14th May 1624

FRIDAY, 14 MAY 1624

I. JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, PA, HC/CL/JO/1/14

[CJ 704; f. 40]

Veneris, 14⁰ Maii, 22⁰ Jacobi

Mr. [John] Drake, Sir Charles Montagu, Mr. [William] Coryton, Sir J[ames] Perrot, Mr. [Richard] Weaver, added to the Apothecaries' bill. Tomorrow, 7 [o']clock, in the former place.

All the lawyers of the House and knights and burgesses of Wales added to the committee for [Robert] Wolverston.

L. 3a. An act to settle Jesse Glover, clerk.

[Blank]

MR. [JOHN] PYM. That this bill gives institution, admission and induction, 3 episcopal points of jurisdiction which the bishops above will oppose.

MR./

Bill for foreign pensions. This afternoon, and all that will come to have voice.

The bill for the river of Wey to be reported by Sir Robert Harley tomorrow morning; and customers' fees by Mr. [John] Glanville.

Bills to go to passage tomorrow at 8 [o'clock]. Report from Mr. [John] Glanville from half [an] hour past 7 until 8 [o'clock]. Then the passage of bills from 8 until 9 [o'clock]. Then the debate about the white cloth.

Sir Edward Coke, Mr. [William] Noye, Mr. [John] Selden, Sir Robert Cotton and Sir Robert Phelips, to search former precedents how judgements have been given in former times by the Lords upon complaints made by the Commons. This to be prepared against Wednesday morning and then to be tendered to the House.

Mr. Speaker to be here at 2 of the clock.

[f. 40v] Veneris, 14⁰ Maii, 22⁰ Jacobi. Post meridiem

Mr. Sp: [sic] reports the bill of subsidy, with amendments and alterations, which twice read.

And Mr. Solicitor also moved some alteration desired in the preamble, which he particularly opened.

Upon the first question, not to be recommitted.

Upon the second question, to be engrossed.

[House adjourned]

II. JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, PA, HC/CL/JO/1/13

[CJ 789; f. 201]

Veneris, 14 Maii 1624

Mr. [John] Drake, Sir Charles Montagu, Mr. [William] Coryton, Sir James Perrot, Mr. [Richard] Weaver, added to the Apothecaries' bill. Tomorrow, 7 [o']clock, former place.

Burgesses of Wales added to the committee of [Robert] Wolverston's bill.

L. 3. An act to settle Jesse Glover, clerk, and 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 the said Edward Darcy and his heirs as appendant to the manor of Sutton.

Upon question, passed.

Secret pensions. This afternoon, and all to have voice.

[f. 201v] MR. [ROBERT] SNELLING. A member of this House served with a subpoena. To have the party sent for that did it.

Ordered.

The bill for the river of Wey to be reported by Sir Robert Harley tomorrow morning; and customers' fees by Mr. [John] Glanville.

Bills to go to passage tomorrow at 8 [o']clock. Report from Mr. [John] Glanville from half an hour past 7 until 8 [o'clock]. Then the passage of bills from 8 until 9 [o'clock]. Then the debate about the white cloth.

[Blank]

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. To have Mr. [William] Noye and Mr. [John] Selden search precedents how judgements have been used to be given in time past to preserve our liberty.

MR. [WILLIAM] NOYE. To desire the Lords to appoint a committee of their House to join with a committee of this House to see the entry of this judgement, that we may receive no prejudice.

Sir Edward Coke, Sir Robert Cotton, Sir Robert Phelips, Mr. [William] Noye and Mr. [John] Selden to search former precedents how judgements have been given in former times by the Lords upon complaint made by the Commons. This to be prepared against Wednesday morning and then to be tendered to the House.

The Speaker went out of his chair and the House went to a committee about the bill of subsidy.

The Speaker to be here in the afternoon at 2 [o']clock.

[House adjourned]

III. DIARY OF JOHN HAWARDE, WILTSHIRE AND SWINDON ARCHIVES, 9/34/2

[p. 290]

Vendredis, 14 Maii 1624

3. L., p[asse]. Bill pur Dame Darcy pur parsonage de Sutton.

3. L. [sic], passe, sur question.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS move pur consideracion del judgement del seignours. Committee pur searche de presidents.

Greevances to be presented to the Kinge before the ende of the cessions [sic].

[Committee of the Whole House]

Mr. Sollicitor to the chaire for the subsidie.

Longe debated, and sur severall questions; et adjourne al 3 a clocke in the afternoone.

[Committee for grievances,] post meridiem

Sir Edward Coke in le chaire. Le matter del Staplers heard with there [sic] counsell till 4 a clocke.

