^{page 1 note a} At the end of the present MS. there occurs a more formal entry or memorandum relating to this transaction. Although substantially the same as the above, it differs from it in minute particulars, and in one place supplies words which are necessary to the completion of the sense. We therefore print it as it stands :—

“Memorandum that on the 29th day of September, 1640, the Earle of Bedford being desired by the Lords Commissioners that were to go to Rippon, to know his Majesties pleasure, whether he would permitt and giue them leaue, when they mett with the Scottish Commissioners at Rippon, to haue communication apart with any of the said Scottish Commissioners, to debate and argue, or to find out how farre any matter agitated or debated might be brought on as a preparatorie to what was then in treaty, His Majestie was pleased to approue of that motion, and gaue allowance, that any of the Lords Commissioners might there conferre with the said Scottish Commissioners, in priuate or publike, about any matter that might conduce to the advantage of the treaty that they were sent about.

FRA. BEDFORD.

P. WHARTON.

ED. HOWARD. E. MANDEUILLE.”

^{page 2 note a} Francis Russell, Earl of Bedford, 1627 to 1641.

^{page 2 note b} William Seymour, Earl of Hertford, 1621 to 1640, when he was created Marquess.

^{page 2 note c} Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, 1603 to 1646.

^{page 2 note d} William Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, 1612 to 1668.

^{page 2 note e} Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick, 1618 to 1658.

^{page 2 note f} Henry Rich, Earl of Holland, 1624 to 1649.

^{page 2 note g} John Digby, Earl of Bristol, 1622 to 1653.

^{page 2 note h} Thomas Howard, Earl of Berkshire, 1626 to 1669.

^{page 2 note i} Philip Wharton, Lord Wharton, 1625 to 1696.

^{page 2 note j} William Paget, Lord Paget, 1629 to 1678.

^{page 2 note k} Edward Montagu, Lord Montagu of Kimbolton, 1626 to 1642, when he succeeded his father as Earl of Manchester.

^{page 2 note l} Robert Greville, Lord Brooke, 1628 to 1643.

^{page 2 note m} John Poulett, Lord Poulett of Hinton St.George, 1627 to 1649.

^{page 2 note n} Edward Howard, Lord Howard of Escrick, 1628 to 1675.

^{page 3 note a} Thomas Savile, Viscount Savile in Ireland from 1628, Lord Savile in England from 1630, created Earl of Sussex in 1644.

^{page 3 note b} Francis Leigh, Lord Dunsmore, from 1628, created Earl of Chichester in 1644.

^{page 3 note c} James Stuart, Earl of Traquair, 1633 to 1659.

^{page 3 note d} William Douglas, Earl of Morton, 1606 to 1648.

^{page 3 note e} William Hamilton, Earl of Lanerick [Lanark] from 1639, succeeded to the Dukedom of Hamilton in 1649.

^{page 3 note f} Sir Henry Vane, Secretary of State, 1640 and 1641.

^{page 3 note g} Sir Lewis Steward. It is added in the margin, “Came to the Lords on Monday the 5th of October.” Sir Lewis was a distinguished Scottish lawyer.

^{page 3 note h} Garter King of Arms from 1633 to 1644.

^{page 3 note i} Charles Seton, Earl of Dunfermline, 1622 to 1674.

^{page 3 note j} John Campbell, Earl of Loudoun, 1633 to 1663.

^{page 3 note k} “Wauchton,” or more properly “Waughton,” is the customary spelling of this name, that of the seat of the ancient family of Hepburn. Sir Patrick was at this time an active Covenanter.

^{page 3 note l} Douglas of Cavers, Sheriff of Teviotdale ; one of those who, like Hepburn, soon fell into suspicion among the Covenanters, as being too much inclined towards the King.

^{page 3 note m} Minister at Burntisland.

^{page 3 note n} Town-clerk of Dundee; another of those who lost credit with the Covenanters by exhibiting a too compliant disposition towards the King.

^{page 4 note a} The celebrated Alexander Henderson, minister of Leuchars, and afterwards beneficed in Edinburgh ; a clergyman of great distinction and influence among the Covenanters.

