6th April 1624

Proceedings in Parliament 1624: The House of Commons. Originally published by British History Online, , 2015-18.

This free content was born digital. All rights reserved.


'6th April 1624', Proceedings in Parliament 1624: The House of Commons, (2015-18), British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/proceedings-1624-parl/apr-06 [accessed 14 June 2024].

. "6th April 1624", in Proceedings in Parliament 1624: The House of Commons, (, 2015-18) . British History Online, accessed June 14, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/proceedings-1624-parl/apr-06.

. "6th April 1624", Proceedings in Parliament 1624: The House of Commons, (, 2015-18). . British History Online. Web. 14 June 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/proceedings-1624-parl/apr-06.

Long title
6th April 1624

In this section



[CJ 755; f. 109v]

Martis, 6 Aprilis 1624

L. 1. An act for naturalizing of Sir Thomas [sic] Anstruther, Sir George Abercromby and [Dr.] John Craig.

L. 2. An act for sale of the manor of Rampton in the county of Cambridge.

Committed to:

All the knights, burgesses of Cambridge

Sir Robert Hitcham

Sir George More

Sir N[eville] Poole

Sir John Corbet

Sir John Stradling

Mr. [Christopher] Herrys

Sir Thomas Estcourt

Mr. [Robert] Bateman

Thursday, 2 [o']clock, Court of Wards. All parties to have notice.

[f. 110] Amwell river. Saturday. And all to have voice.

SIR HENRY POOLE reports the bill of levying fines in other men's names.

Ordered, to be engrossed.

Mr. Carew Ralegh sworn here in the House.

MR. CHANCELLOR DUCHY thinks this gentleman in a wrong course. Should have begun above.


SIR EDWARD COKE. Asked the Clerk of the Upper House. An order there, from the King, that all these bills that begin here should be dashed.

SIR GEORGE MORE. To have precedents searched whether commoners have not used to begin here.

SIR EDWARD COKE. A great many precedents that many men have been restored at the petition of the Commons. If the Lords have made such an order, to let it rest.

[CJ 756] Sir Edward Coke

Mr. [William] Noye

Mr. [John] Selden to search precedents what has been used to be done.

SIR WALTER EARLE. Some that crave the justice of this House. A bill here of the master of the rolls. They allege their own interest. Desire a copy of the bill, and counsel assigned.

[f. 110v] Ordered, that these petitioners shall be heard at the committee of the bill. And Mr. Serjeant [Thomas] Hetley, Serjeant Thynne, Mr. Eusebius Andrews and Mr. William Wearing are assigned them by the House for counsel. And that they shall have a copy of the bill.

SIR EDWARD COKE reports from the committee for grievance, a case of the grocers and apothecaries of London. The apothecaries anciently of the company of the grocers. Could not prove any consent of theirs for their separation. So the patent falls upon that consideration. Patent full of many great inconveniences. Sole trade of drugs and distillation. Rested on this: that the merchant had a great wrong by this. That cannot sell his commodity but to a few, and by retail, as it were. A cause of decay of trade. Clausulae inconsuetae, that if any grocer should use his trade, to be sued in the Star Chamber, which was done, and referred to the judges. Proclamation to maintain this monopoly. Consideration of the petition the grocers made. They contend that the apothecaries should alone deal with those confections that required art. The sense of the committee, a grievance in creation and execution, but withal thought fit that for such medicines and potions as require skill, they should prefer a bill to have the only making of them.


[f. 111] Resolved, upon question, that the patent of the separate apothecaries is a grievance in creation and execution, and that the apothecaries may, if they so think fit, prefer a bill into this House for the sole confection and making of those medicines that require art and skill, and that are proper unto them.


A message from the Lords by Serjeant [Sir Ranulphe] Crewe and Serjeant [Sir Henry] Finch. The Lords desire a conference of the committee concerning the petition that is to be preferred to his Majesty about recusants, if it may stand with the occasions of this House, presently, in the Painted Chamber.

Answer: this House will presently give a meeting, as is desired.

The committee power to maintain what they have done; but, if any alteration offered, to report to the House.

Mr. Solicitor to make the report.

MR. [RICHARD] KNIGHTLEY. A report that [blank]. To know of them whether there were any such words used.

The committees sent up to the Lords.

[f. 111v] Ordered, that the Serjeant shall go with his Mace, presently, for those gentlemen of the House that are at the conference and are not of the committee.

Magna Carta. Saturday, 2 [o']clock.

Inferior Courts. This afternoon, 3 [o']clock, Temple Hall. And all to have voice.

The members of the House returned and admonished by Mr. Speaker.

MR. SOLICITOR reports from the Lords. Lord Canterbury delivered their resolution. Said that whereas a few days since, they received a draft of a petition to be presented, said now he believed the spirit of God led us when we first considered of this. Desire in this business of so great importance to have a concurrence with us. Not amiss if reserving the matter, the form altered. To contract it and divide the petition, and reasons, one from the other, for these causes:

  • 1. Because fewest words best accepted.
  • 2. If nothing detracted, might be contracted.
  • 3. To omit words of austerity.
  • 4. To reserve our reasons, unless demanded of us.

The model of it read. When this was read, Lord President, that the Prince was so curious to observe all observances to this House that he would not alter the very words. The Prince, upon occasion of the last, expressed that he professed, and bound it with an oath, that whensoever it should please God to bestow upon him any lady that were Popish, she should have no further liberty but for her own family, and no advantage to the recusants at home.

[f. 112] Desire a committee of a few (4 or 5) to meet with their Lordships.

