NOTE 17, p. 54.—Of this part of Pym’s speech Mr. Forster says: “A more massive document was never given to history. It has all the solidity, weight, and gravity of a judicial record, while it addresses itself equally to the solid good sense of the masses of the people, and to the cultivated understandings of the time. The deliberative gravity, the force, the broad, decided manner of this great speaker, contrast forcibly with those choice specimens of awkward affectations and labored extravagances, that have not seldom passed in modern times for oratory.” “Life of Pym,” p. 99. NOTE 18, p. 58.—The seventh and twelfth of James I. were 1610 and 1615. NOTE 19, p. 58.—The Thirty Years’ War in the Palatinate in which the sons-in-law of James I. were the representative of the Protestant cause. NOTE 20, p. 62.—A partial list of fines imposed between 1629 and 1640 is given in Guizot, _Eng. Rev._, 445. The list includes “Hillyard, for having sold saltpetre, £5,000”; “John Averman, for not having followed the King’s orders in the fabrication of soap, £13,000”; “Morley, for having struck Sir George Thesbold within the precinct of the Court, £10,000”; and a vast number of other similar ones. NOTE 21, p. 64.—The tax known as ship money, which had its origin in the necessity of universal defence when the country was threatened with invasion was attempted by Charles but resisted by John Hampden. The case went to trial, and the judges by a bare majority decided in favor of the legality of the tax. The decision is, however, not now regarded as having been correct. The case is reviewed in Hallam, “Con. Hist.,” i., 430. NOTE 22, p. 65.—The “bounds and perambulations” were the boundary marks and legally established roads and paths. This was at a time when there were very few, if any, inclosures. The possibilities of dispute were taken advantage of by the Government in a way that was enormously oppressive. For example, the Earl of Salisbury was fined £20,000 for “encroachments,” Westmorland £19,000, etc. Guizot: _Eng. Rev._, 445. NOTE 23, p. 68.—The application of this grievance was particularly burdensome in the vicinity of London. Exemption from demolition was purchased by the immediate payment of fine amounting to a three years’ tax. NOTE 24, p. 69.—The King had specifically agreed in the “Petition of Right” to correct the grievance here complained of. And yet it continued after eleven years to be “a growing evil.” NOTE 25, p. 72.—The “projectors” referred to were those undertaking monopolies. The “referees” were law officers appointed by the Crown to decide all legal questions arising in regard to monopolies. In 1621 Buckingham threw the blame of all irregularities in the matter of monopolies on the “referees,” and, on motion of Cranfield, a Parliamentary inquiry was made into their conduct. The matter is explained in Gardiner’s “History of England,” 2d ed., iv., 48; and in Church’s “Bacon,” 128.