BRIDGEMAN, John (1577-1652)

Bridgeman was not a prominent member of the early Stuart episcopal bench. Although his earliest patron, Thomas Dove^*, bishop of Peterborough, commended him as ‘a good scholar and a rare preacher’,26 Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P399/2. Bridgeman published no theological works, nor is he known to have corresponded with any of the leading controversialists of his day. However, the survival of a large quantity of his correspondence, and an extensive set of his accounts, allows for the construction of a more detailed picture of his patronage network, career and finances than almost any other bishop of the time.

Early career to 1619

The Bridgemans were established in Exeter by the sixteenth century: John Bridgeman^‡, a tailor, represented the city in the 1523 Parliament, dying during his sojourn at Westminster. Edward Bridgeman, a member of the city corporation at the start of Elizabeth’s reign, paid a fine to be excused from municipal office in 1562, at the behest of his master Francis Russell^†, 2nd earl of Bedford. A third family member, Jasper Bridgeman, served as registrar for the vice admiralty of Devon between 1576 and at least 1582, and as registrar to the archdeacon of Exeter between 1579 and 1617.27 HP Commons 1509-58, i. 495; W.T. MacCaffrey, Exeter, 1540-1640, pp. 207-8; HCA 25/1, pt. 1, f. 285; 14/21, item filed bet. nos. 42 and 43; J.A. Vage, ‘Dioc. of Exeter, 1519-1641’ (Camb. Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1991), 509, 514. John Bridgeman, the subject of this biography, was baptized in St Petrock’s church on 2 Nov. 1577. Although the eldest surviving son of a merchant – he inherited the family aptitude for accountancy – he opted for an academic career, graduating BA from Peterhouse, Cambridge in 1597, and moving to Magdalene College by the time of his MA in 1600. He may have hoped for preferment at Oxford, as both his degrees were collated there.28 Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, p. 110; Al. Cant.; K. Fincham, Prelate as Pastor, 291.

Neither Peterhouse nor Magdalene was fully committed to the Calvinist consensus which dominated many colleges in late Elizabethan Cambridge. Like many contemporaries who had misgivings about the dogmas of Genevan theology, Bridgeman avoided publishing polemical works. Also, even before the advent of Laudianism, he bestowed considerable sums on the repair and edification of churches; while his patrons and friends held an eclectic range of theological opinions. Bridgeman’s time as a fellow at Magdalene coincided with the mastership of John Palmer, a spendthrift who is unlikely to have shaped his religious opinions.29 Cunich et al. 92-4; Wigan AS, D/DZ/A13/1, pp. 146-7; B.W. Quintrell, ‘Lancashire Ills, the King’s Will and the Troubling of Bp. Bridgeman’, Trans. Hist. Soc. of Lancs. and Cheshire, cxxxii. 69-70. However, Palmer presumably used his influence as dean of Peterborough to recommend Bridgeman to Bishop Dove, who ordained him and appointed him as one of his chaplains in 1601.

Bridgeman was appointed university preacher at Cambridge in 1603. However, six months later – presumably through his father’s influence – he secured a prebend attached to the chapel of Exeter Castle.30 CCEd; Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, p. 110; D1287/18/2, P399/2. As this was no more than a sinecure, in October 1604 Dove recommended Bridgeman to Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk – visitor of Magdalene College – for preferment to a benefice; he was promptly instituted as vicar of North Tawton, Devon, and licensed to retain his Exeter prebend. At the same time he became engaged to a daughter of William Helyar, newly appointed archdeacon of Barnstaple. Her dowry of £400 was modest (and paid years in arrears), but Bridgeman’s father-in-law was a useful contact within the diocesan administration: shortly after his wedding, in April 1606, Bridgeman paid £200 for the vicarage of Heavitree, Devon, apparently borrowing against the promise of his wife’s dowry.31 Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P399/2; D1287/3/1, pp. 110, 130; Cunich et al. 69; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 158; C58/8.

