1. Cf. Elizabeth of England by the contemporary, John Clapham, ed. C. and E, Read, 1951, pp. 99 et seq.; Nuncio Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Paris, 12 April 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 87; Garnet to Persons, 16 April 1603, cited supra p. 184; Nuncio Frangipani to Aldobrandino, 11 April and 24 May 1603, in Correspondence d'Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, ed. A. Louant, 1942, III, 1, pp. 381 and 393; and de Beaumont (French Ambassador in England) to Villeroy, 1 April 1603, B.M. Kings MSS. 123, ff. 16-19.

2. “Il Cecilio che fail tutto e manneggio le cose dello Stato, essendo nemicissimo de’ Cattolici è la rovina delle cose nostre.” (Degli Effetti to Bufalo, Nuncio in Paris, Rouen, 24 August/3 September, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 87; also Same to Bufalo, London, 24 June/4 July 1603, Ibid. Degli Effetti had been sent to England by the Paris Nuncio in June with an introduction to Baron Alexander Hume, one of the Scottish Councillors and a reputed Catholic, who had come with James to England. Degli Effetti returned to France at the beginning of September, n.s.) Cf. also Letter from London, 9 July 1603, Brussels, Archives du Royaume, MSS. Divers 2058, f.266 (a copy from Vat. Arch. Borghese III, 98. d.3). “Cosi il re ode con l'orrechie di Cecilio, parla con la lingua di Cecilio, et risolve il giudicio di Cecilio … Rex venator, Regina tripudiai, Cecilius regnat.” (Frangipani to Aldobrandino, Brussels, 7 November 1603, Correspondance d'Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, ed. A. Louant, Brussels, 1942, III, 2, pp. 439-441). Of Cecil's all-powerful position even before the death of Elizabeth, cf. Garnet to Persons, 16 April 1601, Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia 30.11, ff. 182-183, and James VPs Instructions to his Ambassadors in England, 8 April 1601, printed in Hailes, Secret Correspondence of Sir Robert Cecil with James VI of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1766, pp. 1-12. It would seem that after the Queen's death, there had leaked out some hint of this secret correspondence, for Degli Effetti wrote from England “da causa che il Cecilio sia in tanto gratia del Rè è questo. Quando fu scoperto il trattato del Conde d'Essex, dicono che il Rè di Scotia vi era ancor intrinseco, et che esso Cecilio non solo coprì il Rè, ma che doppo li scriveva spesso, et gli dava aviso di tutti le cose.” (Degli Effetti to Bufalo, 24 June/4 July 1603, ut supra).

3. “Ceux de la Religion (Puritans) font grand état de sa foy en leur heresie.” (De Beaumont to Henry IV, 18/28 March 1603, n.s., B. M. Kings MSS. 123, ff.8 et seq.) Writing on 22 and 29 January 1604, a Catholic gentleman residing in the English court reported a meeting of Councillors in which “it was considered that the Puritans had been sufficiently subdued by the severity used towards them by the late queen, but not so the Catholics. It was thought that the discord among them (the Catholics) had had good effect. It was, therefore, decided to attempt to resuscitate that discord, which had almost entirely ceased, and to foment it in every way possible. For this purpose a new commission was given to the Bishop of London (Bancroft), so that without peril from the laws he might treat with every sort of priest that he thought effective for the renewal of the said discord.” (Cavata da lettere d'un gentilhuomo Catholico, residente nella corte dTnghilterra alii 22 et 29 di Januario 1604, Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia 31.Lf.258). Degli Effetti, also, wrote of the councillors promoting this division among Catholics, citing de Beaumont's statement on the matter, (Degli Effetti to Búfalo, 13/23 July 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 87).

4. On the promises of James as regards the Catholics, cf. infra Note 88.

5. “Besydes that in Scotland though the Catholics suffered much under Ministers, yet was that rigour of persecution ascribed rather to the barbarous tyranny of that puritanical presbytery, which held the King himself in awe than unto his own nature, which poynt being published abroad by divers sorts of men both English and Scottish that came from thence, for sundry years hath stayed many mens judgments of that King and retayned their affections both at home and abroad, but especially of this Pope who divers wayes hath showed love towards him, and no doubt will do for him what he may, if he give him any reasonable satisfaction.” (Persons to [T. Talbot, S.J.] at Padua, 16/26 April 1603, Stonyhurst, Coll. P.490. The holograph, addressed to “Tomasso Claretto,” is in R.O. Italian States and Rome, S.P.85, bundle 3, n.l).

6. “Three years have passed since the Queen sent for one of our fathers and began secretly to tell him how ardently she desired to embrace the Catholic religion and renounce every heresy. After a long conversation with the father, she earnestly entreated him to stay with her three days that he might instruct her fully in the Catholic doctrines and ceremonies, which he did willingly to the great satisfaction of both. On the fourth day, full of holy joy she made her renunciation and general confession and having heard Mass twice, she received the most holy sacrament with the utmost spiritual ioy in the presence of only a few persons of rank. During the three years which have elapsed since then, she has received some nine or ten times, always sending for the same father for the purpose.” ((Report on the state of Scotland, by R. Abercromby, S.J., the superior of the Jesuit mission there, 1602, Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia 42, ff. 151-156). In his Narratives of Scottish Catholics, Edinburgh, 1885, W. Forbes-Leith, S.J., ascribes the report to Alexander MacQuhirrie, S.J., but the document is endorsed, “Narratio Ambicrombi.” Abercromby was the Jesuit who received the Queen into the Church, though the other Jesuit, MacQuhirrie, was for a time with her in England, (cf. W. Crichton, S.J., to Aquaviva, Paris, 17/27 August 1603, Arch. S.J. Rom. Gall. 94.Lf.19). Cf. also the letter of R. Abercromby, S.J., September 1608, enclosed in a letter of J. Gretser, S.J., to Prior Stuart, O.S.B. of Ratisbon, Ingoldstadt, 19 August 1612. From this account of Abercromby it is clear that James knew of his wife's conversion to the Catholic Faith. This should be remembered later, when James denied that she was a Catholic. The two letters in Latin are in the Bibl. Nat. Paris, Fonds Lat. 6051, ff. 49-50. They are printed in A. Bellesheim's History of the Catholic Church of Scotland, translated by D. O. Hunter Blair, O.S.B., Edinburgh, 1889, III, pp. 450-454, and an English translation by J. Stephenson, S.J., is to be found in The Month, February 1879, p.259, note 9. Count Alfonso Montecuccoli, sent to England by the Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1603 also testified that the Queen, as she told him herself, was a Catholic and as such wished to live and die, (cf. His relation of what he had negotiated in England, printed in Fatti E Figure del Seicento Anglo-Toscano, ed. by Anna Maria Crino, Firenze, 1957, p.102). George Conn, who visited the Queen in 1604, also stated in his De Duplici Statu Religionis apud Scotos, Bk. II, that she was a Catholic. For the hopes of Catholics on James’ accession, cf. J. Gerard, S.J., Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot,ed. J. Morris, S.J., 1872, pp.21–24.Google Scholar

