ournals 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 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.]

[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 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.]

[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 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.]

[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 t