charge was made against John Jolly, ejected from Norbury Chapel, Cheshire, in 1662, and licensed in December, 1672, to preach at the house of Mr. Hyde of Norbury. Accused of being accessory to a riot, committed in breaking open Norbury Chappell,' and 'highly affronting his Majesty's Justices of Peace,' he was by the Council ordered to the Gatehouse, where he was detained two weeks, being released on the intercession of Lord Delamere and Lord Shaftesbury.92 It was perhaps with a view to prevent such abuses that the Bishop of Lincoln demanded from Williamson93 a list of all those licensed within his jurisdiction, and sought an explanation whether those who were licensed could preach in any place except the one named.94 The poor bishop was in despair at the 'insolence and growth' of Nonconformists in his diocese. Both Presbyterians And Anabaptists with the Quakers are exceedingly increased: Insomuch that if there be not a sodaine stop put to their daring growth, I dread to write the Consequence '95. 'The orthodox poor

clergy are out of heart. Shall nothing be done to support them against the Presbyterians who grow and multiply faster than the other ?'96 A similar demand and the same complaint came from other parts of the kingdom. Sir Geoffrey Shakerley wrote from Chester Castle97 that the spirits of Conformists were growing fainter daily, being almost overspread and lost in the foggy mists of the new licensed teachers. 'Their assemblies,' he complains, are already grown so full that our episcopal congregations look very thin. Therefore please let me know what number and who are licensed within this county, and how many licences each person has.'

The Bishop of Lincoln and Shakerley were both surpassed in zeal and activity by Carleton, Bishop of Bristol.98 At Durham, of which county he was a justice, he ordered to the sessions one Wm. Pell because he had dared to preach on May 12 before he had received a licence, although the

Calamy,' Contin. and Acct.,' Vol. ii, p. 124.

a

92 P.C.R., x, pp. 396, 403. 93 C.S.P.D., 1672, p. 264. 94 Apparently neither the bishop nor Sheldon had actually seen licence, for the latter replied: 'You need not ask your Q. whether your fanatics may preach where they have no License. If they do the Decl. gives you Liberty and you may proceed as you think fit but the time is so short and the Parliament which we hear will meet that much cannot be done in these matters.' (Tanner MSS., 43, p. 26.)

95 Tanner MSS., 43, p. 25.

96 C.S.P.D., 1672, p. 589.

97 C.S.P.D., 1672-3, p. 300.

98 Oliver Heywood, Autobiog.,' i, 308.

licence was issued from Whitehall on May 1.99 The Nonconformists of Bristol quailed before the Bishop. 'Soon after his return from London, 100 instead of acting peaceably, he began to cite merchants of note and other Nonconformists to his Consistory Court for not attending church, and summoned the chief of the ministers to the Tolzey, where he attended with three of the junior clergy for informers. The Nonconformists, hearing that he said he would make the city too hot for them, sent Mr. Pawlet and Mr. Haggat to appear for them. They pleaded the Royal licences. One of the aldermen insinuated that these licences were fit for nothing but to introduce popery and countenance the breach of the laws. This was highly approved of by the Bishop, who added the licences were against the law. The Bishop and the Alderman urged the informers to use in their information the words of the Act, viz., "in other manner than," &c.,101 to which counsel excepted, saying they ought to swear to matter of fact, but the Alderman said they would have in those words, for they would not word informations to be laughed at. There was no bad conduct, though great numbers of Dissenters were present. Other informations have since been given, and how slender soever the evidence, the Bishop never rests till it is made strong enough for conviction, and never lets the Justices rest till warrants are signed for distresses which will ruin some men, as the heavy fines on the ministers have also to be paid by the hearers. The city magistrates much dislike being hurried on to oppress their peaceable neighbours, but the Bishop threatens them with penalties and the Parliament, so that the merchants fear the trade of the port will be much injured. These proceedings take up all the discourse, and business is forgotten. One informer mistook himself and swore falsely that Alexander Thomson, merchant, was at a meeting in the Castle, and has since summoned 190 persons of his parish before the Justices.'

