Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:55:24.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public or Private? London, Leather and Legislation in Elizabethan England*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

D. M. Dean
D. M. Dean
Affiliation:
Goldsmiths' College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On the morning of Wednesday, 24 February 1585, a bill ‘for imploying of Landes and Tenementes given to the Maintenance of Highewayes, Bridges etc.’ was read in the house of common for the seond time and committed for consideration by several members that afternoon in the hall of the Middle Temple. The committee decided to introduce a completely new measure which was itself committed after the second reading on 9 March. At one point in these proceedings William Fleetwood, recorder of London, told the lower house that he had advised the bill's promoter to make it ‘a private bill but he would not and therfor he shall see what will come of it’. Undoubtedly irked at this refusal to accept his advice, Fleetwood may have felt some satisfaction when the bill was rejected on its third reading in the lower house. Nevertheless, the bill's promoter had good reason to introduce his measure as a public rather than as a private bill. Private bills were expensive. Fees were payable at every stage, for the reading, committing, engrossing and endorsing such bills, and then, if all went well, fees had to be paid if the promoter wanted the bill printed and thus made public. Besides the cost, private bills stood less chance of getting through both houses of parliament. Not only was there a great risk of one's measure getting swamped by the large number of private bills always introduced in the first few weeks of a session, but it was also frequently asserted that private bills should have low priority on the agenda of parliament.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 525 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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 Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ‘The journals of all the parliaments during the raign of Queen Elizabeth both of the upper howse and howse of commons in three volumes, ad 1630’, British Library, Harley MSS 73, 74, 75 (hereafter cited as D'Ewes, I, II, III), II, 209v. According to Thomas Cromwell the bill declared that lands intended for bridge and road repair, and for relief of the poor, had been conveyed to other purposes and it made all such conveyances void. Several provisos were included which, among other things, allowed persons affected the right of appeal in Chancery, Trinity College Dublin (T.C.D.) MS 1045, fo. 83.

2 D'Ewes, II, 219v, 220v; T.C.D. MS 1045, fo. 89v. Cromwell himself was appointed to the committee.

3 B. L. Lansdowne MS 43/72, fo. 166v. This manuscript is a rather disjointed report of ‘diverse speaches’ amongst Burghley's papers.

4 D'Ewes, II, 222v, 224, 228; T.C.D. MS 1045, fos. 90v, 92. One report noted that although the bill had ‘many good matters in it, but because it was general and looke[d] back so farr, not lyked’. Members also objected to its length and, to be fair, it must be said that Fleetwood tried to argue in its favour, noting ‘all our billes ar long billes’ and that ‘lawes may looke back in Particular cases’, B.L. Lansd. MS 43/72, fo. 166v.

5 Private bills pertaining to individuals were probably much cheaper than those for corporations and localities; they were also much more successful in reaching the statute book; Dean, D. M., ‘Bills and acts, 1584–601’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1984), pp. 91–3Google Scholar and Elton, G. R., The parliament of England, 1559–1581 (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 43ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Hakewill, William, The manner how statutes are enacted in parliament by passing of bills (London, 1641)Google Scholar, fo. 6. On the dating of Hakewill see Dean, , ‘Bills and acts’, pp. 16–18Google Scholar.

7 B.L. Lansd. MS 43/72, fo. 16gv; B.L. Stowe MS 362, fos. 176–176V. Burghley also suggested such an order in an undated memorandum, B.L. Lansd. MS 103/17, fos. 41–41V.

8 See Elton, , Parliament, pp. 43Google Scholar ff. The later sessions of the reign suggest a further distinction: only on private bills could affected parties be heard by the house.

9 In 1607 it was ruled that bills affecting no more than three counties were private, Commons Journals (C.J.) i, 388.

10 In 1586 the Commons was asked to forbear introducing private bills as the session had been called to deal with the ‘great cause’ of Mary, Queen of Scots, but several such bills were initiated, D'Ewes, II, 256, 257V.

