^{page 291 note 2} Brady, W. Maziere, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy in England and Scotland, Rome 1877, 149–151Google Scholar, 202. For Giffard's activities as Vicar Apostolic of the Midlands, see Rowlands, Marie, unpublished Birmingham M.A. dissertation, 1965Google Scholar, ‘Catholics in Staffordshire from the Revolution to the Relief Acts, 1689–1791’.

^{page 292 note 1} The best account of Gother is that in FrAnstruther's, GodfreyThe Seminary Priests, Great Wakering 1976, iii. 81–4Google Scholar. I am grateful to Fr. Godfrey for allowing me to see this work in typescript. See also SisterNorman, Marion‘John Gother and the English Way of Spirituality’, in Recusant History, 11 (1972), 306–317Google Scholar. A list of Gother's writings will be found in Pullen, G. F. (ed.), Recusant Books at St. Mary's, Oscott part II, 1641–1830, New Oscott 1966, 77–80Google Scholar.

^{page 292 note 2} Hay, M. V., The Jesuits and the Popish Plot, London 1934, 1–120Google Scholar; Miller, John, Popery and Politics in England 1660–1688, Cambridge 1973, 42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Birrell, T. A., ‘English Catholics without a Bishop 1655–1672’, in Recusant History, 4 (1958), 142–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar; T. A. Birrell, introduction to the Gregg Press reprint of Blacklo's Cabal Discoverd … by R. Pugh, n. p. 1680. Bossy, John, The English Catholic Community 15J0–1850, London 1975, 60–69Google Scholar.

^{page 292 note 3} Holden, Henry, The Analysis of Divine Faith, or two treatises of the resolution of Christian Belief, Paris 1658Google Scholar, ‘Epistle to the Reader’; Abercrombie, Nigel, The Origins of Jansenism, Oxford 1936, 252Google Scholar.

^{page 293 note 1} Gother, John, A Papist mis-represented and represented, or, a two-fold character of Popery…, London 1685Google Scholar; Mr. Gother's Spiritual Works, London 1718, vii. 427–438Google Scholar.

^{page 293 note 2} Mr. Gother's Spiritual Works, vii. 367–376, 386–388; iv. Sig A2–A3v and passim.

^{page 293 note 3} ‘Instructions for Confession, Communion and Confirmation’, in Mr. Gother's Spiritual Works viii. passim, vi. 264–327; Bossy, op. cit., 269–272; Butler, Alban, Meditations and Discourses on the Sublime Truths … of Christianity, London 1791, (posthumous publication) i. 102–229Google Scholar, ii. 1–46, 120–130.

^{page 293 note 4} Mr. G. F. Pullen informs me that there were a number of copies of Amauld's work as Oscott, from former mission libraries—cf. Pullen, op. cit., 17. (Myles Davies), The Recantation of Mr. Pallet, London 1705, 10–11Google Scholar. For Davies, the priest in question, see my article ‘Over the Wall, Converts from Popery in 18th century England’, in Downside Review, 94 no. 314 (January 1976), 7–8, 16, 21Google Scholar.

^{page 293 note 5} Ruth Clarke, Strangers and Sojoumers at Port Royal, Cambridge 1932, 149–159, 164, 181–183 (hereafter cited as Clarke, Strangers): on Neercasel see Neale, J. M., A History of the so-called Jansenist Church of Holland, Oxford 1857, 158–196Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Neale, Jansenist Church); Pastor, Ludwig von, The History of the Popes, xxxii, London 1940, 487–492Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Pastor with volume number).

^{page 294 note 1} Blacklo's Cabal, 13, 19, 102, 107; Birrell, art. cit., 149–150.

^{page 294 note 2} Clarke, Strangers, 158–9.

^{page 294 note 3} Kirk, John, Biographies of English Catholics in the Eighteenth Century, London 1909, 98–99Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Kirk); MacDonald, G., ‘The Lime Street Chapel (part I)’, in Dublin Review, clxxx (1927), 257–265Google Scholar.

^{page 294 note 4} Abercrombie, op. cit., 307–8.

^{page 294 note 5} Pastor, xxxiii. 179–183.

