the penal laws designed against the papists, is at A.D. 1680. this time grievous to the subject, a weakening the protestant interest, an encouragement to popery, and dangerous to the peace of the kingdom;' and therefore they prepared another bill, 'for exempting his majesty's protestant subjects dissenting from the church of England from the penalties imposed upon the papists, by repealing the said act of the 35th of Eliz.' This bill passed the commons, and was agreed to by the lords, and lay for his majesty's assent; but when his majesty came to the throne to pass this among other bills, this was taken from the lords' table, and never heard of after: which no man durst the lords' have done without the king's command, or at least his privity or connivance at it."

T

Some few of the most moderate of the clergy endeavoured, in their writings, to promote this union and Dr. Compton, bishop of London, collected the judgments of several foreign protestant divines upon the unlawfulness of separation. "All this," says Father Orleans, "was an artifice of the Earl of Shaftesbury, that all protestants might find it their interest to destroy the catholics; and so the Duke of York's exclusion from the crown might be brought about.

A. D. 1680-1.

The bill

stolen from

table.

A. D. 1680-1.

Answer to them.

He projected an union among all the nonconformist sectaries and the church of England; and, to bring it about, he put the house of commons upon pressing the king to repeal all the laws made by Queen Elizabeth against them. His majesty perceived what they tended to, and, making a true judgment upon the occasion of that demand, first prorogued, and afterwards dissolved, the parliament."

It was undoubtedly the interest of the papists to keep up a division among the protestants. This maxim had been laid down by them in the beginning of the king's reign, and the court had promoted several measures for the same purpose; such as the uniformity, the corporation, and the five-mile acts. The division was begun with ardour, and continued to be promoted by every artifice and intrigue. The design of uniting the protestants at this time was, therefore, a most important one; and the method of doing it was prudent and well grounded. The first preparatory step to it was the bill to repeal the act of the 35th of Eliz. As the court saw the consequence of this step, and the king could not with decency refuse his assent to the bill, recourse was had to the contemptible and shameful artifice of stealing it away.

1680-1.

Simpson

accusation

Shaftesbury and some

other peers.

In the mean while, several designs were form- A. D. ed for causing it to be believed that the popish plot was an invention of the Earls of Essex Tonge's and Shaftesbury, Lord Wharton, and others of of Lord the peers. Simpson Tonge, in particular, son of Dr. Tonge who had made the first discovery of the plot, delivered, on the 8th of August 1680, a memorial to the king, setting forth that the popish plot was a contrivance of his father and Dr. Oates, assisted by Lord Wharton, Lord Essex, and Lord Shaftesbury. He alleged that the two former especially were very intimate with his father; that my Lord of Essex was exceedingly zealous in the Irish plot, sent several letters from London concerning it, and was one whom his father frequently corresponded with, and who had been encouraged by him vigorously to defend the contrivance. The Earl of Essex, and the rest of the peers, were extremely earnest for Simpson Tonge's being strictly and solemnly examined; and accordingly he was brought before the council, where his memorial was read. At his examination, he behaved with great confidence; said that the popish plot was all a contrivance, and principally fixed it on the Earl of Shaftesbury upon which one of the Lords of

VOL. II.

S

A. D. 1680-1.

council asked him whether Coleman's letters were Lord Shaftesbury's contrivance also? This silenced and confounded him; and, as he had no proofs to support what he had alleged, the council ordered him to be committed to prison, where he soon after died.

CHAPTER VIII.

The Oxford Parliament summoned.-Petition.-Progress of the Elections. Meeting of the Parliament at Oxford.-Its Dissolution. Letter from Mr. Locke to Mr. Stringer.-Impeachment of Fitzharris. - Absolute designs of Charles.- Lord Shaftesbury is seized and again committed to the Tower.

A. D. 1680-1.

prorogued

THE king, alarmed at the spirit of the house of commons, had recourse to his old method of prorogation. On the 10th of January, he prorogued Parliament the parliament to the 20th; and, two days before and disthe meeting, dissolved it by proclamation. At New one the same time, another was summoned to meet at to meet at Oxford on the 21st of March.

This dissolution of the parliament gave great offence to the nation, as did the summoning the new one to meet at Oxford. The inconveniences apprehended from its meeting at that place are very strongly set forth in the following petition, which was drawn up by Lord Shaftesbury, signed by him and fifteen other peers, and presented to his majesty by the Earl of Essex.

solved.

summoned

Oxford.