London and Archbishop of Canterbury, and presided both in the Court of High Commission and in the Star Chamber. This wrong-headed man no doubt persuaded himself that he had no object in the view but the welfare of the Church and the King, and that he was doing God good service by all the cruel measures he resorted to.

Unfortunately for the Church, and fatally for himself, he forthwith originated a controversy very similar to that which has recently sprung up at Oxford, but, thank God, the very learned and pious Tractarians have neither the power nor the wish to enforce their opinions by violent means. The Archbishop, without being a Roman Catholic, longed to come as near as possible to the doctrines and ceremonies of Rome, and issued a number of new regulations with respect to the position of the communion-table, the mode of administering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and other religious rites. These Williams considered not only contrary to the spirit of the Reformation, but in violation of ecclesiastical canons and the Articles of the Church of England, and, to oppose them, he published a book, entitled "The Holy Table," pretty plainly insinuating that they led to Romanism, but at the same time using Scripture language, and such general arguments, that his book could not itself be made the subject of prosecution.*

Laud, however, denounced all who differed from him as "Puritans," and eagerly looked out for an opportunity to prosecute Williams as their leader.

There was a suit depending in the episcopal court at Lincoln against some persons who had refused to comply with a prescribed ecclesiastical formality. The Bishop was unwilling to proceed to extremities against them, and the prosecutor at the trial having called them "Puritans," he said something about "the Puritans being good subjects, and of his knowing that the King did not wish them to be hardly dealt with." Complaint of this language was immediately brought to Laud, and he directed it to be made the subject of an information in the Star Chamber the charge to be, for spreading false news, and disclosing what had passed between the defendant and the King, contrary to the oath of a Privy Councillor," and the evidence, that he had published and misrepresented his conversation with the King about indulgence to the Puritans. As a preliminary step, his name was struck out from the list of Privy Councillors.

at

Noy was then Attorney General, and filed the information, but on looking into the case, he was so much ashamed of it, that it went to sleep for several years. On his death, [A. D. 1637.] the instigation of Laud, who had in vain tried to induce Williams to recant the doctrines of "The Holy Table," and to resign the deanery of Westminster, it was revived. Still there was a difficulty in carrying it through without any evidence,

* Clarendon says of it, that it displayed "much good learning, but too little gravity for a Bishop."

when Sir John Banks, the new Attorney General, dexterously and unscrupulously filed another information against the Bishop, imputing to him that he had tampered with the King's witnesses in the former suit.

This was equally unfounded, but, after a trial which lasted nine days, the Right Reverend Defendant was found guilty. Archbishop Laud, in pronouncing judgment, hypocritically said, "Sorry I am, my Lords, that such a man as my Lord Bishop of Lincoln for profession, and sorry that he, being so wise, so discreet and understanding a man every way, should come to deserve the censure of this Court. When I look upon and consider his excellent parts, both of nature and achieved unto by study and art; when I think upon his wisdom, learning, agility of memory, and the experience that accompanies him with all those endowments, it puts me to stand.” The sentence was, that the defendant should pay a fine of 10,000Z.; should be imprisoned in the Tower during the King's pleasure; should be suspended from his ecclesiatical functions tam a beneficiis quam officiis; and should be referred over to the High Commission Court, there to be further dealt with as his offence should deserve.

Under this judgment he was immediately arrested and carried to the Tower, where he was kept a close prisoner between three and four years, till he was released by the Long Parliament. Meanwhile he was, in other respects, treated with excessive severity. He petitioned that "his fine might be taken up by 10007. yearly, as his estate would bear it;" but Kilvert, a pettifogging attorney, and an infamous tool of his persecutors, was sent down to Buckden with an immediate execution for the 10,000%.,seized all his furniture, plate, and books,-felled his timber,slaughtered his deer,-sold for five pounds pictures which had cost him 4007.,-and continued revelling for several years in the palace without accounting for the monies he received, or paying any part of the fine.

