And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid [that no person shall be or be received as a Lecturer or permitted suffered or allowed to preach as a Lecturer or to preach or read any Sermon or Lecture in any Church Chappell or other place of publique worshipp within this Realme of England or the Dominion of Wales and Towne of Berwick upon Tweed unless he be first approved and thereunto licensed by the Archbishopp of the province or Bishopp of the Diocesse or (in case the See be void) by the Guardian of the Spiritualities under his Seale and shall in the psence of the same Archbishop or Bishop or Guardian read the nine and thirty Articles of Religion mentioned in the Statute of the thirteenth yeare of the late Queene Elizabeth with declaration of his unfeigned assent to the same And] that every person and persons whoe nowe is or hereafter shall bee (licensed) assigned (or) appointed or received as a Lecturer to preach upon any day of the weeke in any Church Chappell or place of publique worship within this Realme of England or places aforesaid the first time he preacheth (before his Sermon) shall openly publiquely and solemnly read the Comon prayers and service in and by the said booke appointed to be read for that time of the day and then and there publiquely and openly declare his assent unto and approbation of the said booke and to the use of all the prayers rites and ceremonies formes and orders therein contained and prescribed according to the forme before appointed in this Act Amendment.And alsoe shall upon the first lecture day [of every moneth afterwards so long as he continues lecturer or preacher there at the place appointed for his said lecture or sermon before his said Lecture or Sermon openly publiquely and solemnly read the Common prayers and service in and by the said booke appointed to be read for that time of the day at which the said lecture or sermon is to be preached and after such reading thereof shall openly and publiquely before the Congregation there assembled declare his unfeigned assent and consent unto and approbation of the said booke and to the use of all the prayers rites and ceremonies forms and orders therein contained and prescribed according to the forme aforesaid] and that all and every such person and persons who shall neglect or refuse to do the same shall from thenceforth be disabled to preach the said or any other lecture or sermon in the said or any other Church Chappell or place of publique worshipp untill such time as he (and they) shall openly publiquely and solemnly read the (Common) prayers (and service appointed) by the said booke and conform in all points to the things therein appointed and prescribed (according to the purport true intent and meaning of this Act) XX. Amendment. In Cathedral or Collegiate Churches.[Provided alwaies that if the said Sermon or Lecture be to be preached or read in any Cathedrall or Collegiate Church or Chappell it shall be sufficient for the said Lecturer openly at the time aforesaid to declare his assent and consent to all things contained in the said booke according to the form aforesaid] XXI. Penalty for preaching by persons disabled.And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid That if any person who is by this Act disabled to preach any Lecture or Sermon shall during the time that he shall continue and remaine so disabled preach any Sermon or Lecture that then for every such offence the person and persons so offending shall suffer three monthes imprisonment in the Comon Goal without baile or mainprize and that any two Justices of the Peace of any County of this Kingdome and places aforesaid and the Maior or other Cheife Magistrate of any City or Town Corporate within the same upon Certificate from the Ordinary of the place made to him or them of the offence committed (shall and are hereby required) to committ the person or persons so offending to the Gaol of the same County City or Town Corporate accordingly [Provided alwaies and be it further XXII. Amendment. Common Prayer to be read before every lecture.Enacted by the authority aforesaid that at all and every time and times when any Sermon or Lecture is to be preached the Comon Prayers and Service in and by the said Booke appointed to be read for that time of the day shall be openly publiquely and solemnely read by some Preist or Deacon in the Church Chappell or place of publique Worship where the said Sermon or Lecture is to be preached before such Sermon or Lecture be preached and that the Lecturer then to preach shall be present at the reading thereof XXIII. Proviso touching Universities.Provided neverthelesse that this Act shall not extend to the University-Churches in the Universities of this Realme or either of them when or at such times as any Sermon or Lecture is preached or read in the same Churches or any of them for or as the publique University-Sermon or Lecture but that the same Sermons and Lectures may be preached or read in such sort and manner as the same have been heretofore preached or read this Act or anything herein conteyned to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.] XXIV. Former laws for uniformity confirmed.And bee it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid That the severall good Lawes and Statutes of this Realme which have been formerly made and are now in force for the uniformity of Prayer and administration of the Sacraments within this Realme of England and places aforesaid shall stand in full force and strength to all intents and purposes whatsoever for the establishing and confirming of the [said booke entitled the] booke of Comon Prayer and administration of the Sacraments [and other rites and ceremonies of the Church according to y^e use of y^e Church of England together with the Psalter or Psalmes of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches and the forme or manner of making ordeyning and consecrating of Bishops Preists and Deacons] herein before menconed to bee joyned and annexed to this Act And shall be applyed practised and put in use for the punishing of all offences contrary to the said Lawes with relation to the Booke aforesaid and no other Provided alwayes XXV. Prayers for the King, &c.And bee it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid That in all those Prayers Letanyes and Collects which doe any way relate to the King Queene or Royal Progeny the names be altered and changed from time to time and fitted to the present occasion according to the direccon of lawfull authority. XXVI. Copies of Prayer Book to be provided in all parishes &c.Provided also and be it Enacted by the authority aforesaid that a true printed Copy of the said Booke entituled the Booke of Comon Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other rites and ceremonyes of the Church according to the use of the Church of England togeather with the Psalter or Psalmes of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches and the forme [and manner] of making ordeyning and consecrating of Bishops Preists and Deacons shall at the costs and charges of the parishioners of every parish church and chappelry cathedrall church colledge and hall be attained and gotten before the Feast day of Saint Bartholomew in the yeare of our Lord one thousand Sixe hundred sixty and two upon paine of forfeiture of three pounds by the moneth for so long time as they shall thenafter be unprovided thereof by every Parish or Chappelry Cathedrall Church Colledge and Hall making default therein. XXVII. Translation of Common Prayer into Welsh.Provided alwayes and bee it Enacted by the authority aforesaid That the Bishops of Hereford St. David’s Asaph Bangor