^{page 1 note a} The message requesting a conference had been sent down on the 14th on the motion of the Earl of Salisbury, L. J. ii. 550.

^{page 1 note b} Feb. 17.

^{page 1 note c} There are notes of this speech in the State Paper Office, James I. Dom. Hi. 70, and liii. 57. There is also a full copy at great length in the Harl. MS. 777; and another, very badly made, in the Harl. MS. 2,207. I have seen a third copy in the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh, 31, 7, 2. In these the figures do not always agree with those given in the text.

^{page 2 note a} “Pergavisus est immortaliter Henricus pro eo. …. Edovardus regis filius ut maturius ad res gerendas graviores experiens redderetur fit Wallise prinoeps, simulque Aquitanise ae Hyberniæ-præfectus.” —Pol. Verg. p. 311. Baa. 1555. By Matthew Paris, Edward is called “dominus Walliffæ,” Mat. Par. p. 1,253, Lond. 1571. Pauli describes Edward's new authority in the following terms: “Sein Vater liesz sich das alte irische Staatssiegel von Dublin zurücksenden, und gab den Befehl, fernerhin nur unter dem seines Sohnes zu verfügen. Eine ähnliche Investitur hatte auch in Wales Statt.”— Gescb. von England, iii. 705.

^{page 2 note b} MS. “first.”

^{page 4 note a} Aug. 14,1598.

^{page 5 note a} “Seven hundred and thirty thousand,” Harl. MS. 777. In a fragment of a full report of Lord Dorset's speech, delivered in 1606, which precedes the copy of Salisbury's speech in the Advocates' Library, the amount is stated as 735,2801. “whereof his owne debte is onlye 335,280 li.; and the other is the late Queene's 400,000 li.”

^{page 5 note b} i.e. Sir Cahir O'Dogharty's rebellion in 1608.

^{page 5 note c} Harl. MS. 777 says that the inequality had risen “to one hundred and fortie thousand pounds att Michel. A° 6°.” The difference is caused by one report taking account of the extraordinary expenses, which are neglected by the other.

^{page 5 note d} “Though for thextraordinarye there remayneth still lack of provision.” Harl. MS. 777.

^{page 5 note e} MS. 30,000.

^{page 6 note a} “Within 5,000 li. and that ready to be repaid as fast as it is called for.” Harl. MS. 777.

^{page 6 note b} MS. 20,000. “Well nere the sumrae of two hundred thousand pounds.” Harl. MS. 777.

^{page 6 note c} In MS. 4.

^{page 6 note d} In the Harl. report this figure is 19. In “The Statute8 of the Realm” there are only Acts confirming 18 subsidies of the clergy. Both calculations place to the credit of Elizabeth's reign the whole of the subsidies valid in 43 Elizabeth; although part of the money was not payable till after the accession of James.

^{page 6 note e} The other report has 3,519,5641. There are reasons for supposing this to be the more correct statement. In a paper in the State Paper Office (James I. Dom. zxxvii. 38) is an account of all the subsidies, tenths and fifteenths paid by the laity from the 13th Elizabeth to Michaelmas, 1608, Supposing that Salisbury included in his figures the whole of the grant of the 43rd Elizabeth, of which there can be little doubt, we find that the amount actually paid on account of grants in Elizabeth's reign after 13 Elizabeth was 2,537,6841. To this has to be added the three subsidies and five tenths and fifteenths granted before 13th Elizabeth. In that year the subsidy and its accompanying tenths and fifteenths produced 175,6901. Three times this amount is 527,0701. which is too much for our purpose by one tenth and fifteenth. Deducting then 30,0001. we arrive at 497,0701. as the probable sum not accounted for by the paper cited above. Adding this, we obtain a result of 3,034,7541. which already exceeds the amount given in the text and which takes no account of the subsidies of the clergy.

^{page 7 note a} The Harl. MS. more correctly gives 100,0001. as the average amount of the expenses of Ireland and the Low Countries together.

^{page 8 note a} This word, left blank in the MS., is supplied by C. J. i. 396.

^{page 8 note b} “It ia true that the King may impose upon forraigne commodities, yett not soe as to destroye commerce.” Harl. MS. 777.

^{page 8 note c} A list of laws fit to be repealed will be found in the State Paper Office, James I. Dom. lii. 72.

^{page 9 note a} C. J. i. 396.

^{page 9 note b} The names are placed here in the margin of the MS. On comparing these notes with the C. J., it appears that the earlier paragraph represents Hyde's speech. Hoskyns speech is not noticed there. Nicholas Hyde was member for Christchurch. He became Chief Justice of the King's Bench in 1627. His brother Henry was the father of Lord Clarendon.

^{page 9 note c} John Hoskyns, member for the city of Hereford.

^{page 10 note a} Reported Feb. 21, C. J. i. 398.

^{page 10 note b} MS. “plentifully.”

