Cecil Papers: May 1605 | British History Online

Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House: Volume 23, Addenda, 1562-1605. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1973.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. Public Domain.

Citation:

'Cecil Papers: May 1605', in Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House: Volume 23, Addenda, 1562-1605, ed. G Dyfnallt Owen (London, 1973), British History Online https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/cal-cecil-papers/vol23/pp207-222 [accessed 29 April 2025].

May 1605



	John Bowssar to the Privy Council.
[After May 1, 1605].	Sir John Swinnerton, his brother-inlaw, who owes him money, has dealt most unjustly with him and refuses to make amends although petitioner has appealed to him through the mediation of Swinnerton's father and the Lord Mayor of London. Finally he asked the Lord Chancellor for letters directing certain Aldermen to determine the dispute between them. The Lord Chancellor showed petitioner's suit to Swinnerton so that the latter might show cause why it should not be granted. But Swinnerton ignored the whole matter and, accordingly, the Lord Chancellor granted petitioner's request. Swinnerton has arrogantly reacted by imprisoning petitioner's surety. Petitioner declares that he has lost £8000 within the last few years, and asks that the Council grant letters to the same effect as those issued by the Lord Chancellor, and that his surety be released upon bail by a supersedeas from the Lord Treasurer. —Undated. ¾ p. (P. 1375.) [See H.M.C. Salisbury MSS Vol. XVII, p. 168.]
	Nicholas Geffe to Viscount Cranborne and Lord Hume.
[Before May 4, 1605]. (fn. 1)	He had been able to render William Tipper some service as regards the amendment of defective titles and money issuing out of the same, without which Tipper would not have been able to perform those services to the late Queen Elizabeth which he claimed to have done. It was agreed between them that petitioner should receive a third part of such sums of money as were allowed to Tipper and Sir Edward Dyer for their labours. In the time of the late Queen they were paid £5000, of which a third part should have come to petitioner. He actually received only £66:13:4, so that some £1593 or so is still due to him. He requests that Tipper and Dyer be ordered to discharge their debts to him. Tipper and petitioner had also become bound to one Samuel Hales, now deceased, for £300 which was being claimed by a Mrs Barnard as executrix to Hales. He asks that Tipper and Dyer be directed to discharge this debt in default of their payment to him. He refers to his proceedings in Chancery against them which became void with the death of the late Queen. He has again renewed his suit in that court, but both Tipper and Dyer have declined to answer his charge. —Undated. 1 p. (P. 122.)
	Richard Shute to [Viscount Cranborne].
[Before May 4, 1605].	Because of the debt of Mr Sherard, Deputy-Feodary, he has been deprived of his post and livelihood as Feodary, and summoned to pay £100. He protests that he has not the means to pay such a sum, and adds that Sherard, although he denied it on oath, confessed later in an examination that he had the money. Petitioner asks that Sherard be forced to repay the debt, or that he himself be restored to his office. Cranborne's brother, Lord Burghley, (fn. 2) has expressed his wish that such a favour be extended to petitioner.—Undated. ¾ p. (P. 1270.)
	Edward Forrest and James Spencer to the Privy Council.
[Before May 4, 1605].	They are prisoners in the Marshalsea, and complain that while they were passing Sir George Carey's (fn. 3) house, they were assaulted by a group of his followers. One of the latter named Rotheram, who is a prisoner charged with fraudulent dealing with the King's accounts, injured Spencer in the side and detained him in a house until a messenger arrived with a warrant for the appearance of petitioners before the Privy Council. Petitioners obeyed it and were by another warrant committed to the Marshalsea. They request that they be allowed to answer any charge brought against them. Because of their poor estate any detention will interfere with and delay their proceedings in the Irish business, which will also redound to the King's disadvantage.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 1236.) [See H.M.C. Salisbury MSS, Vol. XVII, pp. 524 and 625.]
	English Merchants to the Privy Council.
