Errata

Errata

No. 32, I. 7 from bottom of p. 14, for "the abbess of Reading" read "the abbot of Reading."

46. At the end, before "P. 1" insert "Hol."

89, p. 35, I. 6 from bottom, for "rife" read "ripe."

129, 244-5, 256, 709. These letters should have appeared in the previous volume. Rob. Hogan was dead in November 1532. See Vol. V., No. 1598 (20).

737 (15) and 929 (1). Although both these commissions are enrolled on the patent roll of the 25th year, it is clear that they could not have been issued before the year 1534 in pursuance of the Statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19.

156 (at the foot of page 71), "although the duke cares little for her dower," &c. The reading ought to be :— "although the said duke has little hope of her dowry : for she has rents of 9,000 cr. in France from the inheritance of her mother, who was daughter of the count of Boulogne, and expects as much on the death of the duke of Albany, whom her aunt married, and died without issue."

165. The three other signatures are Sampson Thomas, John Parchardes, Recherde Caplyng.

203, 249, 342. It will be seen by g. 196 (38) and 228 i. that these letters must be all of an earlier date.

232. This letter appears to be of the year 1534. See Nos. 680, 898, and 914.

253. This letter must be of a different year, probably 1532. See No. 166 and vol. V., 1588.

265, I. 14, for "two kings" read "Pope and Francis."

291. The marginal date "30 March" ought to have been enclosed in brackets.

341, p. 160, II. 10, 11 below heading. The semicolon after "Capisucciis" should be a comma, and after "Datary" there should be a full stop.

364. This document is, perhaps, more probably of the year 1532. Monday before St. George's day fell in 1532 on the 22nd April, the first day of the new regnal year ; in 1533 it fell on the 21st of April, which would still be 24 Hen. VIII., though the St. George's day following would be of the 25th year.

417 (13), for "Thoreton" read "Thorneton."

417 (17), I. 13, dele comma after "Warre."

417 (25). Although this is enrolled in the 24th year, it really belongs to the 23rd. See the P.S. in vol. V., No. 978 (23).

418 (7). Dele comma after "Northumb.," and read "Vacated" with capital V.

443. This letter is endorsed in a contemporary hand, "Sir Thomas Went worth," but the signature both in this case and in vol. V., No. 1415, appears to be that of lord Wentworth.

628, 629. These letters must be of the year 1534. See the papers relating to Thomas Philips referred to in the note on No. 232. The abbot of Malmesbury's letter catalogued in the year 1532 (vol. V., No. 990) must also belong to the year 1534.

741-2. These two documents ought to have been placed in the latter part of July rather than in the beginning, though neither can be fixed to a day.

767 ii., I. 2, for "datis" read "data."

929 (38), I. 8, for "Rougeton" read "Rongeton."

1128. The MS. is now in the Huth library.

1190. Strike out the marginal references "Cleop. E. V. 286. B.M.," and "Burnet VI. 86." The document printed by Wilkins is only the first two paragraphs of that in Cleop., with some slight verbal variations, and may have been issued soon after the birth of Elizabeth. But the other is certainly of the year 1534.

1280 ii., I. 1, for "Swiss bishops" read "Swiss, bishops."

1368 is wrongly numbered 1366.

1430, p. 573, I. 4, for "kinsman" read "kinswoman."

1431. This letter appears to have been addressed to lord Sands, as the woman Parnell or Peronnelle was in his service. See No. 138.

1510, foot note. For "Chr. Mont" read "Stephen Vaughan."

1528, p. 618, I. 10 from bottom. "Brian Tuke." The name in the original is "Brianturcq." Chapuys seems to have confounded Tuke, whose christian name was Brian, with Sir Francis Brian, who had just returned from Marseilles.

1541 and 1571, foot note †. For "John de Atequa" read "George de Atequa."

1594, I. 11, for "Leic. dioc." read "Linc. dioc."

1603. This document must be before October 1533, as Malett, the King's solicitor, was dead in the beginning of that month.

1643. This letter should have appeared in the last volume, the date being probably in 1531. The queen referred to is Katharine, and "lord Mongew" must be lord Mountjoy, not Montague, as might perhaps be supposed. See vol. V., No. 652, which is also a letter from Creke.

Index, title "Rosimboz." He is styled in the last two indexes "Peter Equitis lord of Rosimboz," because his name is so given in an original document (vol. IV., 6704). The clerk who drew up that indenture had before him the original commission, No. 5889 of the same vol., and fell into the strange mistake of treating Equitis as a surname.