^{page 33 note 2} Cf. among many evaluations those of Brook, V. J. K., A Life of Archbishop Matthew Parker, Oxford 1962Google Scholar, and Perry, E. W., Under Four Tudors, London 1964 ednGoogle Scholar.

^{page 33 note 3} Registrum Matthei Parker, ed. Thompson, E. M. and Frere, W. H., Canterbury and York Society, xxxvi (1928), i-xxxixGoogle Scholar. This three-volume continuously-paginated edition is hereafter referred to as Reg. See also The Correspondence of Matthew Parker, ed. Bruce, J., Parker Society, Cambridge 1853Google Scholar, passim (hereafter referred to as Parker, Corresp.) and also Churchill, I., Canterbury Administration, London 1933Google Scholar.

^{page 33 note 4} P.R.O., C.66/1089.

^{page 34 note 1} Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (C.C.C.C.) MS. 114, fol. 109; B.M. Addit. MS. 9772; P.R.O., S.C. 11/856; Miller, Helen, ‘Subsidy Assessments of the Peerage in the Sixteenth Century’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research (Bui. I.H.R.), xxviii (1955) 15–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A recent estimate of the gross mean income of the (lay) peers in 1559 is £2,380: Stone, L., The Crisis of the Aristocracy: 155–1641, Oxford 1965, 141–2, 762Google Scholar.

^{page 34 note 2} E.g., Sampson to Parker, 1574, Inner Temple Petyt MS. 538/47, fol. 336. Cf. du Boulay, F. R. H., ‘The Archbishop as Territorial Magnate’, Medieval Records of the Archbishops of Canterbury, London 1962, 68–70Google Scholar.

^{page 34 note 4} Thompson, A. H., The English Clergy and their Organization in the Later Middle Ages, Oxford 1946, 40–1Google Scholar.

^{page 34 note 5} The diocese proper did not include those parishes outside Kent which were within the archbishop's ‘peculiar’ jurisdiction: Churchill, op. cit., i. 62–83.

^{page 34 note 5} Frere, W. H., Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Period of the Reformation, 1559–1575, Alcuin Club Collections xvi, London 1910, iii. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 1} Parker was consecrated on 17 December 1559 and died 17 May 1575.

^{page 35 note 2} Cf. Hill, C., Economic Problems of the Church from Whitgift to The Long Parliament, Oxford 1956Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 3} Frere, op. cit, iii. 7.

^{page 35 note 4} Neale, J. E., The Elizabethan House of Commons, London 1954, 301–20Google Scholar; Plucknett, T. F. T., A Concise History of the Common Law, London 1956, 177Google Scholar; and Plucknett, T. F. T., ‘Legal Chronology’ in C. R. Cheney, Handbook of Dates …, London 1945, 65–74Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 5} Kennedy, W. P. M., Elizabethan Episcopal Administration, London 1924, i. lxxxi-cxviiGoogle Scholar; The First and Second Prayer Books of Edward VI, ed. Gibson, E. S., London 1960Google Scholar reprint, 292–312 and passim; Ware, S. L., The Elizabethan Parish in its Ecclesiastical and Financial Aspects, Baltimore 1908Google Scholar. For examples of clergymen writing out wills see Dean and Chapter of Canterbury Archives MS. Y/2/23. Manuscripts in Canterbury Cathedral are hereafter referred to as Cant. MS. Without the kind permission of the dean and chapter to use their archives, especially the forty-odd MS. volumes of visitation and ecclesiastical court records for the period of Parker's administration, this study would have been impossible. The generous assistance of archivist Dr. W. G. Urry cannot be rated too highly.

^{page 36 note 1} P.R.O., S.P. 12/60, fol. 207.

^{page 36 note 2} Cant. MS. 1569 Clerical Survey: Ch. Cant., C. 255 b, fol. 22.

^{page 36 note 3} E.g., ibid., fol. 2^V sub Warehorne and fol. 4^v sub Orlaston.

^{page 36 note 4} Cf. especially Fournier, P., Les Officialités au Moyen Age, Paris 1880Google Scholar; Mousnier, R., La Véialité des Offices sous Henri IV et Louis XIII et Majesté des Rois de France, Rouen 1945Google Scholar; Slavin, A. J., ‘Sir Ralph Salder and Master John Hales at the Hanaper: a Sixteenth-Century Struggle for Property and Profit’, Bui. I.H.R, xxxviii (May 1965), 31–47Google Scholar and references given there.

