MATTHEW, Tobie [Tobias] (1544/6-1628)

An academic high-flyer and an energetic administrator, Matthew’s reputation as a churchman was founded upon indefatigable preaching. In 1581 the Jesuit Edmund Campion described him to the dons of Oxford as the man ‘that now domineers in your pulpits’, and for over 40 years Matthew kept a diary recording every sermon he delivered, in which he reproved himself whenever he failed to preach at least once a week.39 York Minster Lib., Add. 18; J. Harington, A Brief View of the State of the Church of Eng. (1608), 193. However, unlike Lancelot Andrewes^*, bishop of Winchester, Matthew had no loyal follower willing to edit his sermons after his death. Copies of some of his works circulated in manuscript, but the originals, after passing through the hands of his widow, were apparently inherited by his eldest son, the Catholic convert Sir Tobie Matthew^‡, who had no interest in publication.40 Ath. Ox. ii. 871; LANCELOT ANDREWES. Matthew’s wife made no specific mention of his writings in her will of 1628-9: Borthwick, Reg. Test. 40, ff. 195, 397-8v.

Although his family came from the Marches, Matthew was born at Bristol in the final years of Henry VIII’s reign; his earliest biographer described his parents as ‘honest rather than honourable’. Schooled at Wells in Somerset, his precocity led to his early departure for Oxford, where he matriculated at University College but later transferred to Christ Church. He made his name in 1566 with an oration before the queen, arguing the case for elective monarchy, and his wit, scholarship and the patronage of Robert Dudley^†, earl of Leicester, led to his election as university orator in 1569. A string of preferments followed thereafter: archdeacon of Bath; cathedral posts at Christ Church, Salisbury and Wells; two sinecure rectories; a royal chaplaincy; and the presidency of St John’s College, Oxford.41 Harington, 195; Ath. Ox. ii. 869-70; Manningham Diary ed. R.P. Sorlien, 404; Le Neve, Fasti (1854), iii. 568. In 1576 he returned to Christ Church as dean, and married one of the daughters of William Barlow^†, late bishop of Chichester, whose first husband had been the son of Matthew Parker^†, the recently deceased archbishop of Canterbury.42 Fasti, viii. 80; T. Fuller, Church Hist. of Britain (1656), xi. 133-4.

In 1583 Matthew surrendered most of his livings in exchange for the deanery of Durham, worth around £1,000 p.a. His motive was not merely financial, as he also wished to bring godly preaching to a notoriously Catholic area. Six years later, he was a contender for the bishopric itself. In the event, this went to Matthew Hutton^*, but when the latter was translated to York in 1595, Matthew, having cultivated support at court, succeeded him.43 Oates, 174-95, 199-202; Marcombe, 16-18, 39, 59-70; B. Usher, Ld. Burghley and Episcopacy, 1577-1603, pp. 133, 135-8. As bishop, he acted as a conduit for intelligence from Scotland. He also clamped down on Catholics, but was more accommodating towards puritans.44 Marcombe 85-7, 179-81, 197-9; Oates, 203-25, 252-4, 277-84, 293-301.

The Jacobean settlement, 1603-6

Matthew met the new king, James I, as the latter crossed the border in April 1603. He preached before him at Berwick, a sermon which was interpreted as a plea for forgiveness ‘for his opposition heretofore’. He may have had in mind the oration he had delivered at Oxford in 1566, but the incident which most rankled for James was probably a court sermon of 1595, which had provoked a diplomatic rift. James accepted the apology, and invited Matthew to say grace at the royal table. Matthew subsequently underlined his loyalty by assembling a large retinue to welcome the king to Durham, where James undertook to restore some of the privileges the palatinate had lost at the Reformation.45 HMC Hatfield, xv. 37; Manningham Diary, 245, 404; Oates, 301-3; P.E. McCullough, Sermons at Ct. (suppl. cal. 67-8, 96-7). In June 1603 the bishop met at York the queen consort, Anne of Denmark, on her way south, and accompanied her to Westminster for the coronation. The king, obviously pleased, invited him to preach at court on the anniversary of the Gowrie Plot, a key date in the Jacobean calendar.46 McCullough, (supp. cal. 100-2).

In the summer of 1603 Matthew was prompt in returning the diocesan survey demanded by John Whitgift^†, archbishop of Canterbury, although his claim that the diocese contained only 526 recusants, less than one per cent of the adult population, seems improbable. The London preacher Stephen Egerton hoped that Matthew might prove sympathetic to the petitioning campaign against Whitgift’s management of the Church, but in fact Matthew was almost as concerned as Archbishop Hutton about the activities of the ‘fantastical giddy-headed puritans’, advising Robert Cecil^*, Lord Cecil (later 1st earl of Salisbury) that the conference on ecclesiastical reform scheduled for November should be postponed, and warning that matters were going badly in the north.47 Oates, 304; Sloane 271, ff. 23v-4; Add. 4274, f. 231; HMC Hatfield, xv. 256.