^{page 295 note 1} Kirk, 113–5; FrBonnar, AlphonsusO.F.M., , ‘The English Franciscans and Jansenism’, in Clergy Review, ii (1931), 122–132Google Scholar, esp. 125–6; Ushaw College Durham, Ushaw Collection of Manuscripts, i. fols. 211–2 (hereafter cited as UCM. I am indebted to the President of Ushaw College for permission to quote from these papers, and to the Librarian, Fr. B. Payne, for help in locating documents. References are normally to volume and item number. Folio numbers are given, as here, only when necessary to avoid confusion with item numbers).

^{page 295 note 2} UCM. i fols. 215–6, 224. In quoting from MSS. I have silently expanded conventional abbreviations; spelling is otherwise unaltered.

^{page 295 note 3} UCM. i fols. 227–8.

^{page 295 note 4} Philip Harris (ed.), Douai College Documents, Catholic Record Society lxiii, ‘Diary of Edward Dicconson’, 86–7 (hereafter cited as Dicconson Diary); Archives of the Archbishop of Westminster (hereafter cited as AAW), Epistolae Variorum (hereafter cited as Ep. Var.) i no. 47: Edward Dicconson to Laurence Mayes 18 December 1706.

^{page 295 note 5} UCM. i fols. 217–8, 225; AAW. Ep. Var. i no. 37: Peter B. Tunstal to James Gordon 14 December 1705.

^{page 296 note 1} UCM. i fols. 218–225; Archives of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, Farm Street, London (hereafter cited as Arch. SJ.) A. iv. 21, MS. of Fr. Thomas Hunter's ‘Answer to the four and twenty Letters, Intitled the secret Policy of the English Society of Jesus’, fol. 49 (extract of a letter from Poyntz himself); (Fr. Thomas Hunter S.J.), A Modest Defence of the Clergy and Religious, n.p. 1714, 121.

^{page 296 note 2} Arch. SJ. A. iv. 21 fol. 50; Hunter, Modest Defence, 122.

^{page 296 note 3} Charles Dodd, The Church History of England, from 1500 to 1688, chiefly with regard to Catholicks, ‘Brussels’ (false imprint) 1737–42, iii. 485; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Stuart Papers at Windsor, H.M. Stationery Office 1904, i. 188–193Google Scholar, ii. 520; AAW. Paris Seminary volume, fols. 231–245, ‘A Ruff draught of the reasons given and the methods taken for removing from St. Germans John Bedlam preceptor to King James the 3rd’. This is Betham's own account of the proceedings against him, and contains a detailed and revealing account of Noialles's sympathetic interview with Betham. Among the charges mentioned by the cardinal was one that Betham had told the king (James Edward Stuart) that ‘Mons. Arnold would be canonised’. This, Betham assured Noialles, was a mistake. He had not said Amauld would be canonised, but that the last pope had intended to make him a cardinal, a thing, as Betham drily observed ‘very different from Canonisation’. The account in Clarke, Strangers, based on the Stuart Papers, is incomplete, and mistakenly implies that Betham's banishment was permanent. For his return to St. Germain, see AAW. Ep. Var. i no. 30: John Betham to James Gordon, 13 April 1705.

^{page 297 note 1} (Etienne Agard de Champs), The Secret Policy of the Jansenists and the present State of the Sorbon … To which is premis'd A brief Abstract of the Memorial concerning the Stale and Progress of Jansenism in Holland …, n. p. 1703. This translation of the Secret Policy had first appeared in 1667.

^{page 297 note 2} Ibid., 40–43, 68–70, 72, 75, 95, 98.

^{page 297 note 3} Kirk, 76–7; Dictionary of National Biography, xviii. 149; Foley, H., Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, London 1877–1883 (hereafter cited as Foley), v. 821–3Google Scholar. For Fairfax see Williams, J. A., Catholic Recusancy in Wiltshire 1660–1791, Catholic Records Society monograph 1968, 151–3Google Scholar.

^{page 297 note 4} A Case of Conscience Propos'd to, and Decided by Forty Doctors of the Faculty of Paris, in Favour of Jansenism, n. p. 1703; AAW. ‘A’ series, xxxviii no. 55: Fr. Thomas Fairfax to Sylvester Jenks, (23? November) 1710.

^{page 298 note 1} AAW. ‘A’ xxxviii. 55.

