17

successors were men of another type. Some of them were men of great learning, and some who were not learned had considerable intellectual vigour; but they had not the great qualities of the race that had passed away. The most eminent of them were Isaac Watts, who became pastor of the Church in Mark Lane in 1702, and remained its pastor till 1748; John Nesbitt, of Hare Court (1690—1727); Matthew Clarke, of Miles's Lane (1692—1726); Thomas Reynolds, of the Weigh House (1695-1727); Thomas Rowe, of Haberdashers' Hall (1678-1705), who also had an Academy; Daniel Neal, of Silver Street (1706-1743); and Thomas Bradbury, of Fetter Lane (1707-1728), who afterwards removed to Carey Street and died in 1759.18

17 He had been for a short time morning preacher during Dr. Chauncey's pastorate. In 1704 the Church removed to Pinners' Hall, on account of the decayed condition of its own building; and from 1708 it met in a new meeting-house erected in Duke's Alley, Bury Street, St. Mary Axe.

18 The dates are taken from the lists in Wilson, Dissenting Churches.

CHAPTER VI

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY UNDER GEORGE I. AND

GEORGE II.

(1714-1760)

NONCONFORMIST DEPUTATION TO GEORGE I. ON HIS ACCESSIONMANIFESTO OF THE PRETENDER-RIOT AND INSURRECTION-REDRESS OF DISSENTING GRIEVANCES ACT FOR "STRENGTHENING THE PROTESTANT INTEREST "-ACCESSION OF GEORGE II.-BILL OF INDEMNITY-ITS UNSATISFACTORY CHARACTER-APPOINTMENT OF DISSENTING DEPUTIES-WALPOLE AND NONCONFORMIST CLAIMS THE "REGIUM DONUM "-ITS HISTORY AND EFFECTS -AN INDEMNITY TO DISSENTERS FOR LOYALTY TO THE THRONE.

N

I

EARLY a hundred of the Dissenting ministers of London, with Dr. Williams at their head, presented an address to George I. on his accession (1714). They wore black Genevan cloaks; and as the dark procession moved towards the King, a nobleman touched Bradbury on the arm and said, “Pray, sir, what is this? A Funeral?"-"No, my lord," answered Bradbury promptly, "it is a Resurrection." 1

On August 29 the Pretender sent out a manifesto from Plombières, asserting his claim to the throne of Great Britain, and explaining that till the death of Queen Anne he had not pressed his rights because he knew her "good intentions" to him," and this was the reason we then sate still, expecting the good effects thereof, which were unfortunately prevented by her deplorable death." The manifesto confirmed the

1 According to another version of the story, Bradbury answered: "Yes, my lord; it is the funeral of the Schism Bill, and the resurrection of Liberty." Wilson, Dissenting Churches, iii. 514. For the address, see Calamy, Historical Account, ii. 299–300.

2 Cobbett, Parliamentary History, vii. 21-22.

suspicions of the country that the Tories who were in the confidence of Anne had been plotting on behalf of the Stuarts. Bolingbroke and Ormond fled to France. The Earl of Oxford was impeached of high treason and committed to the Tower.

In the midland and southern counties of England, the High Church and Tory party demonstrated their hatred of the House of Hanover by outrages on the Dissenters. Dissenting meeting-houses at Oxford, Birmingham, Bristol, Norwich, Reading, Wrexham, and other towns, were gutted or burnt. In Staffordshire the outrages were exceptionally numerous and violent.3

The High Churchmen said that if the good old Church of England was to fall, it mattered not whether it was destroyed by a Catholic like King James II., or a Lutheran like King George. In the north of England, and in Scotland, there was open rebellion; but early in November the royal army reached the main body of the English rebels near Preston, and compelled them to lay down their arms; the rebel leaders were sent to the Tower. The insurrection in Scotland was suppressed a few months later, and the Pretender, who had landed in Scotland late in December, sailed for France early in February (1715–6).

During these troubles the Dissenters had in many ways given solid proofs of their loyalty; under the House of Hanover they expected with confidence a large extension of their religious liberties. The rebellion delayed any attempt to assert their

3 Cobbett, Parliamentary History, vii. 108, note. Calamy, Historical Account, ii. 313-314. Lecky, History, i. 263, note 1. These outrages occasioned the passing of the Riot Act in 1715, which contained the following clause: "That if any persons unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together, to the Disturbance of the public Peace, shall unlawfully, and with Force, demolish or pull down, or begin to demolish or pull down, any Church or Chapel, or any Building for religious Worship certified and registered" (according to the Statute I William III. cap. 18, the Act of Toleration) the same "shall be adjudged felony without Benefit of Clergy." The Hundred in which such damage is done is made liable for damages, as in cases of robbery. I Geo. I. stat. 2, cap. 5, §§ 4, 6. These clauses were repeated (7 and 8 George IV. cap. 30, §§ 2, 8), and other enactments were made for the protection of Nonconformist places of worship. The Act of George IV. has been amended and explained by subsequent legislation. See Stephen, History of Criminal Law, ii. 271, 291–293.

