Protestant Reconciliation in the Exclusion Crisis

H. Horwitz

doi:10.1017/S0022046900059893

Protestant Reconciliation in the Exclusion Crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011

H. Horwitz

Show author details

H. Horwitz: Affiliation:
Department of History, State University of Iowa, Iowa, U.S.A.

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The triumphal return of Charles II on 29 May 1660 was the prelude to a determination of the restored monarchy's structure rather than its aftermath. The many and vexed problems attendant upon Charles's reinstatement were still to be resolved, for the Declaration of Breda had wisely been confined to generalities. A parliament would be necessary to settle the terms of an indemnity, the ownership of the confiscated lands, the future of the army, and the character of the national Church.

Type: Articles
Information: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , October 1964 , pp. 201 - 217

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046900059893 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 201 note 1} See, for example, the anxieties expressed by bishop Duppa, quoted in Bosher, R. S., The Making of the Restoration Settlement, 1951, 173Google Scholar, from Bodleian Tanner MS. 49, fol. 17.

^{page 201 note 2} R. S. Bosher, op. cit., 143–277; Abernathy, G. R., ‘Clarendon and the Declaration of Indulgence’, in this Journal, xi (1960), 55–73Google Scholar.

^{page 201 note 3} Matthews, A. G., Calamy Revised, 1934, xii–xiiiGoogle Scholar. Another 760 incumbents, he calculates, had been ejected between 1660 and 1662.

^{page 201 note 4} For their history see Thomas, R., ‘Comprehension and Indulgence’ in From Uniformity to Unity 1662–1962, ed. G. F. Nuttall and Owen Chadwick, 1962, 191–253Google Scholar.

^{page 202 note 1} Bishop Parker's History of His Own Time…, 1728, 244.

^{page 202 note 2} Whitehead, G., The Christian Progress of George Whitehead, 1725, 490–1Google Scholar; Original Letters of John Locke, Alg. Sidney, and Lord Shaftesbury …, ed. Forster, T., 2nd ed. 1847, 7Google Scholar; Grey, A., Debates of the House of Commons, 1769Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Grey), v, 250–5, 282–7, and vi, 329; Journals of the House of Commons (hereafter cited as CJ), ix, 455–6, 470–1, 506, 554; Hist. MSS. Comm., House of Lords MSS., 1678–88, 63–4; Uncalendared Finch MSS. (in the custody of the Historical Manuscript Commission), Political Papers 56 and 57. (I should like to express my appreciation to the owner of the Finch MSS., Colonel James Hanbury of Burley-on-the-Hill, Rutland, for permission to examine and cite these papers of the second Earl of Nottingham.)

^{page 203 note 1} Hist. MSS. Comm., Ormonde MSS., NS. IV, xviii.

^{page 203 note 2} The proviso in favour of protestant dissenters was added to the bill in the Commons, although opposition to any relief, particularly for the Quakers, was substantial. Previously, a similar clause had been rejected by the Lords both in committee on 29 April and on the floor three days later, despite Halifax's and Shaftesbury's exertions in its favour: Hist. MSS. Comm., House of Lords MSS., 1678–88, 105–8, 130–31; Journals of the House of Lords (hereafter cited as LJ), xiii, 545, 549; CJ, ix, 614, 616, 625–6; Grey, vii, 76, 79; Discourses Concerning Government by Algernon Sydney With His Letters, Trial, Apology and Some Memoirs of His Life, 1763, Letters, 67, 69, 78.

^{page 203 note 3} Jones, J. R., The First Whigs, 1961, 67Google Scholar.