^{page 298 note 2} Archives of the Old Brotherhood of the Secular Clergy (the Chapter) iii no. 106: ‘A Short and True (account) of the uncharitable persecution raised and carried on against the clergy’. The Old Brotherhood Archives are not available for consultation, but have been microfilmed in their entirety; the pagination of the four volumes, however, is so confused that references are by item number and volume only.

^{page 298 note 3} Myles Davies, Recantation of Mr. Pallet, 12.

^{page 298 note 4} UCM. i fols. 219–225; AAW. Ep. Var. i. no. 37: Peter B. Tunstall to James Gordon, 14 December 1705; AAW. ‘A’ xlviii no. 15: Thomas Roydon to Laurence Mayes, 25 February 1708.

^{page 299 note 1} The evidence concerning Fr. Sabran's relations with Poyntz at this period is difficult to assess. Roydon's evidence is plausible because self-incriminating, and he was emphatic that he had seen and read two letters from Sabran to Poyntz: AAW. ‘A’ xlviii no. 15. Fr. Sabran's denials of involvement were confined to denials of any plot against Douai College, with a view to a Jesuit takeover. When taxed with writing to Poyntz his words seem carefully chosen—see for example Holt, Geoffrey SJ. (ed.), The Letter Book of Lewis Sabran SJ, Catholic Record Society lxii 1971, 240–1Google Scholar, where his denial of correspondence with Poyntz seems to be limited to correspondence on the subject of ‘Dr. Paston's tyranny’. Sabran's later relations with Poyntz, using him as an informer against suspected Jansenist teaching and teachers at Douai, and procuring him an annuity in the aftermath of Charles Dodd's denunciations of Poyntz in 1713–15, suggest that they were indeed previously known to each other: Sabran Letters, 35, 41, 47–8, 181, 183–4. See also Hunter, Modest Defence, 121, 129; Arch. SJ. A. iv. 21 fols. 48–9; UCM. i. fol. 249 ‘Fr. Sabran's Answer to some queries put to him by F. Eyre’.

^{page 299 note 2} Chadwick, HubertS.J., , St. Omen to Stonyhurst, London 1962, 249Google Scholar; Archives of the Old Brotherhood, iii no. 106.

^{page 299 note 3} UCM. i. fols, 281–2: Lewis Sabran to Andrew Gifard (‘Jonathan Coles’), 22 June 1708.

^{page 299 note 4} AAW. Paris Seminary Volume, fol. 257: bishop James Smith to John Betham, 10 September 1706; Ep. Var. i no. 41: John Bedlam to Laurence Mayes, 18 October 1706; Dicconson Diary, 87.

^{page 299 note 5} AAW. Ep. Var. i no. 40: Edward Dicconson to Laurence Mayes, 13 October 1706.

^{page 300 note 1} Dodd, Church History, iii. 480: Catholic Record Society, xxviii, ‘The Seventh Douai Diary’, containing ‘Dr. Robert Witham's Advice to a President of Douay College’, 308.

^{page 300 note 2} Kirk, 63–4; AAW. Ep. Var. vi no. 3: Robert Witham to Laurence Mayes, 20 February 1716; i no. 29: Edward Paston to James Gordon, 23 March 1705.

^{page 300 note 3} Kirk, 160–1.

^{page 300 note 4} The previous incumbent, Michael Ellis, a careerist Benedictine who had lived abroad since 1689, finally resigned his neglected vicariate in 1705, in favour of the more congenial Italian see of Segni.

^{page 300 note 5} Kirk, 204.

^{page 300 note 6} Dicconson Diary, 107; Kirk, 204; UCM. i fols. 233–4.

^{page 300 note 7} AAW. ‘The Roman Agency books of Laurence Mayes’ (hereafter cited as ‘Mayes Agency’), i fols. 53–5; Dicconson Diary, 107.

^{page 300 note 8} Pastorxxxii. 651–8, xxxiii. 314–331; Neale, Jansenist Church, 209–224.

^{page 301 note 1} AAW. Ep. Var. i no. 110: Gerard Saltmarsh to Laurence Mayes, 4 November 1707; i no. 118: same to same, 22 December 1707; ‘Mayes Agency’, i fols. 53–5, 148–151.

^{page 301 note 2} AAW. Ep. Var. ino. 110: Saltmarsh to Mayes, 4 November 1707.