[? Before May 4, 1605].	They are merchants of western England trading with France, and refer to the recent edict of the King of France prohibiting the entry of all cloth from England into France except such "as were good and should not shrink". In compliance with this edict, petitioners bought the best kerseys in Devonshire that were manufactured according to English law and as conformable as possible to the French King's edict. How ever the French, "uppon purpose as it should seeme to banishe our trading from thence" have recently seized certain kerseys at Rouen, sent there by petitioners, on the grounds that they were found defective upon trial. Petitioners claim that in the opinion of the most experienced clothiers of the region kerseys cannot be made to meet all the requirements laid down in the edict, and, apart from the loss of their goods, the threat of a complete suspension of trade endangers the livelihood of thousands of people. They ask that letters be sent to the King of France and to the English Ambassador in Paris in favour of a mitigation of the edict, and for the release of petitioners' goods; also that the French Ambassador in London be approached to intervene to the same purpose.—Undated. 1 p. (P. 1433.) [See H.M.C. Salisbury MSS Vol. XVII, pp. 180–1.]
	Henry Carew to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	Two years ago petitioner was sentenced by the Court of the Star Chamber to be imprisoned in the Fleet. Upon appeal he was released, but later was committed for the second time to the same prison. He would in all dutifulness have gone there but for the uncivil treatment to which he was subjected on the first occasion by the warden. He insists that his absence should not be imputed to him as an act of contempt: and is ready to submit to Cranborne. He reminds him that he gave a favourable account of petitioner's offence to the King, and declares that it was not done out of malice, but rather out of indiscretion. He asks Cranborne to intercede on his behalf with the King for clemency.—Undated. ¾ p. (P. 648.) [See H.M.C. Salisbury MSS, Vol. XV, p. 209.]
	[? Cardmakers] to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	They express their gratitude for his past favours to them. They understand that their case is to be heard by the Chief Justices, and pray that this may be done with expedition since the Judges are about to go on circuit. The objections of their opponents, the merchants, are three: that the King's Customs will suffer; that the seizure of English cloth in France can be attributed to the cardmakers; and that the statute is not valid. Petitioners' answer to these objections is, "that for the Custome we will stande bound with good securitie to pay double so much to his Ma^tie as hath bene paid for cards theis xxvi^tie last yeares, which sithence it is for the releefe of so many his Ma^ts poore subjects, who thereby shalbe made able to live and pay tax and subsidie, and doe his highnes other service, we hope your Lordship will favorably consider thereof. For the cloth, it is well knowne that our suite is no cause of stay of it, but the bad and deceiptfull makinge of it, as beinge neither of Assize nor goodnes according to the edict there, neither is it likely that the Ffrenche kinge will forbeare or loose so great somes of money as he receaveth yearely by our cloth, which is a hundred tymes as much as he or his subjects can or shall receave by cards if they were all made and brought out of Ffraunce." As for the statute, petitioners submit themselves to the opinion of the judges.—Undated. 1 p. (P. 2107.)
	Thomas Gough to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is of Newbury, co. Berks. The town has been bestowed upon the Queen as part of her jointure, and a bailiff is now due to be appointed with the fee of 6/8 per annum. He asks to be considered for the office, and also that he be paid £4 a year by the farmer of the pickage in Newbury for gathering the same. All former bailiffs have received that remuneration for this service in the past.—Undated. Note by Cranborne: "Let a warrant be made." 1 p. (P. 1650.)
	Geoffrey Holcroft to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	Together with his late brother, Captain Henry Holcroft, deceased, he served in the Low Countries in the time of the late Queen Elizabeth. After his brother's death (fn. 4) he was sent in command of a company to Ireland, but was shortly afterwards relieved of his company and given a pension, which has now been withdrawn by the King. He has no alternative but to petition for assistance. He reminds Cranborne that his (petitioner's) father was much indebted to Lord Burghley, and asks that he favour his petition when it comes up for discussion at the Council table.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 1435.)
