Sir

I have now receav’d three Letters from you. And to the first, which beares date March 10 I cannot but approve of your Intention, to send Bamford to succeede Mr Pagett at Amsterdame and so to have another at the Haghe, which will be conformable to the English Liturgie. But whether it will be fit for Rulisius to take that Place upon him, I some what doubt, and that both in respect of his owne person, and of the Church of England. Yet neverthelesse I shall herein doe whatsoever shall be found fittest for that service. If Rulisius disappointed your second meeting with him by his suddayne departure into England, I wonder he should not be come hither before this. Or if he be come, and comes not at mee, I may say to yow, I have deserv’d better of him.

Your other 2 Letters, the other of March 30 and the other of April 9 came to mee together, and with them the Decision of the Haghe-Classis on Mr Bamfords behalfe as also that which you say is provisionall and made by the States Generall. These 2 later Letters of yours I have reade alloud to his Majestie who very well approves of your whole proceedings in this Cause, and likes that Replie that you gave to the 4 particulars insisted upon by Bamford, who you may see, (as well as I discover’d in England) is dyed in grayne. And for the two Decrees which you sent of the States, and the Classis, I thanke you heartily for both, and shall make such use of them, as is fit. And I cannot but see both how easy the Classis is, to usurpe power where they have none, and how violent to make the most of that which seemes to be given them by the States.

His Majestye very well approves both of your temper and Judgment in distinguishing so prudently between the Order made by the States, and that other of the Classis, and would have you continue in the same way, that if it be possible, the States may take noe just exception, the Classis understand themselves, and their Incroachment upon the English Church, and the work itselfe goe on at the Haghe`

Products mould industries. The demands of machines shaped textile engineering, just as engineers fashioned the machines. The technology, constantly in flux, required acceptance of new constituents and techniques. This was only a part of the industry's character and culture. Other matters, real and substantial, determined which trades would be drawn in, and which sidelined; and also influenced the form of workplaces and how the industry was organized. One concern was how to ensure supplies of precision components, particularly spindles and rollers. There was also a question – in fact a series of increasingly demanding questions, as technology developed – of adapting manufacturing processes to accommodate new materials and products. Among many new machines, the throstle was especially challenging and formative.

The throstle

Early in the nineteenth century, the throstle and the mule (a hybrid created by combining elements of jenny and water frame) had come to dominate spinning. The models worked alongside each other, with the throstle producing medium and coarser counts of yarn, in which it had a speed advantage.

Emerging from a breakthrough in Stockport, c. 1779, after a drive led by John Milne and John Swindell to improve Arkwright's spinning frame, the throstle employed a ‘tin’ roller to increase spindle capacity. Because of the thrush-like singing when several worked together, the wooden-framed machine had by 1800 become widely known as the throstle. The roller was hollow, formed from a beaten sheet of iron, possibly (though not essentially) tin-plated. It ran the full length of the machine and powered all the spindles, and so replaced the Arkwright-system pulleys which each drove only four. As the tin-roller principle was refined over following years, the number of spindles per machine multiplied. Throstle frames of 72 spindles were recorded in 1793, and of 144 spindles in 1805. The millwright John Sutcliffe wrote in 1816 that throstles were ‘made with half the expense, work much lighter and require little power compared with water frames’.

In the water frame, Arkwright's ‘mechanical spinning fingers’ consisted of three pairs of drafting rollers (reduced from four on the original 1769 patent), weighted increasingly heavily towards the front. The speed differential between the second (intermediate) and third (front) rollers was by far the highest.

Salutem in Christo

Sir.

I have receaved two letters from you. In the first of which you mention the Catalogue sent to Sir William Boswell of Dr Elichmans Arabic bookes. And I beleeve I shall not trouble them much, but what I doe, shall bee by Sir William Boswell. And I thanke you for the two little Bookes you sent mee, especially that of Grotius.

