105 
On some Excommunications and Public Penances in Somerset, (Temp 
Archhishop Laud.) By B. GREEN. 
(Read December 11th, 1874.) 
After passing by a somewhat easy promotion through nearly 
every subordinate office, William Laud, D.D., became Archbishop 
of Canterbury in the year 1633. From his conduct towards the 
Church, and also his great favour with the King and Queen, the 
former doubtfully Protestant, the latter an active Papist, he was 
considered as being not unfavourable to the re-establishment of 
Popery as the National Religion; and as President of the High 
Commission Court, a Court then existing for the punishment of 
ecclesiastical offences, he soon obtained an excessive authority and 
power, which he at all times used without the slightest feeling of 
mercy, against any who differed from him or who opposed his 
_ novel proceedings. 
By his “ sole order and without any warrant of Law” innova- 
tions were introduced into the discipline of the Church, and 
in particular he endeavoured to revive the ancient judicial 
independence of the Bishops which had been specially abolished 
at the time of the Reformation ; or, using the words of the Charge 
against him, “to set them up above the Law as supreme judges 
of all matters in their respective Sees, so usurping a Papal and 
tyrannical power to the derogation of the King’s supremacy.”* 
For this purpose the decision of local, and often trivial, questious 
or offences were referred to them and through them to the 
Archbishop, by whom the offenders were reduced to obedience, 
either by heavy fine, or corporal punishment, or by ecclesiastical 
censure ; or by penance and deprivation if they happened to be 
known as “ learned pious and orthodox” Divines. 
The following examples, taken from the original documents and 
MSS., are selected partly for their local interest, and, in part, as 
* Articles against Laud, 
Vou. IIL, No. 2, 
