7th May 1624

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.


In this section

FRIDAY, 7 MAY 1624


[CJ 699; f. 29v]

Veneris, 70 Maii, 220 Jacobi

Knights and burgesses of Cornwall and Devon to be added to [John] Edwards's committee.

Bill against scandalous ministers, Monday afternoon, 2 [o']clock. All that will come to have voice. In the Court of Wards.

MR. SOLICITOR reports [Sir John] Ryves's bill, with amendments, which twice read. Engrossetur.

MR. [CHRISTOPHER] BROOKE reports Sir Charles Caesar's bill without amendments.

L. 1a. An act for the better relief of the poor.

MR. [LAURENCE] WHITAKER reports the bill for relief of creditors against such as die in execution.

L. 3a. An act to make good a conveyance of the manor of Little Munden in the county of Hertford by Sir P[eter] Vanlore, kt., and Sir Charles Caesar, kt., etc.

Upon question, passed.

L. 3a. [Blank]

Upon the question of passage, the House divided:

The I went out.

Tellers for the Yeas: Sir Francis Barrington, Sir Edward Montagu.

For the Noes: Sir H[enry] Poole, Sir H[enry] Anderson.

[f. 30] With the Yeas: 97.

With the Noes: 104.


SIR EDWARD COKE reports from the committee of grievances the complaint against the Bishop of Norwich. Not heard by them, yet he had a copy of the petition and certificate. The charge grievous and strange. That there being 34 parishes in the city, the bishop, by his apparitor, sent for the ministers and inhibited their preaching in the morning on the Sabbath-day, requiring them to come to the cathedral church, situate at one end. Impossible for all the people to hear.

Secondly, crucifixes, images followed. A dove upon the font fluttering over the water, images set up; and the bishop coming into the church, blessed him that set them up. The not observing the King's ecclesiastical laws a matter fit for our cons[blank]. 180 Ed. 3, no. 32, the Commons complained against the majorities for putting tradesmen into the churches, whereby the people wanted spiritual food. 500 Ed. 3, in bono Parliamento, the Commons complained of the pope's dispensations, non-residents, etc. The wicked city of Rome. 170 R. 2, n. 43, 11 H. 4, 3 H. 6, complaint for want of food.

Third, extortion. By the canons and Archbishop's orders, 24s. 8d. for institutions; £3 5s. now taken. £6 12s. taken for St. John's Church. No fee for holy orders, yet now takes 29s. and 30s. 6s. 8d. for licensing a curate where should be but 5s. Extortions by ordinaries enquirable before justices in eyre.

Fourth, no institutions registered, to the great prejudice of men's inheritances. 480 Ed. 3 a complaint against the Bishop of Hereford for not living within his diocese. Except he be in the king's service, every bishop ought to live within his diocese.

This a case of great consequence. The committee thought fit to transmit it to the Lords.

Upon question, without 1 negative, this to be transmitted to the Lords.

Sir Edward Coke to deliver this above, for which a conference to be desired tomorrow morning.

An acknowledgement enjoined by the bishop, read.

SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH. The circumstance of time; much to do this when we groan under the insolency of papists.

[f. 30v] Resolved, that excommunicating those which kneeled not when they came into the church towards the east, and this of his own authority, without any canon or constitution to warrant it.

SIR THOMAS JERMYN. The principal heads of this complaint may be set down in writing and to be presented to the House tomorrow morning.


SIR ROBERT PHELIPS reports from the [committee for] court[s] of justice 3 things:

  • 1. The petitions.
  • 2. The proceedings upon them.
  • 3. The committee's direction concerning them.

Now 2 petitions. First, from the Lady Darcy concerning an advowson appendant to a manor of her son's. That she obtained a grant from the Court of Wards to herself and George Wilmore. That in August 1621, the incumbent died, so the church thereby void. That she thereupon presented her clerk to the ordinary but found the church full of Dr. Grant, presented by the Lord Keeper. She, by advice, sought a quare impedit, which denied her by the cursitor, as he said, by Lord Keeper's direction. She petitioned the King for right, but obtained it not. That since hereby her presentation lost, her son's inheritance endangered, prays remedy here, it being a cause of great consequence in point of example to all the subjects. She had a grant of the advowson from the Court of Wards, and alleged by her counsel the Court of Wards no [sic] right to grant it.

On the other part, alleged this was no disherison [sic] to the child, and that the Court of Wards had no power to grant presentations in this case. Considered whether an original writ might be stayed.

In case of Revell and Peacock and Lady Mordaunt, quare impedits denied by Lord Ellesmere. At the committee, agreed to refer it to the next sitting of the committee whether the matter could be accommodated between the Lord Keeper, Dr. Grant and the Lady. [CJ 700] At which sitting, 2 things presented to the committee:

  • 1. A petition from Dr. Grant, wherein 4 offers. First, to go to a trial without taking advantage of lapse. Secondly, to pass an act here at his own costs to put her in state as before the 6 months. Thirdly, to have 3 or 4 judges chosen by her to hear and determine the business, and to yield if they for [sic] her. [f. 31] Fourthly, to have any 6 lawyers of the House, whereof Sir Edward Coke, Mr. [William] Noye, Sir John Walter and Mr. Speaker to be 4, and to be bound by their opinion.
  • [2.] The Lord Keeper's answer, of 2 parts. First, for the denial of the quare impedit; would not justify but extenuate his proceedings therein, desiring it might be conceived there was a difference between Chancery and Court of Wards. Then, no good correspondency between the judges of those courts, presently after his coming to the place of Lord Keeper, and doubted the right of the Chancery might be stolen away by this course. That sight of some precedents made him think it might have been done; yet, finding the opinion of this House to the contrary, he had offered her as good a living, to get a grant thereof from the King. That this was the first and should be the last of his thus proceeding. Thanked the House for their inclination to think it only an error in him.

At the next sitting, the Lady refused all Dr. Grant's offers. The committee thereupon considered the Lady's interest in particular. The House [sic] thought fit to refer her to a bill, with comfort to her, to afford her the best furtherance they could if she, by advice, preferred a bill. For help of the general inconvenience to the public by this, after dispute, the House [sic] thought fit to refer it to the House without any opinion on one part or other.

