120 BOOK I. 1689. state, and created earl of Romney. The diocese of Salisbury being at this time vacant by the death of the learned Dr. Seth Ward, the king of his own motion nominated as his successor Dr. Burnet, who had embarked on board the Dutch fleet on the late Dr. Burnet expedition to England, and been an active and promoted to the See zealous instrument in accomplishing the revolution. This prelate, equally famous in his political and theological capacity, has been described, not unhappily, as " a man of some parts and great industry, moderate in his notions of church dis of Salis bury. racter. His Cha- cipline, inquisitive, meddling, vain, and credulous*"-but, as it ought to be added, honest, disinterested, and sincere. An unexpected difficulty occurred in the positive refusal of the primate Sancroft to consecrate the new bishop: but, as the time approached, dreading the penalties of a præmunire, he granted a commission to the bishop of London and three other suffragans to exercise his metropolitical authority; thus, as bishop Burnet with some degree of spleen remarks, "meanly. empowering others to do what he himself deemed an unlawful act." Convention converted into a Parliament. The first resolution adopted by the new government was to convert the convention into a parliament, that assembly being supposed by many to want a legal sanction, not having been convoked by the royal writ of summons. On proposing the question in council, whether it was necessary SMOLLET, Continuation, vol. i. p. 6. to dissolve the convention and to call a new parliament, the voices were divided; but the whigs, knowing the inconveniences which would arise from a dissolution, and well satisfied with the apparent disposition and complexion of the commons, were unanimous in their opinions against it. The king, in consequence, went in state to the house of lords, and, in a solemn speech from the throne, recommended to both houses to "consider of the most effectual means to prevent the inconveniences which might arise from delays in accomplishing whatever measures they might have in contemplation for the good of the nation." A bill was immediately brought in, and carried rapidly through the house of lords, to remove and prevent all questions and disputes concerning the assembling and sitting of this present parliament. But in the house of commons it excited a warm and interesting debate. The tories maintained, with no small degree of plausibility, that "if the convention was in itself an illegal assembly, its acts could not be legalized by giving it the name of a parliament-that the king's writ was as necessary as his presence to constitute a legal parliamentthat the convention of 1660 was called by the consent, if not by the authority, of the lawful king, and when there was no great seal in being to affix to the writs; notwithstanding which, it had never been considered as a legal parliament; BOOK 1. 1689. BOOK I. its acts were ratified in a subsequent parliament, 1659. and thence they derived their validity. No con stitutional power existing therefore, by which the convention could be converted into a parliament, they inferred that it must of necessity be dissolved and a new parliament summoned." To this reasoning the whigs replied with firmness and spirit, "that the whole of the proceedings relative to the REVOLUTION now accomplished, were in a legal sense irregular and anomalous to the established principles of the constitution; but that essentials must not be sacrificed to forms. A king had been dethroned, and another ELECTED, and universally acknowledged as a king de facto at least, if not de jure. Was it then more difficult, or less constitutional, to acknowledge a parliament de facto than a king de facto? The essence of a parliament consisted in the meeting and co-operation of the king, lords, and commons, whether convoked by writ or by letter. The prince of Orange's not being king at the time of his issuing the letters was an irrelevant objection, since he was then the administrator of the executive government. From a retrospective view of English history, it was sufficiently apparent that it was never considered by our ancestors as so material how the king, lords, and commons, came together, as that they were together, During the imprisonment of Edward II. writs were issued for a par liament, in the name of the monarch, by the queen BOOKI and prince of Wales: which, being met, deposed 1689. the king, and passed a great variety of acts remaining in force without any subsequent confirmation. In like manner the parliament which deposed king Richard II. was summoned by the duke of Lancaster, afterwards king Henry IV.; which parliament, so irregularly convened, passed divers acts, the legality of which was never questioned. As to the confirmation of the acts of the convention parliament of 1660 by the subsequent parliament of 1661 convoked by the king's writ. though perhaps politically expedient in order to satisfy the scrupulosities of some sceptical theorists, it could proceed neither from necessity nor propriety-most of the acts passed in the convention parliament having produced their full effect before the subsequent parliament began. Where then was the political prudence or advantage of throwing the kingdom into confusion by a new election at so critical a juncture, to the great delay and hindrance of public business? And after all, at their next meeting, as to all the essentials which constitute a true and lawful parliament, they would gain nothing but what they already possessed." These arguments happily prevailed; and the commons agreeing to the bill the convention was from that time called the parliament 1689. Oaths of Allegiance macy re fused by eight Bi shops. the, act commencing from the day on which the crown was accepted by the king and queen. The first of March being appointed for taking and Supre- the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, divers of the dissatisfied members, chiefly of the upper house, retired on different pretences into the country. Being at length summoned to give their attendance, the earls of Clarendon, Litchfield, Exeter, with a few other temporal lords, continued contumacious; and no less than eight of the bishops, including the primate Sancroft, a man of unblemished morals, of great learning and integrity, and of much passive fortitude, but in his public capacity weak, wavering and pusillanimous. Though he had joined with the other peers and privy counsellors in inviting the prince of Orange to take the administration of the government upon him, he refused to pay his compliments of congratulation at St. James's on his subsequent arrival. When the convention met, he came not to take his place among them-resolving to act neither for nor against the interests of king James: and though he himself refused the oaths, he cautiously avoided taking any steps, by acting or speaking, to deter others from such compliance. The example of the bishops was followed by many individuals amongst the inferior clergy, who were in consequence deprived of their |