which seemed to have been so completely ransacked by my predecessors. The Parliaments of 1624 and 1626, indeed, stand mainly on their old basis as far as the House of Commons is concerned, though even here I have met with some materials not hitherto used, and 'Nicholas's Notes for 1624' throw some additional light upon discussions which are given very fully in the two reports in the journals. But for the House of Commons in 1625 we have, in addition to Eliot's 'Negotium Posterorum,' which we owe to Mr. Forster, the Fawsley MS., which I was lately allowed by the kindness of Sir Rainald Knightley to edit for the Camden Society. It is, however, the history of the great session of 1628 which gains most from the new light shed upon it. The debates heretofore were in a state of chaos, two or three speeches, often placed out of order, having frequently to do duty for a whole day's discussion. The first light I was able to throw upon the matter arose from a study of 'Nicholas's Notes,' written in that peculiar semi-shorthand of his which seems to have repelled previous investigators. But the knowledge derived from Nicholas was far surpassed by that which was gained from the admirable report, Harl. MSS. 4771, which, strangely enough, lurked unknown in that well-ransacked collection till I was fortunate enough to light upon it. The history of the struggle which led to the Petition of Right is thus at last made clear, and the part taken by the various leaders becomes more intelligible. Wentworth's character especially receives fresh elucidation, and we come to understand, when the evidence is sifted, how he came to take service under the King without being an apostate. It is a new fact, too, that the Petition of Right was preceded by a bill for the liberty of the subject, for which the petition was finally substituted in consequence of the King's refusal to accept any serious limitation of his powers. If the debates in the Commons have not hitherto been fully known, the debates in the Upper House have been shrouded in utter darkness. The kindness of Colonel Carew in lending the Elsynge Notes' has at last dissipated the darkness for every session dealt with in the present volumes, excepting that of 1625, which was probably the least interesting of the four as far as the Lords were concerned. The details of the way in which the Peers dealt with Buckingham's impeachment are of considerable interest. But the most striking revelation is that of their mode of dealing with the questions arising out of the Petition of Right. Writers have hitherto been content to guess what passed in the House of Lords, and have frequently guessed wrong. Especially is this the case with respect to Bishop Williams, who turns out to have had nothing to do with the additional clause reserving sovereignty to the Crown, which is usually attributed to him, and to have been totally innocent of those intrigues against the petition which have called forth such denunciations of his conduct. My thanks are especially due to Mr. Forster for the kindness with which he allowed me the use of his copy of Eliot's 'Negotium Posterorum,' and to Lord St. Germans for having, at Mr. Forster's request, lent to me a volume of notes in Eliot's hand, which I have quoted as 'Eliot Notes.' I am under the greater obligations to Mr. Forster, as he was quite aware that my view of many matters differed from his considerably, and was not likely to sympathise with much that I have thought fit to say. It is needless to say how much knowledge I have gained from the speeches and other documents published in his Life of Sir John Eliot.' In conclusion, I would say that I have intentionally abstained from noticing some matters, such as Cosin's 'Book of Devotions,' and Williams's decision on the position of the communion-table at Grantham, which, though they fall chronologically within the limits of these volumes, are better treated of in connection with the debates of the following session. On the other hand, there are some matters which fall chronologically within the next period, which, if the popular account is to be believed, may be quoted against the opinion which I have formed of Charles's conduct in the session of 1628. I may therefore say that, as far as I have yet seen, I can find no ground for supposing that Charles, in the time which elapsed between the two sessions, broke the Petition of Right in the sense in which he understood it, and that it is not true that in the printed copy of the petition he substituted the first for the second answer. What he did was to print both answers together with his speech at the close of the session, as may be seen in the copy of the edition of the statutes of 1628 which is still preserved in the Museum library. 1624 Difference between the King and the Commons about the The Prince explains away the King's answer The Prince declares his father to be ready to go to war James promises to make no engagement for the Catholics in 66 |