hitherto enjoyed. He
would always, by a large portion of the members of that Church, be
regarded as a deserter. He might therefore, on the whole, very naturally
wish to be left where he was. [89]

There was consequently a division in the Whig party. One section of that
party was for relieving the dissenters from the Test Act, and giving
up the Comprehension Bill. Another section was for pushing forward
the Comprehension Bill, and postponing to a more convenient time the
consideration of the Test Act. The effect of this division among the
friends of religious liberty was that the High Churchmen, though a
minority in the House of Commons, and not a majority in the House of
Lords, were able to oppose with success both the reforms which they
dreaded. The Comprehension Bill was not passed; and the Test Act was not
repealed.

Just at the moment when the question of the Test and the question of the
Comprehension became complicated together in a manner which might well
perplex an enlightened and honest politician, both questions became
complicated with a third question of grave importance.

The ancient oaths of allegiance and supremacy contained some expressions
which had always been disliked by the Whigs, and other expressions which
Tories, honestly attached to the new settlement, thought inapplicable to
princes who had not the hereditary right. The Convention had therefore,
while the throne was still vacant, framed those oaths of allegiance and
supremacy by which we still testify our loyalty to our Sovereign. By the
Act which turned the Convention into a Parliament, the members of both
Houses were required to take the new oaths. As to other persons in
public trust, it was hard to say how the law stood. One form of words
was enjoined by statutes, regularly passed, and not yet regularly
abrogated. A different form was enjoined by the Declaration of Right, an
instrument which was indeed revolutionary and irregular, but which might
well be thought equal in authority to any statute. The practice was in
as much confusion as the law. It was therefore felt to be necessary that
the legislature should, without delay, pass an Act abolishing the old
oaths, and determining when and by whom the new oaths should be taken.

The bill which settled this important question originated in the Upper
House. As to most of the provisions there was little room for dispute.
It was unanimously agreed that no person should, at any future time, be
adm