¹ Rubini, D., Court and Country 1688–1702 (1967), Chapter 6Google Scholar; Pocock, J.G.A., The Macchiavellian Moment (Princeton, 1975), pp. 427–32Google Scholar; Dickinson, H. T., Liberty and Property: Political Ideology in Eighteenth-Century Britain (1977), pp. 104–7, 109–10Google Scholar; The Political Works of James Harrington, ed.Pocock, J. G. A. (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 138–41Google Scholar; Ludlow, Edmund, A Voycefrom the Watch Tower Part Five: 1660–1662, ed. A. B. VVorden (Camden 4th ser., XXI, 1978), pp. 39–55Google Scholar, and works there cited.

² See the contributions of Pocock, Dickinson and Worden cited above, n. i, and also Lois G. Schwoerer, ‘The Literature of the Standing Army Controversy 1697–1699’, Huntington Library Quarterly, XXVIII (1964–1965)Google Scholar; idem, No Standing Armies! The Antiarmy Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England (Baltimore, 1974)Google Scholar, Chapter VIII.

³ Bodleian Library, MS. Eng. hist. b. 209, f. 93. I am preparing an edition of the Cocks diary.

⁴ Hertfordshire R.O., D/EP F136, f. 4.

⁵ Ibid., F76; The Private Diary of William, First Earl Cowper, ed. E. C. Hawtrcy (Roxburghe Club, Eton, 1833).

⁶ Herts. R. O., D/EP F25, 29–37, 43, 45, 68, 205; The Diary of Mary Countess Cowper 1714–1720 (1864).Google Scholar

⁷ Some motives for diary-writing in this period arc discussed briefly in The Diary of John Milward … September, 1666 to May, 1668, ed. Robbins, Caroline (Cambridge, 1938), p. xGoogle Scholar; The Diary of Samuel Pepys, ed. R. Latham and W. Matthews (11 vols., 1970–1983), I, pp. xxvi–xxxGoogle Scholar; Macfarlane, A., The Family Life of Ralph Josselin, a Seventeenth-Century Clergyman: An Essay in Historical Anthropology (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 3–8Google Scholar; The Diaries and Papers of Sir Edward Dering Second Baronet, 1644 to 1684, ed. M. F. Bond (House of Lords Record Office, Occasional Publication No. I, 1976), pp. 5–8Google Scholar; and The London Diaries of William Nicolson Bishop of Carlisle 1702–1718, ed. Jones, C. and Holmes, G. (Oxford, 1985), pp. 113–14.Google Scholar

⁸ See below pp. 369, 372.

⁹ For Cowper see the Dictionary of National Biography and John, Lord Campbell, The Lives of the Lord Chancellors … (8 vols., 1845–1869), IV, 257–429.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Herts. R.O., D/EP F36, Lady Cowper's commonplace-book (unpaginated). I am greatly indebted to Dr D. F. Lemmings for this reference.

¹¹ Evidence of Cowper's involvement in Exchequer cases can be found in Herts. R. O., D/EP F81/53, 56–7, 91. Again, I am indebted to Dr Lemmings for these references and for general information about Cowper's early legal career.

¹² A letter from Stamp to the House of Commons librarian, 4 July 1933, describing his acquisition, has been inserted into the bundle, without foliation.

¹³ Other notes on debates, not printed below, are at f. 63 (14–15 Feb. [1701]), ff. 106–7 ([c. 10 Dec. 1696]), and ff. 115–115v ([1696]).

¹⁴ The committee list is at f. 35; the letter from Jonathan Bruen to an unnamed recipient, 14 July 1698, at f. 4. For the Bruens, and their connexion with the Winning-tons, see Ormerod, G., The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester (3 vols., 1882), II, 323.Google Scholar

¹⁵ There is a batch of letters from Salwey Winnington to Robert Harley at British Library, Loan 29/160/10. See also n. 16 below.

¹⁶ B. L., Loan 29/187, f. 249, Winnington to Harley, 9 June [1694]. Winnington's wife and Harley's were sisters. The earlier parliamentary diarist Sir Edward Dering harboured a similar fascination with matters of procedure: The Parliamentary Diary of Sir Edward Dering 1670–1673, ed. Henning, B. D. (New Haven, 1940), pp. ix–x.Google Scholar

¹⁷ H.M.C., Portland MSS., IV, 30.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Nash, T. R., Collections for the History of Worcestershire (2 vols., 1781–1782), II, 368Google Scholar, cites a manuscript diary, now presumably lost.

