spirituality was
thus more closely incorporated than heretofore in the body politic of
the realm, seeing that no deliberations on its part can take place
unless the crown has previously granted its licence for such
deliberations. It had been already provided during this period by 8
Henry VI. c. 1, that the prelates and other clergy, with their servants
and attendants, when called to the convocation pursuant to the king's
writ, should enjoy the same liberty and defence in coming, tarrying and
returning as the magnates and the commons of the realm enjoy when
summoned to the king's parliament.

Second period.

Sheldonian compact.

The second period, which dates from 1533 to 1664, has been distinguished
by four important assemblies of the spirituality of the realm in
pursuance of a royal writ--the two first of which occurred in the reign
of Edward VI., the third in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and the fourth
in the reign of Charles II. The two earliest of these convocations were
summoned to complete the work of the reformation of the Church of
England, which had been begun by Henry VIII.; the third was called
together to reconstruct that work, which had been marred on the
accession of Mary (the consort of Philip II. of Spain), whilst the
fourth was summoned to re-establish the Church of England, the framework
of which had been demolished during the great rebellion. On all of these
occasions the convocations worked hand in hand with the parliament of
the realm under a licence and with the assent of the crown. Meanwhile
the convocation of 1603 had framed a body of canons for the governance
of the clergy. Another convocation requires a passing notice, in which
certain canons were drawn up in 1640, but by reason of an irregularity
in the proceedings of this convocation (chiefly, on the ground that its
sessions were continued for some time after the parliament of the realm
had been dissolved), its canons are not held to have any binding
obligation on the clergy. The convocations had up to this time
maintained their liberty of voting the subsidies of the clergy in the
form of "benevolences" separate and apart from the "aids" granted by the
laity in parliament, and one of the objections taken to the proceedings
of the convocation of 1640 was that it had continued to sit and to vote
its subsidies to the crown after the parliament itself had been
dissolved. It is not, therefore, surprising on the restoration of the
monarc