I Eliz. c. 2 would do and much time be saved, being rejected as an affront to the king and convocation.374 71. On March 3rd, 1662, the king announced to the House of Commons that he had "transmitted the book of common prayer, with those alterations and additions which have been presented to " him "by convocation, to the house of peers, with " his "approbation, that the Act of Uniformity" might "relate to it."375 On March 13th, the report of the lords' committee on the bill for uniformity was presented, to the effect that they had made divers amendments and alterations . . . and in their amendments and alterations had made the bill relate to the book recommended by the king to the house, and not to the one brought with the bill from the commons. It was then moved that "the alterations and additions in the book of common prayer as it came recommended from his majesty might be read, before the alterations and amendments in the bill were read," and it was so ordered.376 72. On the 17th, the lords agreed to the preamble, and resolved that the book sent by the king should be the one to which the act should relate, a proviso from the king being $74 The common prayer had been sent to the king from the convocation for his judgment and approval. On February 19th, 1662, a council order directed its production at the board on the 21st, when it was debated, and an order made that the council meet on February 21st to continue the debate on the amendments made by the bishops, who were to make choice of four of their number (Sheldon to be one), to attend upon the board on that day. On the 24th, Sheldon, accompanied by the bishops of Durham, Salisbury, Worcester, and Chester attended, and the book, as presented, was read and approved, and ordered to be sent to the peers, with a recommendation signed, on the same day, by the king. Ken. Reg. pp. 631, 632, 633; Journ. H. of L. XI. pp. 393, 396, 400; Clarend. Life, 11. pp. 286288; Parker, Introd. pp. 459, 465; Lord Selborne, Notes, p. 59. 375 Journ. H. of C. vIII. p. 377; Parker, Introd. p. 461; Ken. Reg. p. 639. 576 The reading of the alterations and additions in the book was ended on March 15th, the bill for uniformity being considered on March 17th. Journ. H. of L. XI. pp. 407, 408; Parker, Introd. pp. 464, 466; Lord Selborne, Notes, pp. 59-61. The proviso was not agreed to by the commons. Journ. H. of C. VIII. p. 413; Parker, Introd. p. 482. left for debate.877 The bill was read a third time and sent to the commons, with an added proviso enabling the king to provide, as he should think fit, for such of the clergy who might be deprived of their livings under the act.378 The next day the commons sought a conference, and the lords directed "that the book of common prayer recommended from the king shall be delivered to the House of Commons, as being the book to which the Act of Uniformity is to relate; and also to deliver the book wherein the alterations are made, out of which the other book was fairly written; and likewise to communicate to them the king's message recommending the said book; and lastly to let the commons know that the lords, upon consideration had of the Act of Uniformity, have thought fit to make some alterations, and add certain provisoes, to which the concurrence of the House of Commons is desired."3 379 73. In the commons the lords' amendments to the bill were discussed, and the question whether the convocation amendments to the common prayer should be debated was negatived on a division, but the right of the house to do so if they chose was unanimously affirmed without one.380 The king's proviso as to the "not using the cross and the surplice," with the dispensing clause, was rejected, on the ground stated at the conference with the lords, by the commons' representative, "that it would unavoidably establish schism... and . . . necessarily make parties, especially in great cities. These two ceremonies of the cross and surplice were long in use in the church . . . he thought it 377 Journ. H. of L. XI. p. 409. 378 It was passed on April 9th, the proviso being agreed to the same day. The king's proviso, with other alterations, had been debated on March 14th, 15th, 17th, 18th, 19th, April 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th. Ken. Reg. pp. 642, 643, 646, 656; Journ. H. of L. XI. pp. 408, 409, 410, 411, 421, 422, 423, 425; Clarend. Life, II. pp. 288-290. 379 Journ. H. of L. XI. p. 426; H. of C. VIII. p. 402; Parker, Introd. p. 468; Ken. Reg. p. 657. At the conference, the lords explained that the delay of the bill was owing to the book of common prayer having been, by the king's command, under consideration by convocation. 380 The motion for the discussion of the convocation amendments was lost by a bare majority, the numbers being 90 for and 96 against. Journ. H. of C. VIII. p. 408; Ken. Reg. p. 661; Parker, p. 471. better to impose no ceremonies than to dispense with any, and he thought it very incongruous at the same time when you are settling uniformity to establish schism." For the king's engagement at Breda as to tender consciences was not to be understood of "the misleaders of the people, but of the misled. It would be very strange to call a schismatical conscience, a tender conscience," which "denoted an impression from without, received from another, and that upon which another strikes." The phrase had then (as now) been "much abused." And the "declaration" had two limitations "First, a reference to parliament; Secondly, such liberties to be granted only as consisted with the peace of the kingdom." "' 381 74. The allowance of fifths to such as would not conform was also rejected,382 and a proviso for using reverent gestures at the time of divine service was twice read, but the matter, being held proper for the convocation, it was ordered that it be intimated to the lords "that it be recommended to the convocation to take order for reverent and uniform gestures and demeanours to be enjoined at the time of divine service and preaching." "383 381 Journ. H. of C. vIII. pp. 409, 410-413; H. of L. XI. p. 449; Ken. Reg. pp. 671, 679; Parker, Introd. pp. 482, 483. The king, at the meeting of parliament, on November 20th, had left it to deal with and dispose of the religious difficulties. He said, “Matters of religion, I confess to you, are too hard for me, and therefore I do commend them to your care and deliberation; which can best provide for them." Journ. H. of L. XI. p. 333; Parl. Hist. IV. p. 223. The king's proviso is given by Lord Selborne in full, and it shews conclusively that the surplice was then understood, both by the king, the peers, and the lawyers to be the only vestment prescribed under the revised book of 1661-2, from the use of which any dispensation could be required. Notes, pp. 55-57. 