^{page i note a} Dumfries remained the adherent of the Archbishops until 1666. See vol. i. p. 244.

^{page ii note a} See Sharp's letter for April 21, vol. i. p. 194.

^{page iv note a} Killed at Pentland.

^{page v note a} May 29th or 30th.

^{page vi note a} Of whom Lauderdale was one.

^{page vii note a} There is no letter answering to this description.

^{page vii note b} Notice Sharpe's letter of the same date.

^{page x note a} He made the journey, however, and, according to Burnet, urged his own claims to the Chancellorship upon Sheldon.

^{page xi note a} This complaint is frequent from both Archbishops.

^{page xii note a} Sharp was more successful in 1665 in the case of the money raised by the fines.—Burnet, p. 214.

^{page xii note b} Rothes.

^{page xiii note a} e. g. Lauderdale.

^{page xiii note b} Tweeddale and Nisbet.

^{page xvi note a} These letters should be read in connection with those of Rothes to Lauderdale in vol. i.

^{page xvii note a} This, repeated more than once, refers, I cannot but think, to Sharp.

^{page xix note a} On this see Reid's History of Presbyterianum in Ireland; also vol. i. p. 235.

^{page xxii note a} Lauderdale.

^{page xxv note a} I can find no accusation of the kind from Burnet. That from Sharp will be found in vol. i. p. 228.

^{page xxvi note a} See Burnet, p. 239. He says that Sharp had instructions regarding this in Middleton's time. There is much in the Lauderdale MSS. regarding it.

^{page xxvi note b} See Burnet, p. 211.

^{page xxvi note c} This is Lauderdale, Burnet, p. 211. See Moray's letter of Sept. 20, 1667, p. 69 of this volume.

^{page xxvii note a} I think this is Athole.

^{page xxvii note b} See how Lauderdale used this against Sharp, in Burnet, vol. i. p. 212.

^{page xxix note a} See Rothes's letter for March, 1666, vol. i. p. 296. There he says, “ther hes bein no gentillmen befor us ffor keepeing conventicles.”

^{page xxix note b} In Keith's Scottish Bishops it is stated that Burnet's writing to Arlington was a chief cause of Lauderdale's enmity to him.

^{page xxix note c} This, with many similar passages, disposes of the statement in Keith that Burnet was the advocate of clemency.

^{page xxx note a} “Apologetical Relation of the Particular Sufferings of the Faithful Ministers and Professors of the Church of Scotland since August 1660.”—Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 7.

^{page xxxi note a} Leighton. See Burnet, p. 212. In consequence of his representations the Church Commission was discontinued.

^{page xxxi note b} Cf. Rothes's letter of April 13, 1665, vol. i. p. 215.

^{page xxxii note a} See footnote to p. 235, vol. i.

^{page xxxii note b} Especially Rothes; see vol. i. p. 237.

^{page xxxii note c} Thus it appeals that Burnet supported Sharp in this suggestion.

^{page xxxiii note a} Andrew Honeyman.

^{page xxxv note a} On May 3, 1666, he writes, “There is small hope of remedie, nnlesse his Ma^tiecan engage his ministers of state to mind their owne interest lesse and his more, which is a piece of self deniall not ordinary here.”

^{page xxxvi note a} See Carte's Ormond. It is interesting as being the occasion where William Penn distinguished himself.

^{page xl note a} See Turner's Memoirs.

^{page xl note b} There was no resistance.

^{page xli note a} It appeared from statements of prisoners to have been premature, and, indeed, accidental.

^{page xlii note a} Cf. Bellenden's account of his behaviour, vol. i. p. 260.

^{page xlii note b} Cf. Sharp's letter of November 17.

^{page xliv note a} See vol. i. pp. 275, 276.

^{page xliv note b} It was now that Lauderdale brought James Sharp to his knees. See vol. i. pp. 274 and following.

^{page xlvi note a} The conciliation policy is intended.

^{page xlvi note b} See footnote^eto p. xxix.

^{page xlvi note c} The army leaders and Rothes, Hamilton, and their adherents.

^{page xlvii note a} i.e. extermination : see vol. i. p. 255. In another letter to Lauderdale of Dec. 29, 1666, Dalyell says, “Without extirpation the moist pairts of this eountray will second this rebelion.” The order forbidding officers to leave their charge until the army was disbanded prevented Dalyell from carrying Burnet's letter.

^{page xlvii note b} Leighton.

^{page l note a} See p. lix. for this letter. There is none to Sheldon, which seems to establish the truth of Burnet's account. For Sharp's gloss upon it see his letter of Nov. 2, p. Ivi.

^{page l note b} Robert Moray's overtures.

^{page li note a} Sheldon's secretary. See next letter.

^{page li note b} Rothes calls him “a breif wurthie honist gentilman.”

^{page li note c} See the letters for this date about Longifacies.

^{page lv note a} Sharp had now “ratted” to Lauderdale. The miserable shifts and evasions to which he had recourse, and in which he seems positively to revel, are admirably seen by a comparison of this letter with those of Moray and Lauderdale at the time (in this volume).

^{page lvi note a} For this characteristic piece of knavery on Sharp's part see Burnet's letter for Sept. 23; see also pp. lix. and lxx. of this volume, and a statement of the whole question in the Preface.

^{page lvi note b} See Burnet's account of this on p. 50.

^{page lxix note a} In 1663. See vol. i.

^{page lx note a} This language should be compared with the numerous passages counselling severity.

^{page lxi note a} Sheldon's regard for Moray was of great service to Lauderdale when his policy, as in the case of the Act of Supremacy, was likely to lead to opposition on the part of the Archbishop.

^{page lxiii note a} See letters lxvii. and following in this volume.

^{page lxiv note a} “Nor was this paper less seditions than the ‘remonstrance,’ nor the Archbishop of Glasgow more innocent than James Guthrie, for both equally designed to debar the King from interposing any way in the affairs of the Church.”—Mackenzie, pp. 157, 158. See Moray's letter, p. 137 in this volume.

^{page lxviii note a} The real reason was, of course, his consistent opposition to the conciliation policy; and the Remonstrance of the Synod of Glasgow gave the opportunity.