nected with the conversion of the Convention into a Parliament. It is sufficient for my purpose to state, that the new Oath was taken by the two Houses in March 1688-9, with the exception of some, who entertained scruples on the subject. The Oath was taken by the Archbishop of York, and by the Bishops of London, Lincoln, Bristol, Winchester, Rochester, Llandaff, and St. Asaph's: and subsequently, by the Bishops of Carlisle and St. David's: it was refused by Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Turner, Bishop of Ely, Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester, Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, White, Bishop of Peterborough, Thomas, Bishop of Worcester, Lake, Bishop of Chichester, and Cartwright, Bishop of Chester. Thomas, Lake, and Cartwright died during the year, and thus six Prelates were left, who refused to swear allegiance to the new Sovereigns. The Act of Parliament required all Ecclesiastical persons to take the Oath before the first of August 1689, under pain of suspension from the performance of their duties: but six months were allowed, after suspension, before deprivation: so that those who did not comply before the first day of February, 1689-90, would be deprived of their ecclesiastical preferments.
There doubtless would have been difficulties if the Oath had not been enforced: but as no such step would have been required under a Regency, it may fairly be questioned, whether it would not have been better policy not to have imposed the Oath, except in the case of persons actually appointed under the new Sovereigns. In this case, the parties already in possession would have been left unmolested. Such leniency would not have been abused. One argument only, as it appears to me, could be urged with
