advancement, the character of the clergy is not liable to be lowered; and whether it is well, either for them, or for those of whom they are the religious teachers, that they should be thus tempted to apply to secular purposes the best energies of that immortal spirit which they have devoted to a sacred calling. It may be questioned, if the imputation of subserviency is not a necessary consequence of the character of political expectant which attaches to the position of the Bishop in Parliament; and, if such imputation, even though unjust, does not render the Bishops unpopular as a body, impair their means of doing good, and thereby become a source of weakness to the Established Church. It may be asked if the plea, that the Bishops are required in Parliament to represent the clergy, is not futile and unsound; and if the clergy, being electors, are not, (with the sole exception of their being unable to elect one of their own body), as fairly represented in the House of Commons as any other part of the community*; *The principle, that professions should be represented in the House of Commons, is not recognised. Electors do not vote in a professional capacity; nor can those who are of the same profession ever vote together in such numbers as to secure the election of one of their own body: therefore the inability of the clergy to choose a clerical representative cannot fairly be considered a grievance. The ineligibility of the clergy, long doubtful, was settled by statute, in 1801; whether wisely, may still be doubted. No argument, founded on the inexpediency of the clergy taking a part in secular affairs, can be maintained, while the Bishops sit in the House of Lords: and of the Parliamentary decisions on this subject, in 1553, 1620, and 1662, the two former assign, as a reason for the exclusion of the clergyman from the House of Commons, that he "had a voice in the ConvocationHouse," an objection no longer applicable: and all three cases belong to a time when the clergy taxed themselves. CHAP. V. 1662. V. 1662. CHAP. if they are, entitled, beyond any other class or profession, to have separate representation in the House of Lords; if, granting such to be the case, they ought to be represented by those who are nominees of the Crown, and expectants of its favour; and if, in any case, the Bishops can, with propriety, be called the representatives of those with whom they have not, in all respects, a common interest, and who have neither voice in their appointment, nor power to remove or even to control them. It may be asked, whether the possession of temporal power appears to have been a source of strength to other churches in past times, and in other countries; and whether we may infer, by analogy, that it is calculated to be such to ours. These are questions which those friends of the Church who feel that it is menaced with danger, and who are not intent solely on danger from without, should calmly and earnestly consider,-calmly, as men who search for truth, and would exclude all party bias, and earnestly, as men who are deeply sensible of the great importance of the point to be decided. If they decide that it had been better if that Act of Charles II., which restored the Bishops to their seats in Parliament, had not been passed, other grave questions will then arise; whether the supposed evil could be repaired by the repeal of that measure now; and whether, any material alteration could thus be effected, either in public feeling or in the cha -- racter of the institution, of which the advantages would be commensurate with the disadvantages attendant on so great a change; whether the abolition of an important privilege of great antiquity, sanctioned by undisturbed possession of more than 170 years, would shake the security of other institutions defensible on the score of their intrinsic utility; and whether the accomplishment of such a measure would raise a flame throughout the land, of which the immediate injury to religious peace would outweigh the eventual benefit. This important Bill, bearing for title, "A Bill "for Repeal of an Act of Parliament, intituled "An Act for disenabling all Persons in Holy "Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or 66 6 Authority,'" was introduced early in the session, and quickly passed through both Houses. It was read in the Commons a first time on the 1st of June, and a third time on the 13th. On that same day it was carried up to the Lords, when it passed through all its stages with remarkable rapidity. It was read a first time on the 14th, a second time on the 15th, when it was also committed, and on the 18th it was finally passed.* The account given by *Lords' Journals, June 14, 15. 18. 1661. Lord Clarendon, who was present, is so strangely at variance with the unquestionable statements of the "Journals," that, considering the improbability of wilful falsehood when the detection was easy, and the object not apparent, I am inclined to suppose that his fallacious memory led him to assign to this Bill circumstances connected with some other. He says, "it was taken notice of in the House, that after "the first reading of that Bill it had been put off for a second reading "longer than was usual, when the House was at so much leisure; and "that, now it was under commitment, it was obstrueted there, notwith CHAP. V. 1662. CHAP. 1662. Jan. 24. 1662. Feb. 12. Another measure, affecting the Church, was also passed, with equal ease, in the early part of this session, and received the Royal Assent in December-the Bill for restoring Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all respects, except the Court of High Commission, and the power of administering an oath ex officio. Another extinct engine of former despotism, associated in our minds with the Court of High Commission, was regarded with a degree of favour not creditable to the House of Lords. A committee of that House, appointed to prepare a Bill for repealing all Acts of the Long Parliament, and re-enacting such as were approved, reported, that they were of opinion, "That it was fit for the good "of the nation that there be a court of like nature "to the late court called the Star Chamber, but "desired the advice and directions of the Houses "on these particulars following:-Who should be "judges? What matters should they be judges of? By what manner of proceedings should they "act?" * The House did not give any directions, but left the Committee to proceed as they pleased; and nothing more on that subject appears to have been done. The Committee, from whom this opinion emanated, was very numerous, con standing all the endeavours some Lords of the Committee could use "for the despatch:" and we have then a full and very detailed account of this delay being intentional, mixed up with reported conversations between the King, the Chancellor, and the Earl of Bristol. (Life of Clarendon, ii. 100-103.) * Lords' Journals, Feb. 12. 1661. V. 1662. sisting of forty-two temporal Peers, and eight CHAP. Bishops. Among its most distinguished members were the Dukes of Albemarle and Buckingham, Lords Southampton, Robartes, Bristol, Anglesey, Ashley, and Hollis. Lord Clarendon did not belong to it, and must be exempted from the imputation of having advised, or countenanced, even the modified revival of that pernicious court. It was maintained by many of the Royalists that, inasmuch as the preceding Parliament had not been legally convened, its Acts would not be strictly valid unless confirmed by the present. A Bill to confirm these Acts was therefore brought in early in the session; but, little progress was made in it. Among the Acts to be confirmed was the Act of Indemnity. The Royalists disliked this measure, and " they proceeded," says Clarendon, 66 very slowly, coldly, and unwillingly, notwith standing the King's frequent messages to them "to despatch it, though with the delay of those "other things which they thought did more imme 66 diately concern him. They had many agents "and solicitors in the Court, who thought that all "that was released by that Act might lawfully be "distributed amongst them; and, since the King "had referred that whole affair to the Parliament, "he might well leave it to their judgments, with"out his own interposition. But his Majesty "looked upon himself as under another obligation, both of honour and conscience; and upon the thing itself, as more for the public peace and security than any thing the Parlia 66 66 |