8th 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.


'8th 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-08 [accessed 25 June 2024].

. "8th April 1624", in Proceedings in Parliament 1624: The House of Commons, (, 2015-18) . British History Online, accessed June 25, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/proceedings-1624-parl/apr-08.

. "8th April 1624", Proceedings in Parliament 1624: The House of Commons, (, 2015-18). . British History Online. Web. 25 June 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/proceedings-1624-parl/apr-08.

Long title
8th April 1624

In this section



[CJ 758; f. 116v]

Jovis, 8 Aprilis 1624

L. 1. [Robert] Wolverston's bill.

Sir Henry Vane desires to be left out of the committee.

Mr. [John] Pym/

[f. 117] L. 2. Lady [Mary] Bulkeley's bill.

MR. [WILLIAM] NOYE. He and some others appointed to search precedents, whether those that are to be restored in blood ought to begin here, or above with the Lords. Find in the latter end of Edward the 4[th] from the beginning of Richard the 2[nd], a great number one way, and other. Some petitions that begin above thus: "A nostre seigneur le Roy" and "such a man humbly desires". Then under, "A ceste bill les Communs [s]ont assentus". That shows they began with the Lords. 22 of that kind. Some 14 or 15 in this manner: "Priont les Commons, that such men may be restored", but difference in the penning. Not only a petition of the party, but the Commons expressing some merit in him that desires to be restored.

SIR EDWARD COKE. This very true. If a mere restitution in blood without any cause shown, then to begin above because intends the King is there. But if it be "Priont les Commons", the bill must be a little altered at the committee.

MR. [JOHN] SELDEN. Necessary, first, to know what kind of bill this is. A difference anciently; but no negative, but it might have begun here. 19 Hen. 7, 4 several bills are thus: "Soit baille aux seignieurs". After this time finds none, nor nothing against it in the journals. 1 Eliz. a bill began here for [Edward] Lewknor's children. This came to be questioned. 3 Jac. a bill passed here for [John and Thomas] Holland. After came a bill for [Sir Gelly] Meyrick. Finds in the journals, 22 May [1606], a note and remembrance made in the Journal of the House of Lords that all those bills ought to begin there. Upon 23rd day, this turned to an order. Upon the 27th, the Parliament ended, so that it never came to be examined.

[f. 117v] L. 2. An act for restitution in blood of Carew Ralegh, son of Sir Walter Ralegh, attainted of high treason.

Committed to:

Sir Edward Coke

Mr. [William] Noye

Mr. [John] Selden

Sir George More

Mr. Recorder

Sir Robert Hitcham

Sir Nathaniel Rich

Sir Robert More

Sir Thomas Wentworth

Sir John Walter

Sir Edward Seymour

Sir Edward Peyton

Sir Francis Seymour

Mr. [John] Pym

Sir Benjamin Rudyard

Sir Henry Poole

Sir Thomas Cheke

Sir Thomas Estcourt

Sir Alexander St. John

Sir Peter Heyman

Mr. [Henry] Rolle

Mr. [sic] [Thomas] Morgan

Sir William Pitt

Tomorrow, 2 [o']clock, Court of Wards.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS remembers the business of this day. First, a conference with the Lords. Secondly, to go on with the charge of my Lord Treasurer, and Mr. [Abraham] Jacob ordered to attend. These 2 cannot be both proceeded in. To make a separation. To send a message with the Lords to let them know we cannot attend that service until tomorrow, 9 [o']clock.

[f. 118] SIR JOHN ELIOT. The petition not to be forgotten about recusants.

SIR THOMAS HOBY. Never knew any conference about a bill sedente curia in the forenoon.

SIR EDWARD COKE would not defer the bill of monopolies. And for Jacob, may go on with that too. Will not be long.

Speaker went out of his chair.

Went in again.

Resolved, upon question, that a message shall be sent to the Lords for to respite the time of the conference about the bill of monopolies, and will attend it when they please.

Sir Robert Phelips and others sent up to the Lords with this message.

Speaker went out of the chair again.

Mr. SOLICITOR. Somewhat to acquaint the House with from the King. Received a command from the Duke of Buckingham signifying his Majesty's pleasure that whereas in the afternoon the House purposes to call to the Merchant Adventurers for their books, they have been with him to know his pleasure whether they should bring them or no because the last Parliament forbidden by him to bring them. Said he so much trusts to the judgement of this House that he is very willing we should have them. Because [it] concern[s] other business, desires a few to be committees before openly read to the House.

Ordered, a select committee of 6 shall be appointed to this business.

Mr. Solicitor
Sir John Savile
Sir Thomas Wentworth Sir Peter Heyman
Sir Miles Fleetwood
Sir Thomas Hoby

[f. 118v] These 6 are appointed by the House to view and search the books of accounts of the Merchant Adventurers; and if any member of this House desire to see anything in the book that is fit to be shown, they are to show it unto them and are, to this purpose, to meet this afternoon in the Committee Chamber, at 3 [o']clock; and to receive further direction from the grand committee for trade.

SIR EDWIN SANDYS. Since a business concerning trade, not to infringe the liberty of that committee.

Agreed it shall not.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS reports from the Lords. They take in good part our message and excuse. Would set down no certain time, but leave it to us to be intimated to them when.

Speaker went out of his chair.

Bill of continuance of statutes. Tomorrow, 8 [o']clock in the House.

[House adjourned]


[p. 240]

Jovis, 8 Aprilis 1624

Carew Ralegh. Sur debate et searche de presidents fuit rule que proceedante par peticon ou bill pur restitucion in sange apperteign cibien al seignours come al notre Huise, esteant in nature de peticon et reasons sett down, et sur cest le bill fuit lie et, sur queston, committe, tomorrowe in gards.

Sur debate pur conference ove les seignours sur bill de monopolies nest usuall sur bill davoir le conference in le forenoone quant le Huise sitte quil est hindrance al autre busynes.


