CHARLES II.

/

6?

half were voted , to be levied by quarterly pay- C it a Vtments in three years. The avidity of the mer- LXIV -chants, together with the great prospect of success, 166:14

had animated the whole nation against the Dutch.

A great alteration was made this session in themethod of taxing the clergy. In almost all theother monarchies of Europe , the assemblies ,whose consent was formerly requisite to theenacting of laws, were composed of three estates,the clergy, the nobility, and the commonalty,which formed so many members of the politicalbody, of which the king was considered as thehead. In England too, the parliament was alwaysrepresented as consisting of three estates; but theirseparation was never so distinct as in other king-doms. A convocation , however , had usuallyiitten at the same time with the parliament ;though they possessed not a negative voice in thepassing of laws, and assumed no other temporalpower than that of imposing taxes on the clergy.

By reason of ecclesiastical preferments, which hecould bestow, the king’s influence over the churchWas more considerable than over the laity ; so thatthe subsidies, granted by the convocation, werecommonly greater than those which were votedby parliament. The church , therefore, was notdispleased to depart tacitly from the right oftaxing herself, and allow the commons to layimpositions on ecclesiastical revenues, as on thetest of the kingdom. In recompence, two sub-sidies, which the convocation had formerly grant-ed, were remitted , and the parochial clergy were

F a