WRIGHT, Robert (1559/60-1643)

Born in St Albans, Hertfordshire in 1559-60, Wright’s baptism is not recorded, and as his surname was common, his parents cannot be identified. He matriculated at Trinity College, Oxford as a scholar in 1574, and was elected to a fellowship in 1581, shortly after proceeding BA.21 Ath. Ox. iv. 800; St. Albans Abbey Reg. trans. W. Brigg, 5-21, 127-35, 184-9; Al. Ox. He is easily confused with two Cambridge contemporaries. One was rector of St John the Evangelist (1589-90) and St Katherine, Coleman Street (1591-1626), both in London, while the other served the parishes of Woodford (1589-1619) and Rettendon (1619-26) in Essex. Nor was the future bishop the Robert Wright BA who briefly held the archdeaconry of Carlisle in 1621-3.22 CCEd; R. Newcourt, Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinense (1708-10), i. 374, 379; ii. 680; Fasti, xi. 19.

After taking his bachelor’s degree in divinity, Wright went to France on the Rouen campaign of 1591-2 as chaplain to the diplomat Sir Henry Unton^‡, who commended him as ‘a very learned, discreet and virtuous man’, who ‘hath done great good not only to my family, but to the whole English camp’. Unton died on another embassy in 1596, whereupon Wright edited a volume of memorial verses.23 Ath. Ox. iv. 801-2; Unton Corresp. 343; R. Wright, Funebria Nobilissimi … D. Henrici Untoni (1596).

Wright’s ecclesiastical career began in 1595 with his institution as rector of Peper Harow, Surrey, at the nomination of Sir John Savage (d.1596), a Cheshire landowner then living on his second wife’s jointure estate at Beaurepaire, Hampshire. This was almost certainly a sinecure; and it is possible Wright was the family chaplain. In 1596 Sir John’s son Edward Savage^‡ – Wright’s contemporary as an Oxford undergraduate – sponsored his appointment to the crown living of Brixton Deverell, Wiltshire. Wright presently surrendered his Oxford fellowship and his Surrey living, but held Brixton for 36 years, together with the vicarage of Sonning, Berkshire, which he probably acquired in 1599.24 CCEd; Bodl., Tanner 179, unfol.; HP Commons, 1558-1603, iii. 547. John Wright MA was instituted at Sonning in 1599, but Robert Wright DD was listed as the vicar in 1600, see CCEd. To these preferments he added a royal chaplaincy, the treasurership of Wells Cathedral in December 1601, and the rectory of Hayes, Middlesex in 1602. Although his patron in the latter case was William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, whose estate at Wilton, Wiltshire lay only a few miles from Brixton, the accelerating tempo of his preferments suggests that Wright had by then become chaplain to John Whitgift^†, archbishop of Canterbury. However, no link with the archbishop has been established before February 1604 (the month Whitgift died), when Wright was granted a dispensation to hold his scattered livings in commendam. Wright also had other powerful friends, as his quest for further preferment at Wells was supported by Sir Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury).25 Fasti, v. 15, 109; CCEd; HMC Hatfield, xii. 371; xvii. 73-4, 647; xviii. 231.

It was doubtless at Wells that Wright made the acquaintance of the Somerset merchant Nicholas Wadham, whose widow became the founder of Wadham College, Oxford. The latter may always have intended to nominate Wright as the first warden, but her brother, John Petre^*, 1st Lord Petre, pressured her to appoint instead William Osborne, a fellow of All Souls’ and chaplain to Richard Bancroft^*, archbishop of Canterbury. However, as soon as she received news of the archbishop’s death (2 Nov. 1610), Dorothy Wadham insisted ‘I … cannot remember, that I did pass any absolute assent’, and declared Wright to be her choice, claiming to have heard rumours that Osborne was guilty of simony in procuring his livings. Salisbury and the king both swiftly declared their assent, and Wright was admitted as the college’s first warden in April 1613. He relinquished the post abruptly only three months later, having married in contravention of the college statutes, which specified that the warden be celibate; he secured a royal dispensation from this requirement, but the foundress presumably refused to accept it.26 N. Briggs, ‘Foundation of Wadham Coll., Oxf.’, Oxoniensia (1956), 72-7; Letters of Dorothy Wadham ed. R.B. Gardiner, 11, 18; SO3/5 unfol. (30 June 1613); Wadham Coll. 1610-2010 ed. C. Davies and J. Garnett, 15. For Osborne, see Al. Ox.; All Souls’, Oxf. autograph letters I/74, 89.