[f. 124v]

Thursday, 8th of April

[Committee of the Whole House]

[Abraham] Jacob, being brought before the House sitting in committee this morning, said he agreed to all the former interrogatories; but being asked of the £500 that should be given the Treasurer utterly disclaimed that he knew of any such sum. That he received none of Bernard Hide's nor did he know of any sum given out of the petty farms. He said it was a misprision of account, which was rectified about Christmas at the end of the year. That there was great difference between an account and a thing accounted for.

Jacob was sent to into [sic] the Committee Chamber that he might not con- [f. 125] fer with the other witnesses, and then the Speaker was put into the chair to send a message to the Lords.

[Committee of the Whole House]

Hide's saying yesterday he had given Jacob £500 at Whitehall for my Lord Treasurer, now he said he had given it [to] Jacob in London for my Lord Treasurer.

Jacob confessed he had £500 from Hide but as borrowed in part of a greater sum.

The whole charge of the petty farms is £54,000 and odd.

[Abraham] Dawes says that when the £500 was transferred from one account to another by Jacob's direction, he [was] willed also to recall in all the copies of their old account.

Sir John Savile moved that Jacob's son, being of the House, should withdraw and not be privy to the counsels of the House.

Young [Mr. John] Jacob answered he was there for his country, not for his father, and referred himself to the House.

The Recorder said that old Jacob was only a witness, no delinquent, and though it should only concern him by his taking it upon him, yet he saw no reason why his son should be thrust out of the House.

MR. SOLICITOR had received a command from [the Duke of] Buckingham to deliver to the House a message from the King that the King gave the House liberty to call for the Merchants [sic] Adventurers' books, but because there were divers other things in them not concerning their purpose, Buckingham desired that 6 should be chosen to view them and pick out what was material to the business.

The House differed about this number. Some would have 7, to have an odd man if they should be divided, and not to pitch just upon the number Buckingham had propounded; and so it was ordered, and liberty given to [f. 125v] any of the House to look into any of the books.

The committee [of the Whole House] again for the Treasurer

Sir John Wolstenholme's and Henry Garway's hands were only at the warrant, any two of their hands being sufficient, to [John] Williams, the treasurer of the grand [sic] farmers, for discharging Jacob's man of the £500 given the Lord Treasurer for taking the patentees' security for their rent to the King.

The rent of the farmers of the great customs is £16,000 [sic].

Jacob has been contraried in 3 things.

Williams said the first £500 was restored about a month ago.


[p. 115]

18th [sic] April

This morning the complaint of Sir Miles Fleetwood against my Lord Treasurer was for so much as concerned the two bribes of £500 apiece was heard at a committee and proved by all the farmers of both the customs.

[p. 109] [On 3 April, the committee for trade ordered the Merchant Adventurers to bring in a book of their accounts to the committee on 8 April] ... but before that day came they endeavoured to have kept their books, for the merchants moved the King to send to the House to have stayed the book. But his Majesty did this day, being [the] 8th day, did [sic] send to the House that he did so well trust the dealing of this House that he desired they should take the said books into their considerations; but in respect there were some matters in them not fit to be made public, wished there should be a selected company of 6 to view them, the which they are about at this afternoon, and that [p. 110] committee is to report it to the great committee and to do therein as they shall direct them.


[f. 55v]

[8 April 1624]

[Committee of the Whole House]

Abraham Jacob. Agreed at Christmas warrant not to be got until June, though [?often] solicited. He denies that he moved £500 to be given or that it was given for this, or that he did deliver any such sum, or such was delivered to him by [Bernard] Hide. But he says they borrowed £500 of Hide, £500 of [?Denn], £500 more of Hide. There was £500 in the account of petty farms, but not accounted for, and at the year's end, which he [?pretends] to be since Christmas but it did appear before to end at Michaelmas, £100 given in a purse of gold for the tun of wine as a New Year's gift.

[Abraham] Dawes. When order was given to change the account, which was made [?December], all copies of the account called in by Jacob. The Lord Treasurer was angry upon notice that the £500 he did receive of him was put upon the petty farm. That the £1,000, at first thought it equal to lie of both because interested in both after heavy [sic].

[MR.] SOLICITOR. By command of the Duke [of Buckingham] from the King, that the merchants' books being denied the last [?time] by the King and now desired again of him, that he is pleased to show all in his trust of us. Desires a committee of a few, first to peruse it as it may concern him or others his servants, but to make use to inform our judgement as we please.


[Committee of the Whole House]

[f. 56] John Williams. That security was tendered for the whole grand custom in farm, and accepted, a fourth part refused, the rest moved to have their bonds accepted for the part refused but delayed, until £500 was agreed to be paid, by Sir John Wolstenholme and H[enry] Garway directed by their writing to be paid by him 29 Julii [16]23.

N[ota], that the £500 of the petty farm is repaid but yet not transferred to the great custom or farm, que. That Sir Arthur Ingram was an officer and should have a gratification for them, to content them. That £500 received of Hide was long after the £1,000 paid to the Lord [Treasurer].


[f. 122]

Thursday, 80 Aprilis 1624

An act for restitution in blood of Carew Ralegh, son of Sir Walter Ralegh, late attainted of high treason. 2. L., committed.

There was much debate here whether we should admit of bills of this nature to begin first here in this House, but at length on the report of a committee before appointed to search and consider of precedents in this [f. 122v] business it was resolved, on the multiplicity of precedents showing that this House has anciently and frequently first embraced and passed bills of restitution in blood, that this bill of Mr. Ralegh should here be proceeded in, and accordingly was read the second time and committed.

Mr. Speaker goes out of the chair and Sir Edward Coke sits in it at a committee [of the Whole House] for the proceeding in the business against the Lord Treasurer.

