Milicent Birkenhead and Edward Thoroughgood. SP 16/311 f. 32 (1636)
To the Kings most excellent majestie
The humble peticyon of Milicent [Birkenhead] widdow, Patrick Crayford and Edward [Thorowg…?]
Humbly sheweth.
That your petitioner Birkenheads late husband deceassed and the other [petitioners?] having (by the approbacion of the lords of your majesties most honourable privy [coun?] cell and for the generall good of this kingdome) obteyned two grants [illegible] your majestie under the greate seale to erect in Westchester, Leverpole [illegible] Hull, Bristoll and other portes, offices for the registring of the [n…?] of persons thought fitt and licenced to passe beyond the seas, and [illegible] ing ship at the portes mencioned in their said grantes
May it please your majestie the petitioner Birkenheads said late [husband] and the other petitioners not onelie spent fower yeares time in pursuite of this busines, but also her whole porcion being of good value, and all [illegible] ever the other petitioners could raise was expended in establishing the [illegible] offices, which being in some sort effected, and the small benefitt allowed [illegible] your majestie, all the meanes your petitioners have to maintaine [themselves?] [illegible] nyne children, yet one Master Mayhew after their trouble [illegible] upon some unjust pretence endeavoureth to deprive them of their [illegible] grantes, and hath obteyned a warrant under Master Secretary Windebankes hand to Master Attorney Generall to prepare a [grant?] [illegible] him for your majesties royall signature, which is accordingly made [re…?] whereby your petitioners shalbe for ever utterly undone
They therefore most humbly beseech your sacred majestie to [be?] gratiously pleased to give order for staie of the said [Mayhews?] grant, and to referre the examinacion of this business to [illegible] right honourable the Lord Keeper of your greate seale to the [illegible] your majestie may be certified of the trueth and of the [great?] wrong offered to the petitioners. And your petitioners shall (as in duty [bound)?] daily pray etc
[For the response to this petition, see the transcription here.]
Report by Miranda Simond with additional contributions from Frank Edwards
The petition came in the name of Milicent Birkenhead and Edward Thoroughgood. They recounted that Birkenhead’s deceased husband, Patrick Crawford had, with others, been granted the right to open offices in West Chester, Liverpool, Hull, Bristol and other ports, to licence people to travel abroad. They had spent money in establishing their business. A Mr Mayhew, with the support of Secretary Windebank and Attorney General Bankes, was about to receive the right to operate this business, thus threatening the petitioners’ very livelihood. They asked the King to refer the matter for examination to the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Thomas Coventry.
Windebank, Bankes and Coventry
Francis Windebank was appointed Secretary of State in succession to Lord Dorchester in June 1632 by King Charles I.[1] John Bankes was appointed Attorney General to the King in September 1634.[2]
The petition was referred to Thomas Coventry, 1st Baron Coventry. He was Lord Keeper of the Great Seal for nearly fifteen years (1625–40) and reportedly an able judge. He was described as having ‘in the plain way of speaking and delivery a strange power of making himself believed’, and as a man of ‘not only firm gravity but a severity and even some morosity’, who was ‘rather exceedingly liked than passionately loved’.[3] The office of the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal (the seal used to symbolise the Sovereign’s approval) gradually developed into a permanent appointment, and the Lord Keeper acquired the right of discharging all the duties connected with the Great Seal.[4]
Offices for the registering persons to pass beyond the seas
Before travelling abroad, the would-be traveller had to obtain a licence to travel. This had been the case since 1381, when the statute of Richard II made it unlawful for any common subject to ‘pass out of the… Realm without the King’s special Licence… except only the Lords and other Great Men of the Realm, and true and notable Merchants, and the King’s Soldiers… upon Pain of Forfeiture of all their Goods’. The statute initially was a way of controlling the flow of silver and gold out of the kingdom through the hands of unscrupulous merchants, but a strict reading of the law in the 1630s meant that anyone other than soldiers, noblemen, and established traders had a legal obligation to obtain the Crown’s permission before removing himself to parts ‘beyond the seas’. In practice, this limitation affected not only the casual traveller, but also his tutors and servants, as well as students, scientists, physicians, adventurers, musicians, occasional merchants, visiting family members, and even diplomatic emissaries and their servants.[5] A contemporary justification for the continuing restrictions was that the King needed ‘to ascertain the names of all subjects leaving the realm, their places of abode, estates, degree, destination and intended date of return’ so that he ‘can recall them if he requires their services’.[6] A likely second, but unstated, justification was the income raised through the fees travellers were required to pay.
The authority for issuing a licence to travel lay at least nominally with the Crown, and therefore in practice with the Privy Council. Over time, port authorities become de facto regional passport offices, as the Council began resorting to a number of measures for subcontracting the licensing process. Passes were still being issued by the Council itself, but more and more port authorities and lesser officials were granted commissions for the writing of licences.[7]
The petitioners
Two active players in the devolved business of issuing licences were Patrick Crawford (Crayford, Crafford or Craford) and Matthew Birkenhead. In February 1630 they were granted the office of ‘clerks for writing licenses for persons going beyond seas from Bristol, Beaumaris, Chester, Liverpool and Workington’.[8] They renewed their position in 1631.[9] Patrick Crawford was married to the petitioner Milicent (Melicent) Birkenhead, Matthew Birkenhead was her brother.[10]
After 1630, steps were taken to standardise the entire process and make it more efficient. The Council created the office of a resident clerk in Westminster whose sole job was to write up licences ‘to persons going abroad’, naming Edward Thoroughgood (Thorowgood), also a petitioner, as the first occupant of the office.[11] This authority was granted through letters patent. Letters patent are a type of legal instrument in the form of a published written order issued by a monarch, president, or other head of state, generally granting an office, right, monopoly, title, or status to a person or corporation.[12]
Crawford and Birkenhead found frustrations in their work. In March 1631 they complained to the King that their task was obstructed due to ‘the obstinacy of some masters of ships’.[13] In response the Attorney General suggested additional restrictions, designed to stay the passage of unlicensed persons.[14] In April 1631 Crawford and Birkenhead sought further restrictions on the passage of unlicensed persons from Bristol and other Western ports.[15]
Crawford (with or without Matthew Birkenhead) appears to have expanded his responsibilities. In July 1634 he reported that in undertaking his role as clerk of the passes in ‘the ports in South and North Wales, in Chester and in Chester Water, in Neston, Helbury and other places’ he had appointed deputies. He had continuing concerns however, that due to ‘the obstinate disobedience of owners and masters of ships, passengers are transported beyond seas, without taking the Oath of Allegiance, or their names being registered’. This, said Crawford, was to the neglect of his Majesty’s service but it also meant he, his wife (that is, Milicent Birkenhead) and children were ‘utterly ruined’ (in that they were being denied their share of the income from fees). He asked that owners and masters of ships ‘be bound in 100l. not to carry passengers without the Oath, and to prohibit them from carrying passengers until they enter into the said bond’, and that innkeepers be instructed ‘not to receive passengers to go beyond seas, or that shall land, without sending their names in writing’ to him or his deputy, within 24 hours.[16] In August Crawford reiterated his concerns but now suggested a bond for innkeepers of 10l. and a reduced bond for owners and masters of 50l.[17] There is no evidence that his demands were agreed to.
In July 1635 the King renewed the restrictions on the rights of ‘all his subjects, other than soldiers, mariners, merchants, and their factors and apprentices, to pass out of England on travel abroad’.[18]
The petition
By January 1636 Patrick Crawford was dead.[19] His widow, Milicent Birkenhead, was aware of impending change in the way the King operated the licensing process. In the petition she noted the pressing claims of ‘one Master Mayhew … upon some unjust pretence’ to deprive her and others of their role in issuing licences. The petition named Edward Thoroughgood, still it appears operating in his central role[20] but as threatened as others by the approaching Mayhew. The ‘other petitioners’ are not named but presumably included Matthew Birkenhead.
The petitioners were right to be alarmed. On 21 January 1636 ‘the office of writing and entering passes … in all the ports of England and Wales by virtue of his Majesty’s commissions lately renewed, and for keeping a register of such persons as depart this kingdom, with such fees as have heretofore been received for the same’ was granted to Thomas Mayhew for 21 years.[21]
The grant was ‘to begin upon the determination of any former grants of this office’[22] and in response to the petitioners’ request, the King referred the matter to the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Thomas Coventry. He submitted his report in April 1636. He confirmed the initial grants had been made as claimed in the petition and that a subsequent grant to Mayhew would have an adverse impact on the petitioners that they could not well endure. In a conclusion at odds with his reputation for plain speaking, he appeared to suggest that in view of this impact the King should restrain himself from passing the matter on to Mayhew.
The King declined to so restrain himself. In June 1636 ‘all customers and officers of ports throughout England and Wales’ were reminded of the King’s proclamation of July 1635, restricting the right of ‘all his subjects, other than soldiers, mariners, merchants, and their factors and apprentices, to pass out of England’. They were advised that the King had now granted ‘Thomas Mayhew the office of writing and entering all passes and passengers’ names in all outports, and to receive the accustomed fees for the same’. Perhaps mindful of the concerns previously expressed by Crawford and Birkenhead all customers and officers were urged to aid Mayhew ‘in the execution of the service aforesaid, and not to suffer any passengers to ship themselves without a due pass’.[23]
One motivation for instituting a new regime may have been a wish to increase the earnings from the licensing process, to the benefit of the King and of the chosen office holder. In June 1636 the Privy Council received a petition that ‘passports … to quit England have of late been very much enhanced in price’.[24]
The successor
Why was Thomas Mayhew favoured in 1636 over the petitioners? That he received the backing of Secretary Windebank, a high ranking official, was clearly important. A possible explanation for this support is a family connection, of which the petitioners may not have been aware. A Mildred Reade is recorded as sister to a Francis Windebank. A Thomas Mayhew is her nephew and so Windebank’s nephew also. This Mayhew was sufficiently well thought of in 1630 to receive a bequest in Mildred Reade’s will.[25] It is likely that this is the same Thomas Mayhew, cashing in on the patronage of a well-placed uncle, who in 1636 ousted the petitioners from their role.
References
[1] ‘Francis Windebank’ Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Windebank.
[2] ‘John Bankes’, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bankes.
[3] ‘Thomas Coventry, 1st Baron Coventry’, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Coventry,_1st_Baron_Coventry.
[4] ‘Lord Keeper of the Great Seal’, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Keeper_of_the_Great_Seal.
‘Great Seal of the Realm’, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_Realm.
[5] John H. Ghazvinian, ‘‘A Certain Tickling Humour’: English Travellers, 1560-1660’ (2003) (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oxford), p. 38 https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:92106603-8325-4eab-a2bb-a1f1808c0437.
[6] ‘Transactions – vol. 2: 1634’, in G. G. Harris (ed.), Trinity House of Deptford Transactions, 1609-35 (1983), pp. 128-143. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol19/pp128-143.
[7] Ghazvinian, pp. 39 and 42.
[8] ‘Charles I – volume 160: February 1-13, 1630’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1629-31 (1860), pp. 180-187. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1629-31/pp180-187.
[9] ‘Charles I – volume 194: June 15-23, 1631’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1631-3 (1862), pp. 77-89. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1631-3/pp77-89.
[10] Ghazvinian, p. 44.
[11] Ghazvinian, pp. 42-44; ‘Charles I – volume 187: March 19-31, 1631’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1629-31 (1860), pp. 543-563. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1629-31/pp543-563.
[12] ‘Letters Patent’, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent.
[13] ‘Charles I – volume 186: March 1-18, 1631’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1629-31 (1860), pp. 522-542. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1629-31/pp522-542.
[14] ‘Charles I – volume 187: March 19-31, 1631’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1629-31 (1860), pp. 543-563. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1629-31/pp543-563.
[15] ‘Charles I – volume 188: April 1-20, 1631’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1631-3 (1862), pp. 1-15. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1631-3/pp1-15.
[16] ‘Charles I – volume 271: July 1-16, 1634’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1634-5 (1864), pp. 127-153. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1634-5/pp127-153.
[17] ‘Charles I – volume 273: August 1634’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1634-5 (1864), pp. 177-201. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1634-5/pp177-201.
[18] ‘Charles I – volume 325: June 1-9, 1636’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1635-6 (1866), pp. 521-549. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1635-6/pp521-549.
[19] Ghazvinian, p. 44.
[20] ‘America and West Indies: Addenda 1636’, in W Noel Sainsbury (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies: Volume 9, 1675-1676 and Addenda 1574-1674 (1893), pp. 79-81. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/colonial/america-west-indies/vol9/pp79-81.
[21] ‘Charles I – volume 312: January 21-31, 1636’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1635-6 (1866), pp. 174-203. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1635-6/pp174-203.
[22] ibid.
[23] ‘Charles I – volume 325: June 1-9, 1636’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1635-6 (1866), pp. 521-549. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1635-6/pp521-549.
[24] Ghazvinian, p. 44; ‘Charles I – volume 327: June 20-30, 1636’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1636-7 (1867), pp. 1-38. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1636-7/pp1-38.
[25] ‘Charles I – volume 172: August, 1630’, in John Bruce (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1629-31 (1860), pp. 319-336. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1629-31/pp319-336.
This report is part of a series on ‘Petitioners in the reign of Charles I and the Civil Wars’, created through a U3A Shared Learning Project on ‘Investigating the Lives of Seventeenth-Century Petitioners’.