FN 353 Commons’ Journals, Jan. 4. 1692/3.

FN 354 Colt Papers in Tindal; Commons’ Journals, Dec. 16. 1692,
Jan. 11 1692; Burnet ii. 104.

FN 355 The peculiar antipathy of the English nobles 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.

FN 356 Colt Papers in Tindal; Lords’ Journals, Nov. 28. and 29. 1692, Feb. 18. and 24. 1692/3.

FN 357 Grey’s Debates, Nov 18. 1692; Commons’ Journals, Nov. 18.,
Dec. 1. 1692.

FN 358 See Cibber’s Apology, and Mountford’s Greenwich Park.

FN 359 See Cibber’s Apology, Tom Brown’s Works, and indeed the works of every man of wit and pleasure about town.

FN 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 circumstances 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.

FN 361 Commons’ Journals, Nov. 14. 1692.

FN 362 Commons’ Journals of the Session, particularly of Nov. 17., Dec. 10., Feb. 25., March 3.; Colt Papers in Tindal.

FN 363 Commons’ Journals, Dec. 10.; Tindal, Colt Papers.

FN 364 See Coke’s Institutes, part iv. chapter 1.  In 1566 a subsidy was 120,000L.; in 1598, 78,000L.; when Coke wrote his Institutes, 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.

FN 365 See the old Land Tax Acts, and the debates on the Land Tax Redemption Bill of 1798.

FN 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.

FN 367 Commons’ Journals, Dec. 2/12. 1692,

FN 368 For this account of the origin of stockjobbing in the City of London I am chiefly indebted to a most curious periodical paper, entitled, “Collection for the Improvement of Husbandry and Trade, by J. Houghton, F.R.S.”  It is in fact a weekly history of the commercial speculations of that time.  I have looked through the files of several years.  In No. 33., March 17. 1693, Houghton says:  “The buying and selling of Actions is one of the great trades now on foot.  I find a great many do not understand the affair.”  On June 13. and June 22. 1694, he traces the whole progress of stockjobbing.  On July 13. of the same year he makes the first mention of time bargains.  Whoever is desirous to know more about the companies mentioned in the text may consult Houghton’s Collection and a pamphlet entitled Anglia Tutamen, published in 1695.