^{page ii note 1} Bristol to Caivert, Jan. 22. S. P. Spain.

^{page iii note 1} Bristol to James I. Jan. 22. S. P. Spain.

^{page iii note 2} In lieu of, i.e. in exchange for. So in the Tempest, Act 1, Sc. 2.

^{page iii note 3} Aston to Conway, Feb. 7. S. P. Spain.

^{page iv note 1} Abstract of Aston's letter. March 29. S. P. Spain.

^{page iv note 2} The jewels presented to the Infanta, and now returned. Bristol was obliged, as he afterwards complained, to cross the sea without any protection.

^{page iv note 3} Bristol to Cottington, April 15, 1624. Harl. MSS. 1580, fol. 138.

^{page v note 1} Bristol's answer. State Trials, ii. 1129 ; confirmed by Pembroke (ii. 1298), and to a great extent admitted by Buckingham (ii. 1298.)

^{page v note 2} S. P. Dom. clxiii. 43.

^{page v note 3} Rushworth (i. 145) erroneously sends Bristol at once to the Tower, having in his mind the Earl's later imprisonment in 1626.

^{page vi note 1} S. P. Dom. clxiv. 13.

^{page vi note 2} S. P. Dom. clxiv. 33.

^{page vi note 3} S. P. Dom. clxiv. 44.

^{page vi note 4} S. P. Dom. clxiv., 68.

^{page vi note 5} S. P. Dom. clxiv. 71.

^{page vii note 1} Nethersole to Carleton, May 15. S. P. Dom. clxiv. 86.

^{page vii note 2} State Trials, ii. 1296.

^{page viii note 1} Sherborne MSS.

^{page viii note 2} So writes Nethersole to Carleton, June 7. S. P. Dom. clxvii. 28.

^{page viii note 3} Bristol was not only ready but willing, as appears from his letter to Conway of July 15, to let the subject drop altogether, neither party saying anything more about the matter.

^{page ix note 1} Bristol to Cottington, June 1, Sherhorne MSS.

^{page x note 1} Ellis, Orig. Letters, Ser. i. vol. iii. 167. The date can be approximately fixed by the mention of Buckingham's illness.

^{page x note 2} Dudley Carleton to Sir D. Carleton, June 7. S. P. Dom. clxvii. 26.

^{page x note 3} Only the minute of this letter has been preserved. Conway's Letter Book, S. P. Dom. p. 126.

^{page xi note 1} Nethersole to Carleton, June 7. S. P. Dom. clxvii. 28.

^{page xi note 2} Calvert and Weston to Conway, June 8. S. P. Dom. clxvii. 37.

^{page xi note 3} Conway to Calvert and Weston, June 9. S. P. Dom. clxvii. 38.

^{page xi note 4} State Trials, ii. 1291.

^{page xi note 5} The limiting clause of the letter in question is, “In the meane tyme, because his Majesty knowes not the extreamity of your noble mother's sicknes, nor what comfort may be denied to you both bye restraint of visiting her, his Majesty hath commanded me to signifie his pleasure to you (his Majesty conceiving that your mother lies in London or Westminster, or neare there,) that you visitt your mother with this caution and advice, that in time and manner you use it as privately as conveniently you may.” Conway to Bristol, June 24. S. P. Dom. clxviii. 32.

^{page xii note 1} The 10th is the date of an abstract signed by Bristol himself. (S. P. Dom. clxix. 46.) Mrs. Green dates this, as well as the answers themselves, July 11, having perhaps some evidence that they were sent in on that day.

^{page xii note 2} Bristol to Conway, July 15. S. P. Dom. clxx. 6.

^{page xii note 3} “and,” MSS.

^{page xii note 4} Charge against Conway, Art. 6, State Trials, ii. 1291.

^{page xii note 5} State Trials, ii. 1296.

^{page xii note 6} See, however, Bristol's letter to Conway of the 27th at p. xv. where he complains that James had only read the abstract.

^{page xiii note 1} Bristol to Conway, July 25. Sherborne MSS.

^{page xiii note 2} Minute. Conway's Letter Book, p. 138. S.JP. Dom.

^{page xiv note 1} State Trials, ii. 1296.

^{page xiv note 2} Cottington to Bristol, July 22. Sherborne MSS.

^{page xiv note 3} Minute. Conway's Letter Book, p. 138.

