^{page 167 note 1} For general information about Convocation, see Makower, Felix, The Constitutional History and Constitution of the Church of England, London 1895Google Scholar; Lathbury, Thos., A History of the Convocation of the Church of England, 2nd edition, London 1853Google Scholar, and Weske, Dorothy, The Convocation of the Clergy, London 1937Google Scholar which concentrates on the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Lehmberg, Stanford E., The Reformation Parliament, Cambridge 1970Google Scholar provides some useful material about Convocation at that time.

^{page 167 note 2} Convocation to contemporaries was the Convocation of Canterbury. I have followed their usage. Unless otherwise noted, Convocation means the assembly for Canterbury.

^{page 168 note 1} Lathbury, op. cit., 216; Curtis, Mark, ‘The Hampton Court Conference and its Aftermath’, History, 46 (1961), II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 168 note 2} For 1604 and 1606, see Cardwell, Edward, Synodalia, Oxford 1842, i, 330–34Google Scholar and notes; ii, 583–84, 586–87. See also, DNB, ‘Overall’.

^{page 168 note 3} For the authorisation of 1640, see Public Record Office, C.82/2190/132, warrant for the Great Seal, and SP., 16/450/95, copy of the commission.

^{page 168 note 4} Their proceedings can be seen in Cardwell, op. cit., ii. 587–89, 592. Wilkins, David, Magna Concilia, London 1737Google Scholar, iv also includes proceedings. The actual Convocation Books which would correspond to the Journals of parliament remain among the archives of the Province of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace Library. I examined the books for both the Upper and Lower Houses for the year 1640, Conv. 1/1/1 (Upper) and Conv. 1/2/2 (Lower). Like the parliamentary Journals, the Convocation Books were a record of action taken rather than of debate. Their contents do not add much to what is available in printed sources.

^{page 168 note 5} In 1629 Pym defended parliament's claims to deal with religion by dismissing Convocation as a provincial synod: W. Notestein and F. Relf, Commons Debates for 1629, Minneapolis 1921, 21. Other characteristics disqualifying Convocation were cited at that time: ibid., 119–20, 127.

^{page 168 note 6} British Museum, MS. Loan 29/172, MSS. of his grace the duke of Portland: the Harley Papers, fols. 251–52^V, a series of questions for parliament about religion, 1639, question 6.

^{page 169 note 1} SP., 16/450/73, Observations Concerning the Royal Visitation, Its Model. The Observations are addressed to ‘my lord’ and are unsigned. The author, who expresses his desire for anonymity, suggests that the work might be shown to some such prudent man as Sir John Coke. The content indicates that ‘my lord’ is not Laud and that his approval is not sought. See also Certain Considerations Touching the Better Pacification and Edification of the Church of England (1640). Probably written before the Short Parliament, this work urges that changes be made in the Church. The power of bishops ought to be reduced and the restrictions placed upon Convocation at a time when the clergy were suspected of Romanism removed. The parliamentary criticism of 1629 ako attacks procedure. Even more criticism of Convocation on all grounds arose after May 1640.

^{page 169 note 2} SP., 16/450/73. Peter Heylyn (Cyprianus Anglicus, London 1668, 153) also comments on Convocation's lack of activities in the 1620s.

^{page 169 note 3} SP., 16/450/73.

^{page 169 note 4} ibid.

^{page 170 note 1} MSS. of his grace the duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, Montagu Papers (vol. 186, shelf 13, no. 2, North Colonnade, Boughton House), Journal of Lord Montagu, id. (hereafter, Montagu) Journals of the House of Lords (hereafter LJ), iv, 56, does not indicate who made the motion. The clerk's scribbled book, House of Lords Record Office, Braye MS. 16, fol. 10^V, identifies the Lord Keeper with adjournment but shows some revision of the notes of this.

^{page 170 note 2} Foster, Elizabeth R., ‘Procedure in the House of Lords during the Early Stuart Period’, Journal of British Studies, (1966), 62.Google Scholar I have learned a great deal from discussing parliament and Convocation with Mrs. Foster.

^{page 170 note 3} British Museum, Harleian MS. 4931, fol. 47, brings both Say and Brooke into the debate although it gives the leading role to Say. Yale Law Library, Glanville MS. (transcript belonging to Willson Coates) I, just mentions Say. Montagu, Id, gives no names in describing the debate. Neither does Braye MS. 16, fol. 10^V. About Say and Sele's previous activities, see Schwarz, Marc, ‘Viscount Say and Sele, Lord Brooke and Aristocratic Protest to the First Bishops' War’, Canadian Journal of History, 7 (1972), 17–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also SP., 16/447/30 and SP., 16/450/88.

