Proceedings in Parliament 1624: The House of Commons. Originally published by British History Online, 2015-18.
This free content was born digital and sponsored by the History of Parliament Trust, with the support of the Leverhulme Trust and Yale Center for Parliamentary History. All rights reserved.
In this section
MONDAY, 19 APRIL 1624
I. JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, PA, HC/CL/JO/1/13
[CJ 770; f. 150]
Lunae, 19 Aprilis 1624
L. 1. An act for the naturalizing of Abigail Little and William Little.
L. 1. An act for incorporating the apothecaries of London, and within seven miles.
Committee for the bill of [John] Edwards. Counsel assigned: Serjeant Thynne, Mr. Hugh Pyne and Mr. Moore. [Blank]
L. 1. An act to restrain butchers from grazing of cattle.
[f. 151v] L. 2. Sir Edward Fisher's bill.
Committed to:
Thursday next, 2 [o']clock, Court of Wards. All parties to have notice.
A petition from the Lady Darcy read; to have Serjeant [Sir Francis] Ashley assigned her for counsel.
Ordered.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS reports from committee for courts of justice. The committee desire another day to sit, and to have a committee appointed to see what may be done to prevent the irregular proceedings of courts of justice.
Resolved, the committee for courts of justice shall have Saturday afternoon allowed them to sit.
[Blank]
These are appointed to view the petitions exhibited to the committee for courts of justice, and to agree upon some course to regulate the inconveniences they shall find. And are to meet every morning at 7 of the clock in the Star Chamber.
SIR EDWARD COKE reports from the conference with the Lords about the bill of monopolies. A matter of 17 exceptions, as many as to the bill of informers the last Parliament. Found no fault with the body of the bill, but divers scruples. Collatio peperit, et perficit, artes. Lord President said they conceived 5 scruples. First, we had declared all monopolies void, and then divers savings, which the judges thought of small effect. A saving to a law declarative of no effect. Answered 2 ways. First, this no saving. A provision. A great difference between them. Not meant to make them good, but to keep them out of the penalty of this law. Second point was depending on this. Satisfied in that if this did hold. Third, was a dainty exception. If any man shall stay a suit against these monopolies, he shall run into a praemunire. A good defence against all messages and letters whatsoever. An end of that. A proviso to except new manufactures. To have a time of privilege for them. They say this restrained too much. "Against law, mischievous to the state or trade, or otherwise inconvenient." King's book had all these limitations. A new invention is that which brings that to the commonwealth they had not before. An addition to an old invention, no[t] new, but a new button to an old cloak.
Then came to corporations. The King's power, they said, [f. 151v] quite taken away. Answer: if a corporation, for the better government of the town, not contrary to the law; but if any a sole restraint, then gone. Then they would have had a description of a monopoly in the bill. Answer: definitions in law dangerous, yet well described in the bill. Another exception, that the judge in great danger. An action may be brought and they not know upon what. Answered that fully: that the action is grounded upon the common law and not the statute, and the words "An action grounded upon this statute". Another exception: but one imparlance. Answer: the court power to give day. If the monopoly beyond sea, then appear by attorney. Lord Arundel took a material exception: some things provided for in the bill may prove monopolies hereafter upon trials. Answer: at his own peril be it if he exercise it after overthrown. Then the King's Attorney [General] excepted. The King has 12d. upon a chaldron of the hostmen of Newcastle, incorporated by Queen Elizabeth. She dispensed with all their forfeitures. In consideration hereof, they granted her and her successors 12d. upon a chaldron. Thinks this a contract, no monopoly. If a monopoly, let it fall. Then, for the saltpetreman; would have him under no government but of the state, being a purveyance. Answer: no reason but actions may be brought against the abuse. Would have powder and shot put in. Thought it reasonable. Then, for alum; would not have that put into the bill as for the King's own use. Answer: it is best as it was before. Then, for printing. Prerogative of all kings to grant licence of printing of such and such books. Answer: we are governed by a municipal law. King cannot give the selling of Austin to one man and Ambrose to another. 2 universities have power of printing all books.
