James was greatly incensed. What insolence to plead either natural justice or positive law in opposition to an express command of his sovereign! Sharp was forgotten. The bishop became a mark for the whole vengeance of the government.* The king felt more painfully than ever the want of that tremendous engine which had once coerced refractory ecclesiastics. He probably knew that, for a few angry words uttered against his father's government, Bishop Williams had been suspended by the High Commission from all ecclesiastical dignities and functions. The design of reviving that formidable tribunal was pushed on more eagerly than ever. In July, London was alarmed by the news that the king had, in direct defiance of two acts of Parliament, drawn in the strongest terms, intrusted the whole government of the Church to seven commissioners. The words in which the jurisdiction of these officers was described were loose, and might be stretched to almost any extent. All colleges and grammar schools, even those founded by the liberality of private benefactors, were placed under the authority of the new board. who depended for bread on situations in the Church or in academical institutions, from the primate down to the youngest curate, from the vice-chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge down to the humblest pedagogue who taught Corderius, were at the royal mercy. If any one of those many thousands was suspected of doing or saying any thing distasteful to the government, the commissioners might cite him before them. In their mode of dealing with him they were fettered by no rules. They were themselves at once prosecutors and judges. The accused party was furnished with no copy of the charge. He was examined and cross-examined. If his answers did not give

All

The best account of these transactions is in the Life of Sharp, by his son. Citters, 1686.

June 29
July 9

+ Barillon,

July 21
Aug. 1

1686. Citters, July 18; Privy Council Book, July 17; Ellis Correspondence, July 17; Evelyn's Diary, July 14; Luttrell's Diary,

Aug. 5, 6.

satisfaction, he was liable to be suspended from his office, to be ejected from it, to be pronounced incapable of holding any preferment in future. If he were contumacious, he might be excommunicated, or, in other words, be deprived of all civil rights and imprisoned for life. He might also, at the discretion of the court, be loaded with all the costs of the proceeding by which he had been reduced to beggary. No appeal was given. The commis. sioners were directed to execute their office notwithstanding any law which might be, or might seem to be, incon sistent with these regulations. Lastly, lest any person should doubt that it was intended to revive that terrible court from which the Long Parliament had freed the nation, the new tribunal was directed to use a seal bearing exactly the same device and the same superscription with the seal of the old High Commission.* His pres

The chief commissioner was the chancellor. ence and assent were necessary to every proceeding. All men knew how unjustly, insolently, and barbarously he had acted in courts where he had been, to a certain extent, restrained by the known laws of England. It was, therefore, not difficult to foresee how he would conduct himself in a situation in which he was at entire liberty to make forms of procedure and rules of evidence for himself.

Of the other six commissioners, three were prelates and three laymen. The name of Archbishop Sancroft stood first. But he was fully convinced that the court was il legal, that all its judgments would be null, and that by sitting in it he should incur a serious responsibility. He therefore determined not to comply with the royal man. date. He did not, however, act on this occasion with that courage and sincerity which he showed when driven to extremity two years later. He begged to be excused on the plea of business and ill health. The other members of

* The device was a rose and a crown. Before the device was the initial letter of the sovereign's name; after it the letter R. Round the seal was this inscription: "Sigillum commissariorum regiæ majestatis ad causas ecclesiasticas."

the board, he added, were men of too much ability to need his assistance. These disingenuous apologies ill became the primate of all England at such a crisis; nor did they avert the royal displeasure. Sancroft's name was not, indeed, struck out of the list of privy counselors, but, to the bitter mortification of the friends of the Church, he was no longer summoned to any meeting of the board. "If," said the king, "he is too sick or too busy to go to the commission, it is a kindness to relieve him from attendance at council."*

The government found no similar difficulty with Nathaniel Crewe, bishop of the great and opulent see of Durham, a man nobly born, and raised so high in his profession that he could scarcely wish to rise higher, but mean, vain, and cowardly. He had been made dean of the Chapel Royal when the Bishop of London was banished from the palace. The honor of being an ecclesiastical commissioner turned Crewe's head. It was to no purpose that some of his friends represented to him the risk which he ran by sitting in an illegal tribunal. He was not ashamed to answer that he could not live out of the royal smile, and exultingly expressed his hope that his name would appear in history, a hope which has not been altogether disappointed.†

