^{page 53 note 1} The king spoke briefly, but Browne made no notes. See App., Charles I (13 April), Montague Papers, pp. 1–1b, below, pp. 293–96. Rossetti's dispatch says the king's face was very melancholy (P.R.O., 31/9/18, fos 181r–83r).

^{page 53 note 2} John, 1st Baron Finch of Fordwich. Below, App. (13 April), p. 293.

^{page 53 note 3} 2 Sam. 20.

^{page 54 note 1} The Declaration of the Irish Parliament which accompanied the grant of subsidies (Rushworth, , iii, p. 1100Google Scholar); see below, Braye 16, fos 17^v, 24, pp. 67–74.

^{page 54 note 2} The king's contribution (L.J., iv, p. 47Google Scholar); cf. the Declaration (B.L., E.203(1), pp. 7–8); after having ‘emptied his own coffers’, he borrowed this amount from his servants.

^{page 54 note 3} L.J., iv, p. 48Google Scholar, gives the letter. See also Montagu Papers, p. 1b, below, p. 96.

^{page 54 note 4} The names appear in L.J., iv, pp. 48–49Google Scholar; also D.J., pp. 1–3; Yale, Stanford (Braye) MS. 95, fos 117^r–17^v. Fo 4^v is blank.

^{page 55 note 1} The Secretaries of State. Windebanke sat for Oxford University; Vane, also Treasurer of the Household, for Wilton.

^{page 55 note 2} Sir John Glanville (Bristol). See below, App. (15 April), p. 294. Extensions are supplied from L.J., iv, pp. 50–54.

^{page 56 note 1} Members interrupted with humming here (L.J., iv, p. 53Google Scholar; cf. Montagu Papers, p. 1c, below, p. 97).

^{page 56 note 2} Elisha took up the mantle of Elijah (2 Kings 2:14).

^{page 57 note 1} Cf. D.J., p. 8, and L.J., iv, p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 2} William, 10th Baron Mowbray. Many revisions in MS. See also D.J., p. 9, and Montagu Papers, p. 1c, below, p. 97.

^{page 57 note 3} James Stanley, Baron Strange; Dudley, 3rd Baron North.

^{page 57 note 4} John Browne.

^{page 57 note 5} according also crossed out in MS.

^{page 57 note 6} Edward, 1st Baron Herbert of Cherbury; Basil, Lord Newnham-Paddox, later earl of Denbigh; George, 1st Baron Goring; William Herbert, 1st Baron Powis; Francis, 1st Baron Cottington.

^{page 57 note 7} James Maxwell, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod; Thomas Howard, 2nd earl of Arundel, earl Marshal; Robert Bertie, 1st earl of Lindsey, Lord High Chamberlain.

^{page 58 note 1} See Harvard MS., fos 20^v–21, Montagu Papers, p. 1c, below, pp. 134, 197; also CSP 1640, pp. 29–30Google Scholar (the interrogatories and answers).

^{page 58 note 2} Sir John Bankes.

^{page 58 note 3} William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Say and Sele.

^{page 58 note 4} Edward, 1st Baron Montagu of Boughton. Montagu Papers, pp. 10–d, below, p. 97; also Stevenson, David, The Covenanters and the Government of Scotland, 1637–1651 (Ph.D. thesis, Glasgow, 1970), i, pp. 145, 207–15.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 5} See Montagu Papers, p. 1d, below, p. 97.

^{page 58 note 6} Philip Herbert, earl of Pembroke. The letter was not read in English (Montagu Papers, p. 1c, below, p. 97).

^{page 58 note 7} See Lee-Warner, , p. 2Google Scholar, below, p. 107.

^{page 59 note 1} See Montagu Papers, p. 1d, below, p. 98. Cf. D.J., pp. 12–13, and L.J., iv, pp. 55–56Google Scholar. Browne used the numbers before each of the names to arrange the lords of each rank in order of precedence. In some of the committee lists he also included the total number in each category, either at the beginning, as in the Subcommittee of privileges and/or prior to the groups as in the Committee for petitions. His figures do not always balance. The additions and deletions of names shown on the manuscript are probably responsible for this discrepancy. See, for example, below, Braye 16 (23 April), p. 69, n. 3.

