BHO

Charles I - volume 499: Undated 1643

Pages 517-553

Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1641-3. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1887.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

Citation:
Please subscribe to access the page scans

This volume has gold page scans.
Access these scans with a gold subscription.Key icon

Undated 1643

This volume is wholly composed of Papers relating to Archbishop Laud's trial, many of which appear to have been used in preparing his defence. They are arranged as near as could be ascertained in order of the Articles of Impeachment to which they severally refer. Some other papers which no doubt might be included in this collection have been already calendared under their respective dates, having a cotemporary interest in themselves apart from the trial.
1. Articles preferred against Archbishop Laud on his impeachment, with additionals. [These differ very considerably from those printed in State Trials. Draft. 4 pp.]
2. Archbishop Laud's speech at the beginning of his trial before the Lords, at the close of Serjeant Wilde's address, 12 March 1643–4. [It is printed in Rushworth, iii., pp. 1374–1378; also v. 830–832, and enlarged in State Trials, iv., pp. 358–362. Copy with corrections and marginal notes. 6 pp.]
3. Notes of the pleadings against Archbishop Laud by order of the Two Houses. These notes relate to the second part of the evidence which was prosecuted by Robert Nicholas, M.P., on the 16th April 1644. [22 pages written on, besides the remains of 3 pp. torn out.]
4. The like of pleadings relating to the third part of the evidence touching religion, pursued by Robert Nicholas, Esq., M.P., on the 27th June and 5th July 1644. [54 pp., of which 12 pp. blank.]
5. Notes and extracts collected for Archbishop Laud, and bearing on his defence. They are arranged under these headings:—Concerning Scotland, the Oath in the Canons, Subversion of the Laws, Peace of the Church, Book of Common Prayer and Innovations, suspending and depriving of Ministers, of the Church in general, Concerning Bishops, &c., amongst the authorities quoted are Spelman and Fox. [5 pp.]
6. Synodical Ordinations made the 21st May 1640, by Archbishop Laud at Westminster, for the collection and payment of a benevolence or voluntary contribution of 4s. in the pound during the six years next ensuing to the King, granted by the same Archbishop, prelates, and clergy, assembled in Synod the 16th May 1640. [Attested copy extracted out of the Archiepiscopal Register and bearing on Article 1 of Laud's impeachment. Latin. 8½ pp.]
7. Petition of Elizabeth Eaton, widow, to the House of Commons. That the 29th April 1632 petitioner's husband was by Tomlyns, servant to Dr. Laud, then Bishop of London, carried to the bishop's prison in Maiden Lane, London, where he was detained for half a year and no cause shown, for refusing the oath "Ex officio." When he procured a "Habeas corpus" to appear at the King's Bench bar, and tendered bail; he was remitted to prison because he sought to be relieved at the Common law, and by the Bishop's order was thence removed to the Gatehouse at Westminster and kept close prisoner for six months, petitioner not even being allowed to speak with her husband. He then was allowed out on bail for a few weeks, but persisting in his refusal to take the oath was again remitted to the Gatehouse by the Court of High Commission, and was charged by the keeper, Aquila Weekes, 4l. After having been a year and a half in the Gatehouse he was liberated on bond till such time as John Ragg, Archbishop Laud's pursuivant, violently entered his house and attached him with a warrant from the Archbishop, and without carrying him before any magistrate haled him to Newgate, where he remained for one whole year, and then died, leaving petitioner with two small children. She herself was also assaulted by Flamsteed, a pursuivant to Sir John Lamb, being then with child, which caused her to miscarry. John Ragg also took divers books out of her house, which were never returned. Prays satisfaction for the imprisonment, loss of estate, and death of her husband, and the hurt done to herself may be taken into consideration by this Honourable Court. [Articles 1 and 2. 2/3 p.]
8. Information against Laud in the case of Alderman Chambers. Alderman Chambers denying to pay tonnage and poundage was censured for the same in Star Chamber, where Laud was very violent, fining him 3,000l. and descanted upon his name Chambers, saying if the King had no better subjects than he, he should have no chamber to put his head in, and gave him very ill language. Being sent for concerning knighthood to the Council Table, Chambers said he had no lands; the Archbishop then violently said, "You have nothing for the King, &c." And being convented for coat and conduct money before the Council, the Archbishop fell violently upon him, again in words and deeds. [Article 2. ¼ p.]
9. Statement of the cause of Richard Talboys of Dufton, in the parish of Tetbury, co. Gloucester, who was summoned by Laud's Warrant to answer at the Council Table for the enclosure of certain his land to the prejudice of the farmer to the impropriate parsonage of Tetbury, for which offence he was fined 200l., afterwards mitigated to 50l. [Article 2. = 2 pp.]
10. Information of the proceedings of Laud upon the Commission of Enquiry after Depopulations, at the solicitation of Thos. Hussey, in the case of Anthony Hungerford and Mr. Southby who were subpœnaed to appear in the Star Chamber. [Articles 2 and 3. 1½ pp.]
11. Note by Archbishop Laud of the exceptions taken against him out of his speech in the Star Chamber "That one way of government is not fit for all times," &c.
1. My meaning is, and I think the words cannot well bear other, that as the humours of the people are, so a king must fit himself sometimes to more severity and sometimes to less. Too much mildness being not fit for all other persons or times. But the words can have no relation to the varying of the laws.
2. The book called, "Divine and Politic Observations upon the Archbishop's Speech," approves of this passage and says 'tis true.
3. The preface of an Act of Parliament says almost the same in Terminis Anno 1 Edward vi. c. 12. Nothing is more to be wished on the prince's part than great clemency and rather too much remission of his royal power and punishment, than exact severity and justice, &c., yet some things do so happen in commonwealths that it is necessary for the repressing of the insolencies and unruliness of men that sharp laws and a harder bridle should be made to stay those men, &c.
4. I have heard some skilful men say that he who will ride safely and well must give his horse the head. But then I conceive it must be with a hand that is ready to check as he finds occasion, else if the jade get his bit between his teeth, he will run his own way in spight of his rider; or, if you will believe the Psalmist, if he be not held in with bit and bridle he will fall upon him. Dorso: Ex epistolæ fine. [In Laud's hand, Article 3. 1¼ pp.]
12. Arguments arranged in the form of Seven Articles expounding the meaning to be attached to the authoritative teaching of the Articles and Canons. The public Acts of the Church in matter of doctrine are Canons and Acts of Councils, as well for expounding as determining; the Acts of the High Commission are not in this sense Public Acts of the Church, nor the meeting of few or more bishops extra concilium unless they be by lawful authority called to that work, and their decision approved by the Church. [Article 3 of Laud's trial. 1¼ pp.]
13. Inventory of furniture and plate belonging to the chapel in Lambeth Palace. [Printed by Prynne as relating to Laud's, but stated by Mr. Bliss to refer to Bishop Andrew's chapel.] Underwritten,
"To which I shall only add this observable passage of like nature of Dr. Wren's proposals found in the Archbishop's study, thus endorsed with his own hand, and presented by him to his Majesty, touching the furnishing of the altar in Windsor chapel." [Article 3. 2 pp.]
14. Information by Edmond and Christopher Tillingham, of the proceedings against Thos. Seaward of Colchester, linendraper. That Seaward being questioned before Dr. Aylett, official to the Archdeacon of Colchester, for his inconformity. Amongst other things, why he would not come up to the rail to receive the sacrament there kneeling as he ought to do, answered to this purpose, that there was no law for it; and being further asked why then they did not prosecute the indictment which they had made against Mr. Newcomen touching that point, be answered, if they could have had justice, things should not have been carried as they were, but now justice was locked up in this land, and there was no justice to be had in the kingdom. And then being told by one that stood by, that he would prove another Bastwick, it being after Bastwick's censure in the Star Chamber, he replied, it were good or better for the Church if there were a thousand more such as Bastwick was. [Article 3. ¾ p.]
15. Information of the suppressing of a Dutch minister, John Miller, late Minister of God's Word to the Dutch Protestant congregation at Maidstone, Kent, by Archbishop Laud or his procurement. Upon Miller being silenced he was enforced to serve as a brewer's clerk in Whitecross Street. If you think him a material witness, he may reveal other matters to you touching the Dutch Protestant Church. [Article 3. 2/3 p.]
16. Information that John Ward was presented to the church of Dennington, Suffolk, in the diocese of Norwich, by Sir John Rous in 1624, but 13 years afterwards, viz., in 1637, he was accused of simony, and superseded by Archbishop Laud, who procured a presentation from the King for Ezekiel Wright. Afterwards Articles were objected in the High Commission Court against Ward for the pretended simony, although he denied knowledge of any corrupt practices. To free himself from a vexatious and chargeable suit, Ward, by advice of his counsel, pleaded his Majesty's coronation pardon, and although the Archbishop took notice thereof, yet it was ordered more than once that the cause should go on to hearing, notwithstanding the said pardon, and in Midsummer Term 1638 the Archbishop pronounced Ward simoniacal and to be deprived of the benefice worth 200l. per annum. Underwritten,
16. i. Mr. Ward is to be found at the George Inn Lombard Street.
16. ii. To consider whether the Act of Parliament do disable on Simoniacal promotions. [Articles 3 and 6. 1 p.]
17. Information concerning the supposed interference of Archbishop Laud in the cause of James Symes, who claimed a tenement in Birchin Lane, London, which was bequeathed by John Long, 19 Hen. VII. to the parson of the parish church of St. Edmond's, Lombard Street, for maintenance of an obit, but forfeited to the Crown by the Statute 1 Edw. VI. for Dissolving of Chantries. Particulars of the litigation. Underwritten,
17. i. In regard of these delays by the Lord Chief Baron and his favourable inclination to the parson's side against Symes, it is supposed the Archbishop had recommended the cause to his Lordship, and the rather for that Symes hath seen his Grace's letter to other judges in behalf of a parson. [Article 3 = 3½ pp.]
18. Petition of Thos. Smyth, Esq., to the Lower House of Parliament. Petitioner contracted with Mary, widow and executrix of William Burrell, for leases of several wharfs and other property, required by him in the ballast business, for which he agreed to pay 2,100l.; of which sum petitioner paid 1,150l., but finding that Mary Burrell and her children had no title to the wharf and lands at Woolwich, he did forbear to pay the remaining 950l. The Burrells knowing that in a court of justice they could not recover the 950l., summoned petitioner to appear before the Privy Council, where on the 21st June 1637, he was ordered to pay to Sir Wm. Beecher, Clerk of the Council, the money, and he should have possession of the wharf and lands. [Margin: 1. Altering of possession by an order of the Council Board.] In regard the Burrells could not perform their bargain with petitioner, and he conceiving that the course was illegal, and against the fundamental laws of this kingdom, did forbear to pay the 950l. into the hands of Sir Wm. Beecher, whereupon by means of the Archbishop of Canterbury, he was committed to the prison of the Fleet. [Margin: 2. Imprisonment without due course of law.] The Archbishop declared that Mrs. Burrell was the sister of a bishop, and petitioner should not be delivered until he had paid the utmost farthing, so that petitioner was enforced to pay the 950l. to Sir Wm. Beecher.