^{page 36 note 6} Hurstfield, J., The Queen's Wards, London 1958, 246Google Scholar; Hurstfield, , ‘Lord Burghley as Master of the Court of Wards’, Trans. Royal Historical Soc, 4th ser., xxxi (1949), 95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacCaffery, W. T., ‘Place and Patronage in Elizabethan Polities’, in Elizabethan Government and Society: essays presented to Sir John Neale, ed. Bindoff, S. T., Hurstfield, J. and Williams, C. H., London 1961Google Scholar, passim.

^{page 36 note 6} See especially C.C.C.C. MSS. 114 and 114B; James, M. R., A Catalogue of the Manuscripts … Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, Cambridge 1912Google Scholar; and Parker, Corresp., passim.

^{page 37 note 1} Quoted in White, L. D., The Republican Era: 1869–1901: a Study in Administrative History, New York 1958, 7Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 2} Edward Dering, A Sermon Preached before the Queene's Maiestie the 25 day of Februarie … 1570 (S.T.C., 6699) in M. Dering's Workes, London 1597; B.M. 3755 a.a. 7, not continuously paginated.

^{page 37 note 3} Parker, Corresp., 363; cf. ibid., 136, 311–16, 351–2, 361–2 and Hooper, Wilfrid, ‘The Court of Faculties’, English Historical Review (E.H.R), xxv (1910), 670–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 37 note 4} Statutes of the Realms, iii (1509–47), London 1810–28, 292–6; P.R.O., E.334/7, 8 and 9.

^{page 38 note 1} Valor Ecclesiasticus, i, London 1810, 90–8.

^{page 38 note 2} See below, 41.

^{page 38 note 3} C.C.C.C. MS. 580, fols. 27, 28^v; Cant. MS. X/1/2, fol. 43^v.

^{page 38 note 4} Dictionary of National Biography (D.N.B.), xiv. 53–4, sub. Darell or Dorell; P.R.O., S.P. 12/60, fol. 207; Lambeth Palace MS. 723, fol. 11. The courtesy of allowing me to use the Lambeth archives was vital to this article and is much appreciated, as is the assistance which was given by the Librarian (Mr. Bill) and his staff.

^{page 38 note 5} Stephen Bateman and Andrew Pearson are examples of domestic chaplains to whom Parker gave benefices outside the diocese proper: Lambeth MS. 723, fol. 40^v; P.R.O., S.P. 12/76, fol. 23; Reg., 449, 806.

^{page 38 note 6} P.R.O., S.P. 12/76, fols. 34^v, 46; Lambeth MS. 723, fol. 24.

^{page 39 note 1} P.R.O., E. 159/355, Trinitatis Recorda Kanciae, rot. cliij; S.P., 12/76, fol. 16.

^{page 39 note 2} S.P., 12/76, fol. 16.

^{page 39 note 3} Ibid., fol. 27^v.

^{page 39 note 4} Ibid., fol. 48^v.

^{page 39 note 5} Ibid., fol. 48^v; Lambeth MS. 723, fol. 31. Another of Cobham's chaplains, John Cutler, rector of Worplesdome in Winchester diocese, was granted, on 2 May 1564, a dispensation to hold two benefices: P.R.O., S.P. 12/76, fol. 28.

^{page 39 note 6} C.C.C.C. MS. 580, fols. 24^V, 27^V; Archdeacon Harpesfield's Visitations …, ed. L. E. Whatmore and W. Sharp, Catholic Record Society, xlv (1950), 99n. The two continuously-paginated volumes in this edition (ibid., xlv and xlvi) are hereafter referred to as Harpes.

^{page 39 note 7} P.R.O., S.P. 12/76, fols. 30^v, 48^v.

^{page 39 note 8} The two men who were, successively, archdeacons of Canterbury during the time of Parker's administration, Edmund Guest and Edmund Freke, were both Royal Almoners.

^{page 39 note 9} 25 Henry VIII c. 16.