and Landaph and their successors shall take such order among themselves for the soules health of the flocks comitted to their charge within Wales That the Booke hereunto annexed be truly and exactly translated [into the British or Welsh Tongue and that the same so translated] and being by them or any three of them at the least viewed perused and allowed bee imprinted to such number at least so that one of the said Books so translated and imprinted may be had for every Cathedrall Collegiate and Parish Church and Chappell of Ease in the said respective Diocesses and places in Wales where the Welsh is comonly spoken or used before the first day of May one thousand six hundred sixty five And that from and after the imprinting and publishing of the said Booke so translated the whole Divine Service shall be used and said by the Ministers and Curates throughout all Wales within the said Diocesses where the Welsh Tongue is comonly used in the Brittish or Welsh Tongue in such manner and forme as is prescribed according to the Booke hereunto annexed to be used in the English Tongue differing nothing in any order or forme from the said English Booke For which Booke so translated and imprinted the Churchwardens of every of the said Parishes shall pay out of the parish money in their hands for the use of the respective Churches and be allowed the same on their account And that the said Bishops and their successors or any three of them at the least shall sett and appoynt the price for which the said Booke shall be sold And one other Booke of Comon Prayer in the English tongue shall be bought and had in every Church throughout Wales in which the Booke of Comon Prayer in which is to bee had by force of this Act before the first day of May one thousand six hundred sixty and fower and the same Booke to remaine in such convenient places within the said Churches that such as understand them may resort at all convenient tymes to read and peruse the same. And alsoe such as doe not understand the sayd language may by conferring both tongues together the sooner attaine to the knowledge of the English Tongue Any thing in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding And untill printed Copies of the said booke soe to bee translated may bee had and provided The forme of Comon Prayer established by Parlyament before the making of this Act shall be used as formerly in such parts of Wales where the English Tongue is not comonly understood XXVIII. “Sealed books” to be obtained and kept.And to the end that the true and perfect copies of this Act and the said booke hereunto annexed may be safely kept and perpetually preserved and for the avoyding of all disputes for the tyme to come Bee it therefore Enacted by the authority aforesaid that the respective Deanes and Chapters of every Cathedrall or Collegiate Church within England and Wales shall at their proper costs and charges before the Twentie fifth day of December one thousand six hundred sixty and two obtaine under the Greate Seale of England a true and perfect printed Copie of this Act and of the said booke annexed hereunto to bee by the said Deanes and Chapters and their successors kept and preserved in safety for ever and to bee allso produced and shewed forth in any Court of Record as often as they shall bee thereunto lawfully required and also there shall bee delivered true and perfect Copies of this Act and of the same booke into the respective Courts at Westminster and into the Tower of London to be kept and preserved for ever among the Records of the said Courts and the Records of the Tower to be alsoe produced and shewed forth in any Court as neede shall require which sayd books soe to be exemplyfied under the Great Seale of England shall be examined by such persons as the King’s Majestie shall appoint under the Great Seale of England for that purpose and shall bee compared with the originall booke hereunto annexed and shall have power to correct and amend in writing any error comitted by the Printer in the printing of the same booke or of any thing therein conteyned and shall certifie in writing under their hands and seales or the hands and seales of any three of them at the end of the same booke that they have examined and compared the same booke and finde it to bee a true and perfect copie which said bookes and every one of them so exemplyfied under the Greate Seale of England as aforesaid shall be deemed taken adjudged and expounded to bee good and available in the law to all intents and purposes whatsoever and shall be accounted as good Records as this booke it selfe hereunto annexed any law or custome to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding XXIX. Proviso for King’s Professor of Law at Oxford.Provided also that this Act or any thing therein conteyned shall not be prejudiciall or hurtfull unto the King’s Professor of the Law within the University of Oxford for or concerning the Prebend of Shipton within the Cathedrall Church of Sarum united and annexed unto the place of the same King’s Professor for the time being by the late King James of blessed memory Provided alwaies that whereas the sixe and thirtieth Article of the XXX. Proviso concerning Art. 36.nine and thirty Articles agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Cleargy in the Convocation holden at London in the yeare of our Lord One thousand five hundred sixty two for the avoyding of diversities of opinions and for establishing of consent touching true Religion is in these words following (vizt.) “That the Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and ordeyning of Preistes and Deacons lately set forth in the time of King Edward the Sixth and confirmed at the same time by Authority of Parliament doth conteyne althings necessary to such Consecration and ordeyning Neither hath it any thing that of it selfe is superstitious and ungodly: And therefore whosoever are consecrated or Ordered according to the Rites of that Booke since the second yeare of the aforenamed King Edward unto this time or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites. Wee decree all such to be rightly orderly and lawfully consecrated and ordered.” XXXI. Subscription to extend to form of Consecrating Bishops, &c.It be Enacted And Be it therefore Enacted by the authority aforesaid That all subscriptions hereafter to be had or made unto the said Articles by any Deacon Preist or Ecclesiasticall person or other person whatsoever who by this Act or any other Law now in force is required to subscribe unto the said Articles shall be construed and taken to extend and shalbe applyed (for and touching the s^d sixe and thirtieth Article) unto the Booke conteyning the forme and manner of making ordeyning and consecrating of Bishops Preists and Deacons in this Act mentioned in such sort and manner as the same did heretofore extend unto the Booke set forth in the time of King Edward the Sixth mentioned in the said six and thirtieth Article anything in the s^d Article or in any Statute Act or Canon heretofore had or made to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding XXXII. Form to be used till Bartholomew’s Day, 1662.Provided also that the Booke of Comon Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other rites and ceremonyes of this Church of England together with the forme and manner of ordeyning and consecrating Bishops Preists and Deacons heretofore in use and respectively established by Act of Parliament in the first and eighth years of Queen Elizabeth shalbe still used and observed in the Church of England untill the Feast of Saint Bartholomew which shall be in the yeare of our Lord God one thousand six hundred sixty and two.

