tions to its arguments. It sanctioned a loan for which there was neither law nor custom in England; it praised the papists and showed little sympathy with the German protestants. Murray returned a day or two later with a statement on the part of the king that Abbot's objections were groundless. Abbot asked the attendance of Laud, who, he believed, had prompted the king to befriend Sibthorpe, to discuss the matter with him. But, although Laud refused to come, he answered Abbot's 'exceptions' in a paper which Murray read to the archbishop, but which he refused to leave with him. Finally (3 May 1627) Sibthorpe's sermon was taken to the Bishop of London, and published by his authority. But Abbot's want of compliance with the court policy was not to go unpunished. Buckingham, about to start on his Rochelle expedition, could not leave Abbot to influence the council in his absence; and he it was apparently who insisted on the archbishop's sequestration. On 5 July 1627 Lord Conway, secretary of state, went to Croydon, whither the archbishop had retired during his recent quarrel, and ordered him to withdraw to Canterbury. No cause was assigned, but Abbot was soon afterwards bidden to meddle no more with the high commission court, and, perceiving that he was to be stripped of all authority, he removed, towards the end of July, to a private house that he owned at Ford, near Canterbury. On 9 Oct. following, a commission was issued to five bishops, including Laud and other well-known enemies of Abbot, authorising them to exercise all archiepiscopal powers and jurisdiction in the place of Abbot (RUSHWORTH, Collections, i. 431-3). That such an act on the part of Charles was signally unlawful admits of no question. Fuller attributes it to his obnoxiousness for that casualty' of 1621, but there is no ground for assigning to it other causes than Abbot's opposition to Buckingham's system of government, and Laud's personal enmity.

At the end of the following year (11 Dec. 1628) Abbot was restored to favour. He was received at court by the Archbishop of York and the Earl of Dorset, the son of his old friend, and by them introduced to the king, who bade him attend the council twice a week. But his authority was practically at an end. Laud had become bishop of London, and was always at the king's side. In parliament, to which the lords had demanded that he should be summoned even during his sequestration, he had endeavoured to maintain his independence. In April 1628 he declared himself opposed to the king's claim of power to commit persons to prison without showing

cause. Throughout the session he begged the lords to act as the commons desired, and he tried to bring about a compromise between the lords and commons in their disputes over the additional clause attached by the lords to the petition of right, 'saving the king's just prerogative.'

Abbot lived chiefly in retirement after his sequestration, and his public acts during the last four years of his life are few. On 24 August 1628 he consecrated Richard Montagu, with whom he had previously come into serious collision, bishop of Chichester, and Laud's presence at the ceremony showed that all doubts as to his inability to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction had been removed. In 1631 he endeavoured to stay a controversy in which Prynne had fiercely attacked the practice of bowing at the name of Jesus; but Laud ignored Abbot's authority, and caused a book in favour of the practice, by an Oxford writer named Page, to be licensed after Abbot had announced his intention of suppressing it. Nevertheless, Abbot was constantly in attendance in the high commission court, and tried to enforce conformity in the church with consistent love of order. Between October 1631 and June 1632 he refused to allow certain London parishes to place seats above the communion table; he struggled hard in matrimonial cases to maintain a high standard of morality, and he punished the separatists, with whom he never was in sympathy. You do show yourselves,' he said to a number of them brought before him in June 1632, the most ungrateful to God, and to his majesty the king, and to us the fathers of the church.' On 3 July 1633 Abbot again emphatically showed that the simple forms and ceremonies of religious worship were no matter of indifference to him, as they never had been throughout his life, and bade the parishioners of Crayford, Kent, receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper on their knees at the steps ascending the altar.

Throughout these last years Abbot was also actively watching over the interests of All Souls College, of which he was visitor ex officio. The office had never been a sinecure for him. He had consistently endeavoured to enforce a strict discipline upon the students, although not always with success. In 1616 Dr. Mocket, the warden, a friend of Abbot's, had published a book, entitled 'Politia Ecclesiæ Anglicana,' which claimed, as the king believed, undue authority for the primacy, and showed a want of respect for some of the thirty-nine articles. In spite of Abbot's protest the book was burnt, and Mocket is said to have died from the shock of

the humiliation. The act injured Abbot's influence at Oxford, and he was unable to restrain disorders at All Souls, which caused him increasing anxiety. In 1623 he severely reprimanded the officers for allowing the students to 'spend their time in taverns and alehouses, to the defamation of scholars and scandal of your house.' In 1626 he suspended a fellow for irregular conduct, and in 1633 he wrote two letters (2 Jan. and 25 May) expressing his disapproval of the extravagant expenditure of the authorities. Nearly fifty years later, Archbishop Sancroft attempted to re-enforce Abbot's rules (BURROWS, Worthies of All Souls, pp. 126 et seq.; MARTIN, Archives of All Souls College, pp. 310-77).