^{page 301 note 3} AAW. ‘Mkyes Agency’, i fol. 55.

^{page 301 note 4} AAW. Ep. Var. i no. 64: bishop Bonaventure Giffard to Laurence Mayes, 13 March 1707.

^{page 301 note 5} AAW. ‘Mayes Agency’, i fols. 61–3, 79–88.

^{page 301 note 6} AAW. ‘Mayes Agency’, i fols. 55–60; Ep. Var. i no. 68: Edward Paston to Laurence Mayes, 22 March i707;ino. 72: John Betham to Laurence Mayes, 11 April 1707.

^{page 302 note 1} AAW. Ep. Var. i no. 73: Edward Paston to Laurence Mayes, 16 April 1707: i no. 95: same to same, 6 October 1707; i no. 106: Fr. Tomson (sic) to Laurence Mayes, 30 October 1707; ‘Mayes Agency’, i fols. 67–8.

^{page 302 note 2} AAW. Ep. Var. i no. 102: bishop Gittard to Laurence Mayes, 24 October 1707; i no. log: Edward Dicconson to Laurence Mayes, 1 November 1707; ii no. 18: same to same, 10 April 1708.

^{page 302 note 3} Kirk, 98–100: ‘About a year and a half after departure from Lime Street House, I was made Fellow of Magdalen College, where I stayed until we were turned out by the return of the Protestant Fellowes into their college again. I compared these two passages together, my being turned out of Lime Street House by the Jesuits, and out of Magdalen College by the Protestant Parsons, and I must needs do justice to the truth and to those of Magdalen College, that I was dismissed that place with much more civility and much less reproach than what I found at my dismissal from Lime House …’; UCM. i fols. 284–5; AAW. Ep. Var. ii no. 23: Edward Dicconson to Laurence Mayes, 12 May 1708; Foley, vii. 449.

^{page 302 note 4} Kirk, 161–2; UCM. i fol. 279: Andrew Giffard to Edward Paston (‘Jo. Coles’ to ‘Mr. Everard’), 7 July 1710.

^{page 303 note 1} UCM. i fols. 281–3: Lewis Sabran to Andrew Giffard, 22 June 1708 (with notes by Giffard); Hunter, Modest Defence 128–9, 132–3.

^{page 303 note 2} For troubles in the North see Dodd, Church History, iii. 519; AAW. Ep. Var. i no. 109: Edward Dicconson to Laurence Mayes, 1 November 1707; i no. 119: Edward Paston to Mayes, 23 December 1707; UCM. i fol. 309: Fr. Francis Mannock S.J. to Fr. Charles KennetS.J., 11 March 1709/10; AAW. Ep. Var. i no. 120: bishop Smith to Mayes, 30 December 1707.

^{page 303 note 3} Dodd, Church History, iii. 460; Kirk, 210.

^{page 303 note 4} Cf. Dodd, Church History, iii. 360; Kirk, 100.

^{page 303 note 5} AAW. Ep. Var. i no. 114; bishop Giffard to Laurence Mayes, 5 December 1707.

^{page 303 note 6} Clarke, Strangers, 164–170.

^{page 303 note 7} UCM. i no. 96: Richard Short to Charles Towneley, n.d.; i no. 97: same to same, 24 September 1706(?); i no. 91: same to same, no date.

^{page 304 note 1} UCM. i no. 98: Richard Short to Charles Towneley, February (1706/7 ?).

^{page 304 note 2} Clarke, Strangers, 169.

^{page 304 note 3} AAW. xxxviii no. 54: ‘Fr. Fairfax's remarks on the Review of Jansenius’; no. 55: Fr. Fairfax to Sylvester Jenks, 23 November 1710.

^{page 304 note 4} Clarke, Strangers, 166–7; the persons concerned were ‘old squire Whetenhall’, (Henry Whetenhall of East Peckham, Kent), his nephew Francis Thwaites, a Douai priest, Sylvester Jenks, and Dom Thomas Southcote: Kirk, 215, 235, 247; UCM. i no. 84: Sylvester Jenks, letters to Thomas Fairfax concerning Jansenism, 9–11; AAW. Ep. Var. ii no. 88: Edward Dicconson to Laurence Mayes, 21–24 July 1709.