^{page 10 note c} Nicholas Fuller, member for the city of London. Many writers have erroneously supposed that he was imprisoned for life by Bancroft. There is an amusing account of his release in a letter in the State Paper Office. (Chamberlain to Carleton, Jan, 5th, 1608. Dom. xxxi. 2.)

^{page 11 note a} Thomas Wentworth, member for the city of Oxford.

^{page 12 note a} Member for the city of Westminster, and at this time Chancellor of the Exchequer; Master of the Bolls 1614

^{page 13 note a} Reported Feb. 27; C. J. i. 401. See also Harl. MS. 777, fol. 15 b.

^{page 14 note a} “Supplie was by way of subsidye.”—Harl. MS. 777, fol. 16a.

^{page 14 note b} Member for the city of London. He was at this time Recorder of the city. He afterwards became Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and subsequently held several important political posts. He died in 1642 as Earl of Manchester.

^{page 15 note a} Cap. 2.

^{page 15 note b} Harl. MS. 777, fol. 16 b. “The maxim that the King's graunts shalbee taken strictlye, and preeiselye accordinge to the letter, to be changed; and that they bee taken most beneficiallye, accordinge to the true intent, or as neere as may bee.”

^{page 16 note a} Harl. MS. fol. 17 a. “The King will utterlye take away informers, name and thinge, and deprive himselfe of his revenew upon popular accions, and soe deliver his subjects perpetuallye from the vexacious snare of penall lawes, not onelye lyinge upon them by way of forfeitures already incurred, but for ever heerafter, and give way to Parliament to devise some course (by judgment or otherwise) to keepe in use the discipline of necessarye statuts.”

^{page 16 note b} Harl. MS. fol. 16b. “The King's lessees not to be subject to forfeitures for nonpayment of rents, or other defect and imperfeccion in theire lease.”

^{page 16 note c} Harl. MS. fol. 17 a. “The subject upon the information of intrucion shalbee admitted to his generall plea of not guiltie; and not bee forced to pleade speciallye. Neither stand in feare of any injunccion toturhe him out of possession, when hoe hath continued a certaine time, &c. Which now rests meerelye in the discreuion of the judge.”

^{page 17 note a} I have ventured to transfer to this place, to which it undoubtedly belongs, this fragment, which in the MS. has been copied out by some mistake in the place of the last part of Northampton's speech of March 12.

In the Harl. MS. 777, fol. 21 a, a full report of this speech will be found. There is nothing of any great importance in the part which is missing in the text.

^{page 18 note a} At the bottom of the page, which in the MS. concludes with these words, is written, “He spake alsoe of the creation of the Prince, whome he called a child of the Muses, and a disciple of Mars.”

^{page 19 note a} Reported March 3 C. J. i. 405.

^{page 19 note b} The title “King” is here omitted.

^{page 19 note c} These blanks are left in the MS. When the note-taker came to copy out his notes, he probably found that there was no date affixed to those of this Conference, and, forgetting that it had succeeded immediately to that on Dr. Cowell's book, he supposed that it had taken place on another day.

^{page 21 note a} In MS. “2.” The two following figures are also wrongly written.

^{page 22 note a} Reported March 10. C. J. i. 408.

^{page 24 note a} MS. “thronara suam.”

^{page 25 note a} At this time Member for Ipswich.

^{page 25 note b} MS. “sesseris.” This looks as if the copy of the notes of this day's conference had been made from dictation, by a person who did not understand Latin. It may be remarked that the Latin quotations are full of blunders in the report of the proceedings of this day and of the 1st March. These reports are in a different hand from the rest of the MS. though there are a few corrections by the writer of the greater part of the book.

^{page 27 note a} Acceleration.

^{page 27 note b} The 12th, as appears from the Journals of both Houses. Reported March 14.

^{page 27 note c} A full report of this speech is to be found in Northampton's own handwriting in the Cott. MS. Titus, C. vi. fol. 458 a.

^{page 28 note a} The conclusion of this speech, for which a fragment of that of March 1 is substituted in the MS., is here given from the Cott. MS. before mentioned, fol. 460 b:

After his [i. e. the King's] arisinge of the chaire, all we supposinge that his speech was at an ende, it pleased him to make a pawse, addinge but a worde ore two, and as it wear a remnant to the rest that went befor; bat yet with such a spirite of integrity and earnestnesse as, with the philosopher, by that one droppe we that wear then at hand might easily apprehend the fixing of that element in fit proportion.

For, saies he, I looked to here some complainte of abuses in the ministers and officers of that courte, if any such had happened since our cominge to the crowne, leaste otherwise perhaps the worst disposed sorte might apprehende or publishewith a kinde of derogation, both from the subjects' love to me, and my indulgence and tenderuesse towards them, that such abuses wear the motives of the leave which I grant to treat of Tenures.