The Hampton Court Conference eventually convened on 12 Jan. 1604, when Matthew made a single recorded speech, in defence of the rite of confirmation. A keen exponent of the practice in his own diocese, he defended it, and the only alteration he suggested to the rubric of the Prayer Book was clarification of the requirement that confirmands be examined about their beliefs.48 Oates, 203-12; Barlow, 11-12; Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 57. After the conference closed, Matthew wrote a summary of its proceedings for Archbishop Hutton, detained in the north by ill health. He stressed the king’s support for the bishops, insisting that James had called the puritan petitioning campaign ‘little less than … a schism’, and emphasized the limited extent of the concessions secured by the godly. The king was clearly satisfied with Matthew’s modest contribution to the proceedings, as he called him to preach in the Chapel Royal the following Sunday. Matthew chose as his text Romans 12:16-21, ‘be not wise in your own opinions’, which he presumably aimed at the puritans.49 J. Strype, Life of Whitgift, iii. 402-7; McCullough, (suppl. cal. 104).

When Archbishop Whitgift died on 29 Feb. 1604, Matthew and Thomas Bilson^*, bishop of Winchester were quickly spoken of as the front runners for the vacancy.50 Strype, iii. 408-9; Hutton Corresp. ed. J. Raine (Surtees Soc. xvii), 195. However, Matthew was ultimately passed over. The main reason, perhaps, was that, despite the active role he played in the Parliament which opened on 19 Mar., he never demonstrated anything to equal Richard Bancroft’s zeal in defence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Indeed, in 1610, he conceded that he had ‘spoken as little as ever any of my place did’ in the Lords.51 Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 92.

At the start of the 1604 session, Matthew and Bancroft were granted Archbishop Hutton’s proxy. Matthew was ordered to attend conferences with the Commons about compounding for wardship, to hear the king’s initial plans for the Anglo-Scottish Union, and to hear the Commons lay out their provocative agenda for ecclesiastical reform. It is unlikely he attended either of the two conferences scheduled for the second half of April, as he was absent from the House for a month (19 Apr. – 19 May), during which time he was nominated as one of the commissioners for the Union.52 LJ, ii. 263a, 266b, 277b, 282b, 284a, 296a, 303a. Matthew’s absence was presumably due to illness, but it occurred just as the bishops realized that a confrontation over ecclesiastical reform was imminent, and it is possible he was unhappy with Bancroft’s aggressive response: a set of Canons tabled in Convocation, which dismissed the godly agenda out of hand. As a northern bishop, Matthew was unable to take part in the debates in the Canterbury Convocation. He only returned to the Lords on 21 May, too late to be included on the delegation scheduled to confer with MPs later that day about ecclesiastical reform.53 RICHARD BANCROFT. The delegation to the conference of 21 May had been nominated on 19 May: LJ, ii. 302a. He was, however, named to committees for several less divisive items of religious legislation: one to ban the import of ‘seditious, popish, vain or lascivious books’; another for a bill to regulate the procedures of Church courts; and two others for recusancy legislation.54 LJ, ii. 305a, 313b, 323a, 324b. He was also ordered to attend two conferences, at which the Commons complained about a tract by John Thornborough^*, bishop of Bristol, which had attacked MPs’ proceedings over the Union, and another at which the Lords outlined their amendments to the tonnage and poundage bill.55 Ibid. 309a, 323a, 332b. Finally, Matthew was named to several committees for items of legislation concerning northern interests: the repair of two Yorkshire harbours, and the bill to confirm the recent royal charter granted to Berwick-upon-Tweed. He was also privately consulted about the bill preferred by the Scottish courtier Sir George Home (chancellor of the Exchequer in England) to confirm his title to Norham Castle, formerly held by the bishops of Durham.56 Ibid. 281a, 286a, 309a; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 78, 451; CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 76, 91.

Matthew preached twice more at court towards the end of the parliamentary session, once before Prince Henry and on another occasion, before king, queen and prince; these occasions were presumably intended to allow James to assess his merits in the pulpit.57 McCullough, (suppl. cal. 110-11). In Durham during the summer, he assessed his clergy to contribute £430 towards the privy seal loans demanded by the crown, to which he gave £100 himself. He asked that his role be kept quiet, ‘because this is the first time that I have seen or heard that the bishops have rated their clergy to the like effect’. Moreover, unlike in other dioceses, the list of lenders he finalized in December largely excluded the clergy: William James^*, dean of Durham (later bishop of Durham) paid £40, and two other diocesan officials lent £20 apiece.58 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 220-1, 231, 235-6, 386; CUL, Ff.ii.28, ff. 33v, 72v, 74v, p. 167 (the foliation is inconsistent); E401/2585, f. 107. Matthew returned to London in October, giving the opening sermon at the meeting of the Union commissioners, and remained in the south for several months, preaching twice at court. During this time, Bancroft, translated to Canterbury in December, inaugurated a vigorous campaign against nonconformity which saw the removal of at least 80 ministers. However, in Durham, presumably with Matthew’s connivance, none were deprived.59 RICHARD BANCROFT; McCullough, (suppl. cal. 113-14, 117); K. Fincham, Prelate as Pastor, 324.

