1. Recusant History, vol. 5, April 1960, p. 194 and note 58. “ Mercoledi la mattina mandai via il mio prete, temo che con questi calori il poveraccio non s'amali; aspetto il suo ritorno al più alli 28 di questo, giunto che sarà pensiero di mettermi in viaggio verso casa.” Standen to Vinta, Secretary of State to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Palazzo di Pitti, 19 September 1603 (n.s.), printed in Fatti e Figure del Seicento Anglo-Toscano, edited by Anna Maria Crino (Firenze, 1957) p, 94. Mercoledi would be 17 September in 1603 (n.s.) “Il mio prete” can be identified as Canon Edmund Thornhill from subsequent letters such as: Standen to Vinta, 28 September 1603 (n.s.) ibid. p. 95, and Aldobrandino to Thornhill, Belvedere, 24 September 1603 (n.s.) translated infra.

2. Evidently neither the Pope nor the Secretary of State was aware of his former career as a spy for the English Government.

3. A similar request had been made by the Pope to James himself through Sir James Lindsay before the king had ascended the English throne. The king referred to it in a letter to his Ambassador in Paris, Sir Thomas Parry (November 1605), Cal. Salisbury Mss.XV, pp. 299-302. Compare this with Philip III's letter to Escalona, his Ambassador in Rome, 10 March 1605 (n.s.) on Lindsay's return mission to Rome in that year, P.R.O. Transcripts S.P.31/9, bundle 88, and with Lindsay's instructions, S.P.85, bundle 3 f.36. Cf. also Cecil to Parry, January 1605, and his draft to Lennox, January 1605, (P.R.O. French Correspondence).

4. The authorities in Rome had evidently little or no knowledge of Sir Anthony's character: prudent was certainly not an adjective that could be applied to him at this stage of his career, for he was stigmatised elsewhere for his imprudent talk. Cf. Recusant History, art. cit. pp. 180-191.

5. The letter is printed by A.M. Crino, op. cit. p. 96, from the Florentine Arch, di Stato, Fondo Mediceo, Filza 4184. There is another copy in Paris, Bibl. Nat. fonds francais 15976, f. 406.

5a. It is instructive and revealing to compare the despatches of Mgr. Bufalo, the Nuncio in France, and his relations with the English ambassador, Sir T. Parry with the ambassador's letters to Cecil. The Nuncio was certainly deluded by the apparent friendliness of the ambassador, and the edict of 22 February 1604, expelling all Jesuits and seminary priests from England, came to him as a totally unexpected thunderclap.

6. An instruction to him dated 12 September 1603 runs as follows: “In this negotiation with her Highness the Queen, care must be taken not to take any step that would be offensive to the King and the realm; for the merits of his mother of most glorious memory, and his own moral virtues demand this regard: and for that reason his Holiness begs by daily prayers and tears for his spiritual and bodily well-being. He has great praise for the piety and prudence of her Highness the Queen and promises to give every support that may confirm her in her holy religion. Hence, as the request has been made in her name, he sends her some objects of devotion … and confidently hopes that by her means the King will some day become a Catholic. Till that can be achieved, he begs that the children may be imbued in their youthful years with a desire for the faith and a distaste of the heresy that reigns there. Finally, his Beatitude is pleased with your desire to establish a correspondence between him and the Queen, but adds the preceding caution that nothing be done which may exasperate the King and his realm, but that all may be negotiated by such means as a good father and shepherd employs towards his flock, so that he may not console some to the harm and offence of others.” (Tenor litterarum Itálica lingua scriptarum per Ill^mos. Cardinales Aldobran-dinum et Si Marcelli; quae etiam erant signatae manu secretarii, domini Petri Valentis, ex data 12 September 1603 ad equitem Standenum, Bibl. Vat. Barberini Lat. 2190, f. 7.). This collection of documents and synopses of letters seems to have been made for the purpose of an investigation into the Standen business after the débacle of his arrest. The same collection has this further note: “ There were also found letters written in Italian to the same Knight, Standen, of the foresaid date (i.e. 12 September 1603) which are not shown, as they prohibit him to take any steps in this negotiation until he has found out the King's wishes. These letters were written by the very Rev. Bernardinus Paulinus, Datary.”