SIR JAMES PERROT. 2 things omitted here that were in our petition. Confining of them. One material thing omitted: the naming of the ringleaders of that sect in the end.

SIR EDWARD COKE. This very lame, yet glad to have it if we can have no other. Takes not away half the danger. The laws in force are only against convicted recusants; our words, "justly suspected". The universality of those caterpillars not met withal. To have these go in equipage with the other.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. Glad we are thus far advanced. Hopes we, and our posterity, shall find the good effect of this protestation. To have the same committee this afternoon take these things into consideration.

MR. SOLICITOR. The Lords expect from us how we entertain this motion. To signify to them that we shall be ready with a small number to meet their Lordships.

SIR THOMAS JERMYN. To have the committee look to the number of the convict recusants that so our desire may be reasonable to the Lords.

SIR EDWIN SANDYS. Heard the Lord of Canterbury say that this model did not detract but contract. This no petition of grace but of justice. One of the Lords told him that something was omitted by them. Not to reject it. To have the shortest delivered to his Majesty, and the other ready to be seen.

SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH. This draft of the Lords not so home as ours. Fit, therefore, to have them compared, and how far to seek to the Lords for an enlargement if we see cause.

[f. 112v] MR. [JOHN] GLANVILLE. For petitioning for more than in law to be done very large and general. Take away the connivance and the recusants will be convict. 3 ways to discover a man: taking oaths, receiving the sacrament and going to church. If his Majesty will declare that those which bear office shall do these within a time or else be within the danger of justly suspected, thinks the petition well enough as it is.

SIR THOMAS HOBY. To have a committee to compare these 2 models. The act of the Council does well enough describe recusants.

Mr. Solicitor sent up to the Lords to let them know that this House has taken this model into consideration. They will, with all the speed they can, advise of it and return answer. And withal, to intimate our great joy for this protestation of the Prince.

The former subcommittee that were [sic] to draw this petition to meet this afternoon, Court of Wards, to compare that petition and this model that is come down from the Lords, at 4 [o']clock.

Sir Dudley Digges added to that committee.

MR. [JOHN] GLANVILLE reports the bill of assignment of debt. Amendments twice read.

SIR THOMAS TREVOR desires the tin farmers may be heard before the bill pass.

SIR GEORGE CHUDLEIGH. Some others desire to be heard. To recommit the bill.

Recommitted. Presently, Committee Chamber.

Sir Dudley Digges

Mr. [William] Noye

Sir Thomas Trevor

Serjeant [Sir Robert] Hitcham added to the committee.

[f. 113] MR. SOLICITOR reports from the Lords. Delivered his message. Prince asked when he heard the resolution of the House, whether this afternoon.

Sir Francis Clerke's bill. This afternoon, former place.

SIR EDWARD COKE reports from the committee of grievances yesterday. The sense of the committee to give the [CJ 757] business all the speed. Appointed to sit tomorrow, if the House please, and the committee for courts of justice to give place.

Ordered, that the business concerning my Lord Treasurer shall be heard tomorrow afternoon; the committee of grievances to sit at the same time; and Mr. [Nicholas] Herman, my Lord's secretary, to attend at that time; and that any writings or records of the Court of Wards, or any other court, that may further that service to be seen and brought into the House, if occasion require.

The committee for the petition not to meet until 4 [o']clock this afternoon.


Mr. H. Slany

Mr. Oxwich

Mr. Wich

Mr. Jennings to present in writing to the committee for trade the present state of trade with Spain, the reasons of the increase of trade and the reasons of the decay of money.

Ordered, to do it against Thursday next, and attend themselves.

[f. 113v] Bill for battle, Thursday next, former place.

L. 3. An act for the naturalizing of Jacques de Best.

Upon question, passed for a law.

Lord Hertford's bill. Tomorrow, 8 [o']clock, and the rest of the engrossed bills.

[House adjourned]


[f. 119v]

Tuesday, the 6th of April

SIR EDWARD COKE. God has miraculously preserved this people by dissolving the treaties, as ever he did the children of Israel, not in respect of our merit but his cause. This petition concerning recusants that the Lords have sent us is very lame, for that it speaks too generally only of recusants convict. He would have added to it all that were justly suspected.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. The number of recusants convict is so small as is not worth our considering.

My Lord of Canterbury said at the conference for the petition concerning recusants to be given the King, that the Lords detracted nothing from ours but only contracted it.

SIR EDWIN SANDYS said that the difference put by [Sir Edward] Coke of the recusants was not worth considering, of recusants convict and recusants suspected, for if they were justly suspected, the next sessions they would be convicted. The reason so few recusants are convicted is the long connivance; take that away, there will be enough convicted.

MR. [JOHN] GLANVILLE moved that all those that bear office should by a day conform themselves or lose their places.

SIR THOMAS HOBY moved that those that have not received once a year for these 4 [f. 120] or 5 last years and those that have recusant wives, followers or tenants, are by law recusants and to be disarmed.

The Prince protested at a conference that if he should marry a papist, she should only have liberty for her own family, not for the kingdom.


[p. 112]

April 6th, morning

[Committee of the Whole House for the bill for continuance of statutes]

The bill for the poor in 43 of Eliz. to be considered of and all the knights of shires to have voices.

A message from the Lords, the effect whereof follows. That they desire a present conference with us touching the petition to be delivered to the King against priests and Jesuits and putting the laws in execution for papist[s] and recusants.

The House resolved to give present meeting in the Painted Chamber as is desired.

