^{Page 166 of note 2} 2 Cor., xi, 28.

^{Page 166 of note 3} Lambeth Laud MS. 2004, fol. 15r-v, no. 3.

^{Page 166 of note 4} Canon 10, Non licere clericum.

^{Page 167 of note 1} Matthew, Paris, Chronica Majora (RS), III, 418-9Google Scholar.

^{Page 167 of note 2} Register of Simon Langham, ed. A. C. Wood (C. & Y. Soc. 1947-54), 44-5.

^{Page 167 of note 3} Register of Henry Chichele, ed. E. F. Jacob, Oxford 1943 on, I, intro., clii ff.

^{Page 167 of note 4} Quoted by Prof. Jacob, op. cit., I, intro., cxxxix-cxl, from L. M. Swinburne ed. (EETS 1917), 8.

^{Page 168 of note 1} 21 Henry VIII cap. 13, cl. 20, 21: Edmund, Gibson, Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani, London 1713, II, 948 Google Scholar.

^{Page 168 of note 2} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 23r; P.R.O. S.P. 12/233, fol. 28r; B. M. Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 70; Inner Temple Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 39r.

^{Page 168 of note 3} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 17v.

^{Page 168 of note 4} The author writes of ‘His Majesty’, but not one of his 18 points is original. All can be traced to one or other of the Elizabethan apologists. This paper was probably compiled to confute some later bill, perhaps that of 1610, details of which are to be found in the two volumes of E. R. Foster’s Proceedings in Parliament 1610, Yale 1966.

^{Page 168 of note 5} Laud MS. 2007, fol. 124r., no. 13.

^{Page 168 of note 6} Wilkins, , Concilia &c., London 1737, III, 361 Google Scholar (Articuli concernentes reformationem universalie ecclesiae editi per universitatem Oxon’: 1414).

^{Page 168 of note 7} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 32r, no. 7.

^{Page 169 of note 1} Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, London 1957, II, 224-6, 406-410. cf. for the 1589 parliament and the part played by Burghley, Conyers Read, Lord Burgh ley and Queen Elizabeth, London 1960, 444-5.

^{Page 169 of note 2} Laud MSS. 2004, fol. 11r ff.; 2007, fol. 114ff.

^{Page 169 of note 3} Sotheby & Co., Catalogue of Valuable Printed Books . . . including . . . the property of Messrs. Morgan Grenfell & Co. 1963 (sold 15 October 1963). ‘The following thirty-six lots (which all belonged to Mr. James Fairhurst of Oxford) are believed to have formed part of the collection of John Seiden (1584-1654), the jurist and antiquary, and later of his friend Sir Matthew Hale (1609-1676)’ [p. 109]. I am grateful to Mr Fuller, the librarian of St Paul’s, for drawing my attention to this catalogue and manuscript migration, as well as to the Lambeth Librarian, Mr Bill, for lending me his annotated copy. The St Paul’s Add. MS pagination is not always traceable on these rebound papers.

^{Page 169 of note 4} For the 1601 debate, see SirSimonds, D’Ewes, A compleat fournal of the Votes, Speeches and Debates both of the House of Lords and of Commons throughout the whole reign of Queen Elizabeth ..., London 1693, 639 ff.Google Scholar; Heywood, Townshend, Historical Collections, london 1680, 218-20Google Scholar.

^{Page 169 of note 5} Strype, , The Life and Acts of John Whitgift, Oxford 1822, 1, 535 Google Scholar, writes of ’A Greek sentence falsely and unlegibly written in the copy [of Whitgift’s submission to the Queen]’. It is clearly written in the accurate text of P.R.O. S.P. 12/223, fol. 30r.

^{Page 170 of note 1} Lansdowne MS. 396, fols. 57, 66.

^{Page 170 of note 2} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 58; Lansdowne MS. 104/3: ‘The brief of the bill against pluralities and non residencies’. Some jottings on the dorse of the latter mention the Articuli Cleri and the Tridentine decree Cum ecclesiasticus ordo pervertatur among other items quoted in Burghley’s speech. Cf. another critique of this bill in Laud MS. 2004, fol. 33r-v.