Mr. Abraham Jacob, examined, says that he has had conference with those that have been here examined concerning the particulars whereto they were examined. That the Lord Treasurer did agree with the petty farmers about a recompense for their loss by reason of the new impost of £3 on a tun of wine about Christmas was twelve month. That the agreement was that the farmers should have an abatement of £9,500 to be abated by £1,000 per annum for 9 y[ears] et dimidum but the warrant could not be obtained from the Lord Treasurer until about June last. He denies that ever he did deliver £500 to the Lord Treasurer, nor that Bernard Hide ever did deliver him £500 in a purse in gold for to be delivered to the Lord Treasurer, neither does he know of any sum whatsoever given to the Lord Treasurer out of the petty farms; that there was £500 set down and recorded on the account book of the petty farms but it was mistaken, and that this account was reformed as he takes it since Christmas; but he says a greater sum was given to the Lord Treasurer but not out of the petty farms.

[f. 123] Mr. Bernard Hide, examined, says that the £500 was not delivered by him to Mr. Jacob in the court of the petty farms but in the town and he was willed by Mr. Jacob and the rest of the petty farmers to set it down on his account as so much given to the Lord Treasurer and that this £500 so stood in the accounts until about January last when Jacob and the rest of the farmers caused it to be transferred. That this £500 was given by him to Mr. Jacob in gold, but this was not delivered in a velvet purse to the Lord Treasurer. He says that the farmers of these petty farms did use to give the Lord Treasurer a tun of Gascony wine yearly for a New Year's gift, which not being so well accepted they thought fit to give his Lordship for a New Year's gift in a velvet purse £100 in gold.

Mr. [Abraham] Dawes, the auditor of the petty farms, shows a true copy of the account of those farms, wherein is expressed £500 given to the Lord Treasurer for a gratuity. He being examined says that since Christmas last Mr. Jacob gave order for the transferring of that £500 to the great farms, and that he then willed that if any copies of those accounts were given they should be restored. He did not hear Mr. Jacob give order for the transferring of that £500, but he says that he heard Mr. Hide and Mr. [Richard] Bishop say that Mr. Jacob did give order for the transferring of that £500.

Mr. Abraham Jacob, again examined, says that the Lord Treasurer (hearing that the £500 was set on the petty farms' account) sent for this examinant and asked him how it came to pass that the £500 which [f. 123v] his Lordship received from the hands of this examinant was charged on the account of the petty farms, whereto he answered his Lordship that he would go and see the accounts and then give his Lordship an answer, and upon consideration those of the petty farms caused the same to be transferred.

Mr. [Richard] Bishop and Mr. [John] Harrison, examined, do both say that the £500 was by the order of Jacob and Hide and the rest of the petty farmers set on the account of the petty farms as given to the Lord Treasurer for a gratuity, and that it preceded the Lord Treasurer's warrant for the drawing of the patent for the assuring of the agreement for £9,500, and was after transferred by the same order, and the £500 was given to the Lord Treasurer only for the benefit of the petty farms.

Mr. Bishop, examined, says that he delivered to Mr. Jacob or his man in Sir William Garway's house £500 in gold, which £500 he was willed to set down and charge it on his account of the petty farms as given to the Lord Treasurer.

Mr. Abraham Jacob, examined, says that he did deliver to Mr. [Thomas] Catchmay, the Lord Treasurer's steward, £1,000 by the order of the great farmers for the Lord Treasurer's use, but denies that he did deliver £500 to the Lord Treasurer out of the petty farms. He says that Mr. Bishop is cashier only to the petty farms. He says that he does not remember that he did ever say that the Lord Treasurer did expect to have a gratuity before the warrant would be had, but if Mr. Hide would on his credit affirm that such words fell from this examinant he may not deny it, and/

Whereon Mr. Hide did affirm that Mr. Jacob did speak those words.

Speaker in the chair.

MR. SOLICITOR says that the Duke of Buckingham commanded him to let the House understand that the King is pleased that the Merchants [sic] Adventurers shall bring their books to the House to be here perused, but the [f. 124] King would that at first we appoint a select committee to peruse the same books before they be publicly seen here in the House, and that the Duke said he thought 6 would be a convenient number.

A select committee of 7 of this House to peruse the Merchants [sic] Adventurers' books, and if any member of this House shall desire to see anything in those books for the understanding of that business they shall have leave to be showed it by this select committee, and to receive further directions from the grand committee of trade.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS reports that the Lords did refer it to us to appoint our own time for a conference with their Lordships touching the bill against monopolies.

Mr. Speaker goes out of the chair and we proceed at a committee [of the Whole House] concerning the complaint against the Lord Treasurer.

Mr. John Williams, being treasurer of the great farms, examined, says that he had order given him by a writing under the hand of Sir John Wolstenholme and Mr. [Henry] Garway, 2 of the great farmers, to set down and charge on the account of the great farms £500 given for a gratuity to the Lord Treasurer. He has this note to show. That he has heard the Lord Treasurer did claim the disposing of those parts of that farm who fell off (as Sir Philip Carey and others) but he cannot speak more of his own knowledge.

It is ordered that Mr. Williams shall bring to Sir Edward Coke the paper or writing he speaks of.

Mr. Harrison, examined, says that he did make a [f. 124v] warrant to Mr. Williams to allow £500 to Mr. Jacob to be given or which was given as a gratuity to the Lord Treasurer. That there was in a y[ear] and half no security taken by the Lord Treasurer for the yearly rent of £7,500 until the farmers had given £500 gratuity and then his Lordship did accept of the farmers' own security for it.

Mr. Williams, treasurer of the great farms, examined, says that the £500 given from the petty farms to the Lord Treasurer is not yet transferred to the accounts of the great farms that for they are in his custody and not yet perfected, but he being one of the petty farmers has received his part of that £500.

Mr. Abraham Jacob, examined, says that he does not conceive that the Lord Treasurer could have any part in the farms until Sir Philip Carey and the rest fell off, but then he claimed to have it; but there was £1,000 paid by him at his house to the Lord Treasurer's servant, but confesses nothing concerning the £500 given to the Lord Treasurer for the accepting of the farmers' own security.

[f. 127] Committee, 80 Aprilis 1624, Thursday, for trade

Sir Edwin Sandys in the chair.

