^{page 115 note 1} See above, Montagu Papers, p. 1, p. 96.

^{page 115 note 2} See below, App., (13 April), p. 293.

^{page 116 note 1} 2 Samuel 6.

^{page 116 note 2} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 2^v, continues to the end of the paragraph without beginning a new sentence.

^{page 117 note 1} Peccatumque (Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 3^v): … regit… (B.L., Harl. MS, 6801, fo 3^v).

^{page 117 note 2} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 3^v, omits: his … given.

^{page 117 note 3} reason (Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 3^v).

^{page 117 note 4} distruction (Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 4^r).

^{page 117 note 5} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 4^r, omits: love and.

^{page 118 note 1} this (Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 4^r).

^{page 118 note 2} ‘… Hereupon the armies retourned in peace and his Majestie came home with good hope that they would by their future dutie and humilitie regaine his gratious affection and good opinion’ (B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fo 4^v).

^{page 118 note 3} with the lawes (Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 4^v).

^{page 119 note 1} pp. 5–36 missing from Finch-Hatton MS. 50; Harvard MS., Eng. 982, fos 5^r–35^v, substitutes.

^{page 120 note 1} ‘… many of that nation and as his Majestyes predecessors have accustomed with your forefathers, he now in like manner offers … posterity His Majesty resting most confident that by Gods assistance and your tymely and needfull supply he shalbe inabled to wade through all difficulties whatsoever and to vindicate and make shine that soveraigne power which is entrusted to him by God for the protection and government of these kingdoms’ (B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fos 6^r–6^v).

^{page 120 note 2} Cf. below. Harvard MS. (2 May) fo 80, p. 192.

^{page 121 note 1} Cf. B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fos 7^r–7^v, where variations in wording and organization occur in the remainder of the Lord Keeper's speech.

^{page 121 note 2} See his list of precedents in the Declaration justifying the dissolution of the preceding Parliament (B.L., 8122.c.26, pp. 16–17).

^{page 123 note 1} ‘lecta 1^o vice Apparel’ (M.C.J., p. 7, 15 April 1640; also C.J., ii, p. 3).Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 2} See below, App. (15 April), p. 294. Cf. especially B.L., E.198(32) and B.L., E.199(43).

^{page 123 note 3} Marginal note: officium prolocutoris (Folger, X.d.23).

^{page 124 note 1} Marginal note: munera prolocutori (Folger, X.d.23).

^{page 124 note 2} ‘… in this Suit of my Releasement and Discharge which now in Duty to Your Majesty and care for the Preservation and good …’ (L.J., iv, p. 50Google Scholar; B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fo 40^r).

^{page 124 note 3} powerful (Folger, X.d.23).

^{page 125 note 1} Judgement (L.J., iv, p. 50Google Scholar; B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fo 42^v).

^{page 125 note 2} Dexterity (L.J., iv, p. 50Google Scholar; B.L., Harl, MS. 6801, fo 43^r).

^{page 126 note 1} Safety (L.J., iv, p. 51Google Scholar; B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fo 46^r).

^{page 126 note 2} ‘… and by all good Means possible to assist Your Gracious Majesty to suppresse … them …’ (L.J., iv, p. 51Google Scholar; B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fo 46^v).

^{page 127 note 1} ‘… servus in caelum redeas diuque laetus in terris populo Britannia’ (B.L., E.198(32), p. 5; cf. L.J., iv, p. 51).Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 2} … abused by misinformation (B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fo 49^r); abused by information (L.J., iv, p. 51).Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 1} ‘… of Your Majesty that without Offence to your Sacred Ears’ (L.J., iv. pp. 51–52Google Scholar; B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fo 50^r).

^{page 129 note 1} two (B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fo 55^r).

^{page 131 note 1} B.L., E. 199(43) begins here.

^{page 131 note 2} Robert Kett (1549) and Jack Cade (1450) led popular revolts.

^{page 132 note 1} ‘… to which we ought to ascribe the great Happiness that we have so long enjoved; in that with great Judgement and Discretion …’ (L.J., iv, p. 53Google Scholar; B.L:, E.199(43)).

^{page 132 note 2} 2 Kings 2: 8–21.

^{page 132 note 3} equity (B.L., E.199(43)).

^{page 133 note 1} honor, nobility … (B.L., E.199(43); L.J., iv, p. 53).Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 2} Collidimur (L.J., iv, p. 53); see also Hunt. Cal., H.M. 1554, p. 252, below, p. 230.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 1} Cf. C.J., ii, p. 3Google Scholar (16 April 1640).

^{page 134 note 2} Cf. C.J., ii, p. 3Google Scholar; Rushworth, , iii, p. 1127.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 1} Harbottle Grimston (Colchester). See below, App., Grimston, p. 296. Peyton reported, ‘One fault was observed to be committed in the Lower House by one Mr. Grimston, who first spake in the House and jumped upon the grievances of our state untimely and too early’ (Oxinden Letters, p. 162).Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 2} Church (B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fo 32^r; B.L., Sloane MS. 1200, fo 13^r).

^{page 135 note 3} disertion (Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.103, fo 19^r).

^{page 135 note 4} ‘… in the Northern parts’ (B.L., Harl. MS. 7162, fo 229^r; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 28^r).

^{page 135 note 5} deale with (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 28^r).

^{page 135 note 6} humored (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 150).

^{page 135 note 7} unfitt nor unseasonable (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 150).

^{page 135 note 8} … great … (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 28^v).

^{page 136 note 1} liberties and privileges (B.L., Harl. MS. 7162, fo 23O^v; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 28^v).

^{page 136 note 2} … bare … (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 28^v).

^{page 136 note 3} ‘come il est desire … our Petition of Right’ (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 28^v). Rushworth, iii, p. 1128, summarizes the following section: ‘What expositions contrary to that Law of Right have some men given to the undermining the Liberty of the subjects….’

^{page 136 note 4} … even contrary to … (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 151).

^{page 136 note 5} ruining (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 28^v).

^{page 136 note 6} violate (B.L., Harl. MS. 7162, fo 231^v; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 28^v).

^{page 136 note 7} … new … (S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 97). Rushworth, iii, p. 1129, omits this sentence and the following one.

^{page 136 note 8} ‘… tormented and macerated and the law of propertie shaken …’ (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 29^r).

^{page 136 note 9} Psalm 78: 46; also Exodus 10.

^{page 137 note 1} discussion (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 151); decision (B.L., Harl. MS. 7162, fo 232^r); division (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 29^r).

^{page 137 note 2} proprietie (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 29^r).

^{page 137 note 3} Ezra 7: 26. Rushworth, iii, p. 1129, omits: death.

^{page 137 note 4} anie (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 29^r).

^{page 137 note 5} ‘… by his royall word …’ (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 29^r).

^{page 137 note 6} prayers (B.L., Sloane MS. 1200, fo 15^r; B.L., E.199(25), unnumbered; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 16^v).

^{page 137 note 7} Cf. Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 152: ‘but we may justly complaine there wants equall even and due execution of them which is a great part of our misery and causers of all our distractions both in Church and Commonwealth, whereas contrarily those good lawes might be treakle to expell the poyson of our daylie corruptions and errors.’ Also B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fos 38^v–39^r.

^{page 138 note 1} portam … shall now (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 16^v).

^{page 138 note 2} Sir Benjamin Rudyerd (Wilton). See below, App., Rudyerd, p. 296. Peyton reported that Rudyerd had tried to moderate Grimston's attack on grievances (Oxinden Letters, p. 162).Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 3} … great … (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 193; S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 98; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 15^v).

^{page 138 note 4} ‘contend with us, who are the better Subjects’ (Rushworth, , iii, p. 1130Google Scholar; see also B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fos 60^r–61^r; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 15^v).

^{page 138 note 5} emulation (Hunt, Cal., HM 1554, p. 193; S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 98); persons (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 61^r).

^{page 138 note 6} good (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 193; S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 98; Rush-worth, iii, p. 1130; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 15^v).

^{page 138 note 7} S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 98, adds: ‘both are the way under God to rectifie us and bring us to salvation. Some say that a man may bee too religious….’

^{page 138 note 8} Rushworth, iii, p. 1130, omits the following sentence; B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 61^r, ends here.

^{page 138 note 9} use (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 16^r).

^{page 139 note 1} drawn (B.L., Sloane MS. 1200, fo 17^v).