MR. [CHRISTOPHER] BROOKE. A market overt of law in the common place, a shop of justice in Cancellaria. Denying of a fine or recovery in the Common Pleas injustice; denying an original writ in Cancellaria injustice too, for keeps me from having justice. This error much extenuated by my Lord Keeper's offers. The affection by which done makes the error greater or less. The Lord Keeper conceived the Court of Wards had encroached upon the Chancery; he thought to right himself by this course of denying the quare impedit. We cannot transmit any to the Lords without first giving a judgement upon him here. Not to do thus for 1 single offence.

SIR J[AMES] PERROT. The fault great where extenuated by ignorance. Done at his first coming into his place, ignorantia juris non excusat. [f. 31v] The excuse, by reason of the difference between both courts and the judges thereof, does aggravate, not extenuate, the offence, because in a case concerning himself he ought to have been more wary. For the excuse, that this error is single. Has heard there are other cases besides this where Lord Keeper has denied a quare impedit, or non omittas. To have this examined. That there be other petitions against him: Mrs. Thomas's petition, whereby her jointure decreed for payment of her son's debts; and [Sir Francis] Foljambe's petition. To have these first heard, and to have a committee to examine these things.

SIR THOMAS HOBY. First, to right the wrong, then to punish the fault. First to have the bill read.

MR. CHARLES PRICE perceives no corruption, nor ill-intention, in the Lord Keeper. It was in maintenance of the jurisdiction of his court. The Lord Keeper young when he came in. Acquits the Lord Keeper of any ill-intention.


MR. [ARTHUR] PYNE. [Blank]


MR. SOLICITOR conceives the Lord Keeper's answer reasonable. Thinks this an injury to the Lady. Just to repair this. The wrong was to deny her the writ, which the means to recover her right. But whether her title, in respect of the lapse, were good or not, thinks not so clear. That the Lord Keeper offered to mediate with the King for granting the inheritance again to the heir without his charge. For the commonwealth, a bill already in the House to rectify this for the time to come. For the example, all men subject to error. This a question between the 2 courts. Few grantees from the Court of Wards have had the benefit of presentation. Divers precedents in this kind, both by Lord Chancellor and other judges.

MR. [THOMAS] GEWEN. The offence great. Aggravated by the Lord Keeper's persisting after petition upon petition; after the King's letters to him to do justice; after the signification from the King's learned counsel that it was fit he should grant. This an offence against the Great Charter, which our inheritance, and against the trust the King puts into his hands. To transmit this to the Lords.

MR. [EDWARD] ALFORD. To respite this until we see how the other complaints against the Lord Keeper will succeed, and then to proceed as cause shall be.

[f. 32] L. 1a. An act to/

L. 2a. [Blank]

Committed to:

[col. 1] [col. 2]
Mr. Treasurer Sir Guy Palmes
Chancellor Exchequer Mr. [Edward] Alford
Sir Edward Coke Sir Robert Coke
Chancellor Duchy Mr. [William] Noye
Sir Thomas Wentworth Sir William Masham
Sir Francis Barrington Mr. John Drake
Mr. [Thomas] Wentworth Sir Edward Giles
Mr. [Richard] Taylor Sir Thomas Hoby
Sir John Stradling Sir W[alter] Earle
Sir John Walter Mr. [George] Smyth
Sir John Savile
Mr. [John] Hawarde
[col. 3]
Mr. [Thomas] Gewen
Sir H[enry] Poole
Mr. Wandesford
Sir Thomas Cheke
Mr. [William] Brereton
Sir Thomas Barrington
Mr. Solicitor
Sir M[iles] Fleetwood
Sir J[ames] Perrot

Tomorrow, 7 [o']clock, Court of Wards.

MR. SOLICITOR moves for Saturday for the apothecaries.


[House adjourned]


[CJ 784; f. 190v]

Veneris, 7 Maii 1624

Knights, burgesses of Cornwall and Devon added to the committee of [John] Edwards's bill.

Scandalous ministers, Monday, 2 [o']clock. All to have voice. Court of Wards.

MR. SOLICITOR reports [Sir John] Ryves's bill. Amendments twice read.

Ordered, to be engrossed.

MR. [CHRISTOPHER] BROOKE reports Sir Charles Caesar's bill without amendments.

L. 1. An act for the better relief of the poor.

MR. [LAURENCE] WHITAKER reports the bill to relieve creditors against such as die in execution. Amendments twice read.

Ordered, to be engrossed.

L. 3. An act to enable and make good a conveyance and assurance made of the manor of Little Munden in the county of Hertford by Sir Peter Vanlore, knight, Sir Charles Caesar, kt., and Dame Anne, his wife, to [Sir] Edmund Woodhall, esquire, and his heirs, and to establish the said manor upon the said Edmund Woodhall, and his heirs, according to the said conveyance.

Upon question, passed.

L. 3. An act to enable Sir Richard Burneby to sell the manor of Watford and divers pastures in Silsworth, in the county of Northampton, for payment of debts and raising of portions for younger children.

The House divided, upon the question.

No: 104.

Yeas: 99.

The bill rejected.

[f. 191] SIR EDWARD COKE reports from the committee of grievances a complaint against the Bishop of Norwich. The charge great and strange, of 4 parts.

  • 1. The city of Norwich having 34 parishes, he sent for the preachers of the city and told them they had preaching enough and the morning preaching needless: wished them to ease that morning's exercise. This aggravated by divers circumstances: a letter written to him by the metropolitan about the King's pleasure for preaching; after this, this inhibition; the cathedral church in the elbow of the city, not above 2,000 can hear. Yet all to come there. About 20,000 people in Norwich.
  • [2.] Then came up images and crucifixes, counted laymen's books. Lord Bishop blessed those that set up those ornaments. A dove on the font, fluttering over the water to sanctify it. 18 E. 3, num. 32, the Commons dealt with the Majorites; complained they had not spiritual food. Cardinals put into churches shoemakers and tailors. Quinquagesimo Edw. 3 called bonum Parliamentum. A complaint of the pope's usurpation; not feeding the flock. Rome called that sinful city, and that all the ill that has befallen this kingdom has come from thence. 17 Rich. 2, 11 Hen. 4 and a great many more precedents. So that this complaint proper for this place.
  • 3. Extortion. By orders of the Archbishop, and by their own canons, the fees set down. These very much exceeded.
  • 4. No institutions now registered, which is very dangerous for disherison [sic]. Have not heard his defence. Quadregisimo 8 Edw. 3, inter brevia, a complaint against the Bishop of Hereford for non-residency, not lying within his diocese. All bishops ought to be resident unless they be in the king's service. Where the people are not taught, the king has but half subjects. The readiest way to make rebellions. The committee thought it worthy to transmit it up unto the Lords.

