^{Page 1 note 1} Neither this letter, nor any reply from Henry are amongst the Lettrea Missives de Henri IV.

^{Page 1 note 2} At Aberdeen, July 2, 1605 (Calderwood, vi. 279), when John Forbes was chosen Moderator, for which he was, with five other members, banished in November 1606. (Calderwood, vi. 590.)

^{Page 3 note 1} The date is given in the King of France's answer of June (Lettres Missives da Henri 1V. vii. 731), as May 15, most probably O. S., as it would be in the letter itself. The notices in La Boderie's despatches, on the whole, favour this conclusion. On he writes (Ambassades, iv. 315) that he had sent a copy of the book, the second edition of the Apologia pro juramento fidelitatis, but that it “aussitôt qu'il eut va le jour fut renfermé,” in order to receive further corrections. On May (Amb. iv. 323) he says that it had not yet been sent back to the printer, which makes it unlikely that the letter to the King of France should have been written on the following day, which it must have been if the 15th N. S. is meant by Henry in his answer. On the La Bodcrie writes that the book was just ready to appear, and would be presented to the Princes to whom it was addressed by the Knglish ambassadors at their courts. Some days before he had had a conversation with Salisbury, who had inquired whether the King of France would receive the copy and read it. To this the Frenchman had replied that his master would doubtless receive it, but that he would not answer for his reading it. The letter above was no doubt written shortly after this interview.

^{Page 5 note 1} Mosleroit. MS.

^{Page 5 note 2} “et.” MS.

^{Page 6 note 1} Henry's reply to this letter, dated June , is printed in the Lettres Missives de Henri IV. vii. 731. “Je suis marry” writes the King, after announcing his reception of the book, “qu'il ayt fallu que vous ayés pris ceste peinc, car je n'ay pas opinion que vons en retairés la consolation et les advantages que vous en esperés. Veritablement les actions des Roys sout snbjectes à detraction commc les aultres, et quelques fois plus que celles des moindres, d'autant qu'elles importent et attonchent à plus de gens, et servent souvent de regie comme d'exemple à leurs subjects; e'est pourquoy elles ne penvent estre trop justes ny trop eclaircies et justifées entre les hommes. Neantmoins comme l'envie et la calomnie ont, en ce sièclc depravé, plus de rogue souvent et d'authenticité que la verité mesme, il est perilleux de soubsmettre an jugement public ce dont I'on n'est responsable qu'à Dien seul et à sa conscience ; et une trop curiease justification aussy engendre souvent des effects contraires à nostre expectation. Mais celuy qui en tel cas s'est contenté soy mesme a obtenu la meilleure partie de son desir. Je vcux eroire qu'il vous en est ainsy advenu, de façon que je ne vous en diray davantage ; mais vous prieray tousjours d'attendre de la continuation de mon amitié fraternelle tous vrays et sicceres effects.”

^{Page 6 note 2} This correspondence was opened by the following letter (S. P. Dom. lxxi. 35) written to Foulis, as Cofferer to Prince Henry, on the 14th of November, 1612:—

“Sir,—Althoughe I have had heretofore a sufficiente taste of your reddines in doeinge many good offices for inee, whereby I houlde my selfe obliged unto you verry muche, yet I have beene since advertised by some letters from Mr. Yates, of the increase of your extraordinary good respecte unto mee, which nowe at his cominge to Florence hee hath soe fully confirmed (affirminge you to bee a principal! agento in the speedic effectinge of my busmes with the Prince my master)," i.e. the sale of his estate at Kenilworth, afterwards transferred to Prince Charles. "I cannot devise howe to give fittc correspondency to this your exceedingc lovinge kindnes towardes mee; seeinge therefore that I neede not doubte of your constante perseverance therein, I will not bee dainty to make you a partie to my dessignes. I have sentc unto his Highncs a litle treatise muche importinge his ownc security and proffitte, the coppie whereof I have herewith sente unto you, that you may the better instruct your selfe to incurrage his Highnes to undertake a matter of that consequence for his owne safety and pcrpetuall good. It eannott bee uuknowne to you that I have given his Highnes my estate of Killingworthe for a smalle matter, consideringe the worthe thereof. I have onely reserved the conistableshippe of the eastle, tliat I may have somme commands there under his Highnes, whensoever I shall happen to comme into Englande ; and allsoe that he will protecte mee (and that but justly,) in the sale of Etchington and Balsall, that I mighte setle my estate, to bee the better able to doe his Highnes service ; for withoute the sale thereof I shal bee in farre worse case then I was before. I have given warrante to Mr. Yates to undergoe all my businesses whatsoever in my behalfe, in my absence ; and hee hath soe confirmed mee in the assurance of your forwarde and readie assistance uppon all occasions, that I neede not any more solicite you therein ; but hee cann likewise assure you that, uppon the sale of those landes, I have proportioned a thankefiill gratuity for you, as a testimony of my exceedinge love and thankfullnes gratuity for you as a testimony of my exceedinge love and thankfullnes unto you.“

