^1. It was customary for the nomination of deans and canons of St. Peter's, Lille to be made by bull. (Hautcoeur, Cf. E., Histoire de L'Eglise Collégiale et du Chapitre de Saint Pierre de Lille, 1896-1899, II, p.252)Google Scholar Gifïord was appointed Dean by a bull, dated 6 May 1595, (Ibid. II, p.258). Other'English and Irish priests at one time or another were nominated deans or canons of this church, (Ibid. III, c.LI). During Gifford's tenure of office there may be mentioned lohn Marshall, who, having been a canon of St. Peter's, Lille, for eighteen years, died there 3 April 1597, and David Kearney, who in 1603 relinquished his canonry of St. Peter's to be consecrated Archbishop of Cashel, (Ibid. III, pp. 26 and 30).

^2. Cf. Gifford to Sir Thomas Edmondes, English Ambassador at Brussels, undated, quoted infra (Reference in Note 7), and Frangipani, Nuncio at Brussels, to Borghese, Papal Secretary of State, Brussels, 8 July 1606, n.s. Brussels, Archives Générales du Royaume, MS.2061, Arch. Borghese II, 108, ff. 134-134v.

^3. His last signature at the head of those who signed the acts of the Chapter, was in July 1606. (E. Hautcoeur, op.cit. III, p.32). His successor to the deanery, Philippe de Sion, was nominated by a bull of 29 March 1607, (Ibid.).

^4. Frangipani reported Caraffa's arrival at Brussels in a despatch of 9 September 1606, n≫s. (Correspondance d'Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, Ed. Armand Louant, Brussels, 1942, III 2, p.613).Google Scholar This work will be henceforth referred to as” Frangipani Corr.”

^5. “It was said to the Archbishop [Decius Caraffa] that should a certain member of your staff offer to remain in his service, he should not accept the offer because he was suspected of being on intimate terms with the English Ambassador, as you will understand better by word of mouth.” (Borghese to Frangipani, Rome, 21 October 1606, n.s. Ibid III 2, p.762), The member of Frangipani's staff who was not to be allowed to remain on that of the incoming Nuncio, the Editor rightly identifies with Frangipani's Secretary for Latin letters, Jean Xandre, (Ibid. III 1, p.xxvi, note I). This secretary, as the contemporary documents show, was a close friend of Gifford's.

^6. On the duties and importance of the office of Dean of St. Peter's, Lille, cf. Hautcoeur, op. cit. I, pp.105ff.

^7. P.R.O. S.P.77, 8, ff. 134-135; spelling modernised, as in all contemporary English quotations. The letter is undated and was enclosed in a despatch of Edmondes to Salisbury, 28 June 1606, o.s. in which he stated he had received it after closing up his other letter, (Ibid, f.130). On 8 July 1606, n.s. (i.e. 28 June, o.s.) Frangipani reported that Gifford had been to see him at Brussels concerning the order for his exile, the other evening at an unusual hour, and that he had departed that morning. (Frangipani to Borghese, Brussels, 8 July 1606, n.s. as in note 2 above). It would appear then, that Edmondes received Gifford's letter by messenger, probably on the 28 June, o.s. and that previous to this the Dean had visited the Nuncio. The letter was printed by Dom Hugh Connolly, O.S.B. in an article on Gifford's exile in The Downside Review, October 1935. Unfortunately Dom Hugh was not acquainted with quite a number of crucial documents and this renders the article defective and the conclusions erroneous.

^8. It will be shown later that Gifford was a spy or intelligencer of some English Councillors. A visit by him to the Ambassador would only have added to the conviction of the Archduke that he was a spy, once it were known. This is an indication that Gifford had a shrewd idea of the real reason why the Archduke ordered his summary exile. For the Archduke's conviction, etc. cf. Archduke to Van Ortenburg, 12 May 1606, infra Note 43.

^9. Since Gifford's letter was sent to England with Edmondes’ despatch dated 28 June, o.s. (cf. Note 7), by “Sunday last” must presumably be understood Sunday 2 July, n.s., equal to 22 June, o.s.