Matthew returned to London for the opening of Parliament in November 1605, and attended almost every day of the session. Scheduled to preach at court on the first Sunday during the session, his sermon inevitably dwelt upon the king’s deliverance from the Gunpowder Plot. Anti-Catholic legislation naturally loomed large on the parliamentary agenda thereafter, and Matthew was involved in the scrutiny of several measures: he was named to committees for punishment of the plotters; and another to consider fresh recusancy legislation. He was then ordered to discuss these plans at a conference with the Commons; and included on the committee for the resulting legislation. He was also named to the committee for the bill to impose the new oath of allegiance on all those travelling overseas.60 McCullough, (suppl. cal. 122-3); LJ, ii. 360b, 363a, 367a-b, 401a, 419b, 427a. He was included on committees for several other items of ecclesiastical and moral legislation: probate of wills; measures against swearing; and another for observance of the Sabbath. On 8 Apr. he was included on the delegation sent to confer with MPs about their ecclesiastical grievances petition. At several of its meetings Bancroft attacked the Commons’ attempts to offer succour to deprived ministers, but Matthew is not recorded as having spoken. Finally, Matthew was included on the committee for the bill to regulate the use of excommunication by the Church courts, the only item of ecclesiastical legislation approved by Bancroft during the session.61 LJ, ii. 365a, 372b, 381b, 384a, 411a, 437a; RICHARD BANCROFT.

As bishop of Durham, Matthew was also included on committees for a range of northern interests during the session: a bill to confirm the monopoly of the Tyneside coal trade held by the Newcastle Hostmen’s company; another to confirm the endowment of St Bees grammar school in Cumberland; a third to confirm a discount in the customs on cloth exports from the northern ports; and the bill to restrict the construction of weirs on navigable rivers.62 LJ, ii. 370a, 374a, 396b, 410a. Other bill committees to which he was named related to the interests of Oxford University: estate bills for Corpus Christi and Oriel colleges; a bill to confirm the royal endowment of a readership in divinity at the university; and another to improve the navigation of the Thames just below Oxford.63 Ibid. 371b, 386b, 388a, 429a.

When Archbishop Hutton died in January 1606, Sir John Ferne^‡, secretary of the council in the North, urged the case for Matthew’s appointment to the vacancy, as ‘one … learned and zealous, and that will be industrious against papists, and attentive to his function both in preaching and government’. This recommendation was endorsed by the president of the North, Edmund Sheffield^*, 3rd Lord Sheffield (later 1st earl of Mulgrave), who stressed Matthew’s ‘long acquaintance with the affairs of that country, which will puzzle a novice’, and also by another northern magnate, Gilbert Talbot^*, 7th earl of Shrewsbury. Matthew expressed a becoming modesty about his chances, quoting Proverbs 21:1: ‘the hearts of kings are in the hands of God to be directed like rivers of water’. However, Shrewsbury was dispatched to persuade him to accept the offer, and he was invited to preach at court twice during the spring of 1606. Royal letters of nomination were issued on 8 July.64 McCullough, (suppl. cal. 125, 127); HMC Hatfield, xviii. 21-2, 37-8; Add. 4274, f. 238.

Parliament and the prospect of further preferment, 1606-14

Matthew’s most pressing concern on appointment as archbishop was to secure a lengthy period for payment of his first fruits. Notionally valued at £1,450 p.a., the archdiocese of York was worth slightly less than Durham. (Hutton’s net receipts for his final year, including casual revenues, amounted to £1,536; while Matthew’s net receipts in 1627 – the year before his death – came to £1,438).65 Trans. Congregational Hist. Soc., vi. 56; Borthwick, CC.Ab.6.4, 6. In order to strengthen his case, Matthew claimed that spoils had been made by lay administrators during the brief vacancy between Hutton’s death and his own appointment, thereby impairing his ability to settle his account quickly. However, this contradicted information received from Sir Thomas Fairfax^‡ of Denton, Yorkshire and therefore failed to move Cecil, now earl of Salisbury, who allowed him the conventional four years.66 SP15/38/69; Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 90; LPL, ms 708, f. 238; HMC Hatfield, xviii. 270. This rebuff gave Matthew an incentive to maximise the casual revenues of his new position: in 1607 he renewed a lease of the archiepiscopal estates in Battersea, Surrey, while in the following year, he permitted his chancellor, Sir John Bennett^‡, to resign his York prebend to a kinsman.67 York Minster Lib. D1/38, unfol. (22 July 1607); Fasti, iv. 46.