[f. 191v] Resolved, upon question, without a negative, that this matter shall be transmitted up to the Lords. Sir Edward Coke to do it. And a message to be sent to the Lords for a conference about it.

MR. [WILLIAM] CORYTON. One thing omitted in the report: his enjoining certain men penance for hearing their own minister catechize and sing psalms after evening prayer. This fit to be presented.

MR. [LAURENCE] WHITAKER. This no more but the minister of the parish, after sermon, catechized his children and examined them what they remembered of the sermon. These men, being neighbours, came in to hear it.

MR. RECORDER. This most fit of all to be presented to the Lords and to be rung loud in their ears. The strangest thing that ever was heard of to come from a bishop. Not to have it said that such a thing came into this House and we slighted it over. These men did no more but what every honest Christian ought to do.

SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH. This done by a bishop when we all groaned under the insolency of the papists. To have this circumstance of time considered.

Resolved, this matter shall also be presented to the Lords with all his due circumstances, and that also of enjoining men to pray to the east and such other ceremonies as are not warranted by any law or canon for which men were excommunicated and made pay great sums of money.

SIR THOMAS JERMYN. To have a wary proceeding in this. To have it tendered to this House in writing before it be presented.

Resolved, these heads shall be presented to the House tomorrow morning before they be transmitted to the Lords.

[CJ 785; f. 192] SIR ROBERT PHELIPS reports from the committee for courts of justice, 3:

  • 1. The petitions.
  • 2. The proceedings on them.
  • 3. The direction of the committee.

1. The petition of the Lady Darcy. In that a recital of her husband's dying, seised of the manor of Sutton in Surrey, with the advowson. A grant made to her, and another by the Court of Wards, of the body and estate. August 21, the incumbent died. She presented her clerk to the bishop, but the church full. For the Lord Keeper, 3 September, presented Doctor Grant, the King's chaplain. She was advised to seek her ordinary course by a quare impedit, which was denied by the cursitor, who said the Lord Keeper gave direction for it. Sued to the King. Desires of this assembly to have relief. This petition retained by the committee. Parties on both sides appeared, and counsel.

Came into question whether an original writ might be stayed. Lawyers vouched some precedents for it in Chancery. Committee concluded these were not proper in the cause and not to be followed. Desired an accommodation of this business between the Lady and the doctor; gave a time for it. Clearly of opinion that the Lady had lost her right, and the heir, doubtful for him. Received a petition from Doctor Grant. Made 4 offers:

  • 1. Would willingly go to a trial with the Lady without taking advantage of lapse of time.
  • [2.] If that could not be, would pass an act of Parliament to set her in statu quo.
  • 3. Would refer it to 4 judges.
  • 4. To 6 lawyers of this House. If they should say the right was hers, he would resign.

Had an answer from the Lord Keeper of 2 parts:

  • 1. For the denial of the quare impedit; not his purpose to justify it, but to extenuate his proceeding therein.
  • [2.] A question between the 2 courts: no good correspondency between the judges presently after his coming into the place. Neither corruption nor malice in his proceeding. Offered a living equivalent to this to the Lady. Would satisfy the Lady by any means this House should direct, and would labour a grant from his Majesty to settle the heir. Had never [f. 192v] before nor never would do the like. Returned thanks to the House for their favourable interpretation of this his error.

Lady Darcy gave a negative answer to all. She had appealed to this House, could find no better judgement and to that she would stand.

Committee took 2 things into consideration: the Lady's particular and the public. For the first, they thought it the safest way to put in a bill. She was satisfied with this answer. For the 2nd, the denial of the writ, divers propositions made. At last resolved to present it to the House, without any opinion of theirs, touching the offence and error of the Lord Keeper. Was directed to report the whole narratively to the House.

MR. [CHRISTOPHER] BROOKE. Never had any man's person in admiration for advantage. Has read in the law that there is a market overt of the law, the Common Pleas, and a shop of justice, the Chancery. No doubt a great fault to deny an original writ in the Chancery, but not so much as to deny a fine in the Common Pleas. Just excuse and offer of amends does much attenuate the offence, which is but singular. Lord Keeper might do this to vindicate his right from the usurpation of the Court of Wards. Cannot stand with the gravity of this House to transmit a man for one single offence. This will be admonition enough to him that it has been thus agitated in this House.

SIR JAMES PERROT. The offence of the Lord Keeper the denial of an original writ. Some excuses alleged. First, done within a short time after he came in. Ignorantia facti in some cases excuses; not ignorantia juris in a judge. Doctor, magis blandus, quam beneficus. Another excuse offered a contention between both courts. This rather aggravates than extenuates the offence. Being his own case, he ought not to have stayed justice. This, though a sole fault, yet a great fault; but he thinks it not a sole fault. He is informed that there are more faults of the like kind objected to the Lord Keeper. [f. 193] To have that examined. Then it will not be a sole fault.

2 other petitions before the committee against the Lord Keeper, of Mrs. Thomas and Sir Francis Foljambe. To have these 2 fully heard tomorrow, and then to grow to a resolution of this. In the meantime, to have the cursitor examined about the other, whether another quare impedit, or ne admittas, was not denied.

SIR THOMAS HOBY. To begin in order with the parts of the reports. First, to right that which is amiss in the inheritance, and then to consider of the fault. To have the bill read.

MR. [CHARLES] PRICE. No corruption nor ill intention appears in the [Lord] Keeper. Difference between things evil in themselves and evil by success. Lord Keeper came young to this place and from a strange speculation and found this precedent there. To have some course taken to right the Lady and to limit that vast court.

MR. SOLICITOR thinks the answer of the Lord Keeper very fair and satisfactory, if it be rightly understood.

