^1. For a late example, Beaumont to Villeroy, 16 May 1605 (PRO 31/3/40). on a possible conversion of James I to Catholicism “laquelle seroit à mon advis a souhaitter davantage selon nostre zèle à la religion que selon la raison de l'estat de la Chrestienté …”

^2. Oeconomies royales (ed. Michaud & Poujoulat, 2 vols., Paris, 1854), i, 427.Google Scholar

^3. Albion, G., Charles I and the Court of Rome (Louvain, 1935), 227.Google Scholar

^4. Villeroy to Boissise, ambassador in England, 25 October 1601 (PRO 31/3/32); WM i, 367; AC ii, 31f, 41; Bluet to Bancroft, Paris, 3 January 1602 (LPL, 100); “Memoire des prestres angloix pour envoier à Rome” (BNF NA 24160, f. 151). That it was Mush and Champney who came to Paris first is clear from Louant, A. (ed.), Correspondance d'Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, iii part 1 (Rome, etc., 1942), 293.Google Scholar

^5. Villeroy to Boissise (above, n. 4); “Scriptum Jacobi Hill ad Regem Galliae” (AC ii, 213), presented by Hill when he introduced the priests to Villeroy. The point is an important one, but cannot be argued here: cf. Thesis, 214 ff, 231 f.

^6. Villeroy to Boissise, above, and Boissise's reply, 16 November 1601 (PRO 31/3/32); Henri IV to Bethune, 7 & 17 January 1602 (BNF 3484, ff. 59, 61).

^7. For the connection between the two problems, Bufalo (nuncio) to Aldo-brandini, 6 November 1601, and reply, 3 December (VA NF 290, f. 32; 291, f. 40); WM i, 374; Bluet to Bancroft (above, n. 4) — “therefore though we cannot get rid of them from England yet we withstood them in France, which giveth me strength to stretch my poor limbs for Italy… .” The negotiations with the Papacy, which seemed to be reaching a conclusion at this time, were interrupted early in 1602 and did not resume again for a year: Fouqueray, H., La Compagnie de Jesus en France, ii (Paris, 1913), 596–606 Google Scholar. Fouqueray (ibid., 605, n. 5) notes the suggestion that the Appellant affair may have had something to do with this. For the use of Appellant material in anti-Jesuit polemic in France, see the concluding chapter (book iii, cap. 28) of Etienne Pasquier's Catéchisme des Jisuites (1602); cf. WM i, 405f; HMC Salisbury xii, 113.

^8. Henri IV to Béthune, 17 January 1602 (above, n. 6).

^9. For details, Thesis, 234-5.

^10. Louant, Correspondance de Frangipani, iii part 1, 275–301 passim.

^11. D.N.B., supplement vol. 1, 403-5 (by T. G. Law); Pollen, J. H., Institution of the Archpriest Blackwell (London, 1916), 67–70.Google Scholar

^12. Bluet to Bancroft, 7 January 1602 (LPL, 103); TD iii, p. clvi; Mush to “Smith”, 7 November 1601 (LPL, 79).

^13. Henri IV to Béthune, 17 January 1602 (above, n. 6): “… avec lesquelz le docteur Cecil… s'est mis comme s'il estoit mal content des Hespaignolz. Mais j'estime qu'il ne fault se fier en luy ny mesme aux autres que bien à propos. ...” Cf. Amelot, de la Houssaye (ed.), Lettres du Cardinal d'Ossat (Paris, 1714), v, 69.Google Scholar

^14. See Pollen, op. cit., 71–94; a more detailed account of the political side of the case than is possible here will be found in Thesis, 235-282.

^15. Béthune to Henri IV, 4 March 1602 (BNF 3492, f. 28); for date, AC ii, 3.

^16. Béthune to Henri IV, as above; to Henri IV and Villeroy, 15 April 1602 (BNF 3492, f. 36; 3496, f. 21); Henri IV to Béthune, 25 March 1602 (BNF 3484, f. 79).

^17. Béthune to John Cecil, 24 February 1603 (LPL, 50).

^18. Béthune to Henri IV and Villeroy, 15 April 1602 (above, n. 16); to Villeroy, 4 November (BNF NA 24160, f. 103); to Beaumont, 22 October (BNF 15975, f. 201). For Bluet's reaction, AC ii, 4f, 22. Cf. John Cecil, reported in Sir Thos. Parry (ambassador in Paris) to Sir Robert Cecil. 4 January 1603 (PRO SP 78/48, f. 8). To avoid confusion John Cecil will be referred to as “J. Cecil” and Sir Robert as “R. Cecil”.

^19. Béthune to Henri IV, 15 April 1602 (above, n. 16).

^20. Henri IV to Béthune, 25 February 1602 (BNF 3484, f. 72); Béthune to Henri IV, 18 March 1602 (BNF 3492, f. 31).

^21. Béthune to Henri IV, 1 April 1602 (BNF 3492, f. 33); Beaumont to Béthune, 14 July 1602 (BNF 3489, f. 46).

^22. Bluet to Bancroft, 3 June 1602 (HMC Salisbury, xii, 205); Intelligence from the Archpriest's side, 15 and 23 June 1602 (PRO SP 12/284/88 ii, 89 i).

^23. Henri IV to Béthune, 24 April and 18 June 1602; Villeroy to Béthune, 1 August 1602 (BNF 3484, ff. 76, 96; 3487, f. 60).

^24. Henri IV to Béthune, 9 September 1602 (BNF 3484, f. 124); to Beaumont, 18 September 1602 (KB ii, 70); Béthune to Henri IV, 7 October 1602 (BNF NA 24160, f. 76).

