AALT images for the Farndon & Andrewes case:

England. Memorandum that on Wednesday next after the morrow of All Souls this same term before the lord king at Westminster came Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes in their proper persons, and they give the now lord king’s court here to be known that,

[whereas clergy ought to be spiritual and not sow discord]

whereas both from divine law and by the common and ecclesiastical laws of this realm of England priests, presbyters, and ministers of the divine word (who are held totally to apply and devote their whole study and leisure in the service of the best and greatest God, the ministry of the sacraments and sacramentals, and the preaching of the divine word to their parishioners and the other Christian faithful, the care of whose souls are committed to them), ought not to be a partisans, demagogues, barretors, people who are contentious, seditious, ardent, or litigious,

[and William Bedwell as a cleric was so supposed to live]

and whereas also William Bedwell cleric rector of the parish church of St. Ethelburga within Bishopsgate, London, for many years now past was a man marked by holy orders, a priest and minister of sacraments and sacramentals, and a preacher of the divine word and by reason thereof he was held and bound totally to apply and devote all his study, leisure and care in the service of the best and greatest God, the ministry of the sacraments and sacramentals, and the preaching of the divine word to his parishioners and the other Christian faithful the care of whose souls was committed to him for the whole for the whole same time,

[and whereas Edward had been threatened by Thomas Thomlinson and Agnes Bayes, which threats resulted in suits]

and whereas also on May 21 in the 4^th year of Lord James now king of England at London, viz., in the parish of St. Peter in Cornhill in the London ward of Cornhill certain suits and controversies were had and joined between the aforementioned Edward Farndon and the certain Thomas Thomlinson and Agnes Bayes the wife of a certain John Bayes of and concerning certain threats and other disturbances of the now lord king’s peace recently inflicted and exhibited by the aforementioned Thomas Thomlinson and Agnes Bayes against that Edward (which certain suits and controversies so were moved and for some time afterwards pended),

[and William Bedwell supported Thomas Thomlinson to accuse Edward of being litigious]

the abovesaid William Bedwell, although he is a man of the order and profession abovesaid but yet wholly forgetting and negligent of the office of his function and profession abovesaid, afterwards, scilt., on May 29 in the 4^th year of the reign of the said now lord king abovesaid [1606], and divers other days and times both before and after at London abovesaid in the parish and ward abovesaid said last above from his perverse and malignant soul and nature without any cause from the part of the aforementioned Edward ever offered, joined himself, acclimated, and ran with the aforementioned Thomas Thomlinson, and animated, abetted, excited and motivated the same Thomas Thomlinson not only to vex and disturb the aforementioned Edward by divers suits, disquiets, and obfuscations, but also to accuse, calumniate, and incriminate the same Edward as a litigious person, an ardent barretor, and a disturber of the peace,

[and William contrived to have written and sealed various documents that would bring Edward into disrepute]

and, to the same end and to cause to bring and lead the aforementioned Edward into great and vile disrepute, hatred, and contempt both of his neighbors and of divers other faithful subjects of the said now lord king and especially with the magistrates, justices, and keepers of the royal peace in London abovesaid and in other neighboring and surrounding places, he schemed and made to be written certain hateful letters hotly and astutely imagined and devised to burden and tax that Edward concerning certain pretended misbehaviors and disturbances of the royal peace supposed to have been inflicted by that Edward on his neighbors before then, and presented and showed the same letters thus written and manuscripts of his own and of certain others of his covin previously sealed to divers other parishioners of St. Ethelburga abovesaid and to his familiars both literate and illiterate by that William in this part approached, summoned, and coached, and he industriously and vigorously labored, solicited, and procured his parishioners and familiars deceived and seduced by his blandishments and allurements to subscribe and seal such abovesaid letters feigned, devised, and written (by them not all, or barely, or not sufficiently clearly read and understood) against the aforementioned Edward (scarcely known to some of them),

