There are several anomolies in the footnoting. In the original, there is a single footnote 1 in the Preface, and the numbering begins again at the opening of the first chapter. The sequence continues to 99, and then restarts with 1. This is repeated several times. There are also several notes which are denoted only with a traditional asterisk. On occasion, footnotes appear out of order. There is no apparent reason for the dual system, and it seems most likely that the non-numeric references were added later, after the numbering had been completed, and were used to avoid the need to re-sequence work already done.

For this text, all footnotes have been re-sequenced numerically across the whole volume, to assure uniqueness. They will appear in the correct order.

There was a unaccountable gap in the numbering between note 14 (now 317) on p. 304 and note 27 on the following page. That gap has been closed.

The footnote number ‘59’ (now 159) on p. 150 was missing, and was restored here. The same problem occurred on p. 188. Note 8 (now 206) has been restored.

Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and are noted here.

Given the frequent quotations, it was inevitable that opening and closing quotation marks would sometimes be lost or misplaced. A sampling of these problematic passages reveals that the author has a tendency to paraphrase and otherwise misquote. They are placed here where the context or voice makes their position obvious, or where an inspection of the original sources was possible and allowed for the proper placement.

Where, in resolving these discrepancies, it was found that the reference to sources were themselves incorrect, the correction has been made. Since there is no bibliography specifying the edition of the author’s sources, these corrections were made only where the error was obvious. For instance, in a passage on pp. 136-137, footnote 140, referring to State Paper, cxlii., No 13, was can be validated, however the matter referred to in the following note, incorrectly identifies the paragraph as No. 15, rather than No. 45, where the paraphrased quotation can be found. Again, no attempt was made to validate the accuracy of these attributions except where the problematic printings of quotations were being resolved.

The references below are to the page and line in the original. Where three numbers are referenced, the second refers to a note on that page, and the third to the line therein.

9.4	in returning to land at Southampton,[”]	Added.
34.3	King Philip, followed by his [thaclow], Don Carlos	Sic: ?
37.8	Buckingham added in a post[s]cript	Added.
43.11	two pairs of pearl-shaped ear-rings, marvellous great.[”]	sic no “
70.15	now that he was going to the House of Rinmon.[”]	Added.
80.15	[“]pious endeavours would fill the King	Added.
80.28	guided by wor[l]dly wisdom	Added.
105.8	and others, [“]to bargain for them,	Removed.
137.4	leaving his minister to his fate.[”]	Removed.
137.141.1	State Papers, clxii., No. [15/45]	Replaced.
154.152.1	Brodie’s Co[r/n]. Hist., vol. ii., p. 128, note.	Replaced.
155.163.1	Brodie’s Co[r/n]. Hist., vol. ii., p. 128, note.	Replaced.
168.25	The Earl of Holland had had,[”] says Bishop Hacket,	Removed.
183.16	[“]a feather made with great diamonds	Added.
182.18	all studded with diamonds,[”]	Added.
184.2	all [‘]things suitable.[’/”] [“]His other suits,” adds the narrator	Removed/Replaced/Added.
184.24	were provided with three rich suits a[ ]piece	Removed.
232.3	[“]a disease which all the drugs of Asia	Added. Pro
237.21	that would give him no rest.[”]	Added.
238.19	it is dated, “Burghley, 18th July, 1625.[”]>	Added.
247.267.5	Macpherson’s History of Commerce[./,]	Replaced.
305.8	[“]who exclaimed, ‘They are worse than devils who say so.’”	Added.
308.22	to register the edicts of the Crown[”]	Added. Probable.