^{page 79 note 2} Acts of the Privy Council of England, 1613–1614, pp. 557–59.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 1} The debate of 7 June 1614 shows several members ready to vote supply to avoid a dissolution; Proceedings in Parliament 1610, ed. Foster, E. R. (New Haven, 1966), ii, pp. 415–21.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 1} Knowler, i, p. 2, prints the letter without the endorsement.

^{page 88 note 1} Sir Michael Wharton.

^{page 89 note 1} The heading is here printed in full. The headings of the other letters in the letter-book have been abbreviated.

^{page 90 note 1} Daughter of George, earl of Shrewsbury, and widow of Henry Cavendish

^{page 90 note 2} It has been assumed that this letter and no. 40 were entered in the correct sequence; if they were not, both should be dated 1617/8.

^{page 95 note 1} Edward, Lord Morley.

^{page 96 note 1} Lady Grace Cavendish.

^{page 96 note 2} Lord Chamberlain and the earl of Arundel, see no. 50, p. 97 and n. 1.

^{page 97 note 1} The daughters and heirs-general of Gilbert, the seventh earl, who died 8 May 1616, were Mary, married in 1604 to William, earl of Pembroke, Elizabeth in 1601 to Henry Lord Ruthin, and Alethea, married in 1606 to Thomas, earl of Arundel.

^{page 99 note 1} SC, xxi/14, records Wentworth's opinion also in 1617 against settiing a half share of certain lands on Lady Ruthin and a moiety of other lands amounting to £1200 a year on Mr Talbot of Grafton, because both these settlements might enable the beneficiaries to trench into the future peace and safety of Wentworth's sister, Lady Anne Savile, and his nephew, Sir George Savile. Wentworth's suggestion that Edward should settle rent charges instead of land was not approved by the earl.

^{page 101 note 1} This letter was dated 5 September 1617. Buckingham's second letter of 23 September, acknowledging that he and the king had been misinformed about Savile's resignation, presumably made it unnecessary for Cumberland to write to the king; Knowler, i, p. 4.

^{page 102 note 1} Edward Talbot, eighth earl of Shrewsbury, died 8 February 1618.

^{page 104 note 1} The king was at Brougham 4 August 1617. Nichols, J., The Progresses, Processions and Magnificent Festivities of King James the First (London, 1828), iii, pp. 391–92Google Scholar and n. 4. The book may have been The Ayres that were sung and played at Brougham Castle in Westmerland in the King's Entertainment given by the Right Honorable the Earl of Cumberland and his Right Noble Sonne the Lord Clifford. Composed by Mr George Mason and Mr John Earsden, though it was not published in print until 1618. Nichols did not see a copy, but it is recorded by Pollard, A. W. and Redgrave, G. R., A Short Title Catalogue of Books …1475–1640 (London, 1926), no. 17601.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 1} See no. 47, p. 93.

^{page 109 note 1} Joan, widow of Edward, eighth earl of Shrewsbury, daughter and co-heir of Cuthbert, Lord Ogle, died without issue 1627.

^{page 120 note 1} Probably Healaugh Priory in Ainsty.

^{page 120 note 2} See below, pp. 323–24.

^{page 148 note 1} The renewal of Cumberland's patent for licensing the export of white, undressed cloth.

^{page 162 note 1} See Notestein, ii, pp. 440–41, but the arguments would also have been appropriate for the debate on 5 December, ibid., p. 504.

^{page 187 note 1} This may be a draught relating to 11 or 12 December 1621. The reference (below, p. 166) to the precedent of Henry IV appears to refer to Coke's speech of 10 December (Notestein, ii, p. 509Google Scholar and n. 11) and would date this speech to 11 December. Wentworth spoke on both 11 and 12 December (ibid., ii, pp. 512, 515; vi, p. 233). The speech would seem rather more appropriate to the context of the debate recorded on 12 December than that of 11 December On the other hand the reference to three subsidies having been granted (below, p. 167) could only apply to 1624, not to 1621 when two subsidies only were granted. But the references to concluding the session by Christmas, the questions of privilege and to the king's messages would only fit the context of 1621. Either the reference to the three subsidies is a slip, or an attempt to revise a draught originally made in 1621.

^{page 176 note 1} The death of Wentworth's wife, Margaret Clifford.

^{page 179 note 1} The correct total is £331-8-4. Another estimate (SC, xx/233) gives a total of £316-13-4.

^{page 194 note 1} Amounts charged to the accountant at the ending of his account.

^{page 235 note 1} This agrees better with the account of the casualties given by Dudley Carleton, cited by Dalton, C., The Life and Times of General Sir Edward Cecil, Viscount Wimbledon (London, 1885), pp. 87–88Google Scholar, than with those given by Markham, C. R., The Fighting Veres (London, 1888), pp. 427–28Google Scholar. The former gives Oxford, captains Dacres, Tyrwhitt, Cromache and Sir Thomas Winne and lieutenant Bell wounded, with ensign Stanhope killed.

^{page 236 note 1} Dungen in Brabant.

^{page 236 note 2} Probably related to his speech on 10 August; C.J., i, p. 814Google Scholar; Debates in the House of Commons in 1625, ed. S. R. Gardiner (Camden Society, new series, vi, 1873), p. 113. British Museum Add. MS. 48091, the other main account, does not record any speech by Wentworth.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 1} The rest of the speech is also repeated in SC, xxi/213, but with a different opening, given below, p. 239.

^{page 240 note 1} Printed in Knowler, i, p. 29, without the postscript and with the date November 1625 added.

^{page 249 note 1} This probably refers to Instructions for Musters and Arms … 1623; see Boynton, L., The Elizabethan Militia, 1558–1638 (London, 1967), pp. 240–41.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 1} This probably refers to the charter for the incorporation of Leeds.

^{page 251 note 1} Presumably Kirkstall Abbey in the parish of Leeds.

^{page 266 note 1} Bishop Williams.

^{page 268 note 1} Partly printed in Catholic Record Sonety, lii (1961), p. 372.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 1} The words in italics have been obscured by a blot.

^{page 288 note 1} A possible reading is cunter.

^{page 292 note 1} The manuscript is faint, heavily corrected and at times almost illegible.

^{page 293 note 1} These words were crossed out, but the words replacing them are illegible.

^{page 294 note 1} These three words are partly struck through.

^{page 294 note 2} Words in italics struck out.

^{page 295 note 1} This word may have been struck through.

^{page 295 note 2} Nicholas's notes on the debate show that Wentworth was answering points raised by Robert Mason, who spoke immediately before, P.R.O., SP. 16/97, pp. 51–52. The fullest report of the speech is in the True Relation: ‘Wee are here mett to close up the hurt and danger of his Majestie's people, all our desires are bent to this bill and this left unsecured makes us loose all our labour, we shall tread the olife and loose all the oyle. I agree the resolucons are according to lawe and that wee cannot recede a title; wee can lay noe other foundacon then what is already layd. All the argument is on the first and some haue objected and said a new cause may bee searched out after his imprisonment, but this is of shew and noe waight; there may bee this search, before the comittment, as well as after. Others say the cause shewing preuents the committment, but may the committment bee upon another cause and hee that will committ for one cause may show a wronge cause. But here lett us see how this miserye comes on us: First by too speedy committments at Whitehall and by too slow baylement at Westminster hall, then there is noe hope but neither is it to bee neglected. Let us make what Lawe wee can, there must, nay there will bee, a trust left in the crowne, for this the lawes already prouides; wee haue assureance of His Maiestie's promises and wee may sure with condicons and urged necessities. But for that that concerns Westminster Hall, that that concerns the the Habeas Corpus, let us so secure itt that the ludges in Westminster Hall dare not deny us and soe wee shall secure ourselues from the greatest punishment; take now all the lawes declared a posteriori wee are secured to bee bailed and if wee haue goods shew mee if euer any law since Edward 3 was of greater consequence’ (Bodley MS. Eng. Hist. c. 202, fos. 304^v–05^r). Nicholas's notes give a different ending: ‘… such a lawe will exceede all the lawes that we haue had for the good of the subiect and if it be soe then he desires to know whether our cuntry will not blame us, if we refuse it; he is to be charged by letter wryten that he see it.’

^{page 297 note 1} The addition expressed ‘… due Regard to leave entire that Sovereign Power wherewith Your Majesty is trusted for the Protection, Safety and Happiness of your People.’ The speech was part of a debate following the conference between the Houses on 23 May, Lord's Journals, iii, pp. 801, 813–20.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 1} The ‘True Relation’ reports the speech: ‘Wee are now fallen from a Statute and a new lawe to a peticon of Right and unlesse the Lords cooperate with us, the stamp is cutt of that giues a vallue to the action; if they ioyne with us it is a record to posterity, if wee seuer from them noe longe continuance and therfore lett us labour to gett the Lords to ioyne with us. To this there were two things considerable; first not to recede in this peticon, either in part or in whole from our resolucons, secondly that the Lords ioyne with us or els all is lost; wee haue protested wee desire noe new thing, wee leaue all power to his Maiestie to punish malefactors. Let us cleare ourselues to his Maiestie that wee thus intend. It is far from mee to presume to propound anything, I dare not trust my owne iudgment onely to preuent a present voting with the Lords. Lett [us] againe address ourselues to the Lords that wee are constant in our grounds that wee desire noe new thing, nor to inuade upon his Maiestie's prerogatiue. Butt lett us add, though wee may not admitt of this addicon, yet if theire Lordshipps can find out any way to keepe untouched this peticon, wee will consider of it and joine with them’ (Bodley MS. Eng. Hist. c. 202, fo. 42^v). Nicholas did not record this speech. British Museum, Stowe MS. 366, fo. 189^r, gives a briefer version, ending ‘But I would add allbeeyt wee may not admitt of these wordes, yet if there Lordships can finde out any thinge which way to cause an agreement, lett them express it and wee shall condiscend.’

^{page 309 note 1} This probably refers to the fine on 6 November on Alexander Gill for words spoken in the beer cellar of Trinity College, Oxford, against Charles and Buckingham and for drinking Felton's health, though the fine was £2000; Masson, D., The Life of John Milton, i (London, 1875), pp. 150–52.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 1} In 1628 Clare had shown less detachment and was eager to exchange news and rumours from court (25 Nov. SC, xxi/86); he thought ‘… the waters be at a still, yet sum expectation thear is which way the flood will goe …’ at a report of Weston, the new Lord Treasurer's, ‘… coniunction with my lord Savage and b(isho)p Lard …’