Upon this apte occasion, this seasonable offere by the King's most gratious enclination to yeald them satisfaction in so high a point, I craved leave to steppe a little furder in to the dewe consideration of certain motions that might invite and move them to good measure in this worthie worke in hand, which dutie on us the present state of thinge_s requires, and necessitie importunes.

^{page 28 note b} The sketch here given is taken from the Journals of the two Houses and from the Harl. MS. 777.

^{page 30 note a} Harl. MS. 777, fol. 31 a.

^{page 30 note b} The particulars of the demand made upon the King are to be found in the Lords' Journals, ii. 574.

^{page 30 note c} See Appendix A.

^{page 32 note a} Stat. 1. cap. 3.

^{page 32 note b} Cap. 8. This and the former statute restrain exportation.

^{page 32 note c} Cap. 13, by which the export by Englishmen in foreign bottoms was permitted.

^{page 32 note d} Member for Stockbridge.

^{page 32 note e} Called in the list in the Parliamentary History Sir W. Twissenden. He was member for Thetford.

^{page 33 note a} Member for Colchester.

^{page 34 note a} State Paper Office, James I. Dom. liv. 65. “The speach onely directed to the House of Commons, yet spoken in presence of the Lords, because, though they are two Houses, yet are they but one bodie, and what concerns one, concerns both. The burden is equal betwixt both Houses, though the partition be for form's sake. The introduction was a repetition of the beginning of the King's last speach, which he sayd was Euearistical, though in a sadd time. The time was now more joyfull, yet he must change his stile, and begin with a greevance, which was that in 14 weekes nothing was done in the principal errand for what the Parliament was called, and not half so many dayes spent in consideration of that business as weekes in others, so as that which was the principall errand is made but an accessorie, which he would confess came purely by accident, but much it by too much curiositie. The principal arrand of this dayes werke grew uppon occasion of our message touching the receaving of Messages, wherin he was very well satisfied of our answeare, and it might he a proofe that no curiositie moved this question, since there was such easie satisfaction.

“He would now againe forewarne us of the principal arrand, and foreseeing an incident which will breede longer delay, he chose to speake himself without messages.

“The ground; the message touching Impositions.

“In the King's last speach, it was not lawfull to dispute what a King may doe, but what a good King should doe.

“No intention that we should forbeare to complaine of the burden and inconvenience, acknowledging that we may complaine of any just greevance.

But we must not dispute the King's power of imposing in generall, which he hath both by judgment and law.

“Leave to the King what he may doe in his power, and talk of the inconveniencie.

“All King's elected and others have this priviledge, should now, as Bellarmine saith, ‘Solus res Angliae tenet,’ &c.

Two women before him had it, then why should wee move him the question.

“In Asserts wee would have a bill.

“Custome and lawes, and what is long in use, not to be called in question.

“None in his private estate would permit it.

“3 arguments against the King: president, act of Parliament, humane reason.

“1. An ill consequence, because Kings in particular cases may doe a thing to barr the King's power in generall. Instance, Stephen Proctor.

“The King gives leave in particular cases by way of bargaine, or information of truthe, to deale with use, so wee touch not his power.

“2. No act of Parliament that denudes the King of the power of imposing Penall Statutes.

“3. If a man will advise himself, he will putt a crosse [on] his mouth. Diverse similies to this end: because a King may be ill, therefore he should have no power. This were to make a King a Duke of Venice. No rule for an ill King but preces et lachrimæ.

“Priveleges of the Lower House may be abused; therefore shall I take away all privilege? Do herein as you would be done unto.

“If we find any one or two Impositions greevous, wee must offer somewhat for it.

“Because he may err in the forme of laying Impositions upon misinformation, he would never do it but in Parliament. He would heare what both Houses could say.

“If you find better meanes to supply my State, &c. he will not proceed to Impositions.

“Some thing he may doe out of Parlament, which he would rather doe in Parlament, not to binde power, but to respect conveniency.

“This should move Parlament men to carrie themselves in that sorte that he may have often use of Parlament, where he would think himself happie to have advise, as in making warr, &c.; which he might doe of himself, yet those which doe beare parte of the burden should be acquainted with the counsell, &c.”

^{page 36 note a} In Committee. The debate in the morning, in the House, will be found in C. J. i. 430.

^{page 37 note a} Member for Norfolk, and half-brother of Francis Bacon.

^{page 37 note b} Member for Shrewsbury.

^{page 37 note c} Member for Ghrildford.

^{page 37 note d} James Whitelock, afterwards one of the Justices of the King's Bench. He had been elected for Woodstock in 1609, having never before been a, member of the House. The speech of his here quoted had been delivered in the morning debate of the same day. See his own account of his proceedings in this matter in his Liber Famelicus, (Camden Society, 1858.) p. 24.

^{page 37 note e} Formerly printed as 17 Edw. II. Now placed among the statutes of uncertain date (Slat, of the Realm, i. 226). In it several matters connected with Wardship and Tenures are treated of.

