¹ For further discussion of the priorities each author brought to his account, see the introductions to the relevant manuscripts below.

² Willson, D. H., ed., The Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer 1606–1607 (Minneapolis, 1931)Google Scholar, which reprints Harley's account in its footnotes.

³ For which see Munden, R. C., ‘King, Commons and Reform, 1603–4’ in Faction and Parliament (Oxford, 1978), ed. K. Sharpe, pp. 43–72.Google Scholar

⁴ Russell, C., Parliaments and English Politics 1621–9 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 121–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cogswell, T., Blessed Revolution (Cambridge, 1989).Google Scholar

⁵ Shells, W. J., Puritans in the Diocese of Peterborough (Northamptonshire Record Society publications xxx; Northampton 1979), pp. 79–86, 110–12Google Scholar; HMC Buccleuch, i. 237–8Google Scholar; HMC Montagu of Beaulieu, pp. 45–8.Google Scholar

⁶ Northants. RO, Montagu MS 29/7, below, p. 95; SR, iv. 111–12Google Scholar; MacCulloch, D., Tilomas Cranmer (New Haven, 1996), pp. 500–3, 533–4.Google Scholar

⁷ CJ, i. 172–3, 175–6, 178, 235, 988–9Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, below p. 69.

⁸ Other accounts may be found in CJ, i. 151–2, 934–5Google Scholar; Cotton Diary; Mountagu Diary.

⁹ CJ, i. 158, 938Google Scholar are the only other accounts to match Manners for detail.

¹⁰ Ibid. i. 159–60 gives a fuller text but does not name the speakers, and ibid. i. 939–40 is almost as comprehensive, but the Rutland account is the only one to include speeches by Sir John Mallory, Richard Martin, Edward Hext and William Wiseman.

¹¹ For other accounts of this debate, see CJ, i. 155, 936–7Google Scholar; Cotton Diary.

¹² The attribution is discussed at length in Foster, Elizabeth Read, ed., Proceedings in Parliament 1610 (New Haven, 1966), i. pp. xliii–xlviiGoogle Scholar; Sharpe, K., Sir Robert Cotton, 1586–1631 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 251–2.Google Scholar

¹³ CJ, i. 158, 938Google Scholar. For another example of Cotton's interest in Welsh history, see BL, Cotton MSS, Julius F.VI, fol. 303.

¹⁴ He was particularly well placed to do so in the case of the Buckinghamshire election, as he was named to the committee to justify the Commons' decision to the Lords on 27 March, and that to confer with the judges about the same issue on 5 April. CJ, i. 156, 166.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid. i. 152; Mountagu Diary.

¹⁶ Mountagu Diary, pp. 64–5. The separate for the debate of 29 March has not been found.

¹⁷ Northants. RO, Montagu 29/71, 73.

¹⁸ CJ, i. 256.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cotton Diary, p. 107.

²⁰ Briefly calendared in HMC Montagu of Beaulieu, p. 50Google Scholar. For other reports of this speech, see CJ, i. 364, 1035–6Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 255–61.Google Scholar

²¹ Sir George Coppin.

²² CJ, i. 152Google Scholar refers to him as Brian Tash.

²³ CJ, i. 150–1Google Scholar. For the context of this speech, see Tyacke, N. R. N., ‘Wroth, Cecil and the Parliamentary Session of 1604’, BIHR 1 (1977), pp. 120–5.Google Scholar

²⁴ For a draft of which speech, see below.

²⁵ For which also see Mountagu's own account and CJ, i. 151.Google Scholar

²⁶ Elections statute, 7 Hen. IV, cap. 15. SR, ii. 156.Google Scholar

²⁷ Thomas Fitzherbert was arrested upon outlawry for debts owing to the Crown and others on the day of his election for Newcastle-under-Lyme. He was adjudged to have been properly elected, but denied parliamentary privilege. Hasler, ii. 125–6.

²⁸ Thus implying that the burgesses were not gentlemen.

²⁹ Matthew Chubbe, MP for Dorchester.

³⁰ The House disapproved of this request, but followed due process by referring the request to the privileges' committee. CJ, i. 152.Google Scholar

³¹ 32 Hen. VIII, cap. 2. SR, iii. 747–8.Google Scholar

³² 1 Eliz. I cap. 3 Recognition of the Queen's title. SR, iv. 358–9.Google Scholar

³³ 1 Mary (April) cap. 12; 1 Eliz. I cap. 16. SR, iv. 211–14, 377.Google Scholar

³⁴ None of these motions for revival of statutes is mentioned in CJ, i. 152, 935.Google Scholar

³⁵ 39 Eliz. I cap. 4. SR, iv. 899–902.Google Scholar

³⁶ Sir Henry Mountagu.

³⁷ Solicitor-general Sir Thomas Fleming, MP for Southampton.

³⁸ Text in CJ, i. 157.Google Scholar

³⁹ Concerning the Goodwin v. Fortescue election dispute.

⁴⁰ This was John Smith, MP for Camelford in 1559, allowed to retain his seat after a close run division. Hasler, , iii. 397–8.Google Scholar

⁴¹ CJ, i. 158Google Scholar, names this man as ‘One Vaughan outlawed’, i.e. Walter Vaughan, returned for Carmarthenshire in 1576 but outlawed before the next session began in 1581. Hasler, , iii. 552–3.Google Scholar

⁴² Thomas Fitzherbert.

