cons. 30 Sept. 1633 bp. of LONDON; transl. 25 Sept. 1660 abp. of CANTERBURY
First sat 13 Apr. 1640; last sat 4 Feb. 1642
bap. Oct. 1582, s. of Richard Juxon, registrar of diocese of Chichester; educ. St John’s, Oxf. fell. 1598, BCL 1603, DCL 1621; ord. deacon 1606, priest 1607; admitted G. Inn 1636. unm. d. 4 June 1663; will 1 May 1663, pr. 4 July.1
Clerk of the closet 1632; dean, chapel royal 1633; chap. ord. to the king by 1633; lord high treasurer of England 1636–41.
Vic. St Giles, Oxf. 1609; rect. Somerton, Oxon. 1615, East Marden, Suss. 1622; canon, Chichester 1622; dean Worcester 1627.
Dep. bursar, St John’s, Oxf. 1607–8, jun. bursar 1608–9, v.-pres. 1610–21, pres. 1621–3; v.-chan. Oxf. 1626–8.
Likenesses: oil on panel by B. Gerbier d'Ouvilly, Oxford; oil on canvas by unknown artist, c.1640, NPG 500; oil on canvas, by unknown artist, 1633, and oil on canvas, by unknown artist (on deathbed, 1663), Lambeth Palace.
Although William Juxon’s father was a clerical administrator, the family’s origins were strongly mercantile and several generations had been closely associated with London and the Merchant Taylor’s Company. Little is known about the details of the finances of William’s branch of the family but it was clearly prosperous: as rector of Somerton, he was able to rebuild the rectory at his own expense. It was probably also he who built the palatial residence at Little Compton in Warwickshire that ultimately became the seat of his brother John’s descendants. According to his nephew and executor, Sir William Juxon, Juxon enjoyed an income of £700 a year from his own lands during the Interregnum.2
Juxon’s decision to study civil law at Oxford was an unusual choice for the time, suggesting that he was intended for an administrative career like his father’s. He even obtained the reversion of his father’s offices.3 He soon changed his mind, however, perhaps through the influence of John Buckeridge† (president of St John’s from 1605 and later successively bishop of Rochester and Ely), and was ordained by John Bridges†, bishop of Oxford. His appointment as bishop of London, then the traditional stepping stone to the office of primate, identified him as a probable successor and rival to William Laud† archbishop of Canterbury, while his role at the execution of Charles I linked him forever in the public mind with the martyred king. Juxon remained on good terms with those antagonistic to Laud, helped perhaps by his own family background. His mercantile cousins were prominent members of London’s ‘godly’ network, with strong connections to several prominent Independent preachers, and one of his cousins was probably a Presbyterian elder.4 This branch of the family was to support Parliament in the civil wars: two fought for Parliament at Newbury; one died there.
His connections with prominent parliamentarians probably helped Juxon live out the Interregnum in relative calm. He was also careful not to attract unfavourable attention. Although he was reputed to have conducted services using the proscribed Book of Common Prayer and licensed the polyglot bible, he did not follow the lead of others, like Brian Duppa, then bishop of Salisbury, later of Winchester, who remained in touch with the exiled court and conducted clandestine ordinations. He was known less for his religious convictions than for his excellent pack of hounds.5 Nevertheless at the Restoration he was the obvious choice for Canterbury. The only other candidates were Duppa, who was said to have been reluctant to accept the post; Matthew Wren, of Ely, whose appointment would have offended even the mildest of nonconformists; or Gilbert Sheldon, himself a future archbishop of Canterbury, who had no experience of episcopal office at all and whose whole-hearted commitment to the exiled court might have made him an object of suspicion.6 As bishop of London, Juxon was, after all, the established heir apparent to Canterbury and his uneventful retirement during the Interregnum meant that, in the tricky political and religious climate of the Restoration, his appointment could offend no one. That he was elderly and extremely frail held out certain advantages: it meant that the real work of his office could be performed on his behalf by Sheldon, who was promptly appointed to the vacant see of London.
Even before the civil wars, Juxon appears to have played an inactive part in the life of the House of Lords, which seems surprising given the religious controversies of the day. He did not attend the House after 1660 and his only recorded interaction with it arose from what appears to have been a misunderstanding. Towards the end of 1661 the House ordered Matthew Hardy to rebuild the tomb of Matthew Parker†, archbishop of Canterbury and to re-inter his bones. Hardy’s attempt to carry out his orders was obstructed by Juxon’s servants, possibly because the archbishop saw the issue as a matter for spiritual rather than secular concern. Juxon went on to arrange the re-interment himself.7
Juxon’s careful distinction between the secular and the spiritual may also have played a part in encouraging the dishonesty of his treasurer, John Pory, brother of Juxon’s chaplain (and nephew-in-law), Robert Pory. Juxon refused, as a matter of principle to take interest himself, but was happy for Pory to do so, as long as he placed the archbishop’s money in low-interest, safe investments. Given access to the vast windfall profits (estimated at £54,000 in entry fines) that accrued to Juxon as the first post-Restoration archbishop of Canterbury, Pory abandoned all caution and lent at high interest on dubious securities.8 Juxon’s executor and residuary legatee, his nephew Sir William Juxon, was forced into a series of legal actions and had to secure a private act of Parliament to recover the capital.9
The archbishop also wielded considerable patronage. Some of that patronage was used to please the king: it was the king’s intervention that prompted Juxon’s controversial interference to secure the election of the minority candidate, Thomas Clayton, as warden of Merton in 1661.10 Most, however, was entrusted to Robert Pory, who gained a remarkable number of preferments for himself and reputedly accepted bribes to dispose of others.11 Robert Pory was allegedly also implicated in John Pory’s embezzlement.12
Juxon left the management of the Restoration religious settlement to Sheldon, and his own views on the subject are obscure. Long after the archbishop’s death, Laurence Womock, bishop of St Davids, quoted him as saying that ‘If yielding of some few matters of indifferency would win them to join cordially with us in the practice of the rest, he would very well be content with it …’ but that he believed ‘there is no way to govern this sort of people but by strait rein’, and the appointment of Robert Pory as president of Sion College was seen as a major victory for Anglican conformity.13 Yet Juxon is reported to have told Robert Dodd, the Presbyterian minister whom he ordained in 1660, that ‘he was not for going high against the Presbyterians’, and to have granted another Presbyterian, Daniel Poyntel, permission to preach occasionally in his old parish at Staplehurst in Kent if the new incumbent would agree (which he did not).14 In 1661 he was willing to defer the calling of Convocation ‘longer’, according to Peter Heylyn, ‘than may stand with the safety of the Church’, because of fears of parliamentary intervention.15
William Juxon died on 4 June 1663, leaving goods and chattels valued at nearly £21,000 after payment of debts and allowances.16 According to his nephew his estate was worth over £50,000 in total – of which £35,000 consisted of the sums owed by John Pory.17 The archbishop left generous amounts to his servants and to members of his extended family, including John Pory and his children, as well as substantial bequests to ensure his enduring legacy to the Anglican Church, which included the rebuilding of the great hall at Lambeth Palace in traditional style, the repair of St Paul’s Cathedral and £7,000 to St John’s College, Oxford. Although he left directions in his will for a simple funeral, he was buried at a cost of nearly £500, with between £500 and £1,000 expended on ‘blacks’ for the mourners.18
R.P.- 1 TNA, PROB 11/311.
- 2 VCH Warws. v. 51; TNA, C 9/29/124.
- 3 T.A. Mason, Serving God and Mammon: William Juxon, 1582–1663.
- 4 The Journal of Thomas Juxon, 1644–1647 ed. K. Lindley and D. Scott (Camden 5th ser. xiii), 1–11.
- 5 Mason, Serving God and Mammon, 149–50.
- 6 HMC 5th Rep. 184.
- 7 HMC 7th Rep. 153, 155.
- 8 Green, Re-establishment of the Church of England, 105.
- 9 C 9/29/124, C 9/54/53, C 9/380/4, C9/30/100, C 10/165/83; Milward Diary, 184, 297; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1667/19&20C2n15.
- 10 CSP Dom. 1660–1, p. 525; Evelyn Diary, iii. 273–4.
- 11 Oxinden and Peyton Letters 1642–1670 ed. D. Gardiner, 272–4, 279.
- 12 C 10/165/83.
- 13 T. Pierce and L. Womock, Two Letters Containing a Further Justification (1682), 58; Reliquiae Baxterianae, i. 334.
- 14 Calamy Revised, 166; Walker, Calamy (1714), ii. 337.
- 15 Bodl. Tanner 49, f. 146.
- 16 TNA, DEL 2/64.
- 17 C 9/380/4.
- 18 C 9/29/124, C 9/30/100.