The Court party, Clarendon says, made themselves very merry with the allegation, that the King's safety and the interest of the Church were provided for by the Covenant, since it had been entered into, in order to fight the King and destroy the Church. It contradicted itself; and, if it were not so, the obligation to loyalty was better provided for by some other oaths. The Bill was no breach of the Act of Indemnity, the new Declaration was absolutely necessary, for the safety of the King's person, and the peace of the kingdom; the Covenant was still the idol to which the Presbyterians sacrificed: and there must always be a jealousy of those who had taken it, until they had declared that it did not bind them. The clergy, of all men, ought to be glad of the opportunity which was offered, to vindicate their loyalty and obedience.[323] [Sidenote: 1662.] The Bill being now in its last stage, the Lords appointed certain of their number to draw up a clause empowering the King to make such provision for any of the deprived clergy as he should see fit.[324] As this clause--like the proviso respecting the cross in baptism--opened the door for Royal interference--so, probably, like that, it originated in a Royal suggestion. At all events, these two amendments in contrast with others which increased the severity of the Bill, indicated the existence of kindliness towards tender consciences, and impoverished clergymen,--a disposition which Charles entertained, and in which certain Lords, including some not puritanically inclined, concurred with him. When the Bill had reached a third reading, the amendments were referred to the Commons for their consideration. The Commons vigorously set themselves to work; the Committee sitting until eight at night--a late hour in those days--and meeting early the next morning.[325] No debate arose upon the alterations made in the Prayer Book by the Houses of Convocation. The House of Commons, indeed, appointed a Committee to compare the Book of Common Prayer sent down from the Lords with the Book sent up by themselves; but the alterations were adopted at once; or, rather, the Book as a whole was adopted. It is remarkable, however, to find how then, as almost always, the members showed themselves jealous of their privileges; for, upon a question being put, whether the contents of the revised Book should come under debate, and the question being negatived,[326] lest it should be thought that the State in this matter submitted to the Church, and allowed the right of Convocation to control Parliamentary proceedings, another question, _i.e._, "that the amendments made by the Convocation, and sent down by the Lords to this House, _might_ by the order of this House, have been debated," received an affirmative answer, without a single dissentient voice. [Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]