Proceedings in Parliament 1624: The House of Commons. Originally published by British History Online, 2015-18.
This free content was born digital and sponsored by the History of Parliament Trust, with the support of the Leverhulme Trust and Yale Center for Parliamentary History. All rights reserved.
WEDNESDAY, 7 APRIL 1624
I. JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, PA, HC/CL/JO/1/13
[CJ 757; f. 113v]
Mercurii, 7 Aprilis 1624
L. 2. Lady [Joan] Jermy's bill.
Sir Robert Hitcham
Mr. [John] Pym
Sir Henry Poole
Sir Thomas Estcourt
Sir Gilbert Gerard
Knights, burgesses, Cambridge, Suffolk and Norfolk
Sir Clement Throckmorton
Sir Alexander St. John
Sir Francis Barrington
Tuesday next, 2 [o']clock, Court of Wards. All parties to have notice.
[f. 114] MR. RECORDER reports Sir Thomas Cheke's bill. The amendments twice read.
Ordered, to be engrossed.
L. 2. An act to make sale of the lands of Sir Anthony Aucher, Sir Roger James and John Wroth.
Mr. Secretary Calvert
Sir Edward Coke
Sir Robert Hitcham
Sir Henry Poole
Sir Robert Hatton
Sir Guy Palmes
Sir Peter Heyman
Sir Thomas Savile
Mr. [John] Mohun
Mr. [John] Pym
Sir Nathaniel Rich
Knights, burgesses, Kent
Sir George Chudleigh
Sir George More
Sir Henry Slingsby
Sir Edward Peyton
Sir Edward Giles
Sir Roger North
Monday next, 2 [o']clock, Court of Wards. All parties to have notice.
[f. 114v] SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. A worthy member of this House required by the Lords to attend them and be sworn there in a business desires the leave of the House. Mr. Chancellor Duchy.
Left to his discretion.
L. 3. An act to enable William, Earl of Hertford, and Sir Francis Seymour to make sale of certain lands.
Upon question, passed for a law.
L. 3. An act for the general quiet of the subject against all pretences of concealments whatsoever.
Upon question, passed for a law.
L. 3. An act to prevent the abuses in procuring process and supersedeas for the peace.
Upon question, passed for a law.
L. 3. An act to enable justices of the peace to give restitution of possession in certain cases.
Upon question, passed for a law.
L. 3. An act for free trade of Welsh cloths, cottons, friezes.
Upon question, passed for a law.
L. 3. An act against such as shall levy any fine, suffer any recovery.
Upon question, passed for a law.
Sir Edward Coke sent up to the Lords with 8 bills.
[f. 115] A note read from [illegible] Mr. Abraham Williams, the King of Bohemia's agent.
This business referred to the committee of grievances on Friday next, the first cause.
A message from the Lords by Serjeant [Sir Henry] Finch and Sir Edward Salter. The Lords have taken into consideration the bill of monopolies and for matters of weight as they conceive in it, they desire a meeting and conference with a proportionable number of this House. Their number 32. Tomorrow, 9 [o']clock, Painted Chamber.
SIR ROBERT MANSELL desires to have his cause heard before the conference or to have leave at the conference to tender his proviso.
Agreed, he may.
SIR HENRY VANE. This concerns him, too. Desires the same favour.
Agreed, he may.
Answer: this House will give a meeting, at time and place as is desired, with a proportionable number.
These 64 are appointed by the House to confer with the Lords about the bill of monopolies. If any new matter come, to acquaint the House with it.
Sir Edward Coke
Sir John Walter
Mr. [William] Noye
Mr. [John] Glanville especially appointed by the House to manage this conference.
[f. 116] MR. SOLICITOR reports from the committee appointed to compare the petitions concerning recusants. The preamble they allow as it is. For the reasons, agreed to have them set apart in a paper by themselves. The committee divided (7 and 7) about the words "by your proclamation": whether "by proclamation" or "by present order".
A message from the Lords by Serjeant [Sir Henry] Finch, Serjeant [Sir George] Croke. The Lords have sent down 4 bills:
- 1. That came hence, to admit the subject to plead the general issue. With some amendments that/
- 2. An act for naturalizing Sir Robert Kerr.
- 3. Sir Stephen Lesieur.
- 3. [sic] Philip Jacobson, of London, merchant.
Resolved, upon question, that these words, "by proclamation, as in such cases upon like occasions have been used", shall be put in.
To offer to the Lords this amendment. The committee thought it fit to offer also some other clauses: "all popish recusants convicted or justly suspected".
To have these words, "a day certain may be speedily prefixed".
Agreed to be, "a certain and speedy day may be prefixed".
An addition in the conclusion: "Jesuits, seminaries and popish recusants".
Not fit to alter the copy of the Lords until they are acquainted with it.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS. One Mr. [Abraham] Jacob attends at the door. To have him attend tomorrow.
Ordered, he shall.
The knights and burgesses that were ordered to present the names of recusants to do it against Saturday next.
[f. 116v] SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. To have the Speaker.
MR. [WILLIAM] NOYE. [Blank]
Bill of statutes. Tomorrow, 8 [o']clock, in the House.
[CJ 758] Mercurii, 7 Aprilis 1624, post meridiem
Mr. Speaker went into his chair.
SIR EDWARD COKE reports from the committee of grievances appointed to examine the charge of my Lord Treasurer. Have entered into it. Examined 6 witnesses. One Abraham Jacob to be examined, but not here. Had no warning, nor had no power to send for him. The sense of the committee that a warrant to be made presently for him.
Tomorrow, 8[o']clock, Mr. Jacob to be here, and the rest of the witnesses to attend at that time, and the secretary. The/
II. DIARY OF JOHN HOLLES, BL, HARL. MS 6,383
Wednesday, the 7th of April
The bill of concealments engrossed and passed.
An act for preventing abuses in procuring processes and supersedeas of peace and good behaviour and writs of certiorari out of the courts of Westminster.
An act for the free trading of Welsh cloths and cottons, friezes, linings and plains through the kingdom of England and the dominion of Wales.
An act to make it felony to levy fines in other men's names.
An act to enable justices of peace to give possession in certain cases.
SIR EDWARD COKE tendered a paper for the Queen of Bohemia to this effect: that whereas 3 years since a liberal contribution was given by the kingdom to Baron Dohna and [Abraham] Williams, her agent, for her use, and divers sums thereupon levied were concealed in collectors' hands, he moved to have a committee appointed to consider of some course to bring in these sums.
SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH. No man wished better to that business and cause than he did, but he wished rather the lords of the Council to take this into consideration than thus to allow and justify this benevolence by Parliament.
SIR DUDLEY DIGGES. He loves this cause but he loves no benevolence whereby such a mischief should arise that there was moneys collected which the wisdom of the state knew not how to come by. [f. 120v] He moved to have this referred with priority of place to the committee of grievances.
And so it was ordered.
Serjeant [Sir Henry] Finch and Sir Edward Salter came to desire a conference at 9 tomorrow morning in the Painted Chamber about the bill of monopolies, the number of the Lords 32.
SIR ROBERT MANSELL moved to put in a proviso at the conference by his counsel for his patent of glasses which concerned his whole fortune, or that the Lower House would hear it before the conference.
SIR HENRY VANE asked the like favour for the subpoena office.
And both granted.
SIR GUY PALMES said it was an order of the House that no one man should name above two of any committee, and he named Sir William Fleetwood and Mr. [William] Mallory of the committee of 64 to join with the Lords about the bill of monopolies.
It was moved that those that did desire provisos, as [Sir Henry] Vane and [Sir Robert] Mansell, should not be of this committee.
[Mr. William] Noye, [Sir Edward] Coke and [Mr. John] Glanville were appointed to answer at the conference as occasion served.
[MR. WILLIAM] NOYE would have excused himself, for that he was a stranger to the bill, but [SIR EDWARD] COKE would have his company, saying he was always armed and carried bibliothecam in capite.
The SOLICITOR'S report of the subcommittee about the 2 petitions for recusants and comparing them, viz. the Lords' and ours. The committee divided the Lords' petition into his parts: the preamble, the body, the reasons and the conclusion. The preamble they agreed to. The body of our petition consisting of 7 articles, the 6 first were comprehended in one article of the Lords, viz. in putting the laws in [f. 121] execution; only they differed in the manner of the publishing of them. The committee being 14, seven of them would have it by proclamation, the other 7 would have it left to the King, saying it were not fit for us to chalk out the King's way.
SIR NATHANIEL RICH. 2 ends there are of the petition, the safety and the satisfaction of the kingdom. The last would be better by proclamation. The Lords said they would detract nothing from ours, only contract; now to have it done by proclamation was a main and essential part thereof.
SIR THOMAS EDMONDES wished this were done with as little noise as might be. That the House desired a war with Spain and to that end the King desired to draw in as many Catholic princes into the league as he could, and therefore would not make it appear a war of religion.
SIR FRANCIS SEYMOUR. The beam of the balance at the committee was in this point even, and he would add some weight to that side that desired a proclamation. That other princes had nothing to do with what the King did with his subjects.
SIR GUY PALMES. For a proclamation.
SIR WILLIAM BEECHER. Against it, for that it would be prejudicial to those of our religion in other countries.
