^{page 219 note a} They are printed in the Appendix to this communication.

^{page 220 note a} Lansdowne MSS. 165, fol. 287. State Papers, Dom. cx. 35.

^{page 222 note a} Goodman's Court of King James, i. 53.

^{page 222 note b} Report of the Commissioners, &c. State Papers, Dom. c. 2. ci. 2, 3.

^{page 223 note c} Original Commission, June 23, 1618. Patent Rolls, 16 Jac. I. part 1. New Commission, February 12, 1619. Patent Rolls, 16 Jao. I. part 3.

^{page 223 note a} Buckinghamus, io! maris est præfectus, et idem

Qui dominatur equis nunc dominatur aquis;

Atque inter superos liquidas qui temperat undas

Neptunus, celeres et moderatur equos.

Ne jam displiceat cuiquam geminata potestas

Exemplum superis cum placuisse vident.

Salvetti's News-letter, November , 1618.

The British Museum is to be congratulated on the acquisition of these valuable News-letters, which reach from 1616 to 1636.

^{page 223 note b} Novum Organum, i. Aph. 129.

^{page 224 note a} See Appendix, where they are printed.

^{page 224 note b} Nicholas's Notes of Proceedings in 1624. March 17. State Papers, Dom. clxvi.

^{page 224 note c} See Appendix, where this petition is printed.

^{page 225 note a} It is just possible that Lord Macaulay may have been thinking of the contribution of the summer of 1620. But this was a private collection paid to Dolina which the Crown permitted without taking any share in its levy.

^{page 226 note a} Estimate of Revenue, 1618–19. State Papers, Dom. cx. 35.

^{page 226 note b} Dike's Examination. Proceedings and Debates in 1620–21, i. 127.

^{page 227 note a} Tanfield.

^{page 227 note b} Compare Bacon to Buckingham, October 18, 1616. Works, ed. Montagu, xii. 486.

^{page 227 note c} Sir Henry Finch.

^{page 227 note d} Charge of the Commons against Mompesson, March 8, 1621. House of Lords MSS.

^{page 228 note a} Commission to Mompesson and others, March 3, 1617. Patent Rolls, 14 Jac. I part 22.

^{page 228 note b} Chamberlain to Carleton, March 8, 1617. State Papers, Dom. xc. 105.

^{page 229 note a} Gerrard to Carleton, March 20, 1617. State Papers, Dom. xc. 135.

^{page 229 note b} Charge against Mompesson, House of Lords MSS.

^{page 229 note c} Grant to Thomas Mompesson (Sir Gyles's brother) and Gyles Mompesson, March 19, 1617. Patent Rolls, 14 Jac. I. part 7.

^{page 230 note a} Special Commission to Chief Justices Montague and others, November 4, 1618. Patent Rolls, 16 Jac. I. part 16.

^{page 230 note b} December 9, 1618.

^{page 231 note a} The notes of so much of Yelverton's defence on the 30th of April, 1621, as refer to this subject are as follows:—

“Quo warrantos.

“Never acquaynted with the patent in byrth or bringing upp, and had bene a starveling yf, &c.

“Disliked as agaynst [?] the lawe and troublesoome to the people.

“A ——? moved to plead to itt. He stopped itt.

“Mompesson challenged him for giving him the buffe, and sayd itt was the kinges Jewell, and braved him, and sayd he would proceede uppon all the quo warrantos, and I should not dare to stop them, and challenged him to mete him before the King.

“Roy. [?] Strayne not my prerog. agaynst any auncient right of my subjects, deale moderately.

“Hereuppon Emerson brought me. a message from Mompesson that he was not to keepe his place of attorney long yf he stopped these quo warrantos, and a while after Mompesson came with a message from my Lord of Buck, that yf he gave not waye to the quo warrantos he should not hold his place a moonth.

“Hereby he thought much regall power assumed to place and displace officers.

“So the Marques put him to itt in a strayte which to obey, either the Kyng or Buckingham; as stout as Mordachi.

“These not hallfe the attorneys but the clarkes, and of all he suffered but 2 to coome to tryell.

“He enriched himsellffe never by quo warrantos, and he gott but 30^li by the nolo prosequi.

“He fownd this message shortly after performed. Itt was penall, fatall, for any busines he had. The profitts of his place turned thereuppon to one of my lords woorthies; by reason of his cedars above him, and by his shrubbs under him, he had no proffitt by his place.” House of Lords MSS. Compare Lords' Journals, iii. 121.

^{page 235 note a} Hutton, Rep. 100.

^{page 235 note b} Bulstrode, Rep. i. 109. There is a petition extant, presented by a certain Peterson in 1607, which shows that the idea of the King's power to license was not first broached by Mompesson.

“There apperteyneth to the crowne the authorizing of all innes which are not lawfully authorized, which now yealdeth noe proffitt to his Ma^tie and this by the lawe is the King's, as his Ma^ts learned councell can affirme.

“This will speedily yealde a great some of money, if some officer under the Lord were authorized to bringe in or to passe such grants under the chequer seale, which is greatly desired of the most part of the inkeepers, for that nowe at the present they are, and have bin a long tyme, greatly troubled in attending the justices of peace, whose authority by the statute reacheth no further then to call before them alehowse keepers, and to bynd them in recognizances, and not the inholders.

“If the inholders may obtein leases for their lyves out of the exchequer they will give money for yt; and their number is gret, and they will be gladd to be disburdened of the justices taxations and imposicions, and also of the promoters, who contynually enfonne against them without authority.

“Theis inholders will enter into covenant, and give sufficient bonds in the exchequer for performance, to thend they may be at quiet and freed from imposicions and troubles as aforesaid.”—Add. MSS. 10,038, fol. 131.”

^{page 235 note c} Viner's Abridgement, xix. 437, Art. Inns, sec. 9.

^{page 236 note a} Proceedings and Debates, 1621, i. 65. This valuable collection, the writer of which has been hitherto unknown, is proved, by the fragments of the original notes preserved amongst the State Papers, to have been the work of Edward Nicholas.

^{page 236 note b} Works, ed. Montague, xii. 486.

^{page 237 note a} The King to the Mayor and Justices of Southampton, March 3, 1608. Cott. MSS. Tit. B. iii. fol. 1.

^{page 237 note b} Grant to Dike and others, June 5, 1611. Patent Bolls, 9 Jac. I. part 7. In Mrs. Green's Calendar of State Papers, a docquet referring to this business is given, under the date of September 27, 1604. Its true date is 1614, and it refers to the second patent which will be afterwards mentioned.

^{page 238 note a} Proceedings and Debates in 1621, i. 127, 128.

^{page 238 note b} House of Lords MSS.

^{page 238 note c} “The particular grievances and losses sustained by Fraunces Broade, thorough the unjust dealinge of Eichard Dike and Mathias Fowles, are as followeth, viz.:–

1. First, the saide Fraunces Broade, having bin att greate charges for the procuring of strangers out of forraigne parts, to teach the art and manufacture of spynning of gold and silver threed within this realme, to the value of 2,000^li. att the least, was (after due examination, made by the Lords of his Ma^ts. most ho: Privy Councill of diverse persons of severall trades using the said stuffe within this realme, of and concerning the necessitie and necessarynesse of the same to bee here made) offered by the said Lords a patent for the sole doieng thereof for certaine yeares; which hee then neglecting to accept, the said Fowles and Dike, knowinge thereof, entreated the said Broade that they might also have a dealinge therein with him, promising not onelie to paie him the said 2,000^li, but to procure a patent for the same as well in the name of him, the said Fraunces Broade, as of themselves; which he giving waie unto, they procured the said patent, but in their owne names, leaving the said Broade out of the same, by which he lost the said. 2000^li.

2. Secondlie, the said Fowles and Dike making shewe of a pretended partnershipp to bee between them and the said Broade (which was never perfected), not onelie gott from the said Broade the practize of makinge the said gold and silver threade, but a greate stocke of money, goodes, and tooles of his and his freindes, and many servants, strangers, which Broade had bin att cost with to fetch from forraigne parts, some of which are yet deepelie indebted to the said Broade, whereby he lost the whole, to the value of……1,000^li.

3. Thirdlie, the said Broade hath, by means of the said Fowles and Dike, bin kept from work in his said trade by the space of three yeares or thereabouts,-by which he lost att trade…1,000^li.

4. Fowerthlie, the said Frauncis Broade having, in May, 1618, delivered a peticion to his Ma^tie, in which he sett downe the premisses (amongst other things) desiring releife, It pleased his Ma^tie to referr the whole busyness to the hearing and determination of Sir Henry Yelverton, K^t., his then Attorney-Generall, and to Sir Thomas Coventrie, K^t., his then Sollicitor, to end if they could, or to certifie his Ma^tie. the state of the case and theire opinions; who upon open hearing in the presence of Sir Ed^w. Villiers and Sir Nicholas Salter, K^t., upon the voluntarie offer (for ending of all suites and controversies) of him the said Mathias Fowles, ordered that assurance should be given by the said Fowles and Dike, that the said Broade should from thenceforth onelie platt all the wyer into plate, which was to be used for the said purpose, att the rate of threepence halfepenny the ounce, which assurances were accordinglie drawne up by the said Sir Thomas Coventrie, but after refused to be perfected by the said Fowles and Dike. And yet the said Broade nevertheles still kept from worke in his said trade by the said Fowles and Dike, and the said Sir Henry Yelverton perswaded not to certifie to his Matle, as was required according to the said referrment, although Sir Thomas Coventrie was willing to have joyned therein with the said Sir Henry, if he would have certified; whereby the said Broade hath lost att the least att the rates agreed on as abovesaid. 2,000^li.

5. Fiftlie, the said Fowles, sending for the said Broade to come to his house, and hee the said Broade then demaunding of him the perfecting of the said bargaine, and tellinge him that otherwise he would worke again, the said Fowles not onelie imprisoned him by the space of an hower, but had like to have slaine him with his sworde.

Read 26 Apr: 1621.

Ordered Broade to take his remedy by a due course of law.

House of Lords MSS.

^{page 239 note a} Proceedings and Debates in 1621, i. 120, 127, 138.

^{page 239 note b} Yelverton's relation, Proceedings and Debates in 1621, i. 120.

^{page 239 note c} Indenture between the King and Dike and others, January 10, 1616. Patent Rolls, 13 Jac. I. part 16.

^{page 241 note a} Notes of Yelverton's speech. House of Lords MSS.

^{page 242 note a} Notes of Yelverton's case. House of Lords MSS.

^{page 242 note b} Bills and Answers in the Exchequer, James I. London and Middlesex, No. 1113.

^{page 245 note a} Commons' charge against Mompesson. House of Lords MSS.

^{page 245 note b} Advice to Sir George Villiers.

^{page 246 note a} There is a copy with this date amongst the State Papers.

^{page 246 note b} By the statute of Monopolies, patents for fourteen years may be granted for the “sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures within this realm.” The interpretation put upon this is, that “a person who first imports an invention, publicly known abroad, into this country, is the first inventor within these realms.” Chitty, Collection of Statutes, ed. 1853, iii. 445, note b.

^{page 247 note a} Notes of Yelverton's case, House of Lords MSS.

^{page 247 note b} Commons Journals, i. 538.

^{page 247 note c} Proclamation, March 22, 1618. State Papers, Dom. clxxvii. 53.

^{page 251 note a} Close Rolls, 16 Jac. I. part 15.

^{page 251 note b} Commons' charge against Mompesson. House of Lords MSS. The patent was never enrolled, and is therefore not to be found in the usual place.

^{page 251 note c} Patent Rolls, 16 Jac. I. part 12.

^{page 253 note a} House of Lords MSS.

^{page 254 note a} It will be observed that Montague's signature is absent. For this he afterwards got some credit. Yelverton's account is, that “My Lord Chief Justice refused itt, because of granting habeas corpus,” that is to say, I suppose, because the question involved might come before him judicially. Notes of Yelverton's speech, House of Lords MSS.

^{page 255 note a} Commons' charge against Mompesson. House of Lords MSS.

^{page 255 note b} Buckingham to Bacon, August 20, 1618. Bacon's Works, ed. Montagu, xii. 355.

^{page 255 note c} Ibid. October 4, 1618. Bacon's Works, ed. Montagu, xii. 357.

^{page 255 note d} Bacon's Works, ed. Montagu, xiii. 16.

^{page 256 note a} Patent Rolls, 16 Jac. I. part 16.

^{page 258 note a} Notes of Yelverton's case. House of Lords MSS.

^{page 258 note b} Serjeant Crew's brief. House of Lords MSS.

^{page 259 note a} Notes of Yelverton's case. House of Lords MSS.

^{page 259 note b} In the report of Yelverton's statement in Proceedings and Debates, i. 138, it is said that the bond was referred to Montague and Hobart.

^{page 259 note c} Offences of Sir G. Mompesson. House of Lords MSS.

^{page 259 note d} Five weeks after the committal of the prisoners, that is to say in July or August, 1619. Commons Journals, i. 541.

^{page 260 note a} Commons' charge against Mompesson. House of Lords MSS. The King's speech about not governing his subjects by bond was made much of in the House of Commons. The way the story was there told leaves the impression that it put a stop to all further demand for bonds. I have been led to place the saying in July or August 1619, before the second proclamation, by the evident reference of the two quotations which I have given to the same affair; the words ascribed to Mompesson about filling the prisons being the same in both. Besides there is an allusion to this petition of the Aldermen in a statement relating to the drawing up of the proclamation. The King, we are told, “remembered a difference between the city and the patentees. And the Solicitor now, and then Recorder”[i.e. Sir R. Heath], “added; who had his hand in, if drew not the proclamation.” Commons Journals, i. 538.

Nor would the difficulty be got over by placing the scene after the proclamation. For, as will be seen, bonds continued to be taken long after Yelverton had ceased to be Attorney-General.

^{page 260 note b} State Papers, Domestic, clxxxvii. 71.

^{page 264 note a} Amongst the MSS. of the House of Lords, is a list of bonds redelivered in 1624. They are thirty-two in number, dating between June 4, 1619, and October 17, 1620. The last date disposes of the usually received theory, that the release of the prisoners by the King's orders put an end to the system of taking bonds.

^{page 264 note b} Patent Rolls, 18 Jac. I. part 19.

^{page 264 note c} It is usual to speak of a patent of monopoly granted to Mompesson and Michell, which is altogether erroneous. They were, as has been seen, Commissioners, not Patentees.

^{page 265 note a} The pensions of Sir Edward and Christopher Villiers would have had very little importance in his eyes. If the profits were the King's, he might either keep them all in the Exchequer or give them away.

^{page 266 note a} For the opinions which Bacon was likely to hold, on the powers which might legally be entrusted to such commissions, the case against Whitelocke in the Appendix to the Liber Famelicus, may be profitably consulted.

^{page 267 note a} There seem to be some words omitted. The sentence is unintelligible as it stands.