Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T01:49:32.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Crisis of Episcopal Authority During the Reign of Elizabeth I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Roger B. Manning
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The theory behind the Henrician religious settlement was that certain papal and episcopal powers of jurisdiction were vested in the Crown by parliamentary enactments because the Pope and the English bishops had failed to reform abuses in the Church. In the absence of an alternative administrative system, the bishops continued to govern the Church as agents of the royal ecclesiastical supremacy. Although some episcopal powers of jurisdiction were returned to the Elizabethan bishops, the actual authority allowed them did not suffice to effect a reformation or to enforce conformity to the established church. In order to resolve this crisis of episcopal authority the seventeenth-century prelates and divines elaborated theories of divine-right episcopacy, but the Elizabethan bishops found it more expedient to fall back upon extraordinary grants of royal authority contained in ecclesiastical commissions.

I

The Henrician and Edwardian alienations of episcopal jurisdiction are spectacular and dramatic, yet the erosion of episcopal authority began long before the Henrician Reformation. For over two centuries English bishops had been primarily royal servants. They were, by temperament and training canonists and diplomats rather than pastors; like the Renaissance popes they had grown accustomed to compromise rather than providing spiritual leadership. Not only in England, but throughout Western Europe, bishops rarely sat as judges in their own courts. Much of their authority had been permanently delegated to commissaries, who tended to become independent agents. They were, moreover, hard put to resist encroachments upon their ordinary authority by archdeacons and cathedral chapters, while ecclesiastical corporations devoted considerable effort to securing exemption from episcopal visitations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , November 1971 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cf. Sir Maurice Powicke's brilliant discussion of this situation in his The Reformation in England (London, 1941), chapter I, especially pp. 9–12Google Scholar. See also Smith, L. B., Tudor Prelates and Politics, 1536–1558 (Princeton, 1953)Google Scholar, for a study of the bishops under Henry VII, Edward VI and Mary I.

2. Morris, Colin, “The Commissary of the Bishop in the Diocese of Lincoln,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, X (1959), 50–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Daeley, John I., “The Episcopal Administration of Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury” (Ph.D. thesis, London University, 1967), pp. 52–54Google Scholar.

3. Janelle, Pierre, The Catholic Reformation (Milwaukee, 1963), pp. 4–5Google Scholar; Gilmore, Myron P., The World of Humanism, 1453–1517 (New York, 1962), pp. 166–68Google Scholar.

4. Makower, Felix, The Constitutional History and the Constitution of the Church of England (London, 1895), p. 46Google Scholar.

5. Knecht, R. J., “The Episcopate and the Wars of the Roses,” University of Birmingham Historical Journal, V–VII (1955), 108–31Google Scholar.

6. Bindoff, S. T., Tudor England (Baltimore, 1950), p. 81Google Scholar.

7. “Concerning Civil Magistrates,” article XXXVII of the Thirty-Nine Articles, printed in Forbes, A. P., An Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles (London, 1881), pp. 727–28Google Scholar.

8. Elton, G. R., The Tudor Constitution (Cambridge, 1960), p. 333Google Scholar. Cf. also Baumer, F. L., The Early Tudor Theory of Kingship (New Haven, 1940), pp. 33–34Google Scholar, and Davies, E. T., Episcopacy and the Royal Supremacy in the Church of England in the XVI Century (Oxford, 1950), p. 11Google Scholar.

9. Makower, , Constitutional History, pp. 255–56Google Scholar.

10. Lehmberg, S. E., “Supremacy and Vicegerency: A Re-examination,” English Historical Review, LXXXI (1966), 288CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Williams, Glanmor, Welsh Reformation Essays (Cardiff, 1967), p. 125Google Scholar.

12. By the authority of the Act for the Appointment of Bishops by Letters Patent. Statutes of the Realm (London, 1810–1828), IV, i, 3Google Scholar: 1 Edw. VI, c. 2. An example of such a royal commission permitting Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury to exercise his jurisdiction, can be found in [David Wilkins,] Concilia Magnae Britanniae (London, 1737), IV, 2–3Google Scholar, printing a copy of a royal patent from Cranmer's archiepiscopal register, fo. 28v. Elton, , The Tudor Constitution, p. 359Google Scholar, prints Edmund Bonner's commission as bishop of London, which is very similar in wording to the above document.