¹⁹ Ibid. (the quotation is from the inscription on his funerary monument.) There are biographical notices of Sir Francis in the D.N.B. and The House of Commons 1660–1690, ed. B. D. Henning (3 vols., 1983), III, 745–8.Google Scholar

²⁰ In his latter years, however, Sir Francis attended Parliament irregularly: he was ordered into custody on 14 Mar. 1694 after failing to answer a call of the House (C[ommons] J[ournals], XI, 127.Google Scholar

²¹ Chronology is at a discount most markedly between f. 104 and f. 105v, where Wilmington begins (f. 104r) with notes on a debate in the committee on the state of the navy, 2 Feb. 1699, followed by a note, ‘Lds Amendmts ought to lye some time on the table’, probably referring to proceedings on the Lords' amendments to the Corn Exportation Bill, discussed the previous day (C.J., XII, 468Google Scholar); goes back, on the next page, to the debate on ‘guards and garrisons’ of 8 Jan. 1698 (ff. 104V–105V); and follows this in turn with, first, a note on Exchequer bills, probably from the debate on 12 Jan. 1698, and then with information on arrears of army pay, presented to the House on 13 Dec. 1697 and 6 Jan. 1698 and discussed in committee probably on the 11th (C.J., XII, 5–6, 31–2, 42Google Scholar). For an instance of a misspelling almost certainly based on a misreading, see p. 389, below.

²² For the political background to the 1697–8 session and in particular the army debates, see Horwitz, H.G., Parliament, Policy and Politics in the Reign of William III (Manchester, 1977), pp. 224–7, 229Google Scholar; Schwoerer, , Mo Standing Armies!, pp. 155–67.Google Scholar

²⁵ For the 1698 general election and the ensuing session, see Horwitz, , Parliament, Policy and Politics, pp. 237–40, 248–55, 257–8Google Scholar; Schwoerer, , No Standing Armies!, pp. 167–70.Google Scholar

²⁴ Johnston, J. A., ‘Parliament and the Navy 1688–1714’ (Sheffield University Ph.D. thesis, 1968), p. 71Google Scholar. The present writer has also made the point: Hayton, D., ‘The “Country” Interest and the Party System, 1689–c. 1720’, Parly and Management in Parliament 1660–1780, ed. Jones, C. (Leicester, 1984), pp. 59–60.Google Scholar

²⁵ Johnston, , ‘Parliament and the Navy’, pp. 430–1.Google Scholar

²⁶ Redwood, J. A., Reason, Ridicule and Religion: The Age of Enlightenment in England 1660–1750 (1976), pp. 16–27, 80–1, 190–6Google Scholar; Kenyon, J. P., Revolution Principles; The Politics of Party 1689–1720 (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 83–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bahlman, D. W. R., The Moral Revolution of 1688 (New Haven, 1957)Google Scholar; Craig, A. G., ‘The Movement for the Reformation of Manners 1688–1715’ (Edinburgh Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1980)Google Scholar. See also Curtis, T. C. and Speck, W. A., ‘The Societies for the Reformation of Manners: A Case Study in the Theory and Practice of Moral Reform’, Literature and History, No. 3 (1976)Google Scholar. The quotation is taken from Proposals for a National Reformation of Manners … (i 694), p. 30.Google Scholar

²⁷ C.J., XII, 132, 368Google Scholar; Craig, , ‘Movement for the Reformation of Manners’, pp. 138–40Google Scholar; Howitz, , Parliament, Policy and Politics, pp. 234, 256.Google Scholar

²⁸ Bahlman, , Moral Revolution, pp. 84–95Google Scholar; Every, G., The High Church Party 1688–1718 (1956), pp. 149–50Google Scholar; The Whole Works of Walter Moyle …, ed. A. Hammond (1727), pp. 240–3.Google Scholar

²⁹ H.M.C., Portland MSS., III, 602.Google Scholar

³⁰ Colley, Linda, In Defiance of Oligarchy: The Tory Party 1714–60 (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 109–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clark, J. C. D., English Society 1688–1832: Ideology, Social Structure and Political Practice during the Ancien Regime (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 303–5Google Scholar; Taylor, S., ‘Sir Robert Walpole, the Church of England and the Quakers Tithe Bill of 1736’, Historical Journal, XXVIII (1985).Google Scholar

³¹ Hanson, L., Government and the Press 1695–1763 (Oxford, 1936), pp. 8–9Google Scholar; Horwitz, , Parliament, Policy and Politics, p. 224Google Scholar. The text of the bill is given in H.M.C., Lords MSS., new ser., III, 211–6.

³² Preceded by a recapitulation of business under consideration and resolution agreed in committee of supply, 11 Jan. 1699, and resolution agreed in committee, 3 Feb. 1699; not reproduced below.

^{page 356 note 1} Dated from internal evidence, especially the speech of ‘Harley’: see below, n. 8; and Horwitz, , Parliament, Policy and Politics, p. 226Google Scholar. Winnington's notes cover only the beginning of this debate, which lasted in all more than five hours: see the account given in the despatch of the Dutch agent L'Hermitage, 10 Dec. 1697 (B.L., Add. MS. 17677 RR, ff. 528–9).

