to William III. Cromwell and Milton seemed to concede toleration to all but papists. Chillingworth was the great writer whose views were taken up and circulated by Hales, Owen, Jeremy Taylor, Burnet, Tillotson, Locke, and Temple. Even Locke and William III. and Lord Mansfield seemed to except Roman Catholics from the general rule of toleration, owing to their taint about the Papal supremacy and like doctrines. Hallam thought there had been no real toleration till the reign of George III.-Paterson's Lib. Press and Worship, 522.

NONCONFORMISTS AND THEIR FINES IN LONDON.

The City of London at one time took advantage of the Corporation Act of 1661 to raise money by appointing dissenters to the office of sheriff, and then fining them because they could not take the requisite oaths, and so could not serve the office. A bye-law of the Corporation, made in 1748, had imposed a fine of £600 on any "able and fit person" who, after being nominated, refused to serve. This being disputed by a dissenter named Evans as an illegal bye-law in a cause which had been taken by writ of error to the House of Lords, after three solemn arguments, Lord Mansfield laid down the law, that the Toleration Act rendered that which before was illegal now legal. That the dissenters' way of worship was permitted and allowed by that Act; that it was not only exempted from punishment, but rendered innocent and lawful. That, in fact, it was established and it was put under the protection, and was not merely under the connivance of the law.

It was said that these accumulated fines, exacted in the City of London from persons refusing to qualify for the office of sheriff, were spent in building the new Mansion House. In six years the fines amounted to £15,000. The house was thence sometimes called the Palace of Intolerance.-Paterson's Lib. Press and Worship, 525.

DISSENTERS CHANGING THEIR CREED.

It is a general rule, that when the trust funds have been settled on a definite religious body, the congregation

cannot divert the property into a different channel, or apply them to a different sect, without an Act of Parliament. In a case in 1860 the trusts of a chapel were declared to be for the use of a congregation of Particular Baptists. The congregation became divided as to the doctrine of a strict and free communion. Since 1746 the congregation had acted on the doctrine of strict communion, but a majority, in 1860, resolved to act on a free communion. The court held, that whether the majority could make this change, depended on whether the doctrine was an essential and fundamental doctrine of that faith. According to the evidence it was proved not to be so; and therefore the court protected the majority in making the change desired by them.

Hence in the case of a dissenting congregation being desirous to change its creed and mode of worship, it is not a question of a majority or a minority of the congregation so desiring it; but it is a question whether their trust is specific enough to prevent it; and if so, then any one of the congregation can insist on preserving the original trust as it was. It is true that entire unanimity in a congregation may sometimes succeed; because then there would be no one having sufficient interest to interfere and set the law in motion against their acts.-Paterson's Lib. Press and Worship, 533.

STREET PREACHERS.

The Conventicle Act of Charles II. put heavy penalties on those who preached in fields and corners without a licence and a ritual, but that Act was repealed after 150 years' experience, in 1812; and there has been no practical restriction on street preaching since the latter date. It is true that inasmuch as these preachers are often in the eye of the law trespassers on land, they may occasionally be subject to an action at law, when they, without permission, exercise their gifts in places which are not highways, and over which the freeholder has, or may resume, means of possession. And when they collect crowds on highways in such positions and times as to create a sensible obstruction to those who are using the highway, they are liable to be summoned, under the

Highway and Turnpike Act, for the obstruction so caused, as was noticed on an earlier page, as to the holding of public meetings. But though they may, when so summoned, be fined a small sum, yet, as a general rule, they cannot be arrested summarily by constables or other persons, as is too often attempted or threatened, unless some local act in force at the place in question expressly authorizes this to be done. And courts and magistrates can judge of the very temporary character of the obstruction, if any, which they usually cause, and can estimate how seldom it is substantial or worthy of reprehension; and they have it in their discretion to discourage frivolous interferences with an employment which can seldom do harm, and often is of striking advantage to such casual audiences as can be collected. And this treatment is that which is most becoming in a country whose institutions are stable enough to withstand all the random shocks which can be caused by free voices from the crowd on any subject whatever.-Paterson's Lib. Press and Worship, 550.

241

CHAPTER VII.

ABOUT THE SOVEREIGN, GOVERNMENT, PARLIAMENT, AND PUBLIC RIGHTS.

After

PARLIAMENT ASKS QUEEN ELIZABETH TO MARRY. After a conference between the two Houses, in 1565, the Lords resolved upon an address to her Majesty, to be presented by Lord Keeper Bacon, and the address bears strong marks of having been prepared by the Lord Keeper himself. It is said to have been delivered by him to her Majesty in Parliament, and she seems to have come down to the House of Lords to receive it on the throne. It is very long, and after the Lord Keeper's manner; but a few extracts from it are amusing. a tiresome preface, he says, "The Lords petition, 1stly, that it would please your Majesty to dispose yourself to marry when it shall please you, with whom it shall please you, and as soon as it shall please you: 2ndly, that some limitation may be made how the imperial crown of this realm may remain if God calls your Highness without heir of your body (which our Lord defend), so as these lords and nobles, and other your subjects then living, may sufficiently understand to whom they owe allegiance . . . What but want of a successor known, made an end of so great an empire as Alexander the Great did leave at his death? God, your Highness knoweth, by the course of Scriptures, hath declared succession, and having children, to be one of the principal benedictions in this life; and, on the contrary, he hath pronounced contrarywise: and therefore Abraham prayed to God for issue, fearing that Eliezer, his steward, should have been his heir, and had promise that kings should proceed of his body. Hannah, the mother of Samuel, prayed to God with tears for

issue; and Elizabeth (whose name your Majesty beareth), mother to John the Baptist, was joyous when God had blessed her with fruit, accounting herself thereby to be delivered from reproach." Bacon's harangue being at last brought to a close, the Queen returned a short answer, which has all the appearance of being unpremeditated. She ended a few sentences with this: "Though I can think it best for a private woman never to trade in that kind of life, yet I do strive with myself not to think it meet for a prince, and if I can bend my liking to your need, I will not resist such a mind." After a few evasive generalities she withdrew, and the Lords declared themselves contented.-1 Parl. Hist., 708.

COKE'S GUSHING ELOQUENCE ABOUT QUEEN ELIZABETH.

Coke more than once lavishes his praises on Elizabeth. "Of this Queen I may say that as the rose is the queen of flowers, and smelleth more sweetly when it is plucked from the branch, so I may say and justify that she by just desert was the queen of queens, and of kings also, for religion, piety, magnanimity, and justice, who now, by remembrance thereof, since Almighty God gathered her to himself, is of greater honour and renown than when she was living in this world. You cannot question what rose I mean, for take the red or the white, she was not only by royal descent and inherent birthright,_but by roseal beauty, also heir to both."-Coke's 1st Inst. Pref.

IF THE SOVEREIGN BE A COMPETENT WITNESS.

Charles I. rebuked the Houses of Parliament, in 1626, for impeaching Buckingham and other things. A curious constitutional question arose a few days after, which very much perplexed the Lord Keeper, and remains to this day undetermined. The Earl of Bristol, in his defence, relied upon communications which had passed between him and the King, when Prince, at Madrid, and, to prove these, proposed to call the King himself as a witness. The Lord Keeper gave it as his opinion, that the sovereign cannot be examined in any judicial proceeding under an oath or without an oath, as he is the fountain of justice, and since no wrong may be imputed