Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-hbs24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:59:54.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The London Lobbies in the Later Sixteenth Century*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Ian Archer
Ian Archer
Affiliation:
Girton College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historians of Tudor government have tended to write about the relationship between rulers and ruled in terms of the ability of central government to impose on the localities things which they did not want, in particular the Reformation and taxes to fight wars. Students of the localities have written in terms of the local obstructions in the way of the enforcement of central directives. Students of parliament have examined that institution in terms of its power to block government initiatives. Students of the institutions of central government have explored their subject in terms of the degree of ‘bureaucratic’ development exhibited by these institutions, in other words, how well suited they were to the task of efficient government. But there is another aspect to the functioning of Tudor government, and that is the ways in which subjects could secure their own objectives by use of its machinery. Recent research has begun to provide some insight into this neglected topic. It is axiomatic to revisionist writing on parliament that parliament was, primarily concerned with legislation, and that legislation was as much a matter for localities and interest groups as it was for the crown. Diarmaid MacCulloch and Stephen Kershaw have pointed to the ways in which local communities turned to the central courts, and even the privy council, for support against aggressive landlordism. The accessibility of parliament, the council and the law courts, it may be argued, was a major factor behind the stability of English society in this period, offering a variety of fora within which redress of grievances might be pursued.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 1988 , pp. 17 - 44
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 Haigh, C., Reformation and resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge, 1975)Google Scholar; Smith, A. Hassell, County and court: government and politics in Norfolk, 1558–1603 (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar; Williams, P., ‘The crown and the counties’, in Haigh, C. (ed.), The reign of Elizabeth I (London, 1984), pp. 125–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and her parliaments (2 vols., London, 1953–1957)Google Scholar.

3 Coleman, C. and Starkey, D. (eds.), Revolution reassessed: revisions in the history of Tudor government and administration (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar.

4 Elton, G. R., The parliament of England 1558–1581 (Cambridge, 1986)Google Scholar.

5 MacCulloch, D., Suffolk and the Tudors: politics and religion in an English county, 1500–1600 (Oxford, 1986), pp. 321–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; S. Kershaw, ‘The earl of Shrewsbury and the Glossopdale disputes’, unpublished paper.

6 The local dimension is lacking in the most recent general treatment: Graves, M. A. R., The Tudor parliaments: Crown, Lords and Commons, 1485–1603 (London, 1985)Google Scholar. For studies of individual pieces of legislation see Elton, G. R., ‘Piscatorial politics in the early parliaments of Elizabeth I’, in McKendrick, N. and Outhwaite, R. B. (eds.), Business life and public policy: essays in honour of D. C. Coleman (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 1–20Google Scholar; and D. M. Dean, ‘Public or private? London, leather and legislation in Elizabethan England’, forthcoming in the Historical Journal.

7 Statutes of the Realm [S.R.], IV, 7 Ed. VI, c. 5.

8 Green, E., ‘The Vintners' lobby, 1552–1568’, Guildhall Studies in London History, I (1974), 47–58Google Scholar; Commons Journals [C.J.], I, 76, 77, 78; Lords Journals [L.J.], I, 651, 652, 653; Public Record Office [P.R.O.], SP 12/41/34; fos. 68–71. For Cecil's arguments against the bill see ibid. 41/58, fos. 151–2v, tentatively dated to 1581 by Tawney and Power, but clearly relating to the 1566 bill. Cf. Tawney, R. H. and Power, E. (eds.), Tudor economic documents [T.E.D.] (3 vols., London, 1924), II, 124–7Google Scholar.

9 Calendar of patent rolls, Elizabeth, III, 316; IV, 128–9; Guildhall Library [G.L.], MS 15333/1, pp. 460, 483–9, 508–11.

10 These issues receive extended treatment in my forthcoming Oxford D. Phil, dissertation, ‘Governors and governed in late sixteenth-century London, c. 1560–1603: studies in the achievement of stability’.