^24a. Henri IV to Béthune, 24 April; to Beaumont, 18 September 1602, as above; Memo, from J. Cecil to Béthune, probably late August 1602 (Inner Temple Library, Petyt MSS. 538. 47, f. 271).

^25. Béthune to Beaumont, 17 June 1602 (BNF 15975, f. 101); to Henri IV, 4 November 1602 (BNF NA 24160, f. 99).

^26. Pollen, Institution, 93, and cf. 89.

^27. AC ii, 59.

^28. PRO SP 77/6/405 — intelligence deriving from the Archpriest's side, 26 November 1602; cf. Pollen, op. cit., 89. Mush and Parker had seen each other in April.

^29. Béthune to Villeroy, 4 November 1602 (BNF NA 24160, f. 103); to Beaumont, 22 October 1602 (BNF 15975, f. 201); to J. Cecil, 4 November 1602 (Inner Temple Library, Petyt MSS. 538. 47, f. 385). The relation is the Brevis Relatio (AC ii, 45-151); there is a series of letters from Béthune to Cecil, November 1602-May 1603, in LPL, 43-56.

^30. Beaumont to Henri IV, 2 October 1602 (PRO 31/3/34); Meyer, A. O., England and the Catholic Church under Queen Elizabeth (London, 1916), 453.Google Scholar

^31. Printed in TD iii, pp. clxxxiv-viii; cf. Meyer, op. cit., 451 f.; P. Hughes, The Reformation in England, iii (London, 1954), 390

^32. Various expressions of anger and astonishment in Beaumont to Henri IV, 23 November 1602 (PRO 31/3/34, transcript misdated 3 November); Beaumont to Béthune, same date (BNF 3489, f. 56); Villeroy to Beaumont, 5 December 1602 (BNF 3501, f. 4); Béthune to Beaumont, 13 January 1603 (BNF 15976, f. 33). Of the text of the Proclamation, Villeroy wrote — to Beaumont, 24 December (BNF 3501, f. 49): “Jamais je ne veis rien plus mal digéré et escrit.” Cf. below, n. 171.

^33. Petition of the four priests to Henri IV, 21 December 1602 (draft of J. Cecil, LPL, 54); J. Cecil to Villeroy, December 1602 (LPL, 26-7).

^34. Villeroy to Beaumont, 2 January 1603 (BNF 15976, f. 2); Béthune to J. Cecil, 24 February 1603 (LPL, 50).

^35. R. Cecil to Parry, 14 December 1602 (PRO SP 78/47, f. 253); Bancroft to R. Cecil, 26 December 1602 (PRO SP 12/286/16); Bluet to Villeroy, 5 January 1603 (LPL, 20). R. G. Usher, The Reconstruction of the English Church (2 vols., New York/London, 1910), i, 183, says inaccurately that Bluet “and his friends“arrived back in London at this time. The other three were still in Paris, and it is doubtful if they were still his friends. Dates of events and letters written in England will be o.s., on the continent n.s., except for Beaumont's letters from London, which are n.s., and Parry's from Paris, which are o.s.

^36. Parry to R. Cecil, 4 January 1603 (PRO SP 78/48, f. 7); R. Cecil to Parry, 24 January 1603 (Ibid., f. 79).

^37. Winwood to R. Cecil, 4 January 1603 (Ibid., f. 8); J. Cecil to Mush and Champney, 1 February 1603 (LPL, 34).

^38. Usher (loc. cit.) is badly astray here. He has “Watson, Bishop, Bagshaw and the other Seculars … holding excited and anxious conferences in London” when Bluet arrived; Bishop and Bagshaw were both in Paris. The authority which he gives (C.S.P. Domestic 1601-3, 300) dates from, and refers to, the following February; the “three solicitors” which it mentions are Charnock, Hepburn and Barnby (below, n. 53). Watson's participation is proved by John Cecil's letter to him of February 1603 (AC ii, 182; Law has caused much confusion by misdating this letter, and trie one he prints before it, to 1602); that of Charnock and Hepburn by Mush to J. Cecil, 28 February 1603 (LPL, 25); Barnby's may be presumed from his later association with Charnock and Hepburn.

^39. Bluet to Villeroy, 5 January 1603 (LPL, 20): “Sacramentum fidelitatis a nobis (ut in edicto patet) exquiritur, sed de modo et latitudine nondum constat: tractatum et articulos quidam sacerdotes mihi obtulerunt in quibus multa de jure regni et fidelitate erga principem in tali casu continentur, sed mihi non placent… .” John Cecil, in his letter to Watson (above, n. 38), seems to attribute this text to Watson.

^40. Usher, op. cit., i, 183: the quotation from Bancroft should read “ad eundem vere Christi vicarium… .” Cf. Mush to J. Cecil, 28 February 1603 (LPL, 25, translation by Cecil): “L'estat est fort mal informé de nos affaires et Monsieur Bluet en sa relation de notre procès à Rome n'a rien touché de cela qui nous pouvoit aider icy… .”; and Cecil to Mush, February 1603 (AC ii, 179): “Your oldest companion, sive iure sive iniuria nescio, is thought to have been overbusy and less grateful and loving than becometh a man of his coat and calling… .” In the light of this Meyer's comments, England and the Catholic Church, 454, lose most of their point.

^41. Mush to J. Cecil, 28 February 1603 (LPL, 25); cf. Bancroft to R. Cecil, 1 February 1603 (HMC Salisbury xii, 631). Mush says that the councillors present were Cecil. Bancroft, L. C. J. Popham and two others; Bancroft makes it clear that he was not there, and that the councillors in question were Cecil, Popham and Buckhurst.

^42. Villeroy to Beaumont, 2 January 1603 (BNF 15976, f. 2); likewise 2 & 26 February 1603 (Ibid., ff. 56, 106).