The manner of his departure from Wadham perhaps cast a cloud over Wright’s career, which languished for the next decade. The death of his early patrons doubtless hampered his ambitions, but the decision to baptize his son Calvert suggests a close relationship with Secretary of State Sir George Calvert^‡, who became a regular advocate on his behalf. On hearing, in January 1622, a rumour of the death of Tobie Matthew^*, archbishop of York, Secretary Calvert wrote to the favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, asking that Wright might have one of the promotions which would follow. Rumours of Matthew’s death were exaggerated, and the next bishopric to fall vacant was Bristol, which, being valued at only £340 p.a., inspired little interest. Wright’s only known rival for the see was Samuel Collins, provost of King’s College, Cambridge, who had allegedly been nominated by Sir Albertus Morton^‡ merely in order for the latter to secure the provost-ship of King’s for himself. Wright secured a generous financial package, keeping all his other preferments except for the rectory of Hayes, which he later replaced with another living at Boughton-on-the-Water, Gloucestershire.27 Fortescue Pprs. ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. i), 174; Trans. Congregational Hist. Soc. (1913-15), vi. 56; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii.462, 464; Add.72275, f. 29v; CCEd. It is likely he paid Buckingham for this promotion.

During the 1624 parliamentary session, Wright attended almost every day of the Lords’ debates, and was quite prominent for a newcomer. In the debate of 27 Feb. about whether to break off the Spanish Match, he insisted that ‘to treat further is to lose time’, and in light of the Spanish failure to offer any practical help to restore the Palatinate to its rightful rulers, he insisted it was ‘unworthy of this kingdom to receive assistance so often, when they able to do it [recover the Palatinate] of themselves’. He also was named to the committee for munitions appointed two days later, which had a broad remit to review the national defences. Its investigations uncovered evidence of sharp practice in the Ordnance Office by the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, Buckingham’s sharpest critic. Wright was included on the committee ordered to investigate these irregularities, and played an active part in the treasurer’s impeachment. However, when another of the favourite’s enemies, Lord Keeper John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln, came under attack in a clumsy libel, Wright was one of several bishops who called for the punishment of the instigator.28 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 9, 14-15, 36; LJ, iii. 237b, 316a, 329a, 358b-61a; LIONEL CRANFIELD.

The routine business of the House also occasionally engaged Wright’s interest. On 9 Mar. he was named to the committee for petitions, and a week later, he complained about an incident in which the servants of various peers had tricked others into buying them drinks, passing their cloaks to the innkeeper in pawn for the debt.29 LJ, iii. 253a, 264a; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 234; Add. 40087, f. 87 He was naturally included on the committee for the bill to confirm the endowments of Wadham College, and the bill for restitution in blood of Carew Ralegh, as many of the estates involved lay in his diocese. He was also named to the committee for the bill to annul a monopoly for the packing of fish in the West Country, but he was struck off the committee list for the monopolies’ bill, probably because too many bishops had been included.30 LJ, iii. 275a, 313a, 386b; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 42v.

In the 1625 Parliament, Wright was again regular in his attendance, although he played a more modest role in the proceedings. He was named to the committee for privileges, and its subcommittee, charged with considering bills left unfinished from the previous Parliament and the continued misdemeanours of peers’ servants. However, the only legislative committees he was included on were those to update militia arms – he played an active role in the administration of the Bristol militia – and a bill of local interest, to rescind restrictions on West Country mariners fishing off the coast of New England.31 Procs. 1625, pp. 45, 59, 72, 179; SP16/47/24.

The 1626 Parliament was dominated by the proceedings against Buckingham and his most determined enemy, John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol. Like many others, Wright kept a low profile during the session. He only attended two-thirds of the sittings, and did not participate in the impeachments at all. Indeed, on 15 May, when peers were required to state whether Sir Dudley Digges^‡ and Sir John Eliot^‡ had suggested that King Charles had been an accessory to Buckingham’s murder of his father, Wright was one of the few listed as present who contrived to avoid saying anything; he may have slipped away when he realized that he would be required to declare his allegiance.32 Procs. 1626, i. 477-8, 483; C. Russell, PEP, 315-19. He was involved in a certain amount of routine business, largely during the first half of the session: he was included on the standing committees for privileges and petitions, the committee for the bill to update militia armaments, the committee for reviewing the nation’s defences, and the committee to consider a petition for relief of English mariners held by north African pirates.33 Procs. 1626, i. 48, 53, 110, 192. Two of the bill committees to which he was named related to his local interests: the West Country bill for free fishing off the coasts of America; and a private bill to confirm possession of a Berkshire estate.34 Ibid. 104 n.1, 119, 128.