Although Bridgeman’s prospects in his native county were now good – his livings were worth over £100 a year – Bishop Dove secured him a prebend at Peterborough in 1605, and appointment as a royal chaplain, probably that same year. Bridgeman and his family lived in the episcopal palace at Peterborough for several years, with the bishop’s wife standing as godmother to his third son, Dove Bridgeman, in 1610.32 Fasti, viii, 125; Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, pp. 110, 121-2, 129, 132-3, 135. It was at this time that Bridgeman first demonstrated his administrative talents. In the autumn of 1609 he journeyed to London to settle the diocese’s arrears of clerical taxation with the Exchequer, and on his return he was appointed receiver of the dean and chapter revenues, an office he held three times in the next six years. He made several further journeys to London about the chapter’s business, and occasionally borrowed small sums for his personal use from official revenues passing through his hands. However, in 1610 he fell foul of the other canons in a dispute over entry fines for copyhold leases, which he claimed as a perquisite of his office as receiver.33 Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, pp. 117, 119-20, 122, 125-7, 129, 131, 134, 138-40.

Bridgeman’s quest for preferment continued unabated during his time at Peterborough. In 1610 he exchanged his two Devonshire livings for the rectory of Bexhill, Sussex. He preached once in his new parish, at his induction, but then installed a curate and leased the tithes to his father-in-law for £200 a year. Awarded his doctorate at Cambridge in 1612, he spent £120 in celebrating the event, probably because he had been promised another sinecure, at Gedney, Lincolnshire, to which he had recently been presented by the crown. He was, however, never instituted, as the living had already been granted to the polemicist Richard Hakluyt.34 Ibid. 110, 123, 125, 133, 138; Al. Cant. Presumably with Helyar’s encouragement, Bridgeman secured a prebend at Exeter Cathedral in 1613, on the recommendation of Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, high steward of Exeter city and patron of the local bishop, William Cotton^*. Bridgeman was also granted the next vacancy among the residentiary canons (worth £100 a year), which fell vacant in 1615. His intention to take up residence at Exeter was initially frustrated by sickness, and then superseded by a grant of the rectory of Wigan, Lancashire, worth over £500 annually, which more than doubled his income.35 Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, pp. 110, 140-3, 148; Fasti, xii. 56; C.F. Patterson, Urban Patronage in Early Modern Eng. 247; Vage, 291; Harl. 7002, f. 295; Wigan AS, D/DZ/A13/1, ff. 1v-2. Much of the value of this living derived from revenues claimed as lord of the manor, but these were strongly contested by the Wigan corporation, and Bridgeman had to assert his claims aggressively. In February 1619 George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury, Lancelot Andrewes^*, bishop of Ely, and chief justices Sir Henry Montagu^* (later 1st earl of Manchester) and Sir Henry Hobart^‡ ruled that the rector was to enjoy the profits of the manor and its court baron. However, they also decided that the town’s potters were to have free access to clay from the commons, and that the town and rector were to split the profits of the annual courts leet and fairs between them. The legal fees incurred during the pursuit of this case cost Bridgeman almost £300. At the Ascension Day fair of 1619, at which this ruling was first enforced, Bridgeman mustered local magistrates and servants to avert any trouble.36 Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, p. 145, 149, 151, 155; HMC Kenyon, 24-5; Cheshire Archives, EDA2/2, ff. 90v-1; Wigan AS, D/DZ/A13/1, pp. 54-74, 77-84.

Promotion to the bishopric of Chester, 1615-19

The new rector’s successful assertion of his claims against Wigan’s townsmen was doubtless assisted by his rapidly rising stock at court. Ordered to attend King James on his visit to Edinburgh in the summer of 1617, he apparently found royal favour, preaching seven times during the journey. Rewards flowed quickly thereafter: having already acquired a prebend at Lichfield Cathedral in 1616, in February 1618 he was appointed a resident canon. The revenues, around £50 a year, were modest, but Lichfield represented a convenient resting place on Bridgeman’s increasingly frequent journeys to London.37 Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, pp. 110, 145, 150, 152; HMC Downshire, vi. 139.