^43. Beaumont to Villeroy, 13 January 1603 (BNF 15978, f. 53); Bluet to Villeroy, 5 January (LPL, 20); J. Cecil to Mush, February 1603 (AC ii, 180), reporting Villeroy's chilly reception of Bluet's letter.

^44. Beaumont to Béthune, 30 January 1603 (BNF 3490, f. 1).

^45. Mush to J. Cecil, 28 February 1603 (LPL, 25).

^46. Cf. Bancroft's comments in Usher, op. cit., i, 183f, 185.

^47. Beaumont to Béthune, 30 January 1603 (above, n. 44): “J'entendz que l'Evesque de cette ville (London) leur a proposé depuis peu de jours quelques articles pour la forme dudict serment … Ceulx de ce conseil … veulent tous faire jurer absolument (sc. aux prêtres) que au cas que S.S entreprist la guerre contre ce Royaume qu’ (sic) ilz se sépareront de son obéissance et tiendront le party de la Royne contre luy, avec une infinité d'autre choses semblables …”. He has not yet seen the articles of it “lesquelz sont tous fondez sur une condition que je tiens la plus insupportable; qui est que pendant leur demeure ilz n'exerceront en nulle façon leur office de prebstres et viveront comme particuliers… .” Cf. Beaumont to Villeroy, 1 February 1603 (PRO 31/3/35). I am fairly certain that Bancroft's text is that printed by Usher, op. cit., ii, 312-3, the essential passage of which corresponds closely to the first part of Beaumont's description; in its language it bears evident traces of emanating from the government and not, as its endorsement indicates, from the Appellants. Usher's comment, op. cit., ii, 104, would therefore be misleading. The point is of some importance.

^48. The date is usually given (as by Meyer, op. cit., 456) as 31 January 1603 (o.s.), after TD iii, p. clxxxviii. But Beaumont's Latin copy (BNF 15976, f. 530) gives the date as 21 January (o.s.); the accuracy of this is clear from his letters to Villeroy of 22 January/1 February, where he reports the priests as telling him they have written it; and that to Béthune of 20/30 January, where it is not mentioned (both letters cited above, n. 47).

^49. To the text as printed in TD iii, pp, clxxxviii-cxci, should be added the “explanatory declaration”, in HMC Salisbury xii, 632; they were presented together. Usher does not seem to have noticed that the text which he prints (op. cit,, ii, 313-5) is substantially different from that printed by Tierney.

^50. Bancroft to R. Cecil, 1 February 1603 (HMC Salisbury xii, 631).

^51. Beaumont to Villeroy, 1 February 1603 (PRO 31/3/35).

^52. Beaumont to Béthune, (23) February 1603 (BNF 3490, f. 8); cf. below, n. 172.

^53. Beaumont to Villeroy, and to Béthune, 23 February 1603 (PRO 31/3/35; BNF 3490, f. 8); Rivers to Parsons, 5 March 1603 (C.S.P. Domestic 1601-3, 300); cf. Bancroft's comment on one of the PRO copies (SP 12/287/15), in Hughes, Reformation in England, iii, 394. There is one difficulty here: Bancroft (above, n. 50) makes it clear that there were four priests present when the declaration was given him; these are noted against the text of the “explanatory declaration” (above, n. 49) as Bluet and the three mentioned in the text. But as Bluet had not signed it, it is difficult to see how he could have acted as a delegate for those who had. Rivers says that, at the beginning of March, “the three solicitors” were in the Clink, and Bluet still at Fulham Palace. The solution is then presumably that Charnock, Hepburn and Barnby were the delegates, and that Bluet was joined with them in the party because he was at Fulham Palace anyway.

^54. Beaumont to Villeroy, 23 February and 6 March 1603 (PRO 31/3/35; BNF 15978, f. 76).

^55. Villeroy to Beaumont, 26 February 1603 (BNF 15976, f. 106): “Nous n'avons jamais promis ausdits prestres de emploier le nom du Roi envers la Roine pour eulx, joint que nous estimons que cela leur feroit plustost mal que bien… .”

^56. This was the mission of Robert Owen to the Netherlands, for which see J. H. Pollen, “The Question of Queen Elizabeth's Successor”, The Month, ci (1903), 532, 576-7, 582; A. H. Dodd, “The Spanish Treason, the Gunpowder Plot and the Catholic Refugees”, English Historical Review, liii (1938), 633. It is difficult to agree with Professor Dodd's comment, ibid., n. 1. Cf. Thesis, 295-7.

^57. Lettres et Ambassade de messire Philippe Canaye … (Paris, 1635), i part 1, 527, 534; Parsons to Possevino, 7 December 1602 (Stonyhurst, Anglia A iii, f. 46) & 4 January 1603 (BNF 15578, f. 3; printed in Prat, J.-M., La Compagnie de Jesus en France du temps du pere Coton, v (Lyon, 1876), 184–90).Google Scholar

^58. Persons to four Appellants, 1 January 1603 (LPL, 40).

^59. Lettres de Canaye, i part 2, 27, 42, 67, 97.

^60. Ibid., 42, 67, 87. 128.

^61. J. Cecil to Mush, 1 February and ( ) February 1603 (LPL, 34; AC ii, 179f). Cecil says that, quite apart from this incident, Bishop and Boswell were personae non gratae with Villeroy, but gives no reason; whatever it was, it was made worse when they were discovered at Calais to be carrying large amounts of money on them. The objection may either have been that they were taking coin out of the country, or that they had just pleaded poverty in order to get a grant out of the French clergy (Archives nationales (Paris) G8 259, 12 & 31 December 1602, 3 January 1603 — 25 écus between them). Cf. below, n. 155.