7. Standen to [Aldobrandino], Florence, undated. (Dom. Eliz. 235, no. 73.), erroneously assigned by the calendarist to 1590 (Cal. S.P. Dom. Eliz. 1581-1590, p. 713). From the opening words it is clear that the letter was written to a Cardinal. The letter itself is not in the hand of Standen, nor has it address, signature or seal. It is endorsed: “ A letter from Sir Anthony Standen for the gifts given him by the Pope.” From this and internal evidence it can be inferred that it belongs to 1603 when Standen received the gifts, and, as it was Cardinal Aldobrandino who sent them to him by Canon Thornhill, it may be taken that it was Cardinal Aldobrandino to whom it was written. There is no indication of the date at which this copy was received in England. The fact that it is found in the Record Office may suggest that there was at Florence or Rome an informer. This may have been Thornhill, who was quite ready to play the intelligencer in 1602 and again in 1604 (Cf. infra.), or it may have been the datary, Paulinus. The datary wrote to King James on 6 January 1605 (P.R.O. S.P. 85, bundle 3, f.8.) informing him that Sir James Lindsay had kept to his instructions in his mission to the Pope and offering his own services. Sir Henry Cary was the bearer of this letter. Later, Paulinus, who was in touch with Sir Henry Wotton, the English ambassador in Venice offered, should the king so desire, to get the Jesuit, Persons, exiled from Rome. Cf. Wotton to Salisbury, Venice, 18 August 1605, printed by Smith, Logan Pearsall in The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton (Oxford, 1907) I, p. 333.Google Scholar

8. He is referring to the grant to himself of the same indulgences as had been conceded to Standen. He describes this favour in a letter to Vinta from Bologna on 29 November 1603 (n.s.), Florence, Arch, di Stato, Fondo Mediceo, Filza 920 cc 421-2, (holograph). To Vinta Thornhill recounts a similar enthusiastic description of Standen's ardour and the Grand Duke's encouragement which he had sent in a letter to Cardinal San Marcello, and the pleasure the Cardinal had expressed in his reply. He also describes the indulgence granted him, news of which he had received through Peracchione, who was the Cardinal's confessor.

Paolo Emilio Zacchia was raised to the purple by Clement VIII on 3 May 1599 under the title of San Marcello. Distinguished by his integrity, prudence and zeal, he would probably have been elected Pope after the death of Clement VIII in 1605, but for his grave illness and the warning of the doctor that at most he had but three months to live. He died, in fact, at the age of fifty in that same year. cf. Memorie storiche de’ Cardinali (Rome 1792-7) VI, p. 61; and Pastor, Geschichte der Papste, XI, p. 187.

9. That the Grand Duke and his Secretary of State Vinta, had a good deal to do with the negotiations of Standen with the Holy See is beyond doubt. Standen, after his arrest in January 1604, confessed that the Grand Duke had opened the way for these negotiations. Cf. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 23 February 1604 (n.s.) P.R.O., S.P.31/9, bundle 88 and De Beaumont to Villeroy, 3 and 10 February 1604 (n.s.) British Museum, King's Mss. 124, ff. 398 and 402. The Grand Duke himself in a long despatch to Montecuccoli, his ambassador extraordinary to King James, acknowledged his part in these negotiations. Cf. Grand Duke to Montecuccoli, March 1604, printed by A. M. Crino op cit., p. 103.

10. Thornhill to Aldobrandino, Bologna, 18 October 1603, Florence, Arch, di Stato, Fondo Mediceo, Filza 919 c. 288. This is a copy in Thornhill's hand, which he enclosed in a letter to Vinta, 22 October 1603, Ibid. c. 289. For clarity's sake I have divided the letter into paragraphs, for there are none in Thornhill's Italian copy.

11. Cf. Thornhill to Vinta, Bologna, 22 October, 10 December 1603 and 10 January 1604 (n.s.) Florence, Arch, di Stato, Fondo Mediceo, Filza 919c. 289, Filza 920 cc. 534-535 and Filza 921 c. 137.

12. Such an account is all the more necessary as one does not gather a correct impression of Thornhill from K. M. Lea's article “Sir Anthony Standen and some Anglo-Italian Letters,“ English Historical Review, July 1937.

13. He had seen the Grand Duke just a few days before. Cf. Thornhill to Aldobrandino, 18 October ut supra. From this his first letter to Vinta it also appears that he had spoken to the Secretary's daughter.

14. Thornhill to Vinta, Bologna, 22 October 1603 ut supra.

15. Ibid.

16. “I am by my own will a slave in bond, bound to the great zeal of the great prince and desire to serve him with life itself without any imaginable self-interest.” Ibid. Cf. also Thornhill to Vinta, Bologna, 20 March 1604 (n.s.) Florence, Arch, di Stato, Fondo Mediceo, Filza 922 cc. 74-77.

17. Cf. Thornhill to Vinta, Bologna, 20 March 1603 ut supra.

18. Cf. Thornhill to Vinta, Bologna, 22 October 1603 ut supra. The passage indeed, reads as if the writer himself were somewhat mentally unbalanced. After protesting that his purpose is to serve the church and cooperate in the conversion of his country, he continues: “This is my intention, this my aim, this my purpose and not worldly ambition, as some Englishmen who follow the court of Rome suspect … but they speak nonsense, they are deranged, they act like madmen.”