^{page 170 note 4} Montagu, Id; Braye MS. 16, fol. 10^V; Harl. MS. 4931, fol. 47.

^{page 170 note 5} SP., 16/450/9. It is endorsed by Laud, ‘Rec'd: Apr. 20, 1640, Journall of Parliaments concerning Convocation Dayes’. This paper follows almost exactly the statement in Henry Elsynge's book, The Ancient Method and Manner of Holding Parliaments in England, 3rd ed., London 1675, 111–12.

^{page 170 note 6} Montagu, 2, reports the meeting of the committee; for the approval by the House, see LJ, iv, 60, and Montagu 2b.

^{page 171 note 1} The Lords’ times of sitting are indicated in LJ., iv.

^{page 171 note 2} John Nalson, Impartial Collection of the Great Affairs of State, London 1682, i. 361. The meetings of Convocation are indicated in the Convocation Books, Conv. 1/1/1 and Conv. 1/2/2.

^{page 171 note 3} Harl. MS. 4931, fol. 47^V. Montagu, 2, in reporting the committee attributes the remarks about a third estate to the archbishop of Canterbury, but in the account of the discussion in the House on 21 April points to Hall as spokesman. Braye MS. 16, fol. 16, names neither Hall nor Say, but indicates that a bishop was accused of comparing the Lords to Covenanters. The clerk did record Say as speaking twice in the debate about admonishing the bishop. The printed Journal simply reports that ‘a bishop … let fall some words that might reflect upon some Lords of the same committee’: LJ, iv. 61.

^{page 171 note 4} Jones, W. J. (Politics and the Bench, London 1971, 134–35Google Scholar) makes the comparison between bishops and judges and discusses the dislike of both. See also Hill, J. E. C., Economic Problems of the Church, Oxford 1956, chap. iii.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 5} John Rushworth, Historical Collections, London 1721, iii. 999. Stevenson, David, ‘The Covenanters and the Government of Scotland, 1637–1651’, University of Glasgow, Ph.D. thesis, 1970Google Scholar, provides a good narrative of the proceedings in Scotland.

^{page 172 note 1} SP., 16/447/33 and SP., 16/447/30. For MS. copies of his readings, see British Museum, Hargrave MS. 206 and Stowe MS. 424.

^{page 172 note 2} SP., 16/447/33. The statement that Bagshaw was returned to the Short Parliament for Banbury is probably inaccurate. The Official Return lists only Nathaniel Fiennes. There is no evidence that Bagshaw actually sat. He did sit in the Long Parliament as M.P. for Southwark. See also Prest, W. J., The Inns of Court, London 1972, 214–15.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 3} LJ, iii. 439. I have found no report of the committee's action. Lord Montagu would probably have recorded it, but he was not present. The clause apparently remained in the orders, see Historical MSS. Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of the House of Lords, N.S. x. 5–6. In 1621 the question had been debated in the House of Commons: Notestein, W., Relf, F., and Simpson, H., Commons Debates, 1621, New Haven 1935, iii. 262–66.Google Scholar It was treated in a number of contemporary works. Edward Coke, Institutes, London 1671, iv. cap. 1, makes the three estates Lords Spiritual, Lords Temporal, and Commons but maintains that the bishops sit by their baronies, not because they are bishops. See also John Selden, The Priviledges of the Baronage of England, London 1642, introd. and 120–26.

^{page 172 note 4} Grimston's speech is printed in Rushworth, , Historical Collections, London 1721, iii. 1128–29.Google Scholar Both his speech and Seymour's as well as other proceedings are given in Harvard College Library, MS. Eng. 982, fols. 21^V–31^V. The Harvard Diary is another version of the diary in the Northamptonshire Record Office, Finch-Hatton MS. 50. The Harvard version includes the sections which are missing from the Finch-Hatton MS.

^{page 173 note 1} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fols. 31^V–34 (Rous), 34–42 (Pym). There are many copies and several versions of Pym's speech. Rushworth includes two, one of which is wrongly dated November 1640: op. cit., iv. 21. The other, dated 17 April, appears in ibid., iii. 1131–36.

^{page 173 note 2} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fol. 34^V.

^{page 173 note 3} Notestein and Relf, Commons Debates for 1629, 21; Journals of the House of Commons, (hereafter cited as CJ) i. 922. For discussion, see Notestein and Relf, op. cit., 18–21.

