^a The first sitting after the Easter recess.

^{page 1 note b} i. e. the Bishop of Durham.

^{page 1 note c} For their part in the patents for Gold and Silver Thread.

^{page 2 note a} i. e That Fowles and Michell be now proceeded against, p. 1.

^{page 2 note b} i. e. Against Sir E. Villiers.

^{page 2 note c} For their part in the execution of the patent for Inns.—L. J. iii. 62.

^{page 4 note a} He is on Mr. Foss's list of counsel in the next reign; but appears from this to have practised in James's reign.

^{page 8 note a} clauses in MS.

^{page 8 note b} Apparently this means “seeing that we have such correspondency with the Commons.”

^{page 8 note c} Blank left for the names.

^{page 9 note a} Blank filled up from L. J. iii. 85.

^{page 9 note b} Blank filled up from L. J. iii. 86.

^{page 9 note c} Blank filled up from p. 17.

^{page 12 note a} May be not be in MS.

^{page 13 note a} The submission is printed in L. J. iii. 84.

^{page 14 note a} MS. satitisfaction.

^{page 17 note a} Second wife of Lord Treasurer Burghley.

^{page 17 note b} This charge seems to have been dropped, probably in consequence of this uncertainty.

^{page 17 note a} Coke.

^{page 36 note a} L. J. iii. 87.

^{page 37 note a} Lieutenant of the Tower, and a Commissioner for the execution of the gold and silver thread patent.

^{page 40 note a} For having arrested Booth, “one of His Majesty's Servants.”—L. J. iii. 101.

^{page 40 note b} It originally stood “Referred to the L. Admyrall, B. of Lincoln,” &c. but the words “Referred to “are deleted, as well as the name, probably by mistake.

^{page 41 note a} The Lord Chancellor's submission printed in L. J. iii. 98.

^{page 42 note a} If he had not been moved therein.—L. J. iii. 102.

^{page 43 note a} In the Lords' Journals, iii. 103, the beginning of this speech is thus given: “The six changes may be divided into two—the one of gold and silver thread, the other of inns and hostelries. I humbly desire that I may now answer to every particular charge, in serie temporis.” No more is here preserved, but two extracts are given at p. 121. The marks in the margin point to portions specially corrected, probably to be used against Yelverton. See p. 52. Only the first part of this paragraph will, however, be found in the first of the two extracts.

^{page 45 note a} These words have been substituted for “him,” which is left standing in the MS. as well.

^{page 46 note a} This last paragraph corresponds with the latter part of the first quotation from this speech made on the 14th of May.—L. J. iii. 121. The marks in the margin seem to point to an intention of making a longer extract.

^{page 46 note b} Heath, who had since become Solicitor General.

^{page 46 note c} Chief Justice Montague.

^{page 47 note a} The passages between these marks correspond generally with the second extract from this speech, read on the 14th of May.—L. J. ii. 121. See also p. 43.

^{page 49 note a} This probably is a direction to Serjeant Crewe by the House. There is a line before it in the MS. so that it is not part of Arundel's speech.

^{page 51 note a} This was a point urged in the King's Speech.—L. J. iii. 82.

^{page 52 note a} The words of the Prince's speech are erased.

^{page 52 note b} “can pu by” MS.

^{page 54 note a} “The L. Sir J.” MS.; L only being erased.

^{page 60 note a} Printed with slight verbal differences in L. J. iii. 104.

^{page 63 note a} The words “Bill only” are written between the lines without any indication where they are to be inserted. Mandeville said, I suppose, that if they had intended to touch honour they should have proceeded by bill.

^{page 65 note a} These four words are repeated twice in the MS.

^{page 72 note a} “Not unfytt” MS.

^{page 73 note a} The words in italics are carefully though not irrecoverably deleted with a thick penstroke in the MS. The evident intention was to draw a veil over the scandal.

^{page 73 note b} The following account of the dispute, with Arundel's subsequent submission, is from the State Papers. Dom. cxxi. 15.

^{page 81 note a} Wooed.

^{page 84 note a} Originally the sentence stood, “He protested he was worse by his place,” the alteration not having been thoroughly made.

^{page 84 note b} The word “desyred” is scratched out in the MS. apparently by mistake.

^{page 86 note a} The words “some of the LL. went out,” were inserted here, and then deleted. Evidently the House was not unanimous«, but it was thought better not to notice it.

^{page 91 note a} This stands I suppose for some Earl, whose name is not given, perhaps Suffolk.

^{page 91 note b} The remainder of the proceedings on the next day originally occupied several pages in the MS. But they have heen carefully cut out, though the nature of the discussion can still be detected from the few words which are still to be read on the slips of paper remaining. The notice of adjournment stood originally, I suppose, at the end of the mutilated pages.

^{page 93 note a} There follows on the same page a letter from Richard Dike dated Nov. 26, asking Elsing whenever “it shall please the Lords to call” him, “to leave a note in wrightinge” at his “howse in the noarth-easte corner of Moorefeildes, neere to Bedlam Gate, nexte to Newe Churche Yearde,” and a memorandum dated Dec. 3, that “yf Lady Day preferres any petition or Byll against the Lady Cæsar, or Sir H. Hungat, notice is to be gyven to Sir Charles Cæsar.”

^{page 95 note a} There is a mark before this word, as if to separate it from Lord Houghton's speech, but no name is given.

^{page 96 note a} This sentence ia a marginal note in the MS.

^{page 96 note b} This is followed by the words “to be whipt publiquely” erased, with the word “deferred” left unerased in the margin.

^{page 96 note c} This originally stood “to be branded in the forehead here, and condempned to the House of Correction to.”

^{page 98 note a} See L. J. iii. 174.

^{page 100 note a} This must mean Lord Say.

^{page 103 note a} This word is separated from the others, and written in smaller characters. It may mean that some one called out “No,” or, as the word “restreyned” was originally written “bound,” it may merely mean that on looking over the notes the writer saw that there was something wrong, which he subsequently corrected.

^{page 104 note a} Either this must be a great exaggeration, or Cranfield must have taken into calculation sources of revenue not usually classed amongst monopolies.

^{page 105 note a} His name is inserted as attending upon his bail, to be ready if called for.

^{page 108 note a} i. e. to be treated tenderly.

^{page 110 note a} L. J. iii. 183.

^{page 110 note b} Restoring them the free trade for the exportation of cloth.—L. J. iii. 184. This would overthrow the privilege of the merchant adventurers.

^{page 111 note a} L. J. iii. 186. He pleaded poverty as a bar to fulfilling the order of Nov. 27 (L. J. iii. 172), directing him to be kept prisoner in the Flect till he put in security to appear on Dec. 17, and to bring with him Thomas Watson, whom he had charged with delivering him the blank protections from Lord Stafford, of the counterfeiting of which he was himself accused.

^{page 111 note b} Not to be compelled to attend daily.—L. J. iii. 186.

^{page 111 note c} In the same page will be found a memorial of the heads of the new Bill, to which the Lords were prepared to consent.

^{page 112 note a} “They find that all matters complained of here were by petitions only.”—L. J. iii. 189.

^{page 112 note b} “Only one precedent.”—L. J. iii. 189.

^{page 117 note a} The names of three Lords recorded as dissentients have been carefully obliterated. Those of Sheffield and Essex are still to be read. The third is a short name, and may possibly be that of Saye.

^{page 119 note a} The word “humilitye” is obliterated.

^{page 122 note a} Würtemberg.

^{page 123 note a} Qu. Chivalry.