132

on opening the session of Parliament in February, 1663, as follows: "The truth is, I am in my nature an enemy to all severity for Religion and Conscience, how mistaken soever it be. I hope I shall not need to warn any here not to infer from thence that I mean to favour Popery. . . . I am far from meaning a toleration or qualifying them to hold any offices or places of trust in the government; nay further, I desire some laws may be made, to hinder the and yet, if the growth and progress of their doctrine; ... Dissenters will demean themselves peaceably and modestly under the government, I could heartily wish I had such a power of indulgence, to use upon occasions, as might not needlessly force them out of the kingdom, or staying here, give them cause to conspire against the peace of it." The Commons, in their address to the king in answer, respectfully but firmly rejected all idea of indulgence to Dissenters of any kind, offering it to his Majesty's great wisdom "that it is in no sort advisable that there be any indulgence to such persons, who presume to dissent from the Act of Uniformity and Religion established." They also added that the promise of toleration made in the Declaration from Breda was no longer binding, inasmuch as it was expressly a promise of legislation which the Parliament, elected by the free choice of the nation, was unwilling to pass. During the session no further Act against Nonconformists was passed, but at the prorogation in July, the Speaker, on behalf of the House of Commons, thought fit to apologize to the king, and at the same time besought him "to issue out your Proclamation for the putting those laws which now are in force against the Popish Recusants, Sectaries, and Nonconformists in effectual execution 1." The king made a conciliatory reply to his faithful Commons, but it does not appear that the desired proclamation was ever issued, The rancour of the Church was not to be baulked, and accordingly, at the next session (March 16— May 17, 1664), though the subject was not broached in the 1 Cobbett's Parl. Hist., vol. IV, pp. 200, 263, 286, 289.

king's speech, the first Conventicle Act (16 Car. II, cap. 4) The Conwas passed. It recites that the Statute 35 Eliz., cap. 1, has venticle Act, not recently been enforced, and declares it to be still in 1664. force, and further enacts that all persons above the age of sixteen years attending a Conventicle, i. e. any meeting "under colour or pretence of any exercise of religion in other manner than is allowed by the Liturgy or practise of the Church of England at which there shall be five persons or more assembled together over and above those of the same Household," are guilty of a crime, and liable to three months' imprisonment, or, in the alternative, a fine of five pounds for the first offence, to six months' imprisonment or a fine of ten pounds for the second, and transportation for seven years or a fine of £100 for the third or any subsequent offence, and in the last case only was it necessary that the conviction should take place before a jury. Persons transported, who escaped or returned without leave, were declared guilty of felony without benefit of clergy. The Act was only temporary, being limited to a period or rather more than three years, but, as we shall see, it was re-enacted, though with milder penalties, shortly after its expiration. In his speech at the prorogation the Speaker explains the Act and the reason for passing it, though no recommendation on the subject had been made in the king's speech at the opening of the session, in these words: "Whilst we were intent on these weighty affairs, we were often interrupted by petitions and letters and motions representing the unsettled condition of some countries by reason of Fanatics, Sectaries, and Nonconformists. They differ in their shapes and species, and accordingly are more or less dangerous; but in this they all agree, they are no friends to the established government either in Church or State; and if the old rule hold true, 'Qui Ecclesiae contradicit non est pacificus,' we have good reason to prevent their growth and punish their practise. To this purpose we have prepared a Bill against their frequenting of Conventicles, the seed-plots and nurseries of their opinions, under

Bill for

Liberty

of Conscience rejected.

pretence of religious worship. The first offence we have made punishable only with a small fine of 51. or three months imprisonment, and 10l. for a peer. The second offence with Iol. or six months imprisonment, and 20l. for a peer. But for a third offence, after a trial by a jury at the general quarter sessions or assizes, and the trial of a peer by his peers, the party convicted shall be transported to some of your majesty's foreign plantations, unless he redeem himself by laying down 100l.: 'Immedicabile vulnus ense recidendum, ne pars sincera trahatur1"."

In the following session a Bill to enable the granting of granting Indulgences for Liberty of Conscience was introduced into the House of Lords with the approbation of the king under the auspices of Ashley and Arlington, but without the support of the other ministers. It was opposed by Clarendon, and "In the end very few having spoken for it, though there were many who would have consented to it, besides the Catholic lords, it was agreed that there should be no question put for the commitment; which was the most civil way of rejecting it 2."

