discontents and doubts about the usages and present practices of the Church. It was necessary to have a strict watch there," lest the episcopal structure should be battered down or undermined by the Press. To effect this, he wrought directly with the queen, for again "her Majesty must be his ref uge." He applied himself adroitly to her sensitive jealousy touching her ecclesiastical supremacy, informing her both of the prevalence and of the dangerous tendency of these public discussions. When she reminded him that sundry decrees and ordinances had already been made for repressing such abuses of the Press, his Grace replied, that, "notwithstanding these decrees, yet such abuses were nothing abated, but did rather more and more increase; as did also, and as a consequence, sundry intolerable troubles, as well in the Church as in the civil government of the State; that this increase of evils was because the pains and penalties set down in the said ordinances and decrees were too light and small for the correction of so grievous and heinous offences." Her Majesty was roused, and, "of her most godly and gracious disposition," gave special order" to "the Archbishop and the Lords of her Privy Council to see that speedy and due reformation be had of the abuses and disorders aforesaid." A decree was therefore "framed by the Archbishop's hand," which was "confirmed and set forth on the twentythird day of June, 1585, by the authority of the StarChamber."

66

By this decree it was ordained:

"That no presses should be set up or used besides those in London, except one in the University at

Cambridge, and one in the University at Oxford: That every printer 'should within ten days render an inventory of his implements; upon pain to the delinquent of having the same utterly demolished, and of being imprisoned twelve months: That no press should be set up in any obscure place; upon pain to the offender of imprisonment for one year, and also of being disabled forever from using his trade, except as a journeyman for wages: That no new presses should be set up, and that none set up within the six months last past should be used, until their excessive number should have been so reduced as might seem good to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London; upon pain to the of fender of the destruction of his implements, and of imprisonment for a year: That no one should print any book against the meaning of any law of the realm or injunction of her Majesty, nor should any one print any book at all unless the same be first read1 by the Archbishop of Canterbury or by the Bishop of London; under pain to the printer in either case of being disabled from any practice of printing and of being imprisoned six months: That sellers or binders of any such books should be impris oned three months: And that the wardens of the Company of Stationers might search for all such books wherever they should have reasonable cause of suspicion, and destroy all presses and other instruments set up or used contrary to the meaning of this decree." Other articles were added, limiting the number of apprentices for each class of printers.2

1 "And approved" is not ex

pressed, but intended.

2 Strype's Whitgift, 222, 223. Appendix, No. XXIV.

This decree, "framed by the Archbishop's head," shows clearly how much he trembled for the ecclesiastical constitution and courts. He had reason to tremble (and, politically, he was right); for despotism cannot withstand the shocks of an unfettered press. He had reason to tremble (and, politically, was wise); for the Establishment had no hold upon the affection and esteem of the great body of the people. We have stated facts enough to showthough we have more in reserve — that it was sustained only by awe of the Crown and by the arbitrary severities of the prelates. We say, "their arbitrary severities"; for if " in the ecclesiastical courts they had such infinite exceptions to witnesses," that even in civil cases there adjudicated "it was at the will of the judge, who was not sworn to do justice, with which party he should give sentence,' much justice was to be expected under a charge of delinquency or of misdemeanor purely ecclesiastical, when the judge himself, directly or indirectly, was a party in the case? We shall be able to throw some light upon this question before long.

"1 how

The court of High Commission had not been idle, nor had they abated their unlawful measures, since their last proceedings, of which we have taken note. We have been sparing of our record of individual cases which they prosecuted, or there would have been no end to our task; for it has not been our aim to show the wide extent of misery and wrong inflicted upon men good and peaceable, but to produce specimens only sufficient to show the various ways in which the Commissioners set at defiance 1 Coke, Part XIII. p. 44.

alike the common law of humanity and the common law of the realm. With this object in view, we shall now and hereafter detail a few of the most flagrant and memorable prosecutions.

About the close of the year 1583, a certain curate in the county of Cornwall presented a complaint before the Court of High Commission against Eusebius Paget, the rector of Kilhampton, of whom slight mention has been made before.1 Mr. Paget, like many other most loyal Puritans, in his prayers for the queen had spoken of her only as sovereign of the realm, not as governess of the Church. In his preaching, he had said at different times: "That he disliked the use of organs in Divine worship: That ministers who did not preach were dumb dogs: and that those who had two benefices were knaves,"

meaning, if indeed he used the word "knaves,” that such incumbents defrauded the Church of Christ by preventing a sufficient supply of the preached word and of pastoral care. He had also uttered some other sentiments which the curate had reported as heretical. But these charges, intended to impeach both the loyalty and the orthodoxy

1 Ante, Vol. II. 266.

2 This phrase, often in the mouths of the Puritans, requires a word of explanation. It was not used by them in the way of scurrilous reproach or contempt for the men to whom it was applied; but with grief, seriously, and only to indicate (what was a deplorable truth) that, while they were stationed within the walls of Zion, like watch-dogs around a citadel, to give alarm upon

the approach of enemies, they, being dumb or unpreaching, did not answer the very purpose of their office, and so were unfit for it. The phrase, in this its application, was peculiarly significant; and was derived from a respectable source, the book of the prophet Isaiah, chapter lv., verse 10, "His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark."

of Mr. Paget, were not proceeded upon by the Commissioners. They only took occasion thereby to arraign him, in January, 1583-4 upon the general charge of "refusing to observe the Book of Common Prayer and the ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies."

It was true that he had not used all the rites and ceremonies set forth in the book yet he had used no others, and had in nearly all particulars followed the book itself. But, before his induction, both his patron and his ordinary, respecting his scruples and esteeming his learning and his popular talents, had expressly and of their own accord stipulated that if he would but accept the cure, he should not be urged to the precise observation of the book. On the ground of this voluntary stipulation, and in all honesty conceiving it to be a sufficient and a legal dispensation for the few omissions in the prescript service to which his conscience urged him, he had consented to his spiritual charge. These things he pleaded in defence; and added a written request that "he might have the liberty" warranted, in such cases, by ecclesiastical law and usage" of some reasonable length of time and of a favorable conference with his ordinary, or with some others by the Commissioners appointed." This answer seems to have had some weight; for, instead of setting it aside and proceeding to sentence for nonconformity, the Court immediately ordered Mr. Paget to subscribe to the "Three Articles." For refusing to do this, he was immediately suspended from exercising the ministry. Meekly obeying the sentence, he officiated no more until the Archbishop himself "released