1. A Conference about the next Succession to the Crowne of Ingland … Published by R. Doleman. Imprinted at N (Antwerp, Arnout Conincx) 1594. 8°. (Allison & Rogers 271.)

1a. Persons to Juan de Idiaquez, Rome, 22 May 1597, Westminster Cathedral Archives. VI. n.36.

2. Thus, in his England of Elizabeth, London, 1950, p.462, A.L. Rouse writes: “In 1591 he (F. Persons) published his book of the English Succession in which he argued Philip's claims as a descendant of the house of Lancaster, on behalf of his daughter, the Infanta: any clever fool, it seems, can find arguments for anything he wants. Like everything he said or did –for he had a fatal touch where his countrymen were concerned – the book created fury in England and did enormous harm to Catholics.” Mr. Rouse would have difficulty in proving these statements from contemporary evidence, the method followed by the authentic historian. Nearly everyone of his statements is, in fact, erroneous. The book was not published in 1591, as a simple glance at it would have shown him. The dedicatory letter to the Earl of Essex, given in the first pages of the book, is dated “the last of December 1593” and the date printed on the title-page is 1594, though as a matter of fact the book was not published till the following year. Persons, moreover, was not the sole author of the work, nor was it written to urge the claims of Philip II on behalf of his daughter, the Infanta. There is plenty of evidence extant as to its purpose from those who were concerned in its production. Nor, though it offended against the Statute of Silence, did it create the fury in England that Mr. Rouse imagines: the concern in English Government circles over this book was nothing like that caused by Allen's True, Sincere and Modest Defence, or by Leicester’s Commonwealth, or even by the defence of Campion put out soon after his martyrdom. That it did enormous harm to Catholics is again pure imagination on Mr. Rouse's part, or should we say ‘wishful thinking'?

3. His Apologie Catholique was published in 1585 and his De l' Autorité du Roi in 1587. Allen, Cf. J. W., A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, London, 1928, pp. 383–386.Google Scholar

4. It is futile for historians of the Whig tradition to exclaim against the doctrine of the Book of Succession and at the same time to defend the Revolution of 1688 and the Act of Settlement, both of which changed the rightful succession by nearness of blood and that in the interests of the Protestant religion, in which of course was included the estates of the politicians concerned. One really cannot have it both ways.

5. A declaration of the Succession of the crowne imperial of England, London, 1563. The author, John Hales, was imprisoned on account of it first in the Fleet and later in the Tower. Cf. Strype, Annals, II. pp. 117 and 121. “Which Book”, says the lawyer, “offended highly the Queene and the nobles of England and was afterwards found to be written by Mr. Hales surnamed the clubb foote, who was clarke of the hamper, and Sir Nicholas Bacon then Lord Keeper was presumed to have had a principal part in the same, for which he was like to have lost his office, if Sir Antony Browne that had been chief judge of the common pleas in Queene Maries tyme would have accepted therof, when her Majestie offred the same unto him, and my Lord of Lecester earnestly exhorted him to take it, but he refused it for that he was of different religion from the state, and so Sir Nicholas Bacon remayned with the same at the great instance of Sir William Cecil now Lord Treasorer, who though he were thought privy also to the saide book, yet was the matter so wisely laid upon Hales and Bacon, as Sir William was kept free, thereby to have the more authority and grace to procure the others pardon, as he did.” Book of Succession Part II. p. I.

6. John Leslie's A Defence of the honour of the right highe mightie and noble Princess Marie, Queene of Scotland, etc, 1569. This work was re-edited with changes and published in 1571 as the work of “Morgan Philippes” i.e. Philip Morgan (Allison & Rogers 453.) It is doubtless this second edition of Leslie's work that the Lawyer refers to as Morgan's, Sir Anthony 3rowne died in 1567 and Philip Morgan in 1570. The work was possibly published under the name of the latter to prevent further ill consequences to Leslie who was in the Tower in 1571 on account of his alleged connection with the Ridolfi plot.

7. This work of Robert Highington or Heigh ton, however, seems never to have been published. The author, a Catholic exile and sometime, as the lawyer states, secretary to the Earl of Northumberland, is referred to in a letter of Sir Francis Englefield to Allen, Madrid, 4 September 1582 and in one of Allen to Agazzari, Rheims, 23 February 1582, Knox, Allen pp. 296 and 298. He died at Paris about September 1589, Cf. Englefield's letters of 24 January/3 February 1590 Cal. Dom. Eliz. Add. 1588-1625, pp. 296-298.

8. Book of Succession, Part II p.10.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid. Part II, p. 106.

11. No one was more conscious of this than James himself. For years he tried to persuade Elizabeth to cede to him the Lennox lands in England, as a way to overcome this obstacle to his claims, and one of the first projects he took up when he succeeded to the throne was a bill for the naturalisation of the Scots, in which, however he was frustrated.

12. This, presumably, was also the view of the politicians who brought in the Hanoverians.

13. He is referring to the number of nobles and the like who had lost their lives in similar strife in England during the previous hundred years and more. Ibid. pp. 215-217

14. Ibid. Part II, p.225.

15. “A very unfavourable impression had been produced on all the dignitaries of the Curia here in regard to the Book of the English succession as though it had been written solely to support the claim of his Majesty of Spain and expressly to oppose that of the King of Scotland; …. It is understood that the chief instrument in creating this impression in the Curia has been Monsignor Malvasia who was Nuncio in Flanders and received reports from Paget, Liggons, Tresham and other Englishmen of that faction, through a certain Doctor Gifford, who had recently been made Dean of Lille, a man who was highly prejudiced in these matters and who was living at that time in Mgr Malvasia's house. The Monsignor came to Rome primed with these reports which had been made to him in Flanders, and making use of those which they proceeded to send afterwards, he has continued the same line of action; and as he found the atmosphere favourable for what was then being attempted on behalf of France, it is not to be wondered at if reports of this kind found acceptance.” Persons to Juan de Idiaquez, Rome, I May 1597, West. Arch. VI. n.32. In the latter part of the quotation Persons is referring to the ratification by the Pope of the absolution of Henry IV of France, which actually took place in the September of that year 1595. According to Mgr. Pena it was not only in Rome that Gifford caused the book to be denounced but also in Vienna, Florence, France, England and Scotland, Pena's Papers Bib. Vat. Lat 6227, f.75.

16. He refers to this translation in his letter to Juan de Idiaquez, Valladolid 2 September 1596, Simancas, Est. Leg. 839 f. 138.

17. “Allen says the Bishop (Cassano) causes him no end of trouble, because although he is a man of good life, his ambition and want of tact are terrible.” Olivares to Philip II, Rome, 22 February 1588, Spanish Calendar p.212.

18. Gifford to Thomas Throgmorton, 5/15 June 1595, Dom Eliz. 252 n. 66,1, enclosed in a letter of Thomas Phelippes to Burghley, 12/22 June 1595, Ibid. n.66. Gifford's letter is partly in cipher of which only one page of the original is extant (f. 151.) But the decipher of Phelippes can be checked from other letters of Gifford such as that to Malvasia. The original letter was intercepted by Dutch Calvinists and sent on to the English Government. It was copied then by some Catholic gentlemen and sent to Spain and is quoted by the Nuncio there in his despatch of 30 December of the same year 1595. Cf. infra note. 22.

19. Creswell to Clement VIII, Madrid, 13 August 1594: to a Cardinal, Madrid, 13 August 1594. Vat. Arch. Borghese II 448 ab. f.399.

20. Englefield's Tudgement on the Book of Succession, Stonyhurst, AngliaII, n.2l. A copy of this paper was evidently enclosed in his letter to Clement VIII, Valladolid, 2 September 1596, R.O. Transcripts 9 bundle 111.

21. This was the contention of all connected with the book. “Questi giorni passati si ha scritto un libro della successione del regno d'Inghilterra et delli tituli et pretensioni di diverse persone alla corona, dopo la morte di questi reyna, ponendo con tutta la indifferenza possibile lo che si può dire pro et contra ciascuno delli pretendenti.” Creswell to Clement VIII. Madrid, 13 August L584. Vat. Arch. Borghese II 448 ab. f, 399. “Ipsumque esse librum docte admodum et accurate scriptum, prudenter etiam atque moderate, ita ut neminem jure offendere lectio ejus possit, cum nihil certi in partem ullam statuat aut definiat, sed argumentis tantum utrinque allatis atque ventilatis, controversiam arbitrio lectoris terminandam relinquat.” Englefield's Judgement ut supra. “Ni si repara en esto si no que a parte si dicen las racones que ay para todos pro et contra.” Persons to Aquaviva, Valladolid 4 June 1594 Arch. S.J. Rom Tolet. Epp. ad. Gen, f. 125. “And although this book has been written with all moderation and impartiality which could be exercised in the case of a subject of that sort, and though it prejudices nobody, yet because the book set forth many arguments to support the claims his Majesty and his children, among other claimants, are able in various ways to make to the said crown, the men of this party have been unable to swallow their wrath and so they have taken steps to discredit and misrepresent the book–as all are aware–to the Pope and other princes and with such as they could of the English nation, both in England and abroad.” Persons paper on the Morgan-Paget faction, 30 June 1597, enclosed in his letter to Juan de Idiaquez, Rome, 3 July 1597, West Arch. VI nn, 41 and 42. Cf. also Persons to the Earl of Angus, Rome, 24 January 1500 R.O. Scotland, Eliz. 66, n.4. and Persons' reply to Dr Pierce's comments on Persons' letter to Holt, Genoa, 15 March 1597, West. Arch. VI, n.17 ad 4m, and his Brief e Apologie, f. 187.

22. Cajetan, Patriarch of Alexandria, to Aldobrandino, Madrid, 30 December 1595, Vat. Arch. Nunz. di Spagna 46, f. 788.

23. Aquaviva to Persons, Rome, 30 March 1594, Arch S.J. Rom, R. Tolet, Epp. Gen. f. 125

24. Persons to Aquaviva, Madrid 4 June. Arch. S.J. Rom. Hisp. 136. f.362. There is a postscript of the 16 June which does not concern the subject. The letter is in Spanish with the names in cipher but the signification of each is written above the figure, presumably after it reached Rome.

25. Creswell to Clement VIII, Madrid, 13 August 1594 and to a Cardinal (Aldobrandino?) of the same date, Vat. Arch. Borghese II 448 ab. ff. 398 and 399.

26. Persons to Juan de Idiaquez, Rome, I May 1597, West. Arch. VI. n.32.

27. 23 Eliz. c.2.

28. Cf. “A letter from Mary Queen of Scots to the Duke of Guise,” Ed. J.H. Pollen S.J. Scottish Historical Society, Edinburgh, 1903, pp. XIV ff. Cf. also, Quadra to Philip II, London, 17 October and 30 November 1562, Spanish Calendar, pp. 262 and 273. Queen Elizabeth's sickness was the occasion for the publication of J. Hales' book, advocating the claims of Catherine Grey.

29. Cf. P.F. Tytler, The History of Scotland, Edinburgh 1866, Vol. VII, pp. 310 ff. and VIII, pp. 11 ff.

30. Lethington's Account of Negotiations with Elizabeth in September and October 1561, printed by Pollen, op. cit. (see note 28), spelling modernised.

31. “The opinion and judgement of C.A. before his death, concerning the late printed Booke of Succession of England and certayne poyntes therunto apperteyning.” Arch. English College, Vallodolid. The paper is signed B.S. which C.Greene S.J., the seventeenth century copyist, took to be Baines who had been secretary for English to the Cardinal.

32. Cf. “Sir Robert Cecil, Father Persons and the Succession 1600-1601,” in Archivum Historicum S.J. January-June 1955, pp. 95-139.

33. “And if in these points I be satisfied, that ye have power to give them full assurance of my favour especially to Mr Secretary (Sir Robert Cecil) who is king there in effect.” Instructions of James VI of Scotland to the Earl of Mar and Mr. Edward Bruce, his ambassadors at the court of Queen Elizabeth, 8 April 1601, printed in “The Secret Correspondence of Sir Robert Cecil with King James VI of Scotland,” Collectanea Adamantaea, Ed. E. Goldsmith, Edinburgh, 1887. On the title-page of this book it has “now first published”; but in point of fact, the whole contents of the book were published by Lord Hailes a century earlier in his Correspondence of Sir Robert Cecil with James VI, Edinburgh, 1766. Compare with James' opinion as to the position of Cecil that of H. Garnet S.J. in a letter from England but a fortnight after James' Instructions: “All the nobility fawn upon him (Sir Robert Cecil) and stand in fear of him: in a word Cecil is king.” Garnet to (Persons?), 16 April 1601, Arch. S.J. Rom. Ang. 30, II, ff. 182-183.

34. This is a fault in James VI of Scotland and the Throne of England, by Helena Georgia Stafford, New York, 1940, which otherwise shows considerable objective research.

35. Persons to A. Standen, Madrid, 8 September 1595, Stonyhurst, Coll. P. 310

36. Persons to Crichton, Madrid, 2 November 1596, Stonyhurst, Coll. P. 318. Cf. also Persons to Crichton, Madrid, 10 May 1596, ibid. 316 and Persons to the Earl of Angus, Rome, 24 January 1600, R.O. Scotland, Eliz. 66, n. 4. The book mentioned was the Book of Succession.

37. Persons to Holt, Genoa, 15 March 1597, West. Arch. VI, n.17.

38. As the Cecilian party had done.

39. Persons to Sesa, Rome, 30 June (vere July) 1600, Simancas. Est. Leg. 972. Cf. also The Confession of John Snowden (Cecil) 21 May 1591, R.O. Dom Eliz. 238, n.160: “The commission that Persons gave me at my departure … was that I should among all Catholics publish that the Spaniards meant no conquest but reformation of religion.”

40. Fitzherbert, T., A Defence of the Catholique Cause, 1602 (Allison & Rogers 310)Google Scholar, spelling in the quotation modernised. This was written in Rome as a prefix to his Apologie composed in Spain in 1599, the publication of which, he says, he postponed until he should see the issue of the negotiations for peace between England and Spain. Cf. also T. Fitzherbert to Sterril, Madrid, I March 1599, Dom. Cal. Eliz. 1598-1601, p. 164: “You want to be satisfied whether the King of Spain will pretend himself (to the crown). I protest that not only his father but now he gives as great assurance in that behalf as may be desired; we assure him that if he does he will never prevail.”

41. Cajetan to Aldobrandino, Madrid, 30 December 1595, Vat. Arch. Nunz. di Spagna 46 f. 788: “Quanto più che io et tutti gli principali Catholici d'Inghilterra stanno satisfati che S. Maestà non pretende ni pretenderà già mai di tener quel regno per se ni di unirlo alla corona di Spagna, ma che si ponga un re Catholico a content della medesima natione per mano di S. Santità et sua.”

42. J. Creswell to Clement VIII, Madrid, 13 August 1594 ut supra.

43. “I am fully occupied, partly in the business of the college and partly in putting into Latin the Book of Succession, so that his Holiness and whoever he may commission may examine it if necessary.” Persons to Juan de Idiaquez, Valladolid, 2 September 1596, Simancas, Est. Leg. 839, f. 138.

44. Persons to Juan de Idiaquez, Rome, I May 1597, West. Arch. VI. n.32.

45. “Brevis Relatio,” an account written by one of the four Appellant priests in Rome of the proceedings there, printed in Law, T.G., The Archpriest Controversy, Camden Society, 1898, vol. II, p. 52.Google Scholar

46. Cf. Persons to Crichton, Seville, 10 May 1596, answering a letter of Crichton, no longer extant, of 20 January 1596: Stonyhurst, Coll. P. 316: Crichton to Persons, 20 August 1596, ibid. 318: Persons to Crichton, Madrid, 2 November 1596, ibid. 318: Earl of Angus to Crichton, Edinburgh, 4 November (1598 or 1599): Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia 42, f. 203: and Persons to the Earl of Angus, Rome, 24 January 1600, R.O. Scotland, Eliz. 66, n.4.

47. “Lo 3° que aviendo el Rey de Escocia comencado ya a descubrir su intencion de darse por Catholico a imitacion de Vandome y ganado una parcialidad de Ingleses tanto en Flandes corno en Roma y escrito cartas particulares a algunos de los principales del-los corno al Conde de Vestmorland y a Carlos Paget, y a otros por el Baron Pury Ogilby que al presente està en està corte y demas aviendo tratado dello con algunos principes de Italia poco aficionados a las cosas de Espana y ganado corno se piensa algunos Cardinales en Roma, y principalmente las personas que estan mas cerca de su Santitad etc.” Creswell, Englefield and Persons giving reports from England of March, April and May 1596, Simancas, Est. Leg. 967. On James pretending to be leaning towards Catholicism cf. J. Petit to Peter Halins (Thomas Phelippes), Brussels, 19/29 April 1597, Dom. Cai. Eliz. 1595-1597, p. 390. An answer to the Book of Succession was produced by the Scotch faction among the English exiles in Flanders. It was written by Henry Constable. (See Biographical Studies, ii. 4. 286).

48. Cf. Avisos de Londres, 21 December 1596, Simancas, Est. Leg. 611, n. 189: T. Phelippes to Essex, 9 December 1596, Cai. Salisbury Mss. VI, p. 513: Pury Ogilvy to Sir Robert Cecil, 14 December 1600, 13 February 1601 and 4 July 1601, Thorpe, Calendar of State Papers relating to Scotland, II, pp. 791, 793 and 799.

49. One of these was J. Morton S.J. released in 1595, The other was probably James Gordon in the same year. Later (in 1598) Christie was also allowed to go free.

50. Persons to Crichton, Madrid, 2 November 1596, Stonyhurst, Coll. P. 318.

51. P.F. Tytler, op. cit. vol. IX pp. 258-259.

52. Cf. The Report of R. Abercromby S.J. 1602, Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia 42 ff. 151 & 156 and A. MacQiihirrie S.J. to Aquaviva, Edinburgh, 25 February 1601 ibid. f. 135.

53. Nicholson to Sir Robert Cecil, 12 January 1600, R.O.S.P. Scot. LXVI, n.3. Cf. also his despatch of 15 May 1600 ibid n.27.

54. Cf. John Snowden (Cecil) t,o Sir Robert Cecil, (30 December) 1594, erroneously calendared under 1595, Dom. Cal. Eliz. 1595-1597, p. 145: H. Thirkhall to Burghley, 2 May 1594, Dom. Cal. Eliz. 1591-1594. pp. 496-497: W. Gifford to T. Throgmorton 5/15 June 1595, enclosed in Phelippes letter to Burghley, 12/22 June 1595, ut supra.

55. Report sent on from Antwerp, 30 December 1595, Simancas, Est. Leg. 967: Englefield to Philip II, Madrid, 26 March 1596, English College Valladolid Ser.II Leg. I. This letter has been ascribed to Persons but internal evidence clearly shows that he was not the writer.

56. Cf. Proclamations-of I March 1568, I July 1570, 14 November 1570, 28 September 1563, 26 March 1574 and the 12 October 1584. The error of those writers who posit this imaginary special law, may owe its origin to an assertion of a royalist pamphleteer in 1648. In the February of that year Henry Walker, the publicist of Oliver Cromwell, published his Several Speeches delivered at a Conference Concerning the Power of Parliament to proceed against the King for mis government. This book was soon detected by the royalist pamphleteer to be a pirated edition of the Book of Succession. In his pamphlet The King's Most Gracious Messages for Peace and a Personal Treaty, published in May of the same year, he wrote of Walker's work: “Now there is no difference betwixt this book published by this parliament and that of the Jesuite, condemned by that other 35 Eliz. etc.” intimating that the Book of Succession was condemned by the Parliament of 1593. This was an error, for by 1593 the book had not yet been published. Williams, Cf. T.B. (Muddiman), “Puritan Piracies of Father Persons'Conference,” The Month, March 1911. p.274.Google Scholar

57. E.g. Rowland Jenks, Stephen Vallenger, William Carter, Thomas Alfield and James Duckett. Three of these suffered the death penalty.

58. Rowland Whyte to Sir Robert Sydney, the court, 5 November 1595 and Robert Beale to the same, 25 September 1595, printed in Collins, A., Letters and Memorials of State (Sydney Papers), London, 1746, I. pp. 358 and 350.Google Scholar

59. Rowland Whyte to Sir Robert Sydney, 5 November 1595 ut supra.

60. Rowland Whyte to Sir Robert Sydney, London, 12 November 1595, ibid. p. 360.

61. Memorandum of Sir Thomas ileneage to Burghley by her Majesty's special commission, 10 July 1595, Cal. Salisbury Mss. V. p. 273: Rowland Whyte to Sir Robert Sydney, London, 20 October, 7 November and L2 November 1595, Hist. Mss. Com. Report on Papers of Lord de L'Isle and Dudley, II, pp. 177, 183 and 184: The Queen to the Lord Keeper and Lord Buckhurst, 3 January 1596, Cal. Dom. Eliz. 1595-1597, p. 159.

62. The story of Williamsom can be traced in the Cal. Dom. Eliz. 1595-1597. His answers to the questions about the succession are dated 21 June 1595, just a few days after Phelippes' letter to Burghley, enclosing the decipher of Gifford's to Thomas Throgmorton. Cf. Cal. Salisbury Mss. V. pp. 251-254.

