¹ I should like here to express my. gratitude to the Leverhulme Trustees for the grant which made it possible for me to carry out the work involved in this publication.

^{page v note 2} Only one of the 64 was specifically termed a select committee in the Journal, but they were all of the nature of select committees, there being at that time, and for long afterwards, no distinction between committees on public matters or bills and those on private bills. In Courthope's day the term ‘ select ’ or ‘ particular’ committee was rarely applied, though it will be observed that the latter term appears written by some later hand on the first folio in the book. It was not till well into the eighteenth century that committees nominated of a limited number of members were regularly termed select committees in the Journals. As regards the special development of private bill committees, I refer readers to my Historical Development of Private Bill Procedure &c. in the House of Commons, vol. i (H.M.S.O.).

^{page vi note 1} This consists of the report and appendices of the select committee of the Commons on Fees of 1732, copied out by some clerk in the Lords in a small notebook—another lucky find filling a deplorable lacuna in the Commons Journal, for calling my attention to which I am much indebted to Mr. M. Bond, the Records Officer of the House of Lords.

^{page vii note 1} The practice of enclosing such words in brackets and of registering the date of sitting in Latin is still adhered to in the House of Lords : the Commons have long since substituted inverted commas and dates in English.

^{page viii note 1} Admin. Acts Book (Pinfold), 1721, fo. 11.

^{page viii note 2} For the above details I am indebted to my friend Mr. Anthony Wagner, C.V.O., Richmond Herald, who informs me that in the Royal College of Arms there is a voluminous genealogy of the Courthope family, compiled by a former Herald of that name, in which further details of James Courthope's descent and connections are to be found.

^{page viii note 3} P.R.O., Treasury In Letters, T. 1/160, fo. 103.

^{page ix note 1} P.R.O., Treasury Money Books, T. 53/13, fo. 141 for 1696 ; ibid., fo. 270 for 1697.

^{page ix note 2} See O. C. Williams, The Officials of the House of Commons (1909, J. B. Nichols), in part ii of which monograph the evidence taken before that committee is summarized. This monograph, will be replaced by my complete work on the Clerks of the House of Commons to be published (I hope in 1954) by the Clarendon Press.

^{page ix note 3} I cannot burden this introduction with the evidence for these statements : but see the petition of William Brerewood in Cal. S.P. Dom., Charles II, 1678, p. 601.

^{page ix note 4} 6 C.J. 287 ; 7 C.J. 291–2.

^{page x note 1} The Table of Fees reported by a committee on the subject in 1700 (13 C.J. 356–7) contains a list of the fees to be taken by clerks attending committees on private bills. The Table of 1690 was lost, but that of 1695, though not entered in the Journal, was extant at least as late as 1731, when another committee reported a new Table of Fees. I have evidence that the table of 1695 differed little from that of 1700. Two bills of costs from solicitors for the passing of private acts in 1695 and 1698, of which I have copies, show that the committee clerks were then receiving the same fees as those established in 1700.

^{page x note 2} E.g. he appointed and maintained in his own house at his own expense a clerk to keep the papers in order, and to assist members who wished to consult them at any time (see the Clerks' petition of 1713, P.R.O., T. 1/60, fos. 97–102).

^{page x note 3} Cal. T.P., 1697–1701/2, p. 190.

^{page x note 4} 13 C.J. 640.

^{page xi note 1} In a petition from all the clerks presented in 1711 (T.1/160, fos. 99–101), it was represented that the expectation of fees for private bill committees amounted to £90 for each of the 4 clerks until the passing of the General Naturalization Act of 1709 caused them the loss of £50 annually owing to the cessation of private naturalization bills. They finally received an extra year's salary in compensation, and the Naturalization Act was repealed in 1712 (see Treasury Order Book, viii. 362).

^{page xi note 2} Certain bills of costs put in to the Court of Aldermen of the City of London by the City Remembrancer in 1709 and 1711 show payments to Courthope for services in connection with the City's parliamentary business, which were not committee fees (MSS. in Corporation of London Record Office).

^{page xiii note 1} E.g. from the committee on Ledginghams's Ships Pumps (12 C.J. 257–8), from that on Woollen Manufactures (ibid., 275–6), and the very long report (ibid., 210–34) on Foreign Lustrings and Clandestine Trade.

^{page xiv note 1} MS. Stowe 373 in the British Museum.

^{page xiv note 2} In the second session, the committees on the Exportation of Wool and on the Newfoundland Trade Bill.

^{page xiv note 3} The anonymous treatise on procedure (c. 1760), which is among the Liverpool papers in the British Museum (Add. MS. 38456), and has been edited under the title The Liverpool Tractate (Columbia University Press, 1937Google Scholar) by Catherine Strateman, of which edition see p. 25. The practice then was, as regards a bill or petition, that the member in charge came out and told the clerk the day on which the committee was to meet, with which notice, wrote the author of the treatise, the clerk was very well satisfied, provided that he might charge the adjournment or attendance ‘ without the trouble of crowding against the House up into the Speaker's Chamber ’.

^{page xiv note 4} Aire and Calder Navigation Bill (2nd session) and Newcastle Waterworks Bill.

^{page xiv note 5} After a standing order first made in 1699 examination of the allegations was the first business of a committee on a private bill.

^{page xv note 1} Tone Navigation Bill (fo. 47V.) and Methwold's Estate Bill (fo. 62V.).

^{page xv note 2} I refer any interested reader who wishes to compare Courthope's minutes of private bill committees with the stage of formality which such proceedings had reached by 1760 to my Historical Development of Private Bill Procedure &c. in the House of Commons, i. 27–40.

^{page 1 note 1} ‘ particular ’ = ‘ select ’, i.e. a committee of limited membership as opposed to a committee of the whole House.

^{page 1 note 2} Select Committee on Estimates and Accounts. This was appointed on 14 December (9) to consider accounts of the deficiencies in the previous year's revenue which had been presented the previous day (5, 6). The report of the select committee was read on 6 January, and set out in full in the Journal (30–2). Comparison of Courthope's minutes with the report shows that, apart from slight differences of drafting and one incorrect figure in the minutes, these are identical with the report as given in the Journal down to the end of the first account in the middle of p. 31 of the Journal. The rest of the committee's report, which was of some length, and dealt, first, with the causes of the deficiencies in the aids, including the evidence of two witnesses, and then with the arrears of pay and subsistence for the army, has no counterpart in these minutes, except for two lines at the end of the book (fo. 92v.) giving the total of arrears of pay from 1 April 1692 to 30 Sept. 1697, and of arrears of subsistence for the same time. The first of these figures is the same as that given in the Journal (31), though the period there stated is up to December 1697 : the second figure has no exact counterpart in the Journal. It seems probable that after 16 December another clerk attended the committee.

^{page 2 note 1} i.e. William Lowndes, M.P., Secretary to the Treasury.

^{page 2 note 2} In the committee's report this passage reads as follows : ‘ But deducting 8d per ounce for so much as was paid in hammered money before the 1st of June 97, and 2d per ounce for what was paid in hammered money after that day : which deductions were computed at 80,000£; but the Committee thought that 67,000£ was sufficient for that allowance.’

^{page 3 note 1} An error for 129,000£, correctly given in the Journal.

^{page 4 note 1} The Undue Marriages of Infants Bill was brought from the Lords and committed to a committee of 41 members on 30 December (19), and the committee was ordered to meet that afternoon in the Speaker's Chamber. The Bill was reported with one amendment on 7 April 1698 (33).

^{page 4 note 2} Sci. press. The bill, having originated in the Lords, was ingrossed on parchment, each folio of which was called a press. The fees for ingrossment were so much per press.

^{page 4 note 3} Knott's Estate Bill was presented on 20 December (13) and committed on 30 December (18) to a committee of 31 nominated members and the members for the counties of Yorks and Notts, to meet at 4 in the Speaker's Chamber. On 3 January (21) the petition of George Manwaring, a creditor, that he might not be prejudiced, was presented to the House and referred to the committee. It is curious that no allusion to this petition is made in the minutes or in the report of the bill which was made on 12 January (41). The amendments made were not recorded in the Journal.

^{page 5 note 1} Private bills were not at this time printed before the committee stage, but were written in manuscript on folios of paper. Hence the place of amendments was determined by the number of the folio and the number of the line on that folio. The abbreviation ‘ bla.’ means ‘ blank ’, i.e. a blank space in the manuscript bill (and at a later date in the printed bill) to be filled in during the committee stage. Blanks were usually left for the final insertion of proper names, dates, sums of money and so forth. In the nineteenth century words written in italics, which had formally to be moved for insertion, were substituted for blanks, both in public and in private bills.

^{page 5 note 2} The Preventing Throwing Squibs &c. Bill was presented on 16 December (12) and after a division was committed on 22 December (15) to a committee of 44 nominated members with the members for London, Westminster and Southwark, to meet at 4 in the Speaker's Chamber. Sir H. Colt reported it with several amendments on 11 January (41), but the amendments were not recorded in the Journal.

^{page 6 note 1} The Assize of Bread Bill was presented on 4 January (22) and committed on 10 January (38) to a committee of 36 nominated members with the members for London, Westminster, Surrey and Kent, ‘ all that come are to have voices ’, which meant that the size of the committee was unlimited. This may account for the frequent adjournments of the committee here recorded. The committee first met on the day it was ordered to meet (10 January), but its first effective meeting was on 19 January when several amendments were made. Thereafter, on fos. 4r. and 5v. its meetings only to adjourn are intercalated with meetings of other committees, up to 2 February. There is no further entry referring to this committee until fo. 11v. with the dates 9 (or 10) March and 12 April. The committee minutes do not record the name of the chairman. It was Mr. Perry who, on 30 April (248), reported the bill with several amendments which, after several adjournments, were finally considered on 10 May (265). The amendments made are not recorded in the Journal.

^{page 7 note 1} The amendment recorded in the last line of this folio bears no certain date. It may belong to the proceedings of 19 January above. The committee clearly did no business on the 21st or 22nd (fo. 4r.).

^{page 7 note 2} Lascells' Estate Bill came down from the Lords on 13 January (43), though Courthope did not enter that it was an ingrossed bill. It was committed on the 20th (56) to a committee of 32, to meet at 4 in the Speaker's Chamber. Mr. Whitaker reported it without amendments on the 27th (68).

^{page 7 note 3} See fo. 5v. for the continuation of this committee.

^{page 8 note 1} The Militia Bill. On 17 December 1697 leave was given to bring in a bill to regulate the Militia and make them more useful. It was referred to a committee of 32 or any three of them to prepare and bring in the bill (12). On 8 January the House agreed to present a humble address for an account of the numbers of the Militia (37), and on 15 January (45, 46) this account was presented by Mr. Bridgman and referred to the committee : the contents of the account are not entered in the Journal. It seems likely that the detailed return of militia strengths by counties which appears on fos. 4v. and 5r. is the account then presented, thus filling an interesting gap in the Journal. There is no further record of the committee's proceedings in this minute book. Sir Richard Onslow presented the bill on 26 February (132).

^{page 10 note 1} This petition, one of several similar petitions from other regiments for arrears of pay, was presented on 17 January (47) and referred to a committee of 38, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber, and to have power to send for persons, papers and records. The marginal note to the Journal entries relating to these petitions was ‘ Irish Arrears ’. Courthope uses the titles ‘ Langston's Committee ’ or ‘ Troopers ’. The only effective meeting which he records is that of 3 February (fo. 6r.) when orders were made for the hearing of this and other petitions referred to the committee on various dates. See below, p. 11, n. 2.

^{page 10 note 2} See p. 6, n. 1 above.

^{page 10 note 3} See n. 1 above.

^{page 11 note 1} The Salt Bill was presented on 25 January by Mr. Foley (62), and committed on 29 January (75) to a committee of 38 to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Mr. Foley, who is not mentioned as chairman in Courthope's minutes, reported the bill with several amendments (not recorded in the Journal) on 4 February (84).

^{page 11 note 2} The petition of Lawrimer and Smith was presented on 3 January, and (see p. 12) that of the men of Arran's regiment and several other regiments of light horse on 20 January, on which day both were referred to the committee on Oldershaw's petition (21, 54). That of Jedbrough's dragoons was presented and referred to the committee on 27 January (69), and that of Lord Stainbock's regiment was presented and referred on 24 January (59, 60). This is the only effective meeting of this committee recorded in these minutes. On 4 May Mr. Manly, chairman of the committee, made a report relating to Lawrimer's petition (252–3) : no report seems to have been made on the other petitions.

^{page 12 note 1} See p. 11, n. 2.

^{page 12 note 2} The petition of Sir Edward Fitzharris was presented on 28 January (72) and referred to a committee of 41 members to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber : five more members were added to the committee on 3 February (81). Although the gist of the petition was entered in the Journal, it is only in these minutes that it is recorded in toto. The final entry on fo. 6v. shows the reason for the granting to this committee of power to send for persons, papers and records (88), and the proceedings of 8 February on the next folio show what order was made after this power had been granted. There is no further entry in this minute book relating to this committee : but the Journal records (a) that on 15 March the House resolved that, notwithstanding the order of the committee, persons summoned from Ireland should not be obliged to attend the committee (160), and (b) that on 21 April Sir Henry Colt reported the fact that in 1666 Fitzharris had been found innocent of the charges brought against him by Oliver.

