Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1893.

This premium content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

'Preface', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, (London, 1893) pp. v-lii. British History Online [accessed 20 April 2024]



IN presenting to the public the continuation of a work of which the last volume was published in 1866, an explanation seems to be needed of the long interval of twenty-seven years. In 1866 the completion of the Calendar of Queen Elizabeth's reign, begun by the late Mr. Robert Lemon, was placed in my hands, which, with addenda, filled six volumes, and was completed in 1872. After this the onerous task of calendaring the Commonwealth papers devolved upon me. Of these, twenty-one volumes have been published, the latest of which appeared in November 1892. My instructions then were to resume my former Calendar of Charles II.

The present volume embraces the Domestic State Papers, from November 1667 to September 1668, a period of eleven months. It opens after the disgrace of Lord Chancellor Clarendon, against whom "great words are spoken," (fn. 1) but before any further proceedings were taken against him than deprivation of office. On November 16, 1667, a paper was presented to the House of Commons of reasons for his being charged by them with high treason generally, without specific detail, and their opinion that he should be thereupon committed to prison by the House of Lords. (fn. 2) To this the House of Lords objected, that they required specification of the charge; but it was replied by the Duke of Buckingham and twenty-three other Peers, that such was the influence of the Earl, that so long as he remained at liberty, no witnesses would venture to declare what they knew, and that such a crime as treason, involving the safety of his Majesty and his Government, needed no further specification when emanating from a body like the House of Commons, "which would not accuse a Peer of such eminence without good cause." (fn. 3)

The hesitation of the House of Lords to commit the Earl to prison created much ill-feeling in the country, where the people " exclaim very much against him," and attributed to "perfidious Clarendon" "all the evils and miscarriages that have happened to the nation." (fn. 4)

It had even been rumoured that the Dutch admiral, De Ruyter, had intercepted a letter from the Lord Chancellor inviting the French forces to come to Chatham in June 1667, which they would have done had not the Dutch anticipated them. (fn. 5)

On December 3, the Earl addressed his vindication to the House of Lords, pleading that, so far from having a great estate, as was supposed, he had nothing except what he owed to his Majesty's bounty, and the perquisites of his office, not having received 5l. in bribes; that he had had little influence with the King since Secretary Nicholas was removed, and rarely saw his Majesty alone. Also that he never meddled with the Treasury, except to plan with the late Lord Treasurer how to avoid the excess of issue over income. (fn. 6) On the same day, the King, at request of the House of Commons, sent orders to all the seaports to take care to prevent the Earl of Clarendon from leaving the kingdom. The same order was also sent to the Farmers of Customs (fn. 7) but this notwithstanding, one of their longboats ventured to convey the Earl to Calais, and his arrival there was announced at Dover on December 8. (fn. 8)

This escape was the talk of town and country; the House of Lords was severely blamed, and there were not wanting those who declared that the supreme power of the nation was in the House of Commons, and that a peer ought to have no more privilege than any private person. (fn. 9) On December 14, the House of Lords presented their reasons why they dissented from the Commons as to summoning him to trial, and passed a bill of banishment against him instead. (fn. 10)

When the Earl's escape to France was known, rumours became rife that the French King had sent for him to his Court. To discredit this supposition, the King is said to have despatched one of his gentlemen —M. La Fond—to the Earl, to order him to depart the kingdom. (fn. 11) Thereupon the Earl offered to write a paper to refute the report of his having been in Paris. (fn. 12)

The next notice of him., dated January 29, 1668, is that he was at Calais, sick of a fever, and was bound for Germany. (fn. 13) A few months later we find an important letter from him to Abbot Walter Montague, containing particulars, fuller than hitherto known, of the attack made upon him in April 1668 by some English seamen who happened to be located in the same town with him, at or near Bourbon, and who assaulted him so furiously that, though he was bravely defended by M. La Fond, gentleman of the French King, they had nearly succeeded in killing him, when their Lieutenant, Captain Swain, interfered and rescued him. (fn. 14)

The relations between the King and his subjects became less friendly, as they found by experience cause to distrust him, as well as his ministers. About the end of 1667, he summoned the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London to an interview, and assured them that the fears entertained as to his conduct were needless, as he should always abide by the Church, and govern by law, and not by an army, which he should disband. They in return expressed anxiety about his safety, there having arisen a rumour of an assault intended upon his person; (fn. 15) he promised to take care for this, "and bade them go home and satisfy all honest men." (fn. 16)

The discontented party gave voice to their grievances, real or supposed, in a pamphlet in verse, of sixteen pages, entitled Vox et Lacrimœ Anglorum, the leading points being heavy taxation, want of pay for the seamen, encouragement of Popery, persecution of Nonconformists, money spent on the Queen Mother and the King's mistresses, and monopolies. (fn. 17)

The general discontent found vent in March 1668, in an outbreak of the London apprentices, to the reported number of 20,000, which was considered serious, because said to be connected with a real design, in which thousands were involved; also it was rumoured that on May Day 40,000 would rise. As the apprentices were three or four to every master, if they had resolved to arm, the results might have been serious, for there were many of "old Oliver's officers and soldiers in town, who dabbled with them." (fn. 18)

The King was the more irritated at this outbreak because it gave rise to the satirical "Whores' Petition," addressed to his mistress, "the eminent lady of pleasure," the Countess of Castlemaine, begging for protection against the London apprentices, through whom they have sustained loss of their trade, &c. (fn. 19) His Majesty sent for the Lord Mayor, who being sick, the Recorder went in his place, and he and his brethren were reproved for remissness in not suppressing the late disorders of the apprentices. Their reply was that in the City of London all was quiet, the disorders being in Middlesex. Thereupon the Lord Keeper was ordered to take account of the carriage of the justices there, and to turn out of the commission those who were faulty. (fn. 20) A vigorous attempt was made to prosecute the printers and distributors of the "Whores' Petition." it being pronounced libellous by Roger L'Estrange, surveyor of the press. He complained that by the imperfection of the law, the printer would come off, "unless the very act of printing be expressly proved." He showed great activity in the prosecution of this and other libellous papers, but says, "I can fasten nothing on the 'Whores' Petition' that a jury will take notice of." (fn. 21)

The printing and distributing of it were at length traced to Anna Brewster, widow, and to Joan Darby and her son; her husband, John Darby, and Anna Brewster, with Henry Hotham, had been previously taken up for printing and dispersing seditious pamphlets, but were not convicted, and therefore obtained their discharge. Elizabeth Calvert was detained in prison on a like charge. (fn. 22) A few months later Darby and two others were indicted for appearance next sessions, and as by the Act for printing, the number of printers and the licences to printers were limited, it was urged that, should they be convicted, their supernumerary presses should not be left in their own hands, lest they might secretly set them up again. (fn. 23)

England was nominally at peace with both France and Holland, but still disquieting forebodings of change were rife, and the nation was still jealous of the King's leanings towards France, till the signature of the Triple Alliance between England, Holland, and Sweden, early in 1668, somewhat settled the public mind. The King appealed to Parliament announcing the same, and requesting aid towards improving the fleet and fortifying the ports. As an inducement to their liberality, he offered that, as they have not yet had the accounts of the former supplies, those now voted shall be collected and issued only by such persons as they think fit. (fn. 24)

A curious account was given of the King and Court by Viscount Conway in a private letter to his brother-in-law, Sir John Finch. It states that though Lord Arlington " labours with all art imaginable not to be thought a premier minister, yet he is the sole guide the King relies on." That there is not one man of ability about Court, and the King has put all things into the hands of Parliament. That the fanatics—the term being applied to Nonconformists generally—are headed by the Duke of Buckingham, and expect a day of redemption under him, who ''thinks to arrive to be another Oliver." That the King complies with him out of fear, and, being "destitute of counsel, is jealous of all men that would speak to him of business." Also that but for the opposition of the bishops, he would fain be divorced, or "would affirm him self to have been married to the Duke of Monmouth's mother, but he is afraid of the Duke of York, and yet neglects and incenses him." (fn. 25)

A few months later, it was rumoured that a good understanding was being restored between the Dukes of York and Buckingham, and that "there is nothing at Court but crowd, hurry, and business, one day receiving ambassadors, and another their wives; one week making private friendships, and before the month ends, breaking them like glass, never to be patched up again." (fn. 26)

As to the wives of ambassadors, an amusing story is told of Mme. Colbert, wife of the French Ambassador—who had been treated with much courtesy, and made his public entry with great magnificence—that when she came to be presented to the Queen, "she knew not how to behave herself, but stood there till she was out of countenance, made her curtsey and departed; but the King most fortunately meeting her, brought her back, and instructed her to perform her career." (fn. 27)

Of the King's occupations a few notices occur. We find him in June 1668 paying an unexpected visit to the ships in the Downs, with the Duke of York, to take a view of the fleet; thence to Deal Castle and Dover; and in August going with the Duke of Monmouth in their barges to Vauxhall, and to take recreation in fowling along the river toward New Park, returning to Whitehall to dine; a few days later he was again hunting, returning at 6 p.m. to dine with the Queen; (fn. 28) then going with the Duke of York to visit the Duke of Richmond at Cobham Park, to hunt at Bagshot, and thence on to Audley End. (fn. 29) A few weeks later he visited Portsmouth with the Duke of York, who as Governor delivered him the keys on bended knee, and the mayor and corporation received him "with all demonstrations of affection." He spent two days in inspecting the fleet and the ships that were in building, examining the new fortifications, and giving orders about them to Sir Bernard de Gomme, engineer-general. (fn. 30)

The extravagance and consequent poverty of the King led to constant humiliations, to strained relations between him and his Parliament, and to rebuffs from those from whom he tried to borrow money. It was said that having borrowed from the city of London, on bills that had not been honoured, he sent to ask for a loan of 300,000l., and being refused, reduced the request to 100,000l.; when the answer was that they would not lend a penny till their former bills were paid. (fn. 31)

The Preface to the last volume of this Calendar (p. lxi) alludes to retrenchments in expenditure contemplated, and these were prosecuted with vigour. An order in Council passed on 1 Nov. 1667, and again more fully on 31 Jan. 1668, forbidding the passing of any order or warrant for money, unless the Lord Treasurer or Treasury Commissioners be acquainted therewith. (fn. 32)

It was originally intended that the proposed reductions should take effect from 1 Jan. 1668, but they did not actually come into operation till 25 March. (fn. 33) They were wide-reaching, beginning with the royal household and extending to every branch of the revenue. (fn. 34)

Among the departments thus reduced, the most important was the Navy, in which—peace being now restored—the expense was cut down to 200,000l. a year, although its condition, with its accumulations of debt, was indeed deplorable.

