The bill met with a very warm opposition in the upper house, where a considerable portion of the whig interest still remained.
These members believed that the intention of the bill was to model corporations, so as to eject all those who would not vote in elections for the tories.

Some imagined this was a preparatory step towards a repeal of the toleration; and others concluded that the promoters of the bill designed to raise such disturbances at home as would discourage the allies abroad, and render the prosecution of the war impracticable.
The majority of the bishops, and among these Burnet of Sarum, objected against it on the principles of moderation, and from motives of conscience.

Nevertheless, as the court supported this measure with its whole power and influence, the bill made its way through the house, though not without alterations and amendments, which were rejected by the commons.

The lower house pretended, that the lords had no right to alter any fines and penalties that the commons should fix in bills sent up for their concurrence, on the supposition that those were matters concerning money, the peculiar province of the lower house; the lords ordered a minute inquiry to be made into all the rolls of parliament since the reign of Henry the Seventh; and a great number of instances were found, in which the lords had begun the clauses imposing fines and penalties, altered the penalties which had been fixed by the commons, and even changed the uses to which they were applied.

The precedents were entered in the books; but the commons resolved to maintain their point without engaging in any dispute upon the subject.