Notwithstanding these services, however, he was unable to secure that nobleman's friendship. This, it seems, was only to be done, by an implicit conformity to his will and pleasure in all things; which Williams could not bring himself to endure. His interest at court nevertheless continued so great, that he held his post till the death of his Sovereign, whom he attended in his last moments, and followed with the flattery of a funeral-sermon to his grave. James had promised him the reversion of the archbishopric of York; but neither the services which he had performed for Charles himself, in shielding him (while Prince of Wales) from his father's displeasure, nor his exertions in behalf of his ungrateful favourite, could secure him the protection of the youthful Monarch. His character, indeed, was by no means suitable to the system of despotism projected by the King, Buckingham, and Laud. He was too able an advocate for the religious and civil rights of the subject. He was, therefore, dismissed from his office, as soon as it could be done with any appearance of decency, which was after the dissolution of the first parliament of the new reign. In October, 1625, the Seals were delivered to Sir Thomas Coventry. It was likewise hinted to Williams, that his presence at the council-board would be dispensed with; and that, if he took his seat in the next parliament, he would incur the royal displeasure. With respect to the last injunction, however, he thought it his duty not to comply. On the contrary, finding that no writ had

"With undaunted courage (observes his compatriot, Pennant) he persisted in all that was right; and being subject to the failings of his country, great passion, pride, and vanity, sometimes in what was wrong."

been issued to summon him or the Earl of Bristol, he joined with that nobleman in a complaint to the House of Lords of this breach of privilege; and their Lordships petitioning his Majesty that writs might be issued, the Bishop closely attended his duty in the parliament of 1626, and supported the Petition of Right' with all his power. In resentment of this conduct, a commission was appointed by the minister to make a strict scrutiny into his decrees in the Courts of Chancery, the Star-Chamber, and the HighCommission, which terminated greatly to his honour. But in the end, Laud having engaged two of his creatures, Sir John Lamb and Dr. Sibthorpe, to lodge an information against him for having protected Puritans, by discouraging the prosecution of them in his diocese; and a third (Sir John Monson) having sworn, that he had bribed the King's evidences, and thus put a stop to a former prosecution commenced against him; after nine days' deliberation he was sentenced to pay a fine of 10,000l. to the King, another of 1,000 marks to Sir John Monson, to be suspended by the Court of High-Commission from his ecclesiastical functions, and to be imprisoned during the royal pleasure.*

The Bishop received the news of this oppressive sentence with great composure, saying "Now the work is over, my heart is at rest; so is not many of theirs, who have censured me," In the Tower, where he remained three years, he astonished even his enemies by his fortitude and patience, being as cheerful as usual, and amusing himself with literary employments. Upon the meeting of the Long Parliament

See the Life of Archbishop Laud.'

in November 1640, he addressed to his Sovereign a petition (seconded by the Queen's mediation) that he might be released, and receive his writ as a Peer to sit in parliament; but, through the influence of Laud and the Lord Keeper Finch, his requests were refused, The Lords, however, again thought proper to exert their authority upon this occasion: for, about a fortnight afterward, they sent the Usher of the Black Rod to the Lieutenant of the Tower to demand the Bishop of Lincoln; and the King not daring to oppose the measure, he was peaceably surrendered, and instantly took his seat in the Upper House, His Majesty, likewise, thought proper to be reconciled to him, and ordered all the minutes of the information and proceedings against him to be destroyed; not as some have asserted, "that nothing might stand upon record against him," but in order to screen Laud and the other Judges from the parliamentary inquiry, which was threatened by the leaders of the opposition. Such, however, was the amiable disposition of Bishop Williams, that no entreaties could induce him to prosecute his enemies, or even to lodge any complaint against them before the House.

When the attainder of the Earl of Strafford was in agitation, Williams, we are informed by Hacket, maintained the right of the bench of Bishops (at that time warmly contested) to vote in capital cases.

**

* Lord Clarendon, on the contrary, asserts that he not only withdrew when this business came on, but frankly declared that where life was concerned, they ought not to be present.' From the piety, learning, and accuracy of Hacket (then his chaplain) and in 1661 promoted to the see of Lichfield and Coventry, we have reason to believe, he has related the truth; especially, as Clarendon seizes every occasion to condemn the principles and conduct of Williams. Granger however observes,

The King declared, that he could not conscientiously give his assent to this act of attainder.' Lord Say desired his Majesty to confer with his Prelates upon the subject, more particularly with Bishop Williams: who advised him to reflect, that the lives of himself, his Queen, and his children, were in danger from the fury of an incensed multitude; that the nation seemed unanimous in demanding the head of Strafford; and that therefore as the first Magistrate, whose duty it was to preserve the public peace, he ought not to scruple compliance, even though an innocent man should suffer for the general good.*

The see of York becoming vacant in 1641, Williams upon the strength of the late King's promise claimed the reversion; and the situation of public affairs rendering it expedient for Charles to retain him in his service, he was promoted to that dignity. In the same year, he made a long and learned speech in the House of Lords, in opposition to the bill for depriving the Bishops of their seats in parliament, which occasioned it to lie upon the table five months. At length, the mob flocking about the doors with eries of No Bishops! No Bishops!' and insulting many of them as they passed, particularly the new Archbishop, who had his robes torn from his back; he lost his usual serenity of temper, and retiring to his residence at the Deanery, Westminster, summoned all the Bishops then in town (amounting, with himself, to twelve) in whose joint name he despatched

that the probity of the Chancellor is less to be suspected than the partiality of the chaplain.'

* This advice Lord Clarendon has misrepresented greatly to the Bishop's disadvantage; but, upon examining other historians, appears to amount to no more than is above stated.

it

a paper to the House of Lords, complaining of the violence by which they were prevented from attending, and protesting against all the acts which were or should be done during the time that they should by force be kept from discharging their duties in that House.' Upon receiving this protestation the Lords, who had exerted themselves in favour of the bill, joyfully exclaimed, it was Digitus Dei, to accomplish that which they had despaired of;' and without passing any judgement upon it themselves, desired a conference with the Lower House, who readily concurred in charging the protesters with high-treason, and sending them to the Tower. There they remained, till the bill was passed, which did not happen till some months afterward.

In June 1642, when the King was at York, the Archbishop was enthroned in the cathedral. But his Majesty being obliged in the following month to quit that city, his Grace did not remain long behind him for the younger Hotham having sworn to put him to death for certain opprobrious words spoken against him concerning his treatment of his Sovereign at Hull, he retired to Cawood Castle; where he received advice, late one night, that his adversary with a strong force intended to attack him early next morning. Upon this intelligence, he made his escape at midnight with a few horse, and fled to his estate in Wales, where he repaired and fortified Conway Castle for the King's service. The beginning of the following year, being summoned to attend his Ma

* One commoner only sarcastically observed in their fa vour, "He did not believe they were guilty of high-treason, but that they were stark-mad; and, therefore, he desired they might be sent to Bedlam."