^{page 14 note 1} Aire and Calder Navigation Bill. On the petition of Leeds Corporation to bring in a bill for this purpose, leave was given on 12 January (42), the bill was presented by Lord Fairfax on 1 February (76), and on 7 February it was committed to a committee of 56 members to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. It was ordered that all petitions should be referred to the committee, and that the committee should have power to receive clauses that the Newcastle and Sunderland coal trade should not be prejudiced. The petitions read on 19 February (fo. 7v.) were presented between 11 and 16 February, some in favour not being entered in the minutes (96, 98, 100–1, 104). The order made by the committee on that day that petitioners should be heard on 7 March was reinforced by an order of the House on 22 February (123) that all petitions were to be presented so that they might be heard on Monday, 7 March, and that no petitions should be admitted after that time. Several more petitions, some in favour, some against, and some praying to be heard were presented (124, 134, 145). Though Mr. Gery was chairman of the committee, it was Sir John Kay who reported the bill with several amendments on 8 April (198) when several new clauses were offered ; but no entries in this minute book after 19 February relate to this bill, which passed the Commons but failed to pass the Lords. It was again introduced in the following session (fos. 55r.–57r.).

^{page 15 note 1} See fo. 10r. and p. 19, n. 1.

^{page 15 note 2} Crediton Workhouses Bill. Leave was given to bring in the bill on the petition of the inhabitants of Crediton on 26 January (63), and it was presented on 11 February (96) and committed to a committee of 42 nominated members with the members for Devon and Cornwall on 18 February (118) to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. The chairman, not named in the minutes, was probably Mr. Burrington, who reported the bill with several amendments on 11 March (153). The complete list of amendments made recorded in these folios is not otherwise recorded.

^{page 19 note 1} Londonderry's petition was presented on 18 February (118) and was at once referred to a committee to examine the matter thereof, and report the same with their opinion to the House. The names of the members nominated were omitted from the Journal. Presumably Sir Robert Clayton who, as ordered by the committee, reported their resolutions on 9 April (199), was chairman of the committee. The entry for 21 February as recorded on this folio does not tally with that for the same date and same committee on fo. 7v. above. Probably Courthope had forgotten the latter entry when, before the final and effective meeting of the committee, he copied from his notes the record of its previous meetings. The script and the corrections show that Courthope was, on this last occasion, entering the committee's resolutions in his book as they went along : but the date of that meeting is uncertain. The committee is shown to have adjourned on 28 February till 7 March ; but that cannot have been the date of the final meeting at which the resolutions were passed, because on 24 March the committee were given leave to sit in a morning but not after 10 o'clock (176). The final meeting recorded here must have been subsequent to that date. The resolutions reported by Sir R. Clayton, as recorded in the Journal, are substantially the same as they appear in these minutes ; but no mention is made in the Journal of the interesting evidence by Mr. Carnes, the Governor of the city, of which Courthope took down the substance. On 9 April, after the report had been read, the House ordered the committee to draw up a humble address to the King on the matter, but there is no entry in Courthope's minutes of their meeting for this purpose. The address was reported on 2 May (249) and on 16 June (317) was recommitted to the committee after debate : on 23 June (328) the revised address was reported and ordered to be presented, and on 29 June (336) the King's favourable answer was announced. We should not know the exact reason for recommittal of the address but for the entry on fo. 42v. which gives it. The first draft had referred exclusively to the city, and made no mention of its defenders. A comparison of the first draft as given in the Journal with the address agreed to show what amendments in this sense were made. But Courthope does not record the meeting of the committee at which the revised address was agreed to.

^{page 21 note 1} See p. 6, n. 1 above. The entry on fo. 12r., though it bears no heading, clearly refers to the committee on the Assize of Bread Bill.

^{page 22 note 1} Newcastle-upon-Tyne Waterworks Bill. Leave was given to bring in the bill on 14 February (100), it was presented on 24 February and committed on 5 March (126, 144) to a committee of 36. The bill was reported with amendments on 24 March (176) not by the chairman of the committee but by Sir William Blackett who had prepared and presented the bill.

^{page 22 note 2} This appearance of counsel is very curious, since there is no record of any petition being presented by Lady Gerrard praying to be heard. It is difficult to conjecture how the committee conceived that they had power to hear counsel on her behalf without such petition and an order of the House consequent upon it.

^{page 23 note 1} Houghton's Estate Bill, presented on 22 February (124), was committed to a committee of 36 nominated members with all the members for Norfolk on 14 March (156–7), to meet that day at 5. No date is given for the entry in the minute book, nor is the chairman's name given. The meeting must have been after 14 March. Mr. Brotherton reported the bill with several amendments on 24 March (176), but the amendments are not set out in the Journal.

^{page 23 note 2} Turner's Estate Bill, presented by Sir Eliab Harvey on 15 March (158), was committed on 21 March (167) to a committee of 41 nominated members and the members for Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs. and Herts., to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. On the same day the petition of Francis Gee and his wife was presented and referred to the committee. Sir John Franklyn's petition was presented and referred on 25 March (178) and Mrs. Lee's petition on 29 March (181). All the petitioners prayed to be heard by counsel. Sir Eliab Harvey reported the bill with some amendments on 5 April, when a clause was added (193). There is no clue to the identity and right to appear of James Ward, John Adams and John Wilson. No petition in any of these names is recorded in the Journal or in the minutes of the committee, yet they seem to be parties, or creditors, bent on obtaining saving clauses to protect their rights. In the end, as will be seen, the committee rejected all their proposed clauses in favour of a general saving clause. The entries in Courthope's minute book have considerable interest, for they give the full course of a committee on an opposed estate bill at that date, including the gist of counsel's arguments.

^{page 25 note 1} Hall's Estate Bill originated in the Lords. It came down on 15 March (158), and was read a second time and committed to a committee of 38 on 23 March (175), to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber, which the minutes show that they did. On 25 March (177) seven members were added to the committee. Mr. Ogle reported the bill without amendments on 26 March (179).

^{page 26 note 1} On the petition of one Heathcote and others using the malt trade in Derbyshire, leave was given to bring in the Malt Bill on 3 February (81) ; Mr. Brotherton presented it on 21 February (122), and on 15 April (207) it was committed to a committee of 44 to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Presumably Mr. Brotherton was chairman of the committee, though not here mentioned, for he reported the bill without amendment on 20 April (240).

^{page 26 note 2} Whitbourne Rectory Bill was another Lords bill, which came down on 8 April (198), and was read a second time and committed on 18 April (236) to a committee of 34 nominated members with the members for Herefordshire, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Mr. Baldwin, presumably chairman of the committee though not here mentioned, reported the bill without amendment on 20 April (239).

^{page 26 note 3} The Exporting Wool and Fuller's Earth Bill was, after leave had been given on 28 March (180), presented by Sir John Kay (184) on 31 March and committed on 15 April (207) to a committee of 45 nominated members and the members for the clothing counties, all that come to have voices, and to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. On 7 May (262) the committee was given power to send for persons, papers and records and to receive a clause to prevent exporting clay. On 28 May (289) Sir John Kay, who was presumably chairman of the committee, reported the bill with amendments, a clause relating to Winchelsea was added, and the bill ordered to be ingrossed. There is no record of any meeting of the committee on 20 April to which date it was adjourned on the 19th, and the continuation of the committee's proceedings only occurs, after a long gap, on fo. 32 (q.v.).

^{page 27 note 1} See p. 26, n. 3 above : no meeting on 20 April is recorded.

^{page 27 note 2} It is curious that the meeting of a committee on 8 February should be entered on so late a folio. It looks as though the entry was an afterthought of Courthope's, all the more since the date must be wrong. The petition of William Challoner, praying for redress since he had been falsely imprisoned by some persons in the Mint for having in the previous session discovered some abuses in the Mint, was not presented until 18 February (119), when it was referred to a committee of 44 to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber, with power to send for persons, papers and records. Other members were added on 2 and 28 March (138, 180), and on 7 March (146) the committee were given leave to sit the following morning. No report on this petition appears in the Journal, and no further reference to it in this minute book. See R. Ruding, Annals of the Coinage of Britain (3rd ed.), ii. 53, n. 4, for Challoner's case.

^{page 27 note 3} The Improving Woollen Manufacture Bill was read a second time on 29 March (182) and committed to a committee of 29 nominated members and the members for Somerset, Wilts, Gloucestershire and Yorks, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. There is no further reference to the bill in the Journal or in Courthope's minutes.

^{page 27 note 4} Hawkes' Estate Bill, after leave given on 21 March (168), was presented by Mr. Edward Harley on 28 March (180) and on 2 April committed to a committee of 32 nominated members and those for Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire (189), to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Mr. Harley reported the bill with some amendments on 8 April (197). The amendments here entered are not recorded elsewhere.

^{page 28 note 1} Claims on Lottery Tickets. The petition of the proprietors of Lottery tickets for provision to be made for payments was presented on 29 March (179) and referred to a committee of 43, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. On 30 March they were given leave to sit in a morning not after 10 o'clock, and on 31 March the petition of persons who had advanced money on the credit of an Act of 1695 granting certain rates on marriages, births and burials for payment of interest due was also referred to them (184). Two members were added on 15 April (207) and two others besides the members for Cornwall and Yorks were added on 16 April (208). Mr. Lowndes reported the matter and the committee's resolutions on 16 April (208), and he was ordered to prepare and bring in a bill pursuant to the resolutions. The bill was presented on 28 April (246) and committed on 3 May (252) to a committee of 31 to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. For the proceedings of the committee on that bill, see fo. 30r.

The resolutions put forward, as here recorded, on 2 April and agreed to on 6 April, and the account presented by Mr. Taylor on the latter date are reproduced in the report as entered in the Journal. It is to be noted that the committee did not receive power to send for persons, etc., yet they ordered Mr. Taylor, presumably of the Lottery Office, to deliver an account. As regards the petition relating to rates on marriages, births and burials, see p. 30, n. 1.

^{page 30 note 1} The committee on the claims on Lottery tickets, having agreed to their report, turned immediately to the consideration of the second petition referred to them (see p. 28 n. 1), as here recorded. The evidence of, and the committee's discussions with, the Agents of the Exchequer as noted by Courthope is a highly interesting addition to our knowledge : for further comment, see p. 34, n. 1 below.

^{page 32 note 1} The adjournment was obviously till Saturday, 16 April, as shown by the continuation of this committee's proceedings on fo. 25r.

^{page 32 note 2} Hare's Estate Bill originated in the Lords : it came down on 21 March (168), and was read a second time and committed on 30 April (182) to a committee of 42 nominated members and those for Norfolk, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Col. Perry reported the bill with one amendment (which does not appear in these minutes) on 2 April (189).

^{page 32 note 3} Jenkin's Estate Bill, after leave given on 29 March (182), was presented on 1 April (188), and on 6 April (193) committed to a committee of 30 nominated members with those for Kent and Sussex. Mr. Brewer, not mentioned here as chairman, reported the bill with some amendments on 23 May (283).

^{page 32 note 4} The continuation of this committee is on fo. 31V. with date 18 May. There are no entries relating to it between 6 April and that date.

^{page 33 note 1} The petition of the Servants of King Charles II. On 3 March (139) the petition of several servants of Charles II who were in his service at his death was presented and read, but there is a blank in the Journal where the contents should have been set forth. There is also a blank for the surname of Francis Strutt, which is thus filled by Courthope. The names of the committee to whom the petition was referred are also omitted from the Journal, though 6 named members were added on 5 March (143) and 10 more on 25 March. No report of this committee appears in the Journal, so that Courthope's minutes fill a gap by showing the nature of the claim and the steps taken by the committee in their inquiry, so far as it is recorded.

^{page 34 note 1} See p. 30, n. i above. Although no heading except the date is given at the top of this folio, the contents make it clear that this is the continuation, from fo. 22r., of the committee on births, marriages and burials. The proceedings of the committee continue without interruption to the end of fo. 27r. The sitting recorded on fo. 25V. bearing the same date as that on fo. 25r., must presumably have occurred in the afternoon. The proceedings of 16 and 20 April as here entered by Courthope cover most of the report as it was made by Mr. Lowndes on 28 April (245–6), save that the 10th resolution entered in the minutes was not reported, another resolution being substituted, that the poundage to the collectors should be increased. On consideration of the report, the 2nd resolution (bachelors and widowers) was negatived on division, and the 9th (the King may farm) negatived. Mr. Lowndes was ordered to prepare and present a bill, which he did on 28 May (289). This was committed to a committee of the whole House on 31 May (293) and eventually passed.

^{page 37 note 1} ‘ Hammered Money ’ is the marginal note of the Journal references to this matter. Courthope does not give the substance of the petition, which was that the petitioners had delivered £3,000 of hammered money to the Master worker of the Mint at York, but had had no payment. It was an incident in the long and rather expensive effort of this reign to restore the coinage. On the whole subject, see Ruding, Annals of the Coinage of Britain (ed. 1840), ii. 29–60, though the author makes no specific reference to this committee. These minutes would have furnished him with some interesting details. See also SirCraig, John, The Mint (1953), pp. 194–6Google Scholar.

The petition was presented on 20 April (240) and immediately referred to a committee of 28 nominated members with the members for Yorkshire and other counties where there were Mints, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber, and to have power to consider of the deficiency at all the Mints. On 5 May (254) a petition of divers traders of the City of London complaining that they could not get new money for parcels of silver carried to the Tower Mint was referred to the same committee, who were ordered to sit de die in diem, which they did not do, as Courthope's minutes show. On 2 June (297–8) Sir Marmaduke Wyvell, who was one of the Commissioners of the Treasury and presumably chairman of the committee, though not mentioned as such in the minutes, reported the matter at length with the committee's resolutions, which were amended and agreed to. Courthope's minutes of this committee occupy, with two interruptions, 6½ folios.

^{page 37 note 2} The Warden of the Mint at this date was Isaac Newton : he is the Mr. Newton whose name appears more than once in these minutes.

^{page 37 note 3} Mr. Brattle was Assay Master, and Mr. Bryant was Provo of the Moneyers.

^{page 37 note 4} Fauquiere is the correct spelling. He was Master's Assayer.

^{page 37 note 5} Mr. Neale was Master of the Mint till succeeded by Newton in 1699.

^{page 38 note 1} There is no entry of any meeting on 6 May : see next n. and p. 39, n. 2.

^{page 38 note 2} This abortive entry clearly belongs to the committee on hammered money. Mr. Tilson was an official of the Exchequer: see p. 39, n. 2.

^{page 39 note 1} The petition of Andrew and Jeronomy Clifford, lately inhabitants of Surinam, was presented and read on 18 April (235) and was immediately referred to a committee of 24 to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Ten more members were added on 30 April (247), and there is no further reference to it in the Journal. Moreover, there is a blank in the Journal where the substance of the petition should have been set forth, so that Courthope's minutes, though incomplete, fill a gap in our knowledge.

^{page 39 note 2} This date is obviously wrong. It will be seen at the top of fo. 29V. that the committee adjourned till ‘ tomorrow ’, and met again on 10 May. The abortive entry on fo. 28V. which begins ‘ Mr Tilson ’ under the date 9 May must furnish the correct date for this entry, which begins with the same words. It should be ‘ Lune 90 die Maij ’. The minutes continue from the end of fo. 29V. to fo. 341.

^{page 39 note 3} These erased figures refer to the reduction likely to be made in Mr. Barton's total by settling his account with Mr. Neal (see end of fo. 29r.).

^{page 40 note 1} I.e. Lowndes.

^{page 40 note 2} This bill was the outcome of the select committee's report on the claims on Lottery tickets (see fos. 20r–21r. and p. 28, n. 1 above). On the day when the bill was committed (252) the committee were ordered to take into consideration a petition lodged on the previous day (249) from certain annuitants who had lent money upon the credit of the tonnage duties for payment of arrears. It will be observed that, after ordering the bill to be reported, the committee ordered the petitioners above-mentioned to attend on the following Monday, i.e. 9 May: but the Journal (263) shows that Mr. Lowndes reported the bill with amendments on 7 May. There is no entry here of any sitting of the committee on 9 May. Nevertheless, when the bill was passed (269), the title shows that it included payment of the annuities The Act is 9 & 10 William III, c. 34.

^{page 41 note 1} See p. 40, n. 2.

^{page 41 note 2} Kingston-upon-Hull Workhouse Bill, after leave being given on 27 April (244), was presented on 29 April (247) and on 3 May was read a second time and committed to a committee of 29 to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber (251). Mr. Lowther, presumably the chairman, reported the bill on 10 May (265). Courthope was negligent in not setting out the amendments.

^{page 41 note 3} Mascall's Debts Bill, after leave being given on 5 May (254), was presented on 11 May (266) and on 16 May (271) committed to a committee of 45 nominated members with those for Kent and Surrey. Sir Henry Colt, presumably chairman, reported the bill with amendments on 26 May (286).

^{page 42 note 1} There are no further minutes of this committee.

^{page 42 note 2} Churchill's Estate Bill came down from the Lords on 15 April (208), and was read a second time and committed on 27 April (244) to a committee of 44 nominated members and all those for Somerset, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. On 12 May all the members for Devon and Dorset were added (267). Mr. Yates reported the bill with one amendment on 14 May (269).

^{page 42 note 3} Continued from fo. 23V., see p. 32, n. 4 above.

^{page 43 note 1} See fo. 15V. and p. 26, n. 3 above. None of the evidence taken and recorded on this folio and the next was reported to the House. For similar evidence about the illicit exportation of wool in the following session, see fos. 46V., 51r–53r., etc.

^{page 43 note 2} The committee had been granted power to send for persons, papers and records, see p. 26, n. 3.

^{page 44 note 1} Continued from fo. 29V.

^{page 45 note 1} Continued on fo. 36V.

^{page 45 note 2} The single entry referring to this committee bears no date. On 22 January (58) leave was given to bring in a bill to explain an Act of 7 & 8 W. Ill to encourage bringing of plate to Mints, to remedy the ill state of the coinage and to give leave for exporting watches, sword-hilts and other manufactures of silver. On 2 May (250) the bill was read a second time and committed to a committee of 29 to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Sir Thomas Mompesson reported the Exporting Watches Bill with amendments on 19 May (277). It became 9 & 10 W. Ill, c. 28.

^{page 45 note 3} The Lords amendments to the Suppressing Profaneness, etc., Bill were considered on 18 May (276) after a division, and the first amendment was disagreed to. A committee of 23 was appointed to draw up reasons, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Courthope's minutes bear no date, but since eleven members were added to the committee on 19 May (276) and Sir John Philips reported the reasons as entered in the minutes on 21 May (280), the date of meeting was probably 20 or 21 May.

^{page 46 note 1} Continued from fo. 34V.

^{page 47 note 1} This is the last entry relating to the committee on hammered money.

^{page 47 note 2} Privilege : Unconstitutional Pamphlet. On 21 May (281) complaint was made of passages denying the authority of the English Parliament in a printed pamphlet bearing the title given at the head of the minutes. A committee was appointed to examine the said pamphlet, and to inquire into the author thereof, and report such passages as they find denying the authority of the Parliament of England, and also what proceedings have been had in Ireland that might occasion the said pamphlet. There is a blank in the Journal where the names of the members nominated should have been entered. The House also resolved to present a humble address to the King desiring him to direct that an inquiry should be made into the author, so that he might be punished. The name of the author was Molyneux. Three members were added to the committee on 3 June (299), and on 22 June Mr. Boscawen's report was read and entered in full in the Journal (324–7). On 27 June (331) the House resolved that the book was of dangerous consequence to the Crown and people of England, and the same committee was ordered to draw up a humble address representing these matters to his Majesty. The address as amended was agreed to on 30 June (337). Courthope's minutes, covering sittings during the end of May and the first half of June, do not contain the committee's report.

^{page 48 note 1} Continued on fo. 421.

^{page 48 note 2} Victualling Office Arrears. On 27 May (287) a petition of working coopers, brewers' servants, bakers' servants and labourers belonging to the Victualling Office in London was presented and read. It set forth that they had fifteen months' pay due to them, and that the Commissioners offered to pay them only three months' pay in salt tallies, by which they would lose four shillings in the pound, taking no account of their arrears for twelve months. It was at once referred to a committee of 42, with power to send for persons, papers and records, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. There is no further entry in the Journal relating to this matter. Courthope's minutes therefore fill a gap, incomplete as they are, since they show that the committee got to work and heard the complaints of several petitioners. The date of the first meeting is not given. It may well have been 27 May.

^{page 49 note 1} Thomas Papillon, who became the chief commissioner in 1689 ; see The Sergison Papers (Navy Record Soc. 1950), p. 235Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 2} Rogers' Estate Bill came down from the Lords on 25 May (285), and was read a second time and committed on 30 May (291) to a committee of 41 nominated members with those for Kent, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Mr. Brewer reported the bill without amendment on 1 June (294).

^{page 50 note 1} This fragmentary entry may refer to the committee on Molyneux' pamphlet, which adjourned on 2 June till the morrow (see fo. 39r.).

^{page 50 note 2} Trafford's Estate Bill, after leave being given on 26 May (286), was presented by Mr. Brotherton on 30 May (291), and read a second time and committed on 6 June (301) to a committee of 41 nominated members with those for Lanes and Yorks, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. On 11 June (309) Mr. Brotherton reported the bill with some amendments.

^{page 50 note 3} Continued from fo. 39r., or possibly fo. 41r. (see n. 1 above).

^{page 51 note 1} Continued on fo. 43r.

^{page 51 note 2} See p. 19, n. 1.

^{page 51 note 3} This is the last entry in Courthope's minutes for the session, which ended on 5 July.

^{page 52 note 1} Yarmouth Harbour Bill, after leave given on 17 December 1698 (358), was presented on 19 December (359) and on 21 December (360) committed to a committee of 37 nominated members and the members for (here a blank in the Journal). No order as to meeting occurs in the Journal, but since the committee met on the day the bill was committed, the usual order was presumably made. On 25 January Mr. England, who had presented the bill and was presumably chairman of the committee, reported the bill with several amendments (449), whereupon the bill was recommitted to the committee, who were to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. On 7 February Mr. England reported the re-committed bill with several amendments. It was eventually passed and became 10 & n W. Ill, c. 5 (see p. 53, n. 3 below).

^{page 52 note 2} Continued on fo. 46v., see p. 53, n. 3.

^{page 53 note 1} Exporting Wool. For a committee on much the same subject, see fo. 32r. and p. 26, n. 3 above : also on the illicit export of wool and the endeavours of the clothiers to prevent it, see Lipson, E., Economic History of England (2nd ed., 1934), iii 23–34Google Scholar. The petition from Taunton, the substance of which is left blank in the Journal, was presented and read on 17 December 1698 (358). A committee was at once appointed ‘ to consider of ways for the better preventing the exportation of wool from England and Ireland into foreign parts, and to consider of the most proper methods to encourage the woolen manufactures of this Kingdom ’. The committee was nominated of 34 members with all those for Devon, Somerset, Wilts, Southampton, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Yorks to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber and to have power to send for persons, papers and records. They were also instructed to inquire what proceedings had been had in the Parliament of Ireland, since the last session, in relation to woollen and linen manufactures. The Taunton petition was referred to the committee. A further instruction was given to the committee on 20 December (360), to examine and inquire into the nature of the licences for exporting wool from Ireland, and the bonds given in relation thereto, and how they had been prosecuted, and how they might be more effectually prosecuted. Between 5 January and 27 February several more petitions from towns in the clothing counties were presented and referred to the committee (387, 423, 513, 516, 518, 530). The meeting of the committee on 9 January—more than three weeks after they had been ordered to meet—was obviously the first, since the choice of chairman is recorded. Sir Robert Davers reported the heads of a bill on 28 February (532), most of which were agreed ; the bill was brought in and eventually became the Act 10 & 11 W. III, c. 10.

^{page 53 note 2} Continued on fo. 51r. under date 18 January. There is no entry of any meeting on 10 January.

^{page 53 note 3} No heading is given, except the date, to these proceedings, the contents of which show that they relate to the Yarmouth Harbour Bill. Moreover, they must be proceedings of the committee on re-committal of the bill, since the report on recommittal was made the following day, see p. 52, n. 1 above.

^{page 54 note 1} This entry clearly completes the proceedings on the re-committed Yarmouth Harbour Bill.

^{page 54 note 2} Tone Navigation Bill. On 16 December 1698 a petition was read from the inhabitants of Taunton praying for leave to bring in a bill for making the river Tone navigable from Bridgwater to Taunton, for the carriage of sea-coal and other heavy goods (355) Leave was given, and Mr. Clark presented the bill on 5 January (386). On 10 January (391) a motion to commit the bill to a committee of the whole House was negatived and it was committed to a committee of 34 nominated members with those for Devon, Somerset and Dorset, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. A motion that all who come have voices was negatived. Petitions in favour of the bill were presented on 17 and 19 January (423, 441). Mr. Clark reported the bill with amendments on 25 January (449), and it eventually passed both Houses.

^{page 54 note 3} These minutes give very few instances of any decisions of a committee regarding the preamble of a private bill. By modern standards it would be incorrect for a committee to agree to the preamble, which contains the allegations on which the bill is based, or to resolve that it stand part of the bill: they must by standing order report whether or no the allegations of the preamble have been proved.

^{page 54 note 4} There is no entry of any meeting on this day (18 January). The proceedings of this committee continue from 20 January on this folio without interruption till they are completed at the top of fo. 49v.

^{page 58 note 1} The date of this entry is not given : but since the committee adjourned till Saturday, 4 February, it must have been one day in the week beginning Monday, 30 January. The petition of Thomas Chute, Clerk of the Crown, was presented and read on 10 January (390). It is set out at length in the Journal, and it complained of irregularities in the delivery of returns of elections to the petitioner, and to the loss of his fees. The petition was referred to a committee of 39 to examine the matters and report their opinion, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber, and to have power to send for persons, papers and records. They were also instructed to consider of enlarging the time allowed for delivering the precepts in the Cinque Ports for the election of members. On 21 January all the members .for the Cinque Ports, were added. Mr. Clark, whose chairmanship of the committee is just recorded by Courthope, made a report to the House on 6 February (484). This report, as entered in the Journal, contains much more than the three resolutions entered in the minutes, namely, the findings of fact upon which they were based. It is strange that Courthope made no allusion to that part of the report, which must have been formally agreed to by the committee. On the report being agreed to by the House, a bill was ordered to be brought in upon the resolutions, and to provide that the officers of cities, boroughs and Cinque Ports made their returns to the sheriffs, and the sheriffs their returns to the Clerk of the Crown, in a reasonable time. Mr. Clark who, with two other members, had been ordered to prepare the bill presented it on 18 February. This was the Elections, Preventing Irregularities Bill, and on 21 February (521) it was committed to a committee of 36, to meet on the following day at 8 a.m. in the Speaker's Chamber. Mr. Clark reported the bill with some amendments on 6 March (522), and it became the Act 10 & 11 W. III, c. 7. See pp. 59, 70.

^{page 59 note 1} See preceding note. The committee met on the day ordered.

^{page 59 note 2} Continued on fo. 59v. under date 24 February. It is typical of Courthope's haphazard methods that he should have allowed so many folios to intervene between two consecutive meetings of a committee.

^{page 59 note 3} Continued from fo. 46v., see p. 53, n. 1. From this point for nine folios, with a long interruption after the fifth, we get the heads of the extensive evidence heard before the committee on the exportation of wool with regard to the smuggling of wool out of the country and the measures recommended to stop it (cf. the evidence given in the previous session by Mr. Anderson on fo. 32v.). None of this evidence was reported to the House, so that its details supply new information. Professor Lipson (op. cit. on p. 53, n. 1) mentions Mr. Carter as an inveterate foe of the ‘ owling ’ trade which he pursued in several pamphlets exposing their practices. The petitions mentioned at the beginning of the proceedings on 20 January were read and referred to the committee on 17 January (423).

^{page 63 note 1} There is no entry of any meeting on this day.

^{page 63 note 2} There is no entry of a meeting on Friday, 10 February. The proceedings continue on fo. 57v. under date Thursday, 16 February.

^{page 63 note 3} On 1 February (468) the House agreed that a humble address of thanks for the King's speech should be presented, and the drafting was referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and 35 members, to meet on the morrow at 9 a.m. in the Speaker's Chamber. Sir John Manwaring reported the address on 3 February (481) and it was agreed to with amendments. Courthope's laxity in recording neither the draft address nor the amendments made to it in the committee is to be noted.

^{page 64 note 1} On 6 February (484) the House proceeded to take into consideration the King's speech of 1 February in which he reproached the House for insisting on disbanding his army, and warned them that it was incumbent on them to provide sufficient strength for the safety of the kingdom. After debate, it was ordered that a bill should be brought in to make the Militia more useful, and the preparation of the bill was referred to a committee of 21 nominated members or any 5 of them, to meet on the morrow at 9 a.m. in the Speaker's Chamber and to sit de die in diem. On 8 February (491) 17 members were added. On 2 March (540) Mr. Foley presented the bill, which did not reach the committee stage. Courthope's minutes, which end on this folio, do not record an effective meeting.

^{page 64 note 2} Price's Estate Bill, after leave given on 25 January (449), was presented by Mr. Price on 8 February (493), and on 15 February (512) was committed to a committee of 24 nominated members with those for Wales and Herefordshire. Mr. Price reported the bill with amendments on 27 February (529).

^{page 65 note 1} For the Aire and Calder Navigation Bill of the previous session, see fos. 7r and 7v. On 11 January 1698/9 (395) a petition from Leeds for leave to bring in the bill was presented and read. Leave was given Lord Fairfax and Mr. Brotherton to prepare and bring in the bill. Lord Fairfax presented it on 18 January (425), and on 7 February (486) it was read a second time. After a motion (negatived) that it be referred to a committee of the whole House it was committed to a committee of 40 nominated members with those for Yorks, Durham, Lanes, Northumberland and Cumberland, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber, and to have power to send for persons, papers and records. On the same day a petition from the City of York against the bill, and another from Francis Nevill praying to be heard were presented, and the House ordered that both should be heard by counsel before the committee. On 27 February (530) 8 members were added ; on 8 March (554) it was ordered that the report should be made on Monday morning next (13 March) ; and on that day Sir John Bland reported the bill with several amendments. One clause was negatived by the House, but the bill passed both Houses this session and became the Act 10 & 11 W. III, c. 19. The proceedings of the committee on 1 March, when counsel on both sides presented their cases and called their witnesses, are extremely interesting as an example (remarkably modern in form) of the hearing of an opposed local bill in committee, instead of at the bar of the House, as became more usual in the eighteenth century.

^{page 68 note 1} Continued from fo. 53r., see p. 63, n. 2.

^{page 69 note 1} Continued on fo. 60r.

^{page 69 note 2} Darcy's Estate Bill, after leave given on 10 February (495), was presented by Mr. Hammond on 15 February (512) and on 23 February (523) was read a second time and committed to a committee of 27 nominated members and those for Essex, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. On 27 February Mr. Hammond (530) reported the bill without amendment.

^{page 70 note 1} Continued from fo. 50V.

^{page 70 note 2} There is no entry of a meeting on this day.

^{page 70 note 3} Continued on fo. 60v.

^{page 70 note 4} Continued from fo. 58v.

^{page 71 note 1} The Writs of Error Bill, after leave given on 5 January (387), was presented by Mr. Thursby on 14 January (406), and on 18 January (425) was read a second time and committed to a committee of 31 nominated members and all the gentlemen of the long robe, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Mr. Lowther reported the bill with several amendments on 7 March (553), and it became the Act 10 & 11 W. III, c. 14.

^{page 71 note 2} The Augmenting Vicarages Bill, after leave given on 18 February (517), was presented by Mr. Pelham on 23 February (523) and on 1 March was read a second time and committed to a committee of 32 nominated members and those for Surrey and Sussex, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Mr. Onslow reported the bill with amendments on 9 March (557), but it did not reach the Statute book.

^{page 72 note 1} Trent Navigation Bill, after leave given on 16 February (514), was presented by Mr. Paget on 3 March (542), and on 9 March (557) was committed to a committee of 39 nominated members and those for Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire, to meet on the morrow at 8 a.m. in the Speaker's Chamber. On 11 March (583) 4 members were added. On 17 March Mr. Paget reported the bill (592) with several amendments, and it became the Act 10 & 11 W. III, c. 20.

^{page 73 note 1} Methwold's Estate Bill. On 11 February the petition of Thomas Methwold (or Methold) and his wife for leave to bring in the bill was read (497) and leave was given. On 27 February (529) Mr. Harvey presented the bill, which on 10 March (558) was read a second time and committed to a committee of 35, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. On 16 March (591) two members were added. On 21 March Mr. Hoar reported the bill (605) with some amendments.

^{page 74 note 1} On 11 March (561) the petition of Robert Aldworth and his wife for leave to bring the bill was read, and leave given. On 18 March (599) Mr. Rowny presented the bill, which on 25 March (613) was read a second time and committed to a committee of 28, to meet at in the Speaker's Chamber. On 28 March (619) Mr. Rowny reported the bill with some amendments.

^{page 74 note 2} On 10 March (558) the petition of Zenobia Hough for leave to bring in the bill was read, and leave given. On 15 March Mr. Brotherton presented the bill, which on 24 March (612) was read a second time and committed to a committee of 34 nominated members and those for Yorks and Lanes, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. On 28 March (619) Mr. Brotherton reported the bill with some amendments.