See the various addresses to the Crown in Calamy, Historical Account, ii. 299–300, 366–368, 460-462, 490-492, 496-500; and ibid., 329-330.

claims; but when the danger had passed by, two hundred members of the House of Commons met at the Rose Tavern, Temple Bar (March 20, 1716-7), to consider whether a Bill for the redress of Dissenting grievances should be introduced into Parliament. Fears were expressed that the measure would encounter strenuous opposition in the Lords, and the meeting was adjourned; but at a second meeting, held a few days later, assurances were received that the difficulties which had been anticipated had disappeared. The Dissenters, in every part of the country, met and demanded the repeal of the Occasional Conformity Act and the Schism Act, which had been passed in the preceding reign, and of the Corporation Act and the Test Act, which had been passed under Charles II. 5 On December 13, 1718, Lord Stanhope, principal Secretary of State, introduced a Bill into the House of Lords for strengthening the Protestant interest. The Bill repealed the Act against Occasional Conformity, the Act for the Prevention of Schism, and certain clauses in the Corporation and Test Acts. It was opposed by Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, who regarded these Acts as the "main bulwark and supporters of the Established Church ";" by Davies, Archbishop of York; and by Smalridge, Bishop of Bristol. Hoadly, Bishop of Bangor, Willis, Bishop of Gloucester, and Gibson, Bishop of Lincoln, spoke on the other side. Kennet, Bishop of Peterborough, also made a vigorous speech in favour of the Bill. He said that

6

7

"The Dissenters, though the most zealous promoters of the Revolution, have hitherto been no gainers by it; for they might have enjoyed toleration under King James, if they would have complied with his measures; while the Establishment has gained all its present honours and emoluments. To exclude Dissenters from serving that Government of which they are the firmest supporters is the grossest political absurdity." 8

In the course of the debate it became necessary to surrender the clauses repealing certain parts of the Corporation and Test Acts. The third reading was carried by a majority of

9

5 Tindal, ii. 524-525, and note.

6 L. J., xxi. 24.

7 Cobbett, Parliamentary History, vii. 570.

8 See Timberland, Debates, iii. 105; Tindal, ii. 580, note.

9 L. J. (Dec. 19, 1718), xxi. 29–30.

55 to 33. In the Commons, the amended Bill passed by a majority of 221 to 170. In both Houses unsuccessful attempts were made in Committee to exclude from the benefit of the Act persons denying the doctrine of the Trinity.10 The Bill received the royal assent on February 18, 1718–9.11

II

George II. came to the throne in 1727, and in the same year the first Annual Bill of Indemnity was passed for relieving Dissenters from the penalties attached to the violation of the Corporation and Test Acts.12 This measure of relief was narrow in aim and ineffective in result. As Mr. Lecky has pointed out, it had no reference to conscientious scruples: its declared intention was to relieve those who "through ignorance of the law, absence, or unavoidable accident," had omitted to qualify; and only by a liberal but illegitimate interpretation could it be extended to relieve those who had deliberately abstained from conscientious motives. The Act applied only to those who were already in office; it did not help a candidate. In cases where previous conformity was required, objection might be taken to a Dissenting candidate for office; and such objection, if raised, rendered invalid any votes that were given to him.13 The King himself was known to be in favour of a more generous policy, and he gave early proof of his determination to protect the Nonconformists. In 1733 an ecclesiastical prosecution was commenced against Doddridge for keeping an Academy in Northampton. It was stopped by the intervention of the Crown. The King said, " During my reign there shall be no persecution for conscience' sake." 14

10 L.J. (Dec. 23, 1718), xxi. 35. C. J. (Jan. 9, 1718–9), xix. 49–50 ; motion lost by 136 to 234.

11 See references given above, and also L. J. (Dec. 22, 23, 1718), xxi. 32-33, 34. C. J. (Dec. 24, 1718; Jan. 7, 10, 1718-9), xix. 47-48, 50. The critical divisions were 243 to 202, for committing the Bill; 221 to 170, for rejecting amendments; 215 to 157 for the third reading. See also Cobbett, Parliamentary History, vii. 567-581, 584-589. 12 I Geo. II. stat. 1, cap. 5, § 2.

13 Lecky, History, i. 323-324, and note 2. He states that this power of objection excluded many Dissenting candidates from municipal office. The Acts were passed annually till the Test Act was repealed in 1828. 14 Orton, Memoirs of Doddridge, 251-252; Doddridge, Correspondence and Diary, iii, 139–140,