² Commons' Journals, II, p. 162.

³ This account is taken from the manuscript diary of the Long Parliament by Sir Simonds D'Ewes in the British Museum. Harleian MS. 163, f. 635.

^{page 104 note 1} Commons' Journals, II, p. 113.

^{page 104 note 2} ibid.., idem, p. 115.

^{page 104 note 3} The constituencies represented by the Members of Parliament concerned in this scene are to be found in Return of Members of Parliament, I, pp. 488, 496, 498.

^{page 104 note 4} The Committee had been appointed on the 3rd December, 1640. Commons' Journals, II, p. 44.

^{page 104 note 5} ibid.., idem, p. 171.

^{page 105 note 1} The History of the Rebellion (ed. W. Macray, 1888), I, p. 374.

^{page 106 note 1} Statutes of the Realm, V, p. 110.

^{page 106 note 2} He was the spokesman of the Commons in later conferences with the Lords on the subject of the Star Chamber Bill. Cf. D'Ewes's Diary, ff. 747, 748v.

^{page 107 note 1} England under the Stuarts, p. 165.

^{page 107 note 2} Gardiner, S. R., Reports of Cases in the Courts of Star Chamber, and High Commission(Camden Soc., 1886).Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 3} Elfreda Skelton (now Mrs. J. E. Neale): “The Court of Star Chamber in the reign of Elizabeth,” 1931, available at the Institute of Historical Research, London.

^{page 108 note 1} The cause–list, presumably drawn up by one of the clerical officials of the Court, contains the names of all the plaintiffs and defendants in each hearing set down for the day. In addition, there is always added a brief statement of the cause at issue. Windebank's notes are in the form either of marginalia or of addenda on an attached sheet. These important documents are to be found in the following volumes of the State Papers Domestic for Charles I (P.R.O. Ref. S.P.16). Arabic numerals are used for convenience. Vols. 159, 167, 224, 225, 231, 239, 242, 248, 250, 251, 259–60, 266–7, 275–7, 283, 299–302, 314, 320–1, 344–6, 361–2, 369–70, 372, 379–81, 388–9, 391, 420, 443, 461, 535 passim.

^{page 108 note 2} To be found either in Vol. II or in the Appendix to Vol. III. It should be noted in this connexion that Rushworth is not always very accurate. The Attorney–General's case against Overman and others, for using fish–oil in soap–making, is quoted in II, p. 252, as having been heard in the Trinity term of 1634. In III, App., p. 54, it is down under Easter 1633. The State Papers bear out the latter date as being the more correct. Cf. Cal. S.P. Dom., 1633–4, P. 30.

^{page 108 note 3} Reports are to be found for this particular period in the following British Museum manuscripts: Add. MS. 11764, ff. 1–29v., Harl. MSS. 4022 and 4130, Hargrave MSS. 404 (the reports begin at the back of this volume) and 489, ff. 9–15v. There are also reports in the following Bodleian manuscripts: Rawlinson MSS. A.128 and D.720 ff. 49v.–51. The two documents transcribed by Gardiner for the Camden Society are Harl. MS. 4130 and Rawl. MS. A.128.

^{page 108 note 4} Fines, after review in the Star Chamber, would be estreated into the Office of the King's Remembrancer, and are therefore enrolled on the Memoranda Rolls. In the Auditor's Receipt Books of the Exchequer (P.R.O. Ref. E.401), each auditor has a heading “Star Chamber Fines.” I am much indebted to Mr. Mathias for drawing my attention to these most valuable sources of information.

^{page 109 note 1} Presented by Sir Giles Sebright, Bt., a descendant of Thomas Saunders, Clerk of the Writs and Processes, 1631–41. The P.R.O. Class No. is G.D.38. The books appear to have been compiled as follows. A warrant for process would be issued by the Clerk of the Council to the Clerk of the Writs and Processes.The latter would make out the requisite writ and either enter up a record in his book at the time, or else allow warrants to accumulate until the end of the day when he entered them en bloc.(Cf. Hudson, Treatise on the Court of Star Chamber in F. Hargrave, Collectanea Juridica II, p. 47.) Every writ issued carried with it a fee, and accordingly the book could also be used as a check upon fees. The Public Record Office has indeed classified the volumes as Fee Books, but the title of Process Book is the more appropriate. Lists of fees exigible for the issuing of process are to be found in G.D.38/27(ii), or in Skelton, op. cit.I, Appendix, p. cxviii.

