1922 REVIEWS OF BOOKS 435 necessary to modernize the spelling owing to the lack of uniformity in the copies from which they constructed the text they print. It would have been better to sacrifice the uniformity and to reproduce the original spelling. Then come the parliamentary diaries of Nicholas and Grosvenor, the value of which is greatly enhanced by the excellent notes and cross- references supplied. In these cases the contemporary spelling is retained except for contractions which are expanded in a modern form. Thus the same sentence may contain ' petition] ' and ' peticion '. A preferable method would have been to omit the brackets and to adhere in the expan- sion to the spelling generally used by the writer. The remaining docu- ments are letters from Nethersole and an account of the proceedings on the last day of the session. So far as can be gathered by a critic who has not seen the manuscripts, and who has to rely on the facsimiles given, the work of transcription has been carefully performed. Few misprints and fewer mistakes have been noticed. Probably the best test of the value of this volume is a comparison of its materials with those used by the late S. K. Gardiner. That historian had available in print only an inferior edition of the True Relation, and he was ignorant of the existence of Grosvenor's diary, and of the diary in the Lonsdale manuscripts. 1 The other sources he had to use as manu- scripts. The question naturally arises as to the extent to which his account now needs correcting. It speaks much for his penetration and judgement that, with defective materials, he undoubtedly succeeded in giving an accurate representation of the general course of the debates, although he could not perceive the precise significance of some speeches nor avoid a number of small errors. Thus a statement about the seizure of Rolle's goods for non-payment of tonnage and poundage, which he rejects as altogether improbable, is now found to be well supported. Eliot's accusation that Heath had stifled a charge of high treason against Cosin becomes more intelligible when it is seen that the orator believed the bishop to have denied that the king was the supreme head of the church. Similarly the dilemma which confronted the country party in the debate on the seizure of merchants' goods is more obvious when it is known that the offending officials declared that the king had dictated the answers they were to give to the commons. In the same debate Mr. Gardiner scarcely did justice to Eliot, for it is clear that the popular leader was anxious to uphold the immunity of a member's property from seizure not so much because he wished his colleagues to enjoy special privileges, but because, as he said, the privileges of parliament formed the basis of all liberty. On the whole it seems that the historian, while paying an adequate tribute to Eliot's character, rather under-estimated his statesmanship. 2 From these specimens it is apparent that the immense labour expended upon the Commons Debates for 1629 has not been in vain. Many willing assistants will be required before all the existing materials for the history of parliament during its more critical years can be made accessible. GODFREY DAVIES. 1 Printed by the Hist. MSS. Comm. in 1893. 2 Gardiner, History of England, 8vo ed., vii. 32 n. 1, 48-9, 61 ; Lonsdale MSS., p. 60 ; Notestein and Relf, pp. 7, 175, 221. Ff2