In the autumn of 1606 Matthew returned to London for the new parliamentary session, during the opening months of which he was required to host John Carmichael, one of the Scottish presbyterian ministers summoned to Hampton Court to be lectured by English bishops about the benefits of the episcopal system then being reimposed on the Kirk.68 D. Calderwood, Hist. of the Kirk of Scotland ed. T. Thomson, vi. 596. Once again, Matthew regularly attended the Lords, where he held the proxies of Henry Robinson^*, bishop of Carlisle and Henry Cotton^*, bishop of Salisbury. On 24 Nov. he was one of the large delegation ordered to attend the conference at which MPs were urged to begin consideration of the Instrument of Union. As this was the primary business of the session, the Commons’ furious objections to its contents left little for the Lords to do: Matthew was included on the committee which considered the one piece of legislation which reached the statute books, for the abolition of various anti-Scots laws.69 LJ, ii. 449a, 452b, 520a. Puritan MPs continued their campaign against subscription, passing several bills, but only the ecclesiastical Canons bill received a second reading in the Lords. Matthew, one of the committee members, doubtless helped Bancroft to ensure that it was never reported. He was also included on the committee for a bill sponsored by the lord treasurer, Thomas Sackville^*, 1st earl of Dorset, to correct a drafting error in the 1559 Act for an exchange of lands between the crown and the diocese of Canterbury. His views on this measure are unknown, but it is likely that he supported Bancroft in replacing it with a fresh draft less damaging to the see’s finances.70 Ibid. 503a-4a; RICHARD BANCROFT.

As archbishop, Matthew was expected to play a more active role in the management of business in the Lords. On 14 Feb. 1607 he took charge of the bill ‘for more credit to be required in wills of land’. Although this measure never emerged from committee, he did report the bill against drunkenness, without amendment, and a bill to assign the revenues of a prebend of Exeter Cathedral to the maintenance of a preacher and a grammar school, with various amendments and a proviso.71 LJ, ii. 470b, 489a-b, 491a, 493a. He was also named to committees for two bills connected to his own interests: the estate bill for the heirs of the deceased northern magnate Ferdinando Stanley^†, 5th earl of Derby; and a bill to confirm the endowments of a grammar school at Northleach, Gloucestershire, which were overseen by Queen’s College, Oxford, Bishop Robinson’s alma mater.72 Ibid. 480a, 493a, 518a; Queen’s Coll., Oxf. archives, 4S.16.

In the summer of 1607 Matthew suffered a serious embarrassment when his heir, Tobie Matthew, recently returned from a lengthy tour of Italy, admitted to Bancroft and Sir Francis Bacon^* (later viscount St. Alban) that he had converted to Catholicism. Despite being lectured on the error of his ways by the former Jesuit Sir Christopher Parkins^‡, he refused the oath of allegiance and was sent into exile. The archbishop, though wishing his son had never been born, pleaded with Salisbury to allow further time for disputation to alter his mind, ‘because I trust in God he standeth not out [as a Catholic] upon obstinacy but error’. However, the earl replied that exile was, in fact, a sign of favour from the king, as the archbishop’s son would otherwise forfeit all his possessions under a praemunire. Young Tobie returned to England periodically thereafter, but he was not welcomed at his father’s house.73 HP Commons 1604-29, v. 286-7; HMC Hatfield, xx. 46-7, 70; HMC Downshire, vi. 171.

Matthew was assiduous in his attendance of the Lords during the spring of 1610. At the start of the session he was included on the large delegation for the conference at which Salisbury (now lord treasurer) laid out the need for fiscal reform, and he was one of those sent to request the king to respond to the Commons’ wish to buy out the crown’s wardship rights.74 LJ, ii. 550b, 556b, 564b. The Commons eventually made a realistic offer for wardship and other concessions (known to posterity as the Great Contract) at a conference on 26 May, to which was attached a plea for stricter enforcement of the recusancy laws, prompted by news of the assassination of the king of France. In Bancroft’s absence, Salisbury nominated Matthew to deliver both the financial offer and the additional petition to the king; the archbishop pleaded that he was too busy preparing for a sermon at court, but his protests were overruled. He was also the member of another delegation sent to the king with the Commons’ latest offer for the Great Contract, on 19 June.75 Ibid. 603a, 604a, 618a; Procs. 1610, i. 91-2, 94. He preached at Whitehall on 3 June: McCullough, (suppl. cal. 163).