Shipbuilders complained that they could not proceed with and complete their works, because they could neither pay their workmen, nor provide materials on credit. (fn. 35) The ship-builders also ran the risk of being made responsible for the goods supplied for building of the ships, and one of them, Dan Furzer, urged that without speedy help, he would have to write from prison. (fn. 36) A fortnight later be narrowly escaped arrest, the civic authorities of Bristol declaring that he ought to pay his men, who had been arrested by their landlords for diet while ship-building for him, as "they would not believe the King would command men to work, and not order them their money." A bill for 300l. was sent him, but did not greatly relieve thé case, as he had engaged himself for more than he was worth, and feared that his zeal would be his ruin. (fn. 37) Another builder wrote that he had engaged himself and friends for the sums due for materials for his ship, the non-payment of which would be his utter undoing. (fn. 38) One ship that was all but completed lacked 1,500l. to fit her for sea, and a strong plea was sent for money, or for an assignment on the customs at Bristol, as she lay at charge for want of money and credit, and "in such cases the growing charge comes to more than the sum first due." (fn. 39)

The officers of the dockyards were often unduly blamed by the tradesmen and mariners for their supposed detention of moneys which had really never been paid them; one complained that the men persuaded themselves that he had received their money and detained it, although in reality he had frequently given them money himself, to prevent them from perishing from want. (fn. 40)

Sometimes the officials were unable to induce their ordinary workers to keep up or return to their work, their pay being so uncertain. (fn. 41) The Navy Commissioner at Chatham wrote that he was almost torn in pieces by the workmen of the yard for their weekly pay, and asked how to content them. (fn. 42)

The Chatham shipwrights and calkers, who had already two years' wages due, were induced to work on promise of weekly pay till their arrears were discharged; but this pay having failed them for a fortnight, they marched up to London to appeal to the Navy Commissioners, as "their families are denied trust and cannot subsist." The discontent spread to Woolwich, where the men refused to work, their pay also being stopped. The Chatham men were ordered home, and arrangements made "to pay off some of the most disorderly." (fn. 43) The sum of 12,000l. was set apart for the purpose, the preference being given to those who were non-resident at Chatham, as this would stop "the greatest and justest clamours," (fn. 44) but an urgent demand was made for 5,000l. more, "or the seamen and workmen would grow mutinous." (fn. 45)

The fear of non-payment caused casual workmen to hold back, preferring much to work for merchants who would not fail in prompt payment, rather than to undergo the risk of Government delays; and there was even difficulty in procuring pilots for Government ships. (fn. 46) Indeed, the authorities at the dockyards were sometimes obliged to allow their men to go for awhile into the employ of private merchants, that they might earn money to enable them to buy bread. (fn. 47)

The payment of seamen's wages became so pressing that money was borrowed from the Excise to help the most urgent cases, (fn. 48) but the sums lent were far too small to discharge at once the amounts due, and great caution was needed in its distribution, so as not to excite hopes which would be disappointed; a wise precaution, as even the money ordered was not easily secured. (fn. 49) Many "perishing seamen, with their wives and widows," petitioned Parliament that though they have served from 1664 to 1667, they have received no money, only tickets for their wages, which the tradespeople now refuse to accept, and therefore their houses are broken open, and their goods taken for debt. (fn. 50) It became really difficult to obtain seamen without impress, they "having been so cheated of their pay," (fn. 51) and an impress was sometimes forcibly resisted, the men declaring that they would die before they would enter the service, to serve for nothing and let their families starve at home. (fn. 52)

It was part of the duty of the Masters of Watermen's Hall to provide seamen, but they seem to have discharged it inefficiently, for Commissioner Middleton writes from Chatham, whither some had been sent: "The Masters of Watermen's Hall are good Christians, but very knaves; they should be ordered to send down 10 or 12 old women to be nurses to the children they send for the King to breed for them !" (fn. 53)

The delay in payment, both of mariners and of dockyard labourers, involved Government in much needless expense, because, war being over, it was desired to discharge surplus men; this could not easily be done without paying them off, and therefore they were retained longer than required. (fn. 54) At length, however, men were actually discharged without payment of their arrears, and simply told that they "must not expect any money by being discharged, but must have patience to have their tickets paid as money could be raised." (fn. 55) When it is noted that the wages due for seamen were reported at 290,000l., the chances of speedy payment were indeed small. (fn. 56)

One natural sequence of the dishonesty of Government towards its servants was that they, in retaliation, were perpetually embezzling Navy stores from ships or the dockyards, and selling them for what they could get. (fn. 57) From Chatham it was reported that "the people's hands are so inured to stealing that if the sawyers leave any wood in the pits, it will be taken before morning." (fn. 58)

One captain wrote that he dared not come ashore, his seamen having often broken open his store-room in his absence. (fn. 59) The thefts were probably not always perpetrated by seamen and dockyard labourers, but this was the case in most of the instances where the culprits were detected.

Another serious difficulty to the Navy Commissioners was caused by the ships sunk in the Medway at Chatham and at Woolwich in June 1667, in the fruitless attempt to prevent the advance of the Dutch fleet up the river. They caused trouble in two ways; the owners of them required compensation for the ships, and also in one instance for the goods in the vessel, as the emergency of the position was so great that it was sunk laden. (fn. 60)

Then again, these sunken vessels proved such an obstruction to the navigation of the river that it was decided to attempt to weigh the wrecks. Major Hen. Nicoll, of Kilmaiden, Waterford, undertook to clear the Medway of the 14 vessels sunk there in six months, on condition of payment of 300l. for three months and 100l. a month for three months more, if required, with leave to make what he could out of the recovered wrecks; he also asked the loan of four flyboats already fitted for weighing, with all that was in them, for six months; (fn. 61) but he accepted a modification of 300l. on sealing the indenture, with promise of 100l. when the work should be finished. (fn. 62) Nicoll's partner in the transaction was Edw. Moorcock of Chatham, but disputes arose as to the performance of the contract, and little seems to have been accomplished at Chatham. Only one vessel had been raised when Major Nicoll threw up the task, but Moorcock continued it with another partner, and succeeded in weighing a second vessel. (fn. 63) At "Woolwich, offers were made to raise three of the sunk ships, though at heavier cost. (fn. 64)

The Navy Victualling department suffered much from want of money. The victualler, Sir Denis Gauden, was heavily in advance, and had exhausted his credit, and yet, though he had explained that, failing in receipt of the 50,000l. assigned to him on the Poll Bill, he was utterly unable to disburse more, he was blamed when provisions were not forthcoming for ships going out to sea, or remaining in harbour. (fn. 65) The natural consequence was that the men deserted, refusing to remain on ships where they could get no food. (fn. 66)

The Navy Commissioners, fearing that there had been mismanagement on the part of the victualler, decided to open the victualling to a new contract, and offers were to be sent in by Aug. 20; but as the notice was not given till after Aug. 10, the time allowed for intending contractors was very short (fn. 67); and meanwhile the difficulties were greater than ever, as Gauden, being out of office, refused to supply any more provisions. (fn. 68)

Some new contractors, Child, King, and Dodington, as well as Gauden, the former victualler, made offers, but the delay in preparing new articles of contract led to a suspicion of connivance between some of the Navy Board and the competitors. (fn. 69)

On Sept. 14, Gauden sent in an account of the sums due to him, amounting, with interest at 6 per cent., to 176,725l. 6s. 5d. (fn. 70) The outcome of the negotiations was an order in Council of 26 September 1668, that Gauden's offers, being the cheapest, should be accepted, and he again undertook the victualling at 6d. a day per man, harbour victuals; 8d. sea victuals, and 8 ¾ d. for ships going 27 degrees southward; but he was to have two responsible persons, approved by the King, joined with him. (fn. 71)

The case of the Navy creditors was important enough to be presented to Parliament. In 1664, their debts were declared to be just, and in 1665 a vote was passed for their discharge; but first the Dutch war, then the plague, and then the fire of London, prevented payment, till at length some of the creditors were compelled to borrow money on interest, and some were lying in prison for debt, owing to non-payment for the goods supplied by them. (fn. 72)

A poor widow, to whom 600l. had been due five years for purchase of deals, being forced, for want of payment, to mortgage her house, intreated help to redeem it, adding that "it is a thing unheard of for a poor widow to lose all by delivering goods for the kingdom's service." (fn. 73) Other cases of claims for debts are too numerous to be singly specified. (fn. 74)

In addition to these private claims, there was the "great Navy debt," being loans from public companies for the Navy; of this 30,000l. was lent by the farmers of the pre-emption and coinage duty, for which they vainly solicited repayment. (fn. 75) Two important groups of papers relating to the expense of the summer's fleet in 1668, and also to the receipts from the sale of the King's ships, or from provisions supplied therefrom, will be found on pp. 553-4. (fn. 76)

