If the court scored this triumph, it had also to acknowledge signal defeat. Largely as a result of the Declaration a bill had been introduced to deprive of all offices and commands those who refused to take the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. Principally aimed at Roman Catholics, it was exceedingly popular in the country. My Lord Duke of Buckingham is returned from Yorkshire, where he has been making new recruites to his regiment, and it's said that, so jealous were the commonalty there of Popery, that not a man scarce would come out unto his Grace, 'till he had gone and publickly with his officers took the Sacrament at York.'72 In the Commons the bill was read three times with very little opposition, while its passage through the Lords was rendered easy by the active support of Arlington and Shaftesbury. Indeed, it was a political rather than a religious measure. Arlington and Shaftesbury both wanted to oust Clifford from office. They knew that he was too scrupulous to become an occasional Conformist. Arlington, though professedly a Roman Catholic, had no such scruples. Moreover, Shaftesbury had probably learnt, it may be from Arlington, the full extent of the deceit practised upon him in connection with the two treaties of Dover. With this support the bill experienced a better fate than its sister measure. On March 29, 1673, it received the royal assent, becoming popularly known as 'the Test Act.'73 This act, though styled An Act for Preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants,' and which has been called the black charter of English protestantism,' fell with some severity upon Protestant Nonconformists who were unwilling to take the sacrament according to the usage of the Church of England. This it was no doubt which led a Quaker to write that the men of the two houses att Westminster are angry with the whore of Babilon, but follow anti-Christ still.'74 'What then will ye do?' writes Thompson.75 'There is one thing yet remains, play the Hypocrite, conform. That sovran Remedy for all your Maladies is at hand. It can do more than Repentance. Repentance can only assure you that none of your former sins shall be remembered, but Conformity will abolish the Idea of blame for the future.'

This brief session of parliament had seen the failure of Charles's supreme effort to secure toleration for Roman

72 Letters to Sir J. Williamson, i, p. 24. 73 For full text see 'Documents,' p. 499.

74 Letters to Sir J. Williamson, i, 67.

75 Josuah Thompson MSS., Dr. William's Library, i, p. 8.

Catholics, and incidentally for Protestant dissenters. The Commons had asserted emphatically the constitutional maxim of legislation only by king in parliament. The Declaration had been cancelled, but the licences were not yet recalled. The bill to relieve Protestants not conformable to the Church of England had been wrecked in the Lords through the unveiled hostility of the bishops and the court party. Finally, additional disabilities had been placed upon Nonconformists though the act was aimed chiefly at Roman Catholics. It remained to be seen how the action taken by the Commons would affect Protestant Nonconformists.

K

CHAPTER VII

THE RECALL OF THE LICENCES. 1675

THE Commons of England had won for the nation another victory on behalf of parliamentary legislation: they had informed the king in unmistakable terms that the Legislative power was in him and them and that to change it was to change the government." They had destroyed the king's scheme of indulgence: in its turn, their bill for toleration had been ruined by the opposition of the bishops and the court party, the former out of mistaken zeal for the Church and inveterate hostility against nonconformity of every kind, the latter to prevent the isolation of Roman Catholics. Thus the position of Protestant dissenters was as bad as it had been before March 15th, 1672; nay it was probably worse. The doomed criminal may bring himself to face the gallows, if not with equanimity at least with composure. To grant, only to recall, a reprieve is surely inflicting unnecessary mental torture. The reprieve had been issued and recalled; the mental and physical sufferings were to follow. Worse, malicious rumour avowed that an after-reckoning would have to be paid for their brief liberty.2 The Presbyterians,' writes Viscount Ranleagh,3 are left without either law or declaration, and will, it may be, have time and reason enough to repent their fierceness against the King.'4 There was at least one ray of hope. It is perfectly clear now, and should have been so then, that with the cancelling of the Declaration, it naturally followed that licences already issued were henceforth useless. It soon became apparent, however, that the king and the Council would make no objection to their continued use by dissenters, provided that justices of the peace could be prevailed upon to recognise them. One thing is perfectly clear; Charles for some two years took no active steps to have the licences recalled. On April 4, 1673, barely a month after the Declaration had been cancelled, Philip Henry, desponding over black prospects, was cheered by news from friends in London, that it was generally accepted that

1 Baxter to Ed. Hough, Baxter MSS., Dr. William's Library.

2 P. Henry's Diaries, p. 262.

3 C.S.P.D., 1673, p. 101.

4 Referring, no doubt, to the opposition offered to the king's exercise of dispensing power by protestant dissenters in the Commons.