63. In 1591 Peter Wentworth got into trouble over a pamphlet on the succession, possibly the same that was published in 1598 after his death: A Pithie Exhortation to Her Majes-tie for Establishing her Successors to the Crowne. Cf. Wentworth to Burghley with enclosure, 27 September 1591, Dom. Cal. Eliz. 1591-1594, p. 107. In 1593 he was in trouble again for endeavouring with others to raise the question in Parliament and for this was imprisoned in the Tower where he remained until his death in 1596. Cf. D'Ewes Journals of all the Parliaments during the riegn of Queen Elizabeth, London, 1682 p. 470.

64. Book of Succession, Part II, p. 258.

65. Really grand son-in-law.

66. Report passed on from Antwerp 30 December 1595, Simancas, Est. Leg. 967.

67. “Kennett mentions a paper of intelligence out of Spain advising that Fr. Persons had received above 300 letters out of England in applause and approbation of the Book of Succession, that my Ld. Chief Justice found in the said book nothing seditious or treasonable, and so dismissed the merchants that brought them in, that the Catholics after the book once seen, made search in the Tower and found certain records confirming greatly the exceptions against Katherine Swinfords’ issue.” This note I discovered among certain transcripts of A. Jessop in my possession. Unfortunately I have not been able to find the reference for the alleged statement of Kennett.

68. Persons to Crichton, 2 November 1596, Stonyhurst, Coll. P. 318. Cf. also his Briefe Apologie, f. 187.

69. “Non è stato grande la persecutione dopo che fu stampato il libro della succe ssione.” Extract from his letter of 23 November 1596, Arch. S.J. Rom. Angl. 38, f. 199.

70. Englefield's Judgement on the Book of Succession, Stonyhurst, Anglia II, n.21.

71. At this time, it must be remembered, the ministers of Elizabeth were by no means favouring the claims of James. Cf. “Sir Robert Cecil, Father Robert Persons and the Succession 1600-1601,” ut supra. Cf. also, William Watson to the Attorney-General, (March or April) 1599, printed in Law, T.G., op. cit. I, pp. 210–226.Google Scholar

72. Postscript of Martin Array to his letter from Rome, 18 January 1599, printed by T.G. Law, op. cit. I. pp. L13-114.

73. Cf. Creswell, Englefield and Persons to the Spainsh authorities, giving reports from England of March, April and May 1596, Simancas, Est. Leg. 967: La repuesta venida da Inglaterra por diversas cartas de Junio deste aña 1597, Bib. Vat. Lat. 6227, ff. 40-41, of which there is another copy in Simancas. Est. Leg. 969, and William Watson to the Attorney General (March or April) 1599, ut supra. Eng. Coll. Valladolid Ser II, Leg. I.: Creswell to Aldobrandino, Madrid, 22 December 1595 Vat. Arch. Borghese III, 124 g. 2, f. 78: Creswell to Clement VIII, Madrid, 13 August 1594 ibid. Borghese II. 448 ab. f. 398 and Persons to Juan de Idiaquez, Valladolid, 2 September 1596, Simancas, Est. Leg. 839, f. 138.

74. Englefield to Philip II, 36 March 1596, enclosed in a letter to Juan de Idiaquez, 26 March 1596.

75. W. Gifford to the Nuncio, Malvasia, Antwerp, 13 June 1595 enclosing the summary which he had just made of the work after obtaining the original for a time by bribing a boy at the printers. Vat. Arch. Borghese II 448 ab. ff. 436-441. Cf. also W. Gifford to Thomas Throgmorton, 5/15 June 1595 Horn. Eliz. 252, n. 66, I. Compare with this the statement about the book of N. Williamson who had come from Flanders early in 1595 and had been captured with David Lawe in the March of that year: “Of this it was said that Persons. Owen, Fitzherbert and Verstegan were the chief advisers and the setters forth of the book now in print but not yet published.” N. Williamson to Essex and Cecil, 21 June 1595, Cal. Salisbury Mss. V, p. 251.

76. Persons to Aquaviva, Madrid, 4 June 1594, Arch. S.J. Rom. Hisp. 136, f. 362, quoted above under section III.

77. Aquaviva to Crichton, Rome, 2 March 1596, Arch. S.J. Rom. Gen. ad Fland.II. f. 105.

78. “Questi giorni passati si ha scritto un libro della successione.” Creswell to Clement VIII 13 August ut supra. Cf. also Creswell to Aldobrandino, Madrid, 22 December 1595 ut supra: Creswell, Englefield and Persons in a paper giving reports from England of March April and May 1596, Simancas, Est. Leg. 967: Pena's papers, Bib. Vat. Lat 6227, f. 162: Persons in his paper on the Morgan-Paget faction, 30 June, enclosed in a letter to Juan de Idiaquez, Rome, 3 July 1597, West. Arch. VI, nn. 41 and 42: Persons answers to the comments of D. Pierce on the letter of Persons to Holt, Genoa, 15 March 1597, West. Arch. VI. nn. 20 and 21 ad 4^m and Persons to the Earl of Angus, Rome, 24 January 1600 ut supra.

79. Persons to the Earl of Angus, Rome, 24 January 1600 R.O. Scot. Eliz. 66, n.4. Cf. Persons to Crichton, Madrid, 2 November 1596: Stonyhurst, Coll. P. 318: “To this I answer in the first place that before the book was published, it had been read carefully at various times by men of English nationality, as prudent as were to be found in Spain, Italy and Belgium, and possibly in England too and that in their opinion the book was not premature but overdue and very much needed and very suited to the times so much so that nothing more useful for promoting the Catholic cause had been written up to then. And if I were to set down the names of these men no exception could be taken to them.” Cf. also Persons Briefe Apologie f. 187.

80. Persons to Garnet, 24 May 1603 R.O. Dom. James I, vol. I. n.84. Cf. also Persons to James VI, 18 August 1602. Stonyhurst, Anglia III, n. 23: and Persons to James I, Rome, 18 October 1603, ibid n.36. In both of these letters, the one written before James’ accession and the other after it, Persons is perfectly frank and even blunt in stating that religion was the obstacle.

81. Wilson to Burghley, Antwerp, 1 February L574, Foreign Calendar Eliz. 1575-1577 p. 10 Dom. Ehz. Addenda, 1585-1625, p. 297. Cf. Englefield to Barrett, 24 January/3 February 1590 ibid. p. 296: and to Hopkins etc. ibid. 297.

82. Cf. Knox, Allen, passim but particularly the Memorandum about the succession, Rome (March) 1537, p.281.

83. Simancas, Est. Leg. 838. It may be that Nau was referring to this in his statement of 10 September 1586: “And in fact the said Queen of Scotland was advertised that many English had wholly addressed themselves to the King of Spain, proposing to him to invest himself with the crown of England, in accordance with a book and discourse which had formerly been composed about it between Sir Francis Englefield, one named Ouan, and as I believe, the Jesuit Persons, whereat the said Queen of Scotland was much offended.” Boyd, Cal. of Scottish Papers, IX, 3.

84. Englefield to William Heighington, Madrid, 24 January/3 February 1590, Cal. S.P.I). Addenda 1580-1625.

85. Wright ‘s statement, Cal. Dom. Eliz. 1595-1597, p. 156. Wright sailed from San Sebastian, concealing his identity only until he arrived in England 8 June 1595 when he surrendered his person to Anthony Bacon, the ‘right hand man’ of the Earl of Essex. Cf. F. Birch op. cit. I, pp. 264 and 252. ‘lis examination will have been about this time. It is hardly necessary to point out that the “two years since” fits in with the time that the Book of Succession was written viz. 1593. There is an article on Wright in Biographical Studies, i.3. 189 et seq.

86. See note 31. I am indebted to Mgr. Henson for a copy of this document. There are three recensions: in English, Latin and Spanish, There is a copy in English, Stonyhurst, Anglia, n.17. (This volume is now at Westminster) This copy formerly was part of the dossier that Bishop Bancroft had collected at the turn of the 16th century. The person to whom Allen sent his documents is there stated to have been Francis Peto –one of the authorities mentioned in the Book of Succession. But this is clearly a mistake for Persons. There are other places in the book where Peto is named but the circumstances make it impossible that that should be the right name. The Stonyhurst document is also signed R.P. But this undoubtedly is due to an accompanying note that Gifford can prove that the document was written by Persons. The prior Valladolid document is signed B.S. which the seventeenth century copyist took to be ‘Baines, secretary’ and internal evidence supports this.

87. Englefield's Judgement, etc., ut supra, note 20. Cf. also Persons to Aquaviva 4 June 1594 ut supra.

88. Tierney in his edition of Uodd's Church History, III, pp. 31-32, note, gives five reasons for ascribing the work to Persons alone, but not one of them proves that Persons was the sole author, as E. Lucas showed. Cf. The Tablet, November 9, 1844. Tierney, moreover was acquainted with little, if any, of the evidence adduced above.