Alongside these financial negotiations, puritan MPs continued sniping at Bancroft’s stewardship of the Church. On 27 Feb., when the Commons objected to the absolutist tone of a legal textbook by Bancroft’s vicar general, Dr John Cowell, Matthew was one of those ordered to attend the resultant conference; at the nomination of Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham, he was one of those who reported the proceedings to the Lords on 2 March. The sermon he preached in the Chapel Royal on Palm Sunday (1 Apr.), was clearly intended as a response to the Commons’ criticisms, as in it he argued ‘that wisdom stood in the fear of God, and that kings and magistrates should chiefly fear God … for of him to whom much is committed, much will be required’.76 LJ, ii. 557b, 560a; Procs. 1610, i. 184; ‘Paulet 1610’, f. 6. On 3 May Matthew was included on a subcommittee of the committee for religion, which was ordered to consider measures against non-resident and pluralist clergy, in place of a Commons’ bill which had reduced Bancroft to splenetic fury; while on 11 June Matthew was named to the committee for the bill intended to reverse the deprivations of ministers under the 1604 Canons, a measure the bishops appear to have smothered in committee.77 LJ, ii. 587a, 611a; RICHARD BANCROFT. Matthew was also included on the committee for the one significant item of recusancy legislation passed during the session, the bill to impose the oath of allegiance on all those over the age of 18. Four days later, he scheduled a fresh meeting for the committee, which ensured that the bill received the Royal Assent at the end of the session.78 LJ. ii. 645a, 652b; SR, iv. 1162-4. The Union was virtually a dead letter by 1610, but a single statute was passed, to regulate the remanding of felons across the Anglo-Scottish border. Matthew was named to the committee; reported it with a proviso four days later; and was named to attend a conference about this amendment with the Commons.79 LJ, ii. 619a, 623a, 634b; Procs. 1610, i. 123.

Matthew again played a role in steering northern bills through the Lords. He was included on the committee for the bill to regulate the moor-burning season in the north, which he reported with amendments a week later; he also reported the revived bill for the estates of Ferdinando, late earl of Derby; and was included on the committee for another bill to annex the Isle of Man to the earldom of Derby. On 18 June he was named to the committee for the bill allowing his successor as bishop of Durham to pass a small portion of the site of Durham House in the Strand to Lord Treasurer Salisbury, whose own London mansion lay next door.80 LJ, ii. 592b, 596a-b, 601a, 616a-b, 617b. He had no personal connection with two other bills he guided through the Lords: that for the maintenance of husbandry, which he reported, without amendments, on 24 May;81 Ibid. 593b, 598b. and the estate bill for Edward Neville^*, 8th or 1st Lord Abergavenny, which had a more complex history. Matthew was one of those named to the original committee, but on 12 June he reported that Lady Le Despenser had intervened to assert the precedence of her own title over the barony of Abergavenny. Following private negotiations between the interested parties, the estate bill was recommitted on 30 June, and reported by Matthew three days later, with further revisions.82 Ibid. 595b, 612b, 613b, 622b-3a, 631b; EDWARD NEVILLE. The final measure Matthew took charge of was the bill sent up from the Commons, to punish the courtier Sir Stephen Proctor for abusing his patent for the collection of fines. As one of the few friends of the accused, Matthew produced a report which judged Proctor to have ‘committed no offence worthy the passage [of the bill] thereof against him’. Most unusually, the House disagreed with the committee’s verdict, and sought a conference with the Commons. As the session was almost at an end, there was no time to draft fresh legislation, but Matthew was included on the delegation which agreed with MPs to have Proctor excluded from the general pardon, leaving him open to fresh investigation in a subsequent session.83 LJ, ii. 650b-1a, 657a; Procs. 1610, i. 156

In the autumn of 1610, Matthew attended all but one day of the brief parliamentary session, sharing Bishop Robinson’s proxy with George Lloyd^*, bishop of Chester. He was included in the delegations sent to press MPs to specify whether they were prepared to proceed with the Great Contract, and, after negotiations collapsed, to inquire whether the lower House might vote some other form of supply.84 LJ, ii. 666a, 671a, 678a. He was included on the committee for the bill to confirm leases made by the duchy of Cornwall beyond the life of Prince Henry, which he subsequently reported; as the changes made were ‘very many, and somewhat intricate’, he offered a fresh text incorporating all these changes, which was duly adopted, and received a third reading on 24 November.85 Ibid. 677a, 680a-b, 682a. However, this measure was lost at the prorogation on 6 December.

Archbishop Bancroft died on 2 Nov. 1610, and Matthew was one of those named to dispatch the affairs of Canterbury archdiocese pending the appointment of a successor: George Abbot^*, bishop of London, together with Andrewes, Bilson and Matthew himself were all spoken of as candidates. Two sermons preached at court in the autumn of 1610 presumably aided Matthew’s cause, and Andrewes reportedly commented that ‘if York [Matthew] had it, it were but his right’. On the other hand, Abbot’s appointment (in December) to investigate dilapidations in the estates of Durham diocese during his rival’s tenure was hardly helpful. However, Matthew’s chances may have been dashed by reports of his death – he was the oldest of the candidates – which circulated in the New Year. At any rate, Abbot was appointed on 9 Apr. 1611.86 Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 239; SP14/58/14a; McCullough, (suppl. cal. 166); HMC Downshire, ii. 407; iii. 32; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 107, 110. The new primate proved a more congenial colleague for Matthew than Bancroft, as both men saw Catholicism as the primary threat to the Church. In 1612, when two renegade Italian Carmelites sought refuge in England, Abbot sent one to live at York under Matthew’s tutelage. Although the Venetian and Spanish ambassadors subsequently persuaded the friar to reconvert to Rome, the incident shows that Matthew enjoyed Abbot’s confidence.87 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 356-7, 505; SP14/70/16; CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 221, 227; HMC Downshire, iv. 330-1.

