of the world contain no instance of such a triumph, bought at a cost so slight and tarnished by blemishes so trifling.
The letters of the French ambassador[1] describe to us the gathering of the members into London, and the hum of expectation sounding louder and louder as the day of the opening approached. In order that we may see distinctly what London felt on this occasion, that we may understand in detail the nature of those questions with which Parliament was immediately to deal, we will glance at some of the proceedings which had taken place in the Bishop's Consistory Courts during the few preceding years. The duties of the officials of these courts resembled, in theory the duties of the censors under the Roman Republic. In the middle ages, a lofty effort had been made to overpass the common limitations of government, to introduce punishment for sins as well as crimes, and to visit with temporal penalties the breach of the moral law. The punishment best adapted for such offences was some outward expression of the disapproval with which good men regard acts of sin; some open disgrace; some spiritual censure; some suspension of communion with the Church, accompanied by other consequences practically inconvenient, to be continued until the offender had made reparation, or had openly repented, or had given confirmed proof of amendment. The administration of such a discipline fell, as a matter of course, to the clergy. The clergy were the guardians of mo-
- ↑ Letters of the Bishop of Bayonne, Legrand, vol. iii. pp. 368, 378, &c., and see Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, p. 123.
