To this letter the bishop received the following reply from archbishop Laud:
"S. in Xp̃o
My very good Lo:
Aboute a month since I receaved a Lr̃e from your Deane. In wch I finde he is somewhat sensible of the losse yt will come fr. the Prohibition sent in his Maties Name to command ye not renewing of Leases into Lives, and p'ticularly ye not letting of anie pt of the close at Chester to Brewer or Malster. But yet he promises all obedience, and I hope will performe itt. And if your Lp gaine anie Health and contentmt by itt I shall be heartily glad to have beene an Instrument in procuring itt. I hope the Deane takes noe inward pett at this, nor labors to distemper the goverment there, or cast a Bone between ye church and ye citty, thereby to discontent you. For if I should finde this he should heare of me in another way. Yet I must confesse I am afraid there is something that makes the man forward. And that he should doe it at this tyme, & by such meane Instruments as sub-sextons, and that after a Discreete Major had brought the Citty to the Cathedrall agen after a long discontinuance from it, and especialiy wthout so much as acquainting your Lp wth it, seemes to me full of Indiscretion.
My Lo: you know I have not Jurisdiction there. And yet rather then I would suffer anie Distemper to increase I have made bold privatly to acquaint his Matie wth itt; who is not well pleased wth the Action, especially att this tyme; and hath therefore commanded me to write unto you, that you forthwth speake wth the Deane, as also wth the Major and his Brethren that this Difference be composed; and that the Major- ↑ Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser., 1638, 1639, p. 141, vol. cccciv. 5.