Mrs. Burrell then obtained the 950l. from Sir Wm. by procurement of the Archbishop, there not being any warrant from the Lords of the Council for issuing thereof, so far as petitioner can find. [Margin: 3. Assuming singularity of power.] Notwithstanding petitioner could not enjoy his bargain, and is kept out from the wharf and lands to this day. Although there were but two days of hearing at the Council Table, the Burrells spent, to get the money from petitioner, 250l., which is not without great suspicion of indirect dealing in obtaining the same. [Margin: 4. Probability of corruptness.] Forasmuch as Mary Burrell is become insolvent and unable to render petitioner satisfaction, and for that the said illegal and unjust orders were obtained by the Archbishop's means, petitioner prays that this House will take such order for his relief, as that the said Archbishop may repay him the 650l., which the lease was valued at, and damages for his imprisonment, and expenses with damages for forbearance of the 650l. Underwritten,
18. i. I brought the original to show you, this being a copy, and those [notes] in the margin the heads they insist on. The petition was drawn by Mrs. White of the Whitefriars, who will present it to the House if our friend refuse to do it as he intends to do. Private petitions being received, if they conduce to any end of theirs or to blemish any man they pursue. [Endorsed by Sir John Lamb: Thos. Smith against the Archbishop of Canterbury. Article 3, f. 16. 1 p.]
19. Notes of evidence to show that Archbishop Laud vitiated and altered the King's oath at the Coronation. Mr. Prynne deposed that he found diverse books concerning the Coronation in the Archbishop's study at Lambeth, as:—1. A book intituled a brief out of the book of the rites of the Coronation, called Liber Regis. 2. A book containing the Coronation of Edward II. and Edw. VI. 3. A book intituled a brief out of the rites of the Coronation, called Liber Regalis. 4. A book called Coronatio Caroli Regis, 2 Feb. 1625–6. The oath in this book the Archbishop administered to King Charles. Extracts are here quoted out of the Archbishop's diary. 1. By this it is evident that there was a special book and form for King Charles's Coronation, compiled at this time, extracted out of ancient books of the King's Coronation, which the Archbishop had in his study.
2. That this new form and book of Coronation was compiled by this Archbishop out of those books in his own study, for he said, Libellum perfectum, &c., habui paratum, not habuimus, &c.
3. That no other particular book for this King's Coronation appeareth but this, endorsed, "The form of Coronation of King Charles," interlined in sundry places with the Bishop's own hand, which interlinings are all different from that pretended to be used at the Coronation of King James.
4. In the oath the main thing in question. In all the several copies of the oaths of Edward II., Richard II., &c. found in the Archbishop's study, this clause "agreeable to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof," is not to be found in the Latin, French, or English copies, nor yet in the oath of Edw. VI., of which there were two copies in the Archbishop's study.
In the two written copies of the oath pretended to be used at King James's Coronation, this clause is not to be found in the Latin and French versions, nor in the English copy noted in the hand of Archbishop Whitgift, but in the other entered in the red velvet book the English version is altered and interlined in this particular, "According and conformable to the laws of God and true profession of the Gospel established and agreeable to the ancient customs of this realm and the prerogatives of the Kings thereof," was first written, but "ancient customs of this realm" is blotted out in the first clause and inserted with another hand and ink at the close of the oath thus, "agreeing to the Prerogatives of the Kings thereof, and to the ancient customs of this realm."
It appears not that this is not the true copy of the oath administered to King James, or that the Archbishop took his pattern out of this copy now produced or any other agreeing with it; for there are two copies pretended to be of King James's Coronation and oath both found in the Archbishop's study.
This oath of King Charles and the appurtenances of it differ in the particulars here stated [Margin: Proved by Mr. Prynne] from that of King James which he pretends to follow, some whereof are of great concernment. Notes of the discrepancies in the oaths of Kings James and Charles. This alteration of the King's [Coronation] oath concurs with the Archbishop's judgment and opinion as appears in a paper of his thus endorsed with his own hand. [Margin: Confessed by the Archbishop] April 25, 1628. These Propositions [margin, viz., the propositions proved by Mr. Dell and Mr. Prynne, who found it in the Archbishop's study], sent to the Lower House about accommodation in the business concerning the liberty of the subject, penned by Dr. Harsnett, Bishop of Norwich. In which paper the Archbishop writes thus of the King's oath, "Yea, but salvo jure coronœ nostra is intended in all oaths and promises exacted from a Sovereign." And that in answer to this proposition: That his Majesty would be pleased graciously to declare that the good old law called Magna Carta and the six statutes conceived to be his declarations or explanations of that law, do still stand in force to all intents and purposes.
1. It was done modo crucis, in the form as at the mass.
2. The King was upon his knees at the unction.
3. A crucifix over the altar. [4 pp.]
20. Mr. Bond's testimony against Archbishop Laud. Bond's brewhouses in Westminster were given to Queen's College, Oxford, 3 Edw. IV., and were then and long before common brewhouses, and so continued till five years since. Bond was prosecuted and appeared 10 several times at the Council table, where divers orders were made to force him to demolish the same. On these occasions the Archbishop of Canterbury railed upon him, saying he was a rogue and a rascal, and deserved to be hanged for annoying the King with smoak at Whitehall and St. James's; to which Bond answered that the King had been at his brewhouse, and gave him his royal word under his hand that the brewhouses should not be demolished, notwithstanding the Council orders to the contrary. The Archbishop replied that he would pull him from under the King's wings, and sent for him to Lambeth, where he agreed that Bond should give 1,000l. towards the repairs of St. Paul's, and then sent him to St. James's to make his peace with the Queen Mother, and then his brewhouses should stand; but as he refused to profess the Romish religion his suit was rejected. A suit was then brought in the Exchequer against Bond for annoyance of the King's houses with smoak, and by intimidating the jury a verdict was obtained. After this there came out writs of capias and orders from the Council table to fine Bond 1,000l., carry him to the Fleet, and pull down his houses; but Bond's person was sheltered by Alderman Pennington, then sheriff, whilst he caused Bond's houses to be demolished to his damage, above 3,000l. [Endorsed: Mr. Bond's testimony, Article 3. 1 p.]
21. Michael Burton's testimony concerning the pulling down of the houses about St. Paul's Cathedral, showing that Archbishop Laud controlled the orders of the King and Council Board against right and equity. The Archbishop's proceedings against Burton. Thus the King's just commands and directions twice expressed and the orders and address of the Council were most unjustly contradicted and slighted by the Archbishop after Burton had for above a year and a half been subjected to great trouble and loss, for which he humbly desires your Honors will be pleased to grant him reparation. [Article 3. 1½ pp.]
22. A declaration in what manner Archbishop Laud used Sir Ralph Ashton, Bart., concerning his lease of the rectory of Whalley in co. Lancaster. [Article 4. 10 pp., of whichblank.]
23. Information [by Mr. Delveridge] of extortion on the part of Archbishop Laud. Mr. Devenish, the Keeper of Winchester House saith, that having a business long depending at the Council Table he went to Dr. Dell and promised to give the Archbishop 100l. if he might have an end of it. Mr. Dell told him that he must have 50l. too, which was promised him by Mr. Devenish when the business should be ended, and in the meantime the 100l. and the 50l. were deposited with D. Hollis because Mr. Dell told Mr. Devenish it was a work of darkness, and therefore no bonds or promises would serve. After this he had free access to the Archbishop, who signed his petition. Mr. Devenish saith also that Affidavit Watkyns told him that the Archbishop received 1,000l. bribe in one cause which Watkyns had 500l. for negotiating. [Endorsed: Mr. Delverigde. Article 4. ⅓ p.]
24. Petition of John Robinson [to the Commons.] Represents how he had been defrauded of his expected inheritance on the decease of Edward Robinson, one of the six clerks in Chancery, who being his uncle, and very rich, would have left him the greater part of his estate but for the indirect dealing of George Penruddock, whose sister Edward Robinson had long before married and buried, yet by reason of that relation being intimate with Edward he used pressure on his death bed to get him to leave his property in the hands of Roman Catholic executors for to be devoted to superstitious uses. On the will being questioned, Sir Henry Martyn decided in its favour as being genuine. Petitioner was then advised to serve process on Penruddock to account for the surplus of the estate, being 20,000l., that it might be disposed of amongst the kindred at the discretion of the ordinary, which he intended to do but found a "caveat" entered in the Archbishop of Canterbury's name, and could not bring the matter to a hearing by reason of continual delays, and after three petitions to the Archbishop finding no redress he at last understood that the Archbishop had accepted of 600l. towards the repairing of St. Paul's, which put petitioner out of all hope of any further success in his suit. [Article 4. 3¼ pp.]
25. Articles to be inquired of within the diocese of London in the third Triennial Visitation of Wm. Juxon, Bishop of London and Lord High Treasurer, holden in 1640. Containing the oath to be administered to the churchwardens and sworn-men, also the charge to them for the better performance of their duties and discharge of their oaths, filled in for the parish church of Chelmsford. [Printed in black letter and in pamphlet form for Richard Badger, London, 1640. Endorsed: Article 6. 26 pp.]
25A. Articles to be inquired of in the Metropolitical Visitation of Archbishop Laud in 1634 [diocese not filled in], concerning the church, the ornaments, and the church's possessions, together with the tenor of the oath to be ministered to the churchwardens and side-men. [Printed as above but in 1634. Endorsed by Dr. Lambe, "Articuli pro visiatione Archiepiscopi Cantuariœ, 1634. Article 6. 12 pp.]
26. Brief references to entries in a Register [No. 35, at Doctors' Commons], in proof of the right of the Archbishops of Canterbury to visit and make laws. Endorsed: Article 6. [½ p.]
27. Arguments by Archbishop Laud to prove that "institution and induction" are triable at the Canon law in England. Admission, that is, collation and institution, is of ecclesiastical cognizance and gives no ground to out the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the cognizance whether the admission be lawful or not. [Article 6. ½ p.]
28. Petition of Richard Titley, clerk, to the Commons' House. That the patronage of the church of Ufford [in Northamptonshire] was conceived to belong to petitioner's father, Peter Titley, having been purchased originally of Edward VI. and confirmed by King James, and was enjoyed by him as patron, being the sixth incumbent since the said purchase. On his decease petitioner was presented to Archbishop Laud, the see of Peterborough being then vacant, but the Archbishop, not ignorant of the premises, refused petitioner and admitted Dr. Donne upon a pretended title for the King. Also petitioner had a lease for 70 years unexpired of part of the tithes, but Dr. Donne, to force the possession thereof from petitioner and to disable him to prosecute his right to the church, caused him and his friends to be subpœnaed into the Star Chamber and to be attached by messengers and pursuivants to appear in the High Commission Court and before the Privy Council, where after long and chargeable attendance he was ordered to quit his possession in the said lease, being his principal means of livelihood. Prays the House to take order for his relief and reparation. [Signature erased. Endorsed: Richard Titley against the Archbishop touching surrendering a lease. Article 6. ¾ p.]
29. Strictures on the High Commission patent dated 17th Dec. 1633 procured by Archbishop Laud. The Archbishop as soon as he came to this high preferment, not content with the jurisdiction his predecessors enjoyed, procured a new High Commission with these unusual clauses, not found in any former Commissions of this nature, thereby investing himself with a Papal tyrannical power and exercising it accordingly. Articles pointing out the discrepancies between former Commissions and that obtained by Laud; also the nature of the tyrannical powers he thus became invested with. [Endorsed by Laud: High Commission. Article 6. 2 pp.]
