The Commons' Journals of the Tudor Period

J. E. Neale

doi:10.2307/3678309

The Commons' Journals of the Tudor Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009

J. E. Neale

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

In 1914 Professor Pollard read a paper before the Royal Historical Society on “The Authenticity of the Lords' Journals in the Sixteenth Century,”1 in the course of which, by revealing how inadequate a presentation of the manuscript originals was contained in the printed journals, he showed that the original journals might be a valuable field for historical gleanings. In addition to Professor Pollard, Professor. Maitland and Mr. L. O. Pike also examined the manuscript of an Elizabethan Lords' journal;2 but in 1916 two American scholars, Professors Notestein and Usher, turned to the Commons' journals of the early seventeenth century, and in advocating a critical survey of the manuscript originals, challenged the conventional view of their authenticity which an uncritical edition of them has easily created.3 The fact is, of course, that even an accurate edition of a document—and a fortiori an inaccurate one—may destroy valuable historical evidence if it convey no clear idea of the appearance of the original manuscript. It is one thing to visualise a large folio sheet of print: a materially

Type: Research Article
Information: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 3 , December 1920 , pp. 136 - 170

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3678309 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1920

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

^{page 136 note 1} Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 3rd series, viii. 17.

^{page 136 note 2} Eng. Hist. Rev., xviii. 531. Constitutional History of the House of Lords, Pref. vii.

^{page 136 note 3} “The Stuart Period: Unsolved Problems,” by Professor W. Notestein; “ Unsolved Legal and Institutional Problems in the Stuart Period,” by Professor R. G. Usher; in Annual Rep. Amer. Hist. Assoc. (1916), i. 395, 403.

^{page 137 note 1} Professor Notestein's researches deal with the early Stuart Commons' journals, but have not yet been published. I am indebted to him for knowledge of his work and for the light which it has thrown upon my own studies.

^{page 137 note 2} Cf. B.M. Harl. MS. 6283.

^{page 138 note 1} From Oct. 1553 on, Seymour entered the word “assent” in the margin against Bills that received the royal assent. Being written at the close of a session, the word often seems foreign to a day' entries which were written in a different shade of ink. Probably for this reason the editors of the printed journals confused it with marginalia of the early seventeenth (?) century, added to facilitate the use of the journals for precedent purposes. Yet “ assent ” is an integral part of the manuscript journals.

^{page 138 note 2} Cf. Seimour, fol. 133b, where the Bill, “that the Subjectes of this Realme shall not bring in foreign wares,” clearly had the words, “ of dyverse sortes” added, in accordance with the extended title given it on the following day (fol.134a).

^{page 138 note 3} Seimour, fol. 226a (Feb. 11), 227a (Feb. 15); Lords Journals, i. 590, 591.

^{page 139 note 1} Ecclesiasticus, cap. x. verse 17. “ Leonard baryngton a wytnes for Mr. Mynne ” (cf. Commons Journals, i. 44).

^{page 139 note 2} Humphrey Bradbourne, knight for Derby County in 1552/3 and 1555 (Official Return of Members of Parliament, pt. i. 378, 393).

^{page 139 note 3} “ the decayes of the navy / in shippes and maryners / within xxty yeres in the cinque portes 258 now 69 shippes bot[toms ?] / Lyme xiiii now 2 for.[sic] /maryners 3C.C. [600] / grete shippes in englend for marchantes / London and Thamysxxvii maryners xxvm. [25,000] / 2c [200] houses of religion besides celles fryers colleges femelyes of/bishops dyd eate fishe on wensdayes kept advent xviiim. iic. xlii [?] [18,242 ?] / fed xxxm. [30,000] people in those tymes.” (Cf. Commons Journals, i. 68; S.P. Dom. Eliz., xxvii. No. 71.) The bars in the transcription denote the end of each line of writing.

^{page 139 note 4} Cf. Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 3rd series, viii. 27.

^{page 139 note 5} 4th Institute (1671), 23.

^{page 139 note 6} Jus Parliamentarium (1680), 223–4.

^{page 139 note 7} Commons Journals, xxiv. 263.

^{page 139 note 8} Parliamentary Practice (9th ed.), 258. Sir R. F. D. Palgrave abandoned this view in editing the 10th ed. Also cf. Sir C. P. Ilbert, Parliament (Home University Libraiy), p. 179, where an accurate statement based on the Act of 1515 conveys the impression of there having been earlier journals.

^{page 140 note 1} Statutes of the Realm, iii. 134 (6 Hen. VIII, c. xvi.)

