Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

Bill.

The Toleration Bill passed both Houses with little debate. This The Tocelebrated statute, long con- leration sidered as the Great Charter of religious liberty, has since been extensively modified, and is hardly known to the present generation except by name. The name, however, is still pronounced with respect by many who will perhaps learn with surprise and

The opinion of the Low Churchmen | slight alterations, on the table of the concerning the Test Act differed widely Lords.* from his. But many of them thought that it was of the highest importance to have his support on the great questions of Toleration and Comprehension. From the scattered fragments of information which have come down to us, it appears that a compromise was made. It is quite certain that Nottingham undertook to bring in a Toleration Bill and a Comprehension Bill, and to use his best endeavours to disappointment the real nature of the carry both bills through the House of law which they have been accustomed Lords. It is highly probable that, in to hold in honour. return for this great service, some of the leading Whigs consented to let the Test Act remain for the present unaltered.

There was no difficulty in framing either the Toleration Bill or the Comprehension Bill. The situation of the dissenters had been much discussed nine or ten years before, when the kingdom was distracted by the fear of a Popish plot, and when there was among Protestants a general disposition to unite against the common enemy. The government had then been willing to make large concessions to the Whig party, on condition that the crown should be suffered to descend according to the regular course. A draught of a law authorising the public worship of the Nonconformists, and a draught of a law making some alterations in the public worship of the Established Church, had been prepared, and would probably have been passed by both Houses without difficulty, had not Shaftesbury and his coadjutors refused to listen to any terms, and, by grasping at what was beyond their reach, missed advantages which might easily have been secured. In the framing of these draughts, Nottingham, then an active member of the House of Commons, had borne a considerable part. He now brought them forth from the obscurity in which they had remained since the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament, and laid them, with some

to give up the Test Act. But Oldmixon's assertion, unsupported by evidence, is of no weight whatever; and all the evidence which he produces makes against his assertion.

Several statutes which had been passed between the accession of Queen Elizabeth and the Revolution required all people under severe penalties to attend the services of the Church of England, and to abstain from attending conventicles. The Toleration Act did not repeal any of these statutes, but merely provided that they should not be construed to extend to any person who should testify his loyalty by taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. and his Protestantism by subscribing the Declaration against Transubstantiation.

The relief thus granted was common between the dissenting laity and the dissenting clergy. But the dissenting clergy had some peculiar grievances. The Act of Uniformity had laid a mulct of a hundred pounds on every person who, not having received episcopal ordination, should presume to administer the Eucharist. The Five Mile Act had driven many pious and learned ministers from their houses and their friends, to live among rustics in obscure villages of which the name was not to be seen on the map. The Conventicle Act had imposed heavy fines on divines who should preach in any meeting of separatists; and, in direct opposition to the humane spirit of our law, the Courts were enjoined to construe this

[ocr errors][merged small]

phraseology had brought on him the imputation of Socinianism; and the strong language in which he sometimes asserted that he derived his knowledge of spiritual things directly from above had raised a suspicion that he thought lightly of the authority of Scripture. He was therefore required to profess his faith in the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and in the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.

Act largely and beneficially for the the government, and a confession of suppressing of dissent and for the Christian belief. The objections which encouraging of informers. These se- the Quaker had to the Athanasian vere statutes were not repealed, but were, with many conditions and precautions, relaxed. It was provided that every dissenting minister should, before he exercised his function, profess under his hand his belief in the Articles of the Church of England, with a few exceptions. The propositions to which he was not required to assent were these; that the Church has power to regulate ceremonies; that the doctrines set forth in the Book of Homilies are sound; and that there is nothing superstitious or idolatrous in the ordination service. If he declared himself a Baptist, he was also excused from affirming that the baptism of infants is a laudable practice. But, unless his conscience suffered him to subscribe thirty four of the thirty nine Articles, and the greater part of two other Articles, he could not preach without incurring all the punishments which the Cavaliers, in the day of their power and their vengeance, had devised for the tormenting and ruining of schismatical teachers.

