Chap. VIII. i7e HISTORY òf the PÚRx Ns. 675 might be humbled by the parliament. Lord Clarendon adds, " They K. Charles I. " were glad of an occafion topublifh their refentments againft the church, '64°. " and to enter into the fame confpiracy againft the crown, without which " they could have done little hurt." But the caufe of the hierarchy being to be decided at another tribunal, no Numbers of applications were wanting on either fide to make friends in the parliament hands to p. houfe, and to get hands to petitions. The induftry of the feveral parties and aga n/f on this occafion is almoft incredible ; and it being the fafhion of thehierarchy. times to judge of the fenfe of the nation this way, meffengers were Pent all over England to promote the work. Lord Clarendon and after him Dr. Nalfon and others of that party, complain of great difingenuity on the fide of the puritans : his lordfhip lays, " That the paper which Ciaren. " contained the mini/iers petition was filled with a very few hands, but Vol.1. " that many other fheets were annexed, for the reception ofnumbers that P. Z °4' " gave credit to the undertaking ; but that when their names were fub- " fcribed, the petition itfelf was cut off, and a new one of a very dif- " ferent ,nature annexed to the long lift of names ; and when force of " the minifters complained to the reverend Mr. Marfhall, with whom " the petition was lodged, that they never law the petition towhich their " hands were annexed, but had figned another againft the canons, Mr. Marfhall is faid to reply, that it was thought fit by thole that underftood ' " bufinefs better than they, that the latter petition fhould be rather pre- " ferred than the former." This is a charge of a very high nature, and ought to be well fupported: if it had been true, why did they not com- plain to the committee which the houle of commons appointed to enquire into the irregular methods of procuring hands to petitions ? His lordfhip anfwers, that they were prevailed with to fit Hill and pafi it by ; for which we have only his lordfhip's word, nothing of this kind being tobe found in Rufhworth, Whitlock, or any difinterefted writer of thofe times. However it cannot be denied that there was a great deal of art and Thefolly Ì perfuafron ufed to get hands to petitions on both fides, and many fob- at. fcribed their names who were not capable to judge of the merits of the caufe. Thepetitions againft the hierarchy were of two forts; force defiring that the whole fabric might be deftroyed ; of thefe the chief was the ROOT AND BRANCH petition, figned by the handsof about fifteen thou- fand citizens and inhabitants of London; others aiming only at a refor- mation of the hierarchy ;: of thefe the chief was the MINISTERS PE= T ITION, figned with the names of feven hundred beneficed clergymen, and followed by others with an incredible number of hands, from Kent, Glauceflerfhire, Lancafhire, Nottingham, and other counties. The pe- titions in favour of the prefent eftablifhment were not lefs ntimerous,- 4 R 2 for
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=