THE ARCHBISHOP TO THE VICE-CHANCELLOR.

[From MS. Harl. no. 7033, fol. 163.]

Decemb. ultimo, 1635. A copy of my letter to Dr. Smith, vicechancellor of the University of Cambridge, in answere to the reasons objected by him and the rest of the heads against my metropoliticall visitation.

And

Salutem in Christo. Sir, I have received twoe letters from you, the one subscribed by the heads and your selfe, the other by your selfe only; for the former, as I thanke you, so I pray do you in my name thanke the heades. For I have now received by the handes of your bedle a fair letter from you and them, and with it a paper of such reasons as you and they have thought fit, with advise of your learned counsell, to represent unto me concerning your priviledges in the particular of my metropoliticall visitation. though I had reason (as you may see by my late letters) to thinke the delay of your answere long, yet upon the reasons presented in your letters I rest well satisfyd for the deferring of your answere so long. But for the thing it self, that is, the right of my metropoliticall visitation, I confesse therein I am yet of the same judgment I was, that is, that you have no priviledge of force enough to exclude my right and power of visitation; yet because I may not, in wisdome, in a cause of this moment, either relye upon my owne judgment only, or proceed suddenly without advice, you must give me the same leave which you yourselves have taken, that is, to advise with my learned counsell alsoe, which, when I have done, you shall then receive such further answere as [I shall then thinke*] shall be fit.

And whereas you are pleased to put me in minde of the favour I once received to be incorporated into your body (for which I thanke you), and by which you say your priviledges had once my engagement for their main

Dashed and interlined in the archbishop's hand.

tenance, I must desire you to remember these twoe things: the one, that I am equally (at least) engaged to Oxford for the maintenance of theirs, and yet I challenge the same right against them that I doe against you, and the reasons which they have sent me up to defend their priviledges doe yet appear to me as strong as any of yours. The other is, that when I was incorporated, I did swear to maintain your priviledges, which God willing I shall faithfully doe, and let me tell you, I have so done in causes of great moment, when some of your owne forsooke your priviledges and used [no small*] motives to me to doe the like. But I did never swear in the one University or the other that I would maintain every thing which either of them should call a priviledge, but is none. And therefore that argument of yours is nothing till you shall have made it appear that it is your just and due priviledge to be exempted from my metropoliticall visitation (which is the thing in question). For if you cannot make that appear, then tis no priviledge; and if you can make it appear, I will be as far from impeaching it as your selves.

Now for the second, which was your owne private letter in answere to my last, I thanke you heartily for it, being full of a great deale of expression of your faire respects to me. And whereas you labour much in it to let me understand that the stay which was made of your answere to my first letters was not caused by you, I shall desire you to thinke that I had no purpose in my last letters to charge your self or any man else in particular with that. Not your self, because I know how lately you came into your office; nor any other particular man, partly because I knowe how slowly such bodies move, where many are interessed, and noe one governour may be omitted, and partly because if any particular man did occasion any delay, tis more then is knowne to me, and I do not use to blame

* Added in the archbishop's hand.

any man till I can putt his person and his fault together. Soe, wishing you a happy new yeare and all faire passage in your government, I leave you to the grace of God, and

rest

Your very loveinge friende. This is only a copy, but corrected by the archbishop's own hand, as far as I can judge.

The question does not seem to have excited so much interest as might have been expected among the University authorities. In May, 1636, Dr. Smith, the vice-chancellor, writes to lord Holland (as it seems) complaining that out of the sixteen heads, only six were in Cambridge; and on his writing to urge the attendance of the others, he had received from one of them only assurances of his timely return. He wrote also to the same effect to the archbishop, pleading on this ground for a still further prorogation of the proceedings. But that prelate replied, that he plainly saw they had no purpose to submit to his visitation as metropolitan, and proposed to lay the matter before the king. "These are, therefore," he continues, "only to let you know that I purpose presently to petition the king for a day, in which hee would graciously bee pleased to give a hearing both to Oxford and yourselves." This proposal the University accepted, declaring that in their opinion it was the only way of accommodation, as the question was not respecting "visitation, which they never declined, but only of the manner, whether by metropoliticall or royall power." On the 23d of May the archbishop sent them a copy of his petition to the king, together with his majesty's answer.

To the kings most excellent majesty.

The humble petition of William archbishop of Canterbury, your majesties chaplain,

Most humbly sheweth, that since his coming to that sea by your sacred majesties speciall grace and favour, he hath with all faithfullnes to his power discharged the dutyes of his place; and therefore, according to the antiente custome

of his predecessors and the canonicall constitutions of the church, he thought fitt to begin with his metropoliticall visitation, first at his owne church, and then throughout his whole province. In pursuance of which, when he purposed to have visited the diocese of Ely and Oxford, he found both the Universities unwilling to yield to the same. That hereupon your petitioner writt severall letters to them; but they have hitherto still refused to submitt, though your petitioner doubteth not but that he hath right metropolitically to visitt them as aforesaid, and that he shall be able to make the same evidently to appeare to your majesty.

Humbly praieth (in regard the two Universities are the great nurseryes from whence the church in all places of your majesties kingdoms is to be supplied, and that if they which are there to be trained up shall be irregularly bred, it will not be possible to uphold good order or discipline in the church) that your majesty will therefore graciously be pleased to appoint some time for the decideing of the difference, and that upon full hearing of all parties there may be such finall order settled for the present and hereafter as in your princely wisdome shall be found just and fitting.

And your majestys orator, according to his bounden duty, shall heartily pray, etc.

Hampton Court, 22 May, 1636.

His majesty is gratiously pleased to graunt this petition, and to heare all parties upon Tuesday after Trinity Sunday, being the 21st of June, when all partyes are to attend with their counsell, or otherwise, as they please, wherein they must not faile.

JOHN COKE.

The following was the counter petition sent by the University:

To the kings most excellent majesty.

The humble petition of the chancellor, masters, and schollers of your majesties University of Cambridge,

MOST humbly sheweth, that your majesties petitioners (amongst other the rights and priviledges vouchsafed to them by your royall progenitors) have bene exempt from ordinary and metropoliticall visitation, and subject onely and immediately to your majesties sovereigne authority.

And that whereas the most reverend father in God the lord archbishop of Canterbury his grace hath lately signified his intendment to visitt it by his metropoliticall power.

Your majestys petitioners (though otherwise ready to submitt themselves to his grace) conceive that they cannot condescend in this particular, as well by reason of their oaths to the University, as by cause of their allegiance to your sacred majesty and royall prerogative, to which they have beene accompted by your majestys royall father of ever-blessed memory to be peculiarly reserved in matters ecclesiastical, and by which they have beene, and still are, ready to bee reformed in any irregularity that shall be found amongst them.

May it please your most sacred majesty to continue your most gratious protection to the priviledges of that your University, which hath received that invaluable honour of your owne princely incorporation, and those pretious assurances, that your majesty will bee ever unto itt a most gratious chancellor.

And your majestys most humble orators, as in all duty ever bound, shall continue their prayers, etc.

Applications for delay were again made by the University to the archbishop, and by lord Holland, in their behalf, to the king. The king, however, at the instance of the archbishop, determined to stand to the day he had fixed; and the case was accordingly heard at Hampton Court, June 21st, 1636.