^{page 173 note 4} Notestein and Relf, op. cit., 18. I am grateful to Conrad Russell for calling this speech to my attention.

^{page 173 note 5} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fols. 48^V–49. CJ, ii. 8.

^{page 174 note 1} I am using ‘Pym-Hampden’ to label the group for purposes of convenience. Pym and Hampden were two of the most active members during the Short Parliament. For previous activities of the group, see Zagorin, Perez, Court and Country, New York 1970Google Scholar, chap, iv; also Keeler, M. F., The Long Parliament, Philadelphia 1954.Google Scholar ‘Puritan’ should be taken in a broad sense to include those who wished to see a more Protestant Church as well as those who objected to the episcopal form of church government. There were some Puritans in the Short Parliament who were not members of the Pym-Hampden group. Harley probably should be considered one of these.

^{page 174 note 2} For Marten and Eden, see DNB. Keeler, op. cit., 163, describes Eden's work with the High Commission. It is possible that these members were among the civil lawyers and bishop's chancellors who reportedly petitioned the king about Convocation in early June. Their specific grievance is uncertain: SP., 16/456/44.

^{page 174 note 3} CJ, ii. 9.

^{page 174 note 4} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fol. 52^V. For Holborne, see DNB.

^{page 174 note 5} Notestein, W., Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, New Haven 1923, 152–53.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 1} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fol. 52^V. See also MSS. of his grace the duke of Manchester (Huntingdon Record Office), Diary of Robert Bernard, (hereafter, Bernard) 5–6. I owe the suggestion that the diary was Bernard's to Valerie Pearl.

^{page 175 note 2} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fol. 53. Bernard, 6, reports his citation as ‘To the Commons ad tractandum et consentiendum de arduis concernent (ibus) regnum et ecclesiam … to the convocation ad consentiendum’. SP. 16/445/73, the king's writ to Laud of 20 February reads ‘ad tractandum, consentiendum et concludendum super premittis [praemissis] et aliis qui tibi clarius exponentur …’. In the margin beside this portion of the writ is written in a different hand, which may be Laud's, ‘Nota’. In the Long Parliament both St. John and Holborne cite the ancient writ to the clergy as ‘ad tractandum et consulendum’: Notestein, D'Ewes, 153 and note, 156 and note. Nevertheless, the specific wording of the writ of 1640 seems not to be in doubt. The question was whether any writs to Convocation authorised the kind of legislative power which the commission seemed to warrant and the assembly of 1640 exercised.

^{page 175 note 3} For the judges' opinion, see below.

^{page 175 note 4} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fol. 53^V.

^{page 175 note 5} ibid.

^{page 175 note 6} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fols. 53^V–54. See also CJ, ii. 9.

^{page 176 note 1} CJ, ii. 9. See also Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fol. 54. I have found no petitions from the country complaining about Convocation during this parliament. The time necessary for news to travel probably explains this.

^{page 176 note 2} CJ, ii. 9 (22 April), 10 (23 April).

^{page 176 note 3} CJ, ii. 11; Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fols. 59^V–60^V.

^{page 176 note 4} CJ, ii. 11.

^{page 176 note 5} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fol. 61; CJ, ii. 11.

^{page 176 note 6} The king came to the Lords on 24 April: LJ, iv. 66–67.

^{page 176 note 7} CJ, ii. 16.

^{page 177 note 1} SP., 16/453/15; Conv. 1/1/1, 66.

^{page 177 note 2} Laud, William, History of his Troubles and Tryal, 80, in Works, Oxford 1847, iii. 285.Google Scholar Elizabeth Foster called my attention to this.

^{page 177 note 3} For the judges' opinion, see Conv. 1/1/1, 68. The opinion asserted that the writ of summons was still valid. The expiration of the commission to make canons when parliament was dissolved did not affect the writ. Hence the clergy believed that with a new commission they could proceed.

^{page 177 note 4} Fuller, Thos., Church History of Britain, Oxford 1845Google Scholar, Book XI, 14, 16, 17. Heylyn, on the other hand, indicates that careful search of records and the opinion of the judges satisfied the Convocation. He adds (Cyprianus Anglicus (1688) 442) ‘It is a matter which deserves no small admiration that these canons (like the first building of the Temple, without the noise of ax and hammer) should pass the house with such general calm and quiet and be received with so many storms and tempests when they went abroad’. Holdsworth claims that he, Brownrigg, and Hacket had attempted to raise questions about the continuation of Convocation and the nature of the canons, but the leadership had been able to make their efforts vain. He asserted that he and Brownrigg had subscribed to the canons only ‘by way of attestation, not approval': Lambeth MS. 943, fols. 599–600.