[by a secret stratagem of Bedwell, opponents of Edward Farndon made to be written two schedules saying that Bedwell had been indicted for various misdeeds, seemingly to be attributed to Farndon]

and whereas afterwards, the industry, labor, and solicitation of the aforementioned William in the premises seen, noticed, and observed by divers persons of affections both well and ill disposed, and by the extension of time divulged openly, publicly, and notoriously, certain people malevolent toward Edward and Thomas Andrewes, completely ignorant of the disgusting and poisonous delegation and stratagem of the aforementioned William Badwell, made to be written certain vacuous, cheap, and inept schedules and nonsense in writings here afterwards specified in this part, one of the same they reported and made to be delivered to the aforementioned William Badwell and the other of the same to the aforementioned Thomas Thomlinson, in which certain schedules (although otherwise little of knowledge, intellect, or of sense is found in the same) the fabricator and inventor of those schedules objected, imposed, and accused that the aforementioned William Bedwell was indicted of common barretry and the same William was an illicit disturber and conspirer among his parishioners, an illicit maintainer of quarrels, a breaker of the peace, a detractor in sermons of those learned in the law, and a procurer of subscribers on his false libels and rumors of his own devising in writings against his neighbors as in those schedules here afterwards specified in this part fully appears,

[common law has jurisdiction over offenses done by publication of scandal or crimes and jurisdiction over the construction of statutes]

and whereas also all and singular pleas and cognizances of pleas of whatsoever trespasses on the case, scandals, and words published or written in suing and accusing by the publishings of their words another person of any crimes, delicts, or offenses both capital and of penalty punishable bodily and by pecuniary mulct and also concerning whatsoever excesses, disturbances of the peace, misbehaviors, and whatsoever offense perpetrated or committed against the royal peace or against the form of any statutes of this realm of England emerging within the same realm of England as well as all and singular pleas concerning the explanation, exposition, and construction of any statutes of this realm and other suchlike pleas and businesses (as long as they are not concerning a testament or marriage) look and pertain to the now lord king and his royal crown and not to the ecclesiastical or civil forum in any way, and ought to and have been accustomed to be and to have been supposed to be tried, determined, and discussed always up to this time by the common law of this realm in England in royal courts of record before the same king or his justices of the Bench and other secular and temporal justices and judges and not by ecclesiastical or civil laws or censures in court Christian or civil before spiritual, ecclesiastical, or civil judges,

[Magna Carta’s protection of free men and assertion that Farndon and Andrewes are free men and thus protected by Magna Carta]

and whereas also in the statute of the late Lord Henry III late king of England in the 9^th year of his reign [1225] among other things it was established that no free man would be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or his liberties or free customs or outlawed or exiled or destroyed in any way nor would the lord king go or send against him except by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land as in the same statute is more fully contained,

and also whereas the abovesaid Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes are free men of this realm of England and each of them is a free man of this realm of England and they and each of them thus from the times of their lives and of each of them has and have so been before and to this time and by reason thereof they and each of them ought to possess and enjoy thereof all and singular liberties and free customs of this real of England hitherto used and approved by whatsoever lieges of the now lord king and his progenitors and predecessors late kings and queens of England,

[Bedwell nevertheless made Edward and Thomas Andrewes to be summoned before High Commission ex officio]

nevertheless the abovesaid William Badwell, not ignorant of all the premises scheming less rightly to burden, oppress, and fatigue the aforementioned Edward and Thomas Andrewes in this part and to disinherit the now lord king and his royal crown and to draw the cognizance of a plea that pertains to the said now lord king and his royal crown and not to the ecclesiastical or civil forum to other examination in court Christian and proposing in that manner to derogate and to void the abovesaid common law and the customs of this realm of England owed to the same Edward and Thomas Thomlinson and each subject of the said now lord king, and to diminish the issues and profits looking to his royal crown that can happen to be had and happen for the same lord king by such trials, examinations, and punishments of such manner misdeeds, misbehaviors, and offenses in the abovesaid king’s courts, he procured to be cited and summoned the same Edward and Thomas Andrews before Edward Stanhope knight, Richard Swale knight, John Bennett knight respectively doctors of laws and other royal commissioners for ecclesiastical causes by pretext of letters patent of the said now lord king made out thereof to them and others their colleagues for this manner ecclesiastical causes in this part specially deputed to answer before the same commissioners to certain articles that were to be exhibited, objected, and proposed to the same Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrews from the office [ex officio] of the said Commissioners (at the promotion nevertheless of that William Bedwell) on August 7 in the 5^th year of the reign of said now lord king at London abovesaid in the church of St. Paul of London in the ward of Farringdon within,

