not clear to what time Selden is referring, when he says that they had now 'become regenerate'; it is perhaps to the early part of the second Parliament of 1640, when the punishment of Strafford and Laud had already been taken in hand, and when it was clear that the Commons were in no temper to be trifled with. The Duke of Buckingham and Sir Richard Weston were both dead-unregenerate in Selden's sense of the word. On the death of the High Treasurer, Laud had been made one of the Commissioners of the Treasury and Revenue, which (says Clarendon) he had reason to be sorry for, because it engaged him in civil business and matters of state, wherein he had little experience and which he had hitherto avoided. Hist. vol. i. 152.

The charge by the same 'He (Laud)

It appears, however, from Whitelock's Memorials, that he had long before this been credited with interfering in matters of state. On the imprisonment of the members (3tio Caroli), 'the people were discontented. Libels were cast abroad especially against Bishop Laud, and Weston the Treasurer. . . . My father (i. e. Justice Whitelock) said that if Bishop Laud went on in his way, he would kindle a flame in the nation,' p. 13. of being an incendiary is urged again in 1640, authority, on general and on special grounds. was more busy in temporal affairs and matters of state than his predecessors of later times had been. My father, who was anciently and thoroughly acquainted with him and knew his disposition, would say, "He was too full of fire, though a just and good man; and that his want of experience in state matters, and his too much zeal for the Church, and heat, would set this nation on fire."

'By his council chiefly (as it was fathered upon him) the Parliament being dissolved,' &c. Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 34. Curiously, too, in the same year, we find the term 'incendiary' used about him by the Scotch Commissioners, and a charge brought by them in the Upper House in proof of it. Laud's Works, iii. 238.

1. 9. Monopolies] How numerous these monopolies had been will appear from the King's proclamation (April 15, 1639) revoking some of them. See also Sir John Culpeper's speech in the Parliament which met on November 3, 1640: 'I have but one grievance more to offer unto you, but this one comprizeth

many. It is a nest of wasps or swarm of vermin which have overcrept the land. I mean the monopolies and polers of the people; these, like the frogs of Egypt, have gotten possession of our dwellings, and we have scarce a room free from them. They sup in our cup. They dip in our dish. They sit by our fire. We find them in the Dye-fat, Wash-bowl, and Powdringtub. They share with the butler in his box. They have marked and sealed us from head to foot. Mr. Speaker, they will not bate us a pin. We may not buy our own cloaths without their brokage. These are the leeches that have sucked the commonwealth so hard that it is almost become hectical,' &c. Rushworth, Collections, ii. 915-917.

Clarendon, like Selden, traces the troubles of his day to the arbitrary and unwise proceedings in the early years of Charles's reign. And here I cannot but let myself loose to say that no man can shew me a source from whence those waters of bitterness we now taste have more probably flowed, than from these unreasonable, unskilful, and precipitate dissolutions of Parliaments ... And whoever considers the acts of power and injustice of some of the ministers in those intervals of parliament, will not be much scandalized at the warmth and vivacity of those meetings.' Clarendon, Hist. vol. i. p. 6.

These points, with many others, are referred to in the 'Remonstrance' of 1641. They reproached his Majesty... 'with the enlargements of forests, and compositions thereupon; the ingrossing gunpowder and suffering none to buy it without licence; with all the most odious monopolies of soap, wine, salt, leather, sea-coal and the rest.' They remembered 'the dissolution of the Parliament in the fourth year of his reign . . . the imprisoning divers members of that Parliament after the dissolution, and detaining them close prisoners for words spoken in Parliament; sentencing and fining them for those words.' Clarendon, Hist. i. 492, 493.

1. 9. forest business] This was the extortion in 1630 and subsequent years of large sums of money on account of alleged encroachments on the royal forests, although the lands thus reclaimed for the King had been held without dispute under an adverse title dating back for three or four centuries. In 1630, Clarendon says, 'the old laws of the forest were revived, by which not only great fines were imposed, but great annual rents

intended and like to be settled by way of contract, which burden lighted most upon persons of quality and honour, who thought themselves above ordinary oppressions, and were therefore likely to remember it with more sharpness.' Clarendon, Hist.

i. 105.

This grievance was finally put an end to by the Act of 1640, 'that from henceforth the Meets, Meers, Limits, and Bounds of all and every the Forests shall be adjudged and taken to extend no further respectively than the Meets, Meers, Limits, and Bounds in the several counties respectively, wherein the said Forests were commonly known, reputed, used, or taken, in the 20th year of the reign of the late king James and not beyond, &c.' Rushworth, Collections, iii. 1386.

1. 10. parliament men 3o Caroli] Whitelocke in his Memorials for this year speaks of 'Warrants of the Council issued for Hollis, Selden, Hobert, Elliot, and other Parliament men to appear before them; Hollis, Curriton, Elliot, and Valentine appeared, and refusing to answer out of Parliament, they were committed close prisoners to the Tower, and a Proclamation for apprehending others went out, and some of their studies were sealed up. All the judges were contented that the prisoners should be bailed, but they must also find sureties for their good behaviour. This, at Selden's instance, they refuse to do, and are remanded to the Tower.' Memorials, pp. 13 and 14.

EXCURSUS C.

THE KING'S CHAPEL ESTABLISHMENT

p. 92. sec. 4.

1. 12. 'Twas the old way &c.] In the Ordinances for the Government of the Royal Household (1790, 4o), there are frequent references to the King's Chapel establishment. In the household of Henry VI it consisted of 1 dean, 20 chaplains and clerks, and 7 children, p. 17. In the Liber Niger Domûs Regis Edw. IV, the duties, &c. of the dean, chaplains, yeomen and children of the chapel are set out, pp. 49, 50. The whole subject is treated at length in the Ordinances made at Eltham in 1526. 'The King's pleasure is that at all times when his Highness shall lie in his castle of Windsor, his Manors of Bewlye, Rich

mond, and Hampton Court, Greenwich, Eltham or Woodstock, his hall shall be ordinarily kept and continued, and at all such times of keeping the said hall, the King's noble chapel to be kept in the same place. Nevertheless, forasmuch as... it would not only be a great annoyance, but also excessive labour, travell, charge and pain, to have the King's whole chapel continually attendant upon his person . . . specially in riding journeys and progresses it is... ordained that the master of the children, and six men with some officers of the vestry, shall give their continual attendance in the King's court . . . for which purpose no great carriage either of vestments or books shall be required,' p. 160. See, too, Jebb, Choral Service of the Church (1843), pp. 147, 148.

1. 14. In St. Stephen's Chapel &c.] On the 6th of August, 1348, 22 Edward III, that King, by his royal charter recited, 'that a spacious chapel, situate within the palace of Westminster, in honour of St. Stephen, protomartyr, had been nobly begun by his progenitors and had been completed at his own expense-which he appointed to be collegiate; and that there should be established therein a dean, twelve secular canons, with the same number of vicars and other sufficient ministers, to celebrate divine service for the King, his progenitors and successors for ever.' A statement follows of the endowments successively granted to the above-named dean, canons, and college. 'Canon Row, since by corruption called Channel Row, belonged also to the said dean and canons, where they had sometimes lodged.' This college was suppressed and surrendered in 1 Edward VI. The chapel was soon afterwards fitted up for the meeting of the House of Commons, which had before usually assembled in the Chapter House of the Abbey of Westminster. Dugdale, Monasticon, vi. 1348–49. The chapel was burnt in the fire of 1835.

EXCURSUS D.

LORDS BEFORE THE PARLIAMENT: p. 106. sec. 2.

1. 4. The Prior of St. John &c.] 'The Lord Prior here' (i. e. of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem near Clerkenwell)

'had precedence of all the lay barons in Parliament, and chief power over all the Preceptories and lesser Houses of this order throughout England.' Dugdale, Monasticon, vi. 799.

In Camden's Britannia (Gough's trans.), the list of abbots who were barons of Parliament ends with 'the Prior of St. John of Jerusalem, commonly called Grand Master of the Knights of St. John, and claiming to be the first baron of England.' Introduction, cap. on Orders in England.

In the sixteenth century, this claim had certainly been admitted. In the Journals of the House of Lords, giving a list of the Lords present at each Parliament in the reign of Henry VIII, the Prior of St. John of Jerusalem appears always among the temporal peers, immediately after the Earls and higher nobles, and above the Barons. This order is invariably observed down to 1536, the date at which the Priory was suppressed, after which the Prior's name disappears from the lists. In 1556 (4 & 5 Phil. and Mary) it reappears in its old place, the Priory having been restored by the Queen, and it finally disappears in the course of 1558 after the accession of Elizabeth. Conf. Journals of the House of Lords, vol. i.

At an earlier date, the Prior's position is not thus fixed. In the Parliamentary Roll of 13 Edward III his name comes last but one in the list of spiritual peers; the Abbot of Westminster is below him. Conf. Rotuli Parliamentorum, printed by order of the Lords. In the writ of summons to Parliament of 23 Edward I it is clear that the Prior was then included among the spiritual peers. Conf. Dugdale: A perfect copy of all the summonses of the nobility, p. 8 (ed. 1685). In 13 and 49 Henry VI, he is the last of the spiritual barons, and he is addressed as they are in the summons to Parliament-in fide et dilectione quibus nobis tenemini; the form for the temporal barons being in fide et homagio, p. 161. But, as the head of a military order, his office must at all times have been lay rather than clerical. 'The Templars and Hospitalers,' says Selden, 'were devout soldiers only. . . . Their prayers or devotions in private were not the services expected from them in the Church, but their swords and valour only gave the desert.' Hist. of Tythes, vol. iii. p. 1140.