During the last few months of 1632, Abbot's health, which had been for a long time apparently breaking, seemed to revive; and a friend wrote (30 Sept. 1632) that if any other prelate gape after his benefice, his grace perhaps. [may] eat the goose which shall graze upon his grave' (Harl. MS. 7000, f. 181; FULLER, Church History, ed. Brewer, vi. 44, note). But Abbot's death followed within the year. A well-known story recorded of his last years shows the bitter trials that beset him to the end. On his return to Croydon shortly before his death he was incommoded by a crowd of women who surrounded his coach, and on his complaining of their presence, the shout was raised: 'Ye had best shoot an arrow at us.' The archbishop died at Croydon, 4 Aug. 1633, aged seventy-one. He was buried, as he desired, in Trinity Church, Guildford, and his brother, Sir Maurice Abbot, erected in 1635 an elaborate monument to his memory, which is still standing. By his will he left legacies to the poor of Lambeth and Croydon and to his servants. Besides arranging for the endowment of his hospital, he provided 100l. to be lent to poor tradesmen of Guildford, and urged the mayor to set up some manufacture in the town to find work for the younger sort of people:' a room in the hospital he assigned as a 'workhouse' for the purpose. His friend, Sir Dudley Digges, was not forgotten, and to the Princess Elizabeth, whose marriage he had brought about, and whose husband he had befriended in vain, he bequeathed 2001. The residue of his property he left to his nephews and surviving brothers, Maurice and John. The greater part of his library he gave to his successor at Lambeth, and it practically formed the nucleus of that great collection; some portion was at the same time reserved for the chapterhouses of Winchester and Canterbury. Among his books were found a large number

of popish tracts that he had sequestrated, and the Spanish ambassador demanded their surrender to their owners at the close of 1633 (Cal. Clarendon Papers, i. 40). But it was not only at his death that Abbot gave proof of his generosity. He had been throughout his life a benefactor of Oxford, London, and Canterbury, as well as of Guildford. In 1619 he subscribed 100l. to the library of Balliol and to the repair of the college buildings. He contributed largely to the new foundation of Pembroke, which was established finally in 1624, and the first master wrote to the archbishop to express the society's appreciation of his benevolence. He also sent 1007. to assist in the rebuilding of the Oxford schools, and another 1007. somewhat later (1632) to aid the library of University College. At Canterbury he built a fair conduit,' which he had determined to give to the town, but a quarrel as to his jurisdiction in the city changed his purpose. To London he gave 2007., in 1622, towards the repair of St. Paul's and the removal of beggars, and he was always ready to assist private persons in distress.

It was inevitable that very various estimates should be held of Abbot's character in the seventeenth century. Whitelocke wrote that he left behind him the memory of a pious, learned, and moderate prelate' (Memorials, 18, ed. 1732; cf. MAY, Long Parliament, p. 23, ed. 1854). Clarendon attributes to him the downfall of the church in the civil wars, and charges him with fostering religious factions and indifference to ecclesiastical discipline (History, i. 134, ed. 1849). Fuller describes him as a grave man in his conversation and as unblamable in his life, but unduly severe to the clergy in the high commission court (Church History, ed. Brewer, vi. 46). Other writers of the time attribute to him 'remissness in visitation,' a charge depending mainly on Laud's account of the carelessness of his last report of the condition of his diocese. He proved himself, however, conscientious enough at other times in the discharge of the duties of his office, to show that the accusation can only apply to his last days, when he was broken in health and spirit. Of his narrowness of view and unconciliatory tone of mind we have already spoken. His occasional connivance at cruelties that in our eyes admit of no defence put these characteristics in a very repulsive light; but his resistance of unjust authority, his consistency of purpose, and his charitable instincts must be set in the opposite balance.