^{page 37 note f} Stat. 5, cap. 2.

^{page 40 note a} The petition, of which this is an abridged form, is printed in the C. J. i. 431.

^{page 41 note a} Report of delivery of the petition made, May 25. C. J. i. 432.

^{page 41 note b} There is another report of this answer in the State Paper Office, James I. Dom. liv. 73.

^{page 43 note a} By the side of the page which begins here is written “Memorandum S' Wm. Bolstrod's speeche of the Corte Recusants that heard sermons in the King's chappell. If any man winse, I would the King would give me leave to spurre hym.” Sir William Bulstrode was Member for Rutlandshire.

^{page 43 note b} Cap. 2.

^{page 46 note a} This is the date given in the C. J. i. 434, and Harl. MS. 777, fol. 44 a.

^{page 46 note b} “Ten“in the other reports. Three of them were included in the proposal for abolishing wardship and tenures.

^{page 46 note c} Sir John Savile, member for Yorkshire.

^{page 47 note a} John Tey, member for Arundel.

^{page 47 note b} This is unintelligible as it stands. In 11 Hen. VI. the King's annual expenditure exceeded his receipts by 35,0001. In 28 Hen. VI. when the Act of Resumption was passed, the excess was 19.0001. and the debt was 372,0001. (Rolls of Parl. iv. 432, and v. 183.)

^{page 47 note c} “Purvayance” in MS.

^{page 49 note a} This must have been quoted from memory, as the words do not occur in this form in the patent itself. (Rymer, xvi. 688.)

^{page 50 note a} The Lords of the Council. The Upper House did not take the oath till the 7th.

^{page 50 note b} Sir Herbert Croft, Member for Herefordshire.

^{page 50 note c} C. J. i. 436.

^{page 51 note a} Member for Northamptonshire. He was the eldest brother of Sir Henry, the Recorder of London, and was created in 1621 Lord Montague of Boughton,

^{page 52 note a} Reported Wednesday, June 13., C. J. i. 437.

^{page 52 note b} MS., “give them satisfy them.”

^{page 55 note a} Member for Yarmouth.

^{page 55 note b} Member for Beer Alston.

^{page 55 note c} Sir Thomas Beaumont, Member for Leicestershire.

^{page 55 note d} Member for Somersetshire.

^{page 55 note e} Not mentioned in the list. Probably returned for a vacancy since the meeting of Parliament.

^{page 55 note f} Sir William Cope, Member for Banbury.

^{page 55 note g} Henry Martin, Member for Wotton Basset.

^{page 55 note h} Member for Newport, Isle of Wight.

^{page 55 note i} Member for the city of London.

^{page 55 note j} Sir George Carew, Member for Hastings.

^{page 56 note a} Sir William Strode, Member for Plympto.

^{page 57 note a} Henry Yelverton, member for Northampton, Justice of the Common Pleas 1625.

^{page 57 note b} Sir John Savile, member for Yorkshire.

^{page 57 note c} Member for Huntingdonshire.

^{page 58 note a} This ia a mistake. Saturday was not the 15th, nor was it the day after that on which the preceding debate took place.

^{page 59 note a} These words are illegible. The question was whether a patent from the King could preserve the lands of a man under outlawry.

^{page 59 note b} To this there is a marginal note, “13 H. 4, num. 18, in turr?”

^{page 59 note c} The Act 1 Bic. III. cap. 2, forbids raising benevolences, and only by implication lays down the principle which Fuller deduced from it.

^{page 60 note a} 11 E. III. cap. 1.

^{page 60 note b} “Rolls of Parl. ii. 104.

^{page 60 note c} Rolls of Parl. ii. 229, 271, 287, 308.

^{page 60 note d} Rolls of Parl. ii. 166.

^{page 60 note e} This is not quite correct; the grant 46 E. 3, was made for one year by the citizens and burgesses only. It was renewed by the whole Parliament for two years 47 E. 3. (Rolls of Parl. ii. 310, 317.)

^{page 61 note a} That Magna Charta be kept.

^{page 61 note b} Dudley Carleton, member for St. Mawes; created in 1628 Viscount Dorchester.

^{page 61 note c} There is a marginal reference to “Mr. Kast[all] merchandise 33, 35, 37.”

^{page 61 note d} 7 Hen. VII. cap. 7.

^{page 61 note e} Marginal note, “Vide Rast. wynes, fol. 535, b. 16.”

^{page 61 note f} This must be Sir Henry.

^{page 63 note a} Marginal note, “Pro bono publico.”

^{page 63 note b} Rolls of Parl. ii. 168 contain a petition in which there is mention of “une novelle custume” as a matter of complaint, but they do not mention any grant in this year.

^{page 64 note a} Cap. 6.

^{page 64 note b} William Jones, member for Beaumaris.

^{page 64 note c} Stat. 2, cap. 2.

^{page 64 note d} Probably this should be 36 Edward III. cap. 22.