13. Lehmberg, , “Supremacy and Vicegerency,” E.H.R., LXXXI, 231Google Scholar. R. G. Usher was of the opinion that “the powers of archbishops and bishops had been so long curtailed by legates and commissions from Rome, that to increase episcopal authority, even in practice, by the addition of any considerable proportion of powers long exercised by the pope, would make precisely that violent breach with traditional forms which Henry was anxious to avoid.” Usher, R. G., The Rise and Fall of the High Commission (Oxford, 1913)Google Scholar, reprinted with a new introduction by Philip Tyler in 1968, p. 287.

14. Statutes of the Realm, IV, i, 355Google Scholar: 1 Eliz. I, c. 2, sec. IV.

15. Cf. PRO, SP 12/10, p. 1, printed in Gee, Henry, The Elizabethan Clergy and the Settlement of Religion, 1558–1564 (Oxford, 1898), pp. 89–93Google Scholar.

16. Prothero, G. W., Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents, Illustrative of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I (4th ed., Oxford, 1913), p. xxviiGoogle Scholar.

17. BM, Lord Keeper et al. to Privy Council, Dec. 3, 1577, Lansdowne MSS, 27, fos. 46-46v.

18. Alston, L. (ed.), De Republica Anglorum (Cambridge, 1906), pp. 139–40Google Scholar.

19. Greville, Robert, LordBrooke, , A Discourse opening the nature of that episcopacie, which is exercised in England (1641)Google Scholar, reproduced in Haller, William (ed.), Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution (New York, 1934), II, 40–42Google Scholar.

20. BM, Add. MSS, 28,571, p. 205, quoted in Babbage, S. B., Puritanism and Richard Bancroft (London, 1962), p. 104Google Scholar.

21. Babbage, , Richard Bancroft, p. 29Google Scholar; Sykes, Norman, Old Priest and New Presbyter (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 7, 18Google Scholar; Cross, Claire, The Royal Supremacy in the Elizabethan Church, (London, 1969), pp. 65–66Google Scholar.

22. Philip Tyler's Introduction to the 1968 reprint of Usher, , High Commission, pp. xii–xviiGoogle Scholar.

23. Dawson, Christopher, The Making of Europe (New York, 1956), p. 188Google Scholar.

24. Tyler, Introduction to the 1968 reprint of Usher, , High Commission, pp. xvii–xxivGoogle Scholar. Usher had presented some rather confused arguments to the effect that the Ecclesiastical Commission of 1559 had no pre-Reformation precedents. Usher, , High Commission, pp. 13–15Google Scholar.

25. , C. H. and George, K., The Protestant Mind of the English Reformation (Princeton, 1961), pp. 181–83Google Scholar. See also Collinson's, Patrick important essay, “Episcopacy and Reform in England in the Later Sixteenth Century,” Studies in Church History, III (1966), 91–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for an account of how Elizabethan reformers attempted to turn bishops into superintendants associated in the government of the church with presbyteries composed of eminent and learned ministers. These reformers considered the bishops' primary function to be preaching. His secondary function “was discipline and oversight, but these he was to exercise as a true father in God, not like a lord or secular judge.”

26. Sykes, , Old Priest, pp. 12-15, 35–38Google Scholar.

27. Strype, John, Ecclesiastical Memorials (Oxford, 1816), II, ii, 141Google Scholar.

28. Peel, Albert (ed.), The Seconde Porte of a Register (Cambridge, 1915), II, 209–10Google Scholar. Compare Richard Curteys, bishop of Chichester: “What … should these Preachers [referring to his fellow bishops] doo with Lordships and Mannours and Tithes: they hinder them from their bookes and study. It were better for them to have a pention [pension] quietly paid them, and they may go quietly to their bookes and to their preaching.” Two Sermons by the reverend father in God the Bishop of Chichester, the first at Paules Crosse on Sunday beeing the fourth day of March. And the second at Westminster before ye Queenes maiestie the iij Sunday in Lent last past (London, 1576), pp. 118–19Google Scholar.

29. Cf. Sykes, , Old Priest, pp. 26–28Google Scholar.

30. Hembry, P. M., The Bishops of Bath and Wells, 1540-1640: Social and Economic Problems (London, 1967)Google Scholar, passim, but especially pp. 79-81.

31. Ibid., pp. 1-2.

32. For example, the income of the bishopric of Bath and Wells fell from £2202 in 1539 to £533 in the reign of Elizabeth, but by ruthless management was improved to £843 in 1595. Hembry, , Bishops of Bath and Wells, p. 254Google Scholar. The revenues of most other dioceses were cut in half by plunder and irregular leasing policies. Cf. Hill, Christopher, The Economic Problems of the Church from Archbishop Whitgift to the Long Parliament (Oxford, 1956), chapters I-II, esp. pp. 26–27Google Scholar.

33. For a discussion of Bishop Curteys's disputes with the gentry of Sussex, cf. Manning, Roger B., Religion and Society in Elizabethan Sussex: A Study of the Enforcement of the Religious Settlement, 1558-1603 (Leicester, 1969), pp. 63–125Google Scholar. For Edwin Sandys's encounter with Sir John Bourne and Sir Robert Stapleton, cf. Strype, John, Annals of the Reformation (Oxford, 1843), I, ii, 15-42, III, i, 142–58Google Scholar.

34. For an excellent discussion of the discord between the gentry and the bishops of Norwich, cf. Smith, A. H., “The Elizabethan Gentry of Norfolk: Office-Holding and Faction” (Ph.D. thesis, London University, 1959), pp. 32-35, 164–66Google Scholar.

35. When Richard Davies, bishop of St. David's was appointed as a commissioner fbr suppressing piracy, he discovered that two of the principal agents of royal government in Wales, Richard Vaughan and Sir John Perrott, were implicated. It was said that the vindictive Sir John Perrott, allegedly an illegitimate son of Henry VIII, hounded Bishop Davies to death for the part he played in the subsequent enquiry. Williams, , Welsh Reformation Essays, pp. 167–68Google Scholar.

36. Collinson, , “Episcopacy and Reform,” Studies in Church History, III, 120–21Google Scholar.

37. Manning, , Religion and Society, pp. 113–25Google Scholar.

38. BM, William Overton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield to Lord Burghley, Feb. 20, 1582/3, Lansdowne MSS, 37, fos. 46-46v. Overton told Lord Burghley that his opponents among the peerage and gentry, together with Thomas Becon, his chancellor, brought actions against him at the assizes and quarter sessions, before the Privy Council and the Court of Common Pleas, in the Court of Star Chamber, and even in his own consistory court. Previously, when Overton and Becon were together at Chichester under Bishop Richard Curteys, Overton had bribed Becon with the promise of future preferment if he would join Overton's faction within the cathedral close. With the aid of Overton's fellows among the prebendaries, the Sussex gentry had procured Curteys's suspension in 1577.

39. Read, Conyers, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth (London, 1965), pp. 303, 570Google Scholar, n. 31; BM, William Overton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield to Lord Burghley, Feb. 20, 1582/3, Lansdowne MSS, 37, fos. 46-46v.

40. Dawley, P. M., John Whitgift and the English Reformation (New York, 1954), pp. 164–66Google Scholar.

41. Cf. Stubbs, William, “The History of the Canon Law in England,” Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History (Boston, 1907), I, 279–81Google Scholar.

42. Usher, R. G., The Reconstruction of the English Church (New York, 1910), I, 94–96Google Scholar. esp. 104, 110; Usher, , High Commission, p. 287Google Scholar.

43. Tanner, J. R., Tudor Constitutional Documents (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 361–62Google Scholar. For a study of the special law commissions erected to enforce the penal laws of the 1580s and the 1590s, see Manning, Roger B., “Elizabethan Recusancy Commissions,” forthcoming in The Historical JournalGoogle Scholar.

44. On the Ecclesiastical Commission for the province of Canterbury, see Usher, High Commission, passim. For the province of York, see Tyler, Philip, “The Significance of the Ecclesiastical Commission at York,” Northern History, II (1967), 27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Tyler, Philip, “The Ecclesiastical Commission for the Province of York, 1561-1641” (D. Phil, thesis, Oxford University, 1965)Google Scholar. Usher's study of the Ecclesiastical Commission for the Province of Canterbury could be revised profitably; Dr. Tyler promises a bbok on the York Ecclesiastical Commission.

