Godolphin had taken over the Treasury with an adverse balance, arising in the main out of the continental campaigns of William III., which the economies practised since the peace had, at the time of the King's death, failed to discharge. At the accession of the Queen, the funded debt stood at 10,000,000l. In addition to this, there were 2,338,628l. outstanding Exchequer Bills, borrowed at 7 and 8 per cent., and other arrears, amounting in all to about 12,750,000l. Taking the total revenue from taxation, direct and indirect, at 4,654,000l., which is the average of the last three years of William III., the outstanding indebtedness represented a capital sum approaching three times the annual taxation of the country. In 1697 a general mortgage was made of certain revenues and taxes amounting to nearly a million pounds a year, to be continued till 1706 as a fund for the discharge of about 5,100,000l. In the first session of the reign this mortgage was extended to 1710, to supply a deficiency of over 3¼ millions. Godolphin further allocated some additional taxes to constitute security for the floating Exchequer Bills (1 Anne, st. 1, c. 13).

The administration of Sir Robert Walpole has been treated from more than one point of view by the historical writers of a later age. The judgment passed by his contemporaries upon the statesman who was to themselves merely a protagonist of party warfare has long since been modified in several important particulars. But even after the lapse of more than two centuries since Walpole's birth, historians to whom history will always be ‘past politics’ are content to derive their estimates of his long administration from the blatant chronicles of the Whigs and Tories, or from perfunctory Blue-books, in preference to the original sources of information that are still available.

It is now several years ago that Mr. James Gairdner wrote an essay on ‘The Historical Element in Shakespeare's Falstaff’ Since then many have ventured to gather where lie has strawed; only last year, for example, the public were presented with ‘The Case of Sir John Fastolf,’ by Mr. Duthie. I mention this instance because Mr. Gairdner himself reviewed the book, and therefore if he had by any chance changed his opinions, there was an opportunity for stating the fact, of which he would doubtless have availed himself. We may consequently assume that the views of the two recognised authorities on Falstaff remain unchanged. The other authority is of course the late Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, who penned a monograph on this subject.

The audience which assembles in this room on occasions similar to the present is, most frequently, I suppose, addressed with reference to some section or phase of the subject-matter of history. As a rule, results of historical study and investigation, whether it be of a period or of a particular series of events, or of the policy or character of some statesman or famous person, or of some political movement, or the like, are laid before you. This afternoon your attention is asked while I endeavour to speak on something different, having to do with the subject-matter of history undoubtedly, but rather from the outside than the inside. I am to speak, that is to say, of certain machinery by the operation of which the crude material or pabulum of the historical student and investigator is brought to ‘market overt,’ there to be bought, I may add in passing, at a ridiculously cheap price, being sold, as all the world may note, according to a strictly mechanical method of appreciation, at the price, namely, of about threepence for each section of 64 octavo pages. This generous dealing with the public is due to a resolution of the House of Commons, passed, I am informed, about the year 1832, the members at that time being persuaded that their constituents were thirsting to purchase Blue-books if only their means permitted, and bemg greatly concerned therefore that a sufficient number of copies of all parliamentary papers should be printed so as to allow this eager desire for this form of literature to be gratified at the cheapest possible rate. And I may explain, once for all, that the Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission are, in form, nothing more nor less than sessional papers, which it is the privilege of members of both Houses of Parliament to receive gratuitously in ever-abounding quantities.

When the Seven Years' War was brought to a close in February 1763, France was too exhausted by a long series of defeats to do otherwise than acquiesce in the terms proposed by England. Those terms would undoubtedly have been harder had Pitt still remained in the Cabinet to direct the negotiations; and Lord Bute and his colleagues incurred much abuse in England for not turning the recent brilliant victories to greater profit. Yet in France, though peace itself was welcome, the terms of the Treaty of Paris were looked upon as a deep national humiliation, and perhaps no one felt this more bitterly than the man who helped to negotiate it, viz. the Duc de Choiseul, for it meant the frustration of the hopes he had founded on the recently renewed Family Compact with Spain. Since his accession to power at the close of the year 1758, Choiseul had laboured with great patience and diplomacy to bring Spain into close union with France; this, after three years, he finally succeeded in doing by the famous Family Compact of August 1761, which was intended to unite the several houses of Bourbon in the closest alliance for mutual defence. In this treaty was a clause specially levelled against England (Article 8), and when that fact became known in this country, the English ministers, who in October 1761 had driven Pitt from office rather than allow him to declare war on Spain, were compelled to do so themselves in the following January 1762. It is well known that the results of that war were everywhere disastrous to Spain and brought fresh losses to France, so that by the autumn of 1762 both countries were earnest in desiring peace, and a treaty was ratified at Paris in February 1763.

The late Miss Mary Bateson examined this ‘Estate Book’ compiled by Henry de Bray of Harlestone, Northamptonshire, and in view of the fact that it was written by a layman of the late thirteenth century she considered that the rarity of such productions might give this compilation a distinct value amongst medieval economic sources.

The subject of this paper is the financial aspect of shipmoney; that is, it attempts to discuss the following questions. How much money was actually levied on the ship-money writs? How was that money spent? How was it assessed and collected? As a form of direct taxation how does ship-money compare with a subsidy? The materials on which it is based are mainly the Audit Office Declared Accounts, the assessments in the Council Register, and the letters of instructions sent with the King's writs by the council to the sheriffs. These letters were substantially the same from year to year, with considerable additions dealing with points which had arisen in the course of the collections.