No. V.—Vol. I., p. 261.

Letters patent on parchment are attached to the sealed books. A copy of the letter is given in Stephens’ edition of the Prayer Book, published by the Ecclesiastical History Society.

After reciting the Act of Uniformity, it is said, “And whereas the printed copy of the Act of Parliament, and Book aforesaid hereunto annexed, hath been duly examined by the persons, whose names are thereunto subscribed, in pursuance of our Commission to them and others in that behalf directed. Now know ye, that, we according to the form and effect of the said Act of Parliament, and in accomplishment of the intent thereof, in this behalf, have inspected the said examined copy of the Act of Parliament and Book aforesaid, and have caused the same to be hereunto annexed, and to be exemplified under the Great Seal of England. In witness, &c.,——; signed Barker.” No copy of the Commission is supplied, nor the names of the Commissioners.

In the sealed books alterations are made by the pen of the Commissioners to bring them into accordance with the copy of the book attached to the Act. Most of these are quite unimportant. For example:—

1. In the titles of the services, “The” is prefixed to the word collect.

2. In the headings of the pages, “Trinity Sunday XXIII” is altered into “The XXIII Sunday after Trinity.”

“Whitsun Munday” into “Munday in Whitsun Week.”

It is important to notice, that the title “The Creed of St. Athanasius” was printed originally, in the sealed books, on the top of the page over the creed; it was then struck out by the Commissioners.

3. In the text of prayers:

In the sentences at beginning of morning prayer, it was printed, “Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities:” “all” was struck out. “Forgiveness” was altered into “Forgivenesses.”

In the clause of the Lord’s Prayer “Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory,” the first “and” is cancelled.

In the Absolution, “Wherefore let us beseech Him,” is changed into “Wherefore beseech we Him.”

In the sealed book at Chichester, Dr. Swainson pointed out to me in Psalm xc. verse 8, as used in the Burial Service, light corrected into sight; and in verse 12 so into O. Some of our modern Prayer Books retain the O, but have given up the sight.

4. In the Rubric, at the end of the Communion Service, the words, “for the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here on earth,” are inserted, by the Commissioners, in some sealed books, after an erasure of the original printed words.

Many of the alterations cannot be corrections of the printer’s errata. They evidently indicate changes of words made in the original copy after the printing of the books which were used as sealed copies.

In the Appendix to the first Report of the Royal Commission on Ritual will be found remarks upon the sealed copy at Ely.

It is strange that the printers of Prayer Books do not bring them into correspondence with the sealed books, which alone contain the legally correct formularies of the Church.

No. VI.—Vol. I., p. 282.

The number of the ejected is a vexed question. We possess at present unsatisfactory data; and I fear that we shall never obtain such a knowledge of facts as will enable us to reach a precise conclusion. The Ecclesiastical Registers of the country might seem to afford great hope of being sufficient to decide the controversy; but, to say nothing of the labour of searching them, unfortunately when the work has been begun, in some cases, from the imperfection of the records, it has yielded little or no fruit.

Some years ago I attempted searching the records of the See of London, in St. Paul’s Cathedral; but from the state of the records at that time the attempt proved unsuccessful.

The friendly kindness of the Dean of Chichester, and Canon Swainson, afforded me every facility for examining the Archives in the Cathedral. The latter assisted me in examining the Registers; to our disappointment they were found defective for 1662. But as this Work was passing through the press, Canon Swainson communicated to me some valuable information, which will be subjoined to this note. At present our conclusions must rest upon the lists of names which have been published by Calamy and Palmer; and upon such general statements as are furnished by writers who were living at the time when the ejectment took place.

Calamy, in his second volume, undertakes to give an “Account of the ministers who were ejected or silenced after the Restoration of King Charles II.” In his second, and two following volumes, he includes ministers, lecturers, masters and fellows of colleges, and schoolmasters. Palmer, in his Nonconformist Memorial, describes those whom he registers as “Ejected or silenced after the Restoration, particularly by the Act of Uniformity.” These important distinctions are often overlooked; and it is imagined that all the names collected together, are the names of clergymen who were removed from their livings on Bartholomew’s Day. Such an imagination is contradicted by facts. In agreement with the indication given on the title pages of our two principal authorities, we discover in these biographical sketches a number of incumbents who were displaced before the Uniformity Act was passed, most of them in consequence of Episcopalian clergymen having returned to claim their sequestered livings. Cases of this kind appear in the present History. Those ministers who thus lost their benefices clearly ought to be arranged in a class by themselves. Having set them aside, there remain others who, according to all accounts, did not forfeit their emoluments through the operation of the new Act. They consisted of such clergymen as, through Episcopal connivance, or from some other cause, continued to hold their benefices; they were comparatively few in number, and the benefices of most were of inconsiderable value. We are then to add another class, described as simple candidates for the ministry, who therefore possessed no livings from which they could be driven. Also we must separate the cases of persons who, though mentioned amongst the ejected, did not quit the Church until after St. Bartholomew’s Day; some of whom were not ministers in the Establishment at that time. The exceptional cases of the last three kinds, such as were connived at, such as were only candidates, and such as did not quit the Church until afterwards, so far as I can see, are altogether below fifty. I may have overlooked some.

What would be the total number of the persons who, although included in the general list of sufferers, did not surrender their incumbencies on St. Bartholomew’s Day, I am at a loss to determine. The information given in many cases is so incomplete, that it does not show when and how the persons mentioned were removed. In more than five hundred instances bare names occur, and in many more so little is added as to be next to nothing. Most of the persons named were probably in some way or other losers for conscience’ sake; but I am not aware of any means by which all those among them who left the Establishment before the 24th of August of 1662, can be separated from those who were ejected on that day.

If we refer to general statements, we find Baxter saying, in his Petition for Peace presented to the Bishops with the proposed reformation of the Liturgy, at the Savoy Conference, “Some hundreds of able, holy, faithful ministers, are of late cast out.”[615] He also speaks in the Rejoinder of “several hundreds.”[616] These statements were made in 1661, more than a year before the Uniformity Act came into operation. Taking the indefinite several hundreds at the lowest reasonable computation, and remembering, that during the intermediate year more Nonconformists would be “cast out,” we can scarcely reckon the ejected, before St. Bartholomew’s Day, 1662, at less than six hundred. Hook’s letter written in the month of March, 1663, alludes to the number of the ejected on St. Bartholomew’s Day as 1,600, and says “as many had been removed before.” This, no doubt, is an exaggeration; but it would seem to suggest, at least, that the number previously removed bore a large proportion to the number ultimately ejected. To the six hundred, or so, ejected before the Uniformity Act came into effect, let there be added two or three hundred more,—which would be a very large allowance for such exceptional cases as I have indicated, and for the great uncertainty respecting the five hundred bare names in the lists of “the ejected and silenced,”—and we thus reach a total of some eight or nine hundred, who may be admitted to have suffered more or less in consequence of the Restoration, but who must not be considered as undergoing ejectment on Bartholomew’s Day. The last and the longest list of sufferers, before and upon the 24th of August, 1662, put all together, is that furnished by Palmer, amounting to 2,231,—a list evidently prepared with much care. He mentions a MS. “Index eorum Theologorum Aliorumque No. 2,257, qui propter Legem Uniformitatis, Aug. 24, A. D. 1662, ab Ecclesia Anglicana secesserunt.” Calamy’s entire list reckons 2,190. Making the largest allowable deduction for those deprived before Bartholomew’s Day—that of nine hundred as just suggested—then the number of those who were deprived on that day would amount to about 1,200. I do not see how more than that number could have been then displaced. I am induced to believe there were scarcely so many.

But whilst the distinctions and abatements which I have just made are demanded with a view to some accurate conclusion, it is to be borne in mind that the whole body of Nonconformist ministers, including the ejected, the candidates for the ministry, and all who had been accustomed in any way to preach the Gospel, were silenced by the Act. They could no longer any of them preach in a place of public worship. Therefore if we include the silenced, I should think that Baxter is rather under than above the mark in saying, “When Bartholomew Day came, about one thousand eight hundred, or two thousand ministers were silenced and cast out.”—Life and Times, ii. 385. After all, no bare statistics, no enumeration of figures, can ever represent the amount of trial, sorrow, and loss inflicted upon conscientious men at that lamentable era in our ecclesiastical history.

Palmer, following Calamy, gives a large number of names of clergymen who “afterwards conformed.” It may be inferred that amongst these were not a few who passed through considerable conflict of mind before they did so.

What was the exact number of the clergy just after the Act of Uniformity I cannot ascertain. Chamberlayne says, in his Present State of England, ed. 1692, that there were 9,700 rectors and vicars, besides dignitaries and curates—p. 189. In another place, he says:—“The whole number of the clergy of England are in all, first, two archbishops, twenty-four bishops, twenty-six deans of cathedral and collegiate churches, 576 prebendaries, 9,653 rectors and vicars, and about so many more, with curates, and others in Holy Orders.”—Part ii., 19. But this estimate must be greatly in excess of the actual number.

The communication from Dr. Swainson is as follows:—

“Let me inform you that I have found a book in our muniment-room which to a certain extent supplies the place of the Episcopal Registers of Henry King, who was restored to his see with the Restoration. The Registers, you know, are reported as lost. This book is the book of subscriptions to the three articles of the 36th Canon, and the declaration against the Solemn League and Covenant. With the assistance of a friend I have analysed the former, and the enclosed paper contains the result. But I must notice that it gives no intimation as to the number of clergymen who returned to the livings from which they were banished during the Commonwealth, nor of the Presbyterians and others who were then ejected from their homes; it only gives the livings into which new incumbents were installed; and I think you will agree with me that the number is very small. At the same time my attention has been drawn to the large number of ordinations of deacons in the first two years after the book commences. My impression is that a Presbyterian or Independent minister in legal possession of a living might retain it by the Act of Uniformity, if he accepted deacon’s orders. Thus we should have in the first three years twenty-three more vacancies than in the last three of the period before us; and in the first three years one hundred and eight men ordained deacons, in the last three fourteen or fifteen. I infer that, of these one hundred and eight a large proportion conformed and retained their preferment. My friend notices a large ordination in 1673. Eighteen priests and sixteen deacons on Trinity Sunday; eight priests and eleven deacons in Advent.” The enclosed paper states, “The book of subscriptions commences on 2nd November, 1662, and the last subscription is dated on 22nd September, 1678, thus it includes a period of sixteen years. I have no reason to suppose that it is imperfect. On analysing it, the subscriptions describe, that the subscriber is about to be admitted (1) to some rectory, vicarage, or cure of souls; (2) to a prebend or dignity in the cathedral; (3) to ‘Presbyteratus ordinen;’ (4) to deacon’s orders. There are a few who are about to be licensed to preach, and about four in the sixteen years who come to qualify themselves to keep school. The number of vacancies in rectories, vicarages, and places with cure of souls thus indicated in the several years are:—

making a total of 245 in 16 years, or an average of 15¼ per annum.

“The number of vacancies in the first three years is thus fifty-nine; in the last three, thirty-six. Taking the last figures as representing the number from ordinary causes, we have an overplus of twenty-three due to extraordinary causes, i.e., nonconformity, in the first three years. The number of men ordained deacons in the first three years was one hundred and seven; in the last three years, fifteen. Therefore the overplus of ninety-two ordained in the first three years was due to extraordinary causes; the question is what these causes were?

“N.B.—Eighty-three men were ordained priests during the same first three years. The number of benefices in the diocese of Chichester is now (1869) 330.”

No. VII.—Vol. I., p. 314.

Of the informer’s Note Book, preserved in the Record Office, I have an entire copy in my possession, made by the late Mr. Clarence Hopper, and from it I give the following extracts:—

“Brokes (Pastor)—Meets at Mr. Shaw’s, sailmaker, in Tower Wharf, sometimes at one Palmer’s Wise, [sic] and Holmes’s, who dwell all in the fields on the left hand, near Moorgate, where the quarters hang; where there is suspected some persons of note lie dormant, viz., Col. Danvers, Col. Gledman, Mr. Wollaston. The field is named ‘Phines-berry’ (Finsbury).”

“Caitnesse.—A Scotchman intimately acquainted with Lawrye the merchant (his old maid knows much of him). He dwells a little beyond Ratcliffe Church, hard by Gun Alley, next door to a shoemaker’s. Brother-in-law to Mr. Roe (formerly minister), a schoolmaster in Christchurch, within the Cloisters can tell of Caitnesse. Several of the Lord General’s old soldiers know Caitnesse; he knows Lieut.-Col. Desborough and Ellison.”

“Duckenfield.—They are 3 brothers all officers in the Army. Col. Jo Duckenfield, a stout fellow, now in Ireland, 1663, married an Exchange-woman, commanded the Foot at Winnington-bridge, 1659. Major Wm. Duckenfield in Ireland, 1663, married Franklin’s daughter, over against Salisbury House, an Exchange-man. Col. Rob. Duckenfield married Fleetwood’s sister, and hath an estate at Duckenfield Hall, in Cheshire, all 3 dangerous fellows.”

“Forbes.—Formerly in Gloucester, a Scottishman. Caitnes. Rawdon. His wife’s mother lives near Henley-upon-Thames, in Bucks. When in town, lodges behind Abchurch, going into Sherburne Lane from Cannon Street, upon the right hand, beyond the church; his landlord keeps a shop in Pope’s Head Alley. Enquire of Henley Coach, where it stands, for Mr. Forbes. His sister is an apothecary’s wife, over against Warwick House, in Holborn; and at Mr. Johnston’s, in Gr. Inne Lane, &c.”

