The method of healing divisions and destroying sects by the careful training of the children was far too slow and unremunerative for some. Even before the Declaration had been withdrawn, upon the mere report that parliament had annulled it, informers recommenced their harassing tactics. As early as February 26th, Peter Whalley, a justice, complained to Williamson that he was placed in a dilemma from which it was difficult to escape.12 An informer had demanded a warrant against certain conventicles, and upon the justice showing signs of hesitation, had threatened to sue him for £100 according to the Conventicle Act of 1670. 'I desire your advice,' he writes, 'for I am very unwilling to offend the king, and yet loth to venture the knave.' After March 9th, 1673, informers became bolder and justices more perplexed. John Carr, of Christ's College, Cambridge, a justice of the peace for the town and the university, was similarly threatened with a suit. 'I beseech you therefore,' he pleads,13 'to write by the first post or let one of your people write what you know to be his Majesty's sense therein, whether we should grant warrants to suppress them, they having licence to preach and meet.' The justices of Surrey told the same story. Writing to Archbishop Sheldon,14 the Bishop of Winchester tells of an interview he had held with them. 'I find by some discourse I had with diverse of them that they know not what they are to do in relation to the sectaries; for allthough the Declaration (whereby they were licensed to meet) being cancelled, and the bill (for ease to Protestant dissenters) being not passed, they make no doubt but that the sectaries of all sorts are in the same state as they were before the sayd declaration, and consequently as liable now to be punished by the Laws still in force as ever they were formerly, yet I think they will not be very forward to put those Laws in execution, untill some publick notice be given by way of Proclamation or otherwise that they may do so, neither do nor will the sectaries give over theyr publick meetings till some such authoritative notice be given to them.' Many complaints of a like character came from various parts. 'He is willing to do his duty, but unwilling to be fecht up to London or disgract at home, and therefore forbears to act vigorously till he can understand, whither it will be to any purpose.'15. . . . 'Few Justices have courage to oppose 12 C.S.P.D., 1672-3, p. 613. 13 C.S.P.D., 1673, p. 120. 14 Tanner MSS., 42, p. 7. 15 Tanner MSS., 42, p. 110. them.'16 'Let me know whether I may not take, as Justice of the Peace, a more speedy and effectual course by putting the late Act against Conventicles in execution:17 I find in this country an (allmost) universall jealousie, as it his Majestie at this present would not have it so . . . Therefore, Sir, I do request this charity, both for my self and other Justices of the Peace, in order to our duty, to have this doubt taken off, whether it agrees or agrees not with his Majesties pleasure, if we proceed against schismaticks according to the last Act of Parliament.'18 Thus in some counties, perhaps in most, justices refused to give warrants to informers or to countenance persecution in any form. Elsewhere, they were not so lenient; they allowed the law to take its course.19 16 Ibid. p. 114, cf. p. 118. 17 Remains of Denis Granville, ii, p. 13. The 18 The answer is preserved:-'When I desired to know what answer I should return to you, I was told that lawes were made to be observed, and that the King's Ministers in their respective places knew their duties without having recourse to his Majesty upon every occasion.' (Secretary Cooke to Granville, Dean of Durham. Granville's Remains, ii, p. 14.) 19 Baxter, iii, 103. Letters to Sir J. Williamson, i, p. 134. following letter throws some light upon the difficulties besetting would-be persecutors: Amongst many other Persons Convicted for Conventicles, Sept. the 16th, Wm. Manning a Teacher and one Richard Whinrope who had obtained a license for his owne house were both fined 201. a peece. And thereupon Appealed to the Sessions at Beccles Oct. 5th, and altho' we used our utmost indeavours to Prevent them, yet they retained Mr. Henry Bedingfeild the only Counsellor in these Parts against us. The Shreeves deputy here was conterned also, And has retirned a Grandjury sum of which were Convicted Conventiclers. And great Suspition I had of the Bench, so that my fears and Dangers were without any aloy or Mixture of Comforts-Except the Goodness of the Course and the Hopes of Divine Assistance. But the case being opened by their Counsell the whole Bench fell