¹ Rot. Part. iii. 415 (2).

^{page 158 note 1} See the detailed studies by ProfessorBaldwin, J. F. in The King's Council (Oxford, 1913), and cf. below, pp. 172–3.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 1} In one point of detail we clearly see the lawyer, for he recommends keeping a ledger ‘ as a registir or a ordinarye howe thai shall doo in euery thynge,’ which suggests a precedent-book rather than a journal. As a matter of speculation one might note some curious leaves of parchment which are scattered through the MS. Cotton., Titus E. v., among comparatively modern transcripts on paper of rolls of parliament. The leaves in question consist of fair copies in contemporary handwriting of various ordinances for council procedure such as we shall notice later, and seem to have originally formed a book which was subsequently dissected, and bound up with the later and somewhat larger volume. Was this such a book as Fortescue mentions ?

^{page 160 note 2} See below, pp. 165–70.

^{page 160 note 3} It is a curious lapse of his editor to say (pp. 4, 307) that Fortescue makes no reference to great councils, seeing that a whole Chapter (XVI) is devoted to the subject.

^{page 161 note 1} See Baldwin, The King’s Council; Palgrave, Original Authority, etc.

^{page 161 note 2} Below, pp. 165–171.

^{page 161 note 3} Ibid., pp. 172–3.

^{page 161 note 3} Ibid., pp. 174–5.

^{page 162 note 1} Below, pp. 176–183.

^{page 162 note 2} Ibid., pp. 185–9.

^{page 162 note 3} There are a few exceptions to this general statement which need not be discussed here, but in no case have we an undoubtedly official roll or register, while on the other hand, it is certain that the compilations in question are only selections which are far from exhaustive.

^{page 163 note 1} For example, the constableship of Shrewsbury Castle was conferred on Bewes Hampton by patent in 1436 (Cal. Pat. Hen. VI. iii. 25), while Thomas Chace was reinstated as Chancellor of Ireland by a similar instrument (ibid. 28). In both cases the patent was procured ‘ By writ of Privy Seal,’ but the difference between the origins of these grants can be seen in the respective warrants which moved the Privy Seal; the former was a petition endorsed in a boyish hand ‘ R.H. nous auons graunte’; the latter bears no hint of the King’s intervention, being expedited by a council consisting of the Duke of Gloucester, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Norwich, the Earls of Warwick, Stafford, and Northumberland, Lords Scrope, Hungerford, and Tiptoft, the Chancellor, Treasurer, and Keeper of the Privy Seal (P.R.O. Council and Privy Seal, file 58, 1 Nov., 15 Nov.).

^{page 165 note 1} For a detailed study upon which the following remarks are based, see The Great Council in the Fifteenth Century (thesis by the present writer in the University Library, South Kensington).

^{page 165 note 2} Above, p. 157.

^{page 166 note 1} Nicolas, i. 107–11. When the continual council had got over its panic, it withdrew some of these articles, and took independent action upon them.

^{page 166 note 2} Ibid. 102–6; Rymer, viii. 125–7.

^{page 166 note 3} Council and Privy Seal, file 26, contains some of their replies. Cf. Ann, Hen. 332.

^{page 166 note 4} Adam of Usk, 44; the Editor's theory that Nicolas, i. 107–11, does not refer to a great council is disproved by the fact that the heading appears on both sides of the manuscript; thus it could not be accidental as he suggests. Adam. of Usk, 201–2, n. See MS. Cleopatra, F. iii., ff. 9 and 9b.

^{page 166 note 5} Rymer, viii. 184–5.

^{page 166 note 6} Council and Privy Seal, file 11 (Jan. 14); MS. Add. 24062, f. 136.

^{page 166 note 7} Nicolas, i. 180.

^{page 166 note 8} Chanc. Warrts. i. 1540 (Hilary and July 18).

^{page 166 note 9} Nicolas, i. 233–5; Cal. Pat. Hen. IV, iii. 412; Chanc. Warrts. i. 1541 (Aug. 28–9).