30. Similar strictures on the patent for repair of St. Paul's Cathedral dated 13 May 1637, with marginal notes pointing out the ecclesiastical abuses sanctioned by it in augmentation of Archbishop Laud's jurisdiction, and the detriment of the civil courts. [Article 6. 1⅓ pp.]
31. Statement of the grounds of complaint which the Dean of Winton may justly urge against Archbishop [Laud] of Canterbury. The Dean buying a leasehold of his own Chapter for three young lives, the Archbishop would not permit the Dean to change them for his own lives which would have been an advantage to the church being much older lives. Though the restraint which Canterbury formerly procured from his Majesty was only not to turn years into lives, but now by his own letters, pretending them to be from the King, he commanded none for lives should be renewed or changed in that church except for 21 years, and to make sure he made new statutes and forced them on that church, making the dean and chapter to swear to them and neither to procure nor accept of any dispensation, yet afterwards procured [one] from the King, and himself in another case commanded the Dean to dispense with the said statutes, or some of them, highly menacing them if they did not; whereupon the Dean told the King what hard measure was done to them by the Archbishop, and that no church else was so dealt with, all which the King telling Canterbury of, he affirmed that the church of Canterbury had the same statutes and presently thereupon drew a branch of these statutes and gave it to a prebend of Canterbury and told him it must be done, and they might thank the Dean of Winton for it, but yet it should not prejudice the church of Canterbury, and hitherto it has not been published there, but the church of Winton stands bound up by oath. The fines of two copyholders, which by ancient custom, were annually appropriated to the Deans' use, were taken from him by Canterbury, saying that he was rich and entertained the King, and that the church had more need of the money. [Endorsed: The Dean of Winton against Canterbury. Injustice; bound up by an oath not to complain. Article 6. 2/3 p.]
32. [Sir] J[ohn] B[orough, Garter and keeper of the Records in the Tower to Archbishop Laud]. Though, touching the creation of your Grace's rectory [Dennington in Suffolk] for so the College must acknowledge it, I know my apprehensions will come far short of your lawyers' both civil and common; yet because no precedent hereof is extant, for ought I could ever find; I will desire you at your leisure, which I think will hardly ever be, to cast your eye on these conceptions, for the present purpose. 1st. You being author of the gift to the College, it stands with your wonted goodness to be the accomplisher of it for their further behoof. And it being the first creation of a rectory which I think, is extant, your Grace knows best how to settle it on record; and as a pattern for posterity to imitate your piety in this kind; especially since the Common [law] lawyers have held it impossible to be done without a Parliament. I would not have so just an honour due to your Grace's deservings to be pretermitted.
2nd. I conceive that this act of creating is peculiar in your Grace and not to the diocesan alone; for that, first this power of founding of churches, by the King's consent, was in Austin [St. Augustine] the first Archbishop [of Canterbury]; next Honorius the Archbishop erected rectories and parishes, after him, Theodorus did, as is thought, divide parishes which were too excessive wide into lesser. "Multis enim in locis sunt tres vel quatuor ecclesiæ, ubi tunc temporis una tantum erat, et sic cœperunt minui." Hoveden p. 602. Therefore it seems it is merely an archiepiscopal act.
3rd. The Canonists' books do uniformly aver that "in ecclesiis fundandis ejusdem est instituere" and "destituere," as they instance in making and altering church orders and maintenance; therefore this "restituere" also still belongs to Archbishops.
4th. The manner of doing it hath some little difficulty, but easily feasible. 1st. The King hath graciously passed his royal assent for the election and mortmain, and commands that it be done both by the bishop and college. 2nd. I conceive, under correction, that upon this ground the Lord Archbishop may be pleased to require the college and the diocesan to proceed to do it, and command the parishioners and the vicar to appoint their several attorneys or proxies, both to desire the performance of the King's command, and disclaim all their pretences of any prescriptions, &c. before the Lord Archbishop. 3rd. Then the college as patron is to join their assent with the vicar's and parish's; all which being accepted first by the diocesan and after ratified by an archiepiscopal act of record for the creation of the rectory; then the patrons present the new incumbent to the same rectory; and this last act is episcopal and by the diocesan to be put on record.
5th. The only difficulty is of the taxation for tenths, subsidies, first-fruits.
6th. Mr. Noy [late Attorney-General] thought it enough for the patron to present the vicar to such an impropriate rectory, and so to establish it for ever, and such he did settle somewhere; but such a presentment is questionless invalidous and the heirs may recover it, if they would, for there the vicar was presented to a rectory temporal, so the law had made it, and not to an ecclesiastical, which was to be made only this way as I conceive.
If your Grace thinks otherwise, I ask pardon of my saucy allegations, with all humility, J. B. [Endorsed in Laud's hand: Concerning the creation of the College rectory in Suffolk. Article 6, f. 8. 1½ pp.]
33. Petition of Robert Cade, clerk, to the House of Commons. That petitioner was presented by the King to the church of Dennington, in Suffolk, 3 Oct. 1633, void by simony; and was thereupon instituted and inducted, and was in suit at law against John Ward, who held possession. During the progress of this suit Ezekiel Wright procured a presentation from his Majesty upon the same title [see above, No. 16], and brought petitioner into the High Commission Court, pretending that the said church was not void by simony until sentence on declaration was made thereof in some ecclesiastical court, and so petitioner's institution was a superinstitution, and void by the civil law; your petitioner justifying that by the simony, without any such declaration, the said church was void at common law, as in truth it was. Notwithstanding the justification so made by him, depending his suit at common law, [he was] deprived by sentence in the High Commission, and his institution and mandate for induction taken from him and himself for ever made incapable of the said church, and he was constrained to give Wright 40l. costs. Upon the same title which petitioner had, Wright has received above 600l. out of the profits of that church by means of the sentence in the High Commission. Underwritten,
33. i. Part of this petition will be proved by Thos. Payne, of Gray's Inn; other part by Robert Marriott, of Barnard's Inn; the residue by the Acts and Orders of the High Commission. The Commissioners who gave the sentence were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Ely and Rochester, and Drs. Eden and Lambe. [Endorsed: Superinstitution, f. 10, N. 8, Article 6. 1 p.]
34. Petition of Elizabeth Milborne, widow, to the House of Commons. That on the 29th April 1632, she, with her husband, John Milborne, were by Tomlyns, then pursuivant to Bishop Laud, of London, attached and carried to the Bishop's Prison in Maiden Lane, London, for refusing to take the "oath ex-officio," and kept there for a year and a half, to the ruin of his family and calling. While in prison they were twice assaulted; once by Tomlyns, and after by John Ragg, servant to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, coming on the Lord's Day, 7th July 1632, with officers and halberts, so affrighted petitioner that she was prematurely confined; and not long after, her husband, being so greatly damnified, died, leaving her with four small children, much in debt. Prays redress and compensation for their said wrongful imprisonment. [Article 6. ½ p.]
35. The like petition of Daniel Votier, clerk, parson of St. Peter's in Cheapside. That about seven years since Dr. Laud, then Bishop of London, sent for petitioner, and threatened to suspend him for preaching these doctrines, viz., 1, that some are elect, some reprobate; 2, that Christ died only for the elect; but then, fearing clamour of the world, after an hour's disputation, he was dismissed. Afterwards preaching concerning hypocrisy, one of his parishioners, feeling himself aggrieved, complained to the bishop, for which and for the said doctrines he was suspended. For not being able to satisfy a young man of the Separatists of the lawfulness of the oath ex-officio, and refusing to take the same himself, he was cited before the High Commission Court, and committed to the Fleet Prison. Upon his submission he was released from prison and went into Holland, where he stayed about half a year, and would have continued there if he could have gotten a convenient place, which, not finding, he returned into England, and was constrained shortly after to appear and give bond in 500l., with two sureties, to stand to the censure of the High Commission Court; which crafty and tyrannical practices of the Archbishop have not only been very troublesome and vexatious to petitioner, being aged, and having a wife and eight children, but have stood him at least in 100l. Prays the House to take the premises into their pious and judicious consideration, and to take order for his discharge from the said bond and the jurisdiction of the High Commission Court, and to repair his loss and damage unjustly sustained. [Endorsed: To the Lord of Canterbury's Committee. Article 6. 1 p.]
36. Notes for a speech [by Sir Thos. Framston ?] on the 6th and 9th Articles of impeachment against Archbishop Laud demonstrating the unconstitutional character of the [et cetera] oath and canons approved by the late Synod. I shall not speak to the oath to make explication of what hath been already spoken. But I find by this oath he doth advance himself in point of Government of the Church above the King, and without his leave; 2nd, above Parliament; 3rd, above law. I shall discover it thus: The oath and the 9th Canon tell you that the discipline and government of the Church is one and the same thing; for so the oath expresseth it: "I do approve of the doctrine and discipline or government established in the Church;" so that the discipline and government is the same. But what is that government? He tells you it is "the government as now it stands established, and as by right it ought to stand." So that the snake lies under these words, "And as by right it ought to stand." So that the government sworn unto is not that which is, but that which is and ought to be of right. Then enquire who ought to judge what of right ought to be. Must the King judge? No. Must the Parliament judge? No. Must the rubric and confirmed Canons judge? No. Must the Convocation judge? No. Must the Bishops in a body judge? No. Then let [us] inquire who is made the judge by the Canons. Look upon the 9th Canon and there you shall see what the government of the church ought to be and who shall be judge. In that he tells you, there are three things which the Synod takes notice of, and which shall direct the visitorial articles, which must govern the church. 1. Out of the rubric or service book. 2. The Canons; these two are known to every one. 3. The warrantable rules of the church. What these warrantable rules are, that is the difficulty. But he directs it, how then such as he allows us; such only as shall be allowed in terminis by his metropolitan under his seal, so that from henceforth—the bishop cannot do it; the rubric cannot; the King cannot determine what the government of right ought to be; but the Archbishop only. And this done by the Archbishop shall be a perpetual rule to bind that parish. Besides this, these things are observable: 1st. The word in terminis, that is, it must have no other exposition, but the words barely accord to the common sense. 2nd. Another name and another person in quality is meant also clearly. For if you observe the oath names all the persons that are the principal governors in the church; there are dependents upon them, as chancellors and the like. The governors named are Archbishop, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, &c. This therefore shows he intended the name of some other governor. And that is the Patriarch of England; and this he says, if we well please, we may call him Metropolitan or Patriarch, in his late book [margin, page 171, line 28. Relat. contra Fisher] he hath written so of that name, to advance himself above the clergy, if he please may set upon the church whether the King or whether the parliament or the law allow it. 3rd. That too, this government needs no other allowance, but by his metropolitan seal. So that by all this he swears every man almost, to allow his supremacy only without the bishops, without the church, without licence of the King or Act of Parliament. 4th. That may be a government for one parish that is not for the other, and as many parishes so many governments, if he please. [Endorsed Sir Thos. Framston to the 6th and 9th Articles. The oath and canons. 34. f. 7. 3 pp.]
37. Extracts from addresses in Latin presented to Archbishop Laud between Oct. 1634, and Nov. 1640 principally as Chancellor of the University of Oxford, in which "papal titles are given to the Archbishop." Amongst other phrases quoted are the following:— "Sanctitatis vestræ devotissima Oxoniensis Academia." "Cum sis ipse divini spiritus effusissime plenus." "Ab optimis maximisque in terra, rege ac te." "Is cui credit animam, cui credit omnia, summo Pontifici claves et arcana imperii." "Agnoscimus te amplissimam divinæ munificentiæ cisternam." "Ille qui rector non stat regula; quo prior est corrigenda religio." [These extracts are apparently made from some MS. volume or entry book of which the folio is given. Endorsed: "Article 6." Latin. ¾ p.]
