¹ John Bennett, the recently appointed agent of the English secular clergy, had arrived in Rome on 11/21 November 1621: TD, V, p. ccxxxii.

² Ottavio Corsini, archbishop of Tarsus and papal nuncio in France.

³ Luigi Ludovisi, nephew of Pope Gregory XV.

⁴ Francisco de la Cueva, duke of Alburquerque, Spanish ambassador in Rome.

⁵ Diego de Lafuente OP, chaplain to Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, count of Gondomar. He had been dispatched to Rome to obtain a papal dispensation for the proposed marriage of Prince Charles to the infanta Maria. See CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 158; CRS, 68, pp. 144, 148–151; AAW, B 25, no. 17. On 18/28 July 1622, William Bishop had requested Gondomar that Lafuente should be appointed ‘great almoner’ to the infanta, in part because of ‘the credit that he hath gotten already with our king’, and that Lafuente might ‘be made a byshope aswell’: AAW, A XVI, no. 124, p. 501.

⁶ Identity uncertain.

⁷ Probably a reference to Thomas Wenman. A letter from William Bishop to John Bennett in October 1622 mentioned that Wenman was with Bennett in Rome: AAW, A XVI, no. 168, p. 633. Wenman, with William Seton and John Browne, signed a letter to Urban VIII in September 1624 in favour of the proposed Anglo-French dynastic marriage treaty: AAW, B 26, no. 146.

⁸ Louis XIII.

⁹ Thomas Fitzherbert SJ. See Anstr., I, p. 117. Fitzherbert was on bad terms with some of the English Catholic secular clergy. In December 1623, Thomas Rant claimed that Fitzherbert had told John Bennett that ‘hee woulde gett him putt out of Rome’, and ‘Ben[nett] replyed, yow are a cokscombe’: AAW, B 25, no. 102.

¹⁰ Henry Mayler. See Anstr., I, pp. 223–224; NCC, p. 98.

¹¹ This is presumably a reference to Robert (Sigebert) Bagshaw OSB, the prior of St Edmund's in Paris, since Henry Mayler was still in Paris before setting out for Rome, where he arrived by mid-March 1622: see D. Lunn, The English Benedictines, 1540–1688 (London, 1980), p. 233; AAW, B 25, no. 54.

¹² Ferdinand II.

¹³ For Count Ernst von Mansfelt's contribution to the raising of the siege of Frankenthal, see CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 159, and for John Digby, 1st Baron Digby's part in this enterprise, see ibid., pp. 161–162; McClure, LJC, p. 401; Adams, PC, pp. 319–320; CCE, p. 47. Henry Clifford commented on 25 January/4 February 1622 that Digby had ‘effected litle by his’ recent failed ‘ambassage to the emperour’ and ‘had brought downe the C[ount] Mansfyelde to annoy the contrary part what he coulde’, which ‘deprived himselfe of good giftes that were ordayned for him’: AAW, A XVI, no. 96, p. 409.

¹⁴ See CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 161.

¹⁵ For the 1621 parliament's second sitting, see Russell, PEP, pp. 124–144; Adams, PC, p. 320; and for Digby's address delivered there concerning the Palatinate, see Russell, PEP, pp. 125–126; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 167, 174; McClure, LJC, p. 410.

¹⁶ See Letter 6; PRO, SP 14/123/116; CGB, I, p. 46.

¹⁷ John Colleton.

¹⁸ By September 1622, Colleton had left London and had ‘gone to the Bathes’: AAW, A XVI, no. 135, p. 539.

¹⁹ For the anti-Catholic draft legislation of the first sitting of the 1621 parliament, see CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 54–55; CRS, 68, p. 150; McClure, LJC, p. 379.

²⁰ George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury.

²¹ George Villiers, 1st marquis of Buckingham, later 1st duke of Buckingham.

²² In July 1621, Archbishop Abbot had accidently shot a gamekeeper, Peter Hawkins, on the Hampshire estate of Lord Zouch. For the commission which dealt with Abbot's case, and for James's decision to exonerate him, see McClure, LJC, pp. 394, 395, 399–400, 406; Hacket, SR, I, pp. 67–68. A copy of the royal dispensation which cleared Abbot was sent to Rome: AAW, B 25, no. 43; CSPD, 1619–1623, p. 311. John Hacket pointed out that ‘our hierarchy was much quarrel'd with and opposed by our own fugitives to the Church of Rome, who would fasten upon this scandal, and upon it pretend against our constant succession’. Hacket said that the lord keeper, John Williams, made the same point in his letter (to Buckingham) in which he refused consecration by Abbot: Hacket, SR, I, pp. 65, 66; cf. NCC, p. 226; PRO, SP 14/123/107. For the damage to Abbot's reputation, see PRO, SP 14/122/97; PRO, SP 14/123/5; McClure, LJC, p. 406. (William Whiteway heard a rumour that Abbot had been ‘remooved fom his place, and in his steed came’ Bishop Lancelot Andrewes: Whiteway, Diary, p. 40.)

²³ Bishop refers to the proceedings against the regime's critics in the first sitting of the 1621 parliament, primarily those who were subsequently imprisoned: the earl of Southampton, the earl of Oxford, John Selden, and Sir Edwin Sandys. See Russell, PEP, pp. 122–123; McClure, LJC, pp. 384–385, 388; Hacket, SR, I, pp. 68–69; Cabala, pp. 57–59, 61.

²⁴ i.e. one of the members of the English secular clergy's writers’ institute, the Collège d'Arras in Paris, for which see NAGB, p. 8.

²⁵ For the papal breve governing the award of higher degrees to the English secular clergy, see NAGB, pp. 8, 259; L. Hicks (ed.), Letters of Thomas Fitzherbert, 1608–1610, CRS, 41 (London, 1948), pp. 52–53.

²⁶ John (Leander) Jones OSB, prior of St Gregory's, Douai.

²⁷ John Cecil.

²⁸ John Bennett had informed Matthew Kellison in late November 1621 that ‘the Jesuits here are making catalogues of lay people's names, who forsooth would have no bishops; and this, as a great weapon, they purpose to use’: TD, V, p. ccxxxii. In the same month, the Jesuit general, Muzio Vitelleschi, promised Richard Blount SJ that he would do his best to frustrate Bennett's agitation in Rome: see ARSJ, Anglia MS 1, fo. 148r.

²⁹ The old chapel royal at the east end of Whitehall Palace. See B. Schofield (ed.), The Knyvett Letters (1620–1644) (London, 1949), p. 56, citing J.E. Sheppard, The Old Royal Palace of Whitehall (London, 1902), p. 65.

³⁰ See the introduction to this volume, p. 000; AAW, B 25, no. 39; BL, Harleian MS 1583, fo. 294r. Thomas Knyvett had remarked, on 9 October 1621, that ‘the kings chappell at Whithall is curiously painted and all the images newe made and a silver crusifix amaking to hange therin, against the Spanish ladys coming’: Schofield, The Knyvett Letters, p. 56; see also PRO, SP 14/123/27; N. Tyacke, ‘Lancelot Andrewes and the myth of Anglicanism’, in P. Lake and M. Questier (eds.), Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.1560–1660 (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 31–32.

³¹ Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, count of Gondomar.

³² George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury.

³³ Thomas Morton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield: see ODNB, sub ‘Morton, Thomas’ (article by Brian Quintrell).

³⁴ Sir Robert Naunton. The elector palatine's representatives at the English court had recently put forward proposals for an Anglo-French marriage in order to forestall the projected Anglo-Spanish treaty. Initially, it appears, James exploited this as a bargaining counter with the Spaniards. The marquis of Cadenet, brother to the duke of Luynes, Louis XIII's favourite, visited the English court in early January 1621: see Schreiber, FC, pp. 35–36; CSPV, 1619–1621, pp. 534–535, 572; Tillières, ME, pp. 30–49. But, in late January, Gondomar persuaded James against such a proposal. This led to Naunton's dismissal: see CSPV, 1619–1621, pp. 548, 553; R.E. Schreiber, The Political Career of Sir Robert Naunton 1589–1635 (London, 1981), pp. 68–84.

³⁵ Henry Wriothesley, 3rd earl of Southampton.

³⁶ For the recent appointment of Sir Lionel Cranfield as lord treasurer, see McClure, LJC, p. 403.

³⁷ John Williams, bishop of Lincoln (consecrated on 11 November 1621).

³⁸ Sir George Calvert, a crypto-Catholic, had been appointed secretary of state in February 1619, in succession to Sir Thomas Lake. In March 1621, Chamberlain had remarked that among the competitors for the other secretaryship, after the disgrace of Sir Robert Naunton (who technically retained his post at this time, although he was suspended from it), was ‘Master Gage (Tobie Mathewes deare frend) though most say he is rather reserved for that place about the infanta when she comes’: see McClure, LJC, p. 339. In late July, Chamberlain could write that ‘all this last weeke, Sir Richard Weston was secretarie (as far as common fame could make him) insomuch that yt was saide not to be in dooing, but don, but now the report cooles again’: ibid., p. 392. In mid-October there were rumours (again) that Sir John Suckling would be appointed to the post: ibid., p. 399, cf. p. 339; Adams, PC, p. 322. (It was even claimed, in January 1622, that Tobias Mathew had been appointed to the secretaryship: see Letter 3.)

³⁹ See CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 162, 166.

⁴⁰ i.e. to John Bennett and also to William Harewell, who had travelled to Rome with Bennett: TD, V, p. ccxxxii.

⁴¹ Richard Smith.

⁴² Presumably a reference to Lady Elizabeth Dormer (widow of the 1st Baron Dormer, and cousin, by marriage, of the duke of Feria, whose mother was Jane, the daughter of Sir William Dormer and Mary Sidney) and to her grandson Robert Dormer, 2nd Baron Dormer.

⁴³ i.e. the Dormer family of Wing in Buckinghamshire, whom Edward Bennett served as a chaplain.

⁴⁴ Gomez Saurez de Figueroa, duke of Feria and governor of Milan.

⁴⁵ Lady Elizabeth Dormer.

⁴⁶ On 16/26 November, John Bennett had assured Matthew Kellison that he had made representations to Feria at Milan concerning the finances of the secular clergy's college at Douai: see TD, V, p. ccxxxii. On 1/11 January 1622, Kellison wrote to Bennett to thank him for his ‘carefull remembraunce of our affaires with the duke of Feria’, who had ‘promised my Ladie Dormer once before’ to write to the king of Spain on behalf of the college at Douai in order to secure the payment of its Spanish royal pension. Kellison hoped that the duke would now write to the Spanish court to procure that the pension might be paid either at Milan or at Antwerp: AAW, A XVI, no. 92, p. 399. See also Letter 4.

⁴⁷ Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, count of Gondomar.

⁴⁸ Robert Dormer, 2nd Baron Dormer.

⁴⁹ i.e. ‘until’.

⁵⁰ Philip Herbert, 1st earl of Montgomery.

⁵¹ Sir William Dormer, the 1st Baron Dormer's heir, had died in October 1616. The first baron himself died soon afterwards and the earl of Montgomery was granted the wardship of Sir William Dormer's son: McClure, LJC, pp. 30, 39, 41; PRO, SP 14/89/55. For the marriage, in 1625, of the 2nd Baron Dormer and Montgomery's daughter, Anna Sophia Herbert, see Letter 75.

⁵² For the formal request to Feria to deliver the young Lord Dormer from the perils in which he found himself (in other words, the danger of apostasy while he remained under the control of the earl of Montgomery), see AAW, A XVII, no. 77, pp. 239–240. I am grateful to Caroline Bowden for assistance with this point.

⁵³ i.e. in London.