^{page 203 note 4} A spate of pamphlets on this subject made their appearance at this time. See, for example, E. Stillingfleet, The Mischief of Separation; W. Hughes, An Endeavor for Peace among Protestants; J. Humfrey, A Peaceable Resolution of Conscience Touching our Present Impositions; and the anonymous Anglican tract, A Perswasive to Reformation and Union. The more virulent attacks against Dissent seems to have suffered a fall in popularity. Thus, the Anglican pamphleteer John Cheney, in a begging letter to archbishop Sancroft of January 1681, complained that he had been at considerable expense lately, ‘controversie books not going well off, and many promising to themselves that upon the sitting of the now dissolved parliament a way would be found out for the accomodation of dissenters, which put a stop to the sale of those books which defend conformitie as lawfull in case of deprivation’: Bodleian Tanner MS., 37, fol. 234.

^{page 204 note 1} The Diary of the Times of Charles the Second by the Honourable Henry Sidney, ed. Blencowe, R. W., 1825, ii, 75 (15 June)Google Scholar.

^{page 204 note 2} Dr. Williams's Library Morrice MS. P., 263; British Museum Add MS. 29572, fol. 247.

^{page 204 note 3} Hist. MSS. Comm., House of Lords MSS., 1678–58, 159.

^{page 204 note 4} Discourses Concerning Government by Algernon Sydney …, 101.

^{page 204 note 5} LJ, xiii, 620–1, 627, 654–5, 659, 693–4, 709; Hist. MSS. Comm., House of Lords MSS., 1678–88, 203–204.

^{page 205 note 1} Grey, vii, 423–5; CJ, ix, 647; Burnet, G., The History of My Own Time, 1833Google Scholar (hereafter cited as HOT), ii, 273.

^{page 205 note 2} Grey, vii, 423–4; CJ, ix, 647, 660–1, 664. I am greatly indebted to Dr. D. R. Lacey of the United States Naval Academy for permission to refer to the conclusions of his dissertation, ‘Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England, 1661–81’ (unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Columbia university, 1958–9—a copy is deposited in Dr. Williams's Library, London), to establish the identity of the Dissenting M.P.s in the 1680 parliament.

^{page 205 note 3} Grey, vii, 414.

^{page 205 note 4} The list of members of this committee given in CJ, ix, 645, is incomplete. A more accurate one is to be found among the uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 64. Among the eight additional members it includes are Sir Thomas Player, Sir Henry Capell, and Mr. Daniel Finch. Evidence concerning the religious views of the Presbyterian and Congregationalist members of the committee and a brief discussion of their activity in the debates of this session is given in D. R. Lacey, op. cit., Appendix II and 275–6.

^{page 205 note 5} Finch was a regular supporter of court motions for supply. See, for example, Grey, iii, 163, 415; iv, 124–5; v, 72–3. On the other hand, though not an adherent of Exclusion, from the autumn of 1678 he had consistently advocated and voted for measures which would have strictly limited the powers of a Catholic successor: Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 57; CJ, ix, 542.

^{page 206 note 1} Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 148, p. 1 (a fragmentary autobiographical memoir probably written in the 1720s).

^{page 206 note 2} Ibid., 3, and Political Papers 28 and 56; Grey, iii, 163.

^{page 206 note 3} Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 61, notes of the committee's meeting of 3 November 1680.

^{page 206 note 4} Both letter and bill are in Reliquiae Baxterianae, ed. Sylvester, M., 1696, App. ix, 131Google Scholar.

^{page 206 note 5} Calamy, E., Memoirs of the Life of … John Howe, 1724, 72Google Scholar.

^{page 207 note 1} Ibid, 72–73.

^{page 207 note 2} Virtually identical copies of these heads are in Bodleian Ballard MS. 70, fols. 48–51; Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 64; and Calamy, E., An Abridgement of Mr. Baxter's History, 2nd ed. 1713, 350–52Google Scholar.

^{page 207 note 3} Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 64, notes of the committee meeting on the verso of the heads of 18 November; CJ, ix, 661.

^{page 207 note 4} G. Burnet, HOT, ii, 274; iv, 10; The Conduct of the Earl of Nottingham …, ed. W. A. Aiken, 1941, 130.

^{page 207 note 5} [George Jones], The Samaritan, 1682, 114.