^{page 166 note 10} Rymer, viii. 386; Ann. Hen. 398–9; Council and Privy Seal, file 17 (Jan. 29).

^{page 166 note 11} Wals, ii. 268.

^{page 166 note 12} Issue Roll, Pasch. 7 Hen, IV (June 7).

^{page 167 note 1} Rymer, ix. 51–5, 60, 69–71, 91–103.

^{page 167 note 2} Ibid. 131–3, 136–7.

^{page 167 note 3} Issue Roll, Pasch. 2 Henry V, m. 15.

^{page 167 note 4} Brut, ii. 374 (cf. 552).

^{page 168 note 1} Nicolas, ii. 140–2.

^{page 168 note 2} Ibid. 150.

^{page 168 note 3} Rot. Parl. iv. 22 a.

^{page 168 note 4} Riley, Memorials of London, 604.

^{page 168 note 5} Nicolas, ii. 150–1, 155–8.

^{page 169 note 1} Rot. Parl. iv. 172 b.

^{page 169 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 169 note 3} Nicolas, iii. 271–3.

^{page 169 note 4} Ibid. 322–6.

^{page 169 note 5} Devon, Issues, 414.

^{page 169 note 6} Nicolas, iv. 210–16.

^{page 169 note 6} Council and Privy Seal, file 58 (Oct. 21–30).

^{page 170 note 1} See below, p. 181.

^{page 170 note 2} Nicolas, vi. 163–4.

^{page 170 note 3} Ibid. 216–7; Council and Privy Seal, file 85 (m. i.).

^{page 170 note 4} Ibid.: 220–33.

^{page 170 note 5} ‘ The lordes Chaunceller, Tresorier, and therle of Sar’ [are] in London, and noo more lordes at the begynyng this day of the grete counsail. Many men say that there shuld be, but thei wote not what.’—Paston Letters, i. 392.

^{page 170 note 6} Whethamstede, i. 296–308.

^{page 171 note 1} Nicolas, iii. 233.

^{page 171 note 2} Ibid. v. 64–5; there is no trace of these annual great councils.

^{page 172 note 1} Cal. Pat. Hen. VI, ii. 297; Nicolas, iv. 185–6, 219, 287–8; Rot. Part. v. 438 b.

^{page 172 note 2} Nicolás, ii. 58.

^{page 172 note 3} Cal. Pat. Hen. VI, iii. 128.

^{page 172 note 4} Rot. Part. iii. 457 (16) is the petition; March 10 was the last day of the parliament (ibid. 465, No. 44), and the ordinance by the advice of the great council was made March 18, and ratified on 22nd (Rymer, viii. 184–5). Cf. Rot. Parl. iii. 576 (40), and the great council’s inquiry, July 8, Issue Roll, Pasch. 7 H. IV, June 7, cited above, p. 166, n. 12.

^{page 172 note 5} Rymer, viii. 504–7, and the parliament of October-December, 1407, Cal. Pat. Hen. VI, i. 9–23, 32–3, etc., and Hen. Vl’s first parliament. Cf. ibid. v. 215, and Parry, Parliaments and Councils, 184, for another instance in 1449.

^{page 172 note 6} Report on the Dignity of a Peer, iv. 869 ff.; Nicolas, iv. 67. Cf. what was regarded as a model writ by Occleve, MS. Add. 24062, f. 5.

^{page 172 note 7} Nicolas, i. 18; iv. 4; vi. 345; Cal. Pat. Hen. IV, i. 369; iii. 153; Rot. Part. iii. 52 (9), 54 (14). This and the three preceding notes could be considerably extended by other instances.

^{page 172 note 8} Nicolas, i. 283–7, etc.

^{page 172 note 9} E.g. a bill to incorporate Plymouth; Chanc. Council and Parliament, file 23/7.