Like Lord President Sheffield, Matthew heard rumours of a new Parliament in the summer of 1612, asking Prince Henry’s tutor Adam Newton (who held the deanery of Durham as a sinecure) for further information.88 Harl. 7002, f. 225; EDMUND SHEFFIELD. Plans for a fresh summons were laid aside, but revived in the spring of 1614, when Matthew preached the sermon at the state opening on 5 April.89 Chamberlain Letters, i. 521; ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 10. He missed only two days of the brief session, although his role in the Lords was relatively minor. One of the large delegation appointed to confer with the Commons over the bill to confirm the claims of Princess Elizabeth’s children to the succession, he managed two bill committees, the first to settle the payment of an heiress’s dowry, which he reported with amendments on 30 May, the second being the Sabbath bill. On 30 May he reported that this measure, while laudable in its aim, was ‘fit in some points to be reformed’. On the following day he was one of those ordered to attend a conference to persuade the Commons to accept some redrafting.90 LJ, ii. 692a, 699b, 708b, 710b, 713b.

The issue which dominated the Addled Parliament was the Commons’ determination to re-examine the 1610 debates about the impositions the crown had placed on trade in 1608, without parliamentary approval. When MPs asked the Lords for a conference on this issue on Saturday 21 May, Richard Neile^*, bishop of Lincoln (and later archbishop of York), launched a blistering attack on their disloyalty, but the lord chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley), argued that the judges should be consulted first. Abbot then suggested that the Lords offer a meeting to hear what the Commons had to say, without entering into debate. He was supported by many speakers, including Matthew, who urged ‘there is a great difference betwixt these two words, a meeting and a conference’. The debate concluded with an assumption that a meeting would be held, but the question was reopened on the following Monday, and the proposal was rejected after the matter was put to the vote. The decision was carried for the crown by the votes of the privy councillors and the bishops: Matthew was the only one of 17 prelates in the House that day reported to have voted for a meeting with the Commons.91 HMC Hastings, iv. 249-51; LJ, ii. 706b-7a; Chamberlain Letters, i. 533. An angry dissolution swiftly followed, though on the penultimate day of the session Matthew was a member of the committee which resolved to adjourn the Lords, to allow the Commons one final chance to placate the king with a vote of supply.92 LJ, ii. 717a.

Diocesan management, 1606-18

Although not prominent either at court or in Parliament, Matthew naturally exercised a significant influence upon ecclesiastical policy in the north. The articles issued for his 1607 metropolitical visitation adumbrated the role of a godly prelate, setting the tone across the northern province for the next 20 years with their inquiries about preaching, conformity to the 1604 Canons, catechism, non-residence and the celebration of public holidays among the ministry, the reporting of moral lapses, recusancy and separatism to the Church courts, the maintenance of churches and other ecclesiastical properties, and the taking of fees or bribes by officials. In asking whether ministers ‘usually’ wore the surplice, he allowed a loophole for puritan ministers. At the same time, he showed no interest in the siting of the communion table or the decoration of churches, the shibboleths of the next generation.93 Vis. Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church I ed. K. Fincham (Church of Eng. Rec. Soc. i), pp. xix-xx, 55-60; Fincham, 130-1.

Matthew exercised considerable influence at York via the ecclesiastical courts, particularly High Commission, which, under his auspices, sustained a vigorous prosecution of recusants, guided by the visitation returns. At York (unlike many other dioceses) large numbers of offenders were summoned before High Commission upon monitions (judicial orders), bonds and arrest warrants; and those who failed to conform were required to take the oath of allegiance, do public penance, to confer with Protestant ministers or to face incarceration. Exchequer proceedings bore harder on many recusants, but the Church courts at York had some impact: one Catholic recorded appearing before the archbishop or his officials six times in 15 years.94 Borthwick, HCAB 15 and 16, passim; Richard Cholmley Memorandum Bk. (N. Yorks. CRO xliv), 27, 43, 90, 143, 175, 193-4; H. Aveling, Northern Catholics, 207-10, 222; J.T. Cliffe, Yorks. Gentry, 181-2. Puritan ministers, by contrast, usually received more consideration: Matthew’s chaplain John Favour supervised a monthly combination lecture at Halifax, and others took place at Leeds and in Craven. Those with scruples about the rubric of the Prayer Book were sometimes pressured, but not deprived; indeed Alexander Cooke, who had been deprived of his living at Louth, Lincolnshire in 1605, was quietly allowed to assist his brother at Leeds, and Matthew presented him as vicar after the latter’s death in 1615. The only preachers Matthew took firm action against were the separatists John Smyth and John Robinson, who emigrated to Amsterdam with a number of their lay followers in 1607-8.95 R.A. Marchant, Puritans and the Church Courts, 29-35, 150-64, 240-1, 286-8, 296; Fincham, 324. For Cooke’s deprivation, see WILLIAM CHADERTON.

