^{4 note a} At p. 46 hereafter will be found a list of Jesuits found by Mr. Justice Long in the House at Olerkenwell: and in pp. 44, 45, a few biographical notes from Gee's book. But for accurate information reference should be made to “Collections towards illustrating the Biography of the Scotch, English, and Irish members of the Society of Jesus. By the Rev. Dr. Oliver, of St. Nicholas′ Priory, Exeter, 1838.” Second edit. 1845. From this source some historical and biographical data are added in p. 47.

^{4 note b} It was the negociation of the intended match with the Spanish Infanta which, as Dodd the Roman Catholic historian admits (Church History of England, fol. 1739, ii. 362), “was esteemed a proper juncture” for the mission of a Bishop from Rome to England. Accordingly doctor William Bishop, an aged priest, then upwards of seventy (a native of Brayles in Warwickshire), was consecrated at Paris on the 4th of June, 1623, with the title of Episeopus Chalcedonensis; but he died in less than a year, on the 16th of April, 1624, when Richard Smith was consecrated his successor by the same title. Several papers relative to the latter will be noticed in the sequel.

^{4 note c} “The Catholicks are the least in number, yet make up a partie in that state (England) sufficiently considerable, because the body of them is composed of such of the nobility as are most rich, powerfull, and strong in alliance, and of no small number amongst the inferior sort. Now these three factions in religion (the Catholicks, the Protestants, and the Puritans,) though they all oppose one another, yet the hatred of Protestants against Puritans is greater than against Catholicks, and that of Puritans is greater against Catholicks than Protestants.” Such is the picture drawn by the author of “The Popes Nuntioes,” a pamphlet written on occasion of the mission to England of Gregory Panzani (then nominated Bishop of Chalcedon,) and Seignior Con, in the year 1643.

^{5 note a} Rushworth, i. 505.

^{6 note a} ” In Clerkenwell.”

^{6 note b} We may here append the current account of the discovery which was sent to Mr. Mead at Cambridge by his London correspondent, in a letter dated the 21st of March. All the statements it contains cannot be relied upon ; they would be the flying reports of the town : but what Mr. Mead relates of Sir Dudley Digges's reply to Secretary Cooke is remarkable, and does not occur elsewhere :—“This day sennight at Clerkenwell were nine gallants taken in a fair-hanged vault with their trinkets (for seven of them are found to be Jesuits or priests), together with their library of books, valued at 400l. which moves men to think it was one of the Jesuits′ colleges. The suspicion of them grew by the abundance of meat the poor women that dwelt thereabouts bought and provided ; which occasioned the search. At first they resisted with store of arms and weapons; but the sheriffs being sent for, those aforesaid were taken, though some are said to have escaped.” Mr. Mead added this note to the letter of his correspondent: “Sir John Coke declared unto the House of Commons on Monday, that it was discovered by intercepted letters to be an Anti-Parliament appointed to begin by commission from Rome upon St. Joseph's day. But Sir Dudley Digges answered he could not believe it, and that it was not the Jesuits, but some malevolent persons about the court, who wished ill to the Commons, that disturbed our Parliaments, &c.” It will be observed (in p. 8) that, in his conference with the Lords, the Secretary no longer talked of a parliament of Jesuits, hut only of “a concurrent assembly.”

^{8 note a} They are described either by the writer of the Discovery (see pp. 23–30), or in the list appended at the close of these papers.

^{9 note b} See this letter printed hereafter, p. 49,

^{11 note a} See p. 36, and the further remark in the note on the word reluctation.

^{11 note b} Carte, History of England, vol. iv. pp. 180–182, has given “some account and defence of loans,” suggested by this occasion.

^{12 note a} This was at the period when the Protestants received an additional alarm from the mission of Panzani, already mentioned in the note at p. 4.

^{15 note a} Really 160l.: see hereafter, p. 25. What evidence there was of the Jesuits having purchased lands is not apparent.

^{15 note b} Sir Heneage Finch, who had been Speaker of the preceding Parliament of 1626.

^{17 note a} Sir Robert Heath's answer is printed at length in Rushworth's Historical Collections, fol. 1682, p. 657.

^{19 note a} The proceedings of which the foregoing is an abstract will be found at length in Hansard's Parliamentary History, 1807, vol. ii. cols. 467–477.