^{page 356 note 2} Paymaster-general.

^{page 356 note 3} These two lines, from ‘the Governors Company …’, may be part of Ranelagh's speech.

^{page 356 note 4} Lieutenant-colonel, Macclesfield's horse since 1694.

^{page 356 note 5} George Legge, 1st Baron Dartmouth, Admiral of the Fleet at the time of the Glorious Revolution. One of the arguments in favour of keeping up the army was that ‘the fleet & militia were noe security, the instance of the Prince of orangs landing that neithr fleet nor militia did oppose …’: Bodl. Lib., MS. Carte 130, f. 385, Robert Price to [the Duke of Beaufort], 11 Dec. 1697. See also below, p. 384.

^{page 356 note 6} Sir Philip Boteler.

^{page 356 note 7} The lines beginning ‘the Irish …’ may or may not be part of Smith's speech.

^{page 357 note 8} According to the M.P.James Sloane, ‘Mr Harlcy lirst opened the debate on that part relating to the army, and showed the danger and mischief of a standing army in time of peace; he proposed that the land forces raised since 29 September 1680 should be paid and disbanded, but put no time’: Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1697, pp. 505–6.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 9} Followed by miscellaneous notes on (1) a Truro election; (2) a procedural point regarding reports from committees of the whole House; and (3) further arguments against a standing army in peacetime [c. 1697–9].

^{page 357 note 10} Again dated from the internal evidence of the debate: see Horwitz, , Parliament, Policy and Politics, pp. 229, 244.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 11} The resolution, drafted on Harley's motion in committee on 10 Dec. and agreed on by the House the following day, that all land forces raised since 1680 be disbanded: C.J., XII, 5, 37.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 12} The recent history of Denmark provided a much contemplated cautionary tale of the perils of assertive monarchies: see below, p. 385. Possibly Harley was making a more specific reference here to Robert Molesworth's Account of Denmark (1694), a popular text in the contemporary literature on absolutism and liberty. Molesworth sat in this Parliament (for Camelford).

^{page 357 note 13} The journals for this day record that before the ‘guards and garrisons’ motion was made candles were ordered to be brought in: C.J., XII, 37.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 14} What Methuen was arguing was that ‘he did not think the former vote tied up the House from providing for the safety of the kingdom as they should judge necessary’. Whigs thus suspected him of being ‘in the secret’ of what they regarded as the opposition's ‘underhand management’, to ‘baffle’ ministers' projects and yet eventually to ingratiate themselves with the King, through the granting of an adequate supply. This is the interpretation in Northamptonshire R.O., Montagu (Boughton) MSS., 46, letter 177, James Vernon to the Duke of Shrewsbury, 8 Jan. 1697[–8].

^{page 358 note 15} John Granville was known as ‘Colonel Granville’ on the strength of his having briefly held a brevet for colonel in a guards regiment in 1689–90, though he had never actually attained the rank: Henning (ed.), House of Commons 1660–90, II, 434–5.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 16} Most probably an allusion to the attainder of Sir John Fenwick in 1696–7.

^{page 358 ntoe 17} Presumably Williams.

^{page 358 note 18} Colonel, 2nd Foot Guards since 1694; major-general since 1696.

^{page 358 note 19} The phrase ‘& no order’ is erased in the text.

^{page 358 note 20} On the morning of 8 January the exiled Queen Mary of Modena's vice-chamberlain, Robert Strickland, appeared before Secretary of Statejames Vernon, to explain his presence in London on his own private business. Vernon, considering him to be ‘no military man but a domestic servant that had a pass to go out of England at the revolution [and] … was not outlawed’, released him on £2,000 surety. Two days later, however, he was arrested on the King's order, subsequently to be deported. H.M.C., Stuart MSS., I, 130Google Scholar; Northants. R.O., Montague (Boughton) MSS., 46, letters 177–8, Vernon to Shrewsbury, 8, 11 Jan. 1697 [–8]; Luttrell, Narcissus, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs … (6 vols., Oxford, 1857), IV, 332.Google Scholar

^{page 359 note 21} A ludicrous abbreviation, probably of the title of one of the measures introduced in 1696 in the aftermath of the Assassination Plot, the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act (7 & 8 Gul. III. c. 11) or the Act of Security (7 & 8 Gul. III, c. 27), though it may have been a reference to the companion bill to that against Sir John Fenwick in 1696–7, attainting his co-conspirators, ‘such of the persons concerned in the late horrid conspiracy to assassinate His Majesty's Royal Person who are fled from justice (8 & 9 Gul. III, c. 5).