MR. SOLICITOR reports the conference to the House. [p. 113] My Lord of Canterbury said that whereas a few days since we had delivered a petition unto them touching the priests and Jesuits, he thought it was the spirit of God to put it into our minds, and that it was a matter of great consequence wherein they are willing to join, as being desirous to hold all correspondency with this House. They have taken into their consideration the pe[tition] and have concluded upon the effect of our desires, although they have contracted it into a [sic] less room and fewer words, which they conceive to be more pleasing to the King. [p. 114] The Lord of Canterbury did affirm that the Prince did, in the Lords' House by a solemn oath, which that Lord did repeat in the Prince's presence and he seemed to affirm the same, that whensoever it should please God that he should marry any lady, that lady, whatsoever she be, should never have more liberty than for herself to use her own consci[e]nce, but that the papists and recusants should never have any benefit by it nor that the laws of this kingdom should no way be slackened towards them.


[f. 51v]

[6 April 1624]

The bill for assignment of debts or bonds taken to the king conditioned to the farmers or others, and none to be sued upon assignment until the principal be disabled.

[f. 52] Committee [of the Whole for the bill] for continuance [of statutes] in the morning in the House

All 39 continued but tillage and husbandry, and the statute for poor referred to a particular committee, Saturday.

[Lord] Canterbury delivered that where they received our draft, give thanks. That the spirit [blank] put it into consideration. They desire concurrence. They thought fit to vary in form and to contract the matter, not diminish, and to put 3 into one. They would use no words of asperity and to reserve the reasons.

May it please you, having dissolved treaties, we desire in humbleness 2 petitions that move safety and obedience of his subjects and state, as he thinks fit, to give orders that all laws be put in execution against priests and popish recusants, and that his [?favour] may appear to prefix a day to priests, and not to return, and none to [?conceal] under pain of laws. Since delivered from danger, that he would engage his word as before not to slack the execution of his laws upon like treaties.

A message sent to the Lords to advise of this because it was meant to contract not to detract. To consider because it seems to detract.

[f. 52v] Committee for trade

Report, [Mr. Robert] Berkeley, of Mr. [Edmund] Nicholson's pretermitted custom. 6s. 8d. due for a sack of wool. 33s. 4d. for poundage. Now, by proportion, 6 sorting-cloths made of sack. [?Should] bear 10s. a cloth, 3d. allowed for waste. Tempore Queen Mary 60 Regni made use of this and made a book of rates. So Queen Mary took but 5s. 6d. and 14d. Queen Elizabeth, of sorting-cloth 60 pound weight, she added 13d. and a third for over length to Sir Walter Ralegh and [?none] by Queen Mary's order might be set until 10s., and this made up is now the pretermitted custom 3s. 1d. and a third of a penny, which is 2d. a pound for all cloth.

This held legal by Coventry and Yelverton. Canterbury, Verulam, Carey and [Sir Robert] Naunton think this convenient, 1618. An indenture then, October, recites all this and the odds of prices assesses the payment with 4d. a cloth to them that project for 31 years. A rent of £100 reserved. No cloth transportable until it be paid. Power to break open packs to see that entry be made and, if false, to seize and to allow him a moiety. A proviso if prejudicial appearing to 6 of the Council and so certified, void.

They assign[ed] all to Queen Anne. December 1618, Lords certify her it is worth about [£]12[,000] or £13,000 by year.

[f. 53] A new letters patent not full that Nicholson shall receive in 4 ports only, Hull, Ipswich, Sandwich and Newcastle, for £1,000 by year, with proviso that if short to have it out of other ports and to account for over plus £10 rent payable. New clauses to minister oath to inform of the contents, and to use the King's prerogative royal to further with prohibitions as before. In this no proviso, if prejudicial, to be void. Last Parliament, complains of. Nicholson makes a book of reasons to the King for defence. He says the merchants are enemies to the King's profit, and grounds on this, and shows reasons of the decay of trade.

[Mr. Robert] Berkeley. It is not custom nor subsidy but is a composition. 14d. set on cloth E. 3. 31 H. 6 poundage and tunnage granted to H. 6 for life. Tempore R. 3 tunnage for wine, poundage for all that exported but wool cloth and except wool 6s. 8d.; that extends not to the 33s. 4d. because this exception of wool and cloth yet allows 6s. 8d. for wool not cloth. To aliens he must pay 12d. a pound and double for wool, but this treble the rather because a sack. That in Dyer the merchants called it an imposition and grieved.

[f. 53v] Sir E[dward] Coke. It is no imposition. That no custom by common law. 6s. 8d. a sack 124 stone. 3 E. 1 in Parliament Roll it began contrary to Dyer for wool only; called magna custom because 3 E. 3 a loss than 14d. tunnage and poundage granted for scouring the seas. 3 H. 5 for life numero 50 never to be drawn in example yet always had but not originally by token. Convert from wool to cloth: if he put less than a 10s. pretermitted, cannot take away the King's right. Jersey stockings none.

[Mr.] Solicitor. That judge's judgement must not be waived as parliamentarily conceived by Mallory but to hear the lawyers in it. Grief may be right grievance wrong, one a petition of right, another of grace. Presses new draperies as much for custom.

Sir E[dward] Coke. That he held it inconvenient to Queen Anne and for law spared. 51 H. 3 meted of the wools custom so before 3 E. 3. 1 of 14d. added 21 E. 3 by Parliament then not in equity of proportion to 6s. 8d.


[f. 113v]

Tuesday, 6 Aprilis

An act for the naturalizing of Sir Robert Anstruther, kt., Gentleman of the King's Privy Chamber, Sir George Abercromby, kt., late Gentleman of the Robes of the late Queen Anne, and John Craig, Doctor of Physic to the Princes, all Scotsmen. 1. L. r. p.