Mr. Jones, a member of the Merchants [sic] Adventurers, having transported cloth into the parts beyond sea and made his return of tar, complains that the Eastland Company will not suffer him to land the same but they will seize it. He desires that by the order of this House he may land the same.

At the request of this committee, the Eastland Company does promise that Mr. Jones, the petitioner, shall quietly land his said tar and bring it into the Custom House in London there to be deposited.

Alderman [Thomas] Moulson, Governor of the company of the Merchants [sic] Adventurers, and Alderman [Ralph] Freeman, accompanied with others of that company, do bring in all the books of accounts and other books belonging to that company.

Alderman Moulson, examined, says that the Company of Merchants [sic] Adventurers did give the King £50,000 to be re-established when [Sir William] Cockayne could not go through with his project of dyeing and dressing, and this was when the King went into Scotland.

Alderman Freeman, examined, says that when the proclamation (by reason of Cockayne's patent) came forth that after November no white cloths should be transported, then himself and others of that [company] did buy all the white cloth they could and sent it over again. That when thus himself and others had disbursed all the money they could make or raise to buy up cloth to send beyond sea before the time of restraint according to the said [f. 127v] proclamation, there was order given that they should not trade beyond [sea] unless they would come into Cockayne's company, so as they must either be of that company, which they knew could not prosper, or leave their country to go seek their estates which was all beyond sea. Other restraints and courses were used to compel them to give that £50,000 composition to buy their own former patent for their company.

Sir Dudley Digges says that upon all the interruptions of the liberty of the trade of the Merchants [sic] Adventurers, they have ever gotten more privileges and liberty and wrought advantages of profit to themselves to the prejudice of the state, as one while they have gotten to have bays and after they have gotten to have the sole dealing in other manufactures. He would have us consider of the preamble of the statute of H. 7 concerning Merchants [sic] Adventurers, and take a course that everyone that will for a small sum may be admitted of their company; and that there may not be a sudden alteration and dissolution of that company but that by degrees it should be altered and amended, lest the opening of that trade on too great a sudden, it cause as great an inconvenience and damp of trade as did that sudden change on the project of dyeing and dressing.

The Merchants [sic] Adventurers deliver a note to the committee whereby they offer that they are content that any merchants shall come into their company, but they [f. 128] pray then those that come in may pay the same rate as is paid to be admitted into other companies, and they also pray that their charter may be confirmed by act of Parliament.

Sir D[udley] Digges says that if only merchants be admitted into the company of the Merchants [sic] Adventurers, then they will soon grow as cunning to deceive the woolgrower and to work their own advantage to the disprofit of the state; and if such be ignorant, at their own peril be it, for all men are made free of the East India Company without any restraint. That in 150 of the King, when they were interrupted by the project of dyeing and dressing, they got advantage to have the sole dealing in all manufactures of wool as in 280 Eliz. they got advantage to have the sole dealing in bays.

Sir Arthur Ingram says that he thinks it would be good that they should only meddle with such merchandises as they did before 280 Eliz., and that it might be lawful for a reasonable sum for any man to be admitted of the company of the Merchants [sic] Adventurers.


[p. 191]

Thursday, the 8t[h] of April

An act for restitution of a possession by reversing a decree for [Robert] Wolverston.

An act for restoring the possession of the Lady [Mary] Bulkeley, etc.

[MR. WILLIAM] NOYE. That restitution in blood should come into this House by bill, and into the Upper House by petition and that the party should be a suppliant there a nostre seigneur le Roy, and that then les Communs son[t] assent[us], etc.

SIR EDWARD COKE. If the party does only petition, it must be above that the bill must begin; but if it be from the party and the commons, it must begin in this House, etc.

MR. [JOHN] SELDEN. That 4 bills in 19no H. 7 for restitution went from this House to the Lords. That in Queen Elizabeth's time, upon the case of restitution to Sir Gelly Meyrick's children, an order was made in the Upper House.

[Committee of the Whole House]

Abraham Jacob is examined and answers that he has interest in the petty farms and denies the gift of £500 to the Lord Treasurer and that he moved the farmers for any such sum, etc.

[Bernard] Hide, that formerly said so, this day recants. That the £500 was not delivered to Mr. Jacob and put upon the account for favour or expedition (as he said) but only as a gift to my Lord Treasurer; but that Mr. Jacob said something else must be done and that £500 was expected, and that the Lord Treasurer usually had a tun of Gascony wine presented him, and that nothing being well accepted, they gave my Lord £100 in gold in a purse for a New Year's gift, etc.

[Abraham] Dawes now says there was in the account a note of £500 given the Lord Treasurer since Christmas last, etc., and that if any copies of the account were given out, there was order taken to have them called in again; and that he did hear it was Mr. Jacob that brought word that the £500 was to be transferred to the great account.

[p. 192] [Richard] Bishop justifies that at Sir John Wolstenholme's house he did deliver £500 to Jacob's man for my Lord Treasurer, as he was directed.

Jacob says Hide was the first man that said something must be given; but that my Lord must have it, he says he never did say so to Hide.

Hide (confronting Jacob) says that Jacob was the man that said so to him, etc.

The SOLICITOR informs [the House] that the Duke of Buckingham did signify that the King was pleased to let the books of accounts of the farmers [sic] shall [sic] be seen, but would have it viewed by a select committee of a few, because many things therein were not fit to be published.

[Committee of the Whole House]

For the second charge, [John] Williams being examined, says that upon the delay of the acceptance of the security of the patentees, there was by order from Sir John Wolstenholme and another £500 given to the Lord Treasurer, and that upon the account it appeared Jacob had the money.

[John] Harrison says the £500 was paid before the warrant for accepting the security of the patentees was granted, etc.

Dawes says that he offered to take those 5 parts which they gave over that should have sealed for security to the King, but that Sir John Wolstenholme said that they had taken them, and that £500 was to be given to the Lord Treasurer, and that the £500 was delivered to Mr. Jacob.