11 C.J., I, 75; Calendar of state papers domestic, addenda, 1566–79, p. 19.

12 House of Lords Record Office [H.L.R.O.], Main Papers, 1582–1585, fos. 72 ff; Trinity College Dublin [T.C.D], MS N.2.12, fo. 81. I have consulted Miss Helen Miller's transcripts of this diary at the History of Parliament Trust, and am grateful both to her for permission to use the transcript, and to P. W. Hasler for his hospitality at the Trust.

13 Townshend, H., Historical collections, an exact account of the last four parliaments of Elizabeth (1680), pp. 206–7Google Scholar; Merchant Tailors' Company [M.T. Co.], Court Minutes [CM.] III, fos. 439v, 440v, 441; v, pp. 1–4.

14 C.J., I, 77; P.R.O., SP 12/41/18, fos. 35–61.

15 D'Ewes, S., The journals of all the parliaments during the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1682), p. 571 (for 1597)Google Scholar; Townshend, , Historical collections, pp. 191, 245, 270Google Scholar; L.J., II, 248, 255, 257–8; T.E.D., I, 136–40; H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 1597–1607, fos. 85–91 (for 1601); L.J., II, 292, 294, 295, 297, 299, 305; C.J., I, 228, 239, 246; S.R., IV, 1 Jac. I, c. 20 (for 1604).

16 Townshend, , Historical collections, pp. 236, 332Google Scholar; G.L., MS 5445/11, 3 Dec. 1601.

17 Townshend, , Historical collections, pp. 210, 222, 322Google Scholar; Clothworkers' Company [Cw. Co.], C.M., III, fo. 218.

18 Hartley, T. E. (ed.), Proceedings in parliament in the reign of Elizabeth I, vol. I: 1559–1581 (Leicester, 1981), pp. 372, 385, 388Google Scholar; P.R.O., SP 15/21/40, fo. 72; G.L., MS 12065/2, foliated from rear, fo. 27v.

19 P.R.O., SP 12/107/59, fo. 132.

20 Hartley, (ed.), Proceedings, p. 530Google Scholar.

21 Ibid. pp. 313, 384, 385, 402.

22 S.R., IV, 23 Eliz. I, c. 8.

23 Ibid. 31 Eliz. I, c. 8, renewed in subsequent parliaments; G.L., MS 5606/2, fos. 152–3, 192r–v.

24 B.L., Lansdowne MS 29/23, fos. 53–4.

25 C.J., I, 68, 71, 72, 77.

26 B.L., Lansdowne MSS 28/28–31, fos. 65–71; 29/23–27, fos. 53–61.

27 Hartley, (ed.), Proceedings, pp. 531, 541, 547Google Scholar; L.J., II, 49, 50; C.L.R.O., Rep. 20. fo. 184v; G.L., MS 5445/7, 9 Feb. 1585; S.R., IV, 27 Eliz. I, c. 14.

28 C.J., I, 1, 2 (for 1547), 8 (for Feb. 1549), 12 (for Nov. 1549), 18, 19, 20, 21; L.J., I, 418, 421 (for 1552); Corporation of London Records Office [C.L.R.O.], Repertory of the Court of Aldermen [Rep.] 13, fo. 94V (for 1553); H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 27 Mar.–9 Apr. 1593, fos. 119–24 (for 1593). Expenditure on all the bills is recorded in the company's accounts; G.L., MSS 7086/2, fos. 120r–v, 128, 136, 154v–6, 176v; 7086/3, fo. 179.

29 S.R., IV, 1 Eliz. I, c. 10; 5 Eliz. I, c. 22; 14 Eliz. I, c. 4; 13 Eliz. I, c. 9.

30 See pp. 30–31 below.

31 Elton, G. R., ‘Enacting clauses and legislative initiative, 1559–71’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research [B.I.H.R.], LIII (1980), 183–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dean, D. M.; ‘Enacting clauses and legislative initiative, 1584–1601’, B.I.H.R. LVII (1984), 140–8Google Scholar.