38. Another copy of the same. [Latin. ½ p.]
39. Extracts of depositions taken in the cases of George Huntley, St. Martin Orgar, London, and the churchwardens of Chesson [Cheshunt, Herts.] heard in the High Commission Court. Instanced as supporting the charge against Archbishop Laud. [Article 6. 3¼ pp.]
40. Deposition of Thos. Stane to the effect that in order to further the discharge of the fine, and for freeing of certain persons this deponent [presented] a butt of sack costing him 48l., further for the better effecting of this business, and to procure an absolute discharge thereof, he also gave to the servants of Archbishop Laud the gratuities here specified. Total of money expended in the solicitation of the said business, and to such as he employed therein, 375l. odd money. [Imperfect. 1 p.]
41. Examination of George Combe. That being at the High Commission Court kept in the Bishop of London's house, when George Montaigne was Bishop and Laud Bishop of Bath and Wells, there was some business to be transacted that day, which Dr. Buckeridge, then Bishop of Rochester, said, in the hearing of this deponent and of John Welden and George Prynn, could not that day be done, for that Bishop Laud was not there present, and he must be here, for he is a third person in the Trinity, or of the Trinity, or words to that effect. [Article 6. ½ p.]
42. Information furnished by William Stackhouse, of St. Thomas the Apostle, but late of St. Gregory's parish, London. That in 1633 Laud being Bishop of London, the Communion Table of St. Gregory near St. Paul's was set to the upper end of the chancel altarwise, contrary to the wishes of most of the parishioners, under pretence that it was done by order of the Dean and Chapter of Paul's, but no entry of any such Act was to be found in the register. That it might give content to some, there was a fine Altar cloth provided for it, and a Common Prayer book with a crucifix and the resurrection and divers other pictures set upon the book, which induced several persons to bow to it as they passed; this innovation constrained some of the parishioners to appeal to Sir Henry Martin, then Dean of the Arches, who, coming to the church, took the table down from the wall and ordered it should stand so, saying it was like a court cupboard; but before next Communion Sunday it was put back. While the appeal was being prosecuted, Archbishop Abbot died, and Laud, being Archbishop, put Sir Henry out of his place and put in Sir John Lambe.
Mr. Dethick being Proctor for the said appeals, was sent for by Sir Francis Windebank, who threatened him, and told him that his Majesty was not willing that he should proceed any further in it, to which he replied he could not do so, because he was a sworn Proctor, then Sir Francis laid the King's command upon him, so that the appealing parishioners were debarred justice. The first day that Sir John Lambe sat as Dean of the Arches, we petitioned him to assign us counsel, who, not knowing the business, did, but was sent for by Archbishop Laud the same afternoon and reproved; when we could go on, and had the law on our side, we were commanded with our counsel to attend his Majesty at Whitehall the 3rd of Nov. 1633.
The cause concerning the Communion Table in St. Gregory's church, was heard before his Majesty at the Council Table 3rd Nov. 1633, the cause being opened by Dr. Gwynne for the plaintiff. Then Archbishop Laud said to his Majesty, whereas they pretend the injunction of Queen Elizabeth it is clear against them, and he read a part of it to the King; Dr. Wood for the plaintiffs, said that there was a saving in that injunction which made for his clients; the King took the book into his own hand and read it, which was that, at Communion times, the table should stand in the body of the church or chancel; the King declared that it was his mind that it should not stand in the body of the church, but middle of the chancel at Communion times. Dr. Neyle or Neale being then Archbishop of York, said, if it please your Majesty, were I and Bishop Buckeridge have jurisdiction we do so. Dr. Laud stood up and said, I did not think that my Lord of York had been guilty of such a thing or such a sin, and prayed God to forgive him; then he called on Dr. Duck as a learned lawyer to speak, but he urging nothing material for its standing altarwise, the Archbishop affirmed that, upon his reputation, the Communion Table was always called an Altar in the primitive church, and that the parishioners had fitted the chancel up with pews to set themselves and their wives above the Communion Table, but he would have none set above God Almighty in his own House; then the King said, refer it to the discretion of the minister and churchwardens to take down at Communion times. Laud said that they would have it down to vex their minister, that they would not kneel, and that they were but a few Puritans, who, when the example of the cathedral churches and your Majesty's chapel was urged, said that though your Majesty suffer idolatry in your chapel, they will not do so in their church; also when a good man gave the picture of St. Gregory to be set up in the window, one of the parishioners took it down, and carried it to his own unclean house, but, said he, I have him in the High Commission Court, and shall punish him for it.
The King said he would have no innovations nor alter in the least degree from his former declarations. It being further urged by Dr. Wood that it was proved by Bishop Jewell against Harding in the 3rd Article, and 145 page, and Edward VI. and his Council writ to Bishop Ridley of London for the taking them down, Acts and Monuments p. 1,211; or last edit. vol. ii., p. 700, which books were both to be in every church, Laud said if this be the use that shopkeepers made of Bishop Jewell and the Book of Martyrs, he would not have any of them stand in any church, and that this church of St. Gregory was in the churchyard of Paul's, and when strangers came from beyond sea and saw the table stand altarwise in Paul's and went but out at the door and saw the table stand otherwise in St. Gregory's, what a disunion would they say was in the Church of England. Dorso; Captain Pepper, Article 7. Mr. Wyan can testify the like. Dr. Peter Heylin made a prebend Nov. 1631, and is done by order of the Lord Bishop of London. [2½ pp.]
43. Certificate of Samuel Bordman, of Bermondsey near Southwark. That the testimony given by him, when called [before the Commons' Committee] was touching the consecration of chalices, cups, &c. by Archbishop Laud in Lambeth Chapel. On one occasion when he witnessed the ceremony, the Archbishop in his cope with his two chaplains attending him in their surplices; after touching, blessing, and elevating them, desired that God would accept them, &c. This in duty is an intimation of my deposition, offered to the Committee of the House of Commons, and to be taken, if required, in the House of Lords by me Samuel Bordman. [Article 7. ½ p.]
44. Articles to be ministered by the High Commissioners for causes ecclesiastical against Miles Burkitt, clerk, one of the vicars of Pattishall, co. Northampton. We article against you that you do not bow at the name of Jesus in the time of divine service; that you do not keep within the rails at the ministering of the Sacrament, and give it to communicants who refuse to come up to the rails; that you made the fearful imprication here stated in your sermon on Christmas day last; that you abetted the carrying down of the Communion Table into the body of the chancel, and there ministered the Holy Sacrament on Easter day last; that in catechising on Easter day, you put the scandalous questions here stated. [Article 7. 2½ pp.]
45. Notes by Archbishop Laud touching exceptions taken to the canons' vote bearing on the 7th and 14th Articles of Impeachment, they are grouped under seven sections, and are as follow: 1. The public acts of the Church in matter of doctrine, are canons and acts of Councils. As well for expounding as determining. The acts of the High Commission are not in this sense public acts of the Church. Margin: "Articuli Lambetham never confirmed by authority, that I know. Did [Dr. Isaac] Barrow recant ? and what ?" Nor the meetings of few or more bishops extra concilium, unless they be by lawful authority called to the work, and their decision approved by the Church.
2. The current exposition of writers is a strong probable argument de sensu canonis ecclesiæ vel articuli, but only probable. The current exposition of the fathers themselves hath sometimes missed, sensum ecclesiœ.
3. Will ye reject all sense of Jesuit or Arminian ? May not some be true ? Nay, may not some be agreeable to our writers, and yet in a way that is stronger than ours, to confirm the Article ?
4. Is there by this act any interpretation made or declared of the Articles or not ? If none, to what end the act ? If a sense or interpretation be declared, what authority have laymen to make it ? For interpretation of an Article belongs to them only that have power to make it.
5. 'Tis manifest there is a sense declared by the House of Commons. The Act says it. We avow the Articles, and in that sense,—and all other that agree not with us in the aforesaid sense. And we reject these and these go about misinterpretation of a sense—go theirs declaration of a sense. Yea, but it is not a new sense declared by them; but they avow the old sense declared by the Church. The public acts of the Church, &c. Yea, but if there be no public authentic acts of the Church, then there is a sense of their own declared under pretext of it.
6. It seems against the King's Declaration: 1. That says we shall take the general meaning of the Articles. This act restrains them to consent of writers. 2. That says the Article shall not be drawn aside anyway; but that we shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense. This act ties to consent of writers, which may and perhaps do go against the literal sense. For here is no exception, so we shall be perplexed, and our consent required to things contrary.
7. All consent in all ages, as far as I have observed to an Article or Canon, is to itself as it is laid down in the body of it. And if it bear more senses than one, it is lawful for any man to choose what sense his judgment directs him to; so it be a sense secundum analogiam fidei. And that he hold it peaceably without distracting the Church; and this till the Church that made the Article determine a sense. And the wisdom of the Church hath been in all ages, or the most, to require consent to Articles in general, as much as may be, because that is the way of unity. And the Church in high points requiring assent to particulars hath been rent, as de transubstantiatione, &c. [Endorsed in Laud's hand. Articles 7 and 14. Exceptions to the canon's vote. Arminionism. 2½ pp.]
46. Latin excerpts endorsed by Archbishop Laud. "Exceptions against Mr. Thorne's sermon, &c," grouped under the following headings: Against Sovereign authority, and his Majesty's Declaration. Against Church governors. Against the Vice-Chancellor, the governors, and government of the University [of Oxford], the reformation of the statutes. Personal invectives against Dr. Parkhurst and his wife, Dr. Potter, Dr. Marsh, and Dr. Gardner. Against Christianity, "cum diis amicitiam inire." [Dorso: Arminionism. Article 7. 1¾ pp.]
47. Complaint against Archbishop Laud to the Commons' House witnessed by Thos. Colledge, praying reparation for injuries sustained. Represents that Richard Colledge was employed in the good ship the Mayflower by virtue of his late Majesty's letters patents, granted to the Scottish nation for the Greenland trade in 1632. Whilst the Scotch ship was employed in their trade, and the men boiling their oil on shore, Capt. Wm. Goodland, of Wapping, employed by the Greenland Company, of London, landing with a party of armed men, fired on them, and killed many, including his brother Richard Colledge, though having no manner of opposition. Thomas procured a warrant from the Earl Marshal, the Earl of Arundel, who sent his own man, Edward Cox, to serve it, when Alderman Garwaie tendered bale, which, being refused, the Alderman then said we will go to the Lords. This warrant was served in Palace Yard, at Westminster. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the then Lord Keeper Coventry and the Lord Privy Seal, being set in the Inner Star Chamber, the Archbishop sent for the prisoner, the plaintiff and the pursuivant; he discharged the prisoner who was arrested for murder, but sent petitioner and Thos. Colledge to the Fleet prison, as also the pursuivant, albeit, they had sight of the warrant by which the murderer was arrested. Petitioner exhibited a petition through Mr. Trenchard, M.P., which was read in the House of Commons and referred to Mr. Pym, who examined eight or ten witnesses in January 1640–1, when the Earl of Strafford's business obstructed the report, since which time nothing has been done in it. Petitioner, besides the loss of his brother, whose blood still cries for vengence, and his own imprisonment in the Fleet, has spent above 40l. Prays reparation from this Honble. House. [Endorsed: Article 8. 1p.]
