eal, was sent by the King to the House of Lords.
On March 13 the committee reported the Bill with
several amendments and additions. Before these were
considered, the alterations in the Book were read over
to the House, but not in any way discussed, and a vote
of thanks to the Convocation for the pains taken in
the matter was adopted. [31] On April 9 the Bill passed
the third reading, with the revised Book annexed in
place of the former printed copy, and so was returned
to the Commons. [32]
Meanwhile the Convocation had, on March 5,
commissioned three bishops to watch any alterations
which might be imported into the Book by either
House of Parliament. [33] On April 15 the Commons
appointed a committee to compare the revised Book
with the copy of 1604, and on the following day, upon
the report of the committee, resolved by a narrow
majority not to allow any debate on the alterations
made. They reserved, however, the right to do so
had they wished. [34] The clauses of the Bill were carefully
gone through; a proviso inserted by the Lords,
that no man should be deprived for not using the
surplice or the Cross in Baptism, was thrown out; [35]
several amendments were carried, and a conference of
the two Houses was held for their consideration. [36]
On this occasion occurred two most significant
incidents. The first arose out of the wish of the
Commons to insert a proviso for
reverend and uniform gestures and demeanours to be
enjoined at the time of divine service.
It was agreed in Conference that this matter was more
proper for Convocation than for Parliament, and, therefore,
by a vote of the House of Lords, Convocation
was requested
to prepare some canon or rule for that purpose, to be
humbly presented unto his majesty for his assent. [37]
The other incident arose from the discovery of the
Commons' committee that in one of the rubrics of the
revised Book the word _persons_ appeared to be written
by mistake for _children_. On this
the Lord Bishop of Durham acquainted the House that
himself, and the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph, and the
Lord Bishop of Carlisle, had authority from the Convocation
to mend the said word, averring it was only a mistake
of the scribe, and accordingly they came to the
clerk's table, and amended the same. [38]
In fact, on April 21, the bishops in Convocation had
heard from the Chancellor of the mistake, and had
taken measures accordingly, adding Cosin of Durh
|