SIR THOMAS JERMYN. Against it.
SIR JAMES PERROT. For it. That the papists are still very confident.
Serjeant [Sir Henry] Finch and Serjeant [Sir George] Croke came from the Lords with 4 bills to confirm. The first, a public bill to admit the subject to plead the general issue upon information of intrusion; the second, to naturalize Sir Robert Kerr; [f. 121v] the third, to naturalize Sir Francis Stewart, Walter Steward, James Maxwell, William Carr and James Levingston; the fourth, to naturalize Doctor [John] Young, Dean of Winchester.
SIR GEORGE MORE. For a proclamation.
SIR EDWARD COKE. For a proclamation, for it was ever used in such causes.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS was first against it, but now is for it. Before printing came up, all laws were published by proclamation. It will give more satisfaction to those of our religion and less discontent to papists, having this warning given them. We are now upon point of war; let us show no token of fearfulness, and to discourage Protestants.
SIR JOHN SAVILE. Against proclamation. That there needs no proclamation to give notice, for that at sessions and assizes there will be notice given for executing the laws. That it will show beyond sea the King has discontinued his laws.
SIR THOMAS HOBY. For a proclamation.
SIR EDWARD CECIL. For a proclamation.
SIR EDWARD WARDOUR. For one.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. For one, and moved to have added after the word "proclamation", "according to the usual custom and manner".
SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH. For one. In a business of religion, he desires a clear and public way. Our connivance at home did not procure any ease to the Protestants abroad, but they were still persecuted. Queen Elizabeth executed her laws and yet kept her friends.
[f. 122] By question, it was carried that instead of those words "for reviving the laws against papists by such courses as the King shall think fit", it shall be put in "by proclamation as in such cases has been used".
The House desired a day certain, and speedy, for banishing the Jesuits.
SIR PETER HEYMAN moved to restrain resorting to the ambassador's.
SIR JOHN ELIOT answered that was conceived already provided for by law.
And for SIR THOMAS HOBY'S motion to have no lieutenants, deputy lieutenants, country captains, nor justices of oyer and terminer nor of the peace to be recusants, SIR JOHN ELIOT answered that the committee had already resolved not to put it into the petition but intimate it to the Prince as the desire of the House, and he would have them also put in that had recusants to their wives, or their eldest sons.
At the committee [for grievances] in the afternoon concerning the Lord Treasurer
Sir Miles Fleetwood. It is works and not words you expect at my hands. The first of his charges is a book of instructions for the Court of Wards, which he procured contrary to a former book. Second, a patent he procured from the King in October last that nothing should pass in the King's revenue of England or Ireland without his licence. Never no law that a Master of the Wards should assume that power without the auditor, receiver, attorney and surveyor of that court. The statute of the first foundation of that court does prohibit the Master of the Wards from doing anything unless two at least of these officers of the court go hand in hand with him.
Sir Henry Carey offering the Lord Treasurer's answer, Sir Guy Palmes [f. 122v] moved he should first hear the whole charge. The charge consists of 2 heads, alterations in the Court of Wards and briberies.
Sir Edward Coke. The affirmative in accusations is ever presumed until the negative be proved.
Sir Miles Fleetwood. The bribes are two, of £500 apiece. The farmers of the petty farm having sustained great loss by reason of a new impost of £3 upon a tun of wine the year 1621 and having divers times solicited the Treasurer for recompense, and put off with harsh answers, resorted to the King, whereupon £9,500 was appointed to be paid them in 9 years and half; but they could not get this money also without giving the Treasurer £500 by the hands of [Abraham] Jacob, [Henry] Garway and [Bernard] Hide. They first preferred a petition to the King the 22nd of December 1622, for recompense. The King answered they should lose nothing by him and referred them to the Treasurer, who agreed with them for £9,500. This bribe of £500 was entered by [Richard] Bishop in their book of accounts and allowed by the whole company.
The interrogatories hereupon ministered to Bishop, Garway and divers others of the company:
- 1. What interest have you in the farms called the petty farms or wine farms?
- 2. Did not you and others the farmers petition the King for loss sustained by the new impost of £3 a tun?
- 3. Did not the King refer you to the Lord Treasurer?
- 4. Did not the Lord Treasurer and farmers meet about these losses, and agreed for £9,500?
- [f. 123] 5. Were you present at the agreement made?
- 6. Were you not to have £9,500 by £1,000 a year?
- 7. How long after was it after the agreement was made?
- 8. Did you not often solicit the Treasurer to have his warrant to the Attorney [General] for this money?
- 9. Did you not among yourselves consult of some course to be taken to expedite the business?
- 10. Were you not told something must be given to the Lord Treasurer? By whom and what?
- 11. Did you not give him £500 together in one purse?
- 12. Was the said £500 so given allowed by the company and accounted for in their monthly and yearly account?
- 13. Were you not moved to put the said £500 out of your account, and by whom? And where did you transfer the said £500?
To the thirteenth and tenth was answered Jacob did move them and the money was paid back since the Parliament began.
Bernard Hide answered to the point of giving that he perceived it was a wrong put upon them by their partners. Yet Jacob told him the King's grant could not pass until that there was something given to the Treasurer.
Garway said that Jacob brought them word 3 months ago that the money was given in a wrong charge, and every man had his money again. The farmers keep 2 accounts, a monthly and a yearly account. This £500 was first in the monthly account of the farmers of the petty farms, then in the yearly, then restored them by the farmers [f. 123v] of the great farms.
Abraham Dawes, being called for a witness, said he was the King's officer and depended upon the Treasurer, therefore desired to be sworn first. He was the auditor of their accounts. Sir John Wolstenholme, Abraham Jacob, Bernard Hide and Henry Garway were the 4 that advised giving this £500. Dawes found it in his monthly and yearly account. The petty farms consist of French wines, sweet wines and currants.
Sir Edward Coke said Dawes was the better witness because he was unwilling to it.
Bishop says that the 31st of July last this money was disbursed by him, being cashier of the company, and delivered to the Treasurer 2 days after.
Mr. Jacob said the Treasurer would have the £500 transferred from one account to another.
Mr. [John] Glanville (some moving for a subcommittee to take these examinations) said the House would not depute one, concerning the abuses of the courts of justice, to receive petitions and consider which fit to be received and which not, for two reasons: that being in a few persons' hands the proofs may be adulterate, and besides it would cast much envy and malice upon those persons.
Sir Edward Coke. Delegata potestas non potest delegare; a committee cannot appoint a subcommittee to examine Jacob.
My Lord Treasurer's second charge. The farmers of the general customs, otherwise called the great farms, did tender themselves and their sureties for the payment of their rents, being £48,000, whereof 5 of them were to be [f. 124] bound for £7,500, but refusing to be bound to the King, tendered their own bonds to the Treasurer, which he refused until he had £500 given him.
- 1. Was there not security tendered to the Lord Treasurer for the due payment of the rent reserved upon the last lease for the customs general according to a covenant in the lease?
- 2. Did not the Lord Treasurer accept of it?
- 3. Did not the Lord Treasurer give his warrant to the King's Remembrancer to take the said security?
- 4. Was it not agreed between yourselves that/
- 5. Was there not order given among yourselves for the drawing up the indenture?
- 6. Did not 5 or 6 of the said sureties refuse to sign these bonds and put over their parts to the patentees?
- 7. Did not the Lord Treasurer about July last often delay their request, being often solicited thereunto, to take their bonds?
- 8. Did not some in behalf of my Lord Treasurer demand £500 from the said patentees before he would accept of the security?
- 9. Was there not £500 given or no, and who did present it? Or after the money was paid, did you find other sureties than you tendered before? Which was your own?
- 10. Had my Lord Treasurer 4 parts or no, or any other part in the great farm?
[f. 124v] The witnesses to these interrogatories were Sir John Wolstenholme and [Henry] Garway, who agreed to them all and affirmed them to be true.
To the tenth, Wolstenholme said my Lord Treasurer did not claim any parts or part in the great farms, but laboured to draw in some of his friends.
Garway said the £500 was delivered [to Abraham] Jacob.
The Speaker was sent for and report made to him by [SIR EDWARD] COKE.
The committee could not so much as make a warrant to fetch any before them without order from the House.
MR. [WILLIAM] NYELL. Jacob had received from Exeter £120 for composition money for grocery.
SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH moved that the Serjeant should take Jacob in his custody and present him to the House tomorrow morning.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS said he saw no reason to send for him as a delinquent.
III. DIARY OF SIR THOMAS JERVOISE, HAMPSHIRE RECORD OFFICE, 44M69/F4/20/1
April 7, 1624
It is ordered by the Commons' House of Parliament that the knights and burgesses of every shire and borough shall by themselves present unto the House the names of such convicted or justly suspected popish persons as are in any place of charge or trust in their several counties and boroughs, this to be done against Saturday next. Any lieutenant, justice of peace to do the like and have power to send for such as they know to be in town to confer with them.
IV. DIARY OF JOHN LOWTHER, CUMBRIA ARCHIVE CENTRE, CARLISLE, DLONS/L/2/1
[7 April 1624]
The bill of intrusion amended by the Lords and passed.
[f. 54] Chancellor of the Duchy to be examined by the Lords, had leave of the House upon SIR R[OBERT] P[HELIPS'S] motion.
