^{page 1 note 1} Marginal note: ‘Lib. A:’. Bishop Matthew Wren of Ely preached.

^{page 1 note 2} The king's speech, delivered largely by the Lord Keeper, was chiefly concerned to show that the war with Scotland was the main cause for the calling of the parliament.

^{page 1 note 3} Marginal note: ‘Lib. A:’.

^{page 1 note 4} Marginal note: ‘vid. Lib. A. i’.

^{page 1 note 5} Marginal note: ‘vid. Speech at Large in Quires’.

^{page 2 note 1} Possibly an allusion to Ezekiel 28:13.

^{page 2 note 2} Aston does not record that the King spoke to accept Glanville as speaker and to remind him of his duties: ‘That you giving Me your timely Help in this great Affair, I shall give a willing Ear to all your just Grievances’ (L.J., IV, p.54).Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 1} The King discussed this letter in his speech at the opening of the parliament on 13 April. See Cope, pp.58, 96, 122, 233, 244.

^{page 3 note 2} Marginal note: ‘vid. at large, Lib: A: 3’.

^{page 3 note 3} Ezra 7:26.

^{page 4 note 1} See Cope, , pp. 250–51.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 2} Aston places this speech on 16 April, which strengthens Professor Cope's case for placing it on that day. See Cope, , p. 298.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 3} Marginal note: ‘(Lib: A: 4)’.

^{page 5 note 1} Isaiah 56: 10.

^{page 5 note 2} See below, pp. 198–200.

^{page 5 note 3} I e. the committee of Privileges, of which Aston was a member. C.J., II, p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 4} A committee of the whole house. C.J., II, p. 3Google Scholar. Probably Charles Jones.

^{page 5 note 5} A committee of the whole house. C.J., II, p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 6} A committee of the whole house. C.J., II, p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 1} II Samuel 6:6–7; I Chronicles 13:9–10.

^{page 6 note 2} Judges 6:38.

^{page 6 note 3} See e.g., Deuteronomy 13:13; I Samuel 2:12; 10:27; 25:17; II Chronicles 13:17; II Corinthians 6:15.

^{page 6 note 4} II Samuel 16:20–23.

^{page 7 note 1} Lord Louden's letter. See above, p. 4.

^{page 7 note 2} Christopher Davenport, chaplain to Queen Henrietta Maria, was better known as Franciscus a Sancta Clara. DNB; Cope, , p. 146nGoogle Scholar. 12.

^{page 7 note 3} The King's Majesties Declaration to his Subjects Concerning Lawful Sports (1633).

^{page 8 note 1} Pym's famous speech about grievances reportedly took two hours to deliver. See Professor Cope's discussion of the different versions of the text (pp. 299–302).

^{page 8 note 2} Ezekiel 37.

^{page 9 note 1} Aston is thinking of Bate's Case of 1606.

^{page 9 note 2} Hampden's Case.

^{page 10 note 1} Roger Mainwaring was made bishop of St. David's in 1636. See Russell, , 1621–1629, PP. 375, 396, 400, 404.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 2} 4 Edward III c. 14; 36 Edward III c. 10 (Cope p. 155, n.1).

^{page 10 note 3} An English merchant. See Cope, pp. 156, 219, 259–60.

^{page 10 note 4} Aston had a French wine importing business in Chester. Lake, Peter, ‘The Collection of Ship Money in Cheshire during the Sixteen-thirties: A Case Study of Relations Between Central and Local Government’, Northern History (1981), pp. 46–47.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 1} The petition also mentioned ship money, forest fines and impositions. For the text, see Cope, pp. 275–76.

^{page 11 note 2} For the text, see Cope, pp. 277–78.

^{page 12 note 1} ‘The Humble Petition of the Maior; Sheriffes, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Norwich’ in Cope. For the text, see Cope, , p.279Google Scholar. Evans, John T., Seventeenth Century Norwich (Oxford, 1979), p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 2} Hyde becamethe chairman of a committee to investigate the Earl Marshal's Court in the Long Parliament. D'Ewes (Notestein), pp. 375, 375n.3.

^{page 12 note 3} Sir Gilbert Pickering (Northamptonshire) presented a petition on 17 April (see above, p. 14). For the text see Cope, p.275.

^{page 12 note 4} It was ordered that a message concerning a fast should be sent to the Lords, but that it should be deferred until Monday (20 April). C.J., II, p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 1} Sir Francis Bacon.

^{page 13 note 2} The cases of Bacon and Buckingham are discussed by Tite, Colin G.C., Impeachment and Parliamentary Judicature in Early Stuart England (London, 1974), pp. 110–18, 178–217Google Scholar; for the case of the duke of Suffolk, see Wolfe, B.P., Henry VI (London, 1981), pp.221–29Google Scholar; Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of Henry VI (London, 1981), pp. 674–84Google Scholar. I am grateful to Dr Rosemary Horrox for these references.

^{page 13 note 3} Probably Charles Jones: see Cope, , p. 159Google Scholar, n.7.

^{page 14 note 1} A reference to the ‘tumult’ on the last day of the parliament of 1628–29. The following debate is a discussion of that event. See Russell, , 1621 1629, pp. 415–16.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} The image is of an artist's model. I am grateful to Professor Conrad Russell for throwing light on this phrase.

^{page 15 note 1} Lewknor represented Midhurst in the parliament of 1628–29, and took notes of the proceedings as well as writing reports to the earl of Northampton. Keeler, , p. 252.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 1} Sir Edward Phelips, Speaker 1604–1610.