Among the most eminent men connected with the Navy were the family of Pett—a large group—who among them had control of the dockyards of Chatham, where Peter Pett was resident Navy Commissioner and Phineas was master shipwright, and of Woolwich, where Christopher was master shipwright. In December 1667, grave articles of impeachment were issued against Commissioner Pett, accusing him not only of negligence, but of cowardice, if not actual treachery, at the time of the attack of the Dutch in June 1667. (fn. 77) He was thereupon deprived of his office, (fn. 78) involving of course his removal from his official residence, and had a good deal of difficulty in obtaining restoration of goods which were his private property, including a marble table, a great lead dial, and garden pots and figures, which, he wrote, "are as much my own as the coat on my back." (fn. 79)

In July 1668, Phineas Pett was called to account for his dishonesty in his dealings in the purchase of timber for the Navy, and for connivance in the embezzlement of Navy stores. (fn. 80) Some time was occupied in examination of the case, but in September he also was deprived of his office. (fn. 81)

A more important Navy Commissioner, Sir William Penn, father of the more noted William Penn, afterwards of Pennsylvania, fell under suspicion for the embezzlement of goods from prizes seized by him in the Dutch war in 1665, when he was Vice-Admiral under the Earl of Sandwich; he was impeached in the House of Commons 21 April 1668, but a full and clear answer to the articles against him, which he sent in on April 29, proved satisfactory, and no further steps are recorded in the case. (fn. 82)

Complaints against captains were not infrequent, but they did not usually end in relief to the complainants; either they were really unjust, or the captains succeeded in making them appear so, for we find Courts martial appointed to try several such cases, in two of which the complainants were cashiered with disgrace, and in a third the offender—being convicted also of drunkenness, swearing, and abuse of superior officers—was not only cashiered, but conveyed in a boat to the side of each ship of the Navy in the road, gagged, and fastened to the mast, with his hands tied behind him, and his faults written on paper and attached to his breast. A sailor who was convicted of stealing a ticket from one of the ship's company was sentenced to be whipped from ship to ship through the fleet then in the Downs, and towed ashore to Deal. (fn. 83)

Capt. Chris. Gunman, who commanded the ship Reserve in the Royal Navy, was complained against by his entire crew. They accused him of selling the provisions and ammunition of his ship, and converting the profits to his own use, and of making use of the ship for carriage of merchants' goods; also of treating his men "more like galley-slaves to the Turk than free-born English subjects," and, on a suspicion of theft, ordering them to be tied like dogs to the mast, whipped till the blood ran down, and then their backs to be rubbed with salt. The captain denied all the charges except the whipping for theft, and seems to have obtained credence, as he was retained in his command. (fn. 84)

On the other hand, convictions for cowardice or non-performance of duty during the Dutch war were very severely punished. One commander of a fire-ship was sentenced to be shot; three others were compelled to witness the punishments of the other offenders, and then towed to shore, with halters round their necks, and rendered incapable of ever serving again. The men were served in the same way, with the addition of thirty lashes each on their bare backs. (fn. 85)

The action of Government in reference to the contests rife throughout the country between the party of the Church of England, represented chiefly by the Royalists, and that of the Nonconformists, to which belonged most of the adherents of the late Government, was weak and vacillating. The King favoured toleration, not because he loved Nonconformity, but because he secretly leaned to Papacy, which was comprised in the same legal category. His Cabinet was much divided on the question, and the consequence of uncertain utterance from the Government was diversity of local action, as one or the other party prevailed.

The Conventicle Act of 1664, and the Five Mile Act, restraining Nonconformist ministers from living in corporations, passed in 1665, were acted upon in some places, to the terror and distress of the party. In Kent especially they were rigorously carried out. At Canterbury two ministers were seized and sent to prison for six months, and twelve others were sent to Maidstone gaol. These all petitioned for release, but the result of their applications does not appear. (fn. 86)

Rumours were rife also of political disturbances in which the religious element was one of the factors. A Rotterdam correspondent reports that on a suspected misunderstanding between King and Parliament, letters have been sent to the "retired brethren in several parts" to be ready for a "resurrection of the cause." One of the grand incendiaries was said to be Robert Washington, J.P. of Leeds in Cromwell's time, whose daughter married Moody, "a Yorkshire saint" residing in Basinghall Street. (fn. 87)

The news correspondent at Yarmouth complained frequently of the spread of Nonconformity there; that meetings of 200 to 500 took place at the house of an officer of the town, and thus people were drawn from church; and that in the corporation were two bodies, Episcopal and Presbyterian, the latter party being strengthened by junction with the Independents, and no religious test, as was formerly the case, being required from those who took office. Also that the magistrates did not put the least check on the conventicles, which increased daily, the Act of Uniformity being entirely ignored. (fn. 88)

A few weeks later he reported that the people still flocked in great numbers to hear their teachers, one popular minister in particular, so that by 7 a.m. there was no more room to be had in the meeting place. The meetings continued as public and numerous as ever, and "the people take all the freedom imaginable to slander the Government." (fn. 89)

A proclamation was issued, ordering the magistrates to be vigilant in preventing assemblies of Papists and Nonconformists, (fn. 90) but it was not acted upon.

The fact of the Conventicle Act being allowed to become a dead letter led to strong hopes that a Toleration Act would be passed by Parliament, especially as it was believed that the King's inclinations tended thereto. (fn. 91) These hopes were increased by the King's speech in Parliament on 10 February 1668, requesting them to " think of some course to settle the minds of his Protestant subjects in matters of religion, and induce them to support the Government." (fn. 92)

The action taken by the House, however, was to pass, on 28 April, a stringent Act for suppressing Conventicles. It was sent up to the Lords, but did not pass that House and become law till 1670. Still, the knowledge that it had passed the Commons gave rise to great disquiet.

A man at Chatham feared to enter into bonds to prosecute important business relating to the Navy, lest he should be seized in the worshipping of God according to his conscience, and his bonds be thus forfeited. (fn. 93)

The fulfilment of any order bearing upon Church discipline was doubtful when it depended upon a corporation where the majority were Nonconformists, they having been the leading power during the Protectorate, and thus having gradually engrossed a large proportion of the wealth and trade of the kingdom. (fn. 94) The Government became sensible of this danger, and took proceedings to prevent seditious elections in corporations, and especially the re-election of those who had been turned out by the King's commission. (fn. 95)

From Ipswich it was reported that "the conventicles increase in number and boldness daily, having encouragement from examples above." (fn. 96)

At Newcastle, however, the mayor and aldermen attended a meeting of 100 Nonconformists, and took the names of those whom they knew, intending to bind them over. (fn. 97)

A writer from Pendennis records that the great liberty granted to fanatics much discourages the loyal party, as the fanatics' insolence has grown so high that they build houses for their meetings, as well Presbyterians as Quakers. (fn. 98)

From Westmoreland we hear that "the discharge of Marg. Fell (a Quaker) from her easy imprisonment, does not a little encourage the rabble of fanatics, and discourages all magistrates acting against them; it is now become a general policy to comply with the Nonconformists, which much increases their number and confidence." (fn. 99)

The Quakers, as usual, offered a firm and stolid, though peaceable, resistance to any interference with their religious liberty. One who was speaking at Yarmouth to some 150 people, was summoned before the Bailiffs. He said to the constable, "If thou hast any authority, shew it me, and I shall with patience go with thee; but if thou canst not shew me any, I shall not stir." The constable thereupon went to the bailiffs for instructions, but when he returned the Quaker was gone. (fn. 100)

Some of them still lingered in prison, (fn. 101) but some had lately been liberated, on which they were triumphant, and began "to brave it more than before, and none are comparable to them for horses and fine clothes." (fn. 102)

On the other hand, we find a record of one Quaker who had been in gaol at Gloucester two years for conscience' sake; he was visited by the Bishop, who treated him very kindly, with the result that he became a convert, and obtained absolution from excommunication, receiving it on his knees. (fn. 103)

The political views of the Quakers coincided nearly with those of other Nonconformists, and they, with Independents, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Fifth Monarchy men, exhorted one another to union, on account of the approach of "the great day," and to be "valiant for the Lord." (fn. 104)

One strong sentiment they held in common, and that was antagonism to Popery. An under-current of suspicion was already prevailing that in courtly circles it was highly favoured, (fn. 105) and that the leniency shown towards Nonconformists was only the outcome of a desire for the same leniency to be shown towards Papists. The popular prejudices against them gave rise to wild charges, as that the Papists were the underhand actors in the burning of London in 1666, and designed to set on fire the remaining part of the city and the borough of Southwark, to massacre the Protestants in London, and to raise an insurrection of all the Papists in the several counties the same night. The Jesuits were, of course, supposed to be the leading promoters of these schemes. (fn. 106)

A rising in and about London was rumoured as likely to take place on July 4, 1668, but the Protestants took courage from the fact that in point of numbers they so greatly exceeded the Papists. (fn. 107)

In compliance with the strong anti-popish feeling in the country, the "King had, in September 1667, cashiered all the Roman Catholics serving in the Royal Guards. This caused much complaint in individual cases, and gave rise to numerous petitions for relief, or for permission to go abroad to seek service in Prance or Flanders, or to dispose of the places of which they were deprived, (fn. 108) but no response to the petitions appears.

