Selected quad for the lemma: act_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A54229
|
A third letter from a gentleman in the country, to his friends in London, upon the subject of the penal laws and tests
|
Penn, William, 1644-1718.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing P1381; ESTC R5099
|
11,475
|
20
|
of Conscience when he told us of his Religion there had been no Rebellion in the West But the mis-guided Duke of Monmouth might have had his share at Buda and the unhappy People of his train been alive at their Vocations And if this delay was not for want of an Opinion that Liberty of Conscience was a just necessary and popular thing but his regard to the Church of England that had serv'd him well and might not presently take it the right way or be prepared to fall in with him upon that interest 't is certainly the highest proof how greatly he valued her concurrance and desir'd to rely upon her Duty Service and Friendship and consequently how much she is obliged to his goodness and those of her Sons are in the wrong that carry a present distance and coldness to his Administration And when all is done the King in this very point has but persued the sense of a Parliament very freely chosen for in that last Westminster Parliament when the House of Commons apprehended their Dissolution and that the black Rod was near the door to that purpose they came to several Dying Votes as a Legacy of their Aversion to the Court and their Court to the King dom among which this was not the least Resolv'd That it is the Opinion of this House that the Prosecution of Protestant Dissenters upon the Penal Laws is at this time grievous to the Subject a weaking of the Protestant Interest an Encouragement to Popery and dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom If the heat of those times could have left those two angry words out it had carried the general Liberty now desired and nothing would have hindred it in a time like this with such a Parliament as that For in the Raign of a King of a Popish Religion that we laboured so much to Disappoint to desire no more at our hands after our fears of so much more than a meer Liberty of Conscience indifferently fixed to all Dissenters is such a Cure of our Fears and an Assurance of all we can wish that we must be wanting to our selves in Wit as well as to the King in Gratitude if we reject the motion Let her therefore be confident nothing excluded the Papists then but our Apprehentions that they strove for all at our Cost and if we are offer'd to be secur'd against such Jealousies a Parliament so Chosen would naturally comprise them But you tell me that two things stick yet with Divers persons of that Church One That it is not reasonable the Dissenters should expect that they should pluck the Thorn out of their foot to put it in their own The other That in case the Penal Laws and Tests were removed by this Church-Parliament another might be packt that might turn both Laws and Test upon thâ— present Church In the first place t is granted then that the Laws are a Thorn in the Foot of the Dissenters Is it not as just to think it ought to be pluck't out and if the Church of England will do nothing towards it are they not excusable that endeavour it themselves Tho when one enquires first who put the Thorn in and next that there is no necessity that she must put it into her own Foot because she plucks it out of theirs it should not be so hard to perswade her to pluck it out and in my Opinion it should be as easie to fling it away that it may trouble no body else for the future But that perhaps she thinks is not possible to be done and that impossibility is given for the reason why she chuses to leave it where it is which naturally introduces my Answer to the second Objection viz. That if the Penal Laws and Tests were remov'd by this Church Parliament another might be packt which might turn both Laws and Tests upon the present Church In my last Letter said something that ought in my Opinion to satisfie the most jealous in this particular For first all agree it is impossible to Repeal the Laws and Tests without a Parliament Secondly 't is not to be thought that the present Parliament will do it without such a Provision as will secure us in the Point feared To say there is none is ridiculous for who can tell what they may think upon or from other heads what may occur to them If they won't Repeal them let us suppose an other Parliament as freely Chosen at least can we imagin that such a Representative will be less careful to secure us against our fears tho they were more inclinable to abolish those Laws If then both are like to go together be it by the present or another Parliament I see no insecurity that is like to follow either to the Church of England or her Protestant Dissenters who in that respect are equally concerned with her self And for packing of a Parliament if that were the business and Design at last why is it not attempted at first Certainly it is so easie to be done that if the King did not seek a more agreeable and lasting security to his Friends to wit a National one there are men enough of no Religion to be packt to morrow that would first conform to the Laws and Tests and then mercenarily take them away I know there are silly People of all Parties for whom no body can answer but t is astonishing that such a jealousie should have so much room with men of any share of sense that if this Parliament should Repeal the Laws and Tests the Papists in the next would come into Parliament and then make their Religion National at our charges For First it supposes no other expedient which is easie to be found and obtain'd or let the other remain Secondly it supposes that Roman Catholicks will be chosen or return'd tho they are not chosen The one 't is certain we don't fear and methinks they only should be afraid of the other for since they cannot be their own security and this they declare by seeking a National one If the first would do why don't they begin upon it and pack a Parliament presently and Repeal the Laws and Tests without any more to do And if they don't do this not because they can't think upon it but because they don't think it worth trying why should they attempt by such a way an harder thing for no body would take it so ill of them to Repeal the Laws that vex them by an Indirect way as they would if they went about to make their Religion National by it and if they think it not assuring enough for the lesser can they be tempted to imbrace it for effecting of the greater point Some of them have read the Histories of their own Country and can't but remember that in times even of their own Religion Parliaments ill Chosen came to ill Ends. That the twenty first of Richard the second Repeal'd the Acts of the Parliament of the eleven of the same King and
that the first of Henry the fourth Repealed the twenty first of Richard the second And that the thirty ninth of Henry the sixth Repealed the Laws of the 38th of the same King Damn'd that Parliament because VNDULY Elected which is the packing meant in the Objection So that 't is not worth while to attempt it If such a Parliament could be Immortal or were able to Charm successive Raigns or were not a violation of the Constitution of Parliaments and of one of the tenderest points in our Government or did not break faith with mankind when most obliged to make a straight step and by all this treasure up wrath against the day of wrath upon the whole Party which must dawn at the setting of our present King it were something but when all this will follow as certain as the Night does the Day To break all bounds of Law and go by open Force were an honest and wise thing to such a wooden Invention of Law as this would be to all men living of common sence and to the Ages that shall follow us who of right will have the censuring of our Actions What then is left us but to embrace this Gracious tender and all Parties to meet the King in those methods that are most likely to establish it with the greatest satisfaction and certainty If no other security can be had I say then let this that is remain if there may be such a thing why should we not imbrace it The Church of England disclaims Severity and Partiality then let her part with those Instruments of both and not suspect the shaking of the Laws of Property for stopping the execution of the Laws that undermine it I leave one Consideration with her and so shall leave you at this time Let nothing that is Vnfair or Indirect lie at her Door I beg her for Gods sake Ought she to differ thus with any body and less with such a King upon a point she cannot maintain and that is better left then kept take the Question either as to Right or Prudence I will not be very particular but enough to make way for a fuller discourse on the Subject The Tests the chief if not the only thing in debate have they any Foundation in our Constitution Should a Mans being of any Religion hinder him from serving the Country of his Birth Does his going to a Conventicle naturally unqualifie him for a Constables Staff or believing Transubstantiation render him uncapable of being a good Clark It were as reasonable to say that 't is impossible for a Phanatick to be a good Shoomaker or a Papist a good Tayler The very Notion is Comical And that must ever be the Consequence of going out of the way and serving the Publick with such a Byass to a Party for that is the softest way of speaking of the Error But when we consider the Test in Relation to the Parliament where the Objection lies strongest against the Repeal it appears not one jot less unreasonable to continue it For an Opinion of Religion is made to deprive a Peer of the highest Right of his Peerage True he is not totally Destroyed but he 's Gelt of his chiefest Priviledge For tho he looses not his Title he has little else left him Can the Peers of England to serve a turn so mutely suffer a President to continue that shakes their hereditary share in the Government and so essential a part of our ancient celebrate Constitution and by which 't is made impossible to have an unconcerned House in Judgment Let us but look back to Seventy Five and see what was done then by divers Lords in a case of this nature I will but repeat the Test and their Protest I A. B. do declare That it is not Lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Armes against the King and that I do abhor that Trayterous Position of taking Arms by His Authority against His Person or against those that are commission'd by Him in pursuance of such Commission And I do swear that I will not at any time endeavour the Alteration of the Government either in Church or State so help me God. The debate lasted Five several days before it was committed to a Committee of the whole House which hardly ever happened to any Bill before The Debates were managed chiefly by the Lords whole Names you will find to the following Protestation We whose Names are under Written being Peers of this Realm do according to our Rights and the ancient Vsage of Parliaments declare that the Question having been put whether the Bill entituled an Act to prevent the danger which may arise from Persons disafftected to the Government doth so far intrench upon the Priviledges of This House that it ought therefore to be cast out It being resolved in the Negative We do humbly conceive that any Bill which imposeth an Oath upon the Peers with a Penalty as this doth that upon the refusal of that Oath They shall be made uncapable of Sitting and Voting in this House as it is a thing unpresidented in former Times so is it in Our humble Opinion THE HIGHEST INVASION OF THE LIBERTIES AND PRIVILEDGES OF THE PEERAGE that possibly may be and most destructive of the Freedom which they ought to enjoy as Members of Parliament because the Priviledge of Sitting and Voting in Parliament is an Honor they have BY BIRTH and a Right so INHERANT IN THEM AND INSEPARABLE FROM THEM AS THAT NOTHING CAN TAKE IT AWAY but what by the Law of the Land must withal take away their Lives and corrupt their Blood upon which ground we do here enter our Dissent from that Vote and our Protestation against it Buckingham Bridgwater Winchester Salisbury Bedford Dorset Aylisbury Bristol Denbigh Pagitt Holles Peter Howard E. of Berks Mohun Stamford Hallifax Delamer Eure Shaftsbury Clarendon Grey Roll. Say Seal Wharton To say nothing here of the matter of the Test 't is plain from the extent of their Argument they were against all Tests that depriv'd Peers of this fundamental Right of Peerage and that nothing could in their opinion do it but such crimes as tainted their Blood and took away their lives I know not if those living are still of that minde but the honour I have for their Understanding and Integrity forbid me to doubt it Now pray Suffer me to turn the Tables and ask our Church-men one Question in the Language of their Fears Can the King makes Lords and pack an House of Commons that shall first take and then abolish the Test Why then it is not so great a security as they imagin and it is hardly worth while to be so stiff to support it But by the same reason that they can Repeal this they may Enact another and if so may not the House of Peers be quickly another set of Men For that Fire that Rosts a Goose can Rost a Gander What Tides are these in Government and what State is safe