Your second Letters give mee assurance that Vothier is come into those parts. And I doe not wonder much that he gave the Queene little satisfaction, when hee preach’d before Her. For hee is a very silly dry fellow; and yett as proud as that Faction uses to make ignorant men. Hee's Beneficed in Cheape-side, and was called into the High Commission for refusing the Oath Ex Officio; which he declamed against, and boldly undertooke to Answere that which Bishop Andrewes had written concerning itt. Afterwards he submitted himselfe, and tooke the Oath: and yett agen after that, slipt away into the Low Countryes, where (itt seemes) hee now is.

I am sorry Monsieur Le Maire hath noe better successe about the publication of the Proclamation against printing of Libells. But bee itt as it may. For these are only to lett you know that both your Letters came safe to my hands. Soe to Gods blessed protection I leave you and rest

Your very Lovinge friend

W: Cant:

Lambeth March the last. 1640.

To my very Loving friend Dr Johnson. Chaplen to the Queens Maiestie of Bohemia att the Hague these.

Mr Atturney

His Majestie is pleased to confer upon William Strode Bachelor in divinitie and now Universitie Orator of Oxford and to him that shalbe Orator there for the time being the next Prebend in Christs Church that shall fall voyde, (except the two Prebends there alreadie united to the Divinitie and Hebrew Readers) which Prebend is to bee annexed to the Orators place forever. Soe as he bee within sacred Orders, and soe longe as he shall contine Orator, with such further clauses as you shall think fitt, for which this shalbe your warrant.

W: Cant:

December 10 1635.

Sir:

I am in your debt for twoo letters, but I did not answeare that of the laste weeke, partly for want of leasure; and partly because I thought my late letters would by this weeke drawe another from you.

Your former letter is full of your devotion; for which as I thanke you, so I doubt not but you wilbee myndfull to thanke God. It will one day bringe you more contentment, then those things which to other Men seeme farr more specious. That devotion makes you very bountifull to God, whoe I make noe question wilbee as liberall to you and yours. The Plate therefore which you desier should be made reddy for the Communion Table in your parish Church, I did presently bespeake upon the sight of your letters, and I hope to have them reddy to send to you the next weeke, if the workeman keepe promiss. But I shall restraine your purpose in parte and not make your Flagons soe lardge as you desier. The reasons whereof I shall express when I send the Plate. In the meane tyme I must desier you to thinke I will dispose of this business for you to the best soe farr as my judgment serves.

By your second letters I perceave you have received the Booke I sent you, and shall ever thanke you for such love as you have ever shew’d mee. But I see allready in what page you have fix’d an observation. I doubt it hath anger’d some; but I cannot helpe that and the cause too. But the cause I shall ever love, and their anger I hope I shall never feare.

I have received from your Brother Mr Barnabie Scudamore an Epistle. Hee tooke the paines to come see mee att Westminster and brought it with him. You may see his Suite by the latter end. To Oxford he would faine goe; and if I did not misconceave him hee hopes that is your purpose, which hee desier’d mee to helpe forward. And surely if this Epistle be all his owne doinge, you shall doe well to send him; And the rather because he is growne tall, and soe less fitt for schooling.

Francesco Petrarca (1304–74) termed Avignon ‘Babylon on the Rhône’, a place he described as a site of greedy struggle, moral turpitude and tartarean darkness, a den of thieves where ‘there is no guardian for virtue, justice has perished, liberty has died, equity has vanished, pleasure rules, avarice rages, and envy seethes’. But while for Petrarch Avignon represented the corrupting confluence of secular and ecclesiastical power, he joined the household of Cardinal Giovanni Colonna there in 1326, and Avignon was where he first saw Laura, in April of 1327. Indeed, it is hard to overestimate the degree to which Avignon in the early fourteenth century flourished as a kind of cultural entrepôt, a place of exchange and profit where Italian, French and English ecclesiasts and diplomats met. Beryl Smalley has made this case succinctly: ‘Clerical Europe in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries was still a family with its centre at the Curia.’ The papal court was the destination for those who sought preferment, confirmation, connection and material benefits. The English scholar, cleric and bibliophile Richard de Bury (1287–1345) journeyed there twice on the king's business, in 1330 and 1333. In addition to being appointed a papal chaplain, it was there that he secured the wealthy bishopric of Durham and there that he met his fellow bibliophile Petrarch in 1333 while on a diplomatic mission for Edward III. Petrarch recalled that meeting and his impression of the English cleric in a letter written to Tommaso da Messina on the subject of Petrarch's hope that de Bury might be able to tell him the location of the legendary northern land of Ultima Thule:

Salutem in Christo

Worthy Sir.

