¹ AAW, B 25–26, and B 47 have no regular foliation. There are two sets of numbering for the documents in B 26. The first set ceases with B 26, no. 50. In the second set, B 26, no. 50 is also numbered B 26, no. 53. However, rather than regarding B 26, according to the first set of document numbers, as unnumbered after B 26, no. 50 (as does Allison, RS), I have used the second set of numbers in B 26 for documents after no. 50/53.

² In the footnotes to the text of these newsletters I have tried to identify individuals where there is any uncertainty about their identity (for example, if they are mentioned via an alias), though this is done only on the first occasion that they are thus mentioned in each letter. I have not, however, for reasons of length, supplied detailed biographical information about such individuals unless it is directly relevant to the newsletter in which they are cited.

³ See e.g. Adams, PC; Cogswell, BR.

⁴ Several of these letters were printed, in part or whole, in Mark Tierney's edition of Charles Dodd's Church History (TD, IV, V). Antony Allison also used them in his essays published in RH on English Catholicism in the early 1620s.

⁵ For recent analysis of the issue of the public sphere in the context of English history, see P. Lake and S. Pincus, ‘Rethinking the public sphere in early modern England’, Journal of British Studies, 45 (2006), pp. 270–292; P. Lake and M. Questier, ‘Puritans, papists, and the “public sphere” in early modern England: the Edmund Campion affair in context’, Journal of Modern History, 72 (2000), pp. 587–592.

⁶ Bernard, G., ‘The Church of England c. 1529–c. 1642’, History, 75 (1990), p. 194CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Redworth, PI, p. 15.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Questier, M., ‘Sir Henry Spiller, recusancy and the efficiency of the Jacobean exchequer’, HR, 66 (1993), pp. 257–258, 261–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Redworth, PI, pp. 15–16, 148 n. 14. Digby advised the king in early 1618 that, since the Spaniards had made their demands concerning religion explicit and were ‘likewise resolved to satisfye’ him ‘in temporall regards and poynt of portion’, he (Digby) was ‘of opinion that the calling of a parliament wilbe in no kynde usefull’: PRO, SP 94/23, fo. 5v.

¹¹ Bellany, A., The Politics of Court Scandal in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2002)Google Scholar.

¹² Parker, G., The Dutch Revolt (London, 1988), p. 262Google Scholar; Pursell, WK, ch. 2.

¹³ Polisensky, J.V., The Thirty Years War (London, 1974), pp. 103–113Google Scholar; Pursell, WK, pp. 45, 49–50; Adams, PC, pp. 280–282.

¹⁴ HMCMK, p. 93.

¹⁵ I am grateful to Pauline Croft for discussion of this point.

¹⁶ See Tyacke, N., Anti-Calvinists (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar. For the type of Arminianism in the Low Countries which served as a reference point for the English variety, see Israel, J., The Dutch Republic (Oxford, 1995), pp. 480–482, 486–525Google Scholar.

¹⁷ For a discussion of the meaning of ‘Spanish party’ or ‘Spanish faction’ in mid- and late Jacobean politics, see Carter, C.H., ‘Gondomar: ambassador to James I’, HJ, 7 (1964), pp. 193–194; CRS, 68, pp. xiv–xixCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ For the failure of the archdukes’ regime to secure an extension of the truce, see P. Arblaster, Antwerp & the World: Richard Verstegan and the international culture of Catholic reformation (Louvain, 2004), pp. 138–139.

¹⁹ Adams, FP, pp. 148–151.

²⁰ See J. Bossy, ‘English Catholics and the French marriage, 1577–81’, RH, 5 (1959–1960), pp. 2–16.

²¹ See Cogswell, BR, pp. 20f. for the mechanisms of contemporary news culture. For the translation and transmission of English newsletters to the curia, via the secular clergy's agent in Rome, see NAGB, introduction; Letter 34.

²² AAW, B 25, no. 55.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ AAW, B 25, no. 57; see also AAW, A XVI, no. 156, p. 605 (cited in Letter 8).

²⁵ Lake, P., ‘Anti-popery: the structure of a prejudice’, in Cust, R. and Hughes, A. (eds), Conflict in Early Stuart England (London, 1989), p. 87Google Scholar. For the different sets of negotiations for dynastic alliances entered into by the Stuart regime during the period up to 1621, see A. Thrush, ‘The French marriage and the origins of the 1614 Parliament’, in S. Clucas and A. Davies (eds), The Crisis of 1614 and the Addled Parliament (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 25–35; idem, ‘The personal rule of James I, 1611–1620’, in T. Cogswell, R. Cust, and P. Lake (eds), Politics, Religion and Popularity in Early Stuart Britain (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 84–102.

²⁶ Adams, PC, ch. 7.

²⁷ Ibid., pp. 247–249.

²⁸ Ibid., pp. 250–251.

²⁹ Adams, FP, p. 140.

³⁰ Ibid., pp. 140–141.

³¹ For an excellent account of how the criticism of the regime's foreign policy was voiced in the pulpits, see J. Shami, John Donne and Conformity in Crisis in the Late Jacobean Pulpit (Cambridge, 2003), ch. 2.

³² Lake, ‘Anti-popery’, p. 91.

³³ BL, Additional MS 21203, fo. 12r; cf. Redworth, PI, pp. 41–42. Brooke's commercial interests predisposed him to be hostile to the Dutch, who had complained in early July 1619 about a patent, held by him from the crown, ‘for the makeing of steele [. . .] and prohibiting the importacion of forraine steele’: APC, 1619–1621, pp. 2–3, 77–78.

³⁴ AAW, B 25, no. 82 (cited in Letter 7).

³⁵ BL, Harleian MS 1583, fos 291r–294r; AAW, B 25, no. 39. This document, which seems to have been drawn up by, or on behalf of, the English Catholic secular clergy, argued that the papacy should grant a dispensation for the proposed Anglo-Spanish marriage; it was sent to Rome for curial perusal there, and appears to have been written in late 1622.

³⁶ BL, Harleian MS 1583, fos 291r–294r.

³⁷ See Letter 14; and below, p. 30.

³⁸ For the popularity of Frederick and Elizabeth in English politics, something which ‘provided the Spanish faction with one of their more useful propaganda weapons: the claim that the palatines and their English allies were aiming at the succession and even the overthrow of James’, see Adams, PC, p. 291.

³⁹ BL, Harleian MS 1583, fo. 295r; cf. Letter 22.

⁴⁰ See NAGB, introduction and passim.

⁴¹ ARSJ, Anglia MS 36/i, fo. 11r–v.

⁴² Ibid., fo. 11v.

⁴³ AAW, B 27, no. 105 (‘Reasons to induce the court of Rome to beleeve that a Catholick bishop in England will not bee offensive to the king and state’). The writer of this paper argued that ‘the king and state doe very well know that episcopall governement is the naturall and ordinary governement of the Catholick Church in all places, and that it belongeth to the integrity of Catholick religion to include discipline noe lesse than doctrine and governement togeather with beliefe’. It had always been a maxim of the English state's proceedings against Catholics that they were not punished ‘for any point belonging meerely to religion’. So, ‘upon this sole consideracion, it might happily be presumed that the king and state will take noe offence to see the Catholicks of England governed according to the ordinary principles of their owne religion, and to live under the same forme of discipline, which is usually observed by all other their Catholick brethren through out the whole world’: ibid.

⁴⁴ See, e.g., Questier, C&C, p. 439.

⁴⁵ AAW, B 47, no. 156.

⁴⁶ AAW, B 26, no. 50 (cited in Letter 45).

⁴⁷ AAW, B 27, no. 105; NCC, passim. It was claimed that King James, perceiving the benefits of having a Catholic hierarchical authority within his English realm, gave ‘tacite way to the restoring of this episcopall governement’: AAW, B 27, no. 105.

⁴⁸ Ibid.

⁴⁹ See, e.g., Russell, PEP, p. 164.

⁵⁰ See M. Questier, ‘Arminianism, Catholicism and Puritanism in England during the 1630s’, HJ, 49 (2006), pp. 53–78.

⁵¹ As Adams points out, even James's Premonition of 1609, defending the 1606 oath, was not entirely straightforward in its identification of the pope as Antichrist. Richard Montagu was able to claim, at the York House conference in 1626, that James's description of the papacy in that publication did not actually mean what godly Protestants generally took it to mean: Adams, FP, p. 148.

⁵² CRS, 68, p. 146.

⁵³ G.P.V. Akrigg (ed.), Letters of King James VI & I (London, 1984), p. 384; W.B. Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 313–314. The letter also supplied diplomatic credentials for the Roman Catholic priest George Gage.

⁵⁴ Letter 46. Of course, in early 1624, the Stuart court (in the course of negotiations with the Bourbon family for an Anglo-French marriage treaty) had every reason to persuade the French that it was not riddled with anti-popery.

⁵⁵ AAW, B 26, no. 10.

⁵⁶ T. Cogswell, ‘England and the Spanish match’, in Cust and Hughes, Conflict in Early Stuart England, p. 111, citing S.R. Gardiner, The History of England, 1603–1642, 10 vols (London, 1883–1884), II, pp. 216–258, 314–369, III, 37–106; Thrush, ‘Personal rule’.

⁵⁷ Thrush ‘Personal rule’, p. 94; TD, V, pp. 115–116; Albion, CI, pp. 16f.; McClure, LJC, p. 64; Bodleian Library, Tanner MS 74, fos 92r–93r. According to John Chamberlain, Digby departed ‘having alredy apparelled all his followers alla Spagnuola’. He carried ‘with him a troupe of notorious Catholiques, which is not so well disgested [sic] of divers that heretofore hoped and promised themselves better of him’: McClure, LJC, p. 82.

⁵⁸ Pursell, WK, pp. 48–53. When Christoph von Dohna, Frederick V's agent, came on embassy in late 1618, arriving in early 1619, James agreed to the renewal of his treaty with the German Protestant Union. This, as Adams points out, made some believe, wrongly, that ‘he would in time come to the assistance of the Bohemians’: Pursell, WK, p. 54; Adams, PC, p. 278; A. Courtney, ‘Court politics and the kingship of James VI & I, c. 1615–c. 1621’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2008), p. 176.

⁵⁹ Parker, The Dutch Revolt, pp. 263–264; Pursell, WK, p. 134.

⁶⁰ Schreiber, FC, p. 24. Maurice of Nassau had been anticipating a possible Anglo-Dutch alliance, following the end of the Truce of Antwerp in 1621, by trying to put an end to extant colonial disputes: Adams, PC, p. 288.

⁶¹ Ibid., p. 279.

⁶² Ibid., p. 289.

⁶³ Schreiber, FC, pp. 26–31; Pursell, WK, pp. 49, 56, 58–59, 81.

⁶⁴ Pursell, WK, p. 85.

⁶⁵ Schreiber, FC, pp. 5, 6; Pursell, WK, pp. 54, 58–59, ch. 3, passim.

⁶⁶ Schreiber, FC, p. 25; CCE, p. 126; M.S. Sánchez, ‘A house divided: Spain, Austria, and the Bohemian and Hungarian successions’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 25 (1994), pp. 887–903; Pursell, WK, p. 47.

⁶⁷ G. Parker, Europe in Crisis 1598–1648 (Brighton, 1980), pp. 164–166; Pursell, WK, pp. 81, 107, 108.

⁶⁸ Cogswell, BR, pp. 18–19; Parker, Europe in Crisis, pp. 167–169; Polisensky, The Thirty Years War, p. 129; B. Pursell, ‘War or peace? Jacobean politics and the parliament of 1621’, in C. Kyle (ed.), Parliaments, Politics and Elections, 1604–1648, Camden Society, 5th series, 17 (Cambridge, 2001), p. 149; Pursell, WK, pp. 33, 104, 115, 141; PRO, SP 77/14, fo. 239r. An embassy led by Sir Richard Weston and Sir Edward Conway in July 1620 had tried, unsuccessfully, to avert the invasion of the Lower Palatinate: PRO, SP 77/14, fos 163r–164r; Pursell, WK, p. 110. Some bastions held out against Spinola in the Lower Palatinate until September 1622: Schreiber, FC, p. 49. For the imperial–Spanish treaty in February 1620 concerning the joint conquest of Frederick's territories, see Zaller, 1621, p. 11. For the Spanish strategic incentives, objectives, and strategy in invading the Lower Palatinate, see Pursell, WK, pp. 105–106, 115; Zaller, 1621, p. 16; Redworth, PI, pp. 21, 22; and, for the geography of the Palatinate, see Pursell, WK, p. 23; Redworth, PI, p. 11.

⁶⁹ For the Bohemian faction in English politics, see Adams, PC, pp. 285–288.

⁷⁰ Lockyer, R., Buckingham: the life and political career of George Villiers, first duke of Buckingham 1592–1628 (London, 1981), pp. 125–126Google Scholar; Adams, PC, p. 303; Cogswell, BR, pp. 18–19. For the strategic considerations raised for the Spaniards by their successful invasion of the Rhineland Palatinate, see Elliott, J.H., The Count-Duke of Olivares (London, 1986), p. 205Google Scholar; Pursell, WK, p. 106.

⁷¹ Adams, PC, p. 304.

⁷² Russell, PEP, p. 87; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 107; Adams, PC, p. 304; Courtney, ‘Court politics’, p. 99.

⁷³ Zaller, 1621, pp. 30–31; Pursell, WK, pp. 138–139; Adams, PC, pp. 305–307, 312.

⁷⁴ Russell, PEP, p. 87.

⁷⁵ Zaller, 1621, pp. 41, 42, 43, 53–59, and passim. For the Floyd case, see Russell, PEP, p. 117; Zaller, 1621, p. 104. For the draft recusancy legislation, see Zaller, 1621, p. 132; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 54–55; McClure, LJC, p. 379. For Spiller, see Questier, ‘Sir Henry Spiller’, p. 256. Spiller, together with Sir Lewis Lewkenor, had taken command of a force of three hundred men in December 1620 in order to guard Gondomar's residence, following the revelation of an alleged plot to murder him and his entourage: CSPV, 1619–1621, pp. 501–502. Spiller's expertise was crucial in the drawing up of the pardons for recusants in the summer of 1623: PRO, SP 14/151/27.

⁷⁶ Adams, PC, p. 306.

⁷⁷ Zaller, 1621, pp. 43–44; McClure, LJC, p. 345.

⁷⁸ See A.F. Allison, ‘A group of political tracts, 1621–1623, by Richard Verstegan’, RH, 18 (1986), pp. 128–142; P. Lake, ‘Constitutional consensus and puritan opposition in the 1620s: Thomas Scott and the Spanish match’, HJ, 25 (1982), pp. 805–825. Russell argues that the Commons's anti-Spanish emotionalism was formal and traditional rather than strongly ideological: Russell, PEP, pp. 119–120. But, for the enthusiastic puritan reception of Scott (as well as other anti-popish writers and preachers), see, e.g., DSSD, pp. 125–126, and passim.

⁷⁹ For the proceedings against Southampton, Sandys, and Selden (which involved Sir Henry Spiller and another crypto-papist, Sir John Weston), and also against the earl of Oxford, see Zaller, 1621, p. 139; Russell, PEP, pp. 122–123, 133; PRO, SP 14/121/136; Adams, PC, p. 315; McClure, LJC, pp. 384–385. Emily Rose has made a convincing case that the action taken against Southampton, Sandys, and Selden was motivated by the question of tax revenues generated by the Virginia Company rather than by opposition to the regime's foreign policy, although it seems likely that the two sets of concerns were, in practice, connected: E. Rose, ‘Betting on the New World’ (forthcoming). I am very grateful to Dr Rose for allowing me to read her work in draft.

⁸⁰ PRO, SP 14/122/46, 88; Bodleian Library, Rawlinson MS D 853, no. 13 (George Hakewill, ‘The Wedding Ring: or, a treatise touching the unlawfulness [. . .] of Protestants marriages with papists, devided into three parts [. . .]’); McClure, LJC, pp. 393, 394; CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 107.

⁸¹ Adams, PC, pp. 319–320; Pursell, WK, pp. 134–135, 136, 140–144, 149–150; Letter 1. For the constitutional implications of Archduke Albert's death, see CGB, I, pp. xvii, 29, 101.

⁸² Adams, PC, pp. 300–302; Redworth, PI, p. 25; PRO, SP 77/14, fo. 300r; CSPV, 1619–1621, pp. 262, 291–292, and passim; Pursell, WK, p. 109. For the attempts to raise funds for the elector palatine, see Adams, PC, pp. 296–299. English Catholics contributed financial aid to the imperial cause (though some were more enthusiastic than others) as a counterweight to the funds which were being raised by the Bohemian party: see McClure, LJC, p. 326; PRO, SP 15/42/22; CSPV, 1619–1621, p. 479; Zaller, 1621, p. 19; Whiteway, Diary, p. 31.