An act for the enabling the sale of the manor of Rampton and other lands in the county of Cambridge, late the possession [of] Edward Alcock, for the payment of £5,000 debts. 2. L. This bill is committed.

Mr. Carew Ralegh, son of Sir Walter Ralegh, takes here the oaths of allegiance and supremacy that his bill for restitution in blood might have a second reading.

MR. CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY says that all bills for the restitution in blood are to begin in the Upper House and are to come thence into this House.

SIR EDWARD COKE says that in all E. 4 and E. 4, H. 5 time it is frequent that bills for restitution in blood have first moved from this House, and desires that we should not read the second [f. 114] time the bill for restitution in blood of Mr. Carew Ralegh, son of Sir Walter Ralegh, but to let it rest until precedents be sought forth to make appear that bills for restitution in blood have used to move first from this House.

SIR EDWARD WARDOUR says that the Clerk of the Upper House told him that the King and the Lords resolved to dash all bills that first move from this House for the restitution in blood.

It is the inclination of this House that Sir Edward Coke, Mr. [William] Noye and Mr. [John] Selden shall seek forth precedents to show that bills for restitution in blood have used to move first from this House, and in the meantime it is forborne to give a second reading to Mr. Ralegh's bill for restitution in blood.

SIR EDWARD COKE reports from the committee of grievances that the King had £500 per annum custom for hot waters. That it was proved that the merchant could not, by reason of the apothecaries' patent, sell any drugs or spices but to the apothecaries who buy it as they list, where before the grocers did buy all those merchandises in gross from the merchant, which was urged and demonstrated that this was a hindrance of trade. But the committee was of opinion that for such physical composures or potions as are to be taken by sick persons should be composed and made by men of skill and experience, and therefore think good that the apothecaries should prefer a bill to distinguish such things and apothecaries from grocers. That the parties had the proclamation for the strengthening their patent, which was also disliked for proclamation should be only for public matters.

It is the opinion of this House that the patent of the apothecaries is a grievance in creation and execution; but the House likes well that the apothecaries shall prefer a bill to distinguish them from grocers and such things as are unfit for grocers to meddle withal, but the House holds it unfit to be distinguished by a patent.

[f. 114v] Message from the Lords signifying that the Lords desire a present conference of both the committees touching the patent drawn by this House against recusants, if it stand with the conveniency of this House, in the Painted Chamber.

Our answer: that the committees of this House will give a present meeting as is desired.

Saturday in the afternoon is appointed for the committee touching the bill against imprisonment contrary to the 29 chapter of Magna Carta.

MR. SOLICITOR reports from the conference with the Lords concerning our petition against recusants, that the Lords thought it would not be displeasing to us if their Lordships did alter something concerning the form of that petition so as they reserve the substance thereof. That though their Lordships have left out the reasons of our petition which are expressed in the preface of it, yet their Lordships think fit that the reasons should by a committee be set down apart by themselves that if the King desire to know them we may show them. That the Lord of Canterbury said that the Prince did this day in the Upper House bind himself by voluntary oath for so much as concerned his Highness that he would never give way or consent to any marriage (albeit it should be with a lady of another religion) whereby to give anymore liberty for the exercise of the popish religion than for herself and some few private servants [f. 115] without extending it any further; and that the Prince at the conference did by his gesture confirm there as much when the Lord of Canterbury did before his Highness deliver the same.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS says that the number of convicted papists is so small as that they are not worth looking after, but would have us look after such also as have forborne to come to church since the unhappy fate of conveniency hung upon us. He would have that considered of by a select committee; and also that speedy order may be taken for a present course to be held with recusants according to the petition.

SIR EDWIN SANDYS says that the Lords said they had not detracted but contracted our petition. That it will be a difficult matter to distinguish other papists than such as are convicted from other men.

SIR THOMAS HOBY says that there are orders or instructions under the hands of the Privy Council which do describe papists and were sent down to justices of peace to take such men as are therein described (as such as had many papists to their servants or tenants, or whose wives are papists, or have not communicated at least once a year for 4 years last before those orders sent, or that frequent not the church) should be discerned and held as suspected papists.

It is ordered and accordingly a message is now sent to the Lords to express, first, our joy for the protestation made by the Prince concerning his care of religion, and to thank the Lords for their correspondency and to let them understand that our House will take consideration of the model of the petition offered by their Lordships [f. 115v] against recusants and will, as soon [as] we can conveniently, appoint a select committee to consider of it and then return their Lordships our answer concerning the same.

It is ordered that the former committee for the petition against recusants shall this afternoon consider of the model of the petition sent from the Lords and compare it with the petition sent to them by us.

An act for the naturalizing of Jacques de Best, a Dutchman. 3. L. This is passed this House at the third reading.

Committee for trade, 6 Aprilis 1624, concerning the pretermitted custom

Sir Edward Coke. That the pretermitted custom is not laid as an imposition. That custom is not due by the common law, but it began and was granted by Parliament, and there was at first by statute granted 6s. 8d. custom of every sack of wool that was transported, and it was not by the king's prerogative. And tunnage and poundage was also first granted in 3 H. 5 to that King for his life by statute and this was 12d. of the tun and granted for the clearing and scouring of the seas of pirates, and it was neither claimed by the King by the prerogative nor by the common laws of the kingdom, but every king enjoyed this 12d. of the tun. That pretermitted custom is that sum of money which is newly paid and increased to make up the full sum of 6s. 8d. which was anciently granted on a sack of wool and comes on some cloths to about 2s. and on others 3s. 1d.

Mr. [Matthew] Pitt of Weymouth says that in that town the patentees for the pretermitted custom do take 4s. 4d. for the pretermitted custom, where [f. 116] there is due at the most but 3s. 1d.

