¹ For the text of the Commons' petition of 3 December and of James's letter of the same date, see Rushworth, J., Historical collections, I, 40–4 and Tanner, J. R.Constitutional documents of the reign of James 1,1603–1635 (reprinted Cambridge, 1960), pp. 276– 80Google Scholar. I would like to thank Professor Elizabeth Read Foster for reading and commenting on a draft of this article.

² Tanner, , op. cit. p. 286 (James's answer of 11 December)Google Scholar.

³ Tanner, , pp. 274, 276Google Scholar; Russell, , The crisis of parliaments Oxford, 1971, p. 296Google Scholar; Ruigh, Robert E., The parliament of 1624 (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), pp. 9–10, 12Google Scholar. For the text of the writ of summons, which Coke quoted correctly, see P.R.O. C. 218/1.

⁴ Zaller, Robert, The parliament of 1621 (Berkeley, 1971), pp. 151–4Google Scholar.

⁵ Zaller, , op. cit. pp. 150, 182Google Scholar.

⁶ Gardiner, S. R., History of England (1893), Iv, 256–7Google Scholar, Roskell, J. S., The Commons and their Speakers 1376–1533 (Manchester, 1965), pp. 50–1Google Scholar.

⁷ Foster, Elizabeth Read, ‘Petitions and the Petition of Right’ Journal of British Studies, XIV, I (11. 1974), 33Google Scholar.

⁸ Wallace Notestein, Relf, F. H. and Simpson, Hartley, Commons' debates in 1621 (New Haven, 1935), II, 495Google Scholar. Further references are to this edition unless otherwise stated. Only volume and page numbers will be cited.

⁹ B. M. Hart. MS 389, f. 30a (Meade to Stuteville, 3 March 1621).

¹⁰ Foster, , ubi supra, pp. 27–32; II, 492–3Google Scholar.

¹¹ Parliamentary diary of John Hawarde (Wilts. R.O., Ailesbury MSS): unfoliated, sub Dec. 3: Neale, J. E., Queen Elizabeth I and her parliaments, I (1953), 123–8Google Scholar.

¹² Neale, J. E., op. cit. II (1957), p. 180Google Scholar.

¹³ Tanner, , p. 286Google Scholar.

¹⁴ II, 496, 492,493. On Phelips' desire for court favour, see notes 16,34,54 below. For his apparent hopes for office in 1634, see Somerset R.O., Phelips MSS 216/;32b (Harley to Phelips, 23 March 1623/4). ‘Sr. I am glad I have an opportunity to do you service and I pray you take this in pawne of yr. further power in England, yr. affectionate frend and servant, Ro. Harley.’ The probability is that Harley was acting on behalf of Buckingham. Unfortunately, the letter leaves no clue to the nature of the enclosed ‘this’.

¹⁵ Zaller, , pp. 145–51Google Scholar.

¹⁶ II, 503; II, 504; v, 233–4; v, 233 and below, note 62.

¹⁷ Iv, 415–16; III, 348.

¹⁸ C.S.P. Ven. 1619–21, p. 500Google Scholar: Ibid. 1621–3, p. 2. See also B. M. Harl. MS 389, f. 37 b. ‘The Parliament meddles not at all with the match, nor will not (as is sayd) unlesse the king himself motion it to them, and then they have their answer ready.’ Meade to Stuteville, 10 Mar. 1620/;1.

¹⁹ II, 403.

²⁰ B.M. Harl. MS 389, f. 92 a. The French ambassador reported that some people even credited James with helping to draft this declaration. P. R.0.31/3/55 (unfoliated): Tillièeres to Puisieux, 7/17 June 1621.

²¹ Iv, 417; II, 430; v, 398.

²² Harl, B.M.. MS 389, f. 37b: Letters of John Chamberlain, ed. McClure, N. E.,(Philadelphia, 1939), II, 405–6Google Scholar.

²³ Tanner, , pp. 280–1Google Scholar.

²⁴ L.J. iii, 167.

²⁵ IV, 425.

²⁶ III, 418. These words would have authorized the most general of foreign policy debates. It is curious that they were reported only by Barrington, but he is not usually a misleading reporter.

²⁷ Iv, 426, 428.

²⁸ II, 496.

²⁹ Hawarde's diary, sub. 21 Nov.

³⁰ P.R.O. 31/3/55, ff. 216–17. Tillières commented that though James had agreed to reassemble parliament in order to satisfy Digby, ‘pour moy, ie croy que s'ilpeut honnestement, qu'il rompera le dit Parlement’. Tillieres to Puisieux, 8/18 Nov. 1621.

³¹ Iv, 15; III, 445.

³² Sheffield City Library, Elmhirst MSS 1358/1; S.P. 81/8/155, quoted Zaller, , p. 17Google Scholar (Rudyerd to Nethersole).

³³ For Fleetwood and Perron's support for a war of diversion, see Nicholas, Edward, Proceedings and debates (1766), II, 209–10Google Scholar. It is perhaps not coincidental that of these two speakers, one was connected with Buckingham, and the other with Pembroke.

³⁴ IV, 437–8; VI, 197; V, 404.

³⁵ IV, 438; III, 453. He said that if they gave supply, they should ‘lett the King dispose it as he pleases’.

³⁶ C.J. I, 646.

³⁷ IV, 439.

³⁸ C.J. I, 646.

³⁹ III, 457–8. For his concern with the bill for continuance of statutes, see Knowler, W., (ed.), Strafforde Utters (1739), I, 15Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ IV, 440; V, 213. Nicholas (II, 215–16) does not mention his introduction of the prince's marriage.

⁴¹ III, 458. Nicholas (II, 216) quotes him as saying: ‘we desire to know of the king our enemy, and we must take time to be satisfied by the king of that’.

⁴² v, 214; IV, 441.

⁴³ III, 459.

⁴⁴ III, 460; IV, 441; VI, 200.

⁴⁵ III IV, 443.

⁴⁶ C.J. I, 648.

⁴⁷ C.J. I, 648; IV, 444; II, 455; III, 464; v, 217. On Weston's attitude to a war of diversion, the accounts of C.J. IX and Barrington appear to contradict those of Pym and Bel. Weston's speech is a possible subject for the Venetian ambassador's reports of 29 Nov./10 Dec. and 12/23 Dec., that ‘some of the Councillors who have hitherto belonged to the Spanish faction’ were arguing in parliament for war, and that ‘those considered most Spanish in sympathy seem to have made more clamour than others, for the purpose of offending his Majesty, and lighting a conflagration’. C.S.P. Ven. 1631–3, pp. 175, 184. Pym (IV, 444) makes Weston against a war of diversion but his account does not conflict with the resolution offered here. See also III, 464; v, 217; VI, 323. The diaries seem to establish, by their variation, that Weston did not give a clear and unambiguous lead on the issue of a war of diversion.

⁴⁸ II, 455; C.J. I, 648.

⁴⁹ III, 465, 468; C.J. I, 648.

⁵⁰ C.J. I, 649; III, 469.

⁵¹ Zaller, , p. 150Google Scholar.

⁵² VI, 202. On 28 November the only member to speak of war with Spain was the courtier Sir Thomas Jermyn, and he drew no response from the House (vI, 208). See also the reaction to Calvert's speech, vI, 205.

⁵³ Zaller, , p. 152Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ v, 225; vI, 213. Somerset R. O. Phelips MSS 224/82, 224/90 and intervehing numbers, esp. 224/88. There is no proof that any of these draft petitions were ever sent.

⁵⁵ v, 228. Alford defended its inclusion.

⁵⁶ C.J. I, 655. This silence may explain Pym's otherwise mysterious remark in 1624 that ‘sum had receaved benefitt by the clerk's book’. B.M. Add. MS46,191, f.88a. See my note on ‘The Examination of Mr Mallory After the Parliament of 1621’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research (1977).

⁵⁷ Rushworth, 1, 43; Iv, 440; III, 457. On uses and licences to alienate, see Russell, Conrad, ‘Land sales 1540–1640: a comment on the evidence’, Economic History Review, and series, xxv, 1 (1972), 117–21Google Scholar, and the reply of Professor Stone, Ibid. p. 123.

⁵⁸ v, 213.

⁵⁹ II. 494. 496. 493.

⁶⁰ VI, 223; 11, 498; C.J. I, 657. There is no truth in Zaller's contention (p. 154) that on 3 December ‘the government suddenly presented a united front against the petition’.Sackville, the chief opponent of the petition, has no more claim to be considered a member of the ‘government’ than Perrott, who was one of its chief supporters. Weston's speech, though dubious, amounted to a request for precedents rather than outright opposition (II, 489; Hawarde sub 3 Dec. v,,221–1; v, 229). Chamberlain on 4 January recorded that the king's servants, and especially Heath, had been in trouble for not opposing the petition ‘more earnestly’. Letters of John Chamberlain, II, 418.

⁶¹ See also note 18 above. B.M. Harleian MS 1580, f. 430a.

⁶² James's letter of 3 December and his answer of II December show that it was, as Sackville foresaw, the introduction of the Spanish match into the Petition which offended him more than any other issue. See Tanner, , pp. 279,284–5, and II, 487–8Google Scholar. Sackville said the mention of the prince's match ‘would be like the drug colloquintida which being taken by the king with the rest will make him cast out all the rest’.

⁶³ v, 233. For damage to Digges' career, see Letters of John Chamberlain, II, 416Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Letters of John Chamberlain, ed. Mc.Clure, N. E. (Philadelphia, 1939), II, 421Google Scholar; Knowler, W. (ed.), Strafforde letters, (1739), I,15Google Scholar. See also note 30 above. Zaller (p. 154) draws attention to the fact that there is no sign that James held Buckingham and Goring to blame for their share in initiating the foreign policy debate (VII, 621 n; B.M. Harleian MS 1580, f. 401a). Goring originally wrote ‘his matyes ende is not knowen to any fleshe’, but crossed out the last word. The note is not a postscript, but a marginal note opposite the report of his motion for a breach with Spain. I am grateful to Mr David Hebb for drawing my attention to the potential significance of this note.