Thomas Sprat, bishop of Rochester, was the third clerical commissioner. He was a man to whose talents posterity has scarcely done justice. Unhappily for his fame, it has been usual to print his verses in collections of the British poets, and those who judge of him by his verses must consider him as a servile imitator, who, without one spark of Cowley's admirable genius, mimicked whatever was least commendable in Cowley's manner; but those who are acquainted with Sprat's prose writings will form a very different estimate of his powers. He was, indeed, a great master of our language, and possessed at once the eloquence of the orator, of the controversialist, and of the historian. His moral character might have passed with

Appendix to Clarendon's Diary; Citters, Oct., 1686; Barillon, Oct. 1; Doyly's Life of Sancroft. + Burnet, i., 676.

little censure had he belonged to a less sacred profession, for the worst that can be said of him is that he was indolent, luxurious, and worldly; but such failings, though not commonly regarded as very heinous in men of secular callings, are scandalous in a prelate. The archbishopric of York was vacant; Sprat hoped to obtain it, and therefore accepted a seat at the ecclesiastical board; but he was too good-natured a man to behave harshly, and he was too sensible a man not to know that he might at some future time be called to a serious account by a Parliament. He therefore, though he consented to act, tried to do as little mischief, and to make as few enemies, as possible.*

The three remaining commissioners were the lord treasurer, the lord president, and the chief justice of the King's Bench. Rochester, disapproving and murmuring, consented to serve. Much as he had to endure at court, he could not bear to quit it. Much as he loved the Church, he could not bring himself to sacrifice for her sake his white staff, his patronage, his salary of eight thousand pounds a year, and the far larger indirect emoluments of his of fice. He excused his conduct to others, and perhaps to himself, by pleading that, as a commissioner, he might be able to prevent much evil, and that, if he refused to act, some person less attached to the Protestant relig ion would be found to replace him. Sunderland was the representative of the Jesuitical cabal. Herbert's recent decision on the question of the dispensing power seemed to prove that he would not flinch from any service which the king might require.

As soon as the commission had been opened, the Bishop of London was cited before the new tribunal. He appeared. "I demand of you," said Jeffreys, "a direct and positive answer. Why did not you suspend Dr. Sharp?" The bishop requested a copy of the commission, in order that he might know by what authority he was thus interrogated. "If you mean," said Jeffreys, "to dispute our authority, I shall take another course with you. As

* Burnet, i., 675; ii., 629; Sprat's Letters to Dorset.

The

to the commission, I do not doubt that you have seen it. At all events, you may see it in any coffee-house for a penny." The insolence of the chancellor's reply appears to have shocked the other commissioners, and he was forced to make some awkward apologies. He then returned to the point from which he started. "This," he said, "is not a court in which written charges are exhibited. Our proceedings are summary, and by word of mouth. question is a plain one. Why did you not obey the king?". With some difficulty Compton obtained a brief delay, and the assistance of counsel. When the case had been heard, it was evident to all men that the bishop had done only what he was bound to do. The treasurer, the chief justice, and Bishop Sprat were for acquittal. The king's wrath was moved. It seemed that his ecclesiastical commission would fail him as his Tory Parliament had failed him. He offered Rochester a simple choice, to pronounce the bishop guilty, or to quit the Treasury. Rochester was base enough to yield. Compton was suspended from all spiritual functions, and the charge of his great diocese was committed to his judges, Sprat and Crewe. He continued, however, to reside in his palace, and to receive his revenues; for it was known that, had any attempt been made to deprive him of his temporalities, he would have put himself under the protection of the common law; and Herbert himself declared that, at common law, judgment must be given against the crown. This consideration induced the king to pause. Only a few weeks had elapsed since he had packed the courts of Westminster Hall in order to obtain a decision in favor of his dispensing power. He now found that, unless he packed them again, he should not be able to obtain a decision in favor of the proceedings of his ecclesiastical commission. He determined, therefore, to postpone for a short time the confiscation of the freehold property of refractory clergymen.*

The temper of the nation was indeed such as might

* Burnet, i., 677; Barillon, Sept., 1686. The public proceedings are in the Collection of State Trials.