45. The only thorough study of an Elizabethan diocesan commission is Price, F. D., “The Commission for Causes Ecclesiastical for the Dioceses of Bristol and Gloucester, 1574,” Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, LIX (1937), 61–184Google Scholar (Hereafter cited as TBGAS). But also see Leatherbarrow, J. S., The Lancashire Elizabethan Recusants [Chetham Society, CX] (Manchester, 1947)Google Scholar, passim.

46. Price, F. D., “The Abuses of Excommunication and the Decline of Ecclesiastical Discipline under Queen Elizabeth,” E. H. R., LVII (1942), 106–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Price, F. D., “An Elizabethan Church Official — Thomas Powell, Chancellor of Gloucester Diocese,” Church History Review, CXXVIII (1939), 94–112Google Scholar; Price, F. D., “Elizabethan Apparitors in the Diocese of Gloucester,” Church Quarterly Review, CXXXIV (1942), 37–55Google Scholar.

47. Owen, H. G., “The Episcopal Visitation: Its Limits and Limitations in Elizabethan London,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XI (1960), 179–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woodcock, B. L., Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts in the Diocese of Canterbury (Oxford, 1952), p. 84Google Scholar; Peters, Robert, Oculus Episcopi: Administration in the Archdeaconry of St. Albans, 1580-1625 (Manchester, 1963)Google Scholar, passim; Daeley, J. I., “The Episcopal Administration of Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1559-75” (Ph.D. thesis, London University, 1967), pp. 98–99Google Scholar.

48. Collinson, Patrick, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London, 1967), pp. 38–42Google Scholar.

49. Peters, , Oculus Episcopi, p. 5Google Scholar.

50. Hill, Christopher, Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England (London, 1966), p. 312Google Scholar.

51. Manning, Religion and Society, chapters 2, 7 and 10. In the diocese of Chichester the erring clerics were at least detected through the churchwardens; Marchant, Ronald, The Puritans and the Church Courts in the Diocese of York, 1560-1642 (London, 1960), pp. 92, 106–108Google Scholar, has found that in the diocese of York even the detection apparatus broke down and the judges were forced to fall back upon rumor

52. Daeley, , “The Episcopal Administration,” pp. 105–06Google Scholar; Price, , “The Commission for Causes Ecclesiastical,” TBGAS, LIXGoogle Scholar, passim; Manning, , Religion and Society, pp. 30Google Scholar and n., 244-45; Addy, John, The Archdeacon and Ecclesiastical Discipline in Yorkshire, 1598-1714 (St. Anthony's Hall Publications, no. 24, 1963), pp. 31–32Google Scholar.

53. Price, , “Commission for Causes Ecclesiastical,” TBGAS, LIX, 72, 92–97Google Scholar.

54. Ibid., p. 93n.

55. Ibid., pp. 62-63. The new ecclesiastical commission was given the authority to hear the matter of the Huntley-Arnold riot, but it ultimately had to be settled by the Privy Council. Dasent, J. (ed.), Acts of the Privy Council, VIII, 356–7Google Scholar. (Hereafter cited as A. P. C.)

56. Price, , “Commission for Causes Ecclesiastical“, TBGAS, LIX, 67–8Google Scholar; cf. also Williams, Penry, The Council in the Marches of Wales under Elizabeth I (Cardiff, 1958), pp. 100-102, 195Google Scholar. The jurisdiction of the Council of Wales covered testamentary and moral cases, and thus coincided to some extent with the ecclesiastical courts.

