Mr. Sacheverell. This secms to me to be a

snare.

If any sort of gentlemen, be they who they will, may pay no allegiance to the king, I am against it. Your Bill, as it is penned, is to enjoin all persons to take the Oaths; and this Amendment provides, That if an order of the council, by commission from the king, &c.' This cannot be a riding commission, all England over, to give the Oaths; then, if it be not a separate commission, which must have time of return-and then these persons go out of the country, and so are free from taking the Oaths for ever' By Order of Council'-They will have time to shelter themselves, under the king's name, which ought not to be countenanced. No person shall be concerned in it, but so far as the council shall advise; and then it is in their power, whether to execute your act, or not. So, unless some reason be as signed, why the king should suspect, all cannot be thought so; and if for particular persons only, your act is illusory.

Mr. Carter. All the subjects of England are under one king; and there is but one allegiance, according to our law. It was suggested here, That the Bishops had taken an oath to king James, and therefore their consciences would not bear it to swear it to king William;' and I think that the strongest reason why it should be tendered them. We must not set two heads on one Church, and divide the Bishops. Some have taken it, and some not; and as to the Government, we have taken it; how can we be true to the king, if all do not? | We have done it, and they ought to do it. Some are to leave their offices on refusal. These men have six months time given them by the lords Amendments. The consequence will be, we throw dirt in our own faces, by doing it; as we are obliged to it, so I hope all else shall be obliged. A Popish head was thought not safe for the Government; it will be a greater monster to set up two heads of the government. Consider how unkind this will be to the king. He swears to us, in his Coronation-Oath; and shall they not pay their allegiance to the king? I would retain what we did before in the Bill.

Sir Joseph Tredenham. Carter is much mistaken in the question; it not being, whether the Clergy shall take the Oath or not? if it were so, I should be of Carter's opinion; it is only, whether you will agree with the lords Amendments? It is only, whether there shall be a trust in the royal dignity, or no? And a question only, that the king shall have power to require the Clergy to give a testimony of their loyalty. If any of the clergy own any other power, that it may be in the king's power to make trial of them. You are told, This will put a hardship upon the king.' If trust be a hardship, the crown is a hardship. The severity is not in the crown, but in you. Perhaps, in another reign, it may not be safe to lodge this power in the crown; it is safe now and I would agree to the lords Amend

ment.

Mr. Howe. By what I find, by his motion, the stress lies in the commission that Clause is not to impower the king to dispense totally with the Oath, but to tender it before the time. The bait seems to be, putting power into the king; but I am not for either giving the king new power, or taking any from him. I cannot think but all should take the Oath; and how can they offer oaths to others, which they will not take themselves! And they so tender, that none but themselves shall be dispensed with. It is no hardship for a man to be put out of an office, if he be not capable of it. If they will not swear allegiance to this king, they owe it to another; therefore I would have no power left to bring in king James.

Sir Tho. Littleton. I differ from Tredenham: it is not such a great trust. It might, by his argument, have as well been inferred, that the king should give it to all his subjects, if the Bishops, in this case, were not tenderly used. In nine months, king James will either be here, or never; and therefore I am against the Amendment.

Mr. Finch. Notwithstanding the reasons I have heard against the Amendment, some of them ought not to have regard here. Now you make a new law, the question is, how you will extend that new law? All persons in office must take these Oaths; the Amendment is not to excuse them from the oaths, but a commission from the king to give these oaths sooner, if he please. Disagreeing with the lords is to oblige all men, within that time, without distinction, to take them. In the year 1649, when the Engagement was enacted, none were obliged to take it but those of the clergy, who were hereafter to come into livings. You are told, In that time, king James will be here, or not expected.' I hope you will not imagine, that these persons have any expectation of king James, or that they have any worldly consideration; they are not fond of it, and have sufficiently suffered for it. If you are not secure without this, consider whether the punishment's falling upon some persons will make you more secure.

Sir Tho. Lee. I am surprized that gentlemen are so much for the prerogative of the king. You are making a new law; and it is but compounding for a new one; and before this change, I know, no subject was exempted from the Oath of Allegiance. This instance given you (by Finch) was of the Engagement in 1649. I remember the dean of Christ-Church was in it, and was turned out for refusal of the Engagement; and those times did not think themselves secure. And now, if you think the laity are only obliged to allegiance, it is strange. I am sorry that subjects should have more consideration for their fellow-subjects than for the king. It is not so long since some would have king William's name only in the Regency, and king James to stand king. The Bishops may say, this is for the good of the Church, that they should have liberty to sit in the lords house, but not take the Oaths, thinking them

selves obliged, by their oath, to king James. Therefore I would not agree to the Amend

ments.