^{page 359 note 22} Lord Norreys: Yale University, Beinecke Library, Osborn Collection, Biscoe-Maunsell newsletters, 15 Jan. 1698.

^{page 359 note 23} Colonel of foot since 1694.

^{page 359 note 24} The (Court) Whig ‘club’, in reality an unofficial party caucus used by the Junto ministers to concert tactics in the House of Commons, which met at the Rose Tavern. There had been a gathering the previous night, at which ‘it was resolved to bring the question lor disbanding of the army into debate again’: H.M.C., Portland MSS., III, 595Google Scholar; Northants. R.O., Montagu (Boughton) MSS., 46, letter 177.

^{page 359 note 25} Probably Francois de Callières (1645–1717), the French diplomatist who had been one of Louis XIV's plenipotentiaries at Ryswick.

^{page 359 note 26} The story behind this exchange is given in the despatch of the Prussian envoy, Bonet, 11 Jan. 1698: ‘Quelques uns dirent qu'il avoit ici des entrepreneurs qui vouloient mener la chambre par le nes. Mons. Montaigu entendant cela, repliqua qu'on avoit lieu de croirc qu'il y avoit aussi des Entrepreneurs de la Cour de St Germain. Le Chevalier Musgravc Se leva la dessus et voulus le faire expliquer; plusieurs se joignirent au dit Chevalier, mais le Colonel Mordaunt raccommoda tous par Sa presence d'Espris, et par Ses manieres adroites a excuser le dis Mr Montaigu’ (B.L., Add. MS. 30000 B, f. 9). According to another source, what Montagu said was that ‘there were some that were for allowing the King no guards as well as no army’: Yale Univ., Beinecke Lib., Osborn Coll., Biscoe-Maunsell newsletters, 15 Jan. 1698.

^{page 360 note 27} Thomas Erie, colonel of foot since 1689; governor of Portsmouth since 1694; majorgeneral since 1696.

^{page 360 note 28} The Irish regiments in Louis XIV's army, originally formed from the ranks of the defeated Jacobite forces in Ireland in 1691. Under the military articles of the Treaty of Limerick these troops were permitted a free passage to enlist in the French service, and thousands had taken up the option. The import of Erie's speech was to explain ‘the defenceless condition they would be in without some troops to make a stand’: Northants. R.O., Montagu (Boughton) MSS., 46, Letter 177.

^{page 360 note 29} Followed by miscellaneous notes on army pay and arrears, and on the discounting of Exchequer bills, based on evidence presented to the House in December and probably discussed in committees in January. See above, p. 349.

^{page 361 note 1} Presumably a reference to the regnal year, of William as sole monarch.

^{page 362 note 2} Forty petitions, covering thirty constituencies: C.J., XII, 349–54.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 3} To adjourn consideration of the King's speech to the following Wednesday.

^{page 363 note 4} Besides Speaker Littleton, the Treasury Lords who were Members at this time were Charles Montagu (M.P. Westminster), Thomas Pelham and John Smith (M.P. Andover).

^{page 365 note 5} Lord Ranelagh.

^{page 366 note 6} Sic. Presumably Galway is meant.

^{page 366 note 7} Kinsale.

^{page 366 note 8} I.e. their lands.

^{page 367 note 9} Lord Coningsby.

^{page 368 note 10} Charles Montagu.

^{page 368 note 11} James Vernon.

^{page 368 note 12} Colt.

^{page 369 note 13} The Customs Commissioners who were Members at this time were Sir John Austen, Charles Godolphin, Robert Henley, Sir William St Quintin and Sir Walter Yonge.

^{page 369 note 14} More specifically, French Huguenots: Northants. R.O., Montagu (Boughton) MSS., 47, letter 123, James Vernon to Shrewsbury, 22 Dec. 1698.

^{page 374 note 15} Recte secretary. Lowndes, formerly clerk, had succeeded Henry Guy as secretary in 1695.

^{page 375 note 16} On the contrary, the Country Tory M.P. Sir William Cook claimed that ‘the youth of the House’ had publicly ridiculed the bill, ‘behaving themselves more like advocates of vice than morality’: East Suffolk R.O., M 142(1) (Gurdon MSS.), p. 27, Cook to Thornhagh Gurdon, 19 Jan. 1698[–9].

^{page 376 note 17} James II.

^{page 378 note 18} Cowper was a barrister with an extensive practice: see above, p. 347.

^{page 379 note 19} The next word, ‘almost’, has been erased.

^{page 379 note 20} Here the narrative breaks off.

^{page 379 note 1} See above, p. 370.

^{page 379 note 2} Sir John Leveson Gower.

^{page 379 note 3} The Disbanding Bill, as it reached the statute book (10 Gul. Ill, c. 1), required the disbanding of all troops on or before 26 Mar. 1699, except for a maximum of 7,000 to be stated by royal proclamation. This proclamation was, however, only to express ‘the particular number … of each regiment, troop or company’ involved.

