BILL FOR PREVENTING OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY.

The commons of this parliament had nothing more at heart than a bill against occasional conformity. The tories affected to distinguish themselves as the only true friends to the church and monarchy; and they hated the dissenters with a mixture of spiritual and political disgust. They looked upon these last as an intruding sect, which constituted great part of the whig faction that extorted such immense sums of money from the nation in the late reign, and involved it in pernicious engagements, from whence it had no prospect of deliverance. They considered them as encroaching schismatics that disgraced and endangered the hierarchy; and those of their own communion, who recommended moderation, they branded with the epithets of lukewarm christians, betrayers, and apostates. They now resolved to approve themselves zealous sons of the church, by seizing the first opportunity that was in their power to distress the dissenters. In order to pave the way to this persecution, sermons were preached, and pamphlets were printed, to blacken the character of the sect, and inflame the popular resentment against them. On the fourth day of November, Mr. Bromley, Mr. St. John, and Mr. Annesley, were ordered by the house of commons to bring in a bill for preventing occasional conformity. In the preamble, all persecution for conscience sake was condemned: nevertheless it enacted, that all those who had taken the sacrament and test for offices of trust, or the magistracy of corporations, and afterwards frequented any meeting of dissenters, should be disabled from holding their employments, pay a fine of one hundred pounds, and five pounds for every day in which they continued to act in their employment after having been at any such meeting: they were also rendered incapable of holding any other employment, till after one whole year’s conformity; and, upon a relapse, the penalties and time of incapacity were doubled. The promoters of the bill alleged, that an established religion and national church were absolutely necessary, when so many impious men pretended to inspiration, and deluded such numbers of people: that the most effectual way to preserve this national church, would be the maintenance of the civil power in the hands of those who expressed their regard to the church in their principles and practice: that the parliament, by the corporation and test acts, thought they had raised a sufficient barrier to the hierarchy, never imagining that a set of men would rise up, whose consciences would be too tender to obey the laws, but hardened enough to break them: that, as the last reign began with an act in favour of dissenters, so the commons were desirous that in the beginning of her majesty’s auspicious government an act should pass in favour of the church of England: that this bill did not intrench on the act of toleration, or deprive the dissenters of any privileges they enjoyed by law, or add any thing to the legal rights of the church of England: that occasional conformity was an evasion of the law, by which the dissenters might insinuate themselves into the management of all corporations: that a separation from the church, to which a man’s conscience will allow him occasionally to conform, is a mere schism, which in itself was sinful, without the superaddition of a temporal law to make it an offence: that the toleration was intended only for the ease offender consciences, and not to give a license for occasional conformity: that conforming and non-conforming were contradictions; for nothing but a firm persuasion that the terms of communion required are sinful and unlawful, could justify the one; and this plainly condemns the other. The members who opposed the bill argued, that the dissenters were generally well affected to the present constitution: that to bring any real hardship upon them, or give rise to jealousies and fears at stich a juncture, might be attended with dangerous consequences; that the toleration had greatly contributed to the security and reputation of the church, and plainly proved that liberty of conscience and gentle measures were the most effectual means for increasing the votaries of the church, and diminishing the number of dissenters: that the dissenters could not be termed schismatics without bringing a heavy charge upon the church of England, which had not only tolerated such schism, but even allowed communion with the reformed churches abroad: that the penalties of this bill were more severe than those which the laws imposed on papists, for assisting at the most solemn act of their religion: in a word, that toleration and tenderness had been always productive of peace and union, whereas persecution had never failed to excite disorder and extend superstition. Many alterations and mitigations were proposed, without effect. In the course of the debate, the dissenters were mentioned and reviled with great acrimony; and the bill passed the lower house by virtue of a considerable majority.

The lords, apprehensive that the commons would tack it to some money-bill, voted, that the annexing any clause to a money-bill was contrary to the constitution of the English government, and the usage of parliament. The bill met with a very warm opposition in the upper house, where a considerable portion of the whig interest still remained. These members believed that the intention of the bill was to model corporations, so as to eject all those who would not vote in elections for the tories. Some imagined this was a preparatory step towards a repeal of the toleration; and others concluded that the promoters of the bill designed to raise such disturbances at home as would discourage the allies abroad, and render the prosecution of the war impracticable. The majority of the bishops, and among these Burnet of Sarum, objected against it on the principles of moderation, and from motives of conscience. Nevertheless, as the court supported this measure with its whole power and influence, the bill made its way through the house, though not without alterations and amendments, which were rejected by the commons. The lower house pretended, that the lords had no right to alter any fines and penalties that the commons should fix in bills sent up for their concurrence, on the supposition that those were matters concerning money, the peculiar province of the lower house; the lords ordered a minute inquiry to be made into all the rolls of parliament since the reign of Henry the Seventh; and a great number of instances were found, in which the lords had begun the clauses imposing fines and penalties, altered the penalties which had been fixed by the commons, and even changed the uses to which they were applied. The precedents were entered in the books; but the commons resolved to maintain their point without engaging in any dispute upon the subject. After warm debates, and a free conference between the two houses, the lords adhered to their amendments, though this resolution was carried by a majority of one vote only; the commons persisted in rejecting them; the bill miscarried, and both houses published their proceedings, by way of appeal to the nation. 114 [See note T, at the end of this Vol.] A bill was now brought into the lower house, granting another year’s consideration to those who had not taken the oath abjuring the pretended prince of Wales. The lords added three clauses, importing, that those persons who should take the oath within the limited time might return to their benefices and employments, unless they should be already legally filled; that any person endeavouring to defeat the succession to the crown, as now limited by law, should be deemed guilty of high treason; and that the oath of abjuration should be imposed upon the subjects in Ireland. The commons made some opposition to the first clause; but at length the question being put, Whether they should agree to the amendments, it was carried in the affirmative by one voice.