In May 1618 Bridgeman, described as ‘an excellent pulpit man’, was tipped for the deanery of Windsor. However, this went to Marc’Antonio de Dominis, the former Catholic archbishop of Spalato, a high-profile convert to the Church of England. The king made handsome amends, offering Bridgeman the bishopric of Chester three months later, when the incumbent, Thomas Morton^*, was promised the bishopric of Coventry and Lichfield. However, Bridgeman was not consecrated until May 1619, by which time he had spent £300 and several months in London settling the terms of his appointment. Since Chester was not particularly well endowed (valued at little more than £700 a year), Bridgeman was allowed to hold Wigan (where he continued to live) in commendam.38 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 161, 163; N. Malcolm, De Dominis (1560-1624): Venetian, Anglican, Ecumenist and Relapsed Heretic, 67-9; C58/23; Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, pp. 110, 151, 154. Furthermore, in 1621 he exchanged his prebends at Exeter and Lichfield for the rectory of Bangor Monachorum, Flintshire (which lay within Chester diocese, and had been held as a sinecure by three of Bishop Morton’s predecessors); at nearly £300 p.a., this was worth over twice the revenues he surrendered, although it took him two years to clear his title in a dispute with the countess of Derby.39 Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, pp. 170, 175; Harl. 7000, f. 107v.

In five years Bridgeman had risen from a cathedral canon worth perhaps £500 a year, to a bishop with an income of £2,500 to £3,000 p.a. This lucrative succession of preferments suggests that he enjoyed patronage far more powerful than that exercised by Sir Richard Trevor^‡, who nominated him for Bangor rectory, or by John Overall, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (later bishop of Norwich), who presumably had a hand in his appointment at Lichfield Cathedral. Shortly before Bridgeman was selected for Chester, the pro-Spanish party at court had suffered a blow with the disgrace of Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, but Bridgeman clearly continued to rely on their support, as he gave Secretary of State Sir George Calvert^‡ a gilt cruet following his consecration. Additionally, it would seem likely that Bridgeman had caught the king’s eye in Scotland.

It should also be noted that Bridgeman’s expenditure rose alongside his income: in 1616 he commissioned portraits of himself and his wife, and began to acquire a serious theological library; in 1619 he spent £100 on a dinner to celebrate his consecration, distributed gloves of a similar value, and had his portrait painted in episcopal robes; while he purchased a coach and four in order to cut a dash upon his return to Wigan.40 Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, pp. 145, 154.

Parliament and local politics, 1621-9

Although the bishops of Chester had no London mansion, Bridgeman came to Westminster in style for the 1621 Parliament, spending a total of £373 during his sojourn. He brought with him his entire family and his coach, taking lodgings in Westminster for 24 weeks during the spring sitting, and paying £16 for new Parliament robes. Although he missed at least six days of the session through ill health, he attended 80 per cent of the Lords’ sittings, and preached twice before the king.41 Ibid. 170; LJ, iii. 25a, 26b, 29b, 96a, 114b, 130a.

At the start of the session Bridgeman was named to a committee appointed to scrutinize two bills to ban the export of iron ordnance, and attended two conferences with the Commons to discuss a joint petition to King James to enforce the recusancy laws. During the impeachment of the monopolist Sir Giles Mompesson^‡, he was included on the committee for investigating the accused’s administration of the patent for gold and silver thread.42 LJ, iii. 13a, 17a, 18b, 47a. He was also included on a committee for a private bill concerning the estates of Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham. He was probably nominated to the committee for the controversial Welsh cottons bill because of its relevance to the clothiers of the southern part of his diocese.43 Ibid. 36b, 101b, 105b, 110b. His last committee appointment before the summer recess was to examine a prisoner in the Fleet alleged to have made ‘scandalous speeches … touching the late sentence against [Edward] Floyd’, a Shropshire Catholic who had insulted Princess Elizabeth (1 June). His son Richard was born two days later, and christened at Westminster Abbey, with Bishop Morton, Richard Parry^*, bishop of St Asaph and the wife of Rowland Searchfield^*, bishop of Bristol standing as godparents.44 Ibid. 151a-b; Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, p. 167.

Bridgeman returned to Westminster in mid November for the autumn sitting, staying 11 weeks, but his only mention in the Lords’ records during this time was his nomination to a committee for a bill concerning licences of alienation.45 Wigan AS, D/DZ/A13/1, p. 118; Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, p. 170; LJ, iii. 182b. In the aftermath of the dissolution, he raised contributions of £500 from his diocesan clergy towards the relief of the Protestant garrisons in the Palatinate, worth almost a clerical subsidy – a rather better yield than most dioceses achieved.46 SP14/133/13; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE1409.

