A HISTORY OF LONDON than once saved it from utter destruction. This feature, however, was exaggerated hy the Reformation, which swept away that indepen- dence which, at its proudest, had bowed to the supremacy of the pope alone, and had given the greatest individuality to Westminster history. The dependence upon the crown which was substituted for this only served to emphasize the political aspect of the abbey church, and to make its preferments the stepping stones to higher things — mere interludes in the life of men whose greatest fame was attained elsewhere. Nor is this the happiest aspect of the abbey history, for preferment thus given in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in- evitably engendered a certain amount of subser- vience to the patrons even upon the part of such men as Dean Goodman and Dean Andrewes. Thus Goodman and his prebendaries, after refu- sing from early in December, 1596, until the close of the following April, to grant at Queen Elizabeth's request a lease of Godmanchester rectory which was contrary to the statutes of the foundation,^' finally gave way before the queen's importunity.^'** Andrewes, moreover, showed a like subserviency to Cecil, postponing what was apparently a most necessary visita- tion of the abbey lands in 1601 until he heard whether the secretary was intending to visit the abbey.2" That promotion in the collegiate church con- tinued to depend on interest with persons of in- fluence in the state is clear from the most casual glance at the numerous petitions for prebends to- wards the close of the seventeenth century .^'^ In 1 69 1 it was proposed for the better distribution of church preferment and the freeing the king from a great deal of importunity that the prebends of Westminster should be limited ' to ministers of London and Westminister ' ; and that ' the minister of St. Margaret's, Westminster,' should ' always be, as at present, one of the prebends, because the House of Commons go to that church, and therefore it is fit there should be encouragement for a good preacher.' ^" But canvassing for prebends was still practised as late as 1780,^" and the possibility of a vacancy at Westminster was regarded as likely to be a desirable factor in Pitt's political programme in 1787.== The sympathies of the canons of West- «» Ca/. of MSS. at Hatfield House (Hist. MSS. Com.), vi, 503-4. "0 Ibid, vii, 169, cf. 182. »" Ibid, xi, 355. '" e.g. Cal. S.P. Dom. 167 ^S/'assim, and 1675-6, pp. 353, 431, 432, &c. ; cf. also Diet. Nat. Biog. under John Williams.
- Cal. S.P. Dom. 168 1-2, p. 49.
"• Rej). on Behoir Castle MSS. (Hist. MSS. Com.), tii, 34- '" Re/>. on MSS. at Dropmore (Hist. MSS. Com.), i, 286. minster in the troubles which preceded the Civil War would seem, at first sight, to have been with the extreme High Church party ; it is at least certain that in the quarrel between Laud and Bishop Williams, who was dean of West- minster, the prebendaries furthered Williams' overthrow to the utmost.^ Some of the evi- dence, however, points to the quarrel beingrather a matter of personal irritation than of doctrinal conviction. In 1636 the dean and canons wrangled over the possession of a certain pew in the abbey, which the dean claimed as his by right and only by courtesy shared with him by ' noble ladies and such of the prebendaries who were bishops,' while the canons maintained that it was the joint property of themselves and of the dean.- The dean, it was said, stooped to threaten one of the vergers who gave evidence in the dispute.^'* Another cause of friction was the suggestion of Dr. Gabriel More that a missing register of chapter acts might possibly be in the dean's pos- session.'" Nor do the epithets 'the little urchin' and ' the little meddling hocus pocus,' applied presumably to Laud by Osbaldeston in his correspondence with Williams,"" seem to raise the quarrel above the plane of personal ani- mosity. Whatever may have been the opinions of the prebendaries, however, the extreme Puritan party had no sooner gained the upper hand in London than they took steps to reduce the abbey to a conformity with their own views. On 24 April, 1643, a committee was appointed to receive information from time to time of any monuments of superstition or idolatry in the abbey church of Westminster, or the windows thereof. . . and they have power to demolish the same where any such ... are informed to be.'" On 21 August following the subdean and pre- bendaries of the cathedral granted ' free use and liberty of their pulpit for such ministers of God's word to preach every Sunday afternoon as shall be nominated ... by this House.' -" In the course of the following year pictures were planed out, the high altar in Henry VII's chapel was taken down, angels were removed, and the crucifix at the north end of the abbey and pictures ' at the conduit leading to the new palace ' cut down. In September the organ loft and more pictures were taken away, and in November seven more pictures and the ' Resur- "« See Cal. S.P. Dom. 1636, p. 265. For a full account of the quarrel between Williams and Laud, which, in its broader issues, hardly belongs to West- minster history, see Gardiner, Hist, of Engl vols, vii, viii. »" Cal. S.P. Dom. 1635-6, p. 218. . "' Ibid. 347. '" Ibid. "° Diet. Nat. Biog. Lambert Osbaldeston. Com. jfourn. iii, 57. Ibid. 213. 452
