The Acts of Uniformity 4

The Acts of Uniformity 4

The other

lengthy clauses of the Act contain elaborate provisions

for preventing nonconformity, but with one exception

they do not throw any further light on the relation of

the legislature to the Prayer-book. The exception is

the fifteenth section, which provides

 

that the penalties in this Act shall not extend to the

Foreiners or Aliens of the Forein Reformed Churches

allowed, or to be allowed by the King's Majesty, his

heirs and successors, in England.

 

An exception which had hitherto been made, as we have

seen, by a stretch of prerogative, was now established

by law. The exception illustrates the purpose of the

Act. No sect or congregation of native-born dissenters

was to be allowed any relief from the penalties imposed

by law. The guarded promise of toleration made by

the King before and after his restoration was ignored.

The use of the forms of worship provided by the

authorities of the Church was to be forced on the

whole nation.

 

The conclusion that I would draw from this

analysis of proceedings will be fairly obvious. The

Prayer-book did not originate with Parliament, nor

was it in any true sense authorized by the Crown in

Parliament. The action of the legislature on the first

and the last occasion is perfectly intelligible. A Book

of Common Prayer was in existence, drawn up and

approved by ecclesiastical authority, on the first

occasion it is not quite clear after what fashion, on the

last occasion by the unquestioned exercise of synodical

powers. This Book, so approved, was then, by

authority of Parliament, imposed upon the whole

nation. This being clearly the case on the two

occasions when the procedure is free from ambiguity,

I think we may fairly argue for the same construction

of those proceedings, on the other two occasions, which

are more open to question. The policy of the Acts

of Uniformity is to be taken as a whole. The writer

of the paper in the Record Office to which I have

referred, purporting to give an account of what was

done in 1559, explains that parliamentary action is

limited to enforcing the use of the Book by penalties.

Further authority than this, he says emphatically, is

not in the Parliament. Writing early in the seventeenth

century he sets out exactly the procedure

followed in 1662. He describes, in fact, the policy of

Uniformity, which was, therefore, not peculiar to the

last occasion. [40]

 

I shall describe it negatively. The Parliament

was not legislating for the regulation of divine worship.

In 1662, as we have seen, both Houses, while stiffly

maintaining their right to interfere, expressly declined

that task, and declared it the proper work of Convocation.

This was not from want of interest. The

Commons were eager to have some further rules for

"reverend gestures." But these things were to be

regulated rather by canon than by statute. The Convocation

was not even asked to prepare something for

submission to Parliament; "some canon or rule,"

enacted by Convocation with royal assent, would be

the sufficient and proper authority. [41] There could be

no clearer proof, that, according to the mind of Parliament,

Convocation has full powers, and is the proper

authority, for dealing with such matters.

 

But even if this be so, it is urged, on the other

hand, that what is contained in the Prayer-book is

actually prescribed and stands by authority of Parliament.

The Book annexed is treated as a schedule

of the Act of Uniformity. It is, says Dr. Stephens,

 

part of the statute law of the land; and all the legal

and equitable principles of construction which apply

to statutes in general, equally apply to the Book of

Common Prayer. [42]

 

This opinion, supported as it is by a general

consent of high authorities, I venture to contest.

What is meant by the Book being "annexed" to

the statute? Physically, it was attached by strings

to the parchment on which the Act was engrossed.

Was it legally a part of the statute? Was it a

schedule? The procedure in Parliament, I submit,

makes against this opinion. Can the schedule of a

Bill in Parliament be amended otherwise than by the

vote of the two Houses? But when a mistake was

found in the Book annexed, it was corrected, as we

have seen, not by the clerk under authority of Parliament,

but by three bishops under authority of Convocation.

Could any part of a Bill in Parliament

have been so amended? The matter was trivial;

there was the less reason for abnormal measures;

and Parliament has always been jealous about small

matters of procedure, and never more so than at that

period. I submit that the Book annexed cannot be

regarded as an integral part of the statute.

 

But if the Prayer-book is thus external to the

statutes which require its use, can its meaning be

affected by any of the provisions of those statutes?