Laud, not yet satiated, in the spring of 1639, caused another information to be filed against Williams, along with Lambert Osbaldeston, one of the Masters of Westminster school, “for divulging false news and lies to breed a disturbance between the late Lord Treasurer Weston and the Archbishop himself; for giving them nicknames, and for contriving to work the Archbishop's ruin.' This charge was founded on certain private letters of the defendants, in which they had reflected on some of the measures of the Lord Treasurer, and had called the Archbishop "the great little man." Being found guilty, the sentence upon the Bishop of Lincoln was, that he should be fined 5000Z [FEB. 1639.] to the King, and 3000l. to the Archbishop; imprisoned during the King's pleasure, and acknowledge his fault. He was supposed by his Judges to be rather leniently dealt with; for Osbaldeston had a similar sentence, with the addition of standing in the pillory and having his ears nailed to it.

When it was thought that the ex-Lord Keeper's spirit was broken by these proceedings, an offer was made to liberate him on his giving up his bishopric and all his preferments in England, and taking a bishopric in Ireland. He answered, "that it were a tempting of God to part with all he had willingly, and leave himself no assurance of a livelihood; that his debts, if he came out of the Tower, would cast him into another prison; that he would never hazard himself into a condition to beg his bread; and as to going into Ireland, that as he was imprisoned here under the King, he plainly saw he should soon be hanged there under the Lord Deputy." So he resolved to exercise his patience, and wait a

better day.

His deliverance arrived much sooner than could then have been expected. The parliament, which was assembled in [Nov. 1640.] the beginning of 1640, upon the Scottish invasion, was abruptly dissolved before Williams could apply to it for redress; but the November following was the memorable era of the meeting of "the Long Parliament." He now hoped for his own liberation, and vengeance on his oppressor. About this time he said to Hacket, his biographer, "I am right sorry for the King, who is like to be forsaken by his subjects. But for the Archbishop, he had best not meddle with me, for all the friends he can make will be too few to save him."

In a few days after the commencement of the session he presented a petition to the House of Lords, praying that he might be set at liberty, and that a writ of summons might be sent to him as a Peer. This was opposed by Finch, the Lord Keeper, and by Archbishop Laud; but the Lords agreed on an address to the King in his favour, and sent their own officer, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, to the Tower to deliver him out of custody. He was brought to Westminster forthwith, and, in the midst of many congratulations, took his seat on the Bishop's bench.

He could not refrain, at first, from launching out rather violently against those who had persecuted him, but after this ebullition he conducted himself with moderation; showing himself a friend to the monarchy and the church; and, were it not for the Jesuitical advice which he gave to Charles, about assenting to the execution of Strafford, his subsequent conduct must be applauded by all parties in the state. Some Peers, to whom chiefly he owed his liberation, having spoken with personal disrespect of the King, who was still residing at Westminster in the full exercise of the royal functions, he sharply rebuked them,-pointing out how the use of such language was contrary to the duty of good subjects, and was inconsistent with all notion of kingly government. They exclaimed, "We have conjured up a spirit, and would we could lay him again." Clarendon relates, that now preaching before the

* Hacket, part ii. 136. According to Clarendon-" he had much to defend himself against the Archbishop here; but if he was in Ireland there was a man (meaning the Earl of Strafford) who would cut off his head within one month,"

King in his turn as Dean of Westminster, when mentioning the Presbyterian discipine, he said, "it was a government only fit for tailors and shoemakers and the like-not for noblemen and gentlemen,”—which giving great scandal to his patrons, "he reconciled himself to them by making merry with certain sharp sayings of the Court." But the noble historian had such a spite against Williams, that this representation must be received with some suspicion.*

From whatever cause,-the King, pretending to approve of his conduct, sent for him one evening, had a conference with him that lasted till after midnight, and, as a token of a full pardon, ordered the records of all the proceedings against him in the Star Chamber to be cancelled.