That the King granted a bill in Scotland for proscription of heritable rights in Scotland. We, the elder sister, to send it with commendation as necessary. MR. [EDWARD] ALFORD urged the reasons at the passing [of] the bill of concealment.
Certiorari bill read and passed.
Notice to be given by the Speaker of the time of the reading public bills.
Falsifying fines, recoveries. Passed.
Restitution of possession to lessees and copyholders. [Passed]
Welsh cottons bill. Passed.
The Lord of Hertford's bill and 2 others.
Jacques de Best['s] naturalization. Passed.
That the collected benevolence for Bohemia by Baron Dohna by a selected committee may be paid. SIR E[DWARD] COKE.
SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH. Fit for the lords of the Council not for this House, any benevolence.
Put off by SIR THOMAS HOBY by present business.
I attend the conference of monopolies tomorrow at 9 of the clock.
[MR.] SOLICITOR reports the differences of the Lords and us. The reasons set apart for the King if he ask[s] [for] them. Our six first fall into one. Whether "by proclamation" or as he thinks fit 7 to 7. To offer it still but not to insist but until better reason. The House constant to proclamation, add "disarming according to laws of state", a day certain and speedy prefixed.
[f. 54v] SIR THOMAS HOBY moves "displace of officers and lieutenants popish recusants" to be added because no law for it.
[Afternoon, committee for grievances]
- 1. The instructions contrary the first.
- 2. That nothing pass[es] the revenues of either kingdom but by him procured under signet.
That first, against law and statute of Court of Wards [for] him to do anything, or his secretary, or to write his name but himself. That the late instructions good for King, good for subject in compositions, to do nothing but with two of the court now alone.
Next, the rewards prove therein, call you them bribes. First the rewards. The farmers of the petty farms, having sustained loss by new impositions of wines, resorting to the Treasurer had harsh answer. The King answered they should lose nothing, sent them to Lord Treasurer. He agreed for £9,000 in 9 years. He delayed his warrant long, and at length upon solicitation they gave him £500 by Sir William Garway, and then had the warrant. The £500 was entered in the farmer's book, and upon receipt of the money from the King, repaid.
[Bernard] Hide. [Abraham] Jacob and [Henry] Garway, £500 in gold given in a purse to procure the warrant, as was informed, put into the account, and after put out by Jacob's motion, who first moved the gift, and this repaid about the beginning of Parliament by the great farmers.
[f. 55] Henry Garway. A year spent after agreement before a warrant could be got. £500 was given the Treasurer and rested upon the account for some time, until Jacob moved an alteration and it was restored out of the account of the great farm.
[Abraham] Dawes, the auditor. That upon the account, £500 sat for the Treasurer. He asked how. That Hide, [Richard] Bishop, [Sir John] Wolstenholme and Jacob did acknowledge it was questioned and confessed how paid.
Dawes. That a fortnight since, Bishop told him that it must be put into the great farm, wherein, said he, I have the 32 part here but the 60 part by care, whereby I shall lose more but Mr. Hide gain, who lose none. But when Mr. Jacob said the Lord Treasurer would have it so, then be it so, said he, I must suffer.
[Richard] Bishop. Delivered £500 to Jacob for the Lord Treasurer 31 July past. The 29 Aprilis 1620, Sir Philip Carey, [Sir William] Garway and others, farmers of the great custom, and others offered bond £1,500 a piece, but it could not be taken until he had £500, July 1620.
Sir John Wolstenholme. That the £500 was paid and their own security taken, when the other refusing fell, if for £500 which he did claim for his interest in disposition.
V. DIARY OF EDWARD NICHOLAS, TNA, SP 14/166
Wednesday, 70 Aprilis 1624
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS acquaints the House that Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy, being a member of this House, is required to testify on his oath before the Lords in a business depending in their House, and that he be unwilling to do anything that may prejudice the privileges of this House is desirous to have the leave of the same.
MR. SPEAKER says that in the case of inns and hostelries the last Parliament, Mr. [John] Drake's testimony on oath was required by the Lords in the Upper House, and that upon debate here the House did not think fit to order him to go there to be sworn nor would forbid him from giving his testimony there on oath, but left it to his discretion to go there if he would, and that thereon Mr. [John] Drake was sworn as a witness by the Lords.
Hereupon, the House made now no order but left it to Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy's discretion to go to the Lords to be sworn there as a witness.
An act to enable William, Earl of Hertford, and Sir Francis Seymour, kt., his brother, to convey certain lands on sale for the payment of debts and to establish other lands of better value in lieu thereof. 3. L. This bill is now passed this House at the third reading. r. p.
An act for the general quiet of the subject against all pretences of concealment whatsoever. 3. L. This bill is now passed this house. r. p.
An act prevent and punish abuses in [f. 117v] procuring process and supersedeas of the peace and good behaviour out of any of his Majesty's courts at Westminster and to prevent the abuses in procuring writs of certiorari for removing of causes. 3. L. r. p. This bill is now passed this House.
An act to enable justices of peace to give restitution of possession in certain cases. 3. L. r. p. This bill is now passed this House.
An act for the free trade and traffic of Welsh cloths, cottons, friezes, linings and plains in and through the kingdom of England and dominion of Wales. 3. L. This bill is now passed this House. r. p.
An act against such as shall levy any fine, suffer recoveries, acknowledge any statutes or re[co]gnizance, bails or judgements in the name of any other persons not privy nor consenting thereunto. 3. L. On pain of death. r. p. This bill is now passed this House.
These bills and others are now all sent up to the Lords.
SIR EDWARD COKE delivers a note to this House from Mr. [Abraham] Williams, the Queen of Bohemia's agent, showing that where there was about 3 y[ears] since a collection for the King and Queen of Bohemia, and contributions were given and much of that money is yet remaining in the hands of some private men, desires that this House will take some course that the money so remaining may be paid into the said Queen's said agent for her Majesty's benefit.
[f. 118] At the motion of SIR DUDLEY DIGGES, it is ordered that the further examination of this business shall be first had on Friday by the committee of grievances, for that it is a grievance to the subject to give money for a benevolence and not to have it paid accordingly.
Message from the Lords signifying that the Lords desire, for the better expediting and accommodating of the bill of monopolies, a conference may be tomorrow morning at 9 of the clock in the Painted Chamber between their Lordships' committee, being 32 in number, and a proportionable number of this House for our committee.
At the several motions of SIR ROBERT MANSELL and SIR H[ENRY] VANE, leave is given them to tender tomorrow several provisos. Sir Robert Mansell for his patent of glasses and Sir H[enry] Vane for his office of making of supersedeas [sic]. But the said provisos are here in this House first to be tendered, and after to be offered at the conference of the said committees unless this House shall dislike of the said provisos when they see them.
Our answer is that a committee of this House shall give a meeting at a conference tomorrow and the time and place as is desired.
It is ordered that this committee which is to meet with the Lords' committee about the bill against monopolies shall have power to maintain the said bill, and if there be any alteration or addition offered by the Lords that then they shall [f. 118v] not agree to anything without first acquainting the House with it.
It is now permitted and left to Sir Robert Mansell and Sir Henry Vane to offer their provisos tomorrow morning to the Lords before the committees meet but they shall not bring the same as commended by this House nor with the committee of this House.
Concerning our petition to the King against recusants, SIR EDWIN SANDYS says that before printing came up all the laws were published by proclamation, and no laws were in force though made in Parliament until they were published by proclamation, and therefore he would have us desire in our petition against recusants that there might be a proclamation that all Jesuits, priest[s], etc., should presently avoid the kingdom or that the laws shall be forthwith put in execution against them.
SIR JOHN SAVILE would have us not to name it to the King to have a proclamation, but desire that by some present order, without naming what way, the King would cause that all Jesuits and priests should avoid the kingdom. His reasons are, first, because the King never did prohibit the execution of the laws against papists but only connive at the non-execution of the laws, which his Majesty might do with honour; but he could not in justice have prohibited the execution of the laws, which if there be desired to have a proclamation, in other parts it will be thought the King did forbid.
[f. 119] SIR FRANCIS NETHERSOLE says that the Low Countrymen, who have aid from the Venetians, have lately made edicts against papists and by their proclamations did put the same in execution a little before his coming thence, and by virtue of it did take away the cloaks of such papists as come from mass at the Venetian ambassador's house; and the Low Countrymen do still put the same laws in execution and yet they treat with the King of France for aid, and therefore he thinks it will not be disliked by any foreign prince that by proclamation our King does cause the execution of the laws against papists.
SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH says that when we had a connivancy here and the laws were not executed against papists, at that time there was a persecution in foreign parts as in the Palatinate, Bohemia and other parts in France and the like. That we desire the proclamation should be for the putting in execution of such laws as we have already here against papists, and no prince did take it ill of Queen Elizabeth who did so, neither will they if the King to do so now.
It is resolved that we shall desire in our petition that the King will, by proclamation according to the ancient use, cause the laws to be put in execution against papists.
[f. 119v] It is ordered that the knights and burgesses of all the shires and boroughs shall bring into the House the names of all such lieutenants, deputy lieutenants, justices of peace, captains of trained bands or others that bear any other office in the country as are papists or justly suspected.
