« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
The King and Queen crowned.] April 11. | access at this time to your royal presence, humThe Ceremony of the Coronation was per- bly to congratulate your majesties upon this formed in the Abbey after the usual forms; occasion, and to wish your majesties a long and the far greater number of the disaffected peers, prosperous reign, with all the blessings that and among the rest Dr. Lamplugh, who had ever did attend a crown.-We are all sensible, been made abp. of York by king James, for that your majesty's greatness is the security of running away from Exeter, on the Prince of your subjects: it is from your power that we Orange's approach, waving their scruples, for derive to ourselves an assurance of being dethe sake of seeing the shew. By a Clause in fended from our enemies; and from your justhe Coronation-Act, it was left in the king's tice, that we expect a full enjoyment of our breast to be crowned either by an archbishop Laws and Liberties: but that which completes or bishop; and Sancroft persevering in his re- our happiness, is, the experience we have of solution not to acknowledge a Settlement your majesties continual care to maintain the which he had no hand in making, his majesty Protestant Religion; so that we can no longer chose the bishop of London to officiate in his apprehend any danger of being deprived of room. It is remarkable, that the commons, that inestimable blessing, either by secret who had given his majesty the Crown, were practices, or by open violence."-To the King. not permitted to assist in putting it on; the Speaker on the fifth giving the house to understand, That his majesty had appointed a Gallery for their reception in the Abbey, and another in Westminster-hall, and a dinner to be provided for them in the Court of Exchequer; but that his majesty did not think it altogether convenient for the house to bear any part in the procession. On the next day after the Coronation, they had however a procession of their own; for the whole house, in a full body, walked from Westminster-hall to the Banquetting-house, to congratulate their majesties on that happy occasion, and were most graciously received.*
May the same Divine Providence, which hath hitherto preserved your maj. in the greatest dangers, and so often given you victory over your enemies, still crown your undertakings with success."-To the Queen. "And may those unparalleled virtues, which adorn your majesty's royal person, be the admiration of the present age, and an example to the future. And may the lustre of both your names so far outshine the glory of your predecessors, that the memory of their greatest actions may be forgotten, and your people no longer date the establishment of their Laws and Liberties from St. Edward's days, but from the most auspicious reign of king William and queen Mary."
The King's Answer.] His majesty was pleased to answer to the effect following; viz.
The Speaker's Congratulatory Speech to their Majesties upon the Coronation.] April 13. The Speaker of the house of commons acquainted the house, That, upon their attendance on their majesties yesterday, to congratulate them upon their Coronation, he spoke to them as followeth; viz.
"Gentlemen; We return you our hearty thanks for the kindness and respects that you have, upon all occasions, shewed to both of us : we shall take care, to the best of our power, of all things that conduce to the good of the kingdom; and I doubt not, but by God's assistance and yours, we shall be able, in a short time, to make you a flourishing people"
Address of both Houses to the King, thanking him for his Care of the Protestant Religion, and desiring him to call a Convocation.] April 19. Both houses presented the following Address*, to the king:
"Your most loyal and dutiful subjects, the commons of England, assembled in this present parliament, having, to their unspeakable joy, seen your majesties placed upon the imperial throne of this kingdom, they have desired
of Ockingham, earl of Kendal, and duke of Cumberland the marquis of Winchester was made duke of Bolton; the earl of Danby, marquis of Carmarthen; Monsieur Bentinck, baron Cirencester, visc. Woodstock, and earl of Portland; visc. Fauconberg, earl of Falconberg; visc. Mordant, earl of Monmouth; the lord Montagu, viscount Mount-Hermer, and earl of Montagu; the lord Churchill, earl of Marlborough; Henry Sidney, esq. baron of Milton, and viscount Sidney of Shepney in the county of Kent; viscount Lumley of Waterford in Ireland, viscount Lumley of Lumley Castle in the County Palatine of Durham, and earl of Scarborough; the viscount Cholmondley of Kellis in Ireland, baron Cholmondley of Witchmalbanck, alias Namptwitch in Cheshire. Mareschal de Schomberg (who, with the earl of Devonshire, had already been elected Knight Companion of the most noble Order of the Garter) was naturalized by act of parliament, and soon after created a duke. *Ralph.
"By this Address it appears, that a party was now beginning to be formed, that pretended great zeal for the Church, and expressed their apprehensions, that it was in danger. This they plainly insinuated, by their praying the king to continue his care for the preservation of the Church, hinting at the same time, how dangerous it would be for him to do otherwise. These men, as they went heavily into the Toleration, which was the ease they here promised to give the Dissenters, so they were much offended with the Bill of Comprehension, as containing matters relating to the Church, in which the representative body of the Clergy had not been so much as advised with; and therefore it was, that they so hastily petitioned for a Convocation, under a notion that the business would be accomplished with
"May it please your majesty; Your majesty's most loyal and obedient subjects, the Jords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in parliament assembled, do, with utmost duty and affection, render to your maj. our most humble and hearty thanks, for your gracious Declaration, and repeated assurances, that you will maintain the Church of England established by law, which your maj. hath been pleased to rescue from that dangerous conspiracy that was laid for her destruction, with the hazard of your royal person. And her zeal against Popery having appeared at all times, and more especially of late, beyond the contradiction of her most malicious enemies; it being likewise evident that her loyalty hath always been unquestionable, and that the misfortunes of the last reign can be attributed to nothing more than the endeavours that were used to subvert it :-We therefore humbly pray, your maj. will be graciously pleased to continue your care for the preservation of the same, whereby you will effectually establish your throne, by securing the hearts of your majesty's subjects within these your realms, who can no way better shew their zeal for your service, than by a firm adherence to that Church, whose constitution is best suited to the support of this monarchy. We likewise humbly pray, that, according to the ancient practice and usage of this kingdom in time of parliament, your maj. will be graciously pleased
out one. The king, who was not pleased with this Address as perceiving the tendency of it, did not forbear intimating in his Answer, that he thought he had already given them sufficient assurances of his intentions to support the Church. The answer was not returned immediately, but sent the next day by the earl of Nottingham. Notwithstanding this Answer, no farther progress was made in the Bill. Those who had moved for this Bill, and afterwards brought it into the house, acted a very disingenuous part. For while they studied to recommend themselves by this shew of moderation, they set on their friends to oppose it; and such as were very sincerely and cordially for it, were represented as the enemies of the Church, who intended to subvert it. Nor was this bill supported by those who seemed most favourable to the Dissenters. They advanced it as a maxim, that it was fit to keep up a strong faction both in Church and State; and they thought it was not agreeable to that, to suffer so great a body as the Presbyterians to be made more easy, and more inclinable to unite to the Church. They also thought, that the Toleration would be best maintained, when great numbers should need it, and be concerned to preserve it. So the design of a Comprehension being zealously opposed and but faintly promoted, fell to the ground. However, the king was so desirous this affair should succeed, that it was brought on again the next session in a more formal manner, though with no better success." Tindal.
to issue forth your writs, as soon as conveniently may be, for calling a Convocation of the Clergy of this kingdom, to be advised with in ecclesiastical matters; assuring your majesty, it is our intention forthwith to proceed to the consider ation of giving Ease to Protestant Dissenters."
The King's Answer.] April 20. The following Message from the King was delivered to both houses:
"W. R. Though I have had many occasions of assuring you, that I will maintain the Church of England as by law established; yet
am well pleased with every opportunity of repeating those promises; which I am resolved to perform, by supporting this Church, whose loyalty, I doubt not, will enable me to answer your just expectations. And as my design in coming hither was to rescue you from the miseries you laboured under; so it is a great satisfaction to me, that, by the success God has given me, I am in a station of defending this Church, which has effectually shewn her zeal against Popery, and shall always be my peculiar care; and I do hope the ease you design to Dissenters will contribute very much to the Establishment of this Church; which therefore I do earnestly recommend to you, that the occasions of differences and mutual animosities may be removed; and, as as conveniently may be, I will summon a Convocation."
Ordered, That the Address of both houses, with this his majesty's Answer, shall be printed and published.
Debate on the Lords' Amendments of the Bill for abrogating the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy.] April 19. The commons went into a debate on the Lords' Amendments to the Bill for abrogating the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance. On the Clause for exempting the Bishops, &c.
Sir John Thompson said, This Amendment, of the king's tendering the Bishops the Oaths, &c. brings all the odium upon the king, as if the king suspected their loyalty to whom he causes it to be tendered.
Sir Tho. Dyke. The odium will be on the Council, and not on the king. All acts of grace are from the king, and he must be advised by his Council; and they must suspect the persons, and not the king.
Mr. Ettrick. If the king see them dangerous, he may immediately offer the Oath, &c. to them; and that is the effect of the lords Amendment.
Sir Tho. Lee. Pray make us well understand this Amendment. The consequence does not differ from the lords, That it may be tendered before the 1st of August.' But I would know how these stand together; whether agreeing with one Amendment does not draw the consequence of asserting the future Clauses ?
The Speaker. If the king issues out a special order, before the 1st of August, for taking the Oath, &c. they are obliged to take it be fore that time.
Mr. Sacheverell. This secms to me to be a snare. If any sort of gentlemen, be they who they will, may pay no allegiance to the king, I am against it. Your Bill, as it is penned, is to enjoin all persons to take the Oaths; and this Amendment provides, That if an order of the council, by commission from the king, &c.' This cannot be a riding commission, all England over, to give the Oaths; then, if it be not a separate commission, which must have time of return-and then these persons go out of the country, and so are free from taking the Oaths for ever- By Order of Council'-They will have time to shelter themselves, under the king's name, which ought not to be countenanced. No person shall be concerned in it, but so far as the council shall advise; and then it is in their power, whether to execute your act, or not. So, unless some reason be as signed, why the king should suspect, all cannot be thought so; and if for particular persons only, your act is illusory.
Mr. Carter. All the subjects of England are under one king; and there is but one allegiance, according to our law. It was suggested here, That the Bishops had taken an oath to king James, and therefore their consciences would not bear it to swear it to king William;' and I think that the strongest reason why it should be tendered them. We must not set two heads on one Church, and divide the Bishops. Some have taken it, and some not; and as to the Government, we have taken it; bow can we be true to the king, if all do not? We have done it, and they ought to do it. Some are to leave their offices on refusal. These men have six months time given them by the lords Amendments. The consequence will be, we throw dirt in our own faces, by doing it; as we are obliged to it, so I hope all else shall be obliged. A Popish head was thought not safe for the Government; it will be a greater monster to set up two heads of the government. Consider how unkind this will be to the king. He swears to us, in his Coronation-Oath; and shall they not pay their allegiance to the king? I would retain what we did before in the Bill.
Sir Joseph Tredenham. Carter is much mistaken in the question; it not being, whether the Clergy shall take the Oath or not? if it were so, I should be of Carter's opinion; it is only, whether you will agree with the lords Amendments? It is only, whether there shall be a trust in the royal dignity, or no? And a question only, that the king shall have power to require the Clergy to give a testimony of their loyalty. If any of the clergy own any other power, that it may be in the king's power to make trial of them. You are told, This will put a hardship upon the king.' If trust be a hardship, the crown is a hardship. The severity is not in the crown, but in you. Perhaps, in another reign, it may not be safe to lodge this power in the crown; it is safe now and I would agree to the lords Amend
Mr. Howe. By what I find, by his motion, the stress lies in the commission: that Clause is not to impower the king to dispense totally with the Oath, but to tender it before the time. The bait seems to be, putting power into the king; but I am not for either giving the king new power, or taking any from him. I cannot think but all should take the Oath; and how can they offer oaths to others, which they will not take themselves! And they so tender, that none but themselves shall be dispensed with. It is no hardship for a man to be put out of an office, if he be not capable of it. If they will not swear allegiance to this king, they owe it to another; therefore I would have no power left to bring in king James.
Sir Tho. Littleton. I differ from Tredenham: it is not such a great trust. It might, by his argument, have as well been inferred, that the king should give it to all his subjects, if the Bishops, in this case, were not tenderly used. In nine months, king James will either be here, or never; and therefore I am against the Amendment.
Mr. Finch. Notwithstanding the reasons I have heard against the Amendment, some of them ought not to have regard here. Now you make a new law, the question is, how you will extend that new law? All persons in office inust take these Oaths; the Amendment is not to excuse them from the oaths, but a commission from the king to give these oaths sooner, if he please. Disagreeing with the lords is to oblige all men, within that time, without distinction, to take them. In the year 1649, when the Engagement was enacted, none were obliged to take it but those of the clergy, who were hereafter to come into livings. You are told, In that time, king James will be here, or not expected.' I hope you will not imagine, that these persons have any expectation of king James, or that they have any worldly consideration; they are not fond of it, and have sufficiently suffered for it. If you are not secure without this, consider whether the punishment's falling upon some persons will make you more secure.
Sir Tho. Lee. I am surprized that gentlemen are so much for the prerogative of the king. You are making a new law; and it is but compounding for a new one; and before this change, I know, no subject was exempted from the Oath of Allegiance. This instance given you (by Finch) was of the Engagement in 1649. I remember the dean of Christ-Church was in it, and was turned out for refusal of the Engagement; and those times did not think themselves secure. And now, if you think the laity are only obliged to allegiance, it is strange. I am sorry that subjects should have more consideration for their fellow-subjects than for the king. It is not so long since some would have king William's name only in the Regency, and king James to stand king. The Bishops may say, this is for the good of the Church, that they should have liberty to sit in the lords house, but not take the Oaths, thinking them
selves obliged, by their oath, to king James. Therefore I would not agree to the Amend
a recognition of his government. It is certain that some scruples they make, either that they are obliged to the former king, or that this person is an usurper; and, by consequence, you are no parliament, he is no king. These are the plain consequences; and then, whether you will give this indulgence, or not? The leaven will run through the whole Clergy. Upon consideration of the whole, I make this to be tripping up the heels of the whole government. If the Clergy have obligation to king James, they are bound to assist him when opportunity shall serve; and when no opportunity, they are content to sit still, and when there is, they will tell you more. This is the effect of the lords' Amendment; and I would not agree.
A Committee was then appointed to draw up Reasons to be offered at a Conference.
Conference on the Bill for abrogating the Oaths, &c.] April 20. Sir George Treby reports, from the committee, the Reasons for the commons not agreeing with the Lords' Amendments; which were agreed to by the house, and are as follows:-" 1. Because it has been the policy of the common law, and statute law, to oblige men to swear to the king. 2. Allegiance is the common and necessary duty of all subjects, and is most strictly to be required of archbishops, bishops, and those who have ecclesiastical dignities, benefices, or promotions, in regard they are highly intrusted in the administration of the government, draw great dependencies, and are exemplary to thẹ rest of the people; and several of them are, by law, to administer the Oaths of Allegiance to other persons. Allegiance is also strictly to be required of all governors, professors, and fellows in universities, and school-masters, because to them the education of the youth of the kingdoin is committed; and therefore they ought to be persons of known loyalty and affection to the government. 3. The taking the Oaths publicly, in open court, will better manifest Allegiance, than the taking them privately, before persons appointed by Order in Council; and will be much more safe for the persons who are obliged to take the Oaths. 4. The best and inost certain means to have the Oaths taken, is to impose it upon the persons concerned to tender themselves to take the said Oaths under penalties; but if the Oaths are not to be required, unless tendered, the said persons might by absence, and otherwise, avoid the taking them with impunity. 5. The Clause which the commons sent to your lordships, allows more favour to the archbishops, or bishops, and those that have ecclesiastical dignities, benefices, or promotions, than to any lay peers, or other persons having offices and employments; and is more gentle in the penalty than the statutes heretofore made in like case. 6. It is unreasonable and unsafe to distinguish the archbishops, bishops, and persons having ecclesiastical dignities, benefices, or promotions, and such as are intrusted with the edu cation of youth, from the rest of the subjects, in the declaration of their allegiance; and may
Sir Wm. Williams. How can you make this law equal? You put it in the power of the king; if he order it not, they shall not take it; and if all persons may be under the same qualifications, your law then is equal. The consequence must proceed from principle, or humour; if from principle, it must proceed from other oaths that they have taken; and it is part of your security, that the old oaths be abolished; and what can resist an act of parliament? Shadows follow bodies; can you absolve me of my Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy? The same power that created those, has abolished them. But the Bishops say otherwise; they are so strait-laced, and straitly bound, by their Allegiance to king James, that this Act cannot absolve them. By this dispensation of the Clergy, instead of uniting the people, you separate them. I am for all persons to take the Oaths, and no encouragement given to any to| separate from the rest of the nation.
Sir Robert Cotton. The question is now, in a new government, whether we shall make distinctions? I could wish all sorts of clergy would take the Oaths. By this Commission, &c. the king may have such effectual security as may prevent any mischief that may ensue. I hear talked of a regency, in king William, mentioned in favour of king James; but I cannot think that, when you have done all things that have made you irreconcileable to king James, you will think of calling him back again. But, at this time, to have any disagreement with the lords would be fatal in the consequence. Therefore I would agree to the Amendments.
Mr. Godolphin. The question is not, Whether the Oaths shall be taken, or no; but, Whether the king shall have power, by commission, to tender them, &c.? We are running into divisions here, to prevent divisions in the Clergy. In Henry 8th's time, there were several limitations of the crown, and the oaths were forward and backward. I would agree.
Mr. Paul Foley. The lords have not only differed from us, but from themselves. This point has been twice settled in the house already; and I hope the nobility of the kingdom deserve favour and consideration, who have been turned out of their places, as well as the Bishops. We ought to take care, that there be no persons in the kingdom, but such as will submit to the government.
Mr. Boscawen. I am suspecting my own understanding in law, when Sawyer asserts a thing I desire that the statute of the Oath of Allegiance may be read.
Col. Birch. The statute ought to be read, when a gentleman desires it; and it must, for it is part of his speech. [It was read.]
Mr. Boscawen. It is apparent, by this law, that there is no distinction betwixt ecclesiastical persons and others. King James 1. came new from Scotland, and this law was to make
that those who were looked on to be the directors of other men's consciences, could not bring their own to acknowledge him in the first and fundamental act of obedience; and what must they conclude, when they heard the parliament had dispensed with such an exemplary part of the nation in a business of such moProtest against not agreeing with the House ment? 6. Because it might be of ill conseof Commons. After this, the house of lords quence, if the parliament should set any thing was adjourned into a committee, to debate and like a mark of disaffection on that sacred order, consider of the Reasons of the house of com- by allowing them now a dispensation from mons. The house being resumed; the earl of taking a very moderate Oath of Allegiance, Bridgewater reported, That after a long de- who, in a late reign, were too forward and bate in the committee, it came to this ques- zealous by Addresses, preaching and promottion, "Whether to agree with the house of ing new Oaths to carry loyalty and obedience commons?" It was carried in the negative. to monarchy, to a pitch unknown to our anThen the question was put, "Whether this tient laws, or former ages. 7. Because there house should agree with the committee?" It being no other assurance of any one owning was resolved in the affirmative.-Leave was himself subject to any government, but either given to such lords as would, to enter their acting under it, or swearing to it, it was very Dissents; and accordingly these lords follow-necessary, that those who forbear to act, should, ing do enter their dissents, in these Reasons of all others, be most strictly required to take ensuing: the Oaths, that the public might have that seex-curity of their Allegiance from those that refuse the Oaths. 8. Because it was unreasonable, that for a part of the Clergy, the nation should be exposed to the inconveniencies of the want of justice, and the danger of disorders for want of settling the Militia; the renewing of all Commissions being delayed, to the great prejudice of the government and the people, till this Act were past, and therefore they did not see why that house should not comply with the commons in the present necessity, though their Vote should be hard on a part of the subjects, whereas the utmost could be pretended in this case, was only contending for an extraordinary favour, and an unheard-of allowance to some scrupulous men. 9. Because it was neither what history could parallel, nor any policy justify, to allow any part of the people, who claim protection from the government, to be excused from giving the common and necessary assurance of allegiance and fidelity to it; and it was hard to think how any one that intended to be faithful to it, should come so near renouncing the government, as to desire to be dispensed with from being under the same ties, with other of their fellow-subjects.
tend to make a division in the kingdom; and may raise and countenance faction, both in Church and State. 7. It may tend to expose the king's person and government to hatred and danger, and occasion a general discontent." A Conference was desired, where the above Reasons were delivered.
"The Bishops and Clergy not to be cused from taking the Oaths of Allegiance: 1. Because, by the same reason that any part of the subjects may be excused from giving assurance of their allegiance and fidelity to the government, all may; and the government will be left perfectly precarious. 2. Because the Clergy, and especially the Bishops, receiving their benefices, dignities, and preferments, from the public, ought to be the first and forwardest, both by their doctrine and example, to teach others their obligations to be zealous in preserving the government as well as religion established by law. 3. Because the presence of scruple and tenderness of conscience can have no other foundation in the present case, but the supposition of some former obligation; no one ever scrupling to give all manner of pledges of his allegiance, where he thought it due: those therefore that scruple, ought the more to be pressed, and the sooner brought to the Test; unless any one can think it reasonable the government should favour, encourage, and indulge, those who will not give the usual security that they are not enemies to it. 4. Because, however the king may, that part of the people who have sworn allegiance to him cannot have reason to be satisfied when they (Signed) Macclesfield, Monmouth." see another part of the nation under looser ob- The Lords Reply to the Commons' Reasons.] ligations to the government than they; nothing April 22. A Conference was desired by the being so apt to raise fears, jealousies, and dis- lords. Sir Tho. Lee reported from the Conorders, in a state, as unnecessary distinctions, ference, the lords Answer to the Commons or any cause of suspicion of want of unanimity Reasons; as follows:-" In answer to the first or fidelity amongst themselves in the great and second Reasons alledged to the house of concernments of the kingdom, especially in commons, it is agreed, that the policy of the the titles of crowns, and at such time as this, law requires men to swear allegiance, and that when we are entering into war with a potent it is the common and necessary duty of all subenemy, who openly owns and supports a con-jects, and especially of the Clergy; but the trary title. 5. Because it will discourage our lords do not exempt them from taking these Allies, and give them a lower opinion of our Oaths, but only differ with the house of comking's interest in his people, or authority over mons about the method by which they should them, than was for the advantage of this king-be tendered.-To the third reason: If the dom in particular, or the Protestant Religion lords should agree, that it is better to tender through Europe; when they should understand the Oaths in open court than privately, yet that