Sir Wm. Williams. How can you make this law equal? You put it in the power of the king; if he order it not, they shall not take it; and if all persons may be under the same qualifications, your law then is equal. The consequence must proceed from principle, or humour; if from principle, it must proceed from other oaths that they have taken; and it is part of your security, that the old oaths be abolished; and what can resist an act of parliament? Shadows follow bodies; can you absolve me of my Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy? The same power that created those, has abolished them. But the Bishops say otherwise; they are so strait-laced, and straitly bound, by their Allegiance to king James, that this Act cannot absolve them. By this dispensation of the Clergy, instead of uniting the people, you se- | parate them. I am for all persons to take the Oaths, and no encouragement given to any to separate from the rest of the nation.

Sir Robert Cotton. The question is now, in a new government, whether we shall make distinctions? I could wish all sorts of clergy would take the Oaths. By this Commission, &c. the king may have such effectual security as may prevent any mischief that may ensue. I hear talked of a regency, in king William, mentioned in favour of king James; but I cannot think that, when you have done all things that have made you irreconcileable to king James, you will think of calling him back again. But, at this time, to have any disagreement with the lords would be fatal in the consequence. Therefore I would agree to the Amendments.

Mr. Godolphin. The question is not, Whether the Oaths shall be taken, or no; but, Whether the king shall have power, by commission, to tender them, &c.? We are running into divisions here, to prevent divisions in the Clergy. In Henry 8th's time, there were several limitations of the crown, and the oaths were forward and backward. I would agree.

Mr. Paul Foley. The lords have not only differed from us, but from themselves. This point has been twice settled in the house already; and I hope the nobility of the kingdom deserve favour and consideration, who have been turned out of their places, as well as the Bishops. We ought to take care, that there be no persons in the kingdom, but such as will submit to the government.

Mr. Boscawen. I am suspecting my own understanding in law, when Sawyer asserts a thing I desire that the statute of the Oath of Allegiance may be read.

Col. Birch. The statute ought to be read, when a gentleman desires it; and it must, for it is part of his speech. [It was read.]

Mr. Boscawen. It is apparent, by this law, that there is no distinction betwixt ecclesiastical persons and others. King James 1. came new from Scotland, and this law was to make

a recognition of his government. It is certain that some scruples they make, either that they are obliged to the former king, or that this person is an usurper; and, by consequence, you are no parliament, he is no king. These are the plain consequences; and then, whether you will give this indulgence, or not? The leaven will run through the whole Clergy. Upon consideration of the whole, I make this to be tripping up the heels of the whole government. If the Clergy have obligation to king James, they are bound to assist him when opportunity shall serve; and when no opportunity, they are content to sit still, and when there is, they will tell you more." This is the effect of the lords' Amendment; and I would not agree.

A Committee was then appointed to draw up Reasons to be offered at a Conference.

Conference on the Bill for abrogating the Oaths, &c.] April 20. Sir George Treby reports, from the committee, the Reasons for the commons not agreeing with the Lords' Amendments; which were agreed to by the house, and are as follows:-" 1. Because it has been the policy of the common law, and statute law, to oblige men to swear to the king. 2. Allegiance is the common and necessary duty of all subjects, and is most strictly to be required of archbishops, bishops, and those who have ecclesiastical dignities, benefices, or promotions, in regard they are highly intrusted in the administration of the government, draw great dependencies, and are exemplary to the rest of the people; and several of them are, by law, to administer the Oaths of Allegiance to other persons. Allegiance is also strictly to be required of all governors, professors, and fellows in universities, and school-masters, because to them the education of the youth of the kingdom is committed; and therefore they ought to be persons of known loyalty and af fection to the government. 3. The taking the Oaths publicly, in open court, will better manifest Allegiance, than the taking them privately, before persons appointed by Order in Council; and will be much more safe for the persons who are obliged to take the Oaths. 4. The best and most certain means to have the Oaths taken, is to impose it upon the persons concerned to tender themselves to take the said Oaths under penalties; but if the Oaths are not to be required, unless tendered, the said persons might by absence, and otherwise, avoid the taking them with impunity. 5. The Clause which the commons sent to your lordships, allows more favour to the archbishops, or bishops, and those that have ecclesiastical dignities, benefices, or promotions, than to any lay peers, or other persons having offices and employments; and is more gentle in the penalty than the statutes heretofore made in like case. 6. It is unreasonable and unsafe to distinguish the archbishops, bishops, and persons having ecclesiastical dignities, benefices, or promotions, and such as are intrusted with the edu cation of youth, from the rest of the subjects, in the declaration of their allegiance; and may

tend to make a division in the kingdom; and may raise and countenance faction, both in Church and State. 7. It may tend to expose the king's person and government to hatred and danger, and occasion a general discontent." A Conference was desired, where the above Reasons were delivered.