In Scotland there was a strong element of disquiet, not only on religious, but political grounds; meetings were held frequently, and a division in Parliament was hoped for, to give the opportunity for a rising. The late Provost of Edinburgh, Sir James Stewart, and Sir John Cheisly, who had long been prisoners in Edinburgh Castle, were transferred to the Tolbooth in Dundee, on account of the flocking of disaffected persons to them. (fn. 109) Sir James Turner, on the other hand, whose severity against rebels had been formerly commended, was now censured for pushing it too far, and thereby causing a rising among the Whigs in Galloway, as was also Sir William Ballantyne. (fn. 110)

The troubled state of the country caused military precautions to be taken by the Council; officers were appointed for every shire, and such arrangements made, by impressing every fifth man, to be ready at command, and maintained at the public expense, that in twenty-four hours 18,000 foot and 6,000 horse could be raised, all officered by "grand Presbyterians. "Thus the country was placed in a constant posture of defence, and several robbers and murderers in the Highlands were seized and executed. (fn. 111) In addition to this, the militia forces, mustering some 20,000 men, were drawn out, to prevent insurrections of fanatics, but Galloway and other disturbed districts were not allowed to have any militia, which was a great trouble to them. (fn. 112)

Notwithstanding these precautions to ensure tranquillity, an attempt was made in Edinburgh, in July 1668, to shoot James Sharp, the unpopular Archbishop of St. Andrews, who was assassinated in 1679. This time the attempt failed, as far as he was concerned, but the Bishop of Orkney, who was in the carriage with him, was dangerously wounded in the arm. The culprit escaped, though a proclamation was issued offering 2,000 marks and a pardon to any accomplice who would discover him, and 5,000 marks to any who would seize and commit him to prison. Many persons were taken up on suspicion, but not convicted. (fn. 113) Mrs. Duncan, a minister's wife, who was supposed to be able to give information, was summoned before Council; the hangman and boots were sent for, and she was threatened with this terrible form of torture, but the Lords shrank from ordering its infliction. (fn. 114)

Government sent an order to the Scottish Council to raise more forces, and it was proposed to send in a regiment of English foot and three troops of horse, and to dismiss the militia, as not being trustworthy; but this unpopular project was withdrawn. The King threatened to quarter guards in Edinburgh itself, but the Lord Provost prevented so grave an infliction by giving his bond to forfeit 100l for every conventicle and 50/. for every rebel found in the city; forty men were at once seized and fined, or sent to Virginia; but many were said to be still lurking in corners, preparing for some desperate deed. (fn. 115)

A lengthened correspondence was going on for regulation of the trade between England and Scotland, especially as to the manufacture of salt in the respective countries, and the duties to be placed upon its import from Scotland. The particulars are too long for a summary, but may be found by referring to the heading of Trade between England and Scotland, and Salt, duties on, &c., in the Index.

Joseph Williamson—afterwards Sir Joseph, and Secretary of State—becomes a prominent figure in this volume. He was Secretary to Lord Arlington, and he was also keeper or clerk of State Papers, or the Paper Office as it was then styled, and editor of the printed Gazette, and notices of him in these capacities occur in the prefaces to the Calendar of State Papers of 1660-1661 (p. xviii), and 1665-1666 (pp. vii-ix).

Williamson was extremely anxious to obtain a seat in Parliament, and a vacancy transpired which seemed to present a favourable opening for him, because it was at Appleby, close upon his native county of Cumberland, where his family's influence could be brought to bear. His own prestige as a trusted assistant of the principal Secretary of State was in his favour, and he had also the influence of the Bishop of Durham and of Colonel Tempest, both of whom were considered of great importance. (fn. 116) But the strong will of a woman thwarted his hopeful prospects. On application being made to the Mayor of Appleby to favour Williamson's candidature, he showed a letter which he had received from Anne, Countess of Pembroke—who as daughter and heir of George, late Earl of Cumberland, had large estates and much influence in the county—requesting them to suspend any election till they heard from her, and it was correctly surmised that she intended to propose for election one of the sons of Margaret, her daughter by her former marriage with Richard, Earl of Dorset, who had married John Tufton, Earl of Thanet, (fn. 117) and had a large family. A strong appeal was made to the Countess on Williamson's behalf, the whole country wishing for his election, and the magistrates sitting up most of the night, writing letters in his behalf; but they aver that, "Appleby having so absolute a dependence upon her, it would be vain to strive against that stream"; and her answer to the appeal was that she could only consent if none of her grandsons desired to stand. (fn. 118) On this Lord Arlington wrote himself to the Countess, speaking highly of Williamson's fitness for the office, and urging her to leave the town to an unbiassed choice. (fn. 119) In her reply the old lady took the whole responsibility of her action upon herself, stating that neither her daughter Thanet nor any of her grandsons had prompted it, but that as there were four of them above the age of twenty-one, she thought herself bound to maintain their cause. She recognised his lordship's great power as Secretary of State, but argued that he might quickly help this Mr. Williamson to a burgess-ship, without doing wrong or discourtesy to a widow that wants but two years of four-score, and to her grandchildren, whose father and mother suffered as much in their worldly fortune for the King as most of his subjects did." (fn. 120)

One correspondent wrote that it would be hard to secure the Countess, and that "the electors of Appleby dare not go any way but that chalked out by my lady," and another that "the town and gentry are all for you, and have left no stone unturned with the old woman, but she is resolved to stand for her grandchild." (fn. 121)

The only chance seemed to be to influence the young men through their mother, Lady Thanet, to refuse to become candidates, and there was some hope of doing so, as Williamson had been tutor to one of them at Oxford. (fn. 122) The eldest, John, declined the honour in favour of the life of a country gentleman; Richard, the second, wished to travel; but Thomas, the third, professed his willingness to stand, and though Lord Arlington personally requested him to withdraw in favour of Williamson, and he was himself not unwilling, he did not venture to do it, lest he should lose his grandmother's favour, she having written to him strongly not to desist. (fn. 123) So resolute was she to have the election in her own hands, that had the Tuftons and Ant. Lowther—another candidate favoured by her next to her grandchildren—declined to stand, she was heard to say that " if they all refuse she will stand for it herself "; whereupon Williamson's brother, a Cumberland man, who had taken a very active part in the struggle, writes, that " if she is not to be wrought upon, the people are undone, and dare not help themselves; so I would have you let it rest." (fn. 124) Another writer adds that to move the Countess in anything that is averse to her own resolutions would not only be labour in vain, but prejudicial to those who press it upon her; (fn. 125) thus the old proverb that " a wilful woman will have her way" was verified, and Thomas Tufton was elected burgess of Appleby.

In March 1668, Williamson suffered a severe loss from a burglary committed at his lodgings in the Paper Office, in which money, rings, plate, a watch, pistols, and other goods, to the value of 1,500l., were stolen from him. Three of the delinquents, Joshua Bowes, Hen. Godfrey, and Wm. Sherwood, were taken and committed to prison, and all sent piteous petitions for reprieve or relief. The greater part of the property was recovered on their confessions, but part was still missing, Howard Coney, one of the burglars, having escaped capture. (fn. 126) Godfrey was reprieved pending further information; Sherwood was still detained in prison, though he urged that, were he liberated, he could discover Coney and rescue the remainder of the property which was in Coney's hands. He begged Williamson, who had saved his life when condemned to die at the sessions, to procure an order for his transport to one of the plantations, on the plea that this was his first offence; that he was driven to it by loose persons; and also that he had delivered up all the goods in his hands, and discovered the remainder, part of which was also re-delivered. (fn. 127)

Several incidental illustrations of Williamson's personal character may be gathered from his correspondence during one of his rare absences from duty, in August 1668, when, being somewhat out of health, he visited the Earl and Countess of Thomond at their seat in Billing, co. Northampton, where he remained from August 7 to August 29, going also to Oxford, his Alma mater. His great anxieties were the prompt and regular transmission of his letters and an ample supply of news; also a careful attention to Lord Arlington during his absence. (fn. 128) His two clerks, Rob. Francis and John Swaddell, received strong injunctions on this point. They were to attend his lordship at his residence, Goring House, in the morning, reading the Gazette to him whilst he was dressing, and to be at his office in the afternoon. (fn. 129) Williamson was not satisfied with their performance of duty, and wrote that he never expected Swaddell's care to last over a fortnight, but that the time would come when they would both repent not having better husbanded their opportunities. (fn. 130) Upon this they renewed their efforts to please their somewhat exacting master, and with more success. (fn. 131) This notwithstanding, Williamson, who had planned his return for Aug. 31, was hastened home a few days earlier by a mandate from Lord Arlington, requiring his presence, as the King was going on a journey, and either his lordship or Williamson might have to accompany his Majesty. (fn. 132) This peremptory mandate was at once obeyed.

In his capacity of Secretary to Lord Arlington, who was at the head of the Post Office, Williamson took an active part in its management. Andrew Ellis, who was deputy postmaster, on receiving some instructions from Williamson to be given to the postmasters, writes, " I have shown the greatest mark of my obedience, next to martyrdom, and have sent the orders to the postmasters, though it is absurd to think my authority over postmasters greater than yours." (fn. 133)

James Hickes, the manager of the Inland Office, wrote in terms of almost servile obsequiousness when, on one occasion, he had fallen under Williamson's displeasure. (fn. 134)

Complaints against the management of the Post Office were frequent; sometimes it was an excess of charge, 6d. being claimed for letters that ought to be 3d., and 9d. for those that ought to be 6d., &c., and the local post-master professing that he can make no allowance without paying the difference himself. (fn. 135)

Sometimes the complaint was of the employment of unfitting agents in the Post Office; (fn. 136) sometimes of tardiness in transmission of letters, especially of those on State affairs, and of merchant ships having their letters delivered before those for his Majesty's ships, on the ground that they were more urgent. (fn. 137)

These difficulties seem to have arisen mainly from the mismanagement or niggardliness of Sir John Bennet, to whom the charge of the office was entrusted by his brother, Lord Arlington; he was ill looked upon by the inferior officers, whom he treated with haughty insolence, whilst he diminished the number of agents employed, and thus rendered the service more difficult and less prompt. (fn. 138)

To these complaints a formal reply was prepared and sent in by James Hickes, (fn. 139) who, though an old man, was the most active official in the management of the Post Office, besides having a very extensive news correspondence on his own account (See Index, sub voce Hickes). He also drew up an important map, unfortunately missing, of all the post roads in the kingdom, but said that were he Postmaster-General, he would not have it printed, on account of the charge it would bring on the office. He thought that if Parliament saw how the branches lay, and how most of them were carried on at the charge of those in the country concerned, they would try to have the entire business undertaken by the Postmaster-General, which would be very chargeable. (fn. 140)

An accurate knowledge of the leading post roads, of all the intermediate stations, and of the time occupied in transit between each, may be gathered from consulting the post labels, summarized on pp. 116-121, which were signed by the postmasters at all the stations, and the days and hours of arrival and despatch given.

