Four memoranda in Oxford's hand survive from 1591 to 1601. The first concerns his suit to the Queen for the return of Waltham Forest, the second his suit to the Queen for a licence to bring certain commodities into the realm, the third a petition brought by one Thomas Gurley against Oxford's wife, and the fourth a complaint by Oxford about the conduct of Sir Edmund Carey during the Danvers escheat case.
Return to Oxford's Letters Index.
|[=47] 30 June 1591 (see also =20)||Personal letters (1-44)|
[=48] BL Lansdowne 108[/14], ff. 25-6: July 1592.
My desire is to have licence from her Majesty for the bringing into the realm of these commodities following, and I will give her Majesty a yearly increase, as appeareth, over and above her usual custom, viz. for
Oils £200 per annum
Notwithstanding there are five years in D. Actor's grant yet to come.
So that I do give her a yearly increase of £401.
The reasons of this suit.
Whereas after long suit for the title which I lay to the forest it was committed to the arbitrament of the Lord Chancellor who, having heard the cause, was ready to have made his report to her Majesty, it pleased her I should let fall the suit, determining to dispose thereof at her pleasure. In the mean season she promised to do something for me in some other matter, whereupon I preferred to her Majesty the suit I had against Skinner, whereto she did grant and, to that purpose, I had divers books drawn, but her Majesty did reject them all, putting me over to my Lord Treasurer who, though he did so much as in him lay in my favour, yet it succeeded not, whereby I lost all my charge and am to pay arrearages to her Majesty for the time that Skinner's land was in mine hands, so that the consideration which her Majesty promised remains yet to be performed.
There is no suit wherein I may less charge her Majesty than in this, where I increase her Majesty's sum £450.
Thus I most humbly beseech her Majesty to have a favourable consideration also of my attendance here upon her Majesty, which I am not able to continue if by this means my charges (both for the time passed in following that matter of Skinner's which succeeded contrary to mine expectation, and other crosses of fortune) be not helped, sith I have been so unhappy that her Majesty likes not that I should seek the forest which, by all counsel in law that I can get, I am made to believe I have good interest unto, and I am put by the same by her pleasure and not by course of law. Whereupon I hope her Majesty will think this suit as fit for me as any other and also for these considerations bestow the same on me, whereby I may ease mine debts and charges I have been at as is aforesaid.
*My suit unto her Majesty.
|Return to top.||Next document.|
[=49] Cecil Papers 37/66(a): 11 January 1597;
The ground whereon Thomas Gurley, plaintiff to the Council, maketh his petition.
In Flushing and in the Low Countries thereabout were certain poor men which had a long time served her Majesty in place of gunners which, being behindhand for want of their pay and not able to sustain the long delay which then happened at that time (upon what occasion I know not), and for want of friends despairing to recover the same, to supply their poor estate in time sold their interest to this Thomas Gurley who, to compass the commodity of this bargain, came unto me offering £300 if I could get my Lord Treasurer's allowance thereof and his letter to Sir Thomas Shirley, Under-Treasurer then for the Low Countries. Upon this offer I became suitor to my Lord and, pretending that this Gurley owed me £300, I could not by reason of his bare estate hope otherwise how to come by this money. After some process of time my Lord, examining the testimonials of this debt, found it due, and therefore in favour of me (after he had often spoken with Gurley, who did also acknowledge his debt to me) did not only give allowance thereto but also wrote his letter to Sir Thomas Shirley for to see it paid.
But for that Sir Thomas Shirley was yet unfurnished (sith he was to attend my Lord Treasurer's dispatches in those matters), there grew an interim wherein, for that I had occasion at this time to use money, Gurley offered me, if I would make him my receiver of the annuity in the Exchequer, he would find the means to take up so much money as should serve my turn till the other money should be paid by Sir Thomas. To this I consented, and he brought me £200 which he was to pay of the £300 (as he said), and at the quarter's end he hoped to bring in the other £100. But at this quarter's end Sir Thomas Shirley was not yet dispatched by my Lord Treasurer wherefore I, sending to the Exchequer, could there receive no more than £50 for that Gurley had received thereof beforehand (by virtue of my warrant) £200.
So here it may appear plainly enough that the money which Gurley pretendeth to be parcel of the £300 was only but mine own, and that acquitted to the receivers at the quarter's end, so that this so allowed (as it was), he was still behindhand with me for the £300. But for that time he satisficed me with excuse that yet Sir Thomas Shirley could not help him to his money, and therefore he would take up again aforehand £200 for the mean season, and by the next quarter he doubted not but to have his money to my full satisfaction. This quarter being run out as the other, as I did before I received from the Exchequer but £50 by the former reason, so (the £200 also being there discharged) now Gurley yet was to bring in his three hundred pounds.
In this quarter he had received his money, but came not at me (as he wont to do but seldomer), and then put me off from day to day till, at the last, being assured he was paid by Sir Thomas Shirley, I pressed him for his money.
With a notorious impudency he denied his promise and said he had only promised to lend me so much, which he had already performed, and a hundred pound more for which I was in his debt, and for this he alleged the £400 which he had at two several times paid unto me, at every time £200.
And as for my Lord Treasurer, he denied that ever he received any other favour than that which he was to do him by justice: for me, he had but my good word which, the long delays considered ere he did effect his suit, it stood him in little stead.
Thus he replied I should have first set down upon my position for that I had objected unto him, how he had made me both speak and write oftentimes earnestly to my Lord, and the principal colour I had was for that his estate was so bare as I could not else tell how to come by £300 which he owed me, as himself also, under that shadow, had often come to the speech of my Lord and had acknowledged it to him.
Here is the very state of the cause plainly set down, and the very ground of his pretended debt by me to him, which for that he knows I can remember, and that my wife is not acquainted with the cause, it seemeth he frameth his petition the boldlier against her.
But sithence that time, by those former warrants, how he hath prevented me by taking up aforehand divers sums through the friendship of Taylor who, notwithstanding I (upon this aforesaid dealing) called for my warrants in again (as none knows better than yourself what the patent is and how it runs), yet would aver them to be good and flatly wrote unto me he had my hand and warrant which was sufficient for his discharge in law.
But after he had paid this Gurley divers sums in this manner, and that he better had looked into my patent (besides hearing I meant to call him before my Lord Treasurer), then he submitted himself by a letter, sent in my warrants, and surceased his further payments to Gurley who, now claiming of a £140 from my wife as bound by condition to see those his warrants discharged, shows that all which he acknowledgeth to be paid already, so much he hath robbed me of by this means, which is a £260, for he says of the £300 he lent me yet is due to him a £140 by my wife, and that 400 which he brought me (as the premises show) was all mine own money, discharged and allowed unto Taylor and the officer then in the Exchequer.
Many pranks besides he hath played me which at this time I forbear till it shall be my hap to speak with you at one time or other, for that in such a trifle methinks I have been already too long, yet I could not choose, to make it plain unto you.
|Return to top.||Next document.|
[=50] Cecil Papers 146/19, ff. 146/19: circa
First, that he abused the commission, it is proved, whereas he should have used the same for the benefit of her Majesty, he made it an instrument to defraud and exclude her from all Sir Charles Danvers' lands.
Secondly, whereas there were sufficient commissioners, he wrought so that they did not appear, and so made a tales gathered out of a number of his own servants and tenants, which was an extreme injury and abuse offered to her Majesty.
Thirdly, he caused and countenanced a lawyer, whose name I take to be Hyde, to plead against her Majesty, notwithstanding that the sheriff opposed against it, her Majesty having none there to plead for her.
Fourthly, he procured the Lord Treasurer's letters to this effect, that all favour should be showed to Sir Edmund Carey, and that his witnesses should be accepted.
All which approve her Majesty to be greatly abused, with many proofs more, as in their place shall be declared.
The second point.
That Cauley was put in danger, and how he was evil dealt withal, I leave it to Cauley, who can make proof thereof.
The third point.
That there were three of Sir E.C.'s men which have continually watched Cauley, and that he narrowly escaped them three times, and that they vaunted they would take me at my heels, it is proved by him to whom they spake, who acknowledged their vaunts to him before the Recorder of London and offered his oath thereon, if it had pleased the Recorder to have taken it.
The fourth point.
That he termed me a promoter, Arthur Myles mine author.
The fifth point.
That there were of the guard in the tumultuous assault at Cauley's lodging, it is true, but for want of time their names yet cannot be so soon learned, yet thus much is known, that he is a keeper (I know not whether in Waltham forest, or where else), but it is very true, as shall be upon straiter inquire and more respite of time found out.
The sixth point, that he hath done it upon malice to Cauley for following her Majesty's service, thus I prove it:
An outlawry was made on Michael Cauley in a foreign county. The law is it should be at the church-door of his own parish and in the county where he was born and dwelleth, but when men would steal it privately out, without the knowledge of the party, they take such unjust courses whereof this is one, and if any judge had been in town it had been a matter but of 40s to have reversed it, but no judge being in town they have taken thereby advantage.
The outlawry did not appertain to Sir E.C.; if he came by it, it was that he bought it, or else, to countenance it, useth his own name, which is plain champerty.
Besides, I do not think that any private man, upon his own authority, without the Council's or other sufficient warrant, can in so tumultuous a sort break into the house or lodging of any man, all which of these things Sir E. C. hath done.
Whereas he told her Majesty that he arrested Cauley for railing of him, and boldly avouched the same, I answer:
First, that he did not arrest him for railing on him (which suggestion he is yet to prove), but for this action of outlawry, wherein he abused her Majesty's ears with a great falsehood.
And if he did it for that Cauley had railed at him, this quarrel, if it were true as he suggesteth, why did he not then arrest him beforetime, but now, whilst he was busied in her Majesty's service? Whereby it appeareth plain that it was not Cauley's railing at him (which he will hardly prove), but upon very malice for doing his dutiful service in her Majesty's behalf.
So that there is nothing written in my letter but I justify with authority and proof, whereby it appeareth that Sir E. Carey carryeth a malicious and spiteful tongue in his head and hath notably abused her Majesty in defacing her title and interest to the traitor's lands, Sir Charles Danvers. And thus much to justify what I have written in my letter to her Majesty, which is much less than he hath either deceitfully done towards her Majesty, or slanderously calumniated myself.
A contradictory in his own speech.
First, as Arthur Myles reported to me, these were his words, that I followed it now with fire and sword.
That I was of a strange and vild nature, that would pursue a cause in this sort as a promoter against another, and yet reaping no benefit to myself, sith her Majesty had given me nothing.
Yet he yesternight averred to her Majesty that he arrested Cauley for his railing at him, and saying that the tenants should return to my Lord of Oxford and not to the Queen.
Here, to Arthur Myles, he said I had no benefit thereby.
Here, to her Majesty, he avouched the tenants should return to me and not the Queen.
Names known of some of the parties in the apprehension of Cauley:
The Marshal's man, and his man.
The Lord Scrope's footman.
|Return to top.|