^1. “Ten days ago arrived at court Sir Anthony Standen — Standen is charged with too open a display of his Catholic sympathies: he attended Mass and all other religious functions without recollecting that he was the representative of a prince of a different creed.” (Molin, Venetian Ambassador to the Doge and Signory, London, 5 February 1604, Venetian Cal. 1603-1607, p. 131).

^2. Cf. Lotti to the Grand Duke, 24 March 1604, relating what he had heard from Cecil's secretary, Levinus Munck; printed by A. M. Crind in Fatte e Figure del Seicento Anglo-Toscano, p. 102. Cf. also Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Paris, 23 February 1604, (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88). Bufalo was in error in stating that it was a letter of Persons that caused the trouble. The Nuncio in Flanders, Frangipani, committed the same error in his despatch to Aldobrandino, March 1604, N.S. (Brussels, Bibl. Royale, Mss Divers 2057, a copy from Vat. Arch Borghese III, b.c.d.g., f. 88). A letter from a gentleman in London, 20 February, stated correctly that it was a letter from Standen to a person in Rome. (Arch. S. J. Rom. Anglia 31, 1, f. 254).

^3. The same letter of 20 February stated that he was imprisoned first in the Fleet, but on his instructions and the papal gifts being found, was sent to the Tower. As to the danger Standen was in, cf. Molin to the Doge and Signory, 5 February 1604 ut supra; Montecuccoli to the Grand Duke, 5 February 1604, printed by A. M. Crinò, op. cit., p. 103; Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 16 February 1604, N.S. (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88), and De Beaumont to Villeroy, 23 February 1604, (B.M., Royal Mss. 125, f. 27). Levinus Munck, however, was of opinion that the king after some time would pardon him. (Lotti to the Grand Duke, 24 March, 1604, ut supra).

^4. Montecuccoli to the Grand Duke, 5 February, ut supra.

^5. “They further say that when he was in Florence he was in closest relations with a secretary of Cardinal Aldobrandino and that he corresponded with the Jesuit, Fr. Robert Persons, in Rome, a man who is supposed to be ill-affected towards his Majesty.” (Molin to the Doge and Signory, 5 February 1604, ut supra).

^6. Montecuccoli to the Grand Duke, 11 February 1604, printed by Crind, A. M., op. cit., p. 101.Google Scholar Molin, who stated that his information was derived from a confidential servant of Sir Anthony, reported that Standen had pledged himself to secure the abrogation of the penal laws and to have undertaken to inform the Jesuits in Rome of all that took place. In return, the Pope had promised him the hat and large revenues: and he had already received a very considerable present. (Molin to the Doge and Signory, 5 February 1604, ut supra). In the instructions given to Standen however, there is no mention of reporting to the Jesuits but rather of establishing a correspondence between the Queen and the Pope. (Cf. Aldobrandino to Thornhill, 24 September 1603, printed in Recusant History, January 1962, p. 163-165). The lure of the hat was also mentioned by de Beaumont. “He (Standen) confesses that he had treated with Cardinals Aldobrandino, Marcello and Borghese, and had received letters from them by means of Vinta, who in good faith lent himself to this correspondence to maintain the Pope in his benevolent attitude towards the King. But more than this, it seems that with the hope of being raised to the cardinalatial dignity he was approached by the said cardinals to establish a correspondence with the Queen.” (de Beaumont to Villeroy, 3 February 1604, B. M., Royal Mss. 124 f. 398). He confirmed this report after having an audience with James, (de Beaumont to Villeroy, 11 February, ibid., f. 402v). The letter from an Englishman in London 20 February (ut supra) also stated that Standen had been promised the hat if he succeeded in his negotiations. Standen's plea that he dealt with the King of France only about the recall of the Jesuits to France would have done him no good, for the very idea of their recall was disliked by the English Government, and the first point of the instructions to Parry as Ambassador was to make known to Henry IV the King's displeasure at such a step. (Cf. “A Thread of Sir T. Parry's negotiations at the French court 1603-1605,” October 1605, P.R.O. French Correspondence).

^7. Standen to Vinta, Paris, 22 December 1603; to the Grand Duke, Paris, 27 December 1603, N.S., printed by Crind, A. M., op.cit., pp. 98, 99.Google Scholar

^8. The Grand Duke to Montecuccoli, 12 March 1604, and Lotti to the Grand Duke, 18 April 1604, N.S. (Ibid., pp. 103, 105).

^9. Standen to Aldobrandino, undated (S.P.D. Eliz. 235, n. 73).

^10. Standen to Persons, Paris, 27 December 1603. Cf. Recusant History, January 1962, pp. 176-179.

^11. Cecil to Parry, 24 January 1604, O.S. (P.R.O., S.P. 78/51, ff. 12-18) in the hand of Levinus Munck and endorsed by him: “Copy of my Lords Lre to Sir Thomas Parry, 24 January 1604.” I have modernised the spelling and punctuation. The letter must have been written very soon after Standen's arrest, for in it Cecil wrote that his Majesty had commanded him to use the more expedition in informing the English Ambassador, “lest an uncertain bruit might run before my letter.”

^12. Parry, too, commented on the “miraculous” interception of Standen's letter to Persons. “I received — your lordship's last letter,” he wrote, “with the copies of Sir A. Standen's late negotiations at Rome, his examinations and answers; for the which I most humbly thank you and cannot but wonder at the providence of God, to see how miraculously for preservation of good princes and their estate, he confoundeth the counsels of deceitful and wicked men: delivering up their own instruments to be discoverers of their secret practices, leaving them neither shadow to disguise nor face to deny, nor argument to excuse such foul action.” Parry to Cecil, 13 February 1604, O.S. (P.R.O., S.P. 78/51, f. 41).

^13. He is referring to the interception of Standen's letter to Persons of 27 December 1603, N.S.

^14. From this one gathers that the King did not see, or was not shown, the despatches of his own Ambassador; this indicates Cecil's strong position at this time.

^15. Was Cecil deliberately concealing from the King the theft of the letter from Dr. Davison's House ? The excuse that “such discoveries marred all future services” is far from convincing and hardly in accord with contemporary documents. Cecil certainly knew later how the letter was obtained, as appears from Colville's letter to him, 24 February 1604 (Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVI, p. 27) and in the previous October Parry had informed Cecil that he had found means to understand what passed by Dr. Davison's hands. (Parry to Cecil, 22 October 1603, P.R.O. French Correspondence. In fact just before the Standen affair, he had written to Cecil: “I send your lordship the copies of sundry letters that are come into my hands. The originals of all letters were communicated to me under the hands and seals of the writers by such means as I have heretofore certified.” (Parry to Cecil, Paris,, 5 January 1604, P.R.O., S.P. 78/51, f.3. Italics mine). The story put out to explain how the letter reached the Government, was that it was given to an Englishman who feigned to be going to Italy, but instead returned to England and handed over the letter. Cf. De Beaumont to Villeroy, 3 February 1604, N.S., (B.M. Royal Mss. 124, f. 398). Cf. also Molin to the Doge and Signory, London, 5 February 1604, (Venetian Cal, 1603-1607, p. 131).

^16. Italics mine. Cecil means that Standen's own autograph letter to Persons was there to convict him of lying.

^17. Cecil was in error here. The tokens or papal gifts were conveyed to Sir Anthony at Florence by Canon Thornhill, and not sent to the Nuncio in Paris. See the letters between Aldobrandino and Thornhill, Recusant History, January 1962, pp. 163-168. Nor is it true that Persons had anything to do with sending them. He only learned of it from the Pope himself at Frascati in October 1603. (Cf. Persons to Clement VIII, Rome, 11 May 1604, cited infra). Moreover, Aldobrandino explicitly stated that Persons was not involved in this matter of papal presents. “Nor was it by his [Persons'] means that he [Standen] treated with the Pope but by means of an English secular priest who lives continuously in Italy [Thornhill].” Aldobrandino to Bufalo, 23 March 1604, N.S., (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88).

^18. From what Cecil says later in this same letter it is evident he is referring to those instructions sent to Standen by Aldobrandino by means of Thornhill. (Aldobrandino to Thornhill, 24 September 1603, note 6 supra). Cf. infra note 24.

^19. James and his Government were afraid of scandal and sought means to avoid it. Cf. infra.

^20. There is no foundation in the documents for this surmise of Cecil.

^21. “For he acknowledges that while at Florence he treated with the Cardinals Aldobrandino, [San] Marcello and Borghese and received letters from them by means of Vinta.” De Beaumont to Villeroy, 3 February 1604, N.S. (B.M., Royal Mss. 124, f. 398).

^22. This was the report that lames deliberately spread abroad and emphasised. Cecil returned to the point further on in this letter, and Parry, according to his instructions, asked the Nuncio to make known to the Pope that the Queen was not a Catholic. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 23 February 1604, N.S., (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88). De Beaumont, after an audience with the King, reported James as saying: “Also he knew her innermost soul and that her beliefs were similar to his own.” De Beaumont adds: “To which I did not think it my duty to reply, though I knew very well the contrary.” De Beaumont to Henry IV, (10) February, 1604, N.S., (B.M., Royal Mss. 124, f. 410). That the Queen was a Catholic there is no doubt, and at this very time she acknowledged it to Montecuccoli. In his relation of what he had treated as regards religion, he wrote: “In the third audience I had with the Queen she told and confessed to me in the greatest confidence and under seal of secrecy that she was a Catholic and wished to live and die as such.” She further requested the Count to ask the Grand Duke to assure the Pope in her name “of the firm resolve she had to live and die in the Catholic religion and that never for any cause whatsoever would she change this resolve.” (Montecuccoli's Relation, printed by Crino, A. M., op.cit., p. 102)Google Scholar. The same can be gathered from the Scottish Catholic, George Conn, who went to England in April 1604 and wrote a report of his audience with the Queen. (Relatio Domini Coni, Scoti, enclosed in Bufalo's despatch to Aldobrandino, 31 May 1604, N.S., P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88). Cf. also Recusant History, April 1960, p. 184 and note 6. More than this, James himself knew she was a Catholic. In a letter on the subject, the Scottish lesuit who received her into the church, after relating her conversion in Scotland, continued: “As a consequence of the frequent use of the sacraments, her husband noticed a great improvement in her, and suspecting that it arose from the influence of some Popish priest—noticing also that she held her own minister in contempt—one night when they were in bed (she herself told me the story), he spoke to her in some such terms as these: ‘I cannot but see a great change in you; you are much more grave, collected and pious, I suspect, therefore, that you have some dealing with a Catholic priest.’ She admitted that it was so, and she named me an old cripple. His only answer was: ‘Well wife, if you cannot live without this sort of thing, do your best to keep things as quiet as possible; for if you don't our crown is in danger.’ After this conference between them, the King always behaved to me with greater gentleness and kindness.” This letter (Paris, Bibl. Nat, Fonds Lat, 6051 f. 49.) was translated by Stevenson, J. in The Month, February 1878, p. 289,Google Scholar note 9, and was printed in its original Italian in Bellesheim, History of the Catholic Church of Scotland (Tr. Hunter-Blair) III, pp. 451–454.Google Scholar In a word James was lying when he spread the above report.

^23. Cf. Aldobrandino to Thornhill, 24 September 1603, ut supra, note 6.

^24. From this last phrase it is clear that Cecil was referring to the instructions for Standen sent in the letter of Aldobrandino to Thornhill, 24 September 1603 (ut supra), a postcript to which mentions these tokens. The real rock of offence, however, was not so much these tokens, as the overtures made to the queen in the same letter. It was not, in fact, the first time the Queen had received devotional objects from the Pope. Refering to the Queen, the Archpriest Blackwell, reported in November 1603: “Recently she is said to have received with demonstrations of affection and gratitude some small devotional objects sent by his Holiness and this has greatly rejoiced the Catholics.” (Blackwell to the Cardinal Protector, Farnese, 14 November 1603, P.R.O., S.P. 31/9 bundle 112). Conn also reported: “The Queen has also received what were sent to her by means of Fr. Crichton; and the Datary himself must be informed that the venerable relics of the saints which were sent by him to Fr. Crichton to transmit safely to the Queen were happily so transmitted by the same Father.” (Conn's Relatio, ut supra, note 22).

^25. Care was evidently taken that Standen should not have audience with the King. This rendered nugatory his instructions of 12 September 1603. (Recusant History, January 1962, note 6) Cf. infra.

^26. On the question of avoiding scandal cf. infra.

^27. It was, however, the King who, against the wishes of his councillors, Cecil included, insisted on the papal gifts being sent back to the Nuncio. “Her Majesty added,” wrote Conn, “that the benevolent attitude of the King towards our Holy Father is most manifest by the fact that he desired against the wish of the whole Council that the sacred gifts be sent back, saying that if they had not yet been returned, a great wrong had been done to the King.” (Conn's Relatio, ut supra). At the time of Conn's audience with the Queen the gifts had not, in fact, been returned. Some delay was caused by the fact that one of the three ’ corone ’ was found to be missing. (Cecil to Sir George Harvey, Lieutenant of the Tower, 7 February 1604, Cat Salisbury Mss. XVI, p. 26). It was only in the middle of May that they were eventually returned. Parry acknowledged their arrival on May 15 and supposed that they would be handed over to the Nuncio the next evening. (Parry to Cecil, 15 May 1604, P.R.O., French Correspondence). The receipt for them is dated 26 May 1604. (Col Salisbury Mss. XVI. p. 100). This will be new style, as the receipt is also found in the documents about the Standen affair in the Vatican Library (Barberini Lat. 2190, ff. 7 ff.) under the same date and the Roman authorities used new style. The gifts appear to have been finally presented to the King and Queen of France. (Aldobrandino to Bufalo, 28 June 1604, N.S., P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88).

^28. In January, well before Standen's arrest, Bufalo reported that the English Ambassador had been informed from those parts that Standen, when at Florence, had negotiated by letter with his Holiness and had asked him for 30,000 scudi to give to some favourites of the King by whose means the abrogation of all the penal laws against Catholics would be obtained, and further that he was conveying in the name of the Pope a present to the Queen. The Ambassador had made a great stir about it. (Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Paris, 11 January 1604, P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88).

^29. He is referring to the friendly overtures begun by the Nuncio on behalf of the Pope. These can be followed in the despatches of the Nuncio (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundles 87 and 88) and in those of the Ambassador (ibid French Correspondence). The Nuncio had certainly gone out of his way to cultivate friendly relations with a view to reaching some accomodation between the Pope and the King. In one instance he certainly appears to have gone beyond his brief, for the clause in his letter to James, 29 September 1603 (Cal. Salisbury Mss., XV, p. 249) about calling out of England turbulent priests is hardly consistent with a note in the Pope's hand appended to the Nuncio's despatch, 14 December 1603, relating to the same subject, (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9 bundle 87) nor with Aldobrandino's letter to the Nuncio, 29 December 1603. (P.R.O., S.P. 85/3, f. 11).

^30. This, and not Standen's letter to Persons, was the real cause of offence to the King. Cf. infra. It must, however, be remembered that Standen had been instructed, on 12 September 1603, not to proceed in this negotiation without first finding out the King's wishes. Cf. Recusant History, January 1962, p. 181, note 6.

^31. Cf. supra note 22. His princely word, at least in this instance was of no value.

^32. James appears to have been deeply offended by this. Cf. infra.

^33. Compare Standen's statement that the King was a “stiff Protestant.” (Standen to Persons, Paris, 27 December 1603, Recusant History, January 1962, p. 178).

^34. On James's desire for a General Council, cf. James to Parry, (6 November 1603, Cal. Salisbury Mss., XV, p. 299). It is also mentioned in a report of a gentleman who arrived in Paris from England, 31 January 1604, N.S. (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88).

^35. The policy of James and Cecil was to exonerate the Pope and blame the Nuncio. Cf. infra.

^36. Cecil's suspicion is not warranted by Standen's letter to Persons, 27 December 1603. (Recusant History, January 1962, pp. 176-179). On Persons’ attitude, cf. ibid p. 192 note 64a.

^37. Statute 13 Eliz. c.3.

^38. Apart from Cecil's statement there appears no evidence in the extant documents of such an alarm; but the Puritans certainly were concerned about the Bishop of London allowing books of the Catholic Appellants to be printed in England.

^39. Referring to the negotiations between the Nuncio and the English Ambassador to establish friendly relations etc. Cf. supra note 29.

^40. Cf. supra note 35.

^41. The Government took a long time to find “the next convenient messenger,” for the gifts did not reach Parry till May 15. Cf. note 27 supra.

^42. On the question of the Pope sending someone to James, cf. Recusant History, April 1960, pp. 194-196.

^43. Referring to the Latin translation of the King's answer to the Nuncio's letter to James of 19 September 1603. The English Ambassador had reported: “At the second perusal of the copy he (the Nuncio) misliked the word ‘papistis’ and sent his man unto me to have it stricken out and ‘Catholicis Romanis’ inserted in the place which comparing the place with his Majesty's English letter, and perceiving it altered not his Highness's meaning, I yielded, to give him contentment.” Parry to Cecil, 5 January 1604 (P.R.O., S.P. 78/51, f. 3. Spelling modernised).

^44. Referring to his despatch to Villeroy, 3 February 1604, N.S., quoted infra, note 47.

^45. De Beaumont to Villeroy, 10 February 1604 N.S. (B.M., Royal Mss. 124, f. 402).

^46. De Beaumont to Henry IV, (10) February 1604, N.S. (Ibid. f. 410). “His Majesty cannot but think it preposterous for the Pope to serve himself by so improper a mean for his Majesty's conversion etc.” (Cecil to Parry, 24 January 1604, ut supra).

^47. “But neither the words of Standen's letter nor his designs, from what I gather, offends the King so much, as in appearance his communication with Persons, his enemy. Hence only for this cause has he been imprisoned; for one desires to conceal the rest, if possible, by reason of the public scandal, especially as regards the Queen, and so as not to exasperate the Pope.” Italics mine. De Beaumont to Villeroy, 3 February 1604, N.S. (B.M., Royal Mss. 124, f. 398). Cf. also De Beaumont to Henry IV, (10) February, ut supra, and the letter of Cecil to Parry, 24 January 1604, already quoted in the text. Standen himself later, when he came to Rome, did not mention the letter to Persons as the cause of his imprisonment. Cf. Augustino Nani to the Doge and Signory, Rome, 11 March 1606. (Venetian Cal. 1603-1607, p. 324).

^48. Cf. De Beaumont to Villeroy, 3 February, and to Henry IV, (10) February, ut supra.

^49. Conn reported that the Queen had informed him: “With regards to Catholics in England there is not one of them who is prudent and pious who has not or cannot have Catholic worship in his own home, so much so that both Protestants and Puritans murmur against the King, saying that since the death of Queen Mary Catholics in England have never dared to claim for themselves such liberty: and in this matter nothing is so much to be feared than that the King's connivance at this may place him in danger, or perhaps driven to it by the importunity of heretics he may allow more severe measures to be taken against Catholics than he would wish, could he but show forth with more security his natural clemency.” (Conn's Relatio, ut supra).

^50. “Nay, when in the following year, that is in 1604, in the month of January, the King himself as head of the church presided at that famous conference of three days between Puritans and Protestants, and would have put an end to all controversies, Reynolds, the leader of the Puritans, raised the matter and complaint against the Bishop of London that he had allowed so many books of the Catholic Appellants to be printed and openly offered for sale. A reply in his defence was made at length by Secretary Cecil, then by the Treasurer and finally by the King himself, that those books had been allowed for the benefit of the realm, as they fostered division among Papists and furthermore freed the realm from the accusation, which Papists were wont to make, that Catholics were put to death for conscience sake, whereas in those books the priests themselves assert that they were guilty of treason and were executed on that account.” (Informatio de duobus Presbyteris, etc. West. Arch VIII, n. 20, referring to the visit of John Cecil and Anthony Champney to Rome in 1606). On the Hampton Court Conference cf. Mark. Curtis, H., “Hampton Court Conference and its Aftermath,” History, February 1961, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

On 15 May following the conference, W. Jones, the printer, was examined about an act, presented to the Speaker of the House of Commons, for declaration of certain practices of the Bishop of London to be treason: the publishing of traitorous and Popish books. (Cal. Dom James I 1603 1610, p. 109, nn. 21-25). The Privy Council itself in 1602 had approved of Bancroft's proceeding in the matter. (The Privy Council to Bancroft, February 1602, Dom. Eliz. CCXXXIII, n. 40, quoted by Foley, Records. I P. 12).

The main purpose of Bancroft and the Government was to foster division among Catholics and so weaken their party. (Cf. The True Relation of her Majesty's proceedings with Recusants which made men dream of some toleration, West. Arch. VII, n. 87). When in 1603 the Nuncio in Paris made an attempt to heal the divisions, the English Ambassador objected on the ground that it would make the Catholic party stronger, and asked the Nuncio to relinquish the attempt, which he did. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 7 October 1603, Aldobrandino to Bufalo, 17 November N.S. (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 87, and Parry to Cecil, 5 January 1603, ibid S.P. 78/51, f. 3). Early in 1604 a gentleman, resident in the court, reported that Bancroft had been authorised, despite the laws, to employ any priest, whom he judged suitable, to renew the division so as to weaken the Catholics. (Cf. Cavata da lettere d'un gentilhuomo residente nella corte d'lnghilterra delli 22 et 29 di Gennaro 1604, Arch S. J. Rom, Anglia 31, 1, f. 258).

^51. Cf. Blount to Persons, 14 February and Rivers to Persons, 10 and 17 March and 28 April 1602, quoted by Foley, op. cit pp. 18, 22-23 and 30, and Basset (Blount) to Marco (Persons), 7 April 1602, West. Arch. VII, n. 36. The pamphlet appears to be Let Quilibet beware of Quodlibet. (STC. 20562).

^52. De Beaumont to Henry IV (10), February 1604, N.S. (B.M., Royal Mss. 124, f. 410). Cf. also De Beaumont to Villeroy, 10 February 1604, N.S. (Ibid. f. 402).

^53. As regards James’ fear of excommunication at this time, cf. Recusant History, April 1960, p. 207, note 16.

^54. He is referring to the negotiations between the Nuncio and the Ambassador in Paris. (Cf. supra, note 29). The insincerity of James and his Government in these negotiations is revealed in the documents. On Sir James Lindsay's return from Rome, Clement VIII sent by him a letter to James VI, as he then was, 9 August 1602. (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 86a). The King delayed to answer this. Instructions, indeed, were drawn up on 26 March 1603, for Lindsay's return to Rome with an answer, (Cal. Salisbury Mss., XV. p. 5), but he was not allowed to set out on his journey. Later, James instructed Parry to explain the delay and to answer the articles proposed by the Pope and the Nuncio. (James to Parry, (6 November) 1603, ibid. p. 299). At the same time Cecil wrote to Parry that the King proceeded covertly to delay Sir James Lindsay's enlargement ! (Cecil to Parry, 6 November 1603, P.R.O., French Correspondence). Lindsay, in fact, was not sent on his mission to Rome, which was clearly not to the liking of Cecil, until late in 1604. (Instructions to my trusty servant, Sir James Lindsay, for answer to the letter and commission by him from the Pope unto me. P.R.O., S.P. 85/3, f. 36). At the same time the new Nuncio in Paris, Barberini, reported that the English Ambassador had asked him to write to Aldobrandino not to give any credence—non presti credenza alcuna—to Lindsay who was coming to Italy. (Barberini to Aldobrandino, 23 January 1605, N.S., P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88). Cf. also Sir James Sempill to Sir James Lindsay, July 1605. (Cal. Dom. James I, 1603—1610, p. 230). There is a letter from the datary, Bernardinus Paulinus, to James I, 6 January 1606, saying that Lindsay had kept to his instructions. (P.R.O., S.P. 85 3, f. 11).

^55. De Beaumont to Villeroy, 3 February 1604, N.S. (B.M., Royal Mss. 124, f. 398).

^56. De Beaumont to Henry IV, (10) February and to Villeroy, 10 February, ut supra.

^57. Henry IV to de Beaumont, 6 March 1604, N.S. (B.M., Royal Mss. 125, f. 56).

^58. Parry to Cecil, 13 February 1604. (P.R.O., S.P. 78/51, f. 41).

^59. Aldobrandino expressed a similar view. Aldobrandino to Bufalo, 22 March 1604, N.S. (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88).

^60. The Pope may not have known of the law, but Standen did, and it is highly probable that the Nuncio was aware of it, seeing his negotiations with Standen about conveying the gifts and his attempt to dissuade him from taking them to England for fear that he might be discovered. (Cf. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 23 February 1604, N.S., ibid.)

^61. What letters he is referring to is not clear, but he certainly had seen the instructions for Standen when Standen was at Paris on his return from Rome, and had made a copy of them. (Cf. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 18 April 1604, N.S., ibid.)

^62. In Cecil's letter to Parry, 24 January 1604 (ut supra) there is no such demand. For the Nuncio's error as regards Persons, cf. note 2 supra. That Persons should be removed from Rome was the first of the articles proposed by Bagshaw for securing peace between the Appellants and the Archpriest and the Jesuits, 17 August 1603. (Arch. Eng. Coll. Valladolid, leg 5). The Appellants also had asked the Pope that all negotiations concerning English Catholics should be conducted through the Paris Nuncio. (Bluet and others to the Pope, 3 May 1603, Vat. Arch. Borghese II ab, f. 338. Of the thirty-three signatures to this document not all by any means are original).

^63. The above account is based on the report of Parry to Cecil, Paris, 13 February 1604, and the Nuncio's despatch, 23 February ut supra. For Henry IV's adverse opinion of the Standen incident, particularly as regards papal officials, cf. Henry IV to De Beaumont, 16 February 1604, N.S. (B.M., Royal Mss. 125, f. 2).