7. Garnet to Persons, 16/26 April 1603, Stonyhurst, Anglia III, n.32.

8. Cf. Persons to Anthony Rivers, 26 June/6 July 1603, printed in C.R.S. II, pp.213-216.

9. “Car tout ainsi que le Roy (James I) déclare et proteste ne vouloir favoriser nos Huguenots contre la volonté et le service de sa Majesté (Henry IV), nous ne devons ainsy espouser la protection des Catholiques de ses pais contre son gré, et devoir désirer qu'il soit mal avec nos dits Huguenots; car s'il vouloit préster l'oreille aux brouillons de la d. Religion, croiez qu'il pourroit faire beaucoup de mal, tant ils sont marris de la prospérité des affaires du Roy.” (Villeroi to de Beaumont, 7 December 1603, B.M. Kings MSS. 124, ff. 251 et seq.) Cf. also infra p.6 and Note 23.

10. Cf. James I to Sir Thomas Parry, [November] 1603, Cal. Salisbury MSS XV, p.299.

11. “If my former letters have come there to our friends’ hands, written since your last great change, you will have seen how your affairs are taken here, to wit, with great contentment of all sorts of men, upon hope that our new king will in time suffer himself to be rightly informed in religion, which only point, you know, is the thing that hath held men in suspense these many years who otherwise have loved his majesty with all their affection.” (Persons to Garnet, 14/24 May 1603, Dom. James I, I, n.34.) Cf. also Persons to [T. Talbot] at Padua, Rome, 16/26 April 1603, ut supra. For the Pope's friendly attitude to James, cf. Clement VIII to Philip III, 23 May/2 June 1603, Simancas, Est. Leg. 840, f.191; Sessa to Philip III, 21 June/1 July 1603, Ibid. Leg. 977; the Pope's note on Búfalo to Aldobrandino, 24 April/4 May 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.0./9, bundle 87; Aldobrandino to Bufalo, 4/14 and 18/28 July 1603, Ibid; Bufalo to James I, 29 September 1603, Cal. Salisbury MSS. XV, p.249, and Philip III to the Duke of Escalona, 4/14 June 1604, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 88.

12. Sir Geoffrey Fenton to Sir Robert Cecil, Dublin, 13 April 1603, Cal. State Papers, Ireland, 1603-1606, p.16. Cf. also Thomas Watson to Sir Robert Cecil, 17 April 1603, Cal. Salisbury MSS. XV, p.50. Queen Elizabeth died 24 March 1603 and James was proclaimed the same day.

13. Petition and Statement of Facts by Sir Anthony Standen, Knight and Anthony Standen, Gentleman, presented to King James I, Dom. James I, I, n.100, printed in the History of Mary Stewart by Claude Nau, ed. J. Stevenson, S.J. Edinburgh, 1883, pp. c-cii.

14. The Nuncio, Bufalo, to Aldbrandino, Paris, 30 July 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 87. He was reporting Standen's own account of the purpose of his embassy. Cf. also Villeroi to de Beaumont, French Ambassador in England, 31 July 1603, B.M. Kings MSS. 124, ff.11 et seq.

15. Villeroi to de Beaumont, 31 July 1603, ut supra, and de Beaumont to Villeroi, 13 August 1603, Ibid. ff. 30v et seq.

16. James's fear of excommunication seems to have been well known. “Sua Maesta [Henry IV] ha detto ad alcuni che il Re d'lnghilterra time grandemente di esser scommunicato dal Papa, credendo che una tal scommunica gli potrebbe mettere sotto sopra tutto il regno suo.” (Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 10 January 1604, R.O. Transcripts P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 88. Cf. also Frangipani to Aldobrandino, Brussels, 21 November 1603, in Correspondence d'Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, ed. A. Louant, III, 2, p.445.) As early as 28 March 1603 Garnet had endeavoured to disabuse the king of such a fear. “That they doubt not,” he wrote, “but the Pope is of so mild a disposition that he will not take any harder course towards his majesty than towards other princes of the religion [Protestant]. Wherefore there needs no discussing of that question what Jesuits or others would do, if the Pope should excommunicate his majesty and such conditional demands are likely to be dishonourable to his majesty and to give offence to a most mild pastor without cause.” (Garnet to a Scotch Gentleman of account, 28 March 1603, Stonyhurst, Anglia III, n.41.) That he correctly estimated the attitude of Clement VIII is certain, (cf. supra Note 11). Yet the report was spread abroad by some Catholic priests, followers of the Appellants, that Persons and the Jesuits were endeavouring to procure James's excommunication. One of these, Canon E. Thornhill, of whom more later, when in Paris spread such reports to the English ambassador there, Sir Thomas Parry, who urged Cecil to accept such a promising spy. The Nuncio when asked by Parry about it, replied that on his priesthood he believed such reports to be false, (Sir Thomas Parry to Cecil, Paris, 3 October 1604, R.O. French Correspondence). That they were so is made evident from many letters of Persons and Garnet, who obeyed the Pope's order that only peaceful methods to secure relief for Catholics were to be employed. Amongst other letters, cf. Persons to Garnet, 4 June 1603, Stonyhurst, Coll. P.428; to Rivers, 6 July 1603, printed in C.R.S. II, pp.213-218; to Clement VIII, 11 May 1604, Vat. Arch. Borghese III, 124g2, f.45; Garnet to Persons, 15 June, 6 July and 13 August 1603, Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia 38.II.f.172^v. The harm done by these priests in spreading such reports can be seen from the fact that when the ambassadors of the Catholic princes appealed for moderation of the edict of 22 February 1604, banishing Jesuits and seminary priests, the councillors gave as an excuse for such a measure, that some priests and Jesuits in Rome were endeavouring to have James excommunicated, (cf. Black well to Farnese, 10 March 1604, Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia 38.11. ff.112ff. n.80).

