CHAPTER VII.

FURTHER LEGISLATION AGAINST THE BROWNISTS.

ONE more chapter of legislation against the Brownists remains to be written. The eleventh parliament of Elizabeth, 1592-3, was opened on Monday, February 19th, by a speech from Sir John Puckering, keeper of the great seal, in which, among other things, he said: "Her majesty further hath willed me to signify unto you, that the calling of this parliament now is not for the making of any more new laws and statutes, for there are already a sufficient number, both of ecclesiastical and temporal; and so many there be, that rather than to burthen the subject with more to their grievance, it were fitting that an abridgment were made of those there are already. The principal cause of this parliament is, that her majesty might consult with her subjects for the better withstanding of those intended invasions, which are now greater than were ever heretofore heard of." *

If these were her majesty's views, they certainly were not those of the members of this parliament;

*D'Ewes' Journals of all the Parliaments during the Reign of Q. Elizabeth, pp. 456-8. Lond. 1682.

VOL. III.

13

(193)

for, though they sat only to April 10th, 1593— about forty working days — yet twenty-seven bills were passed by both houses, and a considerable number of others were discussed more or less without securing a passage. Any one who will take the trouble to read the journals of this parliament will see, that the time was very fully occupied in legislating about miscellaneous matters-two, four, six or even eight bills at a time, passing from one house to the other; while the members were some. what slow to agree on the great business for which they were professedly called together the furnishing of supplies for her majesty's government.

The violent construction which it was necessary to give the law of 23d Elizabeth," in order to hang as felons those who simply opposed and wrote against the hierarchal establishment, induced the bishops to make an early attempt to get a bill through this parliament, "making it felony to maintain any opinions against the ecclesiastical government; which by the bishops' means did pass the upper house." The bill thus described by a contemporary, appears to have been introduced into the commons on Monday, February 26th, the first working-day of the session, under the title of a bill "for reducing disloyal subjects to their due obedience." +

See ante, vol. 11. p. 506.

† See a contemporary letter, dated April 7, 1593, from Thos. Phillips to Mr. William Sterrell, in Waddington's Hidden Church, pp. 94-96.

D'Ewes, 471.

As an offset to this, Mr. Morrice, attorney of the Court of Wards, moved the house the next day, "touching the hard courses of the bishops and ordinaries, and other ecclesiastical judges, in their courts, used towards sundry learned and godly ministers and preachers of this realm, by way of inquisition, subscription, and binding absolution; contrary to the honor of God, the regality of her majesty, the laws of this realm, and the liberty of the subjects of the same; compelling them upon their oath to accuse themselves in their own private actions, words and thoughts, if they shall take such oaths, because they know not to what questions they shall answer until after the time they shall be sworn." He therefore prayed for a consultation, "for redress of the said enormities," and offered two bills; "one concerning the said inquisitions, subscriptions and offering of oaths, and the other concerning the imprisonments upon their refusal to the said oaths."

Mr. Dalton and Sir John Woolley opposed Mr. Morrice's motion. Sir Francis Knowles and Oliver St. John both favored it. After much discussion, the bills were committed to the Speaker for examination, he promising to keep them with all secrecy, and report to the house. But her majesty, being apprised of these proceedings, sent for the Speaker and charged him, "that no bill touching the said matter of the State, or reformation in

*D'Ewes' Journals, p. 474.

causes ecclesiastical be exhibited;" and on his allegiance commanded him, "if any such bill be exhibited, not to read it." Mr. Morrice himself, was placed under restraint by the queen's orders.† Thus was quenched, at once, this bold movement of the friends of religious freedom in parliament, to obtain relief from the inquisitorial acts of the bishops.

On the 28th of February, the bishops' bill was read a second time, and elicited considerable discussion. It was strenuously opposed by several speakers, and was finally recommitted. The bill did not appear again in the commons until Monday, March 12th, when the committees reported it, and also a new bill, made for that purpose, with the prayer that the new bill might be read. And

*D'Ewes' Journal, p. 478.

† Mr. Hopkins gives a very good account of these transactions, and assigns satisfactory reasons for believing that the current account of Morrice's confinement and suffering for the part he took in introducing these bills, derived from Heylyn, is not the truth; that his restraint was temporary and not severe; instead of being life-long, as Heylyn reports. For this leniency he was undoubtedly indebted mainly to Lord Burleigh and the Earl of Essex. Hist. Pur., 111. 552-60.

This arrest of Morrice and interference with bills before the house, was not the only instance of arbitrary power exercised over this parliament by the despotic Elizabeth. Peter Wentworth and Sir Henry Bromley were imprisoned for presenting a petition to the lord-keeper, desiring the lords to unite with the commons, in supplicating her majesty to entail the succession of the crown; and Richard Stevens and Mr. Welch were committed for being privy to this motion. — D'Ewes, 470.

-

accordingly, this bill had its first reading. The next day it was again read and discussed.

Mr. Sands wished to point the law particularly against the Brownists and Barrowists. Mr. Lewes would confine it to popish recusants. The Speaker said that other than popish recusants could not be comprised therein; but that another bill might be framed. Mr. Dalton would have the preamble so altered as to include Brownists. Dr. Lewin wished the Brownists and Barrowists provided against. And finally the bill was recommitted.†

On Saturday, the 17th of March, the two bills were again before the house; and certain amendments were reported and adopted. On Saturday, the 31st, these bills, or similar ones, sent from the lords, were before the house, with a message from their lordships, praying expedition. On Monday, April 2d, what appears to have been the second of the two bills reported March 12th- the new bill, which is described by D'Ewes, as "the bill for explanation of a branch of the statute made in the twenty-third year of the queen's majesty's reign, entitled An Act to retain the queen's majesty's subjects in their due obedience,' with some amendments to the same" had its first reading. Wednesday, the 4th, this bill was read a second time and called forth an animated and important discussion. Among others, the celebrated Sir Walter Raleigh made a speech, which, as an illustration

*D'Ewes, 497-8.

† 1b. 500.

On