He used the diary of Sir Edward Nicholas, which is amongst the Domestic State Papers, an incomplete copy of the True Relation (Harleian MS. 4771), and some anonymous notes which were perhaps written by Denzil Holies (Harleian MS. 2313). Miss Relf has had at her disposal a complete copy of the True Relation, and the second volume of the anonymous notes (Harleian MS. 5324) which, owing to bad cataloguing, had been detached from the first. But in addition to these she had also three completely new records of the discussions: Lowther's Notes, printed in the Thirteenth Report of the Historical MSS. Commission, part vii, Sir Richard Grosvenor's diary now in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, and what is termed the Borlase MS.—a sort of collection of news letters which belonged to Sir William Borlase and is now in the British Museum (Stowo MS. 366). As the foot-notes to Gardiner's History show, he was very sensible of the defects of his authorities and the discrepancies between them. 'We are by no means so well informed about these later proceedings as about the earlier ones,' he remarks in his account of what happened in June 1628.
Miss Relf's method is not to re-tell the story of the petition in chronological sequence, but to take first one point in its history, then another, and to endeavour to explain the legal rather than the political questions involved. She begins by discussing the arguments and the conclusion of the case of the five knights, on the ground that the question of arbitrary imprisonment was the foundation of the struggle which led to the petition, and though it was only one of the four subjects dealt with in it, was throughout the great stumbling-block. The points she selects for elucidation are, the reason of the change from bill to petition, and its meaning; the difference between the various versions of the king's answer and their significance, and the form in which the king's assent was finally given.
There are two things to consider in discussing the force of the Petition and Answer; first, the attempts to give it publicity and permanence; secondly, its interpretation by the judges. A consideration of the first will show that it was not treated as a public, or even a private, statute. . . . As a practical measure its efficacy was limited to the grievances complained of; the general statements were not binding on the judges. . . . In spite of the fact that they could not be enforced, it is the general principles enimciated in the petition which make it a milestone in the development of constitutional government' (pp. 54, 57, 58).
Gardiner, on the other hand, regards the petition as a statute, and expressly terms it one. This is the issue that underlies the questions of form discussed in the study.
Other points of importance are the origin of the remonstrance against Buckingham. Miss Relf seeks to show that it was not purely the result of a desire to make the king alter the form of his answer to the petition (p. 57). She also elucidates and defines more clearly the part played by Wentworth in the debates. Gardiner, she says, magnifies somewhat that point, and misses the point of difference between Wentworth and Coke. Wentworth in her view was the leader of the opportimists. Coke of the reformers. She points out that ovsing to a defective report a speech made by Sir Humphrey May has been attributed to Wentworth, thus making his earlier and later opinions more consistent than they really were.