⁸³ Adams, PC, p. 320. Via a seizure of imperial correspondence, it was established that – as was already expected – Ferdinand intended to allocate the Palatinate and the electoral title that went with it to Maximilian I of Bavaria (the title was formally conveyed to him in February 1623) as the price of Maximilian's services. Thus, as Adams says, ‘any hope for a negotiated settlement now rested on a successful defence of the Palatinate, and financial support from England was vital if Frederick's army was to survive the winter’ (Adams, FP, p. 162). See also Pursell, WK, p. 150; M. Lee (ed.), Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain 1603–1624 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1972), p. 307; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 110, 126; CSPV, 1619–1621, p. 115; Pursell, ESP, p. 708; HMCMK, pp. 149, 150; CGB, I, pp. 51, 90, 274, 281, 295, 300; Redworth, PI, p. 71; Letter 1.

⁸⁴ Adams, PC, p. 322.

⁸⁵ See Zaller, 1621, p. 144. There has recently been a debate about whether James, advised by Buckingham, called the parliament specifically with the intention of sabotaging it. But the consensus seems to be that he proposed to dissolve it only if it proved uncooperative, and did so when, as Alexander Courtney comments, ‘the Commons went further’ than Sir George Goring suggested in his motion that the House should petition the crown over foreign policy. See B. Pursell, ‘James I, Gondomar and the dissolution of the parliament of 1621’, History, 85 (2000), pp. 428–445; cf. Redworth, PI, pp. 28–30; Courtney, ‘Court politics’, pp. 121–122.

⁸⁶ Adams, PC, pp. 323–324; Zaller, 1621, p. 145; CGB, I, pp. 116–117.

⁸⁷ Zaller, 1621, p. 146; Adams, PC, pp. 324–326.

⁸⁸ See, e.g., PRO, SP 14/123/115, 116.

⁸⁹ Zaller, 1621, pp. 150–151, 152–153, 165, 172; Adams, PC, pp. 326–328; PRO, SP 14/124/27; Redworth, PI, p. 34; Russell, PEP, pp. 132–133, 134–135; J.P. Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 29, 43–48; TD, V, p. 119; Adams, FP, pp. 163, 164; Cogswell, BR, p. 58; Akrigg, Letters of King James VI & I, pp. 377–380; BL, Harleian MS 1580, fos 166r–168v, 170r–172r. Cf. C. Russell, ‘The foreign policy debates in the House of Commons in 1621’, HJ, 20 (1977), pp. 289–309; R. Cust, ‘Prince Charles and the second session of the 1621 parliament’, English Historical Review, 122 (2007), pp. 432–437. For the timing of the proclamation of the dissolution, see Courtney, ‘Court politics’, pp. 121–124. See also J.F. Merritt (ed.), The Political World of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, 1621–1641 (Cambridge, 1996), for T. Cogswell's essay (‘Phaeton's chariot: the parliament-men and the continental crisis in 1621’) and C. Russell's essay (‘Sir Thomas Wentworth and anti-Spanish sentiment, 1621–1624’).

⁹⁰ Cogswell, BR, p. 163.

⁹¹ TD, V, p. 83. It was initially suggested that the best candidate was Gondomar's chaplain, Diego de Lafuente, who was involved in the shuttle diplomacy at this time to secure the necessary dispensation from Rome for the proposed Anglo-Spanish dynastic marriage: see CSPV, 1619–1621, p. 458; Gardiner, NSMT, pp. 161–162; Letter 1; see also CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 403.

⁹² AAW, A XVI, no. 63, pp. 221–222; BL, Additional MS 37028, fo. 41v.

⁹³ Gardiner, NSMT, pp. 168–169; CGB, I, pp. 57–58, 87. Sir Henry Wotton remarked, however, that, after Gregory XV had set up the congregation of cardinals for considering the issue of the dispensation for the marriage, ‘no Englishman of any fashion (if he be one of their Catholics) can come thither, but they baptize him straight an ambassador’: L.P. Smith (ed.), The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, 2 vols (Oxford, 1907), II, p. 222.

⁹⁴ TD, V, p. 120; AAW, A XVI, no. 91, pp. 397–398; CRS, 68, p. 144. For the setting up of the papal commission to study the dispensation issue, see CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 158.

⁹⁵ Letter 4; Questier, C&C, pp. 392, 399–400; Redworth, PI, p. 45. Another patron to whom the seculars sued for assistance was the archdeacon of Cambrai, François de Carondelet. He came to England for a time in the service of the ambassador Carlos Coloma. In mid-August 1623, Carondelet sought to be appointed almoner to the infanta, if she should come to England: PRO, SP 14/151/4. He defended Matthew Kellison when Kellison was attacked for his book The Right and Iurisdiction of the Prelate, and the Prince: AAW, A XVII, no. 6, p. 21 (cited in Letter 27).

⁹⁶ Questier, C&C, pp. 394, 397–398; Gardiner, NSMT, p. 164.

⁹⁷ Questier, C&C, pp. 397–400.

⁹⁸ TD, V, p. 87; and see below, p. 31.

⁹⁹ Letter 1.

¹⁰⁰ CRS, 68, pp. 144–145.

¹⁰¹ See Letters 1, 6; CGB, I, pp. 46, 52, cf. p. 57.

¹⁰² Edward Bennett remarked on its appearance in the third week of December: Letter 2.

¹⁰³ Richard Broughton, English Protestants Plea, and Petition, for English Preists and Papists (Saint-Omer, 1621), p. 4.

¹⁰⁴ Letter 3.

¹⁰⁵ Letters 3, 5, 13; APC, 1621–1623, p. 191. In early February 1622, the Venetian diplomat Girolamo Lando observed that, in order to facilitate the levies of troops for the earl of Argyll, ‘orders were issued to the ports of the realm to allow English recusants’ as well as others ‘to pass without the customary examination and oath’. Lando also said that rumours were being spread that the levies were to be deployed against the Turks: CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 233. For Argyll's recent attempts to recruit a regiment of Scottish soldiers for Habsburg service, see PRO, SP 94/23, fo. 241v. He had returned in April 1620 from a visit to Spain and, William Trumbull recorded, ‘he magnifieth and extolleth to the skyes the courteous entertainment and liberallityes of Spaine’ and also the ‘sollid counsells and resolutions taken there to pursue the warres in Germany’: PRO, SP 77/14, fo. 78r. By the end of December 1621, Argyll's regiment was ‘augmented to 20 companyes of Englishe and Scottishe, each company of 200 or 150 at the leaste, for the leavying [. . .] whereof into these countryes there is requyred the terme of 4 or 6 monethes’: ibid., fo. 577r; cf. PRO, SP 77/15, fo. 32r. In March 1622, Argyll called Trumbull to his house in Brussels and relayed to him news of a conspiracy, reported by Richard Verstegan (who was standing by), in which two assassins (one Burgundian and one Italian) were to be sent from the United Provinces to England ‘to laye violent handes’ upon the king and prince of Wales, and to kill Gondomar. For the ‘particulars’ of this conspiracy, Verstegan ‘alleaged one Dr [Thomas] Wright as his author, an Englishe preiste’ in Antwerp: ibid., fo. 52r–v. In the autumn of 1623, the nuncio del Bagno reported that Argyll had shown him two letters from William Alexander, James's master of requests for Scotland, in which it was claimed that, ‘depuis les négociations du mariage Anglo-Espagnol’, the king ‘désire accommoder Protestantisme et Catholicisme’, an assertion which was taken seriously in Rome: CGB, I, pp. 349, 359, 369. For Argyll's conversion to Catholicism (which he announced in 1618), see ODNB, sub ‘Campbell, Archibald’ (article by John Callow); Thomas Scott, Vox Populi. Or newes from Spayne (np, 1620), sig. C2r.

¹⁰⁶ Many of those enlisting in Vaux's and Argyll's regiments were prominent Catholics: for example, Sir Edward Parham. He was the dedicatee of Richard Verstegan's tract of 1623 entitled A Toung-Combat, lately happening, between two English Soldiers; in the Tilt-boat of Gravesend. The one go-ing to serve the King of Spayn, the other to serve the States of Holland (Mechlin, 1623), pp. 3–6; see also Allison, ‘A group of political tracts’, pp. 139–140. Among the others were Sir William Tresham, Roger Tirwhit, John Timperley, Thomas Bedingfield, Henry Gage, Sir Edward Easton, and Sir Richard Huddlestone. Vaux obtained his licence to embark on 8 April 1622, and warrants for his captains came on 10 April. There were supposed to be 8,000 men in all, divided between Vaux and Argyll: G. Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden (London, 1953), pp. 431–433; PRO, SP 77/15, fos 92v, 137r, 161r; PRO, SP 77/16, fo. 113r. For those officers who were nominated by Gondomar, see A. Loomie, ‘Gondomar's selection of English officers in 1622’, English Historical Review, 88 (1973), pp. 574–581 (I am grateful to Alexander Courtney for this reference). For the attempt to convert to Catholicism those recruits who were not Catholic, see CGB, I, p. 199.

¹⁰⁷ AAW, A XVI, no. 96, p. 410. The Vaux family was one of the victims of John Gee's humour in his New Shreds of the Old Snare (London, 1624), pp. 3–6.

¹⁰⁸ Birch, CTJI, II, pp. 306–307; see also CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 386. William Trumbull, in early June 1622, reckoned that Argyll's outfit numbered only 1,200 men: PRO, SP 77/15, fo. 177r. In mid-August, having admitted that it had started with 1,400 or 1,500, Trumbull claimed that desertions were rife and that it was now reduced to fewer than 600. From Vaux's regiment, likewise, there were ‘at leaste 600 runne away’: ibid., fos 237v, 242v, 246v, 282v; PRO, SP 77/16, fo. 13v; see also Letter 76.

¹⁰⁹ APC, 1621–1623, p. 191; CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 307. One of Vaux's first objectives was the besieged town of Bergen-op-Zoom, which the imperial commander Spinola was trying, unsuccessfully, to reduce: Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, pp. 432–433; Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 483; CCE, pp. 91, 93, 96; see also PRO, SP 77/15, fos 200r, 231r, 282r, cf. fo. 238r. Sir Dudley Carleton commented bitterly, at the end of August 1622, on the presence of both Vaux's and Argyll's levies ‘in the ennemyes camp before Berghen’: BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 245v.

¹¹⁰ PRO, SP 14/128/97, 103; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 263, 493, 494; CGB, I, p. 148; R. Ferrini and E. de Mas (eds), Lettere a William Cavendish (1615–1628) (Rome, 1987), pp. 146, 218, and passim.

¹¹¹ McClure, LJC, pp. 423–424; N. Malcolm, De Dominis (London, 1984), ch. 12; Ferrini and de Mas, Lettere a William Cavendish, p. 175. The nuncio in Flanders understood, in January 1622, that Philip IV had recently dispatched a substantial financial gift to de Dominis: CGB, I, p. 148. For the earl of Kellie's scepticism about Rome's intentions towards the archbishop, see HMCMK, p. 144.

¹¹² McClure, LJC, p. 431; DSSD, p. 64; Richard Neile, M. Ant. De Dominis Arch-bishop of Spalato, his Shiftings in Religion (2nd edition, London, 1624), pp. 79f.; Ferrini and de Mas, Lettere a William Cavendish, pp. 282–283.

¹¹³ Hacket, SR, part I, sig. O2r–4r.

¹¹⁴ Milton, A., Catholic and Reformed: the Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant thought, 1600–1640 (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 347, 352, 353, 359–360Google Scholar; Ferrini and de Mas, Lettere a William Cavendish, p. 176.

¹¹⁵ Hacket, SR, part I, sig. O3v.

¹¹⁶ See Letters 5, 14, 54.

¹¹⁷ The three days of debate (24–26 May) were occasioned by the rumours concerning the countess of Buckingham's decision to convert to Rome. See John Percy, True Relations of Sundry Conferences had betweene Certaine Protestant Doctours and a Iesuite called M. Fisher (np, 1626). The audience on the first day included Buckingham, his mother the countess, Buckingham's wife (Katherine Manners), and, it seems, the king. It was significant that it was William Laud, Francis White, and John Williams who were chosen to argue with the Jesuit, and not, for example, one of the equally theologically qualified clients of Archbishop Abbot, such as Daniel Featley. See T.H. Wadkins, ‘The Percy–“Fisher” controversies and the ecclesiastical politics of Jacobean anti-Catholicism, 1622–1625’, Church History, 57 (1988), pp. 153–169; Francis White, A Replie to Iesuit Fishers Answere to Certain Questions propounded by his most gratious Ma[jes]tie (London, 1624); Hacket, SR, part I, pp. 171–173. Williams was a confidant of the countess and a client of Buckingham, through whose influence he had aimed at and acquired high office: Ruigh, 1624, pp. 137–138; CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 88. For Francis White's Arminian tendencies, see Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, pp. 174–180, 222–223, although White was well regarded by, for example, the puritan Simonds D'Ewes: DSSD, passim.

On 25 May, James was the principal disputant against Percy. According to the count of Tillières, James took Francis White's place after White had failed to convince the countess: PRO, PRO 31/3/56, fo. 47v. This day's conference did not find its way into print: ARCR, II, no. 603; T.H. Wadkins, ‘King James I meets John Percy, S.J. (25 May, 1622.): an unpublished manuscript from the religious controversies surrounding the countess of Buckingham's conversion’, RH, 19 (1988), pp. 146–154. On 26 May, the main Protestant disputant was William Laud and the topic for discussion was the compatibility of the Roman and English Churches: Patterson, King James VI and I, pp. 342–344; William Laud, An Answere to Mr Fishers Relation of a Third Conference betwene a Certaine B. (as He Stiles Him) and Himselfe (London, 1624). For James's subsequent admonition to Percy not to put anything in print, see Cabala, p. 75; ARSJ, Anglia MS 1, fo. 166r. Buckingham himself had shown interest in the arguments which Jesuit debaters, such as Percy, were using at this time in order to make converts: see Bodleian Library, Rawlinson MS D 853, fo. 172r (Richard Corbet to the marquis of Buckingham [date uncertain]). In mid-October 1622, Williams sent Buckingham ‘a copie of the conference’ which Williams had ‘procured’ from Percy ‘without his privity, onely to make his Majestie and your lordship merrie’: Cabala, p. 75.

¹¹⁸ PRO, SP 14/128/100; cf. APC, 1621–1623, p. 184.

¹¹⁹ Letter 5.

¹²⁰ Birch, CTJI, II, p. 313.

¹²¹ PRO, SP 94/25, fo. 147r; Pursell, WK, pp. 172–180.

¹²² TD, V, p. ccxxxv.

¹²³ Ibid., p. ccxxxvii. For the letter of 13 June 1622, from the secular clergy via John Bennett to the curial committee of cardinals considering the dispensation, urging how beneficial the grant of the proposed dispensation would be to English Catholics, see BL, Additional MS 37028, fo. 41r.

¹²⁴ TD, V, p. ccxlv.

¹²⁵ Letter 7.

¹²⁶ Cogswell, ‘England and the Spanish match’, p. 118; Letter 7. For the king's efforts to extend the toleration to Scotland and Ireland, see PRO, SP 14/150/113.

¹²⁷ AAW, OB I/i, no. 79, fo. 150r–v; Dodd, CH, II, p. 439. Williams's toleration letter was publicized by the British embassy at Brussels, as the nuncio there reported on 10/20 August 1622: CGB, I, pp. 238–239.

¹²⁸ AAW, A XVI, no. 145, p. 563.

¹²⁹ AAW, A XVI, no. 156, p. 605. (For the Latin version of Williams's letter retained in AAW, see AAW, A XVI, no. 128, pp. 511–514.)

¹³⁰ Hacket, SR, part I, pp. 92–93; TD, V, pp. ccxcvi–ccxcix; PRO, SP 14/133/20; BL, Additional MS 22591, fos 222r–223r; cf. CSPD, Addenda 1580–1625, p. 646.

¹³¹ ARCR, II, no. 920; A Letter Writt[en to] the L. Viscunt Anan, Decl[aring the] Nature and Reason of the late [Clemency] extended to the Lay-Recus[ants in] England (np [printed secretly in England], 1622); BL, Additional MS 34727, fo. 43r (for which reference I am very grateful to Alexander Courtney). See also Shami, John Donne, p. 106.

¹³² The directions were issued in response to Hispanophobe sermons preached at Paul's Cross in the wake of the collapse of the defence of the Palatinate: Adams, PC, p. 331; Shami, John Donne, ch. 4; Letter 11; K.C. Fincham, Prelate as Pastor (Oxford, 1990), p. 245. As Fincham notes, ‘sermons were to be based squarely on the Articles of Religion and the Homilies, and preachers were to avoid contentious topics, especially the power and exercise of temporal authority, and the technicalities of predestinarian theology’: ibid. See also Cogswell, BR, pp. 32–33; idem, ‘England and the Spanish match’, pp. 118–119.

¹³³ Shami, John Donne, p. 106.

¹³⁴ Chamberlain sarcastically observed that Donne's sermon was supposed to reassure his audience of the king's ‘constancie in the true reformed religion, which the people (as shold seeme) began to suspect’. For the court's strategy in appointing Donne to preach on this occasion, see Shami, John Donne, pp. 12, 102–138 (esp. pp. 107–108, 111f.); Adams, PC, pp. 331–332.