If the wisdom of Parliament had enacted on some

occasion that Aldrich's Logic and the Elements of

Euclid should be read in the Universities, would it

follow that the rules of the syllogism and the axioms

of geometry are to be interpreted by "the principles

of construction which apply to statutes"? Or since

geography is by statutory authority taught in our

elementary schools, are we to infer that the world

revolves on its axis subject to the British Constitution?

 

The Prayer-book is a liturgical document, and surely

it should be interpreted by the principles which apply

not to statutes, but to liturgies in general.

 

If the Acts of Uniformity are not laws for regulating

divine worship, what are they? I should call

them, briefly, laws of persecution. They were intended

to enforce on all men by criminal process the

observance of the Church's forms. That is persecution,

I suppose, if anything can be so called. I shall

not indulge in any moral reflexions on persecution.

They may be taken for granted. I shall only note

the dry fact that within thirty years of the last enactment

the whole purpose of the statutes was destroyed

by the Act of Toleration. A good part of them has

been formally repealed, as may be seen by a glance

at their text as printed in the Revised Statutes.

What remains? A singular ruin. The effect of the

law has been turned upside down. It was intended

only to restrain dissenters; dissenters are now the

only people to whom it does not apply. It was intended

only to prevent unauthorized variations from

the Prayer-book; it is effective now to prevent

authorized variations alone. The one effect of the

Acts of Uniformity at the present time is to render

it practically impossible for the authorities of the

Church to make the smallest amendment of the text

of the Book of Common Prayer. In doing this they

would run counter to the law which orders the use

of this Book and none other. Unauthorized variations,

on the other hand, are unchecked by the Acts

of Uniformity. So far as they are restrained at all,

they are restrained by the general disciplinary powers

of the Church. Theoretically those who indulge in

them are liable to the statutory penalties imposed by

the Act of Elizabeth. Practically these cannot be

enforced; their savagery makes it impossible. They

stand as they were enacted in 1549, and again ten

years later; they are now intolerable. I am told that

no attempt has been made to enforce them since the

year 1796, nor is there any chance of their being

revived. The Acts of Uniformity, so far as they

relate to the Prayer-book, have therefore no present

effect but to hinder the activity of the Church. They

began with fierce persecution on behalf of the Church.

They end by being merely a nuisance.

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

 

State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth, Vol. VII., No. 46.

 

Ther returned into England upon Queene Maryes death

that had bin Bishops in K. Ed. 6 tyme

 

1. Coverdale.

 

2. Scorye.

 

3. Chenye.

 

4. Barlowe.

 

Ther remaned Bishops for some tyme that were Bishops

in Queene Maryes tyme,

 

1. Oglethorpe, B. of Carleile who crowned Q. Eliz.

 

2. Kichin, B. of Landafe,

 

Ther were Bishops in the Parlament holden primo Eliz.

and in the Convocation holden at the same tyme

 

Edmunde B. of London.

 

John B. of Winton.

 

Richard B. of Wigorne.

 

Ralph B. of Covent and Lichfeilde.

 

Thomas B. of Lincolne.

 

James B. of Exon.

 

The Booke of Comon Prayer, published primo Eliz.

was first resolved upon and established in the Church in

the tyme of K. Ed. 6. It was re-examined with some small

alterations by the Convocation consistinge of the said

Bishops and the rest of the clergy in primo Eliz. which

beinge done by the Convocation and published under the

great scale of Englande ther was an Acte of Parlament for the

same booke which is ordinarily printed in the beginninge of

the booke; not that the booke was ever subjected to the

censure of the Parlament but being aggreed upon and

published as afforesaid, a law was made by the Parlament

for the inflictinge of penalty upon all such as should refuse

to use and observe the same; further autoryty then so is

not in the Parlament, neyther hath bin in former tymes

yealded to the Parlament in thinges of that nature but the

judgment and determination therof hath ever bin in the

Church, therto autorised by the Kinge which is that which is yealded to H. 8. in the statute of 25 his raygne.