The ancient custom for wool was (as it was alleged by the patentees) 2d. of every pound, which came to about 6s. 8d. a sack of wool; and Sir Thomas Morgan and Mr. [Edmund] Nicholson did petition the King that they might collect for his Majesty the pretermitted custom which should be rated after the rate of 2d. the pound, which was anciently granted upon wool.

Mr. [William] Nyell says that in the outports, do pay for the pretermitted custom 6d. for the pound of cloth, and there is made in the west country of bays, kerseys, serges and other new draperies the worth of [£]5[00,000] or £600,000 yearly.

Mr. Solicitor says it is first to be considered whether the King has right to this pretermitted custom or no, and desires that this may be freely and fully debated when all the lawyers are in the House. Next, he would have us (when the first point is resolved on) consider on what cloths this custom lies too heavy and will join with us in a petition for grace to the King to have trade eased, therein.

Mr. [John] Bankes. That it is agreed that this duty of 2d. on the pound of wool is not due by the common law of the realm, and it is urged that that subsidy [sic] of 6s. 8d. on a sack of wool was granted 3 Ed. 1; but no grant of any subsidy on cloth was ever made by statute but for the life only of such king in whose time it was granted, and the statute in 10 of the King [f. 116v] cloth is excepted out of the statute for tunnage. So then there is no statute to warrant the taking of this pretermitted custom.

Mr. [Henry] Rolle. He doubts whether the custom of wool first began in 30 E. 1, for he finds in 510 H. 3 that there was a custom set on wool on the prayer of the Commons of the realm. That this custom was granted by act of Parliament shows that custom was not due by the common law nor to be raised by prerogative, for then the king had had no need of the help of an act of Parliament. That 1 Ed. 3 there was a custom granted to the king on wool.

Mr. [Robert] Berkeley says that [Edmund] Nicholson and the referees of this business of pretermitted custom do ground themselves on the statutes of tunnage and poundage, and therefore he is glad that Sir Edward Coke is of opinion that the pretermitted custom is not within the compass of those statutes nor granted by any of them.

Mr. [Thomas] Sherwill says that when there is any new imposition laid on any merchandise in the outports, command is given to the officers there to take no entries of any merchandise until such new impositions be paid.

It is the opinion of this committee that Mr. [John] Gardner's letter to Mr. [John] Jacob concerning his collecting of the custom for the groceries shall be read in the House, and that Mr. Jacob should be here tomorrow to show his privy seal for the collecting of the new impositions on wines and the warrants [f. 117] for the collecting of the new impositions on groceries at the outports.


[p. 176]

Tuesday, the 6t[h] of April

An act for naturalizing Sir Robert Anstruther and Sir George/

An act for selling the manor of Rampton in Cambridgeshire for payment of [blank] Alcock's debts.

SIR H[ENRY] POOLE reports the bill against such as levy fines and acknowledge recoveries in others' names.

Carew Ralegh, before the second reading of his bill, came and took the oaths of supremacy and allegiance. Then the bill was read.

SIR HUMPHREY MAY doubts that they err in the receiving of that bill here because it ought properly to belong unto the Upper House, as was once before challenged by them in Sir Gelly Meyrick's children's case, which the Lords had like to have dashed because it moved from hence.

SIR THOMAS HOBY confirms the same and says that in the 35 of Queen Eliz. the bill to restore [blank] Perrot came from the Lords with the Queen's hand to it.

SIR EDWARD WARDOUR says that upon distaste of that for Sir Gelly Meyrick's children, it was ordered above then that this should pass but no more that did come from hence.

SIR GEORGE MORE and SIR EDWARD COKE say that for the restitution of a Lord it must come from them, but not for another, and that in Ed. the 1['s] time it does appear that it arose from hence.

Exceptions taken against the master of the rolls' bill. It is recommitted.

The report of the committee of grievances by SIR EDWARD COKE that the apothecaries' patent is void and they are to be of the company of grocers again.

[p. 177] The House sat as committee for the continuance of statutes again.

A message from the Lords for a conference, granted, where the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury said he saw that the spirit of God moved the Lower House to propound the petition against recusants and that in this, as in all other things, the Lords desired to concur with the House of Commons, yet they did a little differ in the manner though not in the matter of this petition, which the Prince was so careful of that he would have their very words used as far as might be. They had only contracted somewhat, not detracted anything, and that as the House of Commons had submitted it to their consideration, so they did again refer it to the consideration of the House for allowance of their change. That they only desired to contract our seven parts into 2, which comprised them all, leaving the reasons of those parts proposed in the first form to be reserved apart by themselves, and wished they might be in readiness to show the causes moving them thus to petition the King; and that the cause of their changing the form was for these 3 respects: first, that they conceived that fewest words were best to be used; second, that the asperity of words might be mitigated.

The form that the Lords thought best to send the petition in was as follows.

May it please your Majesty: it having pleased your Majesty upon our humble advice to dissolve both the treaties to our great joy and comfort, we your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords and Commons of this present Parliament, do in all humbleness offer to your sacred Majesty these 2 petitions following. First, for the safety of your realms and better keeping your subjects in their due obedience and other important reasons of state, that your Majesty would be pleased, by some such way as your Majesty shall think fit, to give present order that all the laws be put in due execution [p. 178] which have been made and do stand in force against Jesuits and seminary priests, or any other having taken orders by deriving their authority from the see of Rome, and generally against all Popish recusants; and yet that it may appear to all the world the favour that your Majesty uses toward all your subjects of what condition so ever and to the intent the Jesuits and priests now within the realm may not pretend they are surprised, that a day certain may be prefixed by your Majesty's proclamation, before which day that they depart out of this realm and all other your Highness' dominions, and that neither they or any other return or come here again upon peril of the severest penalties of the laws now in force against them, and that thereby all your Majesty's subjects be admonished not to receive nor entertain, comfort nor conceal any such priest or Jesuit upon penalty and forfeiture which by your laws may be imposed upon them. Secondly, that seeing we are thus happily delivered from that danger which those treaties now dissolved and the use which your ill-affected subjects made thereof and would certainly have drawn upon us, and yet cannot but foresee and fear lest the like may here after happen, which would evidently bring much peril to your Majesty's kingdoms, we are most humble suitors unto your Majesty that you would secure the hearts of your good subjects, by the engagement of your royal word unto them that upon no occasion of marriage, treaty or other request in that behalf from any foreign prince or state whatsoever, your [sic] will take away or slacken the execution of your laws against the popish recusants. To which our humble petition, proceeding from our most dutiful and loyal affections towards your Majesty, and care of our country's good, and our confident persuasion that this will much advantage the glory of Almighty God and maintain the honour of your Majesty, the safety of your kingdoms and the encouragement of all your loving subjects, we most humbly beseech your Majesty to give your gracious answer.

[p. 179] The Archbishop said further that upon the opening of that point which is last in the petition, concerning the Prince's marriage, that the Prince in the House did solemnly swear and promise that when he should have power, he would never consent ever so to have his wife have liberty (if he matched with any affected that way) as that it should give further enlargement to recusants more than to herself and her own company. This the Archbishop did report with tears of joy.

SIR EDWARD COKE observes that God has lately done miraculous work for us, and the chief in the dissolution of the treaties, and yet He blesses us with the constancy and good affections of the Prince, but yet he thinks the petition as it is contracted by the Lords is not full enough, being restrained only in general to recusants, which will be taken for none but those that are convict, whereas our petition contained "convicted or probably [sic] suspected". That use has ever been so, and the necessity is great, the swarm being so great, etc.

SIR R[OBERT] PHELIPS. The danger is not only or most in convict recusants; their number is little but those that are probably suspected with the convict are a dangerous number. He thinks the Lords did but omit it by chance, not purposely neglect it. He wishes also that some prescript time may be set, and not indefinitely, for the execution of the parts of this petition.

SIR EDWIN SANDYS. This petition is not for grace but for justice in the execution of the laws, and that in speaking to the King we must consider to ask that which law does warrant, especially in a time of danger. How then we should extend the petition to those the laws lay not hold on is difficult. If a man be suspected, it is truly or not: if truly, convict him and then he is liable to the law; if not, acquit him and punish him not upon an erroneous supposition of probability.

[p. 180] SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH thinks the Lords' alteration short of our petition and moves that further consideration may be had of it by comparison at a subcommittee.

[MR. JOHN] GLANVILLE desires to beware of moving that which there is no law for. That if any persons which be probably suspected be not convict, it is in regard of the late connivancy. Take away that cause once, and let the laws be executed quickly and they will be soon convict; take what we can if not what we would. Moves that the King's proclamation may be that all (that bear office) and in such a time do not go to the church or receive the communion shall be held suspected, and soon then will they be convicted, etc.

SIR THOMAS HOBY says that by act of the Council with the opinion of the judges, that those that do not constantly and frequently resort to church or have received the communion within 3 years before, at least once in the year, or whose wife is a recusant, or has a multiplicity of servants and retainers or tenants which are recusants, he is to be suspected for a recusant and to be disarmed.

The report of a bill for suing of debts, etc., in the king's name.

An act for naturalizing of Jacques de Best read and passed to engrossing [sic], in favour of the Serjeant.


[f. 82v]

6 April, Tuesday

An act for naturalizing Sir Robert Anstruther, Sir George/

Second read, Thursday, [Court of] Wards. An act for the selling the manor of Rampton in Cambridgeshire for the payment of Edward Alcock's debts.

[SIR HENRY] POOLE reports the bill against such as shall levy fines, become bails, acknowledge recoveries in others' names. Put to the engrossing.

Before the second reading of [?Mr.] Carew Ralegh's bill for restitution in blood, he came into the House and took both the oaths.

An act for the restitution in blood, Carew Ralegh, the son of Sir Walter Ralegh, knight, attainted of high treason.

[SIR WALTER] EARLE. Divers without desires the justice of the House, that whereas there is a bill put in for the master of the rolls to make leases of certain houses in Chancery Lane and Fetter Lane, they claim interest in those houses and desire therefore to have counsel assigned them.

There is assigned to those men Serjeant [Thomas] Hetley, Serjeant Thynn, Mr. [Eusebius] Andrews and Mr./

The patent of the apothecaries, by question, is damned.

[Committee of the Whole House]

The statutes of continuance and repeal.

39 Eliz. for tillage and houses and towns of husbandry stands discontinued by question.

39 Eliz. for rogues, continues.

43 Eliz., relief of soldiers, mariners; for the relief of the poor, continued with a proviso.

[f. 83] [MR. JOHN] GLANVILLE. Report, the bill for levying of debts in the name of the king.

Recommitted presently.

Second [sic] read, committed. An act for the naturalizing Jacques de Best.

Order. It is ordered that tomorrow in the afternoon the committee of grievances shall sit to hear the complaint against the Lord Treasurer and Mr. [Nicholas] Herman, his secretary.

Order. It is ordered that a subcommittee meet at 4 of the clock in the afternoon to peruse the model of the Lords' and our petition and set down what additions they shall think fit, in the Court of Wards.