^{page 379 note 4} The act when it passed provided for the disbanding of all but 12,000 troops of the army on the Irish establishment, but also included a subsidy for this purpose.

^{page 380 note 5} Anglo-Irish constitutional relations, and in particular the supposed enthusiasm of the Irish Parliament for ‘independency’, were much on the mind of English politicians and parliamentarians in 1699, as a result of controversies over the right of the English House of Lords to hear appeals from Ireland, English mercantilist legislation affecting the Irish woollen industry, and, most spectacularly, William Molyneux's statement of Irish grievances, The Case of Ireland … Stated, which the English House of Commons had condemned the previous summer: see James, F. G., Ireland in the Empire 1688–1770 (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), pp. 35–42Google Scholar; Simms, J.G., William Molyneux of Dublin (Blackrock, Co. Dublin, 1982)Google Scholar, Chapters VII–VIII.

^{page 380 note 6} The text indicates the beginning of Ranelagh's speech by a marginal note.

^{page 380 note 7} ‘Vernon’ in marginal note.

^{page 380 note 8} Sir Richard Onslow.

^{page 380 note 9} See above, pp. 371–2.

^{page 380 note 10} Text follows on immediately from preceding debate.

^{page 380 note 11} James Vernon (sole Secretary of State until May 1699).

^{page 381 note 12} See above, p. 371. According to L'Hermitage's despatch, 6 Jan. 1699 (B.L., Add. MS. 17677 TT, f. 61), Pelham ‘dit puisque la paix de Fure estoit faite, que la sante du roy d'Espagne estoit retablie, et que la succession estoit reglée, et qu'il y avoit apparance d'une longue paix, il n'estoit pas cette année de l'avis qu'l avoit la precedente, pour la conservation des troupes et qu'il croyoit qu'l ne faloit que 7000 hommes’. Bonet gives a similar account (B.L., Add. MS. 30000 C, f. 3, 6 Jan. 1699).

^{page 381 note 13} For what purports to be the full version of this speech, see the entry in Cocks's diary and memoranda book: Bodl. Lib., MS. Eng. hist. b. 209, f. 93v.

^{page 381 note 14} Probably George rather than James, who is usually referred to here by his office of Secretary.

^{page 381 note 15} Secretary at war.

^{page 382 note 16} The Disbanding Act of 1679 (31 Car. II, c. 1).

^{page 382 note 17} Insertion signified by marginal note.

^{page 382 note 18} Presumably in writing. Howe did not sit in the Commons before the Revolution, but had made his name as a lampoonist.

^{page 382 note 19} The context would suggest that Blathwayt is meant.

^{page 382 note 20} Landguard Fort, near Harwich.

^{page 383 note 21} Thomas Wriothesley, 5th Earl of Southampton, Lord Treasurer 1660–7.

^{page 383 note 22} Solicitor-General Sir John Hawles.

^{page 383 note 23} Sir Bartholomew Shower.

^{page 383 note 24} One must assume that this refers to Hawles himself and Shower.

^{page 384 note 25} Sir Richard Onslow, who spoke against the instruction: Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William HI from 1696 to 1708 …, ed. G. P. R. James (3 vols., 1841), II, 246.

^{page 384 note 26} This dating, which agrees with that of Horwitz (Parliament, Policy and Politics, p. 271Google Scholar), is based on the internal evidence of the debate, especially the speeches of Coningsby, Philipps and Blackett (cf. above, p. 376; Horwitz, , op. cit., p. 251Google Scholar), and the position of the notes in Winnington's text, which are preceded on f. 86v by notes of evidence given to the Commons on 11 Jan. 1699 and possibly considered by the committee of supply on that day, and followed on f. 132 by notes of evidence presented to the Commons on 10 and 11 Jan. and possibly considered by the committee on the state of the navy on the 28th (C.J., XII, 391, 393, 395–6, 465).Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 27} Lord Coningsby.

^{page 384 note 28} England's partners in the first Grand Alliance: Bavaria, Brandenburg, the Empire, Lorraine, Savoy, Spain and the States-General.

^{page 384 note 29} 1st Baron Dartmouth, Admiral of the Fleet in 1688–9. See above, p. 356.

^{page 384 note 30} According to L'Hermitage, Cutts opposed the bill on the grounds that ‘il falloit bien prendre garde, que par les voys qu on prenoit pour conserver la liberté, ce ne fut un moyen de la faire perdre, que le peuple Remain autrefois voyant les diferentes fonctions qui agitoient le senat, aima mieux se mettre sous la domination d'un seul, que d'estre perpetuellement exposes aux diferents partis de ceux qui disoient ne sanger qu'a la conservation de la liberte, et que cependant n'avoient en veue que leur interet particulier’: B.L., Add. MS. 17677 TT, f. 74, 20 Jan. 1699.