^10. Hugh Owen, a Catholic exile, had been for many years in the service of Spain in Flanders. About 18 November 1605, o.s., at the instance of the English Government, who suspected him of complicity in the Gunpowder Plot, he together with his secretary, Baily, had been hastily imprisoned in Brussels by the Archduke, (Edmondes to Salisbury, Brussels, 19 November 1605, o.s. Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVII, p.496). He protested his innocence and nothing was found in his papers to implicate him. Great pressure, however, was brought to bear on the Archduke to extradite him, but on one pretext or another he avoided doing so, always demanding proofs to be sent to him of Owen's complicity. The English Government persistently refused to do this, maintaining that the word of James I, the Proclamation and the proceedings in Parliament were proof enough, Owen's arrest was not to the liking of the authorities in Spain who considered the Archduke to have acted hastily in imprisoning a faithful servant on mere suspicion. (Edmondes to Salisbury, 19 February 1606, P.R.O. S.P. 77/8, f.36). Thanks to the determined efforts of the Archbishop of Rhodes, Nuncio in Spain, in strong contrast to those of Frangipani, Owen was released in May 1606, his secretary, Baily, having regained his liberty in the preceding month. (Cf. the despatches of the Archbishop of Rhodes, Nuncio in Spain, 1 and 15 January, 10, 14 and 18 February and 17 March 1606, n.s. P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 114). The whole incident can be followed in the despatches of Edmondes and Salisbury, Ibid. S.P, 77, vols 7 and 8, and those of Hoboken, the Archduke's Ambassador in England, Brussels, Archives Générales du Royaume, Papiers d'Etat et d'Audience, 365).

Later, when the support of the English Government was needed to induce the States to agree to a truce with the Archduke, pressure was again brought to bear upon the ruler of Flanders and eventually in 1609 Owen was exiled, together with W. Baldwin, S.J. (see Note 11). For a detailed treatment of the subject, Willaert, L. S.J.cf. L'Angleterre et les Pays-Bas Catholiques, Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, Vol. IX (1908), pp. 57-61 and 736–745.Google Scholar

^11. W. Baldwin, S.J. replaced W, Holt, S.J. in Flanders in 1598. In December 1605 he, together with Sir William Stanley, was put under house-arrest by the Archduke, at the instance of the English Government, who declared more than once that he was implicated in the Gunpowder Plot. He was however, soon allowed to leave Brussels and attend to the affairs of St. Omers’ College and of the English Jesuits. Though the Archduke was strongly and repeatedly urged by the English Government to extradite him, he refused to do so; but eventually, in 1609, on further pressure being applied, the Archduke exiled him. On his way to Rome he was captured in the Palatinate and sent by its ruler to England where he was imprisoned in the Tower in 1610. Despite the previous repeated categorical assertions that he was involved in the Gunpowder Plot, on his being examined when a prisoner in the Tower, nothing was found to justify the assertions. He remained however, in the Tower till 1618, when he was allowed to leave England in the company of Count Gondomar, the Spanish Ambassador. Authorities as in Note 10; cf. also H. Foley, S.J. Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, III, pp. 501–520.Google Scholar

^12. Thomas Phelippes, the well-known decipherer and agent of the English Government. During the previous few years he had been in trouble of one kind or another. In 1597, as Customer of the petty customs at the Port of London he defaulted in his payment to the crown to the amount of over £11,000. (Cf, The Queen to the Officers of the Exchequer, [Sept.] 1600, Cal. Dom. Eliz. 1598-1601, p.472. For his own explanation of the default in 1597, cf. Cal. Salisbury Mss. XIV, p.36). On that account he was imprisoned for a time and his lands sequestered, though some years later they were restored to him. (Cf. Memorial of Burghley, 29 November 1597, Cal. Dom. Eliz. 1595-1597, p.539, and T. Phelippes to Salisbury, February and 18 April 1609, Cal Dom James I, 1603-1610 pp. 496 and 504). He was still negotiating about the repayment of his debt in the years 1608, 1609 and 1611.

Despite his change of fortune he continued to decipher letters for the Government and to give reports on English Catholics abroad. To obtain this information, under the guise of a purely fictitious and Catholic-minded person, whom he named Vincent, he corresponded with the Catholic exile, Hugh Owen, writing letters to him, as to one Benson, and all this with the privity of the Queen, Essex and Wade. He continued to do so after the accession of James I, and on that account fell under Cecil's suspicion, and for a time was imprisoned in the Gatehouse. (Cf. Cranbourne to Windebank, 25 January 1605, Cal. Dom. James I 1603-1610, p. 189; T. Phelippes’ Examination, 25 January 1605, and W. Sterrell's Examination, 26 January 1605, P.R.O. S.P.14, 12 nn.32 and 38; Phelippes’ Declaration, 29 January 1605, Hatfield, Salisbury Mss. 103, 157). Later, after the Gunpowder Plot, he again resorted to the same correspondence, in the vain hope of obtaining some reward from the Spanish authorities, though he had already been decried—quite rightly—by the Spanish Ambassador Extraordinary, Count Villa Mediana, as a spy of the English Government. He was, therefore, again imprisoned in the Gatehouse and then in the Tower. (Cf. T. Phelippes to Salisbury, 4 February and 29 April 1606, P.R.O. S.P.14, 18, n.63 and 20, n.50; cf. also Same to Wade, 29 April 1606, printed in Tytler's History of Scotland, Ed. 1866, VIII, p. 392), He was freed some months later, but does not appear to have regained his former position, though he still corresponded with Salisbury in the years 1608-1609. His career can be followed in the Domestic Calendars and in those of the Salisbury Mss. and should be described in any future or supplementary edition of the D.N.B. 13. Another phrase indicating that his statement that his exile was caused by the malice of W. Baldwin, SJ. and Owen was, as he himself declared, a conjecture. The reason he was not told the cause of the action against him was partly to lessen any scandal that might have arisen, (cf. Richardot's draft letter for the Archduke to send to his agent in Rome, 12 May 1606, and Van Ortenburgh's reply, 3 June 1606, n.s. both quoted infra, cf. notes 43 and 45); and partly, it would seem, to avoid diplomatic difficulties, or as Edmondes expressed it, “for his Majesty's [James I's] respect,” (Edmondes to Salisbury, 12 July 1606, quoted infra, note 54).

^14. Richardot had certainly not lamented the order for Gifford's exile in this sense. Weeks before this letter of the Dean he had drafted the letter, 12 May 1606, for the Archduke to send to Van Ortenburgh, suggesting that the Dean should be called to Rome or exiled cf. (infra.) note 43.

^15. His familiarity with the English Ambassador supports the conviction of Hoboken, Richardot and the Archduke that he was a spy, (cf. Hoboken to the Archduke, 27 April and 3 May 1606, and the Archduke to Van Ortenburg, 12 May 1606, n.s. all quoted infra, cf. Notes 39, 43 and 45).

^16. His intimacy with the Nuncio was by means of Jean Xandre, the Nuncio's Secretary, who also was an intelligencer of the English Government. Authorities as in Note 15; cf. also Letter of an Englishman in Flanders to another Englishman in Rome, 18 February 1606, (n.s.) and Captain Dexter to Thomas Fitzherbert, 4 May 1606, n.s, both quoted infra, cf. notes 40 and 41.

^17. Two reports of Gifford on English affairs are extant. The one, somewhat long, dated London 14 August 1603, o.s., was written after he had been but a week or two in England, for he had reached London 3 August 1603, o.s. (Degli Effetti's despatch, 3 September 1603, n.s. P.R.O. 31/9, 87). The other, much shorter, was penned after another short visit to Endand, and is dated 15 October 1605. They are both printed in Frangipani Corr. III², pp. 702-710 and 867-870. There are transcripts in P.R.O. 31/9, bundles 112 and 113. Both reports, whilst giving some correct observations, contain errors of fact, misinterpretations and are in part tendentious.

^18. In 1603, on complaints being made by the Archduke's Ambassador that the States were allowed to recruit soldiers in England and Scotland, it was suggested that King James I would likewise permit the Archduke to levy men for his service, if he were to make trial of it. (Cecil to Winwood, 3 October 1603, o.s. Winwood Memorials, 1725, II, p.6). It was not however, until two years later that the Archduke first recruited volunteers for an English regiment to serve in Flanders. (Salisbury to Winwood, 28 June 1605, Ibid. p.81). After several candidates had been rejected, there was chosen to be head of the regiment Thomas Arundell, who in 1595 had gained distinction in fighting against the Turks, and who in May 1605 had been created by King James Baron Arundell of Wardour. (Edmondes to Cornwallis, 22 August 1605, o.s. Ibid, p.III).

At this time, however, the Dutch navy, after having driven into Dover some Spanish ships conveying troops from Lisbon to Flanders, were blockading them there, (G(?) D. to Sir Everard Digby, 11 June, Salisbury to Edmondes, 12 and 28 June 1605, Cat. Salisbury Mss. XVII, pp. 252, 254 and 281). When then, the Count of Villa Mediana, after negotiating the peace treaty, was about to return to Flanders by way of Dover under the protection of English ships, King James, at the instance of Caron, the Dutch Agent, gave his word that Arundell and his captains should not cross the Channel with the Spanish Ambassador under the same protection. (The Council to Sir Lewis Lewknor, 26 August, Arundell to Salisbury, 27 August, Lewknor to Salisbury, 27 August and Salisbury to Lewknor, Sept. 1605, Ibid. pp. 394, 397, 399 and 441). Despite this, Arundell obtained a passage in the Vice-Admiral's ship, the Adventure, captained by Matthew Bradgate. (Sir William Monson to Salisbury, 3 and 6 September, and Salisbury to Edmondes, 12 September 1605, Ibid. pp. 411, 415 and 419) The captain,’ in consequence, was imprisoned, (cf. his letters to Salisbury, Ibid. pp. 442, 453 and 472). Arundell himself incurred James's high displeasure and was ordered to return to England as soon as he had settled the English regiment. (Salisbury to Edmondes, 12 September 1605, ut supra). Later, at the instance of the Archduke, he was allowed to remain as head of the regiment. (Salisbury to Edmondes, 14 November, and Edmondes to Salisbury, 5 December 1605, Ibid. pp. 488 and 546).

From the beginning of the new Levies there was strife and contention in the regiment, particularly between Sergeant Major, Sir Thomas Studder, and Sir Griffin Markham, who had been appointed Lieutenant Colonel. (Edmondes to Salisbury, [before Sept. 1605], p.424, and 23 January 1606, Ibid. XVIII, p.30). Part of the trouble seems to have been concerned with the danger of English spies enrolling in the regiment, Studder insinuating that it was not fit for the service to entertain any, especially in a place of command, who had any dependency or expectation of fortune in England. (Edmondes to Salisbury, 28 May 1606, Ibid. XVIII, p. 152). Certainly with regard to Markham his insinuation was justified, for Markham soon played the informer, seeking to regain the favour of the King. (Cf. Note 35 infra; also Salisbury to Edmondes, 12 luly, Edmondes to Salisbury, [22 July], and Markham to Salisbury, 15 October 1606. Ibid. pp. 200, 207 and 232.

This strife, moreover, was attributed to the English Jesuits, who were said to be behind Studder and to wish to control the regiment. (Edmondes to Salisbury, 23 January, 5 April and 29 May 1606, Ibid. pp. 30, 98 and 152). This, no doubt, centred round the charge, categorically asserted more than once by the Nuncio, Frangipani, that the lesuits claimed the right to nominate the chaplains to the regiment, and would have no one but Jesuits or those dependent on them. (Frangipani to Borghese, 5 November 1605, Frangipani Corr. III², p.552, and of 13 December 1605, P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 113). He even ascribed lames's displeasure with Arundell to this cause. Rome, however, knew the real reason. The General of the Society replied that it was improbable that his subjects should make this claim, as they had no such authority. (Borghese to Frangipani, 26 November 1605, Frangipani Corr. III², p.746). It was, in fact to the Archbishop of Malines that Clement VIII, by a brief of 1597, entrusted the appointment of chaplains to the forces in Flanders. (J. Schoonjans, “Castra Dei,” in Mélanges d'Histoire Offerts à Léon Van der Essen, Brussels, 1947 I, p.553, note 51). The matter was further complicated by Lord Arundel! bringing with him his chaplain, the Benedictine, John Bradshaw, alias White, known in religion as Dom Austin or Augustine of St. John, and appointing him head chaplain to the regiment without any reference to the Archbishop of Malines, (Frangipani to Borghese, 13 December 1605, ut supra). Later, despite his previous categorical assertions, Frangipani had to acknowledge that the Jesuits were not implicated. (Frangipani to Borghese, 18 February 1606, n.s, P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 114).

