States-general.' This refolution being formed into an Anne. addrefs, and laid before the queen, her majefty answered, 1702. • That she made no doubt but that condition would be ap*proved, fince it was fo abfolutely neceffary for the good of the whole alliance; and that she would fend that night directions to her minifters in Holland, to concur with the States in providing the troops accordingly.' The lords also addreffed the queen on the fame fubject, and to the fame effect; to which her majefty returned the like answer. The chief reason why both houses infifted upon an immediate prohibition of all commerce and correfpondence with France and Spain, was the great difficulty under which the court of France laboured at this juncture, to make remittances of money to their forces in Italy, and to the elector of Bavaria in Germany; which indeed the French could not do without the affistance of English, Dutch, and Geneva merchants, as appeared by a difcovery made about this time by the earl of Nottingham, on an unlawful intercourfe of bills of exchange between fome French bankers at Paris and fome London merchants. However, though the infifting upon this prohibition was a thing reasonable in itself, yet the manner in which it was managed, fhewed an ill difpofition to the Dutch, who, in the debate concerning it in the house of to omit nothing that can contribute to their fecurity and fatisfaction. Whitehall, Dec. 1702. CH. HEDGES. In the examination of this anfwer, it seemed, as if the queen had conceived in her mind fome prejudice of the States-general; which might perhaps arife from their not having given the command of the armies to prince George, as fhe had wished might be done. Others were of opinion, that this answer was fuggefted by the earl of Rochefter, who, being ambitious of having the afcendant in the adminiftration of affairs, looked with a jealous eye, upon the glory which the earl of Marlborough com But had gained in the last cam- Anne. commons, were treated very indecently; and the impofing 1702. it upon them, in the way in which it was preffed, carried in it too high a ftrain of authority over them. Theirs is a country, which does not fubfift by any intrinfic wealth of their own, but by their trade; and therefore fome feemed to hope, that the oppofition which would be raised on that head, might force a peace; which many perfons in England were driving at fo indecently, that they took little care to conceal it. The States refolved to comply with England in every thing; and, though they did not like the manner of demanding this, yet they readily confented to it; and accordingly the prohibition of all commerce with France and Spain was published by them, commencing from the 1ft of June, 1703. The bill a fional confor mity. Pr. H. L. JII. 212. The toleration-act, paffed in the firft year of the late reign gainft occa- in favour of the Proteftant Diffenters, was looked upon with regret by many Churchmen. King William was no fooner dead, than the Diffenters felt the effects of the change. They that bore them ill-will before, and were ready to reflect on them upon all occafions, now openly triumphed. Sermons were preached, and pamphlets difperfed, to blacken them as much as poffible, and fuch a violent temper difcovered itself on a fudden, and fuch an inclination to heat and fury, as plainly fhewed the parties affected to have been kept. under a fort of reftraint. The debate about occafional con formity,' which had been raifed in the foregoing reign, was now received with great warmth. Before the new parliament met, a pamphlet came out with this title, The eftablishment of the church, the prefervation of the state,' fhewing the reasonablenefs of a bill against occafional conformity: In which the author undertook to prove, that a civil difcouragement of Diffenters would be highly agreeable to religion: That their objections, as to cruelty, and with refpect to confcience, had nothing in them: And that the countenancing them would be as little politic as pious. This was foon followed by another, called, The cafe of tolera. ⚫ration recognized;' in which a ftrenuous motion was made for the adding farther conditions to the toleration, and especially, that of incapacitating fuch, as had benefit by it for all civil employments. It was dedicated to the earl of Marlborough, who, as has been obferved, was looked upon as a Tory, and, confequently, as one of unfufpected zeal for the Church. Matters being thus prepared without doors, the indifcretion of a lord-mayor, in the late reign, was made the pretence of bringing in a bill in parliament against occa fional conformity. It feems, Sir Humphry Edwin, who was a Diffenter, being lord-mayor in the year 1697, carried the city-fword with him once to a meeting at Pinners-Hall. As this was exclaimed against at the time it was done, so now it was urged as a reason to prevent the like for the future. Accordingly, on the 4th of November, Mr. Bromley, Mr. St. John (afterwards lord Bolinbroke) and Mr. Annelley (afterwards earl of Anglesey) were ordered to bring in a bill for preventing Occafional Conformity. It was read a fecond time, the 17th of November, and, a motion being made for exempting Proteftant Diffenters from fuch offices as cannot by law be executed without receiving the facrament according to the ufage of the Church of England, it was carried in the negative. In the preamble of the bill, the toleration was afferted, and all perfecution for confcience fake condemned, in a high ftrain. But, how the enacting part could be reconciled with this preamble, is hard to conceive (a.) For by this bill, all those who took the facrament and test (which, by the act paffed in 1673, was made neceffary to those who held offices of truft, or were magiftrates in corporations, but was only to be taken once by them) and did, after that, go to the meetings of Diffenters, or any meeting for religious worship, that was not according to the liturgy or practice of the Church of England, where five perfons were prefent more than the family, were difabled from holding their employments, and were to be fined one hundred pounds, and five pounds a day for every day in which they continued to act in their employments, after their having been at any fuch meeting. They were also made incapable to hold any other employment, till after one whole year's conformity to the Church, which was to be proved at the quarter-feffions. Upon a relapfe, the penalties and time of incapacity were doubled. No limitation of time was put in the bill, nor of the way in which the offence was (a) The bill began thus: As nothing is more contrary to the profeffion of the Chriftian religion, and particularly to the doctrine of the Church of England, than perfecution for confcience only; and, in due confideration of it, an act paffed in the first year of king William and queen Mary, for the exempting their majefty's Fro .. VOL, XV. teftant fubjects, diffenting from to Anne. 1702. Anne. to be proved. But, whereas the teft-act only included the 1702. magiftrates in corporations; all the inferior officers or free Great debates about it. Burnet. men in corporations, who were found to have some interests in the elections, were now comprehended in this bill. Some thought the bill was of no confequence, and that, if it fhould pass into a law, it would be of no effect: But that the occafional conformifts would become conftant ones. Others thought, that this was fuch a breaking in upon the toleration as would undermine it, and that it would have a great effect on corporations; as, indeed, the intent of it was believed to be the modelling elections, and, by confequence, of the house of commons. On behalf of the bill, it was faid, the design of the testact was, that all in office should continue in the communion of the Church; that coming once only to the facrament for an office, and going afterwards to the meetings of Diffenters, was both an eluding the intent of the law, and a profanation of the facrament, which gave great scandal, and was abhorred by the better fort of Diffenters. Thofe, who were against the bill, faid, the nation had been quiet ever fince the toleration, the Diffenters had loft more ground and. ftrength by it than the Church: The nation was now engaged in a great war; it feemed therefore unreasonable to raife animofities at home, in matters of religion, at fuch a time; and to engage a tribe of informers, who were the worft fort of men: The fines were exceffive, higher than any laid on Papifts by law; and, fince no limitation of time, nor concurrence of witneffes, was provided for in the bill, men would be for ever exposed to the malice of a bold swearer or wicked fervant: It was moved, fince the greatest danger of all was from Atheists and Papifts, that all fuch, as received the facrament for an office, fhould be obliged to receive it three times a year; which all were by law required to do; and to keep to their parish church, at least one Sunday a month; but this was not admitted. All, who pleaded for the bill, did in words declare for the continuance of the toleration, yet the fharpnefs, with which they treated the Diffenters in all their fpeeches, fhewed as if they defigned their extirpation. The bill, on the 28th of November, paffed the house of commons by a great majority, and was carried up by Mr. Bromley, on the 2d of December, to the lords. That houfe, being apprehenfive that the commons might (as they had done on feveral occafions) tack their bill to fome money-bill, made a vote: That the annexing any claufe to a money-bill was contrary to the conftitution ⚫ of . 1 of the English government, and the ufage of Parliament;' Anne. and ordered this vote to be added to the roll of the ftanding 1702. order of their house. The debates upon the occafional bill held longer in the houfe of peers than they had done in the house of commons. Many were against it, because of the high penalties: Some remembered the practices of informers, in the end of king Charles's reign, and would not confent to the reviving fuch infamous methods; all believed, that the chief defign of this bill, was to model corporations, and to caft out of them all those who would not vote in elections for Tories. The toleration itself was vifibly aimed at, and this was only a step to break in upon it. Some thought the defign went yet further, to raise fuch quarrels and distractions among us, as would fo embroil us at home, that our allies might fee they could not depend upon us; and that we, being weakened by the diforders occafioned by thofe profecutions, might be difabled from carrying on the war, which was the chief thing driven at by the promoters of the bill. So that many of the lords, as well as the bishops, agreed in oppofing this bill, though upon different views; yet they. confented to fome part of it; chiefly, that fuch as went to meetings after they had received the facrament, fhould be difabled from holding any employments, and be fined in twenty pounds; many went into this, though they were against every part of the bill, because they thought this the moft plaufible way of lofing it: Since the houfe of commons had of late fet it up for a maxim, that the lords could not alter the fines that they fhould fix in a bill, this being a meddling with money, which they thought was fo peculiar to them, that they would not let the lords, on any pretence, break in upon it. The lords, hereupon, appointed a very exact fearch to be made into all the Rolls, that lay in the clerk of the parliament's office, from the middle of king Henry the Seventh's reign, down to the prefent time: And they found, by fome hundreds of precedents, that in fome bills the lords began the clauses that fet the fines; and that, when fines were fet by the commons, fometimes they altered the fines, and, at other times, they changed the ufe to which they were applied: The report made of this, was fo full and clear, that there was no poffibility of replying to it, and the lords ordered it to be entered into their books. But the commons were refolved to maintain their point, without entering into any debate upon it. The amendments of the lords were moftly alterations of words and expreffions, except this of Ff 2 the |