⁵⁴ In addition to the unsuccessful recent draft recusancy legislation (see Letter 1), it was proposed in the subsidy bill that recusants (and those with recusant wives, children, or servants) should pay double the ordinary rate, ‘and be counted as aliens’, as Chamberlain remarked on 1 December, observing that this was all that the Commons could ‘do to shew the apprehension and dislike of the incredible increase of that faction’: McClure, LJC, p. 412; see also AAW, A XVI, no. 92, p. 401.

⁵⁵ i.e. Catholic clergy.

⁵⁶ Joseph Haynes.

⁵⁷ Matthew Kellison forwarded the copy, sent by Haynes, to John Bennett (AAW, A XVI, no. 71, pp. 243–245) of James's letter of 3 December 1621 to the speaker of the Commons (commanding ‘fierie and popular spirittes’ there to desist from debating ‘matters farre beyond their reache and capacitye’), and also of the remonstrance which the Commons had drawn up on 3 December to be sent to James and had been forced to withdraw, AAW, A XVI, no. 92, p. 399 (printed in TD, V, pp. cclxxxviii–ccxc; J.P. Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution (London, 1966), pp. 43–47); Russell, PEP, p. 135; 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), pp. 174–175.

⁵⁸ For the petition taken to the king on 11 December, see Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, p. 29.

⁵⁹ Ibid., p. 29; McClure, LJC, p. 414.

⁶⁰ For the papal commission (comprising the cardinals Millini, Bandini, Cobelluzio of St Susanna, and Sacrati) appointed to deal with the issue of the dispensation for the proposed marriage of Prince Charles and the infanta Maria, see CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 158; PRO, SP 77/14, fo. 500v. From Rome, on 1/11 September 1621, George Gage had notified Lord Digby that the Roman curia had ‘no aversion from this busines’ of the Spanish match. Bandini in particular was well affected towards King James and ‘as affectionat to England as can be wished’: PRO, SP 94/24, fo. 292r.

⁶¹ George Gage, secular priest, son of Edward Gage of Bentley, East Sussex. See Anstr., II, pp. 120–121; P. Revill and F. Steer, ‘George Gage I and George Gage II’, BIHR, 31 (1958), pp. 141–158.

⁶² Pope Gregory XV.

⁶³ For George Gage's audiences with the pope in July and August 1621 concerning the dispensation for the Spanish match, see CRS, 68, pp. 149–150. Gage had argued to Digby that Spanish diplomatic assurances in Rome (that Spain was persuaded and satisfied that James would grant toleration to his Catholic subjects after the match was concluded) would secure the dispensation; but here Gage interpreted toleration as, essentially, no more than the liberty to worship in private according to conscience: PRO, SP 94/24, fos 291v–293v. Many secular priests believed, by contrast, that the success of the Spanish match ought to lead to a grant of episcopal authority to one of their number, and that this would be an essential component of a more comprehensive and far-reaching toleration: AAW, A XVI, no. 95, p. 407. For the long standing enmity between George Gage and some of the secular clergy, see AAW, A XIV, no. 142, p. 445; TD, V, p. 90; NCC, pp. 80, 144–145.

⁶⁴ Lady Elizabeth Dormer.

⁶⁵ John Colleton.

⁶⁶ Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, count of Gondomar.

⁶⁷ Gondomar had written to John Bennett in early October 1621: AAW, A XVI, no. 64, p. 225.

⁶⁸ Richard Broughton, English Protestants Plea, and Petition, for English Preists and Papists, to the Present Court of Parlament (Saint-Omer, 1621). The book is an answer to the sermon preached at St Margaret's, Westminster by Archbishop James Ussher at the opening of the 1621 parliament on 18 February: ARCR, II, no. 80; P. Milward, Religious Controversies of the Jacobean Age (London, 1978), no. 682; James Ussher, The Substance of that which was Delivered before the Commons House. . . (London, 1621); McClure, LJC, p. 347; J. Shami, John Donne and Conformity in Crisis in the Late Jacobean Pulpit (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 61–62. Ussher's sermon condemned idolatry, remonstrated against toleration of Catholics for reasons of state, and demanded the enforcement of the recusancy statutes.

⁶⁹ For the authorship of English Protestants Plea, see ARCR, II, no. 80; Letter 13.

⁷⁰ William Harrison.

⁷¹ See Broughton, English Protestants Plea, p. 3, where the author claims that William Harrison ‘bequeathed as a legacie to mee unworthie this chardge: to write and publish to the world this [. . .] treatise’.

⁷² In late 1621, the House of Commons received a deposition from Eleazar Jackson, ‘a public preacher in Abergavenny’, who claimed to enjoy ‘the popularity and approbation of the inhabitants of that town’. He alleged that two of the town's numerous recusants had assaulted him at night in his own chamber and had inflicted serious injuries upon him. Because of the local magistrates’ sympathy for the recusants, and because of further threats to his life, he was constrained to leave Abergavenny. They had ‘sought to deterre and drive me from my place’, he said, ‘by scandalous aspersions, hereby labouringe to perswade the common sorte of people to entertaine a dislike of my doctrine’. Finally ‘when they sawe their menacing would nott prevaile, two noted recusants (one of them suspected to be a seminarie priest) came upon mee in myne own chamber, intending to murther mee, which if they had effected they had a horse of one John Meridith redie sadled att a recusants doore neare unto my lodginge, where hee, the said John Meridith, stood at a windowe in an upper chamber to see the event, butt by Gods providence att that tyme I escaped from them’. After dark on 14 October 1621, another two convicted recusants forced their way into his room and demanded ‘a quarrell by way of disputation, viz concerning Purgatorie and the blessed virgin Marie’; but soon they ‘reprehended mee for handling matters of controversie in the pulpitt and further charged mee with the procuring of a warrant of the peace against one Roger Howell, one of the recusants which first attempted to murther mee’. Then they resorted to violence, ‘beating and sore wounding mee in the head with a dagger and a candlesticke, besides a dangerous stabb in the forehead’; and they warned Jackson ‘to leave the contrie forthwith’. His opponents said that ‘if they had a king which would favoure theire religion they would putt us all to the fire and faggott, styling us obstinate and damnable heretiques’. M.S. Giuseppi et al. (eds), Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Honourable the Marquess of Salisbury, 24 vols (HMC, 1888–1976), XXIV, pp. 242–243; see also PRO, SP 14/124/58; W. Notestein, F.H. Relf, and H. Simpson (eds), Commons Debates 1621, 7 vols (New Haven, CT, 1935), II, pp. 544–545, V, pp. 245–246.

⁷³ Lady Elizabeth Dormer.

⁷⁴ Robert Dormer, 2nd Lord Dormer.

⁷⁵ Identity uncertain.

⁷⁶ Matthew Kellison remarked in January 1622 on the recent marriage between the 2nd Viscount Montague's widowed daughter, Mary, Lady St John (whom Kellison referred to as Joseph Haynes's ‘landladie’, i.e. patron) and William Arundell, the second son of Sir Thomas Arundell, 1st Baron Arundell of Wardour. He regarded it as ‘an unequal match [. . .] and prejudicious to her [. . .] reputation’. Lord Arundell, however, emerged as one of the most vociferous supporters of the secular clergy leadership and their proposals to reform the English Catholic community: AAW, A XVI, no. 92, p. 400; see also Questier, C&C, pp. 388–389 and passim; McClure, LJC, p. 396.

⁷⁷ Joseph Haynes.

⁷⁸ Edward Bennett.

⁷⁹ Lady Elizabeth Dormer.

⁸⁰ Diego de Lafuente OP, chaplain to Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, count of Gondomar.

⁸¹ William Harrison, who had died on 11 May 1621.

⁸² William Bishop had written to Diego de Lafuente on 25 December 1621/4 January 1622: AAW, A XVI, no. 91, pp. 397–398.

⁸³ John Chamberlain noted Tobias Mathew's arrival from Paris, and also that he was politically tainted because of his association with the disgraced Lord Chancellor, Sir Francis Bacon: McClure, LJC, p. 419; PRO, SP 14/124/82, 84. Mathew had been secretly ordained, with George Gage, by Cardinal Bellarmine in May 1614:, Anstr., II, p. 120; NCC, p. 50.

⁸⁴ Sir Edward Coke.

⁸⁵ See Letter 5.

⁸⁶ Haynes appears to refer here to William Arundell (see Letter 2), but Edward Vaux, 4th Baron Vaux was the colonel of the English regiment which went to Flanders.

⁸⁷ i.e. Joseph Haynes himself.

⁸⁸ This may be a reference to the Carmelite friar Thomas Dawson (Simon Stock), a friend of the secular clergy: see NCC, p. 12. In June 1624, Carlos Coloma, the Spanish ambassador, took Dawson as his chaplain: TD, V, p. cclx.

⁸⁹ Matthew Kellison, president of the English College at Douai.

⁹⁰ See Letter 5.

⁹¹ On 10/20 April, Champney had recorded that ‘Sir Richard Weston and, as some say, the earle of Rutland ar expected here about the Palatinate’; the imperial ambassador, Count Georg Ludwig von Schwarzenberg, had also arrived in Brussels following an embassy to the court in London where he had ‘commission to propose a match betwixt a daughter of the emperour and the [. . .] p[a]latin his sonn upon condition that he be brought up with the emperour whereupon will folowe the restoring of the Palatinat at least to the sonn’: AAW, A XVI, no. 107, p. 447; see also CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 294, 325; Birch, CTJI, II, p. 303; PRO, SP 77/15, fos 85v, 92r, 94v; CGB, I, pp. 151, 178, 193; BL, Additional MS 72254, fo. 101r; The Oration or Substance of that which was Delivered before his Majestie of Great Brittaine, by the Emperours Embassador. . . (London, 1622, Revised Short-title Catalogue, nos 21828.5, 21829); Pursell, WK, pp. 170–171. For Weston's embassy in May, and his return, empty-handed, in late September 1622, the purpose of which journey had been, in part, to prevent the elector palatine joining Mansfelt and encouraging him, as he did, to refuse a peace accord, see Adams, PC, p. 329; Alexander, CLT, pp. 24–28; R. Lockyer, Buckingham: the life and political career of George Villiers, first duke of Buckingham 1592–1628 (London, 1981), p. 126; W.B. Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 311–312; Inner Temple Library, Petyt MSS 538, vol. 48, no. 3; PRO, SP 77/15, fos 221r, 296r–306r; CCE, p. 78; CGB, I, pp. 166, 169, 179, 180, 188, 193, 202, 233; BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 200r–v.

⁹² Sir James Hay, 1st Viscount Doncaster and future 1st earl of Carlisle. See CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 276; Schreiber, FC, pp. 39–47.

⁹³ See CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 323, 326, 329; CCE, p. 66.

⁹⁴ Carlos Coloma.

⁹⁵ See CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 320; CCE, pp. 66, 89.