¹³⁵ Letter 22. Cf. Cogswell, ‘England and the Spanish match’, p. 119.

¹³⁶ PRO, SP 14/133/49. See also G. Redworth, ‘Beyond faith and fatherland: “The appeal of the Catholics of Ireland”, c.1623’, Archivum Hibernicum, 52 (1998), pp. 3–23.

¹³⁷ Letter 6.

¹³⁸ AAW, A XVI, no. 136, p. 541; TD, V, p. cclii; Letter 7.

¹³⁹ Redworth, PI, p. 42; Cabala, p. 233. Buckingham's letter to Gondomar is undated but the reference to Protestant preachers evidently locates it after the issuing of the directions on preaching, although (as noted above) the release of Catholic clergy from London prisons had begun earlier in the year.

¹⁴⁰ See, e.g., Letter 15.

¹⁴¹ See Letter 8. John Hacket noted that Catholic agitators had ‘put a paper into my lord of Buckingham's hands’ to ‘assist them for the erection of titulary popish praelates in this kingdom’: Hacket, SR, part I, p. 94. Hacket claimed that the agitators ‘did not hope to obtain’ their request. But even the approach ‘would make the council table odious’ and ‘contribute much to embitter the subjects and to raise divisions’. According to Hacket, Buckingham consulted Williams. Williams (echoing almost exactly the arguments put forward by some members of the religious orders against the institution of English Catholic bishops) ‘damned the project’ because it would ‘set all the kingdom on fire and make his Majesty unable to continue those favours and connivencies to peaceable recusants’. It would also deprive the crown of the exclusive right to invest bishops; and ‘it is a far greater mischief in a state (I mean in regard of the temporal, but not of the spiritual good thereof) than an absolute toleration’, because, as a result of the institution of a Catholic episcopate, ‘this invisible consistory shall be confusedly diffused over all the kingdom’. Inevitably, many of the king's subjects would, ‘to the intolerable exhausting of the wealth of the realm, pay double tithes, double offerings and double fees’. (Ireland and its widespread poverty, he said, were a demonstration of precisely this.) Williams also argued that, ‘if the princes match should go on, this new erected consistory will put the ensuing parliament into such a jealousie and suspition, that it is to be feared that they will shew themselves very untractable upon all propositions’. James ordered Williams to inform Coloma of the proposed hierarchy. This resulted in the diplomat's warning delivered at Rome against the project to appoint a bishop: ibid.; see also Letter 24. Sir George Calvert, at the king's direction, had instructed Lord Digby in Madrid, via a letter of 16 August 1622, to try to prevent the dispatch into James's dominions of ‘titularie English bishops’: BL, Additional MS 48166, fo. 155r.

¹⁴² See Letters 20, 25.

¹⁴³ See Letters 25, 27; Matthew Kellison, The Right and Iurisdiction of the Prelate, and the Prince. Or, a treatise of ecclesiasticall, and regall authoritie (Douai, 1617). A second edition (of 1621) incorporated material which replied to Preston's attack on the first edition, Thomas Preston, A New-Yeares Gift for English Catholikes (London, 1620); see ARCR, II, nos 470, 471, 657. Kellison had originally written the book in 1614, and its printing had been delayed by the refusal of the bishop of Saint-Omer's approbation: P. Milward, Religious Controversies of the Jacobean Age (London, 1978), pp. 105–106; ARCR, II, no. 470. See also J.P. Sommerville, ‘From Suarez to Filmer: a reappraisal’, HJ, 25 (1982), pp. 525–540; Allison, RS, pp. 154–155, 176–177.

¹⁴⁴ TD, V, p. ccliv; Questier, C&C, p. 400; Letter 24.

¹⁴⁵ Maclure, M., The Paul's Cross Sermons 1534–1642 (Toronto, 1958), p. 244Google Scholar; Shami, John Donne, pp. 108–109; Richard Sheldon, A Sermon Preached at Paules Crosse (London, 1625).

¹⁴⁶ Letters 7, 12; TD, V, p. 124; McClure, LJC, pp. 452, 458, 460–461; Gardiner, NSMT, pp. 176–184; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 412, 485, 490; HMCMK, p. 139; PRO, SP 94/25, fos 166v, 199v.

¹⁴⁷ PRO, SP 94/25, fos 199v–200r; CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 350. At this stage, Digby could not ascertain what the terms of the dispensation were, since Gage, ‘at his going from Rome, either omitted to write unto me or else his letters have miscarried’: PRO, SP 94/35, fo. 200v; see also BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 122v.

¹⁴⁸ Letter 22.

¹⁴⁹ PRO, SP 94/25, fos 201r–202r; and see below, p. 49.

¹⁵⁰ PRO, SP 94/25, fos 214r, 216r, 223r–v, 242r; see also Letter 13.

¹⁵¹ HMCMK, pp. 139–140.

¹⁵² Cogswell, BR, p. 20; Pursell, WK, p. 184; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 467, 469–470; Patterson, King James VI and I, pp. 312–313; PRO, SP 94/25, fo. 244r; CGB, I, p. 79; Letter 13.

¹⁵³ Letters 15, 17, 18, 22. For the subsequent loss of Mannheim and Frankenthal, see Letter 15.

¹⁵⁴ PRO, SP 94/25, fos 264v–265r, 266r, 360r; PRO, PRO 31/3/56, fos 148v–149r; Adams, PC, p. 330; Pursell, WK, p. 184; Alexander, CLT, pp. 24–28; CCE, pp. 105–106, 111, 112.

¹⁵⁵ Redworth, PI, p. 177; Gardiner, NSMT, p. 332; PRO, SP 94/25, fos 312r–315v.

¹⁵⁶ PRO, SP 94/25, fo. 325r. See also Hacket, SR, part I, p. 130.

¹⁵⁷ William Harewell reported in February 1623 that ‘the prince of Wales his musitions <did hether to> sing a solemne Masse at the Sp[anish] embassadours on Christmas day, for the which, being complained of by the bishop of Canturburie and some other sticklers like himselfe, they were dismissed the princes service’; but Charles, said Harewell, when informed of the ambassador's reaction, ‘entertained them againe, restoring them to their former place’: AAW, A XVII, no. 6, p. 22. The Venetian ambassador, Alvise Valaresso, said four musicians had been sacked (while Jean Beaulieu and Sir George Calvert put the number at two, and Calvert said that one was English and the other was an Italian). They had then been reinstated. Although the ‘prince seemed very determined upon their exclusion [. . .] the king interposed his authority’: CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 555, 558; BL, Additional MS 72255, fo. 7v; CRS, 68, p. 185. The musicians had assisted ‘with there voyces and musicke’ at the Midnight Mass for Christmas: CRS, 68, p. 185; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 164r–v. Coloma requested, though unsuccessfully, that they should offer their services again at Easter: PRO, SP 14/139/111; PRO, SP 14/140/20; see also NCC, p. 68.

¹⁵⁸ Letters 27, 29; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 573, 578.

¹⁵⁹ AAW, A XVII, no. 6, p. 22 (cited in Letter 25); CGB, I, pp. 274, 280, 282; Redworth, PI, pp. 69–72; Pursell, WK, p. 169; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 130; PRO, PRO 31/3/56, fo. 135v; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 161r; PRO, SP 94/25, fos 277v–278r.

¹⁶⁰ PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fos 173r, 221v; Adams, PC, p. 334; Redworth, PI, ch. 8. Hacket argued that it would have been virtually impossible for any privy councillor, apart from Buckingham, to advise this course, because it was such a high-risk strategy. Secrecy, therefore, was a way of protecting those who would have been reluctant to endorse it publicly: Hacket, SR, part I, p. 114.

¹⁶¹ See, e.g., CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 575, 576.

¹⁶² BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 332r. For the range of reactions in France to Charles's appearance there, see Sir Edward Herbert's report to James on 4/14 March 1623, and the letter of the same date written by James Hay, earl of Carlisle: PRO, SP 78/71, fos 66r–v, 69r–70r. Herbert argued that it was only the ‘Jesuited’ party which wanted to detain Charles in France (in order to force him to convert or, if he refused, until he had renounced the Stuart claim to the French crown): ibid., fo. 66r; for Tillières's account of Herbert's report, which claimed that ‘la faction des Jésuistes’ also wanted to force Charles to wed Henrietta Maria, see PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 190r–v. Herbert also noted that the proposals for a marriage between Henrietta Maria and the infante of Spain, Don Carlos, were being renewed at this point: PRO, SP 78/71, fo. 67r.

¹⁶³ Letter 27; see also Letter 28; cf. Schreiber, FC, pp. 48–49.

¹⁶⁴ Cogswell, BR, pp. 60–61.

¹⁶⁵ Adams, PC, pp. 333–334. For Buckingham's enmity towards Bristol, noted by Tillières in a dispatch of 24 April 1622, see PRO, PRO 31/3/56, fo. 30r–v.

¹⁶⁶ BL, Additional MS 4181, fos 17v–18r; Adams, PC, p. 334; Redworth, PI, p. 65.

¹⁶⁷ R. Cross, ‘Pretense and perception in the Spanish match, or history in a fake beard’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 37 (2007), p. 572.

¹⁶⁸ Gardiner, NSMT, p. 202.

¹⁶⁹ Adams, PC, pp. 332–333; though cf. PRO, SP 78/71, fo. 87r–v.

¹⁷⁰ Arblaster, Antwerp & the World, p. 145.

¹⁷¹ BL, Harleian MS 1581, fos 358r–359r.

¹⁷² Pursell, ESP, p. 713; Cross, ‘Pretense’, pp. 569–570. For an assessment of Gondomar as ‘one of the best-informed and most well-connected men’ in the Spanish court, see Cross, ‘Pretense’, p. 570.

¹⁷³ For Ranier Zen's note, on 5/15 April 1623, that the Jesuit general Muzio Vitelleschi was spreading rumours that King James was near death and that Charles ‘will readily become a Catholic, and so that kingdom will return to the obedience of the Catholic Church’, see CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 632. For the conversion issue, see Redworth, PI, pp. 89–95; Cross, ‘Pretense’, p. 567. Redworth argues that the short-lived conferences in Madrid about religion were the product of misunderstanding, and he describes Charles as ‘a contented, even smug, Anglican’. The connections between smugness and Anglicanism are, of course, well established. But it is at least arguable that such encounters were part of an elaborate diplomatic duel, and provided a language whereby the two sides could test out, via religion, each other's intentions concerning the match. Through Charles's and Buckingham's attendances at the conferences arranged to discuss religion, and their appearances at ceremonial religious occasions, both sides were able to make, in effect, quite belligerent public statements about their intentions without exposing the arcana imperii of international treaty negotiations to public scrutiny. (For Buckingham's aggressiveness at this point towards the Spaniards, see Gardiner, NSMT, pp. 210–211, 225–226.) Rumours in France, retailed for example by Louis XIII to Sir Edward Herbert in April 1623, that Charles was on the verge of converting to Catholicism in Spain and had ‘given monney to the Jesuits’, were clearly no more than a gloss on the irenic front adopted, from time to time, by the English royal party in Madrid: PRO, SP 78/71, fo. 121r.

¹⁷⁴ PRO, SP 94/25, fo. 310r.

¹⁷⁵ Gardiner, NSMT, pp. 224, 194–195; Thompson, HA, p. 8; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 134; see also PRO, SP 94/25, fos 275v–276r; PRO, SP 94/29, fo. 157r–v.

¹⁷⁶ Redworth, PI, pp. 66, 67, 68; Gardiner, NSMT, pp. 192, 321–322; PRO, SP 94/25, fo. 269r.

¹⁷⁷ Redworth, PI, pp. 56–57; PRO, SP 78/71, fos 31r, 32r; PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 15r; PRO, SP 94/25, fo. 239v; CGB, I, p. 90. Bristol claimed on 8/18 October 1622 that, at a recent audience, Philip IV had said that James's demands concerning the Palatinate would be met, if necessary, by the deployment of Spanish military force against imperial troops: PRO, SP 94/25, fos 243v, 257v; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 131. (On 9 October 1622, the earl of Kellie had noted Cottington's report that ‘the king of Spaine hes saide plainlye that, if the emperoure and Baviere will not surrander the pallatinate [. . .] Spinola shall goe as from him to assiste the recovery of it againe’: HMCMK, p. 140.) For Pursell's reconstruction of the scenario in which, following a submission to the emperor by the elector palatine, it was possible that, if the duke of Bavaria did not accept the emperor's subsequent restoration of the elector (something which a majority of Philip's council of state desired to see), then Habsburg troops might force the duke of Bavaria to comply, see Pursell, ESP, pp. 717–718; see also CGB, I, p. 346 (for the nuncio del Bagno's report in August 1623 of Spinola's hostility to the duke of Bavaria).

¹⁷⁸ Pursell, ESP, pp. 699–701, 725–726.

¹⁷⁹ Ibid., pp. 703–704.

¹⁸⁰ Cross, ‘Pretense’, pp. 566, 567.

¹⁸¹ PRO, SP 14/139/63; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 106.

¹⁸² PRO, SP 14/142/34, fo. 70v.

¹⁸³ Pursell, ESP, pp. 709–710; Patterson, King James VI and I, p. 334; see below, p. 50.

¹⁸⁴ CSPD, 1619–1623, p. 558; McClure, LJC, pp. 491, 499; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 8; PRO, SP 94/26, fos 159r, 160r–v; DSSD, pp. 131, 138. The news about the fleet was conveyed to Simonds D'Ewes by ‘one of Lord Windsors gentlemen’: DSSD, p. 131. D'Ewes's diary remarks disdainfully on the ‘popish’ command of the fleet. In mid-June 1623, news had reached him that ‘ther had been latelye a mutinie at the ships which weere going for Spaine and lay yett upon the Downes’ about the type of divine service to be celebrated on board. It was ‘saied my Lorde Morley would have hindred’ the recital of the prayer book and ‘would have brought inn his damnable Masse instead of it’; and ‘the marriners weere soe farr provoked as his lordshipp was verye near throwing over boorde’: ibid., p. 141; see also Whiteway, Diary, p. 52; Birch, CTJI, II, p. 407. D'Ewes also noted how the court jester, Archibald Armstrong, mocked the popish lords for the expenditure which they had personally incurred over setting forward the fleet ‘in hope of great rewards’: DSSD, p. 156. See also CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 33 (for the claim that Rutland, Windsor, and Morley, departing from the court to their ships, had ‘a numerous company composed almost exclusively of Catholics’). The earl of Rutland denied that there had been any ‘interruptions and scandalls [. . .] given to inferiour officers and marrinours when theie were att common praier and singing of psalmes’: PRO, SP 14/147/84 (fo. 103r), 84. i, 85. For the orders issued to Rutland, see BL, Harleian MS 1584, fos 4r–8v.

¹⁸⁵ PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 219r.

¹⁸⁶ McClure, LJC, p. 491.

¹⁸⁷ Two chaplains, Leonard Mawe and Matthew Wren, had been sent to attend the royal party. They had been instructed to behave in a manner ‘agreeable to the puritie of the primitive Churche and yett as neare the Romane forme as can lawfullie be done’. They were to use a room ‘decently adorned chappellwise with an altar [. . .] palls, lynnen coverings, demy carpet, 4 surplices, candlesticks, tapers, chalices, pattens, a fine towell for the prince, other towells for the household [. . .] wafers for the communion’, and so on. In particular there were to be no ‘polemicall preachings’. Lord Keeper Williams arranged for the English liturgy to be translated into Spanish. The translation was made by the convert Fernando de Tejeda, formerly the protégé of Daniel Featley (his tract, Scrutamini Scripturas (London, 1624) was dedicated to Williams): CRS, 68, pp. 185, 186; PRO, SP 94/26, fo. 80r; Hacket, SR, part I, pp. 126–127; Birch, CTJI, II, p. 375. (Williams went through the same rigmarole for the French when the marriage between Prince Charles and Henrietta Maria was being negotiated; he employed a minister of the French church in Norwich to produce a translation of the prayer book to ‘clear the Church of England [. . .] from the gross slanders of fugitives’: Hacket, SR, part I, p. 209.) Simonds D'Ewes remarked that the chaplains selected for Charles's service ‘weere choosen as men altogether free from the suspition of being puritans’: DSSD, p. 128. Disparate rumours about the prince's chaplains (both that they were ‘not suffred to come to him’ and that ‘they had accesse twise a day’) filtered back from Spain, and Simonds D'Ewes commented that ‘what to beleeve was uncertaine’: DSSD, pp. 136–137; cf. Albion, CI, pp. 36–37. (Leonard Mawe suffered an injury during the course of his journey and never reached Madrid: Redworth, PI, pp. 93–94.) For Mawe and Wren, see also Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, pp. 46, 48–49.

