Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:54:52.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Debates in the House of Commons, 1604–1607

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2009

Simon Healy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although the authors of the journals and speeches reproduced below all came from the East Midlands and were loosely related to each other, they offer three widely differing viewpoints of the proceedings of the House of Commons during the parliamentary sessions of 1604 and 1606–7. The Rutland manuscript concentrates on the privilege dispute over election returns which dominated the opening weeks of the 1604 session, while Sir Robert Cotton was chiefly concerned to record procedural precedents for use in subsequent Parliaments, and Sir Edward Mountagu focussed on the House's legislative activity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Royal Historical Society Camden Fifth Series , Volume 17 , July 2001 , pp. 13 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For further discussion of the priorities each author brought to his account, see the introductions to the relevant manuscripts below.

2 Willson, D. H., ed., The Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer 1606–1607 (Minneapolis, 1931)Google Scholar, which reprints Harley's account in its footnotes.

3 For which see Munden, R. C., ‘King, Commons and Reform, 1603–4’ in Faction and Parliament (Oxford, 1978), ed. K. Sharpe, pp. 43–72.Google Scholar

4 Russell, C., Parliaments and English Politics 1621–9 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 121–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cogswell, T., Blessed Revolution (Cambridge, 1989).Google Scholar

5 Shells, W. J., Puritans in the Diocese of Peterborough (Northamptonshire Record Society publications xxx; Northampton 1979), pp. 79–86, 110–12Google Scholar; HMC Buccleuch, i. 237–8Google Scholar; HMC Montagu of Beaulieu, pp. 45–8.Google Scholar

6 Northants. RO, Montagu MS 29/7, below, p. 95; SR, iv. 111–12Google Scholar; MacCulloch, D., Tilomas Cranmer (New Haven, 1996), pp. 500–3, 533–4.Google Scholar

7 CJ, i. 172–3, 175–6, 178, 235, 988–9Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, below p. 69.

8 Other accounts may be found in CJ, i. 151–2, 934–5Google Scholar; Cotton Diary; Mountagu Diary.

9 CJ, i. 158, 938Google Scholar are the only other accounts to match Manners for detail.

10 Ibid. i. 159–60 gives a fuller text but does not name the speakers, and ibid. i. 939–40 is almost as comprehensive, but the Rutland account is the only one to include speeches by Sir John Mallory, Richard Martin, Edward Hext and William Wiseman.

11 For other accounts of this debate, see CJ, i. 155, 936–7Google Scholar; Cotton Diary.

12 The attribution is discussed at length in Foster, Elizabeth Read, ed., Proceedings in Parliament 1610 (New Haven, 1966), i. pp. xliii–xlviiGoogle Scholar; Sharpe, K., Sir Robert Cotton, 1586–1631 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 251–2.Google Scholar

13 CJ, i. 158, 938Google Scholar. For another example of Cotton's interest in Welsh history, see BL, Cotton MSS, Julius F.VI, fol. 303.

14 He was particularly well placed to do so in the case of the Buckinghamshire election, as he was named to the committee to justify the Commons' decision to the Lords on 27 March, and that to confer with the judges about the same issue on 5 April. CJ, i. 156, 166.Google Scholar

15 Ibid. i. 152; Mountagu Diary.

16 Mountagu Diary, pp. 64–5. The separate for the debate of 29 March has not been found.

17 Northants. RO, Montagu 29/71, 73.

18 CJ, i. 256.Google Scholar

19 Cotton Diary, p. 107.

20 Briefly calendared in HMC Montagu of Beaulieu, p. 50Google Scholar. For other reports of this speech, see CJ, i. 364, 1035–6Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 255–61.Google Scholar

21 Sir George Coppin.

22 CJ, i. 152Google Scholar refers to him as Brian Tash.

23 CJ, i. 150–1Google Scholar. For the context of this speech, see Tyacke, N. R. N., ‘Wroth, Cecil and the Parliamentary Session of 1604’, BIHR 1 (1977), pp. 120–5.Google Scholar

24 For a draft of which speech, see below.

25 For which also see Mountagu's own account and CJ, i. 151.Google Scholar

26 Elections statute, 7 Hen. IV, cap. 15. SR, ii. 156.Google Scholar

27 Thomas Fitzherbert was arrested upon outlawry for debts owing to the Crown and others on the day of his election for Newcastle-under-Lyme. He was adjudged to have been properly elected, but denied parliamentary privilege. Hasler, ii. 125–6.

28 Thus implying that the burgesses were not gentlemen.

29 Matthew Chubbe, MP for Dorchester.

30 The House disapproved of this request, but followed due process by referring the request to the privileges' committee. CJ, i. 152.Google Scholar

31 32 Hen. VIII, cap. 2. SR, iii. 747–8.Google Scholar

32 1 Eliz. I cap. 3 Recognition of the Queen's title. SR, iv. 358–9.Google Scholar

33 1 Mary (April) cap. 12; 1 Eliz. I cap. 16. SR, iv. 211–14, 377.Google Scholar

34 None of these motions for revival of statutes is mentioned in CJ, i. 152, 935.Google Scholar

35 39 Eliz. I cap. 4. SR, iv. 899–902.Google Scholar

36 Sir Henry Mountagu.

37 Solicitor-general Sir Thomas Fleming, MP for Southampton.

38 Text in CJ, i. 157.Google Scholar

39 Concerning the Goodwin v. Fortescue election dispute.

40 This was John Smith, MP for Camelford in 1559, allowed to retain his seat after a close run division. Hasler, , iii. 397–8.Google Scholar

