;36o The HISTORY of the Pur prANs. Chap. VIII: .P2ueen perfions of Dr. Sutclif; in which he declares, he had never feen Racket El abeth, nor Arthington, nor ever had any conference with them by letter or mef - titi --_,J Cage. Had there been any ground for this vile charge, we fhould no doubt have found it among their articles of impeachment. -Teeen's mef- At the opening of the new parliament, February xoth. the queen fig- /agliament, nified her pleafure to the houfe, that they might redrefs fuch popular grievances as were complained of in their feveral counties, but fhould leave all matters of/late to herfelf and the council; and all matters relating to the church to herfelf and the bifops. What an infignificant thing is a re- prefentative body of the nation, that mutt not meddle with matters either ofchurch or Rate ! But her majefty was refolved to let them fee (he would Hey]. Hitt. be obeyed, for when Mr. Wentworth and Bromley moved the houfe to 'Pfefb. addrefs the queen to name her fucceffor, the fent for them, together with P° 319' Mr. Wei and Stephens, and committed them to prifon, whereWentworth remainedgiany years. When it was moved in the houle to addrefs thequeen for the releafe of their members, it was anfwered by thole privy counfel lors who were of the houfe, that her majefty had committed themfor confer heeft known to herfelf; that the houfe mu/1 not call the queen toaccount for what the did of her royal authority ; that the caufes of their rellraint might be high and dangerous ; that her maje/iy did not likefuchqußions, nor did it become the houfe to deal in fuch matters. (Debates in After this it was a bold adventure of Mr. Attorney Morrice, and for parliament which he paid very dear, to move the houfe, to enquire into the proceed. aboutfpm ins of thebifhops in their iritual courts, and how far they could juftify courts. g P .lp . Y j Y L. of Whit- their inquifition, their fubfcriptions, their binding the queen'sfùbjetls to their P. 386. good behaviour, contrary to the laws of God and of therealm ; theircompelling men to take oaths to accule themfelves; and upon their refufal to degrade, de- prive, and imprfon them at pleafure, and not to releafè them till they had Bitl againf! complied. At the fame time he offered two bills to the houfe; one againft them. the oath ex ?pia, and the other againft their illegal imprifonments ; which laft he prayed might be read prefently. Sir Francis Knollys feconded the Z. of Whit- attorney and faid, " that in his opinion thefe abufes ought to be reformed; gift, P. 388. " and that if the prelates had aded againft law, they were in a preemu- " ° nire. He added, that after the reformation of king Henry VIII. no : bithopprafifed fuperiority overhis brethren ; that in king Edward the VIth's time a ftatute was made, that bifhops fhould keep their courts in " o the king's name; and that though this ftatute was repealed by queen Nee to'behept " Mary, and not fince revived, yet it was doubtful what authority bi- maathe biJhops,,e Chops had to keep courts in their own name, becaufe it was manifeftly ' againft the prerogative that any fubje& fhould hold a court, without exprefs warrant from the crown. If it was Paid, they kept their courts '° by prefcription, or by the ftatute of king Henry VIII. which gives bifhops
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=