Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:31:39.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘So very unequal to the place’? The Legal Apprenticeship of John Williams, Lord Keeper, c. 1605–16211

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2017

Andrew D. Nicholls
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the spring of 1621, James I sent the Great Seal of England to his newly appointed Lord Keeper, John Williams, the Dean of Westminster. Naming an ecclesiastic to this position shocked contemporary legal and political commentators, and subsequent historians have generally shared this negative appraisal. Even more positive analyses have held that Williams’ primary attraction for the king lay in his intellect and learning, and an expectation that he would do James’ bidding on the Court of Chancery. Williams actually possessed both stronger legal qualifications than have traditionally been recognized, and a politico-legal philosophy that had helped to modify James’ own views of the role of his prerogative courts and powers. An examination of Williams’ career prior to 1621 reveals the development of a candidate uniquely placed to fill this particular role at that specific moment in James’ reign.

Keywords

churchcourtsEcclesiasticsepiscopacylegalismpatronage
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Anglican Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , November 2017 , pp. 207 - 232
Copyright
© The Journal of Anglican Studies Trust 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1.

The quotation, which forms the first part of this title, is from Clarendon. The entire sentence, describing Williams’ replacement by Sir Thomas Coventry in 1626 reads: ‘In the first year after the death of king James, he [Coventry] was advanced to be keeper of the great seal of England (the natural advancement from the office of attorney general) upon the removal of the bishop of Lincoln; who, though a man of great wit and good scholastic, learning, was generally thought so very unequal to the place, that his remove was the only recompense and satisfaction that could be made for his promotion’ HydeEdward, Earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England (7 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1839), I , 75.

2.

Andrew D. Nicholls is Chair and Professor of History and Social Studies Education at the State University of New York, Buffalo State, Buffalo NY (Buffalo State College).

References

3. Buckingham’s candidate was initially Sir Lionel Cranfield, the Master of the Court of Wards. When he was rejected, Sir James Ley, Chief Justice of King’s Bench was suggested. Charles’ candidate was the Chief Justice of Common Pleas, Sir Henry Hobart. See Lockyer, Roger, Buckingham: The Life and Political Career of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham, 1592–1628 (London: Longman, 1981), pp. 69–70 Google Scholar.

4. An Elizabethan Statute had defined the offices of Lord Keeper and Chancellor to be the same, but reserved the higher title of Lord Chancellor to appointees of particular dignity. When he received the Great Seal, Williams did so with the stipulation that it would be a probationary appointment for one year, after which the appointment would be reviewed every three years. Given other contingencies against his alleged inexperience he implemented as Keeper, it is quite likely he advised James against conferring the higher title. As it happened, the three-year cycle of review and reappointment would provide the loophole that Charles I would utilize to remove him from office following James’ death. Neither of Williams’ successors as Keeper prior to the Civil Wars would carry the title Lord Chancellor. G.W. Thomas, ‘James I, Equity and Lord Keeper John Williams’, The English Historical Review, 91.360 (July 1976), pp. 506–28 (506); Roberts, B. Dew, Mitre and Musket: John Williams Lord Keeper, Archbishop of York 1582–1650 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1938), p. 46 Google Scholar.

5. SP 14/123 f.22 (From State Papers Online, Gale Document Number MC4319583004).

6. Halliwell, J.O. (ed.), The Autobiography and Correspondence of Sir Simonds D’Ewes (2 vols.; London: Richard Bentley, 1845), I Google Scholar, p. 188.

7. Quintrell, Brian, ‘John Williams (1582–1650)’, New Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; online edn, January 2008, 4.

8. Thomas, , ‘James I, Equity and Lord Keeper John Williams’,Google Scholar

asserts that Williams’ legal training and background prior to his appointment as Lord Keeper were comparatively unimportant. He argues that Williams’ views on the role of the Court of Chancery simply accorded with James I’s philosophy on the subject, and that a brief prepared by Williams for the king on the subject of reforming Chancery sometime in April or May of 1621 was the decisive factor in his promotion. The brief in question is ‘Williams breviate to James, Apr./May 1621’, Cambridge University Library MS. Gg/2/31, fos. 334v-6v. It is the contention of this article that Williams’ promotion was the culmination of years of service and preparation, within which this important brief stands as an addendum.

9. Nicholls, Andrew D., ‘ “Pillars of the Authority of Princes”: Reflections on the Employment of Bishops in the British Isles in the Reign of James VI/I’, Scottish Tradition 24 (1999), pp. 54–71 Google Scholar.

10. Thomas, ‘James I, Equity and Lord Keeper John Williams’, p. 519.

11. Cambridge University Library MS. Gg/2/31, fos. 334v-6v.

12. Lee, Maurice Jr, Great Britain’s Solomon: James VI and I in his Three Kingdoms (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1990), pp. 186–187 Google Scholar.

