1702.

and resentment towards the tory party, the zea- BOOK V. lots of which detested the temporising measures of the present ministers, and were loud and incessant in their applauses of the earl of Rochester.

Confor

the

Commons.

The toleration act, passed in the late reign, Occasional had ever been regarded by the same description mity Bill of persons with an eye of jealousy and aversion. House of But the happy effects of the toleration were by this time so apparent, and the act itself was so much the object of national reverence, and appeared so strongly engrafted into the constitution as settled at the Revolution, that every idea of a repeal was precluded. The dissenters were therefore to be attacked during the prevalence of the tory influence in a different quarter. It seems that sir Humphry Edwin, a dissenter, who served the office of lord mayor of London in 1697, had, during his mayoralty, been guilty of the gross indiscretion of attending in his formalities with the city sword, &c. at a certain meeting-house or conventicle, called Pinner's Hall. This was much exclaimed against at the time, and was now made the pretext for bringing in a bill for preventing, under very great and grievous penalties and incapacities, the practice of occasional conformity, which was painted in frightful colours as an enormity by which the CHURCH was exposed to the most imminent dangers. In the preamble of the

ร

BOOK V. bill the toleration was asserted, and all persecu 1702. tion for conscience' sake condemned in a high

Conform

strain yet, when a clause was moved to exempt protestant dissenters from such onerous offices as could not be executed without a compliance with the test, it was carried in the negative-so that, whether they did or did not accept in such cases, they were liable, if not to persecution, at east to punishment. This bill passed the commons by a great majority, and was carried up to the lords, who received it with visible marks of coldness and disgust. Unwilling, however, to put a direct negative upon the bill, the adverse party took an effectual method of defcating it by altering and Occasional mitigating the pecuniary penalties therein imity Bill lost posed. The house also struck out a declaratory clause, affirming it to be the intent of the test act that every person complying therewith should be in all respects conformable to the church. Even with these modifications the bill passed with difficulty, though the influence of the court was fully exerted in its favor. The lords Marlborough and Godolphin declared openly for the bill; and prince George of Denmark, himself an occasional conformist, and habitually attending at the Danish chapel, divided in favor of it. Previous to the division, the prince is reported to have said in his broken English to lord Wharton on passing below the bar, My herte iz vid you." The bill

for the

present Session.

66

1702.

being returned to the commons, a free conference BOOK V. was demanded and held on the subject of the amendments; and each house, after vehement altercation, adhering to its opinion, the bill was lost for this session.

The disposition of the commons farther displayed itself by a bill prolonging for a whole year the time allowed for taking the abjuration oath. The upper house agreed to this, but the whig lords had influence sufficient to obtain the insertion of two important clauses; the first déclaring it high treason to endeavour to defeat the succession to the crown as now by law established; and, secondly, for extending the obligation of the oath to Ireland. This was turning the tables very dexterously upon the tories, the clauses being so plausible and popular, that the commons would not venture to reject them. A bill was also in the course of the session introduced by sir Edward Seymour, for "resuming all the grants of the late king." This blow was Resumphappily parried by Mr. Walpole, member for opposed by Lynn Regis, distinguished very early in life by pole. his parliamentary talents, who moved to add, "and those of king James."-This was negatived; but, the partiality being too apparent, the bill was subsequently dropped.

The place bill, so much a favorite with the tories during the late reign, was now revived by

tion Bill

Mr. Wal

BOOK V. the whigs, and brought into the house by sir 1702. John Holland. But its former advocates, Howe,

Musgrave, Seymour, &c. with surprising effrontery, opposed and negatived it; instead of which they brought in a bill founded on a novel idea, which they pretended would answer the purpose of securing the independency of the house much better-providing that no person shall be chosen members but such as are possessed of a certain qualification in landed estate. This was however rejected by the lords, and the session was termi1703. nated so early as the 27th February 1703—the queen declaring in her speech "her resolution to maintain the act of toleration, with which she hoped those who had the misfortune to dissent from the church would rest satisfied."

Proceedings of the

sion.

The proceedings of the convocation, which sat Convoca- during the session of parliament, are almost too inconsiderable for historic notice. In their address they told the queen, "that they promised themselves, whatever might be wanting to restore the church to its due rights and privileges, her majesty would have the glory of doing it, and of securing it to posterity." The same frivolous disputes relative to the privileges of the upper and lower house were revived; and the chief artifice of the bishops being to represent the refractory members of the lower house as favorers of presbytery, a resolution was passed, affirming,

in opposition to all scandalous and malicious BOOK V. representations of their sentiments, the order of 1703. bishops to be of divine apostolical institution," in which they desired the concurrence of the upper house," in order that it might be the standing rule of the church." But this was remarked to be a manifest attempt to make a new canon or constitution, without obtaining a royal licence, contrary to the statute of Henry VIII-and in the midst of their great zeal they found it necessary to beware of the dangers of a premunireThe lower house of convocation at length represented their grievances in a labored petition to the queen, setting forth, that, after ten years interruption of convocations, several questions had arisen respecting the rights and liberties of the lower house, which they implored her majesty to call into her own royal audience." The queen promised to consider their petition, and send them an answer as soon as she could. But no answer was ever returned. Lord Nottingham, the great patron of the church, acknowledged he did not understand the question; and the present ministers, being men of penetration and ability, saw doubtless the absurdity of making themselves parties in a dispute which nothing could elevate to consequence but the interposition of

the civil power. And the proceedings of the

convocation, once so formidable, served only