would have been burned by the mob in half the market places of
England; that it would never have become the law of the land, and
that it would have made the very name of toleration odious during
many years to the majority of the people. And yet, if such a bill
had been passed, what would it have effected beyond what was
effected by the Toleration Act?

It is true that the Toleration Act recognised persecution as the
rule, and granted liberty of conscience only as the exception.
But it is equally true that the rule remained in force only
against a few hundreds of Protestant dissenters, and that the
benefit of the exceptions extended to hundreds of thousands.

It is true that it was in theory absurd to make Howe sign thirty-
four or thirty-five of the Anglican articles before he could
preach, and to let Penn preach without signing one of those
articles. But it is equally true that, under this arrangement,
both Howe and Penn got as entire liberty to preach as they could
have had under the most philosophical code that Beccaria or
Jefferson could have framed.

The progress of the bill was easy. Only one amendment of grave
importance was proposed. Some zealous churchmen in the Commons
suggested that it might be desirable to grant the toleration only
for a term of seven years, and thus to bind over the
nonconformists to good behaviour. But this suggestion was so
unfavourably received that those who made it did not venture to
divide the House.84

The King gave his consent with hearty satisfaction: the bill