^{page 139 note 2} Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 16^r, adds: ‘The King is the husband of the commonwealth and if there bee anie difference (as in the most perfect union there is sometimes some) then. …’ Cf. Elsyng's ‘Memorandum for the Earl of Dandy’ (Foster, Elizabeth R., ‘The Painful Labour of Mr. Elsyng,’ Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, lxii (1972), pp. 60–63).Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 3} ‘… to submit to the Kinges prerogative according to lawe and justice’ (S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 98).

^{page 139 note 4} ‘… of the general action of moderation’ (S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 98).

^{page 139 note 5} ‘… of a King … not longe be disappointed’ (S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 98; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 16^v).

^{page 139 note 8} subjects (S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 98). Rushworth, , iii, p. 1130Google Scholar, ends paragraph: fall away.

^{page 139 note 7} ‘should it be otherwise nowe, shall wee thinke …’ (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 195; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 16^v).

^{page 140 note 1} Rushworth, iii, p. 1130: ‘so many Disorders have been committed, by Innovations in Religion. Violation of Laws and intruding upon Liberties.’ See also, B.L., Sloane MS. 1200, fo 18^v; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 16^v.

^{page 140 note 2} Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 196: ‘proceed with moderation that soe wee may have many happie Parliaments and that noe dismall events may happen to any, for when Parliaments are gone, then wee are lost.’ See also, B.L., Sloane MS. 1200, fo 18^v; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 17^r; B.L., E.178(28), p. 4.

^{page 140 note 3} Sir Francis Seymour (Wiltshire). See below, App., Seymour, p. 297. Peyton noted ‘that Rudyerd's warning had not stopped Seymour from saying ‘as much agen’ as Grimston and comparing ‘our affayres to the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt’ (Oxinden Letters, p. 162).Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 4} Perhaps Cicero, De Republica, 3:25.

^{page 141 note 1} See State Trials, iii, 305–10.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 2} Montereul thought the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Keeper were the principal targets of these complaints (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 118^r).

^{page 141 note 3} Phrase probably omitted from MS. Cf. Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, p. 3 (below, p. 214).

^{page 142 note 1} Montereul mentions bitterness against the chapel at Somerset House but greater moderation than previously appeared in references to the Queen Mother's chapel (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 119^r); Rossetti thought there was some reason for the Catholics to hope when he wrote his dispatch of 28/18 April (P.R.O. 31/9/18, fos 181^r–83^r), but he was less optimistic when reporting grievances in the following dispatch (P.R.O. 31/9/18, fos 184^r–86^r).

^{page 142 note 2} John 21:16.

^{page 142 note 3} 1 Timothy 5:17.

^{page 142 note 4} Jeremiah 23:30.

^{page 143 note 1} Montereul noted talk of punishing those who participated in the judgment (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 119^r).

^{page 143 note 2} Exodus 1:13–14; 5:6–19.

^{page 143 note 3} Sir Henry Mildmay (Maldon).

^{page 143 note 4} A committee was appointed (C.J., ii, p. 4Google Scholar; see also H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 16 April 1640, and Rushworth, iii, p. 1127).

^{page 144 note 1} Probably 90. 89 were named 16 April, 9 were added 17 April (C.J., ii, p. 4Google Scholar; Yale, Stanford MS. I (Box 27, 5), fos 417^r–17^v).

^{page 144 note 2} Edward Bysshe (Bletchingly) (Official Return, p. 483Google Scholar). See also, C.J., ii, p. 4Google Scholar (17 April 1640); M.C.J., p. 9.

^{page 144 note 3} Charles Jones (Beaumaris).

^{page 144 note 4} Edmund Windham (Bridgewater). C.J., ii, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 5} Sidney Godolphin (Helston).

^{page 145 note 1} Peter Ball (Tiverton), Sir William Masham and Sir Robert Harley also spoke. See below, Harl. MS., 4931 fo 47, p. 234.

^{page 145 note 2} See C.J., ii, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 3} Francis Rous (Truro). See below, App., Rous, p. 298. Peyton wrote, ‘One Mr. Rous, whether out of some daunt at the assembly, or zeale to his cause, or abundance of matter, made a good butt a confused speeche, declaring the grievances of the state’ (Oxinden Letters, p. 162).Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 1} heard (S.P. 16/450/94, 1).

^{page 146 note 2} concatination (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 161; S.P. 16/450/94, 2); continuation (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, unnumbered); ‘order, concatination, and continuation (Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.346, fo 165^r).

^{page 146 note 3} endeavour of union (S.P. 16/450/94, 2).

^{page 146 note 4} points of division (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 39^v; S.P. 16/450/94, 1; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, unnumbered); the division (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 161).

^{page 146 note 5} tell (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 161; S.P. 16/450/94, 2).

^{page 146 note 6} allay (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 161); indifferent nature (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 39^v).

^{page 146 note 7} ‘without perill of perishing forever’ (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 161; S.P. 16/450/94, 2; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, unnumbered).

^{page 146 note 8} exposed (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 161); excused (S.P. 16/450/94, 1); excused of schism (S.P. 16/450/94, 2).

^{page 146 note 9} S.P. 16/450/94, 2, omits: very.

^{page 146 note 10} ‘but if we shall shake hands with them in that …’ (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 40^r); ‘… we agree to all, and then we are sworn …’ (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, unnumbered).

^{page 146 note 11} ‘King and King do answer one another’ (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 161); ‘Hin and Gin answere one another in the desarts’ (S.P. 16/450/94, 2; Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.346, fo 165^r; cf. Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, unnumbered).

^{page 146 note 12} Christopher Davenport, Deus Natura, Gratis Sive Tractatus de Praedestinatione (1634), printed with the privilege of the king and the approval of the doctors. In Kenelme Digby's copy (B.L., 4378.1.12), p. 277, the error, which is listed in the printed errata is corrected by hand. Not all the errata are corrected.

^{page 147 note 1} not a little (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 162).

^{page 147 note 2} setting on (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 40^r); ‘further tends for the settling … an espetial engine …’ (S.P. 16/450/94, 2).

^{page 147 note 3} 2 Cor. 11: 24.

^{page 147 note 4} pamphlett (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 40^v; Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 162). The King's Majesties Declaration to his Subjects Concerning Lawfull Sports (1633) (STC 9257).

^{page 147 note 5} ‘… If God be God lett us feare him and endeavour (as it is our duties) not thus to hault before him and connyve at the enimies of his Church but seeks to redresse such abuses and no doubt but God will prosper the worke that is intended for his glory and root out all those that thus contumeliously abuse his saints, therefore lett us bee couragious for the truth’ (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 163).

^{page 148 note 1} ‘… grievances from this roote, which is this worke of Parliament must be made needles …’ (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 41^r); ‘… from this work. Parlia ments must be made …’ (S.P. 16/450/94, 2); ‘… grievances issuing from this, as Parliament must be made needless. And that this may be effected the proprietie of the subjects …’ (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, unnumbered).

^{page 148 note 2} divinity (S.P. 16/450/94, 2; Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.346, fo 166^r).

^{page 148 note 3} In S.P. 16/450/94, 2, the sentence is underlined and N.B. written in the margin by a hand which may have been Laud's. The two stories which follow are variously worded in the MSS.

^{page 148 note 4} Judges 20.

^{page 148 note 5} See below, App., Pym (17 April), S.P., 16/451/16 (17 April), p. 299; also C.J., ii, p. 5Google Scholar, and below, p. 245. Peyton reported, ‘Mr. Pimme, an ancient and stoute man of the Parliament. … as yett only made the full complaint of the Commons, for he left nott anything untouched …’ (Oxinden Letters, p. 163Google Scholar). Montereul mentioned only the religious issues. He noted that Pym spoke boldly against innovations in religion, the excessive power of the high commission, the number of priests permitted in London, the boldness of the English papists in entering the chapels, especially that of the pope's resident at St. James, and the open communication between the pope and the English (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fos 144^r–45^r). Russell, Conrad, The Crisis of Parliaments (Oxford, 1971), pp. 310–22Google Scholar, gives more information about many of these grievances.

^{page 149 note 1} Commons Debates, 1629, pp. 103–106, 239–44.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} See Jones, W. J., Politics and the Bench (London, 1971), p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} ‘… by the frequent accesse of those who are active men, amongst them, to the tables and company of great men, and under subtile pretences and disguises, they want not meanes of cherishing their ornne projects, and of indeavouring to mould and biasse the publike affaires to the great advantage of that partie’ (B.L., E.78(12), p. 6).

^{page 151 note 1} Montereul wrote that there was bold talk against Count Rossetti, the pope's resident (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 119^r).

^{page 151 note 2} Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 36^r, omits this sentence.

^{page 151 note 3} B.L., E.78(12), p. 7, notes also the encouragement of the innovators.

^{page 151 note 4} B.L., E.78(12), p. 7, cites practice in Queen Elizabeth's time and also ‘one of our petitions delivered at Oxford to his Majestie that now is.’

^{page 151 note 5} B.L., E.78(12), p. 7, lists among the practices for which men were punished: ‘not removing the Communion-Table, to bee set Altarwise at the East end of the Chancell, … not coming up to the railes to receive the Sacrament, … preaching the Lords day in the afternoone, … Catechising in any other words and manner than in the precise words of the short catechisms, in the Common Prayer booke.’

^{page 151 note 6} See below, Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 22^v (Eliot), p. 225. Montereul says they were debating doing away with the Court of High Commission which was new in England and an invention of the Archbishop of Canterbury (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fos 119^r–20^r).

^{page 152 note 1} Salvetti mentions parliamentary opposition to the bishops but does not think the king will abandon them (B.L., Add. MS. 27962 I, fos 45^v–47^r).

^{page 152 note 2} ‘… upon which they inforce the Churchwardens to take oathes’ (B.L., E.78(12), p. 8).

^{page 152 note 3} Cf. B.L., E.78(12), pp. 8–11, where the argument is expanded and specific precedents cited. See Maitland, F. W., The Constitutional History of England (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 182–83.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 4} Bate's Case (State Trials, ii, 371–94Google Scholar); see below, Harl. MS. 6801, fo 63^v, p. 257.

^{page 153 note 1} See below, Finch-Hatton MS., p. 40, p. 154. B.L., E.78(12), pp. 12–13. describes the ‘principal undertakers’ in the soap business as popish recusants seeking ‘their private gaine,’ division of king and people, and destruction of Parliament. Among the results are increased prices, ‘subjects deprived of their ordinary way of livelyhood,’ and ‘a great number of persons … unjustly vexed by Pursevants Imprisonments, Attendance upon the Councell-Table, seisure of goods, and many other waves.’

^{page 153 note 2} Cf. B.L., E.78(12), pp. 13–14. ‘I see no book, nor know of any authority that doth maintain this writ’ (State Trials, iii, 1129Google Scholar, Croke).

^{page 153 note 3} B.L., E.78(12), p. 14, cites 27 and 28 E. III and the Charter of the Forest. See Precedents, p. 322.

^{page 153 note 4} Probably Henry, earl of Holland, who was Chief Justice in Eyre. Finch may have been the target of the complaint about the judges; see the charges against him (Rushworth, iv, p. 137); cf. B.L., E.78(12), pp. 14–15, for more details.

^{page 154 note 1} See details in B.L., E.78(12), p. 15. Also Foster, , ii, pp. 260–61.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 2} See below, Harvard MS., 79^v–80 (Hotham), p. 192. B.L., E.78(12), p. 16, gives some Elizabethan and Jacobean background.

^{page 154 note 3} State Trials, iii, 842–46.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 4} Rushworth, , ii, pp. 189–90, 252–53Google Scholar; also below. Speeches, Holland, p. 262.

^{page 154 note 5} Magna Carta, c. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 6} See Brown, A. L., ‘The Commons and the Council in the Reign of Henry IV,’ Historical Studies of the English Parliament, ed. Fryde, E. B. and Edward, Miller, ii (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 31–60.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 1} 4 Edw. III, c. 14, and 36 Edw. III, c. 10.

^{page 155 note 2} B.L., E.78(12), p. 20, refers to recent efforts to reform revenue collection in France.

^{page 155 note 3} The Elector Frederick had lost it to the Catholic powers in 1622. See Wedgewood, C. V., The Thirty Years War (New York, 1961), ch. iv.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 4} Probably the statement questioned below, Finch-Hatton MS., p. 54 (Dell), pp. 168–69.

^{page 156 note 1} B.L., E.78(12), p. 20, cites in particular the departure of clothiers. The ‘Great Migration’ to New England occurred 1630–40; see Bridenbaugh, Carl, Vexed and Troubled Englishmen, 1590–1642 (New York, 1968), chs xi, xii.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 2} B.L., E.78(12), p. 21, cites a ‘westerne man, much imployed while he lived’ as an example of those who profitted personally from office.

^{page 156 note 3} Perhaps the issue in the petition of Spanish Merchants (CSP 1639–40, p. 161).Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 4} Cf. Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 42^r: ‘comes to at least 20000^lip. annum … the K receives but 20000^li … the subject was dampnified 230000^li.’ See below, Trinity, Dubl. MS., 623, p. 260. Alderman Abell, chief farmer, was apprehensive about parliamentary complaints (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fos 105^r–105^v). Montereul reported that the Marquis of Hamilton had an interest in the wine business from which he made a considerable profit (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 119^r).

^{page 156 note 5} only (Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 42^r).

^{page 157 note 1} Sir Gilbert Pickering (Northamptonshire). See below, S.P. 16/450/25, p. 275.

^{page 157 note 2} Sir Gilbert Gerrard (Middlesex). See below. Harvard MS., fo 81, p. 194; also S.P. 16/453/52–55, reports of an investigation about a petition from Middlesex. We have been unable to find the petition. Rushworth, , iii, p. 1127Google Scholar, dates the presentation 16 April.

^{page 157 note 3} See below, Harl MS., 4931, fo 47, p. 234.

^{page 157 note 4} Sir Walter Erle (Lyme Regis). Erie also moved that the previous Parlia ment's remonstrance concerning religion be brought in (C.J., ii, p. 4).Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 5} Sir Nathaniel Barnardiston (Suffolk). See Rushworth, , iii, p. 1131Google Scholar. We have not found the petition.

^{page 157 note 6} Edward Kirton (Milborne).

^{page 157 note 7} M.P. for Beverley.

^{page 157 note 8} Vassall and Crispe also spoke (below, Harl. MS., 4931, fo 47, p. 235).

^{page 158 note 1} See below, Petition, Harl. MS. 4931, fo 42, p. 277.

^{page 158 note 2} See below. Petition, Harl. MS. 4931, fo 41, p. 275.

^{page 158 note 3} See below, Petition, HLRO, Main Papers (18 April), p. 279.

^{page 158 note 4} Edward Hyde, later earl of Clarendon (Wootton Bassett). See below, App., Hyde, p. 302.

^{page 158 note 5} s (Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 43^v).

^{page 158 note 6} C.J., ii, p. 6Google Scholar, We have not found the petition.

^{page 159 note 1} Probably that made the preceding day (C.J., ii, p. 6).Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 2} John Strangways (Weymouth).

^{page 159 note 3} See State Trials, iii, 293–310.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 4} In the Good Parliament of 1376 (Rot. Parl., ii, pp. 3233.).Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 5} These precedents had been cited in 1629 (State Trials, iii, 295Google Scholar); see also Rot. Parl., v. pp. 176–83Google Scholar; L.J., iii, pp. 53–55, 570, 576–77.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 6} Here and below, Sir Ralph Hopton (Somerset).

^{page 159 note 7} Here and below, probably Charles Jones, son of the judge, who spoke 16 April (above, Harvard MS., fo 30V, p. 144), although Richard Jones (Radnor) and Gilbert Jones (Wareham) also sat.

^{page 160 note 1} M.P. for Callington, Cornwall, and brother of John Rolle, the merchant who had complained in 1629 that his goods had been seized for failure to pay tonnage and poundage (Commons Debates, 1629, pp. 7–9).Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 2} Henry Vaughan (Carmarthenshire).

^{page 160 note 3} John Wilde (Droitwich).

^{page 160 note 4} H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 18 April 1640, drafts of orders.

^{page 160 note 5} Sir Christopher Lewknor (Chichester). See C.J., ii, p. 7Google Scholar. Montereul says the Speaker had said only what the king commanded, that his Majesty wanted the Parliament put off to another time. He (the Speaker) asked them if they would be willing. Montereul added that this was a point of some importance since they wanted to infer from it that it was up to the king to assemble Parliament but not to dissolve or adjourn it (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 120^r).

^{page 161 note 1} Sir Thomas Jermyn, Mr Comptroller (Bury St. Edmunds).

^{page 161 note 2} Sir Hugh Cholmley (Scarborough).

