Charles II, at the National Portrait Gallery, London
During the process that saw him restored to the thrown (he had fled England in 1651 after being defeated by Cromwell at Worcester) Charles issued the Declaration of Breda, part of which reads
And because the passion and uncharitableness (sic) of the times have produced
several opinions in religion, by which men are engaged in parties and
animosities against each other (which, when they shall hereafter unite in a
freedom of conversation, will be composed or better understood), we do declare
a liberty to tender consciences, and that no man shall be disquieted or called
in question for differences of opinion in matter of religion, which do not
disturb the peace of the kingdom; and that we shall be ready to consent to such
an Act of Parliament, as, upon mature deliberation, shall be offered to us, for
the full granting that indulgence.
Those of "tender consciences" to whom Charles was referring were the many nonconformists that were about to become his subjects. They made up a not-insignificant portion of the population too; in London perhaps as much as 20% of the three-hundred-thousand residents (for how this figure was derived, you'll have to read my paper - ha!).
Charles tried to be as good as his word, but with limited success. Parliament was often at loggerheads with the king, and stymied most of his attempts at enacting legislation that would treat dissenters less harshly. For example, he attempted to issue a "Declaration to Tender Consciences," that would allow him to suspend the penalties for religious nonconformity. Unfortunately, Charles gave Parliament the final word, and it failed to pass the Commons where its members feared it would only increase the number of dissenters (Charles proposed that it was the more draconian laws that had caused a rise in nonconformism, an argument that helped to see his Declaration through the House of Lords).
One of Charles's few victories in religious toleration became the central argument at Lodowick Muggleton's trial. He should have benefited from an Act of Indulgence issued in 1673, but Lord Chief Justice Rainsford, desiring to see Muggleton punished regardless of actual guilt, circumvented that Act by insisting that the evidence at hand had been published after 1673, even though there was nothing to support such a conclusion.
- Rod
Very nicely done with the background of how nonconformist religions were looked down upon, but it is of note that in some parts such as during Cromwell's reign that, for the most part, Catholics were looked down upon more than most groups of nonconformist religions.
ReplyDeleteAhoy Casey!
DeleteGood point. I think one can safely conclude that Catholics were looked down upon more consistently than any other religious tradition starting in the sixteenth century on through the Restoration and beyond. While not "nonconformists" by the strictest sense of the word, they are an important element of the discussion of religious toleration and persecution throughout the period.
Thanks!
- Rod
As someone who knows almost nothing about Charles II, I am curious to know if (prior to the Declaration of Breda) his movements toward religious tolerance were a big step for him and his reign. Was he always a bit more tolerant than others, or was he just tired of dealing with dissenters?
ReplyDelete-Aubrey
Great question Aubrey!
DeleteThe Declaration of Breda was issued before Charless II was restored to the throne, so the question of his tolerance is outside the scope of my present research. That said, because he promised it in this particular document, and in examining his actions during his reign, that he was sincere about promoting a higher degree of religious toleration than extant.
Cheers!
- Rod
And the above paragraph should end with the qualifier "seems accurate." :)
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting Charles II's proposal passed through the house of Lords but not the house of Commons. Im wondering why Charles II wanted less punishments for dissenters. Was he not apart of the Church of England or involved with someone who was not? (a wife)
ReplyDeleteHe married Catherine of Braganza, a Portuguese Catholic, in 1662. He was nominally Anglican, but there is evidence to support that he converted to Catholicism no his death bed. He tried to promote toleration throughout his reign, although he knew when the winds of political opposition were blowing too strongly and so did not universally pursue his goals in this regard. In the incident to which you refer, he argued (successfully, in the Lords) that the laws enacted to put down dissent were only serving to draw more people to its cause, thereby making the problem worse. He recognized that people do not respond well to oppression, and saw a more moderate solution as being preferable. Or at least that's how I interpret it. :)
DeleteCheers!
- Rod