I thanke you for all your love and respects to me and the great expressions which your Letters make of them, all which I presume are very harty and reall, and I pray be confident I shall be as ready to doe you all the Service I can, as any other Freind you have in Court.

Mr Secretary Cooke imparted unto me the Letters which you sent unto him, and I thanke you very hartily for the care which by them I see you have taken for the Church. I hope his Majesty will not loose the opportunity which he now hath of setling conformity amonge the Merchants at Delft. And this assure your self, Mr Forbes shall never come thither againe, unless he will conforme himself in all thinges, which I knowe he will not doe, at least in that place. I pray have an Eye what become's of Mr Damport, and let me hear of it.

I have receyved the Booke you sent me, and I thank you for yt alsoe, but I had one of them before, sent me by Vossius, whose Sonne I thinke translated it. If it be your happiness to see Vossius, I pray commend me to him, and tell him, it is onely the multitude of my busynes that make's my penne soe slowe, else he had heard from me before this tyme. Soe wishing you happy success in your affaires, I leave you to Gods grace and rest.

Your very lovinge Freind

W: Cant:

Lambeth. December. 11 1633.

To my much Honoured Freind Sir William Boswell Knight, his Majesties Agent with the States of the United Provinces. At the Hague. these.

For your Pastorall I take little Care, yet wish it well. But for your other Tract I must needs say thus much. Fifteen year's Studye cannot but beat out somthing. And I lyke it well that you mean to have the Judgment of soe many and such men upon it. And if God give me leysure, and the Tract be not too longe I shall be glad to read it too. And the making even of the Old waye will to most Men seeme better then a new. Nevertheless I am yet where I was, that somwhat about those Controversyes is unmasterable in this lyfe neyther can I think any Expression can be soe happye as to settle all theyr difficultyes, neyther can I be of other Beleif till I am convinced. And howsoever I doe much doubt whether the King will take any mans Judgment soe farr as to have these Controversyes any further stirrd, which now God be thanked beginn to be at more peace. And the rather because should that which you call the Smoothing of the Old Waye cayse any new Doubt in opposite Judgments it would make more noyse then ever. And for the Severall Copyes which you mention to send to those Freinds you name, it shall be Wisdome for you to take heed that none be stoln’e out privatly to the Press before you are aware, which should it happen might breed a great deal of trouble to your self and to the Church. This is all I can say to you in this Particular, and sure I am the safest waye is, after your Freinds have seen it, and objected what they can to let it lye by you, and weigh it againe for that I think the Argument may very well bear, and the tymes too.

So in hast etc

There is no question that William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury 1633–45, had a decisive impact on his own time and an enduring influence on the subsequent history of the reformed Church of England. His correspondence is a secure way into the mind and activities of the man, and this volume prints 223 of Laud's letters, drawn from thirty-eight archives, which did not appear in the nineteenth-century edition of his Works. This great seven-volume collection of The Works of the most reverend father in God William Laud DD sometime lord archbishop of Canterbury was edited by William Scott and James Bliss and published by the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology between 1847 and 1860. Volumes VI and VII printed 433 letters written by Laud; volume V contained another 114 letters, 109 reprinted from Laud's own history of his chancellorship of Oxford, and five others relating to his claims to hold a metropolitical visitation of Cambridge university; and volume IV reprints one additional letter. In short, the Works contain a grand total of 548 letters.

Since 1860, much more of Laud's correspondence has come to light, some of it in the Public Record Office (now part of The National Archives), whose holdings were being calendared as the Works of Laud were being assembled, others in private or corporate hands, as revealed in successive volumes of the Historical Manuscripts Commission and in the catalogues of libraries, cathedral archives and local record offices. As many of these as could be traced are gathered together in this volume. Of these 223 letters, 71 (33 per cent) have already been published in extenso, but scattered in many different publications and formats, usually without commentary or footnotes, but another 150 (67 per cent) are printed for the first time here. Taken together, our 223 letters represent an additional 29 per cent of the known corpus of Laud's correspondence, swelling the overall number to 771 letters.