17. “As for our king, I gave him due in all places and religion only excepted he had no paragon among men.” (Standen to Persons, Paris, 27 December 1603, n.s. Dom. James I, 35, n.61; cf. also A True Relation of the course Sir Anthony Standen hath held from the year 1565, etc. Cal. Salisbury MSS. XVI, pp.15-21). Even before December 1603 Persons had written to Standen: “The much good you have spoken and emputed everywhere of our new king doth comfort us all and hath made great motion in strangers’ hearts, and so much the more for the many years they have known you for a Catholic.” (Persons to Standen, 6 (vere 8) October 1603, Stonyhurst, Coll. P.421.)

18. Giovanni Carlo Scaramelli to the Doge and Signory of Venice, London, 26 June, 3 and 10 July 1603, Venetian Cal. pp.44, 58 and 62.

19. A True Relation of the course Sir Anthony Standen hath held from the year 1565, the time in which he first left the court of England and entered the service of those princes of worthy memory, Henry and Mary, King and Queen of Scotland, father and mother to our present most gracious sovereign and lord, the King's Majesty, until the 22 January 1603[4] the day of his committment to the Tower of London, Cal. Salisbury MSS. XVI, pp.15-21.

20. Sir Anthony Standen to Viscount Cranbourne, undated, endorsed “1604,” Cal. Salisbury MSS. XVI, p.460. Sir Robert Cecil was created Viscount Cranbourne 30 August 1604, and Earl of Salisbury 4 May 1605. The Compter or Counter to which Standen referred was the debtors’ prison.

21. Cf. Scaramelli to the Doge and Signory, 10 July ut supra, and Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Paris, 20/30 July 1603, R.O. Transcripts P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 87.

22. Villeroi to de Beaumont, 21/31 July 1603, B.M. Kings MSS. 124, ff.11 et seq.

23. Persons to Clement VIII, Rome, 1/11 May 1604, Vat. Arch. Borghese III, 124g2, f.45. “This affair,” he adds, “was soon known in England and Sir Anthony himself spoke of it to various people in Venice and other places, as is proved from many letters from those parts.” In December 1603 the nuncio, Bufalo, referring to a recent audience he had had with the king, reported Henry IV 's outburst during it against the English ambassador, Sir Thomas Parry, for his dealing with and abetting the Huguenots, (Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Paris, 3/13 December 1603, R.O. Transcripts P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 87: cf. also Henry IV's report to his ambassador, de Beaumont, 18/28 September 1603, B.M. Kings MSS. 124, ff.lHv et seq.

24. Villeroi to de Beaumont, 21/31 July 1603, B.M. Kings MSS. 124, ff.11v et seq.

25. De Beaumont to Villeroi, 13 August 1603, Ibid. ff. 30 et seq.

26. “Come e molto Cattolico, cosi ha voluto egli mostrarlo al venirmi trovare, ma secretamente.” (Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Paris, 20/30 July 1603, R.O. Transcripts P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 87.) Standen dined also with the Venetian ambassador in Paris, Anzolo Badder, but beyond recording the fact, the ambassador reported nothing except that Sir Anthony was on his way to Lorraine, Florence and Venice. (Anzolo Badder to the Doge and Signory of Venice, Paris, 25 July 1603, Venetian Cal. 1603-1607, p.69.)

27. Count Asdrubale Montauti, the Florentine ambassador at Venice, reported that Standen arrived there on Tuesday, which would be 26 August. (Montauti to the Grand Duke, Ferdinando I, Venice, 20/30 August 1603, printed by Anna Maria Crino, op.cit. p.90.) The nuncio at Venice, on the other hand, gave Thursday, i.e. 28 August, as the date of his arrival. (Offredi to Cardinal S. Giorgio, Venice, 20/30 August 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 87.)

28. For a description of these solemnities, cf. Smith, Logan Pearsall, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, Oxford, 1907, I, pp.51 et seq.Google Scholar

29. Montauti to Ferdinando I, Venice, 20/30 August 1603, ut supra.

30. Minute of the Senate, and of the official answer to Sir Anthony Standen, 2 September 1603, Venetian Cal. p.88,nn.H9 and 120. Sir Henry Wotton, however, in a letter from Venice of 23 May 1603, stated that two ambassadors to be sent to England had already been chosen, one, Pietro Dodi, to congratulate James on his accession, the other, Nicolo Molin, to be resident, (cf. Logan Pearsall Smith, op.cit. I, pp.317-319). He reported that they were thought to be going to depart about the beginning of August. In the event, however, Standen's visit delayed their mission.

31. Venetian Cal. p.88, nn.121 and 122. Cf. also Montauti to Ferdinando I, Venice, 20/30 August and 27 August/6 September 1603, printed by A. M. Crino, op.cit. pp.90 and 93.

32. Venetian Cal. p.88, n.123. Sherley before his explusion had been imprisoned for a time at Venice earlier in the year, (cf. Offredi to Cardinal S. Giorgio, Venice, 22 March 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 87).

33. Scaramelli to the Doge and Signory, Winchester, 5 October 1603, Venetian Cal. p.100, n.141.

34. Montauti to Ferdinando I, Venice, 20/30 August 1603, ut supra.

35. Montauti to Ferdinando I, Venice, 27 August/6 September 1603, ut supra.

36. Cf. Logan Pearsall Smith”, op.cit. I, p.72.

37. Standen to Persons, Paris, 17/27 December 1603, Dom. Addenda XXXV, n.61. As the members of the Signory or of the Venetian nobility were not allowed to speak to foreign ambassadors without official permission, under pain of severe penalties, (cf. Logan Pearsall Smith, op.cit. I, pp.55 et seq.) it is difficult to see what use Thornhill could have been to Standen on the king's affairs, unless he was employed as an intermediary for some secret business not recorded.

38. “Si mostra in ogni occasione di ragionamento poco amorevole de francesi et libero assai nel dire.” (Montauti to Ferdinando I, Venice, 27 August/6 September 1603, ut supra.)

39. “Et similmente lascierò anche per la medesima causa molti altri particolari, ch'egli mi ha detto, come di pretensione di grossa somma di danari che ha il seco Rè col Christianissimo (Henry IV), et vuole esserne pagato in ogni modo et altre cose simile.” (Montauti to Ferdinando I, Venice, 20/30 August 1603, ut supra.)

40. The Marquis de Rosny was ambassador extraordinary in England in June and July 1603. That he should have advocated hostile relations to Spain is more than probable. Henry IV was secretly helping the rebels in Flanders by sending them money.