57. PRO, Richard Horne, Bishop of Winchester to Privy Council, Aug. 29, 1561, SP 12/19/36.

58. PRO, Bishop Horne to Privy Council, Jan. 12, 1562/3, SP 12/21/7.

59. BM, Bishop Horne to Sir William Cecil, Jan. 2, 1569/70, Lansdowne MSS, 12, fos. 63-63v.

60. BM, Bishop Horne to Sir William Cecil, Jan. 21, 1569/70, Lansdowne MSS, 12, fos. 74-74v.

61. Dasent, , A. P. C., IX, 269Google Scholar; PRO, Examination before Winchester Ecclesiastical Commission, Nov. 13, 1585, SP 12/184/21; PRO, Exchequer, Queen's Remembrancer, Searle's Accounts, May 4, 1598, E. 101/522/20. Only three late Elizabethan commissions survive. They are printed in Rymer, Thomas, Foedera, XVI, 291-297 (1596), 324-325 (1597), 546–551 (1603)Google Scholar. Bishop Horne need not have possessed a separate ecclesiastical commission to erect a commission court within the diocese of Winchester. He was included in the ecclesiastical commissions of 1572 and 1576 for the province of Canterbury. PRO, Patent Roll, June 11, 1572, C. 66/1089, m. 25d, extracts in Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1569-1572, V, 440–42Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Col. P.R.). and in Prothero, , Select Statutes, pp. 235–237Google Scholar; PRO, Copy of Ecclesiastical Commission, April 23, 1576, SP 12/108/7, extracts in Prothero, , Select Statutes, pp. 237–240Google Scholar. In both instances there were sufficient commissioners living in Hampshire to have constituted a court. The commission of 1572 allowed a branch of the High Commission to be established in Winchester and four other dioceses “where [the] ordinary course of common justice or law is wanting or defective.”

62. BM, Thomas Cooper, bishop of Winchester to Lord Burghley, May 2, 1584, Lansdowne MSS, 42, fo. 101.

63. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Salisbury MSS, VI, 265–66Google Scholar. (Hereafter cited as Hist. MSS. Comm.).

64. PRO, Richard Davies, bishop of St. David's to Privy Council, Jan. 25, 1569/70, SP 12/66/26-26.I. Five clerics from the diocese of St. David's, including Bishop Davies, were included in the Ecclesiastical Commission of 1572 for the Province of Canterbury, so it is probable that a local branch of the High Commission operated in that diocese. Cal. P.R., 1569-1572, V, 440–442Google Scholar; SP 12/66/26.I. On Bishop Davies, see also Williams, , Welsh Reformation Essays pp. 155–90Google Scholar.

65. PRO, SP 12/66/26.

66. PRO, [Richard Curteys, bishop of Chichester to P.C., Nov. 1570?], SP 12/74/44.

67. Ibid.; BM, William Overton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield to Lord Burghley, April 1581, Lansdowne MSS, 33, fo. 27.

68. Hist. MSS Comm., Salisbury MSS, VI, 265–66Google Scholar. Under the 1581 Recusancy Act, Statutes of the Realm, IV, i, 657Google Scholar: 23 Eliz. I, c. 1, the J.P.s could take sureties of a recusant only after that person had persisted in his recusancy for twelve months following conviction, and after that fact had been certified into the Court of King's Bench.

69. PRO, Charges against Edmund Freake, bishop of Norwich made by gentry of diocese, [Oct. 1578], SP 15/25/119; A. P. C., X, 310-312. Norwich illustrates a particular problem. The Privy Council, Bishop Parkhurst and the Puritan gentry saw the suppression of recusancy as the main task facing the ecclesiastical commission, while the queen, the assizes judges and Bishop Freake saw the Puritan experiments in church government and the liturgy as the greater evil. Cf. Collinson, Patrick, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement, (London, 1967) pp. 164, 205Google Scholar; cf. also Smith, A. H., “The Elizabethan Gentry of Norfolk: Office-Holding and Faction” (London Ph.D. thesis, 1959), p. 164–66Google Scholar., esp. p. 186. I am presently working on an article that examines the involvement of the Puritan gentry in the work of the ecclesiastical commissions in the dioceses of Norwich and Chester.

70. Cf. Leatherbarrow, The Lanashire Elizabethan Recusants, passim and Peck, Francis, Desiderata Curiosa (London, 1732), IGoogle Scholar, passim.

71. Cross, Claire, The Puritan Earl: The Life of Henry Hastings, Third Earl of Huntingdon, 1536-1595 (London, 1966), pp. 226–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72. BM, Edmund Scambler, bishop of Peterborough to Lord Burghley, April 13, 1573, March 27, 1575, Lansdowne MSS, 17, fo. 55, 21, fo. 4.