11 Neale, J. E., The Elizabethan house of commons (London, 1949), p. 382Google Scholar.

12 Hakewill, fos. 7–8; C.J. i, 101.

13 D'Ewes, III, 64V.

14 Their frustration did not end there. Appealing to Sir Christopher Hatton to plead with the Queen for the bill's furtherance, and giving him attendance at court, no opportunity arose to put their case because of the arrival of the French ambassador. Their attempt to petition the privy council was frustrated by ‘the frenchmans longe tarrynge’, Armourers and Brasiers Company, Court Book, 1559–1621, Guildhall Library (G.L.), MS 12,071/2, pp. 412–16.

15 Hakewill, fos. 7–8; D'Ewes, III, 255V.

16 Dean, , ‘Bills and acts’, pp. 88–92Google Scholar. On the different assents given to private acts for individuals and those for localities see Elton, , Parliament, pp. 128–9Google Scholar. This works for the last six sessions of the reign as well.

17 B. L. Harley MS 253, fo. 34V. On the dating and authorship of this manuscript see Elton, G. R., Parliament, pp. 322–3Google Scholar.

18 Dean, , ‘Bills and acts’, pp. 91Google Scholar, 199–200.

19 Corporation of London Record Office (C.L.R.O.), Repertories, 13(2), fo. 323V.

20 See Miller, Helen, ‘apos;London and parliament in the reign of Henry VIII’, Historical Journal, xxxv (1962), 128–49Google Scholar and Elton, , Parliaments, pp. 77–87Google Scholar.

21 C.L.R.O., Rep. 16, fos. 124–124V. On the Vintners see Green, E., ‘The Vintners' lobby, 1552–1568’, Guildhall Studies in History, I (1974), 47–58Google Scholar.

22 C.L.R.O., Rep. 16, fos. 135V–136, 137.

23 Ibid. fos. 266V, 268.

24 C.L.R.O., Rep. 21, fo. 406V. This was on 14 March, only fifteen days before the end of the session. No bill related to bakers, baking or bread appears to have been read during the session f although the matter may have related to the sizing of bread, or to the long-standing dispute between the white and brown bakers which had been of concern to the court of aldermen between 1584 and 1589 and in which Fleetwood had been involved, ibid. fos. 53V, 86v, 122v, 142, 328V., See also Thrupp, S., A short history of the worshipful company of Bakers of London (London, 1933), pp. 119–27Google Scholar and, on the assize, Benbow, R. M., ‘The court of aldermen and the assizes: the policy of price control in Elizabethan London’, Guildhall Studies in London History, IV (1980), 93–118Google Scholar.

25 C.L.R.O., Rep. 23, fo. 22v; Miller, pp. 128–9. The privy council's role is revealed in the Bakers' Company, masters' and wardens' accounts, G.L. MS 5174/3, fo. 52: a payment of 12d. to the lord mayor's officer ‘for warneing the Wardens to be before the Cornyttees whoe were appointed by her Majesties Councell to knowe and heare the intentes of all the Companies touching their sutes to the Parlyament’.

26 C.L.R.O., Rep. 24, fos. 133V–4; 25, fo. 275.

27 Armourers' Company, court book, G.L. MS 12,071/2, pp. 412–16, 609; warden's accounts, 1563/1616, G.L. MS 12,065/2, fos. 24V–25V, 38V–39, 86–86v; Blacksmiths' Company, warden's accounts, 1597–1625, G.L. MS 2883/3, pp. II, 16v, 75V.

28 See my ‘Bills and acts’, pp. 221–4, 238–9.

29 I am at present working on the Pewterers' pursuit of legislation in the sixteenthcentury.

30 Clarkson, L. A., ‘English economic policy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: the case of the leather industry’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXXVIII (1965), 149–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar. His earlier article, ‘The organisation of the English leather industry in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’ Economic History Review, 2nd series, XII (1960), 245–56Google Scholar. remains the only modern study of the industry, and more material can be found in his 1960 Nottingham Ph.D. thesis, ‘The English leather industry in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 1563–1700’.