Such were the terms on which the Protestant Dissenters of England were, for the first time, permitted by law to worship God according to their own conscience. They were very properly forbidden to assemble with barred doors, but were protected against hostile intrusion by a clause which made it penal to enter a meeting house for the purpose of molesting the congregation. As if the numerous limitations and precautions which have been mentioned were insufficient, it was emphatically declared that the legislature did not intend to grant the smallest indulgence to any Papist, or to any person who denied the doctrine of the Trinity as that doctrine is set forth in the formularies of the Church of England.

The situation of the Quaker differed from that of other dissenters, and differed for the worse. The Presbyterian, the Independent, and the Baptist had Of all the Acts that have ever been no scruple about the Oath of Supre-passed by Parliament, the Toleration macy. But the Quaker refused to take Act is perhaps that which most strikit, not because he objected to the pro-ingly illustrates the peculiar vices and position that foreign sovereigns and the peculiar excellences of English prelates have no jurisdiction in Eng- legislation. The science of Politics land, but because his conscience would bears in one respect a close analogy to not suffer him to swear to any propo- the science of Mechanics. The mathesition whatever. He was therefore matician can easily demonstrate that a exposed to the severity of part of that certain power, applied by means of a eerpenal code which, long before Quaker- tain lever or of a certain system of pulism existed, had been enacted against leys, will suffice to raise a certain weight. Roman Catholics by the Parliaments But his demonstration proceeds on the of Elizabeth. Soon after the Restora-supposition that the machinery is such tion, a severe law, distinct from the as no load will bend or break. If the general law which applied to all con- engineer, who has to lift a great mass venticles, had been passed against of real granite by the instrumentality meetings of Quakers. The Toleration of real timber and real hemp, should Act permitted the members of this absolutely rely on the propositions harmless sect to hold their assemblies which he finds in treatises on Dynamics, in peace, on condition of signing three and should make no allowance for documents, a declaration against Tran- the imperfection of his materials, his substantiation, a promise of fidelity to whole apparatus of beams, wheels, and

C

ropes would soon come down in ruin, | distaste for whatever is abstract in and, with all his geometrical skill, he political science amounts undoubtedly would be found a far inferior builder to a fault. Yet it is, perhaps, a fault to those painted barbarians who, though on the right side. That we have been they never heard of the parallelogram far too slow to improve our laws must of forces, managed to pile up Stone- be admitted. But, though in other henge. What the engineer is to the countries there may have occasionally mathematician, the active statesman is been more rapid progress, it would not to the contemplative statesman. It is be easy to name any other country in indeed most important that legislators which there has been so little retroand administrators should be versed gression. in the philosophy of government, as it The Toleration Act approaches very is most important that the architect, near to the idea of a great English who has to fix an obelisk on its pedes-law. To a jurist, versed in the theory tal, or to hang a tubular bridge over an of legislation, but not intimately acestuary, should be versed in the philo- quainted with the temper of the sects sophy of equilibrium and motion. But, and parties into which the nation was as he who has actually to build must divided at the time of the Revolution, bear in mind many things never noticed that Act would seem to be a mere by D'Alembert and Euler, so must he chaos of absurdities and contradictions. who has actually to govern be perpetu- It will not bear to be tried by sound ally guided by considerations to which general principles. Nay, it will not no allusion can be found in the writings bear to be tried by any principle, of Adam Smith or Jeremy Bentham. sound or unsound. The sound prinThe perfect lawgiver is a just temper ciple undoubtedly is, that mere theolobetween the mere man of theory, who gical error ought not to be punished by can see nothing but general principles, the civil magistrate. This principle and the mere man of business, who the Toleration Act not only does not can see nothing but particular circum- recognise, but positively disclaims. stances. Of lawgivers in whom the Not a single one of the cruel laws speculative element has prevailed to enacted against nonconformists by the the exclusion of the practical, the world Tudors or the Stuarts is repealed. Perhas during the last eighty years been secution continues to be the general singularly fruitful. To their wisdom rule. Toleration is the exception. Nor Europe and America have owed scores is this all. The freedom which is given of abortive constitutions, scores of con- to conscience is given in the most castitutions which have lived just long pricious manner. A Quaker, by making enough to make a miserable noise, and a declaration of faith in general terms, have then gone off in convulsions. But obtains the full benefit of the Act within English legislation the practical ele-out signing one of the thirty nine ment has always predominated, and not Articles. An Independent minister, seldom unduly predominated, over the who is perfectly willing to make the speculative. To think nothing of sym-declaration required from the Quaker, metry and much of convenience; never but who has doubts about six or seven to remove an anomaly merely because it is an anomaly; never to innovate except when some grievance is felt; never to innovate except so far as to get rid of the grievance; never to lay down any proposition of wider extent than the particular case for which it is necessary to provide; these are the rules which have, from the age of John to the age of Victoria, generally guided the deliberations of our two hundred and fifty Parliaments. Our national

