against whatsoever sort of nonconformists or recusants, be immediately suspended." An intention of licensing places of public worship for such as do not conform to the Church of England is then announced, and "This, our indulgence, as to the allowance of the public places of worship and approbation of the teachers, shall extend to all sorts of nonconformists and recusants, except the recusants of the Roman Catholic religion, to whom we shall in no wise allow public places of worship, but only indulge them their share in the common exemption from the execution of the penal laws, and the exercise of their worship in their private houses only 1."

According to Macaulay, of all the many unpopular steps taken by the government, the most unpopular was the publishing of this declaration; it was abhorrent to the enemies of religious freedom, and was thought by the upholders of civil liberty a violation of the constitution, and an unjustifiable exercise of the royal prerogative. The fact that it was at this very time that the Duke of York, the heir presumptive to the throne, ceased to outwardly conform to the established religion, and formally joined the Church of Rome, naturally created the impression that there was an intention to favour Papistry, and the Protestant dissenters felt no gratitude for any relief granted to them on such conditions. When at length the necessity of a supply to carry on the Dutch War forced Charles to reassemble his Parliament in February, 1673, he thus addressed them on this matter: "Some few days before I declared the war, I put forth my Declaration for Indulgence to Dissenters, and have hitherto found a good effect of it, by securing peace at home when I had war abroad. There is one part in it that has been subject to misconstructions, which is that concerning the Papists; as if more liberty were granted them than to the other Recusants, when it is plain there is less; for the others have public

1 Cardwell's Documentary Annals of the Church of England, vol. II, pp. 333-7.

The power to issue

the Declaration

questioned

in the Commons.

celled.

places allowed them, and I never intended that they should have any, but only have the freedom of religion in their own houses, without any concourse of others. And I could not grant them less than this, when I had extended so much more grace to others, most of them having been loyal, and in the service of me and of the king my father; and in the whole course of this indulgence, I do not intend that it shall in any way prejudice the Church, but I will support its rights and it in its full power. Having said thus I shall take it very ill to receive contradiction in what I have done. And I will deal plainly with you, I am resolved to stick to my Declaration 1."

The question was speedily taken into consideration by the House of Commons, which, after a long and fierce debate, resolved by 168 votes to 116, "That Penal Statutes, in matters Ecclesiastical, cannot be suspended but by Act of Parliament"; and an address to that effect was ordered The Decla- to be drawn up and presented to the king; a further ration can- debate took place on the proposal that the Lords should be invited to concur in the address, but it was rejected by 125 to 110 votes. The address was accordingly presented from the Lower House only. On February 24 the king returned his answer to the address, regretting "the questioning of his power in Ecclesiastics: which he finds not done in the reigns of any of his ancestors; his only design was to take off the penalties the statutes inflicted upon the Dissenters; and which, he believes, when well considered of, you yourselves would not wish executed according to the rigour and letter of the law"; he had no intention of avoiding the advice of Parliament, and if any Bill for these ends should be offered to him he would readily concur in it2. The answer was not satisfactory to the House because the claim to suspend penal statutes in matters ecclesiastical seemed to be still asserted, and it was resolved that a second address should be sent to the 1 Cobbett's Parl. Hist., vol. IV, p. 503.

2 Ibid., p. 546.

king. On March 1 the king went down to the House of Lords and complained of the addresses he had received from the Commons, and requested advice thereon. The Lords in answer sent up an address to his majesty thanking him for "asserting the ancient just rights and privileges of the house of peers." On March 7 both houses joined in presenting an address against the growth of Popery, and on the following day the king came to the Parliament in person and agreed to the address; he also asked for supply to be dispatched, and added: "My Lords and Gentlemen; if there be any scruple remain with you concerning the suspension of penal laws, I here faithfully promise you, that what hath been done in that particular shall not for the future be drawn either into consequence or example." The same day the Lord Chancellor informed the House that his majesty had on the previous night caused the original Declaration under the great seal to be cancelled in his presence. The thanks of both Houses were then returned to the king, and thus ended this incident which it has been thought right to relate at length on account of the light it throws on the spirit of the times as well as upon the question immediately before us.

Into the religious history of the remainder of the reign, inextricably bound up as it is with the course of politics, it is not necessary to enter at length; there was a perhaps not ill-founded suspicion that with an avowed Papist as successor to the crown attempts would be made to overthrow the established Church. In this state of feeling it was not unreasonable to take care that all places of trust and power should be filled by members of the dominant sect only. This was effected by the Test Act of 1673 The Test Act, (25 Car. II, c. 2), entitled "An Act for preventing dangers 1673. which may happen from Popish Recusants," by which all persons holding any office or place of Trust under the crown, whether civil or military, were compelled to publicly

1 Cobbett's Parl. Hist., vol. IV, pp. 551, 556-61.

The
Parlia-
mentary
Test Act,

1678.

receive the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church
of England, and also to take the oath of Supremacy and
sign a declaration against Transubstantiation. The penalty
for executing any office without complying with these
requirements was incapacity to hold any office or to pro-
secute legal proceedings or to act as guardian or executor,
or to receive any legacy, and also the forfeiture of five
hundred pounds, which could be recovered by any informer
for his own benefit. It will be at once seen that this Act,
though expressly directed against Papists, was equally
applicable to sectaries of all denominations.
This was
followed five years later by the Parliamentary Test Act
(30 Car. II, st. 2), entitled "An Act for the more effectual
Preserving the King's Person and Government, by disabling
Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament," by
which for the first time Roman Catholic peers were excluded
from taking their seats in the House of Lords. These last
enactments are often defended upon the ground that in the
then existing political circumstances it was necessary to
strictly exclude Roman Catholics from all share in the
government of the country; on the other hand, the Anglican
party took care to exclude all Dissenters, whether Roman
Catholics or not; and though measures were from time to
time projected for giving relief to Protestant nonconformists,
these were invariably brought forward at times such as
the fag end of a session, when they had little chance of ever
becoming law. This excuse, however applicable it may be
thought to the Test Acts, can hardly be extended to cover
a great part of the earlier legislation, such as the Conventicle
and Five Mile Acts, or the frequent demands for the
execution of the Elizabethan and Jacobean statutes against
Recusants.

The contest over the Exclusion Bill, the proceedings against those charged with complicity in the Popish Plot, and the subsequent revenge of the court upon the leaders of the country party, did not concern the Jews, protected as they were by their insignificant numbers and exclusion

from all part in the political arena. To them, and the obscure formation of their community in these times of persecution and danger to all who dared to differ in the slightest degree from the religion as by law established and worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, it is now time to turn.