41. Henry IV to de Beaumont, 18/28 September 1603, B.M. Kings MSS. 124, ff. 114v et seq.

42. De Beaumont to Henry IV, 10 October 1603, Ibid. 124, ff.125 et seq. Cf. also Henry IV to de Bethune, 3 November 1603, Paris, B.N. Fonds Français, 3485, f.120.

43. Henry IV to de Beaumont, 20/30 October 1603, printed in Mission de Christophe de Harlay, Comte de Beaumont, ed. Laffleur de Kermaingant, Paris, 1895, II, p.162.

44. Standen had earlier suggested to Walsingham this friend of his, as a valuable intelligencer. Walsingham accepted the suggestion and began a correspondence with Figliazzi which Burghley continued after the death of the secretary. It may well be that the cause of his imprisonment was his activity as a spy of the English Government. (Cf. The Embassy of Sir Anthony Standen, Part I, Recusant History, October 1959, pp.96 and 97.)

45. Ferdinando I to Montauti, 6/16 August 1603, printed by Anna Maria Crino, op.cit. p.89.

46. Montauti to Ferdinando I, Venice, 20/30 August 1603, ut supra. Belisario Vinta was the Grand Duke's Secretary of State. Whether Gian Figliazzi was in fact set free at this time has not been ascertained, but Standen, during his stay at Florence, certainly paid him a visit, whether in prison or out of it, (cf. Standen to Vinta, Palazzo Pitti, 18/28 September 1603, printed by Anna Maria Crino, op.cit. p.95.)

47. Montauti to Ferdinando I, Venice, 27 August/6 September 1603, ut supra.

48. Montauti to Ferdinando I and to Vinta, Venice, 3/13 September 1603, printed by Anna Maria Crino, op.cit. p.93.

49. Standen to Vinta, Venice, 20/30 August 1603, printed by Anna Maria Crino, op.cit. p.92. The letter was sent in the bag of the Florentine ambassador, (cf. Montauti to Ferdinando I, 20/30 August 1603, ut supra). The name of the merchant is given as Gio'ni Bruno.

50. Diario di Etichetta for 1603, quoted by Anna Maria Crino, op.cit. p.94. Dr. Thornhill is not mentioned by name but he is undoubtedly the “Canon of Vicenza” there mentioned.

51. “Aspettando queste lettere che vennero hieri d'Inghilterra et venute non dicano nulla, indugiai a scrivere al mio Re il quale sta marina ho fatto, et a V.S. la ricommando, quella che ha la soprascritta in nostro vulgare va al Barone Cecil, i dentro la, che scrivo a S. Maestà, quell’ altra al Ambasciatore nostro in Francia.” (Standen to Vinta, Palazzo Pitti, 9/19 September 1603, printed by A. M. Crino, op.cit. p.94.) The letters do not appear to have survived, the one to Sir Thomas Parry may be that which the ambassador enclosed in his despatch to Cecil of 22 October 1603, R.O. French Correspondence.

52. James very much desired to do away with piracy and issued an edict on the subject, 30 September 1603, (cf. Proclamation to repress all piracies and depredations upon the seas, Dom. Cal. James I, 1603-1610, p.41). From Paris Standen wrote to Cecil, 30 November 1603: “I have by our ambassador's means here gotten the copy of his Majesty's last edict touching pirates and piracies, and for that out of my knowledge it will very much satisfy, I have put it into Italian and tomorrow will send it among those princes there.” (R.O. French Correspondence, S.P.78, Vol.50, f.125.) Cf. also Standen to Vinta, Paris, 12/22 December 1603, printed by A. M. Crino, op.cit. p.98.

53. “Il Granduca mi disse che quello che il Munne et io trovassimo buono per conto di questo Capitano [Gifford] o per parlar chiaro ladrone, S.A. ne restarebbe pago, habbiamo perciò parlato insieme et conchiuso di ligarlo in modo (piacendo a S.A. cosi) che non potrà scappare, et S.A. Serma,, resterà senza biasimo.” (Standen to Vinta, Palazzo Pitti, 11/21 September 1603, Ibid. P.95.)

54. Standen to Vinta, Palazzo Pitti, 9/19 September, and Standen to Vinta, Paris, 12/22 December 1603, Ibid, pp.94 and 98.

55. Standen to Vinta, Paris, 12/22 December 1603, ut supra.

56. Standen to Vinta, Palazzo Pitti, 9/19 and 18/28 September 1603, Ibid, pp.94 and 95.

57. Standen to Vinta, Palazzo Pitti, 18/28 September 1603, ut supra. “As for Mr. Fitzherbert,” Standen wrote to Persons, who had evidently got to know of this visit, “his and my acquaintance have been long and while f lived in Tuscany no Saturday passed without letters to each other, all to honest end and without prejudice to anyone.” (Standen to Persons, Paris, 17/27 December 1603, Dom. Addenda XXXV, n.61.) That such correspondence was to honest purpose, however, may well be doubted, seeing that Standen at that period was acting as a spy of Walsingham, and though unable to go to Rome himself, as the Secretary of State had suggested, assured him that he had good advices from a friend there, (cf. The Embassy of Sir Anthony Standen, Part I, Recusant History, October 1959, p.96). Nicholas Fitzherbert, in fact, was suspected of being an intelligencer in 1597, (cf. Peña's Relación sobre conservación i buen progresso de las cosas de Inglaterra, Bib. Vat. Lat. 6227, ff.7-21v), and he was for many years one of the fomentors of the troubles in the English College in Rome, (cf. C.R.S. 51, p.266, note 12). When Sir Henry Wotton arrived in Venice late in 1604 as English ambassador there, he soon established a secret correspondence with the same Nicholas, (cf. Logan Pearsall Smith, op.cit. I, p.65, and Wotton to Lord Roos, Venice, 17 May 1608, and Wotton to Salisbury, Venice, 5 December 1608, Ibid. I, p.428 and note 2, and p.442). Nicholas was not, however, a Jesuit, as A. M. Crino states, but a layman.

58. “Mercoledì la mattina mandai via il mio prete, temo che con questi caldi il poveraccio non s'amali, aspetto il suo ritorno al più alli 28 di questo, giunto che sarà pensierò di mettermi in viaggio verso casa.” (Standen to Vinta, Palazzo Pitti, 9/19 September 1603, printed by A. M. Crino, op.cit. p.94). From his letter to Vinta of 18/28 September (Ibid, p.95), “il mio prete” can be identified as the Canon. Cf. also Cardinal Aldobrandino to Thornhill, Belvedere, 14/24 September 1603, Ibid, p.96 and Thornhill to Aldobrandino, Bologna, 8/18 October 1603, Vat. Arch. Borghese HI, 124g1, f.18.

59. Garnet to Persons, 16/26 April 1603, Stonyhurst, Anglia III, n.32. This appears to be the only reference to the subject in Garnet's extant correspondence.

60. Presumably Alexander Hume, the reputed Catholic.

61. Degli Effetti to Bufalo, 16/26 June and 24 June/4 July 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 87. It must be noted that Degli Effetti's means of information were very circumscribed, though he did meet Baron Hume. In fact, as his letters clearly show, a good deal of his information was derived from Francis Barnaby, one of the Appellant priests in free custody in the Clink. W. Gifford, who was in England for two or three weeks in July and the beginning of August and was also acting with Barnaby, sent in a report to the nuncio in Flanders in which he repeated the above account with the addition that, according to Hume, the papal envoy had already reached Bolognal The story had no foundation whatever, as is clear from the papal Secretary of State's letter of 2 August 1603, cf. infra note 65.

62. “Et oltre ciò riferisce anchora il giudicio fatto tra Cattolici su quell che potrà in beneficio loro uscire da Nro. S™. et è che S.Bne. s'humiliasse per la defesa della religione Cattolica in quel regno di destinar al re persona, congratulándose seco della nuova corona, conquistata, assicurandomi quest 'huomo d'haversi egli stesso parlato con alcuni consiglieri del consiglio privato per conoscer come sarebbe accetta al re, et li trovo nel parere conformi, quantumque forsero tutti heretici, giudicando ch'ai re sarebbe grata et le riceverebbe con honore et con animo, però di mandarsegli del papa, come da principe terreno, per il che non lodavano fusse persona ecclesiastica per timore di qualche tumulto popolare, ch'ai fermo credeano potesse fuggire con mezzo di persona di cappa corta et secolare.” (Frangipani to Aldobrandino, Brussels, 2/12 July 1603, giving the substance of Dr. R. Taylor's report on his return from England, Correspondance d'Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, ut supra, III², pp. 410-412). Dr. Taylor, a layman, had been sent to England soon after the accession of James, and left again 30 June 1603, (cf. H. Lonchay et Cuvelier, J., Correspondance de la Cour d'Espagne sur les affaires des pays Bas au XVIle siècle, 1923, I, n.335, p.156)Google Scholar. He was sent back to England by the Archduke in July of the same year, (cf. Frangipani to Aldobrandino, Brussels, 9/19 July 1603, Correspondance, etc., 111², p.414). Count d'Aremburg, the Archduke's ambassador in England, had also written to the archduke or Frangipani that such an envoy from the Pope as a temporal sovereign would be acceptable to the king and his court, (cf. Frangipani to Aldobrandino, 9/19 July, ut supra. The full text of the letter is at Brussels, Archives du Royaume, MSS. Divers 2058, copied from Vat. Arch. Borghese III, 98d. Cf. also Sessa to Philip III, Rome, 12 August 1603, Simancas, Est. Leg. 977).

63. Persons to Aldobrandino, 14/24 May 1603, Vat. Arch. Borghese, 124g², f.27. In the letter he mentions papers he had left with the Pope at the audience he had had with him the day before, presumably dealing with the same subject.

64. Persons to Clement VIII, 20/30 May 1603, Ibid. f.29.

65. “Che poi si desideri che Nro. S ^re. mandi ambasciatore in Inghilterra, è cosa di gran consideratione et che ha bisogno di gran maturità, tanto più che si vorebbe che mandasse persona secolare et che si spicasse da Sua Stà. come principe temporale et non come papa, il che non si vede come si porrà fare, onde si starà aspettando quello che farà nella trattatione della pace, per vedere se il benefitio di questo poco tempo portasse qualche cosa di buono.” (Aldobrandino to Frangipani, Rome, 23 July/2 August 1603, in Correspondence d’ Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, 7//2, p.701.)

66. Persons was acquainted with him in Spain, where Standen played a double part, but the Jesuit did not know of his activities there as a spy of the English Government, (cf. Standen to Burghley, 7/17 June 1591, Birch's Transcripts, B.M. Addit. 4110, f.2).

67. The 28 September 1603, n.s., the date of Persons's letter was a Sunday. Presumably “Monday next “in the letter does not mean the next day, 29 September, but rather, Monday 6 October. That Persons wrote to Standen on that is known from an extract of the letter still preserved at Stonyhurst, Coll. P.421. What is probably a contemporary copy of this letter has been located in the State Archives at Florence, but it has not yet been possible to acquire a transcript.

68. Persons to Aldobrandino, Rome 18/28 September 1603, Vat. Arch. Borghese III, 124 g², f.35.

69. “I was these days at the court of Fontainebleau, where I had secret audience with both their majesties at sundry times, and lodging given me with other ordinary favours, but touching the point of Evreux, neither he nor any other shall be countenanced by this king to that effect, for so much as I can pierce into; such is the misery of the time and the vehemency of suspicion on matters of state, a more miserable heresy than that of Calvin or any other.” (Standen to Persons, Paris, 17/27 December 1603, Dom Addenda XXXV, n.61.)

70. “I wrote back to him (the nuncio in Paris) admitting that in the month of October I had. written him (Standen) from Frascati a certain letter by order of your Holiness in reply to one to me from Florence: (this was in connection with the proposal he had made for Monsignor Perron, Bishop of Evreux to be sent to England), but saying that the letter was written in such a way that he (Standen) could well show it to the king of England, and that I should be very pleased that the king should see it, so as to perceive the paternal love of your Holiness and my respect for his person, which was made clear in that letter.” (Persons to Clement VIII, Rome, 1/11 May 1604, Vat. Arch. Borghese, 124 g², f.45). Concerning Persons's letter to Standen, 6 October 1603, cf. Note 67 supra.

71. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Paris, 6/16 November 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 87; also Aldobrandino to Bufalo, Rome, 5/15 December 1603, Ibid. That he (Standen) had sent such a letter to the English ambassador is also testified by the Venetian ambassador in Paris: “Sir Anthony Standen who is on a mission from England, writes to the English ambassador to say that when he was at Florence, he received proposals from the Pope to send an envoy either ecclesiastical or lay to congratulate the king of England, if his Holiness was once assured that such a step would not disguest Spain and France, and Don Virginio Orsini, Duke of Bracciano, was mentioned. The ambassador has forwarded Standen's letter to England.” (Badder to the Doge and Signory, Paris, 2/12 November 1603, Venetian Ca1. 1603-1607, p.111.) It will be noticed that the dates of the statements of the nuncio and of the Venetian ambassador fit in with the time Sir Thomas Parry enclosed in his despatch to Cecil a letter of Standen, (cf. supra Note 51).