^{page 177 note 5} Conv. 1/1/1, 61; see also Lambeth MS. 1061, fol. 2; but Laud says ‘never any synod sat in Christendom that allowed more freedom either of speech or vote’: History of his Troubles and Tryal, 80.

^{page 177 note 6} Conv. I / I / I, 68 ff. See also Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, 430–33. The Book of Canons to which the clergy actually subscribed is in SP., 16/455/47.

^{page 178 note 1} Heylyn, 429. The DNB says he may have been the one who suggested the Elizabethan example. This is not clear from his account in either Cyprianus Anglicus, 429, or Observations on the History of the Reign of King Charles, London 1656, 197. The precedent was that of 1586. See Laud, History of Troubles, 80, cited above, 177 n.2. The measure used in 1586 is printed in Cardwell, Synodalia, ii. 566–69 and note. For the legal opinion, see above, 177 n.3.

^{page 178 note 2} For example, England's Complaint to Jesus Christ Against the Bishops' Canons (1640); Lambeth MS. 943, fols. 595–97, questions from the London clergy about the oath imposed in the sixth canon; petition from the clergy of Yorkshire, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1640, 656; petition from Devon, Rushworth, op. cit., iii. 1208.

^{page 178 note 3} CJ ii. 51; Notestein, D'Ewes, 157. The Commons voted that the clergy had no power to make canons to bind either clergy or laity without parliamentary assent and that the canons made were not binding.

^{page 178 note 4} Charges against Laud, Rushworth, op. cit., iii. 1365–70; Against Thirteen Bishops, Rushworth, op. cit., iv. 359; speeches for reduction of episcopal authority, Rushworth, op. cit., iv. 174–87.

^{page 178 note 5} Notestein, D'Ewes, 154–55.

^{page 178 note 6} ibid., 152–53.

^{page 178 note 7} Hall, Joseph, ‘A Short Answer to Those Nine Arguments Which Are Brought Against the Bishops' Sitting in Parliament’, Works, London 1863, viii. 273–76Google Scholar; ‘A Speech in Parliament Made in Defence of the Canons Made in Convocation’, ibid., 278–81; ‘A Speech in Parliament Concerning the Power of Bishops in Secular Things’, ibid., 281–84.

^{page 179 note 1} Lehmberg, op. cit., 153 and note, 154.

^{page 179 note 2} Eliz. I, C. I.

^{page 179 note 3} Makower, op. cit., 366–67; Bond, Maurice, The Records of Parliament, London 1971, 178.Google Scholar In 1624 when the temporal subsidy included means whereby its collection and use could be controlled, the clerical subsidy was granted without conditions: Ruigh, Robert, The Parliament of 1624, Cambridge, Mass., 1971, 255–56Google Scholar; see also Hill, op. cit., 195–96 and note.

^{page 179 note 4} John Browne's book of procedure, House of Lords Record Office, Braye MS. 65, 6. Browne, who was clerk of the parliament in 1640, says that the clerical subsidy was ‘read but once [in the Lords] and so passed by vote and sent to the Commons for their assent’: ibid. It was given three readings in 1610; see below. Allida Shuman called my attention to the fact that it was apparently read only once in the House of Commons in 1624. This is also true in 1628 (CJ, i. 713, 796, 918), but on both occasions it was recorded as read three times in the Lords (LJ, iii. 405, 406, 847).

^{page 179 note 5} CJ, i. 453; LJ, ii. 650.

^{page 180 note 1} George Croke, Reports, London 1669, ii. 37. It was the enforcement of the canons and the deprivation of ministers who refused to follow their orders which led to the petitions and complaints in the following years. See, for example, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1603–1610, 193; Bowyer, Robert, Parliamentary Diary, ed. Willson, D. H., Minneapolis 1931, 144–47, 376–77.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 2} Notestein, D'Ewes, 152–53.

^{page 180 note 3} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fols. 60^V–61.

^{page 180 note 4} ibid., fol. 53^V. See above, 175 n.4.

^{page 180 note 5} ibid., fols. 53^V–54.

^{page 180 note 6} Heylyn, op. cit., 422. The idea was not an original one. It had been proposed both in 1604 and in 1614. For 1604, see below, 181 n.5. For 1614, see Notestein, Relf and Simpson, op. cit., vii. 639.

^{page 180 note 7} Heylyn, op. cit., 422. See also Fuller, op. cit., vi. Book XI, 12.