^{page 173 note 1} Council and Privy Seal, file 47 (July 27, 1426). Several others are in Chancery, Warrants, Series i., files 1540–48. Cf. Nicolas, iv. 76.

^{page 173 note 2} Cf. Nicolas, iii. 95–6 (original in Council and Privy Seal, file 41, May 19); MS. Add. 4603, ff. 208–9 b.

^{page 173 note 3} Nicolas, i. I79, and other instances.

^{page 173 note 4} Ibid. 107–11, etc.

^{page 173 note 5} The large grant to Gloucester was perhaps settled on November 28, in a full meeting of the continual council (Nicolas, iv. 104), though the result was formally announced in the great council on the 29th (ibid. 105). Cf. Devon, Issues, 414.

^{page 174 note 1} Stevenson, Letters and Papers of Henry VI, II, ii. 442.

^{page 174 note 2} Ancient Petitions, 10464; cited by Baldwin, The King’s Council, 243.

^{page 175 note 1} As a rule, in fifteenth-century MSS. consilium serves for all purposes. The earliest instances of the use of concilium I have noticed are from the pen of Thomas Kent, who was clerk of the council for some years; they are to be found in Council and Privy Seal, file 72 (Feb. 13 and 27, 1444). In the first of these it seems that consilii has been altered to concilii.

^{page 175 note 2} Nicolas, iv. 120.

^{page 175 note 3} ‘Convocavit regni proceres ad Consilii Parliamentum,’ Walsingham, ii. 264.

^{page 176 note 1} Nicolas, Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, v. 28, 29, 40, where the title is applied to William Lyndwoode. The regular use of the style became settled under the Tudors.

^{page 176 note 2} Cal. Pat. Hen. VI, vi. 65.

^{page 177 note 1} Rymer (Record Edn.), II, ii. 1049–50.

^{page 177 note 2} Examples are in Nicolas, i. 14 d, 76; iii. 193. In 1424, owing to his prolonged absence on other business, the Keeper executed a general warrant for the acts of Robert Fry, who was to hold the seal in his stead. Public Record Office, Exch., T.R., Council and Privy Sea), file 44 (Feb. 28).

^{page 178 note 1} Provisions of Oxford, Del Chanceler.

^{page 179 note 1} Rot. Parl. iii. 572–3.

^{page 180 note 1} Nicolas, iii. 15.

^{page 180 note 2} This is a reversion to the Council’s practice under Henry IV, which, however, was modified under his successor, the list of names being generally omitted from the endorsement.

^{page 180 note 3} Rot. Part. iv. 176 (29); Nicolas, iii. 17–18.

^{page 180 note 4} Rot. Parl. iv. 201 (17); Nicolas, iii. 149–50.

^{page 180 note 5} Rot. Parl. v. 407; iv. 343; Nicolas, iii. 213–21 iv. 59–66.

^{page 181 note 1} Rot. Part. iv. 424 (3, 5).

^{page 181 note 2} Ibid., v. 439 a.

^{page 181 note 3} Nicolas, vi. 316–20.

^{page 183 note 1} Cal. Pat. Hen. VI, iv. 312–3; Rymer, xi. 75.

^{page 185 note 1} A. F. Pollard, Reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources, iii. 314.

^{page 185 note 2} Ibid, in Engl. Hist. Rev, xxxii. 455.

^{page 186 note 1} The great bulk of MS. Harl. 433 is very suggestive.

^{page 186 note 2} Above, p. 185, n. 2.

^{page 186 note 3} MS. Add. 4521; Hargrave MS. 216 and others.

^{page 186 note 4} MS. Add. 4521, f 106 b, for example.

^{page 186 note 5} Ibid, f 105 b (1 Hen. VII).

^{page 187 note 1} Scofield, Star Chamber, 62.

^{page 188 note 1} Hudson, ap. Collectanea Juridica, ii. 25.

^{page 188 note 2} MS. Harg. 216, ff. 173 b-174.