^{page v note 1} Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the MSS of the late R. R. Hastings Esq. of the Manor House, Ashby de la Zouch, ed. Francis Bickley, iv (1947).

^{page v note 2} For the Hastings papers in the Carte collection, see SirPowicke's, Maurice ‘ Notes on Hastings MSS.’ in the Huntingdon Library Quarterly, i. 247–76Google Scholar.

^{page vi note 1} MS. Carte 77 contains a copy of the ‘ Remembrances for Order and Decency ’ at fo. 192.

^{page vi note 2} Journals of the House of Lords (hereafter cited as L.J.), iii. 17. The same Lords were authorized to peruse the Journal Book (p. 21). The earl of Huntingdon was also a member of the larger committee appointed for the same purpose on 27 March (p. 73). From time to time he undertook to look for precedents for specific purposes and traces of these enquiries are to be found amongst his papers in MS. Carte 78.

^{page vi note 3} MS. Carte 78 contains a list of doubtful points in connection with the Lords' privileges endorsed ‘ Memorandum to conferre with Mr. Hackwell and Mr. Selden about in thinges concerning the nobility ’ (fo. 45iv.). The same MS. has an early draft of the heads of the report submitted to the Earl as first of the sub-committees. It is endorsed in his hand ‘ Mr. Hackwell and Mr. Sheldon's note of priviledges belonginge to peeres and lords of Parliament’ (fos. 499–500).

^{page vi note 4} [Sir E. Nicholas], Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons in 1621, ii. Appendix.

^{page vi note 5} L.J., iii. 176. S. R. Gardiner, Lords Debates in 1621, pp. 99–101, gives a list of the missing items.

^{page vii note 1} British Museum MS. Stowe 354, fo. 62 v.

^{page vii note 2} J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, Part ii. 157; L.J., iii. 196–7.

^{page vii note 3} First published in 1642. Reprinted in David Wilkin's edition of Selden's Works (1726), vi.

^{page vii note 4} H.M.C. Report, Hastings, iv. 286–7.

^{page vii note 5} L.J., iii. 40.

^{page vii note 6} Robert Bowyer.

^{page vii note 7} House of Lords MSS. ‘ Matters I doubt of which the Lords Subcommittees have not yet perused ’, 2 June 1621.

^{page vii note 8} Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords, 1621 (Camden Third Series, xlii). The proceedings on 10 March are on pp. 12–15.

^{page viii note 1} S. R. Gardiner, History of England, iv. 48–9. Salvetti says ‘Last Saturday the King went into the Upper House of Parliament to see whether by his presence he could quell the ardour of the turbulent spirits in both Houses who were threatening to bring about the downfall not only of the Duke of Buckingham but a great part if not the whole of the royal prerogative.’ He recounts the King's objections to the application of precedents of ‘ ill kings' times ’ and then goes on to relate the story of the cow and her tail, quoted by Gardiner. The transcript of Salvetti's letter is in the British Museum Add. MS. 27962, a. fo. 422. Briefer but more generally correct impressions of the incident are given by Locke (S.P. 14/120, 15) and by John Chamberlain (Letters, ed. N. E. Mclure, ii. 358–9) and in the letter from Woodford to Nethersole quoted below.

^{page viii note 2} Woodford to Nethersole, 15 March (S.P. 81/20, fo. 254).

^{page viii note 3} Gardiner, op. cit., p. 49.

^{page viii note 4} J. Spedding, Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vii. 192.

^{page ix note 1} Price, W. H., The English Patents of Monopoly (Harvard Economic Studies ; 1906), p. 20Google Scholar.

^{page ix note 2} Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, Part i. 49–50. The ‘ breviate ’ is undated. Gardiner thought that it must have been presented to Buckingham after 10 March but before 12 March, and attributed what he believed to be a sudden reversal of royal policy to Williams's influence (op. cit., pp. 51–2).

^{page ix note 3} Nicholas, op. cit., i. 137.

^{page ix note 4} D. H. Willson, Privy Councillors in the House of Commons, 1603–1629, pp. 40–4 ; Spedding, op. cit., p. 146.

^{page ix note 5} L.J., iii. 70.

^{page x note 1} H.M.C. Report, Hastings, ii. 59 (29 March 1621). The letter is without signature or endorsement, but there seems no reason to doubt that it is a copy of the earl of Huntingdon's reply to Arundel and refers to his notes of the king's speech. These are in MS. Carte 77, fo. 205. They are considerably less full than the printed version (see L.J., iii. 68–70).