^64. Cf. Montecuccoli's Relation, printed by Crinò, A. M., op.cit p. 102 Google Scholar and Lotti to the Grand Duke, 21 March 1604, ibid.

^65. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 9 September 1604, N.S. (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 87). In a despatch of 4 July 1603, Degli Effetti refers to Cecil's hostility to the Queen and his attempt to prejudice James against her. (Vat. Arch., Nunz. di Francia 48, f. 74) De Beaumont, too, commenting on the enmity between the two, reported that Cecil, not having been able by fear and necessity to overcome her hostile attitude, despite the artifices he used to assure himself of her, determined by dissimulation to diminish her power with the King and to keep her from all knowledge and conduct of affairs, telling the Ambassador that never would she have part in them. De Beaumont thought that such enmity might be useful for the future. In his reply Henry IV encouraged him to cultivate it. De Beaumont to Henry IV, (10) February 1604, ut supra and Henry IV to De Beaumont, 6 March 1604, N.S. (B.M., Royal Mss. 125, f. 56).

^66. Cf. supra note 24. The Queen told Conn that it was not the actual sending of the gifts that offended the King but the manner of the sending. (Conn's Relatio, ut supra).

^67. The above account is based on Montecuccoli's Relation and De Beaumont's despatch of 10 February ut supra. De Beaumont's purpose was to turn James against the Spanish King and so prevent peace being made with Spain. There is no evidence to support his statement, nor did it succeed in its purpose, for peace was made with Spain in August 1604.

^68. Cf. Avisi D’Inghilterra, 20 February 1604 ut supra, and Gardiner, S. R., History of England (1883), I. pp. 142–143.Google Scholar

^69. P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88.

^70. Cf. Recusant History, January 1962, p. 181, note 6.

^71. Cf. supra note 25.

^72. “Tenor trium litterarum Patris Personii ad dictum Standenum scriptarum Anglica lingua mensibus 7 bris Octobris et 9bris.” (Bibl. Vat., Barberini Lat. 2190, f. 3).

^73. In a despatch of September 1603, speaking of Standen's conduct, Henry IV wrote: “But what I find still stranger is that he has said to several that the Marquis of Rosny had made every effort to induce James towage war against Spain, offering to supply him with six thousand foot and two thousand horse. This is a malicious indiscretion unworthy of a servant and minister of a Prince who makes such profession of friendship and good understanding with me as does the King of England.” He asked de Beaumont to make representations to James about it, as though it had been reported to the Ambassador from Italy. (Henry IV to De Beaumont, 28 September 1603, N.S., B.M., Royal Mss. 124, f. 114 v.). In his reply, de Beaumont reported he had so informed James, who hadshown great anger on account of it, promising to clear up the matter onStanden's return, which he would hasten, and repudiating his proceedingas contrary to his instructions and prejudicial to his (James's) reputation and the good estate of his affairs. (De Beaumont to Henry IV, 10 October 1603, ibid. f. 125). In December 1603, Bufalo, referring to a recent audience he had had with the King, reported Henry IV's outburst against the English Ambassador for his dealing with and abetting the Huguenots. (Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Paris, 13 December 1603, P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 87). For the Huguenot Marquis de Rosny's negotiations when Ambassador Extraordinary in England in June 1603, cf. S. R. Gardiner, op. cit. I, pp. 106-107.

^74. Cf. supra, note 28.

^75. Cf. Recusant History, January 1962, pp. 179-180.

^76. The Queen, referring to Standen, commissioned Montecuccoli to advise the Pope not to depend on such sort of men. (Montecuccoli's Relation, ut supra). Persons, however, seems to be referring to Thornhill and possibly to Nicholas Fitzherbert.

^77. Standen was not, in fact, in Paris when Persons wrote to him from Frascati on 6 October. He had, however, written to Persons that he was leaving Florence on 29 September, but he delayed his departure until 7 October. Cf. Persons to Aldobrandino, Rome, 28 September 1603 N.S. (Vat. Arch., Borghese III, 124 g², f. 35, and Recusant History, January 1962, p. 189, note 50).

^78. Cf. supra note 2.

^79. Cf. Recusant History, January 1962, p. 187, note 46.

^80. Cf. ibid. and p. 193, note 72.

^81. John Colville. (Cf. ibid. p. 180).

^82. Referring to the intercepted letter from Standen to Persons, 27 December 1603, quoted in full, ibid. pp. 178-179.

^83. Standen to Persons, 27 December 1603.

^84. The dedicatory epistle of this work is dated 1 March and the year printed on Vol. I is 1603. After the dedicatory epistle to English Catholics comes an “Addition of the Author to the aforesaid Catholics upon the newes of the Queen's death and the succession of the King of Scotland to the crown of England,” in which he expresses the hope of James’ conversion and exhorts his co-religionists in England “with patience, humility, longanimity and obedience to seek by continual prayer to hasten that time of our full joy by his Majesty's conversion.”

^85. Persons to Clement VIII, 11 May 1604 N.S., (Vat. Arch., Borghese III, 124 g², f. 45).

^86. De Bethune to Villeroy, 22 March 1604 N.S. (Paris, Bibl. Nat., fonds français, nouvelles acquisitions 24162, f. 39).

^87. Bufalo in February 1604, reported Parry's statement of the King's wish for Persons’ removal. (Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 28 February 1604 (N.S.) P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88). Parry at the end of his despatch of 13 February wrote: “At the finishing of this letter the Nuncio sent me word that he had despatched a messenger to his master to certify Persons’ lewd practices and to remove him quite from thence and inhibit all negotiations in the King his Majesty's dominions. And to give his Majesty contentment and assurance, his pleasure known, he would therein do further what his Majesty should think convenient. Now what use can be made of this new charm I cannot conjecture on a sudden and therefore refer to your consideration. Well, it appears that the Nuncio is much troubled with the late message (i.e. about the Standen affair and the blame for it being placed on him) and would fain salve all to retain his credit.” (Parry to Cecil, 13 February 1604, P.R.O., S.P. 78/51, f. 41). No wonder that, after all these efforts to keep on friendly terms, the Nuncio was simply taken aback by the Proclamation a few days later, 22 February 1604, banishing all Jesuits and seminary priests from England, and that he protested strongly against it. (Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 22 March 1604 (N.S.) P.R.O., S.P. 31 9 bundle 88). The Nuncio, however, had his consolation, for he was made a cardinal (by Clement VIII) a few months later. Parry, on hearing of it, sent a messenger to congratulate him, and received in return a letter from Bufalo to the King, reporting his elevation. (Cf. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 29 June 1604, ibid. and Parry to Cecil, 18 June 1604, P.R.O., French Correspondence). Parry adds: “This, I hope, isan end of my dealing with this Renard except his Majesty think there may be any further use of his kind offers,” referring possibly to the Nuncio's remark that when in Rome he would be able to work for a General Council which the King desired.

^88. Soon after writing the letter above quoted, Persons had a serious illness. In July he excused himself from not having paid his respects to Cardinal Aldobrandino, as he had been ill in bed for over two months. (Persons to Aldobrandino, 17 July 1604, N.S., Vat. Arch. Borghese III, 124 g², f. 51). Late in September he went to Tivoli to recuperate. (Persons to William Warford S.J., Tivoli, 15 October 1604, N.S., Stonyhurst, Coll. P. 421). Then, about the middle of November, after returning to Rome, he went to Naples to try the effects of the baths there. It was then that he was exiled, though the evidence of C. Grene, S.J., the seventeenth-century copyist, is somewhat conflicting. In one place, referring to the visit to Naples, Grene denies that Persons was “commanded to depart from Rome” and states that many Englishmen in Rome wrote to England, on 26 February 1605, denying the report of Persons's exile (Ibid.) But this can hardly weigh against what Grene states later, viz. that Persons wrote to the General on 15 April 1605, (Clement VIII had died on 5 March), complaining of the injury done to him by the late Pope, and referring to “esilio senza esaminar la causa,” that he understood the order of the Pope by a letter of the General of 9 April, but that the order had been given long before, though not communicated to Persons. (Ibid. 494). Unfortunately, the letters mentioned by Grene are no longer extant. His latter statement, however, fits in with other evidence. Late in April Persons wrote to Thomas Owen S.J., who was deputising for him at the English College: “Two points only do I stand upon—The first that I may have licence to return presently if I was worse, but if I grew better and F^r General will have me stay abroad that you may get out of him upon what ground, that is, who are the causes, to wit, Spain, France the Pope etc., how long it is meant, what I may answer to them that do urge me in that point, whether he will be content that I use some diligence to remove these obstacles and the like; for you may assure him that I will concur with him in what he thinketh best.” Later he adds: “Even now is arrived the young man with the letter and we shall talk of our journey as soon as may be.” (Persons to T. Owen, late April 1605, Stony-hurst, Anglia III, n. 54). In a letter to J. Creswell, S.J. 23 April 1605, he informed him: “I am presently within a day or two to put myself in voyage towards Rome, being called thither by an express messenger from F. General to assist him in negotiation (as I guess) for our seminaries in this new beginning of his Holiness.” (Leo XI, elected 1 April, died 27 April 1605). He adds that the doctors thought it necessary for him to stay two months longer to take the remedies of the place, the sudaries and baths, and judged it dangerous for him to return to Rome, considering his weakness, but seeing the desire of friends in Rome for his return, he could not refuse to go there. (Persons to Creswell, Naples, 23 April 1605, ibid. Coll. P. 489).

From the date of the letter, the French Ambassador's statement to Salisbury that Persons was disgraced and displaced from his government, (Salisbury to Parry, 20 October 1605, P.R.O. French Correspondence) can only refer to Persons’ departure for Tivoli and is incorrect; for Persons, as shown above, returned to Rome after his stay at Tivoli, nor was he ever removed from his post as Rector of the English College. During his absence, it is true, Thomas Owen took charge, but he only acted as Vice-Rector, as is shown by Owen's testimonial letter for Anthony Copley, 17 January 1605, which begins: “Thomas Owen of the Society of Jesus, Vice-Rector of the English College, Rome, to all who shall see this present etc.” (Arch. S. J. Rom. Anglia 31, II, f. 285). Parry in June reported to Salisbury: “Persons the Jesuit is returned to Rome and restored to grace.” (Parry to Salisbury, 10 June 1604, P.R.O. French Correspondence).

^89. Cf. supra, note 17.