	William Parnell to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is of Waltham Abbey and has leased the mills of Waltham from Lord Denny. He has disbursed more than £500 in buying the lease, of which there are still 12 or 13 years to run, and in repairing the mills, and for the last seven years he has received the profits issuing from the mills without any hindrance. However, one Daunt, Lord Denny's servant, and others suggested to Lord Denny that he could lawfully withhold from petitioner one commodity of the lease to the value of £80. Lord Denny has now seized it, but continues to demand the old rent of £100 annually. Petitioner has appealed to him either to let him enjoy the whole of his lease or to abate his rent by £80, but both requests have been rejected. Moreover, Lord Denny with twenty armed men has tried to evict petitioner, and besieged him and his family in his house for almost three weeks night and day in order to starve him into submission. Having failed to do so, he sued petitioner in a court of law where the case was tried by Sir Francis Gawdy. An attempt was made to effect a compromise outside the court, and petitioner agreed that Lord Denny's counsel, Sir Thomas Foster, should determine the matter. Lord Denny again refused to co-operate, and to show his displeasure, dammed the river, levelled its banks and left the mills dry, as they still are. Petitioner asks that the case be determined by such competent persons as Cranborne shall select to examine it.—Undated. ¾ p. (P. 1434.)
	William Fisher to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	For forty years he served in one of the late Queen Elizabeth's auditors offices, and performed his duties honestly during the whole of that period. But in more recent years he was sentenced in the Exchequer Chamber, on the grounds of a particular offence, to imprisonment in the Fleet and the payment of a fine. He has also had to pay his accuser, John Lawe, the sum of £70 and, by other orders from the Exchequer, he has been deprived of his goods and lands, even those properties which he has sold. Now, in his 65th year, he has little to maintain his family. Upon his accession to the throne the King proclaimed a general pardon for past offences with remission of penalties. Petitioner asks that Cranborne intervene to stay all proceedings against him, and award him the fullest possible benefit of the pardon.—Undated. 1 p. (P. 1376.)
	Mary Butler to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	She has been imprisoned for 7 days, and her husband for 3 weeks, in the Gatehouse. They reside 80 miles from London, and have four children, three of whom are ill and the fourth a mere infant. She begs that her husband be released to accompany her home to take care of the children, and that she be given some financial help to pay her expenses and succour the children.—Undated. 1 p. (P. 796.)
	Nicholas Freeman to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	The Duke and Duchess of Holsted (Holstein) have written on his behalf to the King and Queen concerning the recovery of his goods and the debts due to him in England without being harassed by his creditors. He cannot satisfy the latter unless his goods are restored to him, since all his estate is in the hands of his debtors. He asks to be accorded such favour as their Majesties are accustomed to give to the requests of their princely allies.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 973.)
	Dame Anne Delves to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	She is the widow of Sir George Delves, deceased. She asks for the continuance of the favour extended to her husband by Cranborne. When the King was last at Cobham, Sir George submitted a petition to him, and the King bestowed some compensation upon him for the loss of his pensioner's place at the time of the accession. Petitioner requests that Cranborne favour her suit to the King.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 1878.)
	Jarret Storie to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He served the late Queen Elizabeth for 44 years as one of the garrison at Berwick, and saw service on the borders and in Ireland, besides acting as courier into Scotland in highly dangerous times as Mr Nicholson, the late agent, has testified to Cranborne. During the past year, petitioner has been a suitor to the King who has referred his case to Sir John Stanhope. The latter has recommended that he should be rewarded for his services. Petitioner requests that Cranborne take steps to see that his petition is read and considered by the Privy Council.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 1351.) [See H.M.C. Salisbury MSS, Vol. XVI, p. 139.]
	Daniell Muller to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He was invited out of Germany, his native country, by the late Lord Willoughby, Governor of the garrison of Berwick, to attend upon him as his doctor, and performed his medical duties faithfully. Despite many promises of promotion, all he received from Lord Willoughby was the post of doctor of the garrison with an annual fee of £50. Following upon the disbandment of the garrison, this salary has been taken away from him, and with it his sole means of livelihood. Since the King has been pleased to award pensions to former members of that garrison, he asks Cranborne to intervene that he may either be given his former annuity or some equivalent pension.— Undated. ½ p. (P. 1350.)