Order. It is ordered that the Spanish Merchants shall set down the decay of trade and money, and appear on Thursday.


[f. 50v]

6 April 1624

An act for naturalizing of Sir [blank] Anstruther.

An act to enable [blank] to sell divers lands in Cambridgeshire.

SIR HENRY POOLE reported the bill against levying of fines in other men's names.

Mr. [Carew] Ralegh, the son of Sir Walter Ralegh, who had preferred a bill for his restitution in blood, took the oath of allegiance.

MR. CHANCELLOR DUCHY. An order the 10 [sic] of the King was made in the Upper House that all bills for restitution in blood ought to begin there and Mr. [Roland] Meyrick's bill was like to be rejected upon that point.

SIR THOMAS HOBY. That like exception was taken 35 Eliz. to the bill for Sir Thomas Perrot's children.

Whereupon Mr. [William] Noye and Mr. [John] Selden were appointed to see how precedents of former times went in the like cases.

SIR EDWARD COKE reported the opinion of the committee concerning the grocers and apothecaries, which was confirmed by the House, but with an order that the apothecaries might prefer a bill for those things which were proper for their trade.

[Committee of the Whole House]

The House turned itself into a committee for the bill of continuance and repeal of statutes. The debate at this committee shall be entered together with the rest concerning that law, only this was observed: that the Speaker, sitting by, desired to be heard and spoke as a private member of the committee.

There came a message from the Lords, which caused the Speaker to take the chair again. Our draft for a petition concerning recusants had been formerly showed to them at a committee. The effect of this message was to desire a present conference about that business.

MR. SOLICITOR reported that conference, wherein my Lord of Canterbury spoke for the Lords. After thanks from the Lords, he told us that they doubted not but the spirit of God led us into this consideration, wherein they did desire to concur with us, but, reserving the matter entire, did somewhat vary in the form, for which purpose they present us a model and the reasons of it.

  • [1.] They had made it shorter because fewest words would be best accepted.
  • 2. They thought it would as well satisfy us to have it contracted, so as nothing were detracted.
  • 3. They had left out some words of asperity.
  • 4. Whereas we had delivered the reasons of our petition at large, they insisted only upon the matter and left the reasons to future occasions.

[f. 51] The preface was ours. The rest was contained in two petitions:

  • 1. General for the execution of all the laws, etc.
  • 2. Which was that [upon] no occasion of marriage nor treaty or other request in that behalf from any foreign prince or state whatsoever, your Majesty will take away or slacken the execution of your laws against priests, Jesuits and othe[r] popish recusants.

My Lord President told us the Prince was so observant that in all that was left of ours he would not alter a word, only his Highness desired those 2 words, "priests" and "Jesuits", might likewise be put into the second, which he conceived to be our meaning.

The Archbishop proceeded and with tears declared that the Prince, upon occasion of this last article, did profess and bind it with an oath that whensoever God should please to bestow upon him a lady, if she were of another religion her liberty should extend no further than to herself, without touching upon the recusants in general.

Exception was taken against the first article that the laws extend only to convict recusants, of which there are very few. But it was answered that if a recusant be justly subject to the penalty, the law will quickly take hold of him, for the connivance was the reason that so few were convict.

The same committee was appointed to consider the difference between this draft and that which was made by us.

MR. [JOHN] GLANVILLE reported the bill against levying debts in the king's name, which was recommitted.

Eodem die, at the committee of privileges

Was heard the case of Amersham, Marlow and Wendover, thre[e] ancient boroughs who had petitioned to be admitted to send burgesses to the Parliament as heretofore they had done. Mr. [William] Hakewill, of counsel with the boroughs, insisted upon these points:

  • 1. That they were boroughs proved by two marks:
  •        1. Burgage tenure.
  •        2. A distinction between the bounds of the boroughs from other places that were foreign.
  • 2. That all boroughs ought to send burgesses to the Parliament according to Littleton, cap./
  • 3. That these towns did send in 1 Ed. 1, and may have sent divers [to] Parliaments since, and yet not appear by record, for the proof whereof he made these observations:
  •        1. Though the Great Charter were made by the consent of the Commons 9 H. 3, yet the first summons of Parliament remaining of record is 49 H. 3 and the first returns of the summons 1 Ed. 1, in which these towns are mentioned.
  •        2. Between 1 and 28 Ed. 1 there are no returns extant, but in 28 Ed. 1 the sheriff was required to return the same men who were of the former Parliament, 27. And because these towns, the return the return [sic] of that Parliament of 28, it is to be presumed they were returned in [f. 51v] all the mean Parliaments between 10 and 280.
  •        3. From 28 Edw. 1 to 3 R. 2 there were 54 Parliaments, of which there are no returns remaining.
  •        4. From the 3 of R. 2 unto the 33 H. 8 were 96 Parliaments, for which there are not above 30 bundles of returns extant and for those towns none.
  •        5. From the 33 H. 8 until the time, there want a full third part.
  •        6. That sheriffs were often negligent in summoning those towns which ought to send appeared by 5 R. 2, c. 4, and that some towns being summoned did notwithstanding forbear to send.
  •        7. That divers boroughs did send though they had no summons from the sheriff, for it appears there are many writs of expenses for burgesses for whom there was no return.
  • 4. The sending burgesses to the Parliament is not a franchise but a burden or service to the commonwealth, whereby they are bound to maintain men of their own charges to give the king advice, and so cannot be lost by non-user as franchise may be, but remains a perpetual charge to boroughs as well as to cities and counties.

Touching this last point, Mr. [John] Glanville affirmed that he had seen informations in the Exchequer against boroughs for not sending.