^{page 65 note a} i.e. by the merchants. Complained of in Parliament 8 Edw. III., and repealed in that year. (Hale on the Customs, in Hargrave's Tracts, i. 163.)

^{page 65 note b} This and the following petitions are not noticed in the printed Rolls of Parliament.

^{page 65 note c} Cap. 17.

^{page 65 note d} Cap. 4 ordains that persons born in England becoming subjects of foreign princes shall pay as aliens.

^{page 65 note e} Hargrave's Tracts, i. 146.

^{page 65 note f} Rolls of Parliament, ii. 166.

^{page 66 note a} Rolls of Parliament, iii. 323, 324, 328.

^{page 67 note a} Query, “imposition.”

^{page 68 note a} Not mentioned in the Rolls of Parl. but referred to iii. 146.

^{page 68 note b} Rolls of Parl. iii. 648, and iv. 6.

^{page 69 note a} Marginal note, “All by statutes.”

^{page 69 note b} Here the speech ends in all copies hitherto known. Was the remainder suppressed by Bacon intentionally? He may have been unwilling to repeat that part of his argument which relates to the statutes after Hakewill's masterly refutation.

^{page 69 note c} Conflrmatio Chartarum.

^{page 70 note a} Stat. 3.

^{page 70 note b} Stat. 2; but see also Stat. 1, cap. 21.

^{page 70 note c} Stat. 1, cap. 1.

^{page 70 note d} Stat. 3, cap. 2.

^{page 70 note e} Probably 2 Rich. II. stat. 1, cap. 1, which supports Bacon's argument.

^{page 70 note a} Perhaps 1 Hen. IV. cap. 17.

^{page 71 note a} The following words are here erased: “But the matter was judged for the Queen.”

^{page 72 note a} This was one of Bacon's common-places.

^{page 72 note b} MS. “wee.”

^{page 72 note c} i. e. If he has it not. We should perhaps read, “But, if not, wee may loose, &e.” The note-taker evidently misapprehended the drift of the sentence.

^{page 72 note d} Thomas Hedley, member for Huntingdon.

^{page 75 note a} Marginal note, “a fortiore.”

^{page 75 note b} “Affeerours,—those that be appointed in court leetes, &c, upon oath to mulct such as have committed faults arbitrable punishable, and have no express penalty set down by statute.” Cowell, Interpreter.

^{page 75 note c} Qu. Cyall, &c.? see p. 71.

^{page 76 note a} Cap. 7.

^{page 76 note b} In cap. 1 of 14 Edw. III. 3, stat. 2.

^{page 76 note c} Perhaps cap. 5.

^{page 76 note d} Perhaps 11 Hen. IV. cap. 6, and 13 Hen. IV. cap. 4.

^{page 77 note a} Left blank in MS.

^{page 77 note b} Sir Robert Hitcham, member for Lynn.

^{page 79 note a} William Hakewill, member for St. Michael's. The speech is printed in full in the State Trials, ii. 407.

^{page 80 note a} Marginal note, “Antiqua.”

^{page 80 note b} The Statute of the Exchequer is now printed among the statutes of uncertain date; and is supposed to hare been made in the reign of Edward I.

^{page 80 note c} Marginal note, “Contr. per Gtlanville.”

^{page 82 note a} Query, “extends to all custome.” See State Trials, ii. 463.

^{page 82 note b} Stat. 1, cap. 21.

^{page 82 note c} Cap. 26. The printed report (State Trials, ii. 432) quotes 36 E. 3, which is an error.

^{page 82 note d} Query, “prowling.”

^{page 83 note a} At Southwark, Domesday, fol. 32 a. Can sultlace be miswritten for Sudwercke?

^{page 84 note a} “4” in MS.

^{page 85 note a} “peace” in MS.

^{page 85 note b} Yelverton's name has hitherto been affixed to a speech of a very different character, which was actually delivered by Whitelocke. The following notice of this debate may be found interesting. It is contained in a letter from Dudley Carleton to Sir Thomas Edmondes (The Court and Times of James I. i. 121): “The day being appointed for debate of this matter, and much straining of courtesy who should begin, the entrance into the business was made at last by Mr. Fuller, who speaks, as you know, always honestly, but that time very sufficiently. He was answered by the Recorder. There followed, several days after, on the one side, Hakewell, Crew, Whitelocke, and Brock, with some others of less note. On the other side, the Solicitor, the Attorney, and Sergeant Dodderidge, with Henry Yelverton, whom I must name amongst others of that side, but with this difference, that as all those who I have named did so well that it is hard to say who did best, so without question, both of these, and all others that spake, this Henry the hardy did absolutely the worst, and for tyrannical positions, that he was bold to bluster out, was so well canvassed by all that followed him, that he hath scarce shewed his head ever since.” The well-known story of Yelverton's restoration to favour, after his disgrace on account of his speeches in the session of 1607, will be found in Archaeol. xv. 27, and may perhaps have some connection with the tone of this speech.