Jacob says the security was accepted for the whole farm. That my Lord moved that Sir Arthur Ingram and some of his friends might have four 32 parts, but he told my Lord they desired not to deal with Sir Arthur and preferred to bear the whole, promising a gratuity, which my Lord accepted, and yet afterwards my Lord claimed the 4 parts again. Now he says that he collects his memory better and confesses he had £500 in gold of Mr. Hide, but it was after he had paid my Lord Treasurer £1,000 first.


[f. 86v]

8 April, Thursday

An act for the restitution of possession by reversing of a decree for Mr. [Robert] Wolverston.

An act for the establishing the possession of the Lady [Mary] Bulkeley, widow, for restoring the lands and leases therein expressed.

[MR. WILLIAM] NOYE. That restitution in blood, their bills having had their beginning in this House, some petition above a nostre seigneur le Roy and the party suppliant there les Communs son[t] assent[us]. 32 petitions where the Communs sont desir[e] but where not only the party but the Communs, and then it is an intimation of some pity of the attainder.

[SIR EDWARD] COKE. That if the party only makes his petition then the bill begin with the Lords, but if it be by the party and the Communs then it begins with the Lower House.

[MR. JOHN] SELDEN. There was 4 bills 190 H. 7 where the bills of restitution began in the Lower House. 1 Eliz., [Edward] Lewknor. [Blank] 3 [sic] Eliz. [blank]. March, 3 Eliz. [sic]. In the case of [Sir] Gelly Meyrick, there was an order made that for some errors committed in bills of restitution, that after the King had given allowance of such petition all bills of restitution should begin in the Upper House, after which, this being the 23rd of May, the Parliament ended the 27th of May following.

Second read, committed, this afternoon. The bill of restitution of blood of Sir Walter Ralegh's son, Carew Ralegh,

[f. 87] [Sir] M[iles] Fleetwood. [Blank]

Abraham Jacob, a witness. He has an interest in the petty farms and petition was delivered to his Majesty to have recompense. The Lord Treasurer agreed about Christmas [1622] that the petty farmers should have £9,500 by a £1,000 per annum, and about June following, which was last, the Lord Treasurer gave order for the drawing up a book for it. In the interim, his Lordship was solicited for the performance of the agreement. But he being asked whether he did not deal with the rest to give £500 to the Lord, he utterly disclaims that ever they gave £500 to the Lord Treasurer, for Mr. [Bernard] Hide who said so is come this day to recant it. They borrowed £2,000 for the use of the farm of Mr. Hide, Croachio and others, but not out of the petty farms. There was £500 charged upon the accounts of the petty farms but not for the petty farms to the Lord Treasurer. If there were, a mistaking by a cashier in the account, or other, and then a reformation after.

Hide. The £500 was not delivered [to] Mr. Jacob in court as I said but it was delivered to Mr. Jacob as a gift to be given to my Lord Treasurer, and so entered into the account by the direction of Mr. Jacob, in gold out of the petty farms. That stood in the account until February. He having been a suitor 10 months, said that surely something else must be done. Afterward Mr. Jacob said that there was £500 expected. That they use to give a tun of Gascony wine to the Lord Treasurer and that not being well accepted they gave him a New Year's gift of £100 in that purse.

[f. 87v] [Abraham] Dawes examined. The copy of the account which he presented was delivered, [£]50,000 within a week, wherein was the gratuity of the £500 to the Lord Treasurer. Since Christmas last, the account was transferred to the great farms' account and then if any copies of this account was given out it was directed they should be given in. He did hear that Mr. Jacob brought that word that the account was to be transferred over to the great farms.

Jacob. The Lord Treasurer had had a hint that the money received from this is placed upon the account of the petty farm and sent for Jacob to know the cause why it was so, who afterward went to the Custom House to inform himself and informed a mistaking. Could not tell when the £1,000 which the Lord Treasurer had was conferred upon [him]. The question was how it should be laid, and agreed it was that £500 should be laid upon the petty farms and the other £500 upon the great farms, which some misliking the account was altered. But he denies that ever he gave any knowledge to my Lord of it, neither does he know who did.

Dawes. [Blank]

[Richard] Bishop. Jacob and others gave warrant to him to enter the £500 into the account of the petty farms, and understood that it was to be given for the benefit of the petty farms only, and so entered it into the account.

[John] Harrison. That he always understood that the £500 giving did precede the warrant and/

Hide justifies the delivery of the £500 in gold to Jacob.

Bishop, the cashier. Bishop justifies as much, that he delivered in Sir John Wolstenholme's house to Jacob's man for my Lord Treasurer as he was directed by him.

Jacob. He says he did give direction that among the rest, the £500 should be laid upon the petty farms. [f. 88] He thinks that the warrant was given soon after the warrant [sic] giving, and that he did pay the £1,000 at his own house to Mr. [Thomas] Catchmay, my Lord's treasurer. He affirmed that he went to the Custom House to satisfy my Lord why it was laid upon the petty farms. But being asked why he did so when he had given [blank]. Bishop, he confesses, is cashier for the petty farms. Hide was the first man that said that something must be done for it stuck, something must be given for it; but whether he said that my Lord must have something, if Hide will say he did say so, he will not deny a truth.

Hide, affronting Jacob, justifies the saying of Mr. Jacob that my Lord must have something. He likewise affirms that he never had a bond of Mr. Jacob for any part of this £500 as Jacob said.

[MR.] SOLICITOR. That his Majesty's pleasure was signified by the Duke of Buckingham that his Majesty does so much trust the House that he is willing the books of the Merchants [sic] [Adventurers] shall be seen, only he wishes that there may be a select committee of a few to view what is most material for our information rather than the books be brought out in public because there be divers things of great consequence not so fit to be published.


[f. 88v] The second charge [against the Lord Treasurer].

John Williams, examined. There was security tendered for the whole as he heard of the patentees of the great custom as Sir John Wolstenholme. Some of the sureties denied the assurance and the rest of the patentees offered their security, which was delayed until 1623 and then there was a gratuity of £500 given to the Lord Treasurer, and so set down by order from Sir John Wolstenholme and another. When the 4 parts of the security fell off, he heard that my Lord claimed those 4 parts. In the account it appeared that Jacob had the money.