Conforming clergy always had it in their power to harass Nonconformists by demanding from them church dues for the past few years. Dr. Hook, vicar of Halifax, after insisting peremptorily on seeing the licences of Oliver Heywood, requested the dues which Oliver had neglected to pay since 1661. Heywood offered him Easter reckonings for three years, but the vicar demanded and at last obtained the whole, 102

99 C.S.P.D., 1672, p. 26.

100 C.S.P.D., 1671-2, p. 430. C.S.P.D., 1672-3, P. 332.

101 The Act against Conventicles, 1670.

102 Oliver Heywood, 'Autobiog.,' i, p. 346.

Thus for a brief period of twelve months the struggle went on, Nonconformists precariously enjoying their comparative freedom, their opponents for the most part jealously watching for opportunities to distress and annoy them. Roman Catholics, against whom all were conscious that it was to their interest to combine, were left, as usual, unmolested. Few Nonconformists paused to wonder what the end would be, although many were aware of the slender foundation upon which their indulgence rested. Of those that did give it a moment's consideration, some thought a severe tax would be imposed by parliament upon licensed persons and places. Pessimists feared a massacre, 'it being known where such people may be met with, as if they had but one neck.'103

103 P. Henry's Diaries, p. 253.

CHAPTER VI

THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE DECLARATION

FOR two years, by virtue of supplies received from the coffers of Louis XIV, and by the stop of the Exchequer, Charles had been able to dispense with parliament. At the end of that time his needs were as great as ever, and since these two sources of income could no longer be relied upon, Charles was compelled to summon parliament. The Catholic section of the Cabal was anxious to avoid, if possible, meeting parliament. Buckingham and Shaftesbury, on the other hand, perhaps because their motives had been purer, advised Charles to summon the national assembly. Lauderdale, the remaining member of the Cabal, only indirectly interested in English affairs, was guided solely by the personal wishes of the king. So to the great joy of Sheldon, parliament was summoned. The archbishop at once informed his bishops of the fact, at the same time insisting upon their personal attendance upon this 'more then ordinary occasion,' because he had great reason to believe that there was a necessity of raysing all the force we can make.' The interest of the archbishop was concentrated upon one thing: he was determined at all costs to have an end put to this system of licensed indulgence. To the ordinary member of parliament there were, of course, two matters of supreme interest; the renewed struggle against Holland, and the late Declaration of Indulgence.2 Neither was very popular with the nation as a whole; it was more than suspected that they were but branches of one and the same policy, viz., the overthrow of protestantism.3 Thoroughly conversant with the rumours that were freely circulating through the land, Charles was not unprepared for opposition. Consequently when he met parliament on February 5, 1673, he expressed his stern determination to pursue the policy he had adopted.

'Some few days before I declared 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 of it, that hath been

1Harleian MSS., 7,377, P. 39.

2 Hatton Corres., i, 93.

3 C.S.P.D., 1671, p. 563.

subject to misconstruction; which is that concerning 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 places allowed them; and I never intended that they [Roman Catholics] should have any, but only have the freedom of their religion in their own houses, without any concern 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 any way prejudice the Church; but I will support its rights and it, in its full power.'4 After assuring the assembled Houses that his intention was to preserve the Protestant religion and the Church of England as by law established, Charles concluded with this bold defiance: 'Having said this, 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.' Shaftesbury, Lord Chancellor since the preceding November, laid emphasis upon the king's explanation and protested once more against the doubts entertained concerning the religion of Charles. Had not his royal master resisted temptation when reduced to his lowest condition; did he not consider his restoration of the episcopal system as the greatest glory of his reign?

Charles and Shaftesbury were both quite sincere in the explanations they gave concerning the object of the Declaration, but their words did not carry conviction. It was quite true that Roman Catholics were given less liberty than other recusants, but that little appeared too much. Men feared, or pretended to fear, that the small wedge thus inserted was intended to wreck the established church and protestantism. Pamphleteers fanned the smouldering suspicions by representing the Declaration as an invention of the Pope and the devil, who at a late conference had agreed upon instructions to be sent to their emissaries in all parts of the world. 'If any recommend Liberty of Conscience, do you straight cry out against Persecution, and laugh not for a world; but remember you are yet awhile to play the Foxes and Wolves, in Sheeps Clothing.'5 The heir to the throne was a declared Roman Catholic: men had not ceased to talk

4 C. J., ix, 246.

5 Room for News or News from Rome being a Dialogue between the Pope and the Devil at a late Conference.' Stillingfleet in 1681 maintained that the declaration had been procured by Roman Catholics. See his 'Unreasonableness of Separation.'