27th May 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.


'27th May 1624', in Proceedings in Parliament 1624: The House of Commons, ed. Philip Baker( 2015-18), British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/proceedings-1624-parl/may-27 [accessed 20 July 2024].

'27th May 1624', in Proceedings in Parliament 1624: The House of Commons. Edited by Philip Baker( 2015-18), British History Online, accessed July 20, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/proceedings-1624-parl/may-27.

"27th May 1624". Proceedings in Parliament 1624: The House of Commons. Ed. Philip Baker(2015-18), , British History Online. Web. 20 July 2024. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/proceedings-1624-parl/may-27.

In this section



[CJ 713; f. 60]

Jovis, 270 Maii, 220 Jacobi

SIR GEORGE MORE moves about the contribution. That they are agreed in a note of distribution of part. Moves he may deliver the money for Westminster to Mr. [William] Man; to Mr. [Robert] Bateman for London; to Mr. [Richard] Yearwood/

This respited until tomorrow, 8 [o']clock.

A message to be sent to the Lords to desire a conference about Doctor [Thomas] Anyan when Mr. [John] Selden comes.

Lecta [1]. An act for confirmation of a grant of 4 subsides granted by the clergy.

Sir Robert Phelips to make his report at 2 [o']clock this afternoon, and the rest of the reports after.

Lecta. An act for the King's Majesty's most gracious, general and free pardon.

Upon question, passed with “Vive le Roy”, una voce.

Upon question, declared that in the opinion of the House fit that Dr. Anyan should be removed from his now place; and that he is unfit to hold any other place, in respect of those foul matters proved to the committee and reported to the House against him.

Upon question, a petition to be drawn to his Majesty, from this House, to take such a course for removing Dr. Anyan as his Majesty, in his wisdom, shall think fittest.

Mr. Chancellor Duchy, Mr. [John] Pym, Sir D[udley] Digges, Sir Edwin Sandys, Mr. [John] Selden, to pen the petition.

5 H. 5, 5 great men called to be serjeants refused it and were called into the Parliament to accept it. Now men get it per ambitum. Serjeants the seminaries for the courts of justice.

Resolved, Sir Edward Coke shall tomorrow morning bring in a draft for this.

[f. 60v] For the bill of continuance and repeal of statutes, resolved to accept it, with the amendments, both for the wines and 34 H. 8 for Wales.

This done upon the question.

For the bill of pleading upon alienations, resolved, upon question, a conference shall be prayed about it at the Lords' next sitting.

Upon Sir B[aptist] Hicks's motion, ordered he shall bring in a prayer and thanksgiving to be said at the parting of the Parliament.

The petition of grievance for Dr. Anyan read and allowed.

Jovis, 270 Maii, 270 [sic] Jacobi, [afternoon]

The proviso in the bill of butter and cheese thrice read and allowed.

The alterations in Sir John Ryves's bill twice read. Ordered to be inserted.


The bill of monopolies; relief of patentees; butter and cheese; inferior courts; Sir Francis Clerke's [bill]; Colchester; continuance of statutes; relief of such as die in execution; Sir John Ryves's bill, which came from the Lords, with alterations; sheriffs' quietus est, new.

MR. COMPTROLLER reports from his Majesty. He is graciously pleased to give audience to our grievances tomorrow in the afternoon at Whitehall. Leaves the number to this House, wishing they may not be too many.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS reports from the committee for courts of justice, Mrs. Thomas's complaint. That Mr. Thomas, her husband, 150 Eliz. estated a mill and lands upon himself and his heirs until marriage; after, to him and his wife and the heirs of their 2 bodies. [f. 61] That Sir A[nthony] Thomas has received the moiety of the said rents and profits. That Herriot exhibited a bill in Chancery against Mrs. Thomas, Sir A[nthony] Thomas and one [blank]. An [sic] hearing upon it. Decreed that where Sir A[nthony] Thomas had borrowed of Herriot £2,000 and given a statute for it, Sir A[nthony] Thomas should pay £2,200 and for that £120 per annum should be sold of Sir A[nthony] Thomas's part. She alleges this done without her consent, though recited otherwise in the decree. That she was ordered to suffer a recovery, and after to join in sale of part of the lands for payment of Herriot's debt, and the surplus to go to Sir A[nthony] Thomas. A sequestration granted of all the lands, except £80 per annum. Orders [illegible] but withstood by her. She insinuates this done contrary to the law, and by corruption, as, she said, appeared by the plaintiff's words. But the matter of corruption being examined, it appeared it was a mistake of the Scottish dialect: “That my Lord Keeper had taken of him £200”. My Lord fully cleared of this by the committee, and that it appeared to be but a mistake.