“Thomas Goodwine (pastor).—Dwells in the fields, on the left hand near Moorgate, where the quarters stand, and meets often with Dr. Owen.”—(Vide O.)

“Mrs. Homes, at the Red Lion, a grocer’s shop, in St. Laurence Lane, is the great patroness of the worst of people now in London, and Ewell in particular. (Mrs. Holond Com. his wife), and Mr. Sheldon, prisoner in the Tower, who married Holond’s daughter; Mrs. Homes, now or lately, paid and discharged the rent for the house, which Thomas Goodwin lies in, at Bone Hill, beyond the Artillery Ground, near Cherry Tree Alley. She has a great estate; and spends it among those that lie in wait to disturb the peace of the kingdom. She is a frequent visitor of the prisons, and encourages and confirms those that are in greatest opposition to the Government. Her chief servant is called Browne, who ’tis thought, was one of the Rump Parliament. Her cash-keeper confessed, that, in six weeks after her husband died, she gave away £800. ’Tis no wonder, for she gains, with her money, several from the Church daily and under pretence of charity, corrupts many poor and wanting people.”

“Jessey, meets often at one Thomas Goodwine’s, and Dr. Owen’s in the fields, near to Moorgate, where the quarters hang; (pastor). The said Jessey meets also at the Lady Hartups, at Newington, Harfordshire, dead 1663.”

“Harwood, Jo., a merchant at Mile-end Green, a factious dangerous Independent; and the common factor for all the merchants trading especially to New England; who uses constantly to cover and disguise, the ships, goods, and persons, of those of that opinion in their voyages and passages, so as the officers of the Customs, &c., at Gravesend, and other places, are, by his interest and money, corrupted to slip the oaths, which otherwise ought to be tendered to all persons going out, &c.”

“Knowles, an Anabaptist minister, a good scholar, and a leading man, now in Amsterdam, maintained by the churches; and one Thibalds (his elder), in Tower Street, corresponds with him, (to him Mr. Riggs was recommended by Thibalds.) Knowles dwells in Wapping.”

“Meade, Pastor of the Independent Church, meets twice a week with Greenhill at Ratcliffe, and Stepney.”

“Dr. Owen (Pastor), dwells in the fields, on the left hand near Moorgate, where the quarters hang, and meets often with Goodwine.”

“Robinson (Andrew), a Scotts Quaker, dangerous young fellow; carries letters between London and Edinburgh; comes frequently to Mr. Lawrye’s.”

“Sprig, a minister, and great creature of the late usurper’s. Mr. Johnson knows him intimately. Sprig is a great acquaintance of Sir Hen. Vane’s and Ludlow’s.”

No. VIII.—Vol. I., p. 319.

In connection with the narrative on this page, and others elsewhere of the same kind, I would request the reader to bear in mind what I have remarked on p. 102. of this volume.

After the printing of the anecdote respecting Mr. Ince, a very interesting little book, entitled The Church at Birdbush, has come under my notice, from which I extract the following passages in reference to the story I have related:—“This striking narrative has sometimes been repudiated as a fiction. The evidence for its credibility seems, however, to be stronger than the supposition of its falsehood. The fact that the individual on whose authority it rests, had spent much time and labour in collecting authentic accounts of the period to which it refers, and that before the year 1705, he had lived at Shaftesbury, where, from its proximity to the scene of its occurrence, this event would be the theme of general conversation, is a fair argument in proof of its validity. Assuming then, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the principal points in this striking incident are true, there are connected circumstances which require that some additional remarks should be made. The date of the occurrence of this remarkable event has been a matter of conflicting statement. While the Nonconformist’s Memorial fixes it at ‘not long after the year 1662,’ a writer in the Evangelical Magazine for 1798, states it to have taken place ‘soon after the Toleration Act passed in 1689.’ Perhaps the precise year cannot be fixed, and yet, from an incidental remark in the life of the Rev. T. Rosewell, given in the Nonconformist’s Memorial, we may arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. His biographer says, ‘After leaving Lady Hungerford’s family, he was invited, in 1672, into that of Mr. Grove, at Ferne, where Mr. Ince lived, where he spent some months much to his comfort.’ By this it is evident that the event referred to happened before the year 1672. A second disputed point is, the apparent improbability of Mr. Ince being unknown at Ferne, after having been Rector of the adjoining parish for fourteen years or more. It should be remembered, that some few years, at least, elapsed between his ejectment at Donhead, and his being employed on the before-named estate. Time would of course leave its impressions on the form which would otherwise have been easily recognized. Besides, it is attested that he had hired himself to the ‘employment of tending sheep;’ and the shepherd’s dress, connected with the effects of prison usage, and of the other circumstances of trial to which he had been exposed, may all have combined to conceal his true profession as a minister of Christ, until the time fixed in the Infinite Mind arrived for its discovery. His ‘appearance’ was that which surprised Mr. Grove, when he contrasted it with his ‘language and manner.’ The last sentence of the statement obviously requires correction. The Meeting-house referred to, was not erected on the estate at Ferne, nor by Mr. Grove.”

No. IX.—Vol. I., p. 374.

I have adopted the common account of Cecil’s signing Edward VI.’s Instrument of Succession as a witness. It is endorsed by Mr. Froude.—(Hist., v. 509). But I ought to add, that Tytler, in his England under the Reigns of Edward VI. and Mary, discredits the story which rests on a statement made by Roger Alford, twenty years afterwards, who on Cecil’s authority, and at his request, was trying to make out a case in favour of his master. Cecil’s signature occurs in the midst of many names appended to the document, not at all in the way of witness; and Tytler thinks, that Cecil had determined to retain his place, whatever sacrifice it might cost him. It did cost him dear—“for he was driven by it to falsehood, to evasion, and to little subterfuges, from which every upright mind would have recoiled.”—(Vol. ii. 175.) In a defence of himself, written in his own hand, for the eye of Queen Mary, and which Tytler has printed (vol. ii. 192), he says nothing of having signed the instrument as a witness.

