committee, so long known and reprobated under the name of the lords of the articles. And on the very day

on which the royal assent was given to it, a committee was appointed to consider of a bill for settling the government of the church. This was framed in such a manner as to give complete satisfaction to the most rigid and bigoted of the presbyterians. Those ancient ministers, who had been deprived when episcopacy was established at the restoration of king Charles II., in the lapse of thirty years, reduced to about sixty in number, were now re-instated, and regarded as the only true representatives of the national church. They were authorized and empowered to associate with themselves in the government of the church, such as they should deem duly qualified. These were for the most part men of furious tempers. At least such was the character of those persons who, during this season of conflict and violence, when the mild and the timid sought the shades of obscurity, assumed the chief direction of affairs.

Such," says bishop Burnet, "who were disposed to more moderate counsels had now put it out of their power to pursue them." The fanatics had long waited for an opportunity of avenging themselves upon their enemies, whom they abused and defamed in all the appropriate phraseology of religious malignity; and a new storm of persecution was raised against such of the episcopal clergy as had in some degree escaped the rage of the former year. Accusations were brought against some for heresy, and against others for immorality; and if they condescended to adopt any forms of trial, they were such as became inquisitors rather than judges. The act of supremacy, highly exceptionable in various

respects, was in the course of this session also repealed without reserve; so that it was difficult for the executive power to impose any restraint upon these excesses and enormities. But as the duke of Hamilton had not gone far enough in his concessions, the king thought that the earl of Melville had gone much too far. "He did not understand," says the bishop of Salisbury, "that his instructions could warrant what lord Melville did. And the king was so offended with him for it that he lost all the credit he had with him; though the king did not think fit to disown him, or to call him to an account, for going beyond his instructions."

574

PROTEST

RELATIVE TO THE

ACT OF RECOGNITION.

A. D. 1690.

IN the first session of the new parliament, convened March, 1690, in which the tory interest predominated, a bill was brought into the house of lords for recognizing their majesties as the rightful and lawful sovereigns of these realms, and for declaring all the acts of the last parliament to be good and valid. In the progress of the bill, and by way of accommodation to the prejudices of the tory peers, the words rightful and lawful were dropped, and it was styled simply an act for recognizing king William and queen Mary, &c. By an important clause of this act it was declared and enacted, that all and singular the acts made in the last parliament were laws and statutes of the realm. To this the tories strongly, and, viewing the subject in a contracted light, plausibly objected. They argued that it was one of the fundamentals of our constitution that no assembly could be called a parliament unless it was called and chosen upon the king's writ. And they inferred that the acts passed by the convention were not, and could not be regarded as valid in themselves, and for time past, but they were ready to enact that they should be held good and valid, by the authority of the present parliament, in time to come. This was deemed by the whigs a point of too much moment to be tamely con

eeded. And a vehement debate arising whether the clause in question should be suffered to stand, it was carried in the committee by a small majority in the affirmative. But on the report it was lost by six voices. This gave occasion to one of the most vigorous and alarming protests recorded on the journals of the house, to which were affixed the signatures of the following peers: Bolton, Macclesfield, Stamford, Newport, Bedford, Herbert, Suffolk, Monmouth, Delamere, and Oxford-founded on the following reasons:

DISSENTIENT,

1st. Because there appears to us no reason to doubt of the validity of the last parliament; the great objection insisted upon being the want of writs of summons, which we take to be fully answered by the state the nation was in at that time, which made that form impossible, such exigencies of affairs having been always looked upon by our ancestors, however careful of parlia mentary forms, to be a sufficient reason to allow the authority of parliament, notwithstanding the same or other defects in point of form; as the parliament which set Henry I. and king Stephen on the throne; the parliament held, 28th Edward I.; the parliament summoned by the Prince of Wales, 20th Edward II.; the parlia ment summoned, 23d Richard II.; the parliament held, 1st Henry VI.; and the parliament held, 28th Henry VI.; the acts of which parliaments have been held for law.

2d. Because the rejecting this clause must necessarily disturb the minds of the greatest part of the kingdom; for if those be not good laws, all commissioners, assessors, collectors and receivers of the late taxes, are not only

subject to private actions, but to be criminally prose cuted for one of the highest offences against the constitution of the English government, viz. the levying money on the subject without lawful authority; all persons who have lent money upon the credit of those laws will be in dread of their security, and impatient to get in their money; all persons concerned in levying the present taxes will be fearful to proceed; all persons who have accepted any offices or employments, ecclesiastical, civil, or military, will be under the apprehension of having incurred all the terrible forfeitures and disabilities of the act of 25th Charles II. cap. 2.; and all who have any way concurred to the condemnation or execution of any person upon any act of the late parliament, will think themselves in danger of being called to an account for murder.

3d. Because to leave a doubt touching the validity of the last parliament, is to shake all the judgments and decrees given in the house of peers, or in Westminsterhall, during this reign, and to bring a question upon the whole course of judicial proceedings.

4th. Because if the authority of the last parliament be not put out of the question, the authority of the present parliament can never be defended; for the statute of 5 Elizabeth, cap. 1. makes the election of every member of the house of commons absolutely void, if he enters into the house without taking the oaths of supre macy, which no one person having done there is an end of this house of commons. And by the statute, made 30 Charles II. if any peer, or member of the house of commons, presume to sit and vote without first taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy before the speaker of the respective houses, he does not only forfeit 500