112

■tnSIOBT OF ENGIAND.

CnAP.

XI.

1689 .

argued with all his constitutional warmth for the clause as it■ stood. The numbers on the division proved to be exactly equal.The consequence was that, according to the rules of the House,the amendment was lost.*

At length the Comprehension Bill was sent down to theCommons. ' There it would easily have been carried by two toone, if it had been supported by all the friends of religiousliberty. But on this subject the High Churchmen could counton the support of a large body of Low Churchmen. Thosemembers who wished well to Nottingham’s plan saw that theywere outnumbered, and, despairing of a victory, began tomeditate a retreat. Just at this time a suggestion was thrownout which united all suffrages. The ancient usage was that aConvocation should be summoned together with a Parliament;and it might well be argued that, if ever the advice of a Con-vocation could be needed) it must he when changes in the ritualand discipline of the Church were under consideration. But,in consequence of the irregular manner in which the Estatesof the Realm had been brought together during the vacancyof the throne, there was no Convocation. It was proposed thatthe House should advise the King to take measures for supply-ing this defect, and that the fate of the Comprehension Billshould not be decided till the clergy had had an opportunityof declaring their opinion through the ancient and legitimateorgan.

This proposition was received with general acclamation.The Tories were well pleased to see such honour done to thepriesthood. Those Whigs who were against the ComprehensionBill were well pleased to see it laid aside, certainly for a year,probably for ever. Those Whigs who were for the Comprehen-sion Bill were well pleased to escape without a defeat. Manyof them indeed were not without hopes that mild and liberal

* Lords’Journals, April 5. 1689; Burnet, ii. 10.