[Committee of the Whole House]

Then Mr. Sollicitor to the chaire for the subsidie.

He reported it to the Howse with the amendments, which were twise reade and then longe debated. And then the SOLLICITOR offered some alteracyons in the preface or preamble of the bill without any greate alteracyon of anything of substance, [p. 291] which the Prince had intimated unto him from the Kinge himselfe as his desyre.

Which the SOLLICITOR sayinge generallye it was desyred to be amended, [MR. EDWARD] KIRTON very fondelye and idlye demanded twyse or thrise, “Whoe desyred, whoe desyred?”.

The SOLLICTOR made aunsweare, “A good man desyred”, and then tolde the Kinge by the Prince.

Whereupon SIR ROBERT PHELIPS and SIR FRANCIS SEYMOUR sayd it was an unused thinge and out of course to be done after the reporte of the bill with the amendmentes; a rare presydente and not to be admytted for it strikes at all our liberties and woundes us mortallye.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHIE and SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH and other worthye members e contra, and of opinion fitte to be amended, for if any one of us showld moove the lyke in the Howse it wold be granted, muche more at the requeste of the Kinge and Prince.

But to avoyd question it was no farther debated, and it was the better in regard of the opposition.

IV. DIARY OF EDWARD NICHOLAS, TNA, SP 14/166

[f. 204v]

Friday, 14⁰ Maii 1624

An act to settle Jesse Glover, clerk, presentee of Dame Grace Darcy and George [f. 205] 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. 3. L. This bill is now passed this House. Dormit Lords.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. That the Lords do decline from the ancient manner of judging in Parliament, for it was a use that every judgement given here and transmitted over by us to the Lords did receive its weight and particular judgement above with their Lordships. He looks not on the particular of the late Lord Treasurer, but desires that a committee may be appointed to seek such precedents how former judgements have been given by the Lords on complaint from this House that hereafter we may do therein as our ancestors have done.

Ordered, that a select committee of this House shall seek forth former precedents how judgements have been given by the Lords on complaints delivered by the House of Commons and that the committee shall tender the same to this House Wednesday next, to be here considered of. These committees are Sir Edward Coke, Sir Robert Phelips, Sir Robert Cotton, Mr. [William] Noye and Mr. [John] Selden.

At a committee of the whole House concerning the bill of subsidies, 14⁰ Maii

Sir Edwin Sandys says that heretofore it has been debated on and inclined to be the opinion of this House that in such cases as this House has power to give a final judgement in and end, this House may administer an oath, but in such causes as this House does not finally determine but transmit it over to the Lords, the House did seem to doubt whether we had power or no to administer an oath, but did resolve nothing in it but made claim to have right and power to do it.

V. DIARY OF SIR THOMAS HOLLAND, RAWL. D. 1100, BODLEIAN LIBRARY

[f. 87v]

14 Maii, Friday

[SIR EDWARD] COKE. When any power is given to hear and determine any case, if it be in mine own court I may give an oath.

VI. DIARY OF RICHARD DYOTT, STAFFORDSHIRE RECORD OFFICE, MS D661/11/1/2

[f. 85v]

[14 May 1624]

[Committee of the Whole House]

[Sir Edwin] Sandys. It was resolved the last Parliament that in cases wherein we have final judicature we may examine upon oath. But whether we may do so in cases that we can but examine and transmit to the Lords it was doubted.

It was resolved that the oath of the treasurers and Council of War should be entered upon record in Chancery because those that should minister the oath might die, and not fit it should lie in averment. And the oaths of justices of the peace are entered.

One would have Viscount Grandison (named of Limerick in the Kingdom of Ireland) that it might appear why he was placed behind the English barons.

[Afternoon, committee of the Whole House]

[f. 140] A man must not speak to any point of a report before the report be entirely made.

At the committee for the bill of subsidies, it was moved by Mr. Solicitor that the words “indignities and injuries to the King and his children, etc.” might be altered to “injuries and oppression and [sic] his children”. And he said he had direction from the King to move. But because the grant of subsidies must solely [f. 140v] move from this House, and because not know how far this may trench into our liberties. And it was desired that neither the King nor the Prince's name might be used so in the House, for that it hinders our liberty and freedom of speech.

It was resolved that Mr. Speaker should go into the chair, and that the question should be whether the bill as at first it was drawn should be engrossed.

MR. CHANCELLOR OF DUCHY said that the King of England and France are bound by their treaties with Spain and oaths not to aid the Low Countries; yet the King of France does aid them with 4,000 men and answers that he does but pay them again, his father having been aided by them with 2 regiments, and our King, it may be, may defend them to have a passage to the Palatinate.