73. Lambeth Palace Library, Bishop of Exeter to High Commission, 1584, Carte Misc., XII/16; Dasent, , A. P. C., XI, 444–45Google Scholar.

74. For the strained relations between the bishops and the canons residentiary of Chichester, cf. Manning, Religion and Society, passim.

In the Henrician diocese of St. David's the reforming energies of Bishop William Barlow were expended in a protracted quarrel with the cathedral chapter. Barlow was not only trying to extend his episcopal authority over the chapter in an unconstitutional way, he also sought to have himself appointed dean. His vindictive treatment of the canons of St. David's brought down on his head the active opposition of the townsmen of Pembroke as well as that of the two most powerful families in West Wales, the Devereux and the Baskervilles. Although the fall of his patrons, Anne Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell, and the conservative reaction of the 1540s weakened his position, Barlow continued to introduce his supporters into the cathedral close whenever vacancies occurred.

The disputes between bishop and canons not only continued under Barlow's successor and protégé, Bishop Robert Ferrar, but spread more widely among the laity and seriously hampered efforts to spread Protestant doctrines in the diocese of St. David's. Williams, , Welsh Reformation Essays, pp. 116–35Google Scholar.

75. The first royal commission was that of June 20, 1559 for the visitation of Cambridge University and Eton College to alter the statutes of those two institutions. Lambeth Palace Library, Lambeth MSS, 1166/3, printed in Gee, Elizabethan Clergy. A second royal commission, issued on June 4, 1562 granted authority to revise the statutes of all ecclesiastical and scholastic corporations, which were promulgated in the time of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary. Lambeth Palace Library, Lambeth MSS, 276. The cathedral corporations that were surveyed under this commission included Winchester, Ely, Worcester, Norwich, Peterborough, Rochester, Bristol, Gloucester, Durham, Chester, Carlisle, and Canterbury.

76. Lambeth Palace Library, Lambeth MSS, 276, fo. 1.

77. Ibid., fo. 7v.

78. PRO, Robert Horne, bishop of Winchester to Sir William Cecil, Jan. 12, 1562/3, SP 12/21/7.

79. BM, Robert Horne, bishop of Winchester to Sir William Cecil, Jan. 2, 1569/70, Lansdowne MSS, 12, fos. 63-63v.

80. BM, Edmund Scambler, bishop of Peterborough to the Queen, June 19, 1582, Lansdowne MSS, 38, fos. 178-178v.

81. PRO, William Chaderton, bishop of Chester's Injunctions to Cathedral Chapter, Jan. 14, 1580/1, SP 12/147/8.

82. Victoria County History, Worcestershire, II, 48–49Google Scholar.

83. PRO, the Queen to John Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich, Sept. 25, 1570, SP 12/75/58. A royal commission to visit Norwich Cathedral and to draw up statutes (apparently none were in force at that time) was issued to Bishop Parkhurst in 1568, PRO, SP 12/47/89. The report of the commissioners is found PRO, SP 12/49/43.

84. PRO, John Whitgift, Bishop of Worcester to Privy Council, April 19, 1583, SP 12/160/16-16.I.

85. Hill, Economic Problems of the Church, passim; BM, Lansdowne MSS, 38, fos. 178-178v; PRO, SP 12/49/43, 160/16-16.I.

86. BM, Edmund Scambler, bishop of Peterborough to the Queen, June 19, 1582, Lansdowne MSS, 38, fos. 178-178v.

87. PRO, Patent Rpll, March 9, 1598, C. 66/1478, mm. 8-11.

88. PRO, Patent Roll, May 21, 1599, C. 66/1504, mm. 17d-21d.

89. PRO, Patent Roll, July 16, 1583, C. 66/1212, m. 16d; PRO, John Whitgift, bishop of Worcester to P.C., April 19, 1583, SP 12/160/16-16.I. See also PRO, Archbishop Matthew Parker to Sir William Cecil, SP 12/22/12.

90. Lambeth Palace Library, Archiepiscopal Commission issued to John Whitgift, bishop of Worcester, Jan. 20, 1582/3, Carte Misc. II/79; BM, Archiepiscopal Commission issued to John Whitgift, bishop of Worcester, Jan. 20, 1582/3, Lansdowne MSS, 36, fos. 39-39v.