Bridgeman’s relations with his Wigan neighbours remained tense even after the arbitration of their main dispute in 1619. There was another clash in October 1620, when Robert Barrow, mayor of Wigan, confronted Bridgeman at the local quarter sessions, claiming that the corporation, rather than the bishop, had jurisdiction over alehouse licences in the town. The magistrates gaoled Barrow for contempt after he refused to doff his hat to the bench, but he was subsequently vindicated by an action of habeas corpus brought in the duchy of Lancaster court at Westminster. It was probably at this time that Barrow claimed Bridgeman had said ‘the mayor [of Wigan] has not the authority to whip a dog’.47 Wigan AS, D/DZ/A13/1, pp. 111-12; HMC Kenyon, 25. The dispute remained in abeyance during the 1621 Parliament, but in May 1622 Barrow sued Bridgeman and his fellow magistrates for false imprisonment. Chief Justice Hobart threw his actions out of court, telling Barrow ‘to go home and submit himself to his lord, the bishop of Chester’, advice he contritely followed. Bridgeman subsequently filed a Star Chamber bill against Barrow for conspiracy, Barrow having prosecuted townsmen who refused to contribute to his legal costs. The corporation were thoroughly cowed by November 1624: when Bridgeman denied their claim to decide who held the freedom of the borough, they not only meekly fell into line but also offered to appoint his son Orlando^‡ an alderman.48 Wigan AS, D/DZ/A13/1, pp. 131-4, 162, 173-4; Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P399/10.

It is possible that Bridgeman had some hand in the election of Sir Anthony St. John^‡ as the senior Member for Wigan in January 1624. Although St. John was distantly related to Sir Peter Legh^‡, another local landowner, Bridgeman’s growing influence within the parish suggests that at the very least he could have exercised a veto had he wished to do so.49 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 218-19; vi. 139. He spent £200 in attending the 1624 Parliament, during which time he buried one of his daughters in St Margaret’s, Westminster. He held Bishop Dove’s proxy, and attended two-thirds of the sittings.50 Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, pp. 182, 184; LJ, iii. 212a. However, as a one time client of the pro-Spanish party at court, he may have felt uncomfortable in a session dominated by anti-Spanish rhetoric; he certainly left little trace on its records. On 11 Mar. he was chosen to attend a conference with the Commons at which Prince Charles urged the lower House to cooperate in persuading the king to effect a breach with Spain; but otherwise he was not involved in debates concerning war, recusancy or the impeachment of hispanophile courtiers.51 LJ, iii. 256a. He was named to two committees for estate bills, one for Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford, and the other for the estates of a Cheshire landowner. At the end of the session he was ordered to arbitrate a dispute involving another branch of the Legh family.52 Ibid. 253b, 291a, 413a.

At the 1625 general election Bridgeman secured the return of his younger brother Edward at Wigan. Leaving his family in Lancashire because of the plague which had broken out in London, he fell sick shortly after arriving at Westminster. The groom of the stole, Sir James Fullerton^‡, obtained leave of absence for him, and by 23 June he had granted his proxy to Bishop Morton and Theophilus Field^*, bishop of Llandaff.53 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 219; Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, p. 187; Procs. 1625, p. 45. Although the Lords’ attendance records show him as present in the House on six subsequent occasions, he had probably departed for Lancashire: his ledger suggests that at the time he was actually in Wigan, implementing quarantine regulations to guard his parishioners against the plague.54 Procs. 1625, p. 594; Wigan AS, D/DZ/A13/1, p. 179-82; Hist. of the Church and Manor of Wigan, 289-90.

The 1626 general election coincided with a fresh dispute between the bishop and Wigan’s mayor, Hugh Ford, about the misappropriation of municipal funds. Perhaps in order to avoid a public snub by the townsmen, Bridgeman had his brother returned for Liverpool instead. Bishop Bridgeman arrived in Westminster armed with Bishop Dove’s proxy, and although under treatment for gallstones, he attended virtually all of the Lords’ sittings during this session. Nevertheless, he also registered his own proxy with the bishop of Bath and Wells (presumably William Laud^*, later archbishop of Canterbury, rather than the latter’s predecessor at Wells, Arthur Lake^*), John Howson^*, bishop of Oxford and Robert Wright^*, bishop of Bristol, presumably because of continuing doubts about his health.55 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 219; Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, p. 190; Procs. 1626, iv. 10.