^{page xiv note 4} State Trials, ii. 1296.

^{page xiv note 5} Bristol to Conway, July 27. S, P. Dom. clxx. 68.

^{page xvi note 1} Mrs. Green has calendared under July ? a paper of notes in Conway's hand (S. P. Dom. clxx. 69) which is in reality a rough draft of a paper sent Feb. 2, 1625, properly calendared under that date. S. P. Dom. clxxxiii. 13.

^{page xvi note 2} Sherborne MSS.

^{page xvii note 1} Clerke's presence must have been particularly irritating to Bristol, he having been the instrument used to put a trick on him after the Prince's departure from Madrid.

^{page xvii note 2} Bristol to Conway, September 23. S. P. Dom. clxxii. 50.

^{page xviii note 1} Bristol to Conway, Oct. 26. S. P. Dom. clxxiii. 98.

^{page xviii note 2} Minute of Conway's letter, Nov. 4. Conway's Letter-Book, p. 164. S. P, Dom.

^{page xviii note 3} Bristol to Buckingham, Jan. 13,1625. Sherborne MSS.

^{page xviii note 4} Bristol to James I., Jan. 13, 1625. S. P. Dom. clxxxi. 54.

^{page xix note 1} S. P. Dom. Charles I. xviii. 34, i.

^{page xix note 2} S. P. Dom. clxxxiii. 13.

^{page xx note 1} The five propositions are omitted here, as being inserted in the text of No. II.

^{page xx note 2} Bristol to Buckingham, February 8, 1625. Sherborne MSS.

^{page xxi note 1} S. P. Dom. Charles I. xviii. 34, i.

^{page xxi note 2} Bristol to Buckingham, Feb. 27, 1625. Harl. MSS. 1580, fol. 146

^{page xxii note 1} On the 26th of February Chamberlain writes (S. P. Dom. clxxxiv. 47):—The Earle of Bristow comes to towne this night, having taken Sir Thomas Watson's lodgings, though the common voyce had assigned him another lodging; but yt is saide now the King will have him shortly reconciled to the Prince and Duke of Buckingham, without any repetition of former matters. On the 22nd of March (S. P. Dom. clxxxiii. 91) Chamberlain again writes:—The Earl of Bristow hath not yet resigyned (i.e. his Vice-Chamberlainship), nor is not to come to towne—whatsoever I heard or wrote—till he be sent for, or till the next term at soonest.

^{page xxi note 2} S. P. Dom. clxxxv. 59, ii.

^{page xxi note 3} Bristol to Sir K. Digby, March 16, 1625. S. P. Dom. clxxxv. 59.

^{page xxi note 4} Bristol to Buckingham, March 16, 1625. S. P. Dom. clxxxv. 59 i.

^{page xxiv note 1} State Trials, ii. 1297.

^{page xxv note 1} Bristol to Charles I. Bristol to Buckingham. Undated Sherborne MSS.

^{page xxv note 2} State Trials, ii. 1297.

^{page xxv note 3} S. P. Dom. Charles I. xviii. 34, i.

^{page xxv note 4} Bristol to Sir K. Digby, May 27, 1625. Add. MSS. 9806, fol. 1.

^{page xxvi note 1} The Earl of Pembroke.

^{page xxvii note 1} i.e. feeling for.

^{page xxviii note 1} Charles I. to Bristol, June 10, 1625. S. P. Dom. Charles I. xviii. 34, i.

^{page xxviii note 2} Bristol to Buckingham, July 17, 1625. S. P. Dom. iv. 69.

^{page xxix note 1} State Trials, ii. 1297.

^{page xxix note 2} S.P. Dom. xviii. 34.

^{page xxix note 3} The King's letter of June 10, at p. xxviii., was sent to Beecher by Conway on the 11th. See Conway's Minute Book, p. 218.

^{page xxx note 1} See Bristol's next letter, p. xxxi.

^{page xxx note 2} Charles I. to Bristol, January 20, 1626. S. P. Dom. xviii. 106.

^{page xxx note 3} Bristol to Conway, February 6, 1626. Harl. MSS. 1580, fol. 143.

^{page xxxi note 1} “humiation,” MS.

^{page xxxi note 2} i.e. “one.”

^{page xxxi note 3} Bristol to Conway, March 4, 1626. Harl. MSS. 1580, fol. 148.

^{page xxxiii note 1} Conway to Bristol, March 21, 1626. S. P. Dom. xxiii. 46. Printed in Rushworth, i. 234.

^{page xxxiii note 2} The words in brackets are from Rushworth, the remainder is a copy in the handwriting of Conway's secretary.

^{page xxxiii note 3} Bristol to Conway, March 30. S. P. Dom. xxiii. 102. Printed in Rushworth, i. 234.

^{page xxxiv note 1} The words in italics are underlined in the MS., which is the original letter with autograph signature.

^{page xxxv note 1} See p. xv.

^{page xxxv note 2} Lord Keeper Coventry to Bristol, March 31,1626. Printed in Rushworth, i. 238.

^{page xxxvi note 1} Bristol to Lord Keeper Coventry, April 12, 1626. Printed in Rushworth, i. 238.

^{page xxxvi note 2} So the name stands in Rushworth; but the next letter shows that Cottington's should be substituted for it.

^{page xxxvii note 1} Bristol to Gonway, April 12, 1626. S. P. Dom. xxiv. 68.

^{page xxxvii note 2} See p. xxiv. The letters themselves have not been preserved.

page xxxvix Errata: p. 9, note¹, for “Properly, at that time, Lord Keeper,” read “Properly, at the time of the first appointment of the Commission, Attorney-General.”

^{page xxxvix note} P. 21, last line, dele “

^{page 3 note 1} Archbishop Abbot.

^{page 3 note 2} Bishop Montague.

^{page 5 note 1} By beating Scioppius.

^{page 8 note 1} At that time Viscount Fenton.

^{page 9 note 1} Properly, at that time, Lord Keeper.

^{page 9 note 2} Then Viscount Fenton.

^{page 9 note 3} Then Sir John Digby.

^{page 10 note 1} Then Sir John Dighy.

^{page 11 note 1} This paper is printed in the State Trials (ii. 1408) with some verbal difference, and the omission of one clause—“ and whereby your Highnes issue will have the most undoubted and unquestionable royal blood.”

^{page 13 note 1} Blank in MS. Perhaps the name of the sender had been here inserted in the original.

^{page 15 note 1} Viscount Mandeville.

^{page 15 note 2} John Williams, Bishop of Lincoln.

^{page 15 note 3} Sir Richard Weston.

^{page 15 note 4} Diego de la Fuente, Gondomar's confessor.

^{page 15 note 5} In 1618.

^{page 15 note 6} In 1620.

^{page 15 note 7} Of ducats; they were to be of twelve reals or 6s. each, the whole sum being £150,000.

^{page 16 note 1} In 1621.

^{page 17 note 1} Baltazar de Zuniga, uncle of Olivares.

^{page 24 note 1} Sentence left unfinished in MS.

^{page 27 note 1} Blank in MS.

^{page 29 note 1} Buckingham.

¹ 1625, N.S. The heading only and a few interlineations are in Bristol's own hand.

^{page 30 note 2} “I imploye” MS.

^{page 39 note 1} Marginal note, “A new section.”

^{page 39 note 2} Mannheim and Frankenthal.

^{page 42 note 1} The other was a scheme for a joint attack upon the Dutch.

^{page 45 note 1} “infancy“ in MS.

^{page 45 note 2} That Bristol did not use these words with respect to the young Prince's change of religion is shown, I think, by a paper calendared by Mrs. Green (S. P. Dom. clxxx. 102) as “Points on which the Earl of Bristol's proceedings were examined.” In reality there is no evidence that Bristol was ever examined upon them at all. It consists of notes, drawn up by some one who had been in Spain, of Bristol's conduct, and the language is such as to leave no doubt in my mind that it proceeded from Buckingham himself. If this is the case, the following extract shows that Buckingham, at some time or other, gave an account of the conversation substantially agreeing with that now given by Bristol, as he represented the conversion of the Prince not as having been mentioned by Bristol, but merely as a consequence drawn in his own mind from Bristol's language about the boy's education:—” That when they began to presse new conditions upon us, as the breedinge of the King's grandchild in the Emperour's Courte, which implyed a conversion, hee liked of it, and, when the Prince said he had rather breake the match then satisfye them in that pointe, he answered that, without some snch greate matter, the busines would never be brought to passe.”