mission for the peace; and that the reason of their being then admitted was, that they might persuade the people to conformity; but if in conscience they held it not consistent with their spiritual calling, they might refuse.

It was further said, that the taking away one whole bench out of the house of peers was an ill precedent, and might encourage the commons one time or other to cut off the barons, or some other degree of the nobility. To which it was replied, that the peerage of the bishops did not stand upon the same foot with the rest of the nobility, because their honor does not descend to their posterity, and because they have no right to vote in cases of blood; if they had the same right of peerage with the temporal lords, no canon of the church could deprive them of it; for it was never known, that the canons of the church pretended to deprive the barons of England of any part of their inherent jurisdiction.

It was argued further, that if the bench of bishops were deprived of their votes, they would be left under very great disadvantages; for whereas the meanest commoner is represented in the lower house, the bishops will be thrown out of this common benefit; and if they have no share in consenting to the laws, neither in their persons nor representatives, what justice can oblige them to keep those laws? To which it was replied, that they have the same share in the legislature with the rest of the freeholders of England; nor is there any more reason that the bishops, as bishops, should be a part of the legislature, than the judges or lawyers, as such, or any other incorporated profession of learned men.

But the principal argument that was urged in favor of bishops was, that they were one of the three states in parliament; that as such they were the representatives of the whole body of the clergy, and therefore to turn them out would be to alter the constitution, and to take away one whole branch of the legislature: The parliament would not then be the complete representative body of the nation, nor would the laws which were enacted in their absence be valid. To support this assertion it was said, (1.) That the clergy in all other christian kingdoms of these northern parts, make up a third estate, as in Germany, France, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Scotland; and therefore why not in VOL. II.

57

Eugland? (2.) When king Henry V. was buried, it is said, the three estates assembled, and declared his son Henry VI. his successor. The petition to Richard duke of Glocester, to accept the crown, runs in the name of the three estates; and in his parliament it is said expressly, that at the request of the three estates, (i.e. the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons in parliament assembled) he was declared undoubted king of these realms; to which may be added, the statute of 1 Eliz. cup. 3, where the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, are said to represent the three estates of this realm.

It was replied to this, that the bishops did not sit in the house as a third state, nor as bishops, but only in the right of their baronies annexed to their bishoprics, 5 Will. I. All the bishops have baronies except the bishop of Man, who is as much a bishop, to all intents and purposes of jurisdiction and ordination, as the others, but has no place in parliament, because he does not hold per integram baroniam. It must be admitted, that in ancient times the lords spiritual are sometimes mentioned as a third state of the realm, but it could not be intended by this, that the clergy, much less the bishops, were an essential part of the legislature; for if so, it would then follow, that no act of parliament could be valid without their consent; whereas divers acts are now in force, from which the whole bench of bishops have dissented, as the act of conformity, 1 Edw. VI. and the act of supremacy, 1 Eliz.* If the major part of the barons agree, and the house of commons concur, any bill may pass into an act with the consent of the king, though all the bishops dissent, because their votes are over-ruled by the major part of the peers. In the parliament of Northampton under Henry II. when the bishops challenged their peerage,† they said, Non sedemus hic episcopi sed barones, We sit not here as bishops, but as barons; We are barons, and you are barons here, therefore we are peers. Nor did king Charles himself apprehend the bishops to be one of the three states, for in his declaration of June 16, 1642, he calls himself one, and the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, the other two. In ancient times the prelates were sometimes excluded the parliament,

* Nalson's Collections, vol. ii. p. 502, &e. + Fuller's Appeal.

as in 25 king Edw. I. when they would not agree to grant an aid to his majesty in the parliament at Carlisle; and before that time several acts had passed against the oppressions of the clergy, in which the entry in the records stands thus, the king having consulted with the earls, barons, and the other nobles; or by the assent of the earls, barons, and other lay people; which shews the bishops did not consent, for if they had, they would have been first named, the order of the nobility in all ancient records being prelates, earls, and barons.* When the convocation had cited Dr. Standish before them, for speaking words against their power and privilege, in the 7th Henry VIII. it was determined by all the judges of the land, in presence of the king, that his majesty might hold his parliament without calling the bishops at all. It appears therefore from hence, that the bishops never were accounted a third state of the realm, in such a sense as to make them an essential branch of the legislature; nor are they the representatives of the clergy, because then the clergy would be twice represented, for as many of them as are freeholders are represented with their fellow-subjects in the house of commons; and as clergymen they are represented in convocation, the writ of election to convocation being to send two clerks ad consentiendum, &c. Besides, none can properly be called representatives of others, but such as are chosen by them; the bishops therefore, not being chosen for this purpose, cannot properly be the representatives of the clergy in parliament; they sit there not in their spiritual character, but by virtue of the baronies annexed to their bishoprics; and if the king, with consent of parliament, should annex baronies to the courts of justice in Westminster-hall, or to the supreme magistracy of the city of London, the judges and the lord-mayor for the time being would have the same right of peerage. But none of these arguments were deemed of sufficient weight with the lords to deprive them of their seats in parliament.