that those who were looked on to be the directors of other men's consciences, could not bring their own to acknowledge him in the first and fundamental act of obedience; and what must they conclude, when they heard the parliament had dispensed with such an exemplary part of the nation in a business of such moment? 6. Because it might be of ill consequence, if the parliament should set any thing like a mark of disaffection on that sacred order, by allowing them now a dispensation from taking a very moderate Oath of Allegiance, who, in a late reign, were too forward and

ing new Oaths to carry loyalty and obedience to monarchy, to a pitch unknown to our antient laws, or former ages. 7. Because there being no other assurance of any one owning himself subject to any government, but either acting under it, or swearing to it, it was very necessary, that those who forbear to act, should, of all others, be most strictly required to take the Oaths, that the public might have that se

Protest against not agreeing with the House of Commons. After this, the house of lords was adjourned into a committee, to debate and consider of the Reasons of the house of commons. The house being resumed; the earl of Bridgewater reported, That after a long debate in the committee, it came to this ques-zealous by Addresses, preaching and promottion, "Whether to agree with the house of commons?" It was carried in the negative. Then the question was put, "Whether this house should agree with the committee?" It was resolved in the affirmative.-Leave was given to such lords as would, to enter their Dissents; and accordingly these lords following do enter their dissents, in these Reasons ensuing: "The Bishops and Clergy not to be ex-curity of their Allegiance from those that recused from taking the Oaths of Allegiance: 1. Because, by the same reason that any part of the subjects may be excused from giving assurance of their allegiance and fidelity to the government, all may; and the government will be left perfectly precarious. 2. Because the Clergy, and especially the Bishops, receiving their benefices, dignities, and preferments, from the public, ought to be the first and forwardest, both by their doctrine and example, to teach others their obligations to be zealous in preserving the government as well as religion established by law. 3. Because the presence of scruple and tenderness of conscience can have no other foundation in the present case, but the supposition of some former obligation; no one ever scrupling to give all manner of pledges of his allegiance, where he thought it due: those therefore that scruple, ought the more to be pressed, and the sooner brought to the Test; unless any one can think it reasonable the government should favour, encourage, and indulge, those who will not give the usual security that they are not enemies to it. 4. Because, however the king may, that part of the people who have sworn allegiance to him cannot have reason to be satisfied when they (Signed) Macclesfield, Monmouth." see another part of the nation under looser ob- The Lords Reply to the Commons' Reasons.] ligations to the government than they; nothing April 22. A Conference was desired by the being so apt to raise fears, jealousies, and dis- lords. Sir Tho. Lee reported from the Conorders, in a state, as unnecessary distinctions, ference, the lords Answer to the Commons or any cause of suspicion of want of unanimity Reasons; as follows:-" In answer to the first or fidelity amongst themselves in the great and second Reasons alledged to the house of concernments of the kingdom, especially in commons, it is agreed, that the policy of the the titles of crowns, and at such time as this, law requires men to swear allegiance, and that when we are entering into war with a potent it is the common and necessary duty of all subenemy, who openly owns and supports a con- jects, and especially of the Clergy; but the trary title. 5. Because it will discourage our lords do not exempt them from taking these Allies, and give them a lower opinion of our Oaths, but only differ with the house of comking's interest in his people, or authority over mons about the method by which they should them, than was for the advantage of this king-be tendered.-To the third reason: If the dom in particular, or the Protestant Religion lords should agree, that it is better to tender through Europe; when they should understand the Oaths in open court than privately, yet that

fuse the Oaths. 8. Because it was unreasonable, that for a part of the Clergy, the nation should be exposed to the inconveniencies of the want of justice, and the danger of disorders for want of settling the Militia; the renewing of all Commissions being delayed, to the great prejudice of the government and the people, till this Act were past, and therefore they did not see why that house should not comply with the commons in the present necessity, though their Vote should be hard on a part of the subjects, whereas the utmost could be pretended in this case, was only contending for an extraordinary favour, and an unheard-of allowance to some scrupulous men. 9. Because it was neither what history could rallel, nor any policy justify, to allow any part of the people, who claim protection from the government, to be excused from giving the common and necessary assurance of allegiance and fidelity to it; and it was hard to think how any one that intended to be faithful to it, should come so near renouncing the government, as to desire to be dispensed with from being under the same ties, with other of their fellow-subjects.

pa