^{page 75 note 1} Newfoundland Trade Bill. On 20 February (519) leave was given to bring in a bill for encouraging trade to Newfoundland, Sir Edward Seymour, Mr. Gwyn and Mr. Scobell to prepare the bill, which was presented by the first-named on 25 March (613). On 27 March (615) it was read a second time and committed to a committee of 24 nominated members with those for Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and the seaports, and all that were merchants, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Courthope records that the committee met that day. On 15 April a petition was read from the Greenland Company against the additional duty on tonnage and poundage imposed by two recent acts (644) : it was ordered that the committee, to whom this petition was also referred, on the Newfoundland Bill have power to receive a clause to explain the said acts. On 24 April (661) the bill was ordered to be reported on the following day, and on 25 April (664) Mr. Gwyn reported that the committee had considered the bill and the Greenland petition and had made several amendments. On 1 May (674), after several postponements, the motion for taking the report into consideration was carried on a division, and the amendments were agreed to. It became the Act 10 & n W. Ill, c. 25.

^{page 75 note 2} Here is another instance of the choice of chairman being entered in the minutes. The proceedings are continued on fo. 64r.

^{page 75 note 3} Lascells' Estate Bill came down from the Lords on 25 March (615), and on 1 April (627) it was read a second time and committed to a committee of 32 nominated members and those for Yorks. On 4 April Sir William Hustler, who was presumably chairman of the committee, reported the bill without amendment (631). No date is given by Courthope for this entry, but it was probably Monday 3 April or the following day.

^{page 76 note 1} Continued from fo. 63v. None of this evidence was reported to the House ; it is reflected in several clauses of the Act.

^{page 77 note 1} There is no entry of any meeting on this date ; the proceedings are continued on fo. 67r. under date 15 April.

^{page 77 note 2} Wake's Estate Bill came down from the Lords on 3 April (630) and on 12 April (639) it was read a second time and committed to a committee of 32 to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. On 14 April (641) Mr. Conyers reported the bill without amendment.

^{page 78 note 1} Byde's Estate Bill came down from the Lords on 24 March (612) and on 4 April (631) it was read a second time and committed to a committee of 29 nominated members and those for Essex and Herts, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. On 15 April Mr. Brotherton reported the bill without amendment (644).

^{page 78 note 2} Hereditary Excise Patentees. On 23 March (611) the petition of patentees, assignees and other persons interested in annual sums payable out of the hereditary excise was presented and read. Its substance was that they had prompted the methodizing of a fund sufficient to answer the principal and interest due, without diminishing the revenue, and they prayed that the same might be applied to the payment of the said debt. It was at once referred to a committee of 57 to examine the matter and report their opinion, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. On 31 March the petition of divers pewterers, the substance of which is blank in the Journal (625), was referred to the same committee, to whom power was granted to send for persons, papers and records. On 4 May (687) Sir Robert Napper reported the matter, the report was read and was then re-committed to the committee, and that was the end of the matter, since Parliament was prorogued the same day. Since the report is not set out in the Journal, Courthope's minutes, though incomplete, have a certain interest.

^{page 80 note 1} There is no further entry of any proceedings of this committee.

^{page 80 note 2} Continued from fo. 64v.

^{page 80 note 3} The force of Mr. Nisbet's objections can only be appreciated by reading certain sections of the act. The Vice-Admiral of a harbour or creek during a fishing season was the master of the second fishing ship to enter the harbour or creek during the season (s. 4). By s. 5 persons who since 1685 had detained any stage, cook-room or beach must relinquish the same to the public use of the ships : so Mr. Nisbet succeeded in reducing the retrospective period.

^{page 80 note 4} Continued on fo. 68v.

^{page 80 note 5} Forestallers, etc., of Corn. On 29 March (620) the petition of Robert Barton against John Lofton, Peter Kesterman, Thomas Merritt and Dinah Mason, forestallers, etc., of corn, was read. It complained that the petitioner, being freighted with corn at Plymouth, brought it to London ; and because he would not, contrary to the act of Parliament, carry it to Rotterdam, Ostend or Dunkirk, they refused to pay him his freight; and prayed that he might have liberty to come and give information of their notorious practices. A committee of 36 was nominated to examine the matter, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber, and to have power to send for persons, papers and records. On 24 April Mr. Offley, presumably chairman of the committee, reported the matter and his report is set out in full in the Journal (662). It was resolved that the complaint was malicious, vexatious and groundless.

^{page 81 note 1} There is no further entry relating to this committee.

^{page 81 note 2} The committee on the Newfoundland Trade Bill, continued from fo. 67r. Clauses to the effect of those here entered were inserted in the bill and are to be seen in the act.

^{page 82 note 1} Continued on fo. 69.v.

^{page 82 note 2} Westlyd's Estate Bill came down from the Lords on 6 April (634), and on 17 April (645) was read a second time and committed to a committee of 41 nominated members and those for Lincolnshire, to meet at 5 in the Speaker's Chamber. Mr. Dormer, presumably chairman, reported the bill without amendment on 22 April (659).

^{page 82 note 3} The committee on the Newfoundland Trade Bill, continued from fo. 68v. No clause of this kind is to be found in the Act.

^{page 83 note 1} These entries must refer to a committee on some ingrossed bill sent down by the Lords, but there is no clue to its title.

^{page 83 note 2} The Lords amendments to the Supply Bill, Duty on Paper, were considered on 3 May, and the motion that the House doth agree, etc., was negatived new,, con. It was ordered that a conference be desired, and also that a committee of 21 nominated members or any 3 of them should draw up reasons for disagreeing and withdraw to the Speaker's Chamber for that purpose. Mr. Harcourt reported as here set out the same day (683). The prorogation on 4 May prevented any further proceeding in the matter. This assertion of the Commons' right had already been made in 1671 and 1678, see Erskine May (15th ed.), p. 780. This re-statement of 1699 is not mentioned in May : its wording is that of 1678 (9 C.J. 509).

^{page 83 note 3} There is little clue to these isolated jottings.

^{page 84 note 1} See p. 1, n. 2, above for the relation of these figures to the accounts referred to the Select Committee on Estimates and Accounts in December 1697.

^{page 84 note 2} These are obviously calculations by Courthope of the fees due to him for attendance on committees on private bills, the total of the first sum being incorrect. They tally with the fees payable to the clerks without doors for attendance on such committees as set out in the Table of Fees of 1700 (13 C.J. 356–7). We know that there was a table of fees agreed to by the House in 1695, though it was not entered in the Journal, and that it was very similar to that of 1700. The first of the two sums could be itemized as follows : for attending to adjourn the committee 3s. 4d., for attendance on two days at 6s. 8d. a day 13s. 41d., for summoning a witness 2s. 6d., for taking three consents 7s. 6d., for drawing and transcribing the report 6s. 8d.