We find small record of the arrival and despatch of foreign mails, but the safe and regular transport of letters between London and Holland was considered of such consequence that in November 1667, Mynheer Quack, post-master at Rotterdam, was sent over to settle the postal arrangements. (fn. 141) The negotiations occupied more time than was expected, but were at length completed, the transit being ordered by way of Harwich. Quack set sail at 11 p.m. 6 Jan. 1668, hoping to show the quickness of the passage by dining at his own house next day; but a sudden storm arose and caused much anxiety as to his safety. (fn. 142) At length, tidings came that the vessel in which he sailed was taken up safe on Camphere Downs, but not a soul on board. For some time it was hoped that the passengers had been taken on board a ship which they met sailing for Sweden, but these hopes proved fallacious; Mynheer Quack and all with him had perished. (fn. 143)

Of the noteworthy persons mentioned in this volume, the proceedings of the King have already been recorded.

To Queen Catherine of Braganza, the references are few and slight, but the alliance between Charles II. and the royal house of Portugal aroused special interest in the revolution which took place there in December 1667. The imbecile King, Alphonso VI., was formally deposed and confined to three rooms in the palace, and his brother, Don Pedro, set up in his stead, the Queen retiring into a monastery, as was first reported; but instead of this, she pleaded the invalidity of her former marriage, owing to the King's condition, and herself married 'Don Pedro, obtaining a dispensation from the Pope. (fn. 144) In April 1668, it was rumoured that both the King and the Regent were dead, and that the Duke of York was to take Queen Catherine over to be crowned Queen of Portugal; (fn. 145) but though the rumour was false, friendly relations were kept up between the Crowns, and five ships of war ordered to be fitted, to assist Don Pedro in case of need.

Of the Duke of York, numerous notices occur in his capacity of Lord Admiral, showing that he bestowed much attention on the duties of his office (See Index, sub voce James). He is also frequently named as sharing the King's pleasures of hunting, &c., and specially attending him on visits to the fleet; but beyond this little of interest occurs, except the ceremonies ensuing on his installation as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, in August 1668. A tent with very rich hangings was erected at the Devil's Loop, near Dover, where the ceremony of taking the oath was always performed, and great preparations were made at Dover Castle for his reception. The whole country was to be in arms, and Canterbury to show all its glory, the citizens arraying themselves in yellow coats and black trimmings, and the officers in buff.

On Monday, 31 August, his Royal Highness arrived at Dover, and on September 1 went to St. James's Church where a sermon was preached before him: then the procession was formed, of which we have accounts, slightly differing, from a Deal and a Dover correspondent; the swearing in was at twelve o'clock, and occupied a quarter of an hour. Then they returned to Dover Castle, where a grand free feast was given, the provision including "ten fat bucks, and other things equivalent" partaken of by "a very great concourse of people." Next morning the Duke returned to London. (fn. 147)

Prince Rupert appears in the phase in which he is best known during his later life, that of a scientific man and a promoter of trade and navigation. On 7 February 1668, a ketch was ordered to be handed over to him, the Duke of Albemarle, and the Earl of Craven, with a view of discovering a passage through the great lakes of Canada into "the South Sea," two French residents in Canada having reported that the attempt would be hopeful. (fn. 148)

On 11 March, he, in connection with Henry Howard, son of the late Earl of Arundel, sent in a proposition to the King to obviate the inconvenience of tradesmen's tokens, by coming farthings, according to a model invented by the Prince; they were to be made of English metal difficult to counterfeit, rather than of copper. Howard was joined with the Prince in a request that they might jointly have the making of the farthings, because his father had lost a lease of the former Farthing Office for his loyalty. The case was referred to the Treasury Commissioners. (fn. 149)

On 28 August 1668, a reference was made to Prince Rupert and three others, empowering them to examine into abuses and frauds complained against of the goldsmiths, wire-drawers, and refiners of gold and silver, extending even to those employed in the Mint itself, to the prejudice of both King and kingdom. (fn. 150)

The last notice that occurs of him in the present volume is an appointment in September 1668 to the offices of Governor and Constable of Windsor Castle, and Captain of a foot company there, and also to the office of keeper of Windsor forest, parks, and chaces. (fn. 151)

There is an interesting notice of Rupert's brother, Maurice, Prince Palatine of the Rhine, whose later life is involved in much doubt. On 6 January 1668, one John Ayres deposes that Joan, an English woman taken prisoner by the Spaniards, and sent to the castle of St. Jago, in Porto Bello, informed him that a negro fellow prisoner told her he belonged to Prince Maurice, who was cast away in a hurricane, kept in a dungeon till demanded by the English, and then sent to St. Jago, where he still remained in a dungeon without attendance. The negro begged her not to tell this till she came to some English Government. (fn. 152) The deponent escaped to Jamaica, where his deposition was certified by the Governor, Sir Thos. Modyford.

One of the most capable statesmen of the day was Dr. Leoline Jenkins, Judge of the Admiralty Court, and later, Sir Leoline Jenkins, and Secretary of State. His services were considered so important that he received 200l. increase to his former salary of 300l. (fn. 153) His wide reading and knowledge of foreign languages—the outcome of foreign travel during the Protectorate—made him a referee in points of history, international law, and precedence; his letter of 25 June 1668, on the precedence granted to English ambassadors in foreign Courts, shows very extensive historical knowledge. (fn. 154)

A few notices occur of the regicides, and those who took an active part against the late and present King. Sir John Robinson, Lieutenant of the Tower, certifies the death there, on 19 November 1667, from natural causes, of Rob. Wallop, who sat "in the assembly that took away the precious life" of his Majesty's royal father, and was prisoner in the Tower for high treason. Thereupon Sir John received an acquittal from his custody, and an order to deliver the body for private interment. (fn. 155) On 3 July 1668 we find an order allowing his widow reasonable relief out of her late husband's estate. (fn. 156)

Mention is made of the prisoners whom Sir Thos. Morgan found in the old castle, Jersey, when he arrived there as Governor in February 1668, including Col. Thos. "Wayte, Col. Temple, and Henry Smith, three of "the King's pretended judges." (fn. 157)

Of the loyalists there are numerous notices, chiefly in the form of petitions or requests for compensation, long deferred, for their sufferings in the royalist cause.

Roger L'Estrange, licenser or surveyor of the press, who had suffered severely by imprisonment and sequestration, and received no reward but his office—which was not granted till February 1662, and then did not prove remunerative—bewails his hard fortune that, after 30 years' assiduous service, he should be " exposed either to want bread, or to live on charity." (fn. 158)

Sir John "Webster, merchant of Amsterdam, whose purse had been repeatedly and liberally opened in his Majesty's behalf—as attested by two letters from the King as Prince of Wales, and later receipts of loans from him— having spent 20,000l. in the royal cause, and being appointed in 1661 his Majesty's factor and agent at Amsterdam, pleads against the revocation of his commission, surreptitiously obtained by his enemies, and also urges payment of 200l. in lieu of 2,000 guilders borrowed from him by the King, for want of which he is in great distress. (fn. 159)

Thomas Corney, also an English merchant at Amsterdam, had been employed by Queen Henrietta Maria, at the beginning of the rebellion, to buy arms and ammunition, and send them to England, for doing which his estate there, value 2,000l., was seized by Parliament. During the Civil war he remained in the King's army, and, on the restoration, returned to Holland and acted as intelligencer for England. On the breaking out of the Dutch war, this position brought him into trouble in Holland; he was imprisoned six months as a spy, escaped with difficulty, and was banished the country, without time to collect his goods, losing 1,700l. besides his trade. In England his information was little valued, because though he boasted "as though he were the King's right hand," he was reported to be filled with untruths, and rhodomon-tades dangerous to trust, and with being an "unsuffer-able, scandalous, lying, prating fellow." This, however, being the testimony of a rival intelligencer, was disregarded. He was employed by Lord Arlington "in the business between his Majesty and the Bishop of Munster," and came into England in May 1667; but not obtaining the place of storekeeper at Chatham, which he solicited nor any compensation for his services and sufferings, in March 1668 he begged influence with the Holland ambassador to procure the repeal of his banishment. (fn. 160)

Rich. Baxter—probably the same man who petitioned (p. 125) for a grant of the forfeitures on import of Irish cattle—complains that he is compelled to sell his estate, and fly out of the country for debt; that his calamities have arisen from plunders, sequestrations, and expenses incurred in service of the late King; and that, had he chosen to desert the cause, he might have been in as good condition as those who are clothed with his spoils; he intreats Williamson, by whose parents he was brought up, to commiserate his condition, and procure him a grant that should satisfy his creditors. (fn. 161)

Walter, titular Lord Aston, pleads for influence with his Majesty, and quotes a letter which he had received from Charles I., saying, "The greatest of my misfortunes is that I cannot reward such a gallant and loyal subject as you are, as I ought and would.” He offers his influence in Staffordshire, where his family has “continued twenty-two descents," when the King shall please to command it. (fn. 162)

The widow of John Davies, late M.P., formerly an ardent loyalist, begs relief by some assignment to enable her to pay his creditors, as she is overwhelmed with debt, he having lost 20,000l. by imprisonment and exile.

The grounds of her claim are that he was twice imprisoned for loyalty, and that Thurloe declared that he was fitter to be hanged than to sit in the Parliament to which he was elected, but not allowed to sit. That when in Spain, he corresponded with the Duke of Ormond and Lord Berkley, first moved for the Duke of York to have the conduct of naval affairs in Spain, and obtained an increase of the Spanish grant to him, and was the first to give hopes of the restoration. Yet in 1662 he fell tinder suspicion of treason, and was committed to the Tower. Then he fell still deeper into disgrace by uttering "passionate, bold truths" to the Lieutenant, Sir John Robinson, whom he accused of pocketing the allowance of 3l. a week paid by the King for prisoners, and forcing them to pay for themselves. For these offences he was sent off at once to Tangiers, but soon recalled, and allowed to return, not to England, but to Spain, where he died in September 1667. (fn. 163)

Dr. James Wood, chaplain to the King, pleads his loyal services during the Civil war, when he was condemned to death for loyalty to the late King; also his assistance to the Marquis of Montrose, who escaped to Norway disguised as his servant; also his debts incurred in raising money and troops for his Majesty's service. The response to his petition was a grant of the vicarage of Newark-on-Trent. (fn. 164)

Sir Edmund Wyndham, Knight Marshal, pleads that he mortgaged his land for 900l. to raise troops for the late King, to whom he lent 1,000l., and 1,200l. to the present King when Prince, and other sums amounting in the whole to 6,000l. That he was prisoner four years, and twelve years abroad with his Majesty, during which time he lost 50,000l. by sequestration and plunder. That his sole compensation has been the office of Knight Marshal, worth only 1,000l. a year, and which, being old, he is not likely to hold long. As his Majesty's condition will not justify grants from the revenue, he begs half of such concealed rents and arrears as he shall discover. The Treasury Commissioners, to whom the case was referred, advised the grant, provided the discoveries be real and new, and the amount of their value stated, so that the King may know what he bestows. The grant was made, but limited to such lands and rents in counties Lancaster and Cornwall as he should discover in three years, half the profits therefrom being reserved to the Crown. (fn. 165)

There is a singular letter, with a petition, from Dr. Peter Chamberlain, the King's senior physician, complaining that he is prevented from availing himself of the privilege formerly granted him of speaking to his Majesty whenever he would, by new orders and new faces of those who do not know how necessary he is to the royal family; and begging some token, which should avail him for a pass during life, and make his access easy for speedy promoting of his " great affairs." These affairs were very various, as this erratic genius was perpetually devising novelties in science, very different in character, but which he deemed of the utmost value. His present scheme was a new art of navigation, and for this, he writes, he has often to cross the seas, "having to do with many kings, princes, and republics about it. (fn. 166)

Dr. John Heydon, who wrote largely and miscellaneously, dabbling in science, astrology, and politics, is named as being seized in March 1668, his sword, watch, &c, taken from him, and he sent to the Tower, under a warrant from Lord Arlington, by Capt. Gilbert Thomas, who refused his urgent request for restoration of his goods, and especially of many books and MSS. which were borrowed. Capt. Thomas was ordered to answer these complaints, which he did, vindicating himself from the charge of stealing Heydon's goods, and stating that he merely searched his rooms for seditious books and papers, which were delivered to Lord Arlington. (fn. 167)

Heydon reiterated his accusations against Thomas, and stated his intention to print a petition, " to testify my wrongs and the political part of the plot," and intreated justice, or he would have to seek a remedy some other way. His cousin Charles, son of Sir John Heydon, pleaded the sufferings of the family in the King's service, and begged for the restoration of Dr. Heydon's goods, in consideration of his innocence, persecution, and long imprisonment. (fn. 168)

There is an interesting letter from Dr. John Tombes, a divine noted for his powers of disputation, and for his strong views against infant baptism. In it he gives a brief summary of his controversial works, and of his hopes and disappointments in reference to preferment in the Church. (fn. 169)

We have also a letter from Sam. Puffendorf, the eminent German civilian and historian, to Jos. Williamson, who had sent him the philosophical transactions—probably of the Royal Society—and had asked information about French historical memoirs. The letter contains Puffen-dorf's reply to these queries. (fn. 170)

A brief notice occurs of Margaret, the literary Duchess of Newcastle, under the title of Queen of Sheba, to whom she is compared in Pepys' diary. (fn. 171)

The remaining points of literary interest in the present volume are not numerous. For printed books, a reference to the index, under " Books, titles of," must suffice. There are several papers of heraldic interest; e.g., a proposal for an Act of Parliament obliging heirs and executors to certify deaths, the certificates also to contain all burials, marriages, and issue of the deceased, within forty years past. Also for an Act appointing twelve persons in each county to record genealogies, wills, &c., in order to prevent the embezzlement of writings, or the expense of sending up witnesses and titles to London. (fn. 172)

The King wrote to the Stationers' Company, requesting the admission to their membership of Roger Norton, his printer in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and Thomas Roycroft, his printer in Oriental tongues, and also of Sam. Mearne, his bookbinder, they having done much to repress scandalous practices in printing, and adds that he shall hold the Company accountable for any abuses henceforth committed by the press. (fn. 173)

We find a list of the 179 members of the Royal Society, and 18 members of council, as it stood in November 1667, and a grant to them of lands in Chelsea. (fn. 174) Also a request by Edward Panton, which met with approval, for a licence for the formation of a society in Piccadilly, for the training of youth "in all the most laudable sciences and exercises," to be called the Royal Academy. The training was to be after the model of Sir Francis Kynaston, and the Governors to consist of a regent and nine fellows, to be elected from the Royal Society by their Council. (fn. 175)

A few notabilia relating to places deserve attention. London had by no means recovered from the disastrous effects of the fire in September 1666. We find a petition from the Lord Mayor and corporation, begging exemption on this account from payment of 23,614l. 15 s. 11d., arrears of the first six quarterly payments of the royal aid, and the two first of the additional supply, the arrears being in the parts of the city that were burnt down; and also from payment of 120,623l. 1s. 0d., which would become due thereon in the parts of the city still uninhabited. In lieu of these they offer to pay the hearth money, which his Majesty had remitted to them on September 13, 1666, for seven years, and to pay the arrears from the standing part of the city. (fn. 176)

In order to further the rebuilding of the city, such parts of the Navigation Act as forbade the free import of timber, bricks, and tiles were suspended. (fn. 177) It was the custom of the period, when any place had suffered severely from fire or flood, for a royal writ to issue, authorizing collections, sometimes limited to special counties, sometimes extending throughout the kingdom, on behalf of the sufferers. Such a collection had been authorized on behalf of the Londoners, but it had been so remissly made that the receipts fell short of what had often been collected for small villages or towns. An order was therefore issued. for the collection to be made in all places where it had been omitted, and the results paid to the Chamber-lain of London, for succour of the distressed poor. (fn. 178)

No part of the money collected was to be devoted to the re-erection of public buildings, and the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's—notwithstanding their heavy personal losses by the fire—made over part of their revenue to the rebuilding of the Cathedral. (fn. 179) To ease the heavy charge, it was ordered that the "extraordinary quantity of stony rubbish." from the fallen church should be employed in raising the level of the low parts about Fleet Street, and other quays and wharfs, which required a firm and lasting substratum, complaints having been made by the paviours that the foundations of rough gravel which were often used were soon carried away by the raker. (fn. 180)

An incidental outcome of the fire was the driving of the late inhabitants of the city proper into the then suburbs. This influx caused the vicar and churchwardens of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields to petition for a piece of Crown land behind the Green Mews, for a burial ground; it had been asked for before, but was " now rendered more needful by the plague, which has filled the ground with dead; and by the fire, which has filled the parish with inhabitants." (fn. 181)

The Dutch congregation about Westminster complaining of the difficulty of repairing to their church in London, the King authorized such as used the Book of Common Prayer in Dutch to worship in any place they could procure in Westminster, their ministers being first presented to the Bishop of London. (fn. 182)

The condition of London and Westminster as to population appears from the reports of the Parish Clerks' Company for 1667; Christenings 10,938, burials 15,842, deaths by plague 35, being a decrease of 1,963 from the number of those who fell victims to it the preceding year, but the total number of deaths shows an increase of 3,104. (fn. 183) There are also the weekly bills of mortality for London and Westminster from January to September 1668, and for Norwich from February to July, but not those of any other place. Those for London give also the number of ounces, varying from 12½ to 14, in the penny loaf. (fn. 184)

A dispute arose at Oxford in February 1668, concerning the election of a Proctor. It was the turn of Baliol College to elect, but they having no suitable person, Benjamin Woodruffe, of Christ Church, without leave from Vice-Chancellor Fell, removed to Baliol the day before the election, and so was elected Proctor. On deliberation and reading of the statutes, the Vice-Chancellor, and Dr. Paul Hood, "rector of Lincoln College, pronounced the election illegal, and Richard White, of St. Mary Hall, was nominated. Woodruffe threatened an appeal to common law. The gist of the contest lay in the right of the Halls to elect a Proctor, in case the college which has the right of election for the year cannot present a fitting person; and were Woodruffe's claim allowed, such a precedent "would destroy the interests of the Halls in relation to a Proctor for ever." (fn. 185) The appeal was either not made, or it failed, for White retained the Proctorship.