48. List of warrants, grants, orders, congé d'élires, presentations, and preferments ecclesiastical, passed in the years 1628—1640, chiefly at the instance or by authority of Wm. Laud, then Bishop of London, by whom his Majesty's pleasure is signified. The like when Laud became Archbishop of Canterbury. Amongst others are the preferment of Peter Heylyn to the rectory of Hemingford and to a prebend in Westminster; of Matthew Wren from Hereford to the See of Norwich; and of Dr. Roger Manwaring to the See of St. David's. Under date 15 Oct. 1635 is the following entry: A declaration under his Majesty's sign-manual or signet prohibiting the Attorney-General and other officers either to draw up or suffer to pass the seals any pardon, license, letter, or warrant of or for any crime, affair, or cause whatsoever of ecclesiastical cognizance, or for giving away any fine or forfeiture of any land, recognizance, or obligation imposed or forfeited before any his Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners or other judges ecclesiastical, without the same be first made known to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his approbation thereto had; entered at large in the Signet Book, 15 Oct., 11 Car. I. [Endorsed: Article 8. 16 pp., of which 3 blank.]
49. The Commons' declaration and impeachment [against Archbishop Laud] upon the complaint of Peter Smart, clerk, late one of the Prebends of the Cathedral Church of Durham against Archbishop Laud, Sir John Lambe, Sir Chas. Cæsar, Edmond Pope, Dr. Sammes, and Dr. Aylett, High Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical, Article 14. That 12 Feby. 1628, Mr. Smart appearing at London before William Laud, then Bishop of London, now Archbishop of Canterbury, Sir John Lambe, Edmond Pope, Wm. Sammes, and Dr. Aylett, together with others deceased, they forced him to take the oath ex officio again to answer articles, which the Archbishop said were matters of high nature against him, and ordered him to be examined thereupon before his departure out of London, and to be proceeded against ex officio, because the said Dean and Prebendaries had recommended the cause thither, according to which order Mr. Smart attended several times upon the registrar of the High Commission to answer, but could never get any Articles; and the 23rd April 1629, the Archbishop with the Bishop of Ely and others transmitted him and the cause with all the letters and complaints of the said Dean and Prebendaries and refused to admit of Mr. Smart's articles against them, although he offered sufficient bond in 1,000l. to prove the same, saying they would not suffer such worthy men to be questioned. [Endorsed by Lambe: Copy of the 14th Article, in the case of Smart before the Lords of the High Commission. 1 p.]
50. Evidence supplied by John Barkley to [Alexander] Rigby [M.P. for Wigan] of the interference of Archbishop Laud with the course of justice. John Barkley of Chester saith that a citation of mere office issued out of the Consistory Court of Chester under the hand of Bishop Bridgman of Chester dated 4 Sept 1635, against Sir Ralph Ashton by name as farmer of the rectory of Whalley, co. Lancaster, and against all other farmers or sub-farmers of the tithes and profits of that rectory, to appear before the judge in the Consistory place within the Cathedral Church of Chester on 9 Sept. in the afternoon to show cause wherefore the tithes, profits, and other emoluments of the said rectory ought not to be sequestered and applied to the payment of fit stipends or salaries to the curates, and to the repair of the chancels of the churches in that parish. He further saith that the citation was returned with certificate signed by the vicar of Whalley of the execution thereof by him, and that at the time and place mentioned in the citation Edmund Mainwaring, Doctor of Laws and Chancellor to the Bishop of Chester sitting in court, judicially appointed Thos. Humphreys, one of the proctors, to be the necessary promoter of the office in this behalf, who exhibited the citation executed and certified as aforesaid; and the parties cited being then called, John Barkley, as proctor, appeared by proxy for Sir Ralph Ashton to show cause why the tithe fruits and profits of the said rectory should not be sequestered nor taken from Sir Ralph or his sub-farmers to any such effects as in the citation were mentioned. It was shown that Sir Ralph was in quiet possession of the rectory or parsonage of Whalley by virtue of a demise or lease made to him by the late Archbishop Abbot of Canterbury, and it further appeared that there were no such presentment exhibited in Court of any such matters as were pretended in the citation, nevertheless, the judge affirming that the cause was instituted of mere office, and that he must proceed to sequestration unless good cause were shown to the contrary, assigned to the proctor for Sir Ralph, who submitted under protest, a day to put in his pleading, which petition and assignation are entered in the Acts of the Court; and although the time allowed was too short, two of the sub-farmers appeared, yet their appearances and petitions were not entered, but all the sub-farmers were pronounced to be in contempt, and the tithes and profits of the said rectory to them belonging were agreed to be sequestered. The following day Dr. Mainwaring sitting in Court as judge, Mr. Barkley appeared for Sir Ralph, and protested that the burden of proof in this case did lie upon the plaintiff or promoter; and yet to satisfy the decree of the Court, and with reservation of the benefit of law did offer and give in an allegation or pleading in writing, containing cause why the tithes or profits of the rectory should not be sequestered. Notwithstanding that it was admitted by the opposing counsel, Thos. Humphreys, that Sir Ralph Ashton held a lease of the Rectory of Whalley valued at 2,000l. per annum, the judge pronounced against Sir Ralph, affirming him to be in contempt in not appearing personally nor by a proctor lawfully appointed in that behalf, and ordered the profits of the rectory to be sequestered, and to be paid into the hands of receivers until sufficient provision were made for competent stipends to the curates serving within the parish, and for repair of the chancels of the church and several chapels of ease. This deponent further saith that from this sentence Sir Ralph Ashton appealed to Archbishop Neyle of York, and obtained an inhibition to stay further proceedings in the Consistory Court of Chester, but he has heard that this inhibition was afterwards revoked by the judge at York or his deputy, and thereupon a sequestration in the name and under the hand of the Bishop of Chester issued forth to certain sequestrators; and this deponent further saith, that he doth verily believe, and hath credibly heard, that the proceedings against Sir Ralph were carried in that violent manner contrary to the course of practice and to law, as he conceiveth by the strong hand and procurement of the now Archbishop Laud of Canterbury and his agents. [Endorsed: Mr. Barkley's sayings delivered to Mr. [Alexander] Rigby. [Article] 23, 12 pp., of which 3 are blank.]
51. The like information against Archbishop Laud furnished by Henry Gerard, of Newton, co. Lancaster. That Sir Ralph Ashton, Bart., and his ancestors were ancient tenants of the rectory of Whalley under Archbishops Abbot and Laud successively, rendering yearly 247l. 13s. 3d., under a lease for lives, as the full rent; but upon some discontent or information the now Archbishop [Laud] about five years since questioned the lease and estate of Sir Ralph to the said rectory, causing two several citations to be sued forth of the Consistory Court at Chester against Sir Ralph. Particulars of the suit as in the above evidence given by John Barkley who acted as proctor for Sir Ralph. This deponent further saith, that Sir Ralph and others, his friends and servants, were sued by Archbishop Laud, or at his command, in the several courts of Exchequer and High Commission, as by the letters missive, the bill and other proceedings doth appear; by reason whereof and of his Grace's greatness and power Sir Ralph was advised to submit himself and his lease to his Grace, which was done accordingly, and 300l. imposed on him in the High Commission Court, and [he] was [ordered] to pay for a new lease for 21 years 1,600l., and to surrender up his former lease which was of far better value, which money Sir Ralph hath in part paid. This deponent further saith that Archbishop Laud increased the old rent 60l. by the year to be paid out of the rectory by the lessee, and caused Sir Ralph and his friends to spend much money in attendance at London, besides his losses touching the granting of the sequestration. In all Sir Ralph was damnified at least 3,000l. [Endorsed: Sir Ralph Ashton, against the Archbishop. [Article] 23. 4 pp.]
52. Notes headed "A few of those remarkable passages in Archbishop [Laud's] book, entitled 'A Relation of a Conference, &c.,'" [with Fisher, the Jesuit]. The sum of this book is to reconcile the Church of England with that of Rome; and it clearly appears by the whole current of the book, that it was purposely written, as a foundation laid whereon to rear up Babel again in England and to strew the way to our present calamities, as may more clearly appear by the answer thereof styled "A reply, &c." [Margin, see p. 388.]
Amongst other passages cited are the following:—In his Epistle Dedicatory [p. 16] he saith, That the Church of England and of Rome are one and the same Church in substance; no doubt of that. At page 125 he calls the Protestants' separation from popery a miserable rent which he lamenteth with a bleeding heart. Again at page 142, I say it, saith he, and most true it is, that it was ill done of those, whoever they were, that made the separation. And page 145, for my part I am of the same opinion for the continuance of the schism, that I was for the making of it, that is, that it is ill, very ill done of those whoever they were, Papists or Protestants, that give just cause to continue a separation, and at page 148, his tender heart loaths to make the rent wider. Then follow extracts in proof of Laud's blasphemies, as against Christ, p. 200, against God, p. 106, against Scripture, page 125. And at page 210, he makes it an article of the faith of the Church of England, that she believes our Saviour, Christ, left in his Church, besides the Scriptures, Archbishops and Bishops, &c. And there he equals the Church Canons and Constitutions as also those of the [Roman] Catholic Church with the Scriptures to govern for truth and peace as he calls them. [2 pp.]
53. Arguments arranged in the form of 17 Articles to be used in defence of Archbishop Laud, as illustrating the principles of government and right of the conqueror over the vanquished by reference to passages in Cæsar's Commentaries, &c. That government partakes of a threefold character as here defined. The authority vested in Councils and Bishops to impose oaths. All local statutes impose oaths. A greater power is implied in the making of laws than the imposition of oaths. Church canons are binding, canonists are the professors and expositors of the canonlaw only. The bishop is a prime judge and under him the Chancellor or Commissary. The oaths here specified I find imposed in Synods in England. The oath de parendo juri, &c. King John's oath was in these words, judicio ecclesiœ pariturum, which afterwards Pandulph the legate extended to the resignation of his Crown. [Latin and English. 5 pp.]
54. Notes by Archbishop Laud headed "The subversion of the fundamental laws." 1. I humbly conceive this cannot be meant of the breach of any one or two laws, but of the whole frame of the law. For else every breach upon one or few laws, were treason which no man can say. 2. I never did or intended any thing [against] any main law of the kingdom, which may in any construction be capital. Much less against the frame and body of the law. 3. I humbly conceive there can be no rational attempt against the body of the law, but by force; I never had either power or intention for the use of any force. 4. For the Irish army. It is to me as non ens. I never so much as heard it spoken of for England, but for Scotland only. And therefore as I did not, so I could not consent to any such thing which I never heard of. 5. For the words in Sir Henry Vane's paper I am sure I spake them not as he hath set them down. But if such words were spoken they cannot be forced to make the speaker guilty of any intended subversion of the law. For "some course must be taken," cannot imply that that course must needs be illegal. 6. And this I am sure of, that at the Council Table where I had the honor to sit, I did to the uttermost of my understanding keep myself as much to legal ways as any man. And this I know the Lord Keeper Coventry would witness, were he living; and I hope the honourable great men of that profession which yet sit there will testify as much for me. [Endorsed "Breach of the fundamental laws." In Laud's hand. 1¼ p.]