Harrison. That my Lord Treasurer accepted of the security and that the farms should be divided among the patentees, for which a warrant was granted to the King's Remembrancer, the 29th April 1622, of those which had 5 parts refused to seal the security to the King. Then 4 patentees hoped that my Lord would accept their security but it was delayed a year and a half. He did make a warrant to Mr. Williams that he should deliver to Mr. Jacob the £500 to my Lord, which was paid before the warrant was made.

Dawes. The great farms amount to £16,000 [sic] per annum. When he heard that 4 fell off for 5 parts, he offered to take those 5 parts, but Sir John Wolstenholme then, said he, we have taken those 5 parts; and that he have heard that Mr. Williams had direction to pay £500 to Mr. Jacob for my Lord Treasurer.

It is ordered that Mr. [John] West, the King's Remembrancer, shall bring in two warrants and 5 bonds.

[f. 89] Williams. The £500 which was in the account of the petty farms is not yet transferred into his charge, but he having a share in the petty farms he has received his part of the £500 disbursed about a month since.

Jacob. Security was accepted after the setting of the farm for the whole. Afterwards he would accept of some parts. 4/32 parts for Sir Arthur Ingram and his friends; but upon his going to my Lord and telling him that they did not desire to deal with Sir Arthur Ingram but if his Lordship would let them have it they would, if it would bear it, further gratify his Lordship, which his Lordship accepted of and made leases. Afterward 4 of the security fell off, then my Lord revived his claim of the 4 parts. Now he says, having collected his remembrance, that he had £500 of Mr. Hide in gold, but it was after he had paid the £1,000 to my Lord Treasurer.


[f. 53v]

April 8, 1624

An act for making void a decree in the Chancery against one [Robert] Wolverston.

By occasion of Mr. [Carew] Ralegh's bill, an order was [f. 54] made for the perusal of records concerning acts of restitution, in which search MR. [WILLIAM] NOYE was assigned all the time before the end of Ed. 4, whereof he now made a report, out of which are collected these observations.

  • 1. That the ancient petitions of this kind before Richard the 2nd's time were in the nature of writs of error.
  • 2. From the beginning of Richard 2nd until the end of Ed. 4 are 37 or 38 particular cases of restitution, whereof he had seen both the roll and the petitions, some of them being here and some with the Lords.
  • 3. To those which began above, the address in the beginning was "from the barons" and were underwritten "á cette tition les Communs [s]ont assent[us]", which is a certain sign they first passed above, and of this sort there are 23.
  • 4. There are 14 or 15 which begin "priont les Commons", and in these is expressed for the most part some reason of pity towards the party attainted.
  • 5. If it were the supplication of the party himself, then he began with the King.

The other part of that search was assigned to MR. [JOHN] SELDEN, from whom issued these observations.

  • 1. That there was no appearance of any negative opinion or order in ancient times.
  • 2. In 19 H. 7 there were four several bills of that nature all subscribed "soit baille aux seigneurs", an evidence that they began with the Commons.
  • 3. In the times of Hen. 8, Ed. 6, Queen Mary, there are no precedents to be found against this course.
  • 4. In 10 of Queen Elizabeth a bill for restitution began here and passed; the like for Sir Thomas Perrot's heir [sic] in 35 Eliz.
  • 5. Tertio Jacobi an act passed in this House for the restitution of [blank]; and afterwards in the same year, 22o mensis Maii, the act for Sir Gelly Meyrick's heir began here and passed the Upper House without any question, only there was a note in the journal of the Lords' House entered that hereafter all such bills should have their commencement there; the 23rd of the same month that note was turned into an order, the 27th the Parliament ended.
  • 6. It has been usual of late that before the passage of such bills, the parties have obtained the King's hand or the Secretary's.

An act for the restitution in blood of Carew Ralegh, son of Sir Walter Ralegh. Committed.

It was moved that because about this time a conference was agreed with the Lords and that [Abraham] Jacob and others attended to be examined in my Lord Treasurer's business, that a messenger might be sent to the Lords to put off the conference until some other time, which being put to the question was overruled by voices that it should not be put off. Yet after the House had turned itself into a committee, and saw that time consumed [f. 54v] apace in that examination, they were enforced to send a message to that effect, and received answer that their Lordships left it to us to choose a new time and upon intimation thereof would be ready.

[Committee of the Whole House]

The former examination had left two starting holes for my Lord Treasurer:

  • 1. That £500 was miss-entered in the account of the petty farms.
  • 2. That my Lord had an interest by contract in 4 shares, in lieu whereof he received that money.

Both these Abraham Jacob endeavoured to make good, but his answers appeared to be full of shifting and of no good contexture; and the House gave little credit to him for these reasons:

  • 1. The alteration of the account which he insisted upon was made since the beginning of the Parliament, when there was some likelihood of question.
  • 2. The two accounts of the petty farm and great farm were distinct and both the partners and the proportion of the parts different.
  • 3. In the speech of raising these sums, there was no mention of my Lord's claim.
  • 4. The four principal farms only had the benefit of those shares, whereas the money was laid upon all the partners.
  • 5. It was affirmed by Sir Arthur Ingram that these shares were reserved for him and his friends who had relinquished.

It was moved that during the time of these examinations Mr. Jacob's son, who was a member of the House, should go out; but it was not thought fit.

MR. SOLICITOR, by direction of my Lord of Buckingham, acquainted the House that the Merchants [sic] [Adventurers] had been with the King to be excused for delivery of their book[s], and his Majesty's answer was that though he had sent a command to the last Parliament in the like case, yet he did so much trust the discretion of this House that he was pleased the books should be delivered, yet withal wishing they might not be made too public but that those things only which they desired to know might be drawn out by a few.

Whereupon, there was appointed for this service of the examination of the Merchant Adventurers' books a select committee of 7.