A similar difficulty arose in Magdalen College. There being no Yorkshireman in the College to take a fellowship limited to that county, John Chambers, B.A., left his scholar's place in St. John's, Cambridge, took holy orders to qualify himself for it, and petitioned for a dispensation. It was urged that royal mandates destroyed the freedom of elections; the reply was that though fifteen colleges did not admit them, New College, All Souls, and Magdalen did, and therefore Chambers obtained the required mandamus. (fn. 186)

We have an account in detail of the consecration of Christ Church, Tynemouth, by John Cosin, Bishop of Durham, assisted by Dr. Isaac Basire, Archdeacon of Northumberland. The land had been given by the Earl of Northumberland, whose commissioners delivered into the Bishop's hand an instrument surrendering all the Earl's right to it. The Bishop then performed the ceremony, himself giving 5l. "towards the better beautifying and adorning the church," and his chaplain, Mr. Davenport, preached the consecration sermon. (fn. 187)

Reports were requested from the respective authorities, of the condition of the Isle of Wight, Portland, and the Scilly Isles, these places being hard to secure from surprise, and if seized, difficult to retake. The only report given was that of Sir Robert Holmes, Governor of the Isle of Wight. He details at length the condition of the forts, the repairs needed, and the state of the garrisons and militia, and gives his opinion as to what is required to put the island into a thorough posture of defence. He ends with a list of 118 guns in the island, dismounted by the decay of their carriages. (fn. 188)

The mayor and burgesses of Gloucester begged a licence dispensing with the statute of mortmain, that they might purchase lands value 6,000l., that sum being bequeathed to them, with a house in Eastgate Street, by Sir Thomas Rich, Bart., as a hospital for maintenance of twenty Bluecoat boys. The case was referred to Attorney-General Palmer, who reported in its favour. (fn. 189)

Ralph Hope, of Coventry, a regular correspondent of Williamson, gives a graphic picture of the mayor's feast held there in November 1667, when 1,000 persons were invited to a plentiful entertainment, there being at least eleven brace of does sacrificed to the " potent Prince of Hungary"; and though the city could no longer support its ancient grandeur, "yet," he adds, "we still retain some relics of our pristine gallantry." (fn. 190)

Captain John Poyntz proposed to build a lighthouse and castle on Goodwin Sands, and to make the sands a firm island above high-water mark, to be completed in a few months, the only charge to his Majesty being the loan of two vessels of 30 tons, the use of 100 labourers, and certain materials. He desired not a penny for himself, but a grant of the island and 3d. per ton from each ship to maintain the lights. In spite of his hopefulness as to the success of his scheme, he obtained no answer to his proposals. (fn. 191)

Among the miscellanea worthy of note may be named the following:— Warrants to prevent access to the retiring rooms of the Theatre Royal except to the actors, complaints having been made of the interruption of the play thereby; also to prevent persons from coming into the theatre before the play was finished, without payment; offenders to be brought in custody before the Lord Chamberlain. (fn. 192)

Licence to John Baptista Quaranteni to sell medicines in the same form as granted [August 5, 1667] to Joannes Micaphilo, mountebank; which was, to dispose of his medicines and practise his skill in medicine and surgery in any place in the kingdom, none disturbing him or erecting stages near to those erected by him. (fn. 193)

Grant to George Tomlin, the King's embellisher, flourisher, and writer, of 20l. for embellishing letters to Sultan Mahomet, and his vizier Azem. (fn. 194)

Grant to the East India Company of the port and island of Bombay, at the rent of 10l., to he paid at the Custom House, London. (fn. 195)

The popular tendency to believe in the supernatural appears incidentally. A ship of Ipswich was lost in a storm, the mariners abandoning all hope of saving her, because they declared that a couple of witches sat in the foremast, whom they had vainly endeavoured to dislodge; so they gave themselves up for lost, and sent farewell messages to their relatives by the mariners of a second ship, which succeeded in securing the witches, and sending them to prison in Ipswich. (fn. 196)

At Tedworth, co. Wilts, John Mompesson, a J.P. who had taken a drum from an idle vagrant, was troubled with incessant drumming in his house, all kinds of tunes being played, and some imitated, but new ones perplexing the invisible drummer. (fn. 197)

At Oundle also a kind of inexplicable drumming was heard, and was considered ominous, because it beat in like manner before the death of the late King and of Cromwell, before the restoration, and before the fire of London. (fn. 198)

Several instances occur of petitions for, and grants of licences for carrying out original inventions. Col. Roger Bretteridge obtained a licence for the sole exercise, for fourteen years, of the mystery of mixing metals and minerals, which would make ordnance, &c, more durable and cheaper, and also be useful in the rebuilding of London. (fn. 199)

Sir Ellis Leighton begged a patent for an engine which, when wrought into the bodies of any sort of carriages, would facilitate motion, and save the labour both of men and horses. The Attorney-General advised the grant provided the invention was new, and not of public prejudice, and it was made accordingly. (fn. 200)

Isaac Callard begged a patent for making point lace, as good as any made in Venice or France, which would save vast sums of money yearly exported for foreign lace. He would instruct gratis those who desired to learn the art, provided they would work for him only; but as he accompanied his petition with a request for a grant of a yearly sum that should equalize his expenses, it does not appear to have been granted.

A licence was allowed to Benj. Worseley, M.D., to exercise his invention of a mode of cultivating senna in the American plantations, physicians having approved his commodity, and as any new commodity there " con-tributes to the increase of the wealth and bullion of the nation." (fn. 201)

A Frenchman, not named, begged a licence for making gold and silver thread in such a way that the metal should only cover the side that showed, which would be a great economy of the metals, and the more needful because they could not be recovered from the thread without great expense. (fn. 202)

The present volume only represents the papers of eleven calendar months, but the next volume, now nearly ready for press, will include those of fifteen months, from October 1668 to December 1669.

M. A. E. G.

100, Gower Street,
27 September 1893.


