Durham E-Theses
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Durham E-Theses Discipline and local government in the Diocese of Durham, 1660-72. Brearley, J. D. How to cite: Brearley, J. D. (1974) Discipline and local government in the Diocese of Durham, 1660-72., Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3450/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk ABSTRACT OF THESIS For the realisation of the Restoration settlement of Church and State, it was essential that the central authorities received the co-operation of local officials who shared their aims and interests, and were prepared to re-establish and maintain order in the provinces. Cosin, Bishop of Durham, 1660-72, was the chief instrument of the government in the north-east of England. Within the Diocese he attempted to enforce universal compliance with the Church of England. As Lord-Lieutenant, he worked to maintain religious and political order and discipline. He did not regard himself as a government agent, but recognised the interdependence of the Church and the political order, believing neither could be strong if the other were weak. For his jurisdiction to be efficacious, the loyal service of similarly-minded ecclesiastical and secular deputies was imperative, as was the moral and military support of the gentry. Whilst the interests of the central government, the Church and the gentry seemed coincident, the complicated and finely-balanced arrangement could function successfully. Cosin was dedicated and industrious. His single-mindedness and obstinacy was apparent. He believed in the righteousness of the restored social and political order. His conviction that Nonconformity threatened both the Church and State caused him to undertake measures to eradicate religious opposition. He was never successful; the large Nonconformist element in Newcastle was a particular irritation to him. The possi• bility of political revolt was a constant fear. Its roots were discerned in religious unorthodoxy. Cosin acted promptly when an uprising seemed imminent in Durham in 1663 and later. In eliminating seditious designs and withstanding Dutch attack, he relied on gentry support. When Cosin proved that his allegiance to his interpretation of the privileges of the County Palatine and the position of the Bishop was greater than his regard for the gentry's demand for Parliamentary representation, the alliance was disrupted. His lasting success was in restoring the dignity of the Anglican Church and respect for the Bishop. DISCIPLINE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE DIOCESE OF DURHAM. 1660-72. Thesis submitted for the degree of M.A. at Durham University. J. D. BREARLEY JULY, 1974. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation~from it should-be published-without his prior written eonsent and information derived from it shoidd be acknowledged. TABLE OP CONTENTS page Preface 1 Standard Abbreviations 8 Restoration Song 12 Chapter One - The Ecclesiastical and Secular Administration of Bishop Cosin 13 Chapter Two - The Development of Nonconformity 74 Chapter Three - The Derwentdale Plot and Political Dissent 122 Chapter Four - The Issue of Representation 176 Appendix 198 Bibliography 212 PREFACE. A restoration of the past has more emotional appeal than practical possibilities. Belief in, and reverence for, a past golden age recurs throughout history, particularly at times of uncertainty or political, social or economic change. Different groups with different ideals and interests have pointed to alternative past happier times and conditions. In 1660, the overwhelming desire of the country was to return to a state of political stability. Most Anglicans and Royalists wanted to revert to the secular and ecclesiastical forms of government which had been so abruptly disrupted since the out• break of the Civil War. However, the events of the previous twenty years were of such momentous significance that inevi• tably permanent effects remained and coloured most aspects of life and thought. The settlement produced in the years after 1660 was a confused compromise; some reforms and changes were retained, others were abandoned, some which were nominally abolished were destined to reappear in a variety of different guises and some older forms and conditions were re-established. Religious and secular idealism and experiment seemingly had failed and were discredited and the country experienced a conservative and emotional reaction. The search for stability overrode the pursuit of principle. Nostalgic romanticising of the past precipitated the restoration of the monarchy as the only conceivable alternative to the uncertainty and instability of the period before 1660, and the theoretical and practical identification of the king with the established social system and episcopal Church of England resulted in the expedient of their joint restoration.^ When John Cosin became Bishop of Durham in 1660, he faced a considerable task in re-asserting episcopal control and government, restoring the dignity and authority of the Church of England, establishing respect for it, enforcing conformity and suppressing political and religious opposition. As Bishop and as Lord-Lieutenant of Durham, he was the chief instrument of the central government in imposing the settlement of Church and State in the north-east. In the later seventeenth century, the authorities lacked the modern material paraphernalia of power, the means to effect decisions and programmes of government policy. Armies, prisons and methods of policing were inadequate and communications for publicity, propaganda and disseminating information were insufficient. The govern• ment's problem was how to govern the regions where power lay with great landowners and influential families rather than with See G.E. Aylmer, ed., 'The Interregnum. The Quest for Settlement, 1646-60' (London, 1972), especially 183-204; G. Davis., 'The Restoration of Charles II, 1658-60' (San Marino, 1955); D. Ogg, 'England in the Reign of Charles II' (2nd ed., 1956; rpr., London, 1972), 1-34. bureaucrats. The solution was to harness the local strength of the Church and the gentry to assist the government. The Church and the gentry were the agents of the central authori• ties in the provinces for the essential duties of enforcing national laws and preserving order. There was no alternative to such a devolution of authority. But the government had to accommodate the interests of both for they could be unco• operative if the government's policies appeared to conflict with their own interests. Moreover, it was important that the ecclesiastical authorities and the gentry shared common aims. The system could only operate effectively so long as the interests of the parties coincided or were interdependent. After 1660, the gentry were anxious to eliminate religious dissent when it appeared to threaten order and political stability, whilst the Church recognised that Nonconformity weakened its own position. So long as religious dissent was associated with sedition, and recent experience suggested it menaced the social and political order, the government, the gentry and the ecclesiastical authorities combined to oppose it. Once Nonconformity proved that it had no treasonable designs, the Church found it increasingly difficult to retain the support of the secular powers for its attempts to enforce uniformi ty. Unlike today, a few discontented men had not the means at their disposal seriously to disrupt the political and religious settlement. But the very real and potent emotional fears generated by the activities of those unwilling to accept the Restoration markedly directed government policy in the decade after 1660. Idealism, sometimes laudable, can be exceptionally dangerous to any established order, particularly when such idealism is backed by a complete conviction of righteousness. When such idealism and religious enthusiasm become inextricably involved with political demands and economic grievances, it can assume a strong, threatening character. Such was the fear of the restored authorities that the Good Old Cause was not dead. That such a movement never developed sufficient cohesion or unity of purpose can only be recognised with the benefit of hindsight. Many contemporaries of different persuasions believed that it could. Much of the legislation which succeeded the Restoration was specifically designed to prevent the emergence of such an opposition, not as a result necessarily, of rancour or revenge, but rather for reasons of self-preservation. Probably many who would, theoretically, have tolerated a wider freedom of expression in religious matters retracted when confronted with the political consequences of religious extremism. So it was the refusal of the Quakers and others to comply with established social customs and norms, and not their doctrinal beliefs, which caused suspicion, apprehension and their