32 S.R., IV, 5 Eliz. I, c. 7.

33 Hartley, (ed.), Proceedings, p. 372Google Scholar; Historical Manuscripts Commission [H.M.C.], Fourth Report, p. 116; L.J. II, 219.

34 S.R., IV, 13 Eliz. I, c. 19.

35 G.L., MS 7086/2, fo. 287; H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 27 Mar.–9 Apr. 1593, fos. 119–24.

36 G.L., MS 12071/2, p. 480; P.R.O., SP 12/8/2, fo. 3; G.L., MS 12071/2, p. 609.

37 Ramsay, G. D., ‘Industrial discontent in early Elizabethan London: Clothworkers and Merchant Adventurers in conflict’, London Journal, I (1975), 227–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 S.R., IV, 8 Eliz. I, c. 6.

39 C.J., I, 90; Hartley, (ed.), Proceedings, p. 253Google Scholar.

40 Ibid. pp. 253, 545; T.C.D., MS N.2.12, fos. 73, 74v; Cw. Co., Wardens ' Accounts [W.A.], 1584–5, fo. 9v.

41 B.L., Cotton MS Titus FII, fo. 30v; Calendar of state papers domestic, 1591–4, p. 321; Hatfield MSS 139/299, 139/307; Cw. Co., W.A., 1592–3, fo. 8v (for 1593); C.J., I, 155; P.R.O., SP 15/43/54, fos. 98–9 (for 1604).

42 Hartley, (ed.), Proceedings, p. 208Google Scholar; C.L.R.O., Rep. 17, fos. 129v–30.

43 Calendar of patent rolls, Elizabeth, VII, 22–3; Cw. Co., W. A., 1580–1, fos. 8V–9; L.J., II, 161, 163 (bill for confirmation of the letters patent of 18 Eliz.); P.R.O., SP 15/24/101, fos. 266–267v (bill that ‘the act of 8 El. be put in execucion any licence or restrainte to the contrary notwithstanding’).

44 Hartley, (ed.), Proceedings, pp. 531, 533Google Scholar.

45 T.C.D., MS N.2.12, fo. 76; P.R.O., SP 12/175/14, fo. 20.

46 L.J., II, 161, 163; P.R.O., SP 15/24/101, fos. 266–7v (for 1589); C.J., I, 160, 165 (for 1604); H.M.C., House of Lords, XI, 100–1; P.R.O., SP 14/20/9, fos. 24–8; C.J., I, 273, 285, 288, 291; L.J., II, 408, 409–10, 433–4 (for 1606).

47 C.J., I, 74; G.L., MS 6152/1, fos. 137v, 139v.

48 C.L.R.O., Rep. 15, fos. 63, 65, 66, 440, 459v, 468v, 477; Rep. 16, fos. 42v, 370v; Journal of Common Council [J.C.C.] 20, fos. 126v–7.

49 H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 26 Feb.–24 Mar. 1593, fos. 74–6; D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 518, 520Google Scholar.

50 P.R.O., SP 12/41/18, fos. 35–36.

51 B.L., Cotton MS Titus FIV, fo. 305; Veale, E., The English fur trade in the later middle ages (Oxford, 1966), pp. 177–80Google Scholar.

52 B.L., Cotton MS Titus FIV, fos. 303–4; C.J., I, 189, 214, 233, 235, 237.

53 B.L., Cotton MS Titus FIV, fos. 305–7v; L.J., II, 388, 389, 399, 416, 417, 418; C.J., I, 301, 304; S.R., IV, 3 Jac. I, c. 9.

54 C.L.R.O., J.C.C. 17, fo. 258; J.C.C. 18, fo. 271; J.C.C. 19, fos. 144v–5v, 428–430.

55 Hartley, (ed.), Proceedings, p. 387Google Scholar.

56 Ibid. pp. 486, 487, 489; G.L., MS 5442/4, 1575–6 acct.

57 G.L., MS 5445/7, 9 Feb. 1585; H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 27 Mar.–9 Apr. 1593, fos. 111–16.

58 G.L., MSS 5442/5, 1584–5 acct., 1592–3 acct.; 5445/9, Apr. 1593.

59 G.L., MS 5606/1, fo. 258v; C.J., I, 68, 71 (for 1563); G.L., MS 5606/1, fos. 291v, 2921–v; C.J., I, 74, 75; L.J., I, 635, 636, 637.

60 Bowden, P., The wool trade in Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1962), pp. 121–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; C.J., I, 65, 89.

61 D. M. Dean, ‘Public or private?’.

62 G. R. Elton, ‘Piscatorial politics’.

63 G. L., MS 5570/1, p. 102.

64 T.C.D., MS N2.12, fo. 74 (for 1584); C.L.R.O., Rep. 21, fos. 393, 396v (for 1587); D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 445–6 (for 1589)Google Scholar; C.L.R.O., Rep. 23, fo. 31; D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 471, 487, 497, 500, 501Google Scholar; L.J., II, 179, 180, 183 (for 1593); D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 556, 557, 558, 564Google Scholar; L.J., 11, 199, 200, 201; S.R., IV, 39 Eliz. I, c. 10 (for 1597); Townshend, , Historical collections, pp. 309–10Google Scholar; S.R., IV, 43 Eliz. I, c. 9 (for 1601).

65 S.R., II, 19 Hen. VII, c. 7.

66 G.L., MSS 12110, 14789.

67 Calender of patent rolls, Elizabeth, IV, 360.

68 Thrupp, S., A short history of the Worshipful Company of Bakers (Croydon, 1933), ch. VIIIGoogle Scholar.

69 G.L., MS 2207.

70 S.R., IV, 8 Eliz. I, c. 11.

71 Hartley, (ed.), Proceedings, pp. 218, 482, 537, 539Google Scholar; T.C.D., MS N2. 12, fos. 82, 89v.

72 G.L., MS 15842/1, fo. 1; B.L., Lansdowne MS 38/4–5, fos. 11–17.

73 Ibid. 38/4, fos. 11–16.

74 Ibid. 29/23, fos. 53–4.

75 G.L., MS 15842/1, fo. 12v; T.C.D., MS N2. 12, fos. 82, 89V.

76 G.L., MS 15842/1, fo. 52v.

77 G.L., MS 6117, pp. 48–50.

78 Acts of the privy council [A.P.C.], XXV, 60–2.

79 B.L., Lansdowne MS 71/54–57, fos. 117–23; 73/16, fo. 53.

80 G.L., MS 5570/1, p. 50.

81 C.J., I, 75, 76, 77; Calendar of patent rolls, Elizabeth, IV, 71.

82 G.L., MS 14346/1, fo. 65v.

83 Ibid. fo. 86.

84 Ibid. fos. 103v–5; C.L.R.O., Rep. 19, fos. 35, 40; C.J., I, 106, 110.

85 There is a problem here in that the licence to Dyer printed in the Calendar of patent rolls gave power to dispense from the tanning regulations of the 1563 act, and not the provisions relating to the Curriers. But the company accounts are explicit on the nature of the dispensation received from Dyer. Was there another more comprehensive licence not recorded on the patent rolls? Calendar of patent rolls, Elizabeth, VII, 62–3, 69–71; G.L., MS 14346/1, fos. 105–6, IIIr–v.

86 Ibid. fos. 119v, 127, 133, 140, 145, 151v, 156.

87 The events of these parliaments are subjected to close scrutiny by Dean, ‘Public or private?’

88 G.L., MS 14346/1, fos. 198v, 203v–4, 205v ff.

89 Ibid. fos. 216, 219–220v.

90 Ibid. fos. 232v–233, 236.

91 P.R.O., SP 12/253/23, fo. 178.

92 Welch, C., History of the Worshipful Company of Pewterers of the City of London (2 vols., London, 1902), II, 14–15Google Scholar; B.L., Lansdowne MSS 86/68, fos. 173–4; 86/71, fo. 180.