For her consent to the decree, Mr. Freshwater testified she, coming from the bar, protested she would never consent to it, and after retained a member of this House to move against it. That her counsel conceived she was not bound to perform the sale.

On the other part, alleged by an office found after Mr. Thomas's death, a dying seised was found in fee and that he received the profits. But alleged on the other part that she, hearing of this office, petitioned against it in the Court of Wards, and that Sir A[nthony] Thomas and his mother jointly made leases, not she solely. That Sir A[nthony] Thomas, having borrowed the £2,000, found out that the interest was in his mother for the moiety. That the counsel on both parts agreed Sir A[nthony] Thomas's part was in equity liable to the decree.

That the committee, having heard both parts, resolved, upon question, with some negatives resolved, the decree to be just. The doubt was upon the sequestration of her part for the sale of the £120 per annum.

Upon question, the Lord Keeper clearly freed and acquitted from any bribery or corruption.

Upon a second question, whether Mrs. Thomas should be called in or not, the House divided.

With the No: Sir H[enry] Poole

      Mr. Wandesford

Tellers for the Yea:/

The Yea yielded, and so they returned.

[f. 61v] SIR J[AMES] PERROT. That Mr. Johnson, one of Herriot's executors, is contented to accept of the money decreed, with such damages as 2 indifferent men in 2 years.

Sir A[nthony] Thomas took upon him to be owner in fee of, etc. Found an office accordingly. For 20 years, reputed owner, though sometime she joined in leases. Borrowed £2,000 of Herriot upon a statute of £4,000. Upon non-payment, extended. The land found, by inquisition, to be Sir A[nthony] Thomas's land. Mrs. Thomas, for divers years, had but £80 per annum, which is pretended to be only in love to her son.

Mrs. Thomas brought £4,000 to Mr. Thomas, and this land assured to them 2 and the heirs of their 2 bodies, with a proviso that if she survived, having a son, the son should have the profits of half. So as she had the whole estate in law, and he half in equity, and she to hold that but in trust for him. The decree was she should join in sale of £120 per annum.

Upon question, the decree just.

For the sequestration, the mother party to the suit, so, as for the moiety, the sequestration just.

Upon question, in the opinion of this House, the sequestration of Mrs. Thomas's moiety ought not to stand.

SIR EDWARD COKE reports from the Lords for a conference about the bill of pleadings in the Exchequer, that they will meet tomorrow, 8 [o']clock, with 9 of the former committee.

Ordered, 18 of the former committee to meet and confer. Sir Edward Coke has the bill.

[House adjourned]


[CJ 796; f. 220v]

Jovis, 27 Maii 1624

SIR GEORGE MORE moves about the contribution. Have gathered £112. Moves he may deliver the money for Westminster to Mr. [William] Man; for London to Mr. [Robert] Bateman; for Southwark to Mr. [Richard] Yearwood.

This respited until tomorrow morning, 8 [o']clock.

[f. 221] A message to the Lords to be sent to desire a conference about Doctor [Thomas] Anyan when Mr. [John] Selden comes.

L. 1. An act for confirmation of a grant of 4 subsidies granted by the clergy.

Sir Robert Phelips to make his report 2 [o']clock this afternoon, and the rest of the reports after. Bill of the Earl of Middlesex.