In promoting a godly agenda in the north, Matthew received support from Lord President Sheffield and a handful of puritan gentry who shared his anti-Catholicism. The most prominent of these was Sir Thomas Hoby^‡, a thorn in the flesh of Yorkshire Catholics since 1596, who secured a parliamentary seat at the archiepiscopal liberty of Ripon from 1614 and became Matthew’s steward there in 1617. During the parliamentary session held over the spring of 1610, Matthew emerged as one of the few friends of another Yorkshire landowner, Sir Stephen Proctor, whose controversial patent for the collection of penal fines was, in part, an attempt to increase the financial burden of recusancy prosecutions. It is impossible to ascertain precisely how much encouragement Matthew gave either of these men in their clashes with local recusants and crypto-Catholics, but they would probably have been more reluctant to confront their neighbours in the absence of official encouragement.96 HP Commons 1604-29, iv. 737; v. 224.

The Spanish Match and final years 1618-28

Sheffield’s replacement as lord president by Emanuel Scrope^*, 11th Lord Scrope in January 1619 altered the dynamic of Yorkshire politics. A kinsman of the new favourite, George Villers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, and a notorious crypto-Catholic, Scrope’s appointment undoubtedly dismayed Matthew, who snubbed the new incumbent by building himself a pew in front of the president’s in York Minster, for which offence he was reproved by the king.97 CSP Dom, 1619-23, p. 168. This was a local manifestation of the increasing confessional tensions across Europe, which Matthew followed with rising foreboding. In 1618-19 Samuel Ward, master of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, kept Matthew informed about the defeat of the Dutch Arminians at the Synod of Dort; the archbishop rejoiced at news of the united front presented by the Calvinist delegates. However, Matthew confided in Ward about his fears over ‘the stirs in and about Bohemia, not only in point of state, but of religion withal’, a diplomatic crisis which doubtless encouraged his co-operation with the militia musters ordered by the Privy Council.98 Bodl., Tanner 74, ff. 188, 217, 241; Tanner 290, f. 11; SP14/97/81; 14/105/105; 14/115/101; Durham (Palace Green), Mickelton and Spearman ms 2, ff. 313-15. He also offered a contribution of 300 marks towards the Palatine benevolence raised by the crown in the autumn of 1620.99 SP14/117/85.

The escalating diplomatic crisis in the Holy Roman empire forced James to summon a Parliament, which opened in January 1621. Matthew attended almost every day until the summer recess, but played a modest part in the Lords’ proceedings, perhaps because of problems with his voice – he did not preach in London until after Easter. At the start of the session, he was named to a committee to scrutinize two bills, one to ban the export of iron ordnance and the other to update militia arms. He was also ordered to attend two conferences discussing the draft of a petition to the king for stricter enforcement of the recusancy laws.100 LJ, iii. 13a, 17a, 18b; York Minster Lib. ms 18, pp. 128-9. Allowed privilege for a servant who had been arrested in London, he was included on bill committees to enforce observance of the Sabbath and restrict the use of writs of certiorari, used to remove lawsuits (including recusancy prosecutions) to the Westminster law courts.101 LJ, iii. 27b, 30a, 39a-b. He was named to the committee for the revived bill for confirmation of duchy of Cornwall leases, another for the revived bill to improve the Thames navigation, and a third for a private bill to allow Esmé Stuart^*, earl of March to sell the Yorkshire manor of Temple Newsam to Sir Arthur Ingram^‡.102 Ibid. 22b, 26b, 31a. While he resumed his preaching after Easter, Matthew’s only mention in the Lords’ records during the late spring was an order to attend a conference with the Commons about the Sabbath and certiorari bills.103 Ibid. 130b; York Minster Lib. ms 18, pp. 128-9.

In the autumn, when Archbishop Abbot faced prosecution for the accidental killing of a gamekeeper, there was speculation that Matthew had agreed to take over at Canterbury, but he was in fact ‘sore afflicted with rheum and cough’, and so missed all but one day of the autumn sitting of Parliament.104 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 400; York Minster Lib. ms 18, p. 129. He assigned his proxy to Abbot, George Montaigne^*, bishop of London, Neile (now bishop of Durham) and Andrewes, and was included in absentia on the committee for a fresh draft of the Thames navigation bill.105 LJ, iii. 4a, 171a.