^{Page 170 of note 3} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 59, duplicated in Inner Temple Petyt MS. 538/52, fols. 32v ff. But by far the best text is Laud MS. 2007, fols. 119-20.

^{Page 170 of note 4} These include the headings ‘ut in schedula’, a reference to the detailed compilation attacking the 1589 bill mentioned below.

^{Page 170 of note 5} He was chancellor of the Exchequer and under-treasurer 1589-1603.

^{Page 170 of note 6} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 62 ff.; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 34v ff. Unfortunately the Laud MS. text (fols. 119-20) stops short after a summary of the points made against the bill by the Lord Chamberlain.

^{Page 170 of note 7} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 66 (cf. 57); Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 36v; Laud MS. 2007, fol. 116r. Neale considered these arguments to refer to the 1601 bill, Parliaments, II, 409 n. 1. The MSS. continue with a quotation from the Acts and Monuments of John Foxe concerned with John Rogers’ words to his printer just before his death (ed. Josiah Pratt, London n.d., vi, 610).

^{Page 170 of note 8} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 67 ff.; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 37rff. A very legible copy of this compilation is in P.R.O. S.P. 12/223, fol. 26 ff.

^{Page 171 of note 1} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 71 ff.; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 39v ff.; Laud MS. 2007, fols. 121-2; P.R.O. S.P. 12/223, fols. 30-1. Printed in part by Strype, , Whitgift, I, 534-6Google Scholar sub anno 1588.

^{Page 171 of note 2} ‘We therefore, not as directors, but as humble remembrancers, beseech your Highness’ favourable beholding of our state present [‘present state’ in the Lansdowne copy], and what it will be in time to come, if the bill against pluralities should take any place’. P.R.O. S.P. 12/223, fol. 30r; Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 71; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 39v; Laud MS. 2007, fol. 121r.

^{Page 171 of note 3} Parliaments, II, 409 n. 2

^{Page 171 of note 4} Early 19th century?

^{Page 171 of note 5} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 60; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 33r; Laud MS. 2007, fol. 119v. And see below.

^{Page 171 of note 6} Lansdowne MS. 396, fols. 63, 74 et alibi.

^{Page 171 of note 7} See particularly the sections entitled respectively: ‘It is prejudicial to her Majesty’s authority and state’ and ‘Inconveniences to your Majesty’.

^{Page 172 of note 1} ‘the’ omitted in the Laud MS. 2007 copy (fol. 122r.).

^{Page 172 of note 2} The arguments on the other side are somewhat more intangible, except that in the 1601 Commons’ debate there are suggestions of Whitgift’s submission. For instance, Dr James, like the archbishop, quotes ‘inaequalibus aequalia dare absurdum’, while another [?] doctor developed the theme ‘Honos alit artes’. The latter quotation though, also occurs in the 1589 schedule. But the ascription to 1589 would destroy the attractive and convenient theory that Whitgift’s heavily corrected draft letter to the Queen, dated 19 November 1601, in which he writes of ’some few notes of absurdities of the bill propounded’, which he is ready to justify and ‘to offer many more if your Majesty shall require it’, refers to this particular compilation. But would he refer to a formal petition as “some few notes”? See D’Ewes, Journal, 640; Laud MS. 2004, fol. 12r.

^{Page 172 of note 3} New English Bible, loc. cit.

^{Page 172 of note 4} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 75; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 41 v. But the most legible text is in Laud MS. 2007 at fol. 114. The response to Beza’s opinion runs: ‘as for that which he setteth down touching pluralities and non residence it was upon false information, he not understanding the state of our Church and the manner of proceeding in those cases’.

^{Page 172 of note 5} Laud MS. 2007, fols. 114, 116, 119-20, 121-2. But there are better copies of the submission than that in the Laud MSS. (fols. 121-2).

^{Page 172 of note 6} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 64, and Petyt MS. 538/52, fol 35v, both proceed from point 3 to 6 without explanation. It is possible that Laud MS. 2007, fols. 119-20, is part of the text from which these were derived. See, for example, the treatment of the omission during the notes on Burghley’s speech [‘His answer to the impossibility was that learning would rather increase . . .’] which in both Lansdowne (fol. 60) and Petyt (fol. 33r) MSS. produced a mechanical repetition of ‘hic includitur’. In the Laud MS. there is no omission and the phrase is in its right place.

^{Page 173 of note 1} S. P. 12/223, fol. 26ff.

^{Page 173 of note 2} S. P. 12/282, fols. 135-7. Both in 1589 and 1601 ‘new’ bills emerged from committee.

^{Page 173 of note 3} S. P. 12/223, fols. 30-31.

^{Page 173 of note 4} Fol. 246b (formerly 254b) given as ‘24b’ by Neale, , Parliaments, II, 409, n. 1 Google Scholar. This MS is in part closely related to Laud MS. 2004, fol. 21, and B. M. Add. MS. 32092, fol. 98 (endorsed 1588).

^{Page 173 of note 5} Again one must bear in mind the eclectic nature of many of these papers.

^{Page 173 of note 6} Whitgift, I, 533-4. The main reason for assigning it to 1601 rather than 1589 is the mention of £ 8 p. a. as the sum which the bill’s proposer was supposed to consider ‘able to maintain a learned divine whereas every skull in a kitchen and groom of a stable is better provided for’. The Laud MS. version significantly has ‘£8’ crossed out and ‘£ 20 or £ 30’ written instead. Such alteration would coincide with the revision of the original 1601 bill.

^{Page 173 of note 7} Laud MS. 2007, fol. 115r; cf. ibid. fol. 116r.

^{Page 173 of note 8} Whitgift, I, 380-1. The source is not given.

^{Page 173 of note 9} Oxford 1963, 232-3. It is a pity that the author of so useful a compilation has neglected the plentiful MS. sources, which for this particular aspect are largely enumerated by Neale with a general caution (not always merited) about Strype’s dating. Hill’s account of pluralism and non-residence (chap, x, 224 ff.) is consequently in need of some correction in detail. There is no evidence that Whitgift used this particular set of arguments against either the 1584 bill (p. 232) or any subsequent bill, in toto that is. It was one of a series which the defendants of plurality seem to have regarded as a quarry (cf. Dr James’ speech in the Commons in 1601 [D’Ewes, Journal, 640] and Whitgift’s submission). With respect to the 1589 bill’s ‘prohibiting pluralism except in the case of two small and adjacent livings’ (p. 233), the truth is that it would have condoned existing plurality, while legislating against future pluralists. This, critics protested, must surely have been contrary to the intention of those who framed the bill: ‘So that he that hath more upon exceptation of a third within or without distance shall keep the two latter contrary to the meaning of the lawmaker’ (Petyt MS. 538/52 fol. 32r provides the clearer reading, cf. Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 58). It is perhaps not quite fair comment to say ‘it was the poorer clergy whom the archbishop regarded as factious’ (p. 233). The argument of Lansdowne MS. 42 fol. 211/ Laud MS. 2007 fol. 115 is that the bill was ‘dangerous’ for such as deserved to be rewarded and that it would ‘encourage the worst sort, and such as are factious and contentious in the Church whose end is to seek the spoil and overthrow of the same’. After all, for the Puritans an attack on plurality was only a means to an end.

^{Page 174 of note 1} The phrase ‘It requireth an impossibility . . . the third part of learned men to supply that number’ appears verbatim. Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 72; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 40r; P.R.O. S.P. 12/223, fol. 30v. In his (1589) speech Burghley made a special point of controverting this ‘impossibility’: ‘learning would rather increase when there should be more preferments, viz. two for one’ (Laud MS. 2007, fol. 119v has the best reading).

^{Page 174 of note 2} Fols. 57, 66. With respect to the earlier set they can be related to the critique of the 1589 bill which follows almost immediately. In particular, no. 8 (‘Appointeth double punishment for one fault’) refers to the accumulation of the penalty under 21 Henry VIII cap. 13 and the newly proposed penalty. No. 9, ‘Taketh the forfeiture from the Queen’, could refer to the fact that the 1589 bill allotted such penalty to the informer and the poor, not to the Queen. Cf. another critique: Laud MS. 2004, fol. 33r-v.

^{Page 174 of note 3} Parliaments, II, 409 nn. 1, 2.

^{Page 175 of note 1} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 58; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 32r-v. Cf. Laud MS. 2004, fol. 33r-v.

^{Page 175 of note 2} Lansdowne MS. 104/3: ‘The brief of the bill against pluralities and non residencies’. The ‘considerations’ were: maintenance of Divine Service, preaching, discharge of pastors’ duties, increase of hospitality for the poor, and the better employment of ecclesiastical benefices.

^{Page 175 of note 3} Although it has been pointed out to me that such conditions might have prevailed, for instance, in East Anglia.

^{Page 175 of note 4} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 33r no. 2.

^{Page 176 of note 1} In its original form Neale suggests that it was ‘visionary, impracticable and irresponsible in its rigidity, while the attempt to discipline the Church through parliamentary legislation violated both prerogative and constitution, though the form it assumed of amending a previous statute was a clever camouflage of that fact’ (Parliaments, II, 406). Much the same could be asserted of the 1589 bill, yet Burghley himself, speaking to that bill, had considered things to be ‘well provided for’ by 21 Henry VIII ‘in two points’, the restriction of pluralities to those with benefices worth less than £ 8 and the removal of non-residence, basic planks, it would seem, of the unrevised 1601 bill. He had begun by extolling the bill’s preamble, which (allegedly) sought to promote divine service, preaching, hospitality, the care of the poor, and learning. His conclusion was in more cautious vein, ‘he was not so scrupulous absolutely to like of the bill without any exception’, and would allow a learned man to have two benefices, provided they were in one ‘parish’ (diocese) under the surveillance of a single diocesan. Laud MS. 2007, fol. 119v. et alibi.

^{Page 176 of note 2} A critic pointed out (Laud MS. 2004, fol. 28 no. 4): ‘It is absurd to allow a curate xx l. clear by year out of a benefice of x l. by year, and to leave the incumbent chargeable with all manner of charges ordinary and extra-ordinary’.

^{Page 176 of note 3} Parliaments, II, 409.

^{Page 176 of note 4} 21 Henry VIII cap. 13. The 1601 bill was allegedly a mere revision of Henrician legislation.

^{Page 176 of note 5} Laud MS. 2004, fols. 24r-25r (cf. fol. 28r). £ 20 p. a. was a low figure for a learned minister in Elizabethan eyes, including Puritan ones. See Hill, Economic Problems, 205.

^{Page 176 of note 6} P.R.O.S.P. 12/282, fols. 135-7.

^{Page 176 of note 7} It has been suggested that the actual income of a benefice of this rating in the Queen’s Books would have been much greater. Certainly so, but both sides appear to have accepted the Queen’s Books’ figure as a datum in the argument. Again, in view of inflation the numerical increase does not represent a corresponding advance in real income. It is also true that outgoings were high. See Hart, A. Tindal, The Country Clergy in Elizabethan and Stuart Times London 1958, 47ff.Google Scholar; Hill, Economic Problems, 108 ff., 202 ff. Much more detailed work needs to be done before anything precise can be affirmed with respect to the real income of the clergy at this time.

^{Page 177 of note 1} The revised bill of 1589 passed the Commons and was debated in the Lords, where it received only a first reading. The revised 1601 bill was given a first reading in the Commons and we know nothing more about it. Parliaments, II, 224ff., 406ff.; D’Ewes, , Journal, 441-4, 639-40, 650 Google Scholar.

^{Page 177 of note 2} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 17v; cf. Lansdowne MS. 42, fol. 211 no. 4; Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 68; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 37v; P.R.O.S.P. 12/223, fol. 26r.

^{Page 178 of note 1} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 28 no. 1. Some of these figures are quoted by Hill, , Economic Problems, 202 n. 5 Google Scholar from Collier, , Ecclesiastical History, 1852 edn., IX, 362-3Google Scholar. They are derived from the Valor Ecclesiasticus and a more detailed analysis is given by Tindal Hart, Country Clergy, 47.

^{Page 178 of note 2} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 28 no. 1.

^{Page 178 of note 3} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 25r, no. 20.

^{Page 178 of note 4} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 28r no. 2.

^{Page 178 of note 5} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 17v.