382 The Ayes were 87 against 94 Noes. Journ. H. of C. vIII. p. 414. It was thought repugnant "at the same time to enact uniformity and to allow the fifth of an ecclesiastical living to a non-conformist, for not conforming," for none who make laws ought to suppose that any would break them. H. of L. XI. p. 449; Ken. Reg. pp. 679, 680. 383 Ken. Reg. p. 680; Journ. H. of L. XI. pp. 449, 451. The order was made by the lords on May 8th; ante, p. 471. On May 8th, all the many and important alterations and amendments made in the bill for uniformity by the commons were agreed to by the lords, and the bill passed.384 75. And so this "severe" act, as Bishop Burnet terms it, became law. By it, we are told, "there was an end put to all the liberty and license which had been practised in all churches from the time of his majesty's return, and by his declaration that he had emitted afterwards. The common prayer must now be constantly read in all churches, and no other form admitted; and what clergyman soever did not fully conform to whatever was contained in that book, or enjoined by the Act of Uniformity, by or before St. Bartholomew's day,.. was ipso facto deprived of his benefice or any other spiritual promotion of which he stood possessed, and the patron was to present another in his place as if he were dead."385 And this, adds Burnet, "without making any provision for the maintenance of those who should be so deprived, a severity neither practised by Queen Elizabeth in the enacting her liturgy, nor by Cromwell in ejecting the royalists, in both of which a fifth part of the benefice was reserved for their subsistence. St. Bartholomew's day was pitched on that, if they were then deprived, they should lose the profits of the whole year, since the tithes were commonly due at Michaelmas." 386 384 A message was sent the next day to the commons to let them know that the lords agreed with them "in the alterations, amendments, and provisos, in the bill concerning uniformity." A mistake, discovered in the baptismal rubric by the commons, of "persons," for "children," being rectified by the bishops of St. Asaph and Carlisle, at the clerk's table. Journ. H. of L. XI. pp. 447–450, 451; Ken. Reg. p. 680; Clarendon, Life, II. pp. 288-296; Lord Selborne, Notes, p. 62; Parker, Introd. pp. 484, 485. 385 Clarend. Life, 11. p. 296. 386 Burnet, Own Times, p. 126. Cromwell did not arbitrarily eject the royalists, and he would have saved the king if he could; but, in putting an end to the tyranny of the Long Parliament, he at all events saved the state. Neal, II. pp. 185-200, 222-226, 235-238, 247-265, 623, 624. "The rhetoric and interest of a "great minister might," in Collier's opinion, have had to do with the passing of the act as it stands. At the opening of parliament Clarendon had pointed out that the king had referred all that concerned himself, all that concerned religion to it, and he insisted that "every little trespass, every little swerving from the known rule must insensibly grow to a neglect of the law, and that Besides the revision of the prayer book there is little of importance to note, save the restoration of the episcopacy in Scotland and the consecration of four Scotch bishops at Westminster Abbey, on December 15th, by the Bishops of London and Worcester, by virtue of a commission from the king,387 76. A.D. 1662. On January 1st, Jenkins, a minister, was summoned to appear before the privy council, and reproved for not praying for the king.388 On the 24th, another was indicted (upon the new act, 13 Car. c. 1), and found guilty of treasonable words in a sermon. Exception was taken to the indictment on the ground that the matter was of spiritual and ecclesiastical, and not of civil, jurisdiction, but the objection was overruled.389 Later on, about March 22nd, forty "eminent neglect introduce an absolute confusion; that every little difference in opinion or practice in conscience or religion must presently destroy conscience and religion," and whilst advocating a change in the terms of oaths and obligations, if needful, he insisted on some oath, "some law that may be the rule to that indulgence, that, under pretence of liberty of conscience, men may not be absolved from all the obligations of law and conscience; for no good Christian could think without horror of those ministers of the gospel who, by their function should be the messengers of peace, and are in their practice only the trumpets of war and incendiaries towards rebellion! . . . and if the person and the place can improve and aggravate the offence, . . . the preaching rebellion and treason out of the pulpit should be as much worse than the advancing it in the market, as the poisoning a man at the communion-table should be worse than killing him at a tavern." Journ. H. of L. XI. pp. 241--243; Collier, VIII. pp. 433, 434; Neal, 111. p. 81. 387 The commission was dated December 13th. The new bishops were Sharp, Leighton, Fairfull, and Hamilton. Sharp and Leighton were first ordained deacons and priests, the bishops refusing to consecrate without this being first done. Ken. Reg. pp. 577–580, 684; Burnet, Own Times, pp. 87-95; Neal, III. p. 99; Collier, VIII. p. 431; Wilk. Conc. iv. p. 573; Clarend. Life, 11. p. 213. The restored episcopacy was afterwards sanctioned by a Scotch act of parliament, and six more bishops were consecrated at Holyrood on May 7th, 1662. Ante, p. 363. 388 Ken. Reg. p. 601. 389 He had said that "the government of the Church of England is popish, superstitious, and will worship." At the hearing, the attorney-general replied "that the government of the king was a composite one, and both the civil and ecclesiastical centred in and flowed from the king," and Field was sentenced to be disabled to use all civil and ecclesiastical offices, to be fined £500, and imprisoned till paid. Field's case, Siderfin, I. p. 69. In Attwood's case (2 Cro. p. 421), which was a proceeding in error upon an indictment for the scandalous words, |