[f. 121]

[8 April 1624]

MR. [WILLIAM] NOYE'S report of precedents concerning restitution in blood, whether the petitions [f. 121v] or bills should begin here or above. Question raised 1 [sic] Jac. concerning Sir Gelly Meyrick's children. Until E. 4['s] time, upon search appears, the direction "a nostre seigneur le Roy supplie", etc., subscribed "Les Communs [s]ont assent[us]", which shows they began with the Lords. 22 or 23 of these. In 15 others "priont les Communs". Where it is simply a petition of the party, it begins above, but if it were joined with desire of the Commons, it began here, mentioning some cause why it was pity the party was attainted or etc.

MR. [JOHN] SELDEN'S report. After E. 4['s] time, many precedents that the bills began in this House. 1 Eliz. the bill for [Edward] Lewknor's children, and [3]5 Eliz. Sir John Perrot's [children] etc., began in this House. March, 3 Jac. one [John] Holland. In the case of Sir Gelly Meyrick, 3 [sic] Jac., 22nd of May, a remembrance in the Upper House that in such bills the King's or Secretary's hand must be to it, and it must begin above; made an order 23rd, and 24th [sic] the Parliament ended.

The bill for restitution in blood of Sir Walter Ralegh's son, which was the occasion of the search, second read, committed.

The House was turned into a general committee for the Lord Treasurer's business and the Speaker sat by.

Mr. [Abraham] Jacob called in and interrogated. [f. 122] He acknowledged he had an interest in the petty farm. That the King was petitioned for the loss sustained. The Lord Treasurer agreed for a recompense £9,500, to be paid per annum £1,000, at Whitehall about Christmas [1622], at which he was present for the most part. That it was delayed about half a year until June last. That the Lord Treasurer was often solicited in the mean space. Utterly disclaims that he was one of them that moved for a gratuity of £500 to be given, or that he knows of £500 given in gold to the Lord Treasurer out of the accounts of the petty farm, or that Mr. [Bernard] Hide ever delivered £500 in gold, or any other sum any days of his life. He said that Hide was come to recant what he had said. But that the farm having occasion to use a sum of money, he borrowed £500 of Mr. Hide. He confesses there was £500 charged upon the accounts of the petty farms but not accounted for. That this was reformed since Christmas.

Mr. Hide called in again. He said he now remembered that £500 was not delivered at the Lord Treasurer's to Mr. Jacob [f. 122v] but in London, and was willed by Jacob and others to set it on the account, so entered into the book and remained until after January for my Lord Treasurer. But touching the velvet purse, that was for another thing and he knows not what purse this £500 was in. Jacob brought word when the business was in hand that a matter of £500 would do the turn. That in the velvet purse was a £100 in gold given as a New Year's gift because the tun of Gascony wine wont to be given was not accepted.

[Abraham] Dawes, being auditor, brought in the account to the House. The charge of the wine, [£]38,000. The King had in all, [£]36,000. Item, for a gratuity given to the Lord Treasurer, £500. It was afterward, viz. since Christmas, ordered that this £500 should be taken off, and that the copies of the former account should be called in. There has not yet any audit been made of the great farm upon which the £500 is now laid.

Mr. Jacob called in, acknowledged that the Lord Treasurer coming about Christmas to knowledge of £500 thus brought in upon the account of the petty farm, found fault with it. Hereupon he said he would go to the Custom House and inform himself, and said it was a mistake [f. 123] of the petty farm for the great farm. In debate how it should be laid, resolved that because those that were partners in the one were partners in the other, it should be laid one half on the one and one on the other.

  • 1. [Richard] Bishop's exception.
  • 2. The disproportion.

Bishop and [John] Harrison affirmed that at first when the money was disbursed, Jacob himself with others gave direction to enter it on the account of the petty farm, being it concerned it. The giving the £500 preceded the warrant.

Jacob, confronted with the rest, first denied again the receipt of the moneys, or being privy to the placing it on the account of the petty farm. But it being justified by Hide and Bishop, he confessed £500 was received as part of the £1,000 and that he gave order with others for entering it on the petty farms' account.

Called in again, he said that Bishop was only cashier of the petty farm and not of the great. He said that Hide speaking of a gratuity to the Lord Treasurer, he sat by when the rest gave consent to the £500. He said, if Hide would affirm, that he said the Lord Treasurer would expect a gratuity.

Hide affirmed that he did say so after but not at the time. [f. 123v] Hide denied the taking of bond for this, but for other business as by the bond will appear.

The Speaker in the chair.

A message from the King by the Duke of Buckingham concerning the books of the Merchants [sic] Adventurers. They having been with the King, moved to know his pleasure because last Parliament the King signified that he would not have them perused. The King's pleasure now is that he is willing this House should have the perusal, only, because they contain things of another nature, to have a select committee to peruse them.

A select committee named.

The general committee sitting about the business of the other £500 given to the Lord Treasurer by the farmers of the great farm.

[John] Williams produced, affirmed what was alleged touching the tender of security, accepting of it, warrant made for it dated 29 April 1622. Some of the sureties refusing, the Lord Treasurer delaying until £500 was given. The £500 was paid to Mr. Jacob's man, as to him. A paper in his hands being a warrant for the payment of the £500.

This paper ordered to be brought in.

[John] Harris[on] acknowledged as much and that he made the warrant.

[f. 124] [Abraham] Dawes. The great farm amounts to £160,000 per annum. He affirmed the same that Williams and Harris[on] had done. 4 parties that had 5 parts fell off. Dawes would have had one; the rest said no, it should be among the general.

Sir Miles Fleetwood moved that whereas it appears that there were two other warrants, they might be all brought in.

Ordered accordingly.

Mr. Williams called in again, says that the former £500 is not yet transferred to the account of the great farm, for the account is not yet made up, but those of the petty farm have received the £500 from the great farm.

Mr. [Abraham] Jacob, acknowledging the tendering of the security for the great farm and the accepting it, he says the Lord Treasurer desired some parts might be reserved for him, but the agreement was made for the whole. Mr. [Henry] Garway opposed the Lord Treasurer concerning the 4 parts he demanded. The lease was made only to four, Mr. Garway, [Mr. Maurice] Abbot, [Sir John] Wolstenholme and Jacob.