^{page 140 note 2} Op. cit. 258.

^{page 140 note 3} Commons Journals, i. 116.

^{page 140 note 4} The Manner how Statutes are enacted … 32.

^{page 140 note 5} Lords Journals, ii. 195.

^{page 140 note 6} Commons Journals, i. 933. Also cf. i. 385, vi. 117.

^{page 141 note 1} 4 and 7 Nov., cf. Lords Journals, i. 293–4.

^{page 141 note 2} Pat. 2, Edw. VI, pt. v.

^{page 141 note 3} Pat. 7, Hen. VIII, pt. ii. No. 12. L. and P. Henry VIII, ii. pt. i.No. 185.

^{page 141 note 4} Under Burghley the clerk had periodically to furnish statements of the positions of Bills in the House on a given day. Cf. S.P. Dom. Eliz., cvii. Nos. 59, 63, 86; cxlviii. No. I.

^{page 142 note 1} A stray, soiled sheet of paper, containing desultory jottings, is inserted in the MS. Lords Journals (ii. 130) before the journal of 3 Edw. VI. It illustrates the need of odd notes, of which the following may serve as examples. “Re To searche owt the acte for thuse of hand gonnes.” “ii. bookes of regrating committed to Mr. Sollycitor.”

^{page 142 note 2} Hobart knew of no earlier “journal” than that of 1547 (Reports, (1678), p–109).

^{page 143 note 1} Cf. Commons Journals, i. 51, 140; D'Ewes' Journals, 570a.

^{page 143 note 2} Townshend, Historical Collections, 214–15; Roy. Com. on Pub. Rec. (1910), 2nd Rep., ii. pt. iii. 71–2.

^{page 144 note 1} Hist. MSS. Com., Hatfield MSS., pt. i. 51. Mr. W. S. Dann transcribed this for a thesis, “ Parliamentary Representation in the 16th Century,” submitted for the University of London M.A. degree in 1911. The formulas of the manuscript are those of the Crown Office lists. Mr. Dann considers the list to be for the last session of Edward VI's first Parliament.

^{page 144 note 2} Cotton MS. Titus F.; ii. fol. 70b.

^{page 144 note 3} Marginal comments were common: e.g. “mort” was entered against a deceased Member's name and the new Member's name added.

^{page 144 note 4} Roy. Com. on Pub. Rec. (1910), 2nd Rep., ii. pt. ii. 106.

^{page 144 note 5} Cf. infra, p. 24.

^{page 144 note 6} D'Ewes' Autobiography, i. 409, 436.

^{page 144 note 7} Harl. MSS. 73, 74, 75

^{page 145 note 1} D'Ewes'Journals, Pref.

^{page 145 note 2} Cf. Eng. Hist. Rev., xxviii. 533, and infra, p. 16, note.

^{page 146 note 1} D'Ewes' Journals, 431a. Also cf. in 1584/5, ibid., 334a, 351–2; in 1586/7, ibid., 392a, 418b; in 1588/9, ibid., 429a, 454b, 455a; in 1592/3, ibid.,470a.

^{page 146 note 2} Ibid., 584b (1597/8). Also cf. in 1584/5, ibid., 352a; in 1586/7, ibid., 402a; in 1588/9, ibid., 452b, 454b; in 1592/3, ibid., 478a.

^{page 146 note 3} Ibid., 337b. Also see ibid., 451a (in 1588/9); ibid., 508a (in 1592/3).

^{page 147 note 1} Cf. Roy. Com. on Pub. Rec. (1910), 2nd Rep., ii. pt. iii. 73. It is probably worth calling attention to a Landsdowne Manuscript (No. 553) in the British Museum, which is a calendar of the House of Commons' books and papers from 1547–1732. It is a substantial folio of 502 folios, and whilst all the Commons'books and papers referred to in the catalogue reprinted by the 1910 Record Commission (2nd Rep, ii. pt. ii. 106) are not included, its detailed character makes it.a useful supplement to that catalogue.

^{page 147 note 2} Ibid., 2nd Rep., ii. pt. ii. 106

^{page 147 note 3} Commons Journals, i. 390.

^{page 148 note 1} Cf. D'Ewes' Journals, 296b, 417b, 479a. See ibid., 559a, for a reference to a Committee list, and cf. an actual list from the House of Lords in S.P. Dom. cclxv., No. 18.

^{page 148 note 2} B.M. MSS.: Sloane 326; Add. 33591.

^{page 148 note 3} D'Ewes' Journals, 408. But even this has probably been retouched.

^{page 148 note 4} Ibid., 359b. Also 356a.

^{page 149 note 1} Harl. MS., No. 75, fol. 293b. This note (like many others) was omitted by Bowes in publishing D'Ewes' work. The date, and an entry of the Act of Pardon, we learn, were the only entries for Dec. 19, in the official manuscript. A blank space denoted the omissions.

^{page 149 note 2} D'Ewes' Journals, 622a.

^{page 149 note 3} The following list gives the proportion of days which begin a fresh page, to days which do not.

Journals: For 1571, 24: 20; 1575/6, 11: 19; 1580/1, 21: 31.

Rough Notes: For 1584/5 18:6; Feb. Mch. 1586/7,15:10; 1588/9 42: 4; 1592/3, 28: 11; 1597/8, 56: 2; 1601, 38: 6.

^{page 150 note 1} Harl. MS. 73, fol. 17 I give the part of the table affected, adopting a columnar rearrangement which both simplifies and helps to explain the confusion.

^{page 150 note 2} This hypothesis would explain the two versions of the Norfolk election dispute, given by D'Ewes under different dates (Journals, 396, 398).

^{page 151 note 1} Cf. D'Ewes' Journals, 278a. D'Ewes embodied its additional information in his Commons Journal, and one can detect it by comparison with the official printed journal. It is inconsiderable, and ceases with January 28: but one cannot be sure that D'Ewes made exhaustive use of the fragment. An interesting feature is the insertion of Members' names several times in the rough not–.s, when they aie omitted in the journal. Thus Paul Wentworth's name as that of the proposer of the motion for a public fast, is given in the rough notes only. (D'Ewes' Journals, 282b; Commons Journals, i. 118).

^{page 152 note 1} D'Ewes' Journals, 283a.

^{page 152 note 2} S.P. Dom. Eliz., ccxxiii. No. 34.

‘A° 31° Eliz. Die Sat: xxix. Martis, 1589.

Mr. Threasurer in the name of the rest of the committees appointed for conference with the Lords this present forenoone sheweth that their Lordshipps haue ymparted (by the mouth of the lord Threasurer) unto the committees of this House the effect of a conference, which their Lordships haue had amongst them–selfes, and of their resolucion therin, which is, That (considering the great practizes, treasons, invasions, and attemptes (lately intended and pursued by the Pope the King of Spaine, and their adherentes for the subverting of true religion, her majestie, and the whole state of the Realme) as their said Lordships together with this House haue yealded, and granted unto her majesty an extraordynary and most liberall supply of theire treasure for the necessary defence of her said majesty's state, and kingdome against the like daungerous attemptes of such mighty enemyes. So likewise (for the causes aforesaid) haue their said Lordships not only upon the said conference resolued to offer unto her Highnes the expence, and ymploying of their landes and handes, But also of their bodyes, and lyues. And likewise for the more honorable performance of the same defence to become humble sutors unto her most excellent majestie (yf yt so shall seeme good unto her said highnes) for denouncing of warre, and for preuenting of like attemptes to use all honorable meanes aswell offensiue as defensyue against the said King of Spaine, and his adherentes, at such tyme and occasion, as to her highnesses wisedome and princely good pleasure shalbe thought conuenient. And that if yt stand with the good likeing of this house, to ioyne with their said Lordships in peticion unto her majestie for the same, And also that Mr. Speaker doe delyuer the same peticion in the name of the Lords and of this house in his oracion to her majestie in the upper house this afternoone ymmedyately after the offering and deliuerie of the graunt of the fifteenes, and subsedyes. And this upon the question was resolued to be accomplished accordingly.” Cf. D'Ewes' Journals, 454b.

^{page 154 note 1} Commons Journals, i. 215.

^{page 154 note 2} Ibid., 465, 513.

^{page 154 note 3} Ibid., ii. 22.

^{page 154 note 4} Ibid., ii. 337.

^{page 154 note 5} Ibid., iv. 273, 522; Lords Journals, viii. 283.

^{page 154 note 6} Commons Journals, vi. 108.

^{page 154 note 7} Ibid., iii. In 1650/1 the House was again taking order for a repository. Vide infra, p. 20, note 2.

^{page 155 note 1} Commons Journals, vi. 168, 209.

