might lawfully take the oath ex officio. When the arch bishop observed, that he remembered him about the business of the feoffees, Mr. Foxley replied, "That he was encouraged in that business by bishops and privy counsellors, who conceived it to be a good work." He was, therefore, commanded to appear again on the Thursday following, and so dismissed. But the next Lord's day he was apprehended by another pursuivant, who carried him before the counciltable; when, by a warrant under the hands of the archbishop and five others, he was sent to the Gatehouse. There he was kept close prisoner in a chamber not four yards square, for the space of twenty months, without pen, ink, or paper, or the access of any of his friends, excepting his wife; who, with the utmost difficulty, obtained leave to visit him during his extreme sickness, but no longer. He endured all this cruel usage without knowing or even guessing what could be the cause, unless it was his speaking in favour of the feoffees. Laud, indeed, insinuates, that Mr. Foxley was not thus punished on the account of the feoffees, but for some other cause which he refused to mention. However, by this cruel imprisonment, he was ruined in his circumstances, and his wife and four small children exposed to misery and want.+ Upon the meeting of the long parliament, Mrs. Foxley presented a petition to the house of commons in behalf of her distressed husband, still confined in close prison. This petition was read in the house, November 25, 1640, and referred to the committee for Dr. Leighton's petition. It was, at the same time, ordered that Mr. Foxley should have the same favour and privileges of the house as Dr. Leighton. January 15th following, Mr. Rouse, one of the committee, delivered a report of Mr. Foxley's case, when the house resolved: 1. "That the warrant made by Sir John Lamb and others, for apprehending Mr. Foxley and seizing his papers, is illegal and unjust. 2. That the warrant under the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Coventry, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord of the Privy Seal, Lord Cottington, and Secretary Windebank, for committing Mr. Foxley close prisoner, is illegal. 3. "That Mr. Foxley ought to be delivered from the • Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 249. + Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 387, 388. restraint he is under by colour of this warrant; and ought to have reparations for damages. 4. "That this business concerning Mr. Foxley be committed to the same committee, to prepare it in a fit way for this house to prefer it to the house of lords." Mr. Foxley was, therefore, released from his long and severe confinement; but whether he received any reparations is very doubtful. The multiplicity of business which the parliament had to look after, and the confusions which followed, most probably prevented it. In the year 1644 he was witness against Laud at his trial.+ This persecuted servant of Christ was a popular and useful preacher in London, as well after as before his troubles; but at what place he was employed in his stated ministerial exercise, and the particular time of his death, we have not been able to learn. The following anecdote, however, may not be unworthy of notice. The celebrated Mr. William Kiffin, being an apprentice in London, and having then no sense of religion upon his mind, became dissatisfied with his situation, and resolved to leave his master; and accomplished his intention early one morning, being then about fifteen years of age. Wandering about the streets of London, he happened to pass by St. Antholin's church, and seeing people go in, he followed them. The preacher was Mr. Foxley, who, preaching on the fifth commandment, unfolded the duty of servants to masters. This was so applicable to the case of young Kiffin as to create his astonishment. He thought the preacher knew, and addressed him personally. The effect was, that Kiffin returned immediately to his master, before his absence was discovered. He afterwards became a very pious man and a useful minister of Christ. LAWRENCE SNELLING was many years the learned and pious rector of Paul's-Cray in Kent; but experienced most cruel usage in the high commission court, chiefly for refusing to read the " Declaration for Sports on the Lord's day." He was brought before his ecclesiastical judges at Lambeth, when he pleaded in his own defence the law of God and the realm, the authority of councils, fathers, and all modern writers. He also pleaded "that the declaration itself did Rushworth's Collec. vol. v. p. 58, 142, 143. + Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 387. Wilson's Hist. of Dissenting Churches, vol. i. p. 403. not appear to be his majesty's, though published in his name, because not enrolled in any court, nor published under the great seal, as were all proclamations and briefs to be read in churches: that there was no command from the king that it should be read in the churches by any particular persons, much less by ministers; nor any punishment threatened nor prescribed for not reading it; nor any authority given to archbishops, bishops, high commissioners, or any other persons, to question, suspend, or punish any minister for refusing so to do; and being merely a civil, not an ecclesiastical declaration, nor enjoined by any ecclesiastical canon or authority, but that which is only civil, no ecclesiastical judges could take cognizance of it, much less inflict any ecclesiastical censure for not observing it." These things he affirmed and maintained in his own defence before the high commission, when Archbishop Laud, now at the head of the commission, commanded that his defence should not be accepted, and declared in open court, "That whosoever should inake such a defence as he had done, it should be burnt before his face, and he laid by the heels for his pains." Upon this manifesto from the arbitrary prelate, the commissioners expunged as much of his defence as they pleased; and December 11, 1634, he was personally and judicially admonished to read the declaration