41 CJ, i. 158Google Scholar, names this man as ‘One Vaughan outlawed’, i.e. Walter Vaughan, returned for Carmarthenshire in 1576 but outlawed before the next session began in 1581. Hasler, , iii. 552–3.Google Scholar

42 Thomas Fitzherbert.

43 Presumably John Killigrew of Arwennack, MP for Penryn in 1584, 1586 and 1597, although no privilege case is mentioned in Hasler, , ii. 396–7.Google Scholar

44 Sir Walter Harcourt was arrested on the day after the end of the 1593 session at the behest of Sir John Fortescue. Hasler, , ii. 250.Google Scholar

45 39 Eliz. I cap. 28; 43 Eliz. I cap. 19. SR, iv. 952–7, 1010–14.Google Scholar

46 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 1. SR, iv. 1017–18.Google Scholar

47 Thomas Hetley, MP for Huntingdon.

48 i.e. Wroth.

49 Sir Henry Mountagu.

50 Payne's sequestration was reversed on 6 March 1610. CJ, i. 406.Google Scholar

51 23 Eliz. I cap. 1; 39 Eliz. I cap. 7. SR, iv. 657–8, 904–9.Google Scholar

52 This is a report of the decision reached on the previous day, after which the house adjourned for Easter. CJ, i. 167.Google Scholar

53 Sir John Leveson, MP for Shropshire.

54 The names of the twelve men commissioned to take the oaths of the rest of the House are recorded in CJ, i. 140.Google Scholar

55 Ibid. i. 141 states that Phelips was seated by Herbert and Sir Edward Stafford.

56 Ibid. i. 142.

57 This is not recorded in the Journal, although a committee of privileges was named on this day, Ibid. i. 149–50.

58 Ibid. i. 142 puts this at two o'clock in the afternoon.

59 Having gone to so much trouble to obtain a hearing of this speech, the Commons had it entered in the Journal, Ibid. i. 142–6.

60 For the form of which, see Ibid. i. 150.

61 i.e. The Book of Common Prayer. Ibid. i. 151.

62 Wroth included two other grievances, dispensation from penal statutes and abuses of writs and Exchequer procedure. CJ, i. 151Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 55; Manners Diary, p. 22.

63 CJ, i. 151Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 55; Manners Diary, p. 22.

64 For which see CJ, i. 151.Google Scholar

65 The wording of the writ for return of knights of the shire as recorded in CJ, i. 140Google Scholar specifies duos Milites, Gladiis cinctos, mugis idoneos et discretos.

66 The Manners Diary has the fullest account of this debate, see above p. 23–24.

67 [Sic] straight.

68 See the Mountagu Diary for the reasons, p. 56. The bill was rejected by 125–75, CJ, i. 152.Google Scholar

69 32 Hen. VIII, cap. 2. SR iii. 747–8.Google Scholar

70 The committee for Wroth's motions met on the afternoon of Friday 23 March. CJ, i. 151.Google Scholar

71 The heads of Bacon's report are printed in CJ, i. 153Google Scholar; the fullest summary of the wardship debate is in the Manners Diary, p. 26.

72 See CJ, i. 154Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 57.

73 [Sic] Buckinghamshire.

74 The debate on the Goodwin v. Fortescue case took place on the morning of 27 March, when the objections Lord Cecil raised at the conference on the afternoon of 26 March were reported to the House. See CJ, i. 155–6Google Scholar; Manners Diary, pp. 29–30; Mountagu Diary, pp. 58–59.

75 Tobie Mathew, Bishop of Durham, 1595–1606.

76 Serjeant Sir Henry Hobart, MP for Norwich.

77 For further coverage of the debate, see CJ, i. 155Google Scholar; Manners Diary, pp. 29–30.

78 CJ, i. 156Google Scholar mentions only Sir Edward Coke and Dr Hone.

79 The time of the adjournment is confirmed by Manners Diary, p. 30.

80 CJ, i. 156Google Scholar states that the House was not held to be full enough, and three bills were read before Herbert made his report.

81 CJ, i. 157Google Scholar. The lawyers are among the first named to this delegation.

82 Sir John Popham.

83 Sir Edmund Anderson.

84 Sir William Peryam. Not noted to have been sent in CJ, i. 158.Google Scholar

85 Sir Edward Coke.

86 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 1. SR, iv. 1016–17.Google Scholar

87 i.e. Sir George More, MP for Guildford.

88 For an alternative translation of this prophecy, see Mountagu Diary for 31 March.

89 CJ, i. 158Google Scholar; Manners Diary, p. 34.

90 Sir Matthew Carew and Sir Edward Stanhope, CJ, i. 158.Google Scholar

91 Robert, 3rd Earl of Essex.

92 i.e. Francis Moore, MP for Reading.