	Edward Middaie to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is at present in the custody of Bennet Bloomfield, to whom he was committed twenty days ago by warrant from the King, upon misinformation provided by one Butler who is known by all, including Cranborne, to be "a verie bad and lewde fellow". Petitioner is weak and sickly, and asks to be released on bail. He offers sureties to appear to answer what ever charge is brought against him.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 1224.)
	Arthur Hall to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	It has been slanderously spread abroad at Court and amongst the members of the Privy Council and legal circles that he has been imprisoned because of a deliberate intention not to pay his debts. Petitioner states that since his committal to the Fleet almost four years ago, he has discharged his liabilities to the amount of £6000. He still owes money to Edward Sherland, but certain judges and commissioners appointed by the King to examine the case have concluded that Sherland should be paid £200 and no more. The Lord Chancellor has approved of this decision and petitioner is ready to pay it.— Undated. ¾ p. (P. 1222.)
	William Harvey to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is a prisoner in the Marshalsea, and has been detained there a long time at the suit of Anthony Moore, a Frenchman. Petitioner has agreed with Moore to pay him £450 and so be discharged from all liabilities and court actions. Moore has now refused to abide by the terms of the agreement, and is seeking ways and means of seizing petitioner's goods and property. Moore has also informed him that Cranborne is aware of his proceedings and has promised his assistance. Petitioner asks that Moore be obliged to comply with the terms of the original agreement which he himself had initiated. —Undated. 1 p. (P. 1079.)
	James Hinshaw to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He was formerly a soldier serving under the command of Captain Aucher. He was stationed on the borders of Scotland in the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, and in that of the King up to May 27th last when he received his discharge without any relief for the maintenance of himself and his family. Since then he has petitioned to be rewarded for his service at Berwick, and his suit has been supported by the Lord Chamberlain and Lord Wotton. He asks Cranborne to find him some employment at Carlisle under Sir Henry Leigh or elsewhere upon the border.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 1052.)
	John Berwys to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is a yeoman of Dryholme in the county of Northumberland (? Cumberland). In the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, he was unfortunate enough to kill Richard Chambers. He was tried at the Assizes in Carlisle, convicted on unjust evidence and condemned to death. Yet at the coroner's inquest, a verdict of manslaughter only was returned. At the entry of the King into England he was granted his protection for life, but Cranborne refused to pass it at the privy seal, on the grounds that he wished to arrive at the truth of the case. In the meantime, petitioner has paid a great deal of money to the family of the dead man, but a particularly malicious person is threatening to subject him to the extreme penalty of the law. He asks Cranborne, in view of the King's former warrant, to grant another for drawing up his pardon.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 987.)
	William Gower to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He served as a soldier under Captain Reede at Berwick, and saw service on the borders of Scotland. On May 27th last, he was discharged, but nothing was done to arrange for him to receive some relief after his long period of service. He begs Cranborne to obtain employment for him under Sir Henry Leigh at Carlisle or elsewhere that will enable him to support his wife and family.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 657.)
	John Reddish to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is resident at Stockport, Cheshire, and complains that Robert Hardman, a mercer, was indebted to certain Londoners for £300 some two years ago, and with the connivance of his brother George persuaded petitioner to sign a bond with them for the payment of the debt. Contrary to his promise George Hardman refused to join in the bond and conspired with Robert to get possession of the stock and estate belonging to the latter which would have sufficed to discharge the debt. The brothers also intended to flee the county and leave petitioner exposed to the pressure of the creditors. But he issued a writ against Robert Hardman out of the Exchequer Court at Chester and arrested him in Stockport. However, he was forcibly rescued from the bailiff and conveyed out of Chester to the town of Lancaster. Petitioner appeals to the Privy Council to order the two brothers and those who rescued Robert to appear before them and answer for the wrongs and outrages committed by them.—Undated. Endorsed: "The humble petition of John Rediche of Stockporte in the countie of Chester." ¾ p. (P. 617.)
	Thomas Knowles and Oliver Smithson to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	Since their youth they have been employed in the service of the late Queen Elizabeth and now of King James, and have never received more than their ordinary wages. They have heard that £168 of debts have been concealed from the Crown for the past eighteen years, and they propose to petition the King to grant them the money which they will recover at their own charges. They beg Cranborne to further their suit.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 456.)