55. Evidence furnished by Richard Milner, clerk of Innholders' Hall against Archbishop Laud. Mr. Greene minister administrator of Wymark. Mr. Weavor can inform the abuses done by the Lord of Canterbury concerning Wymark's estate, how he gave and disposed of the same at his pleasure. [1¼ p.]
56. Proof sheet of two pages, viz., 51 and 54 of a printed work, described on the top of page as, "A necessary introduction to the Archbishop of Canterbury his trial, discovering the practices used to usher Popery into our realm." It comprises a portion of the agreement of Prince Charles, countersigned by the public notary Joannes de Cirica. Letter of Philip IV. of Spain dated at Madrid 8 Aug. 1623, making promise to the Prince that the marriage should be consummated at Christmas. "What jewels the Prince there gave away appears by these two warrants, extracted out of the originals in parchment under the Prince's own hand and seal, found among the Lord Cottington's writings." A letter of Prince Charles, signed at Madrid 28 Aug. 1623, to Spenser Lord Compton, Master of our Wardrobe and Robes, to deliver to the English Ambassador, John Earl of Bristol, such jewels and precious stones as are mentioned in this warrant. Latin verses composed by Dr. Andrewes on the return of the Prince to London 6 Oct. 1623, commencing "Anglus connubium, connubia tractat Iberus." [Endorsed Archbishop of Canterbury.]
57. List giving the names and dates of the Archbishops of Canterbury from Augustine to Laud. [1½ pp.]
58. Two short Latin poems in hexameter headed respectively Ægri insomnium and Luci descriptio, followed by stanzas in English entitled "A Character of a Traitor" having evident reference to Archbishop Laud, to whom a dedication in Latin is prefixed "Ab amplitudinis et virtutum tuarum devotissimo cultore, G. Staplaeo." [16 pp. of which 3 blank.]
59. List of ecclesiastical preferments procured or signed by Laud when Bishop of London in 1628 and 1629. The two last entries refer to Dr. Manwaring, viz., a presentation to the rectory of Stanford Rivers, co. Essex, to Roger Manwaring, D.D., the same being void and in the King's gift by the promotion of Richard Montague, B.D., to the bishopric of Chichester. By order of Lord Conway the rest to wit the procurement blotted. A dispensation to Dr. Manwaring one of his Majesty's chaplains to hold with the rectory of St. Giles'-in-the-Fields the rectory of Stanford Rivers, in Essex. [32/3 pp.]
60. Note of certain bishops, prebendaries and other ecclesiastics preferred between 1628 and 1640. [= 1½ pp.]
61. Petition of John Jemmat, clerk, to the Commons' House. Petitioner was presented four years ago to the rectory of St. Michael, [Paternoster] Royal, in London, by the Mercers' Company, but was refused admittance thereto by Archbishop Laud without just cause, and restrained from accepting any ministerial employment in London, where the greater part of his acquaintance lieth. When he was chosen by that Company to preach a lecture in Berwick, Laud sent him away with minatory speeches, that he would have an eye upon him whithersoever he went, giving order to his secretary there present that he should put him in mind to write a letter to the Bishop of Durham to signify what a one was coming into his diocese; at the same time charging petitioner very straitly that he should take heed that he had no hand in disturbing the King's proceedings in the North, the meaning whereof petitioner could not then conceive, but afterwards conjectured to be understood of the Scotch affairs, when those troubles broke out about a quarter of a year after. Although petitioner demeaned himself so in Berwick that both the town and captains of the garrison gave him certificates of honest life, orthodoxy, and conformity when he came away, yet he was sent for by a pursuivant to his diocesan, the Bishop of Durham, and there silenced from preaching, and commanded to depart thence, in the depth of winter, Dec. 1639, only upon a letter of Sec. Windebank, who suggested that his Majesty was informed that he was a seditious preacher, and therefore to be silenced and sent away from a town of that consequence to the King's present proceedings, although the charge was never yet made good by any particular instance, and he presumes can never be. Both which removals, from London first and then from Berwick, were cause of much sorrow and damage to him, who has no other maintenance but what arises out of his labours in the ministry, wherein he has endeavoured to be faithful. Prays the House to take some course for reparation of his damages. [1 p.]
62. Notes by Archbishop Laud, stating his knowledge of M. St. Giles and the Franciscan, Santa Clara [Christopher Davenport]. M. St. Giles was a man well-reputed of in France and placed about the Queen's Majesty [Henrietta Maria] at her first coming hither. After[wards] upon some services, and those in a very fair way, done to this State, he lost ground in France, and when some other Frenchmen were sent away from the Queen's service, he durst not go thither, but chose to live here in a very low condition for safety sake, rather than adventure thither. All this while the man was unknown to me; but coming one day to wait upon his Majesty at St. James's, his Majesty was pleased to ask me whether I knew M. St. Giles, I answered, I did not; hereupon his Majesty took occasion to tell me the condition of the man and his wants. And withall told me which way he conceived some relief might be given to his necessities, and prescribed me a way how to order it, that he might receive as from him 100 marks a year. This in obedience to his Majesty I did, and I have his Majesty's warrant for it. But I never allowed or gave him one penny of my own or of my own procuring. Not long after this, partly that the poor man being a stranger might live the cheaper, and partly that he might have use of the public library, resolving, as he pretended, to follow metaphysical learning and not engage himself in the controversies of the time, his Majesty moved me again that he might live in Oxford and in some college or hall there. In this I humbly besought his Majesty to pardon me, because it would be dangerous to the youth bred in that college and scandalous to his Majesty, this Church, and the University, and bring danger upon myself, being Chancellor there. After much importunity used by me, his Majesty was graciously pleased to be satisfied that he should not be admitted to live in any college or hall among the students; but required me not to hinder his going to Oxford and his having use of the library, provided that he kept no company with any young scholars, that he lived privately in some town house, and that he did not presume to exercise his priestly function, or do anything against the laws. These he undertook to perform, and I could never find by any of the spies I put upon him that he broke this in any particular, but lived there without offence given to any. In all times of his recourse to me for his pension, I never spent one hour with him; nor had I any discourse with him at all but once only, and that was about a dangerous opinion of [Peter] Pomponatius. At that time he told me he had a desire to labour in that argument, and to confute him. I told him I could not approve any meddling with that question in these times; for that I thought few would be able to understand the subtlety of that dispute; and that the very stiring of it in these times would do a great deal of mischief; and this was all that ever passed between him and me in all my life.
My intelligence with the Pope by Sta. Clara. I never saw that Franciscan friar in my life, to the uttermost of my memory, above four times or five at most. He was first brought to me by Dr. Lindsey. It was when he was setting out his book about the Articles of the Church of England. And I then told Dr. Lindsey I did fear he would never expound them so as the Church of England might have cause to thank him for it. He never came to me after, till he was almost ready to print another book to prove that Episcopacy is authorised in the Church by divine right; and this was after these unhappy stirs began. His desire was to have this book printed here. But at his several addresses to me for this, I then gave him this answer: That I did not like the way which the Church of Rome went concerning Episcopacy; and howsoever that I would never give way that any such book from the pen of any Romanist should be printed here; and that the Bishops of England are very well able to defend their own cause and calling, without calling in aid from Rome, and would so do when they saw cause. And this is all the commerce that ever I had with him. [Article 10. 3 pp.]
63. Mem. signed by the King. Canterbury. Mr. St. Giles by serving us and this State hath lost all his hopes in France, and desires to spend his time here at his private studies. I would have you think upon some way for his maintenance, and to place him in Oxford that he may have use of that library, which he much desires. And you may so order it that his profession in religion may do no harm. [Endorsed: Article 10. p.]
64–65. Analysis of the political views and expressions of [Archbishop Laud] grouped in the form of articles, as follows:—
A Parliament—Fears [regarding it]—
1. That they will begin where they left [off].
2. At least they will look to sacrifice somebody.
3. The men restrained about the loan, will study revenge at least unquiet.
4. Their consultations will be long, and supplies are to be present.
5. If they break again in discontent, which God forbid, all business will be worse abroad and at home; and the ways which are thought on for supplies will be less accessible.
6. That they will not give without something given and granted them. Whereas subsidies are due by the laws of God, nature, and nations. And Parliaments have but their deliberations and consents for the manner of giving. And upon the matter this is first to sell subsidies not to give them. (The last parliament of King James they gave three subsidies, and had that from the King, that was worth 6 if not 10 to be bought and sold). And, secondly, by these bills of grace the flowers of the Crown are parted with and the prerogatives so decreased, as I dare not speak of the consequence.
7. That they will fall upon church business, which, in the way they have gone, is not fit for them. The Church is too weak already. If it had more power, the King might have more both obedience and service.
That House, one or both, can be no competent judge in any point of doctrine. The Papists insult upon us by the[ir] means and call it parliamentary religion. The King suffers by this as much or more than the Church, for in the statute of the submission of the clergy, (Hen. VIII.,) the King and the Convocation are judge of all ecclesiastical causes, and why should the Parliament take this from either.
8. That if they do agree and give they will not give three subsidies in a year or not continue so more years than one and this will not come near the business.
9. That factious spirits will take heart if they see the King yield to them without any submission of theirs. As some were too seen to laugh outright in the last Parliament when they got their ends upon the King.
Hopes [regarding a Parliament]—
1. That the King and the people may [make] peace again, and the kingdom not be endangered by this disunion.
2. That upon sight of their former errors they will leave personal prosecutions and give [subsidies].
3. That perhaps they may give three subsidies for the first year and though they will not do all that is necessary yet it will be a good help.
4. That the sight of this union at home will do much good to the affairs abroad.
5. That the very convening them will take off the former [ill] humour of some men who think nothing can be well without it.
I shall have little hope of good success in Parliament till—
1. They leave personal prosecution.
2. Meddling with the Church.
3. Sit less time that they may not understand one another too well.
4. Remember that the law of God which gives kings aid and subsidies may not be broken by them without heinous sin.
Observations—
1. The fears are more numerous and weighty than the hopes and the bishop [Laud] contrives and closeth with them, and that not long after he was sworn a Privy Councillor contrary to his oath and duty.
2. All his fears and conclusions directly bend—
1. Against the very summoning and convening any more Parliaments.
2. To exasperate and disaffect the King against Parliaments.
3. The 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9th directly subvert the essential fundamental privileges of Parliament in point of freedom in their proceedings, questioning delinquents, convenient time for deliberations, redressing of grievances, freedom in denying, a moderating sub-power or granting subsidies and aids. And in point of jurisdiction to meddle with Church affairs or matters of religion settled by Parliaments in all ages.
4. The 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 cast odious aspersions upon Parliaments and the members of them as unjust, factious, injurious to the King's just prerogatives, and unwilling to grant him aids and subsidies when needful, and instigate the King to arbitrary illegal taxes, projects and impositions to raise moneys without a Parliament.
