STILL, John (c.1545-1608)

Still was born in Grantham, Lincolnshire. Little is known of his parentage, but ‘his breeding was from his childhood in good literature, and partly in music, which was counted … a preparative to divinity’. A precocious student, he advanced rapidly at Cambridge University, attracting two powerful patrons, Matthew Parker^†, archbishop of Canterbury and Robert Dudley^†, earl of Leicester. ‘So famous for a preacher, and especially a disputer, that the learned’st were even afraid to dispute with him’, he was appointed Lady Margaret professor while still in his mid-twenties.24 Fuller, ii. 276; J. Harington, Brief View of the State of the Church of Eng. (1653), 119-20. Presented by Elizabeth I with a prebend at Westminster Abbey in 1573, he subsequently became a royal chaplain, often preaching at court during Lent. However, he spent most of his time at Cambridge, where he served as master of two of the largest colleges, St John’s and Trinity, and also twice as vice chancellor.25 Fasti, vii. 78; McCullough (suppl. cal. 31, 34, 40, 49, 52, 55); HMC Hatfield, xiii. 145.

Given this distinguished track record, it was perhaps surprising that Still did not become a bishop until 1593. However, he seems not to have been on close terms with the then archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift^†, his predecessor as master of Trinity, and more likely owed his eventual elevation to a rising star at court, Leicester’s stepson, Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, whose college education he had supervised.26 B. Usher, Lord Burghley and Episcopacy, 118-20. Appointed to the diocese of Bath and Wells in January of that year, Still took his seat in the Lords less than a month later.27 Fasti, v. 1. Although a newcomer to Somerset, he strengthened his position in December that year by marrying into one of the county’s most influential gentry families, the Horners of Cloford. Still proved to be an effective administrator in his new bishopric, reversing decades of decline in the diocesan revenues. He also benefited financially from the presence on one of his episcopal estates of a rich lead mine, the considerable profits from which constituted part of his personal income.28 Fincham, 73; Hembry, 187, 189, 198; Fuller, 276. A firm advocate of the established Church, Still took a tough line against local nonconformists during his first decade at Wells, notwithstanding his own moderate Calvinist leanings.29 Fincham, 228, 293. Evidently comfortable in these surroundings, he rejected the opportunity to move to the more prestigious see of Ely in 1599, ostensibly because he objected to alienating diocesan property to the crown in return for his translation.30 Usher, Burghley and Episcopacy, 177.

Still adjusted without apparent difficulty to the new regime following the accession of James I in 1603. Indeed, during a diocesan visitation three years later, he demonstrated his loyalty by cracking down on parishes which failed to observe the annual thanksgiving for the failure of the Gowrie Plot against James in 1600.31 Fincham, 132. However, Still took little interest in local politics, despite his ties to the Somerset gentry, and he played no discernible part in the 1604 parliamentary elections. Although in theory capable of influencing the return of Members for both Wells and Somerset, he apparently never exercised such patronage.32 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 347, 360-1.

During the 1604 session, Still was present for just over two-thirds of the sittings, his only extended absence, from 28 Apr. to 10 May inclusive, being caused by illness.33 LJ, ii. 287a. However, he attracted only 12 appointments, of which half related to religious affairs. Named to bill committees concerned with adultery, recusancy, ecclesiastical property, and Church courts, he was also nominated to a conference to discuss complaints raised by the Commons about ecclesiastical matters. Following the pro-Catholic outburst on 25 June by Anthony Maria Browne^*, 2nd Viscount Montagu, Still was one of three bishops who answered this diatribe ‘in all points’.34 Ibid. 272a, 279a, 282b, 311a, 323a, 324b, 328a. Added on 21 Apr. to an existing conference committee appointed to debate the Union, he was subsequently named to confer with the Commons during the controversy over the book by John Thornborough^*, bishop of Bristol, in support of the proposed Union.35 Ibid. 284a, 332b. Still presumably took an interest in the bill to confirm a property exchange involving Trinity College, Cambridge, and was appointed to its committee.36 Ibid. 281a. Having missed two meetings of the committee for the bill to confirm a lease by Westminster Abbey, he declined to sign the committee’s report, instead certifying on 28 June that he had been briefed by John Young^*, bishop of Rochester, on the committee’s deliberations, and on that basis concurred with the report’s conclusions.37 Hatfield House, CP 111/73. In the aftermath of the session, Still agreed to lend £100 to the king, and supplied the Privy Council with a list of Somerset clergy who might also contribute.38 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 204.

Still’s success in taming the puritans in his diocese became apparent over the next year, when he was able to avoid depriving any of his clergy for nonconformity.39 Fincham, 228. However, by 1605 he was having major problems with Catholics in Wells itself. In August that year he was obliged to appeal for help to Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, after his efforts to punish a local recusant, Ann Lund, merely provoked open defiance from her family and friends. As he despondently admitted, Catholic priests were now being sheltered in his own cathedral city, and he himself had suffered ‘outrageous contempts’ while trying to uphold the law.40 Hatfield House, CP 191/31.

