assing of the Test Act, singles out a speech of a Member ent, who declared, amid plaudits, that he would not olic dog or bitch, nay even a catholic cat to mew he King;" which speech, is, perhaps, rivalled d Jennings: "Head-ache coming from an hair and apply oils to the head will do to cleanse the stomach. It is not the House, nor punishing Priests e from the King, can remedy sts from the nation."

doors of Parliament have also been opened, since the wigs of substituted, in their case, for the Oath of Supremacy. Charles II., to Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists. Jews oly have been excluded; and that by reason of the words "on the true faith of a Christian" contained in the Oath of Abjuration, an oath imposed since the reign of Charles II., in consequence of the recognition by Louis XIV. of the Pretender. The words are borrowed from an oath framed in the time of James I. on the occasion of the Gunpowder Treason, when they were supposed to be more stringent on the consciences of Roman Catholics, than the usual formulary "So help me God." No Parliament did ever designedly exclude Jews from becoming Members, any more than adjudge them, if they omit to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, to be Popish Recusants. For the sake of maintaining an accidental exclusion of Jews from Parliament, on the policy and justice of which the two Houses are at variance, it has been deemed by some neither unwise nor profane to uphold a national oath professing a denial of the right of sovereignty to the descendants of the so-called James III., the dust of all of whom has been long covered by tombs in St Peter's.

suicide of Sir E. Godfrey'. At the opening of Parliament a solemn fast was ordered, an Address to the King against Popish Recusants was delivered, and on the ensuing 28th of October, the Act (30 Car. II. Stat. 2. c. 1), was passed for imposing a Parliamentary Test.

The Title of the Act is "An Act for the more effectual preserving the King's person and government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament." It is recited, that "Forasmuch as divers good laws have been made for preventing the increase and danger of Popery in this kingdom, which have not had the desired effects, by reason of the free access which Popish Recusants have had to his Majesty's Court, and by reason of the liberty which of late some of the Recusants have had and taken to sit and vote in Parliament."

Under the provisions of the Act "No Peer or Member of the House of Commons shall sit or vote without taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and a Declaration repudiating the doctrine of transubstantiation, the adoration of the Virgin, and the sacrifice of the Mass. Peers and Members offending are to be deemed and adjudged Popish Recusants Convict, and are to forfeit £500," besides suffering numerous disabilities.

Every Peer of the age of 21, and every Member of the House of Commons, not having taken the said oaths and subscribed the said Declaration, and every person now or hereafter convicted of Popish Recusancy who shall come advisedly into,

1 The death of Sir E. Godfrey has been a prolific subject of English medals evincing that the imputation of it to the Papists was a tenet of popular belief. Yet the evidence in the trial of the persons executed for his murder is most unsatisfactory. The rankest cases of leading questions and hearsay answers that are to be found in the State Trials, occur; for instance, the Attorney-General asks a witness, "Did he (viz. Godfrey, deceased) tell you that he did believe he should be the first martyr?" To which the witness answers, "Yes, he did say, upon his conscience, he believed he should be the first martyr." Praunce, the assumed accomplice, afterwards, in 1687, admitted before a court of justice that every syllable he had sworn upon the trial for the murder of Sir E. Godfrey was false. See the remarks on this trial of Mr Phillimore, in his History and Principles of the Law of Evidence.

or remain in the presence of the King or Queen, or shall come into the House where the King or Queen doth reside, shall incur the penalties of the Act, unless the Peer or Member of the House of Commons take the oaths and subscribe the Declaration in the next term after such his coming or remaining." Previous to this Act the Oath of Supremacy could not have been tendered to Peers.