Nonconformists were at liberty to plead their licences until they were revoked. The diarist adds: 5 In the present juncture we are at great uncertaintyes but for my part I have given up all to the will of God and am in this further confirmed by what the Parliament did, that 'tis now it seems their Opinion, that 'tis fit wee should have liberty to preach, at least for a year and if the Quarter Sessions grant it.' Again, at Whitchurch he was shown a letter in which it was boldly affirmed that Charles and the Council had ordered justices to refrain from disturbing the meetings and conventicles of Nonconformists. That such an order was issued is, to say the least, doubtful. Much more probable is the story given by Oliver Heywood. That worthy tells how Charles summoned his judges to consult with them concerning this question, when they warned him that he had promised parliament that he would not draw the practice of the declaration into a precedent." Nevertheless, since all justices were dependent upon himself, he could always show his displeasure towards those justices who began once more to persecute, by taking away their commissions. Accordingly he hath done, for one Mr. Hicks a non-conforming minister being disturbed and fined, he rid up to the king, who graunted an order for restoring his goods again, and also for taking away the justices commissions from them that did it-and upon this the ministers are fallen to their work again.'8 Even were the story untrue, the mere rumour that Charles would not countenance a renewal of persecution, was sufficient to infuse new hope and new courage into the hearts of the despairing. Some of the Lancashire ministers, congregated in Manchester to escape the operation of the Five Mile Act, recommenced their labours which had ceased with the withdrawal of the declaration.9 Some had continued their preaching arguing that since the Commons had proved themselves willing to grant toleration, no encouragement would be given to those who endeavoured to prosecute or persecute them.

Unfortunately the hope was vain. Informers, after a year's enforced idleness, were only too ready to ply their former trade. It was lucrative; it was easy. Many of the episcopal clergy had with difficulty endured the events of the past twelve months. To certain of their number it was gall and

wormwood to know that at the very hour when they were holding divine service, dissenting ministers were preaching and administering the Sacrament to congregations which were increasing daily. Now the time for reckoning had come; penal laws were no longer suspended; let those fanatics either conform or be prepared to endure the penalties imposed. There seemed to be, even yet, a strange inability or absolute refusal to realise that men had not resigned comparative wealth and wedded poverty for mere factiousness. It seemed still to be an accepted truth that 'a good conscience' meant 'a bad spleen.' Baxter, in his life story, relates an interesting conversation which he held in May, 1673, with Dr. Peter Gunning, his powerful adversary at the Savoy Conference. 10 Gunning vehemently professed that he was sure that it was not Conscience that kept us from Conformity, but merely to keep up our Reputation with the People, and we desired alterations for no other ends; and that we lost nothing by our Nonconformity, but were fed as full, and lived as much to the Pleasure of the Flesh in Plenty, as the Conformists did: And let me know what odious thoughts he had of his poor Brethren, upon Grounds so notoriously false, that I had thought that few Men that lived in England could have been so ignorant of matter of Fact. But alas, what is there so false and odious which exasperated factions, malicious Minds will not believe and say of others? And what evidence so notorious which they will not out-face?' The prevalence among conforming clergy of such a spirit as that which animated Dr. Peter Gunning augured ill for the future peace of dissenters.

Other clergy there were who, while in no way inclined to the kind of persecution which had prevailed since the Restoration, yet deplored the prevalence of sects, and sighed for the union and uniformity of Christians. To such, an order which Charles issued before the withdrawal of the Declaration must have been welcome. The king, 'sensible that the growing increase of the prevayling sects and disorders amongst us, proceeds chiefly from the generall neglect of instructing the younger sort of persons (or their erroneous instructions) in the grounds and principles of true Religion,' ordered the bishops to enforce the execution of such laws and constitutions as enabled them to enjoin the use and exercise of the church catechism, and to proceed against all that dared to teach in schools without licence.

10 Baxter, iii, p. 104.

11 Harleian MSS., pp. 42-43.