Errata

NOTES AND ERRATA.

No. 43. This letter is probably of the year 1536, when Sir Edward Chamberlain was at Kimbolton.

55. The following names are incorrect, although so printed in Dugdale:—“W.” for “T.” abp. of Canterbury; “Thos.” for “Henry” marquis Dorset; “Thomas” for “George” Brooke lord Cobham; “John” for “Edw.” Grey lord Powis; and “Edm. lord Bury” for “Edm. lord Bray.

188, note. For “John Gold” read “Thomas Gold.”

143 ii., note. This document is, no doubt, of about the same date as Vol. VI., No. 1370, perhaps a little before it.

147 (23). After “Dryffeld,” insert “with the advowson of one fifth of Southkylvyngton, and Enderby with the Steeple, and the chantry of Hunton, Yorks.”

352, p. 147, l. 13, for “Graunthawe” read “Graunthame.”

386, p. 162. “Lord Borow and Mr. Baynton, the Queen's chamberlains, are dead.” Husee corrects this statement so far as Baynton is concerned at the end of the letter; but it is nowhere noticed in the correspondence that it was equally untrue as regards lord Burgh. That nobleman indeed had, as we know from Dugdale, a son of the same Christian name, Thomas, and it might be suspected that our peerage historians, who place his death in 1552, have confounded the father and the son together as one person. But it appears that this son Sir Thomas Burgh was dead at least as early as 1543, during the life of his father, who obtained a private Act of Parliament, 34 & 35 Hen. VIII. (c. 32. in the original inrolment) to bastardise the children of his deceased son's wife on the ground of her notorious adultery during her husband's lifetime. This Act, which has never been printed, has been inspected in the Parliament Office, and shows clearly that the son was then dead.

417. This No. should have been cancelled, as it refers to precisely the same entry in Cranmer's letter-book as No. 90.

421. The original of this letter is in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris, and a copy of it has been sent to the Record Office by M. Baschet.

No. 432, second last line of letter, for “lord Parr” read “lady Parr.” By this correction it appears (if the writer has not made a mistake) that the letter is probably of the year 1536; for according to an inquisition taken 7 Oct. 24 Hen. VIII., Matilda lady Parr died on the 1st Dec. preceding (i.e. 1531). Letter 951 in Vol. V. is also of the same year as this.

432 ii., for “List referred to dated” read “List referred to. The entry was made,” &c.

435 ii., for “bishop” read “[official].” There was no bishop of Salisbury at the time.

474. The date “Calais” is evidently an error of the writer's, who was then in London.

516. This letter must be of the same year as Nos. 778, 779, in Vol. VI.

519. This letter was, no doubt, addressed to the bp. of Paris.

527, 528. These letters are of the year 1536.

533. This letter is of the year 1535.

595. There is reason to believe that this letter, and also No. 694, are of the year 1535, if not even as late as 1536.

613. The date “Calais” is evidently an error of the writer.

661. The heading should be “[Henry VIII. to Wallop],” and the foot-note may be dispensed with. Also, on the third line in the second paragraph the reading should be: “As he was “doubtless instructed by his late colleagues, Rochford and Fitz- william, of the circumstances,” &c. And at the end, for “Copy,” read “Draft in Wriothesley's hand.”

694. See notes on Nos. 595 and 1643.

697. The foot-note is wrong, at least in the last sentence. The bishop, or rather archbishop, of whom Hacket certainly meant to speak, was John a Vesa, or Vesalius, who was driven out along with king Christiern II. in 1523. See Langebek, VI. 649. But Hacket seems to have made a slip in calling him bishop-elect—a designation applied to each of his two successors, who in fact were mere intruders.

749. This letter is a little out of place, as it was evidently written a few days before No. 709. The date is probably Tuesday the 19th May.

No. 761 (27). This grant is inrolled undated, Pat. p. 1. m. 31.

761 (37). This grant is inrolled undated, Pat. p. 1. m. 26.

797. This letter must belong to a later year as Wallop could not have been in London on the 5th June 1534. See No. 820.

911, p. 334, l.3. “Archibald earl of Argyle.” So distinctly in the record, though this earl's Christian name was Colin.

939. See the names of the two Friars referred to in No. 1020.

943. This letter is of the year 1535; and so must also be No. 1214.

945, l. 26, for “Butler” read “Bucler.” The person referred to in the same line as “Dr. Sydrac” is undoubtedly Dr. Sydnour, but the spelling in the manuscript is very doubtful.

957, p. 366, 1.7. “The provincial of the Cordeliers Observants.” He was, doubtless, one of the two Friars referred to in No. 939, and named in No. 1020.

968, p. 373, l.7, for “Dewys” read “Delwys.'

992. This letter is of the year 1535.

1007. This must be to the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, and can hardly be later than 1533. See Vol. VI., No. 937. In l. 2, for “fathers” read “father.”

1026 (24). This grant is inrolled undated, Pat. p. 2. m 29.

1045, l. 7, for “James” read “Thomas.”

1055, for “Mr. Wingfield” read “Mr. Yngylfeld”; also after “Wernon” insert comma.

1085. This letter is of the year 1535.

1089, l. 7, for “Hyndes Hertington” read “Hynde.” The words in the original are:—“upon some boldness “ which he hath conceived by Maister “Hyndes herting on.”

1159, l. 4 from bottom, before “Venice” insert “for.”

1170. This letter is of the year 1535. The address is “Master Secretary of the King's most Royal Council.”

1184, heading. Dele “Sir.”

1209. This is a fuller draft of the document described in Vol. VI., No. 1053, as addressed to Hawkins. It seems more probably to be of this year, and addressed to Pate. The draft noticed in Vol. VI. contains only the commencement of the despatch.

1214. See note on No. 943.

1348. This is printed in Burnet, VI. 122.

1364. The foot-note is wrong, for although there was no actual duke of York at the time, the writer means, as he has explained above, that the lands would go hereafter to the King's second son, who would be duke of York. They were actually held, however, at this time by the duke of Richmond.

Nos. 1393, 1409, 1443, and 1449. These letters of Rowland Lee are of the year 1535.

1528–31. These letters appear to be of the year 1535. As James was at Edinburgh on the 4th Nov. 1534 (see No. 1391), it is not likely that he could have been 140 miles distant and returned nearly the whole way between that date and the middle of December. I am informed by Mr. Dickson of the Register House, Edinburgh, that during November he made a Border tour “circa captionem latronum” by Lauder, Melrose, Kelso, Jedburgh, Peebles and Selkirk, and had returned to Stirling (where he was on the 1st) by the 24th day of the month. But no place on this circuit is anything like 140 miles from Edinburgh. The evidences of this journey appear in the King's household books, which in the following year unfortunately end with the month of August. But from the charters in the register of the Great Seal of Scotland, and also from the lord Treasurer's accounts, it may be gathered that in the middle of November 1535 (from the 14th to the 19th, and perhaps later), James was at Frendraucht, near Huntly, in Aberdeenshire, which may fairly be considered about seven score miles from Edinburgh.

1564, last line, for “great [master]” read “great [admiral].”

1643. The preacher who came from Norwich is not unlikely to have been Harcock; in which case the letter is probably about the end of May 1535, and No. 694 at least cannot be later than that year, though it is possible No. 595 may be of the year following.