(Vol. iv., p. 278.)
MR. FRASER'S erudite researches are well worth the space which they
occupy. The conclusions to be drawn from them appear quite to support
my positions:
1. _The Three Estates of the Realm are, the Spiritualty, the Nobility,
and the Commonalty_: on this fact there is no dispute. The last is as
certainly the _third_ estate (_tiers état_). But MR. FRASER demurs to my
ranking the Spiritual Estate as the _first_, quoting the Collect in the
Service for the fifth of November, which runs, "the Nobility, Clergy,
and Commonalty." On this point I am not prepared with a decisive
authority; but certainly the language and practice of Parliament is with
me. The Lords Spiritual are always named _before_ the Lords Temporal,
and precedence is allotted to them accordingly; the Archbishops ranking
_above_ the Earls (with the more recent distinctions of Marquess and
Duke), and the Bishops _above_ the Temporal Barons [Qy. What was the
relative rank of the _other_ "prelates" who were formerly in
Parliament?]. To the same effect is the language of the celebrated
preamble to the act 24 Henry VIII. c. 12.:--
"This realm of England is an empire ... governed by one supreme
head and King ... unto whom a body politic compact of all sorts
and degrees of people divided in terms and by names of
_Spiritualty and Temporalty_, be bounden and owen."
2. _The Convocations of the Clergy_ (which are _two_ synods sitting in
three houses) _are no part of the Parliament_. MR. FRASER thinks "this
point was settled somewhat late in our history;" but it is proved (I
submit) in the very extracts which he produces from ancient statutes.
Since there is no doubt that the Clergy sat _regularly_ in Convocation,
we should not hear of their _occasional_ presence in the House of
Commons had the Convocation been deemed a part of Parliament. It is
certain that Convocation never exercised the powers which belong to a
chamber of Parliament; even their own subsidies to the Crown were
ratified and passed in Parliament before they became _legally_ binding.
[See on the whole of this subject, Burn's _Eccl. Law_ (Phillimore's
ed.), tit. "Convocation," vol. ii. pp. 19-23.] MR. FRASER has certainly
adduced instances in which the assent of the Clergy was given to
_particular_ statutes; he might have added the recital of their
submission to the Crown, in the Act of Supremacy, 26 Henry VIII. c. 1.
He has shown also that clerical proctors were _occasionally_ introduced
into the House of Commons, like the judges (he says) in the House of
Lords. But this is far from making those proctors, or the Convocation
which sent them, a _part_ of the Parliament. Indeed it is shown that
they were _not_ by the petition of the Lower House of Convocation (cited
by MR. FRASER), in which they desire "_to be admitted to sit in
Parliament_ with the House of Commons, according to antient usage." It
is clear that they who so petitioned did not esteem themselves to be, as
a Convocation, already part of the Parliament. The Convocation would
indeed have become the Spiritual Estate in Parliament, if the Clergy had
acceded to the wise and patriotic design of King Edward I. But they,
affecting an _imperium in imperio_, refused to assemble at the King's
writ as a portion of the Parliament of their country, and chose to tax
themselves apart in their Provincial Synods, where they used the forms
of a separate Parliament for the Church.
3. Hence _the Spiritual Estate was, and still is, represented in
Parliament by the Spiritual Lords_. William the Conqueror having
converted their sees into baronies, they were obliged, like other
tenants _in capite_, to obey the royal summons to _Parliament_. When I
called it a mistake to suppose that our Bishops sit in the Upper House
only as Barons, I did not mean that they are not so, in the present
constitution of Parliament, but that such was not the _origin_ of the
prelates being called to share in the legislation of the realm. The
other clergy, however, retained their tenure of frankalmoigne, and stood
aloof alike from the councils and from the burdens of the state.
Attendance in Parliament being chiefly given for the purpose of voting
_taxes_, the Commons, as well as the Clergy, looked upon it as a burden
more than a privilege. But while the Clergy were quickly compelled to
bear their share of the public burdens, their short-sighted policy
deprived them of the voice which is now enjoyed by other degrees of
Englishmen in the affairs of the country. While Convocation was sitting,
the Clergy could make their sentiments known by the Bishops who
represented their Estate in Parliament; and we often find the Lower
House of Convocation petitioning their lordships to make statements of
this kind in their places in Parliament. But in the present suspension
of Convocation and the disuse of diocesan synods, the Clergy have lost
their weight with the Bishops themselves; and that once formidable
Estate of the Realm retains but the shadow of a representation in
_Parliament_.
MR. FRASER will find this account of the matter fully borne out by the
extract he has given from Bennet's _Narrative_. "The King in full
Parliament charged the _Prelates_, Earls, Barons, and other great men,
and the Knights of the shire, and the Commons," to give him counsel.
Here we have a description of _Parliament_ precisely as it is
constituted at this day, and the "Prelates" are the only members of the
Spiritualty. Then we read "the Prelates _deliberated_ 'with the clergy
by themselves' (_i.e._ in _Convocation_), and the Earls and Barons by
themselves, and the Knights and others of the Commons by themselves; and
then, 'in full Parliament' (as before), each by themselves, and
afterwards all in common answered," _i.e._ the Clergy deliberated in
Convocation, but answered _in Parliament_ by their Prelates.
It is true, as MR. FRASER observes, that the majority of the Upper House
of Parliament binds the Clergy though all the Bishops should be
dissentient, as in Queen Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity. This is the
result of the Spiritual Estate voting in the same chamber with the
Nobility; and to avoid such a result the Commons very early demanded a
chamber to themselves. The Spiritualty is thus yet further reduced under
the power of the Temporalty; for "the authority of Parliament" (as
Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity words it) is and must be supreme, however
defective its representative constitution. It were certainly to be
wished that those liberal reformers who were so shocked at _burgage
tenures_ and rotten boroughs, would extend their compassion to the
disfranchised clergy, some five or six hundred of whom are
"represented," without their consent or opinion asked, by a prelate
appointed by the Crown.
On the whole, the Convocation is "the true Church of England by
representation" (Canon 139) in such matters as belong to the _Church_ as
distinguished from the _State_; but in _Parliament_, which is the State,
the Spiritualty is represented by the Bishops alone.
I am astonished that MR. FRASER should stumble at my remark, that the
Three Estates still assemble in common for the final passing of every
act. I had thought that the ceremony of giving the royal assent in full
Parliament to bills previously deliberated upon in the two Houses apart,
had been sufficiently well known.