^{page 39 note 10} Lambeth MS. 723; P.R.O., S.P. 12/76; and the series P.R.O., C 58. For further information on Court of Faculties records see Hodgett, G. A. J., ‘The Unpensioned Ex-religious in Tudor England’, in this Journal, xiii (1962), 195–202Google Scholar and Faculty Office Registers, 1534–49; a Calendar, ed. D. S. Chambers, Oxford 1965.

^{page 39 note 11} H.M.C., Salisbury, ii. 64.

^{page 40 note 1} For a commission of 1571 to Sir Ralph Bagnall to search out non-residents in the diocese of Canterbury and other southern sees, a commission citing 21 Hen. VIII c. 13 and 28 Hen. VIII c. 13, see P.R.O., C. 66/1089, m. 39–40. For the activities of common informers see Elton, G. R., ‘Informing for Profit: a Sidelight on Tudor Methods of Law Enforcement’, The Cambridge Historical Journal, xi (1954), 149–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 40 note 2} John Donne, the son, was a notorious pluralist: Hill, op. cit., 227. For the actions of his father against non-resident Canterbury pluralists, Thomas Olyver and John Appleby, see P.R.O., Ind/17054 (Agenda Book for E. 159), fol. 148^v and E. 159/353, Comm. Trin. Rec. viii Eliz., Kane, rot. cclxxvijd. For Appleby: Ind./17054, fol. 199^V; E. 159/355, Trin. Rec. ix Eliz., Kane, rot. clxvj. For Olyver's career at Shadoxhurst see Lambeth MS. ‘Registrum Poli’, fol. 73 and Harpes., 100, 316. My thanks are due to Dr. Roger Schofield for indicating to me that the E. 159 series has information regarding cases of this kind.

^{page 40 note 3} P.R.O., S.P. 12/76, fol. 16.

^{page 40 note 4} P.R.O., Ind/17054, fol. 199; E. 159/355, Trin Rec. Kane, rot. cliij.

^{page 40 note 5} Whalley, vs. Hevisede (1574), P.R.O. K.B. 29/209, rot. 105; K.B. 27/1250, rot. 42, plea side.

^{page 40 note 6} After a thorough check in the relevant indexes the only other similar prosecution of Canterbury clergy during Parker's administration identified was one against Richard Lutwiche, ‘pro non residencia contra formam statuti’ in P.R.O. Ind./i7O54, rot. lxviij, Trin. xii, Eliz. Kane. The details of this case have not been found in E. 159.

^{page 40 note 7} Cant. MSS. Z/3/5, fols. 125–159^v and Z/3/8, fols. 1–1 1^v. Footnotes giving the names of the clergy have had to be deleted because they became too unwieldy.

^{page 40 note 8} Because of the ‘decay’ of some churches, and the union of others, the number of churches varied; 288 is a minimum figure.

^{page 41 note 1} Not included in this calculation are John Norrys, William Browne and Thomas Drake, because they were not ‘Domini’, that is, there is no indication that by September 1560 they were ordained: Reg., 631–2.

^{page 40 note 2} For discussions of the six preacherships, and all the trouble they caused Cranmer, see Pollard, A. F., Thomas Cranmer, London 1905, 145 ffGoogle Scholar.; Woodruff, C. E., A List of the Six Preachers of … the Cathedral … in Canterbury, Canterbury 1926Google Scholar; Peter, Mary Justine Sister, ‘A Study of the Administration of the Henrician Act of Supremacy in Canterbury Diocese’ (Loyola University Ph.D. Thesis, 1959)Google Scholar; L. & P., Hen. VIII, part 2 (1543), no. 546, 291–378.

^{page 40 note 1} C.C.C.G. MS. 580, fols. 19–29^v. Internal evidence reveals that most of this survey was compiled in November 1561, but several of the entries are of a later date. This entire MS. was discovered quite recently by archivist Dr. Richard Vaughan who kindly drew it to my attention. Cf. Vaughan, R. and Fines, J., ‘A Handlist of Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge not described by M. R. James’, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, iii (1960), 113, 119Google Scholar.

^{page 42 note 2} Parker employed ‘lectores’, or readers, in at least seventy different Canterbury parishes in the years 1560 and 1561: Cant. MSS. X/1/2, X/1/4, Z/3/7, Z/3/8. See Frere, W. H., The English Church in the Reign of Elizabeth and James I, London 1904, 167Google Scholar, and B.M. MS. Addit. 19, 398, fols. 59–59^v.

^{page 42 note 3} Cant. MS. Z/3/7, fols. 45–69.

^{page 42 note 4} Cant. MS. Z/3/8, fols. 13^v–23.

^{page 42 note 5} Cant. MS. Z/3/7, 631–62.

^{page 42 note 6} Reg., 631–2 (1560).

^{page 42 note 7} Hill, op. cit., 234–5.

^{page 43 note 1} Cant. MS. 1569 Clerical Survey: Ch. Cant. C. 255b. Cf. Parker, Corresp., 335–7.

^{page 43 note 2} For an explanation of which parishes were within the jurisdiction of the archdeacon, and which were exempt, see Woodcock, B. L., Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts in the Diocese of Canterbury, Oxford 1952, 19–29Google Scholar; The Register of Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1414–1443, ed. Jacob, E. F., i. Oxford 1943Google Scholar, especially lxi–lxxxvi and 350–407.

^{page 43 note 3} P.R.O., S.P. 12/60, fols. 207–207^v.

^{page 43 note 4} Reg., 535.

^{page 43 note 5} Cant. MS. Z/3/10, fols. 1–47^v.

^{page 43 note 6} B.M. MS. Harl. 1197, fol. 329^v.

^{page 44 note 1} Hill, op. cit., 229.

^{page 44 note 2} P.R.O., S.P. 12/76 and Lambeth MS. 723, passim.

^{page 44 note 3} These statistics regarding the situation in 1575 have been compiled from visitation records and from Reg.

^{page 44 note 4} One hundred and twenty-two of the benefices held by pluralists are listed in our sources for the year 1569, but for several of the pluralists there is a simple note ‘habet plura beneficia’ and all we can do is to estimate how many ‘plura’ was; hence the approximation of a total of 130 benefices held by pluralist incumbents in 1569.

^{page 44 note 5} Dering, Sermon. Cf. P. Collinson, A Mirror of Elizabethan Puritanism: … “Godly Master Dering”, Friends of Dr. Williams's Library Lecture, 17, London 1964, 15.

^{page 45 note 1} B.M. MS. Stowe 743/1, fols. 1–2.

^{page 45 note 2} P. Collinson, ‘John Field and Elizabethan Puritanism’, in Bindoff, Hurstfield and Williams, op. cit., 127–62.

^{page 45 note 3} An Admonition to the Parliament, ed. Frere, W. H. and Douglas, C. E., Puritan Manifestos, London 1954, 12Google Scholar.

^{page 45 note 4} A View of Popishe Abuses, Frere and Douglas, op. cit., 33.

^{page 45 note 5} Prothero, G. W., Statutes … of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I, Oxford 1913, 202Google Scholar.

^{page 45 note 6} Cf. Owen, H. G., ‘The London Parish Clergy in the Reign of Elizabeth I’ (London University Ph.D. thesis, 1957)Google Scholar and Mullins, , ‘The Effects of the Marian and Elizabethan Settlements upon the Clergy of London’ (London University M.A. thesis, 1948)Google Scholar.

^{page 45 note 7} Frere, The English Church in the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I, 104.

^{page 46 note 1} These figures have been compiled from the same sources as were used for the number of clergy when Parker became archbishop and, thus, have the same limitations as the figures for the clergy. See above, 41.

^{page 46 note 2} The clergy in these chapels were sometimes described as chaplains, but usually as curates.

^{page 46 note 3} C.C.C.C. MS. 580, fols. 1–29^v.

^{page 46 note 4} Scarisbrick, J. J., ‘Clerical Taxation in England 1485 to 1547’, in this Journal, xi (1960), 41Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 5} It is significant, however, that Canterbury cathedral prebendary John Bale held no other benefice and prebendary Thomas Becon the nearby vicarage of Sturry only. These were the two most radically inclined among the resident cathedral canons in the first years: C.C.C.C. MS. 580, fol. 19.

^{page 46 note 6} Hill, op. cit., 224–41.

^{page 46 note 7} P.R.O., S.P. 15/12, fol. 282.

^{page 46 note 8} Curtis, M. H., Oxford and Cambridge in Transition, 1558–1642, Oxford 1959Google Scholar, especially 3–4, for numbers of students and graduates; and Curtis, M. H., ‘The Alienated Intellectuals of Early Stuart England’, Past and Present, no. 23 (November 1962)Google Scholar, especially 30–3.

^{page 47 note 1} The Life off the 70. Archbishopp of Canterburye …, [Heidelberg] 1574.

^{page 47 note 2} John Joycelyn was a non-resident chaplain, as, apparently, was one ‘Blogg’. George Acworth, who also worked on the original, was a pluralist, a member of Parker's household, and a visitor of the diocese in 1573. Apparently, however, he was not one of Parker's chaplains. D.N.B., sub nomine; Brook, Parker, 322–5; H.M.C., Salisbury, ii. 64.

^{page 47 note 3} Cant. MS. 1569 Clerical Survey and Z/3/10, fols. 4^v, 6, 17, 26 and 46^v.

^{page 47 note 4} Hill, op. cit. 200, 223, 237. For the economic aspects of pluralism, too large and important a matter to be adequately treated here, see ibid., 224–41 and passim, and for a discussion of how economic changes, in the broadest sense, affected the Church all over Europe, see Ferguson, W. K., ‘The Church in a Changing World: a contribution to the Interpretation of the Renaissance’, American Historical Review (A.H.R), lix (1953), 1–18Google Scholar and Europe in Transition: 1300–1520, Boston 1962, 216–36 and passim.

^{page 47 note 5} The graduates who held more than one office (not including curacies) were Edward Barker, S.T.B., Thomas Becon, S.T.B., Richard Beseley, S.T.B., John Bendall (Bewdall), B.A., John Butler, Ll.B., Nicholas Calvert, M.A., Thomas Caly, M.A., Simon Clerk, M.A., William Darrell, M.A., Thomas Ellice, M.A., Edmund Guest, S.T.B., John Hardyman, S.T.P., Humphrey Jurden, B.A., William Lancaster, Ll.B., Thomas Langley, S.T.B., Gervasius Lynche, M.A., Peter Lymiter, M.A., William Marshall, M.A., John Milles, S.T.B., Stephen Nevinson, Ll.D., Alexander Nowell, S.T.P., Thomas Odingsell, B.A., Peter Place, B.A., Lancelot Ridley, S.T.D., John Robson, B.A., Richard Turner, M.A., John Warner, M.D., Thomas Willoughby, M.A., and Nicholas Wotton, Ll.D. C.C.C.C. MS. 580, fols. 1–29^v.

^{page 48 note 1} Some are described as having ‘plura’ benefices.

^{page 48 note 2} Cant. MSS. 1569 Clerical Survey and Z/3/10, fols. 1–47^v; P.R.O., S.P. 12/60, fols. 207–207^v.

^{page 48 note 3} Hill, op. cit., 228.

^{page 48 note 4} Quoted from Elizabeth's commission to William Cecil creating him Lord Burghley in Read, op. cit., 33. Cf. W. T. MacCaffery, ‘Place and Patronage in Elizabethan Polities’, in Bindoff, Hurstfield and Williams, op. cit., especially 102 and 104.

^{page 48 note 5} Curtis, ‘Alienated Intellectuals …’, 32. See the most remarkable conclusions about the extent of popular education in Stone, L., ‘The Educational Revolution in England, 1560–1640’, Past and Present, No. 28 (July 1964), 41–80Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 6} Quoted in Hill, op. cit., 224.

^{page 48 note 7} Recent research on nineteenth-century American politics has revealed that the close connexion between patronage, pluralism and power was in part the child of necessity: if the business magnates did not run the country nobody else would and so the ablest (and not always the most unscrupulous) businessmen also became the powers behind the government—the ‘pluralists’ of another kind and another era. Cf. White, The Republican Era and Wallace, , Farnham, D., ‘“The Weakened Spring of Government”: a Study in Nineteenth Century American History’, A.H.R, lxviii (1963), 668–72Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 1} Hill, op. cit., 230–1.