^62. Parry to R. Cecil, 12 February 1603 (PRO SP 78/48, f. 79); cf. above, n. 56.

^63. Villeroy to Beaumont, 2 February 1603 (BNF 15976, f. 56); Beaumont to Villeroy, 23 February 1603 (PRO 31/3/35).

^63a. J. Cecil to ?Jean de Vulcob, 7 February 1603 (LPL, 33; misdated 7 January); Parry to R. Cecil (above, n. 62) — information almost certainly from John Cecil. Both give Villeroy's words: Cecil, as “II fault que vous vous reunisce (sic)”. Parry as “II fault que vous soyes reunis”. Cecil asked whether Villeroy meant that the Appellants should unite among themselves, or with the Jesuits; the sequel makes it clear that the second meaning was intended: cf. below, n. 169, and Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain, 10 February 1603 (PRO SP 78/48, f. 48).

^64. J. Cecil to Villeroy, 6 March 1603 (LPL, 49); cf. Béthune to J. Cecil, 24 March and 6 May 1603 (LPL, 44, 46).

^65. Villeroy to J. Cecil, 4 April 1603 (LPL, 24).

^66. Parry to R. Cecil, 28 February 1603 (PRO SP 78/48, f. 93); cf. below, n. 72.

^67. TD iv, pp. 6, xxi-ii; Champney to J. Cecil, 1 May 1603 (LPL, 18).

^68. Usher, Reconstruction, ii, 89f; though (p. 90, n. 2) Usher has misread his source and interprets a remark of Bancroft about Barnby as referring to the Appellants as a whole.

^69. Usher, loc. cit.; Champney to J. Cecil, 1 May 1603 (LPL, 18), giving text; another copy LPL, 21. A report on the political aspects of the reunion, by Robert Taylor, in Louant, Correspondance de Frangipani, iii part 2, 410f. Watson and Anthony Copley (TD iv, p. xxiv; v, p. xvi) witness to a genuine change in the atmosphere.

^70. TD iv, pp. 6, xxxiii, xlixf; Usher, op. cit., ii, 90. Usher is clearly right, against Gardiner, S. R., History of England (1603–42), i (London, 1883), 114 Google Scholar, who treats the revelation as a purely Jesuit affair; though Gardiner's view is still often followed, as by Willson, D. H., King James VI & I (London, 1955), 218.Google Scholar

^71. Bancroft to R. Cecil, 25 June 1603 (PRO SP 14/12/18 & i); Beaumont to Villeroy, 10 July 1603 (PRO 31/3/36); to Béthune, 13 July 1603 (BNF 3490, f. 25).

^72. Cecil's notes for Bancroft, LPL, 32: “... so that you see among the Appellants and their adherents there were two sorts of men, the one that would admit nothing without the good liking of the state, the other that would not be tied to that inconvenience in helping themselves when the state should utterly abandon them, as it seemeth by the effects they have done… .” Other notes, LPL, 39; though the whole collection must in fact have been handed over to Bancroft at this time.

^73. Beaumont to Béthune, 6 October 1603 (BNF 3490, f. 35); to Villeroy, 27 October 1603 (PRO 31/3/36).

^74. Villeroy to Beaumont, 31 July 1603 (BNF 15976, f. 334); Beaumont to Villeroy, 27 October 1603 (above, n. 73), 29 February 1604 (PRO 31/3/37).

^75. TD iv, p. Ivii.

^76. Beaumont to Béthune, 26 February 1604 (BNF 3490, f. 45); to Henri IV, 29 February 1604 (PRO 31/3/37); Henri IV to Beaumont, 31 March 1604 (KB ii, 206).

^77. Thesis, 325f. 330-2; cf. Nouaillac, J., Villeroy (Paris, 1909), 421 f.Google Scholar

^78. 1200 écus, to enable the priests “à maintenir des intelligences particulières”: Beaumont to Villeroy, 6 December 1604 (PRO 31/3/39). This is presumably the same sum noted by Sully at the end of the list of gifts distributed by him to James, his family, councillors and courtiers, in July 1603, as given “a Monsieur de Beaumont pour distribuer a ceux qu'il jugera à propos” (Oeconomies royales, i, 505). Cf. below, n. 157.

^79. Cf. Rivers to Persons, 4 April 1604: Foley, H., Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (London, 1878), i, 60f.Google Scholar

^80. Beaumont to Béthune, 6 October 1603 (BNF 3490, f. 35).

^81. Beaumont to Henri IV, 27 October 1603 (PRO 31/3/36); Henri IV to Beaumont, 15 November 1603: J. Berger de Xivrey & Guadet, J., Lettres missives de Henri IV (9 vols., Paris, 1843–1876), vi, 176.Google Scholar

^82. Henri IV to Beaumont, 15 November 1603 (above, n. 81). The editors print “apparans” for “appelans” throughout the letter.

^83. Beaumont to Béthune, 26 February 1604 (BNF 3489, f. 103), and to Henri IV, 29 February 1604 (PRO 31/3/37), for this and what follows.

^84. The only sign of life from Mush is a letter to Béthune, 2 May 1604 (BNF 15977, f. 118), which is very vague and contains nothing about the subject, unless it be (which one can scarcely believe) the request to obtain from the Pope faculties for dispensing from oaths!

^85. Cecil's draft, in Latin, among Beaumont's papers, BNF 15976, f. 528.

^86. The phrase in the second affirmation, “ad nutum eorum a quibus ordinati fuimus”, was a third thought after “ad nutum eorum in cuius potestate (sic) ...” and “ad nutum eorum qui nos… .”

^87. BNF 15976, f. 526.

^88. The last part of the first affirmation, “illique … exhibuerunt”, is grammatically incoherent; and the verb “pollicemur” in the last sentence is duplicated.

^89. Beaumont to Henri IV, 21 March 1604 (PRO 31/3/37); the French texts in BNF 15976, ff. 523, 524. For a sample of Cecil's version, below, n. 167.

^90. Beaumont to Villeroy, 13 April 1604 (PRO 31/3/37). James wanted fulminata (“pronounced”) in the last affirmation replaced by fulminanda (“to be pronounced”). The final version (below, n. 98; PRO SP 14/8/125 i) has “aut fulminanda” inserted, by another hand, after “fulminata”. Cf. the Appellants’ letter to James, 9 July 1604 (below, n. 98), where the relevant passage runs “non obstante quacumque censura ecclesiastica imposterum fulminanda”. There were also various other changes, but they cannot be discussed here.

^91. Gardiner, , History, i, 166.Google Scholar

^92. Beaumont to Henri IV, 6 May 1604 (PRO 31/3/37); J. Cecil to Beaumont, 24 June 1604 (BNF 15977, f. 158).

^93. Gardiner, loc. cit.

^94. J. Cecil to Beaumont, 24 June 1604 (above, n. 92); Beaumont to Henri IV, 11 July 1604 (PRO 31/3/38).

^95. Gardiner, History, i, 207, 203.

^96. Beaumont to Henri IV, 11 July 1604 (above, n. 94); Latin text of lay oath in BNF 15976, f. 537.

^97. TD iv, pp. lxxxii-vi. An edition of this was printed, allegedly at Douai, and is discussed by Jordan, W. K., The Development of Religious Toleration in England, 1603-1640 (London, 1936), 519;Google Scholar he misdates it to July 1603.

^98. Copies in BNF 15976, f. 532, & PRO SP 14/8/125 — both with endorsements by Beaumont.

^99. Beaumont to Henri IV, 18 July 1604 (KB i, 259f).

^100. Loc. cit., above, n. 99.

^101. Pace Gardiner, History, i, 203. there is no sign that James ever saw the petition; Gardiner did not know of the existence of the text of a lay oath.

^102. Because a copy of them got into the State Papers (above, n. 90, 98); Beaumont's endorsement makes it clear that he presented them.

^103. C.S.P. Domestic 1603-10, p. 136. They included Sir Thomas Tresham.

^104. Below, n. 112.

^105. Villeroy to Beaumont, 21 March 1604 (BNF 15977, f. 91); cf. same, 31 July 1603 (BNF 15976, f. 334). Also Villeroy to Béthune, 18 November 1603 (BNF 3487), f. 188): “Je vous envoie ung pacquet du docteur Cecil quiest prisonnier en Angleterre. Je vous confesse que je n'ay veu la lettre qu'il vous escrit, encore qu'elle soit ouverte, parce que je n'en ay eu le loisir, joint que je fais peu de compte de ses advis, les ayant recogneuz accompagnez d'autant d'animosité imprudence et l´gèret´ que de d´votion, moderation et Constance. C'est pourquoy il ne s'y fault trop arrester ny s'en servir… .” After this Cecil's correspondence with Béthune, which had continued ever since he left Rome, ceased: Villeroy to Béthune, 11 January 1604 (BNF 3488, f. 1), approving.

^106. KB ii, 206; cf. D.N.B. (above, n. 11).

^107. Above, n. 66, 72.

^108. Thesis, 181-184.

^109. KB ii, 212. This refusal may well have led to the attempt to use the Catholic gentry for the same purpose.

^110. Henri IV to Beaumont, 26 April 1604 (KB ii, 215); same, 23 May (Ibid., 225).

^111. Henri IV to Beaumont, 26 April 1604 (as above).

^112. Instructions for the deportation, 5 September 1604, in TD iv, p. lxxxvii; letter of priests to the Council, “from the seaside”, 24 September, Ibid., p. xc; Beaumont to Villeroy, 17 August and 17 September 1604 (PRO 31/3/38, 39); Gioioso, papal agent in Paris, to Aldobrandini, 28 October 1604 (VA Borghese ii 14, f. 427).

^113. Beaumont to Villeroy, 17 September 1604 (as above): “... s'ils (the Appellants) me veullent croire, puisque Ton les traicte a l'esgal (with the rest), ils rechercheront par le moyen des Jesuistes de France de se raccom-moder (transcript has “recommander”) avec ceux d'icy, et peut estre siceste reconsiliation est bien mesnagée qu'il s'en pourra tirer quelque bon fruict… .”

^114. Above, n. 113.

^115. Parry to R. Cecil, 6 October 1604 (PRO SP 78/51, f. 277); Gioioso to Aldobrandini, 28 October 1604 (VA Borghese ii 14, f. 427). Cecil arrived with Charnock, who went straight back to England.

^116. Archives nationales, G8 259, 16 November 1604, receipt 18 November: 150 livres ts.

^117. For the bishops, Gioioso to Aldobrandini, 29 November 1604 (VA Borghese ii 14, f. 439).

^118. Barberini (nuncio) to Aldobrandini, 7 February 1605 (VA NF 50, f. 35); an earlier report, probably inaccurate, to the same effect, by Edmund Thornhill, in Parry to R. Cecil, 3 October 1604 (PRO SP 78/51, f. 270); cf. Coton to Persons, 8 February 1606 (Stonyhurst, Coll. P, f. 425).

^119. Cardinal du Perron to Henri IV, 28 June 1605: de Ligny, C. (ed.), Les Ambassades et Negotiations (du) cardinal du Perron (1633), 693:Google Scholar “Hier Personius ... me vint trouver, et me dit que le Colonel Standley luy avait escrit, a luy et aux autres Anglois qui sont en ceste ville (Rome), qu'il estoit party d'avec vostre Majesté si content et satisfait de son zèle et de ses bonnes intentions pour I'avancement de la religion Catholique en Angleterre, qu'il croyait qu'elle seui procedoit avec sincérité au fait de Fhonneur de Dieu, et tous les autres par interests… .”

