1689.]

COMPREHENSION BILL-THE LITURGY-TEST ACT.

73

desired such an alteration in the ritual and discipline of the Church, as had been vainly attempted from the time of James I., so as to satisfy the scruples of non-conformists who were honestly averse to separation. He advanced so far as to have what was called a Comprehension Bill introduced into the House of Lords, by a zealous churchman, the earl of Nottingham. It passed the Peers in a mutilated shape; was coldly received by the Commons; and dropt through upon a reference to Convocation. That ecclesiastical parliament had transacted no real business since 1665, when they gave up the right of taxing themselves. They had now been summoned, as had been usual; but, contrary to use, important measures were to be submitted to them at a time of violent divisions amongst the Clergy. A considerable number of eminent divines were disposed to such changes in the Services of the Church as would conciliate the moderate Presbyterians and others who conscientiously objected to certain portions of the ritual. A Commission was appointed to consider what changes were desirable. A Report was drawn up by the moderate Churchmen, such as Tillotson, and submitted to the Convocation. The "rigid" or high-church party had there prevailed; and their prolocutor, Dr. Jane, when presented to the bishop of London, proclaimed the resolve of the majority, in the words of the barons of Henry III.,-" Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari." The Comprehension Bill, and the Reform of the Liturgy, went to the ground together.

Another ruling desire of the king was that all Protestants should be eligible to employments. On the occasion of giving his assent to two Bills, on the 16th of March, he said, "I am, with all the expedition I can, filling up the vacancies that are in offices and places of trust by this Revolution. I know you are sensible there is a necessity of some law to settle the oaths to be taken by all persons to be admitted to such places. I recommend to your care to make a speedy provision for it; and as I doubt not you will sufficiently provide against Papists, so I hope you will leave room for the admission of all Protestants that are willing and able to serve." William proposed this at the time when the question was under debate, whether the Clergy should. be required to take the oaths. He proposed it without consulting his Council, in the hope that the two violent parties would agree to a compromise—that the Whigs would not press the oath of allegiance upon the Clergy; that the Tories would not press the Sacramental Test upon the Dissenters. He was deceived in his expectations. The Test Act remained in force against nonconformists. The Bill which deprived the nonjuring Clergy of their benefices was carried.

The last and the least objectionable wish of the king was agreed to, after long debate that Dissenters should not be molested in the celebration of their worship. The Toleration Act-" An Act for exempting their majesties' Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the penalties of certain laws "—was a signal relief from a heavy burden, long borne by indignant sufferers. Judged by the opinions of our own day the Toleration. Act was a very imperfect boon, requiring from dissenting ministers and teachers subscription to certain articles of faith, as contained in the Thirtynine Articles of the Church, with the exception of the 34th, 35th, and 36th Articles, and of those words of the 20th Article which declared that the Church had power to decree rights or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of

74

THE TOLERATION ACT-HIGH AND LOW CHURCH.

[1689. faith. The Protestants who "scruple the baptising of infants," were further exempted from subscribing part of the 27th Article. The Quakers were exempted, upon a declaration of fidelity, and a simple profession of their Christian belief. The Act of Toleration only relaxed the severe enactments of the two former reigns, under this and other conditions, without providing for their repeal. Yet, eventually, this famous Statute was a measure of real relief, for its cumbrous and impracticable conditions gradually fell into disuse. We may judge of the satisfaction it gave to Dissenters, by the enthusiastic plaudits of Defoe, in calling upon his dissenting brethren, "annually to commemorate, by a standing law among themselves, that great day of their deliverance, when it pleased God to tread down persecution, oppression, church-tyranny, and state-tyranny, under the feet of the law, and to establish the liberty of their consciences, which they had so long prayed for, in a public and legal toleration." * The ministers of dissenting meeting-houses had thus no longer reason to dread informations under the Act of Uniformity and the Five Mile Acts. Their followers were discharged from all apprehension of penalties for attending Conventicles, or for neglecting the worship of the Establishment, provided they took the oath of allegiance, and subscribed the declaration against Popery prescribed by the Statute of Charles II. The Protestant Dissenters were relieved by Act of Parliament from those restraints which James II. attempted to remove by the dispensing power. The Papists were specifically excluded from this relief; and thus the statutory indulgence was welcomed by Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and Quakers, as much for what it denied to others as for what it gave to themselves. But inasmuch as it narrowed the area of state intolerance, it rendered a large proportion of the Clergy more than ever intolerant towards those legally tolerated. The king was brought up as a Calvinist; and thus his tendencies towards religious freedom were always suspected as having for their end something adverse to the Anglican church. Swift, writing in 1711, in the spirit of triumphant Toryism, says, "the Revolution being wholly brought about by Church of England hands, they hoped one good consequence of it would be the relieving us from the encroachments of Dissenters as well as those of Papists." The hope was happily disappointed. The Dissenters were no longer to be hunted by the constable, and imprisoned by the justice of peace. "They," says Swift, "had just made a shift to save a tide and join with the Prince of Orange, when they found all was desperate with their protector king James; and observing a party then forming against the old principles in Church and State, under the name of Whigs and Low-churchmen, they listed themselves of it, where they have ever since continued."† In a subsequent paper, Swift affirms that the distinction of High and Low Church, "which came in some time after the Revolution," was raised by the Dissenters, "in order to break the church party by dividing the members into high and low; and the opinions raised that the high joined with the Papists, inclined the low to fall in with the Dissenters." The unchristian hatreds of the Revolution gave their colour to the politics of two reigns. Since the accession of the house of Brunswick, these polemics have been gradually diluted, so

"Review," quoted in Wilson's "Defoe," vol. i. p. 181. "Examiner," No. 37.

Ibid. No. 44.

1689.]

MUTINY AT IPSWICH.

75

as to impart at last the faintest tinge to the real course of public policy. Very slowly has the hold of intolerance of all kinds been relaxed. But as past years have diminished the length and breadth of that debateable land, where deadly controversialists once fought à l'outrance, may we not hope that succeeding years will completely reduce the old battle-field to the dimensions of a pleasant tilting-ground, where blunt lances and daggers of lath shall leave no scars after a gentle and joyous passage-at-arms.

One of the most important securities for the liberties of England was accomplished at the Revolution. In the Declaration of Rights it was maintained "That the raising or keeping a Standing Army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law." An accidental occurrence gave a legislative shape to this doctrine, which from 1689 has been invariably adhered to. The English regiments which had served under James II. were not in a complacent humour towards his foreign successor. They looked with jealousy upon the Dutch guards that had attended William to Whitehall; and they took various occasions of manifesting their dislike to the new government. They prevented the people lighting bonfires at Cirencester when the king and queen were proclaimed. At Newbury and Abingdon they would not allow the town crier to say, "God bless king William and queen Mary." "The old army is rather grown worse than mended," said a violent Whig. "I believe the black coats and the red coats to be the grievances of the nation." * This discontent took an alarming form. Under the treaty of Nimeguen, England promised succours to the States-General, in the event of France being at war with them. France had declared war. Troops in the service of England were ordered to embark for the continent. On the 15th of March, it was announced in the House of Commons that lord Dumbarton's regiment-composed chiefly of Scotchmen-had mustered at Ipswich; had seized the artillery; and had made proclamation of king James. The Commons immediately voted an address to the king, "to desire him to take effectual care to suppress the soldiers that are now in rebellion." The king quietly replied "that he had already appointed three regiments of dragoons, with orders to stop them, and bring them to their duty." One of the most distinguished of the Dutch officers headed these troops. He came up with them near Sleaford, where, after a feeble show of resistance, they surrendered. They were marched up to London. They had been guilty of high treason, in levying war against the king; and a few were brought to trial at the county assizes for Suffolk. But no life was forfeited. The government acted with a judicious mercy; and this regiment, now the first of the line, served William faithfully in his hard campaigns. This occurrence produced the first Mutiny Bill. The preamble of the Act sufficiently explains its necessity, and the caution with which the principle of a Standing Army, governed by martial law, was adopted: "Whereas the raising or keeping a Standing Army within this kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against Law. And whereas it is judged necessary by their Majesties and this present Parliament, that during this time of danger several of the forces which are now on foot should be continued and others raised for the safety of the kingdom,

Howe. "Parliamentary History," vol. v. col. 137.

76

THE FIRST MUTINY ACT.

[1689. for the common defence of the Protestant Religion, and for the reducing of Ireland. And whereas no man may be forejudged of life or limb or subjected to any kind of punishment by martial law, or in any other manner than by the judgment of his peers and according to the known and established laws of this realm. Yet nevertheless it being requisite for retaining such forces as are or shall be raised during this exigence of affairs in their duty, an exact discipline be observed. And that soldiers who shall mutiny or stir up sedition, or shall desert their majesties' service be brought to a more exemplary and speedy punishment than the usual forms of Law will allow."* The Mutiny Act was limited to a duration of six months. It was necessarily renewed, again and again, during the reign of William. A standing army became an integral part of the government of this country, whether during peace or during war. But Parliament always held its effectual control over the executive, so as to prevent any abuse of military power, by never passing a Mutiny Bill for a longer term than a year. For one hundred and sixty-nine years the statute-book has continued to have its " Act for punishing Mutiny and Desertion ;" and in the Act of the 21st of Victoria, as in the Act of the 1st of William and Mary, it is still recited that the raising or keeping a Standing Army, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against law; that a body of forces is necessary for the safety of the kingdom; that no man can be punished except by the laws of the realm; yet nevertheless &c. &c. This Act, now swollen to a hundred and seven Clauses, is to continue in force for one year, at dates commencing and ending according to the distribution of the forces, whether in Great Britain or Ireland, or in the numerous stations in every region of the globe where the British flag now floats. Under the two constitutional principles, therefore, of an appropriation of the supply, and the passing of an annual Mutiny Bill, the power of the Crown cannot be maintained without the co-ordinate power of Parliament. The sovereign cannot raise an army, or pay an army, without the consent of Parliament. The annual assembly of Parliament is therefore absolutely essential to the conduct of the government; and if evil times should ever by possibility arise in which the Crown and the Parliament should be at issue, the maintenance of an army would be an act of pure despotism on the part of the executive power, only to be met by an equally unconstitutional assumption of executive power on the part of the legislature.

The position of the new government was necessarily a dangerous one. Triumphant as had been the first days of the Revolution, it was inevitable, especially whilst there was a civil war in Ireland, and whilst Scotland was distracted by party-strife, that plots should be formed in England for bringing back king James. William had notified to Parliament that he had caused several persons to be apprehended, on credible information that they were conspiring against the government; and he asked for advice under the difficulty of his unwillingness to act against law on the one hand, or to suffer dangerous men to avail themselves of the privileges of the Habeas Corpus Act on the other hand. The Lords, in an excess of loyal devotion, recommended the king to take extraordinary care of the public safety, by securing all disaffected persons. The Commons, much more wisely, passed a Bill for

* 1 Gul. & Mar. c. 5.

the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act till the 17th of April. This Act was twice renewed during the Session.* If William thus thought it necessary to strengthen his hands against existing dangers, he desired, as all highminded possessors of power in troublous times should desire, that in a great degree there should be oblivion for past political offences. The cruel chancellor Jeffries; the corrupt chief-justice Wright; other unjust judges and agents of despotism, were in confinement. Many who had been manifest enemies of public liberty dreaded that the day of retribution was at hand. "The hottest of the Whigs," according to Burnet, would not forward this honest design of the king. "They thought it best to keep many under the lash; they intended severe revenge for the blood that had been shed, and for the many unjust things that had been done in the end of king Charles's reign." They carried their opposition to the king by indirect means, rather than by sweeping exceptions to a general amnesty. "They proceeded so slowly in that matter, that the Bill could not be brought to ripeness during this Session." The people admired the mildness of the king's temper. The factious politicians got up an imputation against him, that he desired "to make use of a set of prerogative men, as soon as he legally could." +

The terms of the Coronation Oath, which for many years in the memory of some living was a fatal stumbling-block in the great healing measure of Roman Catholic relief, were debated in the first Parliament of William and Mary, as if the difficulty was foreseen that did arise under a very different condition of society. The ancient oath was declared to be "framed in doubtful words and expressions with relation to ancient laws and constitutions at this time unknown." This part of the preamble of the Act had especially reference to ecclesiastical laws. Those words of the new oath which were the subject of debate run thus: The archbishop or bishop is to ask the sovereign, "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the free profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion established by law?" And the sovereign promises so to do. It was moved "that the king, in the oath, swear to maintain the Protestant religion, as it is, or shall be, established by law." Those who contended for the introduction of the words "shall be," amongst whom was Somers, were in a minority. They desired that no such construction should be put upon the words "is established by law," as should lead a conscientious ruler to imagine that he was to sanction no legislative change that might affect the existing condition of the Church. The historian of this period says: "Every person who has read these debates must be fully convinced that the statesmen who framed the Coronation Oath did not mean to bind the king in his legislative capacity."§ It is indeed true that the apprehension that the words "established by law" would make the laws unalterable, was felt as an absurdity by the soundest heads in that Parliament. "Not able to alter laws as occasion requires!" indignantly exclaimed sir Robert Cotton. They looked only to such alterations as might widen the limits of the Church by a liberal comprehension of Protestant Dissenters. Sir George Treby seems, if we rightly understand his words, to have looked further. "When we are dead

* 1 Gul. & Mar. c. 2, c. 7, and c. 77. 1 Gul. & Mar. c. 6.

Burnet, "Own Time," vol. iv. p. 26.

§ Macaulay, vol. iii. p. 117.