31 Statutes of the realm (S.R.), iv, 429–36, 1039–48.

32 Clarkson, , ‘Economic policy’ pp. 149–62Google Scholar.

33 C.L.R.O., Rep. 13, fos. 94V, 143.

34 Calendar of Patent Rolls (C.P.R.), IV (1566–1569) 493 (p. 71)Google Scholar; G. L. MS 14,346/1, fo. 65V (payment to Henry Jefferson, the city sealer of leather). I am grateful to Ian Archer for this identification and for his help with other City officials and their activities. His important doctoral dissertation will add greatly to our knowledge of Elizabethan London, the companies and their relation to parliament and central administration.

35 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 69, 86. Besides licences and bills, the companies were occupied with the enquiries ordered by the court of aldermen and the privy council between 1566 and 1571 into the shortage of good tanned leather, and in 1570 the Cordwainers exhibited a bill against the Curriers to the court of aldermen, C.L.R.O., Rep. 16, fos. 180, 327, 346V, 348; Rep. 17, fo. 127v..

36 C.J., i, 75, 76, 77; C.L.R.O., Rep. 19, fos. 35, 40. In 1575 the court of aldermen were also making some attempt to examine the Curriers' complaints while investigating the tanners' claims that the 1563 act laid down unrealistic provisions for the tanning of leather, a problem which. Lord Burghley was also considering, B.L. Lansd. MS 20/4, fos. 10–10v; 58/10, fo. 20; P.R.O., State Papers (S.P.), 12/90/22. A parliamentary bill of 1576, ‘for cutting and worcking of tanned lether’ got as far as a first reading in the Lords and was, unusually, committed, CJ. i, 106, 110, III; Lords Journals (L.J.) i, 743. The bill survives with a related letter from Fleetwood and John Marsh to Burghley dated 19 November 1575, B.L. Lansd. MS 20/6, fos. 14–18. Between 1576 and 1580 the Cordwainers were taking action against foreign artificers, and in June 1580 the privy council ordered that foreigners should be allowed to sell leather ‘untill the next corte of parliament’ B.L. Lansd. MS 22/39, for; 104; C.L.R.O., Remembrancia, I (1579–92), letters 1, 2, 101.

37 C.P.R. VII (1575–78), 450 (pp. 62–3) and 513 (pp. 69–71). On Dyer's patent see Clarkson, , ‘English leather industry’ pp. 256Google Scholar ff. He appears to have secured it with the help of the lawyer and future Speaker and privy counsellor, John Popham, and he received considerable support from the council in forcing searchers and sealers to effect his dispensations, P.R.O., S.P. 12/105/ 5; Acts of the privy council (A.P.C.), IX (1575–1596), 80, 267Google Scholar; xxiv (1592–3), 357–8.The Curriers recorded payments to Dyer, G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 119V, 127, 133, 140, 145, 15IV, 156, 232V–233.

38 T.C.D. MS 1045, fo. 74V. The bill itself survives in the House of Lords Record Office (H.L.R.O.), Main Papers (1582–5), fos. 139–40.

39 D'Ewes, II, 187; T.C.D. MS 1045, fo. 75; B.L. Lansd. MS 20/4, fos. 10–10V; 20/6, fo. 14. In what follows all biographical references to members and their constituencies are taken from Hasler, P. W. (ed.), The house of commons, 1558–1603 (3 vols. London, 1981)Google Scholar. Fleetwood had long been sought as a counsellor by the Curriers. In 1575–6 he received 20s. when two wardens ‘went to him for the obtyninge of his friendshippe’ Curriers' Company, warden's accounts, 1556–1594, G.L. MS 14,346/1, fo. 104. Dalton may have helped in a later bill, ibid. fos. 179–79V.

40 D'Ewes, II, 207.

41 H.L.R.O., Main Papers (1582–5), fos. 139–40.

42 D'Ewes, 11, 187, 188v, 198v, 204, 215V; T.C.D. M S 1045, fos 74V, 75, 86v.

43 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 165–6.

44 Ibid. fo. 70.

45 Ibid. fos. 165–6.

46 Ibid. fos. 69V–71.

47 D'Ewes, II, 188V, 198V, 204, 215V; T.C.D. MS 1045, fo. 86v.

48 B.L. Lansd. MS 20/4, fos. 10–10V; 20/6, fo. 14. On the argument that the type of enacting clause can indicate origin see G. R. Elton, ‘Enacting clauses and legislative initiative, 1559–81’ in Studies in Tudor and Stuart politics and government, 142–55 and Dean, D. M., ‘Enacting clauses and legislative initiative, 1584–1601’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, CXXXVI (11 1984), 140–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 D'Ewes, II, 215V; T.C.D. MS 1045, fos. 86v, 88.

50 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 166–166V.

51 T.C.D. MS 1045, fos. 86V, 88.

52 D'Ewes, II, 220V; H.L.R.O., Main Papers (1582–5), fos. 98–125.

53 D'Ewes, II, 221; T.C.D. MS 1045, fo. 89V.

54 H.L.R.O., Original Act 16, 23 Elizabeth.

55 D'Ewes, II, 225; T.C.D. MS 1045, fo. 90v; L J. I, 99.

56 G.L. M S 14,346/I, fos. 103–104V.

57 P.R.O., S P. 12/177/16.

58 B.L. Lansd. M S 43/72, fo. 171. I have found no other evidence of Serjeant Ralph Bowyer's work on behalf of the Cordwainers.

59 D'Ewes, 11, 221V–222, 222V–223V; B.L. Lansd. MS 43/72, fo. 164.

60 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 27V, 103V, nov, 119, 136V, 143, 145, 150, 154, 160, 162V–163V, 165V, 173V, 175V, 177–177V, 193V–194; Neale, , Commons, p. 389Google Scholar. Bland was made free of the company in 1562–3, gave 10s. towards the company's expenses incurred in the negotiations with Edward Dyer (seven members gave £3, seven 40s., one gave 30s., three 20s., one 13s. 4d., five 10s., three 5s and one 2S.) and paid for his licence in 1577. A year later he presented an apprentice, paying the appropriate 2s. 6d. and, in 1582, paid 10s. for the burial of his wife. He is noted as having witnessed the accounts every October between 1580 and 1586, with the exception of 1585 when names are not specifically given. In 1585 he gave 10s. towards the company's parliamentary expenses (fifteen others gave a similar sum, four gave 5S., one 6s. 8d., one 3s. 4d., eleven gave 2s., one3s., and three each gave 20d., 16d. and 2d). However, he only gave 2s. towards the provision of soldiers later that year, the lowest amount offered. His omission from the witnesses to account lists from 1587 onwards and his absence from the list of contributors to the parliamentary costs of the same year (and those of 1589) suggests his departure from public affairs; Mark Benbow has informed me that John Bland, currier, was buried at All Hallows' Wall on 26 October 1589. Subsidy assessments reveal three John Blands living in the City: one in St Bride's, Farringdon Without, assessed at £8 in 1575–6 and £10 in 1581–2 and two living in St Andrew's, Farringdon Without and Allhallows, Bread Street, both assessed at £3 in the same years, P.R.O. E179 145/ 252 (19 Eliz.), membs. 35, 44, 112; 251/16 (24 Eliz), membs. 92, 100, 115.

61 D'Ewes, II, 227; T.C.D. MS 1045, fo. 91v.

62 D'Ewes, II, 227–227V; B.L. Lansd. M S 43/72, fos. 171, 172.

63 L J.ii, 95, 96, 99, 103, 105; D'Ewes, II, 228v; T.C.D. MS 1045, fo. 92. D'Ewes' claim that only one word was amended indicates that the Lords' amendment was not the limitation proviso; D'Ewes worked from the clerk's scribbled book, which has since been lost.

64 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 162v–163, 166–166v. The year's payments came to £50 171. IId. I use ‘around’ here because very few of any company's warden's accounts list parliamentary expenses separately from other payments; thus a disbursement for ‘counsell’ cannot always be definitely given a parliamentary identity.

65 D'Ewes, II, 257v, 259. Holies pointed out that the ‘great cause’ was in committee and so he felt able to move the bill as there was ‘nothinge to occupie the howse withall’. Why Holies, a Lincolnshire gentleman, should have been involved in the bill is a mystery. He had connexions with the City – his grandfather had been Lord Mayor – and certainly the Curriers curried his favour, for his ‘two men’ received 6s. 8d. from them during the session, G.L. MS 14,346/I, fo. 179.

66 Ibid.

67 C.L.R.O. Rep. 21, fos. 375–79v.

68 D'Ewes, II, 284.

69 B.L. Harley MS 7188, fo. 92V.

70 They raised £25 19s. 6d., G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 177–177v, 179–179v.

71 C.L.R.O. Rep. 21, fos. 90–91v, 425v, 465; A.P.C. 1587–8, pp. 200–1, 265–6. Ordinances for the company were issued on 19 January 1587, G.L. MS 6117.

72 C.L.R.O. Rep. 22, fos. 10v, 13v.

73 B.L. Lansd. MS 55, fo. 184v; D'Ewes, II 317.

74 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 196v–198.

75 Nicholas Fuller of Gray's Inn, a prominent member of London's learned counsel, was entrusted with the case in Queen's Bench over the monopoly of playing cards in 1603 and was an important figure not only in the City's complaints over purveyance but in the Commons agitation over the matter in the first parliament of James's reign: Croft, P., ‘Parliament, purveyance and the City of London 1589–1608’, Parliamentary History, iv (1985), 9–34Google Scholar. His constitutional views and attitudes to matters such as impositions are discussed in Sommerville, J. P., Politics and ideology in England, 1603–1640 (London, 1986), esp. pp. 96Google Scholar ff 151ff., 178 and 212–13. Fuller sat for St Mawes in 1593 and for the City in 1604 and 1614; Hasler, 11, 161–2.

76 D'Ewes, II, 320v.

77 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 193v–194, 197v–198; D'Ewes, II, 322. There were 90 voices for and 120 against. In all the company's charges came to £1912s. 3d., but they raised £20 7s. by a levy on members.

78 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 198, 198v, 204v, 215v–216, 219–220v.

79 In passing it should be noted that these acts were often the cause of much dispute in parliament; on the changes in the acts from 1584 to 1601 see my ‘Bills and acts’, pp. 241–51.

80 G.L. MS 14.346/ fos. 231–232v, 235, 237v, 238–238v.

81 In 1590 the privy council had tried to secure an agreement, A.P.C. 1590, p. 282; B.L. Lansd. MS 63/4, fo. 18. According to Clarkson, Dyer's patent lapsed in 1593, although it is possible that the Curriers kept a close watch on the dispute between the Leathersellers and another courtier, Edward Darcy, between 1593 and 1595 over the sealing and searching of all leather not regulated by statute, Clarkson, , ‘English leather industry’, pp. 256Google Scholar fF, 265ff; A.P.C. 1592–3, pp. 123–4; 1595–6, pp. 106–7; C.L.R.O., Remembrancia, I (1579–92), letters 628, 632, 641, 643, 647, 649, 651, 652;II (1593–1609), letters 14, 70, 82–4, 126, 142; B.L. Lansd. MS 74/40–62. At one point during a meeting of the parties, Darcy struck one of the City's aldermen and parliamentary member for 1589, Sir George Barnes, so severely that ‘the bloud gusshing out and embrueng his face, his eye also was in great danger’ and the lord mayor was forced to sneak Darcy out because he feared the ‘popular multitude’ might riot, Darcy's patent being ‘a thing not very gratefull to the Comon sort of or Citizens’,

82 B.L. Egerton MS 2222, fo. 146; P.R.O., S.P. 12/283/25. The bill repealed that part of the 1563 act which prohibited curriers from buying and selling leather; it carries a short clause.

