A HISTORY OF HERTFORDSHIRE 



services, which hindered preaching.'^ Whitgift's articles had been especially 

 directed against those who preached but refused to use the Prayer Book, 

 and while under its ordinance daily prayer was recognized as obligatory it 

 so rapidly fell out of use that in 1588 the archbishop issued special directions 

 to his diocesans'' for prayers to be held in every parish church at least 

 thrice in the week." The order had again to be issued in 1589-90.'' 



With the promulgation of the canons of 1604 a new phase in the 

 struggle began, though it is noticeable that the resisters were not the younger 

 men but the protagonists of Elizabeth's reign. John Burgess, who led the 

 protest, was beneficed in the diocese of Lincoln, and among the thirty 

 Lincoln clergy who followed him to the interview with their bishops at 

 Buckden were three from Hertfordshire parishes. These were Nicholas 

 Chambers, Nevill Drant and Timothy Fisher.'' All were probably in a like 

 case with Burgess, men who had hitherto subscribed to the Prayer Book as 

 an expression of the intention of the church, though they could not approve 

 its details. Nicholas Chambers was perhaps more advanced in his views than 

 the others. He it was who with Wilcox and Potkins had refused subscrip- 

 tion at an earlier date,'" though he must have ultimately satisfied his conscience. 

 The protestants got little satisfaction out of the bishop, and on i December 

 thev presented their views to James I, praying that if the new subscriptions 

 were retained the threatened deprivations might be at least delayed. They 

 drew a pathetic picture of their trouble, their journeyings to conferences 

 with the ordinary, with each other and the lawyers, and their desperate case 

 should they be deprived. James heard them out and suggested a conference 

 at Huntingdon. The ministers agreed to accept this, but put forward as 

 conditions that the disputants on the side of the established order were to be 

 the bishop himself and Dr. Montaigne, that the point in question should 

 alone be discussed, that the conferences should be open to all and that 

 reporters should be in attendance. In the eyes of the government the 

 proposal would have been a mere advertisement of the impotence of the 

 hierarchy and the ideas of the Puritans. It was accordingly rejected. What 

 actually took place it is difficult to determine, but in November a petition 

 from the inhabitants of Royston " and the neighbourhood implies that 

 deprivation was generally threatened. Beside the language of this petition 

 may be placed the words of Bancroft to the Bishops of London in a letter 

 dated 12 March 1604—5 ^""^ probably one of a scries addressed to all his 

 suffragans. The letter relates chiefly to Roman Catholic recusants, but opens 

 with a desire that Vaughan would not desist from depriving two or three 

 factious ministers till he had purged his diocese of them.'" Nothing, 

 however, was done until 1609, when Richard Scott, rector of Bushey, was 

 deprived.'^ Scott had been educated at New College, Oxford, but had taken 



85 For a schedule of objections see Morrice MS. (Dr. Williams' Lib.), B, fol. 327. The Puritans asked 

 ' whether it be not an unseemlie gesture, y' y° minister in saying the service, should go poste up and downe 

 from place to place, as by the booke is appointed, as to the chauncell for sayinge the service, and singing the 

 communion, to the bode of y= chirch for the Letanie and mariage, to the church dore for baptisme and to 

 the church stile for buryall And to y« bellfrey on working dayes to touU the bell himselfe.' 



^^Rec.oftheOldArchd.ofSt.Alhans,-]^. 87 ibid. 88 Ibid. 73-4. 



8' Add. MS. 8978, fol. 116 d. 90 Lambeth MS. xii, no. 2. 



' Harl. MS. 677, fol. 44. This must have been the petition presented to James as he was hunting at 

 Royston. ' The King took in ill part this disorderly Proceeding, commanding them presently to depart ' 

 (Winwood, Mem. ii, 36). ^2 ^^^.^ ^y^^^ Old Archd. of St. Albans, 124. »' Newcourt, Reftrt. 816. 