Committee [for grievances], 70 Aprilis 1624, concerning the complaint against the Lord Treasurer
Sir Miles Fleetwood. That the complaint is on 2 grounds:
- 1. On the book of instructions touching the Court of Wards.
- 2. Is founded on a declaration from his Majesty that nothing should pass concerning the revenue of this kingdom, nor that of Ireland.
That concerning the first, that the instructions as they are altered are contrary to the statute of 32 and 33 H. 8, and contrary to the profit of the King and the good of the subject, and obtained by the Lord Treasurer himself. That anciently and until this Lord Treasurer's time, the revenue of the Court of Wards was not managed but by the assistance of the attorney and receiver and auditor of that court, as by the statute of 32 and 33 H. 8 it was given. That he has brought his witnesses to prove the rewards, gratuities or bribes taken by the Lord Treasurer.
He charges the Lord Treasurer, first, with £500 given to him in one place, then another £500 given to him in another place. Concerning the first bribe given to the Lord Treasurer [f. 120] he delivers a note into the House which shows that the farmers of the petty farms, being delayed by the Lord Treasurer, did for accommodation of the composition of £9,500 by reason of their loss caused by the new raising of the impost of £3 on a tun of wine to be allowed to the said farmers by £1,000 per annum for 9 y[ears] and a half to be abated out of their rent, at length the farmers did agree to give £500 to the Lord Treasurer and sent it to his Lordship by Mr. [blank] Garway, Mr. Abraham Jacob and Mr. [blank], and that after the clerk of the customs did set down in his book "Given £500 to the Lord Treasurer for accommodation of the composition for the new impost on French wines".
Mr. Bernard Hide, examined, says that himself and other of the petty farmers did often attend the Lord Treasurer after he had agreed with them that they should have £1,000 per annum abated towards their loss by reason of the new impost on the French wines before they could have a warrant for the dispatch of that agreement, and at length Mr. Abraham Jacob or some other did say to him and other of the farmers that the warrant would not be had until there was a gratuity given, and that himself and other of the farmers did give £500 in one purse in gold to the Lord Treasurer; but he says that Mr. Abraham Jacob did deliver the £500 as he thinks to some of the Lord Treasurer's servants' hands for his Lordship's use. That this £500 was after set down in the year book of account, but a little before the Parliament Mr. Abraham Jacob did cause that [f. 120v] the same £500 should be transferred to another book and the money was after repaid to the petty farmers and set on the account of the other farmers of the great farm.
Mr. Henry Garway, examined, says that £500 was given to the Lord Treasurer, but how it was given and what consultation he knows not, but therein must refer the declaration of it to Mr. Abraham Jacob, who was the agent employed by the petty farmers to negotiate in this business with the Lord Treasurer. That after, which was about 3 months since, Mr. Abraham Jacob did tell the petty farmers that the said £500 was charged on a wrong account, and thereupon the same was transferred to the account of the great farmers.
Sir Miles Fleetwood. That the petty farmers keep a yearly book and a monthly book, and this £500 was at first charged in both those books, and when the Parliament drew near then Abraham Jacob moved to have the said £500 transferred to the grand farmers.
Mr. Abraham Dawes, examined, says that he is a farmer of the petty farms. He confesses the agreement made between the Lord Treasurer and the petty farmers. That the petition delivered to the King for that business was in December 1622, and the warrant was not had from the Lord Treasurer to be delivered to the Attorney [General] until June after. That he and others being auditors of the petty farms, when they passed the yearly account, before they would set their hands to the accounts in the yearly book, [f. 121] did (finding the £500 set therein as given to the Lord Treasurer) ask Sir John Wol[s]tenholme, Mr. Abraham Jacob, Mr. Henry Garway and Mr. [Bernard] Hide whether they did agree to the giving of the £500 to the Lord Treasurer or no, which they did consent unto and thereon he and the auditors did set their hands to the said accounts. He says that about 3 weeks since one [Richard] Bishop, cashier of the petty farmers, did tell him he had some money for him, which was his part of the £500 given to the Lord Treasurer, which Bishop told him Mr. Abraham Jacob said it must be so transferred to the great farm.
Mr. [Richard] Bishop, cashier of the petty farmers, examined, says that he knows of the agreement with the Lord Treasurer about the abatement of £1,000 per annum in consideration of the farmers' losses caused by the new impost of £3 on a tun of wine. That he delivered 31 July last, he delivered [sic] £500 to Mr. Abraham Jacob, which he was told was to be given the Lord Treasurer, and so he did set it down on his account. He was commanded by the farmers of the petty farms in February last to transfer the £500 from the account of the petty farms to that of the grand farms.
Mr. [blank] Harrison, examined, says that he knows of the agreement made between the Lord Treasurer and the petty farmers, and that the agreement was made in December 1622, and the warrants from the Lord Treasurer to Mr. Attorney [General] was not obtained until [f. 121v] July after. That there was £500 charged on the accounts of the petty farms to have been given to the Lord Treasurer, and that this £500 was transferred about January or February last to the great farmers' accounts.
Another note delivered by Sir M[iles] Fleetwood against the Lord Treasurer, showing that the security of the farmers of the general customs was refused by the Lord Treasurer for £7,000 [sic] until they had given his Lordship £500, and then his Lordship gave his warrant to Mr. [John] West to take their security for the said £7,000.
Sir John Wolstenholme, examined, says that himself and other of the farmers of the general customs did offer their security for £7,000 per annum to be paid to the King, which the Lord Treasurer did refuse, and thereon they did agree to give the Lord Treasurer £500. That Mr. Abraham Jacob did move to have £500 given to the Lord Treasurer that the farmers' own security might be by his Lordship taken for the payment of the rent of the farms to the King. That accordingly, £500 was consented unto by the said farmers to be given to the Lord Treasurer, and Mr. Jacob (who did chiefly negotiate in this business) did present the same (as he believes) to the Lord Treasurer, but for the further declaration hereof he refers himself to the Lord Treasurer.
Mr. H[enry] Garway, examined, says that the Lord Treasurer did lay claim to about 4 parts of the great farm about the midst of the second year after the farmers [f. 122] had bargained and gone through for the great farms, and then composition was made with the Lord Treasurer by Abraham Jacob for those 4 parts claimed by his Lordship, and thereon the sole security of the farmers was accepted by the Lord Treasurer, which before his Lordship did delay to accept.
Sir John Wolstenholme, examined, says that the Lord Treasurer did claim no part of the great farms, neither could he for he had leased all the parts of that farm before to himself and the rest of those farmers and taken security of them for the same, but the Lord Treasurer did desire to have some friends come in for some parts in that farm. That the security which they after tendered was only for some other parts which Sir Philip Carey and others should have taken but fell off from it, it being only for £7,000 [sic] per annum, and then their security was refused until £500 was given or agreed to be given to the Lord Treasurer.
VI. DIARY OF SIR WILLIAM SPRING, HOUGHTON LIBRARY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, MS ENG. 980
Wednesday, the 7th of April
An act against a decree made on the behalf of Sir Mark Steward against the Lady [Joan] Jermy. Committed.
An act for assurance of the Lord Viscount Beaumont's lands to Sir Thomas Cheke was reported by the RECORDER and ordered to be engrossed.
An act for Sir Anthony Aucher's land and others to be sold to pay debts.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS moves that Sir Humphrey May, the Chancellor of the Duchy, being sent for to the Upper House to testify somewhat, whether the House will permit him to obey because he being a member of this House would not without the allowance of it do anything which might be questionable to the prejudice of the liberties.
The House did leave it to his own discretion as in the like cases had been done to others.
An act for the sale of the Earl of Hertford's land. Passed.
An act against concealments pretended for the King and for the ease of the subject. Passed.
An act for supersedeas and certiorari, writs of peace, etc.
An act for justices of peace to make restitution, etc. Passed.
An act for Welsh cottons. Passed.
An act against such as shall levy fines in other men's names, they not being privy to it. Passed.
An act for [Martin] Lumley, etc. Passed.
An act for naturalizing Jacques de Best. Passed.
SIR EDWARD COKE presents a petition preferred by the Queen of Bohemia's agent for certain moneys that were collected to her use, and are concealed, to be inquired after.
SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH doubts that the moving the inquiry after this money, which was not raised by a parliamentary way, is some ill precedent. Wishes well to the doing of it, but moves that it may be by the lords of the Council.
[p. 182] SIR EDWARD CECIL answers that the reason of the motion in this place is because here were some of all counties and it was thought fit to make it known to all parts, not to make it an act of Parliament.
SIR DUDLEY DIGGES acknowledges he loves this benevolence, though not all benevolences, for even by this it may appear what mischief the like courses have attend them. That when money is levied not by a parliamentary course but other ways, that then often it miscarries, and the wisdom of the state knows not how to recover it; yet for this, since every petty grievance and private complaint has its admittance into this House, and is allowed his hearing, let us not reject this for the respect unto the worth and honour of the party it concerns.
A message came from the Lords for a conference about the bill of monopolies. Serjeant [Sir Henry] Finch and Sir Edward Salter came with it.
SIR ROBERT MANSELL moved that his case may be heard and a proviso seen for his patent of the glasses making before the conference, wherein he humbly desires the House to have some consideration of his reputation and fortunes.