Then, to the office of subpoenas: that, they say, has had a continuance. Desired a provision for that. Answer: [CJ 771] these sole writing and making of writs has spoiled all the clerks of England. [f. 152] These inconvenient. Either monopolies or no monopolies. If monopolies, the King's book has decried them. Sole making of alias capias could not be granted, nor the sole making of latitats.
Mr. Maxwell. A transportation of calf skins. Answer: he not within the law. A dispensation with a penal law. Then said there were divers other petitions, which they had read, delivered to him to be considered of:
- 1. Sir Robert Mansell.
- 2. Of Sir Richard Young, the sole engrossing of some letters patent.
- Thirdly, a petition of Doctor [James] Chambers about sheriffs' accounts.
Conclusion was moved to have a subcommittee not to alter the body of the bill, but to add some convenient provisions that may further the passage of the bill.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. The subpoena office utterly taken away by this bill. Thinks not so intended by us at first. A great deal of reason why it should not be so. First, not prejudicial to the subject. Never complained of though11 Parliaments past. Established 60 years. To have a saving for this particular.
SIR EUBULE THELWALL. This office had his beginning but in 17 of the Queen. Lord of Leicester begged it for his servants from the clerks.
SIR WALTER EARLE desires to know whether these officers take not more fees than were wont to be taken. To have this considered of. There had wont to be 4 names put into a subpoena; he hears now but 2.
SIR EDWARD COKE. To have these patents seen and considered of before anything be done.
[f. 152v] Tomorrow in the morning, 8 [o']clock, these patents to be brought in to be considered of by the whole House.
Sir Richard Young and the patent for the subpoena office, and Sir Robert Mansell and Dr. Chambers; or else the enrolment of them in the Chancery.
MR. [WILLIAM] MALLORY. One Chambers of the Temple has a lease from the King for 21 years of all the fines and amercements that shall be set by the Clerk of the Market. He himself a deputy. To have him ordered to attend this afternoon with his patent.
Ordered.
DOCTOR [BARNABY] GOOCH reports the bill of usury.
Recommitted. Presently, Committee Chamber.
Knights, burgesses of Worcester, Warwick and Shropshire, and the ports, added to the committee of the bill for the river of Wye. Sir Guy Palmes and Mr. [William] Mallory.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS reports from the committee for trade. Petitions from the clothworkers and dyers. The clothworkers complained against the Merchant Adventurers for not setting of them on work. The lords of the Council ordered that they should have the dressing of 1 in 10 of cloths transported. They complain this is not performed. To have an order here to the Merchant Adventurers to require them to perform that order, or else show cause to the House to the contrary.
Secondly, the dyers had another petition complaining of a patent for dying stuff, for Guinea and Benin, granted to Sir William St. John. (The committee thought fit to have this patent called in to be seen.) [f. 153] By this means, the materials of dying enhanced to a very great price. A great complaint also against the dyers by the committee themselves. Use their trade in such a sort as intolerable. In dying black silk, gain half in half. Committee desired to have a message sent to the Lord Mayor to have him take this into his consideration as proper for his government. A bill in this House for enlargement of trade; a bill passed in 1 Jac. To give order that a copy of it may be had from the Clerk of the Upper House.
SIR EDWARD VILLIERS. The fault more in the silk men than the dyers. They make them dye it so. To have that considered of too.
MR. [WILLIAM] NOYE. To have the bonds, orders and proceedings of the Exchequer sought out.
Resolved, upon question, that the Merchant Adventurers shall perform the order, or else show cause to the contrary.
Ordered, that Sir William St. John shall bring in his patent to the committee of trade tomorrow in the afternoon.
Resolved, that a message shall be sent to the Lord Mayor to take into consideration the abuse of the silk dyers for heavy-dyed silk.
Resolved, a copy of the bill for free trade of 1 Jacobi shall be procured from the Clerk of the Lords' House.
Resolved, that the bonds, orders and proceedings of the Exchequer concerning heavy-dyed silk shall be brought to the committee for trade to be perused.
