shewing that the local statutes of most cathedrals required week-day lectures. The advocate urged further, that Deans and Chapters advanced the cause of learning, and provided persons for defending the Church. Moreover, he said, the institute comported with primitive usage, being in fact a senatus episcopi, and therefore meeting a want of which some of his reverend brethren complained. Warming with his subject, he praised the magnificence of cathedral buildings, mentioned the number dependent on the foundations, insisted on the excellence of Deans and Chapters as landlords, and their enrichment of cities by their residence and hospitality. The Doctor proceeded to uphold cathedral revenues as prizes to stimulate lawful ambition, and contended for a better maintenance of the clergy than in neighbouring reformed Churches-that they might not be like "Jeroboam's priests, the basest of all the people." To destroy Deans and Chapters, he added, would please the Papists-to preserve them would benefit the nation. He concluded by observing that the honour of God was at stake in this matter, that alienation of church property would be sacrilege, and that "on the ruins of the rewards of learning no structure can be raised but ignorance; and upon the chaos of ignorance nothing can be built but profaneness and confusion." Dr. Cornelius Burgess, a London lecturer of Presbyterian principles, appeared in the afternoon of the same eventful day, and indulged in "a vehement invective against Deans and Chapters," their want of Scripture Fuller's Church History, iii. 421. The author says he copied what he gives of Hacket's speech out of his own papers. Nalson's Report (ii. 240) seems to be an amplification of what is contained in Rushworth, iv. 269. Verney entirely agrees with Fuller (Verney Papers-Camden Society, 75), but only in a few particulars with Nalson. Nalson is also wrong in saying Hacket answered Burgess. Hacket spoke first. Burgess answered him. authority, and their utter unprofitableness. He charged some of the singing men with debauchery, and all with uselessness.1 Yet he considered it unlawful to con vert the revenues to private uses. In his opinion they ought to be consecrated to public purposes of a religious kind. After hearing the arguments of Hacket and Burgess, the House allowed the matter to stand over for a while. Hereafter we shall have to notice its re-appear ance. The Commons a few days afterwards (May 17) gave signs of coming under Presbyterian influence. Having debated certain propositions presented by the Scotch commissioners, they reciprocated by resolution the affectionate regards of their brethren, and their desires for uniformity in Church government. They went so far as to pledge themselves to proceed in due time with reformatory measures, such as should "best conduce to the glory of God and the peace of the Church." Three days subsequently, the House set aside the oath of canonical obedience, by voting that no minister should be obliged to take any oath upon his induction, except such as Scripture warranted. 2 In all this, a current of feeling against Episcopacy is distinctly visible. The Bill for "Restraining Bishops from intermeddling with Secular Affairs" came again under debate. It had been sent to the Upper House on the 1st of May, when Bishop Hall made a speech against it.3 The Bill reached a second reading, and was committed on the 14th. Whatever idea of compromise by passing this measure might have existed among the Commons, no such idea was enter 'Fuller, iii. 422. According to Verney's Notes, Burgess speaks of "Choristers and officers as fellows that are condemned for felons, and keep ale-houses, and so they may 2 Rushworth, iv. 276. tained by the Lords. They disputed the question with all the logic and eloquence they could master; evidently regarding the overthrow of this measure as of vital moment. The Right Reverend bench stood firm, and the Bishop of Lincoln-to shew that his committee of accommodation meant nothing prejudicial to the order-boldly defended it in a speech which was full of learning and rhetoric. Lord Viscount Newark also strenuously opposed the Bill; but it received earnest support from the Puritan Lord Say and Sele. Yet the latter wished their lordships not to regard it as introduced with any ulterior view,— telling them, it meant not the taking away of Episcopacy root and branch, but only the lopping off exuberant and superfluous boughs which now wasted the juices of the tree. The Lords feared the consequence of passing the bill, and deemed the episcopal status amongst them as of ancient and inalienable right. So they resolved, that Archbishops and Bishops should have "suffrage and voice as ever;" but to the other propositions they agreed, viz:-that prelates should have nothing to do with the Star Chamber Court or the Privy Council, and that no clergyman should be any longer a Justice of the Peace. These points a year before-had Strafford and Laud conceded them when they were in power-would have been counted an immense concession. But ecclesiastical as well as political matters had since passed through a whole heaven of change; therefore the three articles granted by the Lords were by the Commons deemed trifles unworthy of acceptance apart from the first. On the 24th of May, the resolution described passed the House of Lords. The impression which it made on the Commons is plain from what ensued. The patriots knitted their brows when the tidings reached them, and compressed their lips in firm determination to L subdue the lordly prelates. We now reach an important crisis. The Commons assembled as usual on the 27th of May. A petition came from the Lincolnshire farmers and burghers, with many hands to it, praying for the abolition of the government of Archbishops and Bishops, and their numerous subordinates.1 As the gentlemen in broadbrimmed hats and scanty cloaks with goodly neck-ruffs or ample collars sat gravely pondering these ominous petitions, -suddenly, from a well-known voice, a short speech broke on their ears like the explosion of a bombshell. On the southern, or right-hand corner of St. Stephen's Chapel, a ladder might have been discovered, leading up to a gallery where certain members were accustomed to sit. Sir Arthur Haselrig commonly took his place there. That morning Sir Edward Dering was seen striding up the ladder to a seat next Sir Arthur. The member for Leicestershire held close and earnest conference with the Kentish knight. A paper was pressed into his hands, and after a hasty perusal, with a good-natured air of importance, he rose, leaned over the gallery, and made the following impromptu remarks: "Mr. Speaker-The gentleman that spake last, taking notice of the multitude of complaints and complainants against the present government of the Church, doth somewhat seem to wonder that we have no more pursuit ready against the persons offending. Sir, the time is present, and the work is ready perhaps beyond his expectation. Sir, I am now the instrument to present unto you a very short but a very sharp Bill, such as these times and their sad necessities have brought forth. It speaks a free language, and makes a bold request. It is a purging Bill. I give it you as I take physic, not for delight but for a cure. A cure now, the last and only cure, if as I hope all other remedies have been first tried, then-immedicabile vulnus, &c., but cuncta prius tentanda. I never was for ruin so long as I could hold any hope of reforming. My hopes that way are even almost withered. This Bill is entitled, 'An Act for the utter abolishing and taking away of all Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, Prebendaries, Chanters, and Canons, and all other their under officers.' Sir, you see their demerits have exposed them, publici odii piaculares victimas. I am sorry they are so ill. I am sorry they will not be content to be bettered, which I did hope would have been effected by our last Bill. When this Bill is perfected I shall give a sad aye unto it; and at the delivery in thereof, I do now profess before-hand, that if my former hopes of a full Reformation may yet revive and prosper, I will again divide my sense upon this Bill, and yield my shoulders to under-prop the primitive, lawful, and just Episcopacy; yet so as that I will never be wanting with my utmost pains and prayers to root out all the undue adjuncts and superstructures on it. I beseech you read the Bill, and weigh well the work." 1 It was an odd speech for any man to make who had undertaken so grave a business, and it looked doubly odd that Sir Edward Dering should father such a motion; seeing that, though he was a Puritan, he professed to love the Episcopal Church. Men stared and wondered. A pause followed. Then some one moved, that the Bill might not be read : "That it was against the custom and rule of the House 'Nalson, ii. 248. |