of the sum which was stated to have been laid out. Thus the Queen At his death it Cox underwent many troubles in the latter part of his life, owing to his endeavours to preserve the possessions of his See entire to his successors. Finding the Queen, and the great persons at court, too strong for him, he expressed a desire to resign his bishopric and retire from the world. The Lord Treasurer Burleigh, at the Bishop's instance, at length obtained of the Queen leave for him to retire accordingly; and, in 1580, forms of resignation were actually drawn up; but the Court not finding any clergyman of high character who would undertake the bishopric, it remained vacant for upwards of eighteen years after Cox's death. It appears, indeed, to have been viewed as a dignity burdened with heavy charges, and subject to many grievous annoyances. The original manuscript, containing the Bishop's requests, in his own writing, when measures were in progress for his resignation, is still preserved among the Lansdowne MSS. in the British Museum, 1. He requires a pension out of the bishopric.* 2. "Because he hath never a house of his own," he asks for the house and manor of Donington, at the rent in the Queen's books, during his life, and for one year after. The details of the persecution of Cox will be found in STRYPE'S Annals of the Reformation. Dr. Martin Heton, who was the next bishop, demurred to the hard terms imposed with regard to Ely palace; upon which he received from the Queen a very strong letter, beginning "Proud Prelate!” Understanding "that he was backward in complying with his agreement, she would have him to know, that she who had made him what *The pension which he is stated to have required was £200 per annum. he was, would unmake him; and if he did not forthwith fulfil his engagement, she would immediately unfrock him." This peremptory epistle was signed, "Yours, as you demean yourself, ELIZABETH." Nothing was done towards paying off the mortgage above mentioned till the time of the learned and excellent Bishop Lancelot Andrews, who commenced proceedings in earnest to this effect, but was prevented from carrying them further, by his translation from the See of Ely to that of Winchester. Bishop Matthew Wren, the uncle of the eminent Sir Christopher Wren, afterwards tendered the money, and obtained a sentence in the Court of Requests against the Lady Elizabeth Hatton, who being then in possession of the premises, and, having expended upon them upwards of £7800, was preparing to give them up. The Long Parliament, in 1641, put a stop to this arrangement; the House having resolved, "That the Lady Hatton is a purchaser upon valuable considerations, and hath been at great expenses in building, repairing, and improving the said estate. "Also resolved, That the estate of Lady Hatton, being good in law, is not redeemable in equity, nor subject to the said pretended trust. "Resolved, that the bill depending in the Court of Requests between the Bishop of Ely and the Lady Hatton ought to be dismissed upon the merits of the case." The bishop had, at about this time, been impeached in Parliament; certain ecclesiastical rules, which he had adopted in his diocese, and which, though alleged to have had a Popish tendency, were in fact, generally speaking, proofs of a strict fulfilment of his episcopal office, having called down upon him the anger of certain persons. The speech of Sir Thomas Widdrington, a puritan Member of the House of Commons, on his bringing up a bill to the House of Lords against the bishop, on the 20th of July, 1641, was full of invective, and affords a curious specimen of the style of a powerful party in Parliament at that time who, as Nalson observes, appear to have thought it "the perfection of eloquence to assail the bishops, and the height of religion to be uncharitable." This speech, and the twenty-five charges against the bishop, form together a very remarkable document. The bill was carried up to the House of Lords on the 20th of July, 1641. The Minute of Proceedings in the House of Commons on this matter stands as follows in NALSON'S Historical Collections: July 5, 1641.-Sir Thomas Widdrington brought in 25 Articles against Matthew Wren, Lord Bishop of Ely, which being read and singly voted, were ordered to be engrossed; and then the House came to this vote upon it:-Resolved, &c., That Matthew Wren, Bishop of Ely, is, in the opinion of this House, unfit and unworthy to hold or contain any spiritual promotion or office in the Church or Commonwealth, and that the Lords be desired to join with this House to move His Majesty to remove the said Bishop from his person and service. "20th July. The engrossed Articles against the Bishop of Ely were carried up this day by Sir Richard Widdrington, who, at the reading of them, made an oration to blacken the lawn sleeves." The following is a portion of the puritan baronet's oration against the bishop: "In the year 1635 this man was created Bishop of Norwich. He is no sooner there but he marcheth furiously. "In the creation of the world light was one of the first productions. The first visible action of this bishop, after his creation into the See, was to put out many burning and shining lights, to suspend divers able, learned, and conscientious ministers. He that should have been the golden snuffer of these lights, became the extinguisher: and when these are taken away, where shall poor men light their candles? "My Lords, this was not all. He puts out lights, and sets up firebrands in their places; suspends painful ministers, and sets up idle, factious, and superstitious priests in their places; yet it is the fortune of these men at this time, like rivers in the ocean, to be buried in the extreme activity of their diocesan. "He made a scourge, not of small cords, but of new injunctions, tied about with a strong twist, of a most dangerous oath; and with this he whips not out buyers and sellers, but the faithful dispensers of the word, out of their churches, out of their estates, out of their dear country. "This Noah (if I may so call him without offence,) as soon as he entered into the ark of this diocese, sends, nay forces, doves to fly out of this ark; and when they return unto him, with olive branches in their mouths, of peaceable and humble submission, he will not receive them into this ark again. Unless like ravens they would feed on the carrion of his new invention, they must not have any footing there. He stands as a flaming sword, to keep such out of his diocese. My Lords, in the time of King Richard I., one of this man's predecessors, a valiant bishop, went unto the holy war. This bishop hath raised a war at home in his own diocese; a war, not against Saracens, Barbarians, Turks, or Infidels, but against good and well-disposed people. I know not what style to give this war; without doubt, my Lords, this was no holy war. "The weapons of this warfare were twenty-eight injunctions, one hundred and thirty-nine articles, containing eight hundred and seventy-nine questions. The soldiers were Chancellors, Commis E saries, Officials, Commissioners, Rural Deans, &c. Himself commanded in chief. "The ways of assault and killing were by excommunications, suspensions, deprivations. I stay here-Mille modis morimur mortales. "The magazine where all these were originally hatched and lodged was the malicious and superstitious breast of this Bishop. "This diocese was the stage where the direful tragedies of this war were acted by the space of two years and upwards. "Thus did he trouble Israel in the time of peace; nay, by these he put some of the horsemen and chariots of Israel to flight: out of these he raiseth a farm of 500 pounds for his primary visitation. "He should, like Moses, have led his flock. Moses led the children of Israel thorow the Red Sea. This man drives part of his flock over the sea, but went not himself. Like Nimrod, he hath invaded the laws and liberty of the subject. "The rod of Moses at a distance was a serpent. It was a rod again when it was taken into his hands. This Bishop was a serpent, a devouring serpent in the diocese of Norwich. Your Lordships will, peradventure, by handling of him, make him a rod again; or if not, I doubt not but your Lordships will chastise him with such rods as his crimes deserve." The grievance complained of in the first article, was that the bishop had raised the eastern portion of the chancel two, three, or four steps, "that so the communion table then placed altar-wise might be the better seen of the people." The second article alleged, that "he directed the communion table to be set up close under the wall at the east end of the chancel, altar-wise and not to be removed from thence; whereby the minister, who is by law to officiate at the north side of the table, must either stand and officiate at the north end of the table, so standing altar-wise, |