83 S.R. IV, 1039–48. The warden's accounts of the Cordwainers reveal that they spent £15 8s. in that session, G.L. MS 7351/1, unfoiliated accounts for the years July 1603–July 1604, July 1604–July 1605.

84 G.L. MS 14,346/I, fos. 8v, 13, 15, 28v, 69V–71, 76V–77, 85V, 98, 103–104V, 141–141V, 165–166V, 173V, 179–180V, 196V–198V, 203V–-4, 235, 237V, 238–238V, 255V.

85 G.L. MS 5174/2, fos. 52–53, 95 (Bakers). Unless otherwise stated, all references which follow are to the warden's accounts of the relevant company. Ian Archer has pointed out to me that Powell had secured orders from the Council for the suppression of unsized bread; this was the major intent of the Bakers' legislative proposals.

86 G.L. M S 5606/2, fos. 192–3 (Coopers); M S 5442/5, Brewers' accounts, unfoliated, for the year ending the feast of St Michael Archangel 1593; references to the Brewers' accounts in what follows will simply give the year in which the account ends. Toby Wood was used by the Coopers an d Pewterers in 1593 and by the Armourers in the next session, M S 5606/2, fos. 192–3 (Coopers); MS 7086/3, fo. 179 (Pewterers); MS 12,065/2, fo. 86 (Armourers). Other lawyers used by the companies included the Middle Templers Mathe w Dale (1593) an d Nicholas Adams (1601), and John Harris of the Inner Temple in 1604, G.L. M S 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1593 an d 1601); M S 5606/2, fo. 298V (Coopers).

87 This is very similar to standard charges in the courts: Prest, W., ‘Counsellors fees and earnings in the age of Sir Edward Coke’, in Baker, J. H. (ed.), Legal records and the historian (London, 1978), p 171Google Scholar.

88 G.L. M S 12,065/2, fo. 24v (Armourers); M S 5442/ 4 (Brewers' accounts ending 1576).

89 G.L. MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1585); MS 6901, fo. 29 (Woolmen); M S 2883/ 3, p. 92 (Blacksmiths); see also MS 7086/2, fo. 257v (Pewterers).

90 On fees see Ward, P. L. (ed), William Lambarde's notes on the procedures and privileges of the house of commons(1584), House of Commons Library Document, No. 10 (London, 1977), p. 70Google Scholar and Snow, V. F. (ed), Parliament in Elizabethan England, John Hooker's order and usage (New Haven and London, 1977), pp. 161, 171–3Google Scholar. On the Commons see Neale, , Commons, pp. 336f.Google Scholar, and, on the Lords, Foster, E. R., The house of lords, 1603–164: structure, procedure and the nature of its business (Chapel Hill and London, 1983), pp. 56–9Google Scholar.

91 G.L. MS 14, 346/fos. I80v, 196v, 238v (Curriers); MS 5606/2, fos. 152v, 238v, 298v (Coopers); MS 15,333/2, p. 320 (Vintners); MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1585, 1602 and 1604).

92 G.L. MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1593); MS 5606/2, fos. 238v–239 (Coopers).

93 G.L. MS 6901, fo. 29 (Woolmen); MS 5606/2, fos. I52v (Coopers, 1589), 192–3 (1593), 238V (1597–8) and 298v (1604).

94 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 196v–98, 238 (Curriers, one of these payments was a single one of 305). However, he only received 10s. from the Pewterers in 1593, G.L. MS 7086/3, fo. 179.

95 Williams, O. C., The clerical organisation of the house of commons, 1661–1850 (Oxford, 1954), pp. 299–303Google Scholar.

96 G.L. MS 5606/I, fos. 292–292v. The Ironmongers paid I2s. for a copy of a bill in 1566 and the Curriers 10s. in 1575–6 and the same in 1580–1, G.L. MS 16,988/, fo. 180; MS 14,346/1, fos. 103v, 141. The Bakers paid IIS. in 1593, G.L. MS 5174/, fo. 52v and the Plastere8s in 1597–8, Plasterers' Company, Court Minutes, G.L. MS 6122/1, minutes for St Paul's day. Costs of bills supplied by counsellors were roughly the same as those charged by the clerk11s. and 13s., G.L. MS 5442/4 (Brewers' accounts ending 1576) although the Grocers only paid 6s. for a copy of the spices bill in 1601, G.L. MS 11,571/9, fo. 31; it all depended on the length of the measure.

97 G.L. MS 5606/, fo. 298v; cf. the 12d. paid by them in 1593 and 1597–8, ibid. fos. 192–2v, 238v–239 and by the Curriers in 1584–5, G.L. MS 14,346/1, fo. 166. The Bakers paid 3s. 41d. for a list in 1597–8, G.L. MS 5174/3, fo. 95. In 1581 the Armourers paid17s. 6d. for a list of all the burgesses, G.L. MS 12,065/2, fo. 25; cf. the 10s. it cost the Curriers in 1589, G.L. MS 14,346/1, fo. 179.

98 G.L. MS 5606/2, fos. 152–3 (Coopers); MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1593).

99 See Foster, pp. 67ff.; G.L. MS 5442/4 (Brewers' accounts ending 1576); MS 5606/2, fo. 153 (Coopers). On the ‘serjeant porter’ see Snow, , p. 173Google Scholar but cf. Foster, p. 253.

100 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 196V–198 (Curriers); G.L. MS 6122/1 (Plasterers' Company court minutes, St Paul's day); MS 5442/4 (Brewers' accounts ending 1576); MS 5606/, fo. 258v; 5606/2, fo. 152 (Coopers).

101 G.L. MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1585 and 1593); MS 5606/1, fo. 258V; 5606/2, fos. 152V, 238v–239, 298V (Coopers); MS 14,346/1, fo. 166 (Curriers); MS 6122/1, Plasterers court minutes, 23 Dec; MS 5606/2, fos. 238v–239; MS 5442/4 (Brewers' accounts ending 1576).

102 Neale, , Commons, pp. 342–3Google Scholar.

103 G.L. MS 5606/1, fos. 292–292v.

104 The normal sum was twenty nobles (£6 13s.4d.) paid in 1584–5, 1586–7, 1589 and 1593 but in the last two sessions the fee increased to £10 in 1597–8 and forty nobles (£13 6s. 8d.) in 1601, C.L.R.O., Rep. 21, fos. 112V, 355, 396V; 22, fo. 24; 24, fo. 153V; 25, fo. 296V.

105 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 6gv–70 (Curriers); MS 5606/1, fos. 258v, 292–292v (Coopers); MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1585).

106 G.L. MS 5606/2, fo. 193 (Coopers).

107 G.L. MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1593); D'Ewes, III, 69v, 72v, 76; B.L. Cotton MS Titus Fii, fos. 88v, 91v; L.J. II, 189.

108 Ibid.Brewers' Company, Court minutes, G.L. MS 5445/9, 10 April.

109 G.L. MS 5606/2, fos. 192–3.

110 D'Ewes, iii, 75v, 77; G.L. MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts for 1593).

111 G.L. MS 5442/4 (Brewers' accounts ending 1576) and MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1593); Sutherland, N. M. in Hasler, , The house of commons, I, 487Google Scholar (Brograve gave a lengthy and learned speech on the return of election writs with regard to Fitzherbert's case, B.L. Cotton MS Titus Fii, fos. 84v–85v).

112 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 196v–197 (Curriers); MS 5442/4 (Brewers' accounts ending 1576) and MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1585); MS 12,065/2, fos. 24v–25v, 38v–39 (Armourers).

113 G.L. MS 5606/2, fos. 192–3 (Coopers).

114 D'Ewes, III, 273; G.L. MS 15,333/2, p. 320 (Vintners); MS 14,346/1, 115 fos. 165v–166, 179v–180V (Curriers); MS 12,065/2, fo. 39 (Armourers).

115 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 85v, 103–4, 165, 179 (Curriers); MS 12,065/2, fo. 24v (Armourers); MS 5442/4 (Brewers' accounts ending 1576), 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1585); MS 5174/ 3, fo. 6 (Bakers); MS 5606/2, fo. 152V (Coopers).

116 G.L. MS 6440/2 (Butchers' accounts for the year ending with the feast of St Luke the Evangelist, 1602); MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1604).

117 See Graves, M. A. R., ‘Thomas Norton, the parliament man, an Elizabethan M.P., 1559–1581’ Historical Journal, XXIII (1980), 17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 103–6, 141 (Curriers); MS 12,065//2, fos. 24v–25V (Armourers).

119 G.L. MS 7086/2, fo. 287. His son may have helped the Curriers in 1575, G.L. MS 14,346/ 1, fos. 104v–105.

120 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fo. 179V (Curriers); MS 5606/2, fo. 153 (Coopers); D'Ewes, III, 278.

121 G.L. MS 5606/2, fo. 298v (Coopers); MS 15,333/2, p. 320 (Vintners).

122 Hakewill, fo. 4.

123 G.L. MS 14,346/1, fos. 69V–71.

124 They later paid 33S. 6d. at the ‘Pope's Head ‘in Westminster to acquaint certain burgesses ‘with or bookes of Aunswer’, G.L. M S 5442–4 (Brewers’ accounts ending 1576); MS 12,065/2, fos. 24v–5 (Armourers).

125 MS 14,346/1, fos. 165–165v (Curriers); MS 12,065/2, fo. 39 (Armourers); MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1593).

126 G.L. M S 5442/4 (Brewers' accounts ending 1576); Brewers' Company, court minutes, G.L. M S 5445/5, 24 February 1575/6; Plasterers' Company, court minutes, G.L. M S 6122/1, 23 November 1597.

127 G.L. M S 7086/2, fo. 257v (Pewterers); MS 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1585); MS 6122/1, Plasterers' Company, court minutes, 23 November.

128 Green, pp. 53–4; G.L. M S 5442/5 (Brewers' accounts ending 1593).

129 Ibid.

130 Brewers' Company, court minutes, G.L. M S 5445/7, 9 February 1584 and MS 5445/9, 12 April 1593.

131 Coopers', Company, Memoranda, charters, documents and extracts from the records of the corporation and the books of the company, 1396–1848 (London, 1848), pp. 86ff.Google Scholar, reproduced in Elkrington, G., The Coopers: company and craft (London, 1933), pp. 72–6Google Scholar.

132 Thus the Painters succeeded in 1604 after bills in 1597 an d 1601: Dean, , ‘Bills an d acts’, pp. 223–4Google Scholar.

133 B.L. Stowe M S 362, fo. 246V; D'Ewes, III, 235V, 246; L J. III, 257.

134 On another bill, for St Bartholomew's hospital, Sir Edward Hoby remarked ‘I find this Bill to bee putt into this howse to end some Contencon…I a m ever Jealous of private Bills of this nature, an d dare not shewe myselfe hastie in assentinge to passe any without Comittmente Least wee might infringe the Libertye of some other Parishe’, B.L. Stowe MS 362, fos. 114–114V, 247.

135 B.L. Harley MS 253, fo. 34v.