bishops were willing to allow liberty of conscience, but could not allow conventicles, as these were dangerous to the state; that the Common Prayer was altogether unexceptionable, and could not be too strictly enjoined; yet, that they were willing to revise it, if his majesty should think it proper: they were willing that extemporary prayer might be used both before and after the service;--but they were unwilling to part with any of the ceremonies. The answer of the bishops being communicated to the king, his majesty caused a copy of it to be given to the dissenters, with an intimation, that he would commit to writing the particulars of the indulgence which he meant to show them; but that they should receive a copy of the instrument, and be at liberty to comment upon it before it was published. It was accordingly communicated to them: they returned a minute, which contained the heads of their objections. A meeting took place at the chancellor's; the king, accompanied by several of his principal nobility, attended; the established church was represented by several prelates and some distinguished private divines; the dissenters, by Reinolds, Calamy, Baxter, and other ministers of eminence. The projected declaration of his majesty was read; each party was allowed to state succinctly their objections; and the dissenters availed themselves of this liberty. When the perusal and discussion of the declarations were finished, the lord chancellor read a supplemental clause, in which his majesty signified a wish, "that others also might be per"mitted to meet for religious worship, provided "they gave no disturbance to the public peace; "and that they might not be molested by any "justice of peace, or other officer." It was suspected both by the prelates and the dissenters, that this clause was introduced to bring roman-catholics and socinians within the projected toleration; both parties disapproved it for this reason; a profound silence ensued; but, after a short time, Baxter rose, and protested against the toleration of papists and socinians:-"The presbyterians," he said, "desired not favour to themselves alone; "and rigorous severity, they desired against none. "As they humbly thanked his majesty for his in dulgence to themselves, so they distinguished "the tolerable parties from the intolerable: for the "former, they humbly craved just lenity and favour; "but for the latter, such as the papists and socinians, "for their parts, they could not make their "toleration their request." His majesty's declaration was then promulgated*: the language of it announced principles of moderation and comprehension. The king promised to provide suffragan bishops for the larger dioceses; that these should not confer ordination, or exercise any other act of jurisdiction, without the advice and assistance of presbyters, chosen by the diocese ;— that reasonable alterations should be made in the liturgy; that the church form of worship should not be forced on those who were unwilling to receive it; and that the surplice, the cross in baptism, or * 25 October 1660. Collier has inserted it at length, vol. ii. p. 874. the bow at the name of Jesus, should not be rigidly insisted upon.-His majesty closed the declaration, by solemnly recognizing the promise of religious indulgence, made by him at Breda.—It is a just observation of Hume*, that this declaration was made by the king as head of the church; and that he plainly assumed, in many parts of it, a legislative authority in ecclesiastical matters ↑. It generally satisfied the dissenters. Baxter, as he himself declares, was overjoyed: he waited immediately on the chancellor, gave him many thanks for the concessions, and added, that, if the liturgy should be altered as the declaration promised, and the declaration itself made a law, he should think it a duty to encourage a general union. Hist. c. lxiii. + Collier has a similar remark, vol. ii. p. 876. "The History of England during the reign of king "William, queen Anne, and king George I, with an intro"ductory review of the reigns of the royal brothers Charles "and James; in which are to be found the seeds of the revo"lution; by a Lover of Truth and Liberty, 2 vols. fol. 1744.” Mr. James Ralph, a political writer of eminence in his time, was the author of this history.-Mr. Chalmers thus speaks of it in his Biographical Dictionary :-" This was "always considered a very useful work. Ralph had read a "great deal, and was very conversant on the history and "politics of the country. He applied himself, with great "industry, to the study of all writings upon party matters: "and had collected a prodigious number of pamphlets re"specting the contests of whig and tory, the essence of which ❝he incorporated into his work, so as to make it a fund of "curious information and opinions, of which more regular "historians might afterwards avail themselves."-Mr. Fox, in his late historical work, pronounces him to be "an The trials of the regicides soon followed this event; it appears, from what took place on them, that the feelings of the king, in their regard, were less vindictive than those of his parliament or his people. The trials were attended with one circumstance, which gave general disgust, that several of the popular party sat as the judges of the criminals, and sentenced them to die for a rebellion, to which they themselves had excited them*. The civil dissensions of the kingdom appeared now to be effectually composed: but a further settlement of its religious agitation was obviously necessary the roman-catholics, the anabaptists, and the quakers, would have been satisfied with toleration; but prelacy and presbytery were striving for the ascendancy. An attempt to effect an amicable arrangement of their claims was made by a conference of twelve bishops and twelve dissenting ministers, which took place, under the royal authority, at the Savoyt. It was unsuccessful; and "historian of great acuteness, as well as diligence; but who "falls sometimes into the common error of judging too much "from the event."-To be thus spoken of by Mr. Fox, argues no common merit. It appears to the writer of these pages, that an abridgment of this work, in which this historian's noble principles of whiggism should be allowed their place, with a continuation of it on the same plan, would be a useful and a popular work. * Dalrymple's Memoirs, p. 21. + March 1661. All the papers relating to the conference at the Savoy, are collected in the "History of Non-confor"mity."-A clear view is given of them by Mr. Neale, in his History of the Puritans, vol. ii. c. vi. was immediately followed by the act, which was passed for restoring the bishops to their seats in parliament, from which an act sanctioned by Charles the first, immediately before the commencement of the civil war, had excluded them. The corporation act*, passed in the same year, was the commencement of hostilities against the protestant dissenters. Powers were given by it to commissioners, to be appointed by the king, to expel from corporations any officers they should think proper, and to place other persons in their room: it was further provided by it, that, for the future, no person should be appointed to any office or place relating to the government of corporations, boroughs, or the cinque ports, who had not, within the preceding twelve months, taken the sacrament of the Lord's supper, according to the rites of the church of England. Hume gives the following account of the object of this act: "During the violence and jealous govern"ment of the parliament and of the protector, all magistrates liable to suspicions had been expelled "the corporations, and none had been admitted, "who gave not proofs of affection to the ruling powers, or who refused to subscribe the covenant. "To leave all authority in such hands, seemed 'dangerous; and therefore the parliament em 66 powered the king to appoint commissioners for "regulating the corporations, and expel such magis 13 Car. II. st. 2, c. 1. (1661.)-An act for the well governing and regulating of corporations. |