In 1628 Wright was much more assiduous in his attendance of the Lords, hardly missing a day. However, he is not reported to have spoken in the debates on the liberty of the subject, and his only involvement in this key issue was to be included on a delegation to discuss the title of the Petition of Right with the Commons.35 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 679. One of three bishops who held the proxy of George Carleton^*, bishop of Chichester, he was, as before, included on the committees for privileges and petitions. He was again named to the committee for the ransoming of English captives in north Africa. Moreover, when it was revealed that he had failed to pay over the money raised in Bristol diocese in 1625 for the relief of the plague victims in London, he was required to remit his receipts to George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury, to be used for redeeming these prisoners.36 Ibid. 25, 73, 79, 555, 690, 705. Unlike in previous sessions, Wright was included on several committees for ecclesiastical affairs: the drafting of a petition for enforcement of the existing recusancy laws; a new recusancy bill; a bill to increase clerical stipends; and a bill to restrict the terms on which bishops could exploit their estates by making long leases.37 Ibid. 96, 112, 389, 626. He was again included on committees for bills to upgrade militia arms and allow free fishing off New England; while he was also named to the committee for the bill to promote Vermuyden’s scheme for draining the Great Fens, there being a similar scheme planned for the Somerset Levels. His inclusion on the committee for the bill to increase trade and shipping doubtless reflected the interests of Bristol’s merchants.38 Ibid. 88, 146, 371-2, 548.

Wright only missed one day of the brief 1629 parliamentary session, but made no recorded speeches. Most of his committee nominations concerned issues he had already been linked with: privileges and petitions; the increase of trade; and the defence of the realm. He was also included on the delegation which successfully petitioned the king for a national fast day.39 LJ, iv. 6a-b, 8a, 14a, 37b.

While the loss of the relevant records precludes a full assessment of his career at Bristol, Wright is known to have conducted his primary visitation of 1623 in person. Moreover, when he received the king’s instructions of December 1629 for diocesan administration, he complained that the dean and chapter declined to assist him at ordinations, and (in anticipation of resistance from the Bristol corporation) observed that the regulations for weekly lectures were difficult to apply to a large city. He also insisted that he had spent more time residing in his diocese than any of his predecessors, to the dismay of his family, who may still have been living in Berkshire.40 Fincham, 320; Vis. Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church II ed. K. Fincham (Church of Eng. Rec. Soc. v), 37-8; SP16/160/68; 16/198/3. His visitation articles of 1631 demonstrate an interest in the minutiae of ceremonial, a longstanding concern of the anti-Calvinist faction within the Church: bowing at the name of Jesus; kneeling to receive communion; regular Sunday catechism classes; conventicles and lay nonconformity; and clerical conformity to the rubric of the Prayer Book. However, he was unusual in making detailed inquiries about recusants, and as for the communion table – then becoming the touchstone of avant garde Caroline churchmanship – he merely specified it should be sited where ‘the minister may be best heard’.41 Vis. Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church II, 56-68. The sternest critic of his tenure at Bristol proved to be his successor, Robert Skinner^†, who in 1638 complained to William Laud^*, archbishop of Canterbury, of his careless administration of episcopal properties.42 SP16/386/2.

Wright does not fit comfortably within the stereotypes of Caroline ecclesiastical politics. He was clearly no Calvinist, being a patron of Edmund Reeve, whose published works refuted the doctrine of reprobation.43 M. Cahill, ‘Dioc. of Coventry and Lichfield, 1603-42’ (Warwick Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 2001), 193; K. Fincham and N. Tyacke, Altars Restored, 146. Nor did he set much stock by preaching: Dudley Carleton^* (later Viscount Dorchester) was unimpressed by a court sermon Wright delivered during Lent 1610, and though Wright claimed at the end of his life to have spent 58 years preaching, none of his sermons was ever published. Moreover, Wright’s 1631 visitation articles scrutinized the orthodoxy, but not the quality, of preaching among his clergy.44 P. McCullough, Sermons at Ct. (suppl. cal. 158-9); Vis. Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church II, 60-1, 66; R. Wright, A Speech Spoken in the House of Commons … (1641), 3. In 1636 Gregorio Panzani, the papal envoy, enthusiastically reckoned Wright to be ‘quasi Cattolico’, but in the 1620s Wright had not been associated with the Arminian faction led by Richard Neile^*, then bishop of Durham and now archbishop of York, while his relationship with Laud, with whom he doubtless became acquainted during the latter’s tenure as bishop of Bath and Wells (1626-8), was not always smooth.45 G. Albion, Chas. I and the Ct. of Rome, 413. That being said, he was prepared to co-operate with Laud to secure his own future. In the autumn of 1632, following the translation of Neile from Winchester to York, he was tipped to succeed Walter Curle^* at Bath and Wells. In the event, he secured Coventry and Lichfield, a rather wealthier see, valued at £633 p.a. However, as he was required to surrender his other preferments, his overall income probably decreased.46 W.S. Powell, John Pory, microfiche supplement, 306; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 183; Trans. Congregational Hist. Soc. vi. 56.

