¹ Hasler, P. W., ed., The House of Commons, 1558–1603 (3 vols, London, 1981)Google Scholar. See, in particular, White, Stephen D., Sir Edward Coke and ‘The Grievances of the Commonwealth’, 1621–1628 (Chapel Hill, 1979), pp. 279–83Google Scholar; Munden, R. C., ‘“All the Privy Council Being Members of this House”: A Note on the Constitutional Significance of Procedure in the House of Commons, 1589–1614’, PH xii (1993), p. 118Google Scholar; Kyle, Chris R., ‘Prince Charles in the Parliaments of 1621 and 1624’, HJ xli (1998), pp. 617–18, 622–4Google Scholar. Further detailed analysis of early Stuart parliamentary committees is forthcoming in Kyle, Chris R., ‘Attendance, Apathy and Order?: Parliamentary Committees in Early Stuart England’Google Scholar, in Chris R. Kyle and Jason Peacey, eds, Parliament at Work Parliamentary Committees, Access and Lobbying Under the Tudors and Stuarts (forthcoming, Boydell and Brewer).

² Trevelyan, Lady, The Works of Lord Macaulay (8 vols, London, 1866), iii. 357–8.Google Scholar

³ See below p. 195.

⁴ See below p. 224.

⁵ See below p. 194 and Zaller, Robert, The Parliament of 1621: A Study in Constitutional Conflict (Berkeley, 1971), pp. 90–97.Google Scholar

⁶ BL, Harleian MS 253, fol. 4. Graves, Michael A. R., ‘Managing Elizabethan Parliaments’, in Dean, David M. and Jones, Norman L., eds, The Parliaments of Elizabethan England (Oxford, 1990), p. 53.Google Scholar

⁷ See below pp. 204–5.

⁸ See below pp. 229, 196–8, 206–7.

⁹ See below pp. 227–8.

¹⁰ See below pp. 188–9.

¹¹ See below p. 214.

¹² Graves, , ‘Managing Elizabethan Parliaments’, p. 43.Google Scholar

¹³ CJ, i. 259Google Scholar. The bill does not appear to have been reported from the committee although a report in the Weymouth records incorrectly suggests that it was enacted: ‘There was long discourse amongst the committees for the bill for erecting the said parsonage, and that in time, for they saw no way to ensure unto the said parson £4 by the year and to his successors, they concluded that there should be a house ensconced to the parsonage of the yearly value of £4 by the year which was accordingly done … The parson himself was in London before the bill for the parsonage was past the Upper House. He sought to stop it but could not prevail.’ Weymouth Museum, MS S189/5. I am grateful to Andrew Thrush for providing this information.

¹⁴ The Commons had always suffered from the problem of poor attendance and legislation to remedy the situation inevitably failed due to the vested interests of MPs. See Graves, Michael A. R., Elizabethan Parliaments (2nd edn, London, 1996), pp. 36–8Google Scholar; Elton, G. R., The Parliament of England, 1559–1581 (Cambridge, 1986), p. 227CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snow, Vernon F., ‘Attendance Trends and Absenteeism in the Long Parliament’, HLQ xviii (1954–1955), pp. 301–6.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The bill was approved by the Commons on 26 June, although it was ‘much disputed’ and only passed after an ironically well-attended House divided, 126 yea and 106 noe. CJ, i. 443Google Scholar. It failed in the Lords, probably not because it sought to fine absent MPs but because it allowed the Speaker of the House or a committee of at least seven MPs to administer oaths. Foster, Elizabeth Read, ed., Proceedings in Parliament 1610 (2 vols, New Haven, 1966), i. 281–2.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The bill continued the provisions of the acts 35 Eliz. I cap. 10, 43 Eliz. I cap. 10 and 4 James I cap. 10 on the manufacture of woollen cloth. It was not reported from committee in 1621 but an amended version was enacted in 1624 as 21 James I cap. 18.

¹⁷ It passed both Houses in 1621 but was not presented for the royal assent. In 1624 it was enacted as 21 James I OA 48.

¹⁸ The bill was drafted by Deptford Trinity House and gave it control over all lighthouses apart from those on the Tyne. It sought to nullify the patent of Sir Edward Howard to build a lighthouse at Dungeness, and the grant to Sir John Meldrum and Sir William Erskine to erect a lighthouse at Winton Ness, Norfolk. The measure was opposed both by the King and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, and stood little chance of success in a Parliament adamantly opposed to monopolistic grants. Harris, G. G., ed., Trinity House of Deptford Transactions, 1609–1635 (London Record Society, xix, 1983), pp. x–xiGoogle Scholar; 46.; idem, The Trinity House of Deptford, 1514–1660 (London, 1969), p. 201.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The bill passed both Houses in 1621 but was not presented for the royal assent. In 1624 it was enacted as 21 James I cap. 9. The act ended the monopoly of the Shrewsbury Drapers over the Welsh cloth trade and enabled other clothiers to buy Welsh cloth and transport it to London for sale. For a lengthy account of the bill's procedure and consequences see Mendenhall, T. C., The Shrewsbury Drapers and the Welsh Wool Trade in the XVI and XVII Centuries (London, 1953), pp. 168–84.Google Scholar

²⁰ It is likely that the Sir John Trevor junior, MP for Denbighshire, was appointed to this committee.

²¹ The measure did not emerge from committee in 1621 but it was enacted three years later as 21 James I cap. 23. The genesis of the act can be found in the tracts of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere. In ‘Memorialles for ludicature. Pro Bono Publico’, he criticised the misuse of prerogative writs such as certiorari, habeas corpus and procedendo. He noted that the Clerks of Courts had often issued these writs either without the knowledge of judges or without adequate supervision from the judiciary. This had led to an increase of expensive actions in the central courts, delays in judgement and confusion when writs were issued from more than one court. The act therefore limited the ways in which actions could be removed from county courts to Westminster. On Ellesmere see Knafla, Louis A., ed., Law and Politics in Jacobean England: The Tracts of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 274–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² See Zaller, , Parliament of 1621, pp. 93 and 207 n. 35.Google Scholar

²³ On the problem of early modern purveyance see Woodworth, Allegra, ‘Purveyance for the Royal Household in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, new ser. xxxv pt. 1 (1945)Google Scholar; Croft, Pauline, ‘Parliament, Purveyance and the City of London 1589–1608, PH iv (1985), pp. 9–43Google Scholar; Lindquist, Eric N., ‘The King, the People and the House of Commons: The Problem of Early Jacobean Purveyance’, HJ xxxi (1988), pp. 549–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aylmer, G. E., ‘The Last Years of Purveyance 1610–1660’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser. viii (1957), pp. 81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The bill passed the Commons in 1624 but failed to emerge from committee in the Lords.

²⁴ The measure assured the tenants of their rights to hold the Duchy of Cornwall manor against the intrigues of Etherington. It was committed at the 2nd reading but proceeded no further. CJ, i. 686, 736.Google Scholar

²⁵ The bill sought to sell the estates of Aucher et al. in order to repay their creditors. It proceeded no further than the committee stage. I am grateful to Andrew Thrush for information on Aucher and this measure.

²⁶ The measure remained in a Commons' committee when the Parliament was prorogued. CJ, i. 758, 764.Google Scholar

²⁷ The dispute dated back to 1611 when Warwick joined the Feltmakers in borrowing money to buy wool. Parcel of the sum raised was £500 borrowed from Lord Harington. Warwick alleged that he had made an agreement with the Company that he would discharge the debt to Harington and pay an equivalent amount to the Feltmakers on loan for one year. In exchange, he would be given the position of Clerk of the Company and at the end of the year he would be repaid his investment in addition to 10 per cent interest. When the Feltmakers failed to repay the money Warwick exhibited a bill in Chancery and this bill to Parliament. The measure passed the Commons but was ‘allowed to sleep’ in the Lords. Kyle, ‘Parliament of 1624’, pp. 454–7.Google Scholar

²⁸ The measure concerned the division of the senior Edwards' estate between his son and Richard Sherborne, the brother of the senior Edwards' first wife. It passed the Commons but stalled in the Lords where the Bishop of Bangor noted, ‘Right is in the Son, Equity in the Father.’ LJ, iii. 414.Google Scholar

²⁹ The bill was ordered to be engrossed in the Commons but did not receive a third reading before the Parliament ended.

³⁰ It is not possible to determine whether the unnamed MPs attended one meeting or both.

³¹ The bill was introduced by Sir Christopher Hilliard and enacted as 21 James I cap. 5. The process of quietus est, more commonly known as abinde recessit quietus, was used by Clerks of the Pipe and Auditors of the Exchequer as a final discharge of the account(s).

³² Sir Henry Poole introduced the bill in 1621. The preamble noted ‘that many lewde persons of base Condicion for very little reward or recompence have of late yeres used and still doe use to levy fynes and suffer recoveries of landes, and other heredytamentes, to knowledge statutes, recognizances, bayles and Judgementes in the name or names of any other person or persons not pryvie or Consenting to the same’. It then harshly enacted that anyone found guilty of this offense was to be deemed a felon. The measure passed both Houses with little trouble in 1624 and it was enacted as 21 James I cap. 26.

³³ See Foster, Andrew W., ‘The Struggle for Parliamentary Representation for Durham, C.1600–1641’ in Marcombe, David, ed., The Last Principality: Politics, Religion and Society in the Bishopric of Durham, 1494–1660 (Nottingham, 1987), pp. 176–201Google Scholar. The bill passed both Houses but was vetoed by James.

³⁴ The bill was introduced after Lady Darcy had been foiled in her presentation to the Sutton parsonage by Lord Keeper John Williams who had introduced his own minister. It passed the Commons but was still under scrutiny by a Lords committee when the Parliament was prorogued.

³⁵ The measure was introduced by Lord Cavendish and Derbyshire miners who sought the removal of the tithe from lead ore which was payable to the Dean and parish of Lichfield. The House on the report of the committee rejected it. See Kyle, , ‘Parliament of 1624’, pp. 466–8.Google Scholar

³⁶ The bill stated that any person who worked cloth in London must undergo an apprenticeship with the Artizan Clothworkers’ Company. Unsurprisingly, the measure found little favour with the Corporation of London and it blocked the bill in committee. For a fuller analysis of the tactics used by the Corporation see Kyle, , ‘Attendance, Apathy and Order’Google Scholar (forthcoming).

³⁷ The bill attempted to regulate the fees taken by those officers involved in the collection of customs duties. It was preferred in 1614, 1621 and 1624 but failed to gain the assent of both the Commons and the Lords in any Parliament. The measure was based upon the 1433 statute 11 Henry VI cap. 15 which forbade customers or controllers from taking any fee for entering or drafting warrants. It did not, however, apply to other officials in the Customs House. Thus the Jacobean bill enacted that merchants did not have to pay a fee for the warrant which stated that customs had been paid and it imposed heavy financial penalties upon any official who charged for a document.

³⁸ The measure was introduced by West Country fishing interests in every Parliament of the decade but failed to reach the statute book. It was an attack on the patent of Sir Ferdmando Gorges for plantation of New England. See Russell, Conrad, Parliaments and English Politics, 1621–1629 (Oxford, 1979), p. 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Preston, R. A., Gorges of Plymouth Fort: a life of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, Captain of Plymouth Fort, Governor of New England, and Lord of the Province of Maine (Toronto, 1953)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Fishing and Plantation: New England in the Parliament of 1621’, American Historical Review xlv (1940), pp. 29–43.Google Scholar

³⁹ The bill voided any debt which was not due to the King himself and forbade any officer of the King to claim a debt in the King's name. It was originally introduced as a grace bill in 1614.

⁴⁰ Upon pain of felony, the bill enacted that no raw wool could be exported from England. Introduced in 1621 and 1624, it passed the Commons in the latter Parliament but stalled in committee in the Lords. Kyle, , ‘Parliament of 1624’, pp. 80–6.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Restitution bills were designed to ‘restore people to normal rights lost through the attainder, by act or at law, of ancestors whose blood … had been corrupted through condemnation for treason and very occasionally for felony.’ Elton, , Parliament 1559–1581, p. 303Google Scholar. The bill's history spanned 1621–8 and involved not only Raleigh's restoration but his attempt to regain his father's property, Sherborne Castle, Dorset, which James had sold to John Digby, Earl of Bristol. The bill ran into serious difficulties as Bristol introduced a series of bills designed to give statutory confirmation of his right to Sherborne. Raleigh finally gained his restoration in blood in 1628 – the same Parliament in which Bristol's title to Sherborne was ratified by an act of Parliament. But Raleigh's quest for Sherborne continued. He was elected an MP for Haslemere in 1648 and petitioned the Commons for his property. Raleigh was again a Member during the Rump Parliament and similarly introduced a petition. He was unsuccessful in both attempts. Kyle, , ‘Parliament of 1624’, pp. 442–7aGoogle Scholar; 3 Charles I caps 26, 37; CJ, vi. 595Google Scholar; viii. 131.

⁴² The bill was enacted as 1 Charles I OA 8. Jansson, Maija and Bidwell, William, eds, Proceedings in Parliament 1625 (New Haven, 1987), pp. 88, 90, 91, 95, 204, 226, 252, 257.Google Scholar

⁴³ Bave was born in Germany of Dutch parents. The text of his bill is reprinted in Bidwell, William B. and Jansson, Maija, eds, Proceedings in Parliament 1626 (4 vols, New Haven, 1991–1996), iv. 117–18Google Scholar. Neither bill was enacted in an addled Parliament. See ibid. iv. 86, 105.

⁴⁴ It is probable that the bill was introduced by Richard Dyott whose family held the manor of Freeford. Although Dyott was not recorded as present on this register, he attended a committee meeting on 28 February. The proceedings of diis meeting were noted by Bulstrode Whitelocke, but as he recorded only a small number of speakers, not the attendees, it has not been included above. See Bidwell, and Jansson, , Proceedings 1626, ii. 32, 69, 70, 214, 217Google Scholar. I am grateful to Andrew Thrush for providing me with his transcription of the Lichfield manuscript.

⁴⁵ On the document the names below are noted alongside the annotation, ‘Knights and Burgesses of Staffordshire.’ It is not possible to ascertain whether they attended or not, but see n. 46.

⁴⁶ Keeling reported the bill from committee on 7 March and it is probable that he attended the meeting. Bidwell, and Jansson, , Proceedings 1626, ii. 214.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Notes on the deliberations of the committee are printed in Bidwell, and Jansson, , Proceedings 1626, iv. 196–1200.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Bidwell, and Jansson, , Proceedings 1626, ii. 306Google Scholar; iv. 206.

⁴⁹ The petition and attendance list are printed in Bidwell, and Jansson, , Proceedings 1626, ii. 234Google Scholar; iv. 205–6. I have added further annotations on attendance which were not recorded by Bidwell and Jansson.

⁵⁰ For the details of the case see Keeler, Mary Freer, Cole, Maija Jansson, and Bidwell, William B., Proceedings in Parliament 1628 (6 vols, New Haven, 1977–1983), iv. 563Google Scholar, index entry Selden/Suffolk business.