During the 1605-6 parliamentary session, Still was twice excused attendance due to illness, but was again present for nearly two-thirds of the sittings, receiving 20 appointments.41 LJ, ii. 401b, 422b. In the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot, he was named to the committee to devise punishments for the surviving conspirators, and also to scrutinize both of the resulting bills of attainder. Having been nominated to a conference to discuss national security, he was subsequently appointed to consider two anti-recusant measures.42 Ibid. 367b, 419b. After the Commons again voiced a number of grievances about ecclesiastical affairs, Still took a prominent role in the Lords’ response. Over the course of three conferences, he helped lead the debates on citations out of Church courts, and on 28 Apr. and 8 May he reported these discussions back to the upper House.43 Ibid. 411a, 416b, 418b, 424a, 428a. Still was appointed both to a bill committee for reform of purveyance, and to a conference on the same topic.44 Ibid. 407b, 413a; Bowyer Diary, 116-17. An obvious choice for the legislative committee concerned with crown funding of Cambridge theology readerships, he was also nominated to consider the bill confirming royal letters patents in general.45 LJ, ii. 386b, 393b. Still apparently made a good impression on the committee named to consider a bill about the beer industry, for in the next three weeks he received appointments to further legislative committees concerned with economic affairs, namely cloth exports, timber production in Devon, and free trade with France, Portugal and Spain.46 Ibid. 390b, 396b, 397b, 399b.

Still managed to avoid falling ill during the 1606-7 parliamentary session, and attended exactly three-quarters of its sittings. Despite his frequent presence in the Lords, he attracted just two appointments prior to the Christmas recess, to a conference on the Union, and the committee for a further bill on free trade.47 LJ, ii. 453a, 464b. Still may have returned to his diocese during the recess, since he supplied the historian John Stowe with an account of the great storm surge which inundated the Somerset coast in January 1607.48 Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 14n. Once back in the upper House, he received another 21 nominations. Of these, just four related to the Church, namely bills concerned with a Devon prebend, the churchwardens of St Saviour’s, Southwark, the lands of the archbishopric of Canterbury, and ecclesiastical canons. The last of these represented a controversial puritan attempt to bring Convocation under closer parliamentary scrutiny, and Still may well have helped to ensure that the measure proceeded no further.49 LJ, ii. 489a, 503a-b, 513b; CJ, i. 326a, 350b. As in the previous session, he was named to a bill committee on the crown’s letters patents. His involvement in the continuing debates about the Union was limited, but he was nominated to the committee for the bill to abolish hostile laws between England and Scotland.50 LJ, ii. 520b, 524b. His other business included seven bills on economic matters, from conservation of the country’s timber supplies to cloth and leather manufacture.51 Ibid. 473a, 511a, 514b, 528b.

Still’s presence at Westminster meant that he missed a further outbreak of disorder at Wells in May and June 1607. In breach of local regulations, and also a royal proclamation about Sabbath observance, a series of church ales, plays and processions were staged in the city, in the course of which the bishop himself was parodied. Upon his return to Wells in July, Still ordered an inquiry, and attempted to arrest the principal offenders, but once again he met with defiance, and the problems continued into the autumn. It did not help matters that the dean of Wells had actually approved and attended the church ales, thereby undermining the bishop’s authority. The episode was closed only in January 1608, when the Somerset bench once again banned all church ales in the county, Still himself signing the order during his final appearance at the quarter sessions.52 Recs. of Early Eng. Drama: Som. ed. J. Stokes and R.J. Alexander, i. 261-2, 264, 269-71; Wells Convocation Act Bks. 1589-1629 ed. A. Nott and J. Hasler (Som. Rec. Soc. xc), 25; Som. Q. Sess. Recs. 7.

Still drew up his will on 4 Feb. 1608, requesting burial in his cathedral with the dignity appropriate to his rank, and assigning 400 marks for his funeral expenses. The personal bequests provided a revealing picture of the bishop’s comparative affluence. To provide a new home for his wife Jane, he had recently spent £1,420 on a house at Somerton, which he had then rebuilt. She was also to receive £500, and a large quantity of plate and furnishings, including one of his two new suits of tapestry. All three of his sons were left property in Somerset or Suffolk, the two younger boys each getting £500 for their maintenance until they came of age. Around £600 was bequeathed to other relatives, while £500 was set aside for augmenting the Wells almshouses. The cathedral chapter were each to receive a memorial ring.53 PROB 11/111, ff. 270v-77.

Within two days of his death, on 26 Feb. 1608, Still’s diocese had been promised by the king to James Montagu^*. In return for their legacies, the chapter charged Still’s son Nathaniel only a token fee for erecting the bishop’s funeral monument in the cathedral. However, implementation of the almshouse bequest proved complicated, and terms were not finally agreed with Wells corporation until 1613.54 HMC Hatfield, xx. 86; HMC Wells, ii. 359, 364; Wells Convocation Act Bks. 242-3, 246, 253.