L. An act for the King's Majesty's most gracious, general and free pardon.

Upon question, passed with “Vive le Roy”, una voce.

Upon question, declared, in the opinion of the House, that Doctor Anyan fit to be removed from his now place, and unfit to hold any other, in respect of those foul matters proved to the committee and reported to the House against him.

Resolved, upon question, a petition to be framed to go [to] his Majesty to take such course for removing of this man from his place as he, in his wisdom, shall think fittest.

Chancellor Duchy, Mr. [John] Pym, Sir Edwin Sandys, Sir Dudley Digges, Mr. [John] Selden, to draw this petition.

SIR EDWARD COKE. 5 Hen. 5, 5 worthy men called to be serjeants. They refused to accept it. The course now far otherwise; money given for these places. A dangerous thing. No time now to consider of it. To enter a protestation against it.

Sir Edward Coke to present this to the House tomorrow morning.

[f. 221v] For the bill of continuances, resolved, the alterations to be made in the bill as they came down from the Lords.

A conference to be desired about the bill of pleading of alienations.


MR. [JOHN] SELDEN presents to the House the petition to go to his Majesty concerning Doctor Anyan. Read and allowed.

Jovis, 27 Maii, post meridiem

The proviso of the bill of butter and cheese thrice read and passed.

The alterations of Sir John Ryves's bill twice read. Ordered to be inserted. Thirdly read and passed.

The alterations of Sir Francis Clerke's bill thrice read and passed.

The alterations of bastard children thrice read and passed.

The proviso of the bill to relieve creditors against such as die in execution thrice read and passed.

The alterations of the bill of relief for patentees, tenants and farmers of crown lands twice read. Ordered to be inserted into the bill. Thirdly read and passed.

[f. 222] Sir Edward Coke sent up to the Lords with 10 bills, 9 that came down from the Lords with amendments and 1 that goes now from this House. And to desire a conference about the bill of pleading alienations in the Exchequer.

MR. COMPTROLLER. According to the command of this House, he has attended his Majesty to know his pleasure when this House should attend him about the grievances and with what number. Had this answer: that tomorrow in the afternoon he should be at Whitehall. He would then have us attend him and with as small a number as might be.

[CJ 797] SIR ROBERT PHELIPS reports from the committee for courts of justice, Mrs. Thomas's case. Her petition of 3 parts. First, decree. 15 Eliz. Mr. Thomas made an assurance of certain lands to himself and his heirs until marriage. He died 40 of the Queen, and left his land to Sir Anthony Thomas, his son, who enjoyed the moiety of the lands according to the proviso of the assurance. 18 Jac. one Herriot exhibited his bill into Chancery against Sir Anthony Thomas, his mother and Mr. Hales. They answered. Herriot had lent £2,000 to Sir Anthony Thomas. Decreed £120 of this land should be sold to Herriot, or such as he should appoint, to the satisfaction of this £2,000 to be of his moiety. This, she says, was done without her consent. 6 December following, she was enjoined by an order in Chancery to suffer a fine and recovery of this land. This she did not. A sequestration granted of all the land, but £80 a year to Mrs. Thomas. This refused and opposed. In January, the whole sequestrated until [f. 222v] she did obey the other. She insinuates this to be done against the law by a strong hand and by corruption, as it may seem by the confession of the plaintiff. This the committee examined and found it a mistake, upon a mistake of a particle of the Scottish dialect. Herriot said the Lord Keeper took of him £200. The committee cleared my Lord Keeper in this, as being no ground for it. Then the committee came to the consent of the widow. Appeared she consented not, although her son did. This proved by witnesses. Her counsel: she was not compellable to make any such assurance as the decree enjoined her. The other counsel alleged that Mr. Thomas died seised in free of these lands; that Sir Anthony Thomas found an office of these lands after his father's death. Both the lawyers concluded that his moiety was liable in equity to this decree.

The committee, after long debate, adjudged the decree good and just, but some negatives against it. The other part of sequestration not determined by the committee; referred to the House.