The 1626 Parliament was dominated by impeachment proceedings against the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham, and his enemy John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol. On this occasion, Bridgeman became involved: on 9 May he was one of the committee ordered to consult the judges to ascertain whether King Charles’s evidence about Bristol’s conduct in Madrid in 1623 was admissible as evidence against the earl. He was also one of those who examined witnesses about the king’s charges against Bristol; and on 15 May he was one of many peers who protested that Sir Dudley Digges’s^‡ presentation of the charges against Buckingham which had led to his arrest included nothing ‘that he could conceive did touch the king’s honour’.56 Procs. 1626, i. 389, 483, 545, 597. None of this establishes which side Bridgeman supported in this bitter quarrel, which was probably the impression he intended to convey at the time. He was also named to committees for some of the more routine business of the session: the Cheshire estate bill committee to which he had been named in 1624; the bill to enfranchise the crown’s copyholders in Bromfield and Yale lordship, Denbighshire, which lay near his living at Bangor; and the jointure bill for the Staffordshire landowner Dutton Gerard^*, 3rd Lord Gerard.57 Ibid. 57, 327, 545.

Whatever his views about the 1626 Parliament may have been, Bridgeman actively supported the Forced Loan, by which the king attempted to collect the taxation lost at the dissolution, serving as a commissioner in Lancashire. Under the leadership of Bridgeman and William Stanley^*, 6th earl of Derby, the county raised £4,426 6s. 8d., paid into the Exchequer in June 1627 by Sir Cecil Trafford. This figure represented 77.8 per cent of the county’s original quota, slightly more than the average yield of 72 per cent, an effort which won the gratitude of both Charles and the Privy Council.58 Hist. of the Church and Manor of Wigan, 292; SP16/64/3; Lancs. RO, DD/KE/3/68; Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P399/38; S. Healy, ‘Oh, What a Lovely War?’, Canadian Jnl. of Hist. xxxviii.463. At the 1628 election, Bridgeman’s brother stood for election at Wigan once again: on a slate of seven candidates, he took the second seat by a comfortable margin. Bridgeman, however, failed to join him at Westminster: falling sick at Lichfield, he granted his proxy to Bishop Morton and Joseph Hall^*, bishop of Exeter, and returned home.59 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 217; Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, p. 195; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 25, 87. Although still unwell, he did manage to attend the 1629 session, laying out £160 during his stay, and a further £10 on doctors’ fees. He missed the first two days of the session, but was thereafter present in the Lords almost every day. He was named to a committee appointed to consider bills to repair churches and augment curates’ stipends – problems he attempted to remedy in his own diocese – and another for the revived bill to establish an academy for gentlemen, promoted on this occasion by Thomas Howard^*, 14th/21st earl of Arundel. He was also named to the committee to report on the defences of the realm, and another to consider the fees payable by a man arrested for breach of parliamentary privilege.60 Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, p. 198; LJ, iv. 31a, 35a, 37b, 39a-b.

Diocesan administration, 1619-30

Bridgeman’s papers contain much information about his personal affairs, but shed little light on his diocesan administration during the 1620s. He assembled a remarkable amount of data about his diocesan revenues, both landed and spiritual, and kept an episcopal court of audience at Wigan, even though his main residence was 35 miles from the main diocesan administration at Chester. This irregularity, and the fact that he did not even visit his cathedral during his first 18 months as bishop,61 Cheshire Archives, EDA3/1-2; Wigan AS, D/DZ/A13/1, p. 112; Fincham, 100; R.V.H. Burne, Chester Cathedral, 98. For diocesan accounts in his private papers, see Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1; D1287/19/2A, P1319, P1321. did not go unnoticed, for in 1630 Samuel Harsnett^*, archbishop of York, and Thomas Wentworth^*, Viscount Wentworth (later 1st earl of Strafford), lord president of the council in the North, instructed Bridgeman that the king wished him to move to Chester. Bridgeman, however, replied that his residence at Wigan was necessary for the good government of his bishopric, for ‘being near the centre of my diocese’ it ‘may stop those currents of popery and schism which, had I not lived here, ere this would unavoidably have overflown this country’.62 HMC Cowper, i. 401; Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P399/49. There was some truth in this argument: Lancashire was the centre of both Protestant and Catholic nonconformity in Chester diocese; and Bridgeman did attempt to address both problems during his time at Wigan.