^{Page 178 of note 6} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 23r; Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 70; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 38v; P.R.O. S.P. 12/223, fol. 27v.

^{Page 179 of note 1} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 62; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 34r.

^{Page 179 of note 2} D’Ewes, Journal, 640. Lord Hunsdon, the Lord Chamberlain, had made a similar point: ‘The inequality of gifts must have a difference in rewards else if all be equal there will be no distinction’ (1589 debate: Laud MS. 2007 fol. 120r; Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 60; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 33v).

^{Page 179 of note 3} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 18r. All the same, so far as actual legislation is concerned, there was much truth in the contention, and the case was carefully argued along these lines by Privy Councillor Fortescue in the 1589 debate. Foster, C. W., The State of the Church in the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I as illustrated by documents relating to the Diocese of Lincoln, Linc. Rec. Soc., XXIII, 1926, lxiii, 459ff.Google Scholar, shows that there was a marked decline in pluraliste in that large diocese between 1585 and 1603 (from 140 to 90). Cf. Hill, Economic Problems, 225ff.

^{Page 179 of note 4} Laud MS. 2007, fol. 124r., no. 17.

^{Page 179 of note 5} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 32r. no. 1.

^{Page 180 of note 1} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 73; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 40v; S. P. 12/223, fol. 30v; cf. Lansdowne MS. 42, fol. 211, no. 5.

^{Page 180 of note 2} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 31r no. 1. Cf. B. M. Add. MS. 32092, fol. 98r no. 12. The same view is in Laud MS. 2004, fol. 32r no. 5.

^{Page 180 of note 3} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 73; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 40v; S. P. 12/223, fol. 30v; Laud MS. 2007, fol. 121 v. The two last omit ‘their’.

^{Page 180 of note 4} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 32r no. 2.

^{Page 181 of note 1} Elsewhere he remarks that ‘the best livings for worthy men are in such churches’ (no. 6).

^{Page 181 of note 2} Laud MS. 2004, fol. 32 nos. 3, 10.

^{Page 181 of note 3} Laud MS. 2004, fols. 24r-25r.

^{Page 181 of note 4} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 71; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 39v; S. P. 12/223, fol. 30r; Laud MS. 2007, fol. 121r.

^{Page 181 of note 5} Laud MS. 2007, fol. 119v; Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 60; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 33r. The Lansdowne copy has ‘was’ inserted over ‘were’ crossed out.

^{Page 181 of note 6} Parliaments, II, 407-8; D’Ewes, Journal, 640.

^{Page 182 of note 1} 1, 2, 4. I am grateful to Mr T. L. Zinn of Westminster School for tracing this and a number of other classical quotations for me.

^{Page 182 of note 2} Lansdowne MS. 396, fol. 73; Petyt MS. 538/52, fol. 40v; P.R.O. S.P. 12/223, fol. 30v. The ‘in’ before ‘Divinity’ is omitted in the Lansdowne MS.

^{Page 182 of note 3} Cicero, , Tusculan Disputations, 1, 2, 4 Google Scholar,

^{Page 183 of note 1} Cicero, , Tusculan Disputations, l, 2, 4 Google Scholar.

^{Page 183 of note 2} See Lansdowne MS. 42 fol. 211 no. 5 for a similar argument.

^{Page 184 of note 1} ‘That—pleased’ interlined.

^{Page 184 of note 2} ‘to consider of’ crossed out.

^{Page 184 of note 3} ‘of good’ crossed out.

^{Page 184 of note 4} ‘unto’ crossed out.

^{Page 184 of note 5} ‘touching’, ‘against’, ‘plurality of benefices’, all crossed out.

^{Page 184 of note 6} ‘not only’ interlined.

^{Page 184 of note 7} ‘not only’, ‘and overthrow’ crossed out.

^{Page 184 of note 8} ‘the better’ crossed out.

^{Page 184 of note 9} ‘of the’ interlined.

^{Page 184 of note 10} Duplicate ‘ministers’ crossed out.

^{Page 184 of note 11} ‘King Henry the VIII’ interlined; ‘and confirm’ crossed out.

^{Page 184 of note 12} ‘most happy’ interlined.

^{Page 185 of note 1} ‘r’ (‘your’) crossed out.

^{Page 185 of note 2} ‘&’ crossed out.

^{Page 185 of note 3} ‘at’ crossed out.

^{Page 185 of note 4} The Convocation of 1597.

^{Page 185 of note 5} Under the canon De beneficiorum pluralitate cohibenda ( Cardwell, , Synodalia, I, 150 Google Scholar) a faculty for plurality was not to be granted save to a suitable person, that is, a man with at least an M. A. degree, a public preacher of the Word, bound to residence in each of his benefices for a good part of the year, such benefices not to be more than 30 miles apart, who was to provide an able curate in that benefice in which he was not residing.

^{Page 185 of note 6} The ‘r’ of ‘learned’ interlined.

^{Page 185 of note 7} ‘who’ interlined.

^{Page 185 of note 8} ‘do’ crossed out.

^{Page 185 of note 11} ‘such—which’ interlined; ‘and this open attempt and unkind dealing with us’ crossed out.

^{Page 185 of note 9} ‘am’ crossed out.

^{Page 185 of note 11} ‘such great’ interlined.

^{Page 185 of note 12} ‘whereof this is one of the greatness (sic) in the ecclesiastical state’ crossed out.

^{Page 185 of note 13} ‘who are’ interlined.

^{Page 185 of note 14} ‘omits’ crossed out.

^{Page 185 of note 15} ‘to justify them and’ interlined.

^{Page 185 of note 16} ‘in’ crossed out.

^{Page 186 of note 1} ‘bill’ interlined over ‘act’ crossed out; shall’ interlined.

^{Page 186 of note 2} A second ‘though the’ crossed out.

^{Page 186 of note 3} ‘shall’ interlined.

^{Page 186 of note 4} This cautionary argument with respect to the prerogative is to be found elsewhere with only minor verbal differences. E.g. B.M. Lansdowne MS. 42 fol. 211 no. 8 (and the other copy, Laud MS. 2007, fol. 115); B. M. Add. MS. 32092 fol. 98 no. 16; Laud MS. 2004, fol. 21, no. 12. After Elizabeth’s reign it is taken up by the compiler of Laud MS. 2007, fol. 124r (no. 18).

^{Page 186 of note 5} ‘and statutes’ interlined.

^{Page 186 of note 6} Above ‘only’ crossed out.

^{Page 186 of note 7} ‘and binding’ crossed out.

^{Page 186 of note 8} ‘such’ crossed out.

^{Page 186 of note 9} ‘do’ crossed out.

^{Page 186 of note 10} ‘ministers and preachers’ interlined.

^{Page 187 of note 1} ‘et..’ crossed out.

^{Page 187 of note 2} ‘fewer’ crossed out.

^{Page 187 of note 3} ‘or else’ crossed out.

^{Page 187 of note 4} ‘It would cause men all their lifetime [over ‘perpetually’ crossed out] to remain in the universities so that there should be no succession’. Margin.

^{Page 187 of note 5} ‘the—of’interlined.

^{Page 187 of note 6} ‘pre [bends]’ crossed out.

^{Page 188 of note 1} ‘d’ and two minims [for diminish?] crossed out.

^{Page 189 of note 1} Another paper (Laud MS. 2004, fol. 27r), shows the Queen to have received the following sums ‘out of the Office of Faculties’:

^{Page 189 of note 2} Apparently a reference to the limitation in the original bill beyond which there could be no plurality.

^{Page 190 of note 1} Catchwords ‘10 If this bill’.

^{Page 190 of note 2} The argument used by Whitgift in 1589.

^{Page 190 of note 3} 1 Timothy, v, 17; 1 Timothy, iii, 2, Titus, i, 8.

^{Page 191 of note 1} By the revised 1601 bill a man with a rectory worth £ 20 or a vicarage of 40 marks (£ 26 13s 4d), or above, could not be a pluralist.

^{Page 191 of note 2} Catchwords ‘20 If a learned’.

^{Page 192 of note 1} The biblical arguments are dealt with in detail by another learned doctor on Whitgift’s behalf (Laud MS. 2004 fol. 15r-v).