^{page 151 note a} This letter is chiefly directed against that of Blackwell to his Assistants, dated June 23, 1601, and reprinted in Jesuits and Seculars, p. 151. Mr. Macray thinks the copy is in the handwriting of Mush or Champney. There are apparently two copyists; the writing changes after the sixth folio.

^{Page 153 note a} The intention of sending the four delegates to Rome was not made public until after July 1.

^{Page 153 note b} Mutilated.

^{Page 153 note c} Some word, perhaps “error,” omitted.

^{Page 157 note a} Something omitted. The words of Blackwell were “perhaps never meant to be presented to him [the pope], although means must be made by me that it may come to his reading.”

^{Page 159 note a} Father Holtby's Letter to a Lady (June 30, 1601), signed ‘A. Ducket,’ printed in Vol. I. p. 176.

^{Page 163 note a} I can learn nothing of this book. The initials point to Silvester Norris, a priest, who in 1606 became a Jesuit, and wrote books under that signature.

^{Page 167 note a} MS. mutilated.

^{Page 167 note b} Page torn: the second copyist begins here.

^{Page 173 note a} He did not complete his noviciate. See Dodd, ii. 85.

^{Page 178 note a} Some word apparently omitted here.

^{Page 179 note a} MS. mutilated.

^{Page 179 note b} Obliterated.

^{Page 180 note a} Paper damaged.

^{Page 182 note a} This letter seems to have been written from Paris before Cecil resolved to take part in the deputation to Rome. His three companions left Paris on Jan. 1, and the letter was probably written early in the same month, notwithstanding the endorsement of the copyist.

^{Page 183 note a} Sic, for “hot” ?

^{Page 183 note b} The Bishop of London.

^{Page 184 note a} In the margin are four lines in another hand, tantalisingly illegible by erasure. “This 3^rd pson was Mr….” etc.

^{Page 184 note b} Ralph Winwood, agent of Queen Elizabeth at the French Court.

^{Page 185 note a} The clause within brackets partially erased, and the two or three lines indicated by dots entirely erased.

^{Page 185 note b} Added in the margin.

^{Page 187 note a} François d'Esooubleau de Sourdis, created cardinal in 1592.

^{Page 189 note b} Inserted above the line.

^{Page 190 note a} “John” must be a slip of the pen for “Robert.” There was no John Fisher at the English College at this date. Robert, who took a principal part in the drawing up of the memorial against the Jesuita, came to Bheims in Maroh 1590, and was admitted at the age of twenty-two into the college at Borne July 8, 1593. He left in May 1596, when he was busy with the affairs of the malcontent clergy, both in England and on the continent. Dr. Barret, who was watching his movements and hoping to get him apprehended in Belgium, wrote to Parsons, Aug. 10, 1597, as follows: “Very loving and reverend Father, this I wryte at Liege where I am in my way homeward [from Spa to Bheims]. There passed by this towne one Fisher, that was sent by the seditious schollers into England, from hence he went to Bruxelles, thence to Lisle, and so to Do way, and thence to Cambray. He hath bin, as I am informed, in every shire in England to styrre up men against Jesuits and Spaniards, which he uttered to a good man in this towne. I marvaile he escaped at Bruxels, seing they are advertised out of England of his secret conference with a cheefe man of the councel of England & with Sacheverel the Apostata in the said councelors house. Heere he tould one in great secret, that he was to go to M. Ch. Pa[get] and D. Gifford, and to M. Morgan about matters of importance, he said also that they were in good hope to have liberty of conscience in England in case they might get the Jesuits thence, no doubt this is one part of his busynes, he left his bag at Liege & I have seene it, yet nothing of importance therin, saving a little compendious note of all their Articles against the Jesuits at Rome which he carried with him to dilate to the faction in England as appereth, for it is very old and almost worne out. [This note was rather brought out of England. As after will appeare. Parsons' marginal note.] I am to go to Bruxels and to make means to have the man examined, in case he may be found ; before he return to this towne, for he is to come back hither & to one in this place, he was at hia going into England earnestly commended by D. Gifford, &c.” Some months afterwards Fisher reappeared in Rome, “half converted,” writes Parsons, and “willingly offered himself” at the English College, where he was put through an examination extending over several days by the Papal fiscal. In this examination he made many statements, which are printed by Parsons in his Apologie (ff. 94–97), to the discredit of the anti-Jesuit party. These statements, which Parsons admitted were not altogether trustworthy, were said by Dr. Ely to have been extorted from “the miserable fellow” by fear of the gallies or the gallows; and Bagshaw declares that Parsons had threatened “to put hot irons to his arms” to get him to say what he did. Fisher had been apparently banished into Spain, and kept under restraint there for the past five and a half years, not “seven years,” as in this petition; and the Appellants now pray for his release and a fresh trial in the belief that when free from undue influence he would give a truer and more favourable colour to the conduct of his friends.

^{Page 192 note a} The following names erased and “quatuor saeerdotes Angli” substituted.

^{Page 192 note b} These “lewd assertions” of Mr. Giles Archer are the subject of much comment in Bagshaw's True Relation (Reprint, p. 65). They are here written on the back of the foregoing draft in an Italian hand.

^{Page 195 note a} Perhaps Dr. Ely's book, printed at Paris. It contains separate “Answers” by, or on behalf of, Bishop himself, Bagshaw and Charles Paget.

^{Page 197 note a} MS. torn away here and in much of following page.

^{Page 201 note a} Several lines defective or undecipherable.

^{Page 201 note b} Bishop and Charnock, Bishop was sent to Paris. Charnock retired to Pontà-Mousson, where he resided with Pitts.

^{Page 201 note c} From this point the few remaining decipherable words make no connected sense.

^a In the handwriting of Mush.

^a The MS. is torn at the edges, but even the mutilated sentences are not without significance.

^{Page 206 note a} Or, flath. pa?

^{Page 206 note b} Or, priests ? The writirjg is scarcely legible.

^{Page 207 note a} Some Italian words erased.

^{Page 210 note a} The passages here placed within square brackets are additions interlined, but in the same hand as the rest of the text.

^a This is the original heading. To the H. have been added, apparently by a later hand (certainly in another ink), a few strokes which may mean olt, making Holt. But this is very doubtful. The copy is badly written and obscure.

^a The list does not appear to be accurate, and it should be compared with the register or Diary of the College printed in Foley's Records, vol. vi. The names here given are, as a rule, aliases adopted by the scholars at the college, and not always the names by which they are best known. A few of them cannot be identified with the entries in the College Diary. I have added S.J. in brackets against the names of those who are known to have afterwards joined the Society; and it will be seen that this was the case with many who are not marked by the writer of the list as “covert Jesuits,” or Jesuits in intention.

It was a natural complaint on the part of the secular clergy that, from the fact of the seminarists at Eome being educated under the influence of the Jesuits, so large a number of scholars should be tempted into the ranks of a religious body which was believed to be aimiiig at an unfair control of ecclesiastical affairs. The grievance was aggravated when, on the appointment of the Archpriest, the Jesuits on the mission were not only freed from his jurisdiction, but were enabled the more easily to direct his policy by the rule which required the Archpriest on all more important matters to consult their superiors. Moreover, it was believed that the Jesuits of the Roman seminary, in order to avoid the appearance of undue influence, would often persuade the young devotee to defer his actual entrance into the Society until some time after he should have gone into England, and to content himself meanwhile with a secret vow to join the order at a future day. From the beginning of 1597 till the end of 1602 there were; according to the College Diary, 75 students admitted as alumni; and of these 31, sooner or later, entered the Society. Hence, the secular priests' constant suspicion of Jesuits in disguise. On the other hand, it is clear that the Jesuit recruits among the students were not derived solely from the ranks of their own partisans. Several students who were distinguished as “mutineers” subsequently joined the Society, suggesting the inference that their discontent was in part due to temporary causes, or was not at least so deeply rooted as permanently to alienate these young men from the order to which they reverted with affection when free from restraint.

^{Page 215 note a} All the above were admitted into the college Nov. 2, 1597. The letter C is here wrongly placed before Goldsmith. It should mark Thomas Rand, who entered the Society in 1600.

^{Page 215 note b} The D is placed here erroneously. Robert Eookwood, alias Robinson, became a Jesuit after 1605 and lived till 1624.

^{Page 215 note c} Thomas Barnes, al. Turner, should have been marked D. He was admitted into the Society in articulo mortis, 1599.

^{Page 216 note a} John Brown, alias Whittington, was admitted into the college Nov. 1, 1600.

^{Page 216 note b} Apparently Nicholas Hart, alias Strange or Strangeways.

^{Page 216 note c} Henry Bedingfield, alias Silisdon, became a Jesuit Oct. 1602.

^{Page 216 note d} Thomas Hodgson, or Smith, entered the college Oct. 1600 and the Society Dec. 7, 1601.

^{Page 217 note a} Samuel Smallman, of Shropshire, is entered in the Pilgrim Book as remaining eight days from Mar. 2, 1602, but his name does not appear in the College register.

^{Page 217 note b} Thos. Cornforth was already a Jesuit in 1600. T. More became one in 1610, and Flint in 1621.

^{Page 218 note a} Something wrong here. The whole of this paper is badly written, and, in parts, indecipherable or unintelligible.

^{Page 221 note a} The proclamation of Nov. 5 offered indeed small “hope of favour” to those who dared almost to insinuate “that we have some purpose to grant a toleration of two religions within our realm.”

All priests were to be banished except those who should publicly acknowledge their allegiance. With these the Queen would take further order.

^a The copies are thus headed. The “discontented” here were anti-appellants.

^{Page 232 note b} Very faint and uncertain.

^{Page 234 note a} Can this be “Dowce a froward intelligencer,” who, the Bishop of London suggests to Cecil, should be transferred with other prisoners to Framlingham, July 6, 1602? (Cal. S. P. Dom. Eliz.)

^{Page 234 note b} Barlow, Bramston and Grene were supporters of Father Weston, and the opponents of Bagshaw, in the Wisbech stirs.

^{Page 237 note a} So probably. Cf. Douay Diaries, p. 374. Mr. Macray reads “Persens.”

^{Page 238 note a} This and the following letters are indeed “evell scribled” and extremely difficult to decipher. The text is also bleared and blotted in many places, and the paper has been mended here and there, to the detriment of the words.

^{Page 239 note a} The name partly erased.

^{Page 239 note b} Or, perhaps, “jap.” Compare vol. i. pp. 96, 97.

^{Page 241 note a} Or ‘reticence’ ?

^a Several of the priests whose signatures are given below were transferred from other prisons to Framlingham after the accession of James in 1603, and were shortly afterwards in the same year banished the kingdom.

^{Page 244 note a} The 23 signatures which follow are original.

^{Page 244 note b} Those marked † had been together at Wisbech in the time of the stirs.

^a This letter belongs apparently to an earlier date than the rest of the papers in this volume. The “Barrowes” referred to is perhaps Henry Barrowe, the puritan, executed April 6, 1593. Cecil at that time was member of the Council, but not secretary.

^a There are two other forms of such protestations or oaths of allegiance preserved among the Petyt MSS. (54. 233 and 54. 396), which it is not necessary to reproduce here. They are both drafts of “The Protestation of Allegiance made by Thirteen Missioners to Queen Elizabeth,” printed by Tierney (vol. iii. clxxxvii.) from the MS. of the old “Dean and Chapter,” and which he describes (p. 55) as “an admirable address drawn up by Dr. William Bishop,” Jan. 81, 1603. The first (54. 233) has no signature, and is endorsed “A form of Submission of Mr. Clarke's hand,” as if it was the composition rather of Francis Clark than of Dr. Bishop. There is another endorsement, not, however, certainly connected with this document, in a hand resembling Gilford's : “ffrom M^r Watson ye viii of June 1602.” The second draft (54. 396) is more curious, as it seems to have passed under the revising hand of Dr. Gifford, who has appended to it the names of fifteen subscribers. The two additional names at the end of the list are Michael Wood and Walter Hassals, who perhaps withdrew their adhesion at the last moment. The text in its final shape is almost identical with the actual form presented to the Queen, but after the words of the opening sentenoe “faith and loyalty of us… secular priests” there appear erased the words, “more than she findeth by the Jesuits and their adherents.” In another place a few insignificant words, in what appears to be Dr. Gifford's hand, are added to the draft, and these appear in Tierney's printed text. Although in its ultimate form the Protestation of the thirteen priests refers to, and appears to be occasioned by the Queen's Proclamation of Nov. 5, 1602, it is not unlikely that it was in substance prepared many months before; for Dr. Cecil writes from Paris to Watson, Feb. 1602, “we have conceived here an oath of obedience” (p. 183 supra). The two shortand moderate forms which here follow have not been printed before.