⁴³ Presumably John Killigrew of Arwennack, MP for Penryn in 1584, 1586 and 1597, although no privilege case is mentioned in Hasler, , ii. 396–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Sir Walter Harcourt was arrested on the day after the end of the 1593 session at the behest of Sir John Fortescue. Hasler, , ii. 250.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ 39 Eliz. I cap. 28; 43 Eliz. I cap. 19. SR, iv. 952–7, 1010–14.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 1. SR, iv. 1017–18.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Thomas Hetley, MP for Huntingdon.

⁴⁸ i.e. Wroth.

⁴⁹ Sir Henry Mountagu.

⁵⁰ Payne's sequestration was reversed on 6 March 1610. CJ, i. 406.Google Scholar

⁵¹ 23 Eliz. I cap. 1; 39 Eliz. I cap. 7. SR, iv. 657–8, 904–9.Google Scholar

⁵² This is a report of the decision reached on the previous day, after which the house adjourned for Easter. CJ, i. 167.Google Scholar

⁵³ Sir John Leveson, MP for Shropshire.

⁵⁴ The names of the twelve men commissioned to take the oaths of the rest of the House are recorded in CJ, i. 140.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid. i. 141 states that Phelips was seated by Herbert and Sir Edward Stafford.

⁵⁶ Ibid. i. 142.

⁵⁷ This is not recorded in the Journal, although a committee of privileges was named on this day, Ibid. i. 149–50.

⁵⁸ Ibid. i. 142 puts this at two o'clock in the afternoon.

⁵⁹ Having gone to so much trouble to obtain a hearing of this speech, the Commons had it entered in the Journal, Ibid. i. 142–6.

⁶⁰ For the form of which, see Ibid. i. 150.

⁶¹ i.e. The Book of Common Prayer. Ibid. i. 151.

⁶² Wroth included two other grievances, dispensation from penal statutes and abuses of writs and Exchequer procedure. CJ, i. 151Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 55; Manners Diary, p. 22.

⁶³ CJ, i. 151Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 55; Manners Diary, p. 22.

⁶⁴ For which see CJ, i. 151.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The wording of the writ for return of knights of the shire as recorded in CJ, i. 140Google Scholar specifies duos Milites, Gladiis cinctos, mugis idoneos et discretos.

⁶⁶ The Manners Diary has the fullest account of this debate, see above p. 23–24.

⁶⁷ [Sic] straight.

⁶⁸ See the Mountagu Diary for the reasons, p. 56. The bill was rejected by 125–75, CJ, i. 152.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ 32 Hen. VIII, cap. 2. SR iii. 747–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ The committee for Wroth's motions met on the afternoon of Friday 23 March. CJ, i. 151.Google Scholar

⁷¹ The heads of Bacon's report are printed in CJ, i. 153Google Scholar; the fullest summary of the wardship debate is in the Manners Diary, p. 26.

⁷² See CJ, i. 154Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 57.

⁷³ [Sic] Buckinghamshire.

⁷⁴ The debate on the Goodwin v. Fortescue case took place on the morning of 27 March, when the objections Lord Cecil raised at the conference on the afternoon of 26 March were reported to the House. See CJ, i. 155–6Google Scholar; Manners Diary, pp. 29–30; Mountagu Diary, pp. 58–59.

⁷⁵ Tobie Mathew, Bishop of Durham, 1595–1606.

⁷⁶ Serjeant Sir Henry Hobart, MP for Norwich.

⁷⁷ For further coverage of the debate, see CJ, i. 155Google Scholar; Manners Diary, pp. 29–30.

⁷⁸ CJ, i. 156Google Scholar mentions only Sir Edward Coke and Dr Hone.

⁷⁹ The time of the adjournment is confirmed by Manners Diary, p. 30.

⁸⁰ CJ, i. 156Google Scholar states that the House was not held to be full enough, and three bills were read before Herbert made his report.

⁸¹ CJ, i. 157Google Scholar. The lawyers are among the first named to this delegation.

⁸² Sir John Popham.

⁸³ Sir Edmund Anderson.

⁸⁴ Sir William Peryam. Not noted to have been sent in CJ, i. 158.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Sir Edward Coke.

⁸⁶ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 1. SR, iv. 1016–17.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ i.e. Sir George More, MP for Guildford.

⁸⁸ For an alternative translation of this prophecy, see Mountagu Diary for 31 March.

⁸⁹ CJ, i. 158Google Scholar; Manners Diary, p. 34.

⁹⁰ Sir Matthew Carew and Sir Edward Stanhope, CJ, i. 158.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Robert, 3rd Earl of Essex.

⁹² i.e. Francis Moore, MP for Reading.

⁹³ These speeches are reported anonymously in CJ, i. 159.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Thomas Crew, MP for Lichfield.

⁹⁵ Lawrence Hyde, MP for Marlborough. See Manners Diary, p. 37.

⁹⁶ Anthony Dyott, MP for Lichfield.

⁹⁷ For the fullest details of which see Manners Diary, pp. 36–37.

⁹⁸ Second reading and committal. Cotton was not named to the committee. CJ, i. 162.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ CJ, i. 162Google Scholar; See Manners Diary, pp. 38–39; Mountagu Diary, p. 63. Payne's suspension was reversed on 6 March 1610. CJ, i. 406.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Sir John Stanhope, M P for Newtown, Isle of Wight and vice-chamberlain of the household.

¹⁰¹ The exclusion of an MP from the King's speech seems to have been compounded by Tash's implicit assumption that burgesses were not gentlemen.

¹⁰² i.e. The Exchequer.

¹⁰³ CJ, i. 150–1.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See also CJ, i. 151.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See also CJ, i. 152Google Scholar and the Manners Diary, p. 25.

¹⁰⁶ The House was always reluctant to pass legislation which gave statutory authority to the royal prerogative.