^{page 385 note 31} Tittle-tattle.

^{page 385 note 32} ‘Mr Harvey a lawyer’, i.e. Stephen Harvey of the Middle Temple: James, Letters Illustrative …, II, 253Google Scholar. For Harvey see Williams, W. R., The History of the Great Sessions in Wales … (Brecknock, 1899), pp. 112–13Google Scholar; Sachse, W. L., LordSomers: A Political Portrait (Manchester, 1975), p. 140.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 33} A sideswipe at Sir John Philipps, whose bill to suppress vice and profaneness had suffered a setback the previous day with the adjournment of the committee stage: see Horwitz, , Parliament, Policy and Politics, p. 256Google Scholar; above, p. 375.

^{page 385 note 34} A reference to the establishment of absolute monarchy in Denmark in 1660 through a declaration by the Estates there of the hereditary nature of the King's authority, the outcome partly of conflicts of interest between the nobility and the lower estates. See above, p. 357.

^{page 386 note 35} A full account of Pakington's speech is given in Correspondence of the Family of Hatton …, ed. E. M. Thompson (2 vols., Camden Soc., new ser., XXII–XXIII/1878), II, 238Google Scholar: ‘Sir John Packington made the House very merry by his speaking; for all who spoke against the bill brought arguments from the dangers [which] were to be apprehended from King James and the King of France. To whom Sir John Packington replyed: that, if His Majesty's title was precarious, some danger might be apprehended; but, His Majesty being declared to be the lawful and rightful King, he cou'd not apprehend any danger, and he did not know any person but the Bishoppe of Salisbury who had ever question'd his tittle, but the booke in wch he did it had been burnt by order of the House of Commons; but, for his part, he must declare he thought it below the dignity of the House only to burn the pamphlett, but, if they had voted the author to be hanged, he beleeved the whole nation would have been pleased at it.’ The work in question was Burnet's Pastoral Letter, burnt in 1693, which had endorsed the theory that William held the crown by right of conquest: see Horwitz, Parliament, Policy and Politics, p. 262; Goldie, M., ‘Charles Blount's Intention in Writing “King William and Queen Mary Conquerors” (1693)’, Notes and Queries, new ser., XXV, no. 6 (12 1978), pp. 529–32.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 36} The voluntary Association promoted by the Commons in February 1696 in the wake of the Assassination Plot, to defend the King's person against his enemies.

^{page 386 note 37} Louis XIV's invasion of the Palatinate in 1688, which had precipitated the Nine Years War.

^{page 386 note 38} Again, probably George rather than James: see above, n. 14.

^{page 387 note 39} A former career officer, colonel of foot until the Revolution: Henning (ed.), House of Commons 1660–90, II, 131. Three other witnesses report Cornwall as having spoken and voted against the bill: James Vernon (James, , Letters Illustrative …, II, 253Google Scholar); Edward Harley (B.L., Loan 29/189, f. 58, [Edward Harley] to [Sir Edward Harley], 21 Jan. 1698 [–9]); and Robert Harley (ibid., f 59, [Robert Harley] to [same], 21 Jan. 1698–9). He was blacklisted as having voted against: Horwitz, , Parliament, Policy and Politics, p. 344.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 40} Mainwaring and Houblon both spoke against the bill: Northants. R.O., Montagu (Boughton) MSS., 47, letter 134, James Vernon to Shrewsbury, 19 Jan. 1698[–9], printed, with some errors, in James, Letters Illustrative …, II, 253.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 41} Maurice Thompson, lieutenant-colonel, Coldstream Guards since 1697.

^{page 387 note 42} Dated from internal evidence. There is a brief account of the debate, concentrating on Sir Robert Rich's speech, in Cumbria R.O., Carlisle, D/Lons/W (Lonsdale MSS.), James Lowther to Sir John Lowther of Whitehaven, 4 Feb. 1698–9.

^{page 387 note 43} Sir Robert Rich had been a Lord of the Admiralty since 1691, Sir George Rooke since 1694; Henry Killigrew, like Rooke a serving admiral, had held the office in 1693. ‘Robinson’ has not been firmly identified, though he was obviously a naval commander (James, , Letters Illustrative …, II, 260Google Scholar), and three naval captains of that name held important commands in the 16905, Henry (d. 1701), Robert (d. 1718) and Thomas (d. 1703): Charnock, J., Biographia Navalis … (4 vols., 1794–1796), II, 120, 190–1, 287.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 44} Admiral Sir Ralph Delaval, Lord of the Admiralty 1693–4.

^{page 388 note 45} Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt., of Whitehaven, Lord of the Admiralty 1689–96.