Thursday afternoon, the committee of privileges

The case of Stockbridge. A petition in the name of some of the burgesses complaining of the undue election of Sir Richard Gifford by reason of many burgesses not present [f. 124v] and no due warning given. Before the election 2 indentures, one ready sealed with Sir Richard Gifford's name for one and a blank left for the other. The warning Tuesday for the election to be Thursday. One Wigg, the bailiff, took by force the mace from one Ranger, and with the end thereof sealed the indenture, as they had used to do. 28 burgesses present. The bailiff went from house to house to warn them. There were only three that subscribed the petition, and none present but a solicitor to make averment.

The committee resolved, by question, the election was good for aught appeared.

The case of Gloucestershire.

Mr. [Christopher] Brooke. It was determined in Sir Francis Goodwin's case, and the judges assented, that though in point of making laws our House be but half a court of record, yet in cases of election and of contempts we are a court of record.

The petition of Mr. [Robert] Poyntz read. The question between [Mr. Robert] Poyntz and [Sir Thomas] Estcourt.

Alleged for Mr. [Robert] Poyntz. The election the 14th of January, the sheriff absent, the under-sheriff 20 or 21 years old. Gloucester the usual place of election but the under-sheriff made it at Painswick, five miles off. [f. 125] Sir Thomas Estcourt yielded the choice, acknowledged it publicly that the other two were chosen, and commended the country for it. Hereupon the country departed. 2 hours after, Sir John Tracy named Sir Thomas Estcourt; about 12 of the clock the sheriff goes to the poll. The place a little church, a great throng. Those that named [Mr. Robert] Poyntz could not come near, those that named [Sir Thomas] Estcourt, though far off, delivered in papers by ten at a time.

Sir Thomas Estcourt's counsel answered that the place was appointed 3 weeks before and where the country court had usually been kept for 3 or 4 years. That Sir Thomas Estcourt was not chosen by his own seeking, but by the present approbation of the country. That Sir Thomas Estcourt's speeches were but in modesty. The election began at 9 of the clock. That those that went away were no freeholders but such as knew that when they came to their oath they should not be allowed. Sir Thomas Estcourt had 152 voices more than Mr. [Robert] Poyntz. The sheriff, within an hour after the reading of the writ, told the freeholders they must be polled; also published that if any were not polled, they should come.

The committee of opinion that without colour Sir Thomas Estcourt was well chosen.


[f. 100v]

April 80, Thursday

A bill for the restitution of Carew Ralegh, committed, and the question cleared by search of precedents if such restitution may begin in the House of Commons for the commons, though necessarily above for such as be of the nobility.

A message from the King about the Merchant Adventurers, that his Majesty had given leave to have their court book and book of orders seen, but in regard there were other things in them than did concern us, his desire was it might be by a small select committee who might report what concerned us and conceal the rest, which was ordered accordingly.

Message to the Lords to defer the conference about monopolies in regard of great businesses in hand. Their Lordships left the time to ourselves.

In the afternoon

The Merchant Adventurers made answer in writing to the three questions propounded to them March 23, vide. To the first, that it was without example and a thing not equal to enjoin them to it because both they had not vent enough and again by that means the seller would enhance the price upon them. To the second, that addition of others is needless in regard they themselves can take off as many as can be vented; new traders, by their ignorance and unskilfulness, would but give occasion to the makers of cloth to falsify and make it worse and so discourage and drive away the old merchant, besides the wrong and prejudice it would be to such as are now in breeding up to this trade (whereof divers be gentlemen's sons) to see others put in upon them without serving for it. And yet to this they would submit upon 2 conditions: first, that such as shall come in by redemption may pay as high a rate as any other company receives; second, that their patent may be confirmed by act of Parliament. To the third question, if they should leave dyeing and dressing and new draperies, that would weaken their privileges and esteem abroad, because so the whole trade should not be settled in them and likewise disorder that [sic] commodities which should be so cut off from them.

A motion ad reparationem non ad ruinam, to let the [f. 101] Merchant Staplers come in and other experienced merchants, to take away their patents of restraint and other encroachments upon the subject, and to reduce them to what they were by their patent Elizabeth 60.

It was given in by Sir Francis Nethersole, upon conference with some of them beyond sea, that there were 300 of them in all, whereof but 50 traders, and of those 50 but 6 principally that drove the trade, in regard they forestalled and engrossed the makers of cloth in the country so as the rest could buy none. Those 6 had correspondency with 12 merchants of Amsterdam, who took it from them again. To break this, the staple was removed from Middleburgh to Delft in hope that that nearness to Amsterdam would cause more commerce and enlarge the number of traders. And in his opinion, the remedy would be to confine every one of them to a certain number of cloths and so all might buy some.

But it was answered that that would not remedy the inconvenience because the great traders would buy in other men's proportions and so engross all still to themselves, and it was conceived that the merchants had purposely put this conceit to Sir Francis Nethersole to lay a wrong cause and puzzle the House.

So divers questions were asked of them then present, as:

  • 1. How many traders there were of them? Responsum, 2,000 and upwards at home and abroad.
  • 2. How many cloths they vented this last year? Responsum, 60,000, for there were 20,000 now on the river ready shipped.
  • 3. What shall become of the wools of the kingdom since they cannot be draped at home nor may be transported abroad? Responsum, let them not be transported by any means, we will vent it if we can.
  • 4. How stood their trade in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's time? Responsum, cloth was then cheaper, the trade less disturbed and so much better than now it is.
  • 5. Why are you not contented with your ancient trade of long cloths as your predecessors were? Responsum, we had ever power of all cloths, and the disorderly venting of new draperies caused us to reduce it to ourselves.

A motion made to them to advise what course was to be taken for the remedying of the great burden laid upon the kingdom in the falling of wools to the loss of £500,000 per annum, and the poor not set on work, [f. 101v] else we must turn to new counsels.