^{20 note a} ” Secretary Cooke was by no means averse to frighten them into supplies. In the last Parliament he had discovered ‘a whole parliament of Jesuits sitting in a fair-hanged vault in Clerkenwell.’” (Vol. ii. p. 90.) Cooke made no such statement in reference “to the last parliament,” and nothing about “a fair-hanged vault.” This phrase Mr. D'Israeli borrowed from the letter addressed to Mr. Mead (see p. 6).

^{20 note b} At the last moment I have found it noticed in More's History of the English Mission, in a passage which is appended at the close of these pages.

^{20 note c} See the extracts given hereafter from the Register of the Privy Council : a national record whose important contents have recently been made more available by the excellent indexes constructed under the superintendence of C. C. Greville, Esq. Clerk of the Council.

^{21 note a} At this place the original draft contains the following passage, erased by the pen:— “Soone after the Erie of Malborough, who formerly lived in that howse, had a like advertisement by Mrs. Gawdy : and so had the now Bishop of London by other meanes.”

^{23 note a} Most of the documents referred to by the capital letters are still attached to the original draft of The Discovery in her Majesty's State Paper Office. See a further description of them at the close of these papers.

^{23 note b} The title of the book—Summa expensarum mense Januarii 1624 Edmuntonij ex tempore quo facta est visitatio.

^{27 note a} The Latin titles of these papers are given in the margin as follow:—

1. 1.

   1. Memoriale ad omnes Superiores 1625. And under: Ex mandate R. P. Provineialis.

2. 2.

   2. Memoriale relictum P. Reotori S^tl Ignatii per congregationem Provinoialem 1625,

3. 3.

   3. Observanda a M^re Novitiorum.

4. 4.

   4. Observanda a Ministro S^tl Ignatii.

5. 5.

   5. Observanda ab omnibus S^tl Ignatii.

6. 6.

   6. Memoriale traditum reetoribus a Congreg. Provinciali 1625.

All subscribed R. Blunt, Superioribus omnibus.

^{29 note a} The two papers signed by Wingfield, referred to by the letter Y, are as follow:—

Most deare S^r. These are only to advertise you that my M^r desyreth youre presence here in towne about the 10^th or the eleventh of March next ensueinge w^thout faile, that so preparinge your selfe you may togeather w^th some others be promoted upon St. Joseph's; day. Faile not to come; and lett me have a part in your best remembrances. I am,

13^th of Feb. 1628.

Yours ever and all,

To his very lovinge friende,

Edw. Wingf^D.

M^r Edward Parr, give these.

^{30 note a} (On another slip of paper.) Singuli dioant unum sae. et in reliquis orationibus oomēndabunt dnō Deo negotium quoddam magni momenti. Man^to. R. P. Pro^lis.

Edw. Wingf^D

^{30 note b} The paper marked Z is printed hereafter in p. 46. It is evidently an authentic list of the members of the Society of Jesus, found among their own papers. It has no title, but I believe the indorsement is theirs, the words “found in Clerkenwel, 15 March, 1627, per Long,” having been added in a different ink. It does not therefore answer to Sir Robert Heath's description in the text, which seems to imply a register kept by Mr. Long of all the Recusants living in Clerkenwell. Either the Attorney-General misapprehended the meaning of the word “found “as applicable to the persons named instead of the paper itself; or possibly this is one of the documents which ought to have been indorsed with the letter P (see p. 28), and which I have not otherwise seen.

^{32 note a} The same term which was used by Secretary Cooke in his speech at the conference with the Lords : see before, p. 8.

^{32 note b} The signatures Morton and Durham are not what might be expected in a genuine document of this nature. The latter, if meant for the Bishop of Durham, would scarcely have come last. Morton is a name not familiar to the history of the period. On the date some remarks have been already made in p. 12.

^{33 note a} ” The Copy of a Letter addressed to the Father Rector at Brussels found among some Iesuites taken at London about the third yeere of His Majesties Raigne. Wherein is manifested, that the Iesuites from time to time have been the only Incendiaries and contrivers of the miseries and distractions of this Kingdome. And how their designes are, by a perpetuall motion, carried on by the same Counsels at this time as formerly they have been. London, Printed for Ralph Rounthwait, 1643.” 4to. pp. 8. And on the second title, the same more briefly with this addition: “Shewing there is a perpetuall mischievous motion of the Jesuits for England's mine.”

^{33 note b} dump in edit. 1643.