VII. DIARY OF SIR WALTER EARLE, BL, ADD. MS 18,597

[f. 183]

Friday, the 14th of May

The Lady Darcy's bill passed the House.

SIR ROBERT BROOKE complained that 2 subpoenas were served on him, notwithstanding his alleging his privilege to the party that served him.

Ordered, the party should be sent for by the Serjeant to answer his contempt.

SIR ROBERT PHELIPS, touching the privileges of the House. [f. 183v] In judgements anciently given by the Lords upon complaint of the Commons, the Commons used particularly to maintain their charge, and in case the sentence fell short, etc., to demand an addition of censure to, etc. Fit to peruse precedents.

Referred to be considered of against Wednesday by Mr. [William] Noye, Mr. [John] Selden, Sir Robert Cotton, Sir Edward Coke.

The Speaker went out of the chair, and the committee for the bill of subsidy went on.

After debate what the punishment should be, and who should give the judgement, resolved, upon the question, to have: be it, etc. that in such case the offenders, being no Lords of Parliament, shall by warrant from the Commons House of Parliament be committed close prisoners to the Tower, and if a Lord, etc., then to be transmitted to the Lords, and by them to be committed, etc.

The form of the oaths for the treasurers and Council of War read.

Friday afternoon, the committee for grievances

The complaints against the Staplers and patentees under the Lord Fentoun read. It appeared that one Gwyn was the first projector, who contrived a course that if the broggers of wool might be restrained, he would get the consent [f. 184] of the clothiers that 2s. should be answered for every broad loom through the kingdom, so there should be reserved £1,500 per annum to the king, and £1,500 per annum to the Lord Fentoun. That hereupon a patent was procured to restrain broggers, and a proclamation upon which a 1,000 of them were proceeded against in Star Chamber. After 2 years' suit there and at the Council Table, the Staplers closed with the Lord Fentoun, and a new project was set on foot, viz. that the Staplers' company should have a new grant and admit 200 broggers into their company, which should every one of them give the Lord Fentoun £100.

At 4 of the clock, the Speaker went to the chair to take the report of the bill of subsidy.

MR. SOLICITOR, having reported the bill, did tender to the House by direction, as he said, some alterations in the preamble. Being demanded from whom the directions came, he said it was the Prince's entreaty as from the King. The alterations were three:

• 1. Instead of “indignities” offered to his Majesty's children, the word “oppressions” was desired, etc.
• 2. To the 4 ends for which the subsidies were granted, it was desired that the recovery of the Palatinate might be added.
• [f. 184v] 3. Where mention was made of assisting the Low Countries, it was desired it might be added “as a means to recover the Palatinate”.

This was utterly disliked by the House:

• 1. Because the King's name was thus used in a business of this nature.
• 2. In regard of the untimely proposal, not at the committee but in the House at the instant of passing to engross; in a thin House and late in the afternoon.
• 3. In regard of breach of order, interposing it between the report and the reading the amendments, etc., and the Speaker's proposal.
• 4. In regard that which was proposed was clean contrary to the intent of the House, and manifested so to be at the giving the subsidies, it being otherwise resolved upon debate before, viz. that the Palatinate should not be named.

Some moved the bill might be recommitted. Others that the debate might be put off until the morning. But the House overruled it and it passed, by the question, to engrossing without such addition or alteration, etc.

VIII. JOURNAL OF SIR SIMONDS D'EWES, BL, HARL. MS 159

[f. 116]

May 14⁰, Friday

The Lady Darcy's bill for the ejection of Doctor Grant and restitution of her clerk and right of patronage to the parsonage of Sutton in Surrey. Passed.

A motion by SIR ROBERT PHELIPS to search precedents of antiquity how judicature has [f. 116v] formerly passed among the Lords against such as have been transmitted up unto them from the House of Commons, which being wont to receive censure upon every particular of their charge and if the Commons were not satisfied, they were to demand further enlargement of censure, as in the case of Michael de la Pole, Ed. 3.

And it was ordered accordingly.

It seems the House received not satisfaction in the censuring of the late Lord Treasurer, in that it was done in general and the censure came not home deep enough to the particulars whereof he was accused.

A committee of the whole House about the bill of subsidies

And long dispute about the account and punishment upon the delinquencies that might happen among the Council of War and treasurers in trust for the subsidies. The House found so many difficulties in this new way, though there were precedents for it, that divers wished they had kept the old way in paying their moneys into the Exchequer.