While Bishop Morton, Bridgeman’s predecessor at Chester, regularly attempted to secure the conversion of Catholics, Bridgeman restricted his attentions to those who questioned royal authority. In 1618 he had a Lancashire gentleman cited into High Commission for insulting archbishop de Dominis, and in 1620 he took considerable pains to secure custody of the crown’s 12-year-old ward, Christopher Anderton, in order to remove him from the influence of his uncle, a Catholic polemicist.63 Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P399/4; SP14/112/21; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 120; L.A. Underwood, ‘Childhood, Youth and Catholicism in Eng. c.1558-1660’ (Camb. Univ. Ph.D.thesis, 2011), pp. 77-8. At the outbreak of war with Spain in October 1625, Bridgeman arrested his neighbour Sir Thomas Gerrard, 2nd bt.^‡, for spreading rumours of a plot in Warwickshire or Worcestershire, and threatening to rise against the king’s sister, Elizabeth of Bohemia, if she inherited the throne of England. He also reported other loose talk, and rumours of clandestine meetings of Catholics in Wharmer [Quernmore] Forest.64 SP16/7/69; 16/10/42; HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 610. In the right circumstances, Bridgeman was prepared to co-operate with Catholics such as Sir Cecil Trafford, collector of the Lancashire Forced Loan in 1627, whom he helped to compound for recusancy fines at reasonable rates in 1631.65 Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P399/64, 71; Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP24/37. When Lord President Wentworth took over the northern recusancy composition scheme in 1629, he found Bridgeman’s local knowledge ‘a great and principal light to guide us in our compositions at York’; with the bishop’s assistance, over 260 Lancashire recusants had compounded by 1634. It was in recognition of the bishop’s ‘cares and pains’ in this service that the king modified his earlier decision in respect of Bridgeman’s living arrangements, allowing Bridgeman to spend half the year in Lancashire.66 Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P399/45, 48, 51, 53-4, 56; E351/427-9; SP16/163/28; Hist. of the Church and Manor of Wigan, 334; Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP12/230.

Until 1632, when Richard Neile^* was appointed archbishop of York, Bridgeman took a relaxed attitude towards puritanism in Lancashire. Many years later, Richard Baxter recalled that he had rescinded Bishop Morton’s suspension of several ministers upon his appointment, while Bridgeman’s cathedral visitations of 1619 and 1623 merely sought to establish that there was a regular rota of preaching rather than to inquire about the contents of the sermons given.67 P. Collinson, Religion of Protestants, 279-80; R.C. Richardson, Puritanism in North-West Eng. 22; Vis. Articles ed. K. Fincham (Church of Eng. Rec. Soc. i), 153-6; Burne, 99-102. (Regrettably, none of Bridgeman’s diocesan visitation articles for the 1620s survive.) It is true that, during negotiations for the Spanish Match in 1622-3, his diocesan courts saw increased numbers of laymen presented for receiving communion standing or sitting, rather than kneeling, and that at least one of them was ordered to confer with Bridgeman about his scruples. It is also the case that in 1625 Bridgeman had an order of penance printed for use by those intending to purge their excommunication. However, there is little evidence of an effective attempt to enforce conformity during the decade.68 Cheshire Archives, EDA3/1, f. 197; EDV1/23, passim; 1/24, f. 149. We owe these references to Ken Fincham. As late as 1629 – when the king was concerned to restrict controversial sermons – Bridgeman allowed Liverpool’s corporation to establish a new lectureship; his stated intention was that it should not become a forum for controversy, but the local firebrand Richard Mather was regularly invited to preach. During the 1630s Bridgeman regularly welcomed his puritan neighbour John Angier into his house at Lever, as a confidant of his wife, who was ‘much afflicted’ by the deaths of her children.69 Richardson, 113, 141. One of the few occasions on which Bridgeman deprived a preacher occurred in 1623, when James Martin was removed from his living at Preston. However, Martin was dismissed not for heterodox preaching, but for trying to hold the benefice in commendam with the post of king’s preacher at nearby Ormskirk. Bridgeman, who coveted the patronage, persuaded King James to bar lectureships to pluralists. Martin subsequently departed for London where, in 1630, he libellously claimed that Bridgeman’s surname was a derivation of Pontius Pilate.70 Quintrell, 68, 75-6; SP14/121/68; Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P399/11.

The diocesan fees commission, 1633

After a decade in post, Bridgeman had used his administrative talents to amass a considerable private fortune: at Christmas 1628 he held over £4,500 in cash, and as much again out at loan. Over the next three years he spent £12,000 on land purchases, the centrepiece of which was Sir Ralph Assheton’s^‡ estate at High Lever and Bolton, east of Wigan, worth almost £400 p.a.; he promptly inaugurated a substantial programme of building works at Lever Hall.71 Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, pp.195-6, 198, 200, 202-3. This conspicuous display of wealth in the face of his enemies was sure to excite gossip, and in 1632 James Martin informed Sir Henry Mildmay^‡ that Bridgeman had acquired £10,000 by embezzling the fines paid in commutation of public penance by those excommunicated in the church courts. Such sums were supposed to be assigned to ‘pious uses’ such as church repairs or endowment of poor livings, but there were no systematic checks on the disposal of these revenues. Mildmay, while doubting the veracity of Martin’s tale, reported this allegation to Sir Thomas Canon^‡, a member of the fees commission appointed in 1627 to provide a check on the misappropriation of public funds by private individuals.72 Quintrell, 76-7; Fincham, 171-2. Martin could not have timed his accusation better, as Bridgeman’s stock was waning at court. In the summer of 1631 Wentworth had attempted to secure Bridgeman a better diocese – perhaps even the archdiocese of York – in the round of promotions which followed the death of Archbishop Harsnett. His lack of success may be ascribed to the king’s growing disenchantment with Bridgeman, who had ignored royal instructions calling for comprehensive annual reports from each diocese, despite Harsnett’s tart reminders, and had responded unenthusiastically to Bishop Laud’s call for donations towards the repair of St Paul’s Cathedral.73 Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P399/52, 59; D1287/9/8/3, A93, A100-7, A110; Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP20/119.

In January 1633 the king gave Canon a wide-ranging commission to investigate Bridgeman’s conduct. In the course of several weeks in Lancashire, Canon examined dozens of witnesses, who offered a multiplicity of charges against the bishop. Bridgeman’s servants followed every turn of this inquiry, questioning both the witnesses and Canon’s fellow-commissioners to probe for any weakness.74 Quintrell, 77-83. The notes made by Bridgeman’s servants are in Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P1006/1-42. Concerning the main charge against him, Bridgeman insisted that he had received no more than £1,074 in commutation fines, and spent much more than this on pious uses, including a new chancel at Wigan and refurbishments at Chester. At the start of his episcopate, he insisted, he had assigned the revenues from commutations to his steward William Brown, with orders to bestow them on a carefully defined list of pious uses. His accounts contained several memoranda to this effect, and while a sceptic might speculate that these could have been interpolated at a later date, it was as difficult for Canon to prove wrongdoing as it was for Bridgeman to prove his innocence.75 Quintrell, 78-80; Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, pp. 160, 168, 173, 177, 204. Canon, who may well have anticipated such an outcome, responded that the issue could be resolved with a loan of £10,000 – by which he probably meant a donation to the refurbishment of St Paul’s Cathedral – but Bridgeman declined to be browbeaten.76 Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, p. 204; D1287/9/8, A100-7, A110.

With the investigation deadlocked, the innumerable charges Canon had unearthed against Bridgeman in Lancashire were referred to High Commission in London. The king clearly wanted to make an example of Bridgeman, but following Charles’s departure for Scotland in May 1633, Bridgeman petitioned the Privy Council to prosecute James Martin and his other accusers in Star Chamber. Some of the councillors left in London clearly had misgivings about the hounding of Bridgeman, and Charles was asked to reconsider the proceedings in High Commission: he responded angrily, insisting that his wishes be obeyed, and ordering the text of this letter to be cut out of the Council register. As Wentworth warned Laud, the dispute had the capacity to discredit the entire episcopal hierarchy, and wiser counsels eventually prevailed. When Charles returned to London he accepted a compromise which saved face for all concerned: the charges against Bridgeman were dropped; but he publicly agreed to contribute £40 a year towards the repair of St Paul’s; and privately paid a further £2,500 over the next five years.77 Quintrell, 83-93; SP16/234/49; 16/237/13; 16/254/47; PC2/43, ff. 13v, 60v; HMC Cowper, ii. 15; Bolton Central Lib. ZBR/1/1.

Later career, 1634-52

One final humiliation was heaped upon Bridgeman in December 1633, when he submitted his annual report to Archbishop Neile, who passed it to the king with the advice that its findings were sharply at odds with his own experience of the diocese during his recent archiepiscopal visitation. However, having presumably secured promises of future cooperation from Bridgeman, Neile made light of his remarks, promising the king that there would be significant improvements in the coming year.78 ‘Annual accts. of the Church of Eng. 1632-39’ ed. K. Fincham, From the Reformation to the Permissive Soc. ed. H. Barber and S. Taylor (Church of Eng. Rec. Soc. xviii), 89-94; Staffs. RO, D1287/9/8/3, A93. Bridgeman duly became an enthusiastic convert to Laudian ecclesiastical policies, as is demonstrated by his visitation articles of 1634 and 1637; he also spent much more time at Chester, where he refurbished the cathedral and set up a stone altar, to the dismay of his sub-dean, John Ley, who tartly observed that his diocesan ‘prudently applieth himself to the times, and acteth his part accordingly’.79 Burne, 116-19; N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 223; K. Fincham and N. Tyacke, Altars Restored, 200-1, 213-14; J. Ley, Letter against the erection of an altar (1641); Intro. to Further Corresp. of William Laud ed. K. Fincham (Church of Eng. Rec. Soc. xxiii) (forthcoming). We owe the point about the visitation articles to Ken Fincham. In 1637, when William Prynne^‡ passed through Chester following his conviction in Star Chamber, he was feted by the townsmen. Bridgeman played an active part in bringing the ringleaders to prosecution before the York High Commission, and oversaw their public penance in Chester Cathedral.80 Staffs. RO, D1287/9/8/3, A93, A110. The quid pro quo for his cooperation with Neile and Laud was that no-one objected to the resumption of his land purchases: between 1634 and 1640 he spent a further £15,000, and by the Civil War he held private estates worth over £800 a year.81 Staffs. RO, D1287/3/1, pp. 207, 209, 213, 215, 220.

Bridgeman was active in raising forces for the king’s army in the north-west during the Bishops’ Wars. He attended the Short Parliament, sending a newsletter to the absentee Bishop Morton, and promoted the controversial Canons of 1640 in his diocese.82 Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P399/191, 191A, 194-5, 202-4, 206; D1287/9/8/3, A93. He was closely identified with Wentworth (now earl of Strafford), but apparently lost heart after the latter’s execution, and does not seem to have returned to the Lords after he was granted leave of absence on 13 Aug. 1641. He and his son Sir Orlando played a key role in ensuring that Chester declared for the king in the summer of 1642, but while his son was an active royalist, being captured with the garrison of his wife’s house at Moreton Corbet, Shropshire, Bridgeman retired to the manor of Bromborough, Cheshire, one of his recent purchases.83 LJ, iv. 58a, 361b; J.S. Morrill, Cheshire 1630-60, p. 129; CSP Dom, 1644, p. 485; Staffs. RO, D1287/10/1/6, O215. The parliamentarians detained him after the fall of Chester in 1646, and stripped him of his ecclesiastical livings, while he was not allowed to compound for his private estates, because of his refusal to take the Covenant; he also came under suspicion for continuing to ordain ministers while under arrest. He was apparently released early in 1648, following which he lived with his son Orlando until his death, four years later; he was buried at Kinnerley, Shropshire on 11 Nov. 1652.84 Staffs. RO, D1287/10/1, composition papers; D1287/10/1/6, O215; Oxford DNB, vii. 568. He does not seem to have left a will, presumably because he had very little property left to dispose of. His son Orlando, an eminent lawyer, served as lord chancellor under Charles II.