AGLIONBY, Edward I (1520-?91), of Temple Balsall, Warws. and London.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b.1520, s. of Richard Aglionby of Carlisle. educ. Eton c.1532; King’s, Camb. scholar 1536, fellow 1539-48, BA 1540/1, MA 1544; incorp. Oxf. 1566. m. (1) bef. 29 Mar. 1554, Catherine, da. of Roger Wigston† of Wolston, Warws., wid. of Thomas Warren and Giles Forster of Balsall (d.1549), at least 1s. 1da. all pres. d.v.p.; ?(2) Mary.
J.p.q. Warws. by 1561; dep. custos rot. by 1575; recorder, Warwick Aug. 1572-Sept. 1587, Stratford-on-Avon c.1578-86, Coventry 1580-c.88.[footnote]
The first name of the Mr Aglionby who sat for Carlisle in 1559 has not been ascertained, but the assumption must be that he was either John Aglionby† or Edward Aglionby I of Temple Balsall. Both men had already represented Carlisle. The 1559 Member, whoever he was, left no mark on the records of the House.
There is no doubt that it was Edward Aglionby of Temple Balsall who was the Member in 1571, and that he was brought in at the instance of Ambrose Dudley, Earl of Warwick, who sent a letter to the corporation, read out at the election on 26 Mar.:
Albeit it may be there is no want of able men among yourselves for the supply of the matter, yet the special opinion I have upon good cause conceived of my friend Mr. Edward Aglionby’s sufficiency doth move me to recommend him unto you for one of your burgesses.
Dudley added that the borough would find Aglionby ‘very forward in the advancement of anything that may tend to the common profit and commodity of your town’. On 9 Apr. 1571 ‘Mr Aglionby, burgess for the town of Warwick’ spoke on the first reading of the bill for coming to church and receiving communion. He argued that, as compulsory attendance had been agreed upon, the exemption allowed to gentlemen with private chapels was unfair: in this matter the law should observe
equality between the prince and the poor man, not giving scope to the one above the other ... But for the other matter concerning the receiving of the sacrament ... it was not convenient to enforce consciences.
Perhaps as a result of making this speech Aglionby was added next day to the commissioners already appointed to discuss ‘matters of religion’ with the Lords. On the second reading of the church attendance bill (20 Apr.) he again ‘showed the difference between the coming to church and receiving of the communion’. It was a public matter to attend church, something of ‘outward show’, which it was ‘tolerable and convenient’ to enforce. But
the conscience of man is internal, invisible and not in the power of the greatest monarch in the world, in no limits to be straitened, in no bonds to be contained.