¹⁸⁸ McClure, LJC, p. 494; cf. BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 260r; see also CSPD, 1619–1623, p. 560; PRO, SP 14/143/13, 31; PRO, SP 14/144/42. In mid-May, Calvert was dealing with the layout of the chapels at St James's and Denmark House (formerly Somerset House, which had been Anne of Denmark's residence until 1619): PRO, SP 14/144/42. The infanta would live primarily at Denmark House, but her private chapel would be near St James's palace: Redworth, PI, pp. 100–101, 127 (citing M.D. Whinney and O. Miller, English Art 1625–1714 (Oxford, 1957), p. 27). The proposed chapel would be fifty-five feet long and would have ‘width in proportion’. The Flanders agent van Male commented that if ‘these three buildings are built according to the drawings of the king's architect then we shall have nothing to complain of’: CRS, 68, p. 186. By contrast, in June 1623, the count of Tillières alleged that the chapel which was under construction at St James's palace was ‘une maison pour le diable’: PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 224v.

¹⁸⁹ McClure, LJC, p. 500; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 40. In France it was being said, at the end of May, that Philip IV would ‘demand some cautionary touns in England for the securinge of the covenants to be performed’ by James (including the recall of James's subjects who were serving with the Dutch and the toleration of those ‘who shall come to the infantas chappell’): PRO, SP 78/71, fo. 161r.

¹⁹⁰ Birch, CTJI, II, p. 400; cf. Letter 1.

¹⁹¹ BL, Additional MS 72286, fos 176v–177r; PRO, SP 14/142/59, fo. 118r; TD, V, pp. 130–132; ARCR, I, nos 1575–1593; Hacket, SR, part I, pp. 128–129; Cabala, pp. 212–214; The Popes Letter to the Prince: in Latine, Spanish, and English (London, 1623). Simonds D'Ewes recorded in his diary for 20 June that he ‘had sight of a letter in Lattine which was sent from the pope to the prince which afterwards came into print’: DSSD, p. 142.

¹⁹² TD, V, pp. 132–134; ARCR, I, nos 1594–1600; Hacket, SR, part I, pp. 128–129; PRO, SP 14/147/10, 11; PRO, SP 94/27, fo. 85r–v; Cabala, pp. 214–215. For the diplomatic consequences of Gregory XV's death, see Redworth, PI, p. 128; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 161; PRO, SP 78/71, fos 208r, 220r, 231v.

¹⁹³ McClure, LJC, p. 513.

¹⁹⁴ Hacket, SR, part I, p. 128.

¹⁹⁵ PRO, SP 14/145/22, fo. 39r; McClure, LJC, p. 500; CSPD, Addenda 1580–1625, p. 654; APC, 1623–1625, pp. 6–7.

¹⁹⁶ PRO, SP 14/146/87, 88; PRO, SP 14/147/35, fo. 41r; PRO, SP 94/26, fo. 106r. The count of Tillières thought, however, that, when Inojosa arrived in London, ‘les honneurs que l'on luy a faicts n'ont aucunement esgalé ceux que l'on rendist’ to the former French ambassador extraordinary, the marquis of Cadenet: PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fos 226v–227r.

¹⁹⁷ McClure, LJC, p. 504.

¹⁹⁸ PRO, SP 14/148/124, fo. 153r.

¹⁹⁹ PRO, SP 94/27, fo. 113r.

²⁰⁰ McClure, LJC, p. 507. See also Henry Rogers, An Answer to M^r. Fisher the Iesuite his Five Propositions concerning Luther. By M^r. Rogers, that worthy Oxford divine (np, 1623).

²⁰¹ CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 103.

²⁰² Letter 28; Redworth, PI, p. 103; CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 569; PRO, SP 94/26, fo. 106v.

²⁰³ Redworth, PI, p. 103.

²⁰⁴ For a discussion of this issue, and of the diplomatic reasons why Rome was likely to accede to Madrid's wishes concerning the text of the dispensation, see ibid., pp. 101–104.

²⁰⁵ TD, V, pp. 135–136; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 623–626; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 20; Redworth, PI, pp. 102–104; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 144; Pursell, ESP, p. 710.

²⁰⁶ CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 32, 36, 37; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 148; Redworth, PI, p. 108; Pursell, ESP, pp. 710, 711–713. For Lord Rochford's warning to Buckingham in Spain about the danger represented by Bristol, who, said Rochford, ‘hath a greater [. . .] partie in court than you imagine, in so much that [. . .] were the kinge a newter, he would prevail’, see BL, Harleian MS 1581, no. 115, fo. 379v.

²⁰⁷ For the complexity of the negotiations at Madrid between May and July, see Redworth, PI, chs 10–12.

²⁰⁸ PRO, SP 78/71, fo. 175r.

²⁰⁹ CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 37.

²¹⁰ Lake, ‘Constitutional consensus’, p. 814. An open letter to the king, put about in Archbishop Abbot's name in August 1623, declared that ‘this toleration [. . .] which you endeavour to set up by proclamation cannot be decided without a parliament’. The letter asked ‘Does your Majesty mean to show your subjects that you intend to arrogate to yourself the entire authority to reverse the laws of the realm at your pleasure?’: CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 91; PRO, SP 14/150/54–57, 81, 105; CGB, I, p. 348; BL, Harleian MS 1583, fo. 89r–v.

²¹¹ CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 43, 44, 56–57, 96, 98, 105, 107; CGB, I, p. 356; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fos 247r, 253v; Pursell, WK, pp. 201–203; Adams, PC, p. 335.

²¹² TD, V, pp. 137–138; Gardiner, NSMT, pp. 327–344; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 82–85.

²¹³ BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 307r–v; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fos 231r, 235r–236v; Redworth, PI, pp. 124–125; TD, V, pp. 138–139.

²¹⁴ PRO, SP 14/149/12, 31; McClure, LJC, pp. 509–510; Letter 30. The dissent on the council over the oath was informed by knowledge of Buckingham's change of opinion about the proposed treaty: Adams, PC, p. 335. Zouch made his opinions known by doggedly sticking to the absolute letter of the law concerning the release of Catholic prisoners, and by trying to prevent the carriage of Catholic books and letters through Dover: PRO, SP 14/153/59; PRO, SP 14/152/42. He had, up to this point, in his capacity as lord warden of the Cinque ports, been zealously administering the oath of allegiance to those passing through the ports, especially those who were known to have been involved in Catholic military activity on the Continent. Zouch bitterly criticized Lord Keeper Williams for agreeing to bail such people (and in particular one who was a soldier serving in one of the companies under the command of Lord Vaux) after they had been arrested: PRO, SP 14/148/31, 31.i–iv; PRO, SP 14/149/19. In July 1623, Zouch informed Conway that he had arrested the Jesuit Thomas Everard who had come from Calais, disguised as a soldier, with a pass from Sir Edward Parham (sergeant-major of Vaux's regiment): PRO, SP 14/148/57, 57.i–ii.

²¹⁵ PRO, SP 14/149/6, 7.

²¹⁶ McClure, LJC, p. 510; BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 187r; BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 292r; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 239r–v; DSSD, pp. 147–148; HMCMK, p. 175; TD, V, p. 139; Cogswell, BR, p. 46; Redworth, PI, p. 126; Akrigg, Letters of King James VI & I, p. 417; Pursell, ESP, p. 714; BL, Harleian MS 1583, fos 268r–271r; BL, Additional MS 72255, fo. 45v; see also PRO, SP 14/149/30; Birch, CTJI, II, p. 416. According to Jean Beaulieu, ‘in the afternoone all the lords of the councell’, except the earl of Pembroke and Lord Brooke ‘who were both sicke at that tyme’, ‘tooke oath [. . .] to conforme themselves’ to the king's ‘will therein’: BL, Additional MS 72255, fo. 63r. A compromise on the toleration issue was rather hastily arranged with the Spanish ambassadors (on the same day, it appears, as the treaty was signed). On 23 July, Conway reported to Buckingham that the Spanish ambassadors had been leaned on to send word to Spain that ‘favour to the Romaine Catholiques was already put in execution’. They ‘fayntly accorded’, but ‘withall prayed to have some actes done which might bee publique and authenticall’, to which James seemed to accede: BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 311v.

²¹⁷ BL, Additional MS 35832, fos 114r, 116r; PRO, SP 14/149/79; and see below, pp. 57–63. Tillières reported on 13 July that James, speaking to the judges about to go on circuit, had insisted that, as for Catholics, ‘ce n'est pas que je les ayme ny la religion qu'ilz professent, au contraire [. . .] j'abhorre plus et l'un et l'autre’; and James instructed the judges to proceed harshly against Catholics ‘s'ils font quelque scandale’: PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 232r–v.

²¹⁸ BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 312v.

²¹⁹ PRO, SP 94/27, fo. 127r. Calvert had, according to Carondelet, said that James had ordered ‘warrants to bee made as are requisite for the execution of that which is granted in favour of the Roman Catholiques for the time to come, reserving that which concernes the remission of the penalties by-past’. Inojosa was incensed because he had understood that all penalties had been remitted: ibid.

²²⁰ PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 242r–v.

²²¹ Pursell, ESP, p. 714; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 158; Redworth, PI, pp. 122–123.

²²² Redworth, PI, pp. 119–133; Pursell, ESP, p. 715. A letter of 10 August from James had ordered the prince and the duke to return: Akrigg, Letters of King James VI & I, p. 424. For Pursell's discussion of whether the infanta Maria herself ever desired or intended to go through with the proposed marriage to Prince Charles, see Pursell, ESP, pp. 719–720.

²²³ Redworth, PI, pp. 122–123.

²²⁴ ibid. For Charles's departure, see ibid., pp. 128–129, 132–136. There is, perhaps, a disparity between Glyn Redworth's evidence of the sophistication of the Stuart court's international diplomacy and his claim both that the journey to Madrid was merely ‘foolhardy’ and that it was not primarily concerned with the resolution of the Palatinate question: ibid., p. 74; cf. Pursell, ESP, passim. For Robert Cross, ‘despite the importance of emphasizing the match as a distinctive event, Redworth goes too far in portraying the concurrent conflict in central Europe as largely irrelevant to the negotiations between London and Madrid. In fact, most of the key participants at the time saw them as inextricably intertwined’: Cross, ‘Pretense’, pp. 569, 578–579.

²²⁵ Pursell, WK, pp. 204–205.

²²⁶ Ruigh, 1624, p. 17; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 164, 169, 171; Redworth, PI, pp. 135–136.

²²⁷ Anstr., I, p. 37; TD, IV, pp. cclxx–cclxxv. Sir Edward Herbert, reporting Bishop's consecration, also commented on the advancement of William Gifford (who, since 1621, had been archbishop of Rheims only at the French king's pleasure) ‘absolutely into the charge’ of his archdiocese. There was speculation that King James would be persuaded that Gifford's promotion was intended to ‘give encouragement to, or draw dependance from, the Englishe Roman Catholiques’. Herbert also commented that some at the French court genuinely feared that this would simply encourage James to take the Huguenots ‘into his more particular protection’. But it was Herbert's own opinion that, should Gifford prove capable of winning ‘the English Catholiques rather to the Sorbonne than [to] Jesuiticall doctrine’, the English state could ‘make use of this faction to discover their designes on eyther side’. At that time, the French court had no ‘intention or hope to gayne the English Catholiques to their partye’: PRO, SP 78/71, fo. 183r–v.

²²⁸ Letter 35; Questier, C&C, pp. 406–408.

²²⁹ TD, IV, pp. cclxxxiv–cclxxxvi.

²³⁰ Letter 31.

²³¹ Letter 32.

²³² Letter 33.

²³³ AAW, B 26, no. 21; Letter 33.

²³⁴ Anstr., II, p. 291. Shelley had already been involved, while at Saint-Omer, in a dispute with the Jesuit superiors there: ibid.

²³⁵ AAW, B 26, no. 54; AAW, B 47, no. 49.

²³⁶ Anstr., II, pp. 99, 100; NCC, pp. 66, 102. A cousin of the rebel Faulkner, Thomas Dingley, also joined in the agitation in the college. Dingley was regarded by Thomas Fitzherbert as mad, since Dingley believed, from time to time, that he was the pope and ‘hath made us all cardinalls’, and he was sent back to England via Douai: PRO, SP 77/17, fo. 210v; see also AAW, B 25, no. 102, for Rant's ‘catalogue of our Inglish schollers made madd in the Inglishe colledge in the space of five yeare[s]’.

²³⁷ Among the papers in the possession of the rector of the Jesuit college at Liège in 1637 was ‘a malitious manuscript (wanting one sheete) agaynst the superiors and government of the seminarie’ at Rome, ‘written about 1623 by P. Fitton, J. Faulconer, F. Harris, Ant. Shelley and Ant. Hoskins’: ABSJ, Stonyhurst Anglia MS VI, no. 98.

²³⁸ TD, V, pp. 98–100.

²³⁹ Lists compiled by Thomas Rant alleged that, of the forty-seven students who left the college between 1616 and 1623, thirty-three went to the Jesuit novitiate and, as Dodd put it, ‘fourteen only, of the most incompetent, were added to the body of the clergy’: TD, V, p. 99. Cf. L.J. Hicks, ‘The English College, Rome and vocations to the Society of Jesus: March, 1579–July, 1595’, Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu, 3 (1934), pp. 1–36; NAGB, p. 4.

²⁴⁰ Letters 35, 38.

²⁴¹ PRO, SP 77/17, fo. 209r–v; Anstr., I, p. 200.

²⁴² PRO, SP 94/27, fo. 140r.

²⁴³ PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 243r.

²⁴⁴ PRO, SP 94/27, fo. 140v.

²⁴⁵ PRO, SP 14/150/10, fo. 12r–v; PRO, SP 94/27, fo. 152r; BL, Additional MS 72255, fo. 71r. Cf. Calvert's queries of 24 July 1623 concerning how to execute the king's promise about recusants, i.e. exactly how the extant fines should be remitted, and whether other penalties, inflicted, for example, by high commission, should be discarded: PRO, SP 14/149/38.

²⁴⁶ PRO, SP 94/27, fos 150r–151r; PRO, SP 14/150/29 (calendared in CSPD, 1623–1625 under 6 August); PRO, SP 14/150/82; Akrigg, Letters of King James VI & I, p. 421. For Conway's much more detailed account of the meeting, which he sent to Buckingham (itself a fuller narrative than the one in the Domestic State Papers series), see BL, Harleian MS 1580, fos 318r–322v; PRO, SP 94/27, fos 152r–155v (in which Conway related that the ambassadors protested ‘theire care of the peace of the state’ and cited the ‘orations they had made to the Romaine Catholiques to receave this grace thankfully as a meere grace of the king’: PRO, SP 94/27, fo. 153v). On 6 August, Conway reported that Gage had been with him to arrange another meeting, between the ambassadors, Carlisle, and Conway himself, in order ‘to accord upon some limitations of the matters to bee comprehended in the pardon and dispensation’. In return, Inojosa would write ‘effectuall lettres [. . .] for the assurance of the full accomplishment of all on his Majesties part and hastening of the match’: BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 324r.

²⁴⁷ PRO, SP 14/150/47; PRO, SP 94/27, fo. 150v, see also ibid., fo. 179r.

²⁴⁸ BL, Harleian MS 1583, fos 287r–289r; BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 179r–v. For Conway's account of the meeting at Salisbury, see BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 326v.

²⁴⁹ On 13 August, we find Conway fuming that the Spaniards had said that, ‘instead of a lawier’ (as James had promised them on 31 July to secure the pardons promised to Catholics), they wanted ‘to have for [a] councellor the Lord Arundell of Wardour’. The day before, they had badgered Calvert to approach Arundell because, they said, it was ‘the dead time of the vacation’ and ‘all the lawiers’ were ‘out of towne’. But Arundell's nomination was blocked. Calvert was instructed to inform the ambassadors that it would not ‘sort with that privatenes and silence’ which the king ‘directs and expects this busines should be carryed in, to imploy a baron and peere of the realme’: PRO, SP 94/27, fos 171r–v, 214r–v, 215r; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 243r; CSPD, 1623–1625, pp. 53, 54; PRO, SP 14/151/5; McClure, LJC, p. 513; Questier, C&C, pp. 389–390.

²⁵⁰ Calvert reported on 14 August that the Spanish diplomats were irritated because he had refused to let them see the ‘Englishe copie of those articles which were delivered unto them in Spanishe at Salisbury’, i.e. the grant of toleration on the basis of which ‘pardons and dispensacion’ would be given to Catholics: PRO, SP 14/150/105, fo. 168r. A week earlier, Conway had informed the attorney-general that James still wanted to keep recusants ‘in awe’, and that the relevant warrants authorizing toleration should reflect the king's intention: PRO, SP 14/150/45; CSPD, 1623–1625, p. 47. On 16 August, Conway was trying to delay the extension of the same favour to Scottish Catholics: PRO, SP 14/150/113. (There had been a stormy confrontation between two Scottish Catholic clergymen and Inojosa and Coloma in early August over the Spaniards’ refusal to intervene on behalf of Scottish Catholics: PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 243v. A Scottish priest saw Inojosa subsequently, on 4 September, ‘and spoke strongly to him about the ostentation and worldly aims of Spain in benefiting the religion in London alone, without caring about the provinces and still less for Scotland, just as if they were bastards of the Church’: CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 111.)

²⁵¹ PRO, SP 94/27, fos 215v–216r.

²⁵² PRO, SP 14/151/5, 6; PRO, SP 94/27, fos 215r, 216r–v, 216v–217r, 218r.

