^{page 81 note 2} xxiii, 1–13.

^{page 81 note 3} pp. 21–22: ‘… the same matrix was often continuously in use through successive generations.… A particularly surprising example—that of the use of the Great Seal of James II at first by William and Mary and later by William alone has been recently noted’.

^{page 81 note 4} ‘… Burnet in his History does not mention either the summer or the weight’: p. 4. The passage from Burnet is quoted below, p. 86.

^{page 82 note 1} I am ignoring the statements of all secondary writers; while no one would equate Lord Campbell and Jesse with Macaulay and Miss Foxcroft, no statements made by such writers have any value as evidence. I am also paying relatively little attention to statements in contemporaries such as Pufendorf or Aitzema; they are largely derivative; they occasionally reproduce valuable material of which the original versions are lost.

^{page 82 note 2} S. Pepys to Lord Dartmouth, 28th Nov., in Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eleventh Report, Appendix, part v (Dartmouth MSS.), p. 216.

^{page 82 note 3} Diary, in The Correspondence of Henry Hyde, earl of Clarendon, etc., ed. S. W. Singer, 1828, ii, 211.

^{page 82 note 4} Paris, Archives de la Ministere des affaires étrangères, Angleterre, vol. 167, f. 174. The passage is quoted, with unimportant variations, by F. A. J. Mazure, Histoire de la Revolution de 1688, en Angleterre, 1825, iii, 219–20. Modern historians pay too little attention to this book.

^{page 82 note 5} Hist. MSS. Comm., Dartmouth MSS., as above, pp. 220, 275–7.

^{page 82 note 6} Diplomatic dispatches, etc., in Les derniers Stuarts à Saint-Germain en Laye, ed. Marchesa Campana de Cavelli, 1871, ii, 352, 358, 370–1, 381; Mazure, iii, 219.

^{page 82 note 7} Narrative of F. Riva, in Campana de Cavelli, ii, 382. The narrative extends to 6th Jan. 1689, N.S. (27th Dec. 1688, o.s.), and was probably written shortly afterwards.

^{page 83 note 1} Notes of ‘Transactions at the P. of Orange's first Comeing’, in Lord Halifax's handwriting, in Foxcroft, H. C., The Life and Letters of Sir George Savile, bart., first marquis of Halifax, 1898, ii, 58Google Scholar.

^{page 83 note 2} Charles Bertie to Lord Danby, 15th Dec. 1688, in Hist. MSS. Comm., Fourteenth Report, Appendix, partix, p. 454. A similar report reached S. von Puf- endorf: De rebusgestis Friderici tertii, 1784, p. 104; quoted by Klopp, O., Der Fall des Houses Stuart,. 1875–88, iv, 505Google Scholar.

^{page 83 note 3} The most questionable part of it is the statement that Jeffreys fled on Monday morning, 10th Dec. The exact time of Jeffreys's flight is unknown, Lady Nottingham, writing on 11 th Dec, says that he is reported to have accompanied the queen; another well informed writer on that day implies that he accompanied the king: Correspondence family of Hatton, ed. Sir E. Maunde Thompson, 1878 (Camden Society, new series, vols. xxii, xxiii), ii, 121; Hist. MSS. Comm., Dartmouth MSS., p. 230; note also Hoffmann's statement, quoted below, p. 84. All these reports are false.

^{page 83 note 4} A statement made on 11 th Dec. that Dum barton accompanied the king in his flight is errone ous; the fact that it could be made by a well informed writer indicates Dumbarton's presence in the palace about the time of the flight: Hist. MSS. Comm., Dartmouth MSS., as above, p. 230. He accompanied the king when the latter left Whitehall on Tuesday, 18 Dec: John Evelyn, letter of that day, in Diary and Correspondence, ed. W. Bray, Bohn edition, 1859, iii, 289.

^{page 84 note 1} Hist. MSS. Comm., Eighth Report, Appendix, part i, pp. 555–6. This letter is the source of the notice in Hollandse Mercurius, volume for 1688, pp. 307–8. James can scarcely have kept the seal continuously about him from when he received it from Jeffreys on the Saturday. I take it that he had either locked it up or entrusted it to a reliable adherent. The notice in no way implies that James sent to Jeffreys for it at this time.

^{page 84 note 2} James II, Life, ed. J. S. Clarke, 1816, ii, 251, from James's original memoirs.

^{page 84 note 3} Archives, etc., as above, Angleterre, vol. 167, ff. 208v–209.

^{page 84 note 4} Dispatch in Campana de Cavelli, ii, 417.

^{page 84 note 5} The Ellis Correspondence, ed. Ellis, G. A., 1829, ii, 354Google Scholar.

^{page 84 note 6} A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs, 1857, i, 487.

^{page 84 note 7} Above, p. 83. Lord Preston was apparently questioned about the seal by the peers on 11th Dec: Burnet, History of the Reign of King James II, 1852, appendix, p. 478.

^{page 85 note 1} Barillon to Louis XIV, I7th/27th Dec, Archives, etc., as above, Angleterre, vol. 167, f. 239. Mazure (iii, 264) alters the passage, transposing it into direct speech. The crucial clause there appears as ‘le Grand Sceau ne se trotwe plus1; the italics must be Mazure's. The difference between Jeffreys and James as regards the handing over of the seal is interesting. James was probably mistaken or falsely reported.

^{page 85 note 2} Hist. MSS. Comm., Stuart Papers preserved at Windsor Castle, i, 77; the passage is quoted by Sir Hilary, p. 2, n. 1.

Samuel von Pufendorf reports a contradictory statement by James: ‘Biduo quo Londini fuit [i.e. 16th–18th Dec], proceres impense monebant: ut qua; opus esset circa convocandum Parlamentum decerneret: sed ad quze numquam liquido respondit, daro indicio, ei numquam cordi fuisse id convocare. Quassitum ex eo fuerat, ubi magnum sigillum Angliae sit, quod non reperiatur. Ad quod responderat, id a Regina ablatum’: De rebus gestis Friderici tertii, 1784, p. 104; quoted by Klopp, O., Der Fall des Houses Stuart, 1875–88, iv, 506Google Scholar. I know of no other report that any English peers consulted James during this residence at Whitehall about a meeting of Parliament; our other information about the period, while not so detailed as could be wished, would scarcely omit a discussion on this subject if it had taken place. Klopp is trying to show that it was during the queen's crossing of the Thames that the seal found its way into the river: iv, 268, 505–7.

^{page 85 note 3} p. 90. The ‘To the Reader’ is dated 6th Apr.; the book was licensed on 10th Apr.

^{page 85 note 4} Brief Historical Relation, i, 529. Luttrell's materials for the Brief Relation have not been studied, Here he probably follows a statement written down by a professional news-gatherer.

^{page 86 note 1} p. 21. Theoretically information might have reached Burnet from James or one of his companions,

^{page 86 note 2} A Supplement to Burnet's History of My Own Time, edited by Foxcroft, H. C., 1902, p. 301Google Scholar; date of composition of the section from Oct. 1688 to July 1691, ibid., pp. 287, 364. This passage is altered in the completed History: ‘They passed the river, and flung the great seal into it; which was some months after found by a fisherman near Fox-Hall’: ed. 1833, iii, 344 (folio pagination, i, 796).

^{page 86 note 3} Burnet, , History, ed. 1833, iv, 29–30Google Scholar (folio pagination, ii, 16–17). Sir Hilary failed to find this passage: his article, p. 4. Pufendorf also mentions the recovery of the seal from the river: p. 104; quoted by Klopp, iv, 506. Sir Hilary quotes a passage from Lord Campbell in which the finder of the seal delivers it to ‘the Lords of the Council’: p. 4. This was an invention apparently of Campbell's: the recovery of the seal is not mentioned in the Privy Council Register for April and May.

^{page 86 note 4} Pufendorf writes: ‘non procul Lambethana domo Archiepiscopi sede’.

^{page 86 note 5} Burnet altered the expression when revising the passage: see n. 2 above.

^{page 86 note 6} As regards Sir Hilary's scepticism about the recovery of the seal from the river (Antiq. Journ.xxiii, pp. 4, 8–9, 10), the notice about it in Burnet's Pastoral Letter seems to me decisive. Burnet had enemies enough among Jacobites, Nonjurors, and Tories to challenge any doubtful statement that he might make; this Letter was burnt on 25th Jan. 1693 by order of the House of Commons on account of its general political views, but I cannot find that anyone questioned the statement about the casting of the seal into the Thames.

I have not reproduced Burnet's speculations about why the seal was cast into the river. Burnet was with William during the crucial period, and is extremely unlikely at any later time to have discussed the matter with anyone who was in James's confidence.

^{page 87 note 1} The extant reports of the parliamentary debates relating to James's abdication are defective; even so, two or three mentions seem poor measure: Grey, Anchitell, Debates of the House of Commons, 1667–94 (1769), ix, 7, 10Google Scholar. The seal appears not to be mentioned in the newspapers or in pamphlets other than some by Burnet. It figures in his An Enquiry into the Present State of Affairs, 1689 (perhaps Jan.), p. 5.

^{page 87 note 2} So Lord Campbell, as quoted by Sir Hilary, , Antiq. Journ. xxiii (1943), p. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 87 note 3} Op. cit., pp. 5–6. Luttrell enters the appoint ment at the end of his notices for Feb., but that is too vague to be decisive: Brief Relation, i, 506. The London Gazette, 28th Feb.–4th Mar., dates a notice of the appointment‘Whitehall, March 2’. The three commissioners were sworn in on 5 th Mar.: Privy Council Register.

^{page 88 note 1} Op. cit., p. 6. According to Luttrell the commissioners had sealed ‘many writs’ by 13th Mar.: i, 510.

A new Great Seal with the addition of the arms of Scotland was ordered on 23rd May 1689; another new one on 5 th July 1694; no further action was taken in either case: A. B. and Wyon, Allan, The Great Seals of England, 1887, pp. 140–1Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 2} Op. cit., p. 7.

^{page 88 note 3} Op. tit., p. 131.

^{page 88 note 4} Op. cit., pp. 10–11. But part of this passage relates to altering a design for a matrix, and not to altering the matrix, the piece of metal itself.

^{page 88 note 5} This is not a sceptical denial of the value of historical and archaeological study, but an indication of the nature of these branches of learning.

^{page 88 note 6} Impressions ‘made in the ordinary way’ ‘are seldom perfect’: op. cit., p. 11, n. 3.

^{page 89 note 1} I have followed Mr. Stride closely here. The available evidence is in favour of the Roettiers' having made their seals by casting from moulds cut in relief; but there is not enough evidence, and part of what there is needs proving: the document cited by Sir Hilary, op. cit., p. 11, n. 2.

^{page 89 note 2} In discussing what he believed to be the continued use of James II's counterseal in 1689 Sir Hilary balanced as motives for it on the one hand the desire of the new government to stress the continuity of the sovereign power, on the other economy and convenience (op. cit., pp. 8–9). Propaganda as an explanation for actions in past times was greatly inflated in Hitler's time. Before the museum age impressions of the Great Seal were seen by few subjects at any time; of those few not many would be in a position to compare impressions of the Great Seals of the two succeeding kings.

The Wyons, who had noticed the resemblance of the counterseals, point out that Philip and Mary's is the only other English Great Seal on which two sovereigns appear together: p. iii. The design of William and Mary's obverse imitates that of Philip and Mary.

^{page 89 note 3} Calendar of Treasury Books, 1685–9, p. 628; 1689–92, p. 705; 1692–6, pp. 1167, 1193, 1203; op. cit., pp. 2, 10, 13.

^{page 90 note 1} So Mr. Stride, who cites Simon's fee for the Great Seals of the Commonwealth and Charles II; Henry Harris's for Queen Anne's first Great Seal; John Ross's for her second Great Seal and George I's first; as well as John and Joseph Roettier's fees for Great Seals for Charles II in 1667 and 1672.