^{33 note c} ardent and zealous, edit. 1643, and other copies,

^{34 note a} statesman in MS. Harl. 1323.

^{34 note b} to gyve, MS. Harl. 1323; to regayne, edit. 1643.

^{34 note c} adjureinge in MS. Harl. 1323; admiring in edit. 1643.

^{34 note d} integritie in S. P. Office copy; honour in edit. 1643.

^{34 note e} Copy in State Paper Off.

^{34 note f} In the S. P. O. copy is a marginal memorandum to this paragraph: “Leave out this wher the lines are drawn.” It is accordingly so omitted by Prynne and Rushworth.

^{34 note g} a principall end, MS. Harl. 1323.

^{34 note h} set tin P. & R.% seize on, edit. 1643.

^{34 note i} oligarchic in MS. Harl. 1323.

^{34 note k} the averticall, MS. Harl. 1323.

^{35 note a} prejudicated, P. & R. and edit. 1643.

^{35 note b} The Duke of Buckingham.

^{35 note c} From this passage to the passage ending with “destruction,” in p. 36, was not printed by Prynne: this corresponds with a marginal mark in the S. P. Off. copy.

^{35 note d} his owne, MS. Harl. 1323.

^{35 note e} fome out, edit. 1643.

^{35 note f} perewading, S. P. Off.

^{35 note g} martyrs, S. P. Off.

^{35 note h} distressed, MS. Harl. 1323.

^{35 note i} old, S. P. Off.

^{35 note k} This passage occurs only in the State Paper Office copy.

^{35 note l} that, MS. Harl. 1323.

^{35 note m} complaynts, MS. Harl. 1323.

^{36 note a} i. e. precedents.

^{36 note b} that were, MS. Harl. 1323.

^{36 note c} split and wraoke, edit. 1643.

^{36 note d} sea, S. P. Off.

^{36 note e} promoters, MS. Harl. 3786.

^{36 note f} elegant, edit. 1643 : in which this paragraph is altogether nonsense.

^{36 note g} Omitted in MS. Harl., in Prynne, and edit. 1643.

^{36 note h} This word, which occurs in all the copies, is evidently a mistranslation of the Latin ord mutuatio, and implies the raising of money by way of Loan. The next word, reluctation, is also evidently untranslated Latin : it occurs only in MS. Harl. 1323, being altered o relactation in MS. Harl. 3786, and to relaxation in the other copies.

^{37 note a} This passage, the original construction of which I have endeavoured to restore as above, is obscure in all the copies. In Prynne and Rush worth it reads thus: “mutation will cause a relaxation, which will serve as so many violent diseases, as the stone, gout, &c. to the speedy distraction of our perpetual and insufferable anguish of body, which is worse than death itself.”—following the State Paper Office copy. In the edition of 1643 it is nearly the same, except in the words, “and many violent diseases in the body, as the stone, gout, &c. And to the distraction or perpetuall,” &c.

^{37 note b} stave off, P. & R.; in, edit. 1643 both terms are omitted.

^{37 note c} Omitted in P. and R.

^{37 note d} locked, P. & R.

^{37 note e} accoutred, P. & R. and edit. 1643.

^{38 note a} An allusion to the play of Loiala, written by John Hacket, D.D. (afterwards Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry), and performed before King James at Cambridge on the 19th of March, 1622–3. (See Nichols's Progresses, &c. of King James I. vol. iii. p. 836.) It was not printed until the year 1648.

^{38 note b} i.e. a Loan, as before.

^{38 note c} Third in MS. Harl. 1323.

^{38 note d} splendor in edit. 1643. In MS. Marl, the words and lustre are converted into And lastlye, beginning a new sentence.

^{38 note e} imposition of excise, P. & R.

^{38 note f} This portion of “the Jesuit's Letter” might be supposed to have been founded upon what passed in debate in the House of Commons on the 7th of June, 1628 ; when Mr. Coriton declared tha the had learned that there was a commission in the Crown Office “for enjoining of Excises upon this kingdom,” and that Burlemachi had a warrant of privy-seal to disburse 30,000l. for buying of German horse. See the indignant debate which ensued, iu Hansard's Parliamentary History, 1807, vol. ii. p. 407.

^{39 note a} in MS. Hari. 1323.

^{39 note b} Instead of Catholicque, in P. & R. we hope, evidently corruptly. In edit. 1643, then we of the Catholike armie.