91. BM, Archbishop John Whitgift to Lord Burghley, March 21, 1585, Lansdowne MSS, 46, fo. 140.

92. PRO, Duchy of Lancaster, Special Ecclesiastical Commission, May 21, [1588], DL 42/98, fos. 26v-27. Walsingham was the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

93. Stone, Lawrence, The Crisis of the Aristocracy (New York, 1967), p. 107–109Google Scholar.

94. Hill, , Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England, p. 371Google Scholar.

95. Usher, , High Commission, p. 287Google Scholar; Tyler, , “The Significance of the Ecclesiastical Commission at York,” Northern History, II (1967), 24–44Google Scholar; Price, , “Commission for Causes Ecclesiastical,” TBGAS, LIX, 90-91, 112, 117-118, 140–141Google Scholar.

96. PRO, Patent Roll, June 16, 1596, C. 66/1449, m. 12d, printed in Rymer, , Foedera, XVI, 291–297Google Scholar.

97. For example, Chester (PRO, Patent Roll, Jan. 31, 1598, C. 66/1479, mm. 1d-6d) and Norwich (PRO, Patent Roll, Sept. 3, 1576, C 66/1138, m. 2d).

98. Cal. P.R., 1569-1572, V, 440–442Google Scholar.

99. Price, , “Commission for Causes Ecclesiastical,” TBGAS LIX, 180–181Google Scholar; Aveling, Hugh, “The Catholic Recusants of the West Riding of Yorkshire, 1558-1790,” Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Literary and Historical Section, X, vi (1963), 195, 209Google Scholar.

100. Walker, F. X., “The Implementation of the Elizabethan Statutes against Recusants, 1581-1603” (Ph.D. thesis, London University, 1961), pp. 98-104, 126Google Scholar.

101. Ibid., p. 133

102. For example, the proportion of clerics and civilians on the ecclesiastical commission for the diocese of Norwich rose from 16.6% in 1576 to 57.1% in 1596; in the diocese of Winchester between 1596 and 1603 the proportion changed from 50% to 63.3%. In the diocese of York the proportion of clerics and civilians went from 33% in 1585 to 42% in 1596, and in 1627 they constituted 76% of the York commission. (These last figures are derived from Tyler, Philip, “The Significance of the Ecclesiastical Commission at York”, Northern History, II (1967), 24–44.)Google Scholar

103. Tanner, , Tudor Constitutional Documents, p. 362Google Scholar. The same tendency has been noted in the cases of the Council in the Marches of Wales (see Williams, Penry, Council in the Marches, pp. 100–02)Google Scholar, and the Council in the North Parts (see Reid, R. R., The King's Council in the North (London, 1921), p. 308Google Scholar).

104. SirCoke, Edward, The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (London, 1797), pp. 324, 327–28, 334Google Scholar; Maguire, M. H., “The Attack of the Common Lawyers on the Oath Ex Officio as administered in the Ecclesiastical Courts of England,” Essays in History and Political Theory in Honor of Charles Howard McIlwaine (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), pp. 199–299Google Scholar; Strype, J., Life of Archbishop Whitgift (London, 1718), III, 63Google Scholar.

105. Lambeth Palace Library, “Note of things which ought to be included in the new ecclesiastical commission,” circa 1600, Carte Misc. IV/3.

106. In 1576, 30 out of 36 (or 83.3%) of the commissioners were gentry, while in 1589 the number was 8 out of 19 (or 42.1%).

107. From 18 gentry commissioners in 1562 (78.3%) to 43 (62.3%) in 1598.

108. Tyler, , “The Significance of the Ecclesiastical Commission at York,” Northern History, II, 40–1Google Scholar.

109. Leatherbarrow, Lancashire, passim; Peck, Desiderata, passim.

110. PRO, The Queen to William Downham, bishop of Chester, Feb. 21. 1567/8, SP 12/46/33.

111. I wish to thank Dr. Philip Tyler, Dr. A. Hassell Smith, Dr. John I. Daeley and Fr. F. X. Walker, S.J. for permission to consult and cite from their doctoral dissertations.