jeant Skippon, with a company of the city militia, was appointed to guard the parliament house; from this day (says lord Clarendon‡) we may reasonably date the levying war in England, whatsoever has been since done being but the superstructures upon these foundations. It must be confessed that two days after [Jan. 12] the king sent a message to the house, waving his proceedings with respect to the five members, and promising to be as careful of their privileges as of his life or crown; and a little after offered a general pardon; but the commons had too much reason at this time not to depend upon his royal promise; they insisted that the accused members should be brought to their trial in a legal and parliamentary way; in order to which they desired his majesty to inform them, what proof there was against them; it being the undoubted right and privilege of parliament, that no member can be proceeded against without the consent of the house; which his majesty refusing to comply with, removed further off to Windsor, and entered upon measures very inconsistent with the peace of the kingdom.† To return to the bishops; about a fortnight after their. commitment [Jan. 17, 1712] they pleaded to the impeachment of the house of commons, not guilty in manner and form, and petitioned the lords for a speedy trial, which was appointed for the 25th instant, but was put off from time to time, till the whole bench of bishops was voted out of the house, and then entirely dropt; for the very next day after their commitment, the commons desired the lords to resume the consideration of the bill that had been sent up some months ago, for taking away all temporal jurisdiction from those in holy orders, which the lords promised: it had passed the commons without any difficulty, about the time of the Irish insurrection, and was laid aside in the house of lords, as being thought impossible to pass while the bishops votes were entire: when it was revived at this juncture, the earl of Bedford and the bishop of Rochester inade a vigorous stand against it.* His lordship urged, that it Vol. i. VOL. II. p. 383. Rushworth, part 3, vol. i. p. 492. * Clarendon, vol. i. p. 302, 416. 67 was contrary to the usage of parliament when a bill ́had been once rejected to bring it in a second time the same session. To which it was replied, that it was not the same bill [having a new title] though it was to accomplish the same end. Besides the distress of the times required some extraordinary measures for their redress; and further, since the king had been graciously pleased to pass an act for the continuance of this parliament as long as they thought fit to sit, and thereby parted with his right of proroguing or dissolving them, the nature of things was altered, and therefore they were not to be tied down to the ordinary forms in other cases. The question being put, whether the bill should be read, it passed in the affirmative: upon which the consideration of it was resumed, and after some few debates the bill was passed by a very great majority, Feb. 6, 1641-2; the citizens of London expressing their satisfaction by ringing of bells and bonfires. But it was still apprehended that the king would refuse his assent, because when he had been pressed to it, his majesty had said, it was a matter of great concernment, and therefore he would take time to consider; however the commons not content with this delay sent again to Windsor, to press his compliance upon the following reasons: "because the sub'jects suffered by the bishops exercising temporal jurisdiction, and making a party in the house of lords; because it was apprehended that there would be a happy conjunction of both houses upon the exclusion of the bishops; and the signing this bill would be a comfortable pledge of his majesty's gracious assent to the future remedies of those evils which were to be presented to him.”* This message from the house of commons was seconded by those of greatest trust about the king, who argued, "that the combination against the bishops was irresistible; that the passing this bill was the only way to preserve the church; and that if the parliament was gratified in this, so many persons in both houses would be fully satisfied that they would join in no further alterations; but if they were crossed in this, they would endeavor an extir'pation of the bishops and a demolishing of the whole * Clarendon, vol. i. p. 427. fabric of the church." They argued further, "that force or indirect means having been made use of to obtain the bill, the king might by his power, bring the bishops in again when the present distempers were composed." An argument by which his majesty might have set aside all his concessions, or acts of grace, (as he pleased to call them) to his parliament at once. But none of these reasons would have prevailed, had not the queen made use of her sovereign influence over the king. Her majesty was made to believe by Sir J. Culpeper, that her own preserv ation depended upon the king's consent to the bill; that if his majesty refused it, her journey into Holland would be stopt, and her person possibly endangered by some mutiny or insurrection; whereas the using her interest with the king, would lay a popular obligation upon the kingdom, and make her acceptable to the parliament. These arguments carrying a face of probability, her majesty wrested the king's resolution from him, so that the bill was signed by commission, February 14, together with another against pressing soldiers, his majesty being then at Canterbury, accompanying