Thomas Killigrew here concerned may have been one of several well-known Killigrews, then refugee Royalists.  Hence perhaps the earnestness of the letter.

(CXL.) To LOUIS XIV.  OF FRANCE, Feb. 18, 1658-9:—­“We have heard, and not without grief, that some Protestant churches in Provence were so scandalously interrupted by a certain ill-tempered bigot that the matter was thought worthy of severe notice by the magistrates of Grenoble, to whom the cognisance of the case belonged by law; but that a convention of the clergy, held shortly afterwards in, those parts, has obtained your Majesty’s order that the whole affair shall be brought before your Royal Council in Paris, and that meanwhile, there being no decision there hitherto, these churches, and especially that of Aix, are prohibited from meeting for the worship of God.”  His Majesty is asked to remove this prohibition, and to see the author of the mischief properly censured.  Such a missive proves that Richard and his Council kept to Oliver’s rule of interference whenever there was persecution of Protestants, and also that they did not doubt their influence with Louis and Mazarin.

(CXLI.) To CARDINAL MAZARIN, Feb. 19, 1658-9:[1]—­The Duchess-Dowager of Richmond, with her son, the young duke, is going into France, and means to reside there for some time.  His Eminence is requested to show all possible attention to the illustrious lady and her son.

[Footnote 1:  So dated in the Skinner Transcript, but “29 Feb.” in Printed Collection and Phillips.]

(CXLII.) To CARDINAL MAZARIN, Feb. 22, 1658-9:[1]—­About eight months ago the case of Peter Pett, “a man of singular probity, and of the highest utility to us and the Commonwealth by his remarkable skill in naval affairs,” was brought before his Eminence by a letter of the late Lord Protector (not among Milton’s letters).  It was to request that his Eminence would see to the execution of a decree of his French Majesty’s Council, as far back as Nov. 4, 1647, that compensation should be made to Pett for the seizure and sale of a ship of his, called the Edward, by one Bascon, in the preceding year.  His Eminence has doubtless attended to the request; but there is still some impediment.  Will his Eminence see where it lies and remove it?—­Since the time of Queen Mary there had been three Peter Petts in succession, ship-builders and masters of the Royal Dockyard at Deptford; and the present Peter was the father of the more celebrated Sir Peter Pett, who was fellow of the Royal Society after the Restoration.

[Footnote 1:  So dated in Printed Collection and in the Skinner Transcript; misdated “Feb. 25” in Phillips.]