Mr. Solicitor.

  • [1.] That Mr. [William] Noye, Mr. [John] Selden, Mr. [John] Borough and Sir Robert Cotton may examine the records and certify how many towns stood upon this title, because the King had been informed of great multitudes that we meant to let in by this gap. So we may be able to clear our proceedings from any such exception if need be.
  • 2. To inquire how many have been already admitted in this kind.
  • 3. To consider of those towns which heretofore were ancient boroughs and are now heaps of stones.

It was ordered accordingly and in the meantime the opinion of the committee respited.


[f. 115v]

Tuesday, 30th of March [sic]

Upon occasion of a bill read for restoring in blood of Mr. [Carew] Ralegh, Sir Walter Ralegh's son, question raised whether such bills were to come from above first. Referred to search of precedents.

SIR EDWARD COKE'S report from the committee of grievances. The case of the apothecaries and grocers. The apothecaries complained of for procuring a patent that took away the greatest part of the grocers' trade.

The patent censured as a grievance.

The House sat as a general committee upon the bill for continuance and repeal of statutes.

The House sat again, the Speaker in the chair.

A message from the Lords for a conference of the committees touching the business of recusants. The committee went up.

[Conference with the Lords]

After a short speech of the Archbishop showing that the Lords thanked us, etc., and that they thought the spirit of God put it into our hearts to etc., as it was a business of great importance, so they had maturely considered of it and agreed with us in matter, though perhaps differed somewhat in manner. That which was more largely set down by us was contracted by them, and had drawn, etc., as a model. The reasons:

  • 1. Fewest words do best.
  • 2. No offence so long as contract and not detract.
  • 3. They thought fit [f. 116] to take away some words of asperity.
  • 4. To tread in the same steps as formerly, to be short in the thing itself, and to have reasons apart in case demanded.

After this, the Archbishop related that the Prince upon this occasion did in the Lords' House this day protest, and bound it by a solemn oath, that if ever he should match with any of different religion, she should never have larger liberty than for herself, and no way to touch upon hindering execution of the laws against recusants.

After the report, SIR EDWARD COKE moved that the words "justly suspected" concerning recusants might be inserted, for otherwise the greatest part would not be met withal.

SIR EDWIN SANDYS. This a difficult point, who justly suspected and who not.

MR. [JOHN] GLANVILLE. 3 ways of discovery:

  • 1. Taking the oath.
  • 2. Going to church.
  • 3. Receiving the communion.

SIR THOMAS HOBY. The acts of Council show what course has been taken in this kind heretofore.

A select committee [sic] appointed to compare both the forms, ours and theirs, together and to consider what might be fit to be altered.

SIR EDWARD COKE'S motion to have the general committee for the Lord Treasurer's business to have the precedency of the committee for courts of justice tomorrow.


[f. 116v] Tuesday afternoon, committee of privileges

The petitions of Amersham, Marlow and Wendover in Buckinghamshire for sending burgesses as in ancient time. They have badges of borough towns according to Littleton; they have burgage tenures and are devisable; they have distinct limits from the out-parishes, and constables for the boroughs. The first summons extant, 49 H. 3; the records of returns, 1 E. 1, 28 E. 1; no record for them 26 E. 1. From 28 E. 1 to 3 R. 2 were 54 Parliaments, as appears by printed statutes, yet no record of any return of any borough of record. From 3 R. 2 to 33 H. 8 there are 96 Parliaments, during all which time not above 30 bundles of returns to be found. From 33 H. 8 to this time, there want a third part. That the sheriffs used to omit some returns but that lost not the privileges. Vide the statute 5 R. 2, cap. 4, the sheriff to return as in ancient times or else to be amerced, and 23 H. 6 the sheriff commanded to send precepts to every town. Nay, though the sheriff did omit, yet the boroughs did send, for it appears by writs that wages of burgesses were levied where the sheriffs returned none. [f. 117] Not above 60 bundles of records in the whole concerning returns. This rather a service than a franchise or liberty, as appears they did put in manucaptors to perform the service. A service cannot be lost as a franchise may. No other title for Ilchester than the sending twice or thrice of burgesses. In multitudine consiliorum fortitudo est.

For the proof of Hertford to be an ancient borough vide record 1 E. 6, 26 E. 6. A new charter granted by Queen Elizabeth and the King.


[f. 99]

April 60, Tuesday

[Committee of the Whole House]

The bill of continuance and repeal of statutes. Great and long dispute about the acts for the relief of the poor and referred to a subcommittee for further amendments.

The Speaker was called to the chair.

A message from the Lords for a conference about our message concerning religion.

[Conference with the Lords]

They said they believed the spirit of God did guide us when we took that into consideration. They reserved the matters and altered our form, contracted, but detracted not anything. They put the petition apart from the reasons and made 2 heads of it:

  • 1. To beseech his Majesty to put the laws in present execution against Jesuits, seminary priests and other popish recusants; to prefix a day for their banishment; and that none should either receive or succour them.
  • 2. Not to slacken the execution of them hereafter upon any [f. 99v] treaty with any foreign prince for the Prince's match or anything else whatsoever.

And in the report of this conference, SIR ROBERT HEATH related that the Prince had affirmed in the Upper House and bound it with an oath that if it so fell out that he should have a lady of another religion, she should only enjoy her liberty herself and cause no further connivency nor toleration of the laws to any other.

The House desired to be secured as well from them that were justly suspected as they that were duly convicted for recusants, ergo, appointed a committee to provide for a further conference with the Lords to that purpose.

An act for the naturalizing of Jacques de Best. Passed.