3. His four conclusions put the King into despair of any good success by Parliaments, strip Parliaments of all their jurisdiction in questioning delinquents, meddling in church affairs, granting and denying subsidies as they see cause. And the 3rd of them tends to a speedy dissolution of all Parliaments as soon as called. They must now sit less time than anciently, that they may not understand one another, that is their own rights and privileges, too well. The sum of all is to prevent the calling of any Parliament for the future, or if called so far to ecclipse their authority, as to call them only to grant as many subsidies as shall be demanded without the least contradiction under pain of heinous sin. Which if they refused to grant forthwith, then to dissolve the Parliament in discontent and to make this refusal a ground to put the King upon illegal taxes and a mere arbitrary government. As appears by his [Laud's] Diary, Dec. 5, 1639.—"Thursday the King declared his resolution for Parliament in case of the Scottish Rebellion, the first movers of it were my Lord Deputy of Ireland [Strafford], my Lord Marquis Hamilton and myself [Laud]; and a resolution [was] voted at the [Council] Board to assist the King in extraordinary ways, if the Parliament should prove peevish and refuse, &c." After which the [Short] Parliament being called and refusing to grant so many subsidies as were demanded it was presently broken up in discontent, May 5, 1640. And then the Archbishop [Laud] told the King sitting in Council, "that since the Parliament refused to supply him with money, he might now use his power in extraordinary ways," which Sir Henry Vane the elder hath deposed. [= 4 pp.]
66. Brief notes and references by [Archbishop Laud] apparently relating to the composition of a treatise entitled "A vindication of the sanctification of the entire Lords-day and that it may be lawfully stiled the Sabbath-day." Together with a long list of books, including Greek and Latin Classics, the Christian Fathers, Early English Chroniclers, and Historians, Controversialists and law-books, grouped according to their size as fols. 4 to. 8 vo. and 12 mo. [= 3 pp.]
67. Petition of Richard Culmer, minister of Goodnestone, in behalf of himself and of John Player, minister of Kennington, and Thomas Heiron, minister of Herne Hill, in co. Kent, to the Commons' House. That being resident preaching ministers they were all three together suspended in the Consistory court of the Archbishop of Canterbury for not publishing the Book for Lord's-day Sports. They then presented a joint petition to the Archbishop praying to be absolved from their suspension, but he refused to relieve them saying " if you know not how to obey, I know not how to grant," and notwithstanding their subsequent petitions they continued suspended for three years and seven months, Player and Heiron having 20l. per annum deducted from them, and petitioner receiving nothing from the profits of his living all that time. Pray that the premises may be taken into consideration. [Endorsed: Article 9. ½ p.] Annexed,
67. i. Testimony of John Player, minister of Kennington, to the same effect. [½ p.]
68. Table of fees for licenses and dispensations in ecclesiastical matters drawn out in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and certified by Matthew Parker, then Archbishop of Canterbury, Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper, [Horne] Bishop of Winchester, and two others; but transcribed in the reign of Charles I. and endorsed by Archbishop Laud. "Dispensations. Both such as are in present use; and all others heretofore granted from Rome; and their taxes." [Latin, 30 pp.]
69. Notes concerning the employment of ecclesiastical ceremonies, extracted from the book of George Cassander, "De Officio Pii Viri in Dissidio Religionis," and from two works of Martin Bucer. Endorsed by Archbishop Laud. "De ceremoniis, &c." Latin, 2½ pp.]
70. Eleven queries under the title "Liturgy," by Archbishop Laud. 1. Schismaticus quis ? 2. Did not St. John Baptist teach his disciples a set form of prayer? See Luke ii. 1. 3. To offer worship ? 4. A poor man might bring turtles, Levit. v. 7; if a rich man had brought them is any punishment for him set down in the law? 5. Is there no separation nisi per fidem negatam ? 6. What days did the Committee of the Lords sit about religion, &c., ask Lord Dor[chester]. See the Journal. 7. In what doth the Brownist differ from the Anabaptist? 8. Do you remember the place in Mr. Prynne ? 9. Is it not a fundamental error where there is no true church, no true ministry, no true worship ? 10. See Calvin, De Ecclesia sine maculis, in Eples. 5, 27. 11. See Bishop Andrews "De Suprematu" quousque, p. 55, or any other of note. [½ p.]
71. Portion of an entry book of Archbishop Laud, being pp. 33–36, chiefly relating to church discipline and ornaments. By these two letters it is apparent that the Archbishop gave special directions not only to Sir Nathaniel Brent but to the Archdeacon of Canterbury to take down galleries and monuments at the east end of churches near the Communion Table, and to place the tables there as in their proper places, as likewise to obliterate the memorials of our happy deliverance from the Spanish Armada in 1588 out of parish churches where they had long continued. Finally, it was proved by the testimony of Mr. Sutton, Mr. Browne, and others, that in the year 1640, in the new chapel at Westminster, the King's arms were set up in the east window, first glazed with white glass; after which the Archbishop promising to bestow a new window instead of it, the King's arms were taken down by direction of Dr. Heywood, the Archbishop's chaplain and Browne his joiner, and placed in another obscure window, and the Archbishop's arms supported by Seraphim put up in its place to signify that he was the founder or doner of this new window, where instead of the white glass there was set up in coloured glass, the picture of the Holy Ghost in form of a dove with the image of the Virgin Mary, Christ, Angels, and Seraphim, for which the glazier was paid since the Archbishop's commitment to the Tower by the Archbishop's direction, as the glazier verily believed, this new window being set up about the beginning of the Parliament but since demolished by order of the Parliament, which manifests this Archbishop's perseverance in his Popish innovations, notwithstanding the many late complaints against him in the last dissolved Parliament and the late Scottish troubles. When this archprelate had in his metropolitical visitation by private instructions only to his Vicar-general and other agents set on these innovations and introduced them into many parish churches in most diocesses, he then by his subordinate suffragans and creatures began to enforce them universally upon all ministers, churchwardens and people by visitation, oaths, and articles, upon which such ministers, churchwardens and others, who were either negligent or backwards to promote or opposed unto these innovations were presented and prosecuted as delinquents. Dr. Pierce, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Matthew Wrenn, Bishop of Norwich, Bishop Lindsell of Peterborough, Bishop Montague of Chichester, and Bishop Skinner of Bristol were the chief promoters of his innovations, especially of railing in Communion Tables altarwise, bowing to them, &c. Transcript of visitation articles, used in several diocesses in the years 1635 and 1638. Distinct and punctual answer must be made to every one of these articles. On which churchwardens and sidemen were obliged to present Nonconformists to them by this short ensuing oath. The tenor of the oath then follows. Points enquired into by Bishop Wrenn of Norwich in his first visitation. [Imperfect draft. 4 pp.]
72. Notes relative to the bringing in [by Archbishop Laud] of new rites and ceremonies into the Church. The subjects treated of are, Images, Altars, and Crucifixes, Vail, and Bowing towards the Altar. Acts made in Edward VI.'s time against Images, Altars, and Crucifixes "and other such Popish relics as the Statute calls them." The Vail was by Archbishop Whitgift denied to be a ceremony of the Church, but brought in by women of themselves coming out of their weakness to keep them warm, Whitgift against Cartwright, p. 537. But now-a-days it is necessarily enjoined by our Church Governors, for they must not be churched without it. Those that come into the Church now without their cringes towards the Altar, are thought to come with no more reverence into the Church than a tinker and his bitch come into an ale-house. Archbishop, p. 46. [2 pp.]
73. Complaint of Richard Crowther, sometime preacher of God's Word at Ewell in Surrey. That in 1628 Dr. Abbott, Archbishop of Canterbury, being confined to his house, complainant was at the instance of Laud, then Bishop of London, committed prisoner to Newgate for six weeks without bail. Dr. Moseley repairing to Bishop Laud, and desiring the cause why he had committed complainant, answered with fury "that he should know to his cost, and all the rest, before he had done with them." [12/3 pp.]
74. Information against Archbishop Laud:—
1. John Dillingham in Whitefriars. That he being in the King's Bench Court, when George Huntley, deprived by the High Commissioners, had a cause depending there in which he could get no counsel to plead for him, Sir Thos. Richardson the Chief Justice desired Mr. Huntley to make use of another court to sue them. Upon being pressed to hear the cause, he answered "I pray thee, Mr. Huntley, sue in some other court, for upon my faith I dare not do thee justice."
2. Sir Arthur Haselrigg. That Archbishop [Laud] granted an allowance to a vicar out of an impropriation belonging to Sir Arthur Haselrigg, who repairing to him, told him it was a lay fee, whereupon the Archbishop replied in great rage to this effect: He hoped ere long not to leave so much as the name of a lay fee in England.
3. Earl of Pembroke. That the Bishop at Greenwich called the Council together to complain of the judges about granting prohibitions on a Lord's-Day.
4. Ship money [Laud's] project, and he most violent in it. He placed all chaplains about the King. [2/3 p.]
75. Information of George Huntley against Laud. After my action of false imprisonment against Dr. Kingsley and others, Commissioners in the King's Bench Court, was by the judge of that Court, pretended to be discontinued because my attorney Mr. Saunders began that action by original and drew up the imparlances by bill. Afterwards I directed my attorney, Mr. Merefield, to take out a new original, and to begin another action of false imprisonment against certain High Commissioners for satisfaction for my two years' imprisonment from 19 April 1627 to April 1629. Mr. Merefield, having done as instructed was about that action called before the Privy Council and committed to the Fleet, because he had not carried the "original" to the Sheriff of London, where he laid the action, but only the "capias," and as I take it the "alias." When I was cited to appear in the High Commission Court and to bring in my orders or else to be excommunicated, I appeared, and then Archbishop Abbott required my orders of me, and I told him that I had brought them for the same purpose, but desired to know my fault. Laud, then Bishop of London, told me that this was the fault he charged me with, that I, being an ecclesiastical person in this ecclesiastical cause, did avoid the judgment of this ecclesiastical court and fly to the temporal judges for succour and relief; whereunto I answered, if I have transgressed any law, show the law, and I presently submit. Underwritten,
75. i. I remain in the parish of Beddington, Surrey, eight miles hence; send to my brother's house at the Black Lion in King Street, when you would have me attend, and he will give notice. [1 p.]
76. Information by Henry Burton against Archbishop Laud. On the 2nd April, 1629, I, Henry Burton, then of S. Matthew's, Friday Street, was convented by a pursuivant at a private and extraordinary High Commission out of term at London House, before Wm. Laud, then Bishop of London, and Dr. Harsnet, then Archbishop of York, with other Commissioners, for some books written by me, as The Seven Vials, Babel no Bethel, The Law and the Gospel reconciled, &c., to all objections whereunto I then answered, yet their definitive sentence was that I must be sent prisoner to the Fleet. And when I pleaded to Laud upon his refusal of sufficient bail then tendered, saying, no, my Lord ? then I desire to know by what law or statute of the land you do imprison me ? If it be according to law, I humbly submit myself, but otherwise I do here claim the right and privilege of a subject, according to the Petition of Right. It may not be, quoth the Bishop of London, for the King hath given me express charge concerning you, Mr. Burton, that no bail shall be taken for you. So I was sent away prisoner to the Fleet, by warrant, whereof I have the warrant to show; and this commitment was soon after the Petition of Right was signed by the King. (Signed) Henry Burton.
P.S.—In a case concerning a pew in a church in the High Commission a Pope's cause pleaded, against a statute, was voted to over-rule it. Endorsed: The cause of my commitment to the Fleet, Apr. 2, 1629. [1 p.]