The treatise which follows is composed of two parts, the first showing ”the greate importance for soe greate a Prince as your Highnes, to bee master of the seas ;” the second, explaining the construction of the Gallizabra.

Again, in January 1G14, we have a letter (S. P. Dom. Ixxvi. 1G) written by Sir R. Dudley to a friend in London ; perhaps, to Mr. Yates, not, as suggested by Mrs. Green, to Sir D. Foulis, who is referred to as a third person, speaking of a new kind of vessel which he had invented, and had called a connter-galliass, and which seems to be the same as the Gallerata in the text.

In May 1014, probably on the same day as the letter to Foulis, Dudley wrote (S. P. Dom. Ixxvii. 16) to Somerset, commending the matter to his attention.

^{Page 8 note 1} His agent in England.

^{Page 10 note 2} Oustails.

^{Page 11 note 1} On the 15th of July Dudley wrote again toFoulis (S. P.Dom. lxxvii. 65) to press the adoption of his project. “I thought it not amisse,” he says, “at this preascnt to lvrittc you a woide of some importaunte matter for his Ma^thes good, uppon the occasion of the thawartnes I understande of late the purlemeut useth towards him, neatlier consenting to snch subsedies accustomed or necessarie, but rather with much presumtion standing uppon worser termes ; and I eonscaving to under stande something these Datura, I doubte in time may growe to a bad obstinancie, especially understanding there malice much pretendeth agaynst the Scotish nation to whome I have bene particularly beholding, maketh mee ought of gratitude wright this, which for a time 1 had thought to have prolonged; neather would I doe it to anye ther but yourselfe, knowing your fidclytie to the Kinge, and worth. Having longe suspected some mischeafes I see creaping one, I kepte in store a certeyne disseene of mine, which followed in Englande by his Ma^tie I knowe may make him secure agaynst all these rubbs, for his profit, and make him safe to doe what he please with his owne, as an absolute monarche as he is, withought dangerous resistance, and as free from the possibilitie of foren invasions, if anie should eaver he attembted, and kepe the bridel in his owne hande, so stronge [?] and ncaver Kinge had a greater in those parts; nay, I doubte not, by the same means I knowe he may increase his revenew to a much greater valewe, I hope duble, and I make noe question withought discontent of his poepel, and not to bo vexed with the varietie of so manie men's minde[s] as the Parlamente afford[s].”

The scheme is to be unfolded if the King will give a commission to some Scottish gentleman to come to Florence to hear it, for he ”will trust noe English” with his ”design.”

On the 12th of September Somerset wrote (S. P. Dom. Ixxvii. 84) in reply, “If the offer made in your letters prove answearable [to] that you promise, I shalbe ready to employ myself to procure you such favour and-reward as shall be sutable to the service as, uppon the returne of this messenger and his Ma^ties satisfaction by his report of the businesse, you shall more particularly understand.”

The scheme thus presented for James' acceptance must have been that which subsequently acquired notoriety by the Star Chamber prosecution of Sir R. Cotton in 1629, for having it in his possession. It is printed in Rushivorth, vol. i. App. p. 12, and a full account of the affair will be found in the Biographia Britannica, ed. Kippis, Art. Sir R. Cotton. Note ***. The date, however, there given of 1613 is shown to be wrong by the extracts here printed ; and the idea was evidently one which sprung from the events of 1614. Sir Robert Cotton, no doubt, got the paper into his hands from Somerset, with whom he was closely connected. It is to be noticed that the treatise about the Gallizabra forwarded to Prince Henry (p. 6, note 2) appears from its indorsement to have been laid before Charles I. on the 1st of January, 1630. The King was then reminded of Dudley's inventions in naval architecture by the affair of Sir R. Cotton's prosecution, and wished to refresh his memory.

^{Page 13 note 1} The borders.

^{Page 13 note 2} The Countess of Essex.

^{Page 16 note 1} An extract from this letter commencing here, “Some nine years since” down to “die then fcele,” with some verbal differences, is calendered by Mrs. Green, next to a letter on the same subject of Sept. 6, under the date of Sept. ? (S. P. Dom. lxxyiii. 74), there being nothing in the paper itself to fix the exact date.

^{Page 18 note 1} IIe obtained the permission which he desired, and returned to England in the following summer. Chamberlain to Carleton, July 19, 1617, S. P. Pom. xeii. 96.

^{Page 18 note 2} Doewra was Treasurer at Wars in Ireland July 19, 1616, at which time Sir Arthur Savage became Vicc-Trrasurer of Ireland and Receiver-General. Sir Thomas Ridgway had previously held the two offices in combination.

^{Page 20 note 1} On the plan for obtaining the co-operation of Spain against the Barbary pirates.

^{Page 20 note 2} For Spain.

^{Page 21 note 1} The citizens of Waterford had for some time elected magistrates who refused the oath of supremacy, and the seizure of their charter was now in contemplation.

^{Page 21 note 2} The King, attended by Buckingham, was then in Scotland.

^{Page 22 note 1} A charge of this kind against Bacon deserves investigation. From the Chancery Order Books it appears that a suit had been instituted against Lord Arundell, nominally by the Earl of Worcester, but in fact by Thomas Arundell, the eldest son of Lord Arundell, and the husband of Worcester's daughter. It related to certain lands settled by Lord Arundell's father, which, as the young man contended, could not be alienated before they came into his bauds. On the 11th of February 1615 Ellesmere (Order Book;, 1614 A. fol. 740) directed Lord Arundell to pay his son an annuity of £000 a-year for his maintenance, and on the 20th of November 1616 he finally dismissed the suit (Order Book, 1616 A. fol. 233) on the ground that be could not come to a decision where the evidence was so uncertain. At the same time he expressed a strong opinion that the case was one for arbitration, and that it ought not to come into Court.

This decision Lord A ran dell took as implying a revocation of the order of February 1615, and accordingly omitted at Lady Day 1017 to pay the half-yearly instalment of his sou's annuity. Thomas Arundell at once filed a bill against his father, reopening !he whole question of the right to alienate the lands, and specially demanding the payment of his annuity. Bacon, who had now succeeded Ellesmere, recommended Lord Arundell on the 1st of July 1617 (Order Book, l516 A. fol. 1129) to pay the annuity, but reserved his decision on the main question, and a few days later, made the following order (Order Book, 1616 A. fol. 1006), which is the one complained of by Lord Arundell: —

”Sttblmti 12” die Julii [1617].

Fynch deing of' the pit councell, that the def^t by order of the first of this present July was wished and advized to continewe the payment of the anuetye of 600¹¹ to the plt,, and allso to pay the average thereof, beinge 300¹¹ due at our Lady Day last, or to shewe unto his lo^pp good cause to the contrary before the end of the last terme, but hee bath shewed noe such cause; wherefore, and because the pit” occasions are urgent and wanting meanes to support his chardge, it was desired, on the plt^s behaulf, that the deft might be ordered forthwith to pay the 300¹¹ due at our Lady Day last, and allso to pay 300¹¹ at Mich^as next, and soe to contynnewe the payment of the said anuity every half yeare as the same shall from henceforth growe due. Anil forasmuch as the def hath spent all the last terme in delayes; and nowe the very last day of the terme hath putt in a demurrer to the pit⁶ Bill, upon noe other ground but because the suit was formerly dismissed, the Lord Privy Seale being pi^t in the former suite; nowe the same is preferred onely by and in the name of the nowe pl^t ; which demurrer his lo^pp will take into consideration, and give such order and direccion therein as shalbee mecte. And whereas Mr. S^rt Fynch of councell with the said def^t alleadged that the saidc pl^t is satisfied his anuity to a penny, that should accrewe at our Lady Day last, by reason the def^t had satisfied his sonne to supply his wantes one half yeares anuity before hand, which whether yt were receaved before hand, or for presents maintenance then, as was nowe alleadged by the pl^ts councell, was overruled in the former suite, and the def^t adjudged to pay the same half yeares anuitye which hoe pretended was paied before hand, as by the said order of the 11th of February 12^mo Jacobi Rs. appcareth, and therefore his Lo^pp thought fytt, this beinge for the sustentucion and liefe of the deft⁸ owne childe, that the def should pare whatsoever of the saide anuity is in arrere, and for direccion therein his Lo^pp wilbee guided by the said former order of the 11^the of February ; and doeth nowe order that the def shall upon notice or sight of this order forthwith pay unto the pl^t the 300¹¹ due at our Lady Day last, and at Mich^as next 300¹¹ more, and two coutynewe the payment of the said anuity of 600^li accordinge to the said order of the 11^th of February, and the direccion thereof.”

Against this Lord Arundell complained to Buckingham, timing his letter exceedingly well, as it was written just when every one supposed Bacon to be in deep disgrace on account, of the part which he had taken about Sir John Villiers' marriage.

It is evident that it is untrue that Bacon reopened a case decided by his predecessor, Ellesmere having refused to decide it at all. As far as the annuity went he maintained his ground. On the 8th of November (Order Book, 1617 A. fol. 153) he peremptorily ordered it to be paid, adding, however, that he “thought not fytt now to heare or consider of the demurrer as touchinge the bodie of the cause.” Of any further proceedings I can find no trace. Possibly Arundell and his Bon were induced to submit to that arbitration which Ellesmere recommended. At all events, if Bacon used his influence to keep the dispute out of court, be was only carrying out his predecessor's wishes. Lord Arundell's charge appears to have been entirely without foundation.

^{Page 24 note 1} The recovery of this letter fills up the missing link in the correspondence on the subject of the office of Custos Rotulorum, which is printed in the Stratford Letters. In his Life of Strafford (p. 199) Mr. Forster expressed his regret at its loss.

^{Page 25 note 1} Savile-to Ellesmere. Dec. 6, 1615, Strafford Letters, 3.

^{Page 27 note 1} Buckingham's answer closes the correspondence, Sept, 23, 1617, Strafford Letters, 4.

^{Page 28 note 1} The writer of this letter was the third son of the Sir John Savile whose restoration to office was in question ; Sir John Savile was created in 1628 Lord Savile of Pontefract, in which title he was succeeded, in 1630, by this his then eldest surviving son Thomas.

^{Page 29 note 1} The Commissioners for the Spanish business.

^{Page 29 note 2} If this, as is most probable, refers to the marriage, it shows that, in Digby's opinion, the approbation of the Commissioners to whom it had been referred was no indication of their real opinions, and also that Digby had, at this time, expressed himself in favour of tlie marriage.

^{Page 30 note 1} The agent for the Archdukes. The passage refers to a libellous book Corona Regia, which had been printed in the Low Countries.

^{Page 30 note 2} In his letter to the Council of November 21 (Cabala, ed. 1691, p. 337), the King writes, “Ye know what task T gave you to work upon during my absence.” We have here a glimpse of the first steps in the economical reforms of the succeeding year.

^{Page 30 note 3} “finde,” MS.

^{Page 31 note 1} Master of the Wardrobe.

^{Page 31 note 2} The Earl of Pembroke.

^{Page 31 note 3} Pietro Contarini.

^{Page 31 note 4} Ambassador at Venice.

^{Page 32 note 1} Sir Thomas Edmondes, who had been, for many years, ambassador in France. He was now recalled and had arrived in London on the 11th. On the day on which this letter was written, he set out for the Court at Newmarket. Chumberlain to Carleton, November 15. S. P. Dom. xciv. 30.

^{Page 32 note 2} Articles to serve as a basis of peace between Venice and the Archduke Ferdinand, dinand, and also between Spanyne and Savoy, were signed at Paris .The latter combatants signed the final treaty at Pavia the former did not come to terms till 1618. It was, no doubt, in consequence of this delay that the Venetians appealed to James.

^{Page 33 note 1} Qy. when.

^{Page 33 note 2} Sir T. Edmondes.

^{Page 34 note 1} The King visited Sir Richard's at Hoghton Tower in Lancashire, on the 15th of August. Assheton writes in his diary (Nichols' Progresses, iii. 390), under the date of Aug. 16, “About fonr o'clock the King went downe to the allomc-mynes, and was ther an hower, viewed them preciselie, and then went and shott at a stagg, and missed.”

^{Page 35 note 1} Agent at Brussels.