^{page 208 note 1} R. Thomas, ‘Comprehension and Indulgence’, op. cit., 204–5.

^{page 208 note 2} Dr. Williams's Library, Occasional Paper No. 6, ‘An Essay of Accommodation’, ed. R. Thomas.

^{page 208 note 3} Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 148, 3. Cf. G. Whitehead, op. cit., 495; and A Supplement to Bumet's History of My Own Time …, ed. Foxcroft, H. C., 1903, 317.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 4} King William's Toleration, 1689, 4. This tract, licensed on 25 March 1689, was published anonymously. Its author was, in all likelihood, the ubiquitous John Humfrey. Not only is it a most telling statement of his views but, as Mr. R. Thomas of Dr. Williams's Library has pointed out to me, its exact phraseology at p. 10 is anticipated in the wording of Humfrey's letter to Dr. Sharp written between 1 and 11 March 1689 (in Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 84).

^{page 208 note 5} Morrice MS. P., 288.

^{page 208 note 6} All the actual drafts of these bills are in his hand and are preserved among the Uncalendared Finch MSS. under the heading of Political Papers 64. There are also extant (and filed with the drafts) a number of other proposals and alterations put before the committee both by its members and by other interested persons.

^{page 208 note 7} [George Jones], The Samaritan, 114.

^{page 209 note 1} Ibid; and G. Burnet, An Apology for the Church of England… [1688], in Collection of scarce and valuable tracts … selected from … public as well as private libraries, particularly that of the late Lord Somers, ed. SirScott, W. (2nd ed., 1809–15), ix, 178Google Scholar.

^{page 209 note 2} Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 64.

^{page 209 note 3} Ibid., an undated list of proposals in Harley's hand. This document would seem to have been presented no earlier than 18 November for it refers to the bill as if it were fully written out, but it is unlikely to have been prepared after 24 November for it overlooks the separation of the two measures.

^{page 209 note 4} Ibid., preliminary heads of the composite bill.

^{page 209 note 5} Ibid., endorsement of the second draft of the bill. A copy of the breviate of the bill as it was brought before the House is in Bodleian Carte MS. 77, fol. 588.

^{page 209 note 6} Whitehead, G., The Christian Progress of George Whitehead, 1725, 493Google Scholar.

^{page 210 note 1} Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 64.

^{page 210 note 2} G. Whitehead, op. cit., 496.

^{page 210 note 3} Uncalendared Finch MSS., loc. cit., notes of the committee sessions of 24 and 27 November.

^{page 210 note 4} G. Whitehead, loc. cit.

^{page 210 note 5} Uncalendared Finch MSS., loc. cit., the second draft of the Toleration Bill. The text of this measure as it was introduced in the House was later published in A Collection, of the Substance of severed Speeches … relating to the Horrid Popish Plot, 1681, 16–20.

^{page 211 note 1} Uncalendared Finch MSS., loc. cit. This change also seems to have been the product of a suggestion by Sir Edward Harley, for he prepared the first version of this proviso.

^{page 211 note 2} Ibid., the second draft of the Toleration Bill.

^{page 211 note 3} Ibid., notes of the committee meetings of 24 and 27 November.

^{page 211 note 4} This account of the debate of 21 December is drawn from four sources: Grey, viii, 201–204; Hist. MSS. Comm., Beaufort MSS., Etc., 101–2; A Collection of the Parliamentary Debates in England…, 1739–42, i, 477–85; and Morrice MS. P., 287–8.

^{page 211 note 5} Grey, viii, 201.

^{page 211 note 6} Ibid., 201–2.

^{page 211 note 7} CJ, ix, 687.

^{page 211 note 8} Grey, viii, 214–18.

^{page 212 note 1} CJ. ix, 695.

^{page 212 note 2} G. Burnet, HOT, ii, 274; G. Burnet, An Apology (see reference at p. 209 n.i above).

^{page 212 note 3} G. Burnet, HOT, ii, 274.