To some of his more respectable opponents Williams said, “If they had no worse foes than him, they might fear no harm, and that he saluted them with the charity of a Bishop;" but when Kilvert, who had behaved so abominably at Buckden, came to crave pardon and indemnity, he said, passionately, "I assure you pardon for what you have done before; but this is a new fault, that you take me to be of so base a spirit as to defile myself with treading on so mean a creature. Live still by pettyfogging, and think that I have forgotten you."+

He strongly advised Charles not to assent to the act which deprived him of the power of dissolving this parliament at pleasure, and which must be considered the foundation of the impending revolution. Long before the King's captivity, the House of Commons had become unpopular, so that [ A. D. 1641.] there was a strong reaction throughout the nation in his favour; and if he could have called a new parliament he would have been safe.

But Williams's conduct with respect to Strafford cannot be defended. In the first place, although the trial for the high treason was causa sanguinis,-contrary to the canons and immemorial usage, he contended for the right of the Bishops to be present and to vote upon it, and that they ought to exercise this right.‡ The Bill of Attainder being passed, although he professed to disapprove of it, he agreed to go with three other MAY, 1641.] prelates to try to induce the King to assent to it, and thus he stated the question:-" Since his Majesty refers his own judgment to his Judges, and they are to answer it, if an innocent person suffers,-why may he not satisfy his conscience in the present matter, since competent Judges in the law have awarded that

* Hist, Reb. i. 536. 542. 548.

† Hacket, part ii.

There is a striking instance of the inaccuracy of Lord Clarendon in relating this transaction. He strongly blames Williams for denying the right of the Bishops to be present and to vote.-that he might deprive Strafford of their support ;— whereas Hacket gives at full length a very long speech which Williams delivered, to prove that the Bishops on trials for life and death were to sit and vote like other Peers.-3 St. Tr. 823. 2 l'arl. Hist. 732. In capital cases the Bishops always withdraw under protest.

they find the Earl guilty of treason, by suffering the judgment to stand, though in his own mind he was satisfied that the party convicted was not criminous?" The other three Bishops, trusting to his learning and experience, joined with him in sanctioning this distinction, in laying all the blame on the Judges, and in saying that the King, might with a good conscience agree to Strafford's death. Clarendon mainly imputes Strafford's death to Williams's conduct on this occasion, saying that "he acted his part with prodigious boldness and impiety." It is stated as matter of palliation by others, that Usher, the celebrated Archbishop of Armagh, was one of this deputation, and that Strafford, although aware of the advice he had given, was attended by him on the scaffold, and received from him the last consolations of religion.

Williams now visited his diocese, and tried to put down unlicensed preaching, which was beginning to spread formidably. On his return, being violently attacked in parliament for this proceeding, he ably defended himself in the two Houses held in the Painted Chamber.

While afraid of the displeasure of the popular party, a new change of fortune awaited him. It was said he experienced almost as many vicissitudes as Marius, Consul toties exulque; ex exulque Consul. Instead of being sent to Newgate, as he expected by the influence of the Puritans whom he had protected,-he was made by the King Archbishop of York, and placed, de facto, at the head of the Church of England. Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was under impeachment in the Tower, and the clergy of the establishment looked, as their last hope, to him who had been for years persecuted and imprisoned as their enemy.

CHAPTER LX.

CONCLUSION OF THE LIFE OF LORD KEEPER WILLIAMS,

WILLIAMS had scarcely taken his seat in the House of Lords as [A. D. 1641.] order to sit there. Metropolitan when he had to defend the right of his order to sit there. A Bill came up from the Commons to exclude the Bishops entirely from parliament, and to disqualify them from all secular employments. When it got into committee, he delivered a very long and able speech against it, which made such an impression upon its supporters, that it was allowed to go to sleep for five months.* The King complimented him on this occasion, saying, "My Lord, I commend you that you are no whit daunted with all disasters, but are zealous in defending your order."—" Please it your Majesty," replied the Arch-BISHOP,

* 2 Parl. Hist. 794.