^{page 16 note 2} Sir Edward Phelips (Cope, p 161n.3).

^{page 16 note 3} For Heyman's behaviour at ‘the tumult’ which marked the end of the parliament of 1628–29, see Russell, , 1621–1629, PP. 415–16.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 1} For the report of the Committee of Elections on 18 April, see below, p. 201.

^{page 18 note 1} A select committee for Grievances was appointed on 20 April to consider ‘… Petitions delivered into this House, or to be delivered from several Countries, and for all other Grievances as any member of this House shall present’ (C.J., II, p. 7).Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 2} Erased.

^{page 18 note 3} A source in Professor Cope's Proceedings (pp. 227–28) lists the three heads as shipmoney, fen drainage, and trained bands, and places the speech on 2 May, when Wray presented ‘the grievances of the Countie of Lincoln’. Aston's account of the proceedings of 2 May has no speech by Wray, which strengthens the argument that the speech took place on 20 April (Cope, p. 306).

^{page 18 note 4} I.e., to the committee for Grievances.

^{page 18 note 5} The House here resumes the debate begun on 18 April, concerning the dissolution of the parliament of 1629. See above, pp. 16–23

^{page 18 note 6} The committee appointed on 18 April.

^{page 19 note 1} Wray and Erle both suffered imprisonment for some months in 1627 for refusing to co-operate with the forced loan. Keeler, , p.166Google Scholar; DNB.

^{page 19 note 2} This is probably the king's declaration showing the causes of the late dissolution, which can be found in Rushworth, I, App. l.

^{page 20 note 1} Erased.

^{page 22 note 1} Possibly Sir Thomas Posthumus Hoby.

^{page 22 note 2} The afternoon of 21 April was spent in conference with the Lords at the Banqueting House. See below, p. 31.

^{page 22 note 3} Aston may have conflated Pym's remarks about the King's Bench and the Lord Chief Justice made on 20 April with his remakrs here. Copies of the records of King's Bench were ordered to be produced on 21 April. C.J., II, p. 7Google Scholar; see also Cope, , pp. 199–200.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 4} A Dr. Hurske. See C.J., II, p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 1} Peter Smart, prebendary of Durham. His petition was signed later that day, but deferred until the next day. C.J., II, p. 8Google Scholar. See below, pp. 30, 31–32. Cf. Cope, p. 199.

^{page 23 note 2} Probably the elder Sir Henry Vane. C.J., II, p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 3} ‘Ordered, all Committees of the whole House to have Power to send for parties’ (C.J., II, p. 8).Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 4} Committed. C.J., II, p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 5} The petition was referred to a committee (C.J., II, p. 8).Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 1} It is not clear in the Commons Journal that the report from the Lords concerns a fast (C.J., II, p. 8).Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 2} Peter Smart's petition. See above, p. 28; below, pp. 31–32.

^{page 25 note 1} See C.J., II, p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 2} Marginal note: ‘(Lib. A. 2)’. The Commons and Lords met in the afternoon in the Banqueting House at Whitehall. Aston does not give an account of the conference. For the speaker's report of the Lord Keeper's speech, see below, pp. 34–37.

^{page 25 note 3} The petition was deferred because it was unsigned. See above, pp. 28, 30.

^{page 25 note 4} For the text of Smart's petition, see Cope, pp. 280–82. For an earlier petition against Cosin's liturgical irregularities, see the petition of Thomas Ogle. C.D. 1629, pp. 124, 128.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 5} William James, Bishop of Durham (1606–1617) was Smart's patron. DNB; James, Mervyn, Family, Lineage and Civil Society (Oxford, 1974), pp. 118–19, 168–69, 171.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 6} Richard Neile, archbishop of York, was bishop of Durham from 1617 to 1628.

^{page 25 note 7} John Cosin. At the time to which the petition refers he was a prebend of Durham and a royal chaplain. DNB; Hoffman, John G., ‘The Arminian and the Iconoclast: The Dispute Between John Cosin and Peter Smart’, Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church (09, 1979).Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 8} Cosin's text was the parable of the tares (Matthew 13:24–30). Cope, , p. 281.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 9} ‘… [Cosin] instanced oft these words that in a public meeting he shold affirme the King was not supreme head of the church: that in Excommunicacions the King had noe more authority then his man that rubbed his horses heeles …’ (C.D. 1629, p. 174Google Scholar). See also C.D. 1621, pp. 43–44, 130–31, 133, 174–77.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 10} The sermon was published: The Vanitie and Downe-fall of Superstitious Popish Ceremonies (Edinburgh, 1628).Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 1} Cosin was indicted and convicted by the Durham assizes in 1629. He received a pardon under the Great Seal. DNB. His activities, publications, and pardon received a good deal of attention in the parliament of 1628–1629. See C.D. 1628, II, pp. 86nn. 46 & 51Google Scholar, pp. 87, 89, 93, III, pp. 30n. 41, 151n. 53, IV, pp. 197, 207, 215, 224, 237n.7, 280n.3; C.D. 1629, pp. 36, 37, 41, 43–47, 52, 59, 60, 124, 125, 126, 128, 130–32, 133, 139–40, 174–77, 179–80, 181, 192, 193, 246. See also Russell, , 1621–1629, p. 404.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 2} See C.J., II, pp. 8–9Google Scholar. Smart's petition was represented on the first day of the Long Parliament (November 3, 1640). C.J., II, p. 25Google Scholar. See also D'Ewes (Notestein), p. 21 and in the index under Smart, Peter.

