Tenison’s sermon was zealously defended by an anonymous pamphleteer, who included within his defence funeral discourses delivered by other dignitaries; and whilst the press was occupied by this controversy, the friends and agents of James were rejoicing in the death of Mary as endangering the position of William. The Church of England, it was now thought, would be weaned from his cause, by the outburst of his Presbyterian predilections, even to the overthrow of Episcopacy. The ruin of its interests seemed at hand, unless the Revolution could be revolutionized. Ten thousand men, the Jacobite plotters surmised, would suffice for the reconquest of the kingdom, since the Church of England party, who had been for William only on Mary’s account, were, it was thought, now entirely alienated from him. The confusion occasioned by her removal was relied upon as a proof of the inclination of the people to see their Stuart King back at St. James.[238] [Sidenote: 1695.] In noticing the deaths of Sancroft, Tillotson, and Mary, we have passed over a period marked by one of those silent changes which often elude the notice of historians. The change referred to is connected very closely with religious freedom. We have had frequent occasion to notice restrictions on the liberty of the press. It is not necessary to go back further than 1662, when Lord Clarendon’s Act for licensing books was passed. The Act proscribed the printing and selling of heretical, schismatical, blasphemous, seditious, and treasonable publications. Nothing was to appear contrary to the Christian faith, or the doctrines or discipline of the Church of England. Books on law required a license from the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justices; books of history, a license from the Secretaries of State; books of divinity and philosophy, a license from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The folly of such restrictions--proved by their futility when evaded, and by their mischievousness when carried into effect--needs no comment. The Act now noticed was made to be in force for two years. It was then continued. In 1685 it was re-enacted for seven years. It continued through the Revolution; and in 1692 was renewed under the Tories for two years more. At four different times, from 1694 to 1698, attempts were made in Parliament to prepare new Bills for licensing printing presses, and the Whigs on one occasion seemed on the point of following the example of their political rivals. Movement in the old direction went so far once, that a restrictive Bill passed the Lords and was read in the Commons--to be thrown out on a second reading. Church and State thus narrowly missed being shackled again in the exercise of rights ever precious to enlightened humanity; and the year 1694, though unmarked in history, is illustrious in fact through the melting away for ever of a long-continued and mischievous licensing law. Not, however, as we shall presently see, that all legislative interference with the publishers of