L. 1. An act to settle Jesse Glover, clerk, presentee of Dame Grace Darcy, widow, and George Wilmore, esquire, committees of the body and lands of Edward Darcy, esquire, his Majesty's ward, in the church of Sutton in the county of Surrey, and to resettle the inheritance of the said advowson in Edward Darcy and his heirs as appendant to the manor of Sutton.

L. 2. Act to settle Jesse Glover, clerk, presentee of Dame Grace Darcy, widow.

Committed to:

Mr. Treasurer Sir Guy Palmes
Sir Edward Coke Mr. [Edward] Alford
Chancellor Duchy Sir Robert Coke
Sir Thomas Wentworth Mr. [William] Noye
Sir Francis Barrington Sir William Masham
Mr. [Thomas] Wentworth
Mr. [Richard] Taylor
Sir John Stradling
[f. 193v] Sir John Walter Mr. [William] Brereton
Sir John Savile Sir Thomas Barrington
Mr. [John] Hawarde Mr. Solicitor
Mr. John Drake Sir Miles Fleetwood
Sir Edward Giles Sir James Perrot
Sir Thomas Hoby
Sir Walter Earle
Mr. [George] Smyth
Mr. [Thomas] Gewen
Sir Henry Poole
Mr. Wandesford
Sir Thomas Cheke

Tomorrow, 7 [o']clock, Court of Wards.

Apothecaries' bill. Saturday next.

[House adjourned]


[p. 284]

Vendredis, 7 Maii 1624

Bill pur Sir Richard Burneby de passer terres. Puis longe debate, le bill much mislyked and dangerouse.

Sur 2x questons, le Huise dived et li [sic] I went out, et le bill sleepe.

SIR EDWARD COKE reporte l'evesque de Norwich. Citie de Norwich consiste de 34 esglises and 30 ou 40 thousand people. 50 E. 3 bonum parliamentum complaint del pope. Sinfull citie del Rome. 17 R. 2, 3 H. 7. 24s. pur institutions, ore prise £3 5s. Sur question, ceux offences deste transmitte al seignours. Desire conference, and le heads to be wrytten and offered to this Howse.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS reporte pur courts de justice.

Bill pur restorer Dame Darcy et sa fils al l'enheritance del parsonage de Sutton twise reade.

Sur question, sur question [sic], committe, committe [sic].


[f. 139v]

Friday, 7th of May

SIR EDWARD COKE'S report of the Bishop of Norwich. That he silenced all the churches but the cathedral, saying there was not no[w] much need of preaching. He set up crucifixes and images and the dove descending into the water in the font, representing the Holy Ghost. His exactions for institution of ministers and other extortions. [f. 140] Whereas it is objected we have nothing to do with an ecclesiastical person, we answer that in the Parliament in the 50th of Edward the 3rd, called the Good Parliament, the Commons complained that the cardinal had usurped most of the churches and deputed tailors, shoemakers and other mechanics to do the service; and in divers other Parliaments, as in the 17 of Richard the 2nd and in divers others, the Commons complained of want of spiritual food.

This complaint was ordered to be transmitted to the Lords.

MR. [CHRISTOPHER] BROOKE, upon Sir Robert Phelips's report of my Lady Darcy's case. The Common Pleas is the overt market of the law and the Chancery is the shop of justice. This is but one particular offence of the Lord Keeper's, no malus animus or habitus of offence, and one spot cannot make a leper. He moved not to transmit this single offence to the Lords. And for admonition, there needs no greater than the agitation of this business in this House.

SIR JAMES PERROT moved to have the Lady Foljambe's cause, and another (both concerning the Lord Keeper), first heard, and then all judged together.

SIR THOMAS HOBY. The justice of this House must first redress the Lady's inheritance, then punish the offence. He moved to have the Lady's bill first passed which she put into the House.

MR. CHARLES PRICE. Were there any corruption, he would be willing to make his countryman an example (meaning the Lord Keeper). We must not lay all the offence of the Chancery upon the Chancellor. He did acquit the Lord Keeper in justice and honour.

MR. [WILLIAM] STRODE. We must first consider the facts before we give the Lady satisfaction. [f. 140v] It is a great injustice and therefore let us search precedents how to punish an unjust judge.

MR. [ARTHUR] PYNE did extenuate the offence.

MR. [GEORGE] SMYTH. It did better become young men to hear than speak. The gentleman that spoke last (meaning young Pyne), had it been his own case, would have thought otherwise.

MR. SOLICITOR. We must first consider the interest of the Lady and her son, then the interest of the commonwealth, lastly, the person of my Lord Keeper. He will dissent from former opinions but not blame them, nor would he have others blame him for his. He wonders the [Lord] Keeper has committed no more errors, but let us not be too hasty to judge it lest through his sides we strike into his master's honour for putting him into that place. There are many petitions against this honourable person, whereof many are fallen away of themselves and very few hold water. Give him leave to be of this opinion that unless there be more causes of complaint against him, to let this die.

SIR ROBERT COKE. He honoured the gentleman that spoke last (meaning the Solicitor) but wonders at one doctrine of his, quis constituit judicem for then we should receive no complaints.


[f. 69v]

[7 May 1624]

The Bishop of Norwich sent to the preachers there, being 32 parishes, and told them that there was preaching enough. There needed none in the morning on Sabbath but came to the cathedral church, which being 20,000 communicants could not, and it being far off.


[f. 194v]

Friday, 70 Maii 1624

Ordered, that the complaints against Dr. [Samuel] Harsnett, the Bishop of Norwich, shall be transmitted over to the Lords, and that tomorrow we shall crave a conference to that purpose.

One of his offences is that he enjoined men to make an acknowledgement openly in the church that they had offended God and the King by catechizing and singing of psalms in the minister's house of that parish. The bishop caused those that had been at the minister's house should in their acknowledgement say that they knew not it was an offence against God to catechize and sing psalms in a minister's house.

SIR PETER HEYMAN says it was proved at the committee that it was only a few children that having been at that minister's sermon did come to his house because he used to catechize his household only.

It was proved also that some of the neighbours of this minister (called Mr. [John] Peck) were forced to pay £7 for only coming to catechizing and singing of psalms.

It is alleged that the Bishop of Norwich has unduly exacted for offences in his diocese near £400 per annum.