of the Articles, remains still subject to the penal laws. Howe is liable to punishment if he preaches before he has solemnly declared his assent to the Anglican doctrine touching the Eucharist. Penn, who altogether rejects the Eucharist, is at perfect liberty to preach without making any declaration "whatever on the subject.

These are some of the obvious faults which must strike every person who examines the Toleration Act by that

standard of just reason which is the same in all countries and in all ages. But these very faults may perhaps appear to be merits, when we take into consideration the passions and prejudices of those for whom the Toleration Act was framed. This law, abounding with contradictions which every smatterer in political philosophy can detect, did what a law framed by the utmost skill of the greatest masters of political philosophy might have failed to do. That the provisions which have been recapitulated are cumbrous, puerile, inconsistent with each other, inconsistent with the true theory of religious liberty, must be acknowledged. All that can be said in their defence is this; that they removed a vast mass of evil without shocking a vast mass of prejudice; that they put an end, at once and for ever, without one division in either House of Parliament, without one riot in the streets, with scarcely one audible murmur even from the classes most deeply tainted with bigotry, to a persecution which had raged during four generations, which had broken innumerable hearts, which had made innumerable firesides desolate, which had filled the prisons with men of whom the world was not worthy, which had driven thousands of those honest, diligent, and godfearing yeomen and artisans, who are the true strength of a nation, to seek a refuge beyond the ocean among the wigwams of red Indians and the lairs of panthers. Such a defence, however weak it may appear to some shallow speculators, will probably be thought complete by states

men.

The English, in 1689, were by no means disposed to admit the doctrine that religious error ought to be left unpunished. That doctrine was just then more unpopular than it had ever been. For it had, only a few months before, been hypocritically put forward as a pretext for persecuting the Established Church, for trampling on the fundamental laws of the realm, for confiscating freeholds, for treating as a crime the modest exercise of the right of petition. If a bill had then been drawn up granting entire freedom of con

science to all Protestants, it may be confidently affirmed that Nottingham would never have introduced such a bill; that all the bishops, Burnet included, would have voted against it; that it would have been denounced, Sunday after Sunday, from ten thousand pulpits, as an insult to God and to all Christian men, and as a license to the worst heretics and blasphemers; that it would have been condemned almost as vehemently by Bates and Baxter as by Ken and Sherlock; that it would have been burned by the mob in half the market places of England; that it would never have become the law of the land, and that it would have made the very name of toleration odious during many years to the majority of the people. And yet, if such a bill had been passed, what would it have effected beyond what was effected by the Toleration Act?

It is true that the Toleration Act recognised persecution as the rule, and granted liberty of conscience only as the exception. But it is equally true that the rule remained in force only against a few hundreds of Protestant dissenters, and that the benefit of the exceptions extended to hundreds of thousands.

