|
|
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 which 4½ blank.] |
|
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.] |