After the Gunpowder Plot, Edmondes asserted—from information given by Markham—the regiment was to have been transported to England to aid the plotters, but he kept a discreet silence as to what means were to have been used to transport so many men, or how they were to be conveyed to England without the knowledge of the Archduke, who certainly would not have permitted it. (Edmondes to Salisbury 6 and 23 January 1606, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVIII, pp. 8 and 30). In consequence, further recruiting was stayed for a time, though this did not greatly affect the regiment, as many flocked to it from the States. (Edmondes to Cornwallis, 22 June 1606, Cornwallis to Salisbury, undated, and Salisbury to Cornwallis 5 February 1606/1607, Winwood Memorials, II, pp. 235, 286 and 290), In May, the strife in the regiment was met, to the amazement and chagrin of Edmondes, by the Archduke cashiering Arundell, Markham and many more captains, and reorganising the regiment. Apparently it was a safety measure, though Sir Thomas Studder was also dismissed (as Edmondes thought, for appearance's sake). (Edmondes to Salisbury, 29 May and 28 June 1606, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVIII, pp.152 and 183; Edmondes to Cornwallis 22 June 1606, Winwood Memorials, II, p.233; and two letters of Arundell to Salisbury, undated, Cal Salisbury Mss. XVIII, pp. 376 and 377.)

Clearly, the English regiment was no concern of Gifford's, and his statement in the text is significant, in view of his other activities. Hoboken stated definitely that his interference was mischievious. (Hoboken to the Archduke 3 May 1606 n.s. quoted infra, c.f. note 39).

For a general account of the regiment, cf. Willaert, L. S.J. L’ Angleterre et les Pays-Bas Catholiques, Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, vol. VII (1906), pp.594 ff.Google Scholar

^19. Any intervention in his favour on the part of the English Ambassador would only have strengthened the Archduke's conviction that Gifford was a spy. Cf. note 8 supra.

^20. Cf. Edmondes to Salisbury, 19 November, 1605 o.s. quoted infra, cf. note 29.

^21. Cf. Edmondes to Salisbury, 22 July 1606, o.s., quoted infra, note 54.

^21a Cf. note 7 above.

^22. Frangipani to Borghese, 8 July 1606, n.s. as in note 2 supra. In December 1592, Innocent Malvasia was appointed commissary for the papal contingent in the service of the League. When Henry of Navarre abjured heresy in 1593 Malvasia retired to Antwerp and later to Brussels when the Archduke Ernest arrived in January 1594 as the new Governor of the Low Countries. As commissary, Malvasia had no status at court, so Clement VIII by a brief of 17 September 1594, appointed him Nuncio. He was a patron of Charles Paget and William Gifford. The latter, indeed, lived with him for a time and acted as secretary. Owing to his anti-Spanish activities complaints about Malvasia were made to Rome and he was recalled in September 1595. Maere, Cf. R., Les Origines de la Nonciature de Flandre, Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, VIII, (1906), pp. 810, ff.Google Scholar Malvasia to Aldobrandino 29 April 1595, Vat Arch Nunz. di Fiandra, VIII, f.200; Secretary Ibara to Philip II, Brussels, 29 August 1595, Simancas.Est.Leg.609 f. 249; Philip II to Sessa, 6 October 1595, ibid. Leg, 967 and Malvasia to Aldobrandino, 27 October and 3 November 1595, n.s. Vat.Arch.Nunz.di.Fiandra VIII, ff. 466 and 468.

^23. Cf. infra, Hoboken to the Archduke, 27 April and 3 May 1606, n.s. quoted infra cf. notes 31 and 39; Extract from an Englishman in Flanders to an Engishman in Rome, 18 February 1606, n.s. and Captain Dexter to Thomas Fitzherbert, 4 May 1606 n.s, quoted infra, cf. notes 40 and 41.

^24. Bprghese to Frangipani, 29 July 1606 n.s, Brussels, Archives Générales du Royaume, Mss. Divers 2062, a copy from Vat.Arch.Nunz.di Fiandra 136, f.52; this letter is omitted in Frangipani Corr.

^25. Cf. Richardot's draft of a letter for the Archduke to send to Van Ortenburgh, his agent in Rome, 12 May 1606 n.s., and Van Ortenburgh to the Archduke and Archduchess, Rome, 3 June 1606 n.s., both quoted infra, cf. notes 43 and 45.

^26. Thomas Barnes for years had been a spy, together with Sterrell working under the direction of Thomas Phelippes, with the privity of Queen Elizabeth and Essex. His career can be followed in the Domestic Calendars. For Salisbury's trickery concerning Barnes, compare Salisbury to Sir Thomas Fane, 24 December 1605, Cal.Salisbury Mss.XVII, p. 599 and Fane to Salisbury, 23 January 1606, with the explanation Salisbury gave to Edmondes, 12 February 1606, ibid.XVIII, pp.30 and 49. Barnes, however was sent back to Flanders, (ibid).

^27. Edmondes to Salisbury, 16 July 1606, o.s. P.R.O. S.P.77/8, f.143.

^28. Frangipani to Borghese, 19 August 1606, Frangipani Corr. III², p.611, note 2.

^28a cf. infra, notes 40 and 41.

^29. Edmondes to Salisbury, 19 November 1605, o.s. quoted by Birch, T., View of the Negotiations between the Courts of England, France and Brussels 1592-1617, London, 1749, p.238.Google Scholar The letter enclosed was Gifford to Xandre, undated P.R.O. S.P.77/7, f.282, endorsed by Levinus Munck “Doctor Gifford Ire to the Nuncio his secretary.” Willaert, L. S.J. (L'Angleterre et Les Pays-Bas Catholiques, Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, VII, (1906) p.605,Google Scholar note 3), has confused this letter of Gifford's to the Secretary Xandre (cf. Note 16) with one of Gifford to the Nuncio concerning the Gunpowder Plot. The above letter to Xandre contains nothing about the plot. It is known, however, from Hoboken's despatch of 22 December 1605, (quoted by Willaert [Ibid]), that Gifford wrote to the Nuncio, concerning the plot and that the letter reached England, and was made use of for the purposes of the Government. “Some have produced here,” he wrote, “the double of a letter which they say was written by an Englishman, named Gifford, Dean of Lille, to the Pope's Nuncio, in which he relates the whole history of this conspiracy. They speak of it a good deal to the advantage of the ill-minded.”

^30. Henry Howard, created Earl of Northampton by James I. He had been one of the chief agents in the secret correspondence between Cecil and James in the last years of Elizabeth's reign (Cf. The Secret Correspondence of Sir Robert Cecil with James VI, Ed. Lord Hailes, Edinburgh, 1766, and Correspondence of King James VI of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and Others, Ed. Bruce, Camden Society, 1861).

^31. Hoboken to the Archduke, 27 April 1606, Brussels, Archives Generates du Royaume, Papiers D'Etat et d'Audience, 365, cipher f.108, decipher f.109.

^32. Cf. supra Note 12.

^33. Cf. supra Note 18.

^34. The Duke of Parma died 2 December 1592, aged 47.

^35. Sir Griffin Markham has been implicated in the Bye Plot in 1603. His life was spared but he was banished. He became Lieutenant Colonel under Lord Arundell of Wardour in the English Regiment in the service of the Archduke, and soon became a spy of the English Government. (Edmondes to Salisbury, 6 January, 7 and 16 February and 28 June 1606, and Salisbury to Edmondes, ?12 July, 1606, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVIII, pp. 8, 46, 63, 183 and 200). He had to leave the Low Countries in 1610, and joined the forces of the Archduke's enemies. (Trumbull to Sir R. Winwood, 2 March 1610, Winwood Memorials, London, 1725, III, p.142).

^36. Sir William Windsor, a captain in the English Regiment in the service of the Archduke, was accused by one Captain Orme, of having knowledge of the Gunpowder Plot. (Edmondes to Salisbury, 23 lanuary 1606, Cat. Salisbury Mss. XVIII, p.30). He was, in consequence, ordered to return to England. (Salisbury to Edmondes, [12 February] 1606, Ibid. p.49). He protested his innocence but obeyed and, on arriving in England, was upon bail of £1,000, confined to his own house in the country. (Salisbury to Edmondes, 21 March 1606, Ibid, p.81; cf. also three undated letters of Windsor to Salisbury, Ibid, p.456).

^37. James Blount, another captain in the English Regiment in Flanders, was accused by Sir Griffin Markham of being implicated in the Plot. (Edmondes to Salisbury, 6 and 23 January 1606, Ibid. pp. 8 and 30). Ordered with Sir Willian Windsor to return to England, he refused to expose himself to the hazard of the suspicions against him, but desired, as he was in the service of the King of Spain, that the information against him might be sent to Flanders and he himself tried upon them there. (Salisbury to Edmondes, [12 February], and Edmondes to Salisbury, J? February] 1606, Ibid. pp. 49 and 63). He retired to Spain. (Edmondes to Salisbury, 5 April, and Salisbury to Edmondes, 28 June 1606, Ibid. pp. 98 and 178). There at the repeated instance of Sir Charles Cornwallis, the English Ambassador, he was imprisoned, but only for a few days. (Cornwallis to Salisbury, two undated letters, Salisbury to Cornwallis, 17 August, and Cornwallis to Salisbury, 26 November 1606, Winwood Memorials, II, pp. 223, 236, 249 and 2f9). Later he returned to Flanders with a pension from the Spanish Government of 50 crowns a month. (Cornwallis to Salisbury, undated (1607 ?), and same to the Lords in Council, 16 October 1608, Ibid. pp. 286 and 435).

^38. In April 1605, the Earl of Hertford was sent to Brussels as Ambassadorextraordinary to sign the treaty of peace. He sailed 19 April and returnedin the latter part of May. (Lord Say and Sele to Cranbourne, Dunkirk,20 April 1605, Charles, Duke of Croy and Arschott to James I, 9 May 1605, and Edmondes to Salisbury, 16 May 1605, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVII, pp. 146, 196 and 207). This would place Gifford's correspondence withthe English Government as early as May 1605.

^39. Hoboken to the Archduke, 3 May 1606, Brussels, Archives Générales du Royaume, P.E.A. 365, cipher f.118, decipher f.120.

^40. Extract from an Englishman in Flanders to an Englishman in Rome, 18 February 1606, n.s. Vat. Arch. Borghese I, 693-4, f.59. The summary in Mgr N. Conway's Documents of Irish and British Interest, Rondo Borghese I, Archivum Historicum Hibernicum XXIII, (1960), p.50, badly needs to be corrected.

^41. Captain Dexter to Thomas Fitzherbert, 4 May 1606, Vat. Arch. Borghese I, 693-4, f.60. Both these last documents are now printed in Frangipani Corr. III², pp. 608-9, not 1. The Editor calls them compromising.

^42. For the career and character of Jean Xandre, cf. Frangipani Corr III¹ pp. xxiii-xxvi.

^43. The Archduke to Herman Van Ortenburgh, 12 May 1606, draft in Richardot's hand, Brussels, Archives Générales du Royaume, P.E.A. 441, p. 91.

^44. The Earl of Salisbury.

^45. Van Ortenburgh to the Archduke and the Archduchess, 3 June 1606, n.s. Ibid. P.E.A. 441, p.105.

^46. Borghese announced the appointment of Caraffa 20 May 1606, n.s. (Borghese to Frangipani, 20 May 1606, n.s. Frangipani Corr. III², p.757). This letter crossed with one of Frangipani's of the same date, demanding his recall on the score of infirm health. (Frangipani to Borghese, 20 May 1606, Ibid, p.597). Frangipani had been for some time in bad health, suffering severely from gout. As far back as 1604, in the time of Clement VIII, he had asked to be replaced. (Frangipani to Aldobrandino, 3 May 1604, n.s. Ibid, p.463; cf. also Ibid, p.461, note 2). In reply Aldobrandino informed him that nobody had injured his reputation with the Pope,who considered him a good and faithful servant, but they were thinkingof appointing a successor. (Aldobrandino to Frangipani, 12 June 1604,n.s. Ibid. p.723). The Pope was well aware of his infirmities. As early as November 1603, when there was a plan of the Appellants to send Christopher Bagshaw from Paris to Flanders to meet representatives of the Archpriest and the English Jesuits, to arrange by means of Frangipani some concord between them, Aldobrandino informed the Paris Nuncio, Bufalo, that the Pope did not think Frangipani suitable for the task, as he was too old and infirm. (Aldobrandino to Bufalo, Rome, 17 November 1603, P.R.O. 31/9, bundle 87). The matter, however, was suspended at the request of the English Ambassador in Paris, Sir Thomas Parry, (Ibid). Edmondes ascribed the recall of Frangipani in 1606 to the Jesuits! (Edmondes to Salisbury, Brussels, 4 June 1606, o.s. P.R.O. S.P.77/8, ff. 111-112).

^47. Borghese to Frangipani, 21 October 1606, n.s. Frangipani Corr. III², p.762. Xandre is not mentioned by name in the document, but the reference is undoubtedly to him, as the Editor of the Frangipani Corr. states, Ibid III¹, p.xxvi).

^48. Instructions for Caraffa, Rome, 2 July 1606, printed in Recueil des Instructions Générales aux Nonces de Flandre (1596-1635), Ed. A. Gauchie and R. Maere, Brussels, 1904, p.26.

^49. P.S. to Borghese to Frangipani, 1 April 1606, Brussels, Archives Générales du Royaume, Mss. Divers 2062. The P.S. is omitted in Frangipani Corr.

^50. Borghese to Frangipani, 9 September 1606, n.s. Ibid. Mss. Divers 2062, copy from Vat. Arch NunZi di. Fiandra 136, f.54. This letter is omitted from Frangipani Corr.

^51. Salisbury to Edmondes, 12 July 1606, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVIII, p.200.

^52. Cf. C. Paget to Salisbury, Paris, 4 January 1607, quoted infra, cf. Note 63.

^53. Cf. notes 59 and 60.

^54. Edmondes to Salisbury, 22 July 1606, P.R.O. S.P. 77/8, f.141.

^55. There is a reference to Paget's licence to travel in Sir Thomas Lake to Salisbury, 17 August 1606, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVIII, p.238.

^56. i.e. the anti-Catholic penal legislation of 1606.

^57. P. Cotton, S.J, who was much in favour with Henry IV of France.

^58. In 1606 J, Cecil and A. Champney, two Appellant priests, went to Rome to ask that a bishop be appointed for England.

^59. R. Blount, S.J. to Octaviano [W. Baldwin, S.J.], 14 July 1606, Stonyhurst, Anglia III, n.62.

^60. Hoboken to the Archduke, 19 July 1606, quoted by Willaert, L. S.J. L'Angleterre et les Pays-Bas Catholiques, Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, VII, (1906), p.607.Google Scholar

^61. Cf. His letters to Barnes and Phelippes in Dom. Cal. Eliz. 1598-1601 and Dom. Cal. Add. 1580-1625. His “Information “against the lesuits (Dom. Cal Eliz.1598-1601, p. 68) was copied by a Catholic gentleman and sent to Persons. (Persons to Cajetan, 22 August 1598, with enclosures, Vat. Arch. Nunz. Diverse 250, ff. 229-240; cf. also Letters of Thomas Fitzherbert, C.R.S. 41, pp. 130-131, notes 40 and 41). Paget's activities were evidently made known in Flanders, and he thought it safer to retire to Paris. (Cf. Paget to Barnes, 26 and 30 November 1598, and Barnes to Paget, [? 24] June 1599, Cal. Dom. Eliz. 1598-1601, pp. 124, 125, and 218).

^62. Cf. John Cecil to Cardinal Givry, O.S.B., Paris, 10 January 1607, quoted infra, cf. Note 64.

^63. C. Paget to Salisbury, Paris, 4 January 1607, n.s. Hatfield, Salisbury Mss. 120, 5, italics mine.

^64. J. Cecil to Cardinal Givry, O.S.B., Paris, 10 lanuary 1607, n.s. printed in Revue Bénédictine, 42 (1930), p.253.

^65. Borghese to Caraffa, 20 January 1607, n.s. Brussels, Archives Générales du Royaume, Mss, Divers 2062.

^66. According to the Liber Ruber, C.R.S. 37, p. 15, he entered the English College, Rome, in 1579, aged 21.

^67. Referring to his years at the English College, Rome.

^68. Frangipani.

^69. Gifford to Cardinal Givry, O.S.B., Rheims, 13 April 1607, n.s. printed in Revue Bénédictine, 42 (1930), p.256.Google Scholar

^70. Gillow also ascribes to him The Inventory of Errors and False Citations of Philip Mornay, translated from the French of Fronto-Ducaeus, S.J. at the instance of the Duke of Guise. (Biographical Dictionary of English Catholics, II, p.461).

^71. Instructions for Guido Bentivoglio, 5 lune 1607, n.s. printed in Recueil des Instructions Générales aux Nonces de Flandre, Brussels, 1904, p.133.