It is true that it was in theory absurd to make Howe sign thirty four or thirty five of the Anglican Articles before he could preach, and to let Penn preach without signing one of those articles. But it is equally true that, under this arrangement, both Howe and Penn got as entire liberty to preach as they could have had under the most philosophical code that Beccaria or Jefferson could have framed.

The progress of the bill was easy. Only one amendment of grave importance was proposed. Some zealous churchmen in the Commons suggested that it might be desirable to grant the toleration only for a term of seven years, and thus to bind over the nonconformists to good behaviour. But this suggestion was so unfavourably received that those who made it did not venture to divide the House.*

* Commons' Journals, May 17. 1689.

The King gave his consent with wants, the feelings, and the prejudices hearty satisfaction: the bill became of the existing generation. Accordlaw; and the Puritan divines thronged ingly, while the Toleration Bill found to the Quarter Sessions of every county to swear and sign. Many of them probably professed their assent to the Articles with some tacit reservations. But the tender conscience of Baxter would not suffer him to qualify, till he had put on record an explanation of the sense in which he understood every proposition which seemed to him to admit of misconstruction. The instrument delivered by him to the Court before which he took the oaths is still extant, and contains two passages of peculiar interest. He declared that his approbation of the Athanasian Creed was confined to that part which was properly a Creed, and that he did not mean to express any assent to the damnatory clauses. He also declared that he did not, by signing the article which anathematises all who maintain that there is any other salvation than through Christ, mean to condemn those who entertain a hope that sincere and virtuous unbelievers may be admitted to partake in the benefits of Redemption. Many of the dissenting clergy of London expressed their concurrence in these charitable sentiments.*

The Com

sion Bill.

The history of the Comprehension Bill presents a remarkable conprehen- trast to the history of the Toleration Bill. The two bills had a common origin, and, to a great extent, a common object. They were framed at the same time, and laid aside at the same time: they sank together into oblivion; and they were, after the lapse of several years, again brought together before the world. Both were laid by the same peer on the table of the Upper House; and both were referred to the same select committee. But it soon began to appear that they would have widely different fates. The Comprehension Bill was indeed a neater specimen of legislative workmanship than the Toleration Bill, but was not, like the Toleration Bill, adapted to the

Sense of the subscribed articles by the Ministers of London, 1690; Calamy's Historical Additions to Baxter's Life.

support in all quarters, the Comprehension Bill was attacked from all quarters, and was at last coldly and languidly defended even by those who had introduced it. About the same time at which the Toleration Bill became law with the general concurrence of public mer., the Comprehension Bill was, with a concurrence not less general, suffered to drop. The Toleration Bill still ranks among those great statutes which are epochs in our constitutional history. The Comprehension Bill is forgotten. No collector of antiquities has thought it worth preserving. A single copy, the same which Nottingham presented to the Peers, is still among our parliamentary records, but has been seen by only two or three persons now living. It is a fortunate circumstance, that, in this copy, almost the whole history of the Bill can be read. In spite of cancellations and interlineations, the original words can easily be distinguished from those which were inserted in the committee or on the report.*

The first clause, as it stood when the bill was introduced, dispensed all the ministers of the Established Church from the necessity of subscribing the Thirty nine Articles. For the Articles was substituted a Declaration which ran thus; "I do approve of the doctrine and worship and government of the Church of England by law established, as containing all things necessary to salvation; and I promise, in the exercise of my ministry, to preach and practise according thereunto." Another clause granted similar indulgence to the members of the two universities.

Then it was provided that any minister who had been ordained after the Presbyterian fashion might, without

*The bill will be found among the Archives of the House of Lords. It is strange that this have been altogether neglected, even by our vast collection of important documents should most exact and diligent historians. It was opened to me by one of the most valued of my friends, Mr. John Lefevre; and my researches were greatly assisted by the kindness of Mr. Thoms.

« EdellinenJatka »