Besides the works already enumerated, Abbot is credited with having written the account of the persecution of the protestants

Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire (1730), p. 1099; Wood's Athenæ, ed. Bliss, ii. 141, 594; Cox's Literature of the Sabbath, i. 193, 441, 476, ii. 29; Catalogues of Bodleian and Brit. Museum; article in Encyc. Brit. (9th ed.) by present author, partly reproduced by permission of Messrs. A. & C. Black.] A. B. G.

ABBOT, JOHN, B.D. (A. 1623), poet, received his education at Sidney College, Cambridge, graduating B.A. in 1606-7, M.A. in 1610, and B.D. in 1617. Having embraced the catholic religion, he retired to the Continent, and in 1623 was a member of the convent of St. John the Baptist at Antwerp. He is the author of a very scarce poetical work, entitled 'Jesus præfigured; or a Poeme of the Holy Name of Jesus, in five bookes (the first and second bookes), by John Abbot, Permissu Superiorum,' 1623, 4to. It is believed that no further portion of this almost unique poem was printed. The volume has two dedications: the primary one to Charles, . Prince of Wales, in verse, signed with the author's name; the second in the Spanish language, addressed 'A la serenissima Señora Doña Maria de Austria, Infanta de España, Princessa de Gales,' dated from the convent of St. John the Baptist at Antwerp, 12 Nov. 1623. The date is remarkable as tending to prove that the news of the rupture of the match had not reached the last-named city at that date, and readily accounts for the work not being continued through the other three books. Charles left Madrid 8 Sept. O.S. 1623. [Dr. Bandinel's Sale Cat., lot 707; Sion Coll. Libr. B. 5, 12; Farr's Jacobean Poetry, p. xliii, 353; Lowndes's Bibl. Man. ed. Bohn.] T. C.

ABBOT, SIR MAURICE or MORRIS (1565-1642), an eminent merchant, governor of the East India Company, and lord mayor of London, was the fifth and youngest son of Maurice Abbot, a clothworker of Guildford, and was the brother of George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, and of Robert, bishop of Salisbury [q. v.]. Comparatively little is known of his early life. He was baptised at Trinity Church, Guildford, 2 Nov. 1565, was educated at Guildford grammar school, and was probably apprenticed in London to his father's trade. Subsequently he became a freeman of the Drapers' Company, and rapidly amassed great wealth as a merchant dealing in such various commodities as cloth, indigo, spices, and jewellery.

It is Abbot's connection with the manage ment of the East India Company through a long and troubled epoch of its history that gives his career much of its importance. He was one of the original directors of the company, which was incorporated by royal charter in 1600, was among the earliest to

invest large sums in its stock,' was a member of its special committee of direction from 1607 onwards, and was throughout his life foremost in defending its interests against its enemies at home and abroad. In 1608 he was appointed a representative of the company for the audit of the accounts of expenses incurred jointly with the Muscovy Company in setting forth John Kingston for the discovery of the north-west passage.' Early in 1615 he was one of the commissioners despatched to Holland to settle the disputes that were constantly arising between the Dutch and English East India companies as to their trading rights in the East Indies and their fishing rights in the north seas. But the conferences that followed produced no satisfactory result. In May 1615 Abbot himself paid a visit to the East Indies, and on his return was chosen deputy-governor of the company, an annual office to which he was eight times in succession re-elected. During subsequent years the disagreements with the Dutch increased in force, and in 1619 Abbot was one of those appointed to treat in London with commissioners from Holland as to the peaceful establishment of the two companies abroad. A treaty was signed (2 June), which secured two-thirds of the spice produce of the Molucca Islands, where the disputes had grown hottest, to the Dutch company, and the remaining third to the English (RYMER, Fœdera, xvii. 171). But this settlement was not a permanent one. In 1620 the Dutch infringed some regulations of the treaty, and Abbot in company with Sir Dudley Digges went on an embassy to Holland to set matters once again on a surer footing. The commissioners were at first well received (20 Nov. 1620) by the Prince of Orange and the states-general; but the Dutch were unwilling to make any concessions, and pursued the negotiations, according to the English accounts, with too much duplicity to admit of any effectual arrangement. In February 1620-1 Abbot returned to London, and in an audience granted him by James I he bitterly complained of the 'base usage' to which he had been subjected. It was clearly impossible to diminish the active feelings of jealousy that existed between the English and Dutch residents in the East Indies, and Abbot shared the sentiment too heartily to enable him to improve the position of affairs. In 1624 matters became more critical. News reached England that Amboyna, one of the chief trading depôts of the Moluccas, had been the scene of the murder of several English traders by the Dutch. At the time Abbot was holding the office of governor of the