93 These speeches are reported anonymously in CJ, i. 159.Google Scholar

94 Thomas Crew, MP for Lichfield.

95 Lawrence Hyde, MP for Marlborough. See Manners Diary, p. 37.

96 Anthony Dyott, MP for Lichfield.

97 For the fullest details of which see Manners Diary, pp. 36–37.

98 Second reading and committal. Cotton was not named to the committee. CJ, i. 162.Google Scholar

99 CJ, i. 162Google Scholar; See Manners Diary, pp. 38–39; Mountagu Diary, p. 63. Payne's suspension was reversed on 6 March 1610. CJ, i. 406.Google Scholar

100 Sir John Stanhope, M P for Newtown, Isle of Wight and vice-chamberlain of the household.

101 The exclusion of an MP from the King's speech seems to have been compounded by Tash's implicit assumption that burgesses were not gentlemen.

102 i.e. The Exchequer.

103 CJ, i. 150–1.Google Scholar

104 See also CJ, i. 151.Google Scholar

105 See also CJ, i. 152Google Scholar and the Manners Diary, p. 25.

106 The House was always reluctant to pass legislation which gave statutory authority to the royal prerogative.

107 32 Hen. VIII, cap. 2. SR, iii. 747–8.Google Scholar

108 8 Hen. VI, cap. 9. SR, ii. 244–6.Google Scholar

109 8 Eliz. I cap. 11. SR, iv. 494–59.Google Scholar

110 Neither CJ, i. 155 or 936Google Scholar mention any such measure on this day; it was probably the bill given a first reading on 11 April. CJ, i. 167.Google Scholar

111 See CJ, i. 157–8Google Scholar and the Manners Diary, pp. 30–31.

112 This paper has not been found.

113 Robert Clarke, Exchequer Baron.

114 Edward Fenner, Justice of King's Bench.

115 Sir Edward Coke.

116 i.e. Shouts. The bill passed without committal. See CJ, i. 158Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 48–49.

117 For which see CJ, i. 159–60Google Scholar, Cotton Diary, pp. 49–51.

118 29 March, Cotton Diary, p. 49.

119 Mountagu presumably meant the courtier and poet Sir John Harington of Kelston, Somerset rather than John, 1st Baron Harington or his brother Sir James Harington, knight of the shire for Rutland.

120 The details of this bill are not recorded in CJ, i. 160Google Scholar, Manners or Cotton.

121 CJ, i. 940Google Scholar; not recorded in CJ, i. 160.Google Scholar

122 Mountagu seems to have confused this measure with two other bills concerning alehouses which were first read on 18 April. CJ, i. 176.Google Scholar

123 Mountagu presumably confused this bill with that for forcible entries, engrossed on 13 April. CJ, i. 170.Google Scholar

124 The Statute of Artificers, 5 Eliz. I cap. 4. SR, iv. 414–22.Google Scholar

125 Payne was allowed to take his place in the House again on 6 March 1610. CJ, i. 406.Google Scholar

126 ag Eliz. I cap. 6 (cl. 6). SR, iv, 772.Google Scholar

127 These phrases are underlined in the text.

128 CJ, i. 167Google Scholar. The bill assured lands to the Dean and Chapter of Windsor.

129 Christopher Brooke, MP for York.

130 For this debate, see CJ, i. 168Google Scholar. Mountagu's account is difficult to read as it is crammed on to the bottom of a page.

131 Dispute between Sir Robert Vernon and Sir William Herbert over conveyance of lands in Montgomeryshire.

132 Enacted as 1 Jac. I cap. 36.

133 Sherley had been arrested shortly before the start of the session, while under parliamentary privilege.

134 Enacted as 1 Jac. I cap. 32.

135 The text breaks off abruptly at the bottom of the page; this was presumably the motion for Recorder Mountagu to report the proceedings of the conference to the House on 16 April.

136 This was one of the three points Mountagu himself had moved on 23 March.

137 Bill to confirm the charter of the Bridewell Hospital. CJ, i. 173.Google Scholar

138 The 1601 act made the estate of the late Edward Lucas liable to legacies in the will of John Flowerdew. CJ, i. 175.Google Scholar

139 Unidentified but, in the context, presumably the Le Grys v. Cotterell estate bill. CJ, i. 175.Google Scholar

140 John Tey, MP for Arundel. CJ, i. 175.Google Scholar

141 Sherley attempted to resolve his privilege case by undertaking to settle the debt for which he had been arrested and exonerate the Warden of the Fleet from any liability for his release under parliamentary privilege.

142 The only bill Mountagu missed was another relating to alehouses. CJ, i. 176.Google Scholar

143 This note is at the top of a new page in the manuscript.

144 i.e. Bishops.

145 xwo private bills were brought from the Lords on 19 April, one for naturalization of Sir George Home, the other for confirmation of letters patents to Home. LJ, ii. 782.Google Scholar

146 Mountagu must only have missed prayers, as Jermy's bill is the first item of business recorded in CJ, i. 179.Google Scholar

147 i.e. The bill to provide a remedy for the dilemma posed by Sherley's privilege case.

148 i.e. Sir Francis Bacon.

149 Northants. RO, Mountagu MS 29/71, for which see pp. 96–99.

150 Text ends abruptly at the bottom of a page.

151 Esme, Lord D'Aubigny.

152 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 31.

153 The 1536 Act concerned the taking of ballast from the Thames. SR, iii. 550.Google Scholar

154 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 11.

