CHADERTON, William (c.1537-1608)

Hailing from a minor Lancashire gentry family, Chaderton was a cousin of the puritan Laurence Chaderton, whose views on ecclesiastical authority were much more radical than his own. Educated at Cambridge under Queen Mary, William Chaderton took a first tonsure with the Franciscans at St Bartholomew’s-the-Great in London on 24 Sept. 1558, and was then ordained deacon and priest in the opening months of Elizabeth’s reign by Edmund Bonner^†, bishop of London, shortly before the latter was deprived for his refusal to support the Elizabethan religious settlement. At the same time, Chaderton secured a fellowship at Christ’s, Cambridge, a conservative college until its Catholic master absconded in June 1559.26 Oxford DNB, x. 830; CCEd.

For all his conservative background, Chaderton remained in post as the religious complexion of the university changed, becoming a protégé of the new university chancellor, William Cecil^† (later 1st Lord Burghley), under whose patronage he was appointed to the two professorships of divinity in turn, and then to the presidency of Queens’ College. Meanwhile, in 1568, Robert Dudley^†, earl of Leicester, whom he served as chaplain, secured for him a sinecure as archdeacon of York; Leicester also approved his marriage to the daughter of a household official in the following year. In April 1570, Chaderton made an official complaint to Cecil about the doctrinal positions of the puritan Thomas Cartwright, his successor as Lady Margaret professor at Cambridge, which led to the latter’s removal by John Whitgift^† (later archbishop of Canterbury).27 H.C. Porter, Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Camb. 102-3; 142, 174, 177; Fasti, iv. 13; Oxford DNB, x. 830.

Following his marriage, Chaderton was appointed rector of Holywell-cum-Needingworth, Huntingdonshire, where he bought a house and 150 acres, presumably with his wife’s dowry; he held this living in tandem with the presidency at Queens’ until his consecration as bishop of Chester in 1579.28 PROB 11/47, f. 155; C142/302/90; J. Twigg, Hist. Queens’ Coll. Camb. 39-41. In the north, he focussed on the struggle against Catholicism in Lancashire, basing himself at the collegiate church in Manchester, where he held the wardenship in commendam with his see. He was on cordial terms with the local magnate, Henry Stanley^†, 3rd earl of Derby, but his superior, Edwin Sandys^†, archbishop of York, worried about his reluctance to enforce conformity among the puritan clergy.29 J. Harington, Briefe View of the State of the Church of England (1653), 81; R.C. Richardson, Puritanism in North-West Eng. 18-19, 65-6; Oxford DNB, x. 831. Translated to Lincoln in 1595 under the patronage of Burghley and his son Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury), to whom he gratefully addressed a Latin poem, he spent relatively little time in the episcopal manor house at Buckden, Huntingdonshire, preferring a nearby estate at Southoe, Huntingdonshire, which he purchased in 1598.30 C142/302/90; CPR, 1597-8 ed. C. Smith, H. Watt, S.R. Neal and C. Leighton (L. and I. Soc. cccxxvi), 106; B. Usher, Ld. Burghley and Episcopacy, 1577-1603, p. 140. His episcopal rents of £830 a year – significantly larger than those of Chester – were augmented by the revenues of nine Lincolnshire livings held in commendam, which increased Chaderton’s annual income by over £400; he managed this income efficiently, appointing a diocesan surveyor in 1606.31 H. Hajzyk, ‘Church in Lincs. c.1595-c.1640’ (Camb. Univ. Ph.D. 1980), 38-46; Add. 12503, f. 345.

Lincoln diocese sprawled across six counties, and much of the bishop’s authority was delegated to subordinate officials, who were often reluctant to accept guidance from their diocesan. Despite the appointment one of his nephews, Roger Parker, as precentor at Lincoln, and another, George Eland, as cathedral chancellor, Chaderton had little influence over his cathedral, which lay 50 miles from his own residence. The diocesan chancellor, Dr John Belly, also resisted attempts to bring his consistory court under episcopal control; the chief means by which Chaderton exercised personal authority was his Court of Audience, which met every three weeks.32 Hajzyk, 11-27, 35-8; Fasti, ix. 24, 27. As at Chester, he proceeded against puritan ministers with circumspection: in 1598, his visitation articles asked whether the surplice was worn in each parish; but only one minister was reported. In the summer of 1603 he promulgated the ban on unlicensed preaching issued by Archbishop Whitgift, and collected information on preachers and double beneficed ministers. Once again, he chose to implement disciplinary measures in a selective way: he put pressure on pluralists who held a second living in other dioceses to resign one of their cures, but was reluctant to deprive nonconformists, or even those convicted of repeated incontinence.33 Hajzyk, 52-4, 163, 193-4; State of the Church … in the Dioc. of Lincoln ed. C.W. Foster He was one of the first bishops to require his clergy to compile a terrier of their lands and revenues, the better to maximise clerical income.34 K. Fincham, Prelate as Pastor, 187-8. As bishop of Lincoln, Chaderton was also visitor of several colleges, a useful source of patronage. However, in May 1603 an uproar at his visitation of King’s College, Cambridge provoked untimely complaints to the new monarch.35 HMC Hatfield, xv. 76, 80, 93. Chaderton seems to have spent little time at court, and the only occasion on which he is known to have preached before King James was during the latter’s journey to London, on Easter Day 1603. This presumably explains why he was not invited to the conference on ecclesiastical reform held at Hampton Court in January 1604.36 P.E. McCullough, Sermons at Ct. (suppl. cal. 99).