^120. Beaumont to Villeroy, 1 June 1605 (PRO 31/3/40).

^121. Beaumont to Villeroy, 10 June 1605 (Ibid.); there is an account of Sweet's mission in Prat, J.-M., La Compagnie de Jesus en France du temps du pere Coton, ii, 401–11.Google Scholar The identity of the envoy appears only from Henri IV's letter to Beaumont of 19 July (below, n. 125): “… le voyage de Swits… .” The editor has printed “Smits”, which has misled Prat into describing him as a “Père Smith”. Throughout the French correspondence on the subject he is referred to as a “père Jesuite”, though he did not become a priest until two, and a Jesuit until four years later. He was resident, as a “convictor”, in the English College at Rome, though not a student there, and a man in his middle thirties. There can be little doubt that in his mission Sweet was in fact acting for Persons as well as for Garnet, though for obvious reasons Persons preferred to keep in the background. Sweet was employed by Persons on other occasions in a similar capacity: during his earlier attempt to come to terms with Henri IV, in 1603, Persons had used him to write a letter from Rome to Henry Constable in Paris (Notes of J. Cecil, July 1603: LPL, 32); and in 1606-7 he acted as a messenger between Persons and England in the affair of the bishops (Catholic Record Society, vol. 41 (1948), 14-6, where details of Sweet's life will be found). It seems therefore likely that Sweet was kept at the college in Rome precisely for this purpose; and that Persons sent him to England as soon as he heard from Baldwin (if it was Baldwin) of Henri IV's feelers towards the Jesuits.

^122. Informatione per Monsignor Ill^mo. Nuntio di Francia (Stonyhurst, Anglia A vii, 73), without date but clearly 1605; its content and provenance make it fairly clear that it was by Persons. For a later use of Barberini by the Jesuits in this connection, Barberini to Valenti, 20 September 1605 (VA Borghese ii 250, f. 55).

^123. Wm. Creighton to Thos. Owen, 4 June 1605 (Stonyhurst, Anglia A iii, f. 113); cf. C.R.S. 41, p. 11.

^124. Villeroy to Beaumont, 19 & 25 June 1605 (BNF 15977, ff. 407, 417).

^125. Reported in Henri IV to Beaumont, 19 July 1605 (Lettres missives, vi, p. 481 f).

^126. Henri IV to Beaumont, 19 July 1605 (above); cf. Villeroy to Beaumont, 25 June 1605 (BNF 15977, f. 417) & Beaumont to Villeroy, 9 July 1605 PRO 31/3/40).

^127. Beaumont to Villeroy, 25 July 1605 (Ibid.).

^128. Villeroy to Beaumont, 11 August 1605 (BNF 15977, f. 424).

^129. Beaumont to Villeroy, 23 August 1605 (PRO 31/3/40).

^130. See Frangipani, nuncio in Brussels, to Borghese, 24 September 1605: Louant, Correspondance de Frangipani, iii part 2, 548), reporting an interview with Villamediana on his return from England: “… giudicando (V.) ch'i padri delta Compagnia non habbino in quel regno altra mira ch'alli comodi et interessi loro privati, onde dice haver conosciut’ il fin Ioro, di perturbare percid la pace come causa privativa dell'autorita ch'in Spagna et in Roma prima havevano per rispetto delle cose d'Inghilterra …”; he says that the English Jesuits should be prevented from dealing in politics and confined to spiritual matters; the Catholics must be patient. Thomas Earl of Arundel, who had come with Villamediana as commander of the English troops levied for the Archdukes “mi si conferma il suspetto di qualche passion ch'habbia detto Sr. Conte (V.) contr'i padri per rispetto della pace, ch'approva et difende come cosa uscita dalle sue mani, et dalli padri se biasma com'offensiva alia religione… .” Cf. same, 5 November 1605 (Ibid., 553): believed here that the French, and the English Jesuits, want to get the Pope to excommunicate James, so as to disrupt the peace.

^131. Beaumont to Villeroy, 9 July 1605 (PRO 31/3/40).

^132. Same, 18 June 1605 (Ibid.).

^133. Beaumont to Canaye, 13 July 1605 (draft in BNF 15979, f. 512); Canaye to Beaumont, 5 August 1605 (Lettres de Canaye, ii, 666); Canaye to du Perron, 6 August 1605 (Ibid., 671: original in BN fonds Dupuy 194, f. 140-1, wrongly catalogued as 1601); du Perron to Henri IV, 7 September 1605 (Ambassades et negotiations, 750ff).

^134. Villeroy to Beaumont, 13 July 1605: Prat, Compagnie de Jesus, ii, 405f.

^135. Beaumont to R. Cecil, 14 October 1605 (PRO SP 78/52, f. 274).

^136. Parry to R. Cecil, 28 November 1605 (Ibid., f. 349): Dujardin, Beaumont's secretary, to Beaumont, London, 13 December 1605 (BNF 15977, f. 466v).

^137. Cf. Villeroy to Beaumont, 19 June 1605 (BNF 15977, f. 407): “Mais si le party des prestres seculiers appelans estoit tel qu'il fust digne de consideration, de quoy je doubte maintenant plus que devant …”; and to Beaumont's successor, la Boderie, 9 September 1606: Ambassades de M. de la Boderie en Angleterre ... (5 vols.), Paris, 1750), i, 327f:— Boderie not to meddle with the Catholics “car une partie d'iceux sont doubles et vrais espions dudit Comte de Salisbury… .”

^138. Villeroy to Beaumont, 22 September 1605 (BNF 15977, f. 439).

^139. Cf. Matthew Kellison to Bérulle, 29 March 1608: Dagens, J. (ed.), Corres-pondance du cardinal de Bérulle, i (Paris/Louvain, 1937), 4.Google Scholar

^140. Letters of Coton to Creswell, 30 November 1605, 8 February 1606, 26 March, 20 April, 8 July, 24 September 1607; to Persons, 8 February 1606, 12 November 1607, in Stonyhurst Anglia A iii, 116; A vi, 307; Coll. P. 425; & Archives d'Etat, Ghent: Fonds Jesuites, liasse 74, nos. 6-9, 11. I am most grateful to Fr. Leo Hicks for letting me consult transcripts of the latter at Farm Street. They seem to conflict with the opinion of Fouqueray, Compagnie de Jésus en Fiance, iii, 220-1, that the marriage project was not initiated by Jesuits.

^141. See Coton's letters to Creswell, above, n. 140, e.g. 20 April 1607 — “noster Cecilius”; Cecil to Cardinal Givry, 10 January 1607 (Bibliothèque de Metz, MS. 969, p. 151); Sir Charles Cornwallis, ambassador in Spain, to Salisbury, 29 August 1607 (WM ii, 336); Thesis, 160.

^142. Cornwallis to Salisbury, 20 July 1608 (WM ii, 420).

^143. Oeconomies royales, i, 525–30; cf. Nouaillac, Villeroy, 347, n. 3Google Scholar, & Fouqueray, Compagnie de Jésus en France, ii, 644.

^144. Tapié, Cf. V.-L. La Politique etrangere de la France et le debut de la Guerre de Trente Ans (Paris, 1934), 14f.Google Scholar

^145. Mattingly, G., Renaissance Diplomacy (London, 1955), 225 Google Scholar, and cap. xxiii in general for the problems discussed here.

^146. On whom and the Jesuits, Fouqueray, op. cit., ii, 61. Beaumont seems to have owed his appointment as ambassador to Bellièvre, the chancellor: Beaumont to Bellièvre, 20 January 1605 (BNF 15899, f. 393).

^147. See, for example, his letter to J.-A. de Thou, London, 21 February 1602 (BN fonds Dupuy 830, f. 22), reporting an audience with Elizabeth:— “La Roine m'a fort attaqué sur ce qu'elle dit avoir entendu que le Roy a promis au Pappe de remettre des Jesuistes en son Roiaume, me détestant et accusant Ieur vie et leur ordre avec des figures selon la beauté de son esprit que je ne vous puis asses bien representer. Je luy ay respondu, comme j'ay estime debvoir faire en ceste charge, mais non pas comme je souhaitterois qu'il me fut commandé avec verite. Faites moy le bien de me mander si ceste affaire est resolu et quell'opinion vous en aves. Car quoi que Ton die je ne puis croire que le Roy ni le Parlement y consente… .”

^148. Simon de Marquemont to Villeroy, Rome, 14 July & 9 September 1603 (BNF 18001, ff. 37. 40). D'Halincourt, Villeroy's son, succeeded Béthune in 1605.

^149. Beaumont to Béthune, 6 October 1603 (BNF 3490, f. 35): Will continue writing “encores que je vous diray en secret et entre amys que l'on ne l'a pas trouve” (?bon) en France”, Beaumont's last letter is of 10 March, Béthune's of 3 May 1604.

^150. Above, n. 105.

^151. On Villeroy and the Jesuits, Nouaillac, Villeroy, 342–50;Google Scholar Fouqueray, Compagnie de Jésus en France, ii, 530 Google Scholar, 616 — where an impression of somewhat greater cordiality is given than by Nouaillac.

^152. Fouqueray, op. cit., ii, 619f.

^153. For example, the celebrated letter of Cardinal d'Ossat to Henri IV, 16 November 1601: Lettres du cardinal d'Ossat (1714), v, 53–69.Google Scholar

^154. As in the memorandum of James Hill, above, n. 5, and Persons, above, n. 57.

^155. Thesis, 185-90; and Gioioso to Aldobrandini, 29 November 1604 (VA Borghese ii 14, f. 439).

^156. As in refusing to pay the pensions of Cardinal d'Ossat: Lettres du Cardinal d'Ossat (1698), ii, 576, 588-9. James Hill, who had a pension of 1200 livres, had difficulty in getting Sully to pay it; John Cecil got Béthune to write to him about it in 1602, but there is no sign of payment before 1605: Hill to Villeroy, 6 July 1602 (Bibliothèque de l'Institut (Paris), fonds Godefroy 263, f. 123); Béthune to J. Cecil, 16 December 1602 (LPL, 53); Thesis, 152.

^157. Above, n. 78.

^158. Cf. Beaumont to Béthune, 23 February 1603 (BNF 3490, f. 8): Has recommended that the Appellants be given pensions. ”Mais en matière de finances vous scavez a qui l'on a affaire et puisque … vostre faveur n'y peut rien obtenir pour les affaires de delà (i.e. bribing Cardinals) je juge assez ce que je m'en doibz promettre. ...”

^159. Despite considerable agitation for a college in Paris (Thesis, 170-4).

^160. Under the meaningful alias of John Petit, Bateson was the author of a long and valuable series of letters of intelligence, sent to Thomas Phel-lippes, which survive in PRO SP 77, vols. 5 & 6. An example, 25 October 1599 (SP 77/6, f. 68v): “For my part ... I had rather see all France a fish pool and their king in the midst of it with his dead and live mistress about his neck and a millstone tied to his heels… .” For the identification, see L. Lahaye (éd.), Inventaire analytique des Chartes de là Collégiale de Saint-Jean VEvangeliste à Liège(2 vols., Brussels, 1921-31), i, p. liv; ii, 239, 245.

^161. Above, n. 61.

^162. On French ambassadors in England: quoted from Lettres philosophiques (ed. Lanson), ii, 257-8, by Ascoli, G., La Grande-Bretagne devant l'opinion française, ii (Paris, 1930), 1f.Google Scholar “Il ne sait pour l'ordinaire pas un mot d'anglais; il ne peut parler aux trois quarts de la nation que par interprète; il n'a pas la moindre idée des ouvrages faits dans la langue; il ne peut voir les spectacles où les moeurs de la nation sont représentées. ... Il arrive assez souvent que l'ambassadeur … , après avoir menti en cérémonie au nom du roi son maître pendant quelques années, quitte pour jamais une nation qu'il ne connaît pas du tout.” For Beaumont, see below.

^163. Allen's few surviving letters to French correspondents, in Knox, T. F., Letters and Memorials of Cardinal Allen (London, 1882), 47–8, 68;Google Scholar BN fonds Dupuy 300, f. 204; BN fonds Clairambault 358, f. 186, are in Latin or Italian. The one apparent exception (Knox, 340) was presumably the work of a secretary.

^164. Above, n. 57.

^165. For an example, Robert Eliot, early 1603:— “Cet un chosse treasure et trecertaine que nous otres chath. de angleterre ne vindront jamais avoir solagement, etc.” (VA Borghese iii 124gl, f. 128).

^166. Cf. Recusant History, v (1960), 224ff; vi (1962), 228ff. In 1602 Constable was translating Sidney's Arcadia into French (Vulcob to Villeroy, 6 August 1602: BNF 15577, f. 255; the translation does not seem to have survived.

^167. Cecil's translation of the last paragraph of the 1604 oath of allegiance may serve as an example (BNF 15976, f. 523); Beaumont's corrections are ignored:— “Item: nous jurouns promitouns et protestouns d'exciter persuader et tirer tant de bouche quand pour notre example tous les subiectes de sa mate, avec lesquelles nous viverouns (quand l'occasion se present et la comodite avec) a la mesme absolute obéissance et promptitud de défendre avec son sangue mesme la persone de sa mate, ses enfantes, son repose sa corone dignité et Royaulmes, contra toutes les practicques et invasions destrangers et contra toutes les rebelliones et conspirations domestiques sutto qualque si voglia pretexto, o con qualche si voglia authorita que si facciano pour disturber la paix et repos de sa mate, et ses Royaulmes non obstante quacunque excommunicatione aut ecclesiastica censura in contrarium.”

^168. Cf. Cecil to Beaumont, 1 February 1603 (BNF 15976, f. 60): “Çuae Gallice sunt scripta intelligo optime licet hoc idiomate ad Roscium scribens ut erubesco.”

^169. In the one possible exception (above, n. 63a) the misunderstanding was probably wilful.

^170. Mush's reference in his diary (AC ii, 3f) to their interview with Béthune of 24 February 1602 (above, n. 15), implies that he had missed the crucial point of the conversation.

^171. The Proclamation of 5/15 November 1602 was sent by Beaumont on the 23rd (n.s.), received at Fontainebleau by 2 December, given to Hill in Paris to translate by the 5th, not finished on the 7th; Villeroy first refers to having read it in a letter to Beaumont of the 24th (PRO 31/3/34; BNF 15577, f. 314, 317; Ibid. 3501, f. 4, 49; the translation BNF 15888, ff. 367-70).

^172. Letter cited above, n. 52. The passage runs: “J'avois proposé que … l'on (the Council), se contentast qu'ilz (the Appellants) consentissent qu'au cas qu'ilz fussent trouvez en quelque faulte ilz fussent punis selon les loix du Royaume.” He was surprised that the suggestion was not “bien receu”.

^173. Beaumont to Henri IV, 2 October 1602 (PRO 31/3/34): “… l'interest de cent mil escus ou environ qu'elle (Elizabeth) tire des permissions qu'elle accorde aux Catholiques de s'exempter du service de son Eglise …”; repeated in Beaumont to Béthune, 23 November 1602 (BNF 3489, f. 56).

^174. Above, n. 83.

^175. Béthune to Henri IV, 12 August 1602 (BNF NA 24160, f. 13): “... et outre cela touts les prestres” séculiers et laiques tirez hors de sa (the Arch-priest's) jurisdiction… .” The relevant passage in the opinion of the Inquisition ran: “Sed iniungendum esse Archipresbitero ne suas facultates excédât, prout excessisse visus fuit ... in procedendo contra laicos et sacerdotes qui non fuerint alumni seminariorum, contra quos nulla sibi iurisdictio attributa reperitur.” (Copy, BNF NA 24159, f. 127). The Archpriest could not be deprived of a jurisdiction over the laity which he had never possessed, and retained his jurisdiction over the secular clergy other than those who had not been through the seminaries, for practical purposes the remnant of Marian clergy.

^176. Villeroy to Boissise, 25 October 1601 (PRO 31/3/32).

^177. Mainly constituted by Jean de Vulcob and James Hill; most of the surviving papers are in BNF 15577-8. The bulk of them seems unfortunately to have disappeared.

^178. Cf. Villeroy to Béthune, 2 January 1602 (BNF 3487, f. 28): “Mais croyez qu'il y a parmy ces Anglois infinyes simuliez et partialitez contre lesquelles il se fault garder de chopper… .”

^179. Nouaillac, Villeroy, 421f, would seem to think otherwise, though his comments are in other respects perceptive.