[where articles were submitted to them]

and thereon and on the appearances of the same Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes in the said court Christian before the abovesaid Commissioners divers articles were exhibited from the office [ex officio] of those commissioners (at the promotion and procurement nevertheless of the aforementioned William Bedwell) in the same court Christian before those commissioners then and there against those Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes to be answered jointly and separately by them and each of them on their oaths before taken in this part, the tenor of which certain articles follows in these English words following:

[High Commission articles]

The Articles obiected by his Majesty’s Commissioners for Causes ecclesiasticall against Edward Farndon & Thomas Andrewes of the Cities of London as followeth, viz.,

In primis, we object and article to you and each of you, that for these 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or t yeares last past or longer William Bedwell clerke now parson of the parishe churche of St. Ethelburge within Bishopsgate London hath bene & is a minister of Godes Holye Word in holye orders of preisthoode a master of artes a preacher lawfullye allowed & parson of the same churche & also a man of good name fame creditt reputation lyfe and conversation & so commonly reputed & taken. And the premises we object and article jointly and separately and of each.

Item, that for and during all the tyme in the next precedent article mentioned, you the said Edward Farndon have bene & are a parisioner & inhabitant of the parishe of St. Ethelburge aforesaid & you the said Thomas Andrewes have dwelt conversed & bene in or neere the same parishe & have seene & heard the sayd William Badwell reade divine service & preache & did & doe knowe or beleve or have heard saye that alle and singuler the contentes of the next precedent article were & are true. And this was and is true, public, notorious etc. And we object as above.

Item, that in the yeares & monthes happeninge since the xxv daye of September 1605 and every or some of them you the saide Edward Farndon have been acquainted with the foresaid Thomas Andrewes & have had private talke or conference with him diverse and sundrye tymes or once at the least touching the said William Bedwell & others his freindes & parishioners & you the said Edward & Thomas have consulted together how you might reproache & disgrace the saide William Bedwell & avenge some wronge that you pretended he had done unto you or one of you or to the like effecte. And we object as above.

Item, that in the yeares & monthes aforesaid happeninge since the sayd xxv daye of September 1605 or some of them you the sayd Edward Farndon have diverse and sundrye tymes or at least once used & spoken scandalous & reproachfull wordes of the sayde William Badwell & that in the presence & hearinge of dierse persons & amongst other thinges you saye that the sayde William Bedwell was or is a contentious person a common barretor an unlawfull disturber of his neighbors a maker a procurer of false libelles a knave a rascall a libelling knave & that he the sayd William Bedwell should be sued in the Star Chamber for such his unlawfull actes or at least you used some other reproachfull wordes to or of the sayd William Bedwell to the like effect tendinge to the scandall & reproache of him & his function. And we object as above.

Item, that in the yeares & monthes aforesaide happeninge since the sayd xxv daye of September in the year of the Lord 1605 or some or one of them you the sayd Edward Farndon talkinge of ministers word did in scoffing manner saye that a preist (meanenge a minister of godes word) had desired you to helpe him to a wyfe & you helped him to one of your cart peices (meaninge a woman) that you had done withall or lyen withall & that she was good ynoughe for him or at least you used some other wordes of the like wffect tending to the reproache of the ministers & that in the hearinge of diverse credible witnesses. And we object as above.

Item, that in the yeares & monthes aforesaide happeninge since the sayde xxv daye of September 1605 you the foresaide Thomas Andrewes did conceive frame indyte or wryte the two cedulas hereunto annexed & either of them or did afterwardes shewe, reade or sende them & either of them or copies of them or did declare or reporte the contentes of them & either of them especially of the first of them to diverse persons (at the beginning of this suit to be named) and especially to the sayd Farndon, and we commaund you by vertue of your othe to declare at whose request & by whose instigation & direction you wrote the saide scedules & either of them & by whom & to whom you have shewed read sent or delivered them or either of them or declared or reported any of the contentes of them or either of them. And we object as above

Item, that in the yeares & monthes aforesaide happening since the sayd xxv daye of September 1605 the sayd Thomas Andrewes did deliver or send or cause to be sent & delivered the sayd first schedule annexed to these presentes to the foresaid William Bedwell & the sayd second schedule annexed to these presentes to Thomas Thomlynson named in the second schedule & that the same twoe schedules & everie parte of them were and are written & subscribed by the sayd Thomas Andrewes & with his owne hand. And we object as above.

Item, that during all the tyme aforesaide you the sayd Thomas Andrewes by & in these wordes, viz., like as your parson Denton who was called the knave of clubbes written in the twelfe lyne of the said second schedule & by & in all the contentes of the first schedule did meane & intend the foresdaid Mr. Bedwell & did harboure & indevoure to abuse disgrace & scandalize him & his function with & amongst his parishioners acquaintance & others especially such as should see or heare of the sayd twoe schedules or infamous libelles or either of them especially the first of them. And we object as above.

Item, that in the yeares & monthes aforesaide or some of them the sayde Edward Farnedon did persuade intreate desire & advise the sayd Thomas Andrewes to frame & write the sayd two schedules & either or one of them or did give instructions or directions by him for the frameinge & writeinge of the said schedules or some parte of them and the said Edward hath had the saide schedules or one of them or copies of them or one of them and read shewed or sent the said schedules or copies of them or one of them or declared the contentes of them especially of the first or some parte of them to diverse persons & this he did in mallice against the sayd Mr. Bedwell & of purpose to reproache & scandalize him & his callinge, and we commaunde you by vertue of your othe to declare to whom you have sent delivered or read the sayd schedules or copies of either of them or declared any of the contentes of them. And we object as abovesaid.

Item, that since the premisses you the said Edward Farndon & Thomas Andrewes & either of you have diverse & sundrye tymes or at least once confessed & acknowledged to & before diverse witnesses that alle & singuler the premisses in these articles were & are true. And we object as above.

Item, that all and singular the premises were and are true etc.

The tenor of which certain first schedule mentioned in the abovesaid articles above follows in these words:

[the first schedule]

William Bedwell parson neere within Bishopsgate London the xxiith daye of Marche 1606 ys indighted for a barrittor an unlawfull disturber & makelate on his parishioners & an unlawfull maynteyner of quarrelles & breaker of the peace & slaunderor of lawyers in his dotishe & barbarous sermons in his parishe church oft tymes & a procurer of handes to be enbscribed upon false libelles & reportes of his devises in writeinge against his neighbours most scandalous & against justice & the kinges majesties peace & the parties greived & slaundered therewith by such speches & libelles hath commensed his action upon the case damages a hundred poundes at the common lawe to the utlarye & other his parceners to bee likewise parson Denton called the knave of clubbes in his lyfetime that everye wiseman of that parishe would goe out of the churche at his sermons & William Bedwell is his successor in his like knowledge & utterance (signed) I this term at the temple see this cause & sent this letter to give him knowledge.

As by the abovesaid articles and the first schedule abovesaid annexed the same articles, annexed in the abovesaid court Christian before the abovesaid Commissioners from the office [ex officio] of the same Commissioners (at the promotion and procurement nevertheless of the aforementioned William Bedwell) exhibited in the abovesaid form, and by true copies of the same articles and of the first schedule signed under the handwriting of the aforementioned Edward Farnedon and Thomas Andrewes annexed and sewn among other things to be shown here to the court and at the suggestion of the aforementioned Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes made here in court in this part as more fully appears.

The tenor however of the second schedule mentioned above in the abovesaid articles (so much thereof as in any way concerns the matter in the abovesaid articles exhibited at the promotion of the aforementioned William Bedwell in the form abovesaid touching that William in any way) follows in these words:

[excerpt of the second schedule]

Freind Thomlinson etc., I may boldly saye those articles subscribed are false libelles because some or most of your neighbours so subscribed that did see them have sayde they were false & scandalous wordes of your own devised writeinges to these articles more then they will iustifye and they have so confessed to be falseley devised of you to uphould your honestye amongst your neighbours like as your parson Denton who was called the knave of the clubbes & was your maker & uphoulder of your honestie & false articles.