SIR FRANCIS [sic] VANE moves the same for the office of subpoenas.
The House allows both to present them to the Lords if they will, but not to this House nor to any committee.
The messengers are returned to the Lords, that conference accepted, and 64 to meet with the 32 of the Lords, and Sir Edward Coke, Mr. [William] Noye, Sir John Walter, Mr. [Christopher] Brooke, Mr. [John] Glanville appointed to be the mouth, at that conference, of the committee.
[p. 183] MR. SOLICITOR reports the committee for comparing the model of the petition presented to us from the Lords with that which we presented to them, wherein they had contracted our seven parts into 2. That the committee were equally divided upon one difference in that of the Lords where it differed from the scope and fullness of ours. Whereas we had penned it to this effect, that the means to signify the King's pleasure for the reinforcing the laws might be by proclamation, the Lords would leave that to the King for the way of proceeding or publication of his pleasure, and would have it by some such course as his Majesty thought fit.
Much dispute was about this and many reasons given for the adding [the] word "proclamation".
SIR NATHANIEL RICH. As that there was a former precedent for it in the 44 of Queen Eliz. That the Lords had given no reason to us why they put it out. That it might be it was by some chance and not intended, and that it would be too much levity to this House to recede from their own course after much deliberation, and to have no reason shown for it.
SIR GUY PALMES. That it will be best satisfaction to the country and the fairest evidence of the King's clemency to that sort and for the better checking the insolency of the papists and the encouragement of the well affected.
SIR FRANCIS SEYMOUR. That officers may be quickened to the execution of the laws. That it was agreeable to ancient (and late) customs before the law was, and in the Queen's time.
SIR GEORGE MORE. That the papists cannot take exceptions of sudden surprisal or want of warning.
SIR THOMAS HOBY. That officers know not else how to take notice of the reviving, this duty long lain dead as it were.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS. That there was a precedent of it in the King's time by a proclamation for the banishing of Jesuits and in the end of it for execution of the laws.
[p. 184] SIR EDWARD WARDOUR. That if by proclamation or some such way there be not some course taken, but left only to the charge given at the assizes and sessions, it will be thought the same course continues and the same coldness or connivency.
SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH. That [the] Lords allowed us the liberty of altering as we did them and that it is fit we take it, etc.
It was objected against this course: IGNOTUS. That it were much better to be left at large to the King for the manner of it; whether by proclamation or not is not so safe for us to prescribe or petition, for so we may lose our hopes upon that rock which was met withal the last Parliament when it was said that they chalked out the King's way, and it was distasted.
SIR THOMAS EDMONDES, Treasurer of the Household. That the Lords did purposely omit it because they would make as little noise as might be abroad lest it might prejudice the occasion now in hand with other princes, as was considered in other cases.
SIR WILLIAM BEECHER. That proclamations of this nature are very distasteful to Protestants of other parts because they are ever used by the enemies of our church to the prejudice and ignominy of our religion, that they are translated and urged upon them.
SIR JOHN SAVILE. That it is a dishonour to the King and the nation to say they want a spur to this, or that the law was dead. The execution of laws will satisfy better than proclamation.
These objections were in part thus answered.
SIR THOMAS JERMYN. That we need not doubt irritating of any prince against the Protestants. Spain has none. France can do no more than (when the state did most connive here) was done by them. And that especially we should show no fear of that now.
Part of [SIR EDWIN] SANDYS. Since it is just and requisite it cannot dishonour the King (part of [SIR ROBERT] PHELIPS) since he has ever noted and spoken of their increase and insolency.
SIR FRANCIS NETHERSOLE. That other states and princes will not be offended at the execution of our laws in any kind, as appeared by the late course of the States in a town of theirs, who notwithstanding the present necessity of friends and the late aid and [p. 185] sums lent them from the Venetian state, yet did punish such people as resorted to the Venetian ambassador's house to a mass and took away their cloaks; and that though they be now in treaty of amity with France and a league of friendship, yet do they not forbear to execute all their laws that are established upon recusants and offenders in that kind.
SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH. That Queen Elizabeth feared not the loss of her friends, the irritating of princes, and that as the connivance here was no privilege to their Protestant[s] nor much regarded by those princes, so this just execution of the law should not be refrained for any such strange fear of provoking them.
Some moved a middle course. SIR EDWARD COKE would have it go by proclamation as in such cases has been used.
Another (part of SIR THOMAS JERMYN), by proclamation or some such way as the King pleases.
It is ordered to go by proclamation as in like cases and upon like occasions has been used.
A message came from the Lords by Serjeant [Sir Henry] Finch and Serjeant [Sir George] Croke that brought down 4 bills passed [by] the Lords, one that went from us amended to the furtherance of the bill, the other 3 were private bills moved from them.
An act for the pleading general issue and for ease of the subject in point of intrusion.
An act for naturalizing Sir Robert Kerr, knight.
3 acts for naturalizing of Sir Stephen Lesieur, kt., [Philip] Jacobson, merchant.
The next difference was that they had not in particular expressed the disarming the recusants convict or justly suspected according to laws and former usage in the like cases.
The third difference was where they said "that a day certain may be prefixed", we add "speedy".
SIR THOMAS HOBY moved that all recusants probably suspected might be put into the petition lest if such as are ill-affected should bear office it might prove dangerous.
SIR PETER HEYMAN. For those that resort to ambassadors and that provision may be made against it.
SIR JOHN ELIOT answers that the last are within compass of the law, and for the other it were better privately intimated than publicly insisted on.
[p. 186] SIR HUMPHREY MAY thinks this no fit time to move against lieutenants and deputies, but moves that when the certificate comes in from the knights and burgesses of each county what recusants bear office, it will be proper then to petition point blank against them.
That order for the knights and burgesses for that certificate is again renewed.
At the committee this day for the Lord Treasurer's business, Master of the Wards. It was the committee of grievances, by the special appointment of the House for that purpose; Sir Edward Coke in the chair.
Sir Miles Fleetwood offers to make good the particulars of his complaint made into this House, by the proofs. The particulars are the change of the orders in the Court of Wards and, second, the rewards or what you will call them, which in regard of the circumstances of them seem to him to be somewhat more.
The change of the book of instructions and the confirmation of all that should pass in England and Ireland to be by him is against law and the King's profit, for no law ever gave the Master of the Wards power to order that court of himself absolutely without the assistance of 2 or 3 of the chief officers; nor no law did ever give him power to use other signal than his own hand. That court by law knows no office of a secretary. That the gain of wards formerly did redound solely to the King's profit, but now not; and that the compositions of the subject of late have been more grievous than if any mean lord had had the wardship, etc. for the year's concealment, etc.
Sir H[enry] Carey exhibits my Lord's answer in writing to these particulars, and says for the other of bribes my Lord desires to hear his charge in particular; as for the general, he as generally and as confidently denies it, and with as much confidence and truth as it can be imputed to him for ought he yet knows.
[p. 187] Sir Miles Fleetwood. Many words are troublesome, and works are often cumbersome if not well marshalled and disposed; therefore moves the House to direct him which of the 2 charges, that of the wards or bribes, he shall first proceed with.
The last is called for and he lays down the imputation thus.
The farmers of the petty farms of sweet wines, having sustained great loss, did petition the King for some relief in regard the late impost of £3 per tun did much prejudice them. The King with these gracious words, God forbid any should lose by him, did refer them to the Lord Treasurer, who allowed them £1,000 per annum until [£]9,500 were paid and promised to sign a warrant for it to the Attorney [General] to draw a book between the King and them. This was about Christmas, 1622. That they often solicited this warrant after and could never obtain it until they presented my Lord with £500 and then immediately it was passed and the book drawn. That the truth of this would appear in the book of accounts of those farmers, that the sum of £500 was divided among them as a charge and the witness of this should be the men that were the agents in the whole affair.
Of which, first, Mr. [Bernard] Hide was produced and answered to interrogatories as follows. First, that he is a farmer of the wines. Acknowledges the petition to the King and his reference to the Treasurer. That the King said they should have no wrong by him. That the Lord Treasurer agreed to give them £1,000 for the year past and £1,000 per annum for 8 years to come, and that this was at Christmas, 1622. That it was July after before the warrant was granted for this, though it was often moved and sought. That they thought and were told that without a gratification they should not obtain it, and thereupon they did give £500 by the hands of Mr. [Abraham] Jacob in gold to the Lord Treasurer, and that it was put upon their account for my Lord's favour and expedition and for no other cause that he knew, and that it was delivered as he thinks to some of my Lord's men. And because the farmers did not allow this charge to be put on the yearly account, it was rateably shared among them and that since it has been repaid some of them again by the farmers of the great farm and put on their account.
[p. 188] Mr. [Henry] Garway was examined on the same interrogatories and answers to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh as the first did, to the eighth and ninth somewhat doubtfully, but to the tenth confesses £500 was given to the Treasurer but wherefore knows not. Leaves it to Jacob, whom they trusted, and that it was put upon the account of the small farmers, and by Mr. Jacob's means was since taken off again and put on the account of the great farmers. This was as he thinks some 3 months or 4 since.
Sir Thomas Hoby moves whether the great farmers had restitution as the others had.