6

company, to which he had been elected 23 March 1623-4. Intense excitement prevailed throughout the country, and the greatest anxiety was evinced as to the steps that Abbot would take. He recognised at once the necessity of pressing the matter modestly,' in order to avoid open war with Holland; but in repeated audiences with the king and in petitions and speeches to the privy council he insisted that demand should be made of the Dutch authorities to bring the perpetrators of the outrage to justice. He spoke of withdrawing from the trade altogether if this measure was not adopted, and after much delay the Dutch agreed to give the desired reparation. But the death of James I saw the promise unfulfilled, and Abbot's efforts to pursue the question further proved unavailing.

But it was not only in the affairs of the East India Company that Abbot during these years took a leading part. He was an influential member of the Levant Company before 1607, and the English merchant service was, from the beginning of the seventeenth century, largely under his control. In 1614 one of his vessels, named the Tiger, was assaulted and taken by M. Mintaine, a Frenchman of the Mauritius,' and Abbot sought redress for the injury in vain. In 1616 he with others received a bounty for building six new ships. In 1612 he was nominated a director of a newly incorporated company of merchants of London, discoverers of the northwest passage,' and his statement that in 1614 he brought to the mint 60 pounds weight of gold for Indian commodities exported' proves that his own commercial transactions continued for many years on a very large scale. He also expressed himself anxious a few years later to open up trade with Persia, and to wrest from the Portuguese the commercial predominance they had acquired there.

During the last twenty years of his life Abbot played a still more active part in public affairs. In 1621 he was elected member of parliament for Kingston-upon-Hull; shortly afterwards was nominated one of the commissioners for equipping merchant vessels to take part in a projected expedition against the pirates of Algiers, and he appears to have been consulted by the king's ministers in every stage of the preparations, which were for a long period under discussion. On 17 Nov. of the same year he became a farmer of the customs, and in 1623 he was empowered to administer oaths to such persons as should either desire to pass the seas from this kingdom or to enter it from abroad' (RYMER, Fœdera, xvii. 467). A few months later he was engaged in personal negotiations with James I

and the Duke of Buckingham for the remission of part of 20,0007. claimed by them from the East India Company. In 1624, when he was again returned to parliament for Kingston-upon-Hull, Abbot was appointed a member of the council for establishing the colony of Virginia. It was in the same year that he had been elected governor of the East India Company, an office that he was still holding in 1633, but which he resigned before 1638; and during the time that he sat in parliament he was continually called upon to speak in the company's behalf. On many occasions he complained of the obloquy heaped upon himself and his friends, because it was supposed that their extensive foreign trade deprived this country of the benefit of their wealth, and, with a discrimination far in advance of his age, denounced the 'curiousness' of the English in forbidding the exportation of specie, and asserted the economic advantages to the state of the company's commerce.

On the accession of Charles I in 1625 Abbot was the first to receive the honour of knighthood from the new king (Authentic Documents of the Court of Charles I, i. 15), and he represented London in the earliest parliament of the reign, although his old constituency had tried hard to secure his services. He apparently supplied some of the jewellery required for Charles's coronation, and received on 5 July of the same year

8,0007. for a diamond cut in facets and set in a collet.' On 15 Dec. 1626 Abbot became alderman of the ward of Bridge Without, and a few months later was chosen sheriff of London. In 1627 the customs department was reorganised, and Abbot with others received a lease of the customs on wines and currants for three and a half years, in consideration of a fine of 12,0007. and a loan to the king of 20,0007. But he was no servile agent of the crown. On 16 Sept. 1628 information was sent to the king's council that Abbot was one of the merchants who refused to pay a newly imposed additional tax on the importation of currants, and that, while the quarrel was pending, he had broken into the government warehouse where currants belonging to him had been stored. But the supreme authorities do not appear to have pressed the charge against him. In 1637 he was one of those entrusted by the lords of the admiralty with fitting out ships at the expense of the city of London in accordance with the ship-money edict of 1636, and the attorney-general and the recorder of London shortly afterwards exhibited an information against him in the exchequer court on the ground that he had not provided sufficient