¹⁰⁷ 32 Hen. VIII, cap. 2. SR, iii. 747–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ 8 Hen. VI, cap. 9. SR, ii. 244–6.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ 8 Eliz. I cap. 11. SR, iv. 494–59.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Neither CJ, i. 155 or 936Google Scholar mention any such measure on this day; it was probably the bill given a first reading on 11 April. CJ, i. 167.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ See CJ, i. 157–8Google Scholar and the Manners Diary, pp. 30–31.

¹¹² This paper has not been found.

¹¹³ Robert Clarke, Exchequer Baron.

¹¹⁴ Edward Fenner, Justice of King's Bench.

¹¹⁵ Sir Edward Coke.

¹¹⁶ i.e. Shouts. The bill passed without committal. See CJ, i. 158Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 48–49.

¹¹⁷ For which see CJ, i. 159–60Google Scholar, Cotton Diary, pp. 49–51.

¹¹⁸ 29 March, Cotton Diary, p. 49.

¹¹⁹ Mountagu presumably meant the courtier and poet Sir John Harington of Kelston, Somerset rather than John, 1st Baron Harington or his brother Sir James Harington, knight of the shire for Rutland.

¹²⁰ The details of this bill are not recorded in CJ, i. 160Google Scholar, Manners or Cotton.

¹²¹ CJ, i. 940Google Scholar; not recorded in CJ, i. 160.Google Scholar

¹²² Mountagu seems to have confused this measure with two other bills concerning alehouses which were first read on 18 April. CJ, i. 176.Google Scholar

¹²³ Mountagu presumably confused this bill with that for forcible entries, engrossed on 13 April. CJ, i. 170.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ The Statute of Artificers, 5 Eliz. I cap. 4. SR, iv. 414–22.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Payne was allowed to take his place in the House again on 6 March 1610. CJ, i. 406.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ ag Eliz. I cap. 6 (cl. 6). SR, iv, 772.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ These phrases are underlined in the text.

¹²⁸ CJ, i. 167Google Scholar. The bill assured lands to the Dean and Chapter of Windsor.

¹²⁹ Christopher Brooke, MP for York.

¹³⁰ For this debate, see CJ, i. 168Google Scholar. Mountagu's account is difficult to read as it is crammed on to the bottom of a page.

¹³¹ Dispute between Sir Robert Vernon and Sir William Herbert over conveyance of lands in Montgomeryshire.

¹³² Enacted as 1 Jac. I cap. 36.

¹³³ Sherley had been arrested shortly before the start of the session, while under parliamentary privilege.

¹³⁴ Enacted as 1 Jac. I cap. 32.

¹³⁵ The text breaks off abruptly at the bottom of the page; this was presumably the motion for Recorder Mountagu to report the proceedings of the conference to the House on 16 April.

¹³⁶ This was one of the three points Mountagu himself had moved on 23 March.

¹³⁷ Bill to confirm the charter of the Bridewell Hospital. CJ, i. 173.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ The 1601 act made the estate of the late Edward Lucas liable to legacies in the will of John Flowerdew. CJ, i. 175.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Unidentified but, in the context, presumably the Le Grys v. Cotterell estate bill. CJ, i. 175.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ John Tey, MP for Arundel. CJ, i. 175.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Sherley attempted to resolve his privilege case by undertaking to settle the debt for which he had been arrested and exonerate the Warden of the Fleet from any liability for his release under parliamentary privilege.

¹⁴² The only bill Mountagu missed was another relating to alehouses. CJ, i. 176.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ This note is at the top of a new page in the manuscript.

¹⁴⁴ i.e. Bishops.

¹⁴⁵ xwo private bills were brought from the Lords on 19 April, one for naturalization of Sir George Home, the other for confirmation of letters patents to Home. LJ, ii. 782.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Mountagu must only have missed prayers, as Jermy's bill is the first item of business recorded in CJ, i. 179.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ i.e. The bill to provide a remedy for the dilemma posed by Sherley's privilege case.

¹⁴⁸ i.e. Sir Francis Bacon.

¹⁴⁹ Northants. RO, Mountagu MS 29/71, for which see pp. 96–99.

¹⁵⁰ Text ends abruptly at the bottom of a page.

¹⁵¹ Esme, Lord D'Aubigny.

¹⁵² Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 31.

¹⁵³ The 1536 Act concerned the taking of ballast from the Thames. SR, iii. 550.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 11.

¹⁵⁵ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 34.

¹⁵⁶ Three bills had been read and two reported from committee before the point at which Mountagu's notes begin.

¹⁵⁷ During Mountagu's absence the house received complaints about purveyance, sent two messages to the Lords and read two bills.

¹⁵⁸ i.e. The Exchequer.

¹⁵⁹ Northants. RO, Montagu MS 29/73, printed below.

¹⁶⁰ Sir Edward Bruce, Lord Kinloss.

¹⁶¹ CJ, i. 193Google Scholar states that the suit was between Sir Robert Vernon and Sir William Herbert.

¹⁶² To confirm an entail made by Henry Butler upon the marriage of his son William. CJ, i. 193.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ The 1597 Vagrancy Act, 39 Eliz. I cap. 4. SR, iv. 899–902.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Northants. RO, Montagu MS 29/73.

¹⁶⁵ For which see CJ, i. 194.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ A bill to give children born in England to alien parents the status of denizens. CJ, i. 197.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ The bill must simply have been tabled at this point, as no reading is recorded in CJ, i. 199.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ A bill to register legal judgements which might affect land titles. CJ, i. 199.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ i.e. Customs officials.

