[338] Atterbury’s Correspondence, iii. 22. He says, writing to Trelawny on the 20th of February, “We met yesterday upon our adjournment. The Prolocutor was presented by Dr. Jane, who made an admirable speech, and spoke very plainly about the state of our affairs. It was both written and spoken with more life and vigour than I could have imagined Dr. Jane, under his present ill state of health, could have exerted. The Dean of Canterbury’s, too, was extremely commended, and had several artful wipes in it. Neither of them, I believe, went very well down with the Bench to which they were addressed, but against the first of them (the Dean of Gloucester), my Lord of Sarum declared very loudly” (p. 26).
[339] Atterbury’s Correspondence, 31.
[340] Letter to a Clergyman in the Country, p. 1. Answer to the Letter, p. 4.
[341] The New Danger of Presbytery, 3.
[342] These extracts are given in Lathbury’s History of Convocation, 351.
[343] The main facts in the history of this Convocation are given by Lathbury, c. xi. In drawing up this account I have used, besides Kennet’s and Burnet’s Histories and the Memoirs of Tenison, The Narrative of the Proceedings of the Lower House, &c., from Monday, February 10, to Wednesday, June 25, 1701, drawn up by order of the House; A Letter to the Author of the Narrative, &c., and The History of the Convocation, drawn up from the Journal of the Upper House, &c. The Narrative gives the High Church view; The History the Lower. It is ascribed to Kennet. A number of contemporary pamphlets in Dr. William’s Library I have also consulted.
[344] See Letters described in First Report of Hist. MSS. Com., 52. What Trelawny says I have noticed before.
[345] Burnet, ii. 285.
[346] See Ecclesiastical Synods, 99–149, 245.
[347] See Ecclesiastical Synods, 299.