155 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 34.

156 Three bills had been read and two reported from committee before the point at which Mountagu's notes begin.

157 During Mountagu's absence the house received complaints about purveyance, sent two messages to the Lords and read two bills.

158 i.e. The Exchequer.

159 Northants. RO, Montagu MS 29/73, printed below.

160 Sir Edward Bruce, Lord Kinloss.

161 CJ, i. 193Google Scholar states that the suit was between Sir Robert Vernon and Sir William Herbert.

162 To confirm an entail made by Henry Butler upon the marriage of his son William. CJ, i. 193.Google Scholar

163 The 1597 Vagrancy Act, 39 Eliz. I cap. 4. SR, iv. 899–902.Google Scholar

164 Northants. RO, Montagu MS 29/73.

165 For which see CJ, i. 194.Google Scholar

166 A bill to give children born in England to alien parents the status of denizens. CJ, i. 197.Google Scholar

167 The bill must simply have been tabled at this point, as no reading is recorded in CJ, i. 199.Google Scholar

168 A bill to register legal judgements which might affect land titles. CJ, i. 199.Google Scholar

169 i.e. Customs officials.

170 ‘For the better safety of the realm, that his Majesty may take notice where aliens and strangers are inhabiting.’ CJ, i. 199.Google Scholar

171 5 Eliz. cap. 8. SR, iv. 429–36.Google Scholar

172 Not mentioned in CJ, i. 204, 967–8.Google Scholar

173 Two other bills, for Exchequer procedure and the Trinity College-Mounson land exchange, were also sent down at this time. CJ, i. 210.Google Scholar

174 Thomas Glover, Margaret Mordant, Francis Collymore, Alexander Daniell, Nicholas Gilpine and Mary Copcote. The bill was enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 29.

175 See CJ, i. 210.Google Scholar

176 On Monday 14 May Mountagu was granted leave of absence to attend a lawsuit he had pending the following day at the Guildhall [CJ, i. 209Google Scholar]; there are no entries for 16–18 May, but he left a blank page at this point in his parliamentary diary.

177 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 37.

178 The third reading of this bill was deferred until Monday 21 May; it eventually passed on 22 May. CJ, i. 215, 222.Google Scholar

179 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 18.

180 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 28.

181 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 30.

182 Three of the various bills for regulation of alehouses were all consigned to the same committee. CJ, i. 222.Google Scholar

183 CJ, i. 224Google Scholar states that this bill received first and second readings the following morning, but ibid. 978 concurs with Mountagu.

184 i.e. the Lea river to the north-east of London. This reading is not recorded in CJ, i. 224–5, 978–9.Google Scholar

185 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 17.

186 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 24.

187 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 21.

188 CJ, i. 225Google Scholar merely cites this as a bill ‘for confirmation of a decree in Chancery made for payment of money and re-assurance of a lease’. It was presumably the bill committed on 2 June [ibid. 231], but there is no record of its being dashed, as Mountagu states.

189 i.e. Plague.

190 i.e. John Tey, MP for Arundel.

191 Thornborough, John, A Discourse plainely proving the evident Utilitie and urgent necessitie of the desired happie Union of the two famous Kingdomes of England and Scotland (London, 1604)Google Scholar, repr. in Harleian Miscellany, ix. 95–105Google Scholar. This outcry occasioned the book's suppression, see HMC Hastings, iv. 2.Google Scholar

192 Because of the feast of Whit Sunday on 27 May.

193 To Sir George Home, CJ, i. 228.Google Scholar

194 Henry Jernegan of Norfolk. Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 33.

195 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 38.

196 Mountagu crossed this out because he had already made a note of the bill when it arrived from the Lords the previous day.

197 i.e. The bill was reported on this day. CJ, i. 230.Google Scholar

198 These bills were assigned to the committee appointed to consider Mountagu's motion of 23 March.

199 The date of this third reading is not noted in CJ, i. 236–7, 989–90.Google Scholar

200 The dates are lost by a tear in the page. CJ, i. 232, 244.Google Scholar

201 Presumably ‘reports’; five bills were reported to the House on 6 June. CJ, i. 233.Google Scholar

202 The printed CJ [i. 233, 237] misread the title of this bill as being ‘for the maintenance of artillery’.

203 The bill was committed at its second reading on 7 June, but reported as being unfit to continue on 13 June.

204 John Gordon, Dean of Salisbury. Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 22.

205 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 26.

206 Edmond Penning. CJ, i. 234.Google Scholar

207 i.e. Leases of church lands. CJ, i. 235Google Scholar. 21 Hen. VIII, cap. 13. SR, iii. 292–6.Google Scholar

208 ‘in spiritual causes’ CJ, i. 237.Google Scholar

209 i.e. Exchequer.

210 The petition is printed in CJ, i. 238Google Scholar. No order for presentation to the King is recorded for that day.

211 The bill was given a first reading on the recommendation of the committee for the earlier bill. CJ, i. 238–9.Google Scholar

212 i.e. Rogues.

213 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 23.

214 Camera Picta or Painted Chamber.

215 Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 27.