¹⁷⁰ ‘For the better safety of the realm, that his Majesty may take notice where aliens and strangers are inhabiting.’ CJ, i. 199.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ 5 Eliz. cap. 8. SR, iv. 429–36.Google Scholar

¹⁷² Not mentioned in CJ, i. 204, 967–8.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Two other bills, for Exchequer procedure and the Trinity College-Mounson land exchange, were also sent down at this time. CJ, i. 210.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Thomas Glover, Margaret Mordant, Francis Collymore, Alexander Daniell, Nicholas Gilpine and Mary Copcote. The bill was enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 29.

¹⁷⁵ See CJ, i. 210.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ On Monday 14 May Mountagu was granted leave of absence to attend a lawsuit he had pending the following day at the Guildhall [CJ, i. 209Google Scholar]; there are no entries for 16–18 May, but he left a blank page at this point in his parliamentary diary.

¹⁷⁷ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 37.

¹⁷⁸ The third reading of this bill was deferred until Monday 21 May; it eventually passed on 22 May. CJ, i. 215, 222.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 18.

¹⁸⁰ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 28.

¹⁸¹ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 30.

¹⁸² Three of the various bills for regulation of alehouses were all consigned to the same committee. CJ, i. 222.Google Scholar

¹⁸³ CJ, i. 224Google Scholar states that this bill received first and second readings the following morning, but ibid. 978 concurs with Mountagu.

¹⁸⁴ i.e. the Lea river to the north-east of London. This reading is not recorded in CJ, i. 224–5, 978–9.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 17.

¹⁸⁶ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 24.

¹⁸⁷ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 21.

¹⁸⁸ CJ, i. 225Google Scholar merely cites this as a bill ‘for confirmation of a decree in Chancery made for payment of money and re-assurance of a lease’. It was presumably the bill committed on 2 June [ibid. 231], but there is no record of its being dashed, as Mountagu states.

¹⁸⁹ i.e. Plague.

¹⁹⁰ i.e. John Tey, MP for Arundel.

¹⁹¹ Thornborough, John, A Discourse plainely proving the evident Utilitie and urgent necessitie of the desired happie Union of the two famous Kingdomes of England and Scotland (London, 1604)Google Scholar, repr. in Harleian Miscellany, ix. 95–105Google Scholar. This outcry occasioned the book's suppression, see HMC Hastings, iv. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁹² Because of the feast of Whit Sunday on 27 May.

¹⁹³ To Sir George Home, CJ, i. 228.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ Henry Jernegan of Norfolk. Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 33.

¹⁹⁵ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 38.

¹⁹⁶ Mountagu crossed this out because he had already made a note of the bill when it arrived from the Lords the previous day.

¹⁹⁷ i.e. The bill was reported on this day. CJ, i. 230.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ These bills were assigned to the committee appointed to consider Mountagu's motion of 23 March.

¹⁹⁹ The date of this third reading is not noted in CJ, i. 236–7, 989–90.Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ The dates are lost by a tear in the page. CJ, i. 232, 244.Google Scholar

²⁰¹ Presumably ‘reports’; five bills were reported to the House on 6 June. CJ, i. 233.Google Scholar

²⁰² The printed CJ [i. 233, 237] misread the title of this bill as being ‘for the maintenance of artillery’.

²⁰³ The bill was committed at its second reading on 7 June, but reported as being unfit to continue on 13 June.

²⁰⁴ John Gordon, Dean of Salisbury. Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 22.

²⁰⁵ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 26.

²⁰⁶ Edmond Penning. CJ, i. 234.Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ i.e. Leases of church lands. CJ, i. 235Google Scholar. 21 Hen. VIII, cap. 13. SR, iii. 292–6.Google Scholar

²⁰⁸ ‘in spiritual causes’ CJ, i. 237.Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ i.e. Exchequer.

²¹⁰ The petition is printed in CJ, i. 238Google Scholar. No order for presentation to the King is recorded for that day.

²¹¹ The bill was given a first reading on the recommendation of the committee for the earlier bill. CJ, i. 238–9.Google Scholar

²¹² i.e. Rogues.

²¹³ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 23.

²¹⁴ Camera Picta or Painted Chamber.

²¹⁵ Enacted as 1 Jac. I, cap. 27.

²¹⁶ The rejection is recorded in CJ, i. 996aGoogle Scholar but not ibid. 244.

²¹⁷ Second reading; rejected. CJ, i. 245.Google Scholar

²¹⁸ Sir John Stanhope, MP for Newtown, Isle of Wight.

²¹⁹ fhe King declined any oner of subsidy the Commons might vote.

²²⁰ Mountagu has confused the motion which was to double the traditional contribution of 5s. per knight and 2s. 6d. per burgess. This motion was rejected.

²²¹ Motion of Sir Edward Hoby. CJ, i. 247–8.Google Scholar

²²² Thomas Lovell.

²²³ Adam Newton, tutor to Prince Henry.

²²⁴ Although technically committed, no committee was named and the bill was ordered to sleep until the next session.

²²⁵ i.e. Bringing down the following two bills.

²²⁶ Estate bill for Sir Henry Neville of Byrling, Kent, enacted as 1 Jac. I cap. 36.

²²⁷ Mountagu drafted a speech on this subject, Northants. RO MS 29/44, for which see below, pp. 102–3.

²²⁸ i.e. the annexation's bill.

²²⁹ 25 Hen. VIII, cap. 19, ‘Act for the submission of the clergy to the King's Majesty’. SR, iii. 460–1.Google Scholar

²³⁰ 1 Eliz. I cap. 1, Act of Supremacy. SR, iv. 350–5.Google Scholar

²³¹ 3&4 Edw. VI cap. 11, ‘An act that the King's Majesty may nominate 32 persons to peruse and make ecclesiastical laws’. SR, iv. 111–12.Google Scholar

²³² Briefly related in CJ, i. 182.Google Scholar

²³³ CJ, i. 184Google Scholar contains the slightly different list of objections reported by Bacon on 25 April.

