that the glazier might know the window that was to be repaired, and for no other purpose. He said in his defense, " That he hath for many years past been settled and resolved in his judgment, and that upon good and sound authorities, that it is utterly unlawful to make any such representations of God the Father; and by such authorities as were set out and declared in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and otherwise for the taking down and abolishing superstitious images and pictures, especially in the churches. He was, thereupon, the rather emboldened to desire and endeavor the taking away the said window; and because it had been a cause of idolatry, plainly, to some ignorant people. He saith he was placed in the church in such a seat as that the said win dow was always in his eye during his abode in the church; and not out of opposition to the King's majesty, but by the authority of the vestry, he thereupon did, with his staff, pick out some of the glass in that part of the window which represented the Deity." But he denied having received any notice of the bishop's inhibition. The proceedings in the Star Chamber were conducted with the utmost apparent decorum and solemnity. The defendant's answer, and the depositions of the witnesses against and for him, were read at great length, and his counsel was afforded every indulgence in the presentation of the de fense, which consisted of a respectfully sub mitted claim of jurisdiction over the church property, a denial of any intentional wrong doing, and a justification of the defendant's motives. After a long and temperate discussion the judges delivered their several opinions. The court was unanimous in the opinion that Shcrfield was guilty of an offense cog nizable in the Star Chamber. Sir Thomas Richardson, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, said : " I hold it comes fitly and properly before your Lordships here. This
is rightly erimen stellionatum. There be many covers in it, for it is of mix'd cogniz ance, and therefore fit for this court, which I ever hold to be the greatest court, except the Parliament." But there was a great difference between the members of the court as to what penalty should be inflicted. Lord Cottington, Chancellor of the Ex chequer, was for depriving the defendant of his office of Recorder, binding him over for his good behavior, compelling him to make public acknowledgment of his offense in the Church of St. Edmunds and in the Cathedral Church, and that he pay a fine of £1,000. "It is said," spoke Lord Cottington, "that he is a wise man, and an old man, learned in the laws, and that gray hairs are upon him; but it had been a better argu ment of extenuation to have said he was a weak man, a poor man or a mad man . . . It is said he is a justice of the peace, I hope your Lordships will take order he be justice no longer . . . For this answer I take it to be full of singularity and pride; and notwithstanding anything contained therein or in the proof I hold this his action a great offense, an offense of great scandal and presumption as to him that knows the law. If he or others had been minded, upon good advice or in good way, to have presented this or the like thing fit to be reformed to the proper ordinary, or to the King's Majesty, being the supreme head, he and they should have done well, and have had a great many thanks for so doing; but tho' it were fit to be removed it was not in his or the vestry's power to do it. I take it it differs not from that case adjudged here in this court the last day, when a great many poor men, who had a right to common, but in claiming it made a riot, were justly punished. So here, though this window were scandallous, yet a private man, nor many private men cannot take it down : For what (as Mr. Attorney said) if one half of the town would have it stand, and the other half would have it down, what