77. Deposition of Sir Thos. Dacres, M.P., January 1643–4. That whilst Laud was Bishop of London the two churchwardens of Cheshunt, Herts, viz., Thos. Wilson and Richard Collier, according to their usual manner went out on a Sabbath afternoon into the alehouses and disorderly places to see who frequently absented themselves from church and were drinking. On one occasion they having been to Waltham Cross, at the end of the sermon, acquainted me in the vestry, that they found many drinking in the houses of Rowland Gosnall and Toler of Cheshunt, whereupon I having given them an oath to prove the premises sent forth my warrant, which was afterwards signed by Sir Richard Lucy and Sergeant Atkins, for levying the penalties according to the statute, viz., 20s. of the one for keeping an alehouse without licence, and 10s. of the other for admitting company to continue drinking in his house, also 3s. 4d. of everyone who was drinking there, and 1s. of each for being absent from church. I withall told the churchwardens that they also might do their duty by presenting them for disorder on the Sabbath Day in the Ecclesiastical Court. Upon the endeavour of the officers to execute their distress it seems that Gosnall or Toler complained either to the Bishop of London, or his officers, and were then summoned to appear at London, but for what was then said to them by the Bishop this deponent refers himself to their examinations. The Bishop upon hearing that the warrant was only signed by Sir Richard Lucy and Sergeant Atkins upon my acquainting them with the business, replied that he wondered why I, being a layman, should intermeddle in what belonged to ecclesiastical affairs, and that gentlemen would find the first inconvenience themselves in it, and why I should examine churchwardens in the vestry, it being not fit to make a mixture of temporal and ecclesiastical authorities. I returned answer that I had done nothing but my duty as a justice of peace and according to my oath. The Bishop said I had no warrant for it, it belonged not unto me, and that I should answer it elsewhere. I replied the Statutes were my warrant, and that I examined Wilson and Collier as witnesses not as churchwardens, that what I did debarred not the churchwardens from presenting them for their abuse committed on the Sabbath in the Spiritual Court, but that if he being a Privy Councillor would command me not to execute the duty of my oath as a justice of peace but forbear, I could then tell what I had to do. The Bishop said no that he would not do, but that I should not meddle in what belonged not to a justice, and so after telling him what the Statutes were which warranted my actions, the Bishop told me he was glad I did come to him for that it had been in debate at the High Commission Court that afternoon and resolved that letters missive should have been sent for Sir Richard Lucy, myself, and Sergeant Atkins, but he was now fully satisfied and desired me to inform his Chancellor, Dr. Drake, so much, and that nothing further should be done against me or the other two justices in this matter. [2½ p.]
78. Informations by Sir Nicholas Rainton, Mr. Mosse, and Mr. Marsh against Archbishop Laud. Sir Nicholas Rainton when Lord Mayor was questioned [at the Council Table] for carrying up his sword in Paul's, which he conceives was by the Archbishop's means. He was checked by the Archbishop for questioning a woman for selling apples in Paul's. Testimony of Mosse and Marsh in confirmation of the same. Marsh testifies that Laud, then Bishop of London, referring to Rainton carrying up the sword in Paul's, spoke to this effect: That the Church had been trampled underfoot these last 100 years, but he hoped before the next 100 years it would be up again, and by his then expressions seemed to be very angry at the carrying up the sword. [Article 6. 1 p.]
79. Information of John Clayton touching the intervention of Archbishop Laud in a suit about 7 Car., wherein Thos. Clayton had a judgment by Nihil dicit upon a rule in court upon motion against Francis Burley, nephew to Dr. Momford, upon the statute of nonresidence. The plaintiff got intelligence that Laud had spoken for Burley to some of the judges, whereupon the now Archbishop being remonstrated with affirmed that he both had spoken to the judges and would speak to them, and that he would suffer no Nihil dicit to be against any clergyman. 15 Jany. 1643–4. [2 pp.]
80. Mary, widow of John Oakes, attestes that her husband about seven years since printed part of a book intitled Francis Salis' Introduction to a Devout Life, licensed by Dr. Haywood, chaplain to Archbishop Laud for the press. Finding some Popish passages not fit for the press as he conceived, Oakes carried the same to Haywood, who told him to go on and print the same, and he would bear him out therein. When the book was published exceptions were taken to these passages, and the book ordered to be burnt in Smithfield, which was done. Oakes was thereupon sent for and imprisoned about three weeks, and the fault put upon him and the publisher, as if they had put those passages into the licensed copy when Dr. Haywood had purged them out, whereas in truth he commanded the passages to be put in and stand as they were in the copy brought to the press, which was proved before Sir Edward Deering at a Committee this Parliament. [½ p.]
81. Informations against Archbishop Laud. Mr. Meare in Bread St., hosier, saith he heard Laud, when Bishop of London, say in the High Commission Court, upon the delivery of a Prohibition in Court, "Lay him by the heels, or away with him to prison." Informations by John Gellibrand and Mr. Weldon, of Westminster. [¼ p.]
82. Informations against Archbishop Laud by James Prince and Thos. Noyan. Prince testifies that when the Soap boilers appeared in the Star Chamber touching their boiling soap after the patent granted to others for that employment, counsel pleaded on both sides, and when it came to Dr. Laud's turn to speak, he said that Griffin and the rest, who were then prisoners in the Fleet for that cause, were most to be blamed for their disobedience, which was not only their fault, but he affirmed that it was the fault and sin over the kingdom of which he had complained and would still complain till men were brought to obey such things as were enjoined by authority. This myself and others thought to be a sad presage of blind obedience which would be required of all men in matters of liberty and estates, as we saw it was then too forward in matters of the Church. Mr. Thos. Noyan can testify that at the Council Board it being debated about the setting of the Communion Table altar-wise in Gregory's church, by Paul's. The counsel for the parish upon occasion vouching something in Bishop [John] Jewel's book, ordained by Parliament to be kept in every church, Canterbury said I shall beseech your Majesty if this be the use they make of those books they may be removed out of the church, or to that effect. [1p.]
83. The like by John Burges, of Sutton-Coldfield, co. Warwick, practitioner in physic in London. How he was prevented from taking his degree of Dr. and B.Ph. at Oxford by Dr. Smith, ViceChancellor, on account of certain words spoken. After this Laud caused examinant to be fetched up by a pursuivant 88 miles, and caused articles original and additional to be exhibited against him. In the end of Michaelmas term he was committed to the Clink, before his cause was heard, though he had given bond for his appearance and paid fees. Laud then caused him to be fined 500l., and immediately to be removed to the Gatehouse, where he paid new fees and was detained about nine months, and enjoined to make a submission in conceptis verbis, expressly contrary to his answers upon oath, and required to make a solemn protestation that the calling of the reverend Bishops was of Divine institution, with some other such things mentioned in his submission, which together with the articles against him are upon record, to which he refers himself. After much petitioning he got his fine mitigated to 40l., which he paid in towards the rebuilding of Paul's, and then Laud protested that he should not take his degrees while he lived. He heard Laud say openly in the High Commission Court "I will break my back or I will break the neck of these prohibitions." The main things for which he was censured in the High Commission were for that he said he would rather give 10s. to the pulling down of Paul's Church, to build other churches where wanted, or relieve the poor, than 5s. to repair it. That churches were not simply necessary, &c. 22 Jany. 1643. [1p.]
84. Information against Archbishop Laud. Richard Hodgkinson being brought before the Archbishop of Canterbury for printing a book called [John] Cowell's "Interpreter" [or Explanation of Law Terms] forbidden by order of Parliament, and a proclamation for none to keep the book, but to bring them to the Sheriff and Bishop Laud referred the matter to Sir John Lambe who justified the book, asking what hurt was in it. We told him it was prohibited by the king and parliament and showed him the proclamation, and Hodgkinson took it up and flung it down again saying, in a scornful manner, this came forth in a seditious scandalous parliament time. July 1638. Underwritten,
84. i. Hodgkinson printed it for Sadler in Doctors Commons and our Company often complained to Canterbury but could not get it stopped. Mr. Sadler paid for printing and sold it, and it was allowed by Canterbury. Annexed, [1p.]
84. ii. Extracts from Dr. Cowell's Interpreter, printed at London, 1637, dedicated to Archbishop Laud of Canterbury. [Article 2. 5¼ pp.]
85. Testimony by John Ashe, M.P., and an inhabitant of Somerset against Archbishop Laud. Refusal of the churchwardens of Beckington, Somerset, to remove the communion table in their church altarwise. [2½ pp.]
86. Information of Ambrose Salusbury, living at the Countess of Exeter's in St. Johns', London, against Archbishop Laud. In a suit between me and Mr. Orgill about the parsonage of Newtonin-the-Thistles [Newton Regis] co. Warwick, Laud sent to Sir John Bancks, the King's Attorney to cast my cause out of court as a mere vexatious suit, 24 January 1643–4. [½ p.]
87. Testimony of Mr. Wells against Archbishop Laud. He first suspended me, then deprived me, and after that excommunicated me, only for non-subscription to the three articles. Then for being present in the chancel at Dunmow where he visited, he called me before him and having reviled me for impudency, as daring to appear in his presence, he warned me to appear before the High Commission Court to answer that contempt for treading, as he said, upon holy ground, and threatened to make me an example to all ministers. Notwithstanding the mediation of Lord Maynard and Dr. Duck he committed me prisoner to the pursuivant till I should enter into bond of 100 marks to appear at the High Commission. Not venturing to appear because of his rage against me, I was driven to fly my country and go with my family to New England. [1 p.]
88. Deposition of Edwin Gryffin of London, soapmaker. That he being present in the Star Chamber when the cause against the Soapmakers of London was sentenced, about 12 years since, heard Archbishop Laud (after he had uttered many harsh and bitter words against the contemners or breakers of proclamations) speak these words, viz., that if I live and sit in this place, I will make a proclamation equal with a statute law. And speaking further of the King's power and prerogative then and there used also these or the like words in effect, viz., that those that fell upon the King should be bruised, but those that the King fell upon should be broken to pieces, 26 January 1643. Dorso: Mr. Gryffin lodges at the Golden Fleece in Little Wood Street. Thos. Woodstock in Thames Street near Dowgate Hill, soapmaker, can testify the like [1 p.]
89. Deposition of Lisle Long of Lincoln's Inn. That about four years since he repaired to Lambeth and preferred a petition to Archbishop Laud in behalf of his brother William Long, M.A., of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, then newly beneficed, praying leave to continue in the University for some time to improve his studies, his parsonage house being not yet habitable till it was repaired. The Archbishop threw the same back, saying he would not give him leave for a day, but that he must depart the University or leave his living. Affirming that he had made an order therein, that all beneficed men should depart the University; to which deponent replied that the Statutes of the Realm warranted his brother to continue in the University being under 40 years; but the Archbishop answered, he regarded not that or to that effect. Notwithstanding this order the Archbishop about the same time dispensed with divers beneficed men of other Houses to continue in the University. Deponent verily believes that the Archbishop was so strict against his brother for that he was of Magdalen Hall, which house was branded with the name of a Puritanical House, because they did not comply with the superstitions and other errors then broached in the University, 26 January 1643–4. [1 p.]
90. Examination and deposition of John Wallinger of Bedford, taken 5th February 1643–4, against the arbitrary proceedings of Archbishop Laud and Sir John Lambe. [2½ p.]
91. A breviate of the articles against the Archbishop of Canterbury in the behalf of the churchwardens of the parish of Bartholomew the Great, proved by me Henry Garrett. Detention of his suit above four years in the High Commission Court, was committed to prison six times, and afterwards excommunicated by the Archbishop. [1 p.]