a more full and satisfactory reply to their petition "." י 40 The king appealed to the lords; but subsequently, upon the advice of Colbert, cancelled the declaration, and made a solemn promise to the lords and commons, that "what had been done with respect to the suspension of the penal laws, should never be drawn into consequence". The Duchess of York having died a Roman Catholic, the just suspicion that the Duke of York had embraced similar religious tenets,—the equally-just suspicions of the base alliance with France",-coupled with the king's public declarations and private conduct",-engendered a belief that a deeplaid conspiracy existed for the destruction of the reformed religion; and so prevalent was this conviction, that the puritanical dissenters, to gratify their detestation of the papists, consented to sacrifice their personal interest to the public good, and united in the popular cry, which demanded additional securities for the maintenance of the English Catholic church". It was likewise observed, that some of the principal officers of the army were avowed enemies of the Anglican church, and, in consequence, an address was voted, requesting the king to discharge from the army every officer and soldier who should refuse to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and to receive the sacrament after the rite of the Church of 40 Com. Journ. Feb. 14, 24, 26, 1673. 12 Lords' Journ. 540. Vide etiam Rapin, ii. 668. Baxter, 151. Birch's Tillotson, 42. 421 Life of James, 452. 1 Burnet, 537. 2 Evelyn, 380. Cosmo, 456. Travels of 431 Macpher. 50, 52. 2 Dalrymple, 22. Travels of Cosmo, 456. 7 Lingard, 499, 500. 1 Life of James, 440. 441 Life of James, 442, 448. 2 Dalrymple, 5, 12, 22, 23, 31, 57, 62, 68— 77, 80, 83. Temple's Letters, 123. 8 Somers' Tracts, 13. 2 Harl. Misc. 387. 5 Œuvres de Louis XIV. 466, 471-474. 6 Ibid. 476. Macpher. Hist. 54. 45 2 Carte's Ormond, 254. 1 Thurloe, 740-745. 1 Life of James, 442. 7 Lingard, 519. Guilford apud Dalrymple, ii. 91. 46 1649-1685. CHARLES II. England, and to admit no man, thereafter, into the service, who did not take the oaths before the first, and the sacrament before the second, muster. Resolution of the commons, that no person shall be capable for military or civil offices without taking the oaths supremacy. The king having returned a satisfactory answer*7, measures were immediately considered, by which those who were obnoxious might be removed from civil as well as military affairs. The result was, that the House of Commons came to a resolution, that every individual "refusing to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and to receive the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England, should be of allegiance and incapable of public employment, military or civil;" and which was introductory of that statute, commonly called the "Test Act," which required not only that the oaths should be taken, and the sacrament received, but also that a declaration against transubstantiation should be subscribed by all persons holding office, under the penalty of a fine of 500l., and of being disabled to sue in any court of law or equity, to be guardian to any child, or executor to any person, or to take any legacy or deed of gift, or to bear any public office. The effects of the Retirement of the Duke of lic affairs. The oath of supremacy, and the subscription against transubstantiation, were sufficient to exclude the Roman Catholics from office: the obligation of receiving the sacrament after the rite of the established church was necessary as far as regarded them; but it operated effectually to the exclusion of dissenters. Thus the latter, by the establishment of the test, placed themselves in a much worse situation than before. They forfeited the benefit of the king's declaration; they remained subject to the severe laws passed against them since the Restoration; and, in addition, they entailed on themselves and their posterity a new disability,—that of not holding employment, civil or military, under the crown. This obligation admitted of no compromise or equivocation York from pub- by any member of the Church of Rome, and extended from the highest to the lowest in the state; and its effect was to compel the retirement of the Duke of York from the office of Lord High Admiral, and also Lord Treasurer Clifford from public affairs". 47 11 Lords' Journ. 547-549. 48 Stat. 25 Charles II. c. 2. 4 Parl. Hist. 556. 49 Com. Journ. Feb. 28, 1673. 7 Lingard, 554. 2 Hallam's Const. Hist. 531, 1649-1685. The circumstances attendant 50 upon the popish plot, the CHARLES II. publication of Coleman's "Letters","-excited the prejudices and fears of the nation to such an extent, that a bill was Popish Plot. introduced into parliament for the purpose of excluding the Duke of York from the succession; but all proceedings were arrested, by the king dissolving the parliament, which had sitten for seventeen years, although no wretched or degrading artifice had been left untried in order to procure its universal corruption, in order to destroy the established religion, and render the king an absolute despot. Stat. 30 Charles Roman Catholic peers retire from II., Stat. 2. parliament. The new House of Commons, to evince their distrust of the Roman Catholics, enacted Stat. 30 Charles II., Stat. 2, by which a declaration was to be subscribed by members of both Houses of Parliament on taking their seats, against the idolatry of transubstantiation, the invocation of saints, and the sacrifice of the mass as practised in the Church of Rome; and that the declaration was made without any mental reservation or idea that it could be dispensed with by the pope. Having thus excluded the Roman Catholic peers from the Bill of exclusion legislature, the bill of exclusion against the Duke of York was revived; but a dissolution prevented its passing, and the bill was rejected by the lords in the next parliament. Sir Leoline Jenkins contended that parliament could not disinherit the heir of the crown, and that if such an act should pass, it would be invalid in itself; but even modern authori 50 7 State Trials, 259. 1 Kennet, 327, 337. 4 Parl. Hist. 1024, 1035. Rapin, ii. 688. Wellwood's Mem. 128. North's Examen, 129, 177, 196, 240. Ralph, 386. 1 Burnet, 555. 51 Ibid. 52 Pepys' Diary, October 6, 1666. North's Examen, 456. 2 Dalrymple, 92. 2 Hallam's Const. Hist. 537. 53 The oath of supremacy had been taken by the commons, though not by the lords, and Roman Catholics were incapable of sitting in the Lower House before the act of 1679. The Long Parliament, in 1642, attempted to exclude them from the House of Lords. A bill for a similar purpose passed the commons in 1675, but was thrown out by the peers. (Journ. May 14, November 8.) It was brought in again in the spring of 1678. (Parl. Hist. 990.) In the autumn of the same year it was renewed, when the lords agreed to the oath of supremacy, but omitted the declaration against transubstantiation, so far as their own House was affected by it. (Lords' Journ. November 20, 1678.) They also excepted the Duke of York from the operation of the bill, which exception was carried in the commons by two voices. (Parl. Hist. 1040.) The Duke of York, and seven more lords, protested. (2 Hallam's Const. Hist. 580.) 54 The second reading of the exclusion bill was carried, May 21, 1679, by two hundred and seven to one hundred and twenty-eight. (Parl. Hist. 1125-1191.) against the Duke of York. |