It appears further, from an examination by Tytler, of some of Cecil’s papers in the Record Office, that in the reign of Queen Mary he conformed to the established religion by attending mass.—(Vol. ii. 443.) Yet it is remarkable that although regarded kindly at court, he never held office under the Popish Sovereign; and is distinctly described as “a heretic” by the Count de Feria, writing in 1558.—(p. 499). Whatever his compliances at the time, there must have been enough in his conduct to indicate that he was an unwilling Conformist, and that he was in heart a Protestant. Still, in respect to religious profession in the earlier part of life, he is seen to disadvantage when compared with Clarendon.

No. X.—Vol. II., p. 88.

Lord Macaulay mentions in his History of England, a broadside which he had seen, and which is printed in Somers’ Tracts. The author, as he says, was a Roman Catholic, having access to good sources of information, and although no name but one is given at length, the initials are intelligible except in a single instance. The Duke of York is said to have been reminded of his duty to his brother by P. M. A. C. F., which mysterious letters puzzled his Lordship as they had done Sir Walter Scott, who edited Somers’ Collection. Plausible conjectures as to their meaning occurred at the same time to Macaulay and others, and though the conviction continued in his mind, that the true solution had not been suggested, he was inclined to read the initials thus: “Père Mansuete, a Cordelier Friar.” A Cordelier of that name was James’ Confessor.

After all, the shrewd conjecture was correct. The following paper, mentioned in my Preface, settles the question. It is substantially the same as the paper printed in Somers (Scott’s Edition, viii. 428), but the verbal differences are considerable, and the P. M. A. C. F. is identified as Père Mansuete, a Cordelier Friar, Confessor to the Duke.

I print the MS. at length, as it will be interesting for the historical student to compare it with the broad sheet reprinted by Somers:—

“On Munday 2^d of February Candlemas day the King rose early, said he had not slept well. About 7 a clock comeing from his private devotions out of his Closett, fell downe so that he was dead for foure hours in an Apoplecticke fitt: with losse of 16 ounces of blood and other applications came to his sences againe: Great hopes of his recovery till Thursday one a clocke. But at 5 the Doctors being come before the Councill declared he was in great danger. On Friday a quarter before 12 he departed. God have mercy upon his soule. P. M. a C. ffryar C to the Duke upon the Doctors first telling him of the State of the K. told him that now was the time to take care of his soule and that it was his duty to tell him so. The D. with this admonition went unto the King and told it, The K. answered O Brother how long have I wished but now help me: He said he would have Father Hudd:[617] who preserved him in the tree, and now hoped he would preserve his soule; H was sent for to bring all necessaries for a dying man: not having the B: S. by him, H mett one of the Q^s P,[618] told him the occasion, desiring his assistance to procure it and bring it to the back staires. The King having notice that Mr. Hudd: waited desired to be in private with his Brother. All the Bpps and Nobles goeing out, the D latching the dore, the L^de P. B. and F.[619] were goeing out also, the D told them they might stay, the Kg seeing Father cryed out: Almighty God what good planet governes me that all my life is wonders and miracles when I O Lord consider my infancy, my exile, my escape at Wor’ster my preservation in the tree by this good Father and now to have him againe to be the Preserver of my Soule, O’ Lord my wonderfull Restauration, the great danger of the late Conspiracy and last of all to be raised from death and to have my soule preserved by the assistance of this good Father whom I see that thou O Lord hast created for my good: the D and E^s,[620] withdrew into the Closett, they were private for some time, after which the D and E^s entred againe, the Father remaining comforting and praying with him, He said, if I am worthy of it, Pray lett me have it, the Father said he exspected it and offered to proceed with the extreeme unction, The King said, with all my heart: the D and the L^ds assisting at the time M^r. Hudd: being called to the doore received the B: S: he desired the Kg to compose himselfe to receive. the King would rise, he was perswaded to the Contrary, Let me meet my heavenly father in a better posture then lying thus, being overruled they pray, amongst other the Father repeated an Act of Contrition, the King desired him to repeate it againe, saying it word by word after him, Received with the greatest expressions of devotion imaginable: This being ended they proceeded in the Prayer de Recommendacöne animæ, that being done, the King desired a repetition of the Act of Contrition once more, Lord Good God when my Lips faile let my heart speake these words eternally.

“The Bishops and Lords entred againe and perswaded the King to remember his last end and to endeavour to make a good end. He said he had thought on it and made his peace with God. Asking him whether he would receive, he said he would not, he persisting in extolling the Queene and Duke said he was not sorry to leave the world leaving so good a brother to rule behind him.”

No. XI.—Vol. II., p. 148.

Macaulay, speaking of the disobedience of the London clergy to the Royal order, says:—“Samuel Wesley, the father of John and Charles Wesley, a curate in London, took for his text that day the noble answer of the three Jews to the Chaldean tyrant, ‘Be it known unto thee, O King, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.’” The historian quotes as his authority Southey’s Life of Wesley. The story has been repeated again and again. Unfortunately, in reference to Wesley, it cannot be true. He was ordained in deacon’s orders the 17th of August, 1688, about three months after the issuing of the order: and the only foundation for the story seems to be a poem by the younger Wesley, written “upon a clergyman lately deceased,” the Rev. John Berry, the poet’s father-in-law, and published four years before Samuel Wesley’s death.—See The Mother of the Wesleys, by the Rev. John Kirk, p. 58.

No. XII.—Vol. II., chap. xiv.
Anglican Views on the Relations of Church and State.

