[83] Commons’ Journals, May 21, 1604, vol. i, p. 218.
[84] 13 Eliz., c. 8, repealing 5 and 6 Ed. VI, c. 20; D’Ewes, Journals, pp. 171-4.
[85] Owen and Blakeway, History of Shrewsbury, 1825, vol. ii, pp. 364 n., 412.
[86] Hist. MSS. Com., Report on MSS. in various Collections, vol. i, 1901, p. 46 (MSS. of Corporation of Burford).
[87] Wilson, op. cit. (see note 55 above), p. 233.
[88] Coke, Institutes, pt. ii, 1797, pp. 601 seqq. (Certain articles of abuses which are desired to be reformed in granting of prohibitions, exhibited by Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury.)
[89] Thomas Ridley, A View of the Civile and Ecclesiastical Law, and wherein the Practice of them is streitened and may be relieved within this Land, 1607, Dedication, p. 3.
[90] W. Huntley, A Breviate of the Prelates’ intolerable Usurpation, 1637, pp. 183-4. The case referred to is that of Hinde, alleged to have been heard Mich. 18 and 19 Eliz. For the controversy over prohibitions, see R. G. Usher, The Rise and Fall of the High Commission, 1913, pp. 180 seqq.
[91] D’Ewes, Journals, pp. 171, 173.
[92] See, e.g., Surtees Society, vol. xxxiv, 1858, The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham, Preface, which shows that between 1626 and 1639 cases of contempt of the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction ran into hundreds.