^{page 304 note 5} UCM. i no. 91: Richard Short to Charles Towneley, no date.

^{page 304 note 6} AAW. ‘A’ xxxviii no. 54; for some indications of Short's ‘Jansenist’ views, suggesting that they centred on the question of papal authority and the doctrine of Neercasel's Amor Poenitens, see Archives of the Old Brotherhood iii nos. 17 (Short on papal authority), 21 (Short to Richard Gomelden on dogmatic facts, no date), 23 (untitled paper on the Five Propositions), 27 (Copy of Dr. Short's Answer to die Paper of accusations against him), 28 (‘Dr. Short's tenets’—a hostile ‘Syllabus’ of Short's errors). This last item seems to contain the ‘propositions’ solemnly disowned by Short after receiving the Sacrament from abbot James Corker. They were not, as is wrongly suggested by Clarke, Strangers, 170, the ‘Five Propositions’; cf. UCM. i no. 75 (fol. 308), evidently misread by Clarke.

^{page 305 note 1} For Vane, see Anstruther, op. cit., and Croft, W. and Gillow, J., Historical Account of Lisbon College, London 1902, 261–2Google Scholar.

^{page 305 note 2} AAW. Ep. Var. i no. 114: bishop Giffard to Laurence Mayes, 5 December 1707; UCM. i nos. 68, 71: copies of a letter from Francis Mannock SJ. to Charles Kennet S.J., written before 8 March 1708, with notes by Andrew Giffard; Arch. SJ., Fr. John Thorpe's ‘Notes and Fragments’ (hereafter cited as ‘Notes and Fragments’), fols. 76, 78: Charles Kennet to Fr. Powil (?) Decembert?) 1707, May 1709, August 1709.

^{page 305 note 3} AAW. ‘A’ xxxviii no. 43: ‘An account of wh(at) hapned (sic) between Mr. Smith SJ. and Me November 1707’ (by John Vane); no. 44: fair copy, idem., with some additional material.

^{page 305 note 4} UCM. i no. 75 fols. 309–311: copy of a letter from Francis Mannock to Charles Kennet 11 March 1709/10, with notes by Andrew Giffard; AAW. ‘A’ xxxviii no. 43. For Mannock see Aveling, J. C., Catholic Recusancy in York 1558–1791, Catholic Record Society Monograph 1970, 156–7Google Scholar; Foley, vi. 485—6; Kirk, 157–8.

^{page 305 note 5} AAW. ‘A’ xxxviii no. 45: ‘A Relation of the Abuses offered to me by Mr. S(mith) in Long Acre on Saturday night 24th of July 1703’ (by John Vane). It is not clear whether the Fr. Smith concerned was John or Thomas Smith—Foley, vii. 718, 721.

^{page 306 note 1} See AAW. ‘A’ xxxviii nos. 50, 51, documents compiled in 1710 by Andrew Giffard relating to these disruptions; Clarke, Strangers, 163.

^{page 306 note 2} Arch. SJ., ‘Notes and Fragments’, fol. 83: Charles Kennet to Richard Plowden, January 1714.

^{page 306 note 3} AAW. ‘A’ xxxviii no. 54: Fairfax's ‘Remarks on the Review of Jansenius’; Ep. Var. i no. 104: bishop Smith to Laurence Mayes, 28 October 1707.

^{page 306 note 4} AAW. Paris Seminary Volume, fol. 318: Andrew Giffard to Edward Dicconson 9 May 1710; Ep. Var. i no. 114: bishop Giffard to Laurence Mayes, 5 December 1707.

^{page 306 note 5} UCM. i. fols. 234–5.

^{page 306 note 6} AAW. ‘A’ xlviii nos. 18–20; ‘Mayes Agency’, i fols. 108–137, 141–144, 152–164, 168–196; Ep. Var. ii no. 9: Edward Dicconson to Laurence Mayes, 25 February 1708; ii no. 12: bishop George Witham to Laurence Mayes, 4 March 1708.

^{page 307 note 1} AAW. Ep. Var. ii no. 55: John Betham to Laurence Mayes, 10 December 1708; ii no. 73: Edward Dicconson to Laurence Mayes, 25 April 1709.

^{page 307 note 2} AAW. ‘MayesAgency’, ifols. 229–235, 253–256.

^{page 307 note 3} AAW. Ep. Var. iii no. 34: bishop Smith to Laurence Mayes, April 1710. For some recusant letters stolen from the public mails by spies of archbishop Tennison, see Catholic Record Soceity, lvi. 130–164.

^{page 307 note 4} AAW. ‘Mayes Agency’ i fols. 235–240. For the probable origin of these accusations see Arch. SJ. ‘Notes and Fragments’, fol. 79.

^{page 307 note 5} AAW. Ep. Var. ii no. 85: bishop Giffard to Laurence Mayes, 16 May 1709.

^{page 308 note 1} AAW. Ep. Var. ii no. 85: bishop Giffard to Laurence Mayes, 7 July 1709.

^{page 308 note 2} Summary in Bellesheim, A., A History of the Catholic Church in Scotland, Edinburgh and London 1890, iv. 200–201Google Scholar.

^{page 308 note 3} UCM. no. 68 fol. 267, notes on the brief by Andrew Giffard.

^{page 308 note 4} AAW. Ep. Var. iii no. 2: bishop Giffard to Laurence Mayes, 18 January 1709/10; iii no. 42: John Ingleton to Laurence Mayes, 26 May 1710 (Ingleton had succeeded Betham, who died in 1709, as Preceptor to ‘James 111’); UCM. i fol. 305, notes by Andrew Giffard.

^{page 308 note 5} AAW. Ep. Var. iii no. 24: bishop Giffard to Laurence Mayes, 8 March 1710; Arch. SJ. ‘Notes and Fragments’, fols. 79–80.

^{page 309 note 1} AAW. Ep. Var. iii no. 17: bishop Giffard to Mayes, 22 February 1710; ‘A’ xxxviii nos. 50–1, ‘Mr. Andrew Giffard's Commission’; UCM. i no. 81: Andrew Giffard to Edward Dicconson, 3 April 1710.

^{page 309 note 2} AAW. Ep. Var. iii no. 25: Edward Paston to Laurence Mayes, 15 March 1710; iii no. 28: Sister Elizabeth Meynell to Laurence Mayes, 30 March 1710; iii no. 54: Henry Howard to Mayes, 25 July 1710; iii no. 88: Andrew Giffard to Mayes, 31 December 1710; UCM. i no. 81: Andrew Giffard to Edward Dicconson, 3 April 1710. Saltmarsh's dismissal may well have been part of the marriage agreement between the duke of Norfolk and his future father-in-law, Sir Nicholas Sherburne, a devoted client of the Jesuits notorious for his hostility to the secular clergy. The new Jesuit chaplain to the Norfolks was Fr. Thomas Hunter, formerly chaplain to Sir Nicholas.

^{page 309 note 3} UCM. i no. 81: Andrew Giffard to Edward Dicconson, 3 April 1710; AAW. Ep. Var. iii no. 38: Edward Dicconson to Laurence Mayes, 14 May 1710; iii no. 42: J. Ingleton to Mayes, 26 May 1710. Such a scheme had been publicly proposed in 1705 in the anonymous pamphlet A Short Way with the Papists, which pleaded the loyalty of the secular clergy and their flocks, but denounced the ‘Jesuit party’ as disloyal and dangerous. I have not been able to find a single surviving copy of this pamphlet, which is possibly the work of John Sergeant, but a summary will be found in British Libary Add. MS. 29612, ‘Letter book of Sylvester Jenks’, fols. 36–8.

^{page 310 note 1} AAW. Ep. Var. iiino. 33: Edward Dicconson to Laurence Mayes, 22 April 1710.

^{page 310 note 2} AAW. Ep. Var. iii no. 36: Edward Dicconson to Mayes, 7 May 1710.

^{page 310 note 3} Dodd, Church History, iii. 521; HMC Stuart Papers, ii. 236. The staff of the English College had been cultivating the young ‘James III’ in order to gain his support. In December 1708 he had visited the College, where he had been delighted by ‘the number of young men who followed him everywhere he went gazing at and admiring him’. Dicconson had told Mayes that ‘you may imagine the obvious compliments were not wanting to let him know their … eagerness to follow him proceeded from die principles of their education here’: AAW. Ep. Var. ii no. 56: Dicconson to Mayes, 22 December 1708.

^{page 310 note 4} AAW. ‘Mayes Agency’, i fols. 330–344: Lewis Sabran to cardinal Caprara (the cardinal protector of England), 5 November 1710. Sabran was also endeavouring to convince ‘James in’ that the secular clergy were indeed guilty of Jansenism, but Sabran's letter to Caprara, which Mayes managed to copy,’ convinced die young king that Fr. Sabran was activated by malice: Ep. Var. iii no. 74: J. Ingleton to Mayes, 10 October 1710; iii no. 85: Laurence Green to Mayes, 13 December 1710; iv no. 25: Edward Dicconson to Mayes, 23 May 1711; Arch. SJ. ‘Notes and Fragments’, fol. 79.

^{page 310 note 5} AAW. Ep. Var. iv no. 15: J. Ingleton to Laurence Mayes, 29 March 1711; iv no. 38: Andrew Giffard to Laurence Mayes, 29 July 1711; ‘Mayes Agency’, i fol. 383: cardinal Paolucci to the Vicars Apostolic, 17 February 1711; ibid., 386–8; cardinal Caprara on Paolucci's letter, 20 February 1711—throughout the entire proceedings Caprara showed himself a zealous and energetic friend to the secular clergy; UCM. i no. 123: Robert Witham to Mr. Midford, August 9 1712.

^{page 311 note 1} AAW. Ep. Var. iv no. 45: Peter B. Tunstall to Mayes, 25 September 1711. For details of the visitation, see Ep. Var. iv no. 53; Paston to Mayes, 5 November 1711; iv no. 54: Cuthbert Haydocke to Mayes, g November 1711; iv no. 56: Dicconson to Mayes, 22 November 1711; iv no. 60: same to same, 8 December 1711; iv no. 61: same to same, 20 December 1711; ‘Mayes Agency’, i fols. 566–587, ii fols. 35–40; ‘A’ xlviii no. 28: the Visitors to Hawarden, 12 February 1712. It is clear from this last letter that some of the ‘blunt’ parts of Hawarden's dictates drew directly on Gother; Paris Seminary Volume, fols. 329–330; Burton, E. H.The life and Times of Bishop Challoner, London 1909, i– 30–33Google Scholar.

^{page 311 note 2} AAW. Ep. Var. iv no. 46: Henry Howard (‘Paston’) to Mayes, 2 October 1711; iv no. 49: J. Ingleton to Mayes, 9 October 1711; Arch. SJ. ‘Notes and Fragments, fols. 92, 94^v; Sabran Letters, 13.

^{page 311 note 3} AAW. Ep. Var. v no. 81: Dicconson to Mayes, 27 December 714; ‘Mayes Agency’, ii fols. 183–188. For evidence of Kennet's responsibility for these accusations compare fol. 186 of this last reference with Arch. SJ. ‘Notes and Fragments’, fol. 99^v. See also Ep. Var. v no. 56: Henry Howard to Mayes, 12 June 1714.

^{page 312 note 1} (Hugh Tootell, alias ‘Charles Dodd’), The History of the English College at Doway. By R.C. Chaplain to an English Regiment…, London 1713, 33–36Google Scholar.

^{page 312 note 2} AAW. Ep. Var. v no. 34: Dicconson to Mayes, 2 November 1713; v no. 36: Dr. Thomas Witham to Mayes, 11 December 1713; v no. 37: Dicconson to Mayes, 29 December 1713; ‘Mayes Agency’, ii fols. 85–7.

^{page 312 note 3} AAW. ‘A’ xxxviii no. 78: bishop George Witham to Mayes (1713); Ep. Var. v no. 46: Robert Witham to Mayes, 1 March 1714.

^{page 312 note 4} W. Maziere Brady, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy, 151–3; AAW. Ep. Var. v no. 56: Henry Howard to Mayes, 12 June 1714; v no. 60: Dicconson to Mayes, 29 July 1714; UCM. i no. 65 fols. 261–2: Mgr. Santini to Edward Paston, 18 May 1714.

^{page 313 note 1} Clarke, Strangers, 175,211; Neale, Jansenist Church, 235.

^{page 313 note 2} (Thomas Hunter), A Modest Defence, 123–4, 130–1, 137–8. Much of the historical material for Hunter's pamphlet was supplied by Fr. Sabran—Sabran Letters, 21, 65, 100.

^{page 313 note 3} (Hugh Tootell alias ‘Charles Dodd’), The Secret Policy of the English Society of Jesus. Discover'd in a Series of Attempts against the Clergy. In … twenty four Letters Directed to their PROVINCIAL, London 1715, 330Google Scholar.

^{page 313 note 4} Arch. SJ. ‘Notes and Fragments’, fol. 84; Sabran Letters, 246, 257; AAW. Ep. Var. v no. 88: Henry Howard to Mayes, 18 March 1715; v no. 39: Dicconson to Mayes, 28 March 1715.

^{page 314 note 1} Arch. SJ. Notes and Fragments’, fol. 86; Sabran Letters, 259.

^{page 314 note 2} Arch. SJ. ‘Notes and Fragments’, fol. 88; AAW. Ep. Var. vi no. 4: Robert Witham to Mayes, 4 March 1716.

^{page 314 note 3} Hunter's ‘Answer to the Four and Twenty Letters …’ Arch. SJ. A. iv. 21.

^{page 314 note 4} For Jesuit lobbying for both appointments, see Sabran Letters, 121, 130–1, 162, 180–4, 187, 194–5, 213. In February 1716 Fr. Sabran hinted to the new President of Douai, Dr. Robert Witham, the extent of his endeavours ‘in favour of my being chosen’. Witham was not impressed—’I am not well pleased with my obligations to such friends. I rather pitie our late misfortunes that could make us indebted to such tools’: Ep. Var. vi no. 3: Witham to Mayes, 20 February 17 16.

^{page 314 note 5} Hemphill, Dom Basil, The Early Vicars Apostolic of England, London 1954, 41–69Google Scholar.

^{page 315 note 1} Clarke, Strangers, 175–180. The ‘M. Herbert’ discussed by Professor Clarke is in fact John Vane, who used the alias Herbert.

^{page 315 note 2} AAW. ‘A’ xxxviii no. 160: bishop Stonor to (?), 21 July 1729. Stonor was probably reacting to the publication of the anti-Jansenist The Bull Unigenitus clear'd from Innovation and Immorality, London 1729Google Scholar.

^{page 315 note 3} Milbum, David, A History of Ushaw College, Durham 1964, 9–12Google Scholar.

^{page 315 note 4} Catholic Record Society, xxviii, 316–7.

^{page 315 note 5} Examples of this frame of mind in Butler, Alban may be found in my unpublished Cambridge Ph.D. thesis (1973)Google Scholar ‘Joseph Berington and the English Catholic Cisalpine Movement 1772–1803’, 76–7, 85–7.

^{page 316 note 1} Kirk, 63–4.

^{page 316 note 2} The best account of Dodd is that in Anstruther's Seminary Priests, iii. 230–1.

^{page 316 note 3} Kirk, 63.

^{page 316 note 4} For a brief account of the subsequent history of the ‘Dodd’ tradition see Professor T. A. Birrell's introduction to the Gregg Press reprint of Berington's, JosephThe Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani, Birmingham 1793Google Scholar. For a virulent attack on this tradition, Hay, M. V., The Jesuits and the Popish Plot, London 1934Google Scholar, passim. Something like a reworking of these disputes, from a pro-Jesuit standpoint, can be found in Bossy's, JohnThe English Catholic Community 1570–1850, London 1975, 9–74Google Scholar. For a fascinating example of the way in which die ‘Dodd’ pattern could be read back into the secular/Jesuit disputes of the seventeenth century, see die early to mid eighteenth century MS. annotations in the front fly-leaves of the Cambridge University Library copy of (Talbot, Peter), Blackloanae Haeresis Olim in Pelagio Et Manichaeis Damnatae … Auctore M. Lomino Theologo, Ghent 1675Google Scholar. Discussing the doctrinal disputes in which John Sergeant was involved with archbishop Talbot and other Jesuits in the 1670s, the annotator, a secular priest who knew Paston and Andrew Giffard, writes, ‘The violence with which this matter was carryed on by the Society shows that they were in hopes to have made some great advantage thereof, to their body, by depressing the whole sett of the Engl(ish) Clergy on both sides the sea which here’ (in die attack on Sergeant's ‘Pelagianism’) ‘they endeavour to hook into the guilt of Heresy …’.