The Five

1665.

The legislation of persecution was not yet complete. In Mile Act, the following year, 1665, by the Parliament which met at Oxford because the plague was still raging in London, the Five Mile Act (17 Car. II, c. 2) was passed which forbade under a penalty of forty pounds and six months' imprisonment any nonconforming teacher or minister of whatsoever denomination from dwelling or coming within five miles of any city or corporate town without subscribing a declaration of non-resistance, and taking the oath laid down in the Act.

No further legislation was enacted till the year 1670; the execution of the laws already passed would have satisfied the Church party; attention was, moreover, absorbed in foreign affairs and the war with Holland; but, on the other hand, the fall of Clarendon had made the cause of 1 Cobbett's Parl. Hist., vol. IV, p. 294.

Ibid., pp. 311-15, taken from Clarendon's Life.

Conventicle Act,

toleration more hopeful1. On March 1, 166%, by the prorogation of Parliament the Conventicle Act according to the provisions of its last section expired. The Commons, however, made a determined effort to continue it, and a Bill for that purpose was introduced and passed by 144 to 78 votes, but it never went further than the Lower House 2. However, during a later session, on April 11, 1670, Charles, as the price of obtaining supplies which would not be granted on any other terms, gave his consent to the second Conventicle Act (22 Car. II, c. 1, repealed in Second 1812 by 52 Geo. III, c. 155): by it Conventicles, defined as in the former Act, were made illegal, and all persons attend- 1670. ing them made liable to a fine of five shillings for the first and ten shillings for the second offence. All persons preaching or teaching at such meetings were to be fined twenty pounds for the first and forty pounds for the second offence, and every person in whose house or barn such a meeting was held was to forfeit twenty pounds, and if he was unable to pay this sum, then it was to be levied on the persons present at the Conventicle. Moreover, constables and others neglecting to give information of offences committed under the Act, and magistrates omitting to enforce its execution, were made liable to penalties of five pounds and one hundred pounds respectively; half of which sums was to go to the informer. All clauses of the Act, contrary to the recognized principles of our criminal law, were to be construed "most largely and beneficially for the suppressing of Conventicles and for the Justification and Encouragement of all Persons to be employed in the Execu

1 In his speech on opening the session on February 10, 1667, the king again recommended toleration : "And for the setting a firm Peace, as well at home as abroad, one thing more I hold myself obliged to recommend to you at this present, which is, That you would seriously think of some course to beget a better union and composure in the minds of my Protestant Subjects in matters of Religion; whereby they may be induced not only to submit quietly to the government but also cheerfully give their assistance to the support of it."-Cobbett's Parl. Hist., vol. IV, p. 404. • Cobbett's Parl. Hist., vol. IV, pp. 421-2.

dulgence,

1672.

tion thereof." The Lords, however, appended a proviso, which was ultimately agreed to by the Lower House, "That neither this Act, nor anything therein contained, shall extend to invalidate or avoid his Majesty's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs; but that his Majesty and his Heirs and Successors may from Time to Time, and at all Times hereafter, exercise and enjoy all Powers and Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs as fully and as amply as himself or any of his Predecessors have or might have done the same; any thing in this Act notwithstanding."

In the spring of the following year both Houses of Parliament petitioned the king to issue a proclamation for the banishment of priests and Jesuits, and the enforcement of the laws against Recusants. The king again complied, making, however, this reservation: "But I suppose no man will wonder if I make a difference between those who have newly changed their religion and those that were bred up in that religion, and served my father and me faithfully in the late wars1." For an interval of nearly two years Parliament did not meet for the effective transaction of business. Declara- The king took this opportunity to publish his famous tion of In- Declaration of Indulgence on March 15, 1672. It recites the king's desire to preserve the rights and interests of the Church, and the endeavours made to enforce uniformity by coercive measures, and proceeds, "But it being evident by the sad experience of twelve years that there is very little fruit in all these forcible courses, we think ourself obliged to make use of that supreme power in ecclesiastical matters, which is not only inherent in us, but hath been declared and recognized to be so by several statutes and acts of Parliament." The intention of maintaining the doctrine, discipline, and government of the Church of England “as now it stands established by law " is expressed, then follows this passage: "We do in the next place declare our will and pleasure to be, that the execution of all and all manner of penal laws in matters ecclesiastical, 1 Cobbett's Parl. Hist., vol. IV, p. 479.