^{page 59 note 2} Browne entered here a note about attendants for petitions, apparently realized his error and crossed it out (see below, p. 60, n. 1).

^{page 60 note 1} Cf. note crossed out in Braye MS. 16, fo 9^r: ‘Ls the Judges and the privie counsellors to attend the Lords. Attendants for petitions: Just[ice-] Barkely, Reeve, and such other of the Ks learned Counsell as they shall please.”

^{page 60 note 2} See below, Bills—Cloth, p. 273.

^{page 60 note 3} By the standing orders (4, Hist. MSS Comm., x, New Series, Report on the MSS of the House of Lords (London, 1953), p. 1Google Scholar), the Lord Keeper had to speak as a baron. Montereul noted the procedure (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 146^r). See below. Lee Warner, p. 1 (16 April), Montagu Papers, p. 1d, Harl. MS. 4931, fo 47, Worc. Coll. fo 17, pp. 98, 107, 219–20, 234; also Oxinden Letters, p. 163Google Scholar, and Harley Letters, p. 91.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 4} The commission appears in L.J., iv, p. 57Google Scholar. See also below, S.P. 16/451/16, p. 245.

^{page 60 note 5} Edward Noel, 2nd Viscount Campden.

^{page 60 note 6} Nicholas Tufton, 2nd earl of Thanet.

^{page 61 note 1} James Touchet, 13th Baron Audley.

^{page 61 note 2} Cf. L.J., iv, pp. 57–58Google Scholar, and D.J., pp. 17–18. The proxy book is missing.

^{page 61 note 3} James Stuart, 4th Duke of Lennox and earl of March.

^{page 61 note 4} See below, Braye 16, fo 15^v, p. 65.

^{page 61 note 5} John Williams. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London; see CSP 1640, p. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 6} Thomas Morton. A letter of 23 April reports that he visited troops near Durham (CSP 1640, p. 64).Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 7} Edward, 2nd Viscount Conway. Letters among the State Papers show that he was in the North of England, not Ireland (CSP 1640, pp. 26, 43, 53, 64).Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 8} See Braye 16, fo 19^v, below, p. 68.

^{page 61 note 9} His mother had just died (CSP 1640, p. 22).

^{page 61 note 1} 0 See Braye 16, fo 45^v, below, p. 94.

^{page 62 note 1} Henry Montagu, 1st earl of Manchester. See Braye 16, fo 12^v, Montagu Papers, p. 2, below, pp. 62, 98. His remarks caught the attention of Rossetti (P.R.O. 31/9/18, fos 202^r–204^r).

^{page 62 note 2} William Laud.

^{page 62 note 3} Robert Rich.

^{page 62 note 4} Richard Montagu.

^{page 62 note 5} The bishop.

^{page 62 note 6} John Digby, 1st earl of Bristol.

^{page 63 note 1} Edward Sackville.

^{page 63 note 2} He may be speaking about the oath of allegiance; Standing Order 43 (Hist. MSS Comm., x, New Series, House of Lords, p. 8Google Scholar) required it be taken. See also Braye 16, fo 14^v, Montagu Papers, p. 2, below, pp. 64, 98.

^{page 63 note 3} Roger Manwaring, bishop of St. Davids. See L.J., iii, pp. 855–56Google Scholar (1628), his impeachment.

^{page 64 note 1} Thomas Belayse, i1st Viscount Fauconberg.

^{page 64 note 2} Charles, 2nd Baron Stanhope. A petition from Sanderson concerning the letter of protection was read (L.J., iv, p. 59Google Scholar). See also Braye 16, fo 45^v, below, p. 94.

^{page 64 note 3} this day (D.J., p. 22; L.J., iv, p. 59Google Scholar); see also Montagu Papers, p. 30, below, p. 104.

^{page 65 note 1} L.J., iv, p. 61Google Scholar, gives the report; see also Lee Warner, p. 2 (18, 21 April), Montagu Papers, p. 2, below, pp. 108, 99.

^{page 65 note 2} Revisions in MS. See also Montagu Papers, p. 2, below, p. 99.

^{page 65 note 3} Joseph Hall, bishop of Exeter. See below, Montagu Papers, p. 2b, Harl. MS. 4931, fo 47^v, pp. 99, 236.

^{page 65 note 4} William Seymour, 10th earl of Hertford.

^{page 66 note 1} See below, App. (21 April), p. 303.

^{page 66 note 2} See also Braye 16, fo 23, below, p. 73.

^{page 66 note 3} Treasurer of the Navy. For example, see CSP 1640, p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 4} ‘… during which time it was requisite the seas should be well-guarded’ (B.L., E.203(1), p, 12); cf. B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 81^v, ‘It was never his majesties intention that they should be stopped’ (Rossingham to Scudamore, 9 December 1639).

^{page 66 note 5} The ship had been lost (L.J., iv, p. 62Google Scholar; also B.L., Add. MS. 11045 fos 109^v, 111^r).

^{page 67 note 1} See Braye 16, fo 21, below, p. 70.

^{page 67 note 2} See below, Montagu Papers, p. 20, Finch-Hatton MS., p. 53, Lee-Warner, , p. 3Google Scholar (22 April), pp. 100, 109, 167.

^{page 67 note 3} Cf. Montagu Papers, p. 2c, below, p. 100.

^{page 67 note 4} Henry Parker, 14th Baron Morley. See H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 22 April 1640, the warrant.

^{page 67 note 5} L.J., iii, p. 264Google Scholar; also L.J., iii, pp. 446, 691Google Scholar, and below, Montagu Papers, p. 2c, Lee Warner, p. 3 (22 April), pp. 100, 109.

^{page 68 note 1} manner (D.J., p. 27).

^{page 69 note 2} Many revisions in MS. H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 23 April 1640, orders about Bradshaw.

^{page 69 note 3} The question is not indicated clearly. See also Montagu Papers, p. 2c, below, p. 101.

^{page 69 note 4} Thomas Wentworth, 1st earl of Strafford, Lord Deputy of Ireland; Thomas Wentworth, earl of Cleveland, cousin to Strafford; John Holies, 2nd earl of Clare.

^{page 70 note 1} They did not (Braye 16, fo 21^v, below, p. 71; C.J., ii, pp. 10–11Google Scholar). See also Montagu Papers, p. 2c, below, p. 101.

^{page 70 note 2} See below, Bills—Cloth, p. 273.

^{page 70 note 3} Browne seems to have inserted Peterborough and neglected to change his total to 17. See above, Braye 16 (16 April), n. 1, p. 59.

^{page 70 note 4} See below, App. (24 April) p. 308.

^{page 70 note 5} … hether … (H.L.R.O., Braye MS. 88, p. 25).

^{page 70 note 6} Cf. B.L., E.203(1), p. 18, where the action of the House of Commons, not the king's coming, is described as ‘contrary to … expectation.’

^{page 70 note 7} … the first … (H.L.R.O., Braye MS. 88, p. 25).

^{page 71 note 1} I … (H.L.R.O., Braye MS. 88, p. 26).

^{page 71 note 2} ‘… I expect that your lordships would determine now before you parte something in this busines’ (H.L.R.O., Braye MS. 88, p. 26).

^{page 72 note 1} See Montagu Papers, p. 2d, below, p. 101.

^{page 72 note 2} Edward Montagu, 1st Baron Kimbolton and Viscount Mandeville, heir to Henry, earl of Manchester.

^{page 72 note 3} Probably John Warner, bishop of Rochester, who spoke on 29 April (below, Braye 16, fo 39^v, Warner, Lee, p. 88Google Scholar). Although the account of the day's proceedings in his diary was probably written afterwards, its details suggest that, contrary to the attendance list, he was present. See below, Lee Warner, p. 3 (24 April), p. 110. He may have arrived late, after attending Convocation which assembled only to be adjourned until the following day (Nalson, , i, p. 363).Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 4} Resolution, 23 April, to ‘consult with the Lords’, Finch-Hatton, p. 58, below, p. 174.

^{page 72 note 5} Spencer Compton, 2nd earl of Northampton.

^{page 72 note 6} Probably 9 Hen. IV, the Indemnity of the Commons, Rot Parl., iii, p. 611Google Scholar; see L.J., iv, p. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 1} See Warner, Lee, p. 3Google Scholar, below, p. 110.

^{page 73 note 2} The six is written over another number, perhaps two.

^{page 73 note 3} This is more information about the king's plans than either Lords or Commons had received officially up to this point. Cf. Warner, Lee, p. 3Google Scholar, below, p. 110.

^{page 73 note 4} Windebanke's notes mention 600,000^li (CSP 1640, p. 64).Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 5} About impositions; controversy ensued (Hist. MSS Comm., xxix. Report on the MSS of the Duke of Portland, ix: Harley Papers (London, 1923), p. 133Google Scholar; C.J., i, p. 496Google Scholar; L.J., ii, p. 707).Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 6} There seems to have been no occasion when the Lords refused a conference about the Petition of Right (3 Car. I, c. 1). The reference is probably to their insistence on a provision saving the king's prerogative (C.J., i, pp. 901–902).Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} L.J., iii, pp. 250, 275Google Scholar; Debates in the House of Commons in 1625, ed. S. R. Gardiner (Camden Society, New Series, vi, 1873), pp. 2, 31, 143Google Scholar; Ruigh, Robert, The Parliament of 1624 (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), pp. 206–11, 226–27.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 2} Perhaps Commons' House. Browne appears to have written originally C.C., then written an H over the second C, but he may have intended it to replace the first. See also Braye 16 (24 April), fo 29, below, p. 78.

^{page 75 note 1} The lengthy procedure which might be used for shipmoney is not unlike that which the Commons had followed with the Petition of Right (C.J., i, pp. 878ffGoogle Scholar.). Strafford sat in the Commons at the time.

^{page 75 note 2} See Braye 16, fo 36, below, p. 85. On 20 April Peyton wrote of a ‘murmure about the Towne that the Parliament will dissolve’ (Oxinden Letters, p. 163).Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} William, 1st Baron Maynard, C.J., i, p. 499.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 2} Perhaps a response to the Lord Keeper's remarks (above, Braye 16, fo 25^v, P. 75).

^{page 76 note 3} Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton. He apparently exaggerated (CSP 1639–40, pp. 295ffGoogle Scholar. passim).

^{page 76 note 4} Robert Greville, 2nd Baron Brooke.

^{page 76 note 5} John Egerton. See Lee Warner, p. 3, below, p. 110.

^{page 77 note 1} Perhaps 2 Hen. V (Rot. Parl., iv, p. 16 or p. 35); 1 Ric. II (Rot. Parl., iii, p. 5Google Scholar) or 4 Ric. II (Rot. Parl., III, p. 89Google Scholar); 6 Edw. III (Rot. Parl., ii, pp. 66–67Google Scholar). Cf. Warner, Lee, p. 3Google Scholar, below, p. 110. Browne has left a note for himself in the margin here.

^{page 77 note 2} Stat. 4 Hen. VIII, c. 8; see also Foster, Elizabeth R., ‘Speaking in the House of Commons,’ B.I.H.R., xlviii (1970), pp. 48–49.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 3} Probably 9 Hen. IV.

^{page 77 note 4} See Stevenson, , The Covenanters and the Government of Scotland, i, pp. 138–45.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} The first vote determined which of the two resolutions would be handled first (see below. Lee Warner, p. 3, Harl. MS. 4931, fo 48, Worc. Coll. fo 26^v, pp. 110, 238, 229; also L.J., iv, p. 67Google Scholar; D. J., p. 36). See H.L.R.O., Braye MS. 2, fos 63^r–64^v, ‘The Two propositions voated in the House the 24° April 1640. Delivered to me by the Lord Keeper under his owne hand.’ Rossingham says, ‘Some of the Lords and all the Bishops concluding it by their votes that the supply in the first place to his Majesty was to take place and above 20 of the country Lords voting it, that the grievances of the subject were in their judgments the greater and more advantageous service to his Majesty’ (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 112^v). Montereul notes that the dissenters were Southampton, Rutland, Say, Brooke, and several others (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fos 133^r–34^r).

^{page 81 note 1} See below, App. (25 April) p. 310.

^{page 82 note 1} See Montagu Papers, p. 2d, below, p. 102.

^{page 82 note 2} Robert Pierrepoint.

^{page 82 note 3} Thomas Darcy, 1st earl of Rivers; George Manners, 7th earl of Rutland; James Hay, 1st earl of Carlisle; William Cavendish, and earl of Newcastle.

^{page 82 note 4} Robert Dormer, earl of Carnarvon; William Cecil, earl of Salisbury; William Fielding, 1st earl of Denbigh; John Mordaunt, 1st earl of Peterborough.

^{page 82 note 5} Edward, 1st Baron Howard, heir to Theophilus, and earl of Suffolk; Francis Leigh, 1st Baron Dunsmore.

^{page 82 note 6} See Braye 16, fo 46^v, Warner, Lee, p. 4Google Scholar, below, pp. 95, 111.

^{page 82 note 7} Robert Curle.

^{page 83 note 1} See Montagu Papers, p. 3a, Harl. MS. 4931, fo 48, below, pp. 102, 239; also B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 114^r.

^{page 83 note 2} See below, Petition, Presse, p. 285.

^{page 83 note 3} Henry Carey.

^{page 83 note 4} The conference was to be reported the next day (L.J., iv, p. 71).Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 5} See below, App., Pym (28 April), p. 312.

^{page 83 note 6} John Pym (Tavistock).

^{page 85 note 1} Browne has put an asterisk here in the margin. The practice, which he follows here and in the remainder of the scribbled book, seems to mark points which might be voted upon.

^{page 85 note 2} C.J., i, pp. 600–602, 610, 619, 621Google Scholar; Commons Debates, 1621, ii, pp. 335, 337, 362–62Google Scholar; iii, pp. 173–74, 237–40. 253–54; L.J., iii. PP. 110. 113. 119, 124, 133.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 1} Records show he urged accommodation (Commons Debates, 1621, iii, pp. 167–68, 208, 238).Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 1} Philip, 4th Baron Wharton.

^{page 87 note 2} Henry Hastings.

^{page 87 note 3} Probably 9 Hen. IV.

^{page 87 note 4} Thomas, 2nd Baron Savile.

^{page 89 note 1} As on 24 April, the first vote was procedural (see below. Lee Warner, p. 4, Montagu Papers, p. 3a, Harl. MS. 4931, fo 48^v, pp. 112, 102, 240; also L.J., iv, p. 73; Yale, Stanford (Braye), MS. 95, fo 77^r). Montereul says that the king's party outnumbered the other by twenty (P.R.O. 31/3/72, fo 134^r).

^{page 90 note 1} See below, Braye 16, fo 43, p. 91.

^{page 90 note 2} Psalm 14:1.

^{page 90 note 3} 9 Hen. IV.

^{page 91 note 1} Cf. Montagu Papers, p. 3b, below, p. 103; also L.J., iv, p. 74Google Scholar; Yale, Stanford (Braye) MS. 95, fo 77^r.

^{page 91 note 2} See below. Petition, Niccolls, p. 283.

^{page 92 note 1} Also 2 Ric. II (L.J., iv, p. 74), probably Rot. Parl., iii, pp. 55–56, 61.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 2} See below, App. (1 May) p. 314.

^{page 93 note 1} See H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 30 April 1640, list of fees.

^{page 93 note 2} See below, Petition, Niccolls, p. 283.

^{page 94 note 1} By the earl of Bristol (L.J., iv, p. 78Google Scholar); Lionel Cranfield, earl of Middlesex, had been impeached in 1624. See also H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 2 May 1640, draft motion; D. J., pp. 51, 58 (report of committee of privileges); and Montagu Papers, p. 30, below, p. 103. Rossingham reports, ‘Their lordships tooke this petition to hart, knoweing all was certainely true, which was inserted in the petition. And their lordships were the more willing to restore his lordship, because hee haveing receavd the Kings writt to repaire to the Parliament his lordship had not only forborne, but had forborne alsoe to send his Proxie. This petition is to be taken into consideration by the Committee of Priviledges to drawe upp his lordships restoration according to former Presidents, thereby to preserve the priviledges of their house’ (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 115^r).

^{page 94 note 2} Cf. Montagu Papers, p. 30, below, p. 104.

^{page 95 note 1} Thomas Brudenell. See H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 27 April 1640, certificate of date of patent.

^{page 95 note 2} Francis Leake, 1st Lord Deincourt.

^{page 95 note 3} John Bancroft.

^{page 95 note 4} See below, App. (5 May) p. 316.

^{page 95 note 5} Probably April.

^{page 95 note 6} Probably April.

^{page 95 note 7} Finch had been the Queen's Attorney General (D.N.B.).

^{page 95 note 8} See also Oxinden Letters, pp. 161–62Google Scholar; The Manner of Holding Parliaments in England … with the … order of proceeding to Parliament of the most high and mighty Prince King Charles on Monday the 13th of April.… (1641) (B.L., E.157(11)).

^{page 96 note 1} See Warner, Lee, p. 1Google Scholar. below, p. 105. We have not been able to find it among Wren's printed sermons. See also Harley Letters, p. 90Google Scholar; Hist. MSS Comm., Fourteenth Report, App. ii, p. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 2} See below, App. (13 April), p. 293.

^{page 96 note 3} See below, App. (13 April), p. 293.

^{page 97 note 1} See below, App. (15 April), p. 294.

^{page 97 note 2} See below, Harvard MS., fo 29^v, p. 143.

^{page 97 note 3} Cf. Elsyng, Henry, The Ancient Method and Manner of Holding Parliaments in England, 3rd ed. (London, 1675), pp. 97–98.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 1} See below, Bills—Cloth, p. 273.

^{page 98 note 2} It is hard to see how Rossetti might have interpreted this motion as one in favour of the Catholics (P.R.O. 31/9/18, fo. 197^r).

^{page 99 note 1} See S.P. 16/451/9, endorsed by Laud, ‘Received April 20, 1640. Journall of Parliaments Concerning Convocation Dayes.’ Cf. Elsyng, , Ancient Manner, pp. 111–12.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 2} Montagu may have been confused. Cf. below, Montagu Papers, p. 2b, P. 99.

^{page 100 note 1} See below, App. (21 April), L.K., p. 303.

^{page 100 note 2} Hist. MSS Comm., x, New Series, House of Lords, pp. 3–4Google Scholar, Standing Order 23.

^{page 100 note 3} Probably the Lord Keeper.

^{page 101 note 1} See below, App., Charles I (24 April), p. 308.

^{page 101 note 2} See below, App., L.K., (25 April), p. 310.

^{page 102 note 1} See below, App., Pym (28 April), p. 312.

^{page 103 note 1} ‘who mistooke the question’ (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fo 114^r).

^{page 103 note 2} See below, App., L.K. (1 May), p. 314.

^{page 104 note 1} See below, Harvard MS., fos 74^v ff., pp. 187ff.

^{page 104 note 2} See below, Finch-Hatton MS., p. 81, p. 197.

^{page 104 note 3} A copy of a committee report in favour of his admission appears in D.J., pp. 58–59, following the proceedings for 5 May.

^{page 104 note 4} The point was discussed in 1628 (Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords, 1621, 1625, and 1628, ed. Frances H. Relf (Camden Society, Third Series, xlii, 1929), pp. 143ffGoogle Scholar). Registrars of the Court of Delegates, Auditors of the Court of Wards and the Examiners of the Court of Star Chamber were ordered to appear (H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 4 May 1640).

^{page 105 note 1} Among his papers there is a copy, endorsed in his hand ‘The Kings Speech upon Dissolving ye Parliament’ (Montagu Papers, XIII, 75). See also below, App., Charles I (5 May), p. 316.

^{page 105 note 2} See below, App., Charles I, L.K., (13 April), p. 293.

^{page 105 note 3} See below, App. Ibid., p. 293.

^{page 105 note 4} The copyist occasionally uses a series of dots to show an omission in his text. At other times he simply leaves a blank space. We have used ellipses where the copyist did, and have tried to indicate whether or not a sentence ends in the gap.

^{page 106 note 1} Rev. Thomas Turner, D.D., Canon Residentiary of St Paul's, preached (Nalson, , i, p. 357Google Scholar). We have made references to Nalson when material appears both there and in the MS. Convocation Journals (Lambeth, Conv. I/1/1).

^{page 106 note 2} Turner proposed that the theme for the Convocation be that of Matthew 10:16. Cf. Lambeth, Conv. I/1/1: ‘Fece mitto vos ut oves in medium luporum esotote igitur prudentes sicat serpentes et innocentis vi columbae.’

^{page 106 note 3} Richard Steward, Dean of Chichester and Clerk of the Closet to Charles I (Nalson, i, p. 357; D.N.B.).

^{page 106 note 4} Gilbert Sheldon, D.D., Master of All Souls, Oxford, presented Steward as prolocutor (Nalson, , i, p. 357).Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 5} Glanville. See below, App., Speaker, L.K. (15 April), p. 294.

^{page 106 note 6} MS.: destined.

^{page 106 note 7} This is the order for the Committee of Privileges.

^{page 107 note 1} Hist. MSS Comm., x, New Series, House of Lords, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 2} Hist. MSS Comm., x, New Series, House of Lords, 44 (25 Feb. 1625); cf. 16 (28 May 1624) whereby there was no charge.

^{page 107 note 3} The bill provided for the transportation of dyed cloths. See below, Bills—Cloth, p. 273.

^{page 107 note 4} See below, App., Rudyerd, , p. 296.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 5} See below, App., Seymour, , p. 297.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 1} The Queen's jointure.

^{page 108 note 2} See below, App., L.K. (21 April), p. 303.

^{page 109 note 1} See Finch-Hatton MS., p. 53, below, p. 167.

^{page 109 note 2} Nalson, , i, pp. 361–63Google Scholar; see Rossingham's report (B.L., Add. MS. 11045, fos III^r–II^v) and below, S.P., 16/451/57 (25 April), p. 247.

^{page 109 note 3} Canon 3, Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical Agreed upon at London and York, 1640 (London, 1640).Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 1} See below, App., Charles I (24 April), p. 308.

^{page 110 note 2} Probably Henry V.

^{page 111 note 1} The Lord Keeper.

^{page 111 note 2} Warner gives all the names on 30 April, Lee Warner, p. 4, below, p. 112.

^{page 111 note 3} Canon 4, Constitutions and Canons, 1640.

^{page 111 note 4} John Davenant.

^{page 111 note 5} He owed ten shillings a piece to the clerk's chief clerk and to the yeoman usher (Hunt. Cal., Ellesmere MS. 34/A/2). He also paid two pounds to the doorkeeper (L.J., xxii, p. 627Google Scholar), and something to the Lord Keeper (L.J., iv, p. 77Google Scholar). The total would exceed £6. 10s.

^{page 112 note 1} Hist. MSS Comm., New Series, House of Lords, 53Google Scholar; also Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords, 1621, 1625, and 1628, pp. 144–47.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 2} Warner seems to be repeating himself here.

^{page 113 note 1} A space is left at the top of the page, as if Warner intended to enter something prior to the list of grievances.

^{page 113 note 2} See below, App., Grievances (24 April), p. 308.

^{page 113 note 3} MS.: Comitees.

^{page 114 note 1} Bristol presented Middlesex' request for restoration.

^{page 114 note 2} Cambridge. See below. Harvard MS., fos 73^r–74^r (1 May), p. 186.

^{page 114 note 3} See below, App. (5 May), p. 316.