In the review of Anglican opinions in the 14th chapter I have scarcely entered upon what is understood by the Church and State question. I am not able to supply, from the works of Bull, Pearson, Cosin, Heylyn, Barrow, and others, any satisfactory catena of passages bearing on this point, or to report any definite theory, or any sustained arguments of theirs in relation to it. Their theological writings treat of other themes. Thorndike, indeed, has a good deal to say of the State, as well as of the Church, and speaks, on the one hand, of the State being in subjection to the Church, of the State being bound to protect the Church, and of the State being justified in inflicting penalties for religion when the latter interferes with civil peace. On the other hand, he speaks of kings being justified in reforming the Church, even against the ecclesiastical order. (Reference to these passages will be found in the index to the Oxford Edition of Thorndike.) Yet I can find in Thorndike no precise theory of Church and State relations. Jeremy Taylor treats of ecclesiastical laws and power; he insists on the concurrence in them of the civil authorities, and that kings are bound to keep the Church’s laws; yet he denies that Christian princes can be lawfully excommunicated. (Works, xiii. 583–616.) Bramhall alludes to the Royal nomination and investiture of bishops in England as approved by ancient canons and constitutions (part iv. dis. 6); and Sanderson goes so far as to declare, that the king hath power, if he shall see cause, to suspend any bishop from the execution of his office, and to deprive him utterly of his dignity. (Episcopacy not prejudicial, s. iii. 33.) Morley’s extravagant views of the Royal prerogative have been noticed. On the whole it appears that after the Restoration, High Churchmanship manifested itself more in theological doctrine, than in either ritualism or in ecclesiastical supremacy. Looking at the whole history of the period between the Restoration and the Revolution, we see in the ascendant that which is commonly meant by the word Erastianism. Indications of this are afforded by the manner in which the Act of Uniformity was carried; by the utter inactivity of Convocation after the year 1664,—for it did scarcely more than formally assemble from time to time,—and by the notions of the Royal supremacy so generally maintained, and so plainly expressed, not only by Bishop Morley but by the two Universities.

No. XIII.—Vol. II., p. 93.

“On the 19th of May, 1685, the King (about 11 a clock in the morning) came to the House of Peers in his royal robes, and with his crown off his head, being attended with the great officers of state, and having placed himself on his throne, the Usher of the Black Rod, Sir Thomas Duppa, was sent to bring up the Commons to the bar of the Lords’ House.

The Commons being come, the Lord Keeper standing behind the Chair of State (from whence he usually speaks to the two Houses) acquainted the Commons that his Majesty had commanded him to tell them that it was his royal pleasure, that they should go down to the Lower House, and choose their speaker, and present him at 4 of the clock in the afternoon, to his Majesty at the bar of the Lords’ House, for his approbation.

The Lord Keeper acquainted the Lords and Commons at the same time, that they should, in the mean time, apply themselves to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and the test, as the law requires, and when that was done in both Houses, his Majesty would then acquaint them with the reasons why he called them to Parliament.

Thereupon the Commons withdrew, and went down to their own House, and (as I have been informed) forthwith chose Sir John Trevor to be their speaker.

In the mean time, the Lords went about the taking of the oath of allegiance, and supremacy, and the test; and in the first place, the Lord Keeper took the oaths and test singly; and then the Lords in their order, beginning with the Barons, and ending at the Archbishop of Canterbury.

When that business was over, the Lords called to go to prayers, and the Bishop of Bath and Wells read prayers, he being Junior Bishop. When prayers were ended, the Lords that were lately created by new patents, were introduced, according to the usual solemnity, that is to say, the Lord Keeper went below the bar, and being attended with the Usher of the Black Rod, and Sir W. Dugdale, King at Arms, and the Lord Marshall, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, and two other Barons (for Barons introduce Barons, and Earls do introduce Earls, &c.), the patent was carried by my Lord Keeper, and laid at his Majesty’s footstool, at the throne, he kneeling; and then he took his patent up, and carried it to his side upon the Woolsack, and then delivered it to the Clerk of the Parliament, who read it, and after the reading of it, he was, by the Lords and Officers aforesaid, brought to his seat upon the Barons’ bench, from thence he went to his place upon the woolsack, which is his seat as Speaker to the Lords’ House.

The rest of the Lords were introduced in the same manner, only they went out of the House to bring in their patents; and so did the Earl Marshall, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, and Sir William Dugdale, and the Usher of the Black Rod go out of the House to fetch them in; but the Lord Keeper did not go out of the House, because he being Speaker, ought not to be absent from the House, while its sitting, and that is the reason why he did not go out.

The Lords that were introduced were these:—First, Lord Keeper; second, Lord Treasurer; third, Lord President; fourth, Duke of Beaufort; three Earls, i.e., Earl Maclesfield, Earl Berkley, Earl Nottingham; three Viscounts, Viscount Hatton, Viscount Weymouth, Viscount Townsend. The Barons that were introduced were Dartmouth, Stawell, Churchill, Wemen; there were more, but I do not now remember their names, but I will hereafter insert them.

Then all those Lords that were introduced took the oath of allegiance and supremacy, and the test; and so went into their seats. And this was about 3 of the clock in the afternoon.

Then the Lord Privy Seal moved the House in the behalf of the three Popish Lords, that were upon bail to appear at the bar of the Lords’ House the first day of the Parliament, and he produced a petition from them, which was read; and in it they set forth, that they were impeached of high treason, and imprisoned for five years, and upwards, upon the single testimony of Titus Oates, who was found guilty of perjury by several indictments, and they prayed to be set at liberty, with reparation of their honours.

Then the Earl of Chesterfield moved the House in behalf of the Earl of Danby, and told their Lordships that he had a petition from the Earl of Danby, and prayed it might be read; and it was ordered to be read by the Clerk. The purport of his petition was to shew to the Lords, that he had been impeached and imprisoned for above four years, merely upon suggestion, without oath, and prayed their Lordships’ favour for his enlargement.

This petition of the Earl of Danby was more modest than the other Lords’ petition, which made the Lord Keeper observe, and say to the House, that the prayer of the Earl of Danby’s petition was different from the prayer of the Popish Lords’ petition; for they desired to be enlarged forthwith with reparation. And the Earl of Danby prayed either to have his trial, or to renew his bail, or to have such directions as their Lordships should think meet in his case.

The Lord Keeper’s intimation was not taken well by my Lord Danby’s friends; and therefore the Earl of Chesterfield, Lord High Chamberlain, and others stood, and moved successively, that the Earl of Danby’s case was the same with the Popish Lords, i.e., imprisonment and impeachment without oath, and therefore the remedy was the same.

Upon these motions, the House came to this resolution and order, i.e., they ordered that the Lords should be called in, and stand at the bar, to whom the Lord Keeper said that the House had read their petition, and had given order to record or enter the appearance, and that they should withdraw, and attend the House the first time they sat after this day, to know the further pleasure of the House as to their petitions.

The Lord Butler moved in behalf of the Earl of Tyrone, and he appeared at the bar, and had the same answer as the other Lords, viz., to attend at the next sitting day.

When this was done the House adjourned during pleasure, and the King withdrew into the Prince’s lodgings for a quarter of an hour, and the Lords went to the adjacent rooms to refresh themselves; and in a quarter of an hour the King returned into the House, and the Lords into their places, and then the House was resumed.