^90. Report from England, 23 February 1604, Arch. S.J. Rom. Anglia, 31, I, f. 256.

^91. Lotti to the Grand Duke, 15 March 1604, N.S., printed by A. M. Crinò, op. cit. p. 104.

^92. Report of February sent to Bufalo. (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88). On the mission of Baron de Burley, cf. De Beaumont to Villeroy, 23 and 29 February; and Henry IV to de Beaumont, 6 March 1604, N.S. (B.M. Royal Mss., 125 ff. 27, 40, 56). Cf. also Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 8 March 1604, N.S. (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, Bundle 88).

^93. Cf. Persons to Clement VIII, 11 May 1604, ut supra, and “Warrant to pay Knight Marshall for the diet of Sir Anthony etc., 24 May 1604.” Cal. Dom. James I, 1603-1610, p. 113, and ibid p. 184, n. 32). He was still in the Marshalsea in August. (Standen to Salisbury, The Marshalsea, 5 August 1604, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVI, p. 200).

^94. Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 12 June 1604, N.S. (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88).

^95. Molin to the Doge and Signory, London, 18 August 1604. (Venetian Cal. 1603-1607, p. 259).

^96. Nani to the Doge and Signory, 11 March 1604, reporting his conversation with Standen in Rome. (Ibid. p. 324). The leave to travel abroad was given in July 1604. (Sir Thomas Lake to Salisbury, 3 July 1605, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVII, p. 300). The Queen herself recommended him to the Duchess of Tuscany, “as he was travelling in Italy to quiet his conscience and to exercise his religion.” (The Queen to the Grand Duchess, 15 August 1606 (sic.) Hist. Mss. Comm. Appendix to the Third Report, 1872, p. 264). The year of the letter should probably be 1605, as this agrees with the date when Standen obtained his licence to travel. He was, moreover, already in Rome by March 1606.

^97. Standen to Viscount Cranbourne, undated. (Cal. Salisbury Mss., XVI, p. 460). The letter is endorsed ‘1604’ but as Standen obtained leave to travel only in July 1605, it belongs rather to that year.

^98. Standen to Vinta, 9 March 1609, N.S., printed by A. M. Crinò, p. 110.

^99. Ibid. Cf. also Standen to the Grand Duke, Rome, 22 April 1611. (Ibid. p. 112). Cosimo, aged nineteen, suceeded his father, Ferdinand I, in 1609.

^100. Standen to Cosimo II, Rome, 24 October 1614. (Ibid. p. 113).

^101. Ct. Recusant History, April 1960, pp. 186-187.

^102. Ibid. p. 188-189.

^103. “Antonio Standen—ha scritto a questo Ambasciatore Inglese che gli veniva fatta gran’ istanza a nome del Papa, accio procurasse appresso quel Re, che si contentasse di ricevere un Ambasciatore seculare, che sua Santita desiderava mandargli.” Bufalo to Aldobrandino, 16 November 1603, N.S. (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 87). The Pope wrote on this despatch in his own hand: “non gli habbia fatta quest’ istanza.” Cf. also Aldobrandino to Bufalo, 15 December 1603. (Ibid.)

^104. Cf. Recusant History, April 1960, p. 197 and notes 71-75.

^105. Cf. Recusant History, January 1962, p. 180 and note 75.

^106. Cf. The Grand Duke to Montecuccoli, 12 March 1604, N.S. printed by Crinò, A. M., op. cit. p. 103.Google Scholar

^107. Agostino Gioioso, Secretary of the Nuncio, to Aldobrandino, Paris, 29 November 1604, N.S. (Vat. Arch Borghese II, 4, f. 439). The Secretary had been left in charge of the nunciature by Bufalo until the new Nuncio arrived.

^108. Thornhill to Aldobrandino, 22 December 1605. (Vat. Arch. Borghese III 124 g¹ f. 21). I am indebted to Dr. J. A. Bossy for extracts from these last two letters.

^109. Molin to the Doge and Signory (undated, 1605). Venetian Cal. 1603-1607, p. 227. The calendarist notes that the date is illegible but that on the docquet is ‘17 March.’ It clearly belongs to 1605 at the time of Thornhill's visit to England and return to France.

^110. Barberini to Aldobrandino, Paris, 9 March 1605, N.S. (P.R.O., S.P. 31/9, bundle 88).

^111. Nani to the Doge and Signory, 24 December 1605. (Venetian Cal. 1603-1607, p. 306).

^112. Nani to the Doge and Signory, 11 March 1606 (ibid. p. 324), relating what Standen had told him. A. Possevin, S.J., who was at that time at Venice, suggested that the Canon might be induced to make the Spiritual Exercises. Persons replied that there would be no harm in trying, and would to God he would do so, but the evil was deep-rooted. It had been reported from England that the Canon had behaved in a very ill manner in England and worse still in France. (Persons to Possevin, 17 December 1605, N.S., Arch. S.J. Rom. Opp. NN. 332, f. 282). Whether he did make the exercises does not transpire. He joined the Oratorians in Rome in 1607 and died there in 1617. (Stonyhurst, Coll N, III, p. 99).

^113. Molin to the Doge and Signory, (17 March) 1605 ut supra.

^114. Cf. The Letters of Thomas Fitzherbert, C.R.S. xli, 121, note 24; and Persons to Possevin, 17 December 1605 ut supra.