had so long prevented them from testifying their allegiance to the Government; but they add, that as soon as the cause of their disaffection was removed, they recognized his Majesty's authority. Thurlow had alluded to the Oath of Abjuration, which, as being retrospective, they admitted they could not take, without involving themselves in perjury, since no person could take it, who had ever recognized the rights which it disclaimed. In July, the Bishops returned to Scotland; Thurlow's opposition was successful: and the bill was lost.[1]
The next year, Lord Gardenston, one of the Scotch judges, and a Presbyterian, addressed Lord Thurlow on the subject. "Though bred a Presbyterian," he says, "I have ever revered the order and decency of the Episcopal Church. In doctrine they are soundly protestant. Their principles in regard to Government are now reformed, and not less loyal than ours." This was unsolicited and unsuspected testimony; still it was deemed desirable to delay the prosecution of the measure for the present. In the mean time the Case of the Episcopal Clergy was reprinted and circulated. The subject was again submitted to Parliament in 1791, when Thurlow said, that he should not oppose the principle, but that he wished to make some observations on the Bill. He unhesitatingly, however, condemned the Statutes of Queen Anne and George II. as unnecessarily severe, though he was still anxious for some restrictions. The Bishop of St. David's spoke strongly in favour of the measure: and in reply to Thurlow's notion, that Clergy of English Ordination might meet the case, he expressed himself in language, which some persons in the
- ↑ Skinner's Annals, pp. 114, 122.
