Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

66

Lord Falkland's speech was followed by others, and the result of this long debate was, "The further con"sideration thereof being referred to the Committee formerly appointed for the London and other petitions," six more members being added to the Committee. 1 The questions raised by the discussion of these petitions became so important at this period, that it may not be amiss in a few words to trace the course pursued by the two Houses of Parliament respecting the two separate propositions of reformation or demolition of episcopacy. On the 11th of March it was resolved in the House of Commons that, "for bishops and any "other clergymen whatever to be in the commission of "the peace, to have any judicial power in the Star "Chamber or in any civil court, is a hindrance to their

66

2

spiritual function, prejudicial to the commonwealth, "and fit to be taken away." It was also resolved that the legislative and judicial power of the Bishops in the House of Peers is a great hindrance to the discharge of their spiritual function, prejudicial to the commonwealth, and fit to be taken away by bill, and that a bill be drawn to that purpose.3

This bill, according to Lord Clarendon's account, was "received in the House of Commons with a visible coun"tenance and approbation of many who were neither "of the same principles nor purposes;" and the arguments used in its favour "had so prevailed over many "men of excellent judgments and unquestionable affec

' Rushworth, Coll., vol. iv. p. 187.

2 Parl. Hist., vol. ii. p. 725. 3 Journals of the House of Commons, vol. ii. p. 101. Clarendon's Hist. of the Rebellion,' vol. i. p. 410.

[ocr errors]

tions, that they in truth believed that the passing this "Act was the only expedient to preserve the Church."' In that opinion Lord Falkland shared; and it was in the debate arising out of this bill that Lord Clarendon graphically describes the first difference of opinion between Lord Falkland and himself, the malicious pleasure it occasioned to those who loved neither of them, and the hope to which it gave rise amongst their political opponents that by loosening the bonds of their close friendship Lord Falkland might be won over to their ranks. Hyde spoke very earnestly for throwing out the bill, on the ground of its being a change both in the constitution of the kingdom and of the Parliament; asserted the right of bishops to vote as the third estate of the realm; and maintained that the clergy would be unrepresented if the Bishops were deprived of their votes in the House of Lords.

66

66

Mr.

that was absent), himself to be of

"Lord Falkland,' who always sat next to Mr. Hyde '(which was so much taken notice of, that, if they came "not into the House together, as usually they did, everybody left the place for him suddenly stood up, and declared "another opinion; and that, as he thought the thing "itself to be absolutely necessary for the benefit of the "Church which was in so great danger, so he had never "heard that the Constitution of the kingdom would be "violated by the passing that Act, and that he had "heard many of the clergy protest that they would not " acknowledge that they were represented by the

'Clarendon's Hist. of the Rebellion,' vol. i. p. 411.
2 Ibid., pp. 412, 413.

66

666

[ocr errors]

Bishops. However, he continued, we might pre"sume that, if they could make that appear, that they were a third estate, that the House of Peers (amongst whom they sat and had yet their votes) "would reject it.'

66 6

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

And so, with some facetiousness answering some other particulars, concluded for the passing of the Act. The House was so marvellously delighted to see the two inseparable friends divided "in so important a point, that they could not contain "from a kind of rejoicing; and the more because they saw Mr. Hyde was much surprised by the contradiction, as in truth he was; having never discovered "the least inclination in the other towards such a com

66

[ocr errors]

1

pliance." It is difficult to understand the surprise here expressed by Lord Clarendon at Lord Falkland's opinion of the secular employments of the Bishops and clergy, when the speech on episcopacy, which could leave no doubt as to his views on the subject, had been delivered but one month before. The probable explanation of this difficulty is to be found in the inaccuracy which must so often arise when events are transcribed from memory after a lapse of years. It does not appear that Mr. Hyde had spoken in the debate on the London and other petitions, which had called forth the strong expression of Lord Falkland's opinions. It was, therefore, the first time they had differed in the House. The unpleasant impression of a difference with his friend having arisen in public probably outlived the accurate recollection of the circum

There is no account of the speeches in this debate to be found in Rushworth's or Nalson's Collection, or in the Parliamentary History. VOL. I.

F

stances attending it, and led him to describe as unexpected that which had been unwelcome.

66

[ocr errors]

66

On the 1st of May the bill, having passed the Commons, was sent up to the Lords, and there read for the first time and debated. On the 24th it was taken into consideration in a grand Committee of the Lords; and, after a long debate (the House being resumed), it was resolved, "that Archbishops and Bishops shall have suffrage and voice in the House of Peers in Parlia"ment; that they shall not have suffrage or voice in the Court of Star Chamber when they are called; that no Archbishop or Bishop, or other person in holy orders, shall be justices of the peace; that no Archbishop, &c., shall be of the Privy Council to the King "or to his successors." On the 27th of May the Bill was again debated in the Lords, and a question arose "whether the restraints in the bill did extend to their 'right of sitting and voting in Parliament, which, by the common and statute laws of the realm, as well as by an ancient and continued practice, was unques"tionable."1

66

66

66

66

A conference was desired with the Commons upon this point. It took place on that day; but, on that same day, another bill was introduced by Sir Edward Dering into the House of Commons, "for the utter abolishing and taking away of all Archbishops, Bishops, their Chan"cellors and Commissaries, Deans and Chapters, Arch

66

The resolutions sent up to the Lords, by which it was determined that bishops and any other clergymen were not to be in the commission of peace, or to have any judicial power in the Star Chamber, or in any other civil court, left the question of their seats in the House of Lords doubtful, and justified the question sent in return.-Parl. Hist., vol. ii. p. 814.

[ocr errors]

66

deacons, Prebendaries, Chapters and Canons, and all "other under officers."

991

On the 3rd of June the result of the conference of the 27th of May with the Lords was reported to the House of Commons; the Lords assigned their reasons for maintaining the Bishops' right to sit and vote in the House of Peers; at the same time they declared that, if any inconveniences existed of which they did not know, that they were willing to hear them, and take them into consideration. On the following day the Commons replied, stating their reasons in answer to the Lords under nine heads, of which the most important were the interruption occasioned by these secular duties to their ministerial functions; the want of independence to which the votes of Bishops were subjected by their dependence upon Archbishops, and from their expectation of being translated from one See to another; and the late encroachments by the Bishops upon the consciences and properties of the subject, serving as a discouragement against complaints, where they are judges of those complaints. The Commons' reply produced no change in the views of the Lords.

The House of Lords had a strict call of its members on the 7th of June, for the third reading of the bill, when it was negatived by a large majority."

On the 11th of June Mr. Hyde reported, in the House of Commons, the preamble of the bill for abolishing

The House was divided as to the bill being read a second time on the same day; it was carried in favour of the second reading by a majority of 31.-Parl. Hist., vol. ii. p. 815.

• Ibid.,

p.
818.

« AnteriorContinuar »