Dec. 8. Question of the toleration of sectarian worship. sectarian worship came up, difficulties began to arise. It is true that the House voted that the Protector should have a negative voice to any Bill compelling attendance on the services of the Established Church, but it refused to allow him to exercise it in the case of Bills enjoining attendance on religious duties in some public church or chapel, or at some other congregational and Christian meeting.' There was a warm discussion as to the assertion that such meetings must be 'approved by the magistrate according to law'; but though the Court party-in this case the party of toleration-was beaten in a division by 79 to 62, it was strong enough to reopen the question, and the words empowering the magistrate to decide what congregations were to be suffered to meet were ultimately expunged.' Though it was agreed that the consent of the Protector would be required to any Bill restraining persons of tender consciences, unless they abused their liberty 'to the civil liberty of others or the disturbance of the public peace,' yet this offer was clogged by a proviso that Parliament alone should pass Bills for the restraint of atheism, blasphemy, damnable heresies, popery, prelacy, licentiousness and profane Dec. 9-11. Restricted liberty for tender consciences. ness. An attempt to except 'damnable heresies' from the list was defeated by 91 to 69. On the 11th, however, the Court party gained a victory, though by the barest possible majority, carrying by 85 to 84 a vote that the 'damnable heresies excluding from toleration should be particularly enumerated in the constitutional Act, instead of being left to the judgment of future Parliaments, and still less to the judgment of individual magistrates.2 In this frame of mind the House politely waved aside a list of twenty fundamentals,3 mentals of though these had been accepted by the Committee appointed to confer with the divines, who had contented themselves with reproducing the restrictive fundamentals which Owen, that light of the Independents-now fallen under the baleful influence of Cheynell-had attempted to press upon Dec. 12. Twenty funda religion. 1 1 C.J. vii. 398. 2 Ib. vii. 399. s Ib. 1654 THE TOLERATION QUESTION 221 the Long Parliament in 1652. The Committee was, indeed, thanked for its services, but recommended to apply itself to the question of the fundamentals to be required not from tolerated congregations, but from the ministers who received public support within the limits of the Established Church.1 It was about this time that some of the members, discontented with the concessions made by the House, applied themselves to the common councillors of the City, supporting them in the preparation of a petition intended 'to encourage Parliament in the settling of Church government,' evidently in the petition. old intolerant fashion. "When," sighed Oliver, "shall we have men of a universal spirit? Everyone desires to have liberty, but none will give it." 2 A City An army petition. Not unnaturally, what appeared in Parliament to be progress in the direction of toleration was, in the eyes of the military leaders, a mere reversion to the persecuting tyrannies of the past. About this time some of the officers presented a petition to the Protector asking, amongst other things, 'that liberty of conscience be allowed, but not to papistry in public worship, that tithes be taken away,' and 'that a law be made for the righting persons wronged for liberty of conscience.' The House had so much to gain by coming to terms with the Protector, in order to avert this renewed interference of the army, that it becomes easy Its effect on the House. See vol. ii. 101, and supra, p. 206. For the relation between Owen's fundamentals of 1652 and so much as is known of those of 1654, see Shaw's Hist. of the . . . Church during the Civil Wars, ii. 87. Clarke Papers, ii. Pref. xxxiv.-xxxvii.; Carlyle, 3 This petition is given in an undated letter, which, as it mentions the sailing of Penn's second squadron, must have been written about Dec. 25, but is inserted in the Clarke Papers (iii. 12-14) between other papers of the 16th and 19th. A despatch from Pauluzzi on the 12th (Venetian Transcripts, R.O.) speaks of a petition as having been already presented. Though the heads are not quite the same as those given in the Clarke letter, there is sufficient likeness to make it probable that the same petition is referred to. The undated paper may easily have been displaced by a few days. to account for the recent votes without having recourse to the supposition that the virtue of toleration was more appreciated than before. Dec. 13. Biddle imprisoned. Repressed feeling is sure to seek an outlet, and on the 13th the intolerant majority gave vent to its indignation in what might seem to be a safe direction by committing Biddle, the Socinian, to prison. For some time the House had been busy with his case, and his refusal to reply to such questions as "Whether Jesus Christ be God from everlasting to everlasting," and "Whether God have a bodily shape," brought matters to a crisis. The next step taken by Parliament was likely to be attended by more serious consequences. On the 15th the House reaffirmed Dec. 15. Parlia ment to enumerate the votes it had passed between the 9th and the 11th to the effect that the consent of the Protector should heresies. not be required to Bills in restraint of atheism, blasphemy, and damnable heresies, of which latter a list was to be drawn up by Parliament, if necessary without the Protector's consent.2 Such a resolution was a distinct defiance of the army, and of Oliver himself. Approaching expiration of the assessment. All policies centre in finance, and though the question of the reduction of the army had made no further progress, it could not possibly escape attention as soon as the expiration of the last assessment made it necessary to come to a decision on the public revenue and expenditure. For some time past a Committee had been occupied with the subject, and on November 29 a Bill granting the assessment at the rate of 60,oool. a month, in the place of the 90,000l. at which it now stood, had been read a second time.3 For the Protector the reduction of the army involved in this change was a serious matter, and he took care to remind a deputation of members that the present assessment would expire on December 25, and that if no fresh taxation were 1 C.J. vii. 400; see vol. ii. 98. 2 C.J. vii. 401; see supra, p. 220. 8 lb. vii. 392. p. 219. For a proposal to reduce it to 30,000l., see supra, 1654 Dec. 16. A revenue voted till REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE 223 provided the soldiers would be forced to live at free quarter.1 It is probable that the irritation of the House in consequence of the inroad of the army into politics was the cause of a vote taken on the 16th, when it turned back from its former intention of giving the control of the army to the present Protector for life, and by the very large majority of 90 to 56 granted a revenue for the support of the army and navy merely till forty days had passed after the next meeting of Parliament.2 forty days after the next meeting of Parliament. Dec. 18. A financial debate. Having thus gained the upper hand-so far as its own resolutions could effect anything—the House sought to tighten its hold on the army still further by limiting the supplies without which the army could not be maintained. On December 18 the sub-Committee of Revenue, which had for some time been active under the chairmanship of Colonel Birch, was directed to make its report to the Committee of the whole House. In the debate which preceded this order a member-perhaps Birch himself-argued that 'if we keep up our forces or our charge as high as now, when we have voted but 60,000l., we must needs expect a vast debt, and an impossibility to discharge it; but for the proportion of 30,000 men it may well be that the soldiers by 60,000l. per mensem may suffice; and if that number be not enough we can enlarge it when we fall on the Proposal to replace regular a militia. consideration of the militia.' 13 There was little doubt that the solution of the military problem conveyed in these words would prove acceptable to the Parliamentary majority. To reduce the standing forces to 30,000 and to disband the remaining 27,000, replacing them by a local militia, which would fall under the power of the 16 Il leur déclara, que si l'on n'augmentoit les impositions, qu'il donneroit des quartiers aux troupes." Bordeaux to Brienne, Dec. 11, French Transcripts, R.O. So far as it goes, this seems to show that the Protector was still unwilling to put forth his claims under the Instrument, which undoubtedly gave the Protector and Council power to levy money, at least for 30,000 men, without applying to Parliament. C.J. vii. 401. 3 Burton, I. cxx. 2 Puritan country gentlemen who were preponderatingly represented in the House, was exactly the remedy which would adapt itself to their interests and ideas. It was, Hesitation of the perhaps, a suspicion of the danger into which the House. House was running that held it back from immediately acting on the suggestions now made. As if to show its conciliatory intentions, it voted at once that 200,000l. should be annually set aside for the expenses of the civil government not only during the lifetime of the present Protector, but in Dec. 20. Third reading of the Assessment Bill, Dec. 21. The Court party in the ascen perpetuity. The Assessment Bill passed its third reading on the 20th.2 On the following day it was proposed to insert in this Bill a clause which had been added to the Constitutional Bill on November 233 restricting in the terms of the Instrument the right of levying taxation to Parliament, but omitting dant. the proviso of the Instrument which excepted the supplies needed for the administration of government and for the armed forces, an omission which in the case of the Constitutional Bill the House intended to supply by articles subsequently to be introduced. The Court party, apparently indignant at this attempt to settle a grave constitutional question in connection with a money grant, carried Parliament with it in refusing present consideration for the proviso by the considerable majority of 95 to 75, and the whole question of the assessment was then adjourned for eight days. Time would thus be allowed for the House to consider the question more fully. On December 23 the Court party gained another victory, carrying by 111 to 73 a resolution that the various clauses of the Constitutional Bill should be referred once more to a 4 Committee of the whole House, with the evident Bill again in hope that they might persuade it to adopt at least a modification of the portions obnoxious to the Government. There is strong reason to believe that at this time neither Protector nor Parliament despaired of an under Dec. 23. The Con stitutional Committee. 1 C.J. vii. 403. 2 Ib. vii. 405. After the third reading additional clauses and pro-visoes might still be added. 3 C.J. vii. 388. 4 Ib. 408. |