^{page 28 note 1} Algierian pirates were a well known danger to English shipping. See CSPD, 1637–1638, pp. 15, 192, 219, 243, 605, 607.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 1} Probably Ralph Goodwin.

^{page 30 note 1} For further reading on the subject of the king's prerogative to issue a warrant to Convocation, see Cope, Esther, ‘The Short Parliament of 1640 and Convocation’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History (04, 1974), pp. 168, 173–76.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 1} Possibly a reference to ‘A proclamation for the establishing of the peace and quiet of the Church of England, 16 June 1626’. Foedera, XVIII, pp. 719–20.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 1} Probably Sir Thomas Roe, ambassador, who sat in the Long Parliament for the University of Oxford. DNB.

^{page 32 note 2} Another source attributes a similar remark to Pym. Cf Cope, p. 169.

^{page 32 note 3} Another source attributes a similar remark to Pym, not Hampden. Cf. Cope, p. 169. However, ‘Mr. Dell … had been brought to ye barre but for Mr. Hampden his friend’ (Cope, , p. 246).Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 1} Bridgeman was the son of the bishop of Chester.

^{page 34 note 1} In the spring of 1626, the Commons proceeded against the duke of Buckingham on the grounds of ‘common fame’. Lockyer, Roger, Buckingham: The Life and Political Career of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham (London, 1981), p. 320Google Scholar; C.J., I, pp. 847, 849–852.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 2} Probably a mistake on Aston's part for Sir Robert Cooke.

^{page 35 note 1} See above, p. 38.

^{page 35 note 2} The preachers appointed for Saturday were Richard Holdsworth, master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, anti-Laudian and future royalist; and Stephen Marshall, vicar of Finchingfield, Essex, popular preacher for the Long Parliament and future presbyterian. Ralph Brownrig, master of St. Catherine's Hall, Cambridge, and bishop of Exeter in 1641, was intreated to preach on the next day at Holy Communion in St. Margaret's, Westminster. C.J., II, p.9; Cope, pp.237, 237n.2; DNB; Nalson, , I, p. 330.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 1} Barrington and his brother-in-law Sir William Masham (Colchester) were appointed churchwardens for the Communion service to take place on Sunday, 3 May. Cope, P. 237.

^{page 36 note 2} Aston did not write the word ‘hearts’ but drew a small heart.

^{page 37 note 1} See above, pp. 34–37.

^{page 37 note 2} I.e. the Earl Marshal's court. For further reading on the ‘Court of honor’, see Squibb, G. C., The High Court of Chivalry (Oxford, 1959).Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 3} I Kings 3:16–28.

^{page 38 note 1} See above, p. 47.

^{page 38 note 2} II Corinthians 9:7.

^{page 39 note 1} Sir Humphrey May (1573–1630) was MP for Leicester in 1628–1629. Two statements of Sir Humphrey's may be suggested as possible sources for the treasurer's remark. May was reported as saying on 23 February 1629: ‘That we take this as highe point of previldge, and his Majestic takes it as a high point of a Soverangnety, and therefore would not have us thinke soe much of the previledge of this house as to neglect that of the Soveragnety’ (Notestein, , 1629, p. 169Google Scholar). Another possibility is May's letter to Thomas Wentworth on 27 December 1627. See Russell, , 1621–1629, p. 340Google Scholar. I am grateful to Professor Russell for bringing the latter to my attention.

^{page 39 note 2} I.e. the dissolution of the 1628–1629 parliament.

^{page 40 note 1} I.e. grievances. ‘For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had’ (John 5:4).

^{page 42 note 1} Henry Percy, fourth earl of Northumberland, was killed by Yorkshire rioters while attempting to collect taxes in 1489.

^{page 42 note 2} See above, p. 36. Mainwaring was Stratford's secretary in Ireland.

^{page 44 note 1} Either Charles Price (Radnorshire) or Herbert Price (Breconborough). John Price, who was MP for Mountgomeryshire in the Long Parliament, was a candidate for the county seat in the spring, but was defeated by Richard Herbert. Keeler, , pp. 313–15Google Scholar; MofP.

^{page 45 note 1} The High Sheriff was Rodolph Warcopp.

^{page 45 note 2} For the text of this petition, see Cope, , p. 284.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 3} ‘Petition of Rodolph Warcopp, sheriff of co. Oxford, to the Council … At the last quarter sessions in Oxford the under-sheriff warned all the bailiffs within the county to attend the sheriff at the Bear, in Oxford, there to receive directions and warrants for collecting the ship-money, but they would not come, so that all officers, both constables and bailiffs, refuse either to receive, obey, or exercise my warrants, or to assist me in this service’ (CSPD, 1640, p. 370).Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 4} Marginal note: ‘2nd time read’.

^{page 46 note 1} Charles Jones. Hirst, p. 78.

^{page 46 note 2} Aston's account of the disputed election in St. Michael is confused. See below, p. 212; C.J., II, p. 10Google Scholar; Coate, Mary, Cornwall in the Great Civil War and Interregnum (Truro, 2nd edn., 1963), pp. 18, 23–24Google Scholar; Keeler, , p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 3} Peter Courteney and William Chadwell, MPs for Michael. Keeler, , p. 131Google Scholar; MofP.

^{page 46 note 4} Francis Basset and Samuel Coseworth were also returned for the borough of Michael in Cornwall. See Hirst, , p. 61Google Scholar; MofP.

^{page 46 note 5} Marginal note: ‘Question resolved “I”’.

^{page 46 note 6} Sir Henry Compton (East Grinstead); AO.

^{page 46 note 7} John White (Rye); Keeler, pp. 390–91. Though disputing Robert Goodwin's election for East Grinstead, White was also returned for Rye, sitting for the latter in both parliaments of 1640.

^{page 46 note 8} Robert Goodwin (East Grinstead) Keeler, , pp. 191–92.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 1} It was White who promoted the petition accusing Goodwin of appealing for support beyond the traditional franchise. Fletcher, , Sussex, pp. 244–45Google Scholar; C.J., II, P. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 2} Edward Blundell, the earl of Bristol's bailiff. C.J., II, p. 10Google Scholar; Fletcher, , Sussex, p. 245.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 3} Sir Edward Ayscough of South Kelsey, Lincolnshire, later sat for the county in the Long Parliament, but was defeated in his bid to unseat his rival Sir Edward Hussey for the seat in the spring. On this day Ayscough's indenture was called to be examined by the Committee for Privileges. C.J., II, p.10Google Scholar; Keeler, , pp. 55, 93–94Google Scholar; MofP.

^{page 48 note 1} Probably a reference to the case of Roger Smith of Edmonton, who was chosen in March 1640, along with Simon Every of Egginton, burgess in parliament for Leicester. Smith informed the mayor that he could not assent to take the oath of a freeman. Consequently, he was disqualified from serving and Thomas Coke of Gray's Inn was chosen in his place. Thompson, James, The History of Leicester (Leicester, 1849), p. 359Google Scholar; Keeler, , p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 2} The petition was referred to committee. C.J., II, p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 1} Probably a reference to the petition of Daniel White of Winchelsey, Sussex. It was delivered to a committee on 18 April and mislaid. The house ordered that a new petition may be preferred ‘… and that it may be admitted as exhibited upon Saturday last: And so it is ordered’ (C.J., II, p. 11).Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 2} ‘Mr. Secretay Windebank went up with a Message to the Lords, concerning a Fast, according to the Order Yesterday’ (C.J., II, p. 10Google Scholar). See above, p. 46.

^{page 49 note 3} Sir John Bramston, Chief Justice, Court of King's Bench. DNB.

^{page 49 note 4} ‘I. Concerning Innovation in Matter of Religion’ (C.J., II, p. 11).Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 5} ‘II. Concerning Propriety of Goods’ (C.J., II, p. 11Google Scholar). The numeration of these points in the manuscript is confused.

^{page 50 note 1} Aston's account has the fullest report of the debate over Charles' commission to Convocation. See also C.J., II, p. 11Google Scholar; Cope, p. 175.

^{page 50 note 2} For the text of this commission, see Foedera, XX, pp. 403–405Google Scholar. For further reading about the relationship between Convocation and the Short Parliament, see CSPD, 1640, pp. 24–25, 40Google Scholar; Cope, Esther, ‘The Short Parliament of 1640 and Convocation’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History (04, 1974).Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 1} The King's Commission to Convocation: ‘… the said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, Constitutions, Matters, Causes and Things … shall and may set down in such form as heretofore hath been accustomed, and the same so set down in Writing, to exhibit and deliver, or cause to be exhibited and delivered unto us, to the end, that We, upon mature Consideration by us to be taken thereupon, may allow, approve, confirm and ratify … Provided always, that the said Canons … consulted or agreed upon as aforesaid, be not contrary or repugnant to the Liturgy established, or the Rubricks in it, or the nine and thirty Articles, or Doctrine, Orders and Ceremonies of the Church of England already established. Provided also, and our express will, pleasure and commandment is, That the said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, Constitutions, Matters, Causes and Things, or any of them, so to be by force of these Presents considered, consulted or agreed upon, shall not be of any force, effect or validity in the Law, but only such and so many of them, and after such time, as We by our Letters Patents under our Great Seal of England, shall allow, approve and confirm the same, any thing before in these Presents contained to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding’ (Foedera, XX, pp. 404–405).Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 2} 1640. See CSPD, 1640, p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 3} For James' commission to Convocation, see Wilkins, D., Magna Concilia (London, 1737), IV, pp. 378–79.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 1} For further reading on attempts by the Commons early in James' reign to exercise influence over Convocation, see Munden, R. C., ‘James I and “the growth of mutual distrust”: King, Commons, and Reform, 1603–1604’, Faction and Parliament, ed. Sharpe, Kevin (Oxford, 1978), pp. 66–68.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 2} I.e. the canons of Archbishop Bancroft of 1604. The Laudian canons of 1640 were not issued until June. Cardwell, , Synodalia, I, pp. 245–415.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 3} Probably Sir Philip Mainwaring (Morpeth), though Sir Philip Parker (Suffolk) and Sir Philip Musgrove (Westmoreland) also sat. MofP.

^{page 53 note 1} I.e. the second head. See above, p. 63.

^{page 54 note 1} ‘O blessed Soveraigne, that thou didst but heare the severall cries and outcries of they people against these persecuting Prelates in many places, especially in our Norwich diocesse, where little Pope Regulas [Bishop Matthew Wren] hath played such Rex, that hee hath suspended above 60 [of] our sinceerest painfullest conformable Ministers, both from their Office and Benefice …’ (Prynne, William, Newes from Ipswich (Ipswich, 1636, p. 4)Google Scholar. See also Ketton-Cremer, R. W., Norfolk in the Civil War (London, 1969), p. 69Google Scholar; Lamont, William, Marginal Prynne 1600–1669 (London, 1963), pp. 38–39.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 1} See above, p. 63. The following report of the debate over the propriety of goods is unique to Aston's account.

^{page 58 note 1} 4 Edward III, c.14; 36 Edward III, c.10.

^{page 61 note 1} I.e., an account of the list of grievances to be presented to the Lords, drawn up the previous day. See above, pp. 63–4, 77.

^{page 61 note 2} The commission to Convocation.

^{page 61 note 3} See above, pp. 40, 68.

^{page 61 note 4} ‘All church-wardens or quest-men in every parish shall be chosen by the joint consent of the minister and the parishioners, if it may be; but if they cannot agree upon such a choice, then the minister chall choose one, and the parishioners another …’ (Canon 89 of 1604 in Cardwell, , Synodalia, I, p.296).Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 1} Justice Jones and Baron Trevor. C.J., II, p. 12Google Scholar; cf. L.J., IV, p.68.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 2} Pym, St. John, Herbert, Grimston, Jones and Hampden were appointed reporters. C.J., II, p.12.

^{page 62 note 3} John Rushworth. DNB.

^{page 63 note 1} The following account of the Lord Keeper's speech was inserted into the manuscript at a later stage.

^{page 63 note 2} There are two types of source for the conference with the Lords: accounts of the conference itself, and accounts of Edward Herbert's report of it to the Commons on 27 April. Aston's diary relates the Lord Keeper's speech as part of the conference itself. Aston merely noted, and did not describe, Herbert's report on the following Monday (see below, p.87 For other accounts of the conference, see Cope, pp. 176–77, 201–202, 265–66; L.J., IV, p.68Google Scholar. For Herbert's report of the speech on 27 April, see C.J., II, pp. 13–14Google Scholar; Cope, , pp. 231–32Google Scholar; Nalson, , I, pp. 333–35Google Scholar; Rushworth, , III, pp. 1144–46Google Scholar. For a discussion of the various accounts of Herbert's report, see Cope, pp.310–11.

^{page 63 note 3} See above, pp. 1–3, 7–9.

^{page 63 note 4} The king reportedly said on the previous day: ‘The House of Commons did seem to take into consideration My weighty Affairs; but they have in a Manner concluded the contrary; and, instead of preferring My Occasions in the first Place, they have held Consultation of Innovation of Religion, Property of Goods, and Privileges of Parliaments; and so have put the Cart before the Horse’ (L.J., IV, p.66).Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 1} The three heads of grievance compiled in the Commons on the previous day.

^{page 65 note 1} The passage between the sets of ** has been crossed out in the manuscript. It is probably Aston's rough copy of the Lord Keeper's speech at the conference.

^{page 66 note 1} See above, p.80.

^{page 67 note 1} For a discussion of the procedure of the ecclesiastical courts, see Houlbrooke, Ralph, Church Courts and the People during the English Reformation 1520–1570 (Oxford, 1979)Google Scholar, chaps. I, II.

^{page 67 note 2} Harbottle Grimston the younger.

^{page 67 note 3} 17 April.

^{page 68 note 1} See above, p.87.

^{page 70 note 1} I.e. the three heads.

^{page 70 note 2} The remarks of the next seven MPs are unique to Aston's account.

^{page 71 note 1} See above, p. 83

^{page 71 note 2} St. John's remarks are much fuller in Aston's account.

^{page 71 note 3} See above, p. 92

^{page 73 note 1} See above, pp.81–83.

^{page 73 note 2} The remainder of the report of this day which follows, contains the speeches of individual MPs which are almost exclusive to Aston's diary.

^{page 77 note 1} John Harris (Beeralston). Keeler, , p. 204Google Scholar; MofP. Cf. ‘Mr. Harding’ (C.J., II, p. 14).Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 2} Sir Amias Meredith failed to gain a seat. Sec below, p. 204; C.J., II, p. 14Google Scholar; Reports and Transactions of the Devonshire Association (vol. XLI, 1909), p.158.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 3} Sir Nicholas Slanning (Plympton Earl). Keeler, , pp. 339–40Google Scholar; DNB.

^{page 77 note 4} See below, p. 203.

^{page 78 note 1} See below, pp.205–206; above, p. 103

^{page 78 note 2} Jones continues to report from the Committee of Privileges on the disputed election at Great Bedwin, Wiltshire. See C.J., II, pp.3, 14–15Google Scholar; and especially the committee report of 16 April (below).

^{page 78 note 3} See below, pp. 198–200

^{page 78 note 4} Richard Harding (Great Bedwin); Keeler, , pp.202–203Google Scholar. Charles Seymor (Great Bedwin); MofP; Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine (vol.VI, 1860), p.300Google Scholar. Cf. ‘Mr. Sayer’ (C.J., II, p. 15Google Scholar). See below, p.199.

^{page 78 note 5} For further information about this disputed election, see Hirst, , p. 78Google Scholar; Keeler, , p. 70, 202Google Scholar; VCH Wilts., V, p. 135.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 6} See Danvers's remarks in the committee meeting on 16 April (below).

^{page 78 note 7} Cf. ‘cordwell, 21 [votes]’ (below, pp. 199–200).

^{page 79 note 1} William Watkins sat for Monmouth Borough. MofP; Keeler, , pp.56, 381Google Scholar; Gruenfelder, , Influence, p. 188Google Scholar. It is possible that this entry refers to 2 ‘Jones' Double Return’ (see C.J., II, p.15).Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 2} The remainder of Aston's account of this day up to Pym's speech in the Painted Chamber is by far the most detailed.

^{page 79 note 3} I.e., the report of the committee authorised on 27 April to prepare another conference with Lords. The Commons were concerned with the Lord Keeper's speech of 25 April in which he urged, on behalf of the upper house, that supply should be made to the king before any redress of grievances. Many members of the Commons considered the Keeper's action a breach of the privilege of the lower house. See above, pp.81–84, 87–101; below, pp.109–114.

^{page 79 note 4} See below, p.83.

^{page 79 note 5} See above, pp.63–77, 101.

^{page 80 note 1} See above, p.83.

^{page 81 note 1} On 25 April.

^{page 81 note 2} P.108, between the **, is a rough copy of Pym's speech that has been crossed out in the manuscript. Pp.109–112 have been inserted into the diary.

^{page 83 note 1} See Glynne's remarks on 27 April (above, p.90)

^{page 84 note 1} P.113, between the set of **, is a rough copy of Pym's speech that has been crossed out in the manuscript.

^{page 84 note 2} I.e. Pym's speech.

^{page 84 note 3} I.e. Herbert's report of the Lord Keeper's speech of 25 April.

^{page 87 note 1} See below, p. 130.

^{page 87 note 2} Report of the committee preparing a conference with the Lords on the three heads of grievances. See above, pp.63–77.

^{page 87 note 3} Aston's account of the report concerning the second head is the fullest. See above, pp.69–73.

^{page 87 note 4} Other sources do not include any mention of the third head on 29 April. See above, pp.73–77.

^{page 87 note 5} Keeler, , p.270.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 1} ‘The Table having at the Communion time a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the Church, or in the Chancel, where Morning prayer and Evening prayer be appointed to be said’ (BCP, 1559, p.248).Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 1} There were a number of books written to defend the Laudian policy of moving the Communion table to the east end at the time of the administration of Communion. For example, Heylyn, Peter, A Coale from the Altar (London, 1637)Google Scholar and Antidotum Lincolniense (London, 1637)Google Scholar; Mede, Joseph, The Name Altar (London, 1637)Google Scholar; Pocklington, John, Altare Christianum (London, 1637)Google Scholar; Dow, Christopher, Innovations unjustly charged (London, 1637)Google Scholar. See Maltby, Judith, ‘“Contentiousnesse in a Feast of Charity”: The Altar Controversy in the Church of England 1547–1640’ (B.A. thesis, University of Illinois, 1979).Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 2} For a discussion of Bishop Wren's liturgical innovations in the diocese of Norwich, see Ketton-Cremer, R. W., Norfolk in the Civil War (London, 1969), pp.62–88.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 3} Laud, William, ‘Speech delivered in Star Chamber, 1637’, Works, (Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, VII vols.), V, p.57.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 4} See question 3. C.J., II, p.16.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 1} See above, p.15.

^{page 90 note 2} ‘… saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed; at which time the same shall be so placed in good sort within the chancel, as whereby the minister may be more conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministration, and the communicants also more conveniently and in more number communicate with the said minister, And after the Communion done, from time to time the same holy table to be placed where it stood before’ (‘The Royal Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, 1559’, Visitation Articles and Injunctions, ed. Walter Howard Frere (London, III vols.), III, p.28).Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 3} Richard Montague (1638–41) succeeded Mathew Wren (1635–38) as bishop of Norwich. See Ketton-Cremer, R. W., Norfolk in the Civil War (London, 1969), pp. 124–28.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 1} ‘The Table having at the Communion time a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel, where Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer be appointed to be said’ (BCP, 1559, p.248).Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 1} Possibly John Cosin, master of Peterhouse and vice-chancellor of Cambridge university (1639–40). The vice-chancellor of Cambridge usually took the chair and moderated the divinity acts. Costello, W. T., The Scholastic Curriculum at Early Seventeenth-Century Cambridge (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), pp. 15–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am grateful to Dr John Twigg for his help with this problem. See his ‘The University of Cambridge and the English Revolution, 1625–1688’ (Cambridge Ph.D. thesis, 1983), p.237.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 1} II Kings 23:5.

^{page 98 note 1} Cf. ‘Walter Oke’ in C.J. and Cope.

^{page 98 note 2} Sir Edward Bromfield was Lord Mayor of London at the time of the complaints described in Oke's petition (1637).

^{page 99 note 1} Maynard's report is absent from the C.J. and Aston's account is much fuller than the one in Cope (p. 184).

^{page 100 note 1} See above, p. 130.

^{page 102 note 1} Genesis 27:22.

^{page 104 note 1} Marginal note: ‘The Commission of loane’.

^{page 104 note 2} Roger Manwaring, bishop of St. David's (1636–53). He preached a series of sermons in 1627 in which he attacked those who resisted taxation levied by royal authority. DNB; Russell, 1621–1621), pp.375, 396, 404.

^{page 104 note 3} Marginal note: ‘Petition of right’.

^{page 104 note 4} Marginal note: ‘2d Commission of Excyse’. For further information on the Excise, see Russell, Conrad, ‘Parliament and the King's Finances’, The Origins of the English Divil War, ed. Russell, Conrad (London, 1973), pp.114–15.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 1} See above, p. 139

^{page 107 note 1} Presumably Mr. St. John.

^{page 109 note 1} Susanna Bastwick. Her husband, Dr John Bastwick, was released from prison by the Long Parliament. DMB. See C.J., II, p.17.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 2} For the text of the petition, see Cope, , p.287.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 3} Sir John Pakington was returned for both Aylesbury and Worcestershire. He chose to sit for the county in the Short Parliament. In the autumn elections, faced with opposition from ‘parliamentarians’, he was content to sit for Aylesbury. Keeler, , pp.35, 72, 292–93Google Scholar; DNB.

^{page 110 note 1} Probably the same as ‘An Act for Reformation of divers Abuses in Ecclesiastical Courts…’ The bill was committed. Aston's account gives details of the discussion of the bill. See above, pp.115–16.

^{page 110 note 2} Probably Sir Thomas Widdrington.

^{page 110 note 3} Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17.

^{page 111 note 1} Probably Sir Thomas Widdrington.

^{page 112 note 1} William Beale, D.D., master of St. John's College, Cambridge. DNB.

^{page 112 note 2} Beale's point was that the terms ‘priest’, ‘altars’, etc. were used by early Christians and are therefore more ‘primitive’ than ‘ministers’ and ‘pastors’.

^{page 112 note 3} I.e. the Book of Sports.

^{page 113 note 1} Sir Giles Mompesson. DNB; Roberts, Clayton, The Growth of Responsible Government in Stuart England (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 23–25, 29–30Google Scholar; Tite, Colin G. C., Impeachment and Parliamentary Judicature in Early Stuart England (London, 1974), pp.88–90, 92–110.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 1} The judges were Lord Chief Justice Bramston and Justice Jones (C.J., II, p.18).Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 1} This conference was called by the Lords in order to respond to Pym's complaint at the previous conference on 28 April, that the upper house had violated the Commons' privileges by urging supply before redress of grievances. See above, pp. 109–112. Aston's account of the Lord Keeper's speech does not vary significantly in substance from other accounts, but it is not verbatim. It seems likely that we have here Aston's own version made from notes taken in the Painted Chamber. It is certainly a report made by a member of the lower house, as the ‘House of Comons’ in the Brave Manuscripts (Cope, pp. 265–72) becomes ‘our house’ and ‘us’ in Aston's record.

^{page 116 note 2} See above, p. 109.

^{page 117 note 1} See above, pp. 63–65, 110–111.

^{page 117 note 2} See above, pp. 81–84.

^{page 118 note 1} See above, pp. 63–65, 111.

^{page 118 note 2} Aston gives more information about the next four bills than C.J. does.

^{page 119 note 1} See above, pp. 115–16.

^{page 120 note 1} For the text of Bishop's petition, see Cope, pp. 288–89. For discussion of the petition in committee, see below, p. 200.

^{page 120 note 2} Bramber borough.

^{page 120 note 3} Sir Edward Bishop was himself accused of bribery in the autumn elections. See Fletcher, , Sussex, pp. 244, 250–51Google Scholar; Gruenfelder, , ‘Short Parliament’, p. 206.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 4} The report of the Lord Keeper's speech on 1 May. See above, pp. 156–62

^{page 121 note 1} See above, pp. 63, 64–69.

^{page 122 note 1} There is no mention of religion in the other accounts of Pym's remarks in Cope, pp. 190, 207, even though the account in Cope, p. 190, is generally the fullest.

^{page 123 note 1} Perhaps II Kings 4:22–24.

^{page 123 note 2} William Noy, attorney general, 1631–34.

^{page 125 note 1} Certain features in the remarks of Suckling and Fiennes resemble comments attributed to Digby in Cope, , pp. 207, 223.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 2} Psalm 95:8.

^{page 125 note 3} See above, p.83

^{page 125 note 4} Judges 5:15–16.

^{page 128 note 1} From the king. See above, pp. 165–66

^{page 128 note 2} See above, pp. 144–48

^{page 129 note 1} See above, pp. 165–66, 172; C.J., II, p. 19Google Scholar (2 May).

^{page 131 note 1} Aston has two pages numbered 182.

^{page 131 note 2} I Samuel 25:23–24.

^{page 132 note 1} II Samuel 6:6–7; I Chronicles 13:9–10.

^{page 137 note 1} Marginal note: ‘vid. other end’.

^{page 138 note 1} Deuteronomy 27:17, cited in the service of commination against sinners: ‘Minister. Cursed is he that removeth away the mark of his neighbour's land. Answer. Amen’ (BCP, 1559, p. 317).Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 2} See above, pp. 144–48, 180.

^{page 139 note 1} See above, pp. 165–66, 180.

^{page 142 note 1} Hotham sat for Beverley in Yorkshire. Savile and Belasyse sat for the county.

^{page 143 note 1} Belasyse, Hotham and Sir Hugh Cholmley were imprisoned and then called before the council to account for their remarks concerning grievances. They were released a few days later. Upon returning to Yorkshire, they were involved in a petition presented in July 1640 of the Yorkshire gentry to the king concerning military charges. CSPD, 1640, pp. 130, 154–55, 166, 523–24Google Scholar; SirCholmley, Hugh, Memoirs (n.p., 1787), pp. 61–64Google Scholar; Gooder, A., The Parliamentary Representatives of the County of York 1258–1832 (Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series, vol. xcvi, 1938), II, pp. 46–47Google Scholar; Rushworth, , III, p. 1214.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 1} The king made this speech to the Lords on 24 April and it was reported the next day to the Commons in conference by the Lord Keeper. See above, pp. 81–84.

^{page 144 note 2} Reported to the Commons on 17 April (see above).

^{page 144 note 3} See above, pp. 34–37.

^{page 144 note 4} See above, pp. 81–84, 165–66, 180.

^{page 145 note 1} See above, p. 82.

^{page 145 note 2} See above, p. 180.

^{page 145 note 3} ‘His Majesty finding the Parliament thus averse to the matters of Supply, which rather gave incouragement to the Scotch Covenanters, than put his Majesty in hopes to be able by Parliamentary assistance to bring them to Obedience…’ (Nalson, , I, p. 342Google Scholar). See the debate of 4 May (above, pp. 180–95

^{page 145 note 4} See above, p. 7–9.

^{page 145 note 5} Tuesday was 5 May.

^{page 146 note 1} See above, p. 4. Marginal note: ‘mayors not to be returned’.

^{page 146 note 2} John Lynne was mayor of Exeter and sat for the city in 1628. MacCaffrey, Wallace, Exeter, 1540–1640 (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 257.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 3} Sir Henry Herbert (Bewdley). Keeler, , p. 211Google Scholar; DNB.

^{page 146 note 4} Sir Ralph Clare sat for Bewdley in the parliaments of the 1620s. DNB.

^{page 146 note 5} Cf. Keeler, , p.73Google Scholar; Williams, W. R., Parliamentary History of the County of Worcestershire (Hereford, 1897), pp. 164–66.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 6} For Sir John Danvers’ remarks concerning the Bedwin elections in the house, see above, p. 104 The disputed elections in Bedwin were reported to the Commons on 28 April.

^{page 146 note 7} Charles Seymor.

^{page 146 note 8} See Keeler, , p. 70.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 1} Resolved, upon the Question, That in the Opinion of this House, grounded upon the whole Report now made by Mr. Jones, Mr. Harding and Mr. Seymor are well elected, and well returned, and ought to serve in this House’ (28 April, (C.J., II, p. 15).Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 2} Possibly Sir Edward Bishop. See above, p. 165

^{page 147 note 3} See below, pp. 208–211

^{page 148 note 1} Arthur Ducke (Minehead). DNB; MofP.

^{page 148 note 2} Francis Windham (Minehead). MofP. Edmund Windham sat for Bridgwater. DNB; MofP.

^{page 148 note 3} Alexander Pophem (Bath). Pophem was returned for both Minchcad and Bath. DNB. MofP. ‘Mr. A. Popham chooses for Bath, and waves Mynheaf’ (16 April, C.J., II, p.3).Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 4} Farmery was chancellor of the diocese of Lincoln. He was later accused of blackmailing French and Dutch Protestant refugees who had settled in Axholme. See Holmes, Clive, Seventeenth Century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), p. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 1} Marginal note: ‘Mr. Stroud's election’.

^{page 149 note 2} See above, pp. 102–103

^{page 149 note 3} I.e. at a second election.

^{page 149 note 4} Cf. above, p. 102.

^{page 150 note 1} Sir Richard Strode and Richard Welcomb were not MPs.

^{page 150 note 2} See above, p. 102.

^{page 151 note 1} I.e. if the second poll (27 March) is valid, then Strode, polling only six votes on that occasion, has lost the seat.

^{page 152 note 1} See above, p. 103

^{page 152 note 2} Sussex. See above, p. 61.

^{page 153 note 1} Set above, p. 200. Sir Robert Tracy (Gloucestershire). MofP.

^{page 153 note 2} Nathaniel Stephens sat for the county of Gloucester in both the 1628 parliament and the Long Parliament. Keeler, pp. 47, 350–51. Stephens’ attempt to oust Sir Robert Tracy from his seat was unsuccessful. See CSPD, 1639–1640, pp. 580–83Google Scholar; Willcox, W. B., Gloucestershire: A Study in Local Government 1590–1640 (New Haven, 1940), pp. 35–36Google Scholar; Hirst, , p. 149.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 3} Sir Humphrey Tracy was sheriff and a relative to Sir Robert. Willcox, Gloucestershire, p. 35.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 4} Marginal note: ‘William Essex, David Essex’.

^{page 153 note 5} ‘… but [Tracy] adjourned the court, and continued the election to Winchcomb, a poor beggarly town, conveniently situated for his own, but inconvenient for the repair of Mr. Stephens' supporters’ (CSPD,1639–1640, p.581).Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 6} ‘This course Stephens protests against, and, as I hear, intends to remedy by complaint in Parliament’ (CSPD, 1639–1640, p. 581Google Scholar). Aston's account of the Gloucestershire election is based on the petition preferred by Stephens. Cf. the account by a supporter of Sir Robert Tracy's in a letter to Peter Heylyn. CSPD, 1639–1640, pp. 580–83.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 7} Marginal note: ‘objection By’. It appears that Fountain did indeed have time to take the seat vacated by Sir John Packington, when the latter chose to sit for Worcestershire. Cf. Keeler, , p. 179.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 1} It is unclear in the manuscript whether or not this evidence is given by Sir Thomas Widdrington, by another MP, or by more than one witness.

^{page 155 note 2} See above, p. 208. The evidence in the manuscript suggests that Fountain is answering the allegations made against Sir Humphrey Tracy.

^{page 156 note 1} See above, p.60.

^{page 157 note 1} Probably Wednesday, 29 April.

^{page 157 note 2} See above, p.194.

^{page 157 note 3} See the debates about ship money on 30 April and 4 May (above).