19. Cf. Thornhill to Vinta, Bologna, 29 November, 3, 10 and 27 December 1603; 10, 24 January, 20 March, 3 and 13 April 1604, ibid. Filza 920 cc. 421-422, c.464, cc.534-535, cc.902-905, Filza 921, c.137, c.687-688 and Filza 922, cc.74-75, c.536-537, and c.580.

20. Cf. Thornhill to Vinta, 22 October, 27 December 1603, 10 January and 20 March 1604 ut supra.

21. Cf. Thornhill to Vinta, 22 October, 10 and 27 December 1603; 10, 24 January and 3 April 1604 ut supra.

22. Cf. Thornhill to Vinta, 22 October, 1603 and 20 March 1604 ut supra.

23. As regards Standen, cf. Thornhill to Vinta, 3 April 1604; for the Catholic cause, Thornhill to Vinta 29 November and 27 December 1603 ut supra.

24. Cf. Thornhill to Vinta, 22 October, 29 November and 27 December 1603 ut supra.

25. Tn 1603 Giovanni Delfino was promoted to the see of Vicenza, made vacant by the death of Michele Prioli. It was not until 1605 that he was created cardinal, with the title of S. Matteo in Merulana. There appears no evidence that Clement VIII ever considered sending him as legate to England; and it it altogether improbable. Cf. Recusant History, art. cit., April 1960 pp. 194 et. seq.

26. Thorahill to Vinta, Bologna, 27 December 1603 ut supra.

27. Ibid.

28. Cf. Aureliano Townshend to Cecil, Venice, 9 May 1602, P.R.O., S.P. 99 bundle 2 f.99, and same to same Venice, 15 June 1602, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XII p.195.

29. Cf. Parry to Cecil, Paris, 6 October 1604, P.R.O. French Correspondence. Cf. also Letters of Thomas Fitzherbert, C.R.S. vol. 41, p. 72 note 4.

30. Thornhill to Vinta, 3 December 1603 ut supra.

31. Thornhill to Vinta, 3 and 10 December 1603 ut supra.

32. Ibid. Cf. also Thornhill to Vinta, 10 January 1604 ut supra. Why sending the letters to the Canon to forward them to Aldobrandino would have avoided all possible suspicion, he does not say. It would, surely, have been safer for Vinta to send them in the diplomatic post-bag to the Grand Duke's agent or ambassador in Rome. Part reason for his suggestion may have been as he expressed it “darmi di seguitare il negotio nella maniera colla quale lo habbiamo principiato.” In other words that he might continue an active agent in the matter.

33. Thornhill to Vinta, 10 December 1603 ut supra. Such wishful thinking was completely divorced from the real state of affairs in England. Yet a little over a year later, after Thornhill had spent but three months in England, he was recommended to the papal Secretary of State by Barberini, the Nuncio in Paris, as a person well informed on matters pertaining to that country. Barberini to Aldobrandino, Paris, 9 March 1605, P.R.O. S.P. 31/9, bundle 88.

34. Standen in his examination acknoweldged that he had received letters from Cardinals Aldobrandino, San Marcello and Borghese by way of Vinta. Cf. De Beaumont to Villeroy, 3 February 1604 (n.s.), British Museum, King's Mss. 124, f. 375.

35. Thornhill to Vinta, 10 January 1604 ut supra. His explanation why he concealed his use of the diplomatic post-bag to convey the letters seems somewhat laboured.

36. Thornhill to Vinta, 22 October 1603 ut supra. The jubilee year was 1600.

37. Thornhill to Vinta, 20 March 1604 ut supra. He adds: “Per la gratia di Dio tutta la nagatione (natione ?) mi volo ben.”

38. Cf. Barberini to Aldobrandino, 9 March 1605, P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88.

39. Brave words from one who sought a safe post in Italy rather than work on the dangerous mission-field of England.

40. He is referring to the Book of Succession. Persons was not the sole author of the book, nor was its purpose to exclude the claim of James, but to expose the arguments for each claimant impartially, in order to counteract the English law which forbade all discussion of the subject. Cf. ‘Father Robert Persons and the Book of Succession,’ Recusant History, October 1957.

41. Thornhill to Vinta, 24 January 1604 ut supra. All this is in line with an Appellant document: Rationes quibus probare licet perfidum hunc recentem D. Watsoni conatum Appellantium Sacerdotum famam nullo modo debere minuere aut debilitare quominus participes fiant meriti apud S. Majestatem. P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 112. The English version of this document is calendared in Cal. Salisbury Mss. XV, pp. 161-163, though with some differences. Just as Thornhill had made the Appellant priest, Clark, a follower of Persons, so in this document it is stated that Watson, another Appellant priest, had gone over to the Jesuit camp, but a discreet silence is observed as regards Clark. The story of Watson's defection to the Jesuits before the Bye Plot is also asserted by W. Gifford in his Relation, London, 14 August 1603. Cf. La Correspondence d’ Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, ed. A. Louant (Brussels, 1942) III, 2, p. 702. Both assertions are entirely false, as can be seen by the statements of Copley, Watson and Clark, but such assertions reveal the technique of the Appellants. Cf. Copley's Declaration, 14 July 1603, Watson's letter to the Lords in Council, 9 August 1603 and his voluntary Declaration 10 August 1603, printed in Tierney-Dodd, Church History of England, IV, Appendix, pp. 1-XVII, XVII-XXXIV and XXXIV-XLIX. As regards Clark's attitude to the Jesuits, cf. Clark to Sir Griffin Markham, another of the conspirators, 6 April 1603; same to same before August 1603 and Clark to Bancroft, Bishop of London, 30 June 1603, Cal. Salisbury Mss. X V, pp. 35, 222 and 156. Cf. also the Archpriest Blackwell to the Cardinal Protector, Farnese, 14 November and 23 December 1603, Vat. Arch. Borghese II, 448 ab ff. 334 and 333.

The Jesuits, in fact were not at all implicated in the plot, and when there was some rumour of there being such a plot, Garnet advised Blackwell to warn his subjects against any such disturbance. Cf. Garnet to [Persons! 15 June, 19 June, 6 July and 13 August 1603, Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia 38, II, ff. 172v, 173 and 177. Blackwell took Garnet's advice, and it was through his instrumentality and that of John Gage whom he employed for the purpose, that Barnaby, another Appellant priest, was forced to reveal the plot. Cf. Blackwell to Gage, 26 June 1603, Westminster Cathedral Archives, vol. 7 no. 91, John Gage to Cecil, 28 June 1603, with the enclosed letter of Gage to Blackwell, Cat. Salisbury Mss. XV, p. 153, and Gage's long account of the action of Blackwell, himself and Barnaby in the matter, 9 July 1603, Arch. S.J. Rom., Anglia 31,I,f.248. Cf. also Bancroft to Cecil, 9 August 1603, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XV, p. 227.

42. Thornhill to Vinta, 24 January 1604 ut supra.

43. Ibid. That the Jesuits disobeyed the Pope's command in this matter is not true, as their private letters show. Cf. ‘The Embassy of Sir Anthony Standen,’ II, Recusant History, April 1960 note 16. Cf. also Aquaviva to Garnet, 19 July 1603, Arch. S.J. Rom. Fland-Belg. I,II,p.88.

44. Thornhill to Vinta, 3 and 13 April 1604 ut supra. His Italian translation of Persons’ letter to Standen, dated at Frascati, 6 October 1603 is still preserved at Florence, Arch, di Stato, Fondo Mediceo, Filza 919, c. 75. It is in Thorn-hill's hand. The gloss the Canon made upon it has, unfortunately, not yet been found.

45. Standen to Persons, Paris, 27 December 1603 (n.s.) P.R.O., S.P.35, n.61, cited infra.

46. From the enquiry made by the Roman authorities after Standen's imprisonment, it is known that Persons wrote three letters to Standen, Cf. “Tenor trium litterarum Patris Personii ad dictum Standenum scriptarum anglica lingua mensibus 7bris, Octobris et 9bris,” Bibl. Vat. Barberini Lat. 2190, f 3. Standen, however, seems to have been mistaken in thinking that he received the first letter, that of 22 September, at Paris. Dr. Davison, a professor of law in Paris, and Persons's agent for his letters, stated that there were two letters from the Jesuit which, according to his instructions, he handed to Standen in Paris: one, which the Nuncio sent to him on Standen's arrival, undated but written when Persons was not in Rome, the other of a later date which came by post from Lyons. Cf. Davison to Persons, Paris, 15 December 1603 (n.s.) P.R.O., S.P. 78, vol. 50, f. 136. Standen, on the other hand, reported that he had received three letters from Dr. Davison. “Within three days after my arrival here,” he wrote, “one brought me word that Dr. Davison had some letters for me, now for that he had been lately cut of the stone, I went to him and received three of yours, one of the 22^nd of September, another of the 8t;h [vere 6th] of October, and the third of the 21st of the same “; Standen to Persons, 27 December (n.s.) ut supra. Standen, who left Florence on 7 October, should have received the first letter, that of 22 September there, as, indeed, Thornhill implies that he did. Cf. Thornhill to Vinta, 3 April 1604 ut supra. It may be that Standen took it with him unanswered to Paris, and forgot, when writing some weeks after he had received the letters in Paris from Dr. Davison, that this was not one of them.

The second letter of Persons, according to Thornhill, was that of 6 October from Frascati. This agrees with Davison's statement of a letter written by the Jesuit when he was not at Rome, though he also stated that the letter was undated. From Persons's own statement, too, it is known that he did write a letter to Standen from Frascati at the Pope's command, in reply to one from Standen who suggested that Bishop of Evreux might be sent to James. (Persons to Clement VIII, Rome, 11 May 1604, Vat. Arch. Borghese 124 G2, f. 45. Cf. also Persons to Aldobrandino, Rome, 28 September 1603, ibid. f. 35 quoted in Recusant History, art. cit. April 1960, pp. 196-197.) Of the letter of October 6 C. Grene S.J., the seventeenth century copyist, made a short synopsis, (Stonyhurst, Coll. P.421.) Short though this synopsis is, it makes clear the defective character of Thornhill's Italian translation of the letter; for there are mentioned in Grene's note details that do not appear in the Canon's version.

Why Thornhill, even from his own translation, should have characterized the letter as malicious and cunning is not evident. It may be that what upset him was the following passage: “I am glad,” wrote Persons, “that you had such a good opinion of the person, through whom that friend of Vicenza has taken the presents from Rome. I beg you to confirm me, if possible, in the hope you have of that person. He of Vicenza did not wish to see us. But the principal agents in the matter told me all.” It was the Pope himself, in fact, who informed Persons of the business entrusted to Standen. (Persons to Clement VIII, 11 May 1604 ut supra.) This may well have vexed the Canon, who desired the matter to be concealed from Persons. The friend of the Canon mentioned in the above quotation of Persons was probably Nicholas Fitzherbert, to whom Standen, in his answer of 27 December, referred. Persons, as later letters reveal, had no good opinion of Fitzherbert any more than of Thornhill himself.

There is a curious incident about this letter of 6 October 1603. It reached the Nuncio before Standen's arrival at Paris, and he sent a messenger with it to Dr. Davison. On delivering the letter, the messenger asked Davison who was Sir Anthony and who was his correspondent. Davison satisfied his curiosity about Standen, but as regards the writer of the letter, replied that he could not gather the name, but, belike, it was some one of the knight's acquaintance. He further said that he would keep the letter for him, but the messenger took it back to the Nuncio who sent it to Davison again only after Standen's arrival in Paris. Cf. Davison to Persons, Paris, 15 December 1603 (n.s.) ut supra. The incident is strange, for the messenger, presumably, was acting on the instructions of the Nuncio, yet the latter knew quite well who Sir Anthony was, Standen having paid him a visit secretly on his first arrival in Paris in July 1603. Cf. Recusant History, art. cit., April 1960, p.189. Dr. Davison evidently thought it somewhat strange, as he parried the second part of the enquiry, as to who was the writer, and conceived the incident of sufficient importance to mention it in his letter to Persons.

47. The story appears to have been spread abroad to cover the theft of the letter from Davison's house, which is revealed in the contemporary documents and which Cecil, despite the king's enquiry, carefully concealed from James. Cf. Cecil to Parry, 24 January 1604, P.R.O., S.P. 78/57 ff. 12-18.

48. Thornhill to Vinta, 3 April 1604 ut supra.

49. Cf. Persons to Clement VIII, Rome, 11 May 1604 (n.s.). The pertinent part of this letter will be quoted in a later article.

50. The dates are new style. Thornhill gives the date of Standen's departure from Florence in his letter to Aldobrandino of 18 October, quoted above. Relying on a despatch of Giulio Sali, Genoa, 17 October 1603, (Florence, Arch, di Stato, Fondo Mediceo, Filza 219, c. 2181) A. M. Crino gives the date of his embarkation from Genoa. His departure from Florence was delayed by his waiting for the return of Thornhill from Rome. He intended to leave Florence on 29 September; cf. Persons to Aldobrandino. 28 September 1603, (Vat. Arch. Borghese III 124 g² f. 35.)

51. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Paris, 30 November 1603, P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 87.

52. Cf. Henry IV to De Bethune, 2 December 1603 (n.s.) Paris. Bilb. Nat. fonds francais, 3845 f. 125. In a despatch of 7 December 1603 Villeroy informed De Beaumont of Henry's refusal of Standen's request and the reasons for it, ibid. 15976, f. 490. For Standen's visit to Fontainebleau cf. Standen to Vinta, Paris, 22 December, and to the Grand Duke, 27 December, 1603, printed by A. M. Crind, op. cit. pp. 98 and 99, and Standen to Persons, Paris, 27 December 1603, ut supra.

53. For Henry's suspicion of the negotiations between the Nuncio and the English ambassador, cf. Henry IV to De Bethune, 2 December 1603 ut supra. Though it failed ultimately in its purpose, it was papal policy at the time to adopt a benevolent attitude to James in the hope of obtaining some relief for his Catholic subjects. The negotiations can be followed in the correspondence between the Nuncio and Aldobrandino, P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundles 87 and 88. The papal Secretary of State, while counselling the Nuncio to keep on friendly terms with the ambassador, advised him to proceed cautiously and to trust Henry IV, for the ambassador was trying to disturb the good relations between the Holy See and the French King. (Aldobrandino to Bufalo, 10 February 1604 (n.s.) ibid, bundle 88.) Evidence of Henry's dislike of Parry is given in a dispatch of the Nuncio in which he reported that in a recent audience Henry had broken out in anger against the ambassador for his dealing with and abetting the Huguenots. (Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 13 December 1603 (n.s.) ibid, bundle 87.) A little later Henry expressed his opinion in no uncertain terms. “Parry,” he wrote, “allows himself to be persuaded by the last person who talks to him; to such a degree is he imbecile, as one who applies himself more to his books than to a knowledge of affairs.” Further in the same letter he declared: “It is impossible to behave with greater impertinence and malice than does the Ambassador of England, for he lets it appear in everything that he is seeking a quarrel. His impertinence arises from his weakness of character and from the malice of those who possess his ear, who lead him and move him as they will, and I know that these have been won over by the mutinous and factious of the pretended reformed religion who strive by all means to make a breach between me and the King of England.” (Henry IV to De Beaumont, 17 January 1604 (n.s.) quoted by H., Fouqueray S.J. in Histoire de la Compagnie de Jésus en France, II, pp. 688–689.Google Scholar

54. After Standen's arrest he averred that he had counselled Standen to proceed to England and leave the gifts behind him in his charge. (Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 23 February 1604 (n.s.) P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88.) There appears no hint of this in the immediately contemporary despatches. . Years later when George Conn arrived in Paris with papal presents for another English Queen, the then Nuncio at once reported that Conn had thought it better to leave them behind in Paris rather than take them with him to England.

55. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 13 December 1603 (n.s.) ibid, bundle 87, and Standen to Persons, 27 December 1603, ut supra.

56. Standen to Vinta, 22 December, and to the Grand Duke, 27 December 1603, printed by A. M. Crinô, op. cit. pp. 98 and 99.

57. Cf. Standen to Persons, 27 December 1603, ut supra.

58. In his letter to Vinta, dated 22 December 1603, printed by A. M. Crinô, op. cit., p. 98, Standen informed him that he would depart for England after the Christmas festival, and in one to the Grand Duke, 27 December 1603 (n.s.), ibid, p. 99, he reported that he had taken leave of their Majesties that morning and would leave for England the following morning.

59. His concealing himself because of the anger of the King is reported by a gentleman who left England on 21 January and arrived in Paris on 31 January (n.s.) P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88. Cf. also Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 23 February 1604, ibid. According to a despatch of Nicolo Molin, the Venetian Ambassador in England, dated 5 February 1604 (Venetian Cal. 1603-1607, p. 131.) Standen had arrived at court ten days previously. Cecil reported his arrival and arrest in a letter to Parry, 24 January 1604 (o.s.) P.R.O., S.P. 78/51, ff. 12-18.

60. He is referring to his suggestion made earlier in a letter to Persons, of sending the Bishop of Evreux to King James. Cf. Recusant History, art. cit., April 1960, pp. 196-197.

61. Standen had little or no authority for stating that priests would be allowed in the houses of Catholics. It was but a little over two months after the date of his letter that James issued a proclamation on 22 February 1604 (O.S.) exiling all Jesuits and Seminary priests. There is no doubt, however, that the Appellant priests endeavoured to have the Jesuits, the secular priests who supported them, and the Archpriest, expelled out of England. Some references to the documents proving this will be found in The Letters of Thomas Fitzherbert, C.R.S. vol. 41, p. 93, n. 14, but additions could be made to the list. Cf. the report written by the secular priest, John Cecil for King James and his Council, describing the intrigues of Christopher Bagshawe in France with the aid of the English Ambassador there (Westminster Cathedral Archives, vol. 7, no. 93). A copy of Cecil's report, together with a Latin translation of it was sent by the Nuncio in France to Aldobrandino on 10 August 1603 (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 87). A Latin translation is printed in La Correspondence d'Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, iii, 2, p. 857, from Vat. Arch. Borghese III, 98d³, f. 158. For Bagshawe's activities see also “Articuli propositi per Dm Bagshaum “, 17 August 1603 (Archives of the English College Valladolid, leg. 5); W. Crichton S.J. to Aquaviva, Paris 27 August 1603 (Arch. S.J. Rom. Gall. 94, f. 19) and Parry to Robert Cecil, Paris 23 September 1603 (P.R.O. French Correspondence).

