IV. the proposal was gratefully accepted, under the expec- CHAP. tation that such a test would solve the question of the A.D. 1673. duke of York's religion, and, by stripping him of office, exhibit him to the people in a state of political weakness and degradation. Neither did the chiefs of the court party prove more hostile than their opponents to a measure which opened to them the prospect of power and emolument from the resignations and removals which it would inevitably occasion. Even the king himself was brought to give his consent. The passing of the test was represented to him as the only condition on which he could hope to obtain the liberal supply that had been voted; and to a prince, with whom, as it was observed, "logic, built upon money, "had more powerful charms than any other sort of "reasoning," this consideration proved a convincing argument. If he felt at all for his brother, he probably strove to persuade himself that James would never sacrifice the possession of office to the profession of his religion.1 In conformity with the suggestion of Arlington, the Feb. 28. House of Commons had resolved, that every individual "refusing to take the oath of allegiance and supre"macy, and to receive the sacrament according to the "rites of the church of England, should be incapable "of public employment, military or civil;" and a bill 1 The French ambassador supplies the information respecting Arlington and his object (Dalrymple, ii. App. p. 90); Marvell respecting the motives of the king, and the leaders of the opposite parties. Marvell, i. 494, 495. Neal attributes the Test Act to a omission on the part of the king, whom he represents as returning no answer to the petition of the two houses for the removal of Catholics from office. Neal, ii. 693. But their petition did not ask for any such removal, and it was posterior in time to the resolution for a test. The petition was presented March 7; but the resolution was passed Feb. 28. See Journals on those days. IV. CHAP, was introduced requiring, not only that the oaths should A.D. 1673. 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 five hundred pounds, 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. In March 12. the lower house, a feeble opposition was offered to the clause imposing the declaration, on the ground that to make the disavowal of a speculative opinion the qualification for civil office was contrary to the nature of a civil test, and calculated to render men hypocrites or atheists. In the upper house the principal novelty in the debate was furnished by the earl of Bristol, who, though a Catholic, argued in support March 15. of the test. That considerable alarm existed could not, he said, be denied. It mattered little whether it was well founded or not. The more groundless the panic was, the more rapidly it would spread. If, then, the bill tended to lull the apprehensions of the people, it deserved the approbation of the house. It did not enact new, it did not enforce even the old, penalties against the Catholic worship. It went merely to remove a few individuals from offices which they could not exercise without scruple and dissimulation. For himself, he was no wherryman in religion, to look one way and row another. He was a Catholic, attached to the church, but not to the court of Rome. should vote, indeed, against the bill, because it contained expressions to which he could not conscientiously assent; but he hoped that the house would adopt it, as a measure of prudence, calculated to prevent mischief and to pacify discontent. By this speech, He IV. Bristol obtained the reputation of a patriot: the CHAP. reader will, perhaps, think him a hypocrite; for he A.D. 1673 prevailed on the parliament to adopt a proviso in his favour, securing to him and his wife a large pension from the crown, and exempting them, and them alone, from the obligation of taking the test.' 5. The bill passed the House of Lords, as it had March 20. passed that of the Commons, without provoking a division; and it may reasonably be asked, how it happened that it received no opposition from the dissenters, when it was so framed as to comprehend them, though its avowed object was the exclusion of others? They seem again to have suffered themselves to be duped by the artifice of their pretended friends. With the bill for the test, was introduced another for ease to Protestant dissenters, and thus their objection to the first was neutralized by their hopes from the second. But while one passed rapidly through the house, the other crept slowly on; new questions successively arose, and day after day was spent in debating what quantity of relief should be granted, to what description of nonconformists it should extend, and for how long a time it should be continued. The house at length agreed to confine the benefit to those dissenters who objected only to the articles of discipline, and were willing to subscribe the articles of doctrine of the church of England, to allow all such to hold separate meetings for the purpose of religious worship, to exempt them from the penalties for absence from the parish church, and to repeal in their favour the compulsory declaration of assent and consent or- March 17 dained by the Act of Uniformity. In this shape the 1 C. Journ. Mar. 12. L. Journ. 557, 559, 561, 567, 569. Parl. Hist. iv. 561-566. Stat. of Realm, v. 782. IV. March 24. CHAP. bill was forwarded to the House of Lords, where it A.D. 1673. received numerous amendments: to some of these the Commons objected; and though the king warned them of the approaching termination of the session, no care was taken to come to an agreement. On March 29. Easter eve, the parliament was adjourned at nine in the evening; before it met again a prorogation followed, and the hopes of relief which the dissenters had been encouraged to cherish were utterly extinguished.1 In the history of this session, it is worthy of notice: 1. That not a murmur was heard from the ranks of the opposition against the war, or the alliance with France, or the suspension of payments in the exchequer. Of these great subjects of complaint no mention is made either in the addresses or the debates. But not only was silence observed; in addition, an act of grace was passed, which, by pardoning all offences committed before the 25th of March, covered the ministers from the risk of subsequent punishment. It seems as if a secret understanding existed between some of the leaders of the two parties; and that the members of the cabal had sacrificed the Catholics to the jealousy of their opponents, on condition of indemnity to themselves.2 2. The House of Commons, in the bill which it passed for the ease of dissenters, departed from those doctrines which it had so strenuously advocated in its celebrated address to the king, in 1663. At that time it protested 1 Lords' Journ. 561, 564, 571, 576, 579, 584. Parl. Hist. iv. 535, 542, 551, 556, 571, 575. "It was the constant practice of these ministers, that when any "of them were afraid of the House of Commons for themselves, "they presently exposed the papists to be worried, hoping thereby "to save themselves from being fastened upon."-James, i. 499. IV. against any indulgence, because it was inconsistent CHAP. with the Act of Uniformity, calculated to breed A.D. 1673. schism and multiply sects, and would ultimately lead to universal toleration.' But now the distinction between articles of doctrine and articles of discipline, at that time refused, was broadly admitted; the pains and penalties for absence from church, or attendance at conventicles, then considered essential to the safety of the establishment, were taken away; and the declaration of assent and consent, the principal provision in the Act of Uniformity, was rendered entirely optional. 3. With respect to the test, it should be remembered that the oath of supremacy and the subscription against transubstantiation were sufficient to exclude the Catholics from office; the obligation of receiving the sacrament after the rite of the established church was unnecessary as far as regarded them; but it operated effectually to the exclusion of the dissenters. Thus the latter, by contributing to 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 intolerant laws passed against them since the restoration; and in addition, they entailed on themselves and their posterity a new disability, that of holding employment, civil or military, under the crown. In Holland, the rapid success of the French had provoked, instead of subduing, resistance. De Witt, who had so long governed the republic, fell a victim with his brother to the vengeance of an infuriated mob; the prince of Orange took on himself the proud task of liberating his country; and the absence of contending factions gave a more uniform direction to 1 C. Journ. Feb. 27, 1663. |