within three weeks; but, refusing to observe the admonition, he was suspended from both his office and benefice. In the month of April, 1635, he was admonished a second time, and still refusing to comply, he was excommunicated. He was also charged "with having, at divers times, omitted to read some parts of the public service, to wear the surplice, and to bow his body, or make any corporal obeisance, at hearing or reading the name of Jesus." He was therefore told, that if he did not read the Declaration for Sports, and conform himself in all other points, before the second day of next term, he should suffer deprivation. For refusing to do which he was accordingly deprived. In addition to the above cruelties, he was cast into prison; and so continued suspended, excommunicated, deprived, and imprisoned many years, to his unspeakable injury. November 16, * Mr. Snelling having observed that there was no penalty mentioned in the Book of Sports, Archbishop Laud, in his own defence, at his trial, boldly asserted, "I say then his obedience, and other men's, should have been the more free and cheerful."-Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. P. 345. + Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 150, 151.-Rushworth's Collec. vol. ii. p. 459-461. 1640, having been often brought before the king's-bench, but still a prisoner for his nonconformity, he presented his petition to the parliament for relief; when he was most probably released. In the year 1644 Mr. Snelling appeared as witness against the archbishop at his trial;+ but when he died we are unable to ascertain. GEORGE HUNTLEY was minister in Kent, a nonconformist to the superstitious ceremonies, and grievously censured in the high commission court. In the year 1627, for refusing to preach at a visitation, though his body was in a weak state, and he sent twenty shillings to the archdeacon to pay another for preaching, he was convened before the high commission for contempt; when he was fined a great sum and cast into prison. Having lain in prison about two years, he was brought to the bar upon his habeas corpus; when the cause of his commitment was returned, a default in his canonical obedience. He was at first bailed, because the breach of canonical obedience was an offence punishable by the ordinary, by ecclesiastical censure only; and not by the commissioners ecclesiastical, by fine and imprisonment. But afterwards, by the solicitations of Bishop Laud, he was again delivered, and again brought into the high commission court; when a great fine was imposed upon him. He was deprived of his living, degraded from the ministry, and committed to a loathsome prison, where he continued about ten years, to the impoverishing of himself and family. What inhuman and shocking proceedings were these! At the same time Mr. Austin, the archbishop's chaplain, was presented to his living. Upon this barbarous usage Mr. Huntley brought his action of false imprisonment against the keeper and several of the commissioners. The business was carried into the king's-bench; when the attorney-general, by command of the king, moved that the commissioners might be spared, and the proceedings be only against the keeper. At length, after much debate, it was ordered that only two of the commissioners should answer. It was Archbishop Abbot who blew the coals in this business, and engaged the commissioners in these mad courses. He pressed the king, by Rushworth's Collec. vol. v. p. 51. + Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 344. Huntley's Prelates' Usurpations, p. 161, 185, 186. means of Bishop Laud, to stay the proceedings against the commissioners. As this cause made a great ferment at court, it will be proper further to observe, that the king sent his advocate, Dr. Rives, to the chief justice, requiring that there should be no further proceeding in the business till he had spoken to him. The chief justice answered, "We receive the message:" but, upon consultation together," the judges conceive the message not to stand with their oaths, commanding an indefinite stay of a cause between party and party, and might stop the course of justice so long as the king pleased.' On this occasion Judge Whitlocke insisted upon these points:-1. "That it was against law to exempt any man from answering the action of another that would sue him.-2. That if the court should exempt any, where should they begin, and where should they end?-3. That it was altogether agreeable to the king's monarchical power, and was lawful for any subject to complain before him of any other subject, and to be answered in that complaint." The high commissioners, not content with the answer of the judges, urged the king to take the cause into his own hands, who sent for the judges and COMMANDED THEM NOT TO PUT THE DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER. This did the tyrannical king, at the importunity of Laud and the archbishop, who carried on the business with great violence. In the conclusion, "the king expressly commanded, that they should not put the commissioners to answer;" but the learned judges stoutly answered, "that they could not, without breach of their oaths, observe that command;" so they parted in displeasure. Afterwards, by the king's special command, the business was brought before the council-table, in the presence of the judges. After a long debate and hearing of Bishop Laud, the Bishop of Winchester, two of the privy council, the judges, and the king's attorney, it was agreed that the commissioners should answer.+ This was a bold stand against the oppressions of a despotic monarch, prompted by the tyrannical court prelates to exercise an illegal power, to the unspeakable injury of his subjects. Archbishop Abbot, it is said, was suspected and accused of being a puritan, because he would not, like his predecessor Bancroft, persecute them, nor blindly follow the maxims of the court with respect to govern ment. But the zealous courtiers had, surely, no reason to complain on the present occasion.-Rapin's Hist. of Eng. vol. ii. p. 179. + Whitlocke's Mem. p. 15. |