^{page x note 2} L.J., iii. 73 ; Cal. S.P. Dom. 1619–33, P. 238.

^{page x note 3} L.J., iii. 112.

^{page x note 4} L.J., iii. 104, 121.

^{page x note 5} L.J., iii. 114, 124–5.

^{page xi note 1} Nichols, J., The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester, iii, part ii, 622Google Scholar.

^{page xi note 2} Some biographical material may be found in the Hastings papers calendared by the Historical Manuscripts Commission and in the Bodleian.

^{page 1 note 1} Compare Wentworth's summary of this speech in Commons Debates 1621, ed. W. Notestein, F. H. Relf and H. Simpson, v. 423.

^{page 1 note 2} A version of the king's speech endorsed in the earl's hand ‘ the briefe of the King's Majesty's speech in Parliament 1620 ’ occurs on fos. 172–5 of MS. Carte 77, but has not been incorporated in the finished Journal. The speech was not printed, as was customary, and the many manuscript versions in circulation differed considerably. See Commons Debates 1621, ii. 2, n. 2.

^{page 2 note 1} Eccles. xii. 11.

^{page 2 note 2} A rather fuller account of this speech is printed in Spedding, Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vii. 172–3, and in Nicholas, Proceedings' and Debates, i. 11–12.

^{page 3 note 1} For this and the following speech of the Lord Chancellor, see Spedding, op. dt., pp. 173–9.

^{page 4 note 1} The Speaker's oration is only briefly summarized by the diarists of the Lower House, either because they could not hear well as they stood at the Bar or because the formalities of the opening proceedings were beginning to pall. Cf. Locke's letter to Carleton of 5 February: ‘ My lord of Chichester said there was a right play, what with his [the Speaker's] eloquence to refuse and my Lord Chancellor's to commend, the tyme was spent ’ (S.P., 14/119/67). The fullest account of the day's proceedings is in Pym's diary (Commons Debates 1621, iv. 7–10).

^{page 4 note 2} This should read ‘ the institution of parliaments.’

^{page 5 note 1} The copyist has gone astray here in writing ‘ Ireland ’. The fourth point made by the Chancellor was that ‘ His Majesty hath made that truth which was before titulary, in that he hath verified the stile of Defender of the Faith’ (Spedding, op. cit., pp. 175–6).

^{page 7 note 1} Sir Stephen Leisiver (L.J., iii. 11).

^{page 7 note 2} The names are given in H.M.C. Report, Hastings, iv. 286. The list is identical with that given in L.J., iii. 10, except for the addition of the Lord Chancellor's name.

^{page 8 note 1} Later in the session, on 24 April, objection was raised to the custom of forbearing to sit on Star Chamber days ‘ as if this Supreme Courte wear to attend any other inferior courte ’ (Gardiner, Lords Debates for 1621, p. 13).

^{page 8 note 2} Richard Cammell, a Clerk under Mr. Ravenscroft, in the Petty Bag (L.J., iii. 12).

^{page 8 note 3} The ‘ Remembrances for Order and Decency ’.

^{page 11 note 1} An error for Cammell's petition (L.J., iii. 14).

^{page 12 note 1} The Clerk gives the division as Contents 40, Non-Contents 22 (F. H. Relf, Lords Debates in 1621, p. 2).

^{page 13 note 1} The earl of Huntingdon was not a member of this Committee (L.J., iii. 17). The ‘ Remembrances for Order and Decency ’ make it clear, however, that ‘ either at any committee of ours, or any committee or conference with the Lower House, any member of our House though not of the Committee, is not excluded from coming in and speaking, but he must not vote ; as also he shall gyve place to all that are of the committee, though of lower degree, and shall sitt behynde them ’ (MS. Carte 77, fo. 200).

^{page 15 note 1} The names of the sub-committee are given in L.J., iii. 17, and in H.M.C. Report, Hastings, iv. 286. The earl of Huntingdon is the first. Their warrant is given below, p. 21.

^{page 18 note 1} The bishop's intervention on behalf of the Catholics who had taken the Oath of Allegiance caused great offence in the Commons. Locke wrote to Carleton on 24 February: ‘ The Bishop of Duresme was their frend in the upper house, for which he had as much thancke as for that he did the last Parlament. Their fingers did itch at him in the lower house ’ (S.P.D., 14/119/106).

^{page 19 note 1} The earl of Berkshire.

^{page 19 note 2} The Gentleman Usher.

^{page 21 note 1} The question on which the Judges refused to answer was the Lords' claim to answer in the Courts upon protestation of honour instead of oath. On 10 March a Committee referred the dispute to the King who was ‘ satisfied with our intention and doings ’ and confirmed the privilege. (Relf, Lords Debates in 1621, p. 16, n. 1).

^{page 23 note 1} Sic. The date should be 17 February. The best account of this conference is Pym's in Commons Debates 1621, iv. 69–75.

^{page 25 note 1} The rest of this folio is blank.

^{page 26 note 1} Compare Wentworth : ‘ he [Sir Giles Mompesson] had taken forth 3500 and odd writs of quo warranto ’. Commons Debates 1621, v. 488.

^{page 27 note 1} Here the copyist has made an insertion which should perhaps replace rather than expand the sentence as first written. The passage might then read ‘ To compare my actions to usurpers' or tyrants’ tymes is a wrong to you all. I hope you will rather punish the partie that aledgeth them then ruile your judgments by him, for the Starr Chamber which is an inferior Court to this will punish pro falso clamore. I leave it to you to heare and examine me.’

^{page 29 note 1} The reference is to Acts iii. 6. The sentence appears to have been transposed in copying and should read : ‘ Some coming to begg something of me, some to receave favour and furtherance in their suits and some ambitious and desirous of honour. But I must answere as the Apostle said monny have I none.’

^{page 32 note 1} A report of the examination of the witnesses was made to the House on 19 April by the earls of Arundel, Huntingdon and Southampton (Gardiner, Lords Debates in 1621, pp. 8–9).

^{page 32 note 2} Bacon had asked for an audience with the king.

^{page 32 note 3} The House had been divided in their opinion of Yelverton's meaning. Some thought the king's honour was touched and that the case should be withdrawn. After considerable debate it was decided to ask the king for an audience (Gardiner, Lords Debates in 1621, pp. 49–53).

^{page 33 note 1} Prince Charles. When Charles was duke of York Prince Henry would ‘ taunt him till he made him weep telling him he should be a Bishop ’ (T. Birch, The Life of Henry Prince of Wales, p. 302). The. Prince's services had been in demand as an intermediary between the Lords and the king. On this occasion he had opposed the approach to the king and excused himself from the Committee.

^{page 33 note 2} Yelverton had said ‘ I resolved in this to be as stubborn as Mordecay ’ (L.J., iii. 121 ; see also Gardiner, Lords Debates in 1621, p. 47).

^{page 33 note 3} Yelverton's words were : ‘ If my Lord Buckingham had but read the Articles exhibited in this place against Hugh Spencer and had known the danger of placing and displacing officers about the King, he would not have pursued me with such bitterness ’ (Ibid.).

^{page 34 note 1} A fuller report of Coke's speech at the Conference is given by Pym, Commons Debates 1621, iv. 386–7.

^{page 35 note 1} In 1623 the earl of Huntingdon's son Ferdinando had married the daughter of Sir John Davies, Attorney General for Ireland and later Chief Justice of the King's Bench. Other letters from Sir John keeping the earl in touch with Parliamentary business in 1624–5 are printed in H.M.C. Report, Hastings, ii. 63–9.

^{page 35 note 2} Baron Teynham.

^{page 36 note 1} Francis Staresmore sat as second knight of the shire for Leicester.

^{page 38 note 1} Sir Henry Hastings was the first knight of the shire for Leicester.

^{page 38 note 1} Sir Henry Hastings was the first knight of the shire for Leicester.

^{page 41 note 1} Sir John Skeffington sat as member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, a seat previously held by Sir John Davies. He was one of the Deputy Lieutenants for Leicestershire.

^{page 41 note 2} The outer margin of the first page has perished and the last word of almost every line is missing in whole or in part. They have been supplied and are given in brackets.

^{page 41 note 1} Sir John Skeffington sat as member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, a seat previously held by Sir John Davies. He was one of the Deputy Lieutenants for Leicestershire.

^{page 41 note 2} The outer margin of the first page has perished and the last word of almost every line is missing in whole or in part. They have been supplied and are given in brackets.

^{page 42 note 1} I.e. a house-warming present to celebrate his new appointment.