The loss of this bill with the resolute behavior of the bishops, who were determined to part with nothing they were in possession of, inflamed the commons, and made them conclude, that there was no hopes of reformation while Rushworth, part 3, vol. i. p. 396.

they were a branch of the legislature. It was observed that the bishops were unusually diligent in giving their attendance upon the house at this time, and always voted with the court. Some of the leading members therefore, in the warmth of their resentments, brought in a bill in pursuance of the root and branch petition, which had been laid aside for some time, for the utter extirpation of all bishops, deans, and chapters, archdeacons, prebendaries, chaunters, with all chancellors, officials, and officers belonging to them; and for the disposing of their lands, manors, &c. as the parliament shall appoint.* A rash and inconsiderate attempt! For could they expect that the bishops should abolish themselves? Or that the temporal lords should consent to the utter extirpating an order of churchmen, when they would not so much as give up one branch of their privilege? The bill being drawn up by Mr. St. John, was delivered to the speaker, by Sir Edw. Deering, with a short speech, in which he took notice of the moderation of the house in the late bill, hoping that, by pruning and taking off a few unnecessary branches from the bishops, the tree might prosper the better; but that this soft method having proved ineffectual, by reason of their incorrigible obstinacy, it was now necessary to put the axe to the root of the tree.t "I never was for ruin (says he) as long as there was any hopes of reforming; and I now profess, that if those hopes revive and prosper, I will divide my sense upon this bill, and yield my shoulders to underprop the 'primitive lawful and just episcopacy." He concluded with a sentence in Ovid.

6

Cuncta prius tentanda, sed immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est, ne pars sincera trahatur.§ The reading this bill was very much opposed, because it was brought in contrary to the usage of parliament, without * Nalson's Collections, vol. ii. p. 248, 295, 300.

Clarendon, vol. i. p. 237. Nalson, ut ante, p. 248.

§ Lord Clarendon represents Sir Edward Deering as a man of levity and vanity, easily flattered by being commended; and says, "that the application of the above lines was his greatest motive to deliver the speech which they close. Dr. Harris (Life of Charles I. p. 327) says, 'he could not be actuated by so mean a motive; and that he was a man of sense. virtue and learning, perhaps not inferior to his lordship, and of a family vastly superior. Ed.

first asking leave; however, it was once read, and then adjourned for almost two months; a little before the king went to Scotland it was carried by a majority of thirty-one voices to read it a second time, and commit it to a committee of the whole house, of which Mr. Hyde [lord Clarendon] was chairman, who made use of so much art and industry to embarrass the affair, that after twenty days the bill was dropt.

Sir Edward Deering's speech in the committee will give light into the sentiments of the puritans of these times ;* "The ambition of some prelates (says he) will not let them 'see how inconsistent two contrary functions are in one and the same person, and therefore there is left neither root 'nor branch of that so good and necessary a bill which we lately sent up, and consequently no hope of such a reformation as we all aim at; what hopes then can we have, that this bill, which strikes at root and branch, both of their seats of justice, and of their episcopal chairs in the church, will pass as it is, and without a tender of some other government in lieu of this, since the voices are still the same which threw out your former bili*" Sir Edward therefore proposed another form of government, if the house should think fit to abolish the present, which was in a manner the same with archbishop Usher's hereaf ter mentioned, as, "first, That every shire should be a 'distinct diocese or church. Secondly, That in every shire or church twelve or more able divines should be appointed, in the nature of an old primitive constant presbytery. Thirdly, That over every presbytery there should be a 'president, let him be called, bishop, or overseer, or moderator, or superintendant, or by what other name you 'please, provided there be one in every shire, for the gov ernment and direction of the presbytery, in the nature of the speaker of the house of commons, or chairman of 6 a committee." Accordingly it was resolved, July 10, 'That ecclesiastical power for the government of the church be exercised by commissioners." July 31, resolved, “That the members for every county bring in the names of nine persons to be ecclesiastical commissioners, on whom the 6 power of church government shall be devolved; but that * Nalson's Collection, vol. ii. p. 295, &c.