LAUD, had lately revived the debate touching innovations in the Abp. Cant. Church, and passed several votes against them. The lords at the same time repeated their declaration for the observation of the Common Prayer, without omission or alteration. These votes, which looked like clashing, occasioned a conference between both houses; at which the commons desired their lordships to consent to the following declaration. To this the lords returned no answer; and which further disgusted the commons, they resolved upon the question, that their order above-mentioned, on the 16th of January, should be printed and published.

A.D. 1641. The commons' declaration concerning

in the ceremonies.

The commons' declaration, to which they desired the concurrence of the upper house, was as follows:

"Whereas divers innovations in or about the worship of innovations God have been lately practised in this kingdom, by enjoining some things and prohibiting others, without warrant of law, to the great grievance and discontent of his majesty's subjects: for the suppression of such innovations, and for preservation of public peace, it is this day ordered, by the commons in parliament assembled, that the churchwardens in every parishchurch and chapel respectively do forthwith remove the communion-table from the east end of the church, chapel, or chancel, into some other convenient place; and that they take away the rails and level the chancels as heretofore they were before the late innovations.

"That all crucifixes, scandalous pictures of any one or more persons of the Trinity, and all images of the Virgin Mary, shall be taken away and abolished; and that all tapers, candlesticks, and basons, be removed from the communion-table.

"That all corporal bowing at the name Jesus, or towards the east end of the church, chapel, or chancel, or towards the communion-table, be henceforth forborne.

"That the orders aforesaid be observed in all the several cathedral churches of this kingdom, and all the collegiate churches or chapels in the two universities, or any other part of the kingdom; and in the Temple-church, and the chapels of the other inns of court, by the deans of the said cathedral churches, by the vice-chancellor of the said universities, and by the heads and governors of the several colleges and halls aforesaid, and by the benchers and readers in the said inns of court respectively.

I.

"That the Lord's-day shall be duly observed and sanctified: CHARLES all dancing or other sports, either before or after divine service, be forborne and restrained; and that the preaching of God's word be permitted in the afternoon in the several churches and chapels of this kingdom, and that ministers and preachers be encouraged thereunto.

"That the vice-chancellors of the universities, heads and governors of colleges, all parsons, vicars, churchwardens, do make certificates of the performance of these orders and if the same shall not be observed in any of the places beforementioned, upon complaint thereof made to the two next justices of peace, mayor, or head officers of cities or towns corporate; it is ordered, that the said justices, mayor, or other head officer respectively, shall examine the truth of all such complaints, and certify by whose default the same are committed all which certificates are to be delivered in parliament before the 30th of October next, 1641."

Thus the usages of antiquity, the orders of the bishops, the canons of the Church are superseded, and the clergy enjoined obedience to this extraordinary declaration: one would almost have thought so peremptory a decision must have come from the apostolic synod at Jerusalem, or, at least, from one of the four general councils. But this, after all, was no more than an order of the lay-commons, and that without consulting the convocation, without the concurrence of either lords or sovereign. In short, these secular gentlemen interposing thus in the government of the Church, serves only to sap the foundation, and sink the credit of religion; gives libertines a handle to disbelieve Christianity, and look upon the creed as a trick of state policy. However, Pym, the chairman of the committee, sent down the declaration into the country after the recess, enjoined the reading it on the parochial clergy, and executed the order with more than patriarchal authority.

The design of throwing the bishops out of the house of lords going on, notwithstanding the late disappointment, it was thought fit to batter their reputation, and try to make them look little in common esteem. To this purpose the lord The bishops' Brook published a pamphlet against the bishops, represented misreported them as persons meanly born, and by their way of study alto- by the lord gether unqualified for barons in parliament. This pretended

extraction

Brook.

LAUD, disadvantage of birth being no better than downright calumny, Abp. Cant. Williams, archbishop of York, Morton, bishop of Durham, Curle, bishop of Winchester, Cook, bishop of Hereford, and Owen, bishop of St. Asaph, proved themselves men of descent and wealthy families. Juxon, bishop of London, had a creditable education at Oxford and Gray's-inn. And as for the rest of the order, they were most of them either extracted from clergymen or lay gentry: it is plain, therefore, lord Brook's charge proceeded from unbenevolent humour; the disaffection was remarkable, but altogether wide of matter of fact.

807.

Fuller's

Ch. Hist. book 2.

October 23. Pym's speech

aquinst the bishops.

Another argument the temporal lords were contriving, to part with the bishops, was the treating them with unusual neglect in the parliament house. For instance, they were joined in committees with the temporal lords in under proportioned numbers: the clerk of the parliament, in reading the bills, turned his back to the bishops with uncustomary disregard; and on their going to church on a solemn fast-day, the temporal barons gave themselves precedency of the bishops. This being altogether new, the lord Spencer, afterwards earl of Sunderland, made a remark upon it: "Is this," says he, a day of humiliation, wherein we take so much pride in taking place of those to whom our ancestors ever allowed it.”

66

The bishops' interest giving way in the upper house, the commons resolved to push the opportunity: for this purpose Mr. Pym, at a conference with the lords, made the following speech:

"MY LORDS,

"The parliament, the fountain of justice, ought to be preserved pure from corruption, and be free from partiality, which will add not only lustre, reputation, and honour, but authority, to what is done in parliament; all men's estates and liberties are preserved under the safe custody of parliament; this moveth us to be careful of any thing that may prejudice the parliament, in point of freedom and integrity.

“Therefore the knights, citizens, and burgesses, of the house of commons, have commanded me, with my colleague, to represent unto your lordships two propositions, which they hold of very great importance, and necessary to be put in execution at this time.

"First, That those thirteen bishops which stand accused

I.

before your lordships for making the late Book of Canons, and CHARLES putting them in execution, may be excluded from their votes in parliament.

66

Secondly, That all the bishops may be excluded from having any vote in that act, sent from the house of commons to your lordships, entituled, 'An Act to take away the Bishops' Votes in Parliament,'" &c.

After this member had gone on some length in declaiming against the bishops, he was seconded by Mr. Solicitor St. John, who urged several reasons and precedents for excluding the bishops voting in the bill last mentioned.

John's argu

First, In regard they have no such inherent right of assisting Solicitor St. in parliament, as the lords temporal have, because they do not ment against assist there as a representative body.

But this argument disables the temporal lords no less than the spiritual from sitting in parliament; for these represent no further than their own persons.

Secondly, Mr. Solicitor argues the bishops have not an equal inherent right of peerage with the temporal lords, because their power is not of the same extent. For instance, they have no

liberty of voting at the trial of a peer; which privilege could not be taken away by any canon, if the right of it was (as he calls it) inherent.

That the bishops' peerage is entire, has been already proved, and need not be repeated.

the bishops'

peerage, &c.

See first and second vol.

Thirdly, If the bishops represented the clergy, and of this Hist. amounted to a third estate, no act of parliament could be good without their assent: to disprove this, he observes, the bishops, in the first of queen Elizabeth, disagreed to the bill for establishing the Common Prayer; and yet the statute has always been reckoned binding.

To this it may be answered, first, That by the custom and constitution of parliament, the lords spiritual and temporal are reckoned as one body in giving their votes; and therefore the house is always concluded by a majority, without regard to any distinction of character in the members. As to the rest of his argument, I shall refer the reader to what I have already in the first written.

See above

year of queen Eli

zabeth.

Further, That the bishops are a third estate, is evident from The bishops the records of parliament: to mention some of them.

one of the

LAUD,

three estates in parlia

By the Parliament Roll, 1 H. IV. it appears, that king Abp. Cant. Richard II. appointed two proxies to declare his resignation of the crown 66 coram omnibus statubus regni ;" who these estates were appears afterward, when they were called, “ Pares et proceres regni Angliæ spirituales, et temporales, et ejusdem regni communitates omnes status ejusdem regni representantes."

ment.

Rot. Parl. 1.
R. 3.

Cotton's Abridgment of Records, p. 710. 714. Rot. Parl. 3 Hen. 6. num. 19.

By this authority, it is evident the bishops are not only a third estate, but peers of the realm.

In the Parliament Roll, 1 R. III. it is recorded, that before his coronation certain articles were delivered to him in the name of the three estates of the realm; that is to say, in the name of the lords spiritual, the lords temporal, and the com

mons.

To proceed: 3 H. VI. the record mentions the three estates assembled in this present parliament; and in explaining the extent of the duke of Bedford's protectoral power, it is said, it was advised and appointed by the authority of the king, assenting the three estates of this realm: from whence it is plain, the king was not reckoned one of them.

66

The 11th H. VI. the duke of Bedford appeared in parliament, and assigned the reason of his coming, coram domino rege, et tribus statubus regni," before the king and the three estates of the realm: and in the twenty-third year of the same reign, the Parliament Record runs "Presente domino rege et tribus statubus in presenti parliamento existentibus.” And in another year, "Domino rege et tribus regni statubus in 23 Hen. 6. pleno parliamento comparentibus."

6 Hen. 6. num. 24.

num. 11. 28.

Hen. 6. num. 9.

1 Hen. 6.

See Grand Question, &c.

To go back to one instance in the first year of this reign, the queen dowager in her petition mentioning an order of parliament, made 9 H. V. declares it was not only sworn by the king, but by the three estates of the kingdom of England, "C'est assavoir, les prelatz, nobles, et grands, et par les communs de mesm le royalm d'angleterre."

From all these records it appears, that the three estates are fundamental to the constitution of parliaments, and that the bishops are one of them.

The solicitor St. John argues, that the king may hold his parliament without calling the bishops to it: for this he cites the opinion of the judges in 7th Hen. VIII.; but this case I have considered already under that year, and therefore shall add nothing further.