72. Cf. supra Note 65.

73. On the phrase in the letter of Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 6/16 November 1603, (ut supra), “che si contentasse ricevere un ambasciatore secolare che Sua S^ta. desiderava mandargli,” the Pope made the comment: “non gli habbia fatto questa istanza.” Italics mine.

74. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Paris, 4/14 December 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 87.

75. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Paris, 20/30 November 1603, Ibid.

76. When cornered by Cecil, soon after his arrival in England, he certainly lied. This matter will be dealt with in the third article. For his own statement that he wrote to Sir Thomas Parry from Florence, cf. supra Note 51.

77. Cf. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Paris, 16/26 January 1604, Vat. Arch. Borghese III, 86A², f.18. In this despatch he excused his action, acknowledged the warning and order of Aldobrandino and declared that he would follow it.

78. Cf. Cecil to Parry, 24 February 1604, R.O. French Correspondence.

79. The king again emphasised the point in a letter to Tassis, 3/13 August 1603, Simancas, Est. Leg. 2557. The short account given in the text of these negotiations for toleration is based, though not exclusively, on Chapter 10 of the thesis “Spain and the English exiles, 1580-1604,” presented in 1957 for the Ph.D. degree at London University, by A. Loomie, S.J. He there treats the subject at length in connection with the negotiations for peace 1603-1604.

80. Tassis to Philip HI, 4 July 1603, Simancas, Est. Leg. 840, f.109. With this letter was sent the document headed: “Lista de los conseyeros y condiciones de cada uno, y de los medios para ganar algunos dellos, hecha por un confidente,” Ibid, f.118. A Loomie, S.J. (thesis in Note 79 supra) gives the document in full. In a letter to the nuncio in France, 4 July 1603, (R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 87), Degli Effetti proposed two means of helping Catholics in England. The one was by the intercession of ambassadors of Catholic princes. “L'altro,” he continued, “forsi sarebbe il meglio, offerir danari a favoriti del Re, particolarmente alli Scozzesi che sono poveri, et questo forse sarebbe il modo di ottenere una libertà di conscienza, et questo mi l'ha proposto il Tiri, et il Barnaby me l'ha riconfermato, et havendo io replicato al C. Tiri come potessimo noi esser sicuri, che si ottenesse dal Re libertà di conscienza senza essere ingannati, et spender vanamente i danari, mi ha risposto che si trovarebbe modo che lo sporso di danari non si farebbe se non doppo havere ottenuto dal Re l'intento ... il che mi ha fatto vedere che il Tiri habbia proposto questo non per suo interesse, come da prima dubitai, ma perche cosi giudica esser necessario et cierto io l'ho trovato molto schietto et zelante, pero a lei ne lascio il pensiero mi ha detto un personaggio non ordinario, che di Fiandra è venuto ordine in questa paese di offerire fino al numero di trenta mila scudi per tratare di ottenere una libertà di cohscienza, ne sa se viene tal negotio da 1 Arciduca o pure dal nuncio, ma credo che venga dal nuncio; con tutto ciò non si trova che sia veruno qui per negotiare, mandato a posta da quel nuncio, pero V.S. cerchi di sapere il fondo di tal negotio, accio possa poi risolvere che si debba fare, etc.” The Pope has added a comment: “Non ne sappiamo niente.” Cf. also Bufai oto Aldobrandino, Paris, 31 July/10 August 1603, Ibid.

81. Thomas Lake had made a favourable impression on the king, when he was sent to Scotland with George Carew three days after the death of Queen Elizabeth. James appointed him secretary of the Latin tongue and on 20 May 1603 conferred a knighthood on him.

82. Taylor's account was probably delivered by word of mouth to the archduke; for there is no record of it, as written by him, still less any extant copy. It is only known from the archduke's report: “Relacion del Robert Taylero de lo que ha tratado en Ynglaterra,” (Simancas, Est. Leg.622, f.84), and Tassis report on the same: “Relacion hecha por un certa persona que f ue embiado a Inglaterra,” (Ibid. Leg.840, f.178). Tassis, apparently, received the account not directly from Taylor but from the Archduke. That Taylor's report was oral seems supported by the fact that there is an interpolation in the Archduke's report derived from the relation given a few days before Taylor's arrival by an anonymous messenger who claimed to have come to Flanders to give Taylor's views, since he was remaining in England ! The messenger, purporting to come from English Catholics, was spurious. Some of his statements border on the fantastic, and other, as A. Loomie, S.J., has shown are in contradiction to those given in Garnet's private letters to Persons. Nor was there any need for such a messenger to retail Taylor's views, since he himself left England for Flanders on 30 June 1603, and gave his views to the archduke certainly not later than July 13 n.s. The account of this spurious messenger was enclosed in a letter of the archduke 24 J une/4 July 1603, (Ibid. Leg.840, f.119). Yet the account of Taylor's own relation is but a few days later, July 13th n.s. at the latest. Taylor, in fact, had returned to England by the 19th. “Questo adesso in altra volta ve se manda di questo Sera. Alta. per conto del Senor d'Aremburg,” (Frangipani to Aldobrandino, Brussels, 9/19 July 1603, Arch, du Royaume, MSS. Divers, 2058).

83. The bribing of English councillors and other leading persons was very rife at this time. The despatches from London and Staines of the archduke's ambassador, d'Aremburg, frequently refer to it. The Dutch, to prevent peace, so he reported, had deposited £30,000, the greater part of which would go to Cecil. Everything in England was obtained by money in the form either of gifts or pensions, and that so openly, as leading Englishmen assured him, that the archduke would be astounded at it. His own difficulties arose from not employing the same means; and he urged the archduke to send funds for that purpose. (Cf. D'Aremburg's despatches of June and July 1603, in Correspondance de la Cour d'Espagne sur les Affaires des Pays Bas au XVII^o siècle, ed. H. Lonchay et J. Cuvelier, Brussels, 1923, I. nn.327-332, 336 and 344). The English Catholics, in fact, complained that the ambassadors of Spain and the archduke made no such outlay. “Mirantur omnes Cattolici diligentiam legatorum Hollandiae et quomodo possunt sufhcere tarn profusis donis quae effundunt tarn Scotis quam Anglis. Utinam Hispanus et Belga saltern diligentiam et prudentiam non dedignarentur imitari et sic causae communi consulerent.” (Letter from London, 9 July 1603, Brussels, Arch, du Royaume, Mss. Divers 2058, f.266, copied from Vat. Arch. Borghese III, 98d.3). Cf. also Strivani to Nuncio Frangipani, London, 20/30 June 1603, Ibid. f.249; Degli Effetti to Bufalo, 24 June/4 July 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 87, and Garnet to Persons, 26 November 1603, Stonyhurst, Coll. P.596. Philip III eventually promised to send his ambassador, Tassis, money very shortly, to be used for the purpose, (cf. Archduke to Philip III, 8 September 1603, Lonchay et Cuvelier, op.cit. n.370), and did, in fact, send some £50,000, cf. infra p.202.

84. “Por el présente no se debia tratar de lo de la libertad di consciencia y exercicio libre de los Catholicos por ser cosas que despues se han de procurar aleanzar por via d'intercession, concluyéndose el negocio principal de la paz; pues si en prima instancia se hechase el otro en el tablero seria altarar y dañar la tratación de lo demás.” (Archduke to Philip III, 29 August/8 September 1603, Simancas, Est. Leg. 622, f.143, quoted by A. Loomie, S.J., op.cit.) Cf. also Archduke to Philip III, 12/22 August 1603, Ibid, f.117; Tassis to Philip III, 4/14 September 1603, Ibid. Leg. 840, f.141, and Frangipani to Aldobrandino, 11/21 June 1603, Frangipani Correspondance, III², p.402 note 1.

85. Cf. Tassis to Philip III, 24 June/4 July 1603, Simancas, Est. Leg. 840, f.149.

86. Tassis to Philip III, 4/14 September and 2/12 October 1603, Ibid, ff.141 and 241.

87. In a letter to Cecil he expressed his anxiety at the number of priests in England and his desire to see the proclamation of November 5, banishing Jesuits and seminary priests, put into execution, (cf. James to Cecil, nn.XI and XIV, in Correspondence of James VI … with Sir Robert Cecil and others, Camden Society, 1861, pp.30 and 36). Cecil's reply: “My answer to his Majesty's letter concerning Papists,” is Ibid. n.XIII, p.33. For James's hatred of Catholics, cf. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 30 August/9 September 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 87. As for Cecil, Degli Effetti reported: “Il Cecilio che fa il tutto e maneggia le cose dello stato, essendo nemicissimo de'Cattolici è la rovina delle cose nostre.” (Degli Effetti to Buffalo, Rouen, 24 August/3 September 1603, Ibid.)

88. On the promises made by James, cf. Baron Alexander Hume's statement to the nuncio in Paris, as given in Bufalo's despatch to Aldobrandino, 7/17 September 1602, (R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 86a); Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 20/30 July 1603, reporting what James I said to de Rosny, (Ibid, bundle 87). De Beaumont in a letter to Henry IV wrote: “Et qu'il [James VI] permetra la liberté ou la toleration de la religion Catholique, du moins puis-je assurer votre Majesté qu'il l'a aussi promis et signé de sa main à un grand de ce Royaume.” (De Beaumont to Henry IV, 18 March 1603, B.M. Kings Mss. 123, ff.8 et seq.) Cf. also Degli Effetti to Bufalo, 13/23 June, 6/16 July and 24 August/3 September 1603, (R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 87); Copley's Declaration to the Council, 14 July 1603, printed in Tierney-Dodd, Church History of England, IV, Appendix, p.i; Watson to the Lords in Council, 9 August 1603, Ibid, p.xvii; Frangipani to Aldobrandino, 28 October/7 November 1603, printed in Frangipani Correspondaece, III², p.400; the Archpriest Blackwell to Cardinal Farnese, 23 December 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 112; Garnet to Persons, 16 April 1603, ut supra p. 184: and the contemporary J. Gerard, S.J., Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot, ed. J. Morris, S.J., 1872, pp.10, 24, 28 and 29.

89. Cf. Avisos de Londres, 21 August 1603, in Lonchay et Cuvelier, op.cit. p.172, n.368; Letter from London, 22 August 1603, Brussels, Arch, du Royaume, Mss. Divers 2058, f.236, copied from Vat. Arch. Borghese III, 98.d.3; Degli Effetti to Bufalo, Rouen, 24 August/3 September 1603, ut supra. One of the Irish prisoners died in prison; the two others were released, (cf. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 6/16 November 1603, enclosing a letter from England, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 87).

90. Garnet to Persons, 22 September 1603, Stonyhurst, Coll. P.535: cf. also Blackwell to the Protector, Cardinal Farnese, 17 October 1603, West. Arch. VII, n.96. On the illegality of employing these base fellows, cf. The Lord Chief Justice and the rest of the Judges to the Council, 8 November 1604, Cai. Salisbury Mss. XVI, p.349.

91. James to the Archbishop and Bishops [September ? ] 1603, and Archbishop Whitgift to the Bishops of his province, December 1603, Dom. Cal. James I, 1603-1610, pp.41 and 60.

92. The proclamation of 22 February 1604. Cf. also The Commission to Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, Lord Treasurer Dorset, the Duke of Lennox and others for the execution of the laws against Jesuits and seminary priests, 5 September 1604, bid. p.148. The king through his ambassador endeavoured to excuse the proclamation on the plea that he had been forced to issue it by his Council, (cf. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 12/22 March and 27 March/6 April 1604, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 88).

93. D'Una lettera de Londres, 28 February 1604, Arch S.J. Rom. Anglia 31.1.ff. 256-257.

94. Statutes 1. James c.IV. On 5 June 1604 Garnet wrote “I think now that it is highly probable the laws will be confirmed; and that there is little hope of peace and much less of liberty of conscience. Doctor Taylor says that the reason is that the Spaniards do not give any money (quatrini).” (Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia 30.II.f.l76). The laws were confirmed in July.

95. Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia 37, f.115. “I received you letter dated 24 July last,” wrote Kingesmyll to the Privy Council, “requiring me to satisfy you how long a certain priest and a layman had been in prison before they receiv/ed their trial. They were arraigned and convicted at the summer assizes a twelve month since; at which time we used many persuasions to them of reformation, and spared judgment; giving them time and the best means we could to obtain his Majesty's pardon until the last Assizes in Lent. At these assizes we were informed that they made suit to his Majesty for pardon but obtained it not. We respited their judgment until last summer assizes and then we offered, if they would come to church, pray for the king and conform, to labour to the king for them. But they, as they had done divers times before, refused so to do. Therefore, they, being an offence to the country, it was thought it should be amiss to stay them longer in his Majesty's gaol: and seeing the law had taken hold of them, it was hoped that no less could be done than to proceed accordingly.” (Justice G. Kingesmyll to the Privy Council, Okham 30 July 1604, Cai. Salisbury Mss. XVI. p. 189. Italics mine.) The execution of Sugar and Grissold is mentioned in Frangipani to Aldobrandino, 3/13 August 1604, (Frangipani Correspondance, lift, p.482.) In a letter from London of 11 August 1604 (Simancas, Est. Leg. 979), an English gentleman reported the harshness of the persecution in the provinces, following the advice of the king to the judges of the assize, to execute the laws against Catholics with severity. Sir Richard Walmesley, one of the most learned and upright judges of his time, was taken out of the commissioni complaint having been made that he was too lenient and his wife a Catholic. Richard Blount, S.J., who also recorded these events in a letter of 1 August 1604 (Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia 37, f.103), stated that the complaint against Walmesley was made by Lord Sheffield and Lord Zouche, and that Sir Edward Phelips, Speaker of the House of Commons in the late Parliament, was substituted in his place. Cf. also the Letter of Rivers, quoted above, concerning Walmesley's replacement.

96. Viscount Cranbourne to Archbishop Hutton, Whitehall, [December] 1604, Dom. Cal. James I 1603-1610, p.177.

97. The list was sent with a letter of Tassis, 18/28 June 1604, Simancas, Est. Leg. 841, f.118.

98. The Constable to Philip III, 8 and 30 July and 16 August 1603, Ibid, ff.71, 112 and 162.

99. Garnet to Frangipani, 19 July 1604, printed in Frangipani Correspondance, 77/2, p.725. The letter was forwarded in Frangipani's despatch to Aldobrandino, 17/27 August 1604, (Brussels, Arch, du Royaume, Mss. Divers, 1829, copied from Vat. Arch. Borghese III, b.c.d.9). The synopsis in Frangipani Correspondance, Ed. A. Louant, (7772, p.486), is quite inadequate and gives not a hint of the attitude of the nuncio. For the advice from Rome to write frequently, cf. Aldobrandino to Frangipani, 7 May, 26 June, 6 July, 9 August 1603, and 21 July and 18 September 1604, Brussels, Arch, du Royaume, Mss. Divers 1829 sub dates.

100. Cf. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 11 August 1603 and Aldobrandino to Bufalo, 8 September 1603, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 87. In this his reply, Aldobrandino wrote, à propos of the project: “Posso dire a V.S. che da N. S^re. viene tenuta et creduta incertissima e fundata in aria et pero non gli pare di poter applicar l'animo, tanto più stimando scandalosa il comprar con denari quello che si spero che Dio benedetto habbia un giorno da concedere con la gratia sua a favore de’ suoi fideli Cattolici de quel regno.” (Ibid.)

101. Philip III to the Duke of Escalona, 26 November 1604, Ibid, bundle 88. In the previous September the Constable of Castille had written to Philip III: “The Pope can assist matters greatly if with quiet patience he accommodates himself to the necessities of the times, and put off the reason of state of the temporal prince and looks on this matter simply as the vicar of Christ.” (The Constable to Philip III, 13 September 1604, quoted by A. Loomie, S.J., op.cit. from Simancas, Est. Leg. 840, f.140.)

102. Valenti to Frangipani, 20 July 1605, Brussels, Arch, du Royaume, Mss. Divers 2062, copy from Vat. Arch. Nunz. di Fiandra 136.

103. Cf. The Constable to Philip III, 16 August 1604, Simancas, Est. Leg. 842, f.165.

104. The reason for this proposal by Garnet is suggested infra Note 107.

105. Letters of Garnet, 14 and 21 November 1604, Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia 38.11, ff.l76v and 177.

106. Philip III to Tassis, 3 February 1605, Simancas, Est. Leg. 2571, f.118.

107. “It hath been also a matter of no small grief and complaint, that whereas there be now in England certain hungry and ravenous people that inportuned the king for relief, having no rents or revenues in the land and yet living at a high rate and great charges many ways, his Majesty to give them content hath willed to seek out Popish recusants which he might bestow upon them: wherein they then become diligent to enquire them out and restless in persecuting them to the uttermost, and think all they can get too little.” (The contemporary J. Gerard, S.J. Narrative of Gunpowder Plot, ed. J. Morris, S.J. 1872, pp.34-35.) Instances are to be found in Dom. Cal. fames I 1603-1610, e.g. “List of recusants whose fines are granted to Lady Walsingham, Mr. Izod, Stephen le Sieur, Sir Thomas Monson, the Earl of Southampton, William Wingfield, Lady Elizabeth Stewart and others,” (p.184). “We are also of opinion,” wrote the Lord Chief Justice and the rest of the Judges to the Council, “that it is inconvenient that the forfeitures upon penal laws, or others of like nature, should be granted to any, before the same be recovered or vested in his Majesty by due and lawful proceedings, for that in our experience it makes the more violent proceedings against the subject to the scandal of justice and the offence of many.” (The Lord Chief Justice, etc., to the Council, 8 November 1604, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVI, p.349). Garnet's suggestion above of the payment by Catholics of six to seven thousand pounds may have been made to obviate the practice and satisfy the “hungry and ravenous people,” to which his fellow Jesuit, J. Gerard, referred.

108. Standen to Persons, Paris 17/27 December, Dom. Addenda XXXV, n.61.

109. Cf. supra Note 80.

110. E stato scritto da coteste parti a questo Ambasciatore, che Antonio Standen mentre era a Fiorenza, haveva negotiato per lettere con la sua St^a. di N.S. edimandatogli trenta mila scudi per donare ad alcuni favoriti del Re d'Inghelterra per mezzo di quali si sarebbe ottenuto l'abrogatione di tutte le leggi v. Cattolici e di più che detto Antonio portava un presente a nome del Papa a quella regina, et di tutte, queste cose ha fatto qui grand strepito quest’ Ambasciatore et so che n'ha dato aviso al suo Re e in effetto io scopri che quanto manco si puotra trattare con questi Inglesi, tanto è meglio essendo tra loro insidiosissimi et ogni cosa revelano.” (Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 1/11 January 1604, R.O. Transcripts, P.R.O.31/9, bundle 88.)