13. John Thornborough, ‘A Discourse plainly proving the evident Utility and urgent Necessity of the desired Happy Union of the two famous Kingdoms of England and Scotland’, in William Oldys and Thomas Park (eds.), The Harleian Miscellany, vol. IX (London, 1808), p. 104.

14. Donaldson, Gordon, Scotland: James V–James II (Edinburgh: Mercat Press, 1990), p. 230 Google Scholar.

15. Nicholls, ‘Pillars of the Authority of Princes’, pp. 62–64; Thomson, William P.L., History of Orkney (Edinburgh: Mercat Press, 1987) pp. 164–169 Google Scholar, 172.

16. Perceval-Maxwell, Michael, The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James VI (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973), p. 260 Google Scholar.

17. Foster, Andrew, ‘The Clerical Estate Revitalised’, in Kenneth Fincham (ed.), The Early Stuart Church, 1603–1642 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993), pp. 142–143 Google Scholar.

18. McCullough, Peter E., Sermons at Court: Politics and Religion in Elizabethan and Jacobean Preaching (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 138 Google Scholar.

19. Haigh, Christopher and Wall, Alison, ‘Clergy JPs in England and Wales 1590–1640’, The Historical Journal 47.2 (2004), pp. 233–259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. James I, ‘Speech in Star Chamber, 1616’, in C.H. McIllwain (ed.), Political Works of James I, I, p. 335.

21. Thomas, ‘James I, Equity and Lord Keeper Williams’, pp. 518–19; Roberts, G. (ed.), Diary of Walter Yonge … 16—4 to 1628 (London: Camden Society, 1848), p. 34 Google Scholar.

22. Knafla, L.A., Law and Politics in Jacobean England: The Tracts of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 105–107 Google Scholar.

23. For a discussion of Coke’s researches into the origins and development of the Common Law, see Eusden, John Dykstra, Puritans, Lawyers, and Politics in Early Seventeenth Century England (Hamden, CT: Archon Books: 1968), pp. 115–118 Google Scholar.

24. On Bacon’s long-standing interest in the subject of law reform, and the congruence of his views with Ellesmere’s, see Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, II, pp. 279, 348–49.

25. The only modern, full-length biography of Williams is Roberts, Mitre and Musket. On the whole, it has not aged well and provides limited historical analysis. More recently see Quintrell, ‘John Williams (1582–1650)’. Of greater importance for primary research are: John Hacket, Scrinia Reserata: A Memorial Offer’d to the Great Deservings of John Williams, DD, etc. (2 vols.; London: Edward Jones, 1692); John Ballinger (ed.), Calendar of Wynn (Of Gwydir) Papers 1515–1690 (Aberystwyth, Cardiff, and London: National Library of Wales, 1926); Ambrose Philips, The Life of John Williams, Ld keeper of the Great Seal, etc. (London, 1700).

26. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 7; Ballinger, Calendar of Wynn Papers, p. 63.

27. That Williams’ long-maintained concern for his original flock can be discerned from Hacket’s report that years later, as Lord Keeper, he worked with the local baronet, Sir Lionel Tollemache (Hacket spells the surname ‘Talemach’) to purchase lands near the village for the perpetual relief of the local poor (Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 19). This would be the 2nd Baronet, of the same name. See Everett Green, Mary Anne, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the reign of James I, 1611–1618, preserved in the State Paper Department of her Majesty’s Public Record Office (London: HMCSO, 1858), II, p. 267 (hereafter CSPD)Google Scholar.

28. Oldys, William (ed.), Biographica Britannica: Or the Lives of the Most Eminent Persons Who Have Flourished in Great Britain and Ireland, …. (7 vols.; London: W. Innys, etc., 1747–1766), VI, p. 4276 Google Scholar.

29. B.H. Beedham (ed.), Notices of Archbishop Williams (London, 1869), 10; Quintrell, ‘John Williams (1582–1650)’.

30. Brenchley Rye, William (ed.), England as seen by foreigners in the days of Elizabeth and James the First (London: John Russell Smith, 1865), pp. 62–63 Google Scholar.

31. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, pp. 20–21.

32. Knafla, Louis, ‘The Matriculation Revolution and Education at the Inns of Court in Renaissance England’, in A.J. Slavin (ed.), Tudor Men and Institutions: Studies in English Law and Government (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1972, p. 254 Google Scholar.

33. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 17.

34. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 21.

35. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 22.

36. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 22.

37. For a full progression of Williams’ increasingly lucrative church appointments see Quintrell, ‘John Williams (1582–1650)’.

38. The proximity of Cambridge to two of the favoured Royal Hunting Lodges at Newmarket and Royston meant that promising young divines were in constant supply, to meet the king’s demand for stimulating preachers. See McCullough, Sermons at Court, p. 126.

39. Williams delayed accepting this invitation for several months so that he could complete his proctor’s duties at St. John’s. In a letter to his old patron and kinsman, Sir John Wynn of Gwydir, Williams described how the Lord Chancellor had a ‘most fatherly care’ for him. Calendar of Wynn Papers (574), p. 91.

40. For the importance of Ellesmere’s educational background, especially his appreciation for the use of Classical and contemporary continental sources in the application of Equity Law, see Knafla, Law and Politics, pp. 39–41.

41. Knafla, Law and Politics, pp. 13–14; Oldys, Biographica Britannica, VI, p. 4278.

42. As Knafla points out, Ellesmere was the first lay Lord Chancellor to have private chaplains in his household. This point should be recalled when considering James’ eventual decision to appoint Williams to the Keepership as it reflects another intellectual connection between the practice of law, and theology. See Knafla, Law and Politics, p. 54.

43. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 28.

44. Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, II, p. 181.

45. Ellesmere had long taken an interest in fostering a moderately Calvinistic, preaching clergy. See Knafla, Law and Politics, pp. 53–54.

46. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 29.

47. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 28.

48. Sir Humphrey Gilbert, ‘Queene Elizabethes Achademy’ (ed. F.J. Furnivall; London: Early English Text Society, 1869), pp. 7–10. The point is more fully developed in Wilfrid Prest, ‘Legal Education of the Gentry at the Inns of Court, 1560–1640’, Past and Present 38 (December 1967), pp. 21–23. Prest also demonstrates that many young men at the Inns of Court studied very little, or not at all, and instead used their residence in London for social purposes.

49. Accessible surveys of this literature are provided in Thomas, ‘James I, Equity and Lord Keeper John Williams’, pp. 509, 524; Prest, ‘Legal Education of the Gentry’, pp. 30–35.

50. Ellesmere, The Post-Nati, in Knafla, Law and Politics, p. 248.

51. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 32.

52. Philips, The Life of John Williams, p. 44.

53. Philips, The Life of John Williams p. 45.

54. Thomas, ‘James I, Equity and Lord Keeper John Williams’, p. 516.

55. Court Chaplains were not normally resident at court. Instead, they were expected to provide a link between their localities and the court, and to provide perspective on local matters when in attendance at court. See McCullough, Sermons at Court, pp. 4–5.

56. ‘Formerly, an indication in a Commission of the Peace of the particular justices (called justices of the quorum) required, at least one of whom had to be present in order for business to be done.’ See Martin, Elizabeth A. (ed.), A Concise Dictionary of Law (2nd edn; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 335 Google Scholar.

57. Williams’ appointment to the quorum was significant in that clergy JPs did not necessarily receive this distinction. Christopher Haigh and Alison Wall find that bishops and deans almost always received the distinction, but it was rarer for lower clergy. However, as a royal chaplain Williams possessed additional distinction beyond his parish charge. It is the contention of this article, of course, that his scholarly abilities and expanding range of legal experiences also qualified him. See Haigh, and Wall, , ‘Clergy JPs in England and Wales 1590–1640’, The Historical Journal 47.2 (2004), p. 247 Google Scholar.

58. Kenyon, J.P. (ed.), The Stuart Constitution: Documents and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), p. 492 Google Scholar.

59. Fletcher, Anthony, Reform in the Provinces: The Government of Stuart England (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986), pp. 5–11 Google Scholar.

60. Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces; Kishlansky, Mark, A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603–1714 (London: Penguin, 1997), pp. 53–55 Google Scholar.

61. Christopher Haigh and Alison Wall, ‘Clergy JPs’, pp. 233–59.

62. Haigh and Wall, ‘Clergy JPs’, pp. 237–39.

63. Dougall, Alistair, The Devil’s Book: Charles I, the Book of Sports and Puritanism in Tudor and Early Stuart England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), p. 73 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Raines, F.R. (ed.), The Journal of Nicholas Assheton (Manchester: Chetham Society, 1847), pp. 34 Google Scholar, 41–42.

64. For the text of the proclamation, see Scott, Walter (ed.), A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts… Of the Late Lord Somers (10 vols.; London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, etc., 1809), II, pp. 53–55 Google Scholar.

65. John Fielding, ‘Arminianism in the Localities: Peterborough Diocese, 1603–1642’, in Fincham (ed.), The Early Stuart Church, pp. 98–99.