216 The rejection is recorded in CJ, i. 996aGoogle Scholar but not ibid. 244.

217 Second reading; rejected. CJ, i. 245.Google Scholar

218 Sir John Stanhope, MP for Newtown, Isle of Wight.

219 fhe King declined any oner of subsidy the Commons might vote.

220 Mountagu has confused the motion which was to double the traditional contribution of 5s. per knight and 2s. 6d. per burgess. This motion was rejected.

221 Motion of Sir Edward Hoby. CJ, i. 247–8.Google Scholar

222 Thomas Lovell.

223 Adam Newton, tutor to Prince Henry.

224 Although technically committed, no committee was named and the bill was ordered to sleep until the next session.

225 i.e. Bringing down the following two bills.

226 Estate bill for Sir Henry Neville of Byrling, Kent, enacted as 1 Jac. I cap. 36.

227 Mountagu drafted a speech on this subject, Northants. RO MS 29/44, for which see below, pp. 102–3.

228 i.e. the annexation's bill.

229 25 Hen. VIII, cap. 19, ‘Act for the submission of the clergy to the King's Majesty’. SR, iii. 460–1.Google Scholar

230 1 Eliz. I cap. 1, Act of Supremacy. SR, iv. 350–5.Google Scholar

231 3&4 Edw. VI cap. 11, ‘An act that the King's Majesty may nominate 32 persons to peruse and make ecclesiastical laws’. SR, iv. 111–12.Google Scholar

232 Briefly related in CJ, i. 182.Google Scholar

233 CJ, i. 184Google Scholar contains the slightly different list of objections reported by Bacon on 25 April.

234 i.e. Diplomatic precedence.

235 Bacon chose to ignore this anti-Scots remark in his report of the debate.

236 CJ, i. 183–4.Google Scholar

237 i.e. Objection.

238 Sir Roger Aston, MP for Cheshire.

239 See also CJ, i. 186–7.Google Scholar

240 Reported by Bacon. For the names of those chosen to speak at the conference, see CJ, i. 188–9.Google Scholar

241 CJ, i. 193–4.Google Scholar

242 This message was received on Thursday 10 May, see CJ, i. 206.Google Scholar

243 Sir Henry Hobart.

244 Sir Thomas Billingsley, MP for London.

245 Robert Askwith, MP for York.

246 MP for Bristol.

247 MP for Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

248 Robert, Lord Buckhurst, MP for Sussex.

249 Thomas, Lord Clinton, M P for Lincolnshire.

250 Vice-Chamberlain to the Queen. CJ, i. 208.Google Scholar

251 Sir Thomas Ridgeway, MP for Devon.

252 Sir Richard Bulkeley, MP for Anglesey.

253 Sir Henry Widdrington, M P for Northumberland.

254 The bill was given two readings in the Commons on 4 July 1604, but ran out of time and was allowed to sleep until the next session on 6 July. CJ, i. 252–3.Google Scholar

255 Briefly noted in Bowyer, p. 185Google Scholar. The King also spoke at length, see ibid.; CJ, i. 314–15.Google Scholar

256 CJ, i. 316–18.Google Scholar

257 Ibid. i. 318–23.Google Scholar

258 Ibid. i. 315–16, 323–4Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 186, 188Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 123.

259 i.e. Sir Henry Hobart, MP for Norwich; see Bowyer, pp. 188–9Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 123.

260 CJ, i. 324Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 123.

261 CJ, i. 325Google Scholar. The Act in question was 3 Jac. I, Private Acts cap. 12.

262 CJ, i. 325Google Scholar; Bowyer, p. 194.Google Scholar

263 This was a result of the Lords' request for a preliminary conference on the union. CJ, i. 326.Google Scholar

264 Ibid. i. 326.

265 Ibid. 326–7.

266 Ibid. 331; Bowyer, pp. 208–9.Google Scholar

267 This ruling is not recorded elsewhere, but may have sprung from the debate over the Hostile Laws bill on 26 June, see CJ, i. 387–8, 1054Google Scholar; Bowyer, p. 351.Google Scholar

268 CJ, i. 331Google Scholar. As Under-Clerk of the Parliament, Ralph Ewens was the senior clerk in the Commons.

269 Ibid. i. 331, which names the clerk as Nicholas Davye.

270 Ibid. i. 332, privilege claimed by Sir Michael Sondes on behalf of his servant Thomas Finch.

271 Ibid. i. 333.

272 The attorney Robert Bateman, detained the previous day on a privilege complaint. Ibid. i. 333.

273 This is confirmed by ibid. i. 333; Mountagu Diary, p. 129.

274 CJ, i. 335–6Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, pp. 130–1.

275 D'Ewes, Eliz. pp. 642–3Google Scholar; Baron of Waltham was a courtesy title held by Thomas Langton, MP for Newton-in-Makerfield in 1601.

276 Anthony Curwin, servant to William Huddleston, MP for Cumberland in 1601. D'Ewes, Eliz. p. 686Google Scholar does not specifically state that Curwin was an attorney.

277 CJ, i. 334Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 209–10Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 130 which all state that the Commons' judgement on this case was handed down on 13 February.

278 This helps to explain the gnomic order recorded in CJ, i. 339Google Scholar: the Commons doubtless hoped the ruling would allow them to postpone a conference with the Lords, who were pressing them on the vexed question of naturalization [see Mountagu Diary, p. 132], but allowed themselves room to revoke the decision if it proved controversial.