^{page 155 note 2} Cf. Ibid., vii. 588 (26 Jan. 1657/8). In 1650/1 the House ordered that the clerk should have the rooms “ over the Parliament House ” as a repository. It is difficult to say whether anything came of the order. When a room over the Parliament House was repaired in 1656, the records mentioned as there were those of the Common Bench. (Commons Journals, vi. 542, vii. 448; Cal. S.P. Dom, 1656–7, pp. 147, 159, 199). Certainly the House of Commons, records were in the Stone Tower in January, 1657/8.

^{page 155 note 3} Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (Firth and Rait), iii. p. [xxxvii].

^{page 155 note 4} The Rump prepared an Act to effect this abrogation. It was engrossed, but not passed (Commons Journals, vii. 659, 752, 814). Cf. Lords Journals, xi. 3.

^{page 155 note 5} Commons journals, vii. 581, 587, 590.

^{page 155 note 6} Ibid., vii. 650. The presses mentioned in the Journals, for which Smythe was paid, were private ones, whereas the Surveyor of Works would have furnished any for rooms within the palace.

^{page 156 note 1} Commons Journals, viii. 310.

^{page 156 note 2} S.P. Dom. Chas. II, ccxcii. No. 216.

^{page 156 note 3} Commons Journals, ix. 295.

^{page 156 note 4} Ibid., xvii. 250, 266.

^{page 156 note 5} Autobiography, ii. 53.

^{page 157 note 1} Pref.

^{page 157 note 2} Pat. 10, Jac. I, pt.. viii.

^{page 157 note 3} D.N.B., sub “Onslow, Richard”.

^{page 158 note 1} Pat. 45, Eliz., pt. viii.

^{page 158 note 2} S.P. Dom. Jac. I, lxv. No. 90.

^{page 158 note 3} Commons Journals, i. 465, 491.

^{page 159 note 1} Supra, p. 22.

^{page 159 note 2} Commons Journals, iv. 273.

^{page 159 note 3} Pat. 15, Car. I, pt. xxii.

^{page 159 note 4} Commons Journals, vi. 108.

^{page 160 note 1} Supra, p. 20. In 1656 Scobell published a treatise entitled, “ Memorials of the Method and Manner of Proceedings in Parliament in passing Bills … Gathered by Observation and out of the Journal Books from the time of Edward 6. By H.S.E.C.P.” (H. Scobell, Esq., Cler., Parl.). A collection of precedents, some of its illustrations are drawn irom the period 1584–1601. But precedent books were as old as the century; by using previous collections he may have got his precedents only at second–hand “out of the Journal Books,”–although I doubt whether this was altogether so, even for 1584–1601: and one therefore hesitates to stress the implications of this treatise.

^{page 160 note 2} Rep., vi. pt. i., p. viii. The journal covers June 21–July 5, 1625.

^{page 160 note 3} Commons Journals, vii. 588, 590; Burton's Diary, ii. 403–4.

^{page 160 note 4} Commons Journals, vii. 578, 594,650; viii. 1.

^{page 160 note 5} Ibid., vii. 652.

^{page 161 note 1} In his dedication. The reference can only be to this loss. The only other gaps that may have occurred in the official manuscripts since 1630 are a few odd days in the Lords'journals of 1558/9 and 1597/8 (Trans. Roy. Hisi. Soc, 3rd series, viii. 21; Eng. Hist. Rev., xxxiv. 587).

^{page 161 note 2} An entry in the Journals of 1694/5 might seem to refer to an appreciable leakage of manuscripts after 1669, the probable date of some loose papers found in private custody (Commons Journals, xi. 255). Between April, 1661, however, and the date when we have evidence that the Onslow notes were missing, two clerks officiated, father and son, both named William Goldsborough (Pat. 13. Car. II, pt. xliv. No. 7; Cal. S.P. Dom., 1673, 590; S.P. Dom. Car. II, CDV. No. 112). The risks attendant upon changes in the clerkship were thus eliminated. The son must have known of the gap in the Elizabethan Journals, and it is in credible that either he or his father was responsible for the loss. The researches of Professor Notestein, when published, will show that several Stuart Journals have also been lost, and whilst these may not have disappeared at the same time as the Onslow notes, it is quite feasible that they did. In either case the period of loss must have been one of lax supervision and unusual risks.

^{page 161 note 3} Supra, p. 23.

^{page 161 note 4} Commons Journals, viii. 23–4.

^{page 162 note 1} I have examined the Petyt MS. Collection at the Inner Temple, and certain journals in the possession of the Earl of Winchilsea (cf. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. i., App. via., 227, sq.; Rep. i., App. 31). Neither collection includes any of the missing official manuscripts. A Petyt MS., which Professor Firth thought to be one, is a copy of the anonymous Member's journal for 1592/3 used by D'Ewes (cf. Roy. Com. on Pub. Rec. (1910), 2nd Rep., pt. ii., 107a; D'Ewes' yournals, 468).

^{page 162 note 2} Supra, p. 15.

^{page 163 note 1} Commons Journals, i. 37.

^{page 163 note 2} 'Ibid., i. 38.

^{page 163 note 3} Ibid., i. 53.

^{page 163 note 4} Ibid., i. 55.

^{page 163 note 5} Ibid., i. 54.

^{page 163 note 6} Ibid., i. 73.

^{page 163 note 7} This statement might seem at variance with the manuscripts of 1548–1352 which, along with Ormeston's memorandum of 1547, are fair copies (supra, p. 2). But they were not written separately at the close of each session, but were most probably all transcribed after the close of the fourth session of this first Parliament, in 1552. The proof of this is to be found in the fact that the sessions are keyed into one another in the manuscripts by the occurrence medially, and not terminally, of all such variations as denote the breaks in the labour of transcription. The transcription falls into the following sections: Nov. 1547–2nd entry, Feb. 23, 1548/9; 3rd entry on same day–3rd entry, Nov. 5, 1549; 4th entry on same day–date heading, Feb. 16, 1551/2; the single entry of same day –end of session. Conceivably the transcription marks the determination of. Seymour in 1552 to preserve his memoranda as of more than ephemeral interest.

^{page 164 note 1} Supra, p. 4.

^{page 164 note 2} Pat. 13 Eliz., pt. vi.

^{page 164 note 3} Commons Journals, i. 125–7.

^{page 164 note 4} Ibid., i. 885.

^{page 165 note 1} Supra, p. 14.

^{page 165 note 2} The Order and Usage of the Keeping of a Parlement … by John Vowel alias Hooker (? 1575), sub tit., “ Ot the Clark of the lower house”.

^{page 166 note 1} Cf. the following entry in the Colchester journal of 1485: “ Than it pleased the Recorder of London for to shew the custume of the place. This was his seyeng: Maister Speker, and all my maisters, there hath ben an order in this place in tymes passed ….” etc. (W. G. Benhan, The Red Paper Book of Colchester, 62a.) Or Cf. the example of 1580/1 cited on this page.

^{page 166 note 2} Commons Journals, i. 116.

^{page 166 note 3} Cf. D'Ewes' Journals, 343a, 354a, 404a, 412b, 431b, 440b, 553b, 572a, 638a.

^{page 166 note 4} Ibid., 429b, 471a, 552a, 622.

^{page 166 note 5} Cf. Commons Journals, i. 96, 126; D'Ewes' Journals, 399a, 417b.

^{page 167 note 1} Commons Journals, i. 215.

^{page 167 note 2} Ibid., i. 390, 392. The journals do not make it clear whether the committee was appointed in the next session; but probably it was, and the original journal of 1604 bears evidence of such an overhauling as was suggested (supra, p. 12).

^{page 167 note 3} Cf. Ibid, i. 520, 575, 669, 673, 761, 818, 885, 924; ii. 4, 22; vi. 297; vii. 588; viii. 7; ix. 263.

^{page 168 note 1} Cf. Maitland, Memoranda de Parliamento, Intro. For this and succeeding statements, see also, Mcllwain, The High Court of Parliament, and Pollard, The Reign of Henry VII from Contemp. Sources, Intro., xxviii. sqq..

^{page 168 note 2} Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc, 3rd series, viii. 27.

^{page 168 note 3} In both cases procedure was fluid in the early Tudor period. For the assent of the Commons in legislation, Cf. Pollard, The Reign of Henry VII …. xxxi.–ii.; for an unusual number of readings, see the Lords Journals of Henry VIII's reign, passim, and the Commons Journal of 1547.

^{page 169 note 1} The earliest reference which has been traced to a “ House” of Lords, is in 1544. Parry, Parliaments and Councils of England, xlii., referred to in Pollard, op. cit., xxxiii.

^{page 169 note 2} W. G. Benham, The Red Paper Book of Colchester, 60–4.

^{page 169 note 3} Cf. D'Ewes' Journals, 155; and Hooker's Journal in Trans. Devon. Assoc., xi. (1879), 442–92.

^{page 169 note 4} Historical Collections, 173 sqq.

Article contents

The Commons' Journals of the Tudor Period

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests