s Decease..... Debates in the
House of Lords upon the supposed Danger to which the Church
was exposed..... The Parliament prorogued..... Disputes in
the Convocation..... Conferences opened for a Treaty of
Union with Scotland..... Substance of the Treaty._

BILL AGAINST OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY.

When the parliament met in October, the queen in her speech took notice
of the declaration by the duke of Savoy, and the treaty with Portugal,
as circumstances advantageous to the alliance. She told them, that
although no provision was made for the expedition to Lisbon, and the
augmentation of the land forces, the funds had answered so well, and the
produce of prizes been so considerable, that the public had not run in
debt by those additional services; that she had contributed out of her
own revenue to the support of the circle of Suabia, whose firm adherence
to the interest of the allies deserved her seasonable assistance. She
said, she would not engage in any unnecessary expense of her own, that
she might have the more to spare towards the ease of her subjects. She
recommended despatch and union, and earnestly exhorted them to avoid any
heats or divisions that might give encouragement to the common enemies
of the church and state. Notwithstanding this admonition, and the
addresses of both houses, in which they promised to avoid all divisions,
a motion was made in the house of commons for renewing the bill against
occasional conformity, and carried by a great majority. In the new
draft, however, the penalties were lowered and the severest clauses
mitigated. As the court no longer interested itself in the success of
this measure, the house was pretty equally divided with respect to the
speakers, and the debates on each side were maintained with equal spirit
and ability; at length it passed, and was sent up to the lords, who
handled it still more severely. It was opposed by a small majority of
the bishops, and particularly by Burnet of Sarum, who declaimed against
it as a scheme of the papists to set the church and protestants at
variance. It was successively attacked by the duke of Devonshire, the
earl of Pembroke, the lords Haversham, Mohun, Ferrars, and Wharton.
Prince George of Denmark absented himself from the house; and the
question being put for a second reading, it was carried in the negative;
yet the duke of Marlborough and lord Godolphin entered their dissent
against its being rejected, although