cons. 28 Oct. 1660 bp. of SALISBURY; transl. 15 Sept. 1663 bp. of LONDON
First sat 20 Nov. 1661; last sat 5 May 1675
bap. 22 Dec. 1592, 3rd s. of Thomas Henchman, skinner of the City of London and Wellingborough, Northants. and Anne, da. of Robert Griffiths of Caernarfon. educ. Christ’s, Camb. matric. 1609, BA 1613, MA 1616; Clare, Camb. fell. 1617–23, BD 1623, DD 1628. m. 1630, Ellen, da. of Robert Townson†, bp. of Salisbury, niece of John Davenant†, bp. of Salisbury, and wid. of J. Lowe, 3s. 1da. (1s. 1da. d.v.p.). d. 7 Oct. 1675; will 25 Aug., pr. 19 Oct. 1675.1
Lord almoner 1662–75; PC 1663–75.
Precentor Salisbury 1623–60; preb. Salisbury 1623–63; rect. St Peter and All Saints, Rushton, Northants. 1624–43, Westbury, Wilts. 1631–43, Wyke Regis, Kingsteignton and Portland, Dorset 1639–43; vic. Yealmpton, Devon 1629–43; commr. Savoy conference 1661.2
FRS 1665.
Likenesses: oil on canvas, by P. Lely, c.1665, NPG 6496 and copies;3 mezzotint after Lely, NPG D29525.
Henchman was already a significant figure in the Church hierarchy by the time of the Restoration, having enjoyed rapid promotion and influence within the Salisbury chapter in the 1620s and 1630s. At the start of the civil wars he joined Charles I in Oxford and as a result he was deprived of his preferments in 1643, his library was destroyed and he was forced to compound in 1648 for £200.4 Throughout the Interregnum he lived discreetly in Salisbury, though he assisted Charles II on his escape from Worcester and was one of the circle of prominent clergy and laymen, including Gilbert Sheldon, later bishop of London and archbishop of Canterbury, Brian Duppa, bishop of Salisbury, Henry Hammond, Richard Allestree and John Evelyn, who worked to maintain the operations and morale of the Church of England.5 In 1658 or 1659 Edward Hyde, the future earl of Clarendon, included him on the planning lists for the Church as a potential bishop of Peterborough or Carlisle.6 Hyde, who would commission a portrait of Henchman in the 1660s, probably knew him from Salisbury connections (and Henchman and Hyde’s cousin Alexander Hyde, one of his successors as bishop of Salisbury were married to sisters).
In September 1660, ambitious to secure the see of Salisbury (which was about to be vacated by the translation of Duppa to Winchester), he helped the secretary of state, Sir Edward Nicholas‡, and his son John Nicholas‡, to arrange leases of church lands in the diocese.7 Other leases were given to relatives in 1661, and Sheldon’s 1670 enquiry about disposal of the profits made on the renewal of church leases at the Restoration (by which time Henchman had been translated to London) elicited the answer that at the Restoration £24,000 had been received by three people, including Henchman and the dean, ‘but what they laid out in public uses is not visible to us’, together with some resentment that little money had been lavished on the cathedral fabric.8 He was consecrated with Sheldon and other new bishops at the end of October 1660, at a magnificent ceremony followed by ‘sumptuous’ feasting.9 In the same month he was one of the representatives of the Church interest at the Worcester House meeting. He took an active role in the Savoy conference of 1661 and impressed the Presbyterian leader Richard Baxter with his ‘grave, comely, reverent aspect’, and his knowledge of church history and theology, if not his flexibility.10
By October 1661 Henchman was already searching out political and religious dissidents. He was particularly worried about the situation in Shinfield, Berkshire, where the Anabaptist cordwainer William Stanley continued to preach and praised ‘the good old times’. Stanley, the vicar and ‘factious parishioners’ not only refused to obey the bishop’s order to desist but ‘jointly disclaimed the authority of bishops’. The lord lieutenant, John Lovelace, 2nd Baron Lovelace, and the local justices of the peace were ‘unwilling to interpose in ecclesiastical affairs, unless some commands from his majesty require them because of the great hazard of sedition which might arise thereby’.11
Henchman took his seat on 20 Nov. 1661, the first day on which the restored bishops were eligible to attend the House. Generally in his seat on the first day of a parliamentary session, he attended each of the 14 sessions of the Cavalier Parliament that assembled during his episcopate, 11 for more than 60 per cent of sittings and eight of those for more than 80 per cent. In the course of his career he was nominated to more than 240 select committees and chaired at least 15 of those. He also compiled a parliamentary journal for the period 1664 to 1667, one of the few surviving sources for debates and processes in the upper house.12
Henchman attended his first parliamentary session (1661–2) for nearly 70 per cent of sittings, despite joining the session more than six months after the start of business. He was named to 52 select committees and to the sessional committees for privileges and the Journal. He was an active member of the Journal committee, examining the Journal on 11 Apr. and 2 May 1662. On 14 Dec. 1661 he was one of the managers of the conference on the bill for confirming private acts. He held the proxy of Hugh Lloyd, bishop of Llandaff, from 28 Apr. 1662 to the end of the session.
During the summer of 1662, Henchman conducted a scrupulous visitation, reporting that numerous parishes revealed ‘material deficiencies’ in both their fabric and furnishings, and in August sent Clarendon details of livings in the king’s gift vacant as a result of the Act of Uniformity, rather obsequiously requesting one of them for his chaplain.13 On 18 Feb. 1663, he attended the opening of the 1663 session and thereafter was present for nearly 97 per cent of sittings, again holding Hugh Lloyd’s proxy. He was named to 39 committees as well as to the three sessional committees for privileges, the Journal and petitions. Once again he was an active member of the Journal committee, examining the Journal three times during the course of business. On 26, 28 and 30 Mar. 1663 he managed conferences on Jesuits and Catholic priests. He also occasionally acted as committee chairman: on 19 June, following the adjournment of the committee on the observation of the Sabbath, Henchman took over the chair from Baptist Noel, 3rd Viscount Campden; he also chaired a session of the bill to naturalize George Willoughby. He helped steer the Select Vestry Act through its committee stage and reported from both it and the observation of the Sabbath bill on 1 July 1663.14
Involvement in the vestries bill suggests a close working relationship with Sheldon on an issue of some importance for the latter, and for the Church in London. Indeed, within a fortnight of the death of William Juxon, archbishop of Canterbury, on 4 June 1663, it was known that Sheldon would replace him and that Henchman would be translated to London in Sheldon’s place.15 Even after his translation in September it was believed that he still had influence in Salisbury and in April 1664 George Monck, duke of Albemarle, thought Henchman might be able to assist the election of his brother-in-law, Sir Thomas Clarges‡, at the Salisbury by-election.16 On 16 Mar. Henchman was at the House for the first day of business in the 1664 session. He attended 95 per cent of sittings and was named to 12 select committees and to the standing committees for privileges and the journal. He held the proxy of William Lucy, bishop of St Davids throughout the session. On 6 May 1664 he chaired the committee on the conventicles bill and the following week chaired the committee on a naturalization bill (reporting back to the House on 13 May).17 He was present for the prorogation and the royal assent to the Conventicle Act on 17 May 1664.
During October 1664 Henchman promoted the candidature of his close friend William Sancroft, later archbishop of Canterbury, as dean of St Paul’s.18 Once Sancroft was safely installed in the deanery, the two men worked closely together, as did Henchman with Sheldon, though Henchman’s confidence in his dean did not prevent him from offering advice from time to time, such as on the choice of a new minister for Tottenham, which he told him he should make himself, as the parishioners were not to be trusted.19
Henchman again took his seat in the House on the first day of business of the 1664–5 session and thereafter attended 89 per cent of sittings. He was named to 19 select committees and to the 3 sessional committees, examining the journal on three occasions. He held the proxies of John Hacket, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry (vacated on 6 Feb. 1665) and Lloyd of Llandaff (vacated at the end of the session). On 11 Feb. 1665 he chaired the committee on the River Avon bill, reporting to the House on 18 Feb., and on 27 Feb. reported to the House from the committee on the regulation of the press. He attended the House for the last day of business and the prorogation on 2 March 1665.
During the summer months and infestation of the plague, Henchman remained at his post in London, where he complained that he was deserted by most of his diocesan officers but was anxious to reassure Henry Bennet, Baron (later earl of) Arlington, in August 1665 that nonconformists had not been able to take advantage of the situation to fill the pulpits vacated by the flight of Anglican ministers, and to stress that the ‘greatest danger is from the distress of the poor’.20 When Parliament convened at Oxford in October 1665 Henchman lodged at Wadham and attended every sitting, holding the proxies of Matthew Wren, bishop of Ely, and John Cosin, bishop of Durham, for the entire session. He was named to eight select committees and to the sessional committees for privileges and the journal, twice examining the journal. Present throughout the passage of the five mile bill and the imposition of the contentious ‘no alteration’ oath, he joined with James Stuart, duke of York, and all the bishops present to carry the bill in the face of ‘weighty’ objections.21 After the end of the session on 31 Oct. 1665, he remained at Wadham until mid-December before travelling to Fulham Palace in time for Christmas.22
Already closely involved in the Commission to repair St Paul’s, after the Great Fire of 1666, Henchman took an active role in planning and financing what had now become a project to rebuild the cathedral, as well as soliciting charitable donations from other dioceses and accepting offers of other vacant livings to assist distressed London clergy.23 He was equally closely involved in work in Parliament to deal with the aftermath of the fire. Henchman attended the House on 18 Sept. 1666 for the start of the 1666–7 session. He was present for nearly 96 per cent of sittings, and was named to 30 select committees and to the committees for privileges and for the Journal, despite being simultaneously committed to meetings of Convocation.24 He held John Cosin’s proxy for the whole session and that of Robert Skinner, bishop of Worcester from 5 Oct. (vacated at the end of the session); on 17, 23 and 30 Oct. he managed a total of four conferences concerning the vote for prohibiting the import of French commodities. On 20 Dec. 1666 the Commons sent up a bill to establish a court to settle disputes over the destruction of houses during the Great Fire, legislation that would have a direct impact on Henchman in his capacity as a diocesan landlord. He was named to the committee on 3 Jan. 1667. While it seems likely that he took part in the committee’s deliberations, there is no evidence to confirm this. After legal consultation the committee added a proviso to establish a mechanism for appeal to the Lords, which was defeated in the House on 23 January.25 Henchman, although in attendance, did not join the sizeable number of protesters against the bill. At or about this time he was also concerned with the vexed question of whether to rebuild or repair St Paul’s Cathedral, drawing up a detailed critique of the plans and of the legislation that would be necessary to implement them; he also commented on a bill for rebuilding the London churches.26
The 1667–9 session saw a disruption to Henchman’s usually high attendance at the House. In June he was seeing a doctor for his rheumatism, and a call of the House on 29 Oct. 1667 recorded that he was excused owing to sickness.27 He registered his proxy to Richard Sterne, archbishop of York on 13 Nov. and did not return to the House until the adjournment day on 11 Aug. 1668, thus missing the debates over the possible committal and impeachment of Clarendon in November 1667 and the disruption caused by the attempt to renew the Conventicle Act and the case of Skinner v East India Co. in 1668. In January 1668 a newsletter reported that ‘if he be not [dead] he is near it’.28 He was well enough to attend the Privy Council in September 1668 but the following month tried to cover his reluctance to participate in the unwelcome elevation of the comprehensionist John Wilkins, as bishop of Chester, by claiming to be unable to do it ‘without hazard of his health’. When the consecration actually took place on 15 Nov. Henchman and Sheldon were said to have demonstrated their opposition to the proceedings by skulking behind a curtain.29
In April 1669 a newsletter reported that there would be an enquiry into the disposal of the £5,000 paid to him by the county receivers for the relief of the poor during the plague.30 That same month, with widespread uncertainty about the legitimacy of the penal laws after the expiry of the first Conventicle Act, Henchman was delighted that the county lieutenancy had been instructed to suppress conventicles, telling Sancroft that he had always predicted ‘that the insolencies of the sectaries would prove to our advantage’.31 On 10 June 1669 he transmitted Archbishop Sheldon’s directive to all bishops to investigate nonconformist meetings, and communicated the king’s indignation at reports that he favoured conventiclers.32 The following month the Privy Council named him to a standing committee to enquire into conventicles.33
On 19 Oct. 1669, resuming his normal pattern of parliamentary behaviour, Henchman was in attendance on the first day of the session and thereafter attended 89 per cent of sittings. He was named to four select committees and the three sessional committees. Constantly vigilant about legislation concerning London, on 23 Nov. he was proposing to discuss with the lord mayor the bill to rebuild the city, about which ‘we shall soon agree’. A week later he told Sancroft that he was anxious to insert a separate clause into the bill to protect the landholding rights of various London livings and thought it better to give that clause to a member of the Commons to insert into the bill at committee stage, rather ‘than to propose it first to the lord mayor and aldermen’.34 The bill was introduced in the following session and received the royal assent on 11 Apr. 1670. Henchman was in the House for the start of that session on 14 Feb. 1670; he already held John Hacket’s proxy (vacated at Hacket’s death on 28 Oct. 1670). He attended 77 per cent of sittings during the session, and was named to 54 select committees (including the committee on the bill for the rebuilding of London) and to the three sessional committees. On 3 Mar. he chaired the committee on the bill ‘for settling certain charitable uses’ devised by John Warner, late bishop of Rochester.35 On 17 Mar. he was one of the principal speakers opposing the second reading of the divorce bill for John Manners, Lord Roos (later 9th earl and duke of Rutland).36 Together with the majority of bishops he registered his dissent when the bill was committed and then on 28 Mar. dissented against the passage of the bill itself.
On 25 Mar. 1670, with a new conventicle bill under discussion in the House, Henchman was one of the bishops spoken to in the House by the king in an attempt to secure the passage of the proviso concerning royal supremacy.37 As a result, the proviso passed the House without opposition. It was then opposed in the Commons and Henchman was one of the managers of the ensuing conferences on 4 April. During the recess Henchman emphasized his opposition to nonconformity by appointing an Anglican minister to read divine service at the Quaker meeting house in Gracechurch Street. Inevitably, the episode resulted in a violent confrontation when Quakers objected to the intrusion into their meeting of a man they perceived to be a ‘popish priest and Jesuit’ wearing ‘the garment of the beast’.38
A bill ‘for discovery of such as have defrauded the poor of the City … of the monies given for their relief at the times of the late plague and fire, and for recovery of the arrears thereof’ was committed on 12 Dec. 1670. Henchman was in the House but was not named to the committee, which, on 20 Feb. 1671, ordered a new clause to be prepared authorizing Henchman and a group of city aldermen be involved together in ‘the discovery and distribution’ of such funds.39 While these investigations were taking place, Henchman was involved in the preparation of further legislation to deal with the aftermath of the fire, this time a bill to settle a maintenance on the clerics of destroyed London churches, for which he and Sancroft facilitated negotiations between the ministers of London ‘who attend the bill’ and the City.40 On 18 Apr. 1671 this measure was read for a second time; Henchman was named to the committee and the bill received the royal assent on 22 April. Meanwhile, on 10 Apr. 1671, he had been added to the committee on the additional (and ultimately abortive) bill against conventicles. After the end of the session, Henchman again concentrated on diocesan matters. In June 1671 he was granted a commission to visit Trinity Chapel in the Minories, a royal peculiar, ‘to correct any abuses’ that might have arisen in the chapel and its vicinity, and by October 1671 he was approving leases made by London incumbents under the terms of the additional act for rebuilding the city.41
In the aftermath of the 1672 Declaration of Indulgence, it was widely anticipated that the following session of Parliament would be a volatile one in which the defence of the Church of England would dominate. Accordingly, before the session convened on 4 Feb. 1673, Sheldon provided Henchman with a draft directive to the bishops, summoning them (or their proxies) to Westminster for business in the Lords and in Convocation.42 Henchman himself was in the House on 4 Feb. 1673 for the first day of business and attended nearly 60 per cent of sittings. He was named to 12 select committees and again to the three sessional committees. He must have been an active member of at least one of these committees for on 10 Mar. he reported back to the House on the Chudleigh rectory bill. He was present on 20 Oct. 1673 for the prorogation and back in the House seven days later for the week-long second session of the year, during which he was as usual named to the sessional committees and also to one select committee.
In the House on 7 Jan. 1674 for the start of the new parliamentary session, Henchman attended more than 90 per cent of subsequent sittings, and was named to 10 select committees and to the sessional committees. The session ended after only six weeks and Henchman and Sheldon co-ordinated their increased efforts against Catholicism.43 By the start of the following parliamentary session in April 1675, the 83-year-old Henchman was very frail. He attended the House ten days after the opening but thereafter was present for only eight per cent of sittings. Perhaps in recognition of his age and health, he was not named to any select or sessional committees. On 29 Apr. he was excused attendance at a call of the House and on 5 May 1675 he attended the House for the final time. The following day he registered his proxy in favour of Richard Sterne (vacated at the end of the session on 9 June).
Henchman died on 7 Oct. 1675 at the bishop’s palace in Aldersgate Street and was buried in Fulham church. In addition to numerous legacies amounting to some £1,100 and annuities of £240 per annum, he had already committed himself to an annual £100 towards the St Paul’s project. His eldest son, Thomas Henchman, and his cousin Thomas Harris were made co-executors, together with Thomas Exton, chancellor of London. He composed his will shortly before his death, appending a statement of his faith in the doctrine of the Church of England and his opposition to the Council of Trent.
B.A.- 1 TNA, PROB 11/348.
- 2 Bodl. Tanner 282, f. 35.
- 3 R. Gibson, Catalogue of Portraits in the Collection of the earl of Clarendon (1977), 67.
- 4 CCC, 1586.
- 5 Bosher, Restoration Settlement, 22, 30, 34, 36-37, 122.
- 6 Eg. 2542, ff. 266, 269.
- 7 CSP Dom. 1660–1, pp. 269, 272; Green, Re-establishment of the Church of England, 89.
- 8 VCH Wilts. vi. 90–93; Tanner 143, f. 263.
- 9 Add. 10116, f. 131.
- 10 Reliquiae Baxterianae, 363.
- 11 Bodl. Clarendon 75, f. 260; CSP Dom. 1661–2, pp. 108, 113, 116, 123.
- 12 Bodl. Rawl. A. 130; R.W. Davis, ‘Committee and other procedures’, HLQ xlv. 29.
- 13 VCH Wilts. iii. 44; Clarendon 77, f. 298.
- 14 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, 19 and 29 June and 2 July 1663.
- 15 Verney ms mic. M636/19, E. Butterfield to E. Verney, 16 June 1663.
- 16 Clarendon 81, f. 205.
- 17 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1.
- 18 Harl. 3784, ff. 190, 207.
- 19 Harl. 3785, ff. 161, 216.
- 20 CSP Dom. 1664–5, p. 524.
- 21 Bodl. Rawl. A. 130, f. 56.
- 22 Tanner 45, f. 47.
- 23 Harl. 3784, ff. 190, 207; 3785, ff. 105, 166; Tanner 42, ff. 19, 31, 45, f. 106, Add. C 308, f. 69; Durham UL, Mickleton and Spearman ms 20, ff. 2, 10.
- 24 Tanner 45, f. 110.
- 25 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, ff. 160–4.
- 26 Tanner 142, ff. 118, 120, Tanner 145, ff. 147, 149.
- 27 Tanner 45, f. 194.
- 28 Add. 36916, f. 57.
- 29 Add. 72520, ff. 34–35; Add. 36916, ff. 119–20.
- 30 Add. 36916, f. 136.
- 31 Tanner 44, f. 101.
- 32 Add. 34769, f. 70; Tanner 44, f. 108.
- 33 Add. 36916, f. 139.
- 34 Tanner 44, ff. 169, 179.
- 35 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2.
- 36 Harris, Sandwich, ii. 318–24.
- 37 G. Lyon Turner, Original Records of Early Nonconformity, iii. 49.
- 38 CSP Dom. 1670, p. 314.
- 39 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2.
- 40 Tanner 44, ff. 238–9, 242.
- 41 CSP Dom. 1671, pp. 311, 550.
- 42 Tanner 43, f. 200.
- 43 Add. 23136, f. 98.