^{page 161 note 3} Sir Edward Phelips, Speaker, 1604–10; see Notestein, Wallace, The House of Commons, 1604–1610 (New Haven, 1971), ch. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 4} Sir Miles Fleetwood (Hindon). Probably the incident of 12 May 1610 (Foster, , ii, pp. 85–86Google Scholar). Fleetwood was in the House in 1610.

^{page 162 note 1} H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 18 April 1640, list and order. Peyton wrote, ‘And first upon Saturday they did little, because they could not agree where to begin their greivances, butt in the end elected a committee which is to prepare and prefere the businesse to the House’ (Oxinden Letters, p. 163).Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 2} Edward Herbert, Mr Solicitor (Old Sarum).

^{page 162 note 3} Records concerning shipmoney were sent for (C.J., ii, p. 6Google Scholar; H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 18 April 1640). With the motion of 20 April (below, Finch-Hatton MS., p. 48, p. 162) for a select committee is a note struck out which may have related to Rolle's issue (M.C.J., p. 28).

^{page 162 note 4} He had refused to pay shipmoney (Cholmley Memoirs, p. 60Google Scholar). See below, Harvard MS., fo 81, Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20 fo 17^v, pp. 194, 220.

^{page 162 note 5} H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 20 April 1640, list and order; see also M.C.J., p. 28.

^{page 162 note 6} That appointed Saturday (above, Finch-Hatton MS., p. 47, p. 162, n. 1); see also below, Wore. Coll. MS. 17–17^v, pp. 220–21.

^{page 163 note 1} Oliver St. John (Totnes).

^{page 163 note 2} ‘That there 3 waies of seeking redres from ye King for a greivans in breach of privilege of parliament as by petition, Remonstrans, protestation’ (H.R.O., M36/1, p. 1). A committee was appointed (C.J., ii, p. 7Google Scholar); also see below, S.P., 16/451/16 (20 April), p. 245.

^{page 163 note 3} Probably the apparel bill (C.J., ii, p. 8).Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 1} H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 21 April 1640, list and order; see below, S.P., 16/451/16 (21 April), p. 246.

^{page 164 note 2} See below, H.R.O., M36/1, p. 2, Harl. MS. 4931, fo 47^v, pp. 199, 236; S.P. 16/450/95, copy of the commission; P.R.O. C.82/2190/132, warrant for the Great Seal. Rossingham gives Scudamore details of the commission: ‘… It is said there shall be canons made for the more decent service of God hereafter and that he shall be served no longer so slovingly as of late yeares’ (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 105^r).

^{page 164 note 3} M.C.J., p. 35, shows a draft order which refers to the commission ‘for introducing and establishing new ceremonies’.

^{page 164 note 4} The House had been informed of difficulties in obtaining these the preceding day: ‘It was moved, That ye records of ye Kings bench ought not to goe out of ye Cheife Justice his hands. Bookes were cited for it. Mr. Speaker said, There was dis[tinction] betwixt a perusal and a removal, they might send to peruse them. And he signed a warrant for yt purpose’ (H.R.O., M36/1, p. 1); see also C.J., ii, pp. 6–7Google Scholar, and below.

^{page 164 note 5} Bate's Case, also those in Vassall's case (C.J., ii, p. 8).Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 6} See below, App., L.K. (21 April), p. 303.

^{page 165 note 1} Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 18^r; cf. B.L., E.203(1), p. 11, the king asked for only enough for three or four months and ‘expected no further supply till all their just grievances were relieved’.

^{page 165 note 2} conservation (Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 18^r); conservation of his Kingdom and for the glorie … (Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.346, fo 157^r).

^{page 165 note 3} Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 18^r, omits the remainder of the sentence.

^{page 166 note 1} ‘… the whole kingdome in dainger if the seas had not been guarded’ (Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 18^v).

^{page 166 note 2} ‘… for the use of the kingdome and defence and guarding of the seas’ (Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 18^v).

^{page 166 note 3} ‘The Lord Keeper had forgotten to answer an objection that might bee made, and thereupon repeated itt after all which was this objection…’ (Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 19^r).

^{page 167 note 1} ‘… in the like proportion …’ (Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 19^r).

^{page 167 note 2} ‘… therein and of all their proceedings thereupon’ (Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 19^r); see also below, Finch-Hatton MS., p. 53, p. 167.

^{page 167 note 3} See below. Petition, Smart, p. 280.

^{page 167 note 4} The report does not appear in C.J.

^{page 167 note 5} It was so ordered (C.J., ii, p. 9Google Scholar); see also below. Wore. Coll. MS., fo 19^v, p. 221. A draft of the deferring order stated that the House should ‘pursue it with all ex[pedition] not to adjourn till they are come to some resolution …’ (M.C.J., p. 38); cf. B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 111^r: ‘But they have not tied themselves to prepare it in one day.’

^{page 167 note 6} Windebanke (C.J., ii, p. 9Google Scholar; H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 22 April 1640).

^{page 168 note 1} Robert Holborne (Southwark). The committee had not seen the commission (C.J., ii, p. 9Google Scholar); see below (24 April), p. 175, n. 2.

^{page 168 note 2} The precedents should be 51 Edw. III (Rot. Parl., ii, p. 368Google Scholar) and 6 Ric. II (Rot. Parl., iii, p. 141Google Scholar). See H.R.O., M36/I, pp. 5–6, Finch-Hatton MS., p. 60, below, pp. 201, 175.

^{page 168 note 3} See H.R.O., M36/1, p. 6, below, p. 201. St. John understood that the commission was issued on the basis of the writ. ‘Nota’, perhaps in Laud's hand, is written in the margin of the king's writ for Convocation beside the words of summons (S.P. 16/445/73). The wording was discussed in the Long Parliament (Notestein, , D'Ewes, pp. 153Google Scholar and note, 156 and note).

^{page 168 note 4} William Dell, Secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury (St. Ives).

^{page 169 note 1} See above, Finch-Hatton MS., p. 42, p. 155, and below, S.P., 16/451/57 (22 April), p. 246.

^{page 169 note 2} George Peard (Barnstaple).

^{page 169 note 3} A committee was appointed (C.J., ii, p. 9Google Scholar; also H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 22 April 1640).

^{page 169 note 4} The House did not succeed in delivering the assent to the Lords. Bernard, who was one of those attending Windebanke with the message, notes that the Lords answered, ‘That they were busy but they would send for us, when they w[ere] at leasure’ (H.R.O., M36/1, p. 6); cf. C.J., ii, p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 5} William Lenthall (Woodstock), speaker in the Parliament of November.

^{page 170 note 1} See H.R.O., M36/1, p. 5, below, p. 200.

^{page 170 note 2} See H.R.O., M36/1, p. 4, below, p. 200.

^{page 170 note 3} See H.R.O., M36/1, p. 4–5, below, p. 200.

^{page 171 note 1} Probably Sir John Strangways; Giles Strangways (Melcomb Regis) also sat.

^{page 171 note 2} Sir John Wray (Lincolnshire). See below, App., Wray, p. 305.

^{page 171 note 3} Harbottle Grimston, M.P. for Essex, and father of Harbottle Grimston (above, Harvard MS., fo, 21^v, p. 135).

^{page 171 note 4} Probably 6 Edw. III; see below, H.R.O., M36/1, p. 4, p. 200.

^{page 171 note 5} Perhaps Sir Henry Mildmay (above, Harvard MS., fo 29^v, p. 143); Sir Humphrey May died in 1630. Thomas May (Midhurst) was a member of the Parliament.

^{page 171 note 6} John Glyn (Westminster).

^{page 172 note 1} See C.J., ii, pp. 9–10Google Scholar. Rossingham reported in connection with the shipmoney debates of 30 April, ‘One Mr Peard, a Lawyer of the Middle Temple made a speech in this case of the shipp mony which offends the Judges, which was, That the Parliament was the only creator of lawes, and the expounder of those lawes. The Parliament was the Phisitian to prescribe remedy to the diseases of the commonwealth, and the Judges were as the Apothecaries (not to putt, or add to any newe ingredient but such onely as the Phisitian, the Parliament had before prescribed) wherefore hee concluded the Judges had done beyond their Commission in giveing Judgment in this businesse of shipp mony, although the necessity were never soe greate’ (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 115^r).

^{page 173 note 1} See L.J., iii, p. 275Google Scholar; C.J., i, p. 679Google Scholar. A subsidy was passed later, 21 and 22 Jac, I, c. 23.

^{page 173 note 2} M.P. for Morpeth; he was Stafford's Secretary of State in Ireland.

^{page 173 note 3} See L.J., iii, pp. 209–10.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 4} Montereul reported that it had been noticed that in the entire speech the Lord Keeper had hardly named Scotland once (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 121^r).

^{page 173 note 5} Waller may have spoken in the debate. See below, App., Waller, , p. 306.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 1} This is the same committee as that appointed 22 April concerning Convocation, with some additions. See C.J., ii, pp. 9, 10.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 2} The many extant copies of the report show slight variations. See below, App. Grievances, p. 308.

^{page 175 note 1} See below, Harvard MS., fo 81, p. 194.

^{page 175 note 2} C.J., ii, p. 11Google Scholar, adds some details. For 2 Jac., see Wilkins, D., Magna Concilia, iv (London, 1737), pp. 378–79.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 3} John Hampden (Buckinghamshire), the man of the shipmoney case. Rossingham reported that although ‘the late commission for the making of canons … bee the same granted in the second of King James, yet nowe they present it as a grievance by reason of the late practice of innovations’ (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 112^r). ‘A book of divers notes and matters concerning the Convocation House and ecclesiastical government’ was among the papers of Hampden's seized at the end of the Parliament (Bodl., MS. Tanner 88*, fo 116^r).

^{page 175 note 4} For example, C.J., i, pp. 199–200, 327, 329, 348, 417, 418, 421Google Scholar; Hist. MSS. Comm., Buccleuch and Queensberry, iii, pp. 87, 89.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 1} A committee was authorized to prepare the grievances (C.J., ii, p. 12Google Scholar; H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 24 April 1640).

^{page 176 note 2} The speech is crossed out in MS. (only in the Finch-Hatton version, not in Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fos 63^r–65^v), but see below, App. 25, 27 April, pp. 310–11.

^{page 176 note 3} ‘Last Saturday Sir Wm Brunkard came to court from Berwick he tells his Majesty that divers of his troops are run away’ (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 110^r, Rossingham to Scudamore, 14 April 1640).

^{page 177 note 1} See below, App., Herbert, p. 310. ‘This conference was no sooner reported in the House of Commons than their whole temper seemed to be shaken’ (Clarendon, , History, II. 69Google Scholar); ‘The House took greate offense’ (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 113^r).

^{page 178 note 1} See below. Wore. Coll. MS. fo 19^v, p. 221.

^{page 178 note 2} See below. Wore. Coll. MS., fo 22, p. 224.

^{page 179 note 1} Probably 35 Eliz., here and in subsequent references (D'Ewes, Simonds, The Journall of all the Parliaments during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (London, 1682), pp. 480–94Google Scholarpassim; Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, ii, pp. 298–307).Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 2} 50 Edw. III (Rot. Parl., ii, p. 322Google Scholar); I Ric. II; 4 Ric. II.

^{page 179 note 3} For example, see Elsyng, , Ancient Manner, pp. 69–71Google Scholar; Foster, , ‘Elsyng’, p. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 4} Probably 9 Hen. IV.

^{page 180 note 1} ‘2 Waies off remedy were propounded, 1 by protestation. 2 by going to ye Lords’ (H.R.O., M36/1, p. 10). See C.J., ii, p. 14Google Scholar; also H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 27 April 1640, list and order.

^{page 180 note 2} See below, Finch-Hatton MS., pp. 69–70, App. Pym (28 April), pp. 182–83.

^{page 180 note 3} The many extant copies of the report show slight variations; see below, App. (24 April), p. 308.

^{page 181 note 1} M.P. for Herefordshire.

^{page 182 note 1} M.P. for Great Wenlock. See H.R.O., M36/1, p. 12, Harl. MS. 4931, fo 48^v, below, pp. 204, 240.

^{page 182 note 2} Richard Baylie, a protege of Laud was probably the vice-chancellor in question.

^{page 182 note 3} A committee had been appointed 21 April (C.J., ii, p. 8Google Scholar); see also C.J., ii, p. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 4} Probably the conference 28 April.

^{page 182 note 5} 28 April 1640; see below, App., Pym (28 April), p. 312.

^{page 182 note 6} Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 23^v.

^{page 183 note 1} Parliament (Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 23^v).

^{page 183 note 2} ‘matters and businesses of pompe … in them solid …’ (S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 96, unnumbered).

^{page 183 note 3} … services and action (Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 24^r).

^{page 183 note 4} Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 24^r.

^{page 183 note 5} 25 April 1640, see below, App., L.K. (25 April), p. 310.

^{page 183 note 6} … differ or vary (S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 96, unnumbered).

^{page 183 note 7} preheminence (Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 24^r).

^{page 184 note 1} ‘… House of Commons these 3 particulars were considered and insisted upon’ (S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 96, unnumbered).

^{page 184 note 2} several (Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 24^v).

^{page 184 note 3} 9 Hen. IV.

^{page 184 note 4} M.P. for Newport and Totnes. The report does not appear in C.J. A note to enter it and a space appear in M.C.J., p. 80.

^{page 184 note 5} State Trials, iii, 825–1316; see also below, Petition, Oke, p. 285.

^{page 185 note 1} ‘Much was said against ship money, and presidents brought of ordinances in ye higher house and lower house against such demands. … It was said. It had beene a fit answeare off ye Judges to have referred so great a cause betweene ye King and his people to Judgment off Parliament. And not to have medled with binding all our interests. Judges heretofore have done ye like, in causes of lesse consequence’ (H.R.O., M36/1, p. 13).

^{page 185 note 2} St John, Hampden's counsel in the shipmoney case had some of his papers concerning shipmoney seized at the end of the Parliament (Bodl., MS. Tanner 88*, fo 117^r). Rossingham says, ‘they indeavoured to prove the shipp writt to bee against all lawe, or costume, and that it was against the petition of right that ther kinge should leavy any monye upon the subject without concent in Parliament upon any necessity, or pretended necessity whatsoever’ (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 115^r).

^{page 185 note 3} William Beale, D.D., was also attacked in the Long Parliament (B.L., 873.g.28, Articles exhibited in the Parliament against William Beale … Aug. 6 1641 (1641); also D.N.B.); see H.R.O., M36/1, p. 14, Hart. MS. 4931, fo 48^v, below, pp. 204, 242; CSP 1640, p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 1} Early Church Fathers. Rossingham notes Beale ‘is alsoe accused, to have inforst at the same tyme some perticulers concerning those, that crye downe Alters, as that they had brought into the Church [blank] words: noe more Alters, nor Preist, but table, and minister. Paster and elder, and such like terms, which the purer Primitive tymes were not acquainted with’ (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fos 115^r–15^v).

^{page 186 note 2} Exodus 32.

^{page 186 note 3} Macrobius, Saturnalia, II, 5.4.

^{page 186 note 4} The House divided on the question (see H.R.O., M36/1, pp. 15–16, below, p. 205, and C.J., ii, p. 18Google Scholar). Rushworth, , iii, p. 1149Google Scholar, wrongly indicates that the division concerned supply.

^{page 187 note 1} See below, App., L.K. (1 May), p. 314.

^{page 187 note 2} The report is noted and a space left for it to be entered in C.J., ii, p. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 3} The message is given at greater length in C.J., ii, pp. 18–19Google Scholar. Concerning its receipt, M.C.J., p. 97, notes, ‘Not to stand without farther order of the House.’ See also Rushworth, , iii, p. 1153Google Scholar; P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 138^r; and below, S.P., 16/452/9, p. 290.

^{page 188 note 1} Probably Charles Price (Radnorshire). Herbert Price (Breconborough) and John Price (Montgomeryshire) also sat.

^{page 188 note 2} The committee was that ‘formerly appointed for preparing and giving directions for managing the business of the Conference to be had with the Lords’ (C.J., ii, p. 19Google Scholar).

^{page 188 note 3} Dr. George Parry, Chancellor of the Diocese of Exeter (St. Mawes).

^{page 188 note 4} Cf. Cicero, De Oratore, III. 1(3).

^{page 188 note 5} In 1563 the Lords and Commons petitioned separately, but in 1566 they cooperated (D'Ewes, , Eliz., pp. 103–104Google Scholar; Neale, , Eliz. Parl., i, pp. 106, 109, 141).Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} M.P. for Eye.

^{page 189 note 2} William Strode (Beeralston).

^{page 189 note 3} Probably the speech noted below, H.R.O., M36/1, p. 21, p. 207.

^{page 190 note 1} John Godbolt (Bury St. Edmunds).

^{page 190 note 2} William Noy, Attorney-General from 1631 until his death in 1634.

^{page 190 note 3} M.P. for Suffolk.

^{page 191 note 1} Orlando Bridgman (Wigan).

^{page 191 note 2} Lucius Gary, Viscount Falkland (Isle of Wight). His was a Scottish peerage.

^{page 191 note 3} George Digby, heir to the earl of Bristol (Dorset). Probably the speech which circulated as a separate; see below, App., Digby, p. 316.

^{page 192 note 1} Rot. Part., vi, pp. 375–76, 39Google ScholarHen. VI.

^{page 192 note 2} The binding makes it impossible to tell whether a date is given.

^{page 192 note 3} Rossingham reported that Hotham was preceded by Sir William Savile and Henry Belasyse, knights for Yorkshire (CSP 1640, p. 154).Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 4} The figure should be £12,000 (CSP 1640, p. 155Google Scholar; Cliflfe, J. T., The Yorkshire Gentry from Reformation to the Civil War (London, 1969), p. 315).Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 5} See H.R.O., M36/1, p. 21, below, p. 207.

^{page 192 note 6} See also CSP 1640, pp. 144–45Google Scholar; Gardiner, , History, ix, p. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 1} Clarendon, , History, II. 71–72Google Scholar, gives a somewhat confused account of the debates of 2 and 4 May and puts Hampden's call for the question 4 May. Montereul says Vane was asked insolently about what the king meant when he asked for a present answer (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 138^r). He also notes in the debate a proposal that the Commons ask the king that the Lord Keeper be punished for his part in the shipmoney judgment (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 139^r).

^{page 193 note 2} Mr Treasurer, Mr Comptroller, and Mr Secretary Windebanke were ordered to acquaint the king with the action of the House (C.J., ii, p. 19).Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 3} See H.R.O., M36/1, p. 22, below, p. 208; the declaration does not appear in C.J., ii, p. 19Google Scholar. Montereul attributes the message to Strafford, who he thought made the condition so high that it would never be accepted so that he (Strafford) would enhance his own position with the king and bring the king to make terms with the Spanish (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 141^r).

^{page 194 note 1} Also H.R.O., M36/1, p. 22, below, p. 208.

^{page 194 note 2} After Parliament the Council questioned him concerning remarks about shipmoney (Cholmley Memoirs, pp. 60–61Google Scholar; CSP 1640, p. 155).Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 3} Also H.R.O., M36/1, p. 23, below, p. 208.

^{page 194 note 4} Alexander Rigby (Wigan).

^{page 194 note 5} Also H.R.O., M36/1, p. 23, below, p. 208.

^{page 194 note 6} For example, State Trials, iii, 1235.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 1} Also H.R.O., M36/1, p. 23, below, p. 208.

^{page 195 note 2} Also H.R.O., M36/1, pp. 23–24, Harl. MS. 4931, fo 49, below, pp. 208–209, 243. Cf. Clarendon, , History, II, 73–74Google Scholar; writing that Glanville had ‘delivered his opinion freely, as a member of the House against yt [shipmoney], speaking more bitterly against that judgment and the judges declaration at the assizes then all those that had spoaken against yt during the Parliament,’ Rossingham thought that the speech was probably a reason why Glanville had not been permitted to go to the Commons on the following day (S.P. 16/453/24).

^{page 195 note 3} See Foster, Elizabeth R., ‘The Procedure of the House of Commons against Patents and Monopolies, 1621–23,’ Conflict in Stuart England, ed. Aiken, Wm. A. (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Glanville was a member of Parliament at the time.

^{page 195 note 4} See State Trials, iii, 857–58.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 5} M.P. for Gloucestershire. Cf. Clarendon, , History, II. 71Google Scholar, which places the speech in the debate of 2 May.

^{page 196 note 1} Cf. Clarendon, , History, II. 75.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 2} Perhaps in the incident at the Assizes in Exeter, August 1639, which Finch reported to Laud (S.P. 16/427/31 and 32); see also the charges against Finch (Rushworth, iv, pp. 137–38).

^{page 196 note 3} Also H.R.O., M36/1, p. 25, below, p. 209.

^{page 196 note 4} Cf. SirCoke, Edward, The Twelfth Part of the Reports (London, 1656), 12–13Google Scholar (Saltpetre Case).

^{page 196 note 5} Perhaps 13 Hen. IV (Rot. Parl., iii, pp. 662–63Google Scholar). See Holdsworth, Wm., History of English Law (Boston, 1922–1932), iii, p. 377Google Scholar; vi, pp. 49ff.

^{page 197 note 1} Clarendon claims to have spoken, opposing such ‘a captious question,’ and suggesting ‘instead a straight yes or no for supply, which could then be followed by discussion as to proportion and manner’ (Clarendon, , History, II. 74).Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 2} See below, App., 5 May, p. 316.

^{page 197 note 3} ‘… you took it, so that… faults nor mine …’ (B.L., E.203(1), p. 43).

^{page 197 note 4} ‘… but that there may be some (though I will confidently affirm that there are not by many degrees so many, as the public voice …’ (B.L., E.203(1), p. 44).

^{page 198 note 1} ‘… which I desire not to remember but wish that they had rememberd’ (B.L., E.203(1), p. 45).

^{page 198 note 2} ‘… the worst kinde of deniall…’ (B.L., E.203(1), p. 45).

^{page 198 note 3} ‘… of those who for the most part I take to be layall and well-affected subjects but, that it hath been the malicious cunning of some few seditiously-affected men …’(B.L., E.203(1), p. 46).

^{page 198 note 4} ‘… your affection shewn to me at this time, desiring …’ (B.L., E.203(1), p. 46).

^{page 198 note 5} ‘… that regall power, that if truly mine, and as for the libertie …’ (B.L. E.203(1), p. 46).

^{page 199 note 1} See above, for 20 April, pp. 162–63.

^{page 199 note 2} Cf. C.J., ii, p. 8Google Scholar; see also below, Petition, Smart, p. 280.

^{page 199 note 3} Hist. MSS Comm., x, New Series, House of Lords, p. 4Google Scholar, Standing Order 24.

^{page 199 note 4} By Sir Walter Erle.

^{page 199 note 5} 15 (C.J., ii, p. 8).Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 6} See below, App., L.K. (21 April), p. 303.

^{page 200 note 1} The question of supply was not debated until 23 April (C.J., ii, p. 9Google Scholar). See below, for proceedings on 22 April

^{page 200 note 2} For other business of 23 April, see below, p. 201.

^{page 201 note 1} 25 Hen. VIII, c. 19, An Act for the Submission of the Clergy to the King's Majesty.

^{page 201 note 2} See above, pp. 169–74.

^{page 202 note 1} See below, App. L.K. (25 April), p. 310.

^{page 203 note 1} Cf. C.J., ii, p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 2} See above, pp. 177–80.

^{page 203 note 3} See above, p. 180.

^{page 203 note 4} Erle reported.

^{page 204 note 1} See above, pp. 182–85.

^{page 204 note 2} Pym raised the question.

^{page 204 note 3} MS. damaged.

^{page 204 note 4} Rossingham says there were objections to sending for him, ‘upon a bare information till wittnesses were producst’ (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 115^v).

^{page 205 note 1} MS. damaged at bottom of pp. 15 and 16.

^{page 205 note 2} Elector corrected to Trier in MS.

^{page 205 note 3} MS. damaged.

^{page 205 note 4} See below, App., L.K. (1 May), p. 314.

^{page 206 note 1} Treasurer. Cf. C.J., ii, p. 18Google Scholar. The House went into committee to debate the message.

^{page 207 note 1} Parry, Herbert, Jones.

^{page 207 note 2} Strode and Hampden.

^{page 207 note 3} Perhaps Pym.

^{page 207 note 4} See below, App., Digby, p. 316.

^{page 207 note 5} Seymour, North, Godbolt.

^{page 207 note 6} Perhaps Hotham.

^{page 208 note 1} MS. does not indicate that the House was in committee until Glanville's speech (below).

^{page 208 note 2} E.g., Cholmley.

^{page 209 note 1} We have not been able to identify this case.

^{page 209 note 2} C.J., i, p. 912.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 3} MS. damaged.

^{page 209 note 4} Rot. Parl., ii, pp. 112, 117.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 1} See below, App. (5 May), p. 316.

^{page 210 note 2} See CSP, 1640, pp. 152–56.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 1} The King's and Lord Keeper's speeches, fos 1^r–6^r, see above, pp. 115–23, A Perfect Diurnall gives the king's speech, then continues: ‘After which the Lord Finch, then Lord Keeper, made a very elegant and learned Speech, the precedeum whereof was an Encomium of his Majestic, a plausible Character of His government, and a large description of the ungratefull Rebellion of the Scottish Nation; with an invitation to the Parliament, that upon those pressing and urgent occasions they would lay aside all other debates, and passe an Act for such and so many Subsidies as they in their hearty affection to Him and the common good should think convenient, and withall that the Bill for Tonage and Poundage from the first yeer of his Majesties raigne might passe; and assuring them that his Majesty would afterwards give them time for considering such Petitions as should be good for the Common-wealth.

‘ter this the King caused a Letter from the Lord Louden and other Scotch Lords, to the French King, directed An[sic] Roy, to be read; and then the Lord Keeper declared his Majesties pleasure touching the choice of a Speaker against Wednesday following.’

^{page 211 note 2} See Hunt. Cal. HM 1554, p. 252, below, p. 229.

^{page 211 note 3} ‘… to the Bar, being presented to the House of Commons as their Speaker; and being come to the Bar, he made a very patheticall Speech, excusing himselfe from the undertaking of so great an imployment. To which the Lord Keeper made a very Rhetoricall Reply. After which the King commanded the Speaker to report the cause of the meeting, as it was made by the Lord Keeper; and so both Houses departed for that day’ (A Perfect Diurnall). For speeches of Glanville and the Lord Keeper see, fos 7^r–15^r above, pp. 123–34.

^{page 212 note 1} See also, B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 43^r.

^{page 212 note 2} See also Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, pp. 252–53.

^{page 212 note 3} See the Appendix, below.

^{page 212 note 4} strangely and took beginning (A Perfect Diurnall).

^{page 212 note 5} A Perfect Diurnall ends its entry for the day here.

^{page 213 note 1} Rudyerd's speech, fos 15^v–16^r, unnumbered, see above, pp. 138–40.

^{page 213 note 2} Grimston's speech, fos 28^r, 29^v, 16^v (numbering in MS. is erratic); see above, pp. 135–38.

^{page 213 note 3} 1½ fos unnumbered; see above, pp. 145–48.

^{page 213 note 4} MS., fo 17^r dates the speech 17 April. See below, App., Seymour, p. 297.

^{page 213 note 5} ‘… had any of his predecessors’ (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 31^v; Bodl., MS. Eng. Hist. C.199, fo 25^r).

^{page 213 note 6} … the King … (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 145; S.R.O., DD/Mi, Box 18, 96; Bodl., MS. Eng. Hist. C.199, fo 25^r).

^{page 213 note 7} … and reduced … (S.R.O., DD/Mi, Box 18, 96).

^{page 213 note 8} This paragraph is a handwritten preface to the printed speech. The printed portion begins with the following paragraphs. Cf. B.L., £.199(35), p. 1.

^{page 214 note 1} ‘… they have matter to plead’ (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 32^r; Bodl., MS. Eng. Hist. C.199, fo 25^r). For the following paragraphs, cf. S.R.O., DD/Mi, Box 18, 96, below, pp. 251–53.

^{page 214 note 2} renounce (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 32^r; Bodl., MS. Eng. Hist. C.199, fo 25^r).

^{page 214 note 3} ‘… not onlye beene done, not onely which touching upon the Priviledges of Parliaments’ (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo. 32^r).

^{page 214 note 4} ‘… House of Commons and of the …’ (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 146).

^{page 214 note 5} more then (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 32^v; Bodl., MS. Eng. Hist. C.199, fo 25^v).

^{page 214 note 6} ‘… allwaies shines in it selfe alike …by reason of words may not soe appeare if … splendor what will…’ (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 32^v).

^{page 214 note 7} confidence (Bodl., MS. Eng. Hist. C.199, fo 25^v).

^{page 214 note 8} ‘… though they pull no Churches downe’ (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 33^r; Bodl., MS. Eng. Hist. C.199, fo 25^v).

^{page 215 note 1} scarcely any (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 147).

^{page 215 note 2} End of major variations in S.R.O., DD/Mi, Box 18, 96 (below, pp. 251–53).

^{page 215 note 3} … intend … (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 147; B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 33^v).

^{page 215 note 4} The remainder of the speech is written in by hand. Cf. B.L., E.199(35), P. 4.

^{page 215 note 5} places (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 147); ‘who have not their places’ (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 33^v; Bodl., MS. Eng. Hist. C.199, fo 26^r); ‘who have but their places during life, and will do these things contrary to’ (S.R.O., DD/M1, Box 18, 96).

^{page 215 note 6} … shipmoney (B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fo 117^v; Bodl., MS. Eng. Hist. C.I99, fo 26^r).

^{page 216 note 1} See below, App., Pym (17 April), p. 299.

^{page 216 note 2} our (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 157).

^{page 216 note 3} … of this kingdome (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554 p. 157); D'Ewes adds: ‘First I shall propound what and how many these greivances are and whence they proceed’ (B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^r; see also Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.487, unnumbered; B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fo 70’), App., Pym (17 April).

^{page 216 note 4} ‘The liberties of Parliament infringed. I. By taking away freedoms of speech from the members thereof. 2. By imprisoning the members during Parliament. 3. By questioning in inferiour courts parliamentmen for speech and acts done in Parliament’ (B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo. 25^r; Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.487, unnumbered; B.L., Harl. MS. 6801, fos 70^v–71^r).

^{page 216 note 5} professe (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 157).

^{page 216 note 6} Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.487, unnumbered, adds: proceed from.

^{page 216 note 7} nor (B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^r).

^{page 216 note 8} Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 157; B.L., Sloane MS. 1200, fo 22^r; B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^r, insert not here and omit it from the following clause.

^{page 216 note 9} rapt (B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^r; Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 157).

^{page 217 note 1} D'Ewes says: ‘A suspending of the execution of…’ (B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^r); Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 157, omits: all.

^{page 217 note 2} offices (Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.487, unnumbered; B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^r).

^{page 217 note 3} Ezekiel 37.

^{page 217 note 4} wyder amongst us (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 158); D'Ewes adds: ‘… wider and irreconcilable amongst us’ (B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^r); D'Ewes begins a new item after us; see also, Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.487, unnumbered.

^{page 217 note 5} ‘Enlargements of authority by …’ (B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^v; Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.487, unnumbered).

^{page 217 note 6} disclaime (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 158; B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^v); declyne (Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.487, unnumbered).

^{page 217 note 7} Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 158, inserts: all.

^{page 217 note 8} ordinaries (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 158; B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^v).

^{page 217 note 9} Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 158, and B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^v, omit: all.

^{page 218 note 1} wyne (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 158); after ‘salt’ D'Ewes adds: and others (B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^v).

^{page 218 note 2} they assist nusances (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 159).

^{page 218 note 3} impositions (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 159).

^{page 218 note 4} ‘… and all bonds between the prerogative …’ (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 159; B.L., Sloane MS. 1200, fo 23^v; B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^v).

^{page 218 note 5} ‘Doctor Manwaring, now Bishop of St. Davids’ (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, P. 159).

^{page 218 note 6} ‘… soe soone have leaped’ (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 159; B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 25^v).

^{page 218 note 7} ‘we may onely desire’ (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 159).

^{page 218 note 8} the cheifest supply (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 159).

^{page 218 note 9} hath noe subsidies (B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 26^r).

^{page 219 note 1} subjects (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 160; Bodl., MS. Rawl. A.487, unnumbered; B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 26^r).

^{page 219 note 2} imposition (B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 26^r).

^{page 219 note 3} 80,000 (Hunt, Cal., HM 1554, p. 160).

^{page 219 note 4} D'Ewes says: ‘… with the Commons wee may make it known to God, to the Kinge for otherwise as in the land … did give them noe light and yet the people … darknesse. Soe heere though the King bee habituallie disposed with justice to redresse his peoples extreame greivances and sufferings, yet whilst the mists and darknes of Flatterie and misinformation are about him; the poore subjects can never partake of his grace and goodnes’ (B.L., Harl. MS. 165, fo 26^r).

^{page 219 note 5} Phrase added by hand in MS.

^{page 219 note 6} These are proceedings of 16 April. See also Hunt. Cal. HM 1554, p. 253.

^{page 220 note 1} See also Hunt. Cal. H.M. 1554, p. 253–54.

^{page 220 note 2} Debate occurred 18 and 20 April.

^{page 220 note 3} A Perfect Diurnall omits: Walter Longe.

^{page 220 note 4} A Perfect Diurnall ends its entry for the day here.

^{page 220 note 5} C.J., ii, p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 6} See also below, p. 230–31.

^{page 220 note 7} … read a message (A Perfect Diurnall).

^{page 221 note 1} ‘… again pressing them that the cause of assembling that Parliament was for his reducing unto obedience the rebellious Scots’ (A Perfect Diurnall).

^{page 221 note 2} His speech, fos 17^v–19^r; see above, pp. 164–67.

^{page 221 note 3} See Hunt. Cal. HM 1554, pp. 255–6.

^{page 221 note 4} In margin in MS. The speech may have been given 23 April. See below, App., Waller, p. 307. A Perfect Diurnall does not name the member.

^{page 221 note 5} A Perfect Diurnall continues: ‘In fine, The house concluded and voted, that if his Majesty would be graciously pleased to redresse these inconveniences: 1. Innovasions in Religion. 2. The invading the properties of their goods. 3. The infringing of the liberties of the persons of his Subjects, He shall then finde their willingnesse and chearfulnesse to give him supplies.’

^{page 221 note 6} See Hunt. Cal. HM 1554, pp. 256–57.

^{page 221 note 7} For example, Sir Francis Seymour's speech.

^{page 221 note 8} Grimston makes the point 27 April.

^{page 222 note 1} Grimston's speech.

^{page 222 note 2} Peard.

^{page 222 note 3} Glyn.

^{page 222 note 4} There is no record of an actual division of the House.

^{page 222 note 5} MS. (fo. 20^v): ‘Then insert Mr. Wallers and the Lord Digbys speeches with these titles.…’ For Digby's speech, see below, App., Digby, p. 316. It may have been given 2 May.

^{page 222 note 6} Foliation of the MS is irregular.

^{page 223 note 1} Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 177, adds: ‘and those grievances of the Scottish nation.’ B.L., Harl. MS. 7162, fo 213^r, reads: ‘We are not permitted to say wee thinke they are the same persons originally who have caused both our greivances and theirs. Wee are not permitted to thinke that the cutting of[f] of those persons will be.…’

^{page 223 note 2} cirtifie (B.L., Harl. MS. 7162, fo 213^r).

^{page 223 note 3} Most of the proceedings reported for 22 April (above, Wore. Coll. MS. fo 19^v, p. 221), probably occurred 23 April. A Perfect Diurnall gives no entry for 23 April.

^{page 224 note 1} These proceedings occurred on 24 April. On 25 April the Commons attended a conference where they heard about the king's speech to the Lords and the Lords’ resolutions concerning the supply.

^{page 224 note 2} See also below, pp. 231–32.

^{page 224 note 3} ‘… was to ingage the House to a present supply, That the Scots had pitcht their Tents at Dundee, etc. That the Lords would never be guilty of distrusting so good and pious a King’ (A Perfect Diurnall).

^{page 224 note 4} fos 21^r–22^r; for the beginning of the speech to fo 21^v ‘tents at Dunce, etc.’ see above, p. 176; then: ‘And that his Majestie upon our assisting him would lend …’ below, pp. 231–32.

^{page 224 note 5} Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 258, dates the speech 29 April.

^{page 225 note 1} A Perfect Diurnall ends its entry for the day here.

^{page 225 note 2} 16 April.

^{page 225 note 3} John Eliot (St. Germans), son of the famous Sir John Eliot. See below, App., Eliot, pp. 313–34. The speech may have been given 29 April.

^{page 225 note 4} Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 173, omits: all.

^{page 225 note 5} some (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 173; CSP 1640, p. 36).Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 6} … humbly … (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 173; CSP 1640, p. 37Google Scholar); … honourable House (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 63^r).

^{page 225 note 7} ‘articles or accusations against him who is to have the oath’ (B.L., Sloane MS. 1200, fo 33^r).

^{page 226 note 1} very frequent (B.L., Sloane MS. 1200, fo 33^v).

^{page 226 note 2} best (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 173; B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 63^v).

^{page 226 note 3} ‘… it increaseth in the carriage. Therefore I hold fame no good ground’ (B.L., Sloane MS. 1200, fo 33^v, thus condensing the text).

^{page 226 note 4} ‘what most men say, certainely some men will testifie’ (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, pp. 173–74; B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 64^r, follows, but omits: certainely; CSP 1640, p. 37Google Scholar, follows, but gives speak instead of ‘say.’

^{page 226 note 5} B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 64^r, omits: butt.

^{page 226 note 6} accusation (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 174).

^{page 226 note 7} faile (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 174).

^{page 227 note 1} See Hunt. Cal. HM 1554, pp. 258–9.

^{page 227 note 2} Perhaps as a result of the conference 28 April. A Perfect Diurnall:‘The Lords not sending to the Commons according to appointment; they fell in debate about Religion.’

^{page 227 note 3} The Heads concerning religion for the conference were reported.

^{page 227 note 4} See Hunt. Cal. HM 1554, p. 259.

^{page 227 note 5} A Perfect Diurnall ends its entry for the day here.

^{page 227 note 6} ‘… a very Patheticall Speech’ (A Perfect Diurnall).

^{page 227 note 7} fos 23^v–25^r, see above, pp. 182–84.

^{page 228 note 1} See below, App., Wray, p. 306.

^{page 228 note 2} reforme (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 34^v).

^{page 228 note 3} ‘… and that it should find redress then’ (B.L., Add. MS. 6411, fo 34^v).

^{page 228 note 4} have been obtruded (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 169).

^{page 228 note 5} … without lawe (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 169).

^{page 228 note 6} See S.P. 16/450/90; S.P. 16/450/97, letters fearing complaints against fendrainers. Wray presented a petition concerning them in November 1640 (Notestein, , D'Ewes, p. 19).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 7} found (Hunt. Cal., HM 1554, p. 169).

^{page 228 note 8} See Hunt. Cal. HM 1554, pp. 259–62.

^{page 228 note 9} This is a confused account of the proceedings of 24 April.

^{page 228 note 10} fos 25^v–26^r, see C.J., ii, p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 1} Francis Russell, 4th earl of Bedford; Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex; Oliver St. John, 1st earl of Bolingbroke; Charles Howard, 2nd earl of Notting ham; Henry Bourchier, 5th earl of Bath; Theophilus Howard, 4th earl of Lincoln; Charles, Baron Paulet; John, 2nd Baron Lovelace; William, 5th Baron Paget; John, 2nd Baron Robartes. Probably the Lords who dissented from the resolutions of 24 April; see also S.P. 16/451/39, the Lords who voted ‘in the question … against the King.’ The list in S.P. 16/451/39 adds Deinecourt and substitutes Willoughby of Parham for Stanhope.

^{page 229 note 2} fo 26^v, see C.J., ii, p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 3} fos 27^r–27^v, see above, pp. 197–98.

^{page 229 note 4} Title supplied from Yale Law Library, Glanville MS., p. 1.

^{page 229 note 5} See below, App., Glanville (15 April), p. 294.

^{page 230 note 1} See below, App., L.K., (15 April), p. 294.

^{page 230 note 2} Glanville MS., p. 1, omits: best.

^{page 230 note 3} true (Glanville MS., p. 1).

^{page 230 note 4} pp. 252–53, see above Wore. Coll. MS. fos 15–15^v, 17, pp. 212–13, 219.

^{page 230 note 5} pp. 253–54, see above Wore. Coll. MS. fos 17–17^v, p. 220.

^{page 230 note 6} See below, App., L.K. (21 April), p. 303.

^{page 230 note 7} Harvard MS., fo 25, Cf. Rudyerd, above, p. 139.

^{page 230 note 8} 160,000^li (Glanville MS., p. 2).

^{page 231 note 1} Glanville MS., p. 2, omits: in fewe words.

^{page 231 note 2} pp. 255–57, see above, Wore. Coll. MS., fos 19^v–20. p.221.

^{page 231 note 3} See below, App., Herbert, p. 310.

^{page 231 note 4} Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 21^v, begins to follow this version here.

^{page 232 note 1} ‘… (except some fewe hereafter mentioned) …’ (Wore. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 22^r).

^{page 232 note 2} pp. 258–59, see above, Wore. Coll. fos 22^r–23^v, pp. 225–27.

^{page 232 note 3} pp. 259–62, see above. Wore. Coll. fos 20^v–21, 23, pp. 223–24, 227.