SIR EDWARD COKE reports the bill of usury. The amendments twice read.
[f. 153v] Ordered, to be engrossed.
MR. [THOMAS] WHATMAN reports Sir Richard Lumley's bill. One letter left out.
Resolved, he shall present this amendment in writing tomorrow to be sent up to the Lords.
Engrossed bills to be read tomorrow morning at 9 of the clock.
[House adjourned]
II. DIARY OF JOHN LOWTHER, CUMBRIA ARCHIVE CENTRE, CARLISLE, DLONS/L/2/1
[f. 66]
[19 April 1624]
[Committee for] grievance[s], Monday
Sir Pexall Brocas against Auditor [Walter] Curle for enhancing the value of his land and taking leases.
A petition of London against a monopoly granted to strangers to cleanse [the] Thames and to take a penny a ton of all strangers' bottoms.
A petition of Parker against the clerk and registrar in the Star Chamber for concealing fines, not entering orders, and the Chancellor of Duchy drawn [?not].
III. DIARY OF EDWARD NICHOLAS, TNA, SP 14/166
[f. 163]
Monday, 190 Aprilis 1624
An act for the establishment of certain lands in Norfolk on Sir Edward Fisher, kt., against John Wrenham, gent. 2. L., committed.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS moves from the committee for the courts of justice that there might be another day added to Wednesday for the hearing of the complaints exhibited to that committee.
Ordered that on Saturday the committee for courts of justice shall sit as well as on Wednesday.
A committee appointed to view the petitions preferred concerning abuses in courts of justice and to agree on some such course as may prevent the like abuses hereafter.
SIR EDWARD COKE says that he knew in 33 Eliz. one Nicholson, a purveyor, hanged for taking [f. 163v] of purveyance for that Queen and converting of it to his own use.
That the patent for the sole making of subpoenas was granted first in 17 Eliz.
Ordered that the patent of the sole making of subpoenas shall be brought to the House tomorrow to be considered, and then also there is to be brought Sir Richard Young's patent for sole writing to the Great Seal, Dr. [James] Chambers's patent concerning sheriffs and Sir Robert Mansell's patent.
Ordered that Mr. Chambers of the Temple shall bring to the committee of grievances this afternoon his patent whereby there is granted to him the fines and amercements imposed by Clerks of Market, which patent is granted for the term of 21 y[ears].
A complaint concerning the dyeing of silk, that there is such mixtures in the dyeing of silks that of one pound they make 2 librae and sometimes 2 pound and a half.
SIR EDWARD VILLIERS said that the dyers say that the fault of this false dyeing of silks proceeds from the silkmen, who say they will not have any silk that is not so dyed.
Ordered that Sir William St. John shall bring in his patent concerning dyeing with blackwood, etc., and that a message shall be sent to the Lord Mayor to take consideration and some course for the amending of abuses in dyeing of [f. 164] silks. And that the Clerk of our House shall send to the Clerk of the Upper House for a copy of a bill put into Parliament in 1 regis concerning remedying of trade.
The bill against usury is ordered to be engrossed.
IV. DIARY OF SIR THOMAS HOLLAND, BODL., MS RAWL. D1,100
[f. 40]
19 April, Monday
An act for naturalizing Abigail Little, the wife of Geoffrey Little.
An act to avoid abuses in compounding physic.
First read. An act for restraining butchers from grazing cattle.
An act to establish the estate of William [sic] Fisher.
A committee appointed to peruse the petitions against the courts of justice to draw up some course to remedy the inconveniences and abuses that may be hereafter. They are to meet every morning until it be done.
V. DIARY OF JOHN PYM, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE RECORD OFFICE, FH/N/C/0050
[f. 71]
April 19, 1624
An act for naturalization of Abigail Little.
An act for avoiding the deceit and abuses in making of medicines and using the art of apothecary.
An act to restrain butchers from grazing of cattle. The reason of this bill was that the butchers, having many beasts beforehand, make themselves masters of the prices both in buying and selling.
Upon the Lady Darcy's petition, Serjeant [Sir Francis] Ashley was assigned her for counsel in the prosecution of her complaint against my Lord Keeper.
An act for revoking and making void a decree in the Chancery in a suit between [Sir Edward] Fisher and [John] Wrenham. Committed.
Upon SIR ROBERT PHELIPS'S motion, a committee was appointed to meet every morning in the Star Chamber to consider of the petitions delivered to the committee for the courts of justice and to extract such points as tend to a general grievance, upon which some bill might be framed for the better [f. 77v] ease and security of the subject.
SIR EDWARD COKE reported the conference with the Lords concerning the bill of monopolies, wherein there were propounded by my Lord Mandeville 5 general scruples:
- 1. The bill declares as well as enacts all monopolies to be against law, afterwards saving some special grants. That there will be no use of the saving if they be all against law, the judges being bound by the declaration.
Answer: there is a plain distinction between a saving and a proviso. "Provided" is a plain word of enacting. Our meaning was not to confirm them that are mentioned or any other monopoly, but to leave them as they were. And the proviso helps them thus far, that they shall not be in danger of this law nor of a praemunire.
Reply: the Lord Chief Justice replied, though laws are to be penned in Parliament, yet they are to be expounded by judges. Therefore, he wished the declaration might be so drawn as to stand with the proviso, as in the statute against engrossing, forestalling, regrating and bankrupts it is carefully described what an engrosser, forestaller, regrator and bankrupt is, so it would be good in the bill to declare certainly what a monopoly is, for the etymology of the word may be larger than the true definition or civil description of the thing.
Answer, Sir Edward Coke: monopoly is a claim to use that solely which of right is common and free to many; but there is a rule, definitiones in lege sunt periculosissimae.
Answer: the subject is at his choice whether he will sue generally at the common law or contra formam statuti, and the defendant by the saving shall be exempted from the penalty.
- 3. Against the penalty upon councillors and judges or any other procuring the stay of judgement or of execution after judgement, that it may concern matter of state wherein it will be fit to know the King's pleasure, which, if his Majesty should be absent, may require longer time than the ordinary proceeding will allow, and the bill gives but one imparlance.
Answer: though there be but one imparlance, there may be continuance infinite; and if they be come to issue, there is no more imparlance but dies datus, which the judge may give as often as he please.
The Bishop of Durham inserted a particular scruple, whether this law would not prejudice the proceedings in the county of Durham.
Answer: to which was answered that all actions at common law may proceed as before, but they could not try any action upon that statute.
- 4. That the proviso for patents of privilege to exercise new inventions did not extend to those that were to be granted hereafter, but only to such as were in use, and that proviso is limited by too narrow words, "and such should not be inconvenient". That may be inconvenient for one time or place which is not for another, and a particular inconvenience may be accompanied [f. 72] with a greater good.
Answer: it was yielded that the proviso should be extended for 14 years' privilege to be granted in the future, and that it should be enlarged thus, "generally inconvenient".
Answer: if the charters extend only to government and choice of officers there is no abridgement, but if they shall contain any liberty of sole buying and selling they will be within the law.
As for particular suitors which desired provisos, the Lords held that correspondency as that they would answer none until they might be heard by a committee of both Houses, some of which were now propounded by Mr. Attorney [General]:
- 1. Whereas the proviso in the bill extended already to saltpetre, gunpowder and ordnance, that shot might be added, which being of the same nature and concerning so deeply the defence of the kingdom was to be left to his Majesty's order and government.
Answer: this was yielded to.
Answer: the printers had been conferred with and were contented with this limitation. The universities of Oxford and Cambridge have power by charter to print omnimodos libros. Yet this was after yielded unto and the proviso made without limitation.
- 3. For the corporation of the hostmen of Newcastle, who have liberty to transport seacoal to London and paying the King xiid. a chaldron.
Answer: the law was that no ship should load or unload between Hedwinstream and the Sparhawk, but at Newcastle the hostmen had broken this law and incurred divers penalties. They compounded with the Queen Elizabeth, and she made them a corporation. By pretence hereof they bar all other to carry coals to London or elsewhere in the kingdom, whereas indeed it ought to extend only to those which they carry themselves.
Bishop of Durham: the order is that no man can ship but upon the north side, so all of the south side cannot transport.
Mr. Attorney [General]: if it be left free for every man to ship and the hostmen only to pay, it will be unequal; but let whosoever will ship pay the same duty and it may be yielded.
Lord of Arundel: the hostmen now provide for clearing of the river, which if their privilege be taken away, will be like to be neglected and so the river to be clogged with the great quantity of offal of coals.
- 4. For the patent granted to Mr. Maxwell to transport 18,000 calfskins, the like having been in grant these 70 years, in which the King has covenanted to licence none other.
Answer: the King may dispense with a statute but cannot give power to any other to dispense, so the law will not touch this grant.
- 5. Neither the declaration nor the penalty may extend to the alum works, which have cost his Majesty £50,000 and are now taken at £10,000 per annum and security put in for the rent.
Answer: this was yielded unto.
Answer: if they be monopolies, diuturnitas temporis non minuit sed auget injuriam. Since writs have been thus monopolized, there is scarce a good clerk in England, and to have learned judges without skilful clerks is to no purpose. In 80 of the King an earl sued for the making of capias alias and pluries, which now all clerks may make as they were wont to do subpoenas, and being referred to the judges was resolved to be a monopoly. In 70 the like suit for latitats in the King's Bench; the judges certified the King it would be a void grant. Another suit was made by [blank] for making of writs of covenant and writs of entry; the judges certified it was dangerous and prejudicial to the subject.
Reply: laws ought to look forward and not backward; therefore, not to meddle with those that were already settled but to prevent new.
This was afterwards yielded.
Some other petitions were offered but not debated. The Lords concluded with a desire that we would appoint a subcommittee, not to alter the body of the bill, but to add some convenient provisos as may stand with the general intention.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. The subpoena office was not in our intention prejudicial to the subject, has stood 11 Parliaments without complaint and above 60 years.
SIR EUBULE THELWALL. That patent began 170 Eliz., but the first of that kind was to the Earl of Leicester, the sole making of pardons. The patentees are men unskilful and use under-clerks that rob them of the reward by taking the profit to themselves.
MR. SOLICITOR. We trench into the King's right, who now gives these places. It may hurt the bill.
SIR THOMAS TREVOR. The subject has no[t] a commodity in that any man may see whether he be sued or no, which before he could not do.
This and all the rest were ordered to be brought in tomorrow morning.
DR. [BARNABY] GOOCH reported the bill of usury.
Recommitted.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS, from the great committee for trade, made divers motions. That the Merchant Adventurers did transport white cloths, whereby they had no clothworkers work, being 12,000 in number, who did thereupon complain to the Lords, who made an order that every 10th cloth should be dyed and dressed. That this was not performed, wherefore it was desired that the Merchant Adventurers might be required by an order of the House to observe that order of the Lords.
Ordered accordingly.
The trade of dyeing was a part of clothing and brings great benefit to the kingdom. There was now a [f. 73] monopoly of the trade of Guinea and Benin, from whence are brought store of dyeing stuff to Sir William St. John, who under colour of a new river takes up a great compass of the coasts where there has been ancient trading. That this patent may be brought in.
Tomorrow appointed for Sir William St. John to bring in his patent as it was desired.
In black silk the dyers use such ingredients as make it double the weight. It is therefore desired a letter may be sent to the Lord Mayor that care be taken that no such deceitful materials be used. In Holland the colours are in great request because of their choice of materials, whereas London dyes are everywhere refused.
MR. [WILLIAM] NOYE. It was proved in the [Ex]chequer that they bring a pound to weigh 24, 26, 28, sometimes 30 ounces.
The message to the Lord Mayor was ordered.
It was ordered that the copy of the bill of free trade should be demanded of the Clerk of the Lords' House and be brought in to be read.
SIR EDWARD COKE brought back the bill of usury from the Committee Chamber with amendments.
MR. [THOMAS] WHATMAN reported Sir Richard Lumley's bill.
Eodem die, at the committee for grievances
A petition was preferred by the brewers that they had been lately charged with 4d. upon a quarter of malt for the King's house. The original and progress of this imposition was thus. After the King's brewer had left to serve him, beer was taken up for the household by the purveyors, upon which his Majesty was indebted to several brewers £1,800. They became suitors for their money and procured the Lord Mayor's letters of mediation. But they received this answer from the Lords, that they must submit themselves, as grocers and others had done, to a composition of 2d. a barrel, which was first demanded, or of 4d. a quarter, or else go to prison for contempt. They considered that purveyance went to their whole estate, and 4d. per quarter was much easier than 2d. per barrel Therefore, some submitted presently, others after imprisonment.
In April 1615, there was an agreement between the master and wardens on the one part and the officers of the Green Cloth that they should furnish 2,000 tun of beer, to be laid in within xx miles of London, and to receive this imposition for their satisfaction. So the company made collectors until 1619. Then it was transferred to one Smyth and afterwards to Bennet and [Edmund] Morgan, and then Sir Simon Harvey. Since that Demetrius, [f. 73v] Morgan and two other brewers farmed it at £3,000 per annum, to be deducted out of the price of their beer, for 3 years ended at Michaelmas last, when they desired to leave the bargain; and now they have 2s. 6d. per tun more for their beer and collect it upon account.
It was alleged that beer had been anciently purveyed, which was confessed with this limitation only in time of progress and short removals, not for the standing houses.
It was ordered that the undertakers and Sir Simon Harvey should attend upon Friday next.
Two other petitions were delivered that day, one by the gardeners, the other against the commission for buildings.
VI. DIARY OF SIR WALTER EARLE, BL, ADD. MS 18,597
[f. 149]
Monday, the 19th of April
A committee appointed to consider of some course for regulating the proceedings of the committee for courts of justice.
SIR EDWARD COKE'S report from the conference touching the bill of monopolies. 5 scruples made by the Lords:
- 1. The declaring all monopolies to be void, and yet savings coming after, which were of small effect, savings to a law declarative being of no force. It was answered this was a proviso, not a saving.
- 2. A question how it should be tried the law. This was answered by the former.
- 3. If any man shall stay any suit upon this statute other than by order of the court, question whether judges should be in the praemunire if they should be delayed upon message from the king, or if a Privy Councillor should write, etc. in behalf of one in the king's service. [f. 149v] Answer was made it was fit they should incur a praemunire.
- 4. That new inventions were too much restrained, contrary to law, mischievous to the state, to the decay of trade, so otherwise inconvenient. Question: what if anything should be added to an old invention, saving and charges.
- 5. Concerning the king's power to make corporations. Answer: to make officers or constitutions is lawful, but to grant a sole trade, etc. Another: what if an action should be brought and the judge not know it to be upon this law. Question: no protection to be allowed. Answer: this is in every law. Mr. Attorney [General] spoke of the 12d. per ton on seacoal of the castlemen [sic] of Newcastle. Queen Elizabeth pardoned them some forfeitures, made them an incorporation, whereupon they granted her 12d. per ton on the chaldron. Answer: this seems to be rather a contract than a monopoly. Question touching saltpetre. Answer: the king may take by his prerogative, but if such abuse their authority [blank]. Question: powder and shot to be put in. Question touching alum. Question: printing being a prerogative of all kings. Question: the privileges of the universities. Question touching the subpoena office. A great earl in 6 Jac. got a grant of [f. 150] the sole making of alias and pluries capias. After that another got the sole making of latitats. These decreed in 80/
Divers petitions delivered:
- 1. Touching Sir Robert Mansell's patent of glasses, importation not prohibited.
- 2. Sir Richard Young, the sole engrossing of some letters patents.
- 3. Dr. [James] Chambers's patent of etc.
SIR ROBERT PHELIPS. The subpoena office an ancient office, not against law. 11 Parliaments and no subject complained of it.
SIR EUBULE THELWALL. This office began but in 17 Eliz. Taken out of the clerks' hands, and given to courtiers' servants, viz. the Earl of Leicester's.
The House being inclined to except that grant, SIR WALTER EARLE moved it might be first resolved whether the gentleman that had that office had not increased the fees since 17 Eliz., because, unless I were mistaken, they now would admit but two names upon a subpoena, whereas there were formerly 4. Therefore, fit to have a committee to consider of that before, etc.
Ordered accordingly.
MR. [WILLIAM] MALLORY informed that one Chambers of the Temple had a lease of the forfeitures concerning the office of Clerk of the Market.
[f. 150v] Ordered it should be brought into the committee for that bill.
The bill against usury reported, thereupon a word or two inserted, and so passed to engrossi[ng].
SIR EDWIN SANDYS'S report from the committee of trade. The clothworkers petitioners, complained that being 12,000 maintained by their labours, now by reason of the [Merchant] Adventurers' transporting cloths undyed and undressed, though the lords of the Council had ordered they should have of them the dyeing and dressing of every tenth cloth. The dyers complained of a monopoly on dyeing stuffs procured by Sir William St. John.
MR. [WILLIAM] NOYE. A good while since, a complaint in the Exchequer termed London's heavyweight black silk dyed with steel, etc., doubling the weight. An order in the Exchequer the dyers should enter into bond. One begged these bonds, whereupon, etc., imposition, etc.
Ordered, a message to be sent to the Merchants [sic] Adventurers to show cause why they should not let the clothworkers have the wetting and drawing over of every 10th cloth.
Secondly, ordered that Sir William St. John's patent should be brought in.
Thirdly, a message to be sent to the Lord Mayor about the abuses in dyeing silk and making it heavy.
[f. 151] Monday afternoon, the committee of grievances
The brewers complained of an imposition on beer laid in June 1614. The purveyor used to take up beer for the king until it came to £1,800. No payment in a great while. The City of London became suitors to the Council. The purveyance continued. Threatened unless they would compound there must be purveyed 10 tun per diem. The composition offered was 2d. per barrel. Afterwards instead of it, 4d. per quarter of malt. This they found the more easy of the two. And this refusing, they were long imprisoned, 14 or 15 weeks, and at length yielded. An agreement, April 1615, to furnish 2,000 tun of beer yearly for the King, not to last longer than until June 1616. Then it was put into Smith's hands, and after into others', and now into Sir Simon Harvey's hand.
Sir Simon Harvey, clerk comptroller, called in. He said there were 4 undertakers that had it for three years at £3,000 per annum.
The brewers allege that they would serve for 42s. that which the king pays for 48s., and these undertakers have 52s. 6d. for. The undertakers use at the year's end to have privy seals to serve the brewers to come upon their oath. Whether they have dealt justly or no, and take compositions of [£]30, [£]40 or £50 of them.
[f. 151v] This was put off until Monday.
Next, the Lady Dale's complaint against the East India Company. Counsel heard on both sides. Alleged by her counsel that Sir Thomas Dale died worth £20,000.
VII. JOURNAL OF SIR SIMONDS D'EWES, BL, HARL. MS 159
[f. 106]
April 19, Monday
A report about the conference with the Lords upon the bill of monopolies.
Consideration to be had of the subpoena office.
Sir Henry Vane was appointed to bring in his patent, also of Sir Richard Young who had the engrossing of his Majesty's letters patents. If these be found monopolies, they are concluded; if not, then they are not touched. Animalia solivaga semper nocentia non gregaria. And Doctor [James] Chambers's [patent] about the sheriffs.
The bill of usury engrossed. To begin June 24, 1625, and but the value of 5s. to be paid to the scrivener for brokerage of £100, under pain of £20 for every 2d [sic].
A report from the committee of trade. The clothworkers complain that one cloth in 10 is not dressed and dyed at home, according to an order made at the Council table, and desire to have it so. A complaint also against the patent of Sir William St. John about the materials of dyeing from Guinea and Benin. By reason of ill materials the dyers make 2 pound of one; and it was answered that the silkmen caused it to be so for their gain.