but nothing is more certain than that two
thirds of the members were either Low Churchmen or not Churchmen at
all. A very few days before this time an occurrence had taken place,
unimportant in itself, but highly significant as an indication of the
temper of the majority. It had been suggested that the House ought, in
conformity with ancient usage, to adjourn over the Easter holidays. The
Puritans and Latitudinarians objected: there was a sharp debate: the
High Churchmen did not venture to divide; and, to the great scandal of
many grave persons, the Speaker took the chair at nine o'clock on Easter
Monday; and there was a long and busy sitting. [98]

This however was by no means the strongest proof which the Commons gave
that they were far indeed from feeling extreme reverence or tenderness
for the Anglican hierarchy. The bill for settling the oaths had just
come down from the Lords framed in a manner favourable to the clergy.
All lay functionaries were required to swear fealty to the King and
Queen on pain of expulsion from office. But it was provided that every
divine who already held a benefice might continue to hold it without
swearing, unless the Government should see reason to call on him
specially for an assurance of his loyalty. Burnett had, partly,
no doubt, from the goodnature and generosity which belonged to his
character, and partly from a desire to conciliate his brethren,
supported this arrangement in the Upper House with great energy. But
in the Lower House the feeling against the Jacobite priests was
irresistibly strong. On the very day on which that House voted, without
a division, the address requesting the King to summon the Convocation, a
clause was proposed and carried which required every person who held any
ecclesiastical or academical preferment to take the oaths by the first
of August 1689, on pain of suspension. Six months, to be reckoned from
that day, were allowed to the nonjuror for reconsideration. If, on
the first of February 1690, he still continued obstinate, he was to be
finally deprived.

The bill, thus amended, was sent back to the Lords. The Lords adhered
to their original resolution. Conference after conference was held.
Compromise after compromise was suggested. From the imperfect reports
which have come down to us it appears that every argument in favour of
lenity was forcibly urged by Burnet. But the Commons were firm: time
pressed: the unsettled state of the law caused inconveni