	Donagh Clancy to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is of Robertstown in the county of Limerick. At his request Cranborne and the Privy Council sent letters to the Lord President of Munster that petitioner should receive justice in the matter of the recovery of Robertstown and other lands wrongfully detained from him by Richard Wingfield. He has revealed his claim to John Meade, his counsel, who advised him to expedite the recovery of the property by making out that the King had a claim to them, and by arranging a composition whereby they would be included in a grant of concealed lands to the Earl of Thomond, who would then assign them to petitioner. But Meade intends to sell the premises to petitioner's adversary, and persuade the Earl not to assign the lands to petitioner as promised. Petitioner therefore requests that the Lord Deputy of Ireland be ordered to stay the inclusion in the Earl of Thomond's letters patent of the lands in dispute, and that the Lord President of Munster be directed to examine the whole matter and to see that petitioner obtains justice in it.—Undated. 1 p. (P. 923.)
	Michael Wentworth to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is of Woolley, co. Yorks, and has always conformed to the established church. But four years ago he was forced to enter into a bond for the payment of £180, at the rate of £20 monthly, because his wife refused to attend divine service. He has already paid £80 and is now submitting a petition to the Privy Council that the rest of the fine be remitted. —Undated. ½ p. (P. 1372.)
	Humphrey Tuckie and Edward Erby to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	They are citizens of London, to whom various sums of money are owing by the King, following upon the transfer by them of funds to the Treasurer at Wars in Ireland. These sums have been kept from petitioners almost three years, and has resulted in loss of trade and credit for them. They ask that they be repaid the money in order to discharge their debts and avoid the danger of being imprisoned by their creditors.— Undated. 1 p. (P. 1421.)
	Robert Tisone to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is one of the messengers of the King's Chamber. He served the late Queen Elizabeth in the same capacity for 20 years and suffered many injuries in performing his duties, on one occasion breaking his leg, a mishap from which it took him a year to recover. He has never received more than his ordinary allowance all that time, and when he eventually petitioned the King for a pension of 12d a day, the suit was referred to Cranborne. He asks that Cranborne favour him and secure the pension for him.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 1426.)
	Sir Robert Lane to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is farmer of the King's manor of Geddington, co. Northampton and requests that, if the manor should ever be passed in fee farm, he should be offered the first refusal.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 1428.)
	Stephen Higgons to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is apothecary to Cranborne, and asks that he be appointed one of the searchers at Gravesend and receive a fee fixed by Cranborne. He is ready to offer adequate security for the correct performance of all duties incidental to that post.—Undated. ¼ p. (P. 1432.)
	Thomas Harrison to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is a groom of the Privy Chamber. His son, John Harrison, is a pupil to Dr Radcliffe at Trinity College, Cambridge, and is "verie apt and forward in learning to your suppliants great comfort". Petitioner, however, is not in a position to meet the expenses of his education any longer. "Knowing your Lordship to be a lover and favorer of learning and a relever of the poore," he asks for letters to Dr Neville, Master of Trinity, that a scholarship be awarded to his son.— Undated. ½ p. (P. 1447.)
	Henry Green to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He has served at the Court for almost forty years, for the most part under Sir Thomas Windebank, one of the Clerks of the Signet, but many times also in the service of Prince Henry. He has never received anything more than the ordinary wage of a messenger, namely 4½d daily. He is now a suitor to the King for a pension of 12d per diem, which one Carter, a groom of the Chamber, deceased, enjoyed until his death. He asks that Cranborne recommend his suit for the pension to Sir Thomas Lake or to his former employer, Sir Thomas Windebank. —Undated. ½ p. (P. 1448.)