  • 1. p. 1, No. 3.
  • 2. pp. 26–7, No. 198.
  • 3. pp. 32–3, No. 27.
  • 4. p. 39, No. 78; 217, No. 85.
  • 5. p. 89, No. 40.
  • 6. p. 58–9, No. 17.
  • 7. p. 59, Entry Book 28, f. 8.
  • 8. p. 67, No. 71; 86, No. 19.
  • 9. p. 68, No. 77.
  • 10. p. 81, No. 162.
  • 11. p. 114, No. 263.
  • 12. p. 190, No. 80.
  • 13. p. 204, No. 188.
  • 14. pp. 354–5, No. 180I.; see also p. 370, No. 94.
  • 15. p. 148, No. 112.
  • 16. p. 151, No. 136.
  • 17. p. 217, No. 85.
  • 18. p. 306, No. 59; 310, No. 82; 381, No. 167I.
  • 19. p. 306, No. 60.
  • 20. p. 311, No. 93; 324, No. 191; 354, No. 179; 357–8, No. 202.
  • 21. pp. 360, 361, Nos. 5, 6.
  • 22. p. 378, Nos. 155–6; Entry Book 28, ff. 1, 13.
  • 23. p. 510, No. 181; 519, No. 77.
  • 24. p. 224, No. 131; 269, No, 15.
  • 25. pp. 258–9, No. 140; see also p. 165, No. 104.
  • 26. p. 543, No. 8.
  • 27. p. 534, No. 179; 555, No. 69.
  • 28. p. 454, No. 6; 456, No. 19; 468, No. 110; 534, No. 179; 555, No. 68.
  • 29. p. 527, No. 139; 557, No. 74; 560, Nos. 92–3.
  • 30. pp. 582–3, No. 35.
  • 31. p. 270, No. 18; 370, No. 94.
  • 32. p. 1, No. 1; 197–8, No. 127.
  • 33. p. 113, No. 254; 296, No. 193.
  • 34. p. 287–292, Nos. 143–164; 296, No. 193.
  • 35. p. 21, No. 158.
  • 36. p. 205, No. 7.
  • 37. 3a p. 231, No. 184; 256, No. 132; 462, No. 56; 497, No. 92; see also p. 550, No. 43; 563, No. 107; 592, No. 91.
  • 38. p. 234, No. 201.
  • 39. p. 492, No. 65; see also p. 505, No. 141.
  • 40. p. 225, No. 148.
  • 41. p. 226, No. 151.
  • 42. p. 443, No. 167.
  • 43. pp. 455–6, Nos. 11–14; see also p. 465, No. 72
  • 44. 5 p. 463, No. 58.
  • 45. p. 473, No. 147.
  • 46. p. 95, No. 115; 98, No. 143.
  • 47. p. 211, No. 46.
  • 48. p. 21, No. 161.
  • 49. p. 99, No. 147; 263, No. 186; 323, No. 188; 400, No. 78; 448, No. 194.
  • 50. p. 134, No. 176.
  • 51. p. 304, No. 51.
  • 52. p. 372, No. 114.
  • 53. p. 364, No. 38.
  • 54. p. 440, No. 143.
  • 55. p. 592, No. 95.
  • 56. p. 443, No. 165.
  • 57. p.104, No. 194; 166, No. 109; 201, No. 144; 235, No. 205; 300, No. 16; 459, No. 32.
  • 58. p. 257, No. 135.
  • 59. p. 272, No. 29.
  • 60. p. 18, No. 141; 42, Nos. 97–100; 409, No. 137; 538, No. 206.
  • 61. p. 334, No. 37; 338, No. 64.
  • 62. p. 390, No. 10.
  • 63. pp. 496–7, Nos. 88, 89; 569, No. 163; 605, No. 3.
  • 64. p. 467, No. 89; 569, Nos. 161, 162.
  • 65. pp. 313–4, No. 109; 377, No. 144.
  • 66. p. 489, No. 45; 547, No. 26.
  • 67. p. 527, No. 137.
  • 68. p. 547, Nos. 24, 26.
  • 69. p. 569, Nos. 164, 164I.
  • 70. pp. 583–4, Nos. 41, 41I.
  • 71. p. 604, No. 154.
  • 72. p. 31, No. 16.
  • 73. p. 455, No. 9.
  • 74. See pp. 192–3, No. 98.
  • 75. p. 113, Nos. 258I, 259.
  • 76. Nos. 62 to 62IV. & 63 to 63VI.
  • 77. 6 pp. 89–90, No. 41.
  • 78. 7 p. 219, Docquet, Vol. 23, No. 186.
  • 79. p. 412, No. 170; 459, No. 29.
  • 80. p. 459, No. 32; 501–2, Nos. 115–118.
  • 81. p. 607, Docquet, Vol. 23, No. 265.
  • 82. pp. 351–2, No. 163; 364, No. 34.
  • 83. p. 494, No. 74; 478, No. 182; 517–8, No. 65; 550, No. 45.
  • 84. p. 275, Nos. 60, 60I, 60II; 365, No. 42; 411, No. 166.
  • 85. p. 17, No. 132; see also p. 72, No. 106, and 98, No. 139A.
  • 86. p. 416, No. 189; 514, No. 14.
  • 87. p. 370, No. 18; 382, No. 107.
  • 88. p. 85, No. 9; 88, No. 39; 97, No. 132; 161, No. 70; 186, 50.
  • 89. p. 277, No. 76; 300, No. 22; 446, No. 188; 469, No. 117.
  • 90. p. 276, No. 64.
  • 91. p. 165, No. 104; 176, No. 187; 209, No. 35; 242, No. 26.
  • 92. p. 224, No. 131.
  • 93. p. 376, No. 141.
  • 94. pp. 232–3, No. 193; 250, No. 86
  • 95. p. 589, No. 74; 611, No. 39.
  • 96. p. 522, No. 95.
  • 97. 5 p. 551, No. 50.
  • 98. p. 418, No. 3.
  • 99. p. 546, No. 20.
  • 100. p. 7, No. 50.
  • 101. p. 114, No. 265; 318, No. 138; 367, No. 56.
  • 102. p. 203, No. 159.
  • 103. p. 301, No. 27.
  • 104. pp. 318–9, No. 140.
  • 105. p. 370, No. 94.
  • 106. p. 414, No. 177.
  • 107. p. 437–8, No. 129I.
  • 108. p. 28, No. 208; 54, Nos. 178– 181; 108, No. 229; 110, Nos. 242, 243.
  • 109. p. 17, No. 130; 67, No. 76.
  • 110. p. 270, No. 16; 276, No. 65; 335, No. 49.
  • 111. p. 379, No. 159; 388, No. 211;391, No. 17; 533, No. 173; 539, No. 207; 545, No. 12; 548, No. 29; 556, No. 73; 571, No. 180.
  • 112. p. 437, No. 129I; 454, No. 227.
  • 113. p.487,Nos.33,34;531,No.l65.
  • 114. p. 498, No. 99; 507, No. 154.
  • 115. pp. 516–7, No. 154; 524, No.108.
  • 116. p. 64, No. 52; 73, No. 115.
  • 117. p. 171, Nos. 148; 172,Nos. 160, 161.
  • 118. p. 176, Nos. 191, 191I; 177, No. 192.
  • 119. p. 187, No. 55.
  • 120. p. 219, No. 91.
  • 121. pp. 190,191, Nos. 84,85; 195–6, Nos. 117, 118.
  • 122. p. 176, No. 101; 190, No. 84; 195, No. 117; 209, No. 36; 212–3, Nos. 60–63; 217, No. 84; 219, No. 92.
  • 123. pp. 213–4, No. 63.
  • 124. pp. 222–3, Nos. 118, 118I.
  • 125. p. 228, Nos. 167–8; 246, No. 54.
  • 126. p. 314, No. 114; 317–8, Nos. 128–133; 324, No. 191; 328–9, No. 2; 330, No. 13; 338–9, No. 66.
  • 127. p 425, No. 52; 506–7, Nos. 153, 153I.
  • 128. p. 522, No. 94; 524, No. 116; 527, Nos. 134–5; 531, No. 159; 539, No. 207; 543, Nos. 7, 8; 544, No. 9; 549, Nos. 36–38; 551–2, No. 56; 556, No. 73; 560–1, Nos. 92–4.
  • 129. p. 537, No. 201; 545, No. 10; 550, No. 42; 555, No. 66.
  • 130. p. 545, No. 11.
  • 131. p. 552, No. 59.
  • 132. p. 555, Nos. 66–68; 556, No. 70; 559, No. 90; 560, Nos. 91, 92.
  • 133. p. 294, No. 179.
  • 134. p. 61, No. 36; 393, No. 29.
  • 135. p. 20, No. 149; 348, No. 143; 361, No. 10.
  • 136. p. 183, No. 30; 195, No. 112.
  • 137. p. 52, No. 162; 245, No. 47; 301, No. 24; 400, No. 73; 415, No. 179; 421, No. 19; 522, No. 94; 524, No. 116.
  • 138. p. 183, No. 31; 248, No. 68; 294, No. 177; 429, No. 77.
  • 139. p. 268, No. 5I.
  • 140. p. 543, No. 7.
  • 141. p. 30, No. 12; 43, No. 110.
  • 142. p. 159, No. 52; 168, No. 122; 178, No. 2.
  • 143. p. 231, No. 180; 327, No. 212.
  • 144. pp. 69, 70, Nos. 83, 92; 537, No. 195.
  • 145. p. 363, No. 29.
  • 146. p. 568, No. 158.
  • 147. pp. 558–9, No. 84; 567, No. 151; 574, No. 198.
  • 148. p. 220, Entry Book 26, p. 25.
  • 149. p. 278, No. 77; Entry Book 18, pp. 291–3.
  • 150. p. 559, Entry Book 18, p. 327.
  • 151. p. 608, No. 16.
  • 152. pp. 157–8, No. 45.
  • 153. p. 142, No. 63.
  • 154. pp. 457–8, No. 22.
  • 155. p. 42, No. 103; p. 49, Entry Book 23, p. 285.
  • 156. p. 471, Entry Book 18, p. 316.
  • 157. p. 229, No. 168b.
  • 158. p. 354, No. 179.
  • 159. pp. 83, 84, No. 6; 136, Nos. 190, 190I.
  • 160. p. 127, No. 126; 281, No. 100; see also Calendar, 1664–5, pp. 427, 500; 1666–7, pp.82, 144.
  • 161. p. 348, No. 139.
  • 162. p. 453, No. 225.
  • 163. p. 322, No. 180. See also Calendars 1661–2, pp. 597, 604–5; 1663–4, pp. 51, 313, 430, 431, 609; 1664–5, p. 545.
  • 164. pp. 346–7, No. 132A; Entry Books 19, p. 78, and 32, p. 2.
  • 165. pp. 199, 200, No. 136; 309, No. 73; 352, Docquet,Vol. 23, No. 208.
  • 166. p. 11, No. 87.
  • 167. p. 298, No. 197; 342–3, Nos. 101–2.
  • 168. pp. 446–7, No. 190; 542–3, Nos. 5, 6.
  • 169. pp. 381–2, No. 173.
  • 170. p. 339, No. 76; 604, No. 156.
  • 171. Vol. iii. p. 74.
  • 172. p. 149, Nos. 119, 120; see also 149, No. 124; 150, Nos. 128, 132.
  • 173. 2 p.409, Entry Book 31 f.8.
  • 174. p. 53, No. 168; 227, Docquet, Vol. 23, No. 188.
  • 175. p. 196, Entry Book 18, p. 282; 212, No. 57.
  • 176. p. 109, No. 236.
  • 177. p. 295, No. 190; 324, No. 191.
  • 178. p. 604, Proc. Coll. p. 262.
  • 179. p. 557, No. 74.
  • 180. p. 144, No. 79; 526, Entry Book 27, f. 7.
  • 181. p. 243, No. 33.
  • 182. p. 315, Entry Bock 27, f. 5.
  • 183. p. 123, No. 46.
  • 184. p. 124, Nos. 48–105.
  • 185. p. 230, No. 172; 264, No. 193; 301, No. 26.
  • 186. pp. 49, 50, Nos. 149, 150; 283, No. 116.
  • 187. p. 427, No. 65; 476–7, No. 170I.
  • 188. p. 151, No. 137; 218, No. 86.
  • 189. p. 397, No. 57.
  • 190. p. 4, No. 23.
  • 191. p. 221, No. 111.
  • 192. pp. 394–5, Entry Book 30, p. 32.
  • 193. p. 239, Entry Book 25, ff. 26, 53. See Calendar 1667, p. 360.
  • 194. p. 101, No. 173.
  • 195. p. 319, Vol. 223, No. 186.
  • 196. p. 4, No. 27.
  • 197. pp. 149–50, No. 125.
  • 198. p. 255, No. 126.
  • 199. p.248, Entry Book 26,f.27.
  • 200. 1 p. 398, No. 59; 413, Docquet, Vol. 23, No. 225
  • 201. p. 458, No. 26A.; 530, Entry Book 30, p. 65.
  • 202. p. 150, No. 127.