As early as the 6th of February a debate on the causes of the scarcity of money, which the King had recommended for consideration, brought up a complaint of the Patent for Gold and Silver Thread. It was an old Patent, with a long history, which had passed through several hands, undergone many references and modifications, and though much complained of by rivals in the manufacture, had never stood high in the list of public grievances; but it was now in the hands of Sir Giles Monperson-a man whose proceedings in regard to another Patent which had no relation to it had caused great discontent; and I suppose it was felt to be the beginning of the war, and the time for the Government to take up its position. Sir Edward Sackville, who, though anything but a Puritan and no way unfriendly to the Government, appears to have stood high in the favour of the House, indicated that position at once, and very clearly.

66

Sir Edward Sackville saith, that in all businesses of this nature and weight there is commonly a petition and other notes and collections delivered to his Majesty, pretending a good and benefit that by this suit will accrue both to his Majesty and to the Commonwealth; the consideration of which petition, and other collections concerning such businesses, his Majesty ever referreth to some certain referees, who examine it and certify to his Majesty the validity of it. He therefore desireth that those who were referees in this business and have certified his Majesty of the conveniency of it, and have thereby so much abused his Majesty and the Commonwealth, may be known, and that their reasons may be examined, to the end that they may receive the blame and shame of it."1

:

"2

The same

The debate for that day ended in a resolution "that those motions be referred to the former Committee of Grievances "; but we hear no more of this one for a good while a much stronger case against Monperson having been brought out by the investigation. On the 19th of February the Patent for Inns was brought in question by Mr. Noye, as an instance of a Patent that was in itself good and lawful, but abused by the Patentees in the execution, who perforin not the trust reposed in them from his Majesty." character was given of it by Coke in the same debate. three sorts of patents. 1st directly against law: 2d good in law, but ill in execution: 3d neither good in law nor execution. Of the second kind are patents for Inns." 3 On the 20th the committee went into the case. There were three patentees, of whom Sir Giles Monperson was the principal; who being examined, stated that "there were two things that gave him encouragement to undertake

"There are

1 Proceedings and Debates, p. 17.

* Ib. p. 64.

3 Ib. p. 65.

1620-1.]

SENTENCE ON SIR FRANCIS MICHELL.

185

this business: 1st the want of power in Justices of Peace to set up or pull down inns: 2. The course that was taken before the Patent was granted; it being referred first for matter of law to the Lord Chancellor that now is, then being the King's Attorney-General: to the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer: and Justice Nicolls; the second time, for matter of conveniency, to Suffolk, then Lord Treasurer of England, to Secretary Winwood, Secretary Lake, and Serjeant Finch." The next day Coke reported from the Committee that they found this Patent an exorbitant grievance both in itself and in the execution; and the same afternoon the Patent "for the forfeiture of the Recognizances for Ale-houses," in which Sir Francis Michell was implicated, came before them. This patent had been referred to the two Chief Justices (Montague and Hobart), Yelverton, and Coventry, or any two or more of them. "The Lord Hobart" (it was added)" did not certify on this reference; but the Lord Chief Justice Montague did; but it was no more than the House thought good and honourable.”1 So the attack turned against the execution, and the person principally implicated in it-which was Sir Francis. Michell, a lawyer and Justice of the Peace. With him they made very short work: and if the universal condemnation of a man without hearing what he has to say in his own behalf is to be accepted as conclusive evidence against him, his case was very bad. On the 22nd Coke reported it to the House, and on the 23rd, after reading a petition from him, moved "that he was unfit to be a Justice of Peace; and that he should be declared to be unworthy and disabled to be of that commission :-that he should make restitution to all of whom it could be proved that he had received anything for this business that he should be sent to the Tower until he be put out of commission, and until he should make an humble submission here at the bar on his knee." And (the House assuming thereupon the authority of a Court of Justice) it was ordered, upon the question, by a general voice,

"That he should be held unworthy to be a Justice of the Peace, and be declared disable and unworthy to be of that commission or any other whatsoever, To be sent at 2 of the Clock in the afternoon to the Tower through the street on foot."

After which the private Journal (for the Clerk of the House was ill all this time, and the usual notes were not taken) proceeds thus::

"And so Michell was called to the Bar to hear his sentence on his knee. After sentence passed he desired to be heard, but it was denied. 'Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy: That he might be heard after judg

ment, so as it be an humble suit, or anything not concerning the sentence given by the House.'

'Sir Edward Cooke: That he ought not to be heard after judg

ment.'

"And so it was agreed by the vote of the whole House."'

Michell's petition, to which this was the answer, had been (if the note of it be correct) short, sharp, and defiant. Monperson, whose manner of executing his Patent for Inns and Hosteries had exposed him to the same kind of censure, took warning from the result, and tried whether in this new Court of Justice,-where anybody was counsel for the prosecution, and the "general voice" was the Judge, and the defendant heard nothing of the trial except the sentence, upon which he was not allowed to make any remark,—an attitude of humility would fare better: and the next morning there was read in the House

The petition of Sir Giles Monperson. Wherein he confesseth that he hath erred in the execution of the Patent for Inns, both by his letters and otherwise to Justices of the Peace; and confesseth that so general a Patent cannot but be a great grievance to the subject; and prayeth the favourable construction of the House, to whose censure he willingly submitteth himself."

This petition was referred, I presume, to the Committee, whose report on the case was brought up by Coke on the 27th. On which occasion he laid down another rule for their proceeding as a Court of Justice which must have been rather alarming to all who might come within their jurisdiction.

"If any one accused for a grievance do justify it in this House of Parliament, it is an indignity to the House, and for this the House may send any one to the Tower."

So at least the words are given in the private Journal. But I gather from the notes taken by the Clerk of the House (who had resumed his duties the day before) that it was meant not so much for a rule to guide their proceedings hereafter as for a doctrine invented to justify what they had done two or three days before. A doubt had been raised as to their right to pronounce judgment upon Michell and commit him to the Tower, for offences which were not against the House and had in fact been committed when there was no House in existence. Coke's reply (on the sudden) was in effect that he had committed an offence against the House then sitting. Being charged with that which they had voted a grievance, he had presented

1620-1.]

THREATENED PROCEEDING AGAINST REFEREES. 187

a petition in which he justified it. This was a punishable offence. A case in point had occurred when he was Speaker. A deputy purveyor was charged in that House with many grievances, done before Parliament and it was resolved that if, being sent for, he should defend what he had done, "for his defence he was to be there punished." "Michell came in as a counsellor and justified it, and his petition was arrogant and presumptuous." As it appeared by the question

that the law of the case was not known to everybody, he added that he would "set this out at large and deliver it to be kept for a memorial in this House: " which may account for its being entered in the private Journal in a separate paragraph by itself, as a legal axiom. In order however to set it out in proper form he felt that "further advice" would be desirable; and it seems the House thought so too; for it was presently agreed on the motion of Sir Edwin Sandys that Noye and Hackwill should go that afternoon to the Tower and search the precedents there" to show how far and for what offences the power of this House doth extend to punish delinquents against the State, as well as those who offend against this House"; and having first informed the Committee, should report to the House the next morning. The truth was, they had discovered that they did not know what the proper course of proceeding in such cases was; for their present course, now that it was brought out in full relief, could hardly approve itself on "further advice" even to Coke himself.

7.

:

Pending the search for precedents the debate turned again upon the point originally raised by Sir Edward Sackville-the examination. of the Referees. "Here," said Sir Lionel Cranfield, now Master of the Wards, "is a projector and a patent: he had had no patent if the Referees had done their duty to remember therefore the Referees and so to clear the honour of the King: to have the original petition, answer, and certificate reviewed." The House approved. Monperson was forthwith brought to the Bar and questioned as to the referees for the Patent of Inns. His answers were simple, direct, and unreserved. It had been referred for matter in law to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Baron, Justice Crooke, Justice Nicolls, and after his death to Justice Winch: and for the point of conveniency, to the Earl of Suffolk (then Lord Treasurer), Secretary Winwood, Secretary Lake, and Mr. Serjeant Finch. Having given

1 Commons' Journals, p. 530.

2

Proceedings and Debates, p. 103.

them the information they wanted, he was dismissed with a direction from the Speaker to attend the pleasure of the House every forenoon : and so the business of that day ended.

But it left behind matter for serious consideration. They wanted to condemn the Patents without touching the King. The obvious way to do this was to throw all the blame upon his advisers. It was the old way; and in this case it was not unjust. Before he granted the Patents he had taken all the care he could to ascertain that they were both lawful and convenient. He had asked those who ought to have known best, and they had told him that they were. If they were not, the blame was not his, but theirs. So far, speaking for themselves as in a matter of opinion, there need be no difficulty. So much was of necessity implied in a petition for the revocation of the Patents as grievous and illegal: and if they should add to it the expression of a hope that he would call those advisers to account for thus misleading him, there would be no difficulty in that. But when it came to questioning" and "examining" and "reporting" the Referees,-to putting them upon their trial, deciding upon their guilt or innocence, and awarding their "punishment," the difficulty became considerable. For who were to be their Judges? They were a formidable body to attack, standing all together; and without denying that they were answerable for their advice, might decline to answer before this new tribunal, which had just announced that if they presumed to "justify" what they had done, they would be treated ipso facto as delinquents who might be sent to the Tower at once without more ceremony than a question put and a majority of yeas. A few days' leisure for reflexion made a considerable difference in the opinion of the more thoughtful members. On the 5th of March, Sir Dudley Digges, a principal member of the Committee, after remarking how gracious the King had shewn himself in all these things, and how great care he had taken, moved for

"A short bill to be drawn expressing in the preamble the King's great care against all things that might hurt the commonwealth.

"2ndly. A declaration against all projectors.

"3rdly. Against all Referees that shall hereafter mislead the King, that they may be branded to posterity."

1 Sir Francis Seymour: To have a set day when these Referees may answer for themselves; and if they prove guilty, not to have their punishment spared. This . . . will clear those Referees which are innocent, and discover the residue."

"Master of the Wards: moveth the Referees in this particular for Inns may now be examined." C. J. p. 530.