In 1711, only those who took Anglican Communion could hold public offices in Britain. The Occasional Conformity Bill stipulated that taking Communion once each year was insufficient to qualify for such offices: It was an attempt to prevent those of other faiths from feigning Anglicanism and to ensure that only authentic Anglicans could join the government.
The practice of “occasional conformity” originated in the response of officeholding Dissenters
The Toleration Act (1689),
It was only during the reign of Queen Anne that the Tories were able to gain numerical strength in the House of Commons and to introduce the Occasional Conformity Bill in an attempt simultaneously to strengthen the Anglican Church and to weaken Whig electoral strength because Dissenters overwhelmingly supported Whig candidates. The Whigs,
The measure called for substantial fines to be levied against officeholders who attended Dissenting meetinghouses after qualifying for office by taking Anglican Communion. Anne gave her support to the bill, which passed by a wide margin in the House of Commons. The queen’s husband, the Danish prince George, duke of Cumberland, voted for it in the House of Lords to support Anne, although he was an occasional conformist himself, attending private Lutheran services in addition to Anglican services. The Whigs’ strength in the House of Lords enabled them to amend the bill to exempt local officeholders. Differences between the Commons’ and Lords’ versions could not be reconciled, so this first attempt to pass the measure failed.
On November 25, 1703, Bromley reintroduced the bill, but the queen’s attitude had changed; she now viewed it as divisive, and her husband, Prince George, was not present at the vote. Aided by the absence of five Tory peers, the Whigs in the House of Lords voted down the bill by twelve votes. Fourteen bishops voted against it, and only nine voted for it.
Feelings were still running high when the bill was introduced yet again but with a new twist: Because the House of Lords could not revise a financial bill but could only accept or reject it, the Tories attempted to attach or “tack” the Occasional Conformity Bill to a land tax bill that was necessary to fund English participation in the War of the Spanish Succession. Although the Tories supported the contents of the amended bill, not all of them could bring themselves to support the controversial tactic, which was an attempt by the Commons to bypass the legitimate power of the Lords. Indeed, the first earl of Godolphin, Anne’s leading minister, voted against this version of the measure for that reason. The attachment to the land tax bill therefore lost in the House of Commons by a 251 to 134 vote, and the House of Lords defeated the Occasional Conformity Bill by itself 71 to 50. The queen had attended the debates in the House of Lords to indicate her opposition to the bill. The “tackers” lost favor with Anne, although many of the 134 who voted for the tactic were reelected in 1705. Nevertheless, they continued to be unsuccessful in getting so-called Church-in-danger motions passed.
Successful passage of the bill finally came in December, 1711. This success resulted partly from the trial of Henry Sacheverell, a High Church clergyman (February-March, 1710). Sacheverall was prosecuted for an inflammatory sermon attacking Dissenters and toleration, and his trial alarmed those with loyalties to the High Church and the Tory Party. These factions were motivated to vote in greater numbers in the next election, and the Tories won a large electoral victory in October, 1710.
The following year, Tories used their newfound strength in Parliament to effect a bargain between Nottingham, Godolphin, and the first duke of Marlborough. Marlborough, one of England’s greatest generals and the commander in chief of the combined British and Dutch armies, wished to continue the war with France. The Tories, however, were tired of the war and wished to bring it to an end. Nottingham and his followers agreed to support continuing the war in Parliament if Godolphin, Marlborough, and the Whigs would vote for the Occasional Conformity Bill in return.
The French had already supported one attempt by the Catholic James Edward,
Although the High Church Anglicans and Tories had finally succeeded after nine years of effort in passing the Occasional Conformity Bill, the results they desired from the bill failed to materialize. Many Dissenting officeholders evaded the intent of the law by attending public Anglican services regularly and then conducting private religious services in their homes. The Tories, troubled by these developments, cast a broader net by passing the Schism Act (1714),
As a result of Dissenters’ support of the Crown, the Riot Act (1715),
-
Flaningam, John. “The Occasional Conformity Controversy: Ideology and Party Politics, 1697-1711.” The Journal of British Studies 17, no. 1 (Autumn, 1977): 38-62. Analyzes the broader ideological aspects of struggle and clearly defines the differences in Tory and Whig positions. -
Holmes, Geoffrey. The Trial of Doctor Sacheverell. London: Eyre Methuen, 1973. A detailed narrative of the event that helped the Tories gain enough power to pass the Occasional Conformity Bill. -
Hoppit, Julian. A Land of Liberty? England, 1689-1727. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. A solid survey that places the fight over occasional conformity within a broader religious and political context. -
Snyder, Henry. “The Defeat of the Occasional Conformity Bill and the Tack.” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 41 (1968): 172-192. A detailed treatment of the political and parliamentary maneuvering that produced defeat of the bill in 1704. -
Watts, Michael R. The Dissenters. 2 vols. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1995. The most comprehensive study of the Nonconformists; places the struggle over occasional conformity and the Dissenters’ attitudes within the religious history of England.
War of the Spanish Succession
Defeat of the “Old Pretender”
Treaty of Utrecht
Jacobite Rising in Scotland
Queen Anne; George I; First Duke of Marlborough.