[f. 195] Ordered, that the heads of the complaints against Dr. Harsnett, Bishop of Norwich, shall be tomorrow presented to the House.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS reports from the committee of the courts of justice that the Lady Darcy shows in her petition that her husband died seised of the manor and advowson of Sutton in comitatu Surrey; that on the death of the incumbent of that parsonage the Lord Keeper presented Dr. Grant, where she had all advowsons granted her by the Court of Wards; that hereon she went to the cursitor for a quare impedit for the recovery of her right, who told her that the Lord Keeper had commanded she should have no such writ, whereon she solicited the Lord Keeper and prayed the assistance and justice of this House. That the counsel of the other side said the Court of Wards had no power to make any such grants of the advowsons. It was alleged that the Lady Mordaunt had a quare impedit denied her. Alleged also that the Court of Chancery had by former precedents denied original writs as in the case of one Revell and Peacock. That it was the opinion of the best opinions of the committee that the Lady Darcy had lost her right and that it was doubtful whether the child had not lost her [sic] right.

[f. 195v] That the Lord Keeper answered that it was not his Lordship's purpose to justify the denial of the quare impedit but to extenuate it. That his Lordship is no lawyer; it was presently after his coming into his place and he did it for no bribe. That seeing his error, he offered to give the Lady a living as good as this. That he would apply himself to give the Lady the best satisfaction he could. That he never before nor since did the like. That he acknowledged the obligation of this House which inclined (as he understood) to make a favourable interpretation of this his error. That the cause of this error was a difference and question between the jurisdiction of the Court of Wards and the Chancery. That his Lordship would be a suitor to the King for a grant to the heir that no prejudice might come to him. That the novelty of this business made the committee give no resolution in it but leave it to the consideration of this House.

MR. [CHRISTOPHER] BROOKE says that he has read that there is a market overt of the law, which is the Common Pleas, and a shop of justice that is in the Chancery. That if there were more offences complained against the Lord Keeper he would have this go in the front, but he thinks that this one offence is not sufficient to be transmitted to the Lords.

[f. 196] SIR JAMES PERROT. That it is no excuse in a judge to plead ignorantia juris. That it may be said of Dr. Grant is maius blandus quam benefices. That my Lord ought to have been the more careful to have given way to the course of justice to have decided the right. That there was a difference between the courts of Chancery and the Wards. That he is informed that there are more complaints against the Lord Keeper; has denied a non omittas, which is of the same nature as the denial of a quare impedit. He would have this and the complaint of Sir Francis Foljambe may be all joined, and then this complaint shall not go up singly.

MR. SOLICITOR. That it was an injury to the Lady and her son to be denied the quare impedit but it was of the means to come by her right; but whether her right were thereby denied is a question. There is no means to help the Lady against the present incumbent but by act of Parliament, for which there is a bill preferred here for that purpose. There is also a bill to prevent the like inconvenience for the future. So now only rests whether any example shall be made of him that committed this error or no. That we must take heed lest we, by punishing or pressing too hard on the Lord Keeper, we do not strike through his Lordship's sides or him who placed him in that place. If there by any other complaints against his Lordship we may then consider whether [f. 196v] this be fit to be presented to the Lords or no, but he holds this very unfit to be singly presented to the Lords.

By order, the Lady Darcy's bill is read, entitled, An act to settle Jesse Glover, clerk, presentee of Dame Grace Darcy and George Wilmore, committees of Edward Darcy, esq., his Majesty's ward, in the church of Sutton in comitatu Surrey and to resettle the inheritance of this advowson on the said Edward Darcy, his Majesty's ward. 2. L., committed. Dormit Lords.

Friday, 70 Maii 1624, committee of grievances

Complaint of Thomas West that Sir Simon Harvey made him contract to give the said Sir Simon Harvey half of the gains of his place to be made yeoman of the pit coal, and when this complainant had entered into such a covenant then he was sworn yeoman of the pit coal.

Sir Simon Harvey delivers the covenant whereby it appears that the said West did agree to give one Smithson, a servant of the Duke of Richmond, half the profits of his place, and Sir Simon does say and protest he never had any penny profit by the same contract.

Petition of the county of Herefordshire that they cannot have money of Sir Simon Harvey for the composition of purveyance which that county has paid in.

Sir Simon Harvey says he has no money to do it, but there is a privy seal for it and shortly all counties shall be paid.


[f. 79]

7 Maii, Friday

An act for the poor.

Third read, cast out, divided. [Sir Richard] Burneby's bill.


[f. 79v] A certificate by the mayor of Norwich. The complaint 4 parts. 34 parishes, between 30[,000] and 40,000 within the city. That they had preaching enough, therefore Sunday morning preaching to be left. That their means they said would decay. He said he would look to that. A precept the next Sunday to forbear inhibition, notwithstanding the Archbishop's letter. 3 quarters of a mile to come to the cathedral when the preachers were silent. Images set up, a dove flickering to sanctify the water, and the bishop did bless them for it. For the warrant here to deal with the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, we question not religion but government. That they had not church government and put in tradesmen, whereby the people wanted spiritual food. [f. 80] 500 Edw. 3, bonum parliamentum, complaint of the pope for not feeding the flock, that all the ill in the realm comes from that sinful city. 17 R. 2, that they are non-residents. 11 H. 4, for want of divine service the people are not fed. Next, extortion: by orders of the Archbishop and canons, institutions 24s. 8d., 10s. bishop; now £3 5s. When 2 churches were united, £6 12[s.]; king, 40s. Orders being no fee, now 29[s.]; curate, 6s. 8[d.]; schoolmaster, 10s. Fourthly, dangerous to men's inheritances; institutions not now entered but only a little court he keep to himself. 48 Edw. 3 [sic], for non-residence of Bishop of Hereford, that for wanting his feeding his flock, he would take away [f. 80v] his barony if he did not feed them. This it was thought fit by the committee to be transmitted.

Order. It is ordered that Sir Edward Coke shall tomorrow morning desire a conference about it.

[MR. WILLIAM] CORYTON. That it is fitting that the acknowledgement caused by the bishop expressing the words should be said, saying it was against the law of God, under his hand, of them that should do penance for hearing Mr. [John] Peck catechizing his children and neighbours coming in his house after evening prayer.