⁹⁶ For Gondomar's departure from London, on 16 May, see Redworth, PI, p. 45. Champney mentioned to John Bennett, in a letter of 22 May/1 June 1622, that Lady Elizabeth Dormer had come ‘to London expressly to take leave of the co[u]nt of Gondomare and to be acquaynted with his successour’ and that ‘shee would commend unto him ernestly the cause of <the> [secular] clergie’. Edward Bennett, her chaplain, had said that Gondomar ‘telleth him that all things goe well and he hopeth they will goe better and that he liketh nothing the padri’, i.e. the Jesuits: AAW, A XVI, no. 112, p. 463. Several commentators noted how Gondomar was socializing with the prominent Catholic peer and nephew of Lady Dormer, the 2nd Viscount Montague. Simonds D'Ewes was told that Gondomar had been at Godalming with Montague, and they ‘strove soe long to give each other the best inn, ther being but two good ones in the towne’. Gondomar ‘tooke upp an alehowse and the viscount a clothiers howse and ther men jovialised in the two best inns’. Then Gondomar went down to Cowdray ‘wher desiring to see Chichester church, hee was at first kept out and I thinke altogether by a poor sexton whoe shutt the doores against him’. Afterwards Gondomar, it was said, went to visit the Cotton family at Warblington in Hampshire, after which he departed for Portsmouth. See DSSD, p. 79; Letter 5; PRO, SP 14/130/85; cf. Questier, C&C, pp. 392, 399–400. The Venetian ambassador, Alvise Valaresso, noted in early September 1622 that Gondomar had had differences with the Jesuits, while his successor, Coloma (who, the count of Tillières claimed in May 1623, referred to Gondomar as a liar and a charletan), was on much better terms with the Society: CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 403; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 205v. Subsequently, however, as it appears from a letter from Coloma to Cardinal Millini in 1624, Coloma changed his opinions somewhat: TD, V, pp. cclx–cclxii. On 10/20 August 1622, the Jesuit general, Muzio Vitelleschi, wrote to Richard Blount SJ that the English secular clergy were trying to alienate Gondomar from the Society: ARSJ, Anglia MS 1, fo. 161v.

⁹⁷ The Collège d'Arras.

⁹⁸ Edward Bennett.

⁹⁹ Joseph Haynes.

¹⁰⁰ George Fisher. Fisher had been ordered into exile by the privy council in February 1621 but had not left the country, and had subsequently taken part in a debate with George Abbot's chaplain, Daniel Featley: Anstr., II, p. 103.

¹⁰¹ Matthew Britton.

¹⁰² William Law. See TD, V, p. cclxi; NAGB, p. 97; Anstr., II, p. 204.

¹⁰³ Presumably a reference to Richard White, brother of Thomas White, alias Blacklo. See NCC, pp. 7, 128.

¹⁰⁴ i.e. Thomas White.

¹⁰⁵ Champney reported on 22 May/1 June 1622 that Catholics in England ‘speake still of a pardon to come forth for all convictions, and that there is a commission granted to 8 of the counsell to determin upon the deliverie of all prisoners as well preistes as others’, but nothing, apparently, had been done to effect this: AAW, A XVI, no. 112, pp. 463–464; cf. Letter 6.

¹⁰⁶ Henry de Vere, 18th earl of Oxford.

¹⁰⁷ See McClure, LJC, p. 433; PRO, SP 14/129/50; DSSD, p. 75; BL, Additional MS 48166, fo 142v; PRO, PRO 31/3/56, fo. 32r; G.P.V. Akrigg (ed.), Letters of King James VI & I (London, 1984), pp. 409–410.

¹⁰⁸ Frederick V, elector palatine.

¹⁰⁹ See CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 267, 324, 326; CCE, p. 73; BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 160r.

¹¹⁰ See CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 294, 317.

¹¹¹ William Newman.

¹¹² For Thomas More's account, dated 8/18 March 1622, of the conflict in Lisbon over the semimary founded there through the beneficence of Pedro Coutinho, see AAW, A XVI, no. 102, pp. 427–429; see also TD, IV, pp. cclviii, cclx, cclxv; J. Kirk and W. Croft, Historical Account of Lisbon College (Barnet, 1902); NCC, p. 258.

¹¹³ Edward Maddison. He had been sent to Madrid in November 1619 as agent for the English College at Douai. See Anstr., II, p. 207.

¹¹⁴ Edouardo Farnese, cardinal protector of the English nation. See Questier, C&C, pp. 326, 327, 345; NAGB, passim.

¹¹⁵ William (Rudesind) Barlow OSB.

¹¹⁶ According to John Ducket, writing on 1/11 May 1622, the Benedictines at Paris were saying that ‘there will be bishop[s] if the match hould, otherwise not’: AAW, A XVI, no. 109, p. 453.

¹¹⁷ Giovanni-Francesco Guido del Bagno, archbishop of Patras.

¹¹⁸ The nuncio reported to the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide on 8/18 June 1622 that he had appointed the Dominicans Jacques de Brouwer and Nicolas Janssens ‘pour faire une enquête au Danemark et en Norvège’: CGB, I, pp. 212, 261–262, see also p. 296.

¹¹⁹ Giovanni-Battista Scanarolio, the agent in Rome for the English College at Douai. See CGB, I, p. 54. For Scanarolio's letter to John Bennett of 19/29 June 1622, see AAW, A XVI, no. 115, p. 471. For letters to Scanarolio from English secular priests, see PRO, PRO 31/9/90, passim.

¹²⁰ William Harewell. Harewell had left Rome on 28 April/8 May 1622: CRS, 10, p. 191.

¹²¹ Henry Clifford.

¹²² Jane Dormer, duchess of Feria.

¹²³ On 23 April 1623, William Trumbull provided Henry Clifford with a letter of recommendation to Sir George Calvert, describing Clifford as ‘a very sufficient and honest gentleman’, who had attended on the duchess of Feria until her death, and subsequently resided in Flanders but wanted briefly to return to England ‘to followe his particuler affaires’: PRO, SP 77/16, fo. 145r–v.

¹²⁴ Mary Ward.

¹²⁵ For Mary Ward's arrival in Rome in 1622, and her interview with Gregory XV, see M. Chambers, ed. H.J. Coleridge, The Life of Mary Ward (1585–1645), 2 vols (London, 1885), II, pp. 2–3; CGB, I, pp. 69, 136. For the discussion during 1622 of Ward's institute by the congregation of bishops and regulars, headed by Cardinal Bandini, see M.M. Littlehales, Mary Ward (London, 1998), pp. 110, 114; Chambers, Life, II, p. 59; Dirmeier, MW, I, pp. 661–662, 684–685, 698–699, and passim.

¹²⁶ McClure, LJC, p. 432.

¹²⁷ Matthew Kellison.

¹²⁸ William Bishop reported Kellison's recovery on 18/28 July 1622: AAW, A XVI, no. 124, p. 501. John Bennett understood on 24 September/4 October 1622 that Kellison had ‘fallen backe into his ague’: AAW, A XVI, no. 151, p. 587. But cf. Letters 13, 15.

¹²⁹ Emerging out of the marriage negotiations with the Spaniards was a concession that Lord Vaux (with another Catholic peer, the earl of Argyll) could raise troops for service in Flanders: see Cogswell, BR, p. 20; McClure, LJC, p. 428; PRO, SP 94/30, fo. 64r; CGB, I, p. 312; see also above, p. 000.

¹³⁰ The Vaux family tended, however, to function as a patron of the Society of Jesus. See also Letter 13.

¹³¹ The count of Tillières recorded that the countess of Buckingham had converted to Catholicism at Easter 1622: PRO, PRO 31/3/56, fo. 44v. See Letter 14.

¹³² Michel Du Val, Hispani-Anglica seu Malum Punicum Angl'Hispanicum (Paris, 1622, translated and published in London in the same year). See Cogswell, BR, pp. 39, 41–42, 46, 48, 50.

¹³³ George Abbot.

¹³⁴ See Letter 6.

¹³⁵ See Letter 4.

¹³⁶ Thomas More.

¹³⁷ Anstr., I, p. 234.

¹³⁸ William Harewell.

¹³⁹ See H. Bowler (ed.), London Sessions Records, 1605–1685, CRS, 34 (London, 1934), pp. 105, 106, 386.

¹⁴⁰ Jerzy Ossolinski, count of Teczyn. See Oratie van . . . Georgius Ossolinsky Grave Palatijn van Tenizijn ende Sendomyria . . . ende Ambassadeur aende Konincklijcke Majesteyt van Groot-Brittaignien . . . den 11 Martij, 1621 (The Hague, 1621); A True Copy of the Latine Oration of the Excellent Lord George Ossolinsky (1621). For the ideological significance and objectives of the Polish court's soliciting of military aid from James – namely the possibility of a ‘crusade against the Infidel’, something which James welcomed and which could be construed, at this point, as part of ‘the public critique of the Protestant cause’ – see S. Pincus, ‘From holy cause to economic interest and the invention of the state’, in A. Houston and S. Pincus (eds), A Nation Transformed: England after the Restoration (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 281–282, for which reference I am grateful to Paul Stevens.

¹⁴¹ See Sir W. Fraser et al. (eds), Reports on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Eglinton (HMC, London, 1885), p. 118. For Gondomar's involvement in the securing of this concession for imprisoned Catholics, see CRS, 68, p. 152; CGB, I, p. 46. Sir Arthur Aston co-operated with the Polish ambassador in raising Irish troops for Polish military purposes. A formal complaint against Aston was lodged by the Russian ambassador in June 1622: PRO, SP 14/120/38, 107; McClure, LJC, pp. 352, 353, 388; APC, 1621–1623, pp. 32, 246; C.W. Russell and J.P. Prendergast (eds), Calendar of the State Papers Relating to Ireland, 1615–1625 (London, 1880), pp. 334–335; BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 164r–v; see also CGB, I, pp. 100–101. For Aston's royalism during the civil war, see P.R. Newman, Royalist Officers in England and Wales, 1642–1660 (London, 1981), p. 10.

¹⁴² i.e. Gondomar.

¹⁴³ Sir George Calvert.

¹⁴⁴ Sir James Ley.

¹⁴⁵ Sir Thomas Coventry.

¹⁴⁶ John Williams, bishop of Lincoln.

¹⁴⁷ For those Catholics released from prison in 1622–1623, see CRS, 68, pp. 152–154; PRO, C 181/3, fos 70v–71v (lists contained in the docquet books of the crown office in chancery). For the writs in late June and the first week of July 1622 directed to the judges of king's bench ‘to take baile’ of large numbers of Catholic prisoners for recusancy and for refusing the oath of allegiance, see PRO, C 231/4, fos 141r, 143r. Further writs of this kind (and pardons to Catholic clergy) were issued in late November 1622 and (to judges on circuit as well as in London) from mid-February 1623 onwards, ibid., fos 146r, 146v, 153r, 157r, 157v, 158r, 174r.

¹⁴⁸ John Hacket memorialized and celebrated the ‘mazes wherein’ Williams ‘led the Spanish embassador, with whom he shifted so cunningly that they could obtain nothing for the toleration of popish recusants but delays and expectations from time to time’: Hacket, SR, II, p. 6.

¹⁴⁹ An order from the king to the lord keeper, dated 25 July 1622, admitted that the directions which had been issued concerning the release of imprisoned Catholic separatists on bail ‘before the king's bench’ were ‘very chargeable’ to the ‘poorer sort of recusants’. Assize judges were empowered to free them ‘on the sureties and conditions before ordered’: CSPD, 1619–1623, p. 429; PRO, SP 14/132/57, fo. 92r; BL, Additional MS 48166, fo. 154r.

¹⁵⁰ Richard Neile.

¹⁵¹ For the writ in early May 1622 to release David East from the King's Bench prison, see PRO, C 231/4, fo. 134v, which also records others (Sir John Webb, William Matthews, William Martin, Barnardine Peppey, Margaret Field, and Grace Cooper) freed by the same means a few days later.

¹⁵² See Questier, C&C, p. 397.

¹⁵³ Carlos Coloma.

¹⁵⁴ On 2 August 1622, Lord Keeper Williams had issued an official instruction to the judges: see AAW, A XVI, no. 127, p. 509; AAW, OB I/i, no. 80; TD, V, pp. ccxcv–ccxcvi; PRO, SP 14/132/84. Williams cited reason of state for the king's command to him to pass two writs under the great seal to release imprisoned Catholics. The judges were to comply in the cases of those imprisoned for recusancy, for refusing the oath of supremacy, for having or dispersing popish books, for hearing Mass or ‘any other parte of recusancy which doth concerne religion only and not of State, which shall appeare unto you to be totally civill and politicall’: AAW, A XVI, no. 127, p. 509; see also above, p. 000.

¹⁵⁵ This appears to be a reference to the writer (‘E. Hew[es]’) of AAW, A XVI, no. 165, pp. 625–626, whom Matthew Kellison seems to cite as the agent in England for the English College at Douai: AAW, B 26, no. 139; see also AAW, B 27, no. 3; cf. Anstr., I, p. 178, II, pp. 164–165.

¹⁵⁶ Simonds D'Ewes recorded on 4 August 1622 that one of the judges at the Winchester assizes had said that ‘the king disliked a rumour of toleration, and was sorrye for his peoples feares, and that hee himselfe was farr from poperye’: DSSD, p. 89.

¹⁵⁷ In an undated missive (AAW, B 25, no. 82) which was dispatched to Gondomar in Madrid (though written in English) after the count's return there, and which commented on the marriage articles of December 1622 (see Redworth, PI, p. 177; Gardiner, NSMT, p. 332), William Bishop advised that it should be arranged, ‘if it may bee, that two noblemen at the least be made 2 of the kings privy councell, that they may there deale for Catholikes’. The ‘fittest’ men, according to Bishop, were ‘the Lord William Howard, the Lord [Thomas] Arundell of Warder, the Lord Harbert [Henry Somerset], the Lord Ewers [William Eure] and Sir Thomas Savage’, and also ‘the Lord Clenrichard [Richard Burke]’; Bishop added that the first two were ‘the wisest, the gravest and fittest men’. (This modifies Questier, C&C, p. 389.)

¹⁵⁸ William Bishop argued that such men might ‘winne credit so that, when a parlement is called, they may be chosen knightes of the shire’: AAW, B 25, no. 82.

¹⁵⁹ The English College in Rome.

¹⁶⁰ Sébastien Bouthillier, bishop of Aire.

¹⁶¹ Henri Gondi, cardinal de Retz, who had died on 2/12 August 1622.

¹⁶² Matthew Kellison.

¹⁶³ Only the postscript of this letter is in the hand of Edward Bennett.

¹⁶⁴ In reply to a previous letter sent by Edward Bennett on 4 August, John Bennett notified him on 30 September/10 October 1622 that, ‘for our suite of bishops’, the secular clergy leadership's opponents ‘leave nothing untryed to hinder it; and, having bene foyled here (for we have a decree before his Hol[iness] for it), they fly to his Majesty of England for help, and here give out that his Majesty is offended with the motion; and all to delaye’. John Bennett advised that ‘you must helpe there, that from thence we be not hindred. They oppose themselves to his Majestyes designes what they can, and yet will make him by art serve their turne. There is no meanes to assure his Majesty against there slightes but to bring in bishops whome his Hol[iness] will charge soe to governe his people that it be without offence to his Majesty. And, if bishops had governed hertofore, his Majesty had not bene troubled with such plotts as have bene discovered to the hazard of his Majesty and the ignominy of Catholicke relligion. I praye putt that in exequution which in my last I did soe earnestly desire and gett, if you can procure it, a testimoniall from the Spanish embassad[or] for the present want of bishops and send it to me’. John Bennett instructed his brother to ‘forgett not alsoe to drawe reasons to satisfy his Majesty. 1. We seeke but one bishop. 2. Titular in partibus infidelium, not in England, soe as there wilbe no cause of emulation with them at home. 3. His jurisdiction will not be larger than that of the archpriest. 4. It wilbe limited and knowne. 5. It will serve to keep our opposites in order. 6. It will oblige the superior to accounte of his owne and his subjectes actions and consequently [p]reserve his Majesty and estate from all trouble that way’: AAW, A XVI, no. 156, p. 605. He further instructed him to warn James that ‘if he should be against ordinary jurisdiction, without which Catholick relligion cannot stande, they here presently will take heed therof and bring his Hol[iness] into jeleousy that his Majesty meaneth not well towardes Catholickes and that all is but a shewe; and soe make him doubtefful to proceede in the matter of dispensation; specially, his Majesty suffering soe many bishops in Ireland and that without inconvenience’: ibid; see also Questier, C&C, pp. 399–400.

¹⁶⁵ John Williams, bishop of Lincoln.

¹⁶⁶ Carlos Coloma.

¹⁶⁷ Williams, said Hacket, was inspired by ‘so great [. . .] disaffections to that corrupt and unsound Church’ that he ‘watched’ the Catholic clergy ‘more narrowly than any other counsellor’. He intervened when they petitioned Buckingham ‘to assist them for the erection of titulary popish prelates in this kingdom’. Buckingham consulted Williams, and Williams advised that it ‘would set all the kingdom on fire and make his Majesty unable to continue those favours and conveniences to peaceable recusants’; and that it would take away ‘from his Majesty an hereditary branch of the crown’, namely ‘the investitures of bishops’; and furthermore it would be worse than an ‘absolute toleration’. For whereas, in France, toleration ‘doth so divide and distinguish towns and parishes that no place makes above one payment to their church-men [. . .] this invisible consistory shall be confusedly diffused over all the kingdom’. The result would be that ‘many of the subjects shall, to the intolerable exhausting of the wealth of the realm, pay double tithes, double offerings and double fees’. This was one reason, in fact, why the Irish nation was so impoverished. Also, ‘if the princes match should go on, this new erected consistory will put the ensuinge parliament into such a jealousie and suspition that it is to be feared that they will shew themselves very untractable upon all propositions’. Finally, it was against ‘the fundamental law of the land’ for ‘the pope to place a bishop in this kingdom’. Hacket claims that James ordered Williams to put these arguments ‘with his best skill to the Spanish embassador’, and that Williams pretended to Coloma that he ‘was startled at a heady notion that came from Savoy, as he thought’, concerning Catholic bishops. Williams urged Coloma ‘to send for the Savoyan and to wish him to throw aside his advice for titulary bishops lest it should hinder the king of Spain's desire in accommodating the Catholics with those courtesies which had been granted’: Hacket, SR, I, p. 94. James had heard, remarked Alvise Valaresso, of a petition to the curia to appoint four bishops, and that the pope would grant two, one of them being Diego de Lafuente. The king was infuriated at the proposal to give those who were appointed ‘the title of the bishoprics of this realm’: CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 403. William Bishop, however, argued that Williams had ‘a good affection to our religion’, and that the fault lay with Coloma: AAW, A XVI, no. 164, p. 623.

¹⁶⁸ Francisco de la Cueva, duke of Alburquerque, Spanish ambassador in Rome.

¹⁶⁹ Lord Keeper Williams had told Buckingham on 23 August 1622 that Coloma ‘took the alarum very speedily of the titulary Romish bishop, and before my departure from his house at Islington [. . .] did write both to Rome and Spain to prevent it’. Williams said that the regime's information about the suit for bishops with the titles of established sees had in fact come from Tobias Mathew. Williams observed that Mathew would ‘prove but an apocryphal and no canonical intelligencer, acquainting the State with this project for the Jesuites rather than for Jesus[‘s] sake’: Cabala, p. 70; BL, Harleian MS 7000, fo. 98r; see also Letter 23. Mathew had revealed the project initially to his friend Sir Francis Bacon: TD, V, p. 90. In a letter to Buckingham of 29 September 1622, Mathew denounced ‘those indiscreet English Catholicques which I declared to your lordship heertofore to have drawn a purpose from the pope to consecrate and send hither some English Catholicque bushops’, for they had ‘proceeded so farr as to name the men’, namely Matthew Kellison, William Bishop, Richard Smith, John Bosvile, Cuthbert Trollop, and Edward Bennett. Mathew claimed that ‘the Jesuits have had no part in this negotiation’ but that, ‘if the business proceed, some one or more of them will also gett to be made bushops heer’: BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 82r.

¹⁷⁰ Carlos Coloma.

¹⁷¹ On 22 August/1 September 1622, William Bishop reported from Paris that Richard Broughton ‘hath even now written unto the nuncio of France and among <other> things doth tell him that matters amend apace in England and that now it wilbe no danger to have bishops if it so please his Holines. He estemeth Doctors Kellison, Bishope, Smith and Champeney to be very gratefull to the cleargy and that any of them wilbe acceptable’: AAW, A XVI, no. 136, p. 541. In a letter of 23 October 1622, Broughton explained to John Bennett that ‘I was never against bishops but onely I wished yt had beene stayed a little longer before begunne’. Broughton added that, ‘since our first beeing with’ Coloma, he (Broughton) had ‘beene there agayne to putt hym in mynde to bee and continue our frend’. John Colleton, with Cuthbert Trollop and Roger Strickland, had also been to visit Coloma: AAW, A XVI, no. 167, p. 631.

¹⁷² Joseph Haynes.

¹⁷³ Oliver Almond. Elsewhere his alias is given as Parker: see Anstr., I, p. 7.

¹⁷⁴ William Bishop sent word on 26 September/6 October 1622 that Coloma had dropped his objections: AAW, A XVI, no. 153, p. 595. On 29 September, Edward Bennett commented to his brother that the king had shown Coloma ‘a letter written by Secretary Calvert in the name of the king to show the kings dislik as before. Now we know that there is a Jesswet [a reference, presumably, to Mathew] who is well acquainted with the sayed secretary, whom we vehemently suspect in this bussines. It is certayn if [Gondomar] had been heer, he had soe satisfied the king as that a bushop might have come in withowt any notice of the estate taken of hym’. The way was now clear for the pope to appoint a bishop, and ‘it must not be in the estate[‘s] liking or disliking whether we have bushops or no. If it were soe, we should have no goverment at all heere’: AAW, B 47, no. 30; CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 403.

¹⁷⁵ Jean-Baptiste van Male. For van Male, see C.H. Carter, The Secret Diplomacy of the Habsburgs, 1598–1625 (London, 1964), ch. 11.

¹⁷⁶ Van Male promised Edward Bennett that he would speak to the lord keeper to ‘shew him how litle cause they have to except against the priestes for seeking for bishops’: AAW, A XVI, no. 147, p. 567.

¹⁷⁷ The name Farrington was one of the aliases used by Edward Bennett.

¹⁷⁸ Caesar Clement was, at this point, vicar-general of the Spanish army in Flanders, as well as dean of the church of St Gudule in Brussels (CGB, I, pp. 8, 120–121).

¹⁷⁹ Edward Bennett.

¹⁸⁰ For the unwillingness of the Flanders nuncio (Giovanni-Francesco Guido del Bagno, archbishop of Patras) to become involved in the process of nomination for an English bishop, and his opinion that it was primarily the concern of the Paris nuncio (the ‘ordinarie of England’), see AAW, A XVI, no. 144, pp. 561–562; TD, V, pp. 88, 89. The Flanders nuncio was, from time to time, tacitly sympathetic towards the vicar apostolic in Holland, Philip Rovenius, whom the English secular clergy regarded as a friend, principally because of his hostility to some of the religious orders; on the other hand, the nuncio was not (in general) a critic of the Jesuits and was also an enthusiastic supporter of Mary Ward. See CGB, I, pp. 68–69, 107, 136, 162, 245, 251, cf. p. 514.

¹⁸¹ George Blackwell.

¹⁸² Robert (Anselm) Beech OSB.

¹⁸³ Roland (Thomas) Preston OSB.

¹⁸⁴ In November 1613, Anthony Champney had suspected Almond of being in agreement with Preston's opinions concerning the 1606 oath of allegiance: NAGB, p. 117.

¹⁸⁵ For the circulation of the rumour of Preston's involvement in the alleged conversion of Bishop John King, see D. Lunn, The English Benedictines, 1540–1688 (London, 1980), pp. 51–52; Letter 13. John Gee claimed that he had asked among the London Catholic clergy which priest had reconciled the bishop and ‘they named to me F[ather] Preston’: T.H.B.M. Harmsen (ed.), John Gee's Foot out of the Snare (1624) (Nijmegen, 1992), pp. 143, 91.

¹⁸⁶ In May 1621, John Chamberlain had commented that the reason for the story was that Bishop King had ‘out of charitie (both before and in his sicknes) [. . .] relieved some priests that were in prison’; a correspondent of William Trumbull said that Preston was one of them: see McClure, LJC, p. 376; Harmsen (ed.), John Gee's Foot out of the Snare, p. 91. For the sermon, preached on 25 November 1621 by Henry King, which refuted the rumour of the conversion, see DSSD, p. 58; Henry King, A Sermon Preached at Pauls Crosse (London, 1621).

¹⁸⁷ For George Fisher's The Bishop of London his Legacy (Saint-Omer, 1623), see ARCR, II, no. 557; A. Davidson, ‘The conversion of Bishop King: a question of evidence’, RH, 9 (1968), pp. 245–246; Letter 13. Antony Allison and David Rogers (ARCR, II, no. 557) attribute the tract to Fisher, although cf. Letter 23, which perhaps implies that Richard Broughton (who had cited the alleged conversion in his English Protestants Plea (Saint-Omer, 1621), p. 19) may have been the author or have had a hand in it. For Broughton's defence of the book, see AAW, A XVII, no. 3, pp. 9–10; Letter 13. Broughton wrote to Thomas Rant on 28 April 1624 that ‘I thinke you have h[e]ard’ that, during John Bennett's agency in Rome, ‘the author of the booke to the last parlament’ (i.e. Broughton himself) ‘was complayned of in the consistory for writeinge [that] D[octor] Kinge, Protestant bishop of London, dyed a Catholick’. (Rant believed that the complaint came from Thomas Preston.) However, Broughton successfully ‘justified himself’, and now ‘the Jesuits at S. Omers have published that b[ishop] his book of the authors of his chaunge in religion. Yt came publick hither about Christmas last but with a new preface; for, in the first which came forth in the beginning of March was 2 yeares and then was in the archb[ishop] of Canterburyes hands, it sayd the booke was delyvered to the publisher by the b[ishop] of London to bee published after his death; in the second, onely they say constantly that hee dyed a Catholicke, not affirming the other’: AAW, B 26, no. 45. For the second edition of The Bishop of London his Legacy, see ARCR, II, no. 558; Letter 20.

The book was printed on the Saint-Omer Jesuit college press. However, some Jesuits may have been dismissive of it. According to John Gee, the Jesuit Lawrence Anderton believed that it was too obviously a forgery: ‘he was sorrie that ever any such booke should be suffered to come forth: for it would doe them more hurt than any booke they ever wrote’: Harmsen, John Gee's Foot out of the Snare, p. 144; cf. Thomas Scott, Boanerges: or the humble supplication of the ministers of Scotland, to the High Court of Parliament in England (Edinburgh [false imprint; vere London], 1624), p. 24. Nevertheless, the book appears to have been exploited by the secular clergy in order to argue at Rome that the Protestant episcopate in England was no longer as resolutely anti-Catholic as it had once been. William Bishop, in a letter to John Bennett, enclosing the volume, assumed that it could be used in this way: Letter 23.

¹⁸⁸ John Williams.

¹⁸⁹ Carlos Coloma.

¹⁹⁰ See Letter 8.

¹⁹¹ William Harrison.

¹⁹² Edward Stafford, 4th Baron Stafford. See NCC, p. 193.

¹⁹³ Oliver Almond died before June 1625: Anstr., I, p. 7. Lord Stafford died in September 1625: Cokayne, CP, XII/i, p. 186. In mid-1621, Stafford's sister Dorothy, following her unfortunate marriage to a lawyer from Lincoln's Inn, was in Spain and seeking to ‘gett entertaynment under the Lady Doña Maria [. . .] and so to rayse a fortune if happily the match shold succeed with England’: PRO, SP 94/24, fo. 176r.

¹⁹⁴ Matthew Kellison.

¹⁹⁵ This letter does not appear to have survived.

¹⁹⁶ For King James's directions concerning preaching, see K. Fincham (ed.), Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church, 2 vols (Woodbridge, 1994, 1998), I, pp. 211–213; Cogswell, BR, pp. 32–35, 37; J. Shami, John Donne and Conformity in Crisis in the Late Jacobean Pulpit (Cambridge, 2003); McClure, LJC, p. 449. Simonds D'Ewes remarked with sarcasm that Richard Sheldon, in his provocative anti-popish sermon of 1 September 1622, concluded (as did ‘allsoe all our ministers’) that ‘the late articles the king had sett foorth, especiallye that of preaching in the afternoone upon the points of the catechisme, would bee of [. . .] good use for the beating downe of poperye’: DSSD, p. 95.

¹⁹⁷ For the virtual cessation in September 1622 of the proceedings of the high commission at York against Catholics, see Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, High Commission Act Book, 16, fos 300r–322v.

¹⁹⁸ Richard Neile.

¹⁹⁹ Walter Skirlaw, bishop of Durham (d. 24 March 1406). He was buried in a chantry tomb at the altar of St Blaise and St John of Beverley: ODNB, sub ‘Skirlaw, Walter” (article by M.G. Snape).

²⁰⁰ Richard Broughton.

²⁰¹ See Letter 8.

²⁰² See Letter 9.

²⁰³ On 14/24 September 1622, William Harewell advised John Bennett that Caesar Clement (who, Harewell noted in a letter four days later, was ‘of great authoritie with the nuncio, and in that court, and one who must be respected, els our cause is like to fare the worse’: AAW, A XVI, no. 147, p. 567; cf. CGB, I, p. 32) was ‘no friend of the Theatins’, i.e. Jesuits, ‘though <ordinariely> he be moderate in his speeches as houlding that a point of wisdome’. He had spoken ‘roundly of them’ to the Flanders nuncio: see AAW, A XVI, no. 144, p. 562; see also AAW, A XVI, no. 161, pp. 617–618.

²⁰⁴ The members of Mary Ward's institute.

²⁰⁵ See M.M. Littlehales, Mary Ward (London, 1998), p. 114; Dirmeier, MW, I, pp. 713–714, 716, II, pp. 77–8.

²⁰⁶ Francis (or John) Young SJ. See CRS, 75, p. 342.

²⁰⁷ The Jesuit general, Muzio Vitelleschi, tried very hard to prevent John Gerard SJ assisting Mary Ward: ARSJ, Anglia MS 1, passim; Dirmeier, MW, passim. In June 1621, Vitelleschi had ordered that a book written by John Price SJ in favour of Mary Ward's institute should be neither printed nor circulated in manuscript: ARSJ, Anglia MS 1, fo. 141r; Dirmeier, MW, pp. 544–547; H. Peters, Mary Ward (Leominster, 1994), p. 289. For the general's directive in early 1620 to Richard Blount SJ to ensure that no member of the Society should be ‘mixed with their direction or government’, see M. Chambers, ed. H.J. Coleridge, The Life of Mary Ward (1585–1645), 2 vols (London, 1885), II, pp. 13–14; for Blount's orders to this effect issued on 19 July 1623, see Dirmeier, MW, II, pp. 3–4. For English Jesuits, such as Roger Lee and Andrew White, who were noted supporters of the institute, see Chambers, Life, II, pp. 50–51, 53–57; Dirmeier, MW, passim; Letter 29.

²⁰⁸ Carlos Coloma.

²⁰⁹ Letter 8.

²¹⁰ Oliver Almond.

²¹¹ Joseph Haynes.

²¹² François de Carondelet, archdeacon of Cambrai, who came to London in late 1622 to assist with Carlos Coloma's embassy: see CRS, 68, p. 158.

²¹³ See also AAW, A XVI, no. 153, p. 595 (William Bishop to John Bennett, 26 September/6 October 1622); AAW, B 47, no. 30 (Edward Bennett to John Bennett, 29 September 1622).

²¹⁴ Isabella Clara Eugenia, the infanta-archduchess of Austria, and ruler of the Netherlands.

²¹⁵ For Isabella's patronage of Mary Ward's institute, see Littlehales, Mary Ward, pp. 106–113; Chambers, Life, II, p. 92; Dirmeier, MW, passim.

²¹⁶ On 22 August/1 September 1622, William Bishop noted Mr Whetenhall's arrival in London: AAW, A XVI, no. 136, p. 541. A pass was issued to one Thomas Whetenhall in February 1623, permitting him to travel abroad for three years (he had previously, in April 1622, been issued with a licence to stay abroad); this Whetenhall took the oath of allegiance: APC, 1621–1623, pp. 192, 427. Thomas Rant recorded in late 1623 ‘the storye how the Jesuitts would have putt M^r Whitnal (bycause hee was camerado to M^r [John] Bennet) into the Inquisition; but Card[inal] S[anta] Susanna, who knewe him, hindred yt’: AAW, B 25, no. 102.

²¹⁷ John Bosvile.

²¹⁸ Lady Elizabeth Dormer.

²¹⁹ John Williams, bishop of Lincoln.

²²⁰ In the hand of Thomas Rant.

²²¹ St Melania (the younger): see D. Atwater, The Penguin Dictionary of Saints (Harmondsworth, 1965), p. 242.

²²² AAW, A XVI, no. 144, pp. 561–562.

²²³ AAW, A XVI, no. 147, pp. 567–568.

²²⁴ In the margin, Harewell writes: ‘by that letter you shall understand that M^r Broughton doth now professe to joyne in the sute of bishops’. For Richard Broughton's letter (AAW, A XVI, no. 135, pp. 539–540), see Letter 8.

²²⁵ For George Gage's return to England with the terms of the dispensation, see PRO, SP 94/25, fo. 199v; BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 122v; CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 412; McClure, LJC, p. 452; Letter 12.

²²⁶ For James's objections to the terms of the dispensation, see CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 418.

²²⁷ Matthew Kellison.

²²⁸ Richard Broughton wrote to John Bennett on 23 October 1622 that he had heard that Cardinal Giovanni Garzia Millini ‘desireth information of the b[ishop] of Londons death’. Nevertheless ‘hee that wrote the Protestants Plea had many reasons, as hee thought, to write as hee did’. In particular, he had heard ‘for creditt’ that John King ‘had testified with his owne hand his reconciliation, as many thinke yt was convenient hee should’: AAW, A XVI, no. 167, p. 631; see also Letter 10. On 24 September/4 October 1622, John Bennett noted that, in ‘the last weekes congregacion before the cardinalls’, he had been ‘called in and amongst other thinges they inquired much concerning the maner of death of King, bishop of London’. Thomas Preston OSB had alleged that he knew nothing of the matter. But he mentioned Broughton's English Protestants Plea (Saint-Omer, 1621), which Matthew Kellison ‘should approve for the printe, and <sayth> it were needfull the truth were knowne with the author’. Bennett defended Kellison's approbation of the book on the grounds that it related only ‘to faith or good maners’; but his interrogators asked ‘might we not by him know what the author were, that the truth of the story may be knowne?’: AAW, A XVI, no. 151, pp. 588–589.

²²⁹ i.e. an assistant to the former archpriest, William Harrison.

²³⁰ For one instance of the abrasive attitude to the regulars in Broughton's tract, see Broughton, English Protestants Plea, pp. 5–6. Broughton had, however, at the time of the appellant controversy, issued publications which were sympathetic to the Society of Jesus. See, e.g., his An Apologicall Epistle (Antwerp [false imprint; printed secretly in England], 1601), p. 46; and his First Part of the Resolution of Religion (Antwerp [false imprint; printed secretly in England], 1603), pp. 53–54.

²³¹ Pedro Coutinho.

²³² Jean ‘t Serclaes, count of Tilly.

²³³ For the taking of the elector palatine's capital of Heidelberg, with conventional plunder but not the massacre indicated here, see Cogswell, BR, p. 20; Pursell, WK, p. 184; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 467, 469; DSSD, pp. 97–98; HMCMK, p. 137.

²³⁴ On 18/28 September 1622, William Harewell reported that Lord Vaux had ‘newly come over’ and that the secular clergy at Douai expected ‘him heere this night’. There were ‘saied to be come with him (besides some 2,000 come before) 800 soldiers and some 80 gentlemen of note that accompanie him, all very gallant’: AAW, A XVI, no. 147, p. 567.

²³⁵ John Heigham.

²³⁶ Sébastien Bouthillier, bishop of Aire.

²³⁷ Armand-Jean Du Plessis, bishop of Luçon, and now Cardinal Richelieu.

²³⁸ Ottavio Corsini, archbishop of Tarsus.

²³⁹ Giovanni-Francesco Guido del Bagno, archbishop of Patras.

²⁴⁰ Roberto Ubaldini and his successor as nuncio in Paris, Guido Bentivoglio.

²⁴¹ In late 1623, Bentivoglio promised Thomas Rant assistance with the secular clergy's suits in Rome: AAW, B 25, no. 102.

²⁴² Peter Lombard, archbishop of Armagh, who resided in Rome, was a supporter of the secular clergy leadership's agency at Rome. See A. Macinnes, ‘Regal union for Britain, 1603–38’, in G. Burgess (ed.), The New British History: founding a modern state 1603–1715 (London, 1999), p. 34; J.J. Silke, ‘Primate Peter Lombard and Hugh O'Neill’, Irish Theological Quarterly, 22 (1955), pp. 15–30; NAGB, p. 79. Though he had formerly supported the rebel earl of Tyrone, Lombard had, by the time of Tyrone's death, come to ‘favour a rapprochement with the English crown in the hope of achieving some measure of toleration’: see H. Kearney, Strafford in Ireland (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 110–111. Thomas Rant recorded how, in Rome, Lombard discoursed about how much ‘the Jesuitts’ had ‘wrong[e]d the kings title in writinge Dolman’, i.e. the Conference about the Next Succession to the Crowne of Ingland: see AAW, B 25, no. 102; H. Morgan, Tyrone's Rebellion (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 4–5, 182. In September 1622, Lombard had added his voice to those who were trying to persuade the Roman curia that the regime in England would genuinely try to get a toleration through a packed parliament: Gardiner, NSMT, p. 177.

²⁴³ Claude Bertin, superior of the French Oratory in Rome.

²⁴⁴ For Cardinal Scipione Cobelluzio of St Susanna, see M. Chambers, ed. H.J. Coleridge, The Life of Mary Ward (1585–1645), 2 vols (London, 1885), II, p. 140.

²⁴⁵ William (Archangel) Barlow, a member of the Paris community of the Capuchins. See Allison, RS, p. 183.

²⁴⁶ John Williams, bishop of Lincoln.

²⁴⁷ For the series of debates held over three days (24–26 May 1622) between the Jesuit John Percy (who had converted the countess of Buckingham to Rome) and leading Protestant divines, as well as the king, see above, p. 000. For Richard Blount SJ's account (of 8 October 1622) of the disputation between John Percy and Francis White, see AAW, A XVI, no. 154, pp. 597–598; ARSJ, Anglia MS 1, fo. 163r.

²⁴⁸ Mary Villiers, countess of Buckingham.

²⁴⁹ The countess's reward from the king for announcing that she was returning to the Church of England was reported to be £2,000. On 22 June 1622, John Chamberlain noted that, on the previous Sunday, she had received communion in the chapel royal ‘with both her daughters (though they had receved the weeke before)’. By September, Chamberlain, like others, understood that she had ‘relapsed into poperie and makes open profession, wherupon she is sent from court and (as is said) confined to her house at Dalbie in Lecestershire’: McClure, LJC, pp. 439, 441, 451; see also Letter 16. A long letter of October 1622 from Sir George Paul urged her to renounce the Church of Rome: BL, Harleian MS 1581, fos 244r–246v. Rumours and libels circulated about her, including, as Simonds D'Ewes recorded on 10 January 1623, ‘a booke [. . .] called “the Chast Matron”, in which was discovered all the villanis, witchcrafts and lasciviousnes’ of the countess: DSSD, p. 113; see also McClure, LJC, p. 457; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 137–138; CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 88.

²⁵⁰ On 18/28 July 1622, Bishop had observed in a letter to Bennett that, ‘among the questions which our king is said to have [asked] the Jesuits to be resolved, the chief is whether the pope [can] depose kings. To which, as the report goes, they meane to answer that F[ather] Generall hath forbidden them to treat of that question, which will not satisfy the king. And againe some thinke that his Holines will not take it well that they should be silent in that important point being by a king questioned about it’: AAW, A XVI, no. 124, p. 501.

²⁵¹ Henry Bedingfield SJ. See CRS, 75, p. 294.

²⁵² Thomas Talbot SJ. Talbot served as a chaplain to Lord Vaux: see ARSJ, Anglia MS 1, fo. 164v.

²⁵³ See Letter 15.

²⁵⁴ John Bennett had been told in March 1622 that Digby's title (he was created earl of Bristol on 15 September 1622, although his promotion was rumoured as early as January of that year) was not to be announced until he arrived in Spain: AAW, A XVI, no. 105, p. 439; see also McClure, LJC, p. 422. The count of Tillières ascribed Digby's promotion to Gondomar: PRO, PRO 31/3/56, fo. 39r.

²⁵⁵ For the royal directions concerning preaching, see Letter 11; and for George Abbot's letter accompanying them and qualifying them, see J. Shami, John Donne and Conformity in Crisis in the Late Jacobean Pulpit (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 75, n. 1, 105–106; K. Fincham (ed.), Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church, 2 vols (Woodbridge, 1994, 1998), I, pp. 213–214; George Abbot, The Coppie of a Letter sent from my Lords Grace of Canterburie (Oxford, 1622).

²⁵⁶ William Gifford, archbishop of Rheims. See Anstr., I, p. 133.

²⁵⁷ Letter 13.

²⁵⁸ Henry Bedingfield SJ.

²⁵⁹ See Letter 14.

²⁶⁰ William Bishop wrote to John Bennett (in a letter dated either 30 September/10 October 1622 or 10/20 October 1622, but probably the former) that ‘the last newes out of England is that all Catholike prisoners are delivered all England over except four printers in Lancaster gayle who are said to be detained under colour of medling in matter of State, though the printers prisoners in London were delivered as well as others’, and that ‘all priests about London aswell Jesuites as others are out of prison under one pretence or other, saving some fewe in the Clinck who, as it seemes, will not go out’: AAW, A XVI, no. 157, p. 609.

²⁶¹ Richard Neile.

²⁶² It is possible that Bishop Richard Neile (who had been involved in suppressing the puritan exorcist John Darrell) was reacting to the circulating reports of the recent attempted exorcism, by Catholic clergy in the Coventry and Lichfield diocese, of William Perry, the ‘boy of Bilson’. See Richard Baddeley, The Boy of Bilson (London, 1622); A.W. Foster, ‘A biography of Archbishop Richard Neile (1562–1640)’ (unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Oxford, 1978), p. 21.

²⁶³ See Gardiner, NSMT, pp. 178, 182; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 485, 490.

²⁶⁴ Carlos Coloma.

²⁶⁵ The official Spanish line was that Heidelberg had been taken ‘onely to drive those wicked souldiers out of the countrey who lived on the spoile and would not suffer the countrey <men> to till the ground, with reservation of it to the king of England to dispose of for his daughter’: AAW, A XVI, no. 157, p. 609. William Harewell reported on 16/26 October 1622 that (as he was informed by William Law, now serving as chaplain to Carlos Coloma) James ‘does [. . .] offer Manheim and Frankendale to have Heidleberg delivered againe, which hitherunto he would never offer’, although Mannheim (defended, like the other towns, by English troops under Sir Horace Vere) was on the verge of surrender, and fell on 18/28 October: see AAW, A XVI, no. 171, pp. 663–664; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 470, 505; PRO, SP 14/134/13, 14, 15; DSSD, pp. 102, 105, 106; Redworth, PI, p. 57; Pursell, WK, pp. 171, 185–186. For Bristol's unsuccessful diplomatic attempts to save Mannheim from the count of Tilly's forces, see W.B. Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 320–321. In Madrid, in February 1623, Bristol offered to the Spanish court that Frankenthal should be put into the archduchess Isabella's hands in return for the abandonment of the siege, with provision to restore it ‘si la paix avec l'empereur n'était pas conclue’: CCE, pp. 117–118. For the treaty signed by James concerning Frankenthal, surrendering it in mid-April 1623 for a specific period to the archduchess (though the government in Brussels decided in April 1624 that this agreement was abrogated by the breach of the Anglo-Spanish marriage treaty), see CSPD, 1619–1623, pp. 502, 504, 511, 516, 519, 526, 529, 531, 532, 550, 567; APC, 1621–1623, p. 446; BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 159r; PRO, C 115/107/8485; CCE, p. 125; CGB, I, pp. xxi, 293, 300, 304, 312, 456, 492, 495, 508, 509, 528, 534, 543, 547, 555–556. See also CSPD, 1623–1625, p. 296 and passim; Redworth, PI, p. 73; Pursell, ESP, pp. 707, 708; CCE, p. 184; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 458, 465, 468, 470, 476, 481, 485.

²⁶⁶ i.e. the secular clergy.

²⁶⁷ For Mathew's secret ordination, though he was not a Jesuit, see Letter 3.

²⁶⁸ Matthew Kellison.

²⁶⁹ Joseph Haynes remarked on 12 October 1622 that, the night before, Coloma had told him that the rumour that a bishop had been appointed for England was untrue, because Cardinal Millini had recently written to him ‘for to nominate some on[e] whom he thought most fitt to be our archpreist’, although Coloma had replied to the cardinal that the English secular clergy were determined to secure an episcopal appointment: AAW, A XVI, no. 158, p. 611.

²⁷⁰ On 24 September/4 October 1622, John Bennett reported to William Bishop that ‘the delay of nomination yet houldeth me; whereof, being weary, I repayred to his Hol[iness] and complayned bitterly, and soe to the cardinals. Some answer his Hol[iness] made at first, as if the danger were not great for a small tyme; to which I replyed that we spent noe daye or weeke in this delay without losse of soules. Wheruppon I insisted very earnestly; soe as his Hol[iness] promised I should forthwith be dispatched. My memoriall was noe lesse earnest than my wordes; which, by comandment from our f[ather], was the next congregacion before himself, within two dayes, readd, and a resolution made, as they conffesse, that I should have speedy satisfaction; but the particulers I cannot yet lerne’. Bennett insisted, however, that the secular clergy would be satisfied only with ‘a superior of our owne choice’. In the mean time the secular clergy's adversaries at Rome ‘fayne a hundreth chymeras in there owne braynes nothing at all to the matter, and then publish there own fictiones for truth; as, for example, that they here expecte the event of the dispensation before any thing be in this determined. But they knowe litle of the estate of e[i]ther. For our sute dependeth not <at> all of the maraidge; and, I assure you, we had our graunte when here they were doubteffull whether the maraidge would hould or noe’: AAW, A XVI, no. 151, pp. 587–588.

²⁷¹ William Seton, of Meldrum in Aberdeenshire, a friend of the English secular clergy in Rome. He was attached to the household of Cardinal Scipione Cobelluzio: see D. Shanahan, ‘The descendants of St. Thomas More: Reverend Thomas More IV, 1565–1625’, London Recusant, 3 (1973), p. 89. William Bishop pointed out in late December 1623, after the election of Maffeo Barberini as Urban VIII, that the new pontiff had been cardinal protector of the Scottish nation, ‘and therefore M^r Seton is like to be well knowen to him’: AAW, A XVII, no. 63, p. 204. Thomas More understood that Seton was, like George Con, ‘knowne to his Majestie’. This was because Seton was ‘nere of kinn to the late chanceler of Scottland’ (Alexander Seton, 1st earl of Dunfermline) and ‘most gratfull unto him’. He had ‘lyved some yeares in this court wher he hath gott good experience and great frends and acquantance’: AAW, A XVIII, no. 55, p. 337. Seton was no friend to the Jesuits. He told Thomas Rant that ‘within theis 6 yeeres, ther have byn 2 Jesuitts dyed in the Inquisition for revealinge of confessions’, and although ‘one of them indeede was gott out to the Jesu, a day before hee dyed [. . .] bycause his sicknes was in the Inquisition, and his neernes to death ther, wee may say hee dyed ther’: AAW, B 25, no. 102.

²⁷² Giovanni-Francesco Guido del Bagno, archbishop of Patras.

²⁷³ . Carlos Coloma.

²⁷⁴ John Percy SJ.

²⁷⁵ John Jackson.

²⁷⁶ Mary Villiers, countess of Buckingham.

²⁷⁷ See Letter 14.

²⁷⁸ Thomas Worthington.

²⁷⁹ On 8/18 October 1622, Caesar Clement wrote to William Harewell that Thomas Worthington had been with him the day before and had told him that ‘he wowlde go to Rome for two thinges, the one to informe his Hollines better off this matter of bishops, wherin he <sayed he> was much abused by summe that sowght butt themselves’. His other purpose was ‘to sett forwarde the congregation by him begunne, or sodallitie tendinge to reformation’. Clement thought that ‘itt were good he wer prevented by givinge warninge’ to John Bennett in Rome: AAW, A XVI, no. 161, pp. 617–618. For Worthington's account, written in late August 1624, concerning his quarrel with William Bishop over Worthington's sodality and his refusal to serve as an archdeacon under the authority of Richard Broughton and John Bosvile, see AAW, B 26, no. 111 (modern transcription of AAW, B 26, no. 112); AAW, B 27, no. 42. The hostility of leading secular priests to Worthington dated back to his time as president of the English College at Douai, where he was regarded as a favourer of the Jesuits: NAGB, passim. It was also thought that he intended to appropriate quasi-episcopal authority to himself in England. In January 1616, Anthony Champney had complained to Thomas More that ‘it was given out all over in England’ that Thomas Worthington had been created archpriest in place of William Harrison: TD, V, p. clxxxvi. In April 1616, William Rayner remarked from Paris that ‘yt hath been here reported that Monsignor Worthington confirmeth people in England’, and this rumour was the result ‘of soom speaches that D[octor] Worthington himself used to a French bushop that came out of Italie with him to whom he sayd soomthinge about his extraordinarie facultie’: AAW, A XV, no. 65, p. 173.

²⁸⁰ Edward Bennett.

²⁸¹ Thomas Harlay, provost of the church of St Gagericus (St Gery) at Cambrai. See CRS, 10, pp. 218, 219.

²⁸² Coloma.

²⁸³ John Williams.

²⁸⁴ Matthew Kellison.

²⁸⁵ Isabella Clara Eugenia, archduchess of Austria.

²⁸⁶ William (Rudesind) Barlow OSB.

²⁸⁷ On 14/24 September 1622, William Harewell had informed John Bennett that Rudesind Barlow and the Benedictines were prepared to give their nomination for Matthew Kellison and Richard Smith, but not for William Bishop, for he was, they thought, too ‘boisterous’: AAW, A XVI, no. 144, p. 562.

²⁸⁸ Giovanni-Francesco Guido del Bagno, archbishop of Patras.

²⁸⁹ Richard Ireland.

²⁹⁰ William (Archangel) Barlow.

²⁹¹ Chrysogono Flacci, secretary to Giovanni-Francesco Guido del Bagno. See CGB, I, pp. x, 36, and passim.

²⁹² Matthew Kellison.

²⁹³ The English College at Douai.

²⁹⁴ See AAW, A XVI, no. 169, pp. 635–644, no. 170, pp. 645–662; CRS, 10, pp. 195–206, 390–399.

²⁹⁵ See M.M. Littlehales, Mary Ward (London, 1998), p. 112; M. Chambers, ed. H.J. Coleridge, The Life of Mary Ward (1585–1645), 2 vols (London, 1885), II, pp. 50–52; Dirmeier, MW, I, pp. 726, 727–729; AAW, A XVI, no. 170, pp. 645–662.

²⁹⁶ . ^{Carlos Coloma.}

²⁹⁷ See Letter 15; see also AAW, B 47, no. 30.

²⁹⁸ Frederick V, elector palatine.

²⁹⁹ See CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 481. In early July 1622, Frederick had dispensed with the services of Mansfelt and Christian of Brunswick, and had withdrawn to Sedan to reside with his uncle, Henri de la Tour, duke of Bouillon, though Mansfelt and Brunswick had joined him there in August, before leaving for the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom: Pursell, WK, pp. 181–185.

³⁰⁰ See CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 414, 440, 462, 487–488.

³⁰¹ See ibid., pp. 476, 478, 479, 480, 483, 485, 495; McClure, LJC, p. 455; CCE, p. 111.

³⁰² On 16/26 October, William Harewell had recorded, for John Bennett's benefit, the news sent by Caesar Clement to Matthew Kellison, which he had recently received from William Law concerning the Spanish fleet. This, combined with the ‘newes of the taking of Heydleberg’, greatly disconcerted the king, who ‘presently called for his councell to know what the meaning heere of should be, and whether they were able to bringe the kingdome in danger’; but the fleet, ‘passing on her journey, went forward, with a very prosperous winde, till it arrived uppon our coastes and so 28 ships are arrived at Dunkerk, the rest at Callis’. This was an encouragement to those, such as Harewell, who had been downcast by ‘the Marques Spinola his raising of his [si]ege before Bergen op Zome’, and it ‘opened our eyes to see that surely [a]ll the marques[‘s] hope laye uppon the coming of this armada’, which would ‘divert the enemie from Berghen’: see AAW, A XVI, no. 171, p. 663; CGB, I, p. 261.

³⁰³ John Ducket, procurator for the English College at Douai. See Anstr., II, pp. 89–90; AAW, A XVI, no. 109, p. 453.

³⁰⁴ Edward Bennett.

³⁰⁵ Carlos Coloma.

³⁰⁶ John Williams, bishop of Lincoln.

³⁰⁷ William (Archangel) Barlow.

³⁰⁸ Tanneguy Leveneur, count of Tillières.

³⁰⁹ François d'Escoubleau, cardinal de Sourdis.

³¹⁰ See Letter 12.

³¹¹ See ibid.

³¹² For the negotiation of the clause of the treaty which dealt with this issue, see Gardiner, NSMT, p. 338; CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 490.

³¹³ Isabella Clara Eugenia, archduchess of Austria.

³¹⁴ In Madrid, the Spaniards offered exactly the same excuse to the earl of Bristol, namely that Mansfelt had caused the withdrawal of Spanish forces from the Palatinate in order to defend Flanders, and that the ‘seige of Heidleberge was no way by the consent or knowledge’ of Philip IV. On 13/23 October, Bristol wrote that the Spanish court ‘dispatched away letters to the infanta to stopp the emperours and duke of Bavarias proceedings’: PRO, SP 94/25, fos 265r, 266r; see also HMCMK, pp. 137, 138; CCE, pp. 91, 92.

³¹⁵ For the peace agreed at Montpellier, see Adams, PC, p. 332; R. Lockyer, Buckingham: the life and political career of George Villiers, first duke of Buckingham 1592–1628 (London, 1981), pp. 229–230; C.J. Burckhardt, Richelieu and his Age, 3 vols (London, 1967), I, p. 151. On 10/20 October 1622, William Bishop had observed in a letter to Bennett that Louis XIII was ‘said to have made a peace with his rebels which, though most zealous men do dislike, yet it seemes not so bad as some would make it. The townes that held out do yeelde to have their new fortifications beaten downe and do receive Catholike garrison[s] and governour[s]’: AAW, A XVI, no. 164, p. 623.

³¹⁶ Matthew Kellison.

³¹⁷ AAW, A XVI, no. 171, pp. 663–666 (16/26 October 1622).

³¹⁸ AAW, A XVI, no. 161, pp. 617–618.

³¹⁹ Matthew Kellison.

³²⁰ Edward Bennett.

³²¹ Carlos Coloma.

³²² A reference, presumably, to William Jones, clerk of the passage: see CSPD, 1619–1623, pp. 16, 374, 378, 395, 406, 420, 460, 462.

³²³ William Cape. See Questier, C&C, p. 392.

³²⁴ Francis Browne, the son of Anthony Maria Browne, 2nd Viscount Montague.

³²⁵ Edward Smith. See D. Lunn, The English Benedictines, 1540–1688 (London, 1980), p. 229; PRO, SP 16/178/43; Anstr., II, p. 299.

³²⁶ See Questier, C&C, p. 392.

³²⁷ The residence of the Dormer family in Buckinghamshire.

³²⁸ See CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 485, 490; Gardiner, NSMT, pp. 182, 183. For the reasons for Gage's journey via Madrid, see PRO, PRO 31/3/56, fo. 134v.

³²⁹ On 23 September 1622, a warrant was passed to pay George Gage £500 for his employment in the king's service abroad: CSPD, 1619–1623, p. 449.

³³⁰ See CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 469, 479; CSPD, 1619–1623, p. 451.

³³¹ Cf. CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 439. Porter, a relative of Buckingham, had been appointed a groom of the prince of Wales's bedchamber: Redworth, PI, p. 43. For his mission to Spain, see R. Lockyer, Buckingham: the life and political career of George Villiers, first duke of Buckingham 1592–1628 (London, 1981), pp. 129, 132, 133–134; J.H. Elliott, The Count-Duke of Olivares (London, 1986), pp. 205–206.

³³² Angela Porter. See Dirmeier, MW, I, p. 731. There is no evidence that she was a member of Mary Ward's institute. I am grateful to Caroline Bowden and to the Bar Convent at York for information on this point.

³³³ There is no record of a residence set up by Mary Ward's institute here, and it is unlikely to have existed, certainly not for the numbers of women alleged. Again, I am grateful to Dr Bowden and the Bar Convent for this information.

³³⁴ AAW, A XVI, no. 171, pp. 663–666.

³³⁵ Sir Andrew Gray.

³³⁶ Letter 15.

³³⁷ Letter 19.

³³⁸ Edward Bennett.

³³⁹ Matthew Kellison.

³⁴⁰ Carlos Coloma.

³⁴¹ See Letters 17, 18.

³⁴² Francis (or John) Young SJ. See CRS, 75, p. 342.

³⁴³ See Letter 25.

³⁴⁴ The Spanish fleet was mentioned in William Harewell's letter of 16/26 October (AAW, A XVI, no. 171, pp. 663–666), rather than that of 23 October/2 November (Letter 19), and also in his letter of 11/21 October (Letter 17).

³⁴⁵ For the raising of the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom, see J. Israel, The Dutch Republic (Oxford, 1995), p. 483; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 472, 480, 486, 488, 548; CGB, I, p. 256.

³⁴⁶ Richard Broughton.

³⁴⁷ See Letter 10. In fact, Richard Broughton's letter of 23 October 1622 (AAW, A XVI, no. 167, p. 631) dealt with his own book, English Protestants Plea, rather than with George Fisher's The Bishop of London his Legacy. For Broughton's defence of the latter book, see AAW, A XVII, no. 3, pp. 9–10 (cited in Letter 10).

³⁴⁸ See Letter 11.

³⁴⁹ Juan Bautista Vives, envoy in Rome for the archduchess Isabella: see D. Shanahan, ‘The descendants of St. Thomas More: Reverend Thomas More IV, 1565–1625’, London Recusant, 3 (1973), p. 91; CGB, I, p. 30. Richard Smith wrote to John Bennett on 10/20 October 1622, ‘I know him well and, as I think, he wil remember me if you tel him that I was the agent’ for the English secular clergy in 1609 and went often, with Thomas More, to visit him, ‘and he gave me at my departure a book, De Missione ad Infideles, written by a discalced Carmelite, and hath written to [me] since I came to Paris’: AAW, A XVI, no. 163, p. 621. See also NAGB, passim; AAW, B 26, no. 40A. In December 1623, Vives promised that he would assist Thomas Rant with the secular clergy's current business in Rome: AAW, B 25, no. 102.

³⁵⁰ Sébastien Bouthillier.

³⁵¹ For Zuñiga's recent death, see CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 483, 502.

³⁵² Carlos Coloma.

³⁵³ Edward Bennett.

³⁵⁴ For Coloma's second letter to the Spanish ambassador in Rome, withdrawing his objection to the secular clergy's suit for the appointment of a bishop, see AAW, A XVI, no. 177, p. 679; TD, V, p. 91.

³⁵⁵ Philip Rovenius, vicar apostolic of Holland since 1614, and created archbishop of Philippi in 1620: CGB, I, p. 45.

³⁵⁶ Catholic jurisdictional structures in the Netherlands were problematical in ways rather similar to those in England. The secular clergy who worked in rebel-controlled areas were governed by a vicar apostolic, at this date Rovenius, who was also provisionally bishop of Utrecht, whereas (after 1612) the Jesuits were responsible to the nuncio. As Paul Arblaster explains, ‘further confusion was added by the existence of areas under Dutch control which were part of dioceses still largely in loyal territory’, in which priests were, of course, governed by diocesan bishops: P. Arblaster, Antwerp & the World: Richard Verstegan and the International Culture of Catholic Reformation (Louvain, 2004), p. 119. On 24 September/4 October 1622, John Bennett had reported that ‘here is also in the congregacion de Propaganda Fide informaciones given by the Jesuites against the bishop of Holland’, Rovenius, who had recently set out from Flanders for Rome, ‘and they would <have> him taken away and noe bishop there. But he hath answered them home. I have seene the objectiones and answeres. The nexte congregacion determineth that matter and I thinke litle for the Jesuites there advantage. They are subjectes to that bishop in many important pointes and he curbeth there insolency.’ Also ‘there are 200 prestes’ whereas the Jesuits numbered only ‘some xx^ti, yet would have all in theere owne handes’: AAW, A XVI, no. 151, p. 589; CGB, I, pp. xxxii, 268–269. For Rovenius, see also NCC, pp. 89, 94, 243; J. Israel, The Dutch Republic (Oxford, 1995), pp. 377ff. and esp. pp. 381–384; CGB, I, pp. xxxi–xxxii, 94 (Rovenius's defence of his actions, offered to Giovanni-Francesco Guido del Bagno); AAW, A XVI, no. 180, p. 688.

³⁵⁷ In a letter of 30 September/10 October 1622, John Bennett had reported to his brother Edward that ‘you wrote unto me of a letter published in England as written by his Hol[iness] in approbation of the Jesuitrices’, and had asked for a copy of the letter if it could be proved that the Jesuits were publicizing it. John Bennett argued that the pope ‘noe way favoureth them but much misliketh them and there institute and <soe> doe all the best of this courte. Yet they will not putt them out of Rome albeit, of late, they were in some danger.’ The institute's members ‘begge upp and downe here, and that very impudently, to there owne shame and disgrace of there countrey’: AAW, A XVI, no. 156, p. 606.

³⁵⁸ John Wilson, at Saint-Omer, had (said Joseph Haynes) ‘written a booke wherin he defendeth them and censureth the spirites that favour them not’. This is a reference, in fact, to Richard Gibbons SJ's translation entitled An Abridgement of Meditations of the Life, Passion, Death & Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ (Saint-Omer, 1614); the abridgement in question, by François Solier SJ, is a version of a work by Vicenzo Bruno SJ: see ARCR, II, no. 344; Dirmeier, MW, I, pp. 216–218. The book was dedicated by Wilson ‘to the vertuous and religious gentlewomen Mistresse Mary Warde and the rest of her devout company in S. Omers’. John Bennett asked for a copy in order to demonstrate Wilson's ‘foolery and knavery’: Dirmeier, MW, I, pp. 216–218; AAW, A XVI, no. 156, p. 606. (Of John Wilson's The Treasury of Devotion, which was published at Saint-Omer in 1622, Richard Smith complained to Rome in 1626 that part of this collection had been printed without the proper authorization: see ARCR, II, no. 811.) I am very grateful to Caroline Bowden for assistance with this point.

³⁵⁹ See Letter 19.

³⁶⁰ On 30 September/10 October 1622, John Bennett had sent word of Biron's impending return from Italy: AAW, A XVI, no. 156, p. 607.

³⁶¹ See CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 519; cf. HMCMK, p. 148.

³⁶² See also AAW, A XVI, no. 165, p. 625 (a letter to John Bennett from E. Hewes, of 20 October 1622, mentioning the same rumour, which Hewes did not believe).

³⁶³ See CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 485, 490; PRO, SP 94/25, fo. 301v.

³⁶⁴ For Francis Cottington's arrival from Spain and his being sworn secretary to Prince Charles, see Redworth, PI, p. 44; R. Lockyer, Buckingham: the life and political career of George Villiers, first duke of Buckingham 1592–1628 (London, 1981), p. 113; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 336, 485, 490. Digby assured Calvert that Cottington's report of the negotiations in Spain would give ‘great satisfaction, notwithstanding any jealousies or doubts which may be raised by the comming of Mr Gage into England with the popes unreasonable demandes’: PRO, SP 94/25, fo. 223r. In disgust, Simonds D'Ewes remarked that Cottington ‘was newlye come over and had satisfied the king’ concerning the Spaniards’ intentions, and so ‘all the good hopes at court weere dasht’: DSSD, pp. 102, 101.

³⁶⁵ James Ussher.

³⁶⁶ This is, apparently, a reference to Ussher's controversial words in his sermon preached at the swearing in of the new lord deputy, Henry Cary, 1st Viscount Falkland, on 8 September 1622: see H. Kearney, Strafford in Ireland (Cambridge, 1989), p. 112; ODNB, sub ‘Ussher, James’ (article by Alan Ford).

³⁶⁷ Cf. Letter 52.

³⁶⁸ Frederick V, elector palatine.

³⁶⁹ Princess Elizabeth, wife of the elector palatine.

³⁷⁰ William (Archangel) Barlow.

³⁷¹ Tanneguy Leveneur, count of Tillières.

³⁷² Denis Simon de Marquemont, archbishop of Lyons. See J. Bergin, The Making of the French Episcopate 1589–1661 (London, 1996), p. 665; D.L.M. Avenel (ed.), Lettres, instructions diplomatiques et papiers d'état du Cardinal de Richelieu, 8 vols (Paris, 1853–1877), II, pp. 16–17.

³⁷³ Francis Forcer SJ.

³⁷⁴ Edward Maddison.

³⁷⁵ John Laithwait SJ.

³⁷⁶ For William Newman's report, on 31 July/10 August 1624, of Laithwait's death, see AAW, B 26, no. 99.

³⁷⁷ See CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 519; Letter 21.

³⁷⁸ See Letter 20.

³⁷⁹ See Letter 22.

³⁸⁰ In the secular clergy agent's papers there is a manuscript copy of the preface of The Bishop of London his Legacy, with a part thereof translated into Latin. See AAW, A XVI, no. 85, pp. 303–314, no. 86, pp. 315–318.

³⁸¹ Carlos Coloma.

³⁸² John Williams, bishop of Lincoln.

³⁸³ John Bennett.

³⁸⁴ See also Hacket, SR, I, p. 94; Letter 8.

³⁸⁵ Carlos Coloma.

³⁸⁶ François de Carondelet.

³⁸⁷ AAW, A XVI, no. 181, pp. 689–692 (Carondelet to Cardinal Millini, 27 December 1622, printed in TD, V, pp. cclv–cclx).

³⁸⁸ 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 had appeared in 1621. In 1624, John Colleton wrote a letter of assurance to King James concerning Kellison's tract. Colleton declared that the ‘second impression’ of the book (i.e. the second edition) was drawn from the author only ‘by reason of certaine exceptions taken’ by Thomas Preston (in A New-Yeares Gift for English Catholikes (London, 1620)) against the first edition: see AAW, A XVIII, no. 104, p. 559.

³⁸⁹ Kellison was the first choice of those secular clergy who were canvassed for their opinion about those suitable to have episcopal authority conferred on them. This anonymous denunciation of Kellison to the Jacobean regime persuaded Rome to appoint William Bishop instead: Allison, RS, pp. 154–155, 176–177.

³⁹⁰ See Kellison, The Right and Iurisdiction of the Prelate, and the Prince, esp. chs 7, 8, 9, 10. In early January, Alvise Valaresso reported the news of James's complaint, delivered via Buckingham, to Coloma, concerning the sale, by a porter in his household, of Kellison's book: CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 538. John Chamberlain believed it had actually been printed there: McClure, LJC, p. 471. According to Chamberlain, the porter was an Englishman. He may, in fact, have been Coloma's chaplain, William Law.

³⁹¹ i.e. Jesuits.

³⁹² Carlos Coloma.

³⁹³ See Letter 20.

³⁹⁴ Porter arrived in London on 2 January 1623: Redworth, PI, p. 49; CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 545, 548; DSSD, p. 119. His advice that the Spanish match might be successfully concluded, and a settlement achieved in the Palatinate, persuaded Buckingham that he and Prince Charles should travel to Madrid: Adams, PC, p. 333.

³⁹⁵ For the contents of and agreement on the marriage articles of December 1622 (concerning the infanta's household and chapel, her servants and the arrangements made for the education of her children, and the legal status of and protection for English Catholics), endorsed by James in January 1623, see Redworth, PI, pp. 49, 174–183. On 12/22 February 1623, William Harewell reported to John Bennett that ‘it is saied the k[ing] of England at his signing and putting his hand unto the conditions of marriadge concerning religion <seemed to make a pause and> bad[e] the noble men that stood by [to] beare witnesse that he signed those conditions against his conscience. Kings have more fetches than ordinarie men.’ Harewell understood also that ‘the palatine shall be restored to what the Spaniards possesse of his, and perhaps the rest, but with condition that his children be brought up in the emperours court’: AAW, A XVII, no. 6, p. 22.

³⁹⁶ For puritan ire at rumours spread by Catholics about the dispensation, see DSSD, p. 132.

³⁹⁷ John Williams, bishop of Lincoln.

³⁹⁸ Sir Francis Cottington's brother, Edward, had entered the Jesuit novitiate in late 1602, although he died shortly afterwards: CRS, 74, p. 148. See also CRS, 54, pp. 63–66; M.J. Havran, Caroline Courtier (London, 1973), pp. 3, 13.

³⁹⁹ or ‘Floyde’.

⁴⁰⁰ Lady Elizabeth Dormer.

⁴⁰¹ Pedro Coutinho.

⁴⁰² i.e. since the death of the third of the archpriests, William Harrison.

⁴⁰³ Francesco Sacrati.

⁴⁰⁴ Roberto Ubaldini.

⁴⁰⁵ Francesco Barberini.

⁴⁰⁶ Matthew Kellison.

⁴⁰⁷ On 12/22 February 1623, William Harewell had notified John Bