reported to the privy council on differences which had arisen between the dean and chapter and the students of Christ Church. He was already noted for his business capacity and for his tact and patience.
After Laud's election as chancellor of the university in 1630, Juxon became actively engaged in the reform of the statutes which resulted in the issue of what is known as the Laudian code. He governed his college meanwhile with skill and discretion; he was friendly both with Laud's bitter opponent, Dr. Rawlinson, and with his firm friend, Sir William Paddy, the late king's physician, and a great benefactor to the college. On 10 July 1632 he was sworn clerk of the king's closet, at Laud's recommendation, ‘that I might have one that I might trust near his Majesty if I grew weak or infirm’ (Laud, Diary, in his Works, ‘Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology’). Juxon was for many years Laud's chief correspondent at Oxford, and regularly sent him university gossip (letters printed in Laud's Works, and Cal. of State Papers). He actively aided him, too, in the reconciliation of Chillingworth to the English church in 1628. (For correspondence, see Cal. of State Papers).
Towards the end of 1632 Juxon was nominated to the see of Hereford, and on 5 Jan. 1632–3 he resigned the headship of St. John's College. Before his consecration Laud's election to Canterbury left the see of London vacant. The new archbishop's first care was, says Clarendon, ‘that the place he was removed from might be supplied with a man who would be vigilant to pull up those weeds which the London soil was too apt to nourish,’ and he easily procured Juxon's appointment to the post. About the same time Juxon became dean of the Chapel Royal (Cal. of State Papers, 12 Aug. 1633). On 3 Oct. 1633 he was consecrated bishop of London.
From this date Juxon was immersed in public affairs, political as well as ecclesiastical. In his episcopal office he seems to have enforced the law and obeyed the injunctions of Laud without offending the people. Lloyd (Memoirs of those that Suffered, p. 596) says that he was ‘the delight of the English nation, whose reverence was the only thing all factions agreed in, by allowing that honour to the sweetness of his manners that some denied to the sacredness of his function, being by love, what another is in pretence, the universal bishop.’ There is abundant testimony to support this statement. During the first three months of his episcopate he received no complaints against any of his clergy (Laud's annual account of his province, sent to the king, 2 Jan. 1633–4, in his Works), but his primary visitation revealed several cases of nonconformity. His ‘articles to be enquired of’ were printed at the time in pamphlet form (London, printed for Nathaniel Butter, 1634). In the articles for his visitation in 1640 (printed by Richard Baxter) certain changes were ordered in accordance with the new canons of that year, and these changes formed the subject of one of the articles of impeachment against Laud.
From May 1634 Juxon actively directed the scheme for the restoration of St. Paul's. But every year, despite his gentleness and tolerance, his difficulties in securing conformity increased. The records of the high commission and Star-chamber courts show him to have been almost always in favour of lenient sentences. In the case of Prynne, Burton, and Bastwick, he, like Laud, gave no judgment. The supervision of English congregations abroad was included in his duties, and a letter of 21 June 1634 to the English merchants residing at Delft shows him solicitous for the observance on the continent of the rules of the church. He was associated with Laud and Wren in revising the Scots' prayer-book and canons, but seems to have left the chief work to his colleagues. He fully recognised the difficulties that beset the scheme of reformation in Scotland. Writing to the Bishop of Ross on 17 Feb. 1635–6 he said: ‘With your letter of the 6th of this month I received your book of canons, which perchance at first will make more noise than all the cannons in Edinburgh Castle’ (Baillie, ed. Laing, i. 438).
On 6 March 1635–6 Juxon received the white staff of lord high treasurer from the king's hand, and took the oath as a privy councillor. As an unmarried man and an ecclesiastic he would (it was believed) be above the temptations which had led his predecessors to enrich themselves at the expense of the state (Heylin, Cyp. Anglic.) He owed the appointment to Laud, who saw in his friend a man capable of ending the corrupt practices prevailing in the treasury, and of proving a useful coadjutor in directing secular affairs. No ecclesiastic had held the post since William Grey, bishop of Ely, was promoted to it in 1469. ‘And now,’ Laud wrote in his ‘Diary,’ ‘if the church will not hold themselves up under God, I can do no more.’ The selection caused general astonishment, and ‘sharpened the edge of envy and malice against the archbishop himself;’ but the new treasurer proved himself well worthy of his office by his patience, economy, and activity. Shortly afterwards (3 June 1636) he was made a lord of the admiralty, a post he held till April 1638, when