	Thomas Yarrowe to Viscount Cranborne and Lord Robert Sidney.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is the vicar of Newport Pagnall. For a very long time his predecessors have been allowed an annual pension of £5 in augmentation of their living, in regard of the small value of the vicarage. The pension has always been paid out of the rents of the parsonage of Newport Pagnall and allowed upon the account of the farmers by virtue of several warrants signed by the Marquis of Winchester, former Lord Treasurer of England, Sir Walter Mildmay, late Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Burghley, late Lord Treasurer, the present Lord Treasurer, and Sir John Fortescue, Chancellor of the Exchequer. The parsonage was lately purchased during the sale of the lands of the late Queen Elizabeth, and the manor of Newport Pagnall, out of which the pension had been paid since that sale, has now been conveyed to the Queen as part of her jointure. He requests Cranborne's warrant for the receiving of the £5 out of the manor.—Undated. ¾ p. (P. 1525.)
	Thomas Master to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	Petitioner and his brother, Henry Master, hold for term of their lives certain coppices of some 280 acres within the manor of Bisley, which has been assigned to the Queen as part of her jointure. The Queen is disposed to let leases in reversion as regards her lands, and petitioner requests that Cranborne, who has been authorized by her to grant them, obtain for him such a lease of the coppices for a reasonable fine.— Undated. 1 p. (P. 1529.)
	Robert Stile to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	Bernard Drake was in debt to the late Queen Elizabeth which Lord Burghley, Cranborne's father, agreed should be paid in quarterly instalments of £4 during his life until £48 had been discharged. Petitioner and others entered into a bond for the performance of the contract. Drake, however, died leaving £4:12 still unpaid, and for that, petitioner found himself twice in the custody of the sheriffs of Devonshire, and forced to pay £20. This money was not handed over to the Receiver, and eventually petitioner had to pay it himself to that official. He now cannot get redress or recompense from the sheriffs, and asks that letters be directed to Sir William Courtenay, Sir Amyas Bamfield, Edward Seymour and William Pole, authorizing them to summon before them those who have detained the money, and to see that some restitution is made to petitioner, or to report to Cranborne on the matter.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 1877.)
	Rowland Smart and Nathaniel Tracy to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	They are the executors of Edward Barker, deceased of London. In 1600–1 the late Queen Elizabeth, in return for an increase of rent and a fine in the form of a valuable jewel, granted to Barker for 60 years the aulnage and subsidy of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Devonshire and Cornwall. In his last will and testament Barker devised part of the lease to his wife because she had parted with her own property to purchase the lease. The other portion was reserved for the payment of his debts, which were very onerous inasmuch as the lease had cost him more than £5000, and for the relief of fatherless children. Petitioners understand that the Duke of Lennox is soliciting the King for the grant of the aulnage and subsidy in all the shires of England. They therefore ask that, since the lease was purchased at such a high price, Cranborne acquaint the King with the situation so that the patent of Barker's lease be omitted from the patent awarded to Lennox or whoever it may be.— Undated. ⅓ p. (P. 1876.)
	The Tenants of Bisley to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	John Rastall, who has joined in the patent of stewardship of Bisley with Lord Danvers, is dead, and Lord Danvers, not being fit to execute the office, has appointed Richard Bird to do so. In the late Queen Elizabeth's time Bird was guilty of oppressing the tenants and defrauding the Queen of the fines issuing from the manor, for which offence he was duly punished. Petitioners believe that Lord Danvers is ignorant of this fact, and they request that Jasper Selwyn, a man well versed in the law, be joined with Lord Danvers in the stewardship.— Undated. ⅓ p. (P. 1549.)
	John Fletcher to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is Deputy-Bailiff of the Queen's manor of St. Neots. His grandfather and father have been bailiffs there and have always been awarded an allowance of 40/- by the auditor for the provision of the steward's diet and expenses for every court held in the manor, "the same being a Court wherunto divers gent. of good sort doe owe their sute and contynually have had intertaynment there with the said stuards". However, the present Auditor, Mr Sexey, despite all precedents and even an order from Sir Walter Mildmay for the continuance of the allowance, refuses to award it to petitioner without Cranborne's warrant. Petitioner requests that such a warrant be issued to Sexey.—Undated. Note by Cranborne: "Let the awditor certefy me what the state of this request is."