²⁵³ PRO, SP 14/151/27, fos 36v–37r; PRO, SP 94/27, fo. 218r–v.

²⁵⁴ PRO, SP 94/27, fo. 224r–v; BL, Harleian MS 1583, fos 315r–316r; PRO, SP 14/151/61; cf. Schreiber, FC, pp. 52–53. For the format of the proposed dispensation whereby Catholics were to be permitted freedom from vexation concerning Roman Catholic worship in their own houses and exemption from any requirement to attend church or take communion or take the two oaths (of supremacy and allegiance), see PRO, SP 14/151/76, 77. Conway admitted, in his account of the negotiations in the first week of August, that Gage had helped, ‘by good interpretation’ and ‘by bearing witnes to the truth of the allegations concerning formalityes and condition of our state and lawe’, to fend off the Spanish ambassadors’ demands for a more extensive toleration: BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 321r.

²⁵⁵ Hacket, SR, part I, p. 157.

²⁵⁶ Cabala, p. 81. See Ruigh, 1624, p. 140; BL, Additional MS 34727, fos 47r–48r; Hacket, SR, part I, p. 94.

²⁵⁷ McClure, LJC, p. 513.

²⁵⁸ PRO, SP 14/152/4, 19, 20; BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 85r–v; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fos 246r, 247r.

²⁵⁹ PRO, SP 94/28, fo. 10r; CSPD, Addenda 1580–1625, p. 657; CSPD, 1623–1625, p. 76; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 137–138.

²⁶⁰ PRO, SP 14/152/4, 18; Cogswell, ‘England and the Spanish match’, p. 125; cf. Birch, CTJI, II, p. 392.

²⁶¹ PRO, SP 14/152/36.

²⁶² PRO, SP 14/152/46, 46.i, cited in Letter 30; see also PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 249r. Though Conway commanded Williams on 7 October 1623 (two days after Charles's return from Spain) to execute the order releasing Catholic clergy from the prisons, a few days later Conway told the lord keeper that James had now directed the requisite letters to bishops and justices to be held back: CSPD, 1623–1625, p. 89; PRO, SP 14/153/39; PRO, SP 94/28, fo. 133r; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 259r; though cf. CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 131; Hacket, SR, part I, p. 166. In fact, subsequently (on 8 November 1623), the exchequer was ordered to suspend recusants’ payments of fines due at Michaelmas: PRO, SP 14/154/15. On 6 December, Chamberlain recorded that ‘our papists of Cheshire and Lancashire, beeing called upon for certain payments and debts to the king for recusancie, had recourse to the Spanish ambassador as their mediator, upon whose motion the king gave order those payments shold be respited till our Lady-day when his pleasure shold be further knowne, but I heare those gentlemen are sent for by pursevants to aunswer their dooings’: McClure, LJC, p. 530.

²⁶³ Cogswell, ‘England and the Spanish match’, pp. 107–111, 126; idem, BR, introduction, ch. 1; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 248r.

²⁶⁴ See W.C., The Fatall Vesper (London, 1623); Thomas Goad, The Dolefull Even-Song (London, 1623); T.H.B.M. Harmsen (ed.), John Gee's Foot out of the Snare (1624) (Nijmegen, 1992).

²⁶⁵ For less moderate Protestant accounts, see, e.g., Thomas Scott, Boanerges. Or the humble supplication of the ministers of Scotland (Edinburgh [false imprint; vere London], 1624), which strongly implied (p. 26) that ‘it was a judgement of God [. . .] to kill a hundred people with the fall of a loft’, and warned the parliament of 1624 that ‘at Rome there hath been solemne procession, and from Rome letters of discovery, that in England God hath beene so angrie with the hereticks [. . .] that churches and lofts have overwhelmed many of them in their ominous falls’. For D'Ewes's remark in his diary that ‘S^t Giles Church by Blomesburye fell downe, but a little before, a great parte which had slaine manye, if they had been ther when it fell, which would have been if it had fallen in a sermon time’, see DSSD, p. 168.

²⁶⁶ CRS, 68, p. 160.

²⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 157.

²⁶⁸ Ibid., p. 160. Most of the dead were interred in the courtyard of the French embassy, with some thirty being taken for burial to the Spanish embassy at Ely House: Harmsen, John Gee's Foot out of the Snare, p. 82, n. 70.

²⁶⁹ Joseph Mead was told that John Price, a Catholic doctor who practised in Chancery Lane, had alleged that ‘the puritans of Blackfriars’ had caused the accident ‘by unpinning’ of the ‘great main beam’ underneath the room: Birch, CTJI, II, p. 427. Daniel Featley likewise recorded the Catholic claim that ‘the Protestants at Blacke-fryers, by knocking certaine pins out of the timber, caused that late and lamentable fall of the floar wherin about 200 papists were assembled, and neere a 100 slaine’: Daniel Featley, The Romish Fisher Caught and Held in his Owne Net (London, 1624), sig. Ar. The rector of St Anne's, Blackfriars, William Gouge (who was a prominent supporter of the elector palatine and his wife), was asked to investigate the allegation that the supports of the room had been deliberately weakened: Harmsen, John Gee's Foot out of the Snare, pp. 53–54; Adams, PC, pp. 316–317. Thomas Knyvett wrote that, although ‘it was a most fearefull judgment of God’, ‘for all this the papists gives [sic] out that it was a plott of the puritanes’: B. Schofield (ed.), The Knyvett Letters (1620–1644) (London, 1949), p. 62.

²⁷⁰ John Floyd, A Word of Comfort (Saint-Omer, 1623); Relacion de un caso en que murieron muchos Catolicos oyendo la palabra de Dios (Valladolid, [1623]); ARCR, I, nos 382–383; McClure, LJC, p. 520.

²⁷¹ CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 150.

²⁷² Russell, PEP, pp. 147–149.

²⁷³ Cogswell, BR, pp. 64–65. For Buckingham's break with Lord Keeper Williams, see Cabala, pp. 86–90; K. Sharpe, ‘The earl of Arundel, his circle and the opposition to the duke of Buckingham, 1618–1628’, in K. Sharpe (ed.), Faction and Parliament (London, 1978), p. 221.

²⁷⁴ Cogswell, BR, pp. 69f.

²⁷⁵ Ruigh, 1624, p. 26; Pursell, WK, pp. 167, 207; PRO, C 115/107/8485; PRO, SP 94/29, fos 10r–v, 27r–v, 106r–108r, 130r–131r, 148v, 189r. For Bristol's continuing diplomatic efforts to broker a deal over the Palatinate and to salvage the marriage treaty, see Patterson, King James VI and I, pp. 332–334; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 272v.

²⁷⁶ Pursell, WK, pp. 208–210, 218–221; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 265r; Letter 41.

²⁷⁷ PRO, SP 94/29, fos 209r–212v.

²⁷⁸ BL, Harleian MS 1581, fos 21r–22r.

²⁷⁹ PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fos 262v, 283v.

²⁸⁰ PRO, SP 94/29, fo. 190v.

²⁸¹ Russell, PEP, p. 148; Cogswell, BR, pp. 118–119.

²⁸² Ruigh, 1624, p. 27.

²⁸³ PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 253r.

²⁸⁴ McClure, LJC, p. 529.

²⁸⁵ See Pursell, ESP, p. 722; CGB, I, pp. 372, 378. For Olivares's proposal of this scheme to the Spanish council of state in August 1623 (something which Charles accepted in principle, as Pursell says, on 10/20 August), see Pursell, ESP, p. 716.

²⁸⁶ Schreiber, FC, p. 53; Cogswell, BR, p. 109; Pursell, ESP, p. 722; Adams, PC, p. 336; PRO, SP 94/28, fo. 188r.

²⁸⁷ Ruigh, 1624, p. 28; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 156, 158–159; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 270v. Charles soon declared himself opposed to this project: CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 164; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 274v; cf. Letter 36.

²⁸⁸ CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 156–158, 165. Back in May 1623, Tillières had claimed that Coloma ‘ne favorise pas le mariage’, partly out of spite towards Gondomar and partly because he thought Spain's interests would not be served by it: PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 205v.

²⁸⁹ Letter 35; Pursell, ESP, p. 723; BL, Additional MS 72286, fo. 119r.

²⁹⁰ CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 207–208; BL, Additional MS 72255, fo. 111r; CCE, pp. 147–148, 151; McClure, LJC, pp. 539–540; Cogswell, BR, pp. 128–130, 133; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 39–40.

²⁹¹ Ruigh, 1624, p. 34.

²⁹² CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 211.

²⁹³ Letter 35.

²⁹⁴ Ruigh, 1624, pp. 38–39; PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 20r; Letter 43; R.E. Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage for an Anglican prince’, Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 50 (1981), pp. 5, 6–7. For the difficulties encountered by Kensington, see also Adams, FP, pp. 157–158.

²⁹⁵ AAW, B 26, no. 10; Letter 37.

²⁹⁶ AAW, B 26, no. 11.

²⁹⁷ Letter 37.

²⁹⁸ For some years, Tillières had employed the secular priest John Varder as a chaplain: Anstr., II, pp. 326–327; Letters 35, 47.

²⁹⁹ Letter 40.

³⁰⁰ Letter 38. Subsequently, the marquis of Effiat recorded that Mathew's knighthood had been procured by Buckingham, and confirmed that Mathew had thrown off his affection for Spain: PRO, PRO 31/3/60, fo. 329v.

³⁰¹ Tillières, ME, pp. xvi–xvii.

³⁰² Allison, RS, p. 165; Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, p. 8.

³⁰³ CRS, 68, p. 157; AAW, A XVII, no. 110, p. 355 (cited in Letter 42).

³⁰⁴ Among Tillières's friends at court was also the Catholic Robert Maxwell, 1st earl of Nithsdale: PRO, PRO 31/3/58, fos 71v, 73r.

³⁰⁵ Schreiber, FC, p. 56; PRO, PRO 31/3/58, fos 73r–74v.

³⁰⁶ Cogswell, BR, p. 125. For Tillières's scepticism about the Spanish match, see, e.g., PRO, PRO 31/3/56, fo. 26v: PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fos 223r–224r.

³⁰⁷ CRS, 68, p. 161.

³⁰⁸ Cogswell, BR, p. 125.

³⁰⁹ PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 9r.

³¹⁰ Letter 39. Lennox had, however, with Pembroke, Belfast, and Hamilton, abstained when Buckingham urged the junta for foreign affairs in January 1624 to endorse the breach of the treaties with Spain before parliament met: Adams, FP, p. 156; see also CCE, p. 165.

³¹¹ Cogswell, BR, p. 139; Letter 39.

³¹² Cogswell, BR, p. 149.

³¹³ PRO, SP 14/159/55; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 228–229; Russell, PEP, pp. 155–156; Adams, FP, pp. 164–165; Ruigh, 1624, p. 155; ED, fos 1r–4r; Letter 39. For Conway's attempts to ensure that Inojosa and Coloma did not take ‘ombrage ou offense par faux rapports’ of James's speech, see PRO, SP 94/30, fo. 121r.

³¹⁴ See Letter 39; LJ, III, p. 269; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 193. For Sir George Calvert's admonitory message from James, delivered on 1 March, concerning petitions against Williams ‘allreddy in the hows’, see Thompson, HA, pp. 13–14; see also Russell, PEP, pp. 160, 166. Buckingham was now openly hostile to Williams: Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 175. Williams complained on 2 February 1624 about the ‘report of the Venecian embassador that [. . .] your Grace intended to sacrifice me this parliament to appease the dislike of immunityes exercised towards the Catholiques’: BL, Harleian MS 7000, fo. 140r.

³¹⁵ Cogswell, BR, p. 167.

³¹⁶ PRO, SP 14/159/66; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 158–159; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 235–236. Crew had come back from Ireland, whither he had been sent for his opposition in the previous parliament: Russell, PEP, p. 156; Cogswell, BR, p. 168.

³¹⁷ Cogswell, BR, p. 168.

³¹⁸ Ruigh, 1624, pp. 169–170.

³¹⁹ Cogswell, BR, p. 169.

³²⁰ Letter 40; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 89, 259–260.

³²¹ Letter 39; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 249.

³²² AAW, B 26, no. 27 (cited in Letter 39).

³²³ T. Cogswell, ‘The people's love: the duke of Buckingham and popularity’, in Cogswell, Cust, and Lake, Politics, Religion and Popularity, pp. 216–219; CSPD, 1623–1625, pp. 169, 171, 172; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 162f.; Letter 39.

³²⁴ ED, fos 41r–51v; PRO, SP 14/160/29; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 248; Russell, PEP, p. 176; LJ, III, pp. 246–247. A copy of Abbot's speech was sent to Thomas Rant in Rome: AAW, A XVII, no. 107, pp. 347–350.

³²⁵ Ruigh, 1624, pp. 178–180, 181–182; PRO, SP 14/160/27, fo. 42r; ED, fos 41r–42r. Christopher Brooke claimed on 2 March that ‘oure papists were not as the papists in France, Italy etc., for oure papists ar all Spanish papists’: Thompson, HA, p. 14.

³²⁶ Letter 39; PRO, SP 14/169/67.

³²⁷ James's reply (reported in the Commons on 8 March) was ‘the first occasion in the parliament when James had publicly to declare himself and to reveal how little he was prepared to concede’: Adams, FP, p. 167. According to Holles's diary, James would ‘have no warr, but upon necessity, as wemen ar called necessary evils’: Thompson, HA, p. 25; ED, fos 57v–60v.

³²⁸ Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 185; Letter 40.

³²⁹ Letter 40.

³³⁰ Adams, FP, pp. 167–170.

³³¹ For Russell's account of the debates on the topic of supply and foreign policy, see Russell, PEP, pp. 177f.; cf. Cogswell, BR, p. 186. For Buckingham's controversial use of the subsidy revenue, granted in this session, to support Mansfelt, see Adams, FP, pp. 158–159, 170–171.

³³² Cogswell, BR, p. 193; ED, fos 76r–77r.

³³³ PRO, SP 14/160/77, 81; Cogswell, BR, pp. 195, 196; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 210–211, 218; Adams, PC, p. 342; Thompson, HA, p. 36; Letter 41.

³³⁴ PRO, SP 14/160/89, fo. 147r. See also McClure, LJC, pp. 548–549.

³³⁵ Cogswell, BR, pp. 195, 197–198; Adams, PC, p. 342; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 186; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 254–255; PRO, SP 14/160/79, 80, 81, 89; ED, fos 78v–80r, 83r–86r; LJ, III, pp. 265–266; Letter 41.

³³⁶ Cogswell, BR, pp. 200f.; Adams, PC, p. 343; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 216f.; Adams, FP, pp. 168–169; ED, fos 92v–100r.

³³⁷ PRO, SP 14/161/19, 24; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 229–233; ED, fo. 104v.

³³⁸ Adams, PC, p. 345; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 233–234, 248, 253.

³³⁹ Ruigh, 1624, p. 234; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 323–324; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 207; Letters 42, 43; PRO, SP 78/72, fos 214r–220r; BL, Harleian MS 1584, fos 10r–15r. Dutch ambassadors had arrived in England in February 1624 and had been ‘antagonized by the lack of interest shown towards them’: Adams, FP, p. 170.

³⁴⁰ Schreiber, FC, p. 59.

³⁴¹ Ruigh, 1624, p. 235.

³⁴² Cogswell, BR, pp. 230, 231–232; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 189; ED, fos 109r–v, 121r.

³⁴³ ED, fos 113r–114r; PRO, SP 14/162/9; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 238f.; LJ, III, pp. 287, 289–290; TD, V, pp. cccxli–cccxliii; Letter 44. On 1 March, Sir Francis Seymour had warned of the ‘concourse of recusants to ambassadors houses’: ED, fo. 36v. In the context of Catholic rallies at some of the London embassies, the anger of MPs such as Seymour is quite comprehensible. See also, e.g., BL, Harleian MS 1583, fo. 293v.

³⁴⁴ Ruigh, 1624, p. 245; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 275; ED, fos 116r, 118r, 129v; LJ, III, pp. 291–292, 297–298; TD, V, pp. cccxli–cccxliv; AAW, A XIII, no. 75, p. 191.

³⁴⁵ PRO, SP 94/30, fos 167r, 171v.

³⁴⁶ Ruigh, 1624, p. 250; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 191; LJ, III, pp. 317–318; PRO, SP 14/163/32, 33; TD, V, pp. cccxliii–cccxliv; Letter 44.

³⁴⁷ TD, V, pp. cccxlv–cccxlvi. On 30 April, Jean Beaulieu said that he had heard that ‘the Spanish ambassadors, to breede a jealousie in the myndes both of the parlament and of the people of the kings intent therein, have taken upon them to assure their clients the papistes’ that the king ‘will never be brought to put anie such thing in execution against them, but that it behoveth him at this point to putt on such a shewe for the necessitie of his affaires’: BL, Additional MS 72255, fo. 142r.

³⁴⁸ CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 303; Harmsen, John Gee's Foot out of the Snare; Thompson, RD, p. 13. Cf. McClure, LJC, p. 556, for Chamberlain's claim on 30 April that ‘1,400 friers, Jesuites and priests are certainly knowne and discovered in the land’.