The correspondence published in Laud's Works drew on national collections in London and Oxford, on the holdings of Laud's college of St John's Oxford, on letters already in print, and on the wonderfully rich personal archive of Sir Thomas Wentworth, future earl of Strafford.

Salutem in Christo.

My very good Lord.

I have receaved your Letters of October 15. And I thanke you heartily for them: As also for the Care you take of the Kings Clark Mr Clayton. And your Judgment is very right, That if the Writ of ne admittas growe to bee Common, noe Bishop shall be able to give any Advantage to the Kings Clarke, against either a Criminall, or but a pretending Patron. But since the Judges have Resolved you, That it is not only Paenall to yourselfe, but that it makes the very Act of Institution voyde, if you give it till the ne admittas be taken off, I shall not Advise any such waye; And then Certainly if you Cannot give Institution yourselfe, you Cannot Authorize any other Bishop about London, or els where, to give that, which your selfe Cannot give. I have therefore taken another way. For I have spoken with my Lord Newburgh and hope to prevaile with him for the taking off the ne admittas, which if I can doe, you shall presently heare of me againe, that soe you may proceede: And if I Cannot doe this, I must acquaynt the King with the Busines. And this is all I Can say to that.

I was in Good hope, I should have been able to have sent you better newes about this ne admittas, and sooner. But since as yet I Cannot, I thought it not fit to defer the Other Busines any longer, Concerning your Quadrangle or Abbey-Court, and the Brewhouse, and Mault-House there. I have as you desired me written my Letters by the Kings Command to the Dean and Chapter there. Which are here inclosed; And I pray deliver them. I have likewise sent yourselfe a Copie, that you may see what I have written. And I hope they will Obay itt. If they doe not, I promise you they shall smart for it. So in great hast I leave you to Gods blessed Protection and rest

Your Lordships very Loving friend and Brother

W: Cant:

Lambeth: October 29. 1638.

To the Right Reverend Father in God my very Good Lord and Brother the Lord Bishop of Chester these

HISTORIES of layouts of polyphonic music describe parts in succession in the earliest sources, followed by pseudo-score layout (for example in the so-called monotextual or conductus motet), then an arrangement of the parts in ‘reading windows’ (Lesefenstern; either placing the upper voices of a double motet in two columns on one page or one voice per page of an opening and the tenor on the lowermost stave), and finally by the so-called choir-book layout, which presents the upper parts on facing pages of an opening with the tenor no longer at the bottom of the page but following on directly from either the motetus or the triplum. This becomes the standard layout, and the change of the position of the tenor points to a change in the conceptualization of the tenor part.

These different layouts do not succeed each other in chronological order. There is neither a particular ‘Notre-Dame layout’ nor an ‘Ars antiqua layout’ nor yet an ‘Ars nova layout’ of three-part motets. The consecutive presentation of voices is found from the very beginning of the transmission of motets until the late fourteenth century. And the presentation of the upper parts in two columns with the tenor on a continuous stave at the bottom, which emerges with the liber motetorum, is still found in manuscripts of the second half of the fourteenth century. The only correlation between repertoire layers and distinct layouts is found for the more particular layouts of Mo 7 and 8, to be discussed here.

LAYOUTS IN MO 8

Twenty-one out of the forty-two motets in the final fascicle of Mo are laid out, as in many other thirteenth-century manuscripts, with the upper parts in columns and a continuous stave for the tenor at the bottom (Figure 5.1a); this will be defined here as the standard-column layout. The other twenty-one motets employ a layout not found in any thirteenth-century manuscript (hereafter ‘Mo 8 layout’). This characteristic Mo 8 layout places the end of the triplum on one or more continuous staves below both columns, followed by the tenor on the lowermost stave (Figure 5.1b). The ruling of the pages is the same as for the standard- column layout; only later were the staves of the columns connected.

Henry Jerningham and Elizabeth Forth v. Robert Forth

Elizabeth Forth responded to the news of Charles Forth's flight from England by starting proceedings in the Court of Requests at Westminster. The roots of this court lay in the medieval practice of appointing members of the king's Council to deal with poor petition¬ers’ requests for justice. Its earliest surviving records date from Henry VII's reign. Henry's immediate predecessor Richard III had appointed a clerk concerned with requests and supplications. In 1538–9, Requests became an independent court, separate from the newly established Privy Council, with two judges called masters of requests. In response to the rapid growth in the court's business, Queen Elizabeth added in 1562 two ‘masters extraordinary’ to assist the existing masters. The masters included both civil and common lawyers. The participation of a common lawyer ensured that the court could deal with matters of property in accordance with common law rules. The court's settled home from early in Henry VIII's reign was the Lesser or White Hall in the palace of Westminster. This large chamber lay south of the Great Hall, just past St Stephen's chapel, which was occupied by the Commons when parliaments were in session.

Requests was a court of equity, intended to provide justice for those unable to sue elsewhere. Poverty was the basic criterion of eligibility for suitors’ access. The court's chief responsibility was to hear ‘poor men's causes’. Orders appointed for the operation of the court in 1543 stipulated that all landed gentlemen and other men with movable prop¬erty who brought complaints to the king or his Council were to be ‘remytted to the common lawe, and in default of remedie there, to the Kinges high Court of Chauncerie’. Only the king's household servants ‘attendant upon his person’ were exempted from this rule.

The common law prohibited litigation between spouses. Requests, albeit reluctantly, entertained some suits of this sort. Professor Tim Stretton's exhaustive search for litigation between marriage partners in the records of the court ‘unearthed just thirty-three cases (fought by thirty-one couples) in the years from 1542 to 1642’. They formed a tiny proportion of the business of a court that heard hundreds of cases each year.

Salutem in Christo

My very good Lord,

I am right glad to heare from my Lord Deputy, and your Lordship that all thinges passe soe well in the busynesse of Conna and if the other Countyes, doe as Rosse Common hath lead the way, my Lord will have a prosperous iourney of it, and the Kinge great service. As for the Church, I am sorry you are fallen under such a dangerous dilemma, but God be thanked wee have a gracious Kinge, and for ought I can yet see, you are upon the best resolution that may be, in a Case of such difficulty; namely to have them excepted in the Offices, for that I thinke will void the surreptious Patents gott from the Crowne: and yet after to passe them from the Kinge, in which way, I hope you may find Favour from his gracious Majestie that those abominable alienations, (as you iustly call them) which have been made heertofore by unworthy Churchmen, in all which worke God speed you.

I have heard complaints long since before my Lord Deputyes goeing into that Kingdome, that the Diocesse of Downe hath been more troubled with inconformity, then any other part of Ireland. And I remember the then Bishop made a great apologye about it, which I now perceive by you was but a flash of false fire to save his owne reputation with the Kinge, for it seemes by these Letters of yours that complaint was too true. And therfore if his Majestie meane to have a reformation there, a Bishop must not be made for private ends, but for the publicke. And for my part, I like very well of Deane Lesly, whome my Lord Deputy hath recommended, as well as your Lordship, and shall doe for him toward the obteyning of this Bishoprick, what I may.

My Lord I thanke him, hath given me a full relation of Croxton, and I am very sory he should soe notoriously play the ungratefull man towards my Lord as I am now assured he hath done. As for the playing the foole with himselfe, in exchanging a dignity, for a farre worse Living with Cure, I doubt not but he is, or wilbe punished enough with his owne Folly.

Salutem in Christo

Worthy Sir

The busines of these is but very breife, to entreat you to take care of the enclosed that it be safely delyverd, and to lett you knowe that his Majesty havinge commanded me to appeare in print once more in my old age, I would have sent you one of my Bookes at this tyme if I could have told well how to conveigh it to you. But the next opportunity I have of sending to those Partes God willing you shall not miss of it, which though made up at broken houres such as my leysure would permitt, I doubt not but you will take in good part, from him who wisheth it were worth your reading

Your very lovinge Freind.

W: Cant:

Lambeth. February ultimo 1638

To my Honoured Freind, Sir William Boswell Knight his Majesties Agent At the Hague. these