²³⁴ i.e. Diplomatic precedence.

²³⁵ Bacon chose to ignore this anti-Scots remark in his report of the debate.

²³⁶ CJ, i. 183–4.Google Scholar

²³⁷ i.e. Objection.

²³⁸ Sir Roger Aston, MP for Cheshire.

²³⁹ See also CJ, i. 186–7.Google Scholar

²⁴⁰ Reported by Bacon. For the names of those chosen to speak at the conference, see CJ, i. 188–9.Google Scholar

²⁴¹ CJ, i. 193–4.Google Scholar

²⁴² This message was received on Thursday 10 May, see CJ, i. 206.Google Scholar

²⁴³ Sir Henry Hobart.

²⁴⁴ Sir Thomas Billingsley, MP for London.

²⁴⁵ Robert Askwith, MP for York.

²⁴⁶ MP for Bristol.

²⁴⁷ MP for Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

²⁴⁸ Robert, Lord Buckhurst, MP for Sussex.

²⁴⁹ Thomas, Lord Clinton, M P for Lincolnshire.

²⁵⁰ Vice-Chamberlain to the Queen. CJ, i. 208.Google Scholar

²⁵¹ Sir Thomas Ridgeway, MP for Devon.

²⁵² Sir Richard Bulkeley, MP for Anglesey.

²⁵³ Sir Henry Widdrington, M P for Northumberland.

²⁵⁴ The bill was given two readings in the Commons on 4 July 1604, but ran out of time and was allowed to sleep until the next session on 6 July. CJ, i. 252–3.Google Scholar

²⁵⁵ Briefly noted in Bowyer, p. 185Google Scholar. The King also spoke at length, see ibid.; CJ, i. 314–15.Google Scholar

²⁵⁶ CJ, i. 316–18.Google Scholar

²⁵⁷ Ibid. i. 318–23.Google Scholar

²⁵⁸ Ibid. i. 315–16, 323–4Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 186, 188Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 123.

²⁵⁹ i.e. Sir Henry Hobart, MP for Norwich; see Bowyer, pp. 188–9Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 123.

²⁶⁰ CJ, i. 324Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 123.

²⁶¹ CJ, i. 325Google Scholar. The Act in question was 3 Jac. I, Private Acts cap. 12.

²⁶² CJ, i. 325Google Scholar; Bowyer, p. 194.Google Scholar

²⁶³ This was a result of the Lords' request for a preliminary conference on the union. CJ, i. 326.Google Scholar

²⁶⁴ Ibid. i. 326.

²⁶⁵ Ibid. 326–7.

²⁶⁶ Ibid. 331; Bowyer, pp. 208–9.Google Scholar

²⁶⁷ This ruling is not recorded elsewhere, but may have sprung from the debate over the Hostile Laws bill on 26 June, see CJ, i. 387–8, 1054Google Scholar; Bowyer, p. 351.Google Scholar

²⁶⁸ CJ, i. 331Google Scholar. As Under-Clerk of the Parliament, Ralph Ewens was the senior clerk in the Commons.

²⁶⁹ Ibid. i. 331, which names the clerk as Nicholas Davye.

²⁷⁰ Ibid. i. 332, privilege claimed by Sir Michael Sondes on behalf of his servant Thomas Finch.

²⁷¹ Ibid. i. 333.

²⁷² The attorney Robert Bateman, detained the previous day on a privilege complaint. Ibid. i. 333.

²⁷³ This is confirmed by ibid. i. 333; Mountagu Diary, p. 129.

²⁷⁴ CJ, i. 335–6Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, pp. 130–1.

²⁷⁵ D'Ewes, Eliz. pp. 642–3Google Scholar; Baron of Waltham was a courtesy title held by Thomas Langton, MP for Newton-in-Makerfield in 1601.

²⁷⁶ Anthony Curwin, servant to William Huddleston, MP for Cumberland in 1601. D'Ewes, Eliz. p. 686Google Scholar does not specifically state that Curwin was an attorney.

²⁷⁷ CJ, i. 334Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 209–10Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 130 which all state that the Commons' judgement on this case was handed down on 13 February.

²⁷⁸ This helps to explain the gnomic order recorded in CJ, i. 339Google Scholar: the Commons doubtless hoped the ruling would allow them to postpone a conference with the Lords, who were pressing them on the vexed question of naturalization [see Mountagu Diary, p. 132], but allowed themselves room to revoke the decision if it proved controversial.

²⁷⁹ CJ, i. 343.Google Scholar

²⁸⁰ For the text see ibid. i. 344.

²⁸¹ Ibid. i. 343–4.

²⁸² Ibid. i. 340–2, 344.

²⁸³ Ibid. i. 345–6; Mountagu Diary, p. 135.

²⁸⁴ CJ, i. 346Google Scholar. The morion was made by Speaker Phelips, whose own estates lay in Somerset.

²⁸⁵ Ibid. i. 346. This was presumably a reference to the amendments for the newly amended drunkenness bill, which was given a third reading directly thereafter.

²⁸⁶ Ibid. i. 346.

²⁸⁷ Ibid. i. 348–9; Bowyer, pp. 212–14Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 137.

²⁸⁸ This motion was in fact raised during the hearing of counsel for the bill for St Saviour's, Southwark. CJ, i. 349Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 216–17.Google Scholar

²⁸⁹ CJ, i. 351.Google Scholar

²⁹⁰ Ibid. i. 351.

²⁹¹ This order was presumably cited in making the motion recorded in ibid. i. 352.

²⁹² Ibid. i. 352.

²⁹³ Ibid. i. 352.

²⁹⁴ Ibid. i. 352; Bowyer, pp. 233–4.Google Scholar

²⁹⁵ CJ, i. 353.Google Scholar

²⁹⁶ Heigham and Fuller actually made their motions on 23 March, ibid. i. 353–4.

²⁹⁷ Ibid. i. 353–4; Bowyer, pp. 240–2Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 139.

²⁹⁸ CJ, i. 354.Google Scholar

²⁹⁹ Despite the dates given, the bill was reported on 26 March. Ibid. i. 354.

³⁰⁰ It is probable that this number should read 6000 rather than 60000.

³⁰¹ CJ, i. 355–6.Google Scholar

³⁰² Ibid. i. 357–63.

³⁰³ Ibid. i. 363.

³⁰⁴ Ibid., i. 364. Counsel both for and against the bill were eventually heard on 9 May. Ibid. i. 371–2.

³⁰⁵ Bowyer, p. 253Google Scholar puts the number at 53. Mountagu Diary p. 141 ascribes the absences to the forthcoming St. George's feast at Windsor.

³⁰⁶ i.e. A recommittal of a bill overrides the conclusions reached by the original committee. CJ, i. 365.Google Scholar

³⁰⁷ This refers to the debates of 28 April to 1 May, which are recorded only perfunctorily in CJ, i. 364–5Google Scholar. For the fullest reports, see Bowyer, pp. 255–86.Google Scholar

³⁰⁸ CJ, i. 366–8Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 287–8.Google Scholar

³⁰⁹ 3 May was a Sunday; the case was aired on the following day. CJ, i. 368.Google Scholar

³¹⁰ Ibid. i. 369.

³¹¹ Ibid. i. 371.

³¹² This alludes to the debates of 6–7 May; ibid. i. 370–1; Bowyer, pp. 376–81Google Scholar; Mountagu Diary, p. 144. No version of Lewkenor's speech appears to survive.

³¹³ CJ, i. 371Google Scholar (7 May).

³¹⁴ Ibid.

³¹⁵ Ibid. i. 371, 1042.

³¹⁶ 8 May. Ibid. i. 371.

³¹⁷ This debate actually took place on 11–12 May, ibid. i. 372–3; Bowyer, pp. 291–2.Google Scholar

³¹⁸ CJ, i. 375.Google Scholar

³¹⁹ Ibid. i. 373, 1044.

³²⁰ 13 May. Ibid. i. 373.

³²¹ CJ, i. 373, 379Google Scholar. Although the Journal names him as Francis Bullingham, this was in fact Richard Bellingham, M P for Bletchingley.

³²² This does not appear to have been recorded at the time. Hasler, , iii. 216.Google Scholar

³²³ Spencer v. Abergavenny, 24 March 1606. CJ, i. 288.Google Scholar

³²⁴ Ibid. i. 373.

³²⁵ Ibid. i. 375; Bowyer, pp. 293–7.Google Scholar

³²⁶ Which clarifies the order in CJ, i. 375Google Scholar: ‘no committees should sit until their next meeting’.

³²⁷ Ibid. i. 375.

³²⁸ Bowyer, pp. 297–8Google Scholar explains that some suspected this adjournment was intended to defuse the Commons' objections to officially sponsored amendments to the Hostile Laws bill.

³²⁹ Second reading. The question had been considered upon a recommendation from the King on 27 February, and the bill had received its first reading on 4 March. CJ, i. 343–4. 347. 376.Google Scholar

³³⁰ Ibid. i. 377. The union debate is briefly recorded in Bowyer, pp. 307–8.Google Scholar

³³¹ CJ, i. 377–8.Google Scholar

³³² Actually entered on 4 June. Ibid. i. 378–9.

³³³ The notes for 4 June are all recorded in ibid. i. 379.

³³⁴ Ibid. i. 380.

³³⁵ The text of the letter is entered in ibid. i. 380–1.

³³⁶ [Sic] 9 June pm. CJ, i. 381.Google Scholar

³³⁷ Ibid. i. 381.

³³⁸ Ibid.

³³⁹ Ibid. i. 383–4.

³⁴⁰ Cotton and Robert Bowyer were ordered to conduct a search for precedents on this point. Ibid. i. 384; Bowyer, pp. 330–3.Google Scholar

³⁴¹ CJ, i. 384–5.Google Scholar

³⁴² Ibid. i. 384; Bowyer, pp. 333–9.Google Scholar

³⁴³ CJ, i. 385Google Scholar; Bowyer, p. 343.Google Scholar

³⁴⁴ This is almost a verbatim copy of CJ, i. 385.Google Scholar

³⁴⁵ Ibid. i. 385–6.

³⁴⁶ Ibid. i. 386. The parties were Christopher Stone, MP for Bath and Edmund March.

³⁴⁷ First reading. Ibid. i. 386.

³⁴⁸ Presumably the wrong date. This bill was first read on 9 June, second read and committed on 10 June and reported and engrossed on 23 June. Ibid. i. 381. 387.

³⁴⁹ Ibid. i. 386–7.

³⁵⁰ Ibid. i. 387.

³⁵¹ Ibid. i. 388–9; Bowyer, pp. 358–63.Google Scholar

³⁵² CJ, i. 388.Google Scholar

³⁵³ Lawrence Hyde moved to add the word ‘Oath’. Ibid. i. 388–9; Bowyer, p. 362.Google Scholar

³⁵⁴ The dates mentioned in CJ, i. 389Google Scholar are 1–2 July.

³⁵⁵ This was actually the bill to confirm a clause in the charter of Southampton. Ibid. i. 390.

³⁵⁶ Ibid. i. 390.

³⁵⁷ Ibid. i. 390. The reporter was Sir Edwin Sandys, see Bowyer, pp. 367–8.Google Scholar

³⁵⁸ Ibid. i. 390–1.

³⁵⁹ Ibid. i. 391–2.

³⁶⁰ The speeches are noted in CJ, i. 314–15Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 185–6Google Scholar. The answer to the grievances is printed in CJ, i. 316–18.Google Scholar

³⁶¹ 11am according to CJ, i. 318.Google Scholar

³⁶² For which see ibid. i. 318–23.

³⁶³ Ibid. i. 324; Bowyer, pp. 188–9Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 104.

³⁶⁴ Following the question raised about his attendance on 22 November.

³⁶⁵ CJ, i. 324.Google Scholar

³⁶⁶ Bowyer noted that Mountagu considered that because the Commons' answer failed to endorse the Lords' message they should have returned answer by their own messengers. Bowyer, p. 191.Google Scholar

³⁶⁷ Three private bills, the free trade bill and the bill for the fame of noble persons received first readings on this day. CJ, i. 324.Google Scholar

³⁶⁸ Reports (made the following morning) are to be found in ibid. i. 325; Bowyer, 191–2.Google Scholar

³⁶⁹ 3 Jac. I, cap. 6 abrogated the charters of all companies trading with France and Spain. SR, iv. 1083.Google Scholar

³⁷⁰ i.e. Evelyn, John. CJ, i. 325.Google Scholar

³⁷¹ Ibid. i. 1005; Bowyer, pp. 195–7.Google Scholar

³⁷² This bill dealt with the ex officio oath, one of the issues Mountagu raised in his speech of 23 March 1604 on this subject, for which see above and Bowyer, pp. 199–200.Google Scholar

³⁷³ CJ, i. 326Google Scholar; Bowyer, p. 198Google Scholar.

³⁷⁴ ‘To retrain the execution of Canons ecclesiastical not confirmed by Parliament’ CJ, i. 326Google Scholar. This was another of the measures recommended by Mountagu on 23 March 1604.

³⁷⁵ Ibid. i. 326; Bowyer, pp. 198–9.Google Scholar

³⁷⁶ Sir Hugh Beeston was appointed one of the collectors of the benevolence, and the House adjourned early in preparation for the afternoon's Grand Committee on the Instrument of Union. CJ, i. 326–7.Google Scholar

³⁷⁷ Enacted as 4 Jac. I, cap. 4. SR, iv. 1141–2.Google Scholar

³⁷⁸ Interim report on the Union committee, two bills read and one reported, complaint about border abuses. Ibid. i. 327; Bowyer, pp. 199–200.Google Scholar

³⁷⁹ Peter Baro, MD. The measure was enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 30.

³⁸⁰ 18 Eliz. I, cap. 3, ‘An Act for the setting of the poor on work’. SR, iv. 610–13.Google Scholar

³⁸¹ 1 Jac. I, cap. 22. SR, iv. 1039–48.Google Scholar

³⁸² The two parts in question were hostile laws and commerce; CJ, i. 329Google Scholar; Bowyer, p. 204.Google Scholar

³⁸³ Briefly detailed in Bowyer, pp. 204–5Google Scholar. The 1604 bill was 1 Jac. I, cap. 33. SR, iv. 1062–4.Google Scholar

³⁸⁴ Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 18.

³⁸⁵ Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 20.

³⁸⁶ Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 21.

³⁸⁷ Soham, Cambridgeshire.

³⁸⁸ CJ, i. 331Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, pp. 105–6.

³⁸⁹ Thomas Finch. CJ, i. 332.Google Scholar

³⁹⁰ Robert Bateman and Peter Hutchins. Ibid. i. 333.

³⁹¹ 8 Hen. VI, cap. 9. SR, ii. 244–6.Google Scholar

³⁹² Ibid. i. 333.

³⁹³ i.e. The diarist's brother Sir Henry Mountagu, Recorder of London.

³⁹⁴ i.e. The court of Common Pleas.

³⁹⁵ CJ, i. 334Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 209–10Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 107.

³⁹⁶ CJ, i. 334–5.Google Scholar

³⁹⁷ Ibid. i. 335.

³⁹⁸ Ibid. i. 335–6.

³⁹⁹ Enacted as 4 Jac. I, cap. 2. SR, iv. 1137–40.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁰ The abbreviations denote ‘defendant’ and ‘plaintiff’.

⁴⁰¹ CJ, i. 336–7, 1015.Google Scholar

⁴⁰² Owen was the last of several speakers. Ibid. i. 337, 1016.

⁴⁰³ The man who had arrested the MP Richard James. See above 10–11 February.

⁴⁰⁴ CJ, i. 338, 1016–18Google Scholar; PRO, SP14/26/54.

⁴⁰⁵ Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 24.

⁴⁰⁶ CJ, i. 338–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁷ Ibid. i. 1018–19.

⁴⁰⁸ For which see HLRO, Main Papers (Parchment Collection) Box 1E, 27 May 1607. It enlarged upon 32 Hen. VIII, OA 49.

⁴⁰⁹ Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 27.

⁴¹⁰ CJ, i. 1019–20.Google Scholar

⁴¹¹ HLRO, Main Papers, 9 Mar. 1607.

⁴¹² HLRO, 4 James I, OA 33.

⁴¹³ CJ i. 339. 1020.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁴ Ibid. i. 340 mentions 30,000 acres; the final Act mentions only 6,000: 4 Jac. I, cap. 13; SR, iv. 1152.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁵ CJ, i. 340.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁶ 4 Jac. I, cap. 7. SR, iv. 1144–6.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁷ There was also a lengthy complaint about Spanish interference with English trade. CJ, i. 340–2.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁸ Second reading. Ibid. i. 342.