³⁴⁹ See Letters 44, 45, 47, 48.

³⁵⁰ Letter 44; TD, V, pp. 152–153; LJ, III, pp. 394–396.

³⁵¹ Ruigh, 1624, p. 265. According to Sir Balthazar Gerbier, the conspiracy was undertaken when the archduchess Isabella's agent, van Male, obtained from ‘one of the men at the post office att London’ an unciphered copy of a letter from Buckingham to James's daughter, explaining that the Spanish match was broken and that a military assault on the Spaniards was imminent: BL, Additional MS 4181, fos 20r–22r. For a copy of the representations made against Buckingham by Inojosa and Coloma, dated 9 March, see BL, Harleian MS 1583, fos 329r–330v.

³⁵² Ruigh, 1624, pp. 271–272; PRO, SP 94/30, fo. 230r.

³⁵³ Ruigh, 1624, pp. 272–273; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 273; McClure, LJC, p. 553.

³⁵⁴ Ruigh, 1624, pp. 273–276; see also Hacket, SR, part I, pp. 198–199; Cabala, pp. 90–93.

³⁵⁵ Albion, CI, p. 52; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 194; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 279–281; PRO, SP 14/164/8; PRO, PRO, 31/3/58, fo. 14r.

³⁵⁶ Ruigh, 1624, pp. 282f.; Cogswell, BR, p. 251; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 195; BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 443r. It was suspected that the disgraced lord treasurer, Cranfield, was involved in the conspiracy: PRO, SP 14/163/50; PRO, SP 14/164/12; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 193. For Lafuente's reinforcement of the charges against Buckingham, see PRO, SP 14/164/8, 12; for Inojosa's backtracking in early May, see PRO, SP 14/164/44. Sir Francis Nethersole claimed that the Spanish ambassadors blamed Carondelet for the vigour of the allegations against Buckingham: PRO, SP 14/164/46, fo. 81r.

³⁵⁷ Ruigh, 1624, pp. 286–294, 359; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 195–196.

³⁵⁸ Ruigh, 1624, p. 359.

³⁵⁹ PRO, SP 14/164/92, fo. 151r; CRS, 68, pp. 104–106; see also PRO, SP 16/164/86, fo. 141v.

³⁶⁰ CCE, pp. 152, 160.

³⁶¹ PRO, SP 77/17, fo. 209r.

³⁶² CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 301; PRO, SP 14/167/28; Letter 44. Inojosa was ordered, before he left, to set up ‘un service d'espionage, afin de rester au courant des projets du monarque anglais’: CCE, pp. 168, 174. At Brussels, Inojosa received instructions to return to Spain ‘to declare the necessity and commodity of a warr’: BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 312r.

³⁶³ Ruigh, 1624, pp. 140–144; Adams, PC, p. 384; Hacket, SR, part I, p. 150.

³⁶⁴ Ruigh, 1624, pp. 362f.

³⁶⁵ Cogswell, BR, p. 233; Alexander, CLT, pp. 58–64; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 343; HMCMK, p. 198; AAW, A XVII, no. 133, p. 421.

³⁶⁶ For Cranfield's impeachment, see M. Prestwich, Cranfield (Oxford, 1966), pp. 448f.; Alexander, CLT, pp. 60–62.

³⁶⁷ Letter 81.

³⁶⁸ Ruigh, 1624, p. 288.

³⁶⁹ Letter 44; Adams, PC, p. 348; Pursell, WK, p. 222.

³⁷⁰ Adams, FP, pp. 154, 156, 157–158; idem, PC, pp. 345, 346, 347, 349; Letter 44; Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, p. 11; BL, Egerton MS 2596, fo. 3r. As Adams explains, Mansfelt's scheme for a military expedition to the Palatinate was attractive because it was comparatively cheap and his proposals ‘for joint action with France and vague promises of French interest would provide the functional basis for the alliance with France’: Adams, PC, p. 348.

³⁷¹ Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, pp. 4–5. The problem for the English negotiators who joined the issue of the stand-off between the French and the Spaniards in the Valtelline to that of the Palatinate was succinctly summed up by the Venetian ambassador in Paris, Zuane Pesaro. He noted in March 1624 that the English thought ‘the French want to lead others into war while keeping at peace themselves’ and therefore the English wanted ‘to unite the Palatinate and the Valtelline into one common cause, owing to the fear that, if the French receive satisfaction, they will be left to fight alone’: CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 245.

³⁷² Cogswell, BR, p. 122; D. Lunn, ‘The Anglo-Gallicanism of Dom Thomas Preston, 1567–1647’, in D. Baker (ed.), Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest, Studies in Church History, 9 (Cambridge, 1972), p. 239. See also PRO, SP 78/74, fo. 242r–v (‘The exemptions of the Church of France from the jurisdiccion of the pope [. . .]’); Letter 81.

³⁷³ McClure, LJC, p. 553; Albion, CI, pp. 52, 54; Thompson, RD, p. 62.

³⁷⁴ Letters 44, 47; Adams, PC, pp. 349, 364; Pursell, WK, p. 236. The conclusion of the agreement with the Dutch, a defensive alliance only, was delayed for quite some time, in fact until September of the following year.

³⁷⁵ PRO, SP 78/72, fos 127v–128r; Adams, PC, p. 362. See also PRO, SP 78/72, fos 279v–280r; Letter 75. Tillières was able to report in early June that the ‘principalles et plus zellés Catholiques’ who had been to visit him now offered their thanks to the French king and his ministers ‘touchant la loy que les puritains voulaient, que l'on passait contre eulx ce dernier parlement’; and also that they recognized ‘les artiffices des Espagnols’: PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fo. 125r.

³⁷⁶ Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, p. 7; R. Briggs, Early Modern France 1560–1715 (Oxford, 1977), pp. 95–96.

³⁷⁷ Adams, PC, pp. 426–427. Herbert predicted that the French would try to take advantage of the forthcoming Anglo-Spanish war to ‘settle their owne affairs at home to the assured detriment’ of the Huguenots, and he advised that James should ‘bringe them [. . .] to some reall and infallible proofes’ that they would assist him ‘in the recovery of the Palatinate’, for otherwise they would take advantage of their existing double marriage alliance with Spain in order to ‘keepe themselves in [. . .] peace and neutrality’: PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 128r.

³⁷⁸ CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 313–314; PRO, SP 14/167/28.

³⁷⁹ Questier, C&C, pp. 378–379, 418, 420, 421, 423, 425, 444, 453, 465, 466, 471, 493; Letter 48.

³⁸⁰ Albion, CI, pp. 52–53. The instructions issued to Carlisle and Kensington on 17 May 1624 insisted that ‘the constitution of our estate cannot beare any generall change or alteration in our ecclesiasticall or temporall lawes touching religion’, even though, temporarily, such an offer had been made (for special considerations – namely the restoration of the Palatinate) to the Spaniards. Instead, James's ambassadors were told to promise Louis XIII that, ‘in contemplation of’ the marriage, James would ‘bee the rather inclined’ to treat his Roman Catholic subjects ‘with all favor, soe long as they shall behave themselves moderately’ and keep ‘their consciences to themselves’. The quid pro quo was, by implication, that James would not intervene on behalf of the Huguenots: PRO, SP 78/72, fos 215v–217r; cf. BL, Harleian MS 1584, fos 11v–13r.

³⁸¹ Back in early February, William Bishop had informed Thomas Rant that ‘we do request the Frenc[h]e ambassador that he will procure his king to write unto our kings Majestie to protect us, because that of the Spanish is [. . .] more hatefull to the puritans’. Rant should, said Bishop, ‘obtaine, if you can, his Holines[’s] letters to the king of France that he may write to our king to favour his Catholike subjects as our king hath written to him in favour of his Calvinists’: AAW, A XVII, no. 96, pp. 314, 315; TD, V, pp. cclxxvi–cclxxvii.

³⁸² BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 28r.

³⁸³ PRO, SP 14/168/40, 48; Cogswell, BR, pp. 122–123; HMCMK, pp. 212, 218, 224. For the question of whether such a dispensation was in fact required for a valid marriage, see Redworth, PI, p. 53; Albion, CI, pp. 74–75; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 362. As Antony Allison points out, ‘theological opinion in France was solidly against the view that the dispensation was strictly necessary. Many theologians maintained that there was no obligation in foro interno and that France had fulfilled her obligation in foro externo by the act of asking for the dispensation’. Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld and Pierre de Bérulle were of this opinion: Allison, RS, pp. 192–193.

³⁸⁴ Albion, CI, p. 53; Tillières, ME, p. 57. Schreiber notes that Tillières ‘volunteered his own recall’: Schreiber, FC, pp. 56, 65. For the instructions issued to Effiat, see PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fos 143r–147v.

³⁸⁵ PRO, SP 14/165/61.

³⁸⁶ Ibid.; PRO, SP 14/167/10; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 255–256; McClure, LJC, pp. 561–562; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 342. For Harsnett, see Fincham, Prelate as Pastor, pp. 245–246.

³⁸⁷ LJ, III, p. 388.

³⁸⁸ AAW, B 26, no. 77 (Thomas More to Thomas Rant, 18/28 June 1624).

³⁸⁹ CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 343–344; Cogswell, BR, p. 251; HMCMK, pp. 201, 203, 205. On 5 June, Chamberlain observed that ‘the papists geve out malicious reports that’ Buckingham ‘shold be crased in his braine’, although there was ‘no such matter, but that the suspicion grew by reason of his often letting bloud’: McClure, LJC, p. 563.

³⁹⁰ Anstr., I, p. 38; AAW, B 26, no. 40A; AAW, A XXVIII, no. 58, p. 224.

³⁹¹ See, e.g., Letter 59; cf. Allison, RS, pp. 155–157. There is comparatively little archival material for the English Jesuits in the 1620s and so it is hard to gauge their response to the seculars’ campaign for another episcopal appointment.

³⁹² Letter 45.

³⁹³ AAW, B 26, no. 94 (cited in Letter 59).

³⁹⁴ Letter 59; NAGB, p. 8.

³⁹⁵ Letter 50. See also AAW, B 27, nos 30, 42 (cited in Letter 58).

³⁹⁶ AAW, B 26, no. 105 (cited in Letter 53). In October 1624, Mathew complained to Cardinal Barberini about the watering down of protection for English Catholics in the wording of the treaty's articles: Albion, CI, p. 56; Letter 53.

³⁹⁷ AAW, B 27, no. 28.

³⁹⁸ Questier, C&C, p. 419; AAW, B 27, no. 9.

³⁹⁹ Allison, RS, pp. 158–159; Letter 53.

⁴⁰⁰ Allison, RS, p. 165; PRO, PRO 31/3/58, fos 81v, 100v; Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, pp. 8–9.

⁴⁰¹ AAW, A XVIII, no. 57, p. 345; Allison, RS, p. 181.

⁴⁰² Allison, RS, p. 185; Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, pp. 14–15; Letter 59.

⁴⁰³ AAW, B 47, no. 89 (cited in Allison, RS, p. 182).

⁴⁰⁴ Allison, RS, pp. 188–190; Letter 64; AAW, A XIX, no. 5, pp. 13–16.

⁴⁰⁵ Letter 47; Schreiber, FC, p. 65. Tillières returned to serve (if rather briefly) as chamberlain of Henrietta Maria's household, and his wife also entered her service: Albion, CI, p. 50; PRO, PRO 31/3/60, fo. 223r.

⁴⁰⁶ PRO, SP 14/169/2; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 382; PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fos 157r–158r.

⁴⁰⁷ AAW, B 26, no. 85; AAW, B 27, no. 15. See also Tillières, ME, pp. 79–87; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 394, 399, 411, 443–444, 451 (for Effiat's and Valaresso's views). An exchequer drive against recusants followed the collapse of the Spanish marriage negotiations, although, as Terence Smith demonstrates, ‘hardly any money was ever received’ from the ‘new seizures’ of Catholic separatists’ property: T.S. Smith, ‘The persecution of Staffordshire Roman Catholic recusants: 1625–1660’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 30 (1979), pp. 330–331.

⁴⁰⁸ PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fos 159r–160r; Albion, CI, p. 58.

⁴⁰⁹ PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fo. 160v. On 18/28 July, Effiat repeated his opinion that the English Catholics were beginning to detach themselves from their former reliance on Spain: Bodleian Library, Carte MS 82, no. 410b.

⁴¹⁰ PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fos 160v–161r, 161r–163r; CSPD, 1623–1625, pp. 295–296. On 9 July, however, the Venetian ambassador narrated a visit he had received from Effiat, and said that Effiat still believed ‘that the Catholics here are undoubtedly Spanish’ and ‘some of them had presumed to maintain Spanish interests in his presence’: CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 394–395.

⁴¹¹ Albion, CI, p. 55.

⁴¹² Schreiber, FC, pp. 69–70; Albion, CI, p. 57. As Anthony Champney described it, La Vieuville fell from power because he had, ‘contrarie to his kings will, assured the king of Ingland that the king of France did not stand much’ in the defence of the Catholic religion, ‘which treacherie, being discovered’, he was disgraced: AAW, B 26, no. 104; see also D.L.M. Avenel (ed.), Lettres, Instructions Diplomatiques et Papiers d’état du Cardinal de Richelieu, 8 vols (Paris, 1853–1877), II, pp. 20–26.

⁴¹³ Schreiber, FC, pp. 64–65; Albion, CI, pp. 56–57; C. Burckhardt, Richelieu and his Age, 3 vols (London, 1967), I, pp. 155–157; Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, p. 11; PRO, SP 78/73, fos 1r–2r, 6r, 7r, 11r–v, 94r–95v. (For other accusations against La Vieuville, see, e.g., PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 193r.) For Louis XIII's concessions on other issues, notably the education of the children of the marriage, see ibid., fo. 262v.

⁴¹⁴ PRO, SP 14/171/60, fo. 91r.

⁴¹⁵ AAW, B 26, no. 106.

⁴¹⁶ PRO, SP 78/73, fos 5r–7r.

⁴¹⁷ Schreiber, FC, pp. 70 (citing PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 8r), 71; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 361–362, 429; PRO, SP 78/73, fos 5r–6r, see also ibid., fos 57v–58r. The English ambassadors made haste to seek an audience with the queen mother. They argued that pressing this issue would make Henrietta Maria less well received in England: PRO, SP 78/73, fos 8v–9v.

⁴¹⁸ Tillières, ME, pp. 79–87; PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fos 163r–165r.

⁴¹⁹ PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fos 174r–177v, 180v.

⁴²⁰ Ibid., fos 182v–183r, 183v.

⁴²¹ Albion, CI, pp. 59–60; AAW, B 26, no. 97; see also Letter 50; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 431.

⁴²² Schreiber, FC, pp. 72–75; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 203; PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 5r; PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fos 197v–199r.

⁴²³ Schreiber, FC, pp. 76–77; BL, Harleian MS 1581, fos 31v–32v; PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fo. 174v.

⁴²⁴ Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, p. 12; Schreiber, FC, p. 77; Albion, CI, p. 60; Adams, PC, p. 352; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 434.

⁴²⁵ Schreiber, FC, pp. 77–78; Albion, CI, pp. 60–64; Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, p. 11; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 205; PRO, PRO 31/3/60, fo. 227v; BL, Egerton MS 2596, fo. 67r. For Kensington's and Carlisle's account, of 18/28 August 1624, of this attempt to find a compromise over the guarantee that James would give for the liberties of his Catholic subjects, sufficient to persuade the pope to issue a dispensation for the marriage, see PRO, SP 78/73, fos 63r–69r. There was considerable debate also over the difficulties presented by the loyalty oath that the queen's servants and James's Catholic subjects would take: ibid., fos 67r–v, 262v; see also ibid., fos 105r–108r, 315r; PRO, PRO 31/3/60, fo. 236r.

⁴²⁶ Schreiber, FC, p. 78; Albion, CI, pp. 60–61; PRO, PRO 31/3/60, fos 216r–218v, 227r, 230r. For the problems caused by the English court's demand, accompanying the return to Paris of the écrit (‘framed’ by James ‘into the fashion of a letter’), that the French should ‘give an explanation in writing that the oath of alleageance is not contradictory to the Roman religion’ or ‘to the conscience of Romane Catholiques’ (to which, Carlisle and Kensington advised on 18/28 September, the French would not agree), see PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 183r–v. For Conway's reply to this objection, see ibid., fos 199r, 200r; see also ibid., fos 229r–v, 262v–263r.

⁴²⁷ Ibid., fo. 103r; see also ibid., fo. 105r; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 204–205. On 4/14 September, Kensington told Conway how Richelieu had given assurances that he was ‘bon François’. The cardinal had even claimed that, in the context of the difficulties raised in the negotiations over what oath of loyalty (contained in the écrit particulier) would be stipulated for Catholics, and particularly for servants of Henrietta Maria, the 1606 oath of allegiance was ‘in no way contrary to the Roman faith’. He ‘affirmed’ this ‘to be the generall tenent of the Sorbonne’, though it was still impossible to incorporate any such oath in the treaty articles themselves: PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 132r.