^{39 note c} in forming, P. & R.

^{39 note d} conffidentlye, in MS. Harl. 1323.

^{39 note e} disadvantages, MS. Harl. 1323.

^{39 note f} propounding, edit. 1643.

^{39 note g} The Earl of Essex's expedition in 1596. “as that of Coals,” in edit. 1643.

^{39 note h} This it altered by Prynne into, “ so that they may not easily catch and light upon the West India fleet, &c.” an evident perversion of the original. The whole remainder is omitted by Prynne.

^{39 note i} he hath piscatois, MS. Harl. 3786. he hath pistacheos and caravils, edit. 1643.

^{40 note a} frozen, MS. Harl. 3786.

^{40 note b} linger, MS. Harl. 1323.

^{40 note c} conquest, edit. 1643.

^{42 note a} The Inventory made in pursuance to this order is preserved in the State Paper Office, and will be further noticed in a subsequent page.

^{42 note b} On the 28th Sept. preceding, the Council had addressed a letter to the Bishop of Ely, “desiring Wisbech castle to be made ready to receive and lodge all such Priests, Jesuits, Seminaries, and other prisoners as shall be hereafter sent thither.” One Southworth, a recusant priest, prisoner in the gaol of Lancaster, was thereupon sent to Wisbech. This was not, however, the first occasion of Wisbeeh castle being used as a public prison for religious offenders. It had been occupied by Seminary Priests and Recusants in the reign of Elizabeth, certainly as early as 1587, and probably before. In the King's answer to the Petition of both Houses of Parliament against Recusants, given in the first week of April, 1628, he had declared “That he will, according to your desire, give both life and motion to the laws that stand in force against Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and all that have taken orders by authority of the see of Rome; and, to that end, his Majesty will give order to all his ministers for the discovering and apprehending of them, and so leave them, being apprehended, to the trial of the law. And in case, after trial, there shall be cause to respite execution of any of them, yet they shall be committed (according to the example of the belt times) to the castle of Wisbitch, and there be safely kept from exercising their functions, or spreading their superstitious and dangerous doctrines, and the receivers and abettors, they shall be left to the law.” (Journals of the House of Lords, vol. iii. p. 713, and Hansard's Parliamentary History, vol. ii. col. 249.) Other instances of the use of Wisbech castle as a prison for religious delinquents will be found in Strype's Annals, vol. iv.Nos. cxxix. cxx. ccxxxvi. ccxxxvii.; Fuller's Church History, ed. 1837, vol. iii. pp. 24, 80, 140, 141; Devon's Exchequer′ Issues of James the First, p. 74; Lysons's Cambridgeshire, p. 290; and Cooper's Annals of Cambridge, vol. iii, p. 84.

^{43 note a} There were, it appears, three brothers of this name goldsmiths, and a fourth a priest: see p. 45.

^{44 note a} In his list of Roman Priests and Jesuits resident in London (dated March 26, 1624), Gee enumerates two Jesuits named Palmer, “lodging about Fleet-street, very rich in apparel; the one, a flaunting fellow, useth to wear a scarlet cloak over a crimson sattin suit.” In another place Gee says, “If about Bloomesbury or Holborne thou meet a good smug fellow in a gold-laced suit, a cloak lined thorow with velvet, one that hath good store of coin in his purse, rings on his fingers, a watch in his pocket, which he will valew at above twenty pounds, a very broad-laced band, a stiletto by his side, a man at his heels, willing (upon small acquaintance) to intrude himself into thy company, and still desiring further to insinuate with thee; then take heed of a Jesuite of the prouder sort of priests. This man hath vowed poverty. Feare not to trust him with thy wife: hee hath vowed also chastity. Many of the secular Priests and Friars go as gallant as these, but the Jesuite hath the superlative cognisance whereby they know one another, and that is, as I observed from this time, a gold hatband studded with letters or characters. Perhaps at another time they have another mark, according to their watch-word given among them.” Gee's Foot out of the Snare, p. 50.

^{44 note b} Gee mentions two persons of this name: “D. Wright, a grave ancient man; he lodgeth in the White friers.” “Master William Wright, Jesuite, some time prisoner in the Tower, Treasurer for the Jesuites.” Gee's fourth edition. In an earlier edition, judging by the copy of the list in Morgan's Phœnix Britannicus, 1732, 4to. p. 435, these two Wrights are described as one person. Of the second a memoir will be found in Dodd's Church History, 1742, iii. 114.

^{44 note c} ” D. Bristow, sometimes of the College of Douay.” Gee.

^{45 note a} “F. Barlow, a Jesuite, lodging about the Custome House.” Gee.

^{45 note b} “F. Fisher, a notorious Jesuite, lodging neere the Savoy.” Ibid,

^{45 note c} “Old Father Bishop, the nominal Bishop of Chalcedon.” Ibid. See before, p. 4.

^{45 note d} “F. Pateson, a Jesuite, lodging in Fetter-lane.” Ibid.

^{45 note e} “F. Porter, a Jesuite, lately come out of Lancashire.” Ibid.

^{45 note f} “F . Worthington, a Jesuite, nephew to Doctor Worthington.” Doctor Thomas Worthington was one of the translators of the Douay Bible, and author of The Anchor of Christian Doctrine, the three last parts of which, Gee tells us, had been printed in London, and were sold at his lodging in Turnbull-street, for fourteen shillings. He had two nephews, both Jesuits, John and Lawrence, of whom memoirs are given by Dodd, iii. 109, 110, and by Dr. Oliver, Biography of the Jesuits, 1845, p. 227.

^{45 note g} “F . Annieur, a Frenchman, but one that hath long lived in England, and insinuateth with some of our nation very dangerously.” Gee.

^{45 note h} “F. Lovet, brother to the three Popish goldsmiths of that name.” Ibid.

^{45 note i} Gee enumerates of this name—

” D. Smith, senior, sometimes of the Colledge of Rome, and author of divers pestilent bookes.

” D. Smith, junior, author of divers other bookes no lesae dangerous.

” Richard Smith, Vicar-Generall of the South-parts of England.”

This last succeeded Dr. Bishop as Bishop of Chalcedon. The two former were Jesuits; besides whom there were also two secular priests of the same name resident in London.

^{45 note k} “F. Ploydon, a Jesuite.” Ibid. Edmond Weedon, arrested at Clerkenwell, was supposed to be the same person (see p. 22).

^{45 note l} “F. Sweete, a Jesuite well-known, lodging at the upper end of Holborn.” Ibid.

^{45 note m} “F. Heigham, author of many loud-lying pamphlets.” Ibid.

^{45 note n} “F. Maxfield, a secular Priest, lodging in Holborne.” There was also “Simon Maxfield, a Deacon, lodging in Fleet-street.”

^{45 note o} This name should be Curtice. There were two: “F. Curtice, a Jesuite; his brother a pewterer, a Papist in London, dwelling in Towre-street. F. Curtice, another of that name, a Jesuite, brother to the former.”

^{45 note p} “F. Wood, a very dangerous fellow.”

Note, Gee's “Foot out of the Snare,” is reprinted in Sir Walter Scott's edition of the Somers Collection of Tracts (1810) vol. iii. p. 49.

^{47 note a} He filled the office from the 15th November, 1615, until his death on the 9th February, 1645, aged 62. He had previously been Rector of the English College of Jesuits at Rome, from April 1592 to May 1594.

^{48 note a} There was, however, a long period, generally eighteen years, intervening between the entrance into the Novitiate of the Jesuits and the Profession of the four vows. The member, at the end of two years′ novieeship, by taking the three simple vows, became bound to the Society; but the Society was not bound to him until the solemn Profession. Perhaps not one in five attained to this grade, and generally such professed Fathers were distinguished for high scholarship and merits. The other priests were termed Spiritual Coadjutors; and the rest of the members pursuing their studies of philosophy and theology were Scholastics. Others engaged in menial offices were called Temporal Coadjutors.

^{49 note a} This refers to the Latin directions transcribed at the end of the letter.

^{49 note b} Underscored, as noticed in the Introduction.

^{49 note c} The Jesuits were accustomed to use this covert designation for Rome.

^{49 note d} The latter part of this name is obscurely written, q. Shillingford near Exeter ? At Bowhey there Sir George Petre, who was a benefactor to the Society of Jesuits, possessed a house, but he sold his Devonshire property in the autumn of 1626.

^{49 note e} These two lines are underscored by the same pen as the words “this Orientall joye,”

^{50 note a} This alliance is not mentioned in the Peerage of Scotland, nor yet in the pedigree of Sydenham in Hutchins's History of Dorsetshire. Andrew eighth Lord Gray (not a Viscount) was a Roman Catholic, and in 1624 Lieutenant of the Gens d′armes in France, in which country it seems that he chiefly resided. The date of his birth is not upon record ; but as his younger brother ‘William had a charter to him and his wife in 1605, and their sisters were married in 1610 and 1611, (Douglas's Peerage of Scotland, by Wood, i. 671,) it is probable that the bridegroom of the text may have been Patrick master of Gray, the son and heir apparent of Andrew, who was “killed at the siege of a town in France,” and after whose death the barony waa renewed, in 1639, to his sister and her husband. (Ibid. p. 672.)

^{59 note a} It is remarkable how entirely this account of Smith's episcopal progress tallies with that given by Dodd of the first journey of his predecessor Bishop. “He left Doway, July 28,1623, and landed at Dover July 31, about twelve o'clock at night; and immediately the same night travelled thirteen miles a foot [though more than seventy years of age], to the house of Sir William Roper, where he reposed himself and was entertained suitably to his character; that gentleman looking upon it as no small happiness to give entertainment to this first Bishop that had been consecrated for England since the Reformation. His next station was London, and Lady Dormer was the first that made him her guest. Afterwards he paid a visit to Lord Montague in Sussex, a person of singular merit, and in great esteem with men of all persuasions. This visit being over, he returned to London, where he remained very private,”—until his death in April 1624, as Dodd believed. Gee stated that “old father Bishop hath rambled up and down Staffordshire, Buckinghamshire, and other places, under the name of the Bishop of Chalcedon “(Foot out of the Snare, p. 29); but probably his information was not accurate.

^{60 note a} Afterwards in 1639 created Lord Arundell of Wardour.

^{60 note b} ” Sir Basil Brooks, of Headley Court in Shropshire, a person of great account among the English Catholicks in the reigns of King James I. and King Charles I. and of some interest with those princes. He was a handsome, comely person; and was, in the 60th year of his age, an. 1635, very active at that time in supporting the cause of the Regulars against Episcopal government in England; tho′ he had formerly entertained doctor Bishop bishop of Chalcedon (predecessor to doctor Smith) at his seat called Bishop's Court, near London, where doctor Bishop died April 16, 1624.” Dodd's Church History, fol. 1742, vol. iii. p. 58.

^{60 note c} There were two Fishers of the order of St. Ignatius, John and Philip. One of them appears to have been the same with Musket, presently mentioned.

^{60 note d} When Gee compiled his list of Romish priests in 1624, ——Colleton, the titular Archdeacon of London, was “lodging in S. Jones,”—i. e. at Clerkenwell. “I hear (adds Gee,) he keeps in commendam the deanery of Chalcedon.” A biographical notice of Colleton (his true name) will be found in Dodd's Church History, vol. iii. p. 83.

^{60 note e} ” F. Musket, a secular priest, lodging over against S. Andrews church in Holborne, a frequent preacher, and one that hath much concourse of people to his chamber.” Gee. —”who hath four or five hundred (as I have heard him boast) that come to his chamber to a sermon.” (Ibid. p. 80.) Dodd gives a memoir of George Musket, “whose true name was Fisher,” in his vol. iii. p. 98. He had been arrested by the pursuivant Crosse, just before the capture of the Jesuits at Clerkenwell. Though frequently in confinement, he lived to be President of the English college at Douay, where he died in 1645.

^{61 note a} During a debate in the House of Commons on the 5th of June, 1628, Mr. Whitaker said, “There is a commonwealth of Papists, nobility, gentry, clergy, and commonalty, that serve the Duke constantly. In Drury Lane there are three families of Papists there residing for one of Protestants ; insomuch that it may well be called Little Rome.” Parliamentary History, 1807, 8vo. ii. 406.

^{61 note b} Probably the same with Barlow, before mentioned in p. 44.

^{61 note c} “Father Umpton, a Jesuit, an old, short fellow.” Gee. “Father Latham, a Jesuite; he was sometime a bird in the stone cage at Lancaster.” (Ibid.) It is not improbable that in this and other cases Gee has made two Jesuits out of one, from having heard both their real and their assumed names. Dr. Oliver's biographical Collections do not in this case clear the doubt.

^{61 note d} This is inserted. In the margin also is this side note, now imperfect from the paper having been torn : “A prime man; hath 1000^li” in his purse… in the howse… kit in the… son.”

^{61 note e} The paper decayed.