^{page 388 note 46} Colonel Robert Austen, Lord of the Admiralty 1691–6, who with Rich and Houblon had signed the order for Henry Priestman (sec below, n. 59): Cumbria R. O., Carlisle, D/Lons/W, James Lowther to Sir John Lowther, 4 Feb. 1698–9.

^{page 388 note 47} Sir John Houblon had been a Lord of the Admiralty since 1694.

^{page 388 note 48} Goodwin Wharton, a Lord of the Admiralty since 1697.

^{page 388 note 49} The Privy Council.

^{page 388 note 50} Dated from internal evidence, especially Howe's proposal: see below, p. 393.

^{page 388 note 51} i.e. Sallee men, Barbary corsairs.

^{page 389 note 52} Impossible to date exactly, though the debate of 10 Mar. seems to fit best with Winnington's record: see the account by Robert Price in Bodl. Lib., MS. Carte 130, f. 401, Price to [Beaufort], 11 Mar. 1698 [–9], quoted below, n. 56. The fact that the ‘Centurion’ affair was discussed (see below, n. 56) almost certainly means that this debate took place after 9 Feb. 1699, when the captain of the Centurion was first examined by the committee (C.J., XII, 495Google Scholar). Harley's comment (below, p. 391), suggests that this was not the first time the business had been discussed, which would narrow the choice down to the sittings of the committee on 17 Feb. and to Mar. (The two subsequent sittings, on 13 and 15 Mar., seem to have been devoted to different topics: Cal. S.P. Dom., 1699–1700, pp. 98, 102Google Scholar; B.L., Add. MS. 34730, f. 250v, Sir Richard Cocks to John Mariett, 18 Mar. 1698–9.)

^{page 389 note 53} Not a reference to a speaker, since the Treasurer of the Navy at this time was Lord Orford, but probably the subject of the first sentence, which might have been intended to read ‘Treasurer of the Navy [made] no return what Tallys he had’. Before the committee met on the toth the Commissioners of the Navy had laid before the House the Treasurer's contingent account, that is to say ‘the account of what was imprested to my Lord Orford for contingency uses while he commanded the fleet in the Mediterranean’: C.J., XII, 559–61Google Scholar; Northants. R.O,, Montagu (Boughton) MSS., 47, letter 134, Vernon to Shrewsbury, 9 Mar. 1698[–9].

^{page 389 note 54} The Humber (a 3rd-rate). Presumably Winnington could not decipher the original note.

^{page 390 note 55} Cadiz.

^{page 390 note 56} Robert Price (Bodl. Lib., MS. Carte 130, f. 401, Price to [Beaufort], 11 Mar. 1698[–9]) explained that the debate on 10 Mar. centred on allegations that the Lords of the Admiralty had shown ‘partiality in ord[e]r[ing] one Captaine Price commander of the Centurion who was at Gales & was to have brought home 4 or 5 million of peeces of eight & thereby got 3 or 400 [?they] of the Admiralty ordered him to Cruise on the African Coast & this was to give Admirall Aylmer who Comanded at Gales an oportunity to get that money'. In James Vernon's version, the captain was ‘sent cruising with the merchants’ money on board, and not suffered to come home till he had agreed with Aylmer to give him two thirds of the profits of his voyage' (James, , Letters Illustrative …, II, 263Google Scholar). See also Cat. S. P. Dom., 1699–1700, p. 90Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 57} The Solicitor to the Admiralty, Edward Whitaker.

^{page 390 note 58} The Treasurer of the Navy.

^{page 390 note 59} The grievance complained of in Henry Pricstrnan's case (see above, pp. 351, 387–8, 389), was that in 1695 the Admiralty had ordered the payment to him ot an allowance of 10s. a day as commander of a squadron, backdated to his original appointment as commander in 1684: C.J., XII, 618.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 60} Part of the text may have been trimmed at the top of this page.

^{page 390 note 61} James Kendall had been a Lord of the Admiralty since 1696.

^{page 391 note 62} Sallee.

^{page 391 note 63} A licence duty paid to the King of Spain on goods imported into his kingdom.

^{page 392 note 1} The position of these notes in the document, immediately prior to notes on a debate in the committee on 3 Feb., strongly suggests that they were taken at the previous sitting on 11 Jan., and this is confirmed by the fact that some of the information discussed (see n.4 below) was actually laid before the House on the 11th: C.J., XII, 393–5.

^{page 392 note 2} Cowper's more idiosyncratic abbreviations have been extended only at their first appearance in the text. Where there is obscurity or ambiguity, no gloss has been attempted.

^{page 392 note 3} Notes from papers presented to the House on 7 Jan.: C.J., XII, 389.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 4} Notes from papers presented on n Jan.: C.J., XII, 393–4. According to James Vernon, this sitting of the committee began with a reading of the estimates, ‘for form's sake’: James, , Letters Illustrative …, II, 250.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 5} Presumably ‘training’ is meant: see the speech of Sir James Houblon, below.

