with the Comprehension Bill. Upon the 4th, they were engaged upon the question, "Whether to agree with the Committee in leaving out the clause about the indifferency of the posture at the receiving the Sacrament?" The votes being equal, the Journal records, "Then, according to the ancient rule in the like case, semper præsumitur pro negante," that is to say, the question as to leaving out the clause was decided in the negative, and therefore the clause remained. "There was a proviso likewise in the Bill for dispensing with kneeling at the Sacrament and being baptized with the sign of the cross, to such as, after conference on those heads, should solemnly protest they were not satisfied as to the lawfulness of them. That concerning kneeling occasioned a vehement debate; for the posture being the chief exception that the Dissenters had, the giving up this was thought to be the opening a way for them to come into employments. Yet it was carried in the House of Lords, and I declared myself zealous for it. For since it was acknowledged that the posture was not essential in itself, and that scruples, how ill grounded soever, were raised upon it, it seemed reasonable to leave the matter as indifferent in its practice, as it was in its nature." 1

On the next day another debate rose on an important point. It was proposed that a Commission should be appointed, including laymen as well as clergymen, to

1 Burnet, ii. 10. Soon after this, the Dissenting Diarist reports (Entering Book, ii. 511) a "variety of debates in the House of Lords for Comprehension and Indulgence. The Bishop of Lincoln would by no means let the surplice be laid aside, for the Church had established it, and the taking of it away would be a reflection upon the Church, as if it

had erred in establishing it. The
Archbishop of York said he thought
the Dissenters were no Christians,
for they refused to receive the Sacra-
ment of the Lord's Supper, and the
Sacrament of Baptism, in such man-
ner as it had been used in this and
other Christian Churches, nobody
knows how long; and therefore were
not to be comprehended or indulged."

prepare some plan for healing divisions, correcting errors, and supplying defects in the constitution of the Church. Burnet, adopting the questionable policy of striving to please opponents, and bring them to adopt a comprehensive scheme by humouring their prejudice-a policy of which he afterwards repented-argued against the proposed Commission, and upon the question being put, strangely enough, there was again an equality of votes. The same rule as before was followed, and a negative being put on the proposition, the Marquis of Winchester and the Lords Mordaunt and Lovelace entered their protest against it as contrary to the constitution, inconsistent with Protestantism, inexpedient as to the end proposed, likely to create jealousies, to raise objections, and to countenance the dangerous position that the laity were not a part of the Church. The Earl of Stamford added a distinct protest, on the further ground, that to refuse laymen a place in such a Commission was opposed to statutes of Parliament in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., which empowered a mixed Commission to revise the Canon law.

The Comprehension Bill, with these modifications, passed the House of Lords on the 8th of April, and was sent down to the House of Commons.1

Strange again—and the fact has been overlooked by our principal modern historians-before the Lords' Bill reached the Commons, the Commons were engaged upon a Comprehension Bill of their own, and upon a Toleration Bill likewise. The day which saw the Lords reading the former of these for the third time, saw the Commons also reading a similar one of their own for the first time, and granting leave to bring in another

1 See Lords' Journal.

Bill, as the phrase went, for “ easing of Protestant Dissenters."

But the party in the Commons earnest for Comprehension, had to row against wind and tide. One member desired the new Bill might be adjourned for a fortnight; another wished to put it off till Domesday. Old Colonel Birch impugned the motives of those who opposed the measure by mentioning the names of two members in the last Long Parliament, who had objected to a similar proposal, and who proved afterwards to be Papists in disguise.1

Whilst the two Bills for Comprehension lay upon the Commons' table, the Commons concurred with the House of Lords in an address expressing gratitude for His Majesty's repeated assurances to maintain the Church of England, and praying that he would continue his care for the preservation of the same; and that, according to ancient practice, he would issue writs as soon as convenient for calling a Convocation of the Clergy, to be advised with in Ecclesiastical matters. "It is our

intention," they add, "forthwith to proceed to the consideration of giving ease to Protestant Dissenters." 2

Entering Book, April 13. The following entry appears on the 20th: The Lords have sent down their Bill for uniting Protestant subjects to the Commons, and the Commons have yet before them a Bill of their own, both for the uniting of Protestant subjects and for giving indulgence to those that cannot be comprehended. The Commons' Bill for ease and indulgence was on Monday, the 15th, ordered to be read a second time this day fortnight."

2 April 13. Parl. Hist., v. 217. The following passage occurs in the

Entering Book, 217, Wednesday, May 15:-" Commons proceeded upon their Indulgence and Toleration Bill for Dissenters. The anti-interest seemed to be that day very calm and mild; and Sir Thomas Clarges took notice that the Lords' Bill for Indulgence seemed very grateful to those whom it most concerned, and he was very well content it might pass. Yet he thought fit the House of Commons' own Indulgence Bill should also be committed, and both of the Bills being committed, they might take anything that was good

The reference here is to what is called the Toleration Bill.

By the Parliamentary address to the King, requesting him to summon Convocation for advice in Ecclesiastical matters, the Lords and Commons foreclosed the possibility of doing any more at present in reference to Comprehension. The two Bills on the subject were shelved, and debates on the point dropped in both Houses.1

At whose door lay the responsibility of defeating this particular attempt at the solution of a long-agitated question? The responsibility must be divided. It is difficult to get at a thorough knowledge of the views and aims of different parties interested in the subject. The spirit of intrigue, a habit of insincerity, and an employment of double-dealing, which cast such thick clouds around what was in many respects a "glorious Revolution," influenced the minds of those who took part in the proceedings. Credit may be given to such men as Compton, Burnet, and others, for an honest intention to promote union; but I am at a loss to understand the Earl of Nottingham,2 who introduced the Bill to the Lords, and who, being a High Churchman, must, one would suppose, have been inimical to at least some of its provisions. Still more difficult is it to understand

out of their own Bill and insert it into the Lords' Bill. Of this opinion was Mr. Sacheverel." It is added, "The Commons' Bill has one excellent passage in it that is not in the Lords Bill, i.e., it repeals all the penal statutes against the Protestant Dissenters, when the Lords' Bill does only suspend them, and restrain them to that matter of meetings alone, but leaves them in force upon all other accounts."

The Lords' Bill for uniting their Majesty's Protestant subjects will be printed in the Appendix.

2 "The party which was now beginning to be formed against the Government pretended great zeal for the Church, and declared their apprehension that it was in danger; which was imputed by many to the Earl of Nottingham."-Birch's Tillotson, 178.

the conduct of certain nonjuring Bishops, who, before they withdrew from the House, moved in favour of a comprehension, as well as the connivance of Sancroft, in allowing his name to be mentioned in connection with it. Reresby says some of the Prelates who supported the Bill did so more from fear than inclination: 1 and Burnet declares, "those who had moved for this Bill, and afterwards brought it into the House, acted a very disingenuous part; for while they studied to recommend themselves by this show of moderation, they set on their friends to oppose it; and such as were very sincerely and cordially for it, were represented as the enemies of the Church, who intended to subvert it." 2

As to the Nonjurors, it was believed at the time that they would not have been dissatisfied if any innovation upon forms, or any encroachment on clerical authority, had furnished a pretext for dividing the Church. But this belief was indignantly denounced afterwards as utterly false by one of the Nonjurors. The whole atmosphere seems to have been laden with duplicity; and when the measure came down to the Lower House, with the apparent sanction of the Upper, there is reason to believe that if not the parents, yet the nurses and sponsors of the Bill had no objection to have the child perish in its cradle. Some, charged with this kind of infidelity, excused themselves on the ground of what they called the manifest partiality shown by certain of the Court Lords to the Dissenters. +

The objections offered by some of the Lords related to the details, not to the principle of the Bill, and no formal opposition seems to have been made to it by the

1 Reresby, 390.

2 Burnet, ii. II.

3 Somerville's Political Transactions, 275; Smith's remarks-Lathbury's

Nonjurors, 158.

4

Ralph, ii. 73.