^{page 212 note 4} King William's Toleration, 9–10.

^{page 212 note 5} [George Jones], The Samaritan, 115; Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 84, a letter of early March 1689, from Humfrey to Dr. Sharp, then dean of Norwich (referred to above at p. 208 n.4).

^{page 212 note 6} Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 64, a list in Humfrey's hand of proposed amendments.

^{page 213 note 1} Hist. MSS. Comm., Beaufort MSS., 102; Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 64, notes of the committee sessions of 4 and 5 January. The draft of the bill in Dr. Williams's Library MS. 59, 11, fols. 266–8, referred to by R. Thomas in ‘Comprehension and Indulgence’ (op. cit., 226 and n.3), is not the version presented to the House on 16 December, for it incorporates the alterations made by the committee after its second reading.

^{page 213 note 2} Uncalendared Finch MSS., loc. cit.

^{page 213 note 3} Ibid., notes of the committee's meetings of 30 December, 3 and 4 January.

^{page 213 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 213 note 5} Its repeal was moved on the same day that the Toleration Bill was debated: CJ, ix, 692.

^{page 213 note 6} See, for example, Sir Leoline Jenkins's comments in B.M. Add. MS. 32681, fol. 127.

^{page 214 note 1} CJ, ix, 650–1, 681, 697; LJ, xiii, 717.

^{page 214 note 2} Royal reluctance to approve this measure can only be ascribed to an hostility to any amelioration of the status of Dissent at this juncture, for the bill's polemical preamble had been deleted by the Upper House: Hist. MSS. Comm., House of Lords MSS., 1678–88, 214. A copy of the bill including the preamble is among Sir Leoline Jenkins's papers in All Souls College MS. 242, No. 8.

^{page 214 note 3} CJ, ix, 704.

^{page 214 note 4} Morrice MS. Q., 501 (Finch's letter was shown to Morrice by Harley in 1689). Cf. B. M. Loan 29 (Portland MSS.) no. 141: Sir Edward Harley to Robert Harley, 29 October 1692.

^{page 214 note 5} B.M. Loan 29, no. 278 (no pagination).

^{page 214 note 6} CJ, ix, 711.

^{page 215 note 1} The date of its publication is given on the title page of the first edition as 1681, but advertisements for it appeared in The City Mercury as early as 16 December 1680: R. Thomas, ‘Comprehension and Indulgence’, op. cit., 228 n. i.

^{page 215 note 2} The Unreasonableness of Separation, 2nd ed. 1681, lxxx–lxxxiv, lxxxviii–xciv.

^{page 215 note 3} G. Burnet, An Apology for the Church of England…, as cited at p. 209 n. 1 above. See also Birch, T., Life of… John Tillotson, 1752, 86Google Scholar.

^{page 215 note 4} E. Stillingfleet, op. cit., lxxxv–lxxxviii.

^{page 216 note 1} Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 64; Morrice MS. Q., 557–8.

^{page 216 note 2} [John Humfrey], King William's Toleration, 9–10.

^{page 216 note 3} This was the genesis of The Samaritan.

^{page 216 note 4} [George Jones], The Samaritan, 121–5.

^{page 216 note 5} Ibid., 114.

^{page 216 note 6} Patrick, Simon, ‘Autobiography’ in Works, ed. S. Taylor (1858), ix, 516Google Scholar. (Copies of what would seem to be the ‘ten or eleven heads’ drawn up at this meeting are to be found in Portland MS. [Nottingham University], PWa 2322; and in Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 84.)

^{page 216 note 7} Uncalendared Finch MSS., Political Papers 84—a draft of the 1680 measure (before it was introduced in the Commons) revised in Nottingham's hand so as to be virtually identical with the Bill of Toleration he brought into the House of Lords on 28 February 1689.

^{page 217 note 1} The Conduct of the Earl of Nottingham, 130.

Article contents

Protestant Reconciliation in the Exclusion Crisis

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests