and his statement to Bishop Vesey may well be taken as an answer to it.

"There is yet a further proof, and I think a strong one, that subscription to the Irish Articles was not continued up to the Rebellion. At the Restoration, Bramhall had the care of re-edifying the Church, and providing for her future government. He had then no opposition to contend with: he could do what he would. Had subscription to the Irish Articles along with the English been continued by the most part of the Bishops', up to the time when the Church was overwhelmed, it is incredible but that he would have provided, when she was arising out of her trance, against the revival of such a practice. We know that the fact had been discussed between him and Dean Bernard only four years before, and he had the Canons of 1634 then carefully considered: we know that he did nothing, and we conclude that he found nothing to be done.

"We may conclude this history of the Irish Articles, with the testimony of Bishop Vesey, written in 1675. • Now they are not only dead and buried, but forgotten also; those of the Church of England being the only Standard of our Communion, and the rule to try the spirits of the prophets, and the principles of such as are admitted into orders and preferments in the Church.'

III.

"That the proceedings of the Committee of the Lower House in 1634 were in direct violation of the Law of Convocation in Ireland may require some notice; because there never was any Act of Submission' by the Irish Clergy, like that in England under Henry VIII. The reason of the absence of such an Act of Submission in Ireland is evident. The repre

sentatives of the Clergy in Ireland had not then been formed into a separate House: they still continued to sit in the House of Commons, as the representatives of the English Clergy had

done in England some centuries before. It was needless, therefore, to ask for an acknowledgment that the Irish Clergy were summoned by the King's writ.

"The first time that representatives of the Clergy in Irel ind sat apart from the Commons was in the Convocation of 1615. We have no existing account of how the change was made. But there can be no doubt that the constitutional laws of Convocation in England became law in Ireland, along with the introduction of the English form of Convocation. For, 1st., the laws of Convocation in England did not arise from the Act of Submission, which did not profess to be anything but an acknowledgment of what was previously the Common Law. And, 2nd., the matter is clear from the proceedings of the Irish Convocation of 1703, which are the more valuable as they with the utmost care and diligence searched into all the remains of Convocation now left in this kingdom,' with the avowed intention to leave a useful precedent for future Convocations. This was one of their Conclusions: Resolved, that the Lower House of Convocation has a right, in some cases, to come to separate resolutions, and to print and publish the same.' That this did not extend to initiating New Canons, of their own authority, is clear from an address from the Lower to the Upper House in that Convocation, in which, after representing some grievances, they say, 'finding that we have not now the wishedfor time and opportunity of making proper application for such laws, and for such license to make such Canons, as are necessary for the redress hereof, do with all humility point out to your Lordships as many of those grievances as at present occur to us, and submit them to your Lordships' consideration, that when opportunity shall serve, what we now offer may, by your Lordships' prudent application for suitable laws and Her Majesty's license to make proper Canons, be improved to the advantage of our Church.'

"Such was the course which the Committee of the Lower House in 1634 were bound to adopt, and it clearly was Lord Strafford's duty to the Crown, to prevent their proceeding in a

course which set aside the authority both of the Bishops and of the Crown.

IV.

"The following is the Canon proposed by the Committee of the Lower House. Though alluded to in Lord Strafford's letter, it has never been published. I found it in an MS. in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, entitled 'Dean Andrews; his deliberations about the Canons of England and Ireland, examined.' At the end is a note, 'This is a true Copy of the MS. so entitled, now in the Library of the Honourable Mr. Wentworth, of R. G. Wentworth, Woodhouse in Yorkshire.'

"Canon 5, Hib. MS.

"Those which shall affirm any of the Articles agreed on by the Clergy of Ireland at Dublin, 1615, or any of the 39 concluded of in the Convocation at London, 1562, and received by the Convocation at Dublin, 1634, to be in any part superstitious, or such as may not with a good conscience be received and allowed, shall be excommunicated and not restored but only by the Archbishop.'

"After this Canon, the following note appears, 'It would be considered here whether these Articles of Dublin, 1615, agree substantially with those of London, or confirmed equally by the King's Authority: else I see no reason of establishing them under one penalty.'

"Opposite to the Canon itself is written in the margin, Here the form of Subscribing in the English Canons is changed into receiving and allowing: for what reason I see not, except they suppose men that truly receive and allow would be lothe to Subscribe.' And in the margin opposite the note that follows the Canon is written, I should think (erroneous) and (such as may not with a good conscience be received and allowed) to differ very little from a tautology.'

"The whole paper is a commentary on the Report prepared by Dean Andrews's Committee. Being preserved among Lord Strafford's papers, it was evidently written for him; and there can hardly be a doubt that Bishop Bramhall was the person whom Lord Strafford would employ to examine and comment on that Report; unless, perhaps, Lord Strafford might be thought to have done it himself, which is not so likely.

"The following is a copy of Lord Strafford's letter to the Prolocutor of the Lower House, taken from the same source, and as yet unpublished, though the substance is given by Lord Strafford in his letter to Laud.

"Mr. Prolocutor,

"I send you here enclosed the form of a Canon to be passed by the votes of the Lower House of Convocation. Which I require you to put to the question for their consents without admitting any debate or other discourse, for I hold it not fit, nor will suffer that the Articles of the Church of England be disputed.

"Therefore I expect from you to take only the voicesconsenting or dissenting, and to give me a particular account how each man gives his vote.

"The time admits no delay, so I further require you to perform the contents of this letter forthwith, and so I rest, "Your good friend,

"Dublin Castle,

"The 10th of December, 1634.'"

“❝ WENTWORTH.

"The Prolocutor was Dean Leslie, afterwards Bishop of Down. He was himself in favour of establishing the English Articles as the sole standard of the Irish Church."