93 Welch, , Pewterers, 11, 12, 13–14, 21, 28Google Scholar; G.L., MS 7090/3, fo. 92.

94 Calendar ofpatent rolls, Elizabeth, VII, 11 (for the grant of 1576)Google Scholar; P.R.O., C66/1448, mm. 35–37 (for renewal of July 1596 with extended powers).

95 C.L.R.O., Remembrancia, II, no. 249; Rep. 25, fo. 34.

96 Apart from the examples discussed below, cf. G.L., MS 7351/1, 1600–I acct.; B.L., Lansdowne MS 114/39, fo 136; P.R.O., SP 14/9A/20, fo. 47.

97 Hartley, (ed.), Proceedings, p. 202Google Scholar; Hasler, P. (ed.), History of parliament: the house of commons 1558–1603 (3 vols., London, 1982), I, 422Google Scholar.

98 Calendar of patent rolls, Elizabeth, V, 21.

99 Duncan, G. D., ‘Monopolies Under Elizabeth I, 1558–1585’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1976), pp. 276–9Google Scholar.

100 Ibid.; Skinners' Company [Sk. Co.], C.M., 1, fos. 10v, 11V. B.L., Lansdowne MS 71/56, fos. 121–2.

101 P.R.O., SP 12/265/67, fos. 108–10A; C.J., I, 86.

102 Calendar of patent rolls, Elizabeth, VI, 230; G.L., MS 14346/1, fo. 92v.

103 P.R.O., SP 12/41/75, fo. 195.

104 S.R., IV, 18 Eliz. I, c. 9.

105 P.R.O., SP 12/107/60, fos. 133–7. It is listed among the bills ‘in the lower howse chosen owte by the Lordes and recomended to be expedited’: P.R.O., SP 12/107/63, fo. 145. The bill has the short form enacting clause and is therefore probably official in origin.

106 B.L., Lansdowne MSS 71/27–35, fos. 51–66; 71/41, fo. 79; 71/45, fo. 85; Additional MS 12497, fos. 406, 410, 411.

107 P.R.O., C66/1448, mm. 35–37; G.L., MS 15842/1, fos. 87, 102v.

108 C.L.R.O., Rep. 23, fos. 560v, 570v; Rep. 24, fos. 349–50.

109 P.R.O., C66/1384, mm. 10–12; B.L., Lansdowne MSS 74/40, fo. 114; 74/47, fos. 134–5.

110 Ibid. 74/50, fo. 143; 74/57, fo. 158r–v.

111 Ibid. 74/49, fo. 140v.

112 Ibid. 74/44, fo. 124v; 74/49, fos. 139v‘41, 74/50, fos. 143, 144v.

113 Ibid. 74/49, fo. 140v.

114 Ibid. 74/48, fo. 137.

115 Ibid.

116 C.L.R.O., Remembrancia, I, no. 651.

117 C.L.R.O., Remembrancia, II, no. 82.

118 Thirsk, J., Economic policy and projects: the development of a consumer society in early modern England (Oxford, 1978)Google Scholar.

119 P.R.O., C66/1415, mm. 13–19.

120 G.L., MS 5445/9, documents relating to Drake's patent at rear of minutes for 1593–4.

121 B.L., Lansdowne 81/21, fos. 54, 56v.

122 G.L., MS 5445/9, doc. no. 1 at rear of minutes for 1593–4.

123 Cf., for example, the legal proceedings taken by Darcy against individual opponents of his grant: B.L., Lansdowne MS 74/42, fo. 118r–v. And see G.D.Duncan, ‘Monopolies’, chs. IV–v.

124 C.L.R.O., Rep. 23, fos. 329v, 346; Remembrancia, I, nos. 632, 651; II, nos. 70, 82, 83, 84, 119, 126, 142 (for petitions against Darcy); Rep. 23, fo. 218; Remembrancia, II, nos. 78, 159 (for petitions against Drake); Jour. 24, fo. 83 (for a petition from the Common Council against various grants in January 1596).

125 C.L.R.O., J.C.C. 24, fo. 82v.

126 B.L., Lansdowne MS 74/51, fo. 145.

127 Ibid. 71/66, fo. 168; C.L.R.O., Rep. 23, fo. 299.

128 C.L.R.O., Rep. 23, fo. 296v; Leathersellers' Company, Liber Curtes, II, fos. 54v, 65; G.L., MS 5442/5, 1593–4 acct.; P.R.O., SP 14/6/79, fo. 155v; Foster, E. R. (ed.), Proceedings in parliament 1610 (2 vols., London, 1966), II, 158Google Scholar.

129 A.P.C., XXIV, 123; T.E.D., II, 271, 281, 284, 285. Drake's patent was voided in the royal proclamation which followed the parliamentary session: ibid. 293.

130 I hope to deal in detail with the tactics of lobbying on another occasion.

131 National Register of Archives, 24601, Report on Ellesmere Manuscripts, nos. 2328, 2342; B.L., Lansdowne MS 86/71, fo. 180.

132 Cw. Co., Q.W.A., 1576–7, fo. 6.

133 B.L., Lansdowne MS 29/25–27, fos. 57–61.

134 Ibid. 71/54, fo. 117.

135 Graves, M. A. R., ‘The management of the Elizabethan house of commons’, Parliamentary History, II (1983), 14–15Google Scholar.

136 For example in the 1576 session the bills of the Curriers and the Haberdashers: C.L.R.O., Rep. 19, fos. 35, 45v.

137 C.L.R.O., Rep. 23, fo. 22v; Rep. 24, fos. 153v–4; Rep. 25, fo. 275.

138 G.L., MS 5174/3, fo. 52.

139 Dean, D. M., ‘Bills and Acts, 1584–1601’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1984), p. 200Google Scholar.

140 G.L., MS 12071/2, pp. 414–15.

141 G.L., MS 12065/2, foliated from rear, fo. 8v; C.S.P.D., Addenda, 1566–79, p. 19.

142 Pettegree, A., Foreign protestant communities in sixteenth-century London (Oxford, 1986), pp. 289–90Google Scholar.

143 B.L., Lansdowne MS 43/72, fo. 167v.

144 Townshend, , Historical collections, pp. 206–7, 261, 324–5Google Scholar.

145 Hartley, (ed.), Proceedings, p. 372Google Scholar. Cf. comments in the same parliament on the Waxchandlers' bill: ibid. p. 402.

146 S.R., IV, 1 Jac. I, c. 20, compared with earlier version: H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 1597–1607, fos. 85–91.

147 S.R., IV, 1 Jac. I, c. 17 compared with earlier version: H.M.C., House of Lords, XI, 63.

148 G.L., MS 5606/2, fo. 238v refers to royal veto. The Clothworkers' measure passed through all it readings, but did not reach the statute book, L.J., II, 161, 163.

149 C.L.R.O., Remembrancia, II, no. 93.

150 S.R., IV, 8 Eliz. I, c. 9; 31 Eliz. I, c. 8; 35 Eliz. I, c. 11. Payments for the passage of all three measures are recorded in the company accounts.

151 I hope to deal in detail with the question of enforcement on another occasion. In the meantime see Ramsay, G. D., ‘Clothworkers, Merchant Adventurers and Richard Hakluyt’, English Historical Review, XCII (1977), 504–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

152 S.R. IV, 39 Eliz. I, c. 10; 43 Eliz. I, c. 9, §7; 1 Jac. I, cc. 17, 20; 3 Jac I, c. 9.

153 C.J., I, 122, 123, 128.

154 P.R.O., SP 12/148/1, fo. 3V.

155 C.L.R.O., Rep. 16, fo. 262r–v.

156 Ibid. fo. 277.

157 G.L., MS 5174/3, fos. 35v, 45v–6.

158 Hartley, (ed.), Proceedings, pp. 537, 539Google Scholar; T.C.D., M S N2.12, fo. 87v; G.L., M S 6901, fo. 29r–v, and acct. in unfoliated section for 1585. The later measure was actually introduced by the Merchants of the Staple, though probably with the full support of the Woolmen's Company.

159 G.L., MSS 6901, accts for 1587; 6907.

160 G.L., MS 6901, 1588–9 acct.; A.P.C., XXIV, 294.

161 G.L., MS 6901, 1593–6 accts. The company paid Coke £2 in July 1593 for drawing up the proclamation, but delays appear to have been caused by Simon Bowyer, patentee for offences against the 1552 statute, with whom the company was subsequently in negotiation.

162 Hughes, P. L. and Larkin, J. F. (eds.), Tudor royal proclamations (3 vols., New Haven, 1964–1969), III, 162–4Google Scholar.

163 Hughes, P. L. and Larkin, J. F. (eds.), Stuart royal proclamations (2 vols., Oxford, 1973–1983), I, 82–84Google Scholar; G.L M S 6901. 1602–4 acct.

164 G.L., MS 6901, accts. as stated.

165 G.L., MS 12071/2, pp. 446, 476.

166 Ibid. p. 480; P.R.O., SP 12/8/2, fo. 3.

167 G.L., MS 12071/2, pp. 481–2.

168 Ibid. p. 483.

169 Dillon, H. A., ‘A letter of Sir Henry Lee, 1590 on the trial of iron for armour’, Archaeologia, LI (1888), 167–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; B.L., Lansdowne MS 63/5, fos. 19–20; G.L., MS 12071/2, pp. 538, 539–4, 584.

170 B.L., Lansdowne MS 76/42, fo. 91; 76/44, fo. 95; G.L., MS 15333/2, p. 200.

171 See reference in n. 106 above.

172 B.L., Lansdowne MS 20/3, fos. 6–8; G.L., MS 14346/1, fo. 92v. Cf. early Stuart pressure from the leather crafts which resulted in a proclamation in 1608 revoking leather licences: C.J., I, 200; P.R.O., SP 14/9A/20, fo. 47; Stuart royal proclamations, I, 182–3.

173 Calendar of patent rolls, Elizabeth, IV, 199.

174 Calendar of patent rolls, Elizabeth, V, 6 (Sir Henry Neville, 1570, 8,000 cloths), 18 (Thomas Blount, 1570, 20,000), 407 (Burghley, 1572, 12,000); VI, 281 (Walsingham, 1574, 8,000); VII, 21–2 (Huntingdon, 1576, 8,000), 80 (Lord Howard, 1576, 4,000); P.R.O., C66/1320, mm. 19–21 (Raleigh, 1588, 8,000); C66/1325, mm. 39–42 (Hunsdon, 1589, 20,000).

175 Calender of patent rolls, Elizabeth, VII, 345; VIII, 134; IX, 289; P.R.O., C66/1325, mm. 39–42; C66/1330, mm. 30–2. But note that Cumberland's 1601 licence which was without limitation as to the number of cloths to be exported, allowed the export of all undressed cloth, except Kent and Suffolk cloths. The reasons behind the change in government thinking are not altogether clear, but were probably a mixture of fiscalism (Cumberland offered £1,000 p.a. rent), and anxieties about the future of the cloth trade at the turn of the century because of disputes with the emperor: P.R.O., SP 12/281/44, fos. 88–9.

176 Duncan, G. D., ‘Monopolies’, pp. 188–94Google Scholar; PRO., SP 12/286/48, fo. 129.

177 Calendar of patent rolls, Elizabeth, V, 273; C.L.R.O., Rep. 17, fos. 232, 262V; P R O., S P 12/286/48, fo. 129.

178 P.R.O., C66/1384, mm. 10–12; C66/1418, mm. 1–4. For the Skinners' objections, see Sk. Co., CM. II, fos. 208v, 211; W.A. IV, fos. 395r–v, 410.

179 C.L.R.O., Remembrancia, II, nos. 14, 70, 78, 82, 119, 126.

180 Ibid. no. 142.

181 Foster, (ed.), Proceedings, II, 158Google Scholar.

182 Sk. Co., CM., I, fos. 88–9.