The Bill met with a faint opposition in the Lower House; in the Upper, not only the Lords Wharton and Ashley--the first a Nonconformist, it will be remembered, the latter supposed to be inclined that way--but also the Earl of Southampton, at that time Lord Treasurer, spoke distinctly against it. The latter declared that no honest man could take such an oath--he could not do it himself, for however firm might be his attachment to the Church, as things were managed, he did not know but that he might himself discover reasons for seeking some change in its constitution.[487] Dr. Erle, then Bishop of Salisbury, also disapproved of this assault upon liberty. The Primate Sheldon, and the Bishop of Exeter, Seth Ward, were zealous in their support of it; at the same time all who secretly favoured Roman Catholicism, regarded it with satisfaction;[488] it being in harmony with their policy, to reduce the Sectaries to such a state of misery, as that they should be forced to accept toleration from His Majesty on his own terms. Nearly half the House of Commons now became so infatuated as to support another Bill, which was founded upon the opposition made by members of the House of Lords, and which was intended to impose the obnoxious oath and declaration upon the nation at large.[489] This Bill, however, was rejected by the votes of three members, "who had the merit of saving their country from the greatest ignominy which could have befallen it, that of riveting as well as forging its own chains."[490] [Sidenote: 1665.] [Sidenote: FIVE MILE ACT.]