Wright was selected for Lichfield by Laud in order to impose the latter’s priorities on a diocese which had been run for over a decade by the Calvinist Thomas Morton^* (who was translated to the bishopric of Durham). Wright was happy to comply, but prepared to compromise on the details, for the sake of a quiet life.47 D.J. Oldridge, ‘Conflicts within the Established Church in Warws. c.1603-42’ (Warwick Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1992), 10-12, 52-4; Cahill, 212-16. His visitation articles of 1633 sought to check on the implementation of the royal instructions of 1629, but mentioned nothing about the touchstone of Laudian churchmanship, the positioning and railing of altars, merely repeating the ambiguous order included in his 1631 Bristol articles. However, in the aftermath of the St Gregory’s test case (November 1633), Wright called for the Laudian agenda to be implemented, orders which were reinforced by Laud’s visitation of the diocese in May 1635.48 Cahill, 194-6, 203-6; Vis. Articles and Injunctions of the early Stuart Church II, 68-9. Wright’s own subsequent visitation articles did not follow this up, but local churchwardens’ accounts show a substantial level of compliance. Efforts to edify the fabric and implements of worship also met with some success, although Wright was reluctant to report Lady Eleanor Davies for desecrating the improvements at Lichfield Cathedral in 1636, perhaps for fear of seeming partial, as he had quarrelled with her as executor of the will of her late husband, Sir John Davies^‡.49 Oldridge, 63-4, 75-82; Cahill, 198-202, 206-9; Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, v. 346; Birch, ii. 259. Wright’s implementation of Laudian policy was nevertheless inconsistent. On the one hand, while no sabbatarian, he was reluctant to enforce the promulgation of the Book of Sports in 1633, and he failed to provide Laud with an annual report of his diocese for four years, which led the king to object ‘that his commands should be so slightly regarded’. Yet on the other he enthusiastically reported nonconformity to Laud’s visitors in 1635, even though many of the allegations proved to be no more than hearsay.50 Cahill, 197-8, 203-6; Works of Abp. Laud, v. 331, 336, 346, 354; SP16/386/2; J.C. Davies, Caroline Captivity of the Church, 203.

An octogenarian by the time of the Bishops’ Wars, Wright played no active part in either campaign. However, he returned to Parliament in 1640, when he was one of only three bishops to oppose the suspension of Godfrey Goodman^*, bishop of Gloucester, after the latter refused to subscribe to the new Canons passed by Convocation. He was also one of the twelve bishops who petitioned against their exclusion from the Lords by the mob in December 1641, and though he swiftly begged the Commons for forgiveness of his ‘rash subscription’, he spent 18 weeks in the Tower. He subsequently retired to his seat at Eccleshall Castle, Staffordshire, which he held for the king during the Civil War, dying there in August 1643 while besieged by the Cheshire forces of Sir William Brereton^‡, 1st bt.51 Wright, 3; Davies, 270-1; Ath. Ox. iv. 801-2. In his will, drafted on 3 May 1643, he asked to be buried at Lichfield, ‘if cathedral churches stand’, or otherwise at Wadham College. He left his wife a life annuity of £300 p.a. from his 99 year lease of the manor of Newnham Courtney, Oxfordshire which he had purchased in 1639 for £20,000. His daughter Hester was promised a dowry of £4,000, while the rest of his estate passed to his son Calvert, who had recently married. His son managed to dissipate the substantial fortune he had amassed, dying in debtors’ prison in 1666.52 PROB 10/640, ff. 246-50; Ath. Ox. iv. 801-2.