66. Fielding, ‘Arminianism in the Localities’, pp. 98–103; Cope, Esther S., The Life of a Public Man: Edward, First Baron Montagu of Boughton, 1562–1644 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1981), pp. 27–81 Google Scholar.

67. James Montagu had been a patron of Williams since at least 1611. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, pp. 25, 31.

68. For Williams’ own account of the incident, see Historical Manuscripts Commission (hereafter HMC), Report on the Manuscripts of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, (London, 1900) pp. 94–95.

69. HMC, Report on the Manuscripts of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensbury (3 vols.; London, 1900–1926), III, p. 210.

70. HMC, Montagu, pp. 94–95.

71. The King’s Majestie’s Declaration to his Subjects, concerning lawfull Sports to be used. London, 1618, in, Somers Tracts, II, p. 55.

72. As can be expected with local politics, some of the principal actors had a lengthy history of mutual animosity. Montagu and Sir Anthony Mildmay were parties to a dispute that had been the subject of court gossip three years earlier. CSPD, James I, Vol. IX, p. 273.

73. Dougall, Devil’s Book, p. 85.

74. HMC, Buccleuch, Vol. III, pp. 210–11.

75. HMC, Buccleuch, Vol. III, pp. 209–10.

76. Haigh and Wall, ‘Clergy JPs’, p. 236, n. 8. Hacket provides a detailed summary of Williams’ activities as JP, from his favoured home in Walgrave, Northamptonshire; Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, pp. 35–36. These passages also give an insight into Williams’ understanding of the needs and views of his parishioners – knowledge that would prove beneficial when counseling the king and Buckingham on the management of parliament.

77. John Williams, Sermon of Apparell, Preached before the Kings Majestie and the Prince his Highnesse at Theobalds, the 22 of February, 1619 (London, 1620), p. 30.

78. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, pp. 13–14.

79. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 41.

80. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 41.

81. Philips, The Life of John Williams, p. 56.

82. Russell, Conrad, The Crisis of Parliaments, English History 1509–1660 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 284–297 Google Scholar.

83. Lockyer, Roger, Buckingham: The Life and Career of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham 1592–1628 (London: Longman, 1981), pp. 89–105 Google Scholar.

84. Knighton, C.S., ‘The Lord of Jerusalem: John Williams as Dean of Westminster’, in C.S. Knighton and Richard Mortimer (eds.), Westminister Abbey Reformed 1540–1640 (London: Ashgate, 2003), p. 235 Google Scholar; CSPD 1619–23, pp. 221–22; 228.

85. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 50.

86. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 50.

87. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 50.

88. Some observers were already predicting that this action would not mollify critics in the House of Commons. See John Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, 7 April 1621, CSPD, Vol. 10, 1619–23, p. 244.

89. Chamberlain to Carleton, 7 April 1621, p. 252; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 99–100.

90. Chamberlain to Carleton, 2 May 1621, CSPD., Vol. 10, 1619–23, p. 252.

91. Thomas, ‘James I, Equity and Lord Keeper John Williams’, pp. 521–22.

92. Cambell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, III, p. 138.

93. Campbell, II, p. 185; III, pp. 342–43.

94. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, pp. 51–52.

95. See, for example, S.R. Gardiner, History of England … 1603–1642 (London, 1883), IV, p. 134; Roberts, Mitre and Musket, pp. 41–42; Campbell, III, p. 138; Trevor-Roper, Hugh, Archbishop Laud (London: Phoenix Press, 1960), p. 55 Google Scholar; Lee, Great Britain’s Solomon, p. 186.

96. Cambridge University Library MS. Gg/2/31, fos. 334r-6v, Williams breviate to James April/May 1621.

97. Quoted in Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, II, p. 187.

98. Interestingly, Hatton was not a trained lawyer either.

99. Philips, The Life of John Williams pp. 65–67.

100. The appointment to Lincoln addressed many challenges created by Williams’ earlier appointment as Lord Keeper. Firstly, it provided him with an additional source of income, something deemed necessary in light of the diminished state of revenues accruing to the Court of Chancery, as he himself had reported. Although Lincoln was geographically the largest diocese in England, it was far from the most lucrative, and had been declining in value for years, it was supplementary income. Williams’ major sources of money would continue to flow from his existing appointments, most notably, as Dean of Westminster. He never relinquished this position, and during his years as Lord Keeper, continued to reside in the Dean’s Lodge, as opposed to residing in the Lord Chancellor’s house. One political advantage to making him a bishop was that this would also make him a member of the House of Lords. See Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, p. 61; Roberts, Mitre and Musket, p. 43.

101. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, I, pp. 71–74.

102. Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, III, p. 167.

103. Quoted in Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, III, p. 161.