Thereupon the King withdrew, and presently came in his robes, and his crown upon his head, attended with the officers of state and heralds as aforesaid, and sat on his throne, and then the Usher of the Black Rod went down to call the Commons, who forthwith, with Sir John Trevor, their Speaker, attended at the bar of the House, and said (having made their bows or congé of reverence) that the Commons assembled in Parliament had made choice of him for their Speaker, and that he was sensible of his great disabilities to undergo that weighty task, and thereupon prayed his Majesty, that he would graciously be pleased to command the House of Commons to go down and choose another Speaker.

The King having heard his disabling harangue, whispered the Lord Keeper; and then the Lord Keeper (from behind the Chair of State) said, “Sir John Trevor, the King hath commanded me to tell you, that he is well apprised of your parts and zeal to serve him, and the Commons, and therefore he approves of their choice, and admits you to be the Speaker.”

Then the Speaker, in a short speech (read out of his paper, which was the first time that I observed a Speaker read any speech) expressed his thankfulness for his Majesty’s good opinion of him, and his parts, and promised to do his duty zealously and loyally, and then prayed (after the usual manner) that the Commons might have (1) their freedom of speech and (2) freedom from arrest, and (3) access to his Majesty to deliver their addresses, &c.

Again the King called to the Lord Keeper, and spake privately to him; and then the Lord Keeper told the Speaker, that the King had granted their petitions; and so the Commons and the Speaker were dismissed. And when the company was withdrawn, and the House clear of the people that thronged there, the doors were shut, and then the Lord Lovelace called to the Clerk to be sworn, and tendered himself to take the test.

But the Lord Keeper said that by the order of the House he should have offered himself to do that business in the morning after prayers, and therefore he could not be sworn that day.

Then the House called to adjourn, and they did adjourn, that is, the Lord Keeper as Speaker adjourned the House until Friday, at nine of the clock in the morning.

Friday 22 May, 1685.

The Lords met in their House, and in their robes that day. In the Lords’ House there was a canopy of state for the Queen Consort set up in the Lords’ House, near the Archbishop’s seat. The Queen came into the House about ten of the clock, and was in the House, while the House went to prayers.

In the same seat with her, that is with the Queen, sat the Prince of Denmark, and the Princess Anne, his consort.

About eleven of the clock, the King came to the House in his robes and attended as aforesaid, and sat upon his throne. And immediately the Commons, with their Speaker, came to the bar of the Lords’ House, at which time the King made a gracious speech, which is in print, and it is his first speech to the Parliament. The Lords and Commons hummed joyfully and loudly at those parts of it which concerned our religion, and the established government.

When the King’s speech was ended, the Commons went down to their own House, where, as I have been told, they forthwith voted the King’s revenue to be settled upon him for life.

The Lords, after reading an order pro formâ, chose committees for receiving and trying of petitions, committees for privileges and for the journal book.

The next thing was a motion made by the Lord Newport, and seconded by others, against several Lords that were minors or under 21 years, who would sit in the Lords’ House against the order of the House.

In fine, the minor Lords were ordered to withdraw, and told that they were not to sit there until they attained 21 years of age.

Then the Lords took unto consideration the petition of the imprisoned Lords, and after a warm debate, they came to the question about vacating an order of the House made anno 1678 about the continuance of impeachments after the dissolution of Parliament. The question was carried for the vacating of that order, and by that means the three Lords were ipso facto set at liberty.

Its observable that there was not above nine Lords in the negative, and there was above 80 in the affirmative at the question.

The same day there was a bill brought in and read against clandestine marriages, and then the House adjourned; only they voted thanks to the King for his gracious speech, and attended the King at the banquetting house, with the House of Commons, to give their thanks at 4 o’clock that day.

Saturday 23 of May.

The House met about ten of the clock, and after prayers, as is usual, some orders, pro formâ, were read, and then some Lords were sworn.

Then several petitions for appeals from decrees in chancery were read and admitted.

Then the bill against clandestine marriages was read 2nd time and committed.

The House fell upon consideration of Argyle’s declaration, which was by his Majesty’s order communicated to the House. It was a treasonable declaration, inviting his friends and vassals to take arms and oppose the King, whom he traitorously called a tyrant and usurper in that wicked paper.

The House returned thanks to his Majesty for imparting that matter unto the Lords, and they declared Argyle to be a traitor, and that they would be ready with their lives and fortunes to stand by his Majesty in the defence of his person, crown and dignity against that traitor and all his enemies. And they sent a message to the Commons for their concurrence in that vote, who sent answer that they did readily concur.

Then an address was made to the King by the Lords of the White Staves, to know when both Houses might wait upon his Majesty, to give him thanks for communicating unto them, the designs of Argyle, and to present their declaration upon the subject matter of his traiterous declaration.

The King’s answer was, that he would be waited upon at 5 of the clock in the afternoon in the banquetting house.

Then the house adjourned till Monday.

Both houses attended the King at the banquetting house at 5 of the clock on Saturday.

[This journal is all in the Bishop of Norwich’s (Dr. Lloyd) own hand.]”—MS. in the University Library, Cambridge.

No. XIV.—Vol. II., p. 139.

James, towards the close of the year 1687, contemplated the calling of a Parliament. There is a collection of papers in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, to which my attention has been directed by the learned and courteous librarian, the Rev. Mr. Coxe, containing interrogations, addressed to Justices of the Peace and others, as to whether persons were likely to be returned who would pledge themselves to vote for taking off the tests and penal laws respecting religion. The following extract from a letter by John Eston, dated Bedford, November 22, 1687, is very curious:—“My Lord,—Since your honour spake with me at Bedford I have conferred with the heads of the Dissenters, and particularly with Mr. Margetts and Mr. Bunyon, whom your Lordship named to me. The first of these was Judge Advocate in the Army under the Lord General Monk, when the late King was restored; the other is the pastor to the dissenting congregation in this town. I find them all to be unanimous for electing only such members of Parliament as will certainly vote for repealing all the tests and penal laws touching religion, and they hope to steer all their friends and followers accordingly; so that if the Lord Lieutenant will cordially assist with his influence over the Church party, there cannot be in human reason any doubt of our electing two such members.” Again, December 6, 1687, the same writer says:—“The Dissenters are firm for us, but the Churchmen are implacable against us.”—MSS., Vol. I., Penal Laws of Test.