^{page 248 note 1} Endorsement (fo 150^r), ‘Sir B.R. Sp. in Par. 1640.’ See also below, App., Rudyerd, p. 296.

^{page 248 note 2} Rudyerd had been an M.P. since 1621.

^{page 251 note 1} For the first part of the speech, see above, p. 213.

^{page 251 note 2} See below, App., Seymour, p. 297.

^{page 253 note 1} For the remainder of the speech see above, p. 215.

^{page 254 note 1} See below, App., Pym (17 April), p. 299. Cf. Rushworth, , iii, pp. 1131–36.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 2} … did (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 238^r). Exodus 34.

^{page 254 note 3} … for tyme … (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 238^v).

^{page 255 note 1} E.g., Eliot.

^{page 255 note 2} … to man … (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 239^r).

^{page 255 note 3} … in the possession (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 239^r).

^{page 255 note 4} ‘… and public communication, men openly …’ (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 239^v).

^{page 255 note 5} ‘… fitted to wynne us’ (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 239^v).

^{page 256 note 1} ‘… but being layd togither make the man’ (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 240^r). Ezekiel 37: 6–7.

^{page 256 note 2} Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 240^r, omits: in law.

^{page 256 note 3} State Trials, ii, 131–59Google Scholar, does not confirm this. Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 240^r, omits the remainder of the paragraph.

^{page 256 note 4} expressing (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 240^r).

^{page 256 note 5} … or lawe (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 24O^r).

^{page 256 note 6} Curtis in MS; Bate's Case, 1606; ‘… in 3 Jac in the case …’ (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 240^v).

^{page 257 note 1} being exoticke commodities (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 24O^v).

^{page 257 note 2} Foster, , ii, p. 82.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 3} ‘… they had them saved to them …’ (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 241^r).

^{page 258 note 1} … case before them (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 241^v).

^{page 258 note 2} Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 241^v, omits: not.

^{page 258 note 3} Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 241^v, adds: ‘It was not used that men and tun. [?] should bee discussed here.’

^{page 258 note 4} Perhaps Sir Humphrey May in connection with Rolle's case (Commons Debates, 1629, p. 187Google Scholar; also p. 197). Pym's diary for 1624 cites such a remark from Strafford in that Parliament (quoted in Foster, , ‘Monopolies’, p. 79Google Scholar, note). Cf. B.L., E.78(12), p. 17.

^{page 258 note 5} ‘was soe lowe that …’ (Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 242^r).

^{page 258 note 6} Petyt MS. 538/11, fo 242^v, adds: videst4 E. 3, 14; 36 E 3, 10.

^{page 260 note 1} See below, App., Pym, p. 299. This loose sheet found among the pages of Pym's speech of 17 April appears to be in a different hand from that of the speech itself.

^{page 260 note 2} See above, p. 156.

^{page 260 note 3} See below, App., Hyde, p. 302.

^{page 261 note 1} There was a new patent 1 August 1623; records begin in 1633. (Squibb, G. D., The High Court of Chivalry (Oxford, 1959), pp. 46, 56Google Scholar; also pp. 48–62, passim); also Notestein, , D'Ewes, p. 375.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 2} Cf. Clarendon, , Life, i, p. 791Google Scholar; perhaps the case of Gardiner v. Gilbert (1640) (Squibb, p. 64n.); see also Rushworth, , iii, p. 1055.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 3} Clarendon, , Life, i, p. 78Google Scholar, gives the story in greater detail; Dover (earl) v. Fox (1638) (Squibb, p. 64 and n.).

^{page 261 note 4} Thomas Howard, second earl of Arundel, was Earl Marshal.

^{page 262 note 1} ‘ten pounds more…. The Heralds had procured such an Order from the Earl Marshal, to force all Persons to pay at their Funerals such several Sums, according to their several Degrees’ (Clarendon, , Life, i, p. 80).Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 2} ‘Mr. Say, a lawyer but advising a widow not to pay those fees, etc. questioned by Mr. Philpot Somerset herald, etc.’ (Notestein, , D'Ewes, p. 376n.).Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 3} No action was taken, but see C.J., ii, p. 16Google Scholar; also Hyde's report from the Long Parliament's committee (Notestein, , D'Ewes, p. 376Google Scholar and note).

^{page 262 note 4} Perhaps the committee appointed 20 April (C.J., ii, p. 7Google Scholar). The speech seems to be addressed to Glyn, perhaps as chairman. Glyn is not listed as a committee member (H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 20 April 1640). The speech is not mentioned in other accounts. It appears in a book of speeches of Sir John Holland, knight of the shire for Norfolk. Most of the speeches date from the Long Parliament.

^{page 262 note 6} See also below, Petition, Norwich, p. 279.

^{page 263 note 1} MS.: Monday the 20th. See also below, App., L.K. (21 April), p. 303.

^{page 264 note 1} See below, App., Charles I (24 April), p. 308.

^{page 265 note 1} Endorsement, fo 66^v. See also below, App., L.K. (25 April), p. 310. These notes, in the Lord Keeper's hand, do not show clearly the order in which the content should be arranged.

^{page 265 note 2} Cf. CSP 1640, pp. 22, 50.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 1} These notes appear in the margin of a speech about the oath ex officio,attributed on this copy to Glyn. See below, App., [?]Eliot, [?] 29 April), P. 313.

^{page 266 note 2} Endorsement, fo 74^v. See also below, App., L.K. (1 May), p. 314.

^{page 267 note 1} B.L., E.203(1), p. 27, begins here.

^{page 267 note 2} necessity (B.L., E.203(1), p. 28).

^{page 267 note 3} happy conclusion (remainder of sentence omitted (B.L., E.203(1), p. 28)).

^{page 268 note 1} Paragraph omitted (B.L., E.203(1), p. 28).

^{page 268 note 2} Several lines written and crossed out in MS.

^{page 268 note 3} ‘reiterating his often promises for relieving all their just grievances with his royal intentions in that particular of ship money …’ (B.L., E.203(1), p. 30).

^{page 268 note 4} with others (B.L., E.203(1), p. 30).

^{page 269 note 1} ‘… so it was no breach of any privilege of the House of Commons’ (B. L., E.203(1), p. 31; remainder of paragraph and following paragraph omitted).

^{page 269 note 2} Remainder of paragraph and that following condensed (B.L., E.203(1), pp. 31–32).

^{page 269 note 3} ‘… that being no whit derogatory to the priviledges of the House of Commons’ (B.L., E.203(1), p. 32; following paragraph omitted).

^{page 270 note 1} ‘… and having just cause therein to impart their fears and foresight of dangers to the House of Commons’ (B.L., E.203(1), p. 32; preceding part of paragraph condensed).

^{page 270 note 2} B.L., E.203(1), p. 32, substitutes ‘That such proceedings of their lordships, as they were grounded upon just and weighty reason, so they were agreeable to ancient usage and custome, and were fully justified by that establishment….’

^{page 270 note 3} Several lines written and crossed out in MS. B.L., E.203(1), p. 33, omits details about 9 Hen. IV and continues with speech as in MS., fo 73^r.

^{page 271 note 1} B.L., E.203(1), p. 33, resumes but condenses this and three following paragraphs.

^{page 271 note 2} Two paragraphs written and struck out in MS.

^{page 271 note 3} MS. revised here.

^{page 272 note 1} MS. revised here.

^{page 272 note 2} Paragraph written and struck out in MS.