taken upon this letter among the papers in the Town
Clerk's office at the Guildhall.]

[Footnote 6: Bodleian, Clarendon Papers, 73, f. 232.]

[Footnote 7: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1660-1661, p. 319.]

[Footnote 8: Public Record Office, Chancery, Crown Dockets, 6, p. 50.
On the docket for the commission of the council of trade the names of
the members are inserted; but on that of the commission for the council
for foreign plantations the place is left blank. A marginal note on the
latter docket gives the explanation noted above.]

[Footnote 9: There is a list of the members in 1661, containing but
forty-seven names with some omissions and additions.]

[Footnote 10: Egerton, 2395, ff. 268, 269; Cal. State Papers, Dom.,
1660-1661, pp. 353-354; P.R.O. State Papers, Domestic, XXI, No. 27;
Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, 4 ed., Appendix.]

[Footnote 11: The journal of the Council of Plantations is among the
Colonial Papers in the Public Record Office, XIV, No. 59, ff. 1-57,
December 1, 1660-August 4, 1664, entitled "Orders and Proceedings at his
Ma^{ts} Counsell for Forraigne Plantacons." There is no journal of the
Council of Trade known to exist, but minutes of one or two meetings,
which have been preserved, show that a journal must have been kept. An
entry-book for patents is mentioned, Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661-1668,
Sec. 15, and an entry-book of petitions and reports, November 13,
1660-March 12, 1662, is in Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 25115.

Regarding the history of the papers of the Council of Trade the
following information may be of interest. The records probably remained
in the possession of George Duke, secretary to the Council, and were
called for by Dr. Worsley, secretary of the Council of 1672 in a letter
dated November 28, 1672 (Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1672-1673, pp.
213-214). No answer was received from Duke and evidently the papers were
not handed over, for when in 1698 the Board of Trade applied for them to
Col. Duke's son-in-law, Henry Crispe, it was informed by Mr. Crispe that
he had never even seen any of the papers but had heard that some of them
were burnt in the Temple when in Col. Duke's possession (Journal of the
Board of Trade, XI, p. 55, May 10, 1698). In June and July, 1707, the
Board of Trade attempted again to get hold of the papers and wrote to
Crispe on June 30. Crispe's reply is worth printing:

"If I am rightly informed there are divers original books and papers
re