Clarendon, who had strong Protestant convictions, felt alarmed at the brightening prospects of the Romanists, and he resolved to take a leaf out of their own book--to fight them with their own weapons--and to adopt their own principle--"Divide and conquer!" Clarendon accordingly proposed that Roman Catholics should take the Oath of Allegiance, renouncing the Pope's deposing power--an oath to which some did not object, but which others would, on no account, accept. He also proposed the tolerating of secular priests, coupling with it the banishment of Jesuits and other regular orders--another scheme which he knew well would breed division. The whole of the Chancellor's policy is not explained, but it is apparent that he had set his mind upon extinguishing the hopes of the Papists.[413] [Sidenote: 1663.] Parliament assembled on the 18th of February, 1663. The King's speech indicates the unpopularity of the recent Declaration, and he found it necessary to assure the Houses that he did not intend to favour Popery at all, and that he would not yield to the Bishops in his zeal for uniformity; but still he said, with obvious inconsistency, if Protestant Dissenters would be peaceable and modest, he could heartily wish that he had such a power of indulgence as might not needlessly force them out of the kingdom, or give them cause to conspire against its peace. Five days afterwards, a Bill was brought into the House of Lords and read the first time, to empower His Majesty to dispense with the _Act of Uniformity_, and with other laws concerning it.[414] This Bill came to nothing, being earnestly opposed by Lord Southampton, by the Bishops, and by Clarendon, who, in spite of a fit of the gout, delivered a speech on the adjourned debate, full of uncompromising opposition to the King's favourite measure.[415] It is a singular example of the difference between a Chief Minister of that day and a Prime Minister of our own, that Clarendon should in the House of Lords oppose the measure which had been brought in, according to wishes expressed in the speech from the Throne; nor can his conduct respecting the Declaration fail to support against him the charge of duplicity.[416]