ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 



followed in 1560 and 1561. As the see of Chester, vacant by Scott's depri- 

 vation, was not filled up till May 1561 by the appointment of William 

 Downham,"^ the visitation in the northern province was delayed until that 

 year. There appears to be no extant record of this visitation so far as the 

 see of Chester is concerned, unless it is at York or Chester. 



On 20 July, 1562, the permanent Ecclesiastical Commission [in London], 

 which had practically ceased to act after 1560, was revived in a different 

 form. This second ecclesiastical commission had for its object no longer the 

 enforcement of subscription from the general body of the clergy. That had 

 Ijeen already accomplished by the first body. It was rather a precautionary 

 institution created to watch the 'papists,' whose hopes had been roused by the 

 events on the Continent, especially by the persecution of the Protestants in 

 France. The first act of this new commission was to order the bishops to 

 inquire after recusants'*' in their various dioceses. The outcome was the first 

 small list of imprisoned recusants, which may be dated about August 1562. 

 It yields three Lancashire names.''*' 



It is not to be understood that this diocesan inquiry just described was 

 an episcopal one, relating only to the clergy and resting for its authority on 

 the ordinary episcopal right of visitation. It was in each case a separately 

 constituted local commission to the bishop and others, and was to cover the 

 laity as well as the clergy in its purview.'" In this instance a commis- 

 sion was issued on 20 July, 1562, to the earl of Derby, the bishop of 

 Chester, and others, appointing them commissioners for ecclesiastical causes 

 in the diocese of Chester to enforce the Acts of Uniformity and Supremacy."^ 



There was as yet, however, no evidence of the application of penalties 

 to the body of the laity. The State was busied only with a minority of 

 recalcitrant clergy. The first severe penal statute of Elizabeth's reign "• was 

 the outcome of the religious wars in France and of the discovery of a plot in 

 favour of Mary queen of Scots."' The Act received the royal assent on 

 10 April, 1563.'" 



The clause in the Act which required justices of peace to inquire as to 

 offences against the Act led to the Privy Council inquiry in the course of 

 October, 1564, into the general well- or ill-affectedness of the justices of 

 peace.'" The certificate returned by the bishop of Chester shows that in 



"' Stubbs, Reg. Sacr. Jngl. (ist ed.), 84. '" S.P. Dom. Eliz. Add. vol. 11, No. 45. 



"* Lawrence Vaux to remain in co. Worcester ; Richard Hart and Nicholas Banester to remain in Kent 

 or Sussex. 



"* The appointment of these commissions by the civil power rested on the powers conferred on the crown 

 by the Act of Supremacy. They were issued very frequently throughout Elizabeth's reign, and cause much 

 confusion to the student. These special, local, and temporary ' Commissions for Ecclesiastical Causes,' as they 

 were styled, have to be kept most jealously distinct, not only from each other, but also from the permanent 

 Ecclesiastical Commission in London on the one hand, and from the various diocesan visitations on the other. 



"» S.P. Dom. Eliz. vol. 23, No. 56. 



'" 5 Eliz. cap. I ; an Act for the assurance of the queen's royal power over all estates and subjects in 

 her dominions. '" Ibid. 



*'* Besides prescribing a praemunire and treason for all persons upholding the jurisdiction of the see of 

 Rome in England it enacted that the oath of Supremacy should be taken by graduates, schoolmasters, ofEcers 

 of courts, and members of Parliament as well as ecclesiastics. Except for oiRce holders the Act affects the 

 laity only by implication, viz. in the clause giving the Lord Chancellor power to issue commissions to 

 administer the oath to such persons as the said commissioners should by their commission be empowered to 

 tender the oath to. In the main it was directed against the clergy, and there is no evidence either of perse- 

 cution arising on it or of any popular or lay disaffection as underlying it. An imperfect list of the clergy of 

 the diocese who took the oath is printed in Ches. Sheaf {Se.r. 3), i, 34-5. 



"' The returns to this inquiry have been printed by the Camden Society (Ser. 2), vol. 53. 



51 



