Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/105

 1921 'HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS' 97 lords' journal of 1588/9 is repeated practically word for word by the second author, except for the exclusion of a brief passage. 1 Then on 10 February both insert the same long editorial note on the appointment of attendants of the upper house as joint committees for a bill ; and both return to the discussion on 25 February in a comment all but identical. 2 In the commons' journal of that session a report is given by D'Ewes of the Speaker's presentation on 6 February ; and this, with some few omissions, finds a place in the Historical Collections? Its prove- nance is interesting. The official commons' journal that D'Ewes used contained no such passage : a few words and a blank page indicated where it might have been. 4 Nor is it the meagre report that is found in the official lords' journal. 5 It is an epitome of the account which D'Ewes had characteristically manufactured for his own lords' journal, by elaborating the official entry with the help of precedents and his imagination. 6 I need refer to only one other of the many passages that might be quoted. 7 In his commons' journal for 1592/3 D'Ewes includes a note on the Fitzherbert election case, in which he recapitulates the facts of the case and ends by stating that it ' received now at last the Judgment of the House, which is inserted out of the aforesaid Anonymous Journal in manner and form following ' ; whereupon he enters the judgement. The note and recapitulation appear in the Historical Collections, and so does the concluding state- ment, except that it terminates with the word ' Journal '. But the judgement is omitted ! 8 Nor, after this, will surprise be aroused by a reference earlier in the same note to ' the often- before-cited Anonymous- Journal ', which has not once before been named in that work. 9 It is thus obvious that the close relation between D'Ewes' Journals and the Historical Collections is not due to derivation of the former from the latter. Nor will the hypothesis of a third compilation, common as a source to both, bear examination, if only for the reason that D'Ewes carefully refers to his sources, all of which can be traced, and none of which upholds such a theory. 1 D'Ewes' Journals, p. 419a; Historical Collections, p. 1. 2 D'Ewes' Journals, pp. 422 b, 423 b ; Historical Collections, pp. 5-6, 7-8. 3 D'Ewes' Journals, p. 429 a ; Historical Collections, p. 15. 4 D'Ewes' Journals, p. 429 a. 5 Lords' Journals, ii. 147. 6 The source of his lords' journal account is confessed by D'Ewes in a note in the manuscript original of his Journals (Harleian MS. 74, fo. 291 b) ; but is omitted from the note as edited for the printed Journals (p. 421 b). 7 See, however, for the lords' journal of 1592/3, D'Ewes' Journals, pp. 467 a-b ; Historical Collections, pp. 49-50. For the commons' journal of 1597/8, the first entry on 11 January, D'Ewes' Journals, p. 577 b; Historical Collections, p. 118. For the lords' journal of 1601, the note on 8 December, D'Ewes' Journals, p. 610 b ; Historical Collections, p. 138. In the same journal compare also the account of the closing ceremonies, especially its reference to Townshend's journal. D'Ewes' Journal*, pp. 618-19 ; Historical Collections, pp. 149-50. Harleian MS. 75, fo. 190 a. 8 D'Ewes' Journals, pp. 518 a-b ; Historical Collections, p. 77 9 Ibid. VOL. XXXVI. — NO. CXLI. H