⁴²⁸ PRO, SP 14/172/1.i.

⁴²⁹ See PRO, SP 78/72, fos 16r, 19r–v; Tillières, ME, pp. 57–58. For Puisieux's entertainment in early 1624 of Spanish proposals for a Franco-Spanish alliance directed against the forces of European Protestantism, designed to obviate the Anglo-Spanish dynastic treaty but dependent on restoring the Valtelline to French control, see PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 36r; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 214–215. The French ambassador in Rome, Noël Brûlart, had negotiated (contrary to the 1621 Treaty of Madrid) for the Spaniards’ demolition of their forts in the Valtelline while retaining the right to ‘have [. . .] passage free’ through the region: PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 74r. For Brûlart's self-justification in this respect, see ibid., fo. 96r–v. For the Valtelline issue, see Letter 76.

⁴³⁰ The French and the Dutch signed the Treaty of Compiègne in the summer of 1624: Pursell, WK, p. 230.

⁴³¹ Schreiber, FC, pp. 59–60.

⁴³² Ibid., pp. 61, 78; Pursell, WK, p. 230; see also CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 350–351, 613; Albion, CI, p. 63; Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, p. 9.

⁴³³ Adams, PC, p. 351.

⁴³⁴ PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 230r.

⁴³⁵ Cogswell, BR, pp. 243–245, 250f.; Adams, PC, p. 351.

⁴³⁶ Adams, FP, p. 158; and see below, pp. 104–105, 114–115. While Buckingham wanted Mansfelt's expedition to constitute the ‘basis for a revival of the Grand Alliance’ which the duke had tried to create in 1623, in fact he had to make so many concessions to Richelieu to secure the treaty that the whole policy ended in a débâcle in 1625: Adams, FP, p. 158.

⁴³⁷ ibid.

⁴³⁸ McClure, LJC, p. 562. For the recruitment and delivery of troops to the Dutch, allowing them to release their own veteran soldiers from garrison service, see CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 403, 422, and passim.

⁴³⁹ Thomas Cogswell argues that Mansfelt has probably been underestimated as a commander: Cogswell, BR, p. 239. For his performance, for example, at Frankenthal in late 1621, at Wiesloch against Tilly in April 1622, and at the battle of Fleurus in late August 1622, see Letter 1; Adams, PC, p. 329; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 318, 414, 420; Pursell, WK, p. 172; PRO, SP 77/15, fo. 282v; BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 160v; Lee, Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain, p. 293; CCE, pp. 98–99; BL, Additional MS 72254, fos 143r, 145r; cf. Adams, FP, p. 158.

⁴⁴⁰ See, e.g., Letters 44, 55, 60; see also Cogswell, BR, p. 241.

⁴⁴¹ Cogswell, BR, pp. 281–307. A proclamation was issued in mid-August 1624 against seditious books and pamphlets. James had intervened to direct it equally against popish and puritan tracts. On 21 July 1624, Sir Edward Conway informed the attorney-general that the draft proclamation, on the king's order, had to be ‘altered and, in all places where mencion is made of popish scandalous bookes, theis wordes are precisely to bee added: “as alsoe all sedicious bookes and scandalous to our person and state such as have ben lately vented by some puritanicall spiritts”’: PRO, SP 14/170/35, fo. 53r; SRP, I, no. 256; S. Lambert, ‘Richard Montagu, Arminianism and censorship’, Past and Present, 124 (1989), p. 53.

⁴⁴² AAW, B 26, no. 72 (cited in Letter 49).

⁴⁴³ Anstr., I, p. 99; Letter 47.

⁴⁴⁴ Letter 45.

⁴⁴⁵ CRS, 68, p. 171.

⁴⁴⁶ Letter 46. On 12 June, Tillières described how he had presented to James two petitions, drawn up by English Catholics and by himself, against the enforcement of the proclamation: PRO, PRO, 31/3/59, fos 136v–137r.

⁴⁴⁷ Letters 45, 48; SRP, I, p. 592, citing PRO, SP 14/163/30 and PRO, SP 14/164/72.

⁴⁴⁸ Harmsen, John Gee's Foot out of the Snare.

⁴⁴⁹ Letter 49; PRO, SP 14/169/14.

⁴⁵⁰ Anstr., II, p. 68; Letters 50, 54. In a Paul's Cross sermon of 31 October 1624 (the published version of which was dedicated to Sir Robert Naunton), Gee mentioned his encounter with Cole, and alleged that Cole had attacked him: John Gee, Hold Fast (London, 1624), p. 51 (cited in Letter 50).

⁴⁵¹ Letter 50; CRS, 68, p. 172.

⁴⁵² PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 366r; Letter 49.

⁴⁵³ PRO, SP 14/171/22, fo. 28r.

⁴⁵⁴ PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 15r; Letter 53.

⁴⁵⁵ PRO, SP 14/171/22, fo. 28r.

⁴⁵⁶ PRO, SP 14/171/21.

⁴⁵⁷ PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 15r–v.

⁴⁵⁸ PRO, SP 14/171/27, fo. 35r–v.

⁴⁵⁹ PRO, SP 14/171/28, fo. 37r–v.

⁴⁶⁰ PRO, SP 14/171/29, fo. 39r; see also PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 16r.

⁴⁶¹ CSPD, 1623–1625, p. 328. Smith believed, in mid-August 1624, that priests walked the streets in London ‘as freely as before’, and that Effiat had done very well for Catholics: AAW, B 26, no. 105.

⁴⁶² PRO, SP 14/171/42, fo. 60r–v. Ten days later, on 22 August, Williams was still asking Buckingham ‘howe to demeane my selfe to the French embassador in matters concerning recusants’ (especially since the judges remained on circuit). The day before, Effiat had ‘sent unto me to knowe if I hadd received any order from his Majestye to staye this (as he tearmed it) perseqution’, though Williams had denied that there was any ‘such matter in this estate’: BL, Harleian MS 7000, fo. 159r.

⁴⁶³ PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 40r.

⁴⁶⁴ PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 373r.

⁴⁶⁵ Letter 51; PRO, SP 78/73, fos 63r–68r; PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fo. 210v; Questier, C&C, pp. 415–417.

⁴⁶⁶ AAW, B 26, no. 139 (cited in Letter 55); CRS, 68, pp. 167, 168.

⁴⁶⁷ See, e.g., Letter 56. On 23 August, two days after John Jackson's visit, Effiat, however, was complaining of the secular clergy's tendency to put their interests before those of the French state: PRO, PRO 31/3/60, fo. 213r [bis].

⁴⁶⁸ CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 444.

⁴⁶⁹ AAW, B 26, no. 90.

⁴⁷⁰ AAW, B 26, no. 100. Bérulle, the superior of the French Oratory, arrived in Rome in late September: Schreiber, FC, pp. 81–82. The use of Bérulle to persuade the pope that the dispensation should be granted was a shrewd French calculation that he would be seen as disinterested and principled, in a way that Philippe de Béthune, count of Sully (the French ambassador in Rome, and brother of the Huguenot duke of Sully) was not: ibid., p. 81; PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 388r–v. Carlisle mentioned to Conway, in a letter of 29 July/8 August 1624, that he intended to persuade Bérulle that the Spaniards, ‘pretending to procure a dispensation, suggested extravagant conditions to the pope [. . .] purposely to crosse the match’; and therefore Carlisle proposed to ‘give him withall a brief discourse of the true state of things in England, actuall and possible, that it may serve as a healp to remove such obstacles as may be offred’: PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 388v. For Bérulle, see P.A. Klevgard, ‘Society and politics in Counter-Reformation France: a study of Bérulle, Vincent de Paul, Olier and Bossuet’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Northwestern University, 1971), ch. 2.

⁴⁷¹ Letters 52, 59. For the negotiations for the dispensation, conducted in Rome by Bérulle and Béthune, see Albion, CI, pp. 68–72.

⁴⁷² AAW, B 26, no. 118; Albion, CI, pp. 58–59; PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fo. 208v. The offer by the secular clergy to write to Rome had been made by John Jackson to Effiat on 21 August: Letter 51. For Colleton's subsequent letter of 22 September 1624, directed to Urban VIII, which urged that, if the dispensation were not granted, this would unleash a new wave of persecution by the ‘puritans’, see AAW, A XVIII, no. 62, pp. 357–358. For Matthew Kellison's letter of 16/26 August 1624 to the pope, requesting the dispensation, see AAW, A XVIII, no. 49, pp. 325–326 (cited in Letter 51).

⁴⁷³ AAW, B 26, no. 103.

⁴⁷⁴ Letter 54.

⁴⁷⁵ Ibid.

⁴⁷⁶ Letter 53; PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 299r. For the other conditions of the treaty, e.g. the dowry, see PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 261r; Tillières, ME, p. xiv.

⁴⁷⁷ Allison, RS, pp. 190–191; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 619, 620; Albion, CI, p. 65.

⁴⁷⁸ PRO, SP 78/73, fos 229r–232v.

⁴⁷⁹ Albion, CI, pp. 67–74; Allison, RS, pp. 190–191; AAW, B 47, no. 159 (cited in Letter 75); AAW, B 47, no. 78 (cited in Letter 78).

⁴⁸⁰ Russell, PEP, p. 202; Ruigh, 1624, p. 386; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 222–224. For James's guarantee, finally issued by Conway on 29 December 1624, that Mansfelt would not engage in hostilities in the dominions of Philip IV or of the archduchess Isabella, see PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 366r; CGB, II, pp. 590–591. The Spanish council of state initially disapproved of the apparently rash decision of the Habsburg administration in Flanders to besiege Breda: CCE, pp. 180, 187; see also Elliott, The Count-Duke of Olivares, p. 236. The Brussels administration had itself been uncertain in July and August that the proposed siege was feasible, but Spinola insisted upon it: CGB, I, pp. 505, 507, 510.

⁴⁸¹ CCE, p. 185; see also ibid., p. 188.

⁴⁸² For the arrangements at the French court, recorded by Carlisle on 21/31 August 1624, for regular payments to be made to Mansfelt, see PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 71r–v. On 23 September/3 October, the English ambassadors in Paris reported that the French ‘desire an answerable proceeding in England’ to the support which Mansfelt was receiving in France: ibid., fo. 193v; for James's guarantees of financial aid to him, and for recruitment of men to be shipped to France, consequent on Louis's declaration of his ‘conjunction in the accion’, see ibid., fo. 225r.

⁴⁸³ CCE, p. 191.

⁴⁸⁴ Ibid., p. 192.

⁴⁸⁵ Letters 67, 68, 70; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 210.

⁴⁸⁶ Albion, CI, p. 63; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 206–207, 222–223.

⁴⁸⁷ CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 456; PRO, PRO 31/3/60, fo. 255r–v.

⁴⁸⁸ McClure, LJC, pp. 581–582. On 24 September, the Venetian ambassadors could note that, of the Anglo-French treaty's twenty-six articles, eleven were ‘in favour of the Catholic religion, either for the service of Madame or the advantage of the Catholics’; also, Effiat claimed to have done even more for them than his instructions allowed ‘and much more than the Spaniards’, especially in the arrangements for the education of the children of the marriage, in provision of chaplains for Charles's bride, and ‘even in the sureties for the liberties of the Catholics’: CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 451. For the articles as they were eventually signed on 10/20 November, see Albion, CI, p. 63.

⁴⁸⁹ AAW, B 27, no. 15.

⁴⁹⁰ PRO, SP 14/173/59.

⁴⁹¹ PRO, SP 14/175/30, fo. 40r.

⁴⁹² AAW, B 27, nos 57, 58; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 503–504.

⁴⁹³ AAW, B 27, no. 59.

⁴⁹⁴ See Letters 62, 64. As R.E. Shimp points out, Villeauxclercs was briefed also to ‘cajole James into open war with Spain’, though James still refused: Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, p. 13; for the purposes of Villeauxclercs's embassy, set out in a document of 17/27 November 1624, see PRO, PRO 31/3/60, fos 284r–295r. John Hacket argued that Villeauxclercs was ‘a fervent zealot in his own religion’ and listened too readily to the grievances of ‘our nimble-headed recusants’: Hacket, SR, part I, p. 212. For Hacket's account of the case made by Lord Keeper Williams to Villeauxclercs in justification of the legal status quo concerning recusancy and the technical proscription of the Catholic clergy, see ibid., pp. 213–222. Hacket claimed that Villeauxclercs pushed the toleration issue so hard that James was ‘observed to begin to be cooler in the treaty for the marriage than he had been’: ibid., p. 213.

⁴⁹⁵ Albion, CI, p. 64. Hacket scornfully claimed that the English Catholics resorted ‘daily to Mass in the embassadors house’, and that they ‘found access unto him and sighed out their grievances before him that their priests, who adventured to come to them for their souls health, were executed for traytors; and themselves were set such fines for their conscience that they were utterly impoverished’, and begged him to alleviate their suffering: Hacket, SR, part I, p. 212.

⁴⁹⁶ AAW, B 27, no. 79. See also AAW, B 47, no. 53; Hacket, SR, part I, p. 210; PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 362r–v; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 209. In Paris, on 22 December 1624/1 January 1625, Anthony Champney was still complaining that ‘the French conceive and utter their conceipt playnly that the Catholikes in Ingland are Spaniards’: AAW, B 47, no. 45.

⁴⁹⁷ Letter 65; see also CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 504. Both James and Charles signed the private agreement which granted relief to Catholics: Albion, CI, p. 63. For the French ambassadors’ account of their meeting at Cambridge, see PRO, PRO 31/3/60, fo. 305r et seq. They recorded that they had been assured that ‘les Catholiques de ce pays ne seront jamais inquietés pour raison de serment de fidelité’: ibid., fo. 305v.

⁴⁹⁸ HMCMK, p. 216; cf. McClure, LJC, p. 589.

⁴⁹⁹ PRO, SP 14/177/10, fo. 13r; PRO, SP 14/177/11, fo. 14r; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 539; PRO, C 231/4, fo. 173v. For the promises made to Villeauxclercs and Effiat that Conway had been ordered to dispatch warrants to free imprisoned Catholics and to restore property to them which had been sequestrated ‘depuis ledit traicté’, see PRO, PRO 31/3/60, fo. 307v.

⁵⁰⁰ PRO, SP 14/177/37, 39.i; Letter 60; Albion, CI, p. 64. Subsequently, on 1 February 1625, Conway directed James, Baron Ley, and Sir Richard Weston to implement the promised discharges of recusants’ property; at the same time, Ley and Weston ordered the exchequer to ‘give dischardge for all rentes and revenues for which any money hath bin receaved, bonds taken, lands or goods seized, or onely inquisicions taken’; and all money taken by virtue of commissions issued since the previous Trinity term should be redelivered, ‘the bonds given up and the lands and goods dischardged as cleerely from the power [. . .] of these seizures, and from any burthen or incumbrance to rise by them, as possibly and legally may be done’: CSPD, 1623–1625, p. 465; BL, Additional MS 35832, fo. 149r.

⁵⁰¹ PRO, SP 14/177/22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 36, 39, 45; Albion, CI, p. 64.

⁵⁰² See, e.g., Letters 72, 73, 74; AAW, B 47, no. 187.

⁵⁰³ PRO, SP 78/74, fo. 51r.

⁵⁰⁴ CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 576, 588, 597, 615; Albion, CI, pp. 72–73; Allison, RS, pp. 190–191; Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, p. 15; HMCMK, p. 222; PRO, PRO 31/3/61, fo. 63v; Letter 75.

⁵⁰⁵ PRO, SP 78/74, fos 60r–61r; see also Philip Yorke, Miscellaneous State Papers from 1501 to 1726, 2 vols (London, 1778), I, pp. 551–555.

⁵⁰⁶ Adams, PC, p. 362. Effiat had advised Louis on 1 March that ‘la fortune dudit duc estoit perdu s'il venoit à se rompre’: PRO, PRO 31/3/61, fo. 64v.

⁵⁰⁷ PRO, SP 78/74, fos 68r–v, 74r, 80r; Letter 72; PRO, PRO 31/3/61, fo. 72r.

⁵⁰⁸ PRO, SP 78/74, fo. 78r.

⁵⁰⁹ Ibid.; see also AAW, B 47, no. 78.

⁵¹⁰ PRO, SP 78/74, fo. 106r.

⁵¹¹ CSPD, 1623–1625, p. 496; Letter 73.

⁵¹² PRO, SP 78/74, fo. 124r–v.

⁵¹³ PRO, SP 14/185/54, fo. 83v; see also PRO, SP 14/185/95.

⁵¹⁴ BL, Harleian MS 7000, fo. 174r–v. On 5 April, however, Conway ordered Abbot to discharge specific prisoners, as named by the French ambassador, or to produce evidence that they were held for temporal causes: CSPD, 1625–1626, p. 6.

⁵¹⁵ CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 620–621.

⁵¹⁶ Allison, RS, p. 191; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 468, 472, 474, 484, 486, 493, 495, 499, 522, 610, 616; Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, p. 15; Adams, PC, p. 345; see also Letter 77.

⁵¹⁷ Allison, RS, p. 191; Letter 78.

⁵¹⁸ Schreiber, FC, pp. 83–86; cf. Albion, CI, pp. 72–76; Allison, RS, pp. 191–193; Bodleian Library, Tanner MS 73, fo. 516r; AAW, B 47, no. 154.

⁵¹⁹ PRO, SP 14/185/54, fo. 84r–v. By 25 March, Pesaro understood that, although the lord treasurer had ‘ordered repayment to the Catholics by degrees’, the Catholics ‘were not satisfied’. They wanted ‘a general order for the restitution of their goods also, which would amount to a declaration against the laws, such as the king cannot make’, nor was Effiat ‘inclined to go to this extreme’: CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 625.

⁵²⁰ PRO, SP 16/2/1.

⁵²¹ PRO, SP 16/2/22. Albion notes that, ‘in fulfilment of his promises’, Charles ordered Williams to ‘stay the execution of the penal laws’, whereupon ‘3,000 letters were sent out to the judges and bishops’, although, informally, many Catholics who expected to benefit were told that they would have to wait until the end of the forthcoming parliamentary session: Albion, CI, p. 76.

⁵²² PRO, SP 16/4/63, 64, 68; J.S. Cockburn (ed.), Calendar of Assize Records: Kent indictments: James I (London, 1980), no. 993; Questier, C&C, pp. 425–426.

⁵²³ Birch, CTCI, I, p. 10.

⁵²⁴ Ibid., p. 20.

⁵²⁵ Letter 80.

⁵²⁶ See, e.g., Letter 62.

⁵²⁷ AAW, A XIX, no. 2, p. 3. Richard Ireland had mentioned in his letter to Rant of 25 November/5 December 1624 that her confessor would be a bishop, ‘which must be a Jesuit as it is commonly reported even by some of the Societye’: AAW, B 27, no. 69; see also Letter 64.

⁵²⁸ Letter 69.

⁵²⁹ AAW, A XIX, no. 32, p. 105.

⁵³⁰ AAW, B 47, no. 123 (cited in Letter 85); see also Letter 53; CSPD, 1625–1626, p. 67; C. Hibbard, ‘Henrietta Maria and the transition from princess to queen’, Court Historian, 5 (2000), p. 23; Albion, CI, pp. 81, 108; Tillières, ME, pp. 63–64.

⁵³¹ AAW, B 47, no. 47.

⁵³² Adams, PC, p. 354; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 243.

⁵³³ AAW, B 47, no. 49; Letter 76. Mansfelt had departed in late January 1625, taking his men to Holland. Those who had the misfortune to be sent to Geertruidenberg were unable to disembark and were struck down by infection on the ships: Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 228.

⁵³⁴ PRO, SP 77/17, fo. 92r.

⁵³⁵ CSPV, 1625–1626, pp. 46–47, 61; Letter 82. For the account (dated 8/18 May) of the failed attempt, written by the Catholic Captain John Langworth, who was serving under Sir Edward Parham in the English regiment stationed in front of Breda, see PRO, SP 77/17, fo. 121r–v; see also CSPD, 1625–1626, p. 154.

⁵³⁶ Allison, RS, p. 197; Schreiber, FC, p. 82; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 520, 536, 562, and passim; HMCMK, pp. 214, 219, 235; Ferrini and de Mas, Lettere a William Cavendish, pp. 294, 297; Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, p. 13. Some English Catholics were horrified at the atrocities committed by French troops against Catholics in the Valtelline (in pursuit of the French court's alliance with the region's Protestants): Letter 76. In fact, the French military initiative in the region, after initial successes, subsequently ground to a halt for lack of naval support. Richelieu was forced to negotiate the Treaty of Monzón (March 1626) with the Spaniards, prior to turning to deal with the Huguenots: Richard Bonney, The European Dynastic States, 1494–1660 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 207–208; Albion, CI, p. 5; T. Osborne, ‘Abbot Scaglia, the duke of Buckingham and Anglo-Savoyard relations during the 1620s’, European History Quarterly, 30 (2000), p. 19. Conrad Russell interprets the breakdown of the Anglo-French amity primarily from a domestic angle. He argues that the French had required tolerationist concessions from the regime in England which could not but irritate Hispanophobe sentiment. However, they had also demanded that Charles should sustain a war effort. This was something which he could not easily do once he had thus alienated those elements of the political nation which would be asked to provide the necessary revenue: Russell, PEP, pp. 209–210.

⁵³⁷ Letter 82.

⁵³⁸ Hibbard, ‘Henrietta Maria’, p. 17; Allison, RS, p. 193; PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 261r; PRO, PRO 31/3/61, fo. 69v.

⁵³⁹ Letter 80; Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, pp. 16–17; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 236–238; Adams, PC, pp. 362–363; Salvetti, p. 17.

⁵⁴⁰ Letter 83.

⁵⁴¹ Letter 82; L. Boothman and Sir Richard Hyde Parker (eds), Savage Fortune (Suffolk Records Society, Woodbridge, 2006), pp. xxxix–xl.

⁵⁴² Allison, RS, p. 193; AAW, B 48, no. 34, fo. 97r; Letter 84; PRO, SP 16/3/69. For the ceremonial and ritual accompanying Henrietta's arrival, notably in Canterbury, see Hibbard, ‘Henrietta Maria’, p. 18, citing M. Toynbee, ‘The wedding journey of King Charles I’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 69 (1955), pp. 75–89; see also C. Hibbard, ‘Henrietta Maria in the 1630s: perspectives on the role of consort queens in ancien régime courts’, in I. Atherton and J. Sanders (eds), The 1630s (Manchester, 2006), pp. 94–95.

⁵⁴³ AAW, B 48, no. 34, fo. 97r (cited in Letter 85). See also CSPV, 1625–1626, p. 81.

⁵⁴⁴ CSPV, 1625–1626, p. 82.

⁵⁴⁵ AAW, A XIX, no. 56, p. 166; see also AAW, B 47, no. 132; Avenel, Lettres, II, pp. 94–95 (Chevreuse's statement on behalf of English Catholics at his first audience with Charles I, asking him to honour the concessions which had been made to them). For proceedings against Catholics reported by the duke of Tuscany's agent, Amerigo Salvetti, on 24 June, see Salvetti, p. 24. Salvetti commented that ‘those who had charge of the negotiations in France’ had failed to provide adequately for this situation, and they ‘apparently believed, or induced others to believe, that the English [Catholics] are a sort of Spanish Catholics, different from the French’. A week later, however, he recorded that, although some English Catholics were deeply critical of the French diplomats, the diplomats themselves had lodged protests with the court about the proceedings against Catholics: ibid., pp. 24, 25.

⁵⁴⁶ AAW, B 47, no. 190. See also Birch, CTCI, I, p. 33; CSPV, 1625–1626, p. 34. For the arrangements for Henrietta Maria's chapel, see Hibbard, ‘Henrietta Maria’, p. 17; PRO, PRO 31/3/60, fos 309r, 320r. She was entitled to a chapel in each royal abode, with as many as twenty-eight chaplains in all, and a bishop to serve as her almoner.

⁵⁴⁷ Birch, CTCI, I, p. 33; Albion, CI, p. 80; cf. Salvetti, p. 25.

⁵⁴⁸ TD, V, p. 160.

⁵⁴⁹ F.H. Relf (ed.), Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords (London, 1929), p. 58. In a newsletter of 1 July, Joseph Mead was informed that this was in response to Henrietta Maria's officials dismissing all the English Protestants who attended upon her: Birch, CTCI, I, p. 39. For the ambiguities about what exactly the situation was with regard to the queen's chapel, see CSPV, 1625–1626, p. 118.

⁵⁵⁰ Letter 81; D. Lunn, The English Benedictines, 1540–1688 (London, 1980), pp. 108–110.

⁵⁵¹ Letter 85.

⁵⁵² Russell, PEP, pp. 204–205. Buckingham wrote to Lord Nithsdale that the postponing of the parliament was ‘for manie waightie considerations’ but mainly to allow for the arrival of Henrietta Maria, so that her ‘graces and virtues [. . .] will not onlie stay the exorbitant or ungentle motions that might otherwise bee made in the house of parlement but will facilitate, in his Majesties proceeding, those passages of favors, grace and goodness which his Majestie hath promised for the ese of the Romaine Catholickes’. This would make diplomacy with the French court easier. It would also allow ‘the beginning of a straighter correspondence’ with ‘him you went to’, i.e. Urban VIII, ‘than could be hoped for these manie yeres past’: BL, Harleian MS 7000, fo. 179r. The marquis of Effiat had urged (for example, in a dispatch to Villeauxclercs of 29 February) that parliament should not meet before Henrietta Maria's arrival, in part because ‘les puritains’, who were ‘offencés des graces que nous faisons recevoir aux Catholiques’, could afford to speak their minds now that the Spanish match was irretrievably broken: PRO, PRO 31/3/61, fo. 58r.

⁵⁵³ Russell, PEP, pp. 204–207.

⁵⁵⁴ Ibid., pp. 208–209.

⁵⁵⁵ Schreiber, FC, p. 89.

⁵⁵⁶ Adams, PC, pp. 359–360.

⁵⁵⁷ McClure, LJC, pp. 625–626; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 242.

⁵⁵⁸ AAW, A XIX, no. 56, p. 166 (cited in Letter 85); Russell, PEP, pp. 219–220; Hacket, SR, part II, pp. 11–13; Proceedings 1625, pp. 34–35.

⁵⁵⁹ Russell, PEP, pp. 211–212; Adams, PC, pp. 361, 363; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 229–231, 252–255; Shimp, ‘A Catholic marriage’, pp. 13–14; Avenel, Lettres, II, pp. 63–64. In September 1625, the Huguenots under Soubise were defeated at the Ile de Rhé: Adams, PC, p. 376; Salvetti, p. 33.

⁵⁶⁰ Proceedings 1625, pp. 232–233, 504–505; C. Thompson, ‘Court politics and parliamentary conflict in 1625’, in Cust and Hughes, Conflict in Early Stuart England, p. 186; LJ, III, p. 446.

⁵⁶¹ Proceedings 1625, p. 226, n. 4; LJ, III, p. 248.

⁵⁶² McClure, LJC, p. 626.

⁵⁶³ AAW, B 47, no. 190 (cited in Letter 85); Thompson, ‘Court politics’, p. 176; Alexander, CLT, pp. 82–83.

⁵⁶⁴ Proceedings 1625, pp. 260–264; Russell, PEP, pp. 230, 231–233. On 28 June, a draft bill was introduced by Sir John Strode ‘for the educating of the children of popish recusants’: Proceedings 1625, p. 257.

⁵⁶⁵ Ibid., p. 263. On 4 July, at a conference between the Commons and the Lords, it was decided that the provision concerning foreigners executing episcopal jurisdiction should be ‘extended to natural subjects’: ibid., p. 305. On the same day, Bishop George Carleton complained about Richard Smith: Questier, C&C, p. 424.

⁵⁶⁶ Proceedings 1625, pp. 265–266, 274.

⁵⁶⁷ Ibid., pp. 155, n. 12, 78–79, 80, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 305, 314, 316; LJ, III, pp. 451, 453, 456, 457, 458, 460, 465.

⁵⁶⁸ Ibid., pp. 446–447. Farrington had come to grief at the hands of the allegedly crypto-papist Sir Henry Spiller early in the 1621 parliament, when Farrington joined in the petitioning against alleged maladministration of the exchequer procedures for fining recusants and sequestrating their property: Questier, ‘Sir Henry Spiller’, p. 256.

⁵⁶⁹ Russell, PEP, pp. 235–237; Adams, PC, pp. 366–367; Thompson, ‘Court politics’, pp. 176–179.

⁵⁷⁰ Russell, PEP, pp. 238–252; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 260–267.

⁵⁷¹ Thompson, ‘Court politics’, pp. 180–181; Russell, PEP, p. 241; Alexander, CLT, p. 84; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 255, 260; LJ, III, pp. 470–471.

⁵⁷² Adams, PC, p. 368; Thompson, ‘Court politics’, p. 181; Proceedings 1625, pp. 395–396. For the debates about financial supply, see Alexander, CLT, pp. 84–88.

⁵⁷³ Proceedings 1625, p. 391; Adams, PC, p. 368.

⁵⁷⁴ Adams, PC, p. 369; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 261; Proceedings 1625, pp. 412, 549.

⁵⁷⁵ Relf, Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords, pp. 61–62; Russell, PEP, p. 248; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 262–265; PRO, SP 16/5/28; Proceedings 1625, pp. 147, 148; Thompson, ‘Court politics’, p. 183; Salvetti, p. 27.

⁵⁷⁶ Proceedings 1625, pp. 155f., 170, 177, 433; LJ, III, pp. 477–481.

⁵⁷⁷ Proceedings 1625, pp. 448, 556, n. 181; Salvetti, p. 29.

⁵⁷⁸ Proceedings 1625, pp. 146, 152, 169, 171–172, 375, 412, n. 10.

⁵⁷⁹ Ibid., p. 172.

⁵⁸⁰ Ibid., pp. 458, 461; LJ, III, p. 487.

⁵⁸¹ Schreiber, FC, p. 90; Russell, PEP, pp. 248–252; Adams, PC, p. 370.

⁵⁸² Allison, RS, p. 197; Hibbard, ‘Henrietta Maria’, pp. 19, 20, 23, 24; Birch, CTCI, I, p. 52; CSPV, 1625–1626, p. 129; Albion, CI, pp. 79–85; TD, V, pp. 161–162. A good deal of the opposition to Buckingham at court came from within the queen's entourage (before it was diminished through dismissals): Hibbard, ‘Henrietta Maria’, p. 23; Schreiber, FC, pp. 96–98.

⁵⁸³ SRP, II, no. 23; Albion, CI, p. 79; Salvetti, p. 31; BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 66r–v.

⁵⁸⁴ PRO, SP 16/6/35, fo. 50v.

⁵⁸⁵ AAW, A XIX, no. 89, pp. 273–274; CSPD, 1625–1626, p. 142 (Charles's commission of 3 November 1625 to the lord keeper and others ‘to see the laws against popish recusants put in execution according to the petition of the parliament; with a declaration of the king's pleasure that all fines and forfeitures of recusants’ goods be set apart for certain specified public services’); PRO, SP 16/9/51 (a similar commission of 11 November 1625, which specifically directed that ‘all sums received for pecuniary forfeitures’ of recusants should be ‘applied towards the provision of gunpowder and repair of fortifications’); see also Hacket, SR, part II, p. 7.

⁵⁸⁶ PRO, SP 16/6/41, 41.i, 46, 57, 68, 68.i, ii, iii, 104; PRO, SP 16/7/37, 69; PRO, SP 16/10/42, 42.i–iv; PRO, SP 16/11/42; PRO, SP 16/12/71; BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 201v; Birch, CTCI, I, p. 58.

⁵⁸⁷ Questier, C&C, p. 429; APC, 1625–1626, pp. 188–189; Durham University Library, Mickleton and Spearman MS II/2, fos 355r, 363r–365r, 371r–372r. For the two separate orders to disarm papists at this time, on 2 October and 30 October, see Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, pp. 441, 449. See also B. Quintrell, ‘The practice and problems of recusant disarming’, RH, 17 (1985), pp. 208–222; Boothman and Parker, Savage Fortune, p. xxxix.

⁵⁸⁸ BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 201r.

⁵⁸⁹ Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, p. 441.

⁵⁹⁰ PRO, SP 16/9/18; BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 342r–v; Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, pp. 441–445.

⁵⁹¹ BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 342r–v; Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, pp. 441–445.

⁵⁹² BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 201r–v.

⁵⁹³ Ibid., fo. 343r; Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, p. 448. For the subsequent conduct of the case, removed from the star chamber to the House of Lords after Vaux took the oath of allegiance in the 1626 parliament, see Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, pp. 448–453.

⁵⁹⁴ Russell, PEP, pp. 174, 251–252; ED, fo. 37r. Cf. the implementation, in the subsidy bill passed on 8 July, of the proposal that recusants should pay double subsidy: Proceedings 1625, pp. 276, 279, 391, n. 5.

⁵⁹⁵ SRP, II, no. 36.

⁵⁹⁶ PRO, SP 16/21/23, 63; PRO, SP 16/22/112 (see also BL, Harleian MS 161, no. 30, fo. 93r); PRO, SP 16/23/125.

⁵⁹⁷ Adams, PC, pp. 371–376; Pursell, WK, p. 240; Lockyer, Buckingham, pp. 278–279.

⁵⁹⁸ Schreiber, FC, pp. 102–103; Bonney, European Dynastic States, pp. 208–210.

⁵⁹⁹ Questier, C&C, ch. 13.

⁶⁰⁰ Cogswell, ‘England and the Spanish match’, pp. 110–111.

⁶⁰¹ Adams, PC, p. 431.

⁶⁰² Milton, A., ‘A qualified intolerance: the limits and ambiguities of early Stuart anti-Catholicism’, in Marotti, A. (ed.), Catholicism and Anti-Catholicism in Early Modern English Texts (London, 1999), pp. 85–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar.