WILLIAM’S EFFORTS IN FAVOUR OF DISSENTEES.

William was naturally biassed to Calvinism, and averse to persecution. Whatever promises he had made, and whatever sentiments of respect he had entertained for the church of England, he seemed now in a great measure alienated from it by the opposition he had met with from its members, particularly from the bishops who had thwarted his measures. By absenting themselves from parliament, and refusing the oath, they had plainly disowned his title and renounced his government. He therefore resolved to mortify the church, and gratify his own friends at the same time, by removing the obstacles affixed to nonconformity, that all protestant dissenters should be rendered capable of enjoying and exercising civil employments. When he gave his assent to the bill for suspending the habeas-corpus act, he recommended the establishment of a new oath in lieu of those of allegiance and supremacy: he expressed his hope that they would leave room for the admission of all his protestant subjects who should be found qualified for the service; he said, such a conjunction would unite them the more firmly among themselves, and strengthen them against their common adversaries. In consequence of this hint, a clause was inserted in the bill for abrogating the old and appointing the new oaths, by which the sacramental test was declared unnecessary in rendering any person capable of enjoying any office or employment. It was, however, rejected by a great majority in the house of lords. Another clause for the same purpose, though in different terms, was proposed by the king’s direction, and met with the same fate, though in both cases several noblemen entered a protest against the resolution of the house. These fruitless efforts in favour of dissenters augmented the prejudice of the churchmen against king William, who would have willingly compromised the difference by excusing the clergy from the oaths, provided the dissenters might be exempted from the sacramental test: but this was deemed the chief bulwark of the church, and therefore the proposal was rejected. The church party in the house of lords moved, That instead of inserting a clause obliging the clergy to take the oaths, the king should be empowered to tender them; and, in case of their refusal, they should incur the penalty, because deprivation, or the apprehensions of it, might make them desperate and excite them to form designs against the government. This argument had no weight with the commons, who thought it was indispensably necessary to exact the oaths of the clergy, as their example influenced the kingdom in general, and the youth of the nation were formed under their instructions. After a long and warm debate, all the mitigation that could be obtained was a clause empowering the king to indulge any twelve clergymen, deprived by virtue of this act, with a third part of their benefices during pleasure. Thus the ancient oaths of allegiance and supremacy were abrogated: the declaration of non-resistance in the act of uniformity was repealed: the new oath of allegiance was reduced to its primitive simplicity, and the coronation-oath rendered more explicit. The clergy were enjoined to take the new oaths before the first day of August, on pain of being suspended from their office for six months, and of entire deprivation, in case they should not take them before the expiration of this term. They generally complied, though with such reservations and distinctions as were not much for the honour of their sincerity.