^{Page 35 note 2} Lord Roos, grandson and heir of the Earl of Exeter, and son-in-law of Sir Thomas Lake.

^{Page 36 note 1} He had been recalled and had taken leave in June, but had been directed to remain at Brussels till further orders. He subsequently continued however at his post as agent for many years.

^{Page 37 note 1} Almost entirely obliterated by damp.

^{Page 37 note 2} Her second child Charles Louis, who succeeded his father in the Electorate. The term “black baby” ? = “black doll” was applied by Elizabeth also to her eldest child. See Mrs. Green's Princesses, v. 278.

^{Page 38 note 1} Lord Wotton resigned the Treasurer-ship of the Household, and was succeeded hy Sir T. Edmondes, Feb. 1, 1618. The Comptrollership thus vacated was given to Sir Henry Carey, afterwards the first Lord Falkland. Lord Wotton is spoken of hy Gondomar as being secretly a Roman Catholic.

^{Page 38 note 2} When removed from the Trcasurership of the Household to the Mastership of the Wards.

^{Page 39 note 1} The Earl of Suffolk.

^{Page 39 note 2} Sir Fulk Greville.

^{Page 39 note 3} See pp. 31 and 32, Note².

^{Page 40 note 1} Sir Robert Naunton, who had been just made Secretary.

^{Page 40 note 2} Bailey.

^{Page 40 note 3} The Earl of Nottingham.

^{Page 41 note 1} Paper torn.

^{Page 42 note 1} Sir Thomas Parry. He was succeeded by Sir Humphrey May.

^{Page 43 note 1} Of the Treasurership of the Household.

^{Page 43 note 2} Lady Roos.

^{Page 43 note 3} Does this mean Lord Roos?

^{Page 44 note 1} Of his negotiation in Spam for the marriage.

^{Page 45 note 1} See, on this projected visit to England, Mrs. Green's Princesses, v. 286.

^{Page 45 note 2} I take the date from the following extract. “Sir H. May is to bee Chancellor of the Duchye, but not Counsellor. Ben Rudyerd is to be Survayer of the Court of Wards, and Mr. Packer is to have 300¹¹ a yeare pension, which Sir Hum. May held in the Exchequer. It was thus agreed when the King came from Newmarket, but my Lord of Buckingham, being angry with Sir H. May, hath thus long kept it backe from bestowing, to lett him knowe that only for my Lord Hamilton's and the Lord Chamberlaynes sake, and to advance Mr. Rudyerd, he hath yeilded to him. The offence was that Humphrey May, to make sure of this place, had written to Mr. Parker that he wold resigne the Survayorship of the Court of “Wards, and hys pension also to him, if he cold bring my Lord of Buckingham to advance him to the Chancellorship. He also acquaints Ben Rudyerd, that if he wold engage hys frends for his remove to that place, he wold give over the Survayorskip to him; which made him allso use hys frendes, so that, Ly they re importunacy on both sides, he assurd himselfe he cold not misse, which he doth not; but yett the Marques made offended with him.” Gerrard to Carleton, March 6, 1818. S. V. Dora. xcvi. 48.

^{Page 46 note 1} Paper torn ; the lacunæ; filled up by conjecture.

^{Page 47 note 1} The words in italics were no doubt omitted in the fair copy, and the following paragraph substituted.

^{Page 48 note 1} “Sir Humphrie May,” wroteChamberlainonthe7thof March (S.P. Dom. xcvi.50), “hath outstript hia competitors and carried away the Chauncellorship of the Duchie, though yt he rnuche maymed by the renting of a speciall member, for the Lady Compton or Villers hath got a lease, and is in possession of the house belonging to yt at the Savoy.”

^{Page 48 note 2} This place, taken by Don Pedro de Toledo from the Duke of Savoy, in July 1617, was to be restored by the treaty signed at Pavia in Don Pedro had however delayed carrying out his part of the bargain till now.

^{Page 50 note 1} See a reference to this lady's case in a consulta by Aliaga and Gondomar, of which extracts are printed in the Appendix to Francisco de Jesus, 311.

^{Page 52 note 1} As President of the Council of the North.

^{Page 54 note 1} According to Dugdale, Lord Sheffield's second and last wife was Mariana, daughter of Sir William Erwin, so that this stroke for a fortune came to nothing.

^{Page 55 note 1} Half of the fly-leaf, on which Buckingham's answer was no doubt written, has been torn off.

^{Page 56 note 1} From the Mastership of the Wards. lie was a son-in-law of Suffolk, and his wife had taken part in the attempt of the Howards to overthrow Buckingham.

^{Page 57 note 1} This is a reply to the letter of October 18, from the Commissioners to the King, printed in Bacon's Works, ed. Montagu, xii. 331.

^{Page 58 note 1} The words in brackets are added as an interlineation.

^{Page 58 note 2} Here follows, erased by a penstroke, “without drawing them into the crime.” That which was not to be mentioned was, doubtless, the intrigue with the Admiral of France for permission to return to a Trench port.

^{Page 58 note 3} This shows that the King's impression of the full evidence was that the proposal to attack the Spanish fleet was made before, and not after, the failure at the mine.

^{Page 58 note 4} ”when” is substituted for “bef.” i.e. before.

^{Page 58 note 5} ”Our” is substituted for “his Ma^tics,” erased.

^{Page 58 note 6} This letter not only shows what was the nature of Raleigh's trial before the Commissioners, of which all we know is taken from Sir Julius Cesar's notes printed in the Camden Miscellany, vol. iii., but it fixes approximatively the date of that paper, which I had, as Mr. Spedding has kindly pointed out to me, assigned to the 17th of August, on altogether insufficient grounds. The trial must evidently have taken place soon after the writing of this letter on the 20th of October. Mr. Spedding has also noticed the following errata in Sir J. Cesar's notes, as printed by me : p. 10,1. 14, dele “King ;” p. 11, 1. 23, for “looked” l. “tooke a ;” p. 12,1. 6, for “fait” l “fact;” 1. 9, for “had bee” l. “hee had;” p. 13, 1. 1, after “deceaved” insert “him;” 1. 4, for “confesseth” l. “confessed;” 1. 6, before “July” insert “12;” before “counsell” insert “in the.”

^{Page 61 note 1} Treasurer of the Navy.

^{Page 61 note 2} The permanent Navy Commission.

^{Page 63 note 1} Anne, daughter of Sir Richard Dyer, Knight, of Staughton, co. Huntingdon, second wife of Sir Edward Carr, Baronet, of Sleaford, co. Lincoln.

^{Page 63 note 2} A Dutchman in the service of the King, who had been arrested in Holland on a charge of an intrigue with the Archdukes. See Carleton Letters, 327–385, passim.

^{Page 64 note 1} The words in italics are underlined in the MS.

^{Page 65 note 1} Interpreter, i.e. the messenger who carried the messages between us.

^{Page 66 note 1} Lord Deputy of Ireland.

^{Page 67 note 1} Reprinted in Harleian Miscellany, iii. 63.

^{Page 67 note 2} The Declaration of Raleigh's offences.

^{Page 68 note 1} This must mean to the Synod of Dort. If so, there is an error in Camden's Annals, who sends him off on the 27th of December.

^{Page 68 note 2} Come to treat on the disputes in the East Indies.

^{Page 68 note 3} On his return from his post at Turio.

^{Page 68 note 4} Governor of Milan.

^{Page 68 note 5} The New River.

^{Page 68 note 6} Sir Henry Carey.

^{Page 68 note 7} Sir Fulk Greville.

^{Page 69 note 1} Perhaps the name of the postmaster at Newmarket, where the Court was.

^{Page 70 note 1} See No xxxviii.

^{Page 71 note 1} The Government was at this time particularly on the alert with respect to French intrigues, after the discovery of the French agent's attempt to aid Raleigh in escaping.

^{Page 72 note 1} The French agent, who had returned to Franco in consequence of the King's refusal to receive him, after his behaviour in connection with Raleigh's attempted escape.

^{Page 73 note 1} This must refer to some proceedings of the Plymouth Company for colonising what was then called the northern parts of Virginia.

^{Page 73 note 2} Sir Henry Carey.

^{Page 74 note 1} Clerk of the Council.

^{Page 74 note 2} The mission was composed of Commissioners from the States General and Deputies from the Dutch East India Company.

^{Page 74 note 3} James's French plysician.

^{Page 74 note 4} i.e. mauler, smiter as with a mall or hammer. The word is written with a contraction at the end, and looks like mall^o, hut there can he no doubt that it should be mall^r.

^{Page 75 note 1} i.e. few.