[380] "A liberal attention to the convenience of the late Incumbent must have been shown by Mr. Meadows's successor, as we find so late as July 8, 1665, 'a note of things yet left at the parsonage.'" Mr. Meadows was Incumbent of Ousden, Suffolk. Suffolk Bartholomeans, by Taylor, 50.
[381] October, 1662, Wilkins' Concilia, iv. 577.
[382] Baxter informs us that he had resolved not to meddle in such business any more, but says in the margin, "If I should at length recite the story of this business, and what peremptory promises they had, and how all was turned to their rebuke and scorn, it would more increase the reader's astonishment."—Life and Times, ii. 429.
[383] Newcome notices the petition in his Diary, as if an unsuccessful attempt had been made to present it before the 28th. "August 28.—I was sent for to the ministers to Mr. Greene's. We perused Mr. Heyricke's letter, whereby we understand that last Lord's Day was a very sad and doleful day in London, in that ministers preached not; none but Mr. Blackmore, Mr. Crofton, and Dr. Manton between the Tower and Westminster, the Bishops having provided readers or preachers for every place. And the ministers in the dark waited with their petition on Monday, and could not get it delivered, and came away more dissatisfied than they went; and what the issue of all this will be the Lord only knows. I rose afore seven; we despatched duty. And the ministers came in again, and we discoursed of matters, and got things done about the petitions. Mr. Alsley dined with me and Mr. Haworth, we having a venison pasty. After dinner, Mr. James Lightbourne was with me an hour or more. I wrote letters to London, and then went to bowls; but, as if it was not a time for me to take recreation in, I had no freedom of spirit by a little accident about Mr. Constantine."—Newcome's Diary, 115.
The following entry indicates the interference of the King with the operation of the Act:—"Nov., 1662.—The King to the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church, Oxford. They are to forbear execution of any sentence against Thomas Severne, for not having subscribed to the Act of Uniformity before his Bishop, though presented doing so before the University, until the will of Parliament in such cases is more distinctly known."—Ent. Book x. 7. Cal. Dom., 1661–1662, 578.
[384] Clarendon's Continuation, 1081–1082.
[385] It is difficult to harmonize satisfactorily the accounts of conferences and councils given by Burnet, Clarendon, and Bishop Parker. The former two speak of the conferences occurring before St. Bartholomew's Day. The last of these authorities gives a petition from the ministers presented on the 27th, and a debate upon it in Council on the 28th, agreeing, to a considerable extent, with Clarendon's statements. Clarendon says nothing of a petition and a Council after St. Bartholomew's Day, but leaves us to conclude all thought of indulgence was dropped beforehand. In this respect we know he is wrong, probably the matter of indulgence was frequently debated in Council. Compare Clarendon, 1081; Burnet, i. 191; with Parker in Kennet's Register, 753.
[386] These illustrations are gathered from the newspapers of the day.
[387] State Papers. This letter is dated March 2, 1663. It is anonymous; the reason for ascribing it to Hook will appear further on.
[388] Joseph Alleine's Life, by Stanford, 204. There is a glowing account in the Mercurius Publicus, of an Episcopal service at St. Mary's, on the 25th, when the church was so full that people fainted with heat, and "the Mayor and Aldermen were all in their formalities, and not a man in all the church had his hat on, either at service or sermon."