^{page 394 note 6} According to Sir Richard Cocks, it was said against the marines that ‘they are sick and nauseous at sea that seamen cant abide them that throw their nastines they breed distempers in the ship that they do more harm then good’: Bodl. Lib., MS. Eng. hist. b. 209, f. 93.

^{page 394 note 7} Stringer, a serving major in a foot regiment, had been a captain in the ist Marine Regiment 1691–4.

^{page 394 note 8} Houblon.

^{page 394 note 9} The next sitting of the committee after Friday, 3 Feb., was on the 16th (C.J., XII, 524Google Scholar); the resolutions noted below (n. 11–12) were reported on the 18th, before the committee sat again.

^{page 394 note 10} Thomas Papillon, commissioner for victualling since 1690.

^{page 395 note 11} Resolution reported to the House on 18 Feb.: C.J., XII, 518.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 12} A resolution on this subject was also reported on the 18th: C.J., XII, 518.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 13} The words ‘Mr Moore: proposes’ are erased in the text.

^{page 396 note 14} Armand de Bourbon, Marquis de Miremont (1656–1732), had commanded a dragoon regiment of Huguenot refugees disbanded in Ireland in 1698: Lart, C. E., ‘The Huguenot Regiments’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, IX (1909–1911), 486–7Google Scholar; Shears, P.J., ‘Armand de Bourbon, Marquis de Miremont’Google Scholar, ibid., XX (1958–64), 405–18.

^{page 396 note 15} Dated from internal evidence: see L'Hermitage's report of the debate (B.L., Add. Ms. 17677 TT, f. 112, 3 Mar. 1699).

^{page 396 note 16} Ranelagh's estimate is noted by L'Hermitage (ibid.), but no details are recorded in the Journals.

^{page 396 note 17} There were four Companies of Invalids on the military establishment, drafted in 7692–4 from the pensioners of the Royal Hospital and employed in garrison duties: Dean, C.G.T., The Royal Hospital, Chelsea (1950), pp. 162–3.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 18} Presumably the Privy Council.

^{page 397 note 19} No indication is given as to who had proposed the smaller sum, Musgrave or Howe.

^{page 397 note 20} ‘Contrary party’? On the proposal the previous session to disband all forces raised since 1680, see above, p. 357.

^{page 397 note 21} In the settlement of the Civil List the previous session allowance had been made for the £50,000 a year King William was obliged to pay Queen Mary of Modena by the terms of the Treaty of Ryswick: Reitan, E. A., ‘From Revenue to Civil List, 1689–1702: The Revolution Settlement and the “Mixed and Balanced” Constitution’, Historical Journal, XIII (1970), 586.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 22} Cutts's own military experience did not go back before 1686, when he had served as a volunteer under the Duke of Lorraine against the Turks: D.N.B.

^{page 399 note 23} Cowper's italics.

^{page 399 note 24} A nought, originally placed after the figure ‘3’, has been erased; the actual resolution, however, reported on 4 Mar., set the figure at £300,000 (C.J., XII, 549).Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 25} As reported in the Journals (loc. cit.), the sum was for ‘guards and garrisons’.

^{page 399 note 26} Before the committee sat Ranelagh presented abstracts of arrears due to regiments on various stations, including Collingwood's in the West Indies. As printed in the Journals, these record only two other companies there, and the figure of £24,838 is nowhere to be found: C.J., XII, 550.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 27} French gains in Newfoundland during the Nine Years War had included St John's, the principal English settlement, taken in 1696. It had since been recaptured.

^{page 399 note 28} The French did not interpret the terms of the Treaty of Ryswick as applying to England's Indian allies in the Iroquois Confederacy, against whom (and in spite of English diplomatic efforts) they continued to wage war until forcing a general Indian peace in 1701.

^{page 400 note 29} The sum of £24,838 is erased in the text.

^{page 401 note 30} Not reported: see C.J., XII, 557.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 31} For Lord Bellomont's difficulties with the factional politics of New York, see Runcie, J. D., ‘The Problem of Anglo-American Politics in Bellomont's New York’, William and Alary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XXVI (1969), 191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 400 note 32} Probably a reference to Jesuit missionary activity among the Indian tribes on the Chaudière and in Maine.

^{page 401 note 33} The committee of ways and means began its deliberations on 7 Mar., and the first resolutions, reported on 9 Mar., concerned the land tax; the next sitting occurred on 4 Apr., and two days later resolutions were reported concerning the surplus (‘overplus’) of tunnage and poundage and of the duty on imported wrought silks, as reported here: C.J., XII, 554, 557, 632, 635–6.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 34} The Old and New East India Companies.