art of the Church as well
as by Manton and Baxter on the part of the Nonconformists, was laid
before the House of Commons in the session of 1668. Even its rejection
failed to bring back Ashley and his party to their old position. They
were still for toleration. But they were for a toleration the benefit of
which did not extend to Catholics, "in respect the laws have determined
the principles of the Romish religion to be inconsistent with the safety
of your Majesty's person and government."

[Sidenote: Parliament and the Cabal.]

Again Charles was baffled. He had overthrown Clarendon in the belief
that the Nonconformists must necessarily support him in the general
reversal of Clarendon's policy. He found not only that to obtain a
toleration for Catholics from his new ministers was as impossible as to
obtain it from Clarendon himself, but that they were resolute to bring
about that union of Protestants which Charles regarded as fatal to his
designs and which the Chancellor's policy had at any rate prevented.
Luckily for the king neither their new attitude at home nor their
success abroad could win them the confidence of the House of Commons. As
soon as it met they became the object of bitter attack. Their
Comprehension Bill was rejected. Their suspension of the penalties for
Nonconformity was denounced. "We shall remain unhappy," said one of the
leaders of the Commons, Sir Edward Seymour, "so long as his Majesty
retains his present counsellors." It was in fact only by an early
prorogation which was prolonged throughout the year that the ministers
were saved from impeachment. Such a course however gave but a temporary
respite; and Buckingham and Ashley pressed on Charles the advisability
of a dissolution. The House of Commons, they held, chosen as it had been
eight years before in a moment of reaction, no longer really represented
public opinion, and a new House would contain a larger proportion of
members inclined to a policy of Protestant union. But Charles refused
to dissolve the House. A Protestant union in fact was precisely what he
wished to avoid. The pressure of a Parliament with Presbyterian leanings
would be yet more fatal to the administrative independence he wished to
maintain than a Cavalier Parliament. Above all such a Parliament would
at once force him to take up a distinctly Protestant attitude, and to
place himself at the head of the Protestant States as the leader in a
European resistance to the supremac