the true patriot, while it wore a gloomy aspect with reference to the cause of religious liberty, and the fecurity of the protestant diffenters; this was the death of the king on the 8th of March 1701-2: a king, to whom they looked as their glorious deliverer from popery and flavery, to whofe title they were true and firm adherents, and in whose service they were faithful. "To him the intellectual world is "indebted for the full freedom of difcuffion, and the "unrestrained avowal of its fentiments on fubjects of "the highest importance and magnitude. To him "Britain owes the affertion and the final establish"ment of our conftitutional privileges."‡

Belsham, vol. ii. p. 222.

Controversies agitated in the period between the REVOLUTION and the death of King WILLIAM.

SECTION I.

The Controversy respecting the Rights, Powers, and Privileges of Convocations.

HE Convocation or ecclefiaftical fynod in

"THE

England differs," obferves Judge Blackstone, "confiderably in its conftitution from the fynods of "other Christian kingdoms: thofe confifting wholly "of bishops; whereas, with us, the convocation is "the miniature of a Parliament, wherein the arch"bishop prefides with regal state: the upper house "of the bishops reprefents the House of Lords; " and the lower house, composed of representatives "of the several dioceses at large, and of each parti"cular chapter therein, refembles the Houfe of "Commons, with its knights of the fhire, and burઃઃ geffes." This conftitution originated in the policy and neceffity of Edward I. who, in the year 1219, when the knights, citizens, and burgeffes were first fummoned to Parliament by the royal Commentaries, vol. i. p. 280. ed. 179.

writ, iffued alfo his writ to all the bishops of Eng land to call together the clergy of their feveral dioceses at Westminster, to give him their help and counfel. This was the first national affembly to which the lower clergy were called by the king's writ. The object of the king was not so much to extend their privileges, and to raise their importance in the community, as to obtain aids from them; and to introduce a precedent and a method of taxing ecclefiaftical benefices by confent of convocation. He accordingly demanded half the profits of their revenue for one year.*

In confequence of the debates and diffentions which arofe in the convocation that met in the beginning of King William's reign, it was prorogued, as we have feen, for 10 years. But the prorogations were conducted with exactness and regularity. With the opening of every other feffion of Parliament the convocation was fummoned, and was in being with it. But as in the year 1665 the clergy had yielded up the right of giving their money in fubfidies to the state by their own votes, and had fubmitted to be taxed by the House of Commons, there was at laft nothing for them to do when they met; for, notwithstanding all the danger which threatened religion during the former reigns, they never pretended to fit and act as a fynod.

Under these circumftances they fat only for form's fake; the meetings were of courfe adjourned from time to * Warner's Ecclefiaftical History of England, vol. i. p. 479Burnet, vol. v. p. 37.

+ Page 63.

time by the president, but always in a capacity to be convened whenever the exigences of church or ftate required their counsel and affiftance. No fuch exigence happened for several years. This exemption from an unneceffary and expenfive attendance, which was defigned for the ease of the clergy, by releafing them from an obligation of absence from their cures, became by degrees a ground of complaint: they murmured at the frequent and renewed prorogations as a violation of their conftitution; and they cast severe reflections on the Archishop of Canterbury in particular, and on the episcopal bench, as neglectful of the interests of the church, and even difpofed to betray them. These discontents were privately fomented among those of the lower clergy who were nonjurors. In 1697 thefe difputes became known to the world at large through the prefs; and the pen being taken up, the controverfy was continued in different and fucceffive publications. In these circumstances, while the public mind was agitated, and the clergy, in particular, were in no good temper, the Tory miniftry, into whofe hands the king had put the reigns of government, demanded, at the very beginning of their administration, that a convocation fhould be permitted to fit. It was fummoned and met in the church of St. Paul's in London, on Monday Feb. 10th, 1700. The convocation was opened with speeches full of fevere reflections on the bifhops, which, from an unwillingness to enter into disputes, they paffed over in filence, and with a forbearance that did them credit. On

the 21st of February, Dr. Hooper, dean of Canterbury, a man of learning and good conduct, but referved, crafty, and ambitious, was chofen, prefented, and approved as prolocutor. The archbishop, Dr. Tennison, meant and actually attempted to prcrogue the convocation on the 25th of the fame month; but obftructions were thrown in the way of this measure. The conftant method of adjournments had been this, the archbishop figned a fchedule for that purpose, by which the upper house was immediately adjourned; and that inftrument being fent down to the lower house, it was likewise. On this occafion the clergy, aware that the continuance of their meetings depended on the will and pleasure of the archbishop, who could hinder or break off all debates by an adjournment, refolved to contest this point. When, therefore, the schedule of prorogation was brought down and delivered to the prolocutor, they continued fitting in defiance of it, and proceeded in fome debates, which, though of no moment in themselves, expreffed their determination to act independently of the archbishop's schedule. After this the prolocutor himself, by the confent of the house, intimated an adjournment, and appointed the next meeting to be held in Henry VIIth's chapel, in opposition to the schedule; which included the whole body of the convocation, and to prevent separate and diftin&t meetings, had appointed it to affemble in the Jerufalem chamber.

These proceedings of the lower house were, with reason, confidered by the archbishop and the ma