the lease of 1553 and oblivious also of the moderating counsels of Parliament in 1648-entered upon the rectory and prebend, seized on part of the goods and personal estate of Sir Richard, and by force carried them away, they were very sternly told to restore them and to forbear molesting him or his tenants any further.' The Wynns of Gwydyr were able to breathe freely once more. Should the Parliamentary powers find church lands out of lease, they could then grant new leases of their own to their own friends (the records of the Committee for Compounding are full of the applications of these friends); more often they let out these lands and tithes on yearly tenancies; for example, the tithes of corn and grain belonging to the late Treasurer of Bangor at Llanfihangel-y-traethau were demised for 1649-1650 to Ellis Evans of Llandecwyn at a yearly rent of £20. So far, however, did they recognise the Anglican leases that they could not find anything more serious against the Llangyfelach lease granted by Bishop Mainwaring saving the question of its validity as being made by Dr. Ma[i]nwaring by y name of Roger Bishop of St. David's'. Surely this was a very attenuated objection for how could he call himself other than Bishop in the year 16 Caroli' when the lease was made? On the other hand, it was decreed that all leases contracted by Anglican clergy since 1 December, 1641, were of no force. There was a diligent search for flaws: had not King Charles himself pronounced anathema on promoted bishops who made hurry to grant leases before they departed to their new spheres? It was natural, too, to look out for lessees who sought to conceal the exact date of indenture, and for others who kept on receiving profits

3

1 Bodleian MS. 325, ff. 68, 69 (order of Committee for Plundered Ministers, 25 July, 1648).

2 Lambeth MS. 902, f. 64.

3 Lambeth Aug. Bk. 989, f. 9.

after the leases were expired. The knight of Gwydyr scurvily repaid the protection given him in 1648 by going on reaping the revenues of the prebend of Llanfair for about six years after its expiry in September 1652, till peremptory orders were given for the recovery of the arrears. Leases were often conveniently lost or mislaid." The Bishops and Deans took their bookes of records' with them to obscurity. Thus it was that Puritan 'discoverers' became as plentiful as Anglican 'informers' in the days following the Restoration. "I am perswaded there are some persons in Anglesey that can make it out, and will do it for reward, wherein I would not have you be sparing" so did the incorruptible regicide John Jones write from Dublin to one of them in 1653. The subterranean burrowings of these detectives displays the Puritan movement on its sordid side.

But the diversion of reserved rents towards the upkeep of a preaching ministry was under the circumstances an excellent improvisation, with the result that ministers of the Word were better paid under the Republic than for many a long day after. The Meliden diversion is not the best. example, yet it will serve. William Mostyn no longer handed over his yearly rent of £40 to the Treasurer of St. Asaph, but £20 of it had to go to the new Puritan minister placed there by the county committee of Flint; later the latter's salary was doubled by having the whole £40 handed over to him. It is well to know he was a sound Welshman, boasting the name of Morgan ap Morgan. When that lease was temporarily avoided' by Twisleton's purchase of the manor, the Lambeth Augmentation Books

1 Lambeth Aug. Bk. 989, f. 18 (Entry Q. 22). Order dated 9 March, 1658-1659.

2 For an example, see Cal. Comm. Comp., v, 3221. 'D. Davies: Ardudwy a'i Gwron, p. 207.

contain definite evidence that there was no break in the payment of the £40.'

The Restoration restored King and Bishops. Unfortunately, the King was restored by Presbyterians, and it was found necessary during the first year of his return to pay some lip-service to Presbyterian scruples. It would not be prudent to let the old Anglican practice of leasing ecclesiastical lands to Anglican lessees to rise resplendent from its ashes all at once. With a Convention Parliament composed of a Presbyterian majority the King and Clarendon had to walk very warily. The confused vision of the time is significantly represented by a letter sent by Charles to all the clergy on June 1, 1660. He told them that no new lease be granted of any rectories or parsonages until the lessors had provided that the vicarages or curates' places (where no vicarages were endowed) should have so much revenue in glebe or tithe as would amount to £80 or £100 per annum or even more; should the rectories be of small value and could not admit these proportions, then one-half of their profits was to be reserved for the maintenance of the vicar or curate. Such sums were to be settled upon them and their successors in good form of law. Those clergy who allowed the letter to pass unheeded were to be deemed unworthy of future favour. Arrangements made in obedience to it were to be reported to the Archbishop of Canterbury before 1 October every year. This politic document opened up many vistas and cut many ways: even when the Presbyterians were plotting deeply to Presbyterianise the Church of England, the King's letter loudly proclaimed the continuance of the Anglican hierarchy; at a time when it was dangerous to murmur the name of Oliver, it contained an 1 994, f. 213; 1004, f. 78.

2 Edward Cardwell: Docty. Annals, ii, Doct. CXLVII,

pp. 222-223.

oblique tribute to the dead Protector's desire for a wellpaid ministry; and just when expropriated bishops and deans were crowding the portals of Whitehall, Charles was giving orders which heralded a golden age for vicars and curates. By October the situation was much clearer for King and clergy: the Act of Indemnity (rather than Oblivion) had been passed in August; an Act to restore to their livings hundreds of ejected Anglicans became law in September; preparations were well afoot to try the more intransigent regicides. On 7 October Charles felt bold enough to issue a commission to search into all those 'pretended' sales and purchases of church lands in the late times (similar to that purchase of the manor of Gogarth, parcel of the possessions of the Bishop of Bangor, by Col. John Jones'); all records of such transactions had to be brought in; and until the rights and wrongs of these arrangements were unravelled, Churchmen were not to grant any new or concurrent leases, whereby the purchasers' present interest or possession may be hurt or disturbed', of lands which in the old days were theirs as of right. No doubt the manor of Meliden would fall to be discussed by this commission: Col. Twisleton would be asked to explain his part in purchasing the manor in 1650, and to explain also on what ground he avoided the lease of it granted to William Mostyn in 1639 (granted two years before the avoiding limit of 1 December, 1641, set up by the Puritan committees). Whatever he had to say must have been of little avail; soon afterwards the manor was once more in the hands of its ancient possessors. About the same time the King sent a letter to the Arch

1 Rawlinson MS. B. 239, p. 50, No. 546. The price paid was £322. 2 Cardwell: Docty. Annals, ii, Doct. CXLVIII, pp. 225-233. Something of the kind must have been in the minds of the Convention about two months before (Eng, Hist. Rev., xxii, 59, nn. 39, 40). ·

bishop of Canterbury in which he spoke up for the old tenants of expiring leases (as luck would have it, scores of Anglican year-leases made before the wars were now falling in), and hoped they would have the first option for renewal (as it happened, these old tenants were invariably strong Anglicans). Further, until new bishops were definitely consecrated and new chapters constituted, their ancient lands and revenues for the nonce fell into the King's hands, more especially when the owners or lessors had died during the interregnum: so numerous were these interests that a special Committee of the Commons was appointed to advise on their disposal. Evan Edwards of Rhual hurried up to London to plead the King's letter on options before this Committee and get a further lease of the prebendal lands of Llannefydd.'

Busy the days and many the problems of this feverish time. Let us add yet another. The Act for restoring ejected Anglicans (12 Chas. II, c. 17) was also an Act for confirming on certain conditions Puritan ministers in their present places. Clause xiii stated that leases made by such confirmed ministers, if made before 25 December 1659, were to stand good. Supposing one of these ministers, though confirmed by the Act of 1660, refused to conform to the Act of Uniformity in 1662, would the leases made before the end of 1659 still have remained good? Legally, yes. But I have not hitherto come across a case bearing on the point.'

Exch. Bills. & Ans., Denbigh, No. 1, Mich., 13 Chas. II. Evan Edwards v. William Williams and others. The depositions of the plaintiff and defendants in this case are of real historical importance. It is not always remembered that Evan Edwards was for years Baron of the Exchequer at Chester.

2 Statutes at Large (1734), ii, 507.

3 In the term of Hilary, 16 & 17 Chas. II, a case under this Act of 1660 came up for decision at the King's Bench (1 Levinz, 156-157; 1