There were many other absurdities in this test, particularly that of
binding men by oath not to alter the government either in church or
state; since all human institutions are liable to abuse, and require
continual amendments, which are in reality so many alterations. It is
not indeed possible to make a law which does not innovate, more or less,
in the government. These difficulties produced such obstructions to the
bill, that it was carried only by two voices in the house of peers. All
the Popish lords, headed by the earl cf Bristol, voted against it. It
was sent down to the house of commons, where it was likely to undergo a
scrutiny still more severe.
But a quarrel which ensued between the two houses, prevented the passing
of every bill projected during the present session. One Dr. Shirley,
being cast in a lawsuit before chancery against Sir John Fag, a member
of the house of commons, preferred a petition of appeal to the house of
peers. The lords received it, and summoned Fag to appear before them.
He complained to the lower house, who espoused his cause. They not only
maintained, that no member of their house could be summoned before the
peers; they also asserted, that the upper house could receive no appeals
from any court of equity; a pretension which extremely retrenched the
jurisdiction of the peers, and which was contrary to the practice that
had prevailed during this whole century.
Pages:
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255