Like Archbishop Abbot, Matthew can only have been dismayed by the gathering momentum for a Spanish Match during 1622-3. In the spring of 1622, when a benevolence was raised in lieu of the subsidy lost by the dissolution of Parliament, York diocese contributed only £955, about three-quarters of a clerical subsidy – a proportion slightly less than the average diocesan contribution, which suggests Matthew did not give his full endorsement to this levy.106 SP14/133/13. In November 1622, the York High Commission suspended its proceedings against recusants, a move almost certainly imposed by London, in the teeth of opposition from Matthew. The following January, Matthew relayed the royal instructions discouraging controversial preaching to his bishops, using the phrase ‘I am required to advertise your lordship thereof’ in each letter, a neutral form of words that hints at his dissatisfaction. In July 1623, when the Privy Council approved a marriage treaty which formalized the suspension of the recusancy laws, a letter said to have been written to the king by Matthew circulated in manuscript: ‘by your act, you labour to set up that most damnable and heretical doctrine of the church of Rome, the whore of Babylon’. The authorship of this complaint may be dubious, but the sentiments clearly reflected Matthew’s private opinion.107 Borthwick, HCAB 16, ff. 302-22; Aveling, 222; Carlisle Archive Cent. D&C1/3, ff. 252v-3v; Cabala (1654), 13-14.

Now thoroughly marginalized, it is not surprising that an early biographer remarked that, in the final years of his life, Matthew ‘died yearly in report’. In 1623 it was said that the lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln, would be removed to York upon Matthew’s death.108 Fuller, x. 133; NLW, 9058E/1067; Add. 72299, f. 60v. In 1624, not even the prospect of a ‘blessed revolution’ – the anti-Spanish policy promoted by Buckingham (now a duke) and Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales) – could bring Matthew to attend Parliament; he instead bestowed his proxy upon Abbot. During this session, Sir Thomas Hoby^‡ persuaded the Commons to collect a list of officeholders who had Catholic sympathies, or family members who were Catholics. Because of his son’s conversion, Matthew was necessarily included on this list, but MPs resolved not report him to the crown, on the grounds that his son had converted as an adult.109 LJ, iii. 212a; CJ, i. 776a; HP Commons 1604-29, iv. 740.

With a Spanish war now in prospect, Lord Keeper Williams circulated an order to enforce the recusancy laws shortly after the Parliament was prorogued. This obviously met with warm approval from Matthew, as in July, presiding over the York High Commission in person, he supervised the prosecution of a dozen prominent Yorkshire Catholics. The recusancy laws were suspended anew in December, to facilitate a French Match, but Matthew’s commissioners continued their proceedings against Catholics until the death of King James (March 1625).110 Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2 (P399/15-16); Borthwick, HCAB 16, ff. 322v-5; SP14/177/26; Aveling, 222; Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 1621-5 ed. M.C. Questier (Cam Soc 5th ser. xxxiv), 344-5. While government policy fluctuated over the last years of his life, Matthew continued to promote the enforcement of the recusancy laws whenever possible.111 Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 1621-5, p. 364; Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2 (P399/19, 21, 23-4); Add. 33207, f. 32; SP16/19/81.

‘Weak in body because of mine old age’ when he drafted his will in August 1625, Matthew was dispensed from the need to attend Parliament in 1625 and 1626, awarding his proxy to Abbot.112 Borthwick, Reg. Test. 40, f. 195; Procs. 1625, p. 590; Procs. 1626, iv. 10. Following the latter’s suspension from his archiepiscopal functions in July 1627, Matthew and the new lord keeper, Sir Thomas Coventry^* (later 1st Lord Coventry) were granted oversight of the ecclesiastical patronage normally wielded by the see of Canterbury; Matthew’s inability to travel presumably left Coventry to exercise this prerogative on his own.113 GEORGE ABBOT; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 218. In March 1628, with control of ecclesiastical policy firmly in the hands of King Charles and William Laud^*, bishop of Bath and Wells, Matthew was left with little choice but to award his parliamentary proxy to his enemies, Neile and Laud. He died less than two weeks into the session, on 28 Mar. 1628, and was buried in York Minster.114 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 25; Ath. Ox. ii. 871.

Having (as he insisted in his will) already spent £14,000 on his turncoat eldest son Sir Tobie, and paid off £2,000 debts incurred by his second son John, Matthew left both sons a piece of plate worth 20 marks. The remainder of his goods (appraised at £3,168) went to his wife, who gave £200 towards scholarships at Peterhouse, Cambridge, in memory of their son Samuel, who had died there as an undergraduate. Most of the rest of her estate passed to her grandchildren at her death the following year.115 Borthwick, Reg. Test. 40, ff. 195, 397-8v; Borthwick, Chancery wills, inventory 10 Apr. 1628.