In another part of the same epistle, relating to the same subject, Hook gives a glimpse of an amusing incident:--"His Majesty sent for Mr. Calamy, Dr. Bates, and Dr. Manton (and some say, Mr. Baxter also), on the last of the last week, and took them into his closet, and promised to restore them to their employments and places again, as pitying that such men should lie vacant, speaking also against the Popish religion, as it is said. Before they went in with the King, some said, 'What do these Presbyterians here?' but when they came out, they said, 'Your servant, Mr. Calamy, and your servant, Dr. Manton,' &c. It was told them that a Bill for Liberty should be given in to the House; but, however it went, they should have their liberty, _i.e._, upon subscribing (I take it) thirteen articles touching doctrine and worship, in which there is nothing (as they say) offensive to a tender conscience. There is a distinction between an act of comprehension and an act of judgment. Some are for the first, others not. The first is comprehensive as to all forms in religion (excepting Papist, &c., but I cannot well tell). The other leaves it to His Majesty to indulge whom he seeth good. On the last day of the last week, a motion was made in the Lower House for Liberty, according to the King's Declaration, which I have sent you. A disaffected spirit to Liberty was much discovered by very many, and the business was referred to be debated upon the Wednesday following, which is this present day: what will come of it I cannot yet tell."[419] [Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.] The subject of Indulgence was revived in the summer, and again the Presbyterians and the Independents, as before, are found in controversy on the point.[420] Amidst rumours of various sorts, and as the Upper House still occupied itself upon the offensive Bill, the Lower House showed, as they had done from the beginning, the most intolerant zeal for the Established Church. When thanking the King, on the 27th of February, for his speech, they told him that an indulgence of Dissenters would establish schism by law--would be inconsistent with the wisdom and gravity of Parliament--would expose His Majesty to restless importunities--would increase the number of sectaries--would be altogether contrary to precedent--and would be far from promoting the peace of the kingdom. This array of objections alarmed the Monarch; he immediately replied that he would take time for consideration; and on the 16th of March, he sent an answer--assuring his faithful Commons that they had misunderstood his meaning--thanking them for their thanks--and desiring them to put the kingdom in a state of defence, but not saying one word about the apple of discord.[421] [Sidenote: 1663.]