279 CJ, i. 343.Google Scholar

280 For the text see ibid. i. 344.

281 Ibid. i. 343–4.

282 Ibid. i. 340–2, 344.

283 Ibid. i. 345–6; Mountagu Diary, p. 135.

284 CJ, i. 346Google Scholar. The morion was made by Speaker Phelips, whose own estates lay in Somerset.

285 Ibid. i. 346. This was presumably a reference to the amendments for the newly amended drunkenness bill, which was given a third reading directly thereafter.

286 Ibid. i. 346.

287 Ibid. i. 348–9; Bowyer, pp. 212–14Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 137.

288 This motion was in fact raised during the hearing of counsel for the bill for St Saviour's, Southwark. CJ, i. 349Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 216–17.Google Scholar

289 CJ, i. 351.Google Scholar

290 Ibid. i. 351.

291 This order was presumably cited in making the motion recorded in ibid. i. 352.

292 Ibid. i. 352.

293 Ibid. i. 352.

294 Ibid. i. 352; Bowyer, pp. 233–4.Google Scholar

295 CJ, i. 353.Google Scholar

296 Heigham and Fuller actually made their motions on 23 March, ibid. i. 353–4.

297 Ibid. i. 353–4; Bowyer, pp. 240–2Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 139.

298 CJ, i. 354.Google Scholar

299 Despite the dates given, the bill was reported on 26 March. Ibid. i. 354.

300 It is probable that this number should read 6000 rather than 60000.

301 CJ, i. 355–6.Google Scholar

302 Ibid. i. 357–63.

303 Ibid. i. 363.

304 Ibid., i. 364. Counsel both for and against the bill were eventually heard on 9 May. Ibid. i. 371–2.

305 Bowyer, p. 253Google Scholar puts the number at 53. Mountagu Diary p. 141 ascribes the absences to the forthcoming St. George's feast at Windsor.

306 i.e. A recommittal of a bill overrides the conclusions reached by the original committee. CJ, i. 365.Google Scholar

307 This refers to the debates of 28 April to 1 May, which are recorded only perfunctorily in CJ, i. 364–5Google Scholar. For the fullest reports, see Bowyer, pp. 255–86.Google Scholar

308 CJ, i. 366–8Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 287–8.Google Scholar

309 3 May was a Sunday; the case was aired on the following day. CJ, i. 368.Google Scholar

310 Ibid. i. 369.

311 Ibid. i. 371.

312 This alludes to the debates of 6–7 May; ibid. i. 370–1; Bowyer, pp. 376–81Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 144. No version of Lewkenor's speech appears to survive.

313 CJ, i. 371Google Scholar (7 May).

314 Ibid.

315 Ibid. i. 371, 1042.

316 8 May. Ibid. i. 371.

317 This debate actually took place on 11–12 May, ibid. i. 372–3; Bowyer, pp. 291–2.Google Scholar

318 CJ, i. 375.Google Scholar

319 Ibid. i. 373, 1044.

320 13 May. Ibid. i. 373.

321 CJ, i. 373, 379Google Scholar. Although the Journal names him as Francis Bullingham, this was in fact Richard Bellingham, M P for Bletchingley.

322 This does not appear to have been recorded at the time. Hasler, , iii. 216.Google Scholar

323 Spencer v. Abergavenny, 24 March 1606. CJ, i. 288.Google Scholar

324 Ibid. i. 373.

325 Ibid. i. 375; Bowyer, pp. 293–7.Google Scholar

326 Which clarifies the order in CJ, i. 375Google Scholar: ‘no committees should sit until their next meeting’.

327 Ibid. i. 375.

328 Bowyer, pp. 297–8Google Scholar explains that some suspected this adjournment was intended to defuse the Commons' objections to officially sponsored amendments to the Hostile Laws bill.

329 Second reading. The question had been considered upon a recommendation from the King on 27 February, and the bill had received its first reading on 4 March. CJ, i. 343–4. 347. 376.Google Scholar

330 Ibid. i. 377. The union debate is briefly recorded in Bowyer, pp. 307–8.Google Scholar

331 CJ, i. 377–8.Google Scholar

332 Actually entered on 4 June. Ibid. i. 378–9.

333 The notes for 4 June are all recorded in ibid. i. 379.

334 Ibid. i. 380.

335 The text of the letter is entered in ibid. i. 380–1.

336 [Sic] 9 June pm. CJ, i. 381.Google Scholar

337 Ibid. i. 381.

338 Ibid.

339 Ibid. i. 383–4.

340 Cotton and Robert Bowyer were ordered to conduct a search for precedents on this point. Ibid. i. 384; Bowyer, pp. 330–3.Google Scholar

341 CJ, i. 384–5.Google Scholar

342 Ibid. i. 384; Bowyer, pp. 333–9.Google Scholar

343 CJ, i. 385Google Scholar; Bowyer, p. 343.Google Scholar

344 This is almost a verbatim copy of CJ, i. 385.Google Scholar

345 Ibid. i. 385–6.

346 Ibid. i. 386. The parties were Christopher Stone, MP for Bath and Edmund March.

347 First reading. Ibid. i. 386.

348 Presumably the wrong date. This bill was first read on 9 June, second read and committed on 10 June and reported and engrossed on 23 June. Ibid. i. 381. 387.

349 Ibid. i. 386–7.

350 Ibid. i. 387.

351 Ibid. i. 388–9; Bowyer, pp. 358–63.Google Scholar

352 CJ, i. 388.Google Scholar

353 Lawrence Hyde moved to add the word ‘Oath’. Ibid. i. 388–9; Bowyer, p. 362.Google Scholar

354 The dates mentioned in CJ, i. 389Google Scholar are 1–2 July.

355 This was actually the bill to confirm a clause in the charter of Southampton. Ibid. i. 390.

356 Ibid. i. 390.

357 Ibid. i. 390. The reporter was Sir Edwin Sandys, see Bowyer, pp. 367–8.Google Scholar

358 Ibid. i. 390–1.

359 Ibid. i. 391–2.

360 The speeches are noted in CJ, i. 314–15Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 185–6Google Scholar. The answer to the grievances is printed in CJ, i. 316–18.Google Scholar

361 11am according to CJ, i. 318.Google Scholar

362 For which see ibid. i. 318–23.

363 Ibid. i. 324; Bowyer, pp. 188–9Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 104.

364 Following the question raised about his attendance on 22 November.

365 CJ, i. 324.Google Scholar

366 Bowyer noted that Mountagu considered that because the Commons' answer failed to endorse the Lords' message they should have returned answer by their own messengers. Bowyer, p. 191.Google Scholar

367 Three private bills, the free trade bill and the bill for the fame of noble persons received first readings on this day. CJ, i. 324.Google Scholar

368 Reports (made the following morning) are to be found in ibid. i. 325; Bowyer, 191–2.Google Scholar

369 3 Jac. I, cap. 6 abrogated the charters of all companies trading with France and Spain. SR, iv. 1083.Google Scholar

370 i.e. Evelyn, John. CJ, i. 325.Google Scholar

371 Ibid. i. 1005; Bowyer, pp. 195–7.Google Scholar

372 This bill dealt with the ex officio oath, one of the issues Mountagu raised in his speech of 23 March 1604 on this subject, for which see above and Bowyer, pp. 199–200.Google Scholar

373 CJ, i. 326Google Scholar; Bowyer, p. 198Google Scholar.

374 ‘To retrain the execution of Canons ecclesiastical not confirmed by Parliament’ CJ, i. 326Google Scholar. This was another of the measures recommended by Mountagu on 23 March 1604.

375 Ibid. i. 326; Bowyer, pp. 198–9.Google Scholar

376 Sir Hugh Beeston was appointed one of the collectors of the benevolence, and the House adjourned early in preparation for the afternoon's Grand Committee on the Instrument of Union. CJ, i. 326–7.Google Scholar

377 Enacted as 4 Jac. I, cap. 4. SR, iv. 1141–2.Google Scholar

378 Interim report on the Union committee, two bills read and one reported, complaint about border abuses. Ibid. i. 327; Bowyer, pp. 199–200.Google Scholar

379 Peter Baro, MD. The measure was enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 30.

380 18 Eliz. I, cap. 3, ‘An Act for the setting of the poor on work’. SR, iv. 610–13.Google Scholar

381 1 Jac. I, cap. 22. SR, iv. 1039–48.Google Scholar

382 The two parts in question were hostile laws and commerce; CJ, i. 329Google Scholar; Bowyer, p. 204.Google Scholar

383 Briefly detailed in Bowyer, pp. 204–5Google Scholar. The 1604 bill was 1 Jac. I, cap. 33. SR, iv. 1062–4.Google Scholar

384 Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 18.

385 Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 20.

386 Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 21.

387 Soham, Cambridgeshire.

388 CJ, i. 331Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, pp. 105–6.

389 Thomas Finch. CJ, i. 332.Google Scholar

390 Robert Bateman and Peter Hutchins. Ibid. i. 333.

391 8 Hen. VI, cap. 9. SR, ii. 244–6.Google Scholar

392 Ibid. i. 333.

393 i.e. The diarist's brother Sir Henry Mountagu, Recorder of London.

394 i.e. The court of Common Pleas.

395 CJ, i. 334Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 209–10Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 107.

396 CJ, i. 334–5.Google Scholar

397 Ibid. i. 335.

398 Ibid. i. 335–6.

399 Enacted as 4 Jac. I, cap. 2. SR, iv. 1137–40.Google Scholar

400 The abbreviations denote ‘defendant’ and ‘plaintiff’.

401 CJ, i. 336–7, 1015.Google Scholar

402 Owen was the last of several speakers. Ibid. i. 337, 1016.

403 The man who had arrested the MP Richard James. See above 10–11 February.

404 CJ, i. 338, 1016–18Google Scholar; PRO, SP14/26/54.

405 Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 24.

406 CJ, i. 338–9.Google Scholar

407 Ibid. i. 1018–19.

408 For which see HLRO, Main Papers (Parchment Collection) Box 1E, 27 May 1607. It enlarged upon 32 Hen. VIII, OA 49.

409 Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 27.

410 CJ, i. 1019–20.Google Scholar

411 HLRO, Main Papers, 9 Mar. 1607.

412 HLRO, 4 James I, OA 33.

413 CJ i. 339. 1020.Google Scholar

414 Ibid. i. 340 mentions 30,000 acres; the final Act mentions only 6,000: 4 Jac. I, cap. 13; SR, iv. 1152.Google Scholar

415 CJ, i. 340.Google Scholar

416 4 Jac. I, cap. 7. SR, iv. 1144–6.Google Scholar

417 There was also a lengthy complaint about Spanish interference with English trade. CJ, i. 340–2.Google Scholar

418 Second reading. Ibid. i. 342.

419 Second reading. Ibid. i. 343.

420 Enacted as 4 Jac. I, cap. 11. SR, iv. 1149–51.Google Scholar

421 CJ, i. 344Google Scholar and Cotton Diary p. 107 date this to 27 February.

422 Draft bill in BL, Add. 34218, fols 94–5.

423 CJ, i. 345–6.Google Scholar

424 1 Jac. I, cap. 16. SR, iv. 1034.Google Scholar

425 13 Eliz. I, cap. 12, ‘An Act to reform certain disorders touching ministers of the church’. SR, iv. 546–7.Google Scholar

426 The floods had affected Somerset, where Phelips' own estates lay. CJ, i. 346Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 108.

427 This report was made by Sir Edward Hoby. CJ, i. 346–7.Google Scholar

428 Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 28.

429 CJ, i. 348Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 212–14Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, pp. 108–9.

430 On the following morning. CJ, i. 348.Google Scholar

431 Ibid. i. 348–99; Bowyer, p. 216Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 109.

432 James Desmaistres. HLRO, 4 James I, OA 31.

433 CJ, i. 350.Google Scholar

434 No such bill is recorded as being read on this day. Ibid. i. 350–1, 1028–9.

435 The background to the dispute is rehearsed in ibid. i. 380–1.

436 CJ, i. 352Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 109.

437 The conference took place at 2pm in the Painted Chamber. Bowyer, pp. 235–40.Google Scholar

438 The day being the fourth anniversary of the King's accession. CJ, i. 354.Google Scholar

439 i.e. The conferences on 7 and 14 March. Ibid. i. 354, 1032.

440 The first reading of this bill is not recorded in the Journal; it otherwise proceeded in tandem with Sackvile's bill. Ibid. i. 355–7.

441 Lesnes and Fants. 4 Jac I, cap. 8. SR, iv. 1146–7.Google Scholar

442 HLRO, 4 James I, OA 17.

443 CJ, i. 354–5.Google Scholar

444 Ibid. i. 356; Bowyer, pp. 242–4.Google Scholar

445 i.e. The court of Requests.

446 Ightham Mote, Kent. The bill seems to have been intended to extinguish the reversionary claim held by Stephen Allen, whose father had sold the manor to Selby while he was still underage, and hence unable to waive his rights.

447 CJ. i. 357.Google Scholar

448 Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I OA 22.

449 CJ i. 357–63Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 252–3.Google Scholar

450 Bowyer, p. 253Google Scholar states that one MP counted 53 members present.

451 Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I OA 23.

452 3 Jac. I, cap 18. SR, iv. 1092–3.Google Scholar

453 This paper has not been found. See CJ, i. 364, 1035–6Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 255–63.Google Scholar

454 Enacted as 4 Jac. I, cap. 10. SR, 1148–9.Google Scholar

455 CJ, i. 365, 1037Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 263–74.Google Scholar

456 Presumably part of the Tanners' Act, 1 Jac. I, cap. 22. SR, iv. 1039–48Google Scholar.

457 CJ, i. 365, 1038Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 274–84.Google Scholar

458 CJ, i. 365Google Scholar says Thomas Annoot.

459 HLRO, Main Papers, 11 June 1607.

460 CJ, i. 366, 1039Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 284–6.Google Scholar

461 CJ, i. 366.Google Scholar

462 Ibid., i. 366.

463 Ibid. i. 366–8; Bowyer, pp. 287–8.Google Scholar

464 Bowyer, pp. 289–90Google Scholar. Enacted (after much controversy) as 4 Jac. I. cap. 1. SR, iv. 1134–6.Google Scholar

465 CJ, i. 368.Google Scholar

466 When counsel for the Marshalsea bill was heard. Ibid. i. 369; Bowyer, pp. 290–1.Google Scholar

467 In his speech of 2 May the King had complained of ‘speeches against duty, almost against allegiance’ in the Union debates in the Commons. CJ, i. 367Google Scholar. For the debate of 6 May see ibid. i. 370, 1041; Cotton Diary, p. 112.

468 CJ, i. 370–1Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 376–81.Google Scholar

469 CJ, i. 371–3Google Scholar. The debate on the hostile laws bill continued until a conference with the Lords on 11 May. Bowyer, pp. 381–7.Google Scholar

470 Edward, Lord Bruce and Michael Doyley. Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 19.

471 Enacted as 4 James I, OA 25.

472 CJ 373, 1044Google Scholar; PRO, SP14/27/19; Cotton Diary, p. 114.

473 See above, Tuesday 3 March.

474 Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 16.

475 CJ, i. 375Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 293–4Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 115.

476 For which see the narrative in Martin, J. E., Feudalism to Capitalism (New Jersey, 1983), pp. 161–80.Google Scholar

477 The next session eventually convened on 30 January 1610.