^{page 86 note a} Marginal note “Burgundy and Venice.”

^{page 86 note b} There is a space left, as if the copyer intended to fill it in afterwards. Perhaps the notes were here illegible. I suppose the 4th case was “In tyme of war.”

^{page 87 note a} Fitzherbert. La Grraunde Abridgement, Coron. 125, quotes 20 Edw. Ill, Citizens of London were to be excused from trial by battle.

^{page 87 note b} Marginal note, “Left a quere.”

^{page 87 note c} i.e. the title “Protection” in Fitzherbert's “Abridgement.”

^{page 88 note a} This is the case of the port of Yarmouth. See Hargrave's Tracts, i. 61, and State Trials, ii. 515.

^{page 88 note b} Marginal note, “Coyne.”

^{page 88 note c} At the top of the page, which in the MS. begins here, is written “Eodem die post meridiem.” This must include the first paragraph of Martin's speech written on the preceding page, and perhaps inserted afterwards.

^{page 89 note a} Sir Henry Hobart, member for Norwich, Chief Justice Common Pleas 1613.

^{page 91 note a} Indistinctly written in the MS. but apparently “we.”

^{page 91 note b} Marginal note “It stood of itself till 27 E. 3.”

^{page 92 note a} Left blank in MS.

^{page 93 note a} The sentence breaks off thus in the MS.

^{page 93 note b} Marginal note, “Rex tempore decipitur.” Probably added by the note..taker himself.

^{page 93 note c} Thomas Crew, member for Lichfield.

^{page 94 note a} Marginal note “Hull,” the name of one of the judges in the reign of Henry IV.

^{page 94 note b} Perhaps “no toll.”

^{page 94 note c} Stat. 1, cap. 1.

^{page 95 note a} This is hardly a fair statement. See Hale in Hargrave's Collection of Tracts, 166, and Rolla of Parliament, ii. 168.

^{page 95 note b} Left blank in MS.

^{page 95 note c} MS. “upon on clothe.”

^{page 95 note d} MS. “disburned.”

^{page 97 note a} “E. 3” in MS.

^{page 98 note a} Sir John Doderidge, Member for Horsham. Just. K.B. 1612.

^{page 99 note a} Marginal note “32 E. 1. That extends to strangers.”

^{page 101 note a} Marginal note, “et cap. 2; vide 14 E. 3, stat. 1, cap. 25; some ayd of wools, 15 K. 3, [St. 3.] Cap. [5], paying the eustomes of old tyme used.”

^{page 102 note a} Marginal note, “12 R. 2, cap. 10; 14 H. 6, cap. 5.”

^{page 102 note b} Marginal note, “12,000 li. per ann.” apparently inserted as a correction of the statement in the text.

^{page 102 note c} Marginal note, “Sol. All the gayne was spent in soldiers' wages, walls, sluces, tankes, and towne repayres, officers mayntayned.

^{page 103 note a} This speech is printed in the State Trials, ii. 477, as Yelverton's.

^{page 104 note a} Rot. Parl. ii. 166. The other reference is probably erroneous; it is not in the printed speech.

^{page 104 note b} “Payd” in MS.

^{page 104 note c} Properly, 25 E. 3. St. Tr. ii. 485. See Rolls of Parl. ii. 239.

^{page 104 note d} Apparently a mistake for “the like never.” In the printed report (p. 486) this argument is rejected in favour of an interpretation of “peregrinis impositionibus,” as meaning “impositions upon traffick into and out of forrain countries.” Did this unlucky idea strike Whitelocke as he was revising his speech?

^{page 105 note a} This is unintelligible as it stands. The judgment was that the King might have two tons out of every ship bringing twenty tons. The old custom only allowed one ton unless the ship brought at least thirty tons. Rolls of Parl. iii. 477.

^{page 105 note b} Stat. 1, cap. 21.

^{page 106 note a} Perhaps the Magna Charta of 9 Henry III.

^{page 106 note b} Confirm. Cart. cap. 6.

^{page 106 note c} St. Tr. ii. 496, has 40s.

^{page 107 note a} i.e. the three commodities on which customs were set by Parliament.

^{page 107 note b} Stat. 1.

^{page 107 note c} Stat. 2.

^{page 107 note d} 14 E. 3, stat. 2, cap. 2.

^{page 107 note e} Cap. 8.

^{page 108 note a} St. Tr. ii. 504, “In the twelfth yeere.”

^{page 108 note b} Number 11. Rolls of Parl. ii. 166.

^{page 108 note c} “Numb. 163.” Rolls of Parl. ii. 351.

^{page 108 note d} Cap. 2.

^{page 109 note a} Member for Westminster. He would hardly have made this motion unless he had previously obtained the consent of the King.

^{page 109 note b} There is a full report of this speech of Carleton's in the State Paper Office, James I. Dotn. lv. 55. No name is there assigned to it. It is as follows:—

“This last speach (by Mr. Hyde) hathe almost broken the atonement which was made betwixt us before dynner, and engaged us againe in a new conflict, which makes me stand up, because I was one of the loose shott that drew on the skirmish which hath bin entertayned with great strength on both sides for many daies together, and if I coulde as well healpe to take up the quarrell, I should think my labour well imployed. But our quarrel is not mortall, for it is not for Socrates or for Plato, but amica veritas is themistris wee all make love to, and there is no art, no invention, no study, no endeavour omitted to imbrace this truth. But veritas is said to be in alto, not as Democritus would have it, in a well. But where a gentleman (Mr. Tate) here said he had his footing in the clouds, or in the sea, and more properly here, in the sea, for there it is where we fish for Mr. Solicitor's Peterpenny: so as the land is quite freed from this question, every man concluding that, in this kinde, prerogative hath there no power. In like sorte is this question freed from all other discourse, save only the lawes of the land. It is not reason of state that must rule it. If it do, you must know that this reason of state is not such a monster as a gentleman (Mr. Yelverton) here made it. Reason of state is preservation of the state, and not the ruyne of the state; and it may be this was the reason why he that made this discourse would free his profession from causing a judgment of this kinde, which if it should continue will, in all men's judgments, bring the state to ruyne. But to bring him within his owne compasse, I would have him know that wee are so farr from making this matter of imposicions reason of state, that even in the 3d. which is imposed upon the stranger merchant above our owne, when we are questioned about it by strangers, we have no other answer but this, ‘Nolumus leges Anglise mutare.’ It is therefore in the law of the land where we must seek the truth of thia matter, and for this purpose wee have searched the records, sought presidents, examined judgments; the Common Lawe hath bin layd open unto us by divers very learned in the lawes; and statutes here openly read and diversly interpreted. Now, as all truth is said to be contayned in two monosillables, est and non; if in this variety of opinion you should come to the question of J or No, I must be silent, and so (I am sure) must be more besides myself, if they will rightly understand the state of the question not to be of bonum and malum, but of verum and falsum, and not speak as in their wishes and desires, but as in their judgments and understandings touching the point in law they are satisfied. I would therefore wave this question touching the right, which is but an appendix upon the other touching the greevance, and would make this the question at the present how to frame our petition to the King touching the case of this greevance, how to be safely and speedyly cured of this disease, in which we have told the King how much we languishe; wherein being no good physitian, I must do as is said of empirikes, with whome though morbi notitia be extra artem, yet medicina is intra usum, though the knowledg of the disease be without the compasse of their skill, yet is the cure within their practise, and what hath bin the practise of former times in this self same case we find in our records and presidents with a probatum est upon every one: for never were there complaints of our ancestors presented to any kings His Majesty's predecessors but they were eased of their greevanees. Now. the worst word that is given in all those petitions (as was well noted by a grave gentleman, Mr. Atturnie) touching theise new imposicions, is that they are called maltolts, which is not alwaies taken in the worser parte; for this name is current in Normandy from whence we fetcht this language, there are officers for this purpose, which beare the name of maltoultiers, and this I collect further out of one of their lawyers, who, because this name hath an ill sound, would cleere the King of it by a distinction, saying that maltolts are choses mal tollues, not mal taxées, which are things wrongfully taken by the officers, not ill taxed by the King. I account this distinction more subtile then significant, yet I alleage it to shew that when subjeots doe speak of the actions of a prince, how religious they are in preserving their honors. And now I speak of forraine affaires, I will make bold to expresse a conceite which present debate touching the lawes of this land hath suggested unto me. I have very much marvaled how it comes to passe that in Spaine, where all the actions of the prince, great and small, are bounded and lymitted by expresse statutes to ty prerogative, and sett the subject at liberty. In France, on the contrary, the King's edict verefied by sedentary court of Parlament, hath the force of a law, so as there prerogative hath no limitts, and the subject hath little liberty; yet, notwithstanding, betweene these extremes of the strictnes of the one, and the licence of the other, the subject in both places is equally grieved, for in Spaine there is not only taking at sea, but they have puertos seccos, in which at every passage betwene province and province there are exactions. In France they have a pancarte at every gate, where there is a custome taken of every particular that comes to markett. Betwixt both these the protection of our lawes and the wisdome of them hath hitherto mainteyned us in a farr better estate; and I do liken lawes in case to one, whereof if the meache be made to small they will break, if to great they will hold nothing. And in our lawes, though prerogative be not so hembed in, but that it may break out upon extraordinary occasions, as tempore guerræ, as our lawyers say, and such like: yet is it so entangled as it can not goe at pleasure; and we may observe in whole course of petitions and statutes touching new impositions, that they do not murmure or grumble, as one (Mr. Yelverton) sayd here in scorne (as it semed) of his owne profession, but they do in a mannerly stile tell the King how farr he may stretch his prerogative, and the subject clayme his liberty. I would therefore sett them downe patterne to our proceedings, which may well warrant our courses, and assure us of the like successe they formerly had. Yet might we be frighted from this course by somewhat here lately spoken, taking advantage of those peticions to our prejudice; ‘the Comons pray,’ therefore they complaine only of the excesse. I answere these arguments with a non sequitur, and there is no reason an ill argument should putt us out of a good course. But it may be said, wee must doe more then our predecessors, because there is more done in our prejudice by meanes of the judgment in the Exchequer, then was done against them. This I cannot deny, and therefore I would do thus much more. To seeke to reverse this judgment, we have promised we would not, but J would desire that it might not be drawen in consequence to other things, and that should not be heald as a determination of the right, which will bring us without further question into the same state we were before the judgment. But, happily, some will say, if we stay there and omitt the question of the right, what then have we gained by all this dispute? I will shew you what wee have gayned, or rather regayned, a liberty of disputing here de quovis subjecto without controlment; and if we will look back to former tymes for which we need not search records, we may then think what we have gayned; and as prerogative is summi fastigii vocabulum, which we have had free liberty to consider and examine, so is it now a high point of discretion how to use this liberty. Secondly, we have gayned this much, that we may now boldly make this matter a greevance, which we could not have done so long as that judgment in the Exchequer stoode for lawe. Lastly, we have now an opportunity to wyn the King's favour in a matter wherein we are partly engaged by promise. In our petition presented to the King concerning this matter, we say, that if he would give us liberty to treate of it, we would do it with that order and moderation, as should give His Majesty contentment. The King hereupon gave us free liberty. We have hitherto proceeded in good order: it now rests that wee should use our moderation, which if we doe the King would surely be well contented, and we in all likelyhood have ease of our grievances.”

^{page 113 note a} Marginal note, “P. Martyr.”

^{page 114 note a} This is written in the MS. as if it were the name of a new speaker. It is plain, however, from an observation of Sir E. Sandys, on the 18th July (C. J. i. 451), that this was not the case. Perhaps Owen said, “in time of war with Brittany.”

^{page 114 note b} In 1355.

^{page 114 note c} Is this intended for Monstrelet?

^{page 116 note a} Richard Gore, merchant, member for the City of London.

^{page 116 note b} Heneage Finch, member for Rye; Speaker in the first Parliament of Charles I.

^{page 116 note c} Probably William Brook, member for St. Ive's. Giles Brook was member for Liverpool, and an alderman. The name of the former is spelled Brock in the list in the State Paper Office.

^{page 118 note a} i.e. “in the King.”

^{page 121 note a} I have inserted the report here out of its chronological order, to avoid interrupting the notes of the debate on Impositions. In the MS. it stands by itself at the end of the volume, as if the notes had been found after the rest of the MS. was copied.

^{page 122 note a} The following words are crossed out: “Meanes to levy.”

^{page 123 note a} “All this debate,” on Impositions, “was at Grand Committees; … and, when the powder was all spent on both sides, we grew in the end to this peaceable conclusion, —not to put the question of the right to condemn hereby the judgment of the Exchequer in the matter of currants, whereof all this is the consequence, but to frame a Petition by way of grievance, implying the right, though not in express terms, which was accordingly done; and so the rest of the grievances, which stayed only for this, were drawn up into a large scroll of parchment (which the King said would serve for a piece of tapestry), and so presented by the Solicitor, accompanied by twenty of the House.

“The answer was delivered by the King himself, both the Houses assembled in the Banqueting House, on Tuesday last, where he divided matters of government from matters of profit. Those of government he would take time in; those of profit, which were impositions of several natures, he presently resolved, and fully to the satisfaction of that House in all particulars, save only in the new impositions, in which, though he promised to give way to a Bill that never any hereafter should be laid but with the grant of Parliament, yet, because he did not as freely take away all which were last imposed, they went away ill satisfied, which they testified in their next day's meeting, when as subsidies were proposed, and no more could be obtained but one subsidy and a single fifteen, which a knavish burgess said, but in the hearing of few, would do the King much good, and serve as a subpæna ad melius respondendum.” Carleton to Edmonds: Court and Times of James I. i. 122. The petition of grievances itself is printed in State Trials, ii. 519. An account of the proceedings at Whitehall will be found in Appendix B.

^{page 124 note a} See Appendix C.

^{page 124 note b} “You must not leave this doubtfulnesse, that the contract is not alreadie made. De modo, for the leavy consult with whome you will. We have that from you that is obligatorie for whose good, from you we take no notice. You are a nomber competent that have made the conclusion, and that must be binding to you. If anie be gon from you it was theire fault.” (Harl. MS. 777, fol. 57 b.) Salisbury waa evidently afraid lest the bargain should be repudiated, as being concluded in a thin House.

^{page 124 note c} Member for Reading.