Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]Stoughton, John
History
Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]
Stoughton, John
Great Britain -- Church history
The second reading of the Bill, embodying the scheme, occasioned a
debate, which went over well-worn topics, and presents no points of
interest.
The measure emanated from the Episcopalian party in the House of
Commons; but the Presbyterian members, to the amazement of every one,
did not promote it. They knew it could not be carried in the House of
Lords; and the clergy, as Kennet confesses, were “no further in earnest
than as they apprehended the knife of the Papists” to be near their
throats.[41]
The Bill dropped--what else could be expected, there being on one side
no earnestness in making the offer, and on the other no disposition to
accept it?[42]
[Sidenote: 1680–81.]
With the Bill founded on the principle of comprehension another was
brought forward, based on the principle of toleration. It proposed to
exempt Protestant Dissenters “from the penalties of certain laws.”[43]
The measure made way through the House of Commons, and it forced itself
through the House of Lords;[44] but because distasteful to the King on
account of its limiting toleration to Protestant Nonconformists, it was
put aside by some contemptible trick, when other Bills were presented
for the Royal assent.[45]
On the day of the prorogation, the Commons by a formal resolution
pronounced the prosecution of Protestant Dissenters to be a
grievance to the subject, a detriment to the Protestant interest, an
encouragement to Popery, and a danger to the kingdom’s peace.[46]
However strange it is to find such a resolution in the Journals, after
a Bill had been carried through the two Houses to the same effect a few
days before, the fact may be explained by the circumstance that the
Commons had become aware of the foul play practised on these cherished
measures. It seems incredible, but such was the factious spirit
existing, that the Court and High Church party--who were prepared to
vindicate, or to wink at all kinds of excesses in the despotism of the
Crown--positively objected to the resolution, as an unconstitutional
method of invalidating Acts of Parliament.[47]
[Sidenote: OXFORD PARLIAMENT.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account