the queen in her passage to Holland. But his majesty's signing them with so much reluctance did him a disservice. All men took notice of his discontent; and lord Clarendon says,* he has cause to believe that the king was prevailed with to sign them, because he was told, that there being violence and force used to obtain them, they were therefore in themselves null, and in quieter times might easily be revoked and disannulled. A dangerous doctrine, as it may tend to overthrow the most established laws of a country! To give the reader the act itself: "WHEREAS bishops and other persons in holy or'ders, ought not to be entangled with secular jurisdiction (the office of the ministry being of such great importance that it will take up the whole man.) And for that it is found by long experience, that their intermeddling with 'secular jurisdictions hath occasioned great mischiefs and scandals both to church and state, his majesty out of his religious care of the church, and souls of his people, is § Rushworth, part 3, vol. i. p. 552. Vol. i. p. 429, 480. 'gráciously pleased that it be enacted, and by authority of this present parliament be it enacted, that no archbishop or bishop, or other person that now is or hereafter shall be in holy orders, shall at any time after the 15th day of February, in the year of our Lord 1641, have any seat or 'place, suffrage or vote, or use or execute any power or authority in the parliaments of this realm, nor shall be ' of the privy council of his majesty, his heirs or successors, 'or justices of the peace of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery, or execute any temporal authority, by virtue of any commission; but shall be wholly disabled, and be un'capable to have, receive, use, or execute any of the said 'offices, places, powers, authorities, and things aforesaid. "And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all acts from and after the said 15th of February, which shall be done or executed by any archbishop or 'bishop, or other person whatsoever in holy orders; and all and every suffrage or voice given or delivered by them or any of them, or other thing done by them or 'any of them, contrary to the purport and true meaning of this act, shall be utterly void to all intents, constructions, " and purposes." Thus the peerage of the bishops and the whole secular power of the clergy, ceased for about twenty years; how far they contributed to it by their pride and ambition, their sovereign contempt of the laity, and indiscreet behavior towards their protestant brethren, has been already observed. Their enemies said the hand of God was against them, because they had given too much countenance to the ridiculing of true devotion and piety, under the name of godly puritanism;§ because they had silenced great numbers of ministers eminent for learning and religion, for not complying with certain indifferent rites and ceremonies, while others who were vicious, and insufficient for their office, were encouraged; because they made a stricter enquiry after those who fasted and prayed, and joined together in religious exercises, than after those who were guilty of swearing, drunkenness, and other kinds of debauchery; because § Baxter's History, Life and Times, p. 33. they discouraged afternoon sermons and lectures, and encouraged sports and pastimes on the Lord's day; because they had driven many hundred families out of the land; and were, upon the whole, enemies to the civil interests of their country. Others observed, that most of them verged too much towards the see of Rome, and gave ground to suspect that they were designing an union between the two churches, which at a time when the Roman catholics in Ireland had embrued their hands in the blood of almost two hundred thousand protestants, and were so numerous at home as to make large and public collections of money to support the king in his war against the Scots, was sufficient to make every sincere protestant jealous of their power. Besides, the bishops themselves had been guilty of many oppressions; they had in a manner laid aside the practice of preaching, that they might be the more at leisure for the governing part of their function; though even here they devolved the whole of their jurisdiction upon their chancellors and under officers. § They did not sit in their consistories to hear complaints, or do justice either to clergy or laity, but turned over the people to registers, proctors, and apparitors, who drew their money from them against equity and law, and used them at discretion. Few or none of them made their visitations in person, or lived in their episcopal cities; by which means there was no kind of hospitality or liberality to the poor. Divine service in the cathedrals was neglected or ill performed, for want of their presence and inspection. Instead of conferring orders at the mother church, they made use of the chapels of their private houses, without requiring the assistance of their deans and chapters upon such solemn occasions; they pronounced the censures of deprivation and degradation in a monarchical and absolute manner, not calling in the deans and chapters to any share of the administration. And upon the whole, they did little else but receive their rents, indulge their ease, consult their grandeur, and lord it over their brethren. These were the popular complaints against them, which made the citizens rejoice at their downfal, and attend the passing the bill with bon § Collyer's Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 820. |