Besides the modifications, at the Revolution, of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, it was provided by the Catholic Emancipation Act of George IV., that opinions concerning transubstantiation, the Virgin, or the Mass, should be no longer an impediment to sitting in Parliament, or voting for Members; and a test which Roman Catholics do not scruple to take has been substituted, in their case, for the Oath of Supremacy. The doors of Parliament have also been opened, since the reign of Charles II., to Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists. Jews only have been excluded; and that by reason of the words "on the true faith of a Christian" contained in the Oath of Abjuration, an oath imposed since the reign of Charles II., in consequence of the recognition by Louis XIV. of the Pretender. The words are borrowed from an oath framed in the time of James I. on the occasion of the Gunpowder Treason, when they were supposed to be more stringent on the consciences of Roman Catholics, than the usual formulary "So help me God." No Parliament did ever designedly exclude Jews from becoming Members, any more than adjudge them, if they omit to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, to be Popish Recusants. For the sake of maintaining an accidental exclusion of Jews from Parliament, on the policy and justice of which the two Houses are at variance, it has been deemed by some neither unwise nor profane to uphold a national oath professing a denial of the right of sovereignty to the descendants of the so-called James III., the dust of all of whom has been long covered by tombs in St Peter's.

III. Opinions in the era of Charles II. on the subject of Religious Toleration.

The laws maintained or enacted in the reign of Charles II. indicate a prevalence of public opinion indifferent or inimical to Liberty of Conscience. Nevertheless, much of the legislation of that reign concerning religion is to be ascribed to political conjunctures. In that era many persons were led by their fears of the recurrence of anarchy and of military or fanatical oppression, rather than by religious bigotry, to advocate measures for punishing and disqualifying Dissenters. In the latter portion of the reign the papal religion was rendered odious not merely by its own tenets and practice, but, also, by the ill-concealed compact of the King to restore it and absolute monarchy in England; by royal Declarations of Indulgence for the same purposes, threatening the subjugation of all laws to the Sovereign's will. The nation's persecution of papists was sharpened by the union, as Marvell expresses it, of

Rome and France combined

By double vassalage t' enslave mankind.

Hence the motley character of the major part of the Statesmen and Prelates of the reign of Charles II. The Bigot and the Patriot often stood side by side in warm espousal or repudiation. of the same measures on the subject of religion; the Champions of Civil Liberty were stained by the exercise of unjust and cruel persecution upon sufferers for the sake of conscience; and characters who have received the veneration of posterity for making a noble stand in some breach of the Constitution when assaulted by arbitrary power, had little concern for civil liberty, but were animated by an inveterate zeal against the inroads, as they deemed them, of religious toleration.

Hume, with a view of shewing the virulent spirit that raged against Papists in the reign of Charles II., especially at the time

of the passing of the Test Act, singles out a speech of a Member of Parliament, who declared, amid plaudits, that he would not suffer a "catholic dog or bitch, nay even a catholic cat to mew and purr about the King;" which speech, is, perhaps, rivalled by that of Sir Edmund Jennings: "Head-ache coming from an ill stomach, to cut off the hair and apply oils to the head will do no good, when the way is to cleanse the stomach. It is not removing Popish Lords out of the House, nor punishing Priests and Jesuits, nor removing the Duke from the King, can remedy the evil, but it must be removing Papists from the nation."

It is observable that the spirit of intolerance was not, in the reign of Charles II., confined to the zealots and partizans of the Church Sectaries were intolerant towards Catholics, as the Duke of York and the Roman Catholic party towards Sectaries; whilst, among Sectaries, there was no spark of toleration by one Sect of another. It was a sentiment of Baxter, the most distinguished of the Nonconformists, "I shall never be one who by any new pressures shall petition for the papists' liberty."

From the pulpits of the Established Church the Roman Catholics, during the reign of Charles II., were made the objects of many an inflammatory invective. Mr Hallam writes, with regard to the Popish Plot: "None had contributed more to raise the national outcry against the accused, and create a firm persuasion of the reality of the Plot, than the Clergy in their sermons, even the most respectable of their order, Sancroft, Sharp, Barlow, Burnet, Tillotson, Stillingfleet; calling for the severest laws against Catholics, and imputing to them the Fire of London, nay, even the death of Charles I."

Nonconformists, after the dissolution of the Convention Parliament, were made participants with the Roman Catholics, in an equal, or larger degree, of clerical vituperation. In Narcissus Luttrel's Diary, it is stated that on the Thanksgiving Day for the discovery of the Rye-house Plot, "the chief of the sermons were violent against the Dissenters." South, in a sermon on