62. From “of my tokens” to “with them” is underlined in the manuscript. By the Statute, 13 Eliz. c. 3, whoever shall bring in to these realms any Agnus Dei, crosses, pictures or beads or offer them to any person to be used; the person so offering and the person receiving them for that end incurs a praemunire unless the party receiving them discover the bringer in three days to a Justice of the Peace; and the Justice incurs a praemunire, if he does not discover the matter to one of the Privy Council within 14 days. Cf. The Penal Laws against Priests, and Popish Recusants, Nonconformists and non-jurors, London, 1723, p. 9.

63. Standen had in fact more than once told the Grand Duke that the King had a particular antipathy to Persons for having written against his (James's) succession. (Cf. Grand Duke to Montecuccoli, 12 March 1604 (n.s.) printed by A. M. Crin6, op. cit. p. 103.)

64. Thomas Worthington was at this date the President of the English College, Douay.

64a. Hostility to the Jesuits and particularly to Persons had been deliberately fostered for some years. Some of the calumnies spread abroad to defame and discredit the Jesuits are dealt with in Letters of Thomas Fitzherbert, C.R.S. vol. 41, p. 81, n. 1; p. 93, n. 14; and p. 130, no. 40. Persons was well aware of this artificially created hostility and endeavoured to counter it. Cf. Persons to the Earl of Angus, 24 January 1600 (P.R.O. Scot. Eliz. 66, n. 6); same to same, 14 November 1600 (Stonyhurst Anglia II, n. 64) and Persons to N.T. [ = Garnet] 24 May 1603 (P.R.O. Dom. lames I, 1, n. 84). He also made his position clear to James through noblemen returning to Scotland, and sent a very straightforward letter to the King by Sir James Lindsay, stating that his only objection to the King's accession had been that he was not a Catholic (Persons to James VI, Rome 14 August 1602, Stonyhurst Anglia III, n. 20. cf. also Persons to James I, 18 October 1603, ibid. no. 36). It is clear that James himself after his accession realized, as did his government, the pacific attitude towards him of the Jesuits and of Persons himself, and Persons was quite aware that they knew. In a letter to Clement VIII he wrote, “Moreover the King knows well that by your Holiness’ orders I have written both to the Archpriest and to the superior of the Jesuits and to various Catholics, impressing this point [i.e. pacific behaviour] very strongly on them, and some of the letters have fallen into his [i.e. the King's] hands.” (Persons to Clement VIII, Rome, 11 May 1604 ut supra.)

65. Neither Thornhill's letters nor his later conduct supports this statement; it would seem that either Standen was not telling the truth or that Thornhill had given him a false impression.

66. He is referring not to Thomas Fitzherbert, who only arrived in Rome about the end of 1601, but to Nicholas Fitzherbert, the inveterate enemy of Persons. One may doubt the phrase, “all to honest end”, for Standen is referring to his former stay in Florence when he acted as an intelligencer of the English Government. Cf. Recusant History, art. cit., April 1960, note 57.

67. On this matter cf. Ibid. pp. 198 ff.

68. He is referring to the negotiations between the Nuncio in France and Henry IV for the recall of the Jesuits who had been banished by several ‘Parlements’ of France from Paris and other parts of that country. Cf. H. Fouqueray op. cit. torn. II, I. II cc. V and VI and 1. III, cc. VI and VII.

69. Both Henry IV and his Ambassador in Rome, De Bethune, had been alienated from Persons during the appeal of the Appellants in 1602.

70. Achille de Harlay whose son De Beaumont was French Ambassador in England.

71. Standen to Persons, Paris, 27 December 1603 (n.s.) P.R.O., S.P. 35, n. 61, (spelling modernised) holograph, addressed in Standen's hand: “to the Rev. Father in Christ Father Robert Persons,” and endorsed by Levinus Monk, Cecil's secretary: “Sir Anthony Standen to father persons a dangerous letter.”

72. Dr Davison wrote to Persons: “Although I was much consoled by your Reverence's letter of the 7th of February to hear of your health, yet it caused me considerable anxiety to see no mention of my letter of the 15^th of January with which went one from Sir Anthony Standen for your Reverence in reply to yours. This letter was brought to me about 15 days after the departure of Sir Anthony by an individual who was very intimate with him all the time he stayed in Paris after his return from Italy, though not very well disposed to your Reverence: he told me, however, that he would give me the letter just as Sir Anthony had instructed him.” Davison to Persons, Paris, 29 March 1604, enclosed in Persons to Clement VIII, 11 May 1604, Vat. Arch. Borghese III, 124 g2 f. 45. As Standen left Paris 28 December 1603 (note 58 supra) his letter to Persons would have been given to Davison about 12 January 1604 (n.s.).

73. As regards Parry's practice of sending only copies of letters and not the originals cf. Parry to Cecil, 29 September 1603 (P.R.O. French correspondence) enclosing seven such copies as well as copies of three letters to Christopher Bagshaw, all which copies are still extant. (Ibid.) Referring in the same despatch to letters addressed to Bernard Gardiner, he wrote: “I caused the originals to be sealed again and delivered to the messenger who hath promised me as good service in return of Mons. Bernard's answer.” In a letter to Cecil of 5 January 1604 (Ibid.) he wrote: “I send your Lordship the copies of sundry letters that are come into my hand … The originals of all the letters were communicated unto me under the hands and seals of the writers by such means as I have heretofore certified.” Ibid. Cf. also Parry to Cecil, 26 February, 16 June and 21 October 1603 and 18 June 1604. (Ibid.) There are, moreover, still extant copies of several such intercepted letters so sent from Paris: Persons to Davison, 20 October 1603, to Crichton, 21 October 1603, Davison to Owen, 12 December 1603, to Persons, 14 December 1603, (Ibid.) and Owen to his brother, Hugh, 7 December 1603, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XV, p. 293 in connection with which cf. Colville to Cecil, Paris, 24 February, (Ibid. XVI, p. 27.)

74. Persons to Clement VIII, 11 May 1604 ut supra. Persons's statement that Parry had been informed of the papal gifts Standen was bringing to the Queen is confirmed by the Paris Nuncio. In a letter as early as 11 January 1604, long before he knew of the arrest of Standen, he informed Aldobrandino: “A letter has been written from those parts to the English Ambassador stating that Anthony Standen, whilst he was in Florence treated with his Holiness and asked for 30000 scudi to give to some favourites of the King of England by means of which there would be obtained an abrogation of the laws against Catholics and further that the said Anthony carried a present in name of the Pope to that Queen; and of all this the Ambassador has made a great commotion, and I know he has reported this to his King.” Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 11 January 1604 (n.s.) P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88. Parry, therefore, knew that Standen was conveying papal gifts to the Queen before the theft of Standen's letter. (Cf. note 72 supra.)

75. “The Jesuits and Seminary priests,” Parry reported to Cecil, “follow their traffic in all places, yet it seemeth by some of their letters, they like not their markets. Their banker and their oracle is D^r Davison, a professor of law, lodged in the College of Cambray (in Paris). He was of late cut of the stone, and as I am informed, not likely to escape. Nevertheless letters come to him daily from Rome, from Spain, from the Low Countries and from divers parts of this realm and from England. I have found means, though with charge, to understand what passeth by his hands and according to the success will proceed. The party sent unto me divers of later dates, which having perused I caused one of them to be copied and so have enclosed you the copy.” (Parry to Cecil, 22 October 1603, P.R.O. French Correspondence.)

76. The letter referred to seems to be that of December 1603 (Cal. Salisbury Mss. XV, p. 293.)

77. For Davison's concern at receiving no acknowledgment from Persons of his letter to him dated 15 January 1604, enclosing Standen's letter to Persons of 27 December 1603, cf. note 72 supra.

78. John Colville to Cecil, Paris, 24 February 1604. (Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVI, p. 27.) At this time Colville, who had been a Presbyterian minister in Scotland, was outwardly professing to be Catholic. Late in 1599, when he was in London practically destitute, he offered his services to Cecil. He crossed to France early in 1600, became a Catholic and some time later made a pilgrimage to Rome. The sincerity of his conversion has not unnaturally been questioned. It is certain, as the above letter shows, that he continued to act as an agent for Cecil. It is probable, indeed that he became a Catholic for that very purpose. “Colville,” wrote Winwood, “doth go to Mass and tells me he must temporise, otherwise he shall do no service. I referred his conscience to himself.” Winwood to Sir Henry Neville, Paris, 17 July 1603 (o.s.) Winwood, Memorials of Affairs of State, London, 1725, I, p. 227. Cf. also, John Loverden to Dudley Carleton, Paris, 5 July 1603 (o.s.) P.R.O. French Correspondence. Persons referred to a Scot who took part in obtaining Standen's letter. (Persons to Clement VIII, 11 May 1604, ut supra.) This was presumably Colville.