^{page 4 note b} Afterwards Sir Archibald, and much later a judge of the High Court of Sessions by the title of Lord Warriston, one of the busiest men on the part of Scotland throughout all these troubles. He was executed in 1663.

^{page 4 note c} Note in the margin of the MS., but afterwards erased, “Memorandum to entreat my Lord of Bristoll for his speech.” What the Earl spoke ran as follows: “It is by His Majesties special commandment that we give your Lordships this meeting; we come authorized by His Majesties commission under the Great Seal of England, and by his Majesties further permission, we have been nominated and deputed by the Great Council of Peers now met at York. Our ends and our desires I conceive are the same, which are by God's holy permission to endeavour to accommodate those unhappy misunderstandings and differences which are now on foot, in such sort as may most redound to the glory of God, the establishment of true Religion, the honour of the King, Sovereign to us both, and the peace and tranquillity of both Nations.” Rushworth, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 1286.

^{page 4 note d} See it in Rushworth, vol. ii. part ii. p. 1282, and in Nalson, vol. i. p. 447.

^{page 4 note e} The Pacification referred to in this place, and frequently hereafter, is that agreed upon in the previous year between the King and the Covenanters at Dunse Law, near Berwick. The articles of it are printed in Rushworth, as before, p. 945, and in Nalson, i. 239.

^{page 5 note a} Rushworth, vol. ii. part ii. p. 1285; and Nalson, vol. i. p. 450.

^{page 5 note b} See it in Rushworth, as before, p. 1258.

^{page 5 note c} There follows here a good deal of obliteration, in the midst of which stand the words “Lord Lowdon “uncancelled. It is clear that they were intended to have been cancelled, and that the next succeeding words were designed as a substitution for them and every thing which is obliterated. We have not therefore thought it necessary to insert them. It may be added also in this place, that every page of the MS. has a headline, which states the place, and the day, and the part of the day, of the meeting ; ex. gr. “ Rippon, 2 October. Morning. Friday.” These words we have not thought it worth while to insert, except when there is a change in the day or time of day.

^{page 6 note a} “Lastly, We have commanded that the Earls of Traquair, Morton, Lanerick, Mr. Secretary Vane, with the assistance of Sir Lewis Steward and Sir John Burough, may be present at the Treaty between you and our subjects of Scotland, at all your publick debates, meetings, and conferences concerning the same. It is therefore our express pleasure that they or any of them may object, debate, and propose, what they (out of the knowledge and experience they have had of these affairs) shall conceive to conduce to our service and the peace of these our Kingdoms.” (Rushworth, as before, p. 1284)

^{page 6 note b} The words “ded and “stand here, which apparently were omitted to be cancelled.

^{page 7 note a} Henrison for Henderson.

^{page 7 note b} The words ara, “That the common incendiaries which have been the authors of this combustion may receive their just censure.” Kushworth, vol. ii. part. ii. p. 1258.

^{page 10 note a} “Because we doubt not but your Lorships are well acquainted both with our proceedings and the reasons of our Demands, and since by our Commission we are not warranted to treate but with the noblemen named by his Majestie with the advise of the Peeres, and are particularly warranted to make excepeion against the Earle of Traquair, for his malversation in the matters of the Assembly and Parliament, for which his Lordship and all such as have done evill offices to devide betwixt the King and his subjects are demanded to be censured, therefore wee expressely decline the Earle of Trequair,and do not concieve that, according to the warrants graunted to us in his Majesties lettres and our commission, any can assist att the Treaty but the Noblemen expressed in his Majesties lettre.” Orig. forwarded by Sir Henry Vane to the King. Dom. State Papers, 2nd October, 1640.

^{page 11 note a} See before, p. 5.

^{page 11 note b} “the” inserted a second time here by evident mistake.

^{page 13 note a} “Resolution” first written, “pleasure” subsequently written over it, but without an erasure.

^{page 14 note a} There are two copies of this paper among the State Papers. It is also printed at full in Rushworth, as before, p. 1287, and an abstract of it in Nalson, i. 450.

^{page 15 note a} See it in Rushworth, as before, p. 1289, and in Nalson, i. 451.

^{page 15 note b} “Mr. Francis Palmes, younger son of Sir Guy Palmes.” Rushworth, as before, p. 1290.

^{page 16 note b} See Rushworth, as before, pp. 1271, 1272, and Nalson, i. pp. 440, 441, 444.

^{page 17 note a} The letter is printed in Rushworth, as before, p. 1290, and in Nalson, i. p. 452.

^{page 20 note a} Rushworth, as before, p. 1287.

^{page 20 note b} Ibid. p. 1288.

^{page 21 note a} This proposition was in the very words of the King's letter to his Commissioners of the 3rd inst. Rushworth, as before, p. 1291, and Nalson, i. 452.

^{page 21 note b} [Note in MS. partly erased]. “Nota—My Lord of Bristow hathe the King's letter of the 3rd October to the Lords. I receaued it back.”

^{page 22 note a} Rushworth, as before, p. 1288.

^{page 23 note a} “This entred by order and verbatim as it was spoken.”— MS. Rushworth, ass before, p. 1289.

^{page 24 note a} The MS. looks like “Invasion on,” but it would seem that the latter “on” is a mere repetition by mistake of the last syllable of the previous word.

^{page 25 note a} The Earls of Hertford, Bristol and Holland, with Lords Wharton and Savile, and Sir John Borough, the writer, as their Secretary, were the persons here alluded to. Notes of what took place on their visit to York, may be seen in Hardwicke's State Papers, ii. 241.

^{page 25 note b} See Hardwicke's State Papers, ii. 241.

^{page 25 note c} This paper is printed in Rushworth, as before, p. 1292. The Scottish Commissioners answered it immediately in a paper which is also printed by Rushworth in the same place. The answer is not noticed by Borough, who was absent, as above remarked, at York; but, as it is of great importance, and there are copies among the State Papers which correct several mistakes in Rushworth, we think it worth printing again from a MS. endorsed in the handwriting of Sec. Windebank: —

“At Rippon, the 8. of October 1640. No thing is now so [more?] hartily desired of vs and those that sent vs, then that the Treaty may begin timeously and ende hapily. This moved vs in our last proposition to desire to knowe what your Lordships did conceive to be a competency for the maintenance of our Armie, and now after his Majestie is acquainted therewith, we desire to knowe his Majesties minde, that the armie being provided in a competent manner, and so much being made knowne to those that sent vs according to the instructions which wee have receaved from them, whoe make the maintenance of the Army previous to the Treaty, we may with all dilligence shew them his Majesties pleasure concerning the change of the place, and new power to be granted for concluding. And as we are warranted to give, this answer, so will wee not conceale our owne thoughts aboute all this matter of the maintenance of the Armie, transferring of the Treatie to Yorke, and inlargiug of our power. First, it is vniversally knowne that our Armie was stayed in their march by his Majesties especiall commandment, without which they might before this time either have bin better provided or farther advanced in their petitions and intentions; and that in hope of provision to be made this way, they are kept vp from taking such wayes and vsing such meanes as might serve for their necessary maintenance, which yet are not to say any burthen on the Nation or good people of England, whose weale and hapiness wee doe seeke as our owne and with whome we have determined (as we have declared) to stand and fall. But our meaning is, that necessary maintenance being denyed to our Army, wee take ourselves to the Papists and Prelates with their adherents, the vnhapie instruments of all oar troubles, charges, and hazards these yeares by past, who therefore in all equity ought to suffer in the same kinde. Next, wee cannot conceaue what daunger may be apprehended in our goeing to Yorke and suffering our selves and others who maybe ioyned with vs, into the handes of an Armie commanded by the Lieutenant of Ireland, agaynst whome as a chiefe Incendiary, according to our demandes which are the subiect of the Treaty it selfe, wee intend to insist as is expressed in our remonstrance and declaration; who hath in the Parliament of Ireland proceeded agaynst vs as Traytors and Rebbells, the best tytles his Lordship in his common talke is pleased to honour vs with, whose commission is to subdue and distroy vs, and who by all meanes and at all occasions presseth the breaking vp of all treatyes of peace, as fearing to be excluded in the end ; commaunded also by divers Papists, who conceave our pacifycation to be their ruyne and dessolation : and where there be divers others our Godles and disnaturall countrymen doeing the worst offices aboute his Majesty, and waiting the occasion of expressing of their malice and revenge against vs and their owne Nation. Thirdly, the whole power of the Committie of Parliament cannot be transmitted vnto vs, and the want of power neither hath bin nor needeth it to be any hinderance to the speedy progresse and peaceable conclusion of the Treaty, since wee have already in the begining of the conferrence showne your Lordships what is the subject and substance of all our demaundes.”

^{page 26 note a} “Rippon, 10th October. His Majestie hath taken into his consideration the proposition concerninge the maintenance of your Army at Newcastle duringe this Treaty, and for that end hath required us his Commissioners at Rippon to repaire unto Yorke to give him aduise concerning the same, which he doth for expeditinge of an answere, and with noe intencion to declyne, determine or delay the Treaty, for which cause his Majestie doth desire that the Commissioners of both partes might repaire vnto the city of Yorke, there to receive a speedy determinacion and answer after debate. And further to signifle vnto you that whereas you did intimate vnto his Majestie some apprehensions by reason of the person who doth command his army, His Majestie doth assure you that whilest hee is there himselfe in person, none doth command the army or shall be answerable for your safety butt himselfe, who hath allready vnder his hand and seale assured the same vnto you, and of which you may be confident. And further his Majestie hath commanded vs, to shew vnto you his great desire of keepinge this Treaty on foote, soe as if you shall mislike the remouall from hence to Yorke, wee are commanded nott to remoue till wee did [do ?] receiue further order from him.”—Domestic State Papers, 10th October 1640.

^{page 27 note a} This Paper, which is mentioned again at p. 29, ran as follows: “Although we have reason to regrate our staying here for so many daies vpon no other subject but the necessary maintenance of our Army, and at this, which is the tenth day, wee know nothing of his Majesties minde upon that point, yet are wee gladd that His Majesty is pleased to declare that hee hath taken it at last to his royall consideration, hoping now to haue his Majesties answere thereunto; and therefore desire, that as we haue receaued power to condiscend vpon the competencie, so your Lordships may either make knowne his Majesties positiue will, or receaue a full power to bring this matter to a wished conclusion, that wee may proceede to the Treaty. And although wee presume not to designe howers nor daies, yet wee trust your Lordships, vpon the remembrance of former delayes, will vse now that diligence that wee may bee able to make manifest to those that sent vs, that our long staying here hath not been to protract tyme, but for a reall accommodation. Concerning our going to Yorke, as wee did formerly shew that wee had noe warrant to goe thither, and did also giue reasons from our owne priuate iudgments against the connenience thereof, soe are wee now vpon the signification of the motion made by his Majesty instructed by the Commissioners of Parliament to shew that for many reasons they thinke it not fitting to transferre the conference to Yorke.”—Domestic State Papers, 11th October 1640.

^{page 27 note b} See Hardwicke's State Papers, ii. p. 257. Sir William Widdrington was Recorder of Berwick.

^{page 29 note a} A copy in the State Papers is thus headed : “The following was presented to his Majestie by the Lo. Mandevil from the Scotts : 12 October 1640, “If the King's Majestie bee graciously pleased to condiscend to the maintenance of our Army, which of necessity must bee previous to all treatie and cessacion of armes, your Lordshipps would bee pleased eyther to bring his Majesties positiue will or power to your Lordshipps to determyne on the quantity, on the way of payment, and on the tyme, least the [sic] occasion more delayes, whereof alreadie wee haue shewen to your Lordshipps the inconvenience.”— Domestic State Papers, 12th Oct. 1640.

^{page 29 note b} See it printed at p. 27.

^{page 33 note a} Sir Henry Vane, Treasurer of the Household.

^{page 35 note a} Originally written “but to be answeared,” and the last word omitted to be corrected when the passage was altered.

^{page 35 note b} Part of the last word is struck out, but the sense seems to require it.

^{page 37 note a} Memorandum in the margin :—”By the month ; 25,500 li. a month.”

^{page 41 note a} There is a copy of this paper among the State Papers, and it is printed in Nalson, i. 454.

^{page 41 note b} We have not found any copy of these “Additional Instructions,” unless they be comprised, as we rather suppose, in the paper entitled “Remembrances for the Lords the Commissioners to put them in minde of such things as have fallen into debate about the demands of the Scots for the maintenance of their Army during the Treatie.” There are several copies of these Remembrances among the State Papers, and they are printed in Rush worth, as before, p. 1287. See also respecting them Hardwicke's State Papers, ii. 276–279.

^{page 42 note a} See before, p. 41.

^{page 42 note b} Printed in Rushworth, as before, p. 1299, and in Nalson, i. 455.

^{page 44 note a} A copy among tbe State Papers. Printed in Rushworth, as before, p, 1298, and in Nalson, i. p. 456.

^{page 45 note a} A copy among the State Papers, and printed by Nalson, i. 456.

^{page 47 note a} That is the second article in the Agreement for maintenance of the Scottish Army, which bore date on the 16th inst. There are several copies among the State Papers, and it is printed in Rushworth, as before, p. 1295, and in Nalson, i. 457.

^{page 47 note b} “See Jornall of Yorke 17 & 18 of this month.” This is the Journal printed in Hardwicke's State Papers, ii. 279–290.

^{page 47 note c} See Hardwicke's State Papers, ii. 290, for the circumstances under which this Answer was prepared. It ran as follows:—” Sundaie the 18th of October 1640, afternoone. The Answer that the Lords Commissioners are to give to the Commissioners of Scotland concerning the Securitie to be given for the Competencie. That wee haue spoaken with the principall gentlemen of the Countrie, who very confidently assured vs both of their wills and abilities to make the first monethes payment. And that there is likewise a particular Committee of the Lords for the settling of the payment of the second Moneth ; which we noe wayes doubte but in very fewe daies wilbe so ascertained as wilbe to your full satisfaction ; whereof wee will likewise haue an especial! care. There is likewise appointed a speciall committee of the principall persons of these countries to take a care of the effectuall performance thereof from tyme to tyme.” Bom. State Papers, 18th Oct. 1640.

^{page 48 note a} This it will be seen is the answer given in conformity with the direction of the Council of York, printed at p. 47.

^{page 49 note a} 19th of October 1640. Second paper deliuered to the Scottish Commissioners. “My Lords, The Peers having taken into their care the settling and ascertayning of the competency agreed vpon as your Lordshipps vnderstand, it is now his Majesties desire that wee may fall to the mayne treaty. Wee doe likewise hold it fitt to propound vnto you the diminishing of your Army, both for that it will remoue the doubts of this kingdome, and wilbee a reason that the competency agreed vpon may the better satisfie your Army, that disorder may bee preuented, which may otherwise be occasioned by want.”—DOM. S. P. under date.

^{page 49 note b} Printed in Rushworth, as before, p. 1302, and in Nalson, i. 459.

^{page 49 note c} Printed in Rushworth, as before, p. 1296. There is a copy among the State Papers under the date.

^{page 53 note a} “Wee have considered your Lordshipps answeres to what wee did last present, and haue receiued informacion, first by conference, and next by write from some of the principall gentlemen of Northumberland and Durham to whom your Lordshipps did refer vs, concerninge their willingnesse and abilities for securing the maintenance of the Army. Wee finde the gentlemen to doe according to their own partes. But neyther doe they binde for the arreares, nor doe they undertake for others, nor speake they of more then one moneths pay, nor doe they designe the day for procuringe the act of consent of the said counties. And therefore if your Lordshipps coneeaue that noe more can possibly be done for our security, wee desire that this and all the other preparatory artickles soe long insisted on may be collected and seen in one view, that being altogether considered by vs, and wee haueinge represented them to those who sent vs, if in reason they can giue satisfaction, wee may accordinge to our common desire enter upon the Treaty. And if your Lordshipps haue conceiued any further possibility of satisfaccion, which wee heartily wish, it may be made knowen vnto vs. In the meane while, least any more tyme, which is now soe precious, by reason of the approachinge Parliament, bee lost, wee are most willinge to cleare our proceedinges and demaundes for your better informacion, that nothinge be left vndone by vs which may serue for a wished and happie conclusion. Rippon, 20 October 1640.” Demi. State Papers, under date.

^{page 58 note a} See before, p. 5; but the date was the 8th September, not October, 1640.

^{page 59 note a} John Lord Finch of Fordwich, who received the Seal on the 23rd January 1639–40, on the retirement of Lord Coventry.

^{page 59 note b} The Lord Keeper's letter here alluded to was an answer to a letter or report addressed by the Commissioners to the King on the same day (21 October, 1642), in which they had pointed out to His Majesty that there would be a necessity for them to undertake their journey towards the Parliament. They therefore suggested that the Treaty should be transferred to London, and that there should be a present opening of the Ports. (Rushworth, as before, p. 1303, Nalson, i. 461, and copy of letter and signatures among the State Papers.) By the Lord Keeper's letter of the 21st, it was intimated that the King and the Lords of the Great Council held it most necessary that a Cessation of Arms should be agreed upon before the King departed from York, or the Commissioners from Ripon, and that upon such Cessation, and not before, the Ports should be opened. The King's Commissioners were also to procure the Scottish Commissioners to deliver particulars of their demands in writing, so that it might be fully understood what they expected, and especially in point of satisfaction for their costs and damages. This done, the King and Lords would consider the adjournment of the Treaty to London. (Rushworth, p. 1304, Nalson, i. 462.) Such an answer, offering a long anticipation of debates on the Scottish demands, and keeping the Commissioners at Ripon whilst the new Parliament was sitting at Westminster, was anything but agreeable to the Commissioners, who instantly replied by their letter alluded to in the text. A copy of it exists among the State Papers, and, as it has not been printed, we shall introduce it into the Appendix.

^{page 60 note a} Printed in Rushworth, as before, p. 1255, and in Nalson, i. 432. A. manuscript copy with some verbal differences exists in an entry-book of papers relating to this period, placed among the State Papers, under the date of 5th September 1640.

^{page 61 note a} There are several copies of it among the Domestic State Papers.

^{page 63 note a} We have not found any copy of this letter, but its tenor sufficiently appears in the answer alluded to in the next paragraph.

^{page 63 note b} Not printed in Rushworth or Nalson. The following is from a copy among the State Papers. “May it please your Majestie. We have reoeaved alettre from the Lord Keeper wherein hee expresseth that your Majestie wilbee pleased to transferre the Treaty with the Scots from this place to London, if wee shall soe advise, and that your Majestie expects us tomorrow at Yorke. For which wee returne your Majestie most humble thancks, and further it is our vnanimous advice, that it will most conduce to your Majesties seruice soe to doe. And therefore wee most humbly beseech your Majestie that you would bee pleasd to giue vs power and directions to treate and settle with the Scotts all particulars belonging to the said remouall, wherby wee conceaue much time wilbee saued and the proceeding in the treatie for the future put into a certayne way. If wee may receaue your Majesties pleasure herein this night or early in the morning, wee shalbee able to giue your Majestie an account of this as of your other affaires when wee shall haue the honour to waite upon you. God haue your Majestie in his holy keeping. Your Majesties most humble and most obedient subiects ; subscrib'd by all the 16 Commissioners. Rippon, 23 October 1640.” (Domestic State Papers, under date.) In their letter to the Lord Keeper, the Commissioners urged him to expedite the directions they desired to receive from the King. If delayed, they would be unable to reach York on the morrow, which would fall out very prejudicial for their journey to London. (Copy. Domestic State Papers.)

^{page 64 note a} Printed in Rushworth, as before, p. 1305, and in Nalson, i. 462.

^{page 64 note b} i. e. for Maintenance of the Scottish Army mentioned again in the next note.

^{page 65 note a} These are the Articles for payment of £850 a day for the maintenance of the Scottish Army. There are several copies among the State Papers, and the Articles are printed in Rushworth, as before, p. 1295, and in Nalson, i. 457.

^{page 66 note a} Dated 23rd October, 1640. Printed in Rushworth, as before, p. 1305, and in Nalson, i. 463.

^{page 66 note b} i.e. of the Articles for Maintenance of the Scottish Army.

^{page 66 note c} i.e. The Royal Commission or warrant before mentioned, dated 23rd October.

^{page 69 note a} Dated 26th October 1640. There are several copies among the State Papers, one in the hand-writing of Sir John Borough ; and it is printed in Rushworth, as before, p. 1306, and in Nalson, i. 403.