on so handsomely that it exceeded my wishes. They tryed first upon the Matter of Law, and gave in exception, the King's Declaration and Licence, both which were overruled by Sr. Edward Turner's charge And the cancelling the former in Parliament. And so the former sentence confirmed. Then they had a tryal upon the matter of fact, by a Jury taken out of the grandinquest in which was but three persons for us, or rather indifferent. Here the convicted brought diverse to swear there was no meetings at the Day and places in the Record. But at Last they were offered to be discharged and have their moneys upon their owne corporal oathes that there was no Teaching. This they refused, and thereby Lost their case, their credit, and their friends. And so the verdict passed against them, To my Great Contentment who had first raised up the informers and then Assisted them with much labour and Expense. And although I never intend to reimburse the Latter out of the Penalties yet I was Loath it should totally perish. This hath much abated their fury, yet we meet with one Difficulty which as much hindreth our proceedings, (viz.) They which have no outward stock (that is all traders in townes most of the teachers) Lock there Doores and will suffer no distress to be taken, neyther doth the Statute (as the Justices conceive) allow them a power to break in for that purpose. Now if I could obtaine the Directions of any of the Grave Judges under their hands in this case and a few others, I would hope to work a good reformation in these parts... Edward Bohun.' (Tanner MSS., 42, p. 129.) Nathaniel Heywood of Ormskirk experienced more trouble and opposition in his ministry during the first four months of 1673 than he had previously had in all his life.20 Thirty-four warrants were out against him, every Sabbath officers came to arrest him but he managed to escape. At last he was caught21 'I am very well, I bless God, and never in greater honour, or so highly advanced in all my life; I was pulled out of the Pulpit with a Pistol lifted up at my head, and a Goddam-me in mine ears, but the man repents his rashness, and wishes he had let me preach, for he never heard a better prayer. . . . I fear it must be an Imprisonment, or promise not to preach, which is my very life.' Jolly had a similar experience. Preaching at Slade, he was interrupted by the arrival of a captain and his men.22 The officer commanded Jolly to come down, 'swearing most blasphemously, calling me most shamefully, and threatening to pistol me.' Deeming discretion the better part of valour, Jolly obeyed the command, was marched off to the nearest gaol, to be released two days later on his bond to appear again.23 Oliver Heywood, more fortunate than his brother Nathaniel, escaped with nothing worse than a warning letter from the irate vicar of his parish. Oliver had preached from the text: Show me a token for good; that they which hate me may see it, and be ashamed.' The token was not wanting: the hearts of his congregation were deeply affected; but the latter part of his pious prayer remained unanswered. The vicar, hearing of the meeting, wrote to a prominent member of Heywood's flock: 24 Sr, I hoped to have met your minister on Wednesday at our church and after with your brethren the feofee of Mr. Nathaniel Waterhouse at the lecturers house, but I suppose you were so full with the 4 houres exercise at the dedication of your new-built cottage (as you formerly calld it, now turn'd into a synagogue), that you could not digest the prayers of our church and a sermon there the next day, had I seen you then or foreseen your designed meeting, I should have been so bold (as my pastoral duty binds me) to have asked your authority, to that end I was to wait on you at your inn to-day, but you being gone home I sent after you this messenger, on the same errand, if you have authority, I desire you to show it, and that before the next meeting (which I hear is on thuesday next) and I have done, if you have not 20 Life of N. Heywood,' pp. 26-7. 21 Ibid. pp. 30-32. 22 Jolly's Note Book, p. 17. 23 Cf. P.C.R., xi, p. 14; Besse, i, pp. 748-760, &c. . 24 Oliver Heywood, 'Autobiog.,' i, p. 347. I require you to desist, your act (however you judge it) being a sin, a scandal, a schisme, a danger, and so you will find perhaps sooner then you expect: if you shall please in thankfulnes to god who hath increased your estate to express your pious charity you may do it more piously in making an addition to the chappel of Sowerby: I give you this timely intimation and caution in christian charity and expect your answer.' Justices and ministers in thus persecuting and harassing Nonconformists, were running, as it proved, considerable risk of incurring the royal displeasure. On June 13, 1673, the justices of Oxfordshire were called before the Council25 to give answer concerning an order made by them at the quarter sessions, in which they declared that the penal laws against Nonconformists were still in force because the king had not power to suspend them. The Lord Chancellor, at the king's command, told them that Charles was convinced of their loyalty and affection but it were better for them henceforward to leave affairs of state alone, 'for it was a matter of dangerous consequence.' That same day, Sir Robert Shirley, a justice of Leicestershire, appeared to answer a complaint made by the Nonconformists of Ashby-de-laZouch.26 They affirmed that not only had he put the laws in execution against them, broken up their meetings, and levied fines on those found attending them, but he had also spoken disrespectfully of the king's authority. Sir Robert denied the accusation most stoutly, calling Lord Beaumont and other country gentlemen to witness to his loyalty. Charles, unwilling to proceed with the case, 'for the Nonconformists would have sworn to the information, but, it is feared, falsely,' professed himself convinced of the innocence of the accused and so discharged him to the great satisfaction of the many country squires who had flocked to London to watch the issue. Such cases, and there were many, made it imperative that justices should be instructed how they were to act in order to avoid the numerous pitfalls.27 At the Council, even before the two cases already mentioned, the matter had been frequently debated and draft letters prepared.28 As early as April 18, 1673, the question had been brought forward,29 and it was decided that something should be done as may best secure the Peace and good temper of the Subjects till 25 C.S.P.D., 1673, P. 369. 26 Ibid.; Letters to Sir J. Williamson, i, pp. 33-4, 42. 27 Letters to Sir J. Williamson, i, p. 93. 28 Letters to Sir J. Williamson, i, pp. 33-4. 29 P.C.R., xi, p. 6. the meeting of the Parliament when some finall Settlement is likely to be made in this Affaire.' Yet whatever was done, should be effected very cautiously so as neither to suspend the laws in force, nor authorise licences which only depended on a declaration now revoked. This was the nice narrow patch,' writes Sir Robert Southwell, 'that could hardly be hitt.' The Chancellor, the two Secretaries of State, and Lord Holles were appointed to frame a letter embodying the opinions of the Council. Apparently they failed. Other letters were prepared but failed to give satisfaction.30 With much trouble, Anglesey, the Lord Privy Seal prepared this compound of them all:-31 '(Lords of Council) to His Majesty having received information from divers places of disorders and animosities arising between his subjects on occasion of dissenting from the form of worship and discipline by law established, and the separate assembling of Protestant Dissenters, and taking into consideration that a bill is now pending in Parliament for making a just and prudent provision therein and how prejudicial it may prove, if by the heat and unequal temper of some not attending with patience the wise and necessary resolution of Parliament, the strength of his crown and people should be weakened by division when he has occasion for the unanimity of all his subjects and observing with great satisfaction the moderation and discreet demeanour of the City of London in this whole concern, has thought fit by the advice of this Board not only to approve thereof but to command us to recommend so good an example to all his officers, ministers, and subjects, that so the resolution in this great affair may be reserved entire to the reassembling of Parliament, when he doubts not but by their wisdom a full adjustment and composure will be in this business. In the meantime he expects that all those dissenting persons behave dutifully and peacefully, and observe such hours for their meetings and other circumstances as may give no offence, interruption nor hindrance to that attendance which ought everywhere to be on divine service in the parish churches, to which end you are to use your best endeavours to secure the peace and prevent all disturbances both by your example and advice and by general notification of his Majesty's gracious intention.' Charles not only thought that this letter failed 'to hit the narrow patch,' but also at the last moment deemed it inexpedient to put anything in writing which would, how well 30 Letters to Sir J. Williamson, i, pp. 33-4. 31 C.S.P.D., 1673, pp. 367-8. |