	Note by Hugh Sexey: "It maie please your Honor, this petytioners predecessors, Bailiffs of the manor of St Neotts in the county of Hunt. (now parcell of the Q's Ma^ts joynture) have for many yeares past had allowance of xl^s for the Stuards charges at every Court, although the proffitts arysing therat did not amount unto so much. And he being nowe uppon his account maketh demand of iiii^l. for the charge of twoe Courts (the proffitts whereof are v^l xi^s vi^d), which I forbeare to allowe unto him untill I knowe your honorable pleasure if I shall geve to him and other her Ma^ts bayliffes such allowance as have cōibus annis bene formerly made unto them." 1⅓ pp. (P. 1681.)
	Certain Inhabitants of Hull to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	They complain of their loss of £9000 because of the King of Denmark's action in 1599, and the expenses and loss of time in prosecuting their suit during almost six years. King James decided to grant them relief and allocated Sir Robert Stapleton's fine to that end. But on Monday last this was taken away from them with instructions to find another way of obtaining assistance. They have been advised to approach Cranborne and ask him to persuade the King to grant them £500 worth of fee farms for which they would pay £1000 annually.—Undated. ¾ p. (P. 2020.) See P. 2027 supra p. 106. [See H.M.C. Salisbury MSS, Vol. XVII, p. 195.]
	— to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	By order of Cranborne and others of the Privy Council, a priest named Smith was recently banished from England, and one Richard Eveleigh committed to the gaol at Exeter, on the grounds that Smith was arrested in his house. Eveleigh has stated that he had conversed with Smith because he was a musician of skill and for no other reason; nevertheless, he is still detained in prison, where a gaol sickness has broken out. Eveleigh has been subject to Catholic influence in that part of England, but he has friends who are desirous of labouring for his conversion and conformity to which he himself is inclined. Cranborne is therefore requested to release him upon adequate sureties. Otherwise he is asked to summon Eveleigh to be censured by the Council or to commit him to a healthier prison.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 446.)
	William Bourne to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is much grieved to understand that Cranborne considers him to be "a turbulent person to the State". He requests that Cranborne suspend his judgement until his accusers have produced their charges and his guilt or innocency proved by fair trial; and that his estate be taken into consideration, he being but "a poor scholler".—Undated. ¾ p. (P. 1396.)
	Richard Clarke to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	For many years he has been harassed by Sir William Burlacy, who has arrested him and evicted him from his church, once from his pulpit during divine service, and imprisoned him in irons for alleged debts due for non-appearance during the shrievalty of his father. Petitioner exhibited a bill against him in the Court of the Star Chamber, but Burlacy managed to have it postponed. The latter then procured a hearing without petitioner's privity, so that he was not represented by counsel and was fined £40 for slander. Since then he has been confined to the Fleet for seven months. As "ther is a maxime in the lawes of this land that no man shall reape benefitt by his owne wronge", and he can prove that his troubles and the sentence inflicted on him are all attributable to false information by Burlacy, he asks that his case be heard again or referred to six impartial knights, gentlemen or preachers, three to be nominated by him and three by Burlacy. He requests also that the fine of £40 be remitted and himself released to attend to his defence and to the performance of his pastoral duties.—Undated. 1 p. (P. 658.)
	Sir William Lane to the King.
[Before May 4, 1605].	At the time of the King's entry into England he confirmed the grant made by the late Queen Elizabeth to petitioner of the moneys due from William Copley for the non-suing of his livery and other fines. Since then Copley has been restored to his estate by the King's favour, but persists in his recusancy. On account of his debts and the fact that his mother is still living, his estate is not able to pay the full forfeiture stipulated by the law for this offence. Nevertheless, petitioner asks that he be given the benefit of Copley's recusancy, referring the consideration thereof to Viscount Cranborne and any other commissioners selected by the King.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 647.) [See H.M.C. Salisbury MSS, Vol. XVII, p. 150.]