^{page 181 note 1} For examples of questions and objections, see the discussion of 24 April; CJ, ii. 11; Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fols. 31–32.

^{page 181 note 2} Lehmberg, op. cit., 85–86.

^{page 181 note 3} ibid., 140, 193.

^{page 181 note 4} Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, London 1953, i. 166–170, 194–217Google Scholar, and ii. 65–68.

^{page 181 note 5} CJ, i. 199–200. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, iii. 87, 89.

^{page 181 note 6} CJ, i. 327, 329, 348 (1606); CJ, i. 417, 418, 421 (1610).

^{page 181 note 7} Foster, E. R., Proceedings in Parliament 1610, New Haven 1966, i. 125 and note.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 1} Foster, op. cit., ii. 254–71 (petition); i. 124–27, 234 (debates). Roland G. Usher (Reconstruction of the English Church, London 1910, ii. 116–17) suggests that ‘the authority of canons over the laity was not … in question until 1640’. He admits that there is a good deal of evidence on both sides of the question and dismisses ‘as not the best evidence in this connection’ material in Coke's Institutes and Twelfth and Thirteenth Reports (117 note). The opinion about Convocation, Coke, 12 Rep., 72–73, given by the judges in parliament in 1610 denies that Convocation could bind the laity. The conference of 6 July concerning the bill about canons might have been the occasion for this opinion. The judges were to be present at the conference: LJ, ii. 636. The debates at this time raise questions about the validity of Usher's contention. Elizabeth Foster reminds me that the paper which Sir Robert Cotton wrote for Sir Edward Montagu about the power of parliament in ecclesiastical causes was probably also prepared at this time. See British Museum, Cotton MS. Titus F. IV, fols. 170–73^V.

^{page 182 note 2} For example, St. John, Bernard, 6. St. John did this much more clearly in the Long Parliament: see Notestein, D'Ewes, 154–55.

^{page 182 note 3} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fol. 61.

^{page 182 note 4} For example, Pym on 22 April: Bernard, 5–6. There are some inaccuracies in the precedents as cited in Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fol. 52^V.

^{page 182 note 5} See above, 175.

^{page 183 note 1} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fol. 74. See also CJ, ii. 18. The question of Beale was brought up in Convocation on 18 May. Laud indicated that if he had known there were difficulties he would have acted, and he would still investigate after Convocation had ended and its privileges had expired: Conv. 1/1/1, 73. Lady Brilliana Harley reported that she had heard that Convocation had censured Beale for his sermon: Letters of Lady Brilliana Harley, ed. Lewis, T. L., Camden Society, lviii, London 1854, letter lxxix, 96.Google Scholar The statute, 8 Henry VI, c. 1, confirmed the privileges of Convocation.

^{page 183 note 2} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fol. 74. A similar procedure was followed with Cosins in 1629: Notestein and Relf, op. cit., 128. See also the debate in 1621: Notestein, Relf, and Simpson, op. cit., iii. 262–66.

^{page 183 note 3} Bernard reports the proceedings in some detail: op. cit., 14–15.

^{page 183 note 4} A Remonstrance Concerning the Present Troubles From the Meeting of the Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland, April 16 Unto the Parliament of England, (1640). There were some serious disputes about the constitution of the assembly and its proceedings in 1639: see Stevenson, D., ‘The Covenanters and the Government of Scotland, 1637–1651’, University of Glasgow, Ph.D. thesis, 1970, 121Google Scholar, 129, 131–34, 173, 182–85, 186–201.

^{page 183 note 5} SP., 16/450/73: Observations Concerning the Royal Visitation, its Model, and the tract, Certain Considerations Touching the Better Pacification and Edification of the Church of England (1640), both of which are cited above, are indications of this, so is the very issuance of a licence to make canons.

^{page 184 note 1} [Parliament and Convocation], London 1640: STC #7748. The title remaining on the fragment is … iament … and Temporal Exactly Delineated … Manner of Propounding, Discussing, and Enacting of Laws in Both Houses … ation of the Clergie …. Only part of one large sheet survives. A slightly different version of the printed work appears on fols. 127 and 128^V of ‘A Brief description of the Solemnities used in calling and assembling and the manner of propounding, discussing and enacting of laws in both Houses. Something also is added concerning the Convocation House of the Clergy’: Bodleian Library, MS. Ashmole 824, fols. 125–128^V (a reference I owe to Elizabeth Foster). It is difficult to determine from the Cambridge fragment whether the entire MS. was printed.