Chaderton was present in the Lords almost every day during the 1604 parliamentary session, playing an active part in its proceedings. He was ordered to attend two conferences at which the king laid out his proposals for a statutory union with Scotland, and others with the Commons to discuss the prospects for composition for purveyance and wardship. He was also appointed to attend a conference to discuss amendments to the tunnage and poundage bill, and two more intended to resolve the differences between the two Houses over a book written by John Thornborough^*, bishop of Bristol, which criticized the Commons’ proceedings over the Union.37 LJ, ii. 277b, 284a, 290b, 303a, 309a, 323a, 332b. Chaderton was a member of the committee instructed to scrutinize the bill to prevent the importation of ‘seditious, popish, vain and lascivious books’, which was swiftly rejected; he was named to the committee which penned a fresh draft, and then approved the new measure.38 Ibid. 290a, 297a, 301b. On 19 Apr. he was one of those scheduled to discuss the Commons’ proposals for ecclesiastical reform, but the conference was delayed, as the bishops realized they risked losing control of the reform agenda. On 2 May Richard Bancroft^*, bishop of London (later archbishop of Canterbury), seized the initiative, tendering a draft set of Canons to Convocation, which set a more authoritarian tone. Several bishops had private misgivings about provoking a confrontation with their critics, and on 23 May Anthony Rudd^*, bishop of St Davids, made a lengthy speech to this effect in Convocation. Chaderton apparently supported the passage of the new Canons, for when he missed a roll-call in the Lords on 2 June he was excused because his presence was required in Convocation.39 Ibid. 282b; Bodl., Ashmole 1153, f. 58; S.B. Babbage, Puritanism and Richard Bancroft, 78-80, 84-97; BANCROFT, RICHARD. Towards the end of the session, he was named to committees for two bills sponsored by puritan MPs, one concerning procedures in church courts, the other barring married men from residing in the universities; largely because of the bishops’ efforts, both were left to sleep in committee.40 LJ, ii. 323a, 332a.

In the aftermath of the 1604 session, it became clear that the king wished to see article 36 of the new Canons, requiring subscription to the Prayer Book, the surplice, various controversial ceremonies, and the new Canons, rigorously applied in the dioceses. Chaderton, having experienced the subscription crisis of 1583-5, probably hoped a vigorous show of enforcement would mollify James, without driving puritan ministers out of the Church. Beginning at Michaelmas 1604, he cited 92 ministers into his Court of Audience to certify their conformity, a figure which, representing 7 per cent of his active clergy, constituted a higher proportion than in any other diocese. In the face of repeated monitions to conform and subscribe, some complied, but he hesitated to deprive beneficed ministers who still refused, though he suspended the licences of nonconforming curates. As he explained on 12 Dec. to James Montagu^*, dean of the Chapel Royal, this was both because the newly consecrated Archbishop Bancroft had not yet issued definitive instructions, and because puritan lawyers threatened to mount a legal challenge should any deprivations occur.41 State of the Church … in the Diocese of Lincoln, 363-70; Lincs. AO, Cj/14, ff. 65-9v, 73v-9, 86-8; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 379-80; Hajzyk, 57-8.

James paid close attention to these proceedings, and in January 1605, after interviewing Chaderton on a visit to Huntingdon, he concluded that the bishop, being ‘aged and fearful … had need to have a daily spur, for in effect … he has done nothing, neither is about to’. Chaderton set out to prove him wrong, depriving two of the ringleaders, John Burgess and Alexander Cooke immediately, and another seven thereafter, including the noted Leicestershire firebrand Arthur Hildersham.42 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 15-17, 20-1, 34; Fincham, 324. However, as Chaderton had predicted, this led to a legal challenge. Moreover, the bishop’s Lincolnshire critics presented a petition against subscription to the king on 1 Dec. 1605, which was printed shortly thereafter. These criticisms were answered in a tract by William Covell, which was dedicated to Chaderton, but does not appear to have been solicited by him.43 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 34-5, 65; Abridgment of that Booke which the Ministers of Lincoln Diocess Delivered … (1605/6); W. Covell, A Briefe Answer unto Certaine ... Reasons (1606). Once the initial furore had subsided, Chaderton and his critics quietly worked out a compromise. Some were allowed time to reconsider their scruples; others were left alone once they promised some degree of conformity to the contentious ceremonies; while several of those who were deprived (including Cooke and Hildersham) ultimately found employment in other dioceses.44 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 133; State of the Church … in the Dioc. of Lincoln, pp. cii-cv, cxiv-cxv; Lincs. AO, DIOC/COR/B/2, f. 20; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 199; Hajzyk, 54-6; Babbage, 164-6.

Chaderton absented himself from the parliamentary sessions of 1605-6 and 1606-7, granting his proxy to Bancroft on both occasions. However, in May 1606, his nephew Roger Parker provoked controversy with a Paul’s Cross sermon against the bill promoted by puritan MPs to overturn the deprivation of ministers for non-subscription.45 LJ, ii. 355a, 449a; Hajzyk, 60. Chaderton’s health was probably declining, for in his will of 31 Mar. 1608 he confessed himself ‘full of infirmities’. This document confirmed his earlier settlement of lands on his wife in jointure. It also granted a reversion to his only surviving heir, his 12 year-old granddaughter Elizabeth, who had been married to his ward William Sandys; if she had no heirs, the lands were to pass to his Lancashire kinsmen. He bequeathed his books in English to his wife, those in other languages to Sandys, £50 in unpaid debts due from the Stanley family to Manchester College, and another £40 owed by the Stanleys to the poor of Salford hundred, Manchester. He died on 10 Apr. 1608, and was buried at Southoe. His wife, who proved the will on 30 May, was dead by 20 Dec. 1620, when a fresh grant of administration was secured by his granddaughter.46 PROB 11/111, ff. 378v-82; C142/302/90; Oxford DNB, x. 832.