Page:VCH Herefordshire 1.djvu/451

 POLITICAL HISTORY Common Pleas,''' and in October, 1602, Sir Edmund Anderson, the chief justice of common pleas, stated that he did not think that Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, &c., were within the circuit of Lord Zouche, the lord president of the Council in the Marches.'*" In Michaelmas term, 1604, all the justices and barons of the Exchequer were assembled by the command of the king, and decided that the four counties of Hereford, Worcester, Gloucester, and Salop were not within the jurisdiction of the council/" Strong protests against this decision were made by the supporters of the jurisdiction of the council.'*^ On the meeting of Parliament the Commons espoused the side of the counties, and in March passed an Act explaining 34 and 35 Henry VIII, cap. 26, in their favour, which did not get beyond the Committee stage in the Lords, prob- ably in consequence of the desire of the Commons to modify their own bill. Another bill, introduced in May, was dropped owing to the assurances of the king.'*' On the appointment of Lord Eure as president in August, 1 607, in succession to Lord Zouche, the affair was compromised by minor actions being left under the jurisdiction of the council,'** while in criminal affairs a mere commission of oyer and terminer was substituted for the extraordinary powers of the council.'*^ This decision, however, did not satisfy the counties, more particularly as Sir Herbert Croft of Croft Castle, grandson of the comp- troller, the leader of the opposition, was put out of the commission of the lieutenancy and of the peace. Before Christmas, 1607, a sturdy resistance was organized. In Herefordshire the bishop and twenty-six of the leading gentry urged Croft to continue his exertions to free them. The question again came before the Privy Council, where, after an altercation between the king and Coke, on 6 November, 1608, the opinion of the judges was taken. This opinion was delivered in writing by Coke on 3 February, 1608—9, ^^'^ Sir Herbert Croft stated that the judges reported that ' not disputing H. M.'s regal power, in mere points of law these four English counties ought not to be under that government.' '*^ As the opinion was unfavourable to the crown, it was never suffered to become public. When Parliament met in 1610, the Commons petitioned the king on 7 July for a redress of the grievance created by the authority exercised over the counties by the president and Council of the Marches,'*'' and the grand jury of Herefordshire also petitioned against it.'*^ The attempts to force contributions from the county had also occasioned much dissatisfaction. After the rupture with Parliament in 1621 James I was driven to the expedient of a benevolence to provide funds for his government. In answer to the royal demands the justices of the peace for the shire wrote to the Privy Council on 7 May, 1622, stating that the people of the county earnestly pleaded to be excused from the voluntary contribu- tion. The council had written urging a cheerful giving, but, according to 339 340 ' Jets of?. C. xxvi, 29-30. Bacon's Works (1859), ^"' 57'~2> quoting Manningham's Diary (Camd. Soc). '" The Fourth Part of Coke's Institutes, 242. '" For the whole question see S.P. Dom. Jas. I, x, 86 ; xxiv, 74 ; xxxi, 31-7 ; xxxii, 13, 14. These documents are probably not in proper chronological position. ^^ Com. Joum. 21 Feb.; i, 4, 10 March; 10, 11 April; 13, 15 May, 1606; Lds. Journ. 13, 25 March ; 3, 7 April, 1606 ; cf. S.P. Dom. xix, 33-5. '" Miss Skeel, Council in the Marches, 137. '" Heath's preface in Bacon's Works, vii, 577, from Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. C. i, fF. 197-204. ^^ Croft to Somerset, March, 1614, in S.P. Dom. Jas. I, Ixxvi, 53. »*' Ibid. Ivi, 10. "» Ibid. Ivii, 96 ; Iviii, 56, I. 381