But Hide being called, answers to that he knows of none, neither of any reason why the great farmers did take upon them that debt of £500.
The substance of Abraham Dawes's testimony was that he being auditor of the company and finding the charge upon the account, demanded of the farmers whether they allowed it or not, which they said they did, and that the charge was set down in the account paid to the Lord Treasurer, and that at the year's account it was allowed by all. That about a fortnight since, Richard Bishop offered this examinant his part which he had disbursed of the £500 and told him it must be put on the great farm, to which this examinant replied, "I shall lose by that, for here my share comes to but [£]3 and there it will cost me £18". Mr. Bishop answered that Jacob had said my Lord Treasurer would have it so and it must be so.
Bishop, being examined, answers as the others did, and that it was always told him that the £500 was given the Lord Treasurer and that the money was so delivered about July last.
[p. 189] [John] Harrison answers to the same effect.
The Lord Treasurer's second charge was that whereas the farmers of the great custom, being bound to bring in good security for payment of the King's rent, did accordingly tender divers to be bound in several sums, and that of those some did refuse to be bound after they found they should stand bound to the King, whereupon they being much troubled and fearful both to lose the farm and stand in danger of the bands they had given for security, did petition the Lord Treasurer that their own bands might be accepted, which the Lord Treasurer did long deny until they gave him £500 and that then their own bands were immediately taken for the whole.
Sir John Wolstenholme, being examined, does to every particular of this charge answer by interrogatory and does affirm the whole charge by the several parts of it, and that Mr. Jacob did demand the £500 which was paid before their security could be taken.
Garway answers to the first part of the charge as the former, but says that my Lord laid challenge to some part of the farm and Jacob moved a treaty about it, and that they gave £500 and then their own security was taken. That they did not understand of any right my Lord had or pretended to any part until their security was taken, and that until the money was paid or promised the security could not be taken, and that the Lord Treasurer was said to claim 4 parts, and for the quiet enjoying of their patent the £500 was given, and that both this £500 and the other were put upon the account of the great farms as recompense of the 4 parts my Lord claimed.
Sir John Wolstenholme, examined again, says he knows of no parts my Lord had, that the agreement made by him and the farmers was for the whole, and that my Lord only moved that some friends might be admitted with them but claimed no parts.
[p. 190] Mr. Garway, being examined again, says that my Lord did seem to challenge some part of late, but confesses that in a year and half after the bands were taken he claimed not any.
Here the Speaker took the chair.
An order was made to send for Jacob to be here tomorrow morning.
MR. [WILLIAM] NYELL informs that a western man lately did charge a Jacob with money unduly taken in those parts for an imposition upon grocery, and that Jacob answered the money was yet in the receiver's hands, and that they that were so charged might have their money again, and wished him that there might be no proceedings in Parliament about it.
VII. DIARY OF SIR THOMAS HOLLAND, BODL., TANNER MS 392
7 April, Wednesday
Committed, Tuesday, knights N[orfolk], S[uffolk], Camb[ridgeshire]. An act to make void a decree made by the Lord Egerton against Sir Thomas Jermy for [Sir Mark] Steward.
[MR.] RECORDER reports the bill for confirmation of lands of Sir Thomas Beaumont, now Viscount [Beaumont of] Swords, to Sir Thomas Cheke. Put to the engrossing.
Second read, committed. An act for the sale of the land of Sir Anthony Aucher, Sir Thomas Hardres, Sir Roger James and John Wroth in Kent to the intent the money may be distributed among their creditors.
Third read, passed the House. An act to enable the Earl of Hertford and Sir Francis Seymour, kt., to convey some lands for the payments of debts and establishing other lands in lieu of them.
Third read, passed for a law. An act for the general quiet of the subject against all manner of pretences of concealments.
[f. 83v] Third read, passed for a law. An act to prevent abuses of procuring process of the peace and good behaviour out of the courts at Westminster and to prevent the abuse of procuring certioraries to remove causes from before justices of the peace.
Third read, passed for a law. An act to enable justices of the peace to give restitution of possession in certain cases.
Third read, passed for a law. An act for the free trade of Welsh cloths, cotton, friezes, linings and plains.
Third read, passed for a law. An act against such as shall levy any fines, suffer any recoveries, deed or deeds enrolled, acknowledge any statute or recognizance, bail or otherwise in the names of any other not being privy or consenting thereto.
[f. 91v] Titles of bills now sent:
Justices for possession.
[Earl of] Hertford.
The manor [of] Langport.
Jacques de Best.
[f. 83v] The agent for the Queen of Bohemia, by a note sent, desires that the money given to the Queen of Bohemia, there is yet of that money remaining in some hands. He desires that this House will take it into examination, which will receive gracious acceptance from the Queen.
It is ordered that this matter shall be referred to the committee of grievances to have priority.
Message from the Lords that the Lords have taken consideration of the bill of monopolies and do desire a conference tomorrow, nine of the clock in the Painted Chamber; their committee is xxxii, and desire a committee to be appointed answerable.
Committee. A committee is appointed of such as were of the committee of 64 to meet tomorrow, 9 of the clock in the Painted Chamber, with 32 of the Lords about the bill of monopolies.
[f. 84] Message from the Lords. They bring 4 bills from the Lord[s]: the one, to admit the subject to plead the general issue in informations of intrusions; the second, for naturalizing Sir Robert Kerr, kt., Sir Stephen Lesieur, kt., and [blank] Jacobson, merchant.
At the committee of grievances specially appointed this afternoon for the hearing of the business against the Lord Treasurer
Two grounds. First, a book of instructions lately published, 7 November [sic] 1622, that nothing should pass concerning the revenues of England or Ireland but by himself. The first, that it is against the King, the subject. That there was never law that the Master of the Wards should have power without 3 special officers [blank], nor that ever there was a secretary to be used herein, nor any stamp for his name for public service to be left with his secretary. [Blank] That it was for his own ends.
[f. 84v] [Sir Miles] Fleetwood's charge. 2 rewards: £1,500 in one place and £500 in another place. The farmers of the petty farms of sweet wines upon a new impost, £3 upon a tun above formerly, framed a pe[ti]tion, 1622, to the King and received a gracious answer referring them to the Lord Treasure[r], who repairing to him agreed for 9 year[s] for £9,500 to be given thereafter, £1,000 a year; but 6 months after it was not performed. They then gave the Lord Treasurer £500, then he gave them assurance by signing a warrant to the Attorney [General]; and after they were allowed half year and half year £500.
[Bernard] Hide, a witness. Whether he has any interest in the petty farms and petitioned his Majesty for some recompense for loss in respect of a new impost, and whether he was not referred to the Lord Treasurer? All which he affirmed and says that the Lord Treasurer at New Year was twelve month agreed to give them £1,000 a year for 9 year[s] and half, but he was deferred with promises that it should be done, until July following. Then it was said by Mr. [Abraham] Jacob that no warrant would pass until a gratuity should be given, and that he was one of those that did present £500 in gold in the name of the farmers, and at Michaelmas following they passed it in their account and was also in their yearly account. But Jacob [was] persuaded that it might be put out of the account and had it again from the great farmers because it was in a wrong [charge] either upon the beginning of the Parliament or soon after; but to whom the gratuities was delivered he knows not, for it was delivered by Mr. Jacob, as he thinks [f. 85] to one of my Lord's men.
[Henry] Garway, another witness. That there was £500 given to the Lord Treasurer, it was true, but wherefore he knows not nor by whom, and that it was put into the account but Mr. Jacob said it was put on a wrong charge and therefore it was transferred over to the great farmers and every petty farmer had his money again.
Abraham Dawes, another witness, being auditor. When he came to audit the account he found £500 paid to the Lord Treasurer and he conferred with Sir Joh Wols[t]enho[l]me, Mr. Garway, Abraham Jacob and Mr. Hide whether that £500 should pass, and they made answer it must this audit for the French wines, sweet wines and currants. Upon the taking of it from the petty farmers, which [Richard] Bishop said he should have his share, he said that then he should be a loser for he then he [sic] should receive but £3, and being put upon the great farmers where he was a sharer, he should lose £18. But Bishop said Mr. Jacob said it must be so, for my Lord Treasurer would have it laid upon the great farmers, for so it was his pleasure and must be so.
[Richard] Bishop, another witness, keeper of the accounts. He delivered £500, 31th [sic] of July last to Mr. Jacob, which he said was for my Lord Treasurer. After the payment of it he entered it into account, and afterward by order of the farmers it was transferred over to the great farmers' account and the £500 paid back again.
[f. 85v] [John] Harrison, another witness. The agreement was made with the Lord Treasurer in December last for £1,000 per annum to be paid for 9 year[s] and half to the farmers for their loss by the imposition of £3 in a tun. And at July last the warrant to the Attorney [General] was made and he did hear that then there was £500 given to the Lord Treasurer, which he did see in an account of the petty farmers and after it was transferred upon the great farmers' account by the direction of Mr. Jacob because it was mistaken.
The second charge. The farmers for the general customs did give security [of] £48,000, which his Majesty accepted but they refused to be bound to the King. That the Lord Treasurer might accept of the bands of the 4 patentees, they gave the Lord Treasurer £500.
Sir John Wolstenholme. Mr. Jacob demanded £500 for my Lord Treasurer. That security was tendered to my Lord, accepted and warrants went out for the taking of it. That the sureties refused to seal. That the patentees moved my Lord to accept of their own security. That Mr. Jacob demanded £500 for my Lord before their security would be taken. That the £500 was given and that he gave part of it. That then there was warrant for their security to be taken, which formerly we could not obtain before the money was paid. [Blank] My Lord Treasurer claimed no part but they gave security for the whole.
[f. 86] [Henry] Garway. There was security tendered and accepted. It was agreed that the farmers should divide the farms according to the proportion they were bound for, but the rest fell off, all but 4 patentees. They then desired the Lord Treasurer would accept of their 4 patentees, which he delayed. Afterward my Lord laid claim to 4 parts of the farms and for that my Lord was to have £1,000, which we did not understand my Lord had any right to after he had accepted the security. The money was delivered by the hand of Mr. Jacob.
VIII. DIARY OF JOHN PYM, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE RECORD OFFICE, FH/N/C/0050
70 April 1624
An act to make void a decree in Chancery concerning/
An act for selling the lands of Sir Anthony Aucher and Sir Thomas Hard[r]es.
Upon SIR ROBERT PHELIPS'S motion, Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy has leave to be examined by the Lords in a case depending before them.
An act for selling divers lands of my Lord of Hertford, and selling other lands. Passed.
[f. 52] An act for redressing supersedeas of the peace, process of the good behaviour and certioraries. Passed.
An act for securing the subjects against titles of concealments. Passed.
An act to give authority to justices of the peace to make restitution of possessions of leases and copyhold estates.
MR. [WILLIAM] NOYE. This bill too short to produce the fruit that is intended. No restitution to be made but upon indictment, and there can be no indictment but upon a disseisin. Wherefore it will be good to add a word that may give power of indicting upon an ejectment.
SIR EDWARD COKE. Where the law provides the things, the means will follow.
So the bill was passed.
An act for the free trade of Welsh cottons. Passed.
An act against those that acknowledge fines or suffer recoveries in other men's names. Passed.
SIR EDWARD COKE. That a petition had been delivered by the agent for the King and Queen of Bohemia concerning divers sums levied upon the contribution which were kept in collectors' hands.
Exception was taken by SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH that this was not done by any authority of Parliament and therefore not to meddle with it but to leave it to the lords of the Council.
Yet it was ordered to be considered of by the committee of grievances and to have the priority.
A message came from the Lords desiring a conference tomorrow at 9 of the clock about the bill of monopolies, for which 32 were appointed of their House.
SIR ROBERT MANSELL. That he was advised to tender a proviso to that bill, which he forbore to do whilst it was depending in this House, thinking he should have been heard, and now desired leave he might tender it to the Lords.
The motion was granted, and the like leave to Sir H[enry] Vane for the subpoena office.
This conference was ordered. Sir Edward Coke, Mr. [William] Noye and 2 [sic] other lawyers were appointed to answer and defend the bill; but if any new matter were produced, to report it to the House.
MR. SOLICITOR reported from the subcommittee concerning the petition against recusants that they had agreed to that model which was offered by the Lords. They differed in the manner of publishing the King's pleasure for the execution of the laws, whether it should be by proclamation or otherwise. This difference was touching [f. 52v] the other penal laws, as for the capital laws against priests and Jesuits. It was agreed there should be a proclamation, and upon this question the committee was equally divided.
Those that would have the proclamation left out gave these reasons:
- 1. That the King's end was not to make too great a noise and to satisfy other foreign princes.
- 2. There had been no publication for the stopping and therefore there need none for the execution of the laws.
- 3. It would be a dishonour to proclaim the King's connivance.
- 4. The country will be sufficiently satisfied by the effect.
- 5. If there be a proclamation to give warning to the Jesuits, that will be publication enough for th[e] other.
- 6. The King in this very case took exceptions the last Parliament that his way should be chalked out to him.
Two middle ways were propounded:
- 1. That the committees should urge this way of proclamations to the utmost; but if the Lords would not consent, they might have instructions to yield to leave it out rather than to lose the petition.
- 2. The words not to be contained in the paper, but to intimate to the Prince and the Duke of Buckingham our desire that they would be pleased to solicit the King for that way.
But for the proclamations were divers reasons given:
- 1. That it agreed with ancient precedents and the Lords showed no reason why it should be altered in this particular.
- 2. It would give more contentment to the subjects and better clear all manner of jealousies concerning the King's proceedings in matter of religion.
- 3. The King's connivance here has had no good operation in foreign parts; the French never felt more hardness than when the papists here were most at ease.
- 4. The laws have been long asleep and the officers, especially the constables and churchwardens and other of the inferior sort, can take no notice of his Majesty's pleasure but by a proclamation.
- 5. Since there must be a proclamation for priests and Jesuits, being the party seducing, it will be a good induction to extend it to the rest who are the parties seduced.
- 6. We are now in likely terms to have a war, and therefore it will not be good to discover any fear or mistrust.
- 7. The King has publicly professed his connivance and if it be left to the usual course, we know the charge given by the judges and the justices has had no great effect and will be taken but as a matter of formality.
- 8. Those princes that mediate here for the papists labour to suppress the law; his Majesty's mediation for the [f. 53] Protestants is that they may have the benefit of the law.
- 9. The States are engaged in a war and depend upon aid from the Venetians, and yet took away the clothes of those that came from a mass at the Venetian ambassador's.
- 10. Queen Elizabeth ever kept both her laws and her friends; and when she mediated a peace for the Protestants in France, she did not forbear to execute her laws here.
So it was ordered to put in those words, "by proclamation as has been heretofore used".
During this debate there came a message from the Lords with 3 bills:
- 1. An act to enable the subject to plead the general issue (which went from us and was returned with amendments).
- 2. For naturalizing Sir Robert Kerr.
- 3. For naturalizing Sir Stephen Lesieur.
The order was renewed for presentments to be made by knights and burgesses of papists bearing office in their several counties.
Eodem die, at the committee for grievances
Sir Miles Fleetwood in a short speech, professing the inequality between him and my Lord Treasurer, and his readiness to give him all the honour which the greatness of his place deserved, hoping that his conscience which cried upon him to undertake this service, and the respect which he bare [sic] to the honour and justice of this House above the regard of any particular man, would excuse him in this business from all blame, declared himself to be ready to make good all that he had informed, in doing whereof he would first lay down the state of the charge, second, open the particulars and then descend to the proofs.
There were 2 grounds of the charge:
- 1. The book of Instructions to the Court of Wards.
- 2. The privy seal, 70 October 1622, prohibiting anything to pass concerning the revenue of England or Ireland without his approving.
From the first of these, he had already raised these particulars:
- 1. That the instructions were against the law 33 H. 8, whereby the Court of Wards was established.
- 2. Against the profit of the King.
- 3. They were to the prejudice of the subject.
- 4. Contrived by himself and his own advantage.
Upon the second, he grounded only one general complaint, that his aim was to bring business through his own hand that so he might make benefit by them; and to make good that, he would prove that some rewards and bribes had been given him.
Sir Henry Carey presented an answer from my Lord Treasurer in writing to the first part of the charge, and in his behalf protested his readiness to answer the objections concerning misemployment of the King's revenue and the bribes as soon as he should know the particulars.
[f. 53v] Sir Miles Fleetwood. That he had named the misemployment of revenue not as a charge but as an inducement of examination, that so we might inform the King for the better improvement and disposing of his own estate. But as touching bribes, he offered the proofs of two of £500 apiece.
The first particular was this. The farmers of the petty farm, finding a decay by the increase of impositions upon French wine, 1621, became suitors to my Lord Treasurer for satisfaction, but in the space of x months could receive no contentment. Whereupon they resolved to go to the King, to whom they presented a petition, 22 December 1622 and obtained his Majesty's reference to the Lord Treasurer, ultimum Decembris. Their loss upon examination appeared to be £95,000 [sic], which my Lord agreed to pay them by £1,000 per annum and promised a warrant to the Attorney [General] to draw a privy seal for that purpose. They had often attended and solicited my Lord for this warrant, were ever delayed during the space of half a year until July 1613 [sic], being therewith grieved, they resolved upon the advice of Mr. [Abraham] Jacob to give him £500, which was delivered by Mr. [Henry] Garway, Mr. [Bernard] Hide, Mr. Jacob, brought to account by Richard Bishop, keeper of their cash, and allowed by the auditor both in the monthly account for July and in the year's account for Michaelmas 1623.
To the several points of this charge were examined Mr. Hide, Mr. Garway and the rest of the partners in the petty farm, and their officers, by which the whole charge was proved, only with this variation, that the money was delivered by Mr. Jacob alone to my Lord, and that since the making up of the account Mr. Jacob told them that some was miss-entered and ought to be charged upon the account for the great farm, and that all the partners of the petty farm should have their share of that £500 repaid, which was done accordingly.
The second particular. The farmers of the great customs were by contract to tender security for £48,000 and accordingly delivered a list of divers names which were to be bound and received my Lord Treasurer's warrant, 29 Martii 1621 [sic], to the Remembrance[r] to take the bonds. But 5 of those contained in the list being sharers in that farm, each of them 1/32 part, gave over their shares and refused to be bound, by which means their security was too short by £75,000 [sic], which the 4 farmers offered to supply with their own bonds, which my Lord rejected until they gave him £500, and then their security was accepted in July 1623.
All this was proved by Sir John Wolstenholme and Mr. Garway. But the latter of these added that my Lord Treasurer laid claim to 4/32 parts of the farm and in satisfaction thereof demanded £500 besides the other £500, which was transferred from the petty farm by Mr. Jacob's direction.
IX. DIARY OF SIR WALTER EARLE, BL, ADD. MS 18,597
Wednesday, 31 March [sic]
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS'S motion. A member of this House having notice from the Lords that they should need his testimony in a business depending before them, the party being the Chancellor of the Duchy, he thought fit first to know the pleasure of this House in regard of the preservation of the liberties of the House.
The House assented, it being alleged that the Lords the last Parliament sent to this House in the case of Sir Giles Mompesson and craved leave to examine some members of the House, which was yielded unto.
Bill concerning the Earl of Hertford. Passed.
Bill touching concealments. Passed.
Bill touching certioraries. Passed.
[f. 117v] Bill for enabling justices of peace to make restitution of possessions in case of forcible entry. Passed.
Bill for free trade of Welsh cottons. Passed.
Bill for punishing of such as shall levy fines in other men's names. Passed.
These bills sent up.
SIR EDWARD COKE'S motion for the Queen of Bohemia. Whereas there were divers sums contributed to her and her children's use, whereof a great part was supposed not to be paid in, therefore some course to be taken for inquiry.
Referred to the committee of grievances.
A message from the Lords. A conference touching the bill of monopolies, their committee 32, the time tomorrow 9 of the clock in the Painted Chamber.
The committee of our House, of 64, named. 6 lawyers appointed to debate, etc., if occasion served.
SIR ROBERT MANSELL and SIR H[ENRY] VANE desired to have liberty to offer provisos for themselves at the committee. But the House resolved that if they would do it, they must do it to the Lords before.
MR. SOLICITOR'S report from the committee concerning the petition against recusants.
Question in the House whether we should crave of the Lords that the words "by proclamation" should be inserted into the form of their petition.
[f. 118] SIR EDWARD COKE. Precedent for it, therefore the words "as in such case has been used" would be added.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS. Before printing came up, all laws were published by proclamation. It will give satisfaction to the kingdom.
Bills sent down from the Lords:
Bill to enable the subject to plead the general issue, with amendments, together with three other bills of naturalization:
The further debate touching the petition. Ordered that the Lords should be moved to insert the words proposed by Sir Edward Coke; likewise the disarming not only to be of recusants convicted but justly suspected, according to acts of Council. A certain day and a speedy to be prefixed.
SIR FRANCIS NETHERSOLE. A proclamation against priests and Jesuits in the Low Countries, though they have aid from the state of Venice.
Wednesday afternoon, the business concerning the Lord Treasurer at a general committee
Sir Miles Fleetwood. The complaint on two grounds: first, on a book of instructions published by his Majesty; [f. 118v] second, on a declaration 7th of October 1622. The instructions last procured and given, first, contrary to the statute 32 H. 8; second, against the King; third, against the subject; fourth, against the court by himself. Never any power given to the Master of the Wards to use other hand than his own. The master by the statute not to do anything even in petty matters without assistance of two others of the court.
The bribes, 2 of £500 apiece, besides other intervenient passages. First, the petty farmers having sustained loss by the new impost of £3 per tun and solicited the Lord Treasurer 10 months for recompense, petitioned his Majesty 22nd of December 1622. The King referred them to the Lord Treasurer. He agreed with them for £950 [sic] in the year and half for recompense. He promised them a warrant to the King's Attorney [General]. He was often solicited; he delayed it half a year until July 1623. They agreed to give him £500 and did it, and presently he granted them a warrant and the money paid accordingly. The £500 was allowed by a practice for transferring it to another account among the partners to colour it.
[f. 119] Mr. [Bernard] Hide, one of the farmers, being called in, testified these particulars, and affirmed he was told by one Mr. [Abraham] Jacob the business would not be dispatched unless £500 were given. The £500 was transferred to an account of the great farm under pretence of wrong and mistake. This was about the beginning of the Parliament. The £500 was given in gold in a velvet purse.
[Henry] Garway produced to like purpose. He testified the £500 rested awhile on the account of the petty farm. Mr. Jacob brought word it was put down on a wrong account 2 or 3 months since transferred to the great farm, and every man had his money paid again. This was first accounted in the monthly account in July, and afterward in the yearly account at Michaelmas.
[Abraham] Dawes, who was auditor, testified that in passing the account the £500 was allowed. That about a fortnight since, one [Richard] Bishop told him he had there a little money in his hand for him as part of the £500 paid out of the petty farm, whereat he took exception, saying the £500 would fall heavier upon him in the great farm, being he had there a greater share. He £18 [a] loser, Mr. Hide a gainer, for he had no part in the great farm. [f. 119v] Jacob said it must be so for the Lord Treasurer would have it so.
[Richard] Bishop. He delivered the £500 the 31st of July to Mr. Jacob for my Lord Treasurer. The warrant is dated 28th of July. It was altered from the petty farm 29 February.
[John] Harrison testified £500 given to the Lord Treasurer, altered from the account of the little farm to that of the great, and after that brought back again to the little farm. Jacob gave him order for the altering the accounts.
The farmers of the custom being to give security for their rent, they tendered it to the Lord Treasurer, he accepted of it, gave warrant to take it. Some refusing to be bound, it was agreed afterward to take the security of the farmers themselves. He refused to accept their security until they had given him £500.
Sir John Wo[l]stenholme. He affirmed that Mr. Jacob demanded £500 before the security would be accepted. The £500 was paid and the security was taken.
[Henry] Garway affirmed the same, viz. that the warrant was to take security according to covenant. 4 of the parties fell off. The Lord Treasurer would not take security, pretending he had the disposing of the 4 parts, until £500 was paid. The agreement was for all the parts.
X. JOURNAL OF SIR SIMONDS D'EWES, BL, HARL. MS 159
April 70, Wednesday
A motion to give the Chancellor of the Duchy leave to go and take his oath in the Upper House in a cause depending before their Lordships, he being a member of this House.
And it was ordered accordingly.
The Earl of Hertford's bill about the sale of some lands and purchasing of others of better value in their stead. Vide March 10. Passed.
An act for the general quiet of the subject against all pretences of concealments whatsoever. Passed.
An act to prevent and punish abuses in procuring of process or supersedeas of peace or good behaviour in the courts of Westminster, as likewise of abuses in procuring writs of certiorari. Passed.
An act to enable justices of the peace to give restitution of possession in certain cases. Passed.
An act for the free trade and traffic of Welsh cloths, cottons, plains, etc., throughout the kingdom of England and dominion of Wales. Passed.
An act against such as shall levy fines, suffer recoveries, acknowledge statutes, recognizances, bail or judgement under other men's names without their privities and consent. Passed.
A motion, with a petition from Baron Dohna presented, to inquire and search with whom the benevolence granted and paid over to the Queen of Bohemia's use does rest concealed.
Referred as the first cause to the committee of grievances.
A message from the Lords for a conference of 32/64 about [f. 100] the bill of monopolies.
A great and long dispute whether in our petition to his Majesty about religion we should desire to have the laws revived against recusants by proclamation or no. At length the affirmative carried it.
In the afternoon at the committee of grievances
Sir Edward Cecil [sic] holding the chair.
Sir Miles Fleetwood proceeded and showed that the Lord Treasurer had obtained a grant from the King, October 7, 1622, that nothing should pass touching the revenue of England or Ireland without him, which was, first, contrary to the law Henrici 8vi 320; second, disadvantageous to the King; third, to the subjects' damage; fourth, procured by himself.
The first charge, for gratuity or reward. The farmers of the petty farms for wine complaining to the Lord Treasurer of their great loss sustained by reason of the imposition of £3 upon a tun received nothing but harsh and unpleasing answers from him, so they petitioned the King who referred it to the Treasurer, and £1,000 per annum was allowed them for 9 years, and £500 over. This agreement was made before Christmas. They continued soliciting but could not get his warrant to the King's Attorney [General] for the draft until they had given £500, which was about July after.
Mr. [Bernard] Hide, Mr. [Abraham] Dawes, Mr. [Richard] Bishop, Mr. [John] Harrison, being examined hereupon, confessed as much, and that the £500 passed both upon their monthly and yearly account, but that since the Parliament the money has been restored to them again and the accounts removed from the petty farmers to the great farmers, whereof some of the examinants had no interest at all.
The second charge. The farmers of the general customs had some of their partners fell [sic] off after the contract, and six of them for 5 shares of £15,000 [sic] apiece refused to seal in the [Ex]chequer and stand bound to the King. The rest desired to take their shares, and upon the gift of £500 the Lord Treasurer took their own bonds for security.
Sir John Wolstenholme, Mr. [Henry] Garway, Mr. Dawes, John [f. 100v] Williams, being examined, made it good.
[Abraham] Jacob shuffled and would put both the sums into one, and said the whole £1,000 was for shares due to the Lord Treasurer.