⁴¹⁹ Second reading. Ibid. i. 343.

⁴²⁰ Enacted as 4 Jac. I, cap. 11. SR, iv. 1149–51.Google Scholar

⁴²¹ CJ, i. 344Google Scholar and Cotton Diary p. 107 date this to 27 February.

⁴²² Draft bill in BL, Add. 34218, fols 94–5.

⁴²³ CJ, i. 345–6.Google Scholar

⁴²⁴ 1 Jac. I, cap. 16. SR, iv. 1034.Google Scholar

⁴²⁵ 13 Eliz. I, cap. 12, ‘An Act to reform certain disorders touching ministers of the church’. SR, iv. 546–7.Google Scholar

⁴²⁶ The floods had affected Somerset, where Phelips' own estates lay. CJ, i. 346Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 108.

⁴²⁷ This report was made by Sir Edward Hoby. CJ, i. 346–7.Google Scholar

⁴²⁸ Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 28.

⁴²⁹ CJ, i. 348Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 212–14Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, pp. 108–9.

⁴³⁰ On the following morning. CJ, i. 348.Google Scholar

⁴³¹ Ibid. i. 348–99; Bowyer, p. 216Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 109.

⁴³² James Desmaistres. HLRO, 4 James I, OA 31.

⁴³³ CJ, i. 350.Google Scholar

⁴³⁴ No such bill is recorded as being read on this day. Ibid. i. 350–1, 1028–9.

⁴³⁵ The background to the dispute is rehearsed in ibid. i. 380–1.

⁴³⁶ CJ, i. 352Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 109.

⁴³⁷ The conference took place at 2pm in the Painted Chamber. Bowyer, pp. 235–40.Google Scholar

⁴³⁸ The day being the fourth anniversary of the King's accession. CJ, i. 354.Google Scholar

⁴³⁹ i.e. The conferences on 7 and 14 March. Ibid. i. 354, 1032.

⁴⁴⁰ The first reading of this bill is not recorded in the Journal; it otherwise proceeded in tandem with Sackvile's bill. Ibid. i. 355–7.

⁴⁴¹ Lesnes and Fants. 4 Jac I, cap. 8. SR, iv. 1146–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁴² HLRO, 4 James I, OA 17.

⁴⁴³ CJ, i. 354–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁴⁴ Ibid. i. 356; Bowyer, pp. 242–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁴⁵ i.e. The court of Requests.

⁴⁴⁶ Ightham Mote, Kent. The bill seems to have been intended to extinguish the reversionary claim held by Stephen Allen, whose father had sold the manor to Selby while he was still underage, and hence unable to waive his rights.

⁴⁴⁷ CJ. i. 357.Google Scholar

⁴⁴⁸ Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I OA 22.

⁴⁴⁹ CJ i. 357–63Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 252–3.Google Scholar

⁴⁵⁰ Bowyer, p. 253Google Scholar states that one MP counted 53 members present.

⁴⁵¹ Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I OA 23.

⁴⁵² 3 Jac. I, cap 18. SR, iv. 1092–3.Google Scholar

⁴⁵³ This paper has not been found. See CJ, i. 364, 1035–6Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 255–63.Google Scholar

⁴⁵⁴ Enacted as 4 Jac. I, cap. 10. SR, 1148–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁵⁵ CJ, i. 365, 1037Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 263–74.Google Scholar

⁴⁵⁶ Presumably part of the Tanners' Act, 1 Jac. I, cap. 22. SR, iv. 1039–48Google Scholar.

⁴⁵⁷ CJ, i. 365, 1038Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 274–84.Google Scholar

⁴⁵⁸ CJ, i. 365Google Scholar says Thomas Annoot.

⁴⁵⁹ HLRO, Main Papers, 11 June 1607.

⁴⁶⁰ CJ, i. 366, 1039Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 284–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁶¹ CJ, i. 366.Google Scholar

⁴⁶² Ibid., i. 366.

⁴⁶³ Ibid. i. 366–8; Bowyer, pp. 287–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁴ Bowyer, pp. 289–90Google Scholar. Enacted (after much controversy) as 4 Jac. I. cap. 1. SR, iv. 1134–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁵ CJ, i. 368.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁶ When counsel for the Marshalsea bill was heard. Ibid. i. 369; Bowyer, pp. 290–1.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁷ In his speech of 2 May the King had complained of ‘speeches against duty, almost against allegiance’ in the Union debates in the Commons. CJ, i. 367Google Scholar. For the debate of 6 May see ibid. i. 370, 1041; Cotton Diary, p. 112.

⁴⁶⁸ CJ, i. 370–1Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 376–81.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁹ CJ, i. 371–3Google Scholar. The debate on the hostile laws bill continued until a conference with the Lords on 11 May. Bowyer, pp. 381–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁰ Edward, Lord Bruce and Michael Doyley. Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 19.

⁴⁷¹ Enacted as 4 James I, OA 25.

⁴⁷² CJ 373, 1044Google Scholar; PRO, SP14/27/19; Cotton Diary, p. 114.

⁴⁷³ See above, Tuesday 3 March.

⁴⁷⁴ Enacted as HLRO, 4 James I, OA 16.

⁴⁷⁵ CJ, i. 375Google Scholar; Bowyer, pp. 293–4Google Scholar; Cotton Diary, p. 115.

⁴⁷⁶ For which see the narrative in Martin, J. E., Feudalism to Capitalism (New Jersey, 1983), pp. 161–80.Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁷ The next session eventually convened on 30 January 1610.