As by the same second schedule exhibited in the same court Christian before the abovesaid Commissioners in the abovesaid form and by a true copy thereof proffered thereof here to the court it more fully appears,

[denial of the matters alleged in the articles]

whereas indeed the same Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes or either of them at any time mentioned and specified in the third article of the abovesaid articles never had any any private sermon or conference concerning the abovesaid William Badwell or any his friends and parishioners and never consulted in what way they might expose or shame the abovesaid William Bedwell or avenge any injuries that they pretended that the same William inflicted against them or either of them, as in the same third article it is falsely pretended. And whereas indeed the same Edward Farnedon at any time specified in the fourth article of those articles never used or said any scandalous or opprobrious words concerning the aforementioned William Bedwell in the presence and hearing of any persons or ever said that the same William Badwell was a contentious person, a common barretor, an illicit disturber of his neighbors, a fabricator or procurer of false libels, a fool, a rascal (in English, a rascall), or a libeling fool, and never said (although it is well permitted him by pretext of the premises) that the abovesaid William Bedwell should be prosecuted in Star Chamber for their actions of this kind inflicted nor other opprobrious words to or concerning the same William tending to similar effect to the scandal and opprobrium of the same William or his function as supposed in the same fourth article above, and whereas indeed the same Edward Farndon at any time within the time contained above in the fifth article of the abovesaid articles never said the abovesaid English words mentioned above in the same fifth article or any other words similar to them in effect as in the same fifth article it is falsely pretended, whereas also indeed the abovesaid Thomas Andrewes at any time within the abovesaid time contained in the sixth article of the abovesaid articles never conceived, fabricated, reiterated, or wrote the abovesaid two schedules above recited or any of them and never showed, read, or sent them or any of them or copies of them or declared or retailed the contents of the same or any of them to any person in the manner and form as in the same sixth article it is falsely supposed, and also whereas indeed the abovesaid Thomas Andrewes at any time within the abovesaid time specified in the abovesaid seventh article of the abovesaid articles never delivered or sent or caused to be sent or delivered the abovesaid first schedule recited above (annexed to the abovesaid articles) to the aforementioned William Bedwell and the abovesaid second schedule (annexed similarly to the same articles) recited in part above to the aforementioned Thomas Thomlinson

[denial that Andrewes wrote the schedules and that Edward Farnedon encouraged him to do so]

and whereas indeed the same two schedules or either of them were not or were not written and subscribed by that Thomas Andrewes and with his own hand as in the same seventh article supposed above in the mode and form as hotly, and deceitfully, falsely and maliciously alleged and pretended in the same article, as well as whereas indeed the abovesaid Edward Farndon at some time within the time in the ninth article of the abovesaid articles contained above never persuaded, exhorted, required, or advised the abovesaid Thomas Andrewes to fabricate and write the abovesaid schedules or one or other of the same nor ever gave instructions or directions for the fabrication and writing of the same schedules or any part of them nor ever had the abovesaid schedules or one of the or copies of the same or one of them except the abovesaid copies proffered her to the court made for him and delivered after the abovesaid office in the abovesaid form nor ever read, showed, or sent the abovesaid schedules or copies of the same or of one of them or declared the contents of the same or any part of the same to any other persons in the manner and form as falsely supposed in the same ninth article,

[denial that they ever confessed these matters before anyone]

and whereas also indeed the abovesaid Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes or either of them at any time never confessed or acknowledged at or before any witnesses that all and singular the premises contained in the abovesaid prior articles were and are true as falsely pretended in the same eleventh article of the abovesaid articles,

[denial that Farnedon said or published the alleged words or confessed the same]

and also whereas indeed as to the saying of the abovesaid English words, viz., “The sayde William Bedwell was or is a contentious person, a common barrettor, an unlawfull disturber of his neyghbours, a maker or procurer of false libelles and a libelling knave and that hee should be sued in the Starre Chambe for such his unlawfull actes” specified above in the fourth article of the abovesaid articles (if any such words by the aforementioned Edward Farndon had ever been spoken), that the Edward did not confess but wholly renounced and denied; and as to the abovesaid publication of the abovesaid first schedule specified above and of words of this kind following contained in the same, viz., “William Bedwell etc., ys indighted for a barritor an unlawfull disturber & makelate of his parishioners and an unlawfull maynteyner of quarrelles & breeker of the peace & slanderor of lawyers & a procurer of handes to be subscribed upon false libelles & reportes of his devises in writeing against his neighbours most scandalous & against justice & the kinges majesties peace” concerning the abovesaid English words in the abovesaid first schedule above specified (if any such schedule had been published by those Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes or either of them) that the same Edward and Thomas or either of them did not confess but wholly renounced and denied; respectively those same publishing and speaking of the English words, the publishing of the schedule and of the pretended words in the schedule recited further above, the inscription and insertion were by the law of the land of this realm of England in royal temporal courts triable and punishable and not in the abovesaid court Christian before the beforesaid Commissioners,

[and some of the alleged utterances are not actionable anyway]

and also indeed whereas the residue of the abovesaid words contained both in the abovesaid fourth article and in all the residue of the abovesaid articles and each of the schedules abovesaid and especially the abovesaid English words specified above in the abovesaid fourth article, viz., “a knave, a rascall” and all the other matter of those articles and schedules, if they were respectively spoken, published, or perpetrated by the abovesaid Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes or either of them (which the same Edward and Thomas do not confess nor either of them confesses but wholly renounce and deny and each of them renounces and denies) by reason of the uncertitude and insufficiency of the same are not triable or punishable or in any way sufficient and suitable for maintaining any action in any court by the law of the land of this realm of England, nor were they ever spoken, published, or perpetrated by the same Edward and Thomas or either of them

[Bedwell thus drew them unjustly into the High Commission for matters triable at common law]

and the abovesaid William then and there unduly and against the laws, customs, and statutes abovesaid drew those Edward Farndon and Thomas in a plea thus in the said court Christian before the beforesaid Commissioners of and on matters and causes pretended to have been done respectively by them fully triable and punishable by the law of the land and not in court Christian, and the same William procured the same Edward and Thomas Andrewes in the abovesaid court Christian before the abovesaid Commissioners of and on matters of this kind contained in the abovesaid articles fully triable at common law as set out before to answer the decrees of the abovesaid Commissioners and to submit to the decrees of the same Commissioners, to become obliged in great sums of money and detained and for some time to be imprisoned and incarcerated by their bodies against the form of the abovesaid statute of the abovesaid late King Henry III at London abovesaid in the parish of St Peter in Cornhill abovesaid in the abovesaid ward of Cornhill abovesaid or at least to be detained in prison unjustly and maliciously,

[High Commission refused to accept their objections]

and although the abovesaid Edward Farndon & Thomas Andrewes pleaded, alleged, and offered to prove these things in the abovesaid court Christian before the abovesaid Commissioners by inevitable truth and testimony, nevertheless the same Commissioners refused to admit those his pleas, allegations, and proofs and to condemn the same Edward and Thomas by ecclesiastical censures on the pretended matters and offenses fully triable and punishable by the common law of the of land as set out before not permitting them (as it is appropriate and expeditious for them and all other free men lieges of the said now lord king) not allowed them to possess and enjoy the common law and their free customs and to be tried by their peers according to the form of the abovesaid statute as they ought by right, in contempt of the said now lord king and his laws and the manifest damage, prejudice, impoverishment, and burden of the same Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes against the form of the common law and of the abovesaid statute,

[petition for and grant of a writ of prohibition]

wherefore the same Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes most humbly imploring the aid and munificence of the said now lord king’s court here seeks remedy and the said lord king’s writ of prohibition to be directed to the aforesaid royal Commissioners and each of them in the form of law to prohibit them and each of them lest they or any of them proceed further in the premises against the same Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes on the abovesaid articles or hold further a plea against them or any of them in the abovesaid premises. And it is granted to them.

[mainprise of the petitoners]

And thereon comes George Aldriche of Cliffords Inn London gentleman and William Warde of London gentleman in their proper persons and mainperned for the abovesaid Edward Farndon and Thomas Andrewes that if it should happen the abovesaid William Badwell hereafter approach the court of the lord king here before the king himself [coram rege] to seek the said lord king’s writ of consultation or the justices there otherwise of and on the premises prosecute, that the same Edward and Thomas will prosecute the said matter or suggestion with effect until the plea thereof be terminated in a legitimate manner, each of the mainpernors abovesaid under a penalty of £10, which certain sum of £10 the abovesaid mainpernors grant and each of them for himself grants to be made from his lands and chattels and those of each of them and to be levied to the use of the said lord king if it should happen that the same Edward and Thomas not prosecute in the abovesaid form with effect etc.