Volume IV Part 36 (1/2)

[Footnote 344: Lords' and Commons' Journals, Nov. 4., Jan. 1692.]

[Footnote 345: Commons' Journals, Nov. 10 1692.]

[Footnote 346: See the Lords' Journals from Nov. 7. to Nov. 18. 1692; Burnet, ii. 102. Tindall's account of these proceedings was taken from letters addressed by Warre, Under Secretary of State, to Colt, envoy at Hanover. Letter to Mr. Secretary Trenchard, 1694.]

[Footnote 347: Lords' Journals, Dec. 7.; Tindal, from the Colt Papers; Burnet, ii. 105.]

[Footnote 348: Grey's Debates, Nov. 21. and 23. 1692.]

[Footnote 349: Grey's Debates, Nov. 21. 1692; Colt Papers in Tindal.]

[Footnote 350: Tindal, Colt Papers; Commons' Journals, Jan. 11. 1693.]

[Footnote 351: Colt Papers in Tindal; Lords' Journals from Dec. 6. to Dec. 19. 1692; inclusive,]

[Footnote 352: As to the proceedings of this day in the House of Commons, see the Journals, Dec. 20, and the letter of Robert Wilmot, M.P. for Derby, to his colleague Anchitel Grey, in Grey's Debates.]

[Footnote 353: Commons' Journals, Jan. 4. 1692/3.]

[Footnote 354: Colt Papers in Tindal; Commons' Journals, Dec. 16. 1692, Jan. 11 1692; Burnet ii. 104.]

[Footnote 355: The peculiar antipathy of the English n.o.bles to the Dutch favourites is mentioned in a highly interesting note written by Renaudot in 1698, and preserved among the Archives of the French Foreign Office.]

[Footnote 356: Colt Papers in Tindal; Lords' Journals, Nov. 28. and 29.

1692, Feb. 18. and 24. 1692/3.]

[Footnote 357: Grey's Debates, Nov 18. 1692; Commons' Journals, Nov.

18., Dec. 1. 1692.]

[Footnote 358: See Cibber's Apology, and Mountford's Greenwich Park.]

[Footnote 359: See Cibber's Apology, Tom Brown's Works, and indeed the works of every man of wit and pleasure about town.]

[Footnote 360: The chief source of information about this case is the report of the trial, which will be found in Howell's Collection. See Evelyn's Diary, February 4. 1692/3. I have taken some circ.u.mstances from Narcissus Luttrell's Diary, from a letter to Sancroft which is among the Tanner MSS in the Bodleian Library, and from two letters addressed by Brewer to Wharton, which are also in the Bodleian Library.]

[Footnote 361: Commons' Journals, Nov. 14. 1692.]

[Footnote 362: Commons' Journals of the Session, particularly of Nov.

17., Dec. 10., Feb. 25., March 3.; Colt Papers in Tindal.]

[Footnote 363: Commons' Journals, Dec. 10.; Tindal, Colt Papers.]

[Footnote 364: See c.o.ke's Inst.i.tutes, part iv. chapter 1. In 1566 a subsidy was 120,000L.; in 1598, 78,000L.; when c.o.ke wrote his Inst.i.tutes, about the end of the reign of James I. 70,000L. Clarendon tells us that, in 1640, twelve subsidies were estimated at about 600,000L.]

[Footnote 365: See the old Land Tax Acts, and the debates on the Land Tax Redemption Bill of 1798.]

[Footnote 366: Lords' Journals Jan. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.; Commons'

Journals, Jan. 17, 18. 20. 1692; Tindal, from the Colt Papers; Burnet, ii. 104, 105. Burnet has used an incorrect expression, which Tindal, Ralph and others have copied. He says that the question was whether the Lords should tax themselves. The Lords did not claim any right to alter the amount of taxation laid on them by the bill as it came up to them.

They only demanded that their estates should be valued, not by the ordinary commissioners, but by special commissioners of higher rank.]