Upon question, the Lord Keeper cleared from matter of corruption wherewith he was charged in the petition of Mrs. Thomas.

The House divided upon question whether Mrs. Thomas should be called in to know of her who drew her petition.

Yielded by the Yea. She not to come in.

[f. 223] Resolved, upon question, that this decree made by my Lord Keeper in this cause of Mrs. Thomas is good and just.

Upon question, declared the opinion of the House to be that the sequestration of Mrs. Thomas's moiety of the lands ought not to stand.

SIR EDWARD COKE reports from the Lords. Presented the bills to the Lords and then desired a conference about the bill of alienations. Have appointed 8 [o']clock tomorrow morning to confer about it with 9 of their House.

Agreed to meet the Lords with a proportionable number at time and place appointed.

Earl of Middlesex bill, tomorrow morning, 7 [o']clock.

Patent for Lancaster gaol delivered in by MR. [JOHN] CARVILE.

[House adjourned]


[p. 299]

Jovis, 27 Maii 1624

Bill pur clergies subsidies lie seuel et, sur question, passe.

Bill del generall pardon lie. 20 December darrein passe [blank]. Alienacions since 6 October laste excepted. Fines pur mariage excepte, since 25 Martii 19 Jacobi.

Le Controller sente to the Kinge for his Majesties pleasure when, and with what number, to receave our grievaunces.

Sur question, Doctor [Thomas] Anyan disable to beare office in churche ou commonwealthe. Sur long debate pur transemitter al Lord de Canterberye, et Lord Chamberlin le Chancellor del Universitie, et Bishop de Winchester, le visitor, ove peticon al Roy pur commission al eux de remover eux [sic]; mes, sur question, deste represente al Roy par peticion come grevaunce et l'opinion de cest Huise, et pur remover luy come al son wisedome et justice.

SIR EDWARD COKE fait protestacion versus buyinge sergeants' places. Order accordante 5 H. 5.

1 R. 3 benevolences taken awaye and now to be presented as a grievaunce to his Majesty. Put in by Sir Thomas Belasyse. [p. 300] Mes puis longe debate order deste enter et remainer pur le prochein Parliamente, mes rejecte.

Bill pur repeales et continuances ove strykinge out 32 H. 8 et 7 E. 6 pur vines.

Sur queston, passe.

Bill pur pleadante licenses.

Sur question, conference.

Dyverse bills sente to the Lords and a message to them for a conference.

Mr. Speaker sate in the afternoone, and so hathe done all this weeke, and yet manye busynesses lefte undone.


[f. 230]

Jeudi, 270 Maii 1624

The clergy's bill or gift of 4 tenths is now read and is to be read but once in this House and is now passed this House.

An act for the King's Majesty's most gracious, general and free pardon now read and is to be no more read than once read in this House. This bill of pardon is passed this House.

[f. 230v] SIR ROBERT PHELIPS says that the Lords have sent the Bishop of Norwich to be examined by the High Commission, which he takes to be an indignity to this House that our actions and such as we have here condemned and thought worthy of the Lords' examination and consideration. He thinks that it is not fit that a Parliament House should be patient at such slightings. He would not have us, therefore, send up the complaints against Dr. [Thomas] Anyan to the Lords unless their Lordships did better respect us and those businesses which we thought fit to be transmitted to their Lordships.

It is resolved, by vote, and declared to be the opinion of this House that Dr. Anyan is fit to be removed out of his place and is a man unworthy of any other place; and ordered that we shall petition to the King that he will be pleased to proceed with Dr. Anyan for the removing of him from the government of the college of Corpus Christi in Oxon as in his wisdom and justice his Majesty shall think fit; and a committee is appointed presently to draw such a petition.

SIR EDWARD COKE says that in 50 H. 5 in the Parliament Roll it is mentioned that five lawyers that refused to be serjeants-at-law were called into Parliament and there compelled to take upon them the place and calling of serjeants. That the place of serjeants is the seminary of [f. 231] justice, for from them are selected the judges of this land. If these places of serjeants be bought and sold it will be the overthrow of the justice of this kingdom. He thinks this worthy of the consideration of this House and would have us enter in the Clerk's book a protestation against the selling of serjeants' places.

Ordered, that Sir Edward Coke shall prepare such a protestation against the buying and selling of any places of justice or such as tend to justice, and to bring the same into the House tomorrow.

There is offered to this House a petition to be inserted into the petition of grievances, the effect whereof is that by the laws of this realm the subjects of this kingdom ought to be free from paying of any benevolences to the king, and therefore it is petitioned that there may be henceforth no more benevolences or moneys drawn from the subject contrary to the laws of this realm.

This petition against benevolences came into the House after we had engaged our word to the Prince that we would not embrace any new matter but attend only the perfecting of the businesses before in the House, and after we had sent a [f. 231v] message to the King to know his Majesty's pleasure when we should attend his Majesty with our petition of grievances, and for these reasons it was let fall.

Debate concerning the clause of 7 E. 6 touching the licensing for selling of wines, which is by the Lords made to be continued, it being by us in the bill of repeals repealed, and the Lords have done it so as either we must reject that bill, which would be very dangerous, or give way to their alienation thereof.

It was said by some that we cannot blame the Lords for this usage to us at the end of Parliament for we use too much compliment with them, and if we had not agreed at the beginning of Parliament to give subsidies we should not in the end of it been put to these extremities by their Lordships. It were good we would find out and fall into again the old way of Parliament, which is now passed by. The Lords do like Lords and are not to blame that they use us thus, for it is our own faults that we are thus used by them.

Another says it is not now time to blame the Lords for their usage of us, for which (he wishes) God may forgive them.

Another lay open [f. 232] the unrespectful [sic] carriage of the Lords to us who have ever held in all things good correspondency with their Lordships, but says he shall hereafter desire the word[s] of “correspondency with their Lordships” (which has been so much used as it has been even jaded between us) may be no more so much used, and he shall be content the matter of correspondency with them shall be also henceforth forgotten.

It was at length resolved that we were better to pass the bill of repeal, etc., of statutes with allowance by that disadvantageous statute of 70 E. 6 concerning the selling of wines, than to cast it away and so omit the repealing of many other useless laws which are but as so many snares for the subject.

The bill of repeal and continuance of statutes is now passed with those alterations that came in it from the Lords.

Concerning the bill which moved from us entitled, An act for ease in pleading of licences of alienations and of pardons of alienations without licence, this bill moved first from us and is sent from the Lords with such alterations and provisos as has quite marred the bill.

Ordered, that we shall desire a conference with the Lords about the alterations inserted by the Lords into this bill, as soon as their Lordships sit.

The petition against Dr. Anyan is now this present day of Corpus Christi [f. 232v] brought in drawn fit to be presented to the King, and passed here by the vote of this House.

Thursday, 270 Maii 1624, in the afternoon

MR. COMPTROLLER reports the King's answer to our message humbly desiring to know when his Majesty's pleasure is that we should have access to his Majesty concerning our petition of grievance. The King says that tomorrow in the afternoon the King shall be at Whitehall, when he will give us access concerning our grievances, and leaves us to take our own number but desires we will not appoint too many.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS'S report concerning Mistress Thomas's petition against the Lord Keeper. That the decree was that £120 per annum out of that part of the moiety of the lands whereof Sir Anthony Thomas was by the first deed to have the profits; that Mistress Thomas's land was all sequestered (having £80 per annum) because she would not levy a fine and seal deeds for the sale of the said £120 so decreed for the payment of Mr. Herriot, the creditor of her son. And at length the £80 per annum was also sequestered because she would not obey this decree for the sale of the said £120 per annum, and so she was left without any means to live on but the alms of her friends. That the lawyers of both side[s] did agree that the moiety of this land whereof Sir Anthony Thomas was to have the profits was in equity liable [f. 233] to the payment of Sir Anthony Thomas's debts. That the committee thought the decree for the sale of the £120 per annum of the said lands entailed as aforesaid was good and but few voices were on the negative. But the sequestrations to compel Mistress Thomas to yield to the sale of the said £120 per annum the committee thought somewhat strange. For the charge of corruption laid in the petition, the committee cleared the Lord Keeper.

MR. [WILLIAM] NOYE says that one [John] Cavendish, a fishmonger, having given the servant of William de la Pole, Lord Chancellor, some fish and some scarlet that he might have justice with favour, and after not finding the decree in his business answerable to his expectation, he complained in Parliament and charged the said William de la Pole that he thought his adversary had bribed him because he saw him often with the said Chancellor while he attended on his Lordship. The Parliament (because it was near at an end) deeming the said Cavendish worthy to repair the injury done to the said William de la Pole, the then Chancellor, did refer the assessing of damages for reparation of the honour of the said Chancellor to the judges of the King's Bench, and those judges did assess the said Cavendish to pay 1,000 marks damages to the [f. 233v] said Chancellor for the repair of his honour. And he says the asperity of Mistress Thomas's petition against the Lord Keeper is much more than was that of Cavendish against the said William de la Pole, then Chancellor, and therefore he will have her punished or committed to submit and crave pardon of the Lord Keeper.

SIR E[DWARD] COKE says that since it appears that there are 3 witnesses that testify that Mr. Herriot said he had given £200 to the Lord Keeper, though it prove false on further examination, yet it seems Mistress Thomas had some cause to say it seemed there was some foul corruption that caused the Lord Keeper to make the decree and grant the sequestrations against her; and any complainant is to be spared for such offences and charges if it appear that he has probabilem causam litigandi.

It being put to question whether Mistress Thomas should be called into the House to acknowledge she had injured the Lord Keeper by charging his Lordship with corruption, the House was divided and it was carried by the number of voices that she should not be blamed for charging his Lordship in her petition with bribery. But the House did clear and free the Lord Keeper from having taken any bribe in this cause.

[f. 234] MR. SOLICITOR. Sir Anthony Thomas did take upon him to be owner in fee simple of the land in question and found an office accordingly, and made leases of some of the said land, and of other times Mistress Thomas did join with him in the leases. That the inquisition delivered on oath by the jury was returned that Sir Anthony Thomas was after the death of his father seised of the said land in fee. That Sir Anthony Thomas did offer in court that some of the land should be sold for the payment of Mr. Herriot's money owing by him, and the court thereon allotted £120 per annum to be sold of that part which belonged to Sir Anthony Thomas. The order mentions that Mistress Thomas did consent to the sale of the said £120 land per annum, but himself being of her counsel and at the hearing of the cause, did not consent but he knew not whether any other of her counsel did consent or no. But 2 or 3 days after, she came and bade him to move the court, and to inform and protest for her that she did not consent to the said decree. It is true that Mistress Thomas had an estate in tail, and Sir Anthony Thomas but an estate in equity, as appeared by the deed made at the marriage of Mistress Thomas [f. 234v] to the father of Sir Anthony Thomas.

SIR PETER HEYMAN. That one Mr. Freshwater, being of Mistress Thomas's and Sir Anthony Thomas's counsel, affirmed that neither himself nor any of Mistress Thomas's counsel did ever consent for her to the decree and Mr. Solicitor has affirmed as much here in the House. That it is true that because Sir Anthony Thomas did doubt his mother would marry, did procure her to make an assignment to him that if she should marry she would have but £80 per annum.

MR. [WILLIAM] NOYE says that if the proviso of the deed were that she should let her son (if she had any) enjoy the moiety of it, it appears that Mistress Thomas was seised of the moiety of this land in trust for her son, and so she was to have yielded to the sale of the moiety of the land with which she was trusted for her son, seeing Sir Anthony Thomas consented to the said decree.

It is/

It is resolved, in the opinion of this House, that the decree made by the Lord Keeper in this cause is just. But the House resolved that all the sequestrations and injunctions granted by the Lord Keeper upon the said decree were unjust for so much concerned the [f. 235] moiety and part of Mistress Thomas, the petitioner.


[p. 246]

Thursday, the 27th of May

The bill of the clergy subsidy is read.

And the pardon is read.

The SPEAKER declares the title of the bill and informs the House it is but once to be read, and to be accepted, not disputed on. That it is the freest pardon that ever was granted. He requires all to say, “God save the King”.

And it was done so.

SIR THOMAS BELASYSE offers, by petition to the House, a grievance to be considered of concerning benevolences, but it died soon for that time and was after read.

A motion was made for transmitting Dr. [Thomas] Anyan to the Lords. But SIR R[OBERT] PHELIPS thinks they have indignified [sic] us already in the Bishop's case, and supposes we shall [p. 247] but confirm their claim of judicature by our own act, and therefore thinks it better to reserve this business to more deliberation rather than to confirm our loss, for being indignified [sic] already, we shall but hurt ourselves.

SIR EDWARD COKE moves that the House declare their opinion that the doctor is unfit and unworthy for government, and so leave it.

MR. [JOHN] PYM says he would not have the wisdom of this House fall in the chief point of wisdom that is of the ends of those things they aim at. If you leave this business with the opinion of the House only, because you will not prejudice the authority of the House, as if it had no power to judge, this cannot prevent that; for in not judging, but delivering an opinion only, what do we less than to declare we cannot judge? And therefore moves to send it with petition to the King.

SIR EDWIN SANDYS moves to refer Dr. Anyan to the Bishop of Winchester, the visitor of that college, to my Lord Chamberlain, Chancellor of the University, or to the Archbishop, supreme visitor, and to move by petition that the King will grant commission to these to proceed against the doctor to remove him and to judge him unworthy of all places, or such further course to be taken as to his Majesty's wisdom and justice shall be thought meet.

The House ordered it thus.

SIR EDWARD COKE moves a protestation may be made against the buying of serjeantships-at-law. Says in the 5 of Henry 5, 5 serjeants were called and refused and were then worthily chosen; now all for money, no hope of worth.

[p. 248] SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH moves that it may be general against the buying of all offices.

Sir Thomas Belasyse's petition was called for and read.

SIR GUY PALMES urges the regard and allowance of it.

SIR PETER HEYMAN the like and moves it may be determined whether it should be presented unto the King as a grievance rather than to enter into dispute of it in particulars.

SIR R[OBERT] PHELIPS says he discovers the danger of this business, but thinks it a dangerous precedent being moved now to be left, yet wishes the House to remember and carefully to regard the Prince's engagement to the King, and his proviso to us and our promise thereon, that (when he obtained our sitting until this present) he then promised we would only dispatch the business in hand and enter upon no new things.

MR. [CHRISTOPHER] WANDESFORD says that had it not come in, considering the strait of the time, it had been well enough; but since it is moved now, it is not fit to leave it altogether. Says that it is not now new but was moved long before and concerns the liberty of the subject so much as it is fit to consider it. Moves to give it the stamp of our judgement and so have it.

[MR.] CHARLES PRICE says that relapses are as dangerous in a body politic as in the natural; and as we have promised not to look back, so let us have no occasion of a further breakneck.

[p. 249] The SOLICITOR remembers the House also what the Prince has promised the King, and we him; and howsoever it be dangerous to leave this questionable, yet as the case stands he thinks it may be sufficient to leave it in the Clerk's hands to be ready when it is called for.

SIR THOMAS JERMYN thinks benevolences not honourable for the King nor safe for the subject, yet thinks this no fit time to deal in it. The Prince's reality with us has already drawn and engaged us far. Let us not now, by breaking promise with him, teach him to do so with us; and hopes the danger cannot be great to cease this for this time, because we shall meet again (we hope) before more benevolences be demanded.

Many spoke for and against this motion but on SIR FRANCIS SEYMOUR'S motion the House left it as it was.

The bill of continuance of statutes is passed as the Lords sent it, and is sent with the bill of monopolies to the Lords again in the afternoon.


[f. 177v]

[27 May 1624]

Ordered afterwards, in respect that some conceived that we have power of judicature over Commons (which must by the next session be further examined) and that the Lords have no time to examine it, etc., be declared by the opinion of the House to be unworthy of his place and of government and to be removed. And the King to be petitioned to take course for his punishment.

The fellows are sworn not to complain to other judges then their visitor. But an oath binds them that take it, but cannot divest us of jurisdiction.

[f. 169v]

May 27

[SIR EDWARD] COKE. That 5 H. 5 there were 5 that were questioned in Parliament for refusing to accept of serjeantships, being called by the King's writ. Now they obtain them pro combitum et pretium. 'Tis pity that they who [are] seminaries of justice and are to be the judges of us and our posterity should buy their places. Would have the House to make a declaration against it.

Benevolences a great grievance, and if the King find[s] a way to supply himself otherwise than by Parliament, goodnight to Parliaments and to all ways to [f. 170] relieve ourselves upon our grievan[ces]. Yet because our promise to Prince was not to receive any new business, we did not present it among the grievances.

7 E. 6 made pro bono publico, now continued in dispensation pro bono privato and to make gain out of evil. But the Lords told us we came before our time, in that my Lord of Nottingham, after whose death it [sic] King's promise was to take effect, is still living. Hereafter we hope to prevail. We are used kindly at the beginning of a Parliament but neglected at the end. What benefit or fruit have we had of the compliments of the Lords? But we have been out of the way; let us return in again [f. 170v] to give subsidies the last of all. Now we are at a strait, we must either discontinue many good laws and continue some 8 dangerous laws, which may be dispensed with, or else pass this. Let us choose the less evil. Let our own harms make us beware. But now order that the bill of continuances with the subtractions of the Lords of 7 E. 6 and 24 H. 8 for the altering of the laws of Wales etc.


[f. 195]

Thursday, the 27th of May

Bill of the subsidy of the clergy once read, and not opened nor debated by the Speaker, and so passed, the ancient order being so.

Bill of pardon once read and passed. Except treasons, rebellions, misprisions of tr[eason], murder, [f. 195v] poisonings, piracy, burglary, robbery, stealing of horses, burning houses, buggery, rapes, taking away women, double marriages, witchcraft, etc., goods of felons, printing seditious books, intrusions, wastes, alienations since 6 of October wast [sic], bribery, extortion, heresy, schism, adultery, usury, praemunire, dilapidations, ordnance transported, informations up, amerciaments above £6, priests and Jesuits, quod statute due obedience, purveyance, wards before 16 Jac., liveries, outre la mains before 16 Jac., widows' fines; prisoners in the Tower, Marshalsea, Fleet, Gatehouse; persons going out of the realm for treason, felony or without licence; misdemeanours in custom, heriots, fines since the King's reign; debts due to King H. 7, H. 8, etc.; suits depending in Star Chamber, offences on which sentence has been given in Parliament or shall be, etc. this Parliament.

Dr. [Thomas] Anyan being, according to an order of the House, to be transmitted to the Lords, in regard so little time remained it was resolved to petition the King, and first Dr. Anyan was declared to be unworthy of that or any other place of government, and fit to be removed. Ordered, to petition the King for this among the grievances and to sue unto him for his removal.

SIR THOMAS BELASYSE delivered in a petition of grievance concerning benevolence.

The House thought fit not to meddle with it in regard it came so late into the House.

[f. 196] Thursday afternoon

The Speaker in the chair.

Divers bills sent down with amendments from the Lords sent up again.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS'S report of the complaint of Mistress Thomas.

The Lord Keeper cleared by the House of the charge of corruption and bribery mentioned in the petition. The decree adjudged to be good. The sequestration of the estate upon the contempt was held unlawful, etc., and unjust.


[f. 120v]

May 27, Thursday

[240, 250, 260,] 270, the pardon, the clergy's subsidy, etc.