	The Merchants of York, Hull, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Exeter and the Counties of Dorset, Devon, Somerset and Cornwall to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	In or about the 30th year of the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, the merchants of the abovementioned places complained of the over-rates of the customs of 6/8 paid for every cloth shipped by them, on the grounds that they were coarse cloths made of coarse wool grown locally and of flax and thrums, and that they, as merchants, were not in a position to pay the dues exacted from them. The matter was referred to Lord Burghley and others who examined it and proceeded to order: that the merchants of the North who exported kerseys or single or double northern dozens from the ports of Hull, Newcastle, etc, should be allowed "owt of the said customs 11^s in the pound over and above the fifte clothe for a wrapper upon their entries."; and that the merchants of the West, for their kerseys called Devonset and Dorset dozens and "entred according to the booke of rates fowre to a clothe and upon Bridgewaters entred two to a clothe, sholde be allowed every fifte clothe for a wrapper, and upon pynwhites eight to be reputed for a clothe and the tenth clothe to be allowed for a wrapper". This order has been in force until recently when the farmers of the Customs have refused to apply it. Petitioners ask that Cranborne intervene with the King for the continuance of the order. Otherwise they will not be able to export such cloth, to the consequent decay of shipping in the west and north.—Undated. ¾ p. (P. 2048.) [See H.M.C. Salisbury MSS, Vol. XVII, p. 586.]
	William Trapp to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	Petitioner, his wife Cecily and their daughter Elizabeth hold by lease under the Exchequer seal for term of their lives a small tenement and certain lands and woods within the Queen's manor of Bisley, co. Gloucester. The lease contains a condition to the effect that if the rent, which is nine shillings for the tenement and lands and six shillings for the woods, falls behind a month, then whoever defaults loses his interest in the property. Petitioner states that he was a month behind with his rent for the woods, whereupon a John Knight informed the Lord Treasurer of the fact. Knight received a grant of the woods, but petitioner countered with a petition to the Lord Treasurer and Sir John Fortescue, and obtained an order for repossession of the wood. However, Walter Hancock, who has no lease, has entered into possession of the woods and is committing much spoliation, besides trying to obtain a lease of it. Petitioner asks for relief and the renewal of his lease of the woods. —Undated. ½ p. (P. 1524)
	Thomas Chamber to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	Richard Floyd, late of Lincolnshire, who died in the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, was seised of certain lands in that shire which he held by knight service. However, no one disclosed this fact, and the Crown was not aware that it had a claim to his heir's wardship, until petitioner obtained a commission to inquire into it before the Escheator of the shire. Nicholas Cholmondeley, Mr Earlye, lawyer, and Thomas Middlecott with others have confederated to conceal the tenure by which the property is held and to hinder the King's claim to the wardship. They have procured a commission for themselves and hope to invalidate the King's claim. Petitioner requests Cranborne to issue a warrant for a supersedeas, to prevent any investigation by the second commission.—Undated. 1 p. (P. 894.)
	George Green to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	He is of Wombwell, Yorkshire. The wardship and part of the patrimony of Ferdinando Leigh, of Middleton, Yorkshire, has been given to his mother, Elizabeth Leigh, who has taken advantage of her position as guardian to interfere with the disposition of the rest of his lands held by free socage, petitioner being the tenant of those lands. She has married a certain Richard Houghton, "a man of very smale worth and reputation", who has sold the wardship to William Cartwright, but still retains the power of disposing of the socage lands. Houghton and his wife are now desirous of displacing petitioner as tenant, although he has regularly paid his rent and performed other services, and disbursed much money on repairs. He asks that order should be given that he be allowed to retain his tenancy until the ward reaches his majority.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 1445.)
	Thomas Savile to Viscount Cranborne.
[Before May 4, 1605].	About four years ago Thomas Bicliffe died seised of certain lands in Yorkshire, which he held by knight's service. This has been concealed from the King, who is likely to lose the benefit he should receive from the wardship of the heir. Petitioner asks to be given a commission to establish the King's title at his own expense, and to be awarded the wardship at a reasonable rate.—Undated. ½ p. (P. 1025.)
	Patent.
1605, May 4.	Illuminated Patent conferring the title of Earl of Salisbury on Sir Robert Cecil, Viscount Cranborne, with the Great Seal of James I attached (in box). The patent was issued at Greenwich on May 4, 1605, and was witnessed by Prince Henry, Ulric, Duke of Holstein, Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Egerton, Lord Chancellor, and twenty-six others. (Patent 215/18.)