^{page 109 note 2} Rawl. MS. C.827.

^{page 110 note 1} There are numerous manuscript copies of Hudson in private hands as well as in public repositories. It has also been printed in F. Hargrave: Collectanea Juridica, Vol.II. A copy of Cotton's Treatise is in Lansdowne MS. 639. The “New Discovery” is in Harl. MS. 6448, and has also been transcribed by Miss Skelton, op. cit., I, pp. xli, et seq.

^{page 110 note 2} Miss Skelton has made a careful examination of the copies of Hudson in the British Museum, and has noted some discrepancies. Op. cit., I, p. 6.

^{page 111 note 1} This figure is obtained by computing the number of entries of writs ad audiendum judicium in the Process Books over a period of several years.

^{page 111 note 2} Harl. MS. 4022.

^{page 111 note 3} Rawl. MS. C.827. The three cases were Lord Mohun v. Sir James Bagg, which occupied nine days, Attorney–General v.Bishop Williams, which took up ten days, of which seven were in vacation, and Attorney–General v.Lord Saville, which required eight days of the Michaelmas term.

^{page 111 note 4} Op. cit., pp. 196, 197.

^{page 111 note 5} The number of plaintiffs is obtained by computing the number of entries of writs ad comparendum. A large number of the entries have ren or vet entered against them. Experiment shows that these terms signify that the particular writ was being renewed, or that it was a writ to another defendant in a case where one warrant for subpœna had already been issued. Such entries have therefore been discounted. It was possible for the plaintiff to issue several other writs, e.g. ad reiungendum replicacioni and to sue out various commissions, e.g. ad examinandum testes, before the definitive writ ad audiendum judicium was issued. It is on an examination of the entries of these later writs that the percentages in this section are based. Mr. Mathias, who has been using these process books in a period anterior to that covered by the present Essay, is in substantial agreement with me over the evidence forthcoming from this important source and over the method of using the books to obtain that evidence.

^{page 112 note 1} Hudson expresses himself in this matter as follows: “… lord Egerton, conceiving that the attorneys best knew the client's cause, gave liberty to them to prefer such causes as their clients which most urged them, which were most earnest, and solicited them to prefer; and those, after the cause required by the king's attorney, were always set to hearing. But because it is his [the Lord Keeper's] charge to set fitting causes for the lords judgment, he many times required those which were of counsel in the cause upon whose judgment he durst rely, to certify him whether the cause were fit to be heard …” Collectanea Juridica, II, p. 216. Hudson goes on to say that the attorneys seldom used their power to decide on the fitness of cases, because, provided that a case were heard, a fine could always accrue to the King, payable by the plaintiff if the hearing were dismissed. Nevertheless this important privilege presumably still remained.

^{page 112 note 2} P.R.O., G.D. 38/27 (ii).

^{page 113 note 1} Op. cit., I, p. 96, and cf. passage from Hudson, quoted p. 112, note I.

^{page 113 note 2} S.P. Dom. Charles I, ccl, 58.

^{page 113 note 3} ibid.,. ccxlvii, 66. There are two such documents among the State Papers, the other being in ccxci, 123. They are examples of the terminal cause–list. It would seem that a long list, in this particular instance amounting to fifty–three cases, would be drawn up prior to the Michaelmas term, and that this would be worked off in the shortest possible time, not necessarily during the particular term. The ore tenus cases would not appear on such a list, but would be taken as soon as they arose. The second of these two documents is, however, a cause–list for the Trinity term, and the assumption here would be that the cause–list for the preceding Michaelmas had been worked off.

^{page 113 note 4} ibid.., ccxlviii, 6.

^{page 114 note 1} The answers had to be signed by one of the attorneys of the Court. Bastwick put in an unsigned answer. Prynne's answer was materially altered by the Attorney after it had been drafted. Prynne disowned the amended copy and the attorney refused to sign the original. Burton's answer was signed by attorney, but the Court declared a large portion of it to be scandalous. Burton refused to be examined upon what remained of his answer after the offending portion had been expunged. A new discovery of the Prelates Tyranny in their late prosecutions of Pryn … Bastwick … and Burton … (1641), pp. 27, 28, 40–5.

^{page 114 note 2} The Christian Man's Triall, or a true Relation of the first apprehension and several examinations of John Lilburne (1641), pp. 6, 7.

^{page 114 note 3} Rawl. MS. C.827 shows that the three ecclesiastics were frequent attenders at the Court.

^{page 115 note 1} Professor Pollard has effectively disposed of any belief that this Act laid down any limits to the jurisdiction of the Court. Engl. Hist. Rev., xxxvii, pp. 522 et seq.

^{page 115 note 2} Miss Skelton gives a tabulated list of Bills filed in the forty–fourth year of Elizabeth. Op. cit., I, pp. 196–7.

^{page 115 note 3} Miss Skelton's figures throw an interesting light upon social history in the sixteenth century and upon the types of cases which were considered, in popular belief, worthy of the Court, rather than upon the cases which the Court itself deemed worthy of a hearing. In the latter connexion, figures based upon the actual hearings are more relevant. It is, therefore, with a certain diffidence that the two sets of figures are compared and percentages established, and the limitation should be borne in mind when they are being considered.

^{page 116 note 1} E.g. Cal. S.P. Dom., 1635, pp. 481, 498. The bill of the Attorney–General v.Lumley for such an offence is in Add. MS. 25266, ff. 21–48.

^{page 116 note 2} Op. cit., I, p. 144.

^{page 117 note 1} Lansdowne MS. 620, f. 3v. (Star Chamber Reports 1–3, Charles I.)

^{page 118 note 1} “The New Discovery …” in Skelton: op. cit., I, Appendix, p. lix.

^{page 118 note 2} S.P. Dom. Chaxles I, ccxxxii, 43.

^{page 119 note 1} S.P. Dom. Charles I, ccclxii, 103; cccclxi, 95.

^{page 119 note 2} E.g. ibid.., cxciv, 22, 23; ccclxii, 103.

^{page 119 note 3} P.R.O. Ref. E.401, 2466.

^{page 119 note 4} P.R.O. Ref. E.401, 2460.

^{page 120 note 1} History of England, vii, p. 148 n.

^{page 120 note 2} “Brief account of … treatment of … Leighton” in G. Benson: Collection of Tracts, pp. 220–21.

^{page 121 note 1} ibid.., p. 224.

^{page 121 note 2} Rushworth, Appendix to Vol. III, p. 30.

^{page 121 note 3} ibid.., idem, p. 33.

^{page 121 note 4} ibid.., idem, p. 40.

^{page 121 note 5} ibid.., idem, p. 43, and see Gardiner, Reports of Cases …, p. 108.

^{page 122 note 1} S.P. Dom. Charles I, ccl, 59 and Rushworth, loc. cit., p. 65.

^{page 122 note 2} Rushworth, II, pp. 220 et seq.

^{page 122 note 3} ibid.., idem, p. 269.

^{page 122 note 4} A brief relation of certaine speciall … passages … in the Star Chamber … at the censure of Bastwick … Burton … and Prynne …., p. 32.

^{page 122 note 5} Rushworth, II, p. 463.

^{page 122 note 6} S.P. Dom. Charles I, cccxci, 85, and Rawl. MS. D.720, f. 49v.

^{page 122 note 7} Rawl. MS. D.720, f. 49v.

^{page 122 note 8} S.P. Dom. Charles I, cccclxi, 95.

^{page 123 note 1} Rushworth, Appendix to Vol. III, p. 33.

^{page 123 note 2} Hargrave MS. 404. The reports are at the back of this volume.

^{page 123 note 3} S.P. Dom. Charles I, ccxlii, 35.

^{page 124 note 1} Gardiner gives a good account in History of England, viii, pp. 231–3.

^{page 124 note 2} England's Rejoycing at the Prelate's downfall, p. 5 of text.

^{page 125 note 1} II, 475

^{page 125 note 2} W. H. Terry, Life and Times of John Finch (1936), p. 189.

^{page 125 note 3} W. Prynne, A Terrible Outcry against the Loytering exalted Prelates, P. 3.

^{page 125 note 4} P. 221.

^{page 126 note 1} John Hacket, in his biography of Williams, Scrinia Reserata, is very bitter against Kilvert, whom he accuses of bribing witnesses and falsifying evidence, II, § 112. Even when due allowance has been made for Hacket's obvious prejudices, Kilvert still appears as a most unpleasant figure. There is a reference to the fact that he was paid fifteen hundred pounds for his services in Cal. S.P. Dom., 1637, p. 356.

^{page 126 note 2} A brief Relation … pp. 43, 44.

^{page 126 note 3} Cf. Hacket, op. cit., p. 83.

^{page 126 note 4} Cf. R. P. T. Coffin, Life of Archbishop Laud (1930), pp. 156–7.

^{page 127 note 1} Laud's Diary, quoted in P. Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 225.

^{page 127 note 2} W. H. Marah, Memoirs of Archbishop Juxon (1869), p. 20.

^{page 127 note 3} This speech was printed, with a foreword by Laud, at the command of Charles. Williams annotated his copy, and there is a copy of the speech in the British Museum, which has been printed together with these marginalia.

^{page 127 note 4} P. 2. of Foreword.

^{page 127 note 5} P. 6 of Foreword.

^{page 127 note 6} From Laud's Diary, quoted in W. Prynne, Breviate of the Life of Laud, p. 21.

^{page 128 note 1} Commons' Journals, II, p.101.

^{page 128 note 2} Cf. Calendar of MSS. of Marquess of Bath (Hist. MSS. Com.), II, p. 67.

^{page 128 note 3} Cal. S.P. Dom., 1634–5, P. 126; 1635–6, p. 32.

^{page 128 note 4} The most outstanding example is the Attorney–General v. Henry Sherfield in February 1632 (O.S.) for riotous breaking of a stained glass window in St. Edmund's Church, Salisbury. He was fined five hundred pounds. This case is of especial interest in that the charge of riot seems to have been only the excuse for bringing Sherfield before the Star Chamber. He was really punished for an offence against the existing ecclesiastical system, v.Rushworth; II, pp. 152 et seq.

^{page 128 note 5} Cf. Cal. S.P. Dom., 1638–9, p. 213.

^{page 129 note 1} F. C. Dietz, Receipts … of the Exchequer. Smith College Studies in History, xiii, no. 4, p. 213.

^{page 129 note 2} Commons' Journals, II, pp. 92, 112, 124, 134.

^{page 129 note 3} Op. cit., I, p. 375.

^{page 129 note 4} Diurnall occurrences in Parliament.… p. 165 (28 June, 1641), and also in Add. MS. 36829, f. 38 (1 July, 1641).

^{page 129 note 5} Commons' Journals, II, pp. 189, 194.

^{page 130 note 1} Rushworth, IV, p. 298.

^{page 130 note 2} ibid.., II, pp. 288 et seq.

^{page 130 note 3} The Earl of Berkshire's eldest son was called by his father's second title, Viscount Andover. But he was summoned to Parliament, during his father's lifetime, as Lord Howard of Charlton. G.E.C. Complete Peerage, II, p. 151. No doubt he continued to be known as Lord Andover.

^{page 130 note 4} Lords' Journals, IV, p. 298.

^{page 130 note 5} ibid.., idem, p. 299.

^{page 131 note 1} D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MS. 163, f. 635.

^{page 131 note 2} J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, II, p. 120.

^{page 131 note 3} Op. cit., I, p. 375.

^{page 131 note 4} Sir Philip Warwick, Memoirs of the Reign of King Charles, 1702, P. 175.