[SIR JOHN] CORBET. That Mr. Peck is a confirmed man to the ceremonies of the church; and none he called in, but his neighbours came in voluntarily. The fees come to 400 in our shire.

[f. 81] [MR. THOMAS] GEWEN. That praying to the east is a superstitious thing and therefore fit to be transmitted, and excommunicating of them.

[SIR THOMAS] WENTWORTH. That this was done at a time that we groaned under the burden of the insolency of the papists.

[SIR THOMAS] JERMYN. Of great rank, that it concerns many above. Therefore, he moves that that which shall be transmitted to the Lords be put in writing and not to trust any man's memory therewith.

It is ordered as aforesaid.

[SIR ROBERT] PHELIPS. For the courts of justice. 3 things: petitions, then proceedings upon the petitions, then the committee's commandment. There are 2 petitions:

  • 1. The Lady Darcy. That her husband died with the manor of Sutton and appendant advowson. She obtained the wardship. August 21 the incumbent died. Then she presented her clerk to the Bishop of Winchester but the church was full, Doctor Grant being presented by the Lord Keeper. She going for a [f. 81v] quare impedit, the cursitor told her the Lord Keeper had forbidden it. She repaired to the King and had gracious promise, but she could not obtain anything from the Lord Keeper, which brought in her complaint to this House. Her counsel maintained her wrong and that there was no way to invest the inheritance of the child. The reply was that the Court of Wards had no power to pass it over, that it did not prejudice the inheritance. That gra/

[MR. CHRISTOPHER] BROOKE. That being one single fault, it is not fit to transmit it up to the Lords.

[SIR JAMES] PERROT. For that which was said, that it was his Lordship's ignorance. Next, that good offers have been made to her; it was not within six months. Thirdly, the excuse for the difference between both courts, it had been much for his honour to have [f. 82] given way to law. Lastly, for the sole and single fault, that should excuse, that may extenuate, but he is informed that there be many of this nature of quare impedits and non omittas. There is Mistress Thomas, had her jointure given away to pay her son's debts. For these he desire they may be fully heard at the committee and if any other sold so out, that they may with this go up.

SOLICITOR. 3 things considerable: the Lady and her son, the commonwealth and the Lord Keeper. For the Lady, it is an injury and therefore fit to be repaired, the denying the quare impedit. It was a wrong in denying her the means, but being two titles, the wrong was only in denying her the way to come to know it. [f. 82v] For the inheritance, whatsoever might fall to the King, the Lord promised that he would be a means to repair her loss. Then the commonwealth, it is unjust that there shall be a quare impedit. Therefore, something is to be done for the complaint. All are subject to errors. Yet his confessions have been ingenious. He moves that this be not transmitted up without some others.

First read. An act to settle Jesse Glover, the Lady Darcy's minister, in the parsonage of Sutton church and resettle the son as an appendant of the manor of Sutton.


[f. 125v]

May 7

Report by [SIR ROBERT] PHELIPS. A petition by Lady Darcy that her husband died possessed of a manor with an advowson appendant. The wardship granted to her. The church becomes void. She presents, but Lord Keeper had presented Dr. Grant, a chaplain of the King. She would have brought a quare impedit. Lord Keeper [?gave] direction to the cursitor to stop it. She petitioned King, Lord Keeper but could have no redress. So that 6 months passed, she ousted of her present right and the inheritance of her son [?invaded].

32 and 34 H. 8 gives no express power to Court of Wards to present to churches. And it has been thought that the Chancery and Court of Wards should have which presents first [f. 125], 7 Jac. adjudged. Whether an original writ may be stayed, and precedents in the cases of Reynel and Peacock and Lady Mordaunt were vouched [?illegible]. But good precedents, not bad, are to be followed.

Dr. Grant offered to go to trial, taking no advantage by the [?2 words illegible] to be at the charge of a [illegible] set her [illegible] in statu quo prius and then try the title. Or to refer it to any 4 judges or to 6 lawyers of [illegible].

Lord Keeper returned this answer. For the denial of the impedit, not his [illegible] to justify it. That no good correspondency between the judges of the courts, that a question between the 2 courts. That at first coming to his place, that had some reason by sight of precedents to think as he did. Would procure grant from King to the heir, that [f. 126v] never before did the like. It should be an admonition to him. That obliged to the House for that make a favourable interpretation of his proceeding.

Resolution of committee, that the Lady should have a copy of Grant's petition and Lord Keeper's answer. So resolved.

The Lady appealed to the justice of this House. Refused their offer.

The committee resolved that best for the Lady to go by a bill to have an act. And would deliver no resolution of the extent and latitude of Lord Keeper's error, but present it barely to the House.

Note that it is the course of the House that a reporter shall not go to the report of a new cause before the first determined [f. 127] that he has reported.

[MR. CHRISTOPHER] BROOKE. Shop of justice the Chancery. The market overt of law the Common Pleas. They cannot deny me the levying of fine [illegible]. It is the will and affection that sets a stamp upon [?actions and] suitors and dispositio distinguit maleficia. The Court of Wards was [illegible] [?in] the Chancery before the statute 34 H. 8. And [?3 words illegible] present [remainder of line illegible] [?his] supposed right [?by] [illegible] [?deny the quare impedit]. We are not a [?3 words illegible] transmit an offender to the Lords [?for] [?2 illegible words] judged [illegible]. One spot makes not a leper. His offer of amends extenuates his fault. [f. 127v] The examination of this offence in this House before all the kingdom is sufficient amends. Would have nothing more done.

[SIR JAMES] PERROT. That ignorantia juris non excusat, especially in a judge. He offers amends [?4 words illegible] as was said of Pertinax, [illegible] magis blandus quam benefices. It aggravates that there being contention between the 2 courts, and so himself somewhat [?2 words illegible] he would [?deny] justice. I am informed that many such faults have been [illegible] at the same [illegible] by my Lord. Would have a committee to examine. Moved that other grievous complaints may be heard. Would have Nelson the cursitor examined and sent for.

[f. 127] [SIR THOMAS] HOBY would have parties grieved righted in their inheritances and [remainder of line illegible]. Denial of a writ an obstruction [illegible] the great vein of justice.

