MURRAY, William (c.1580-1640)

No evidence has emerged to indicate Murray’s birthplace or parentage. While his surname suggests Scottish ancestry, his academic career in Cambridge points to an English upbringing; when he became a fellow of Magdalene College, around the start of James I’s reign, Scots were still barred by the university statutes from holding such posts.24 V. Morgan, Hist. of Univ. of Camb. iii. 294; C.H. Cooper, Annals of Camb. iii. 43-4. Nor have any family ties been found with the numerous Scottish Murrays who came south following James’s accession. However, Murray probably enjoyed connections at court, as his first rectory, at Maiden Newton in Dorset, was in the king’s gift, while his next benefice, Ruan Lanihorne, in Cornwall, was controlled by Richard Bancroft^*, archbishop of Canterbury. By 1611 Murray had entered the service of the puritan peer William Russell^*, 1st Lord Russell, who procured a dispensation for him that same year to hold Ruan Lanihorne in commendam with another Cornish rectory at Lanivet. Russell died two years later, but by 1614 Murray was a royal chaplain, and also a canon of Wells Cathedral, a position he owed to the diocesan bishop, James Montagu^*, who was also dean of the Chapel Royal. Less than a year later, he obtained a second prebend, at Exeter, perhaps through the influence of the master of Magdalene, Barnaby Gooch^‡, who had been nominated as diocesan chancellor a few months earlier. However, Murray probably regarded both posts primarily as sources of income, given that he pursued his Cambridge studies until at least 1621.25 CCEd; C58/15 (17 Aug. 1611); HMC Wells, ii. 369; Al. Cant.; Exeter Cathedral Lib., D&C 3553, f. 52.

If Murray did have a court patron, John Murray^‡, a longstanding groom of the king’s bedchamber, keeper of the privy purse and a trusted royal confidante is a plausible candidate. Among John’s closest friends was an important Kent gentleman, Sir Thomas Watson^‡. Murray married Watson’s widow in 1623, so the two Murrays most likely knew each other, irrespective of any distant kinship ties. Indeed, if they were related, John could even have arranged the marriage.26 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 47; 1611-18, pp. 36, 74; PROB 11/139, f. 17v. This putative connection is significant, because, during the previous year, John had joined the inner circle of the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, who by then largely controlled ecclesiastical patronage.27 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 441-2; N. Cuddy, ‘Revival of the Entourage’, D. Starkey et al., The Eng. Ct. 220. It may therefore have been through John’s influence that, in March 1622, Murray was nominated as bishop of Kilfenora, a diocese in the west of Ireland.

Although he travelled to Dublin for his consecration nine months later, Murray apparently spent little time in his new see, which was so poorly endowed that he was permitted to retain Lanivet rectory, and granted a supplementary Irish benefice.28 SO3/7, unfol. (15 Mar. 1622); H. Cotton, Fasti Ecclesiae Hibernicae, i. 503; J. Ware, Hist. of the Bps. of Ire. (1739), 625; CCEd. These financial problems may also have prompted his marriage to the wealthy Elizabeth Watson, a resident of Drury Lane, Westminster. Their neighbours included the current bishop of Exeter, Valentine Carey^*, whose anti-Calvinist views conceivably influenced Murray. When Elizabeth died in May 1624, Murray inherited her lease of the rectory of Otford, Kent, but became embroiled in a series of lawsuits with his stepdaughter over the residue of the estate.29 C2/Jas. I/K5/64; 2/Jas.I/P10/38; PROB 11/143, ff. 519v-20. Undeterred by this experience, he married a second widow, Dorothy Lowe, in 1625, only to find himself in a legal battle with the joint executor of her first husband’s will.30 C3/409/202; PROB 11/143, ff. 147-8. Murray was certainly in London in December 1626, when he assisted in the consecration of Francis White^* as bishop of Carlisle. This controversial ceremony, which included an Arminian sermon by John Cosin^† (later bishop of Durham), took place at Durham House. Murray’s presence suggests that he was now associating with the anti-Calvinist circle of Richard Neile^*, bishop of Durham (later archbishop of York), though he never became a prominent member of this group.31 A. Milton, Catholic and Reformed, 77; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 179.

Murray was translated to the Welsh diocese of Llandaff in December 1627, and just four months later took his seat in the House of Lords. He attended all but seven sittings of the 1628 parliamentary session, and received seven nominations, all to legislative committees. Appointed to scrutinize both versions of the bill concerning the tenurial customs of Bromfield and Yale manor, Denbighshire, he was also added to the committee for the bill to improve navigation on the Medway, in Kent, doubtless on the strength of the property he acquired through his first marriage. One particular nomination, to the estate bill promoted by Vincent Lowe, one of his second wife’s kinsmen, will presumably have been of special interest to him.32 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 120, 377, 546, 699; PROB 11/143, ff. 147-8. Aside from this business, Murray was appointed to preach before the king at Whitehall on 11 May.33 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 73; LC5/132, p. 6. During the 1629 session, the bishop was even more assiduous in his attendance, missing just a single sitting. This time he attracted no parliamentary appointments, but was chosen to read the opening prayers when the Lords assembled in Westminster Abbey on 18 Feb. for the general fast.34 Diary of Sir Richard Hutton 1614-39 ed. W.R. Prest (Selden Soc. suppl. ser. ix), 76.

In June 1629 Murray successfully petitioned for a grant of the Monmouthshire manor of Bassaleg, to supplement his episcopal income. This enabled him, in the following year, to resign the other benefices which he was holding in commendam.35 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 570, 593; SO3/9, unfol. (12 Dec. 1627). Appointed a Welsh magistrate, he played a minor role in the local government of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire during the next decade, but spent most of his time in the capital.36 CSP Dom. 1634-5, p. 395 [misdated petition; evidently 1639]; 1639, p. 70; 1639-40, p. 442; PC2/51, f. 81. There he witnessed the admission of William Laud^*, bishop of London (later archbishop of Canterbury), as chancellor of Oxford university, while in 1634 he attended the consecration of Francis Dee^*, bishop of Peterborough, at Lambeth Palace.37 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 586; Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, v. 7; CCEd. In 1636, the papal agent in England, Gregorio Panzani, assessed Murray’s attitude towards the Catholic Church as ‘molto moderato’, which implies that he was strongly Arminian. How vigorously he pursued Laudian policies in Llandaff diocese is unclear, though he did at least enforce the introduction of altar-rails in chancels, and probably therefore also encouraged the placing of communion tables altar-wise.38 Milton, 365; J. Davies, Caroline Captivity of the Church, 218; Vis. Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church ed. K. Fincham, ii (Church of Eng. Rec. Soc. v), p. xviii; K. Fincham, ‘Restoration of Altars in the 1630s’, HJ, xliv. 928, 935, 937. What is more certain from his annual reports to Laud is that Murray faced a serious challenge from local nonconformists. Indeed, the most significant legacy of his episcopate was the establishment of the earliest congregationalist churches in south-east Wales, by clergy he deprived for ‘schismatical’ behaviour.39 Works of Abp. Laud, v. 329-30, 334-5, 344-5; J.R. Guy and E.B. Smith, Ancient Gwent Churches, 44; Oxford DNB, xviii. 491; lx. 544-5.

Murray died suddenly in February 1640, leaving no will. Both of his marriages had proved childless, and it is not known whether his second wife survived him. He was buried in Mathern church, adjacent to his bishop’s palace, but no memorial was erected to him. In the following January administration of his estate was granted to a creditor, Edward Baker.40 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 235; Le Neve, Fasti (1854), ii. 253; Guy and Smith, 48; PROB 6/18, f. 2.