[MR. CHARLES] PRICE. Though it may better become [2 words illegible] then to speak, yet better to speak than to be silent where there is occasion. The occasion arises from the ground of doubt, ignorance [?etc.] [?We] can desire but 2 things satisfaction to the party that [?5 words illegible] this of [?4 words illegible] [?that] reflect the public good and not the subversion of [illegible].

[MR. GEORGE] SMYTH. If it were their case who excuse, they would think otherwise the commonwealth is interested. Others will be [f. 128v] [?3 words illegible] [?like] [illegible] hope.

[Illegible] not think it fit [?would] [?3 words illegible] with so many [?cases] [illegible] concerning so great a person in present [?time]. Consider quis constituit [?judicem] the [?King] thoroughly [?2 words illegible] [?that] complainants [2 words illegible] not be discouraged nor go [?without] [illegible]. I wonder he has committed so few errors. His predecessor did it.

[MR. THOMAS] GEWEN. The offence is the denial of an original writ, a temporary writ being [illegible] for a time is [?3 words illegible]. It is aggravated that he denied it, though she petitioned him humbly, though the King wrote to him, though the Council thought it just to do it. His denying of the writ shows that [f. 129] he thought [remainder of line illegible]. He would have set [3 words illegible] [?lying] his [?letters] [remainder of line illegible]. If we [remainder of this and following line illegible]. Would have it transmitted [2 words illegible] of 2 laws [?5 words illegible] we have [remainder of this and following line illegible] in Chancery without great disadvantage [illegible] Parliament.

Bill to make [?2 words illegible] present [remainder of line illegible] [?a] grant and [?request the] [remainder of line illegible] the advowson in [remainder of line illegible] the right of others [remainder of line illegible].


[f. 89]

May 70, 1624

SIR EDWARD COKE reported from the committee of grievances a complaint exhibited against the Bishop of Norwich consisting in divers points, whereof some concerned religion.

  • 1. That he had restrained divers conformable ministers in Norwich for preaching in their own churches.
  • 2. That he had countenanced the setting up of images in the church and [blank] others, the Holy Ghost in shape of a dove was made over the font and by certain engines so framed as to come down in the time of baptism and hover over the water.
  • 3. An injunction was sent out under his seal whereby, among other things, the people were enjoined to pray towards the east and divers men had been vexed and excommunicated for breaking some points of the injunction.
  • 4. That one Mr. [blank], a conformable minister, using after evening prayer to catechize his own servants, some of his neighbours, coming upon other business, being present, those parties and the minister himself were all cited and very much molested and one of them enforced to make a recognition of his sorrow for that offence [of] being present in Mr. [blank's] house whilst he did catechize and sing a psalm.

Others to the vexation of the subject:

  • 1. In extorting divers excessive fees upon ordinations and institutions.
  • 2. In that he made no entry of institutions and inductions, which may grow to the disinheriting of divers subjects in cases where advowsons are questioned.

To take away an objection which might be made against the jurisdiction of the House in matters of this nature, he alleged 18 Ed. 3, num. 33, wherein the Parliament complained for want of spiritual food. 50 Ed. 3, against the usurpation of the pope, calling Rome that sinful city, etc. 17 R. 2, 11 H. 4, 3 H. 6, against non-residents. Inter brevia, 45 Ed. 3, upon a complaint against the Bishop of Hertford [sic] for non-residence, a writ was directed to him upon pain of losing his barony to instruct his flock; for where the people are not well taught, the king can have no good subjects.

[f. 31v] A committee was nominated to prepare this business that it might be transmitted to the Lords.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS made a report of my Lady Darcy's case, which appears Fitzherbert 28. 2, April 22, where it was heard by the committee. Since which time they had received from Dr. Grant a petition containing 4 offers:

  • 1. That he would go to trial with her according to law without taking advantage of penalty.
  • 2. That he would pass an act of Parliament at his own costs to put her in her old right.
  • 3. Would refer the cause to any 4 judges, and if upon hearing they gave it her, would resign; 4. or 2 lawyers of the House, Sir Edward Coke, Mr. Speaker, Mr. [William] Noye, Sir John Walter and two others.

[f. 32] They had likewise received a message from my Lord Keeper to this effect. That he did not purpose to justify the denial of the writ, but to extenuate his fault. Did allege the difference between the 2 courts; that he thought the right of the Chancery stolen away, which he was willing to prevent. In this proceeding there was error, but not malice. He had some former precedents to excuse him, but, finding the inclination of the House, would apply himself to give them satisfaction by giving her another benefice and procuring a grant from his Majesty to take of[f] the doubt concerning her son's inheritance. He had never before done the like and it should be a remembrance to him for the time to come, and gave the House thanks for their favourable interpretation.

My Lady Darcy's answer to both was that she would stand or fall by the judgement of the House.

The opinion of the committee was that the Lady's interest ought to be relieved by bill, and for the offence of my Lord Keeper, they humbly referred it to the judgement of the House.

Some extenuated the offence and would have it passed over as a matter unworthy to be presented to the Lords. They insisted upon the precedent, the difference between the two courts, that my Lady's title was but a colour to prevent the Chancery. That the Master of the Wards had presented Dr. Wilson; when he could not make that good, set the Lady upon this court. Here was no bribery; he was a young man ignorant of legal proceedings, desiring to enlarge his jurisdiction, being the hereditary fault of the Chancery; had made a very modest answer, offered to repair the injury and damage. And those that spoke this way were MR. [CHRISTOPHER] BROOKE, MR. [CHARLES] PRICE, MR. SOLICITOR.

Others more bitterly. Ignorance of the law was an excuse unfit for a judge; his offers showed him to be magis blandus quam beneficus. The difference of the courts aggravated the offence, his own interest making it to be not only injustice, but corruption; that this was an oppression not [f. 32v] only of the subject but of the law; and if we let go this we shall let our liberties fall through our own fingers. If she had no right, the writ could not give her any. It is against the Great Charter, against his oath, stamped with this motto sic volo, sic jubeo. If there be former precedents against our liberty, we have the more reason to make this a precedent for our liberty. SIR JAMES PERROT and MR. [THOMAS] GEWEN.

Others were of a mean opinion to suspend our judgement; no sentence upon this cause until more matters were heard for divers other petitions were against him.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS offered to proceed to another delivered by my Lady Molyneux in a case between her and Sir [Francis] Foljambe, but that was referred to another time, and the judgement touching my Lord Keeper likewise respited.

A bill was presented for my Lady Darcy, which was read twice.


[f. 174v]

Friday, the 7th of May

SIR EDWARD COKE'S report from the committee of grievances. The complaint against the Bishop of Norwich, his putting down preaching in all the churches of that city in the forenoon the Sabbath days, save only in the cathedral; instead hereof, images, crucifixes, etc., set up, and a dove of silver for the Holy Ghost descending into the font and stirring the water with his wings. To prove that the House has cognizance of these things, vide the complaint 18 E. 3, nu. 32, cardinals, etc., getting the livings into their hands and placing tailors, shoemakers, etc. So in the Parliament 50 E. 3, called bonum parliamentum, a complaint against dispensations, terming Rome that sinful city, the cause of all the famine, poverty, etc. of the realm and the people's wanting their food. The complaint against non-residents, 17 R. 2, nu. 42, so also 3 H. 6.

Another part of the complaint against the Bishop of Norwich: his extortion, taking £3 5s. fees for institution instead of 24s. 8d., and 29s. for orders instead of 10s. Also his not entering institutions nor keeping them of record. A record, 43 E. 3, complaint against the Bishop of Hereford for non-residence. A special writ thereupon directed from the King himself wherein [f. 175] is a recital of the duty of a true pastor, and a command laid upon the bishop to be resident upon pain of forfeiting his barony, etc.

A further complaint, an enjoining men to pray to the east and excommunicating for not doing it. Also for enjoining penance to some parishioners that coming into their minister's house accidentally on the Sabbath, stayed there singing a psalm. They were enjoined to acknowledge they had offended God and done against his law therein.

The House ordered that this should be transmitted to the Lords and a conference demanded on that behalf.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS'S report from the committee of the courts of justice:

1. Of the Lady Darcy's complaint against the Lord Keeper for denying the writ of quare impedit and thereby disinheriting her son of an advowson.

MR. [CHRISTOPHER] BROOKE extenuated the offence of the Lord Keeper:

1. That it was a thing questionable between the courts of Chancery and of Wards, and it being but a single offence and of ignorance, not wilful.

MR. [THOMAS] GEWEN. The wrong done to the Lady great, but that to the commonwealth [f. 175v] a breach of the Great Charter, against the Lord Keeper's oath, not of ignorance for the King had written, his counsel had resolved it was not to be done.

MR. [EDWARD] ALFORD moved that other businesses might be examined, and that for the present the Lady's bill might be read.

The Lady Darcy's bill read twice, and committed.


[f. 113]

May 70, Friday

Sir Richard Burneby's bill for sale of his lands to the value of £9,000, having many children, his eldest son 19 year[s] old and a half, to whom £7,000 of that money should be reserved and the land sold with his consent. The bill coming to the last reading was cast out in favour of the heir, though against his present consent. The House was divided about it: 104 against it, 97 were for it.

A report from the committee of grievances. A complaint against the Bishop of Norwich, Doctor [Samuel] Harsnett:

  • 1. Because he forbade the morning preaching in the city, saying it was needless and there was preaching enough, and so compelled the whole city, consisting of 32 parishes wherein are contained between 30[,000] and 40,000 people, to come all to Christ's Church to the sermon or to be without.
  • 2. Because he set up and countenanced images and crucifixes and blessed those that set them up, as viz., on[e] of the Holy Ghost in similitude of a dove over the font which was made to come fluttering over the water. And here SIR EDWARD COKE, the reporter, digressed and vouched precedents that the House of Commons, though they allow not the clergy to sit among them, might yet intermeddle with them and their actions because the ecclesiastical law is the king's as well as the common law. Ed. 3tii, 180, numero 320, the Commons complained against the clergy for that they put mechanic men, as tailors and shoemakers, to perform their offices in the church. In the Parliament Ed. 3tii, 50, which was called bonum parliamentum, the Commons complained against the pope and that sinful city of Rome, in those very words, as the cause of all plagues because they had not divine service as they ought. So Rich. 20, 170, 30 Hen. 6ti contain precedents for the Commons to complain and meddle with the clergy.
  • [f. 113v] 3. Because of his extortion of fees. Whereas institutions ought to be at 24s. 8d., he takes £3 5s.; for orders, nothing being due, he takes 29s. and 30s., etc.
  • 4. Because he excommunicated divers for coming to the house of one [Mr. John] Peck, a minister, on Sunday after evening prayer to hear him catechize and examine his children and servants, and made them publicly recant and confess that they had offended God in so doing, and some of them paid £7 for their fees. Some of them were the minister's own servants, and this he did to the discountenancing of religion. In those times wherein the kingdom groaned under the insolencies of the papists and when they were permitted by hundreds to flock to ambassadors' houses to mass, ours might not be suffered to resort to their own minister's house for comfort and conference.
  • 5. He made canons and constitutions of his own, viz. that men must turn into the east when they prayed or be excommunicated, which was to exercise a power rather papal than episcopal.
  • 6. He keeps no registers of his institutions, which will be the cause of divers controversies and litigious questions hereafter, to the disturbance of the subject in their right when institution is tried before the bishop. The bishop says scrutatis a[r]chivis non inveni aliquem clericum presentatum, ergo where there is no register kept, no title nor writ for advowson can be good.

Resolved, upon question, to transmit this bishop and his cause to the Lords, and a conference was desired accordingly.

A report from the committee of justice. The Lady Darcy petitions against the Lord Keeper for presenting Doctor Grant to the living of Sutton in Surrey, which was hers by virtue of the wardship of her son, for which she had compounded. She, conceiving herself wronged, petitions for a quare impedit, and he denied her and so endangered the inheritance of her son if the king should once more present in his nonage. The Lord Keeper confessed it to be an error and offered to give her as good a living, and said he did it to defend the right of the Chancery against the Court of Wards, which would else have done as much, and will petition to the King for the right of the heir. This should be an admonition, and thanks the House for their favourable proceedings in it. The Lady will accept none [f. 114] of his offers but stand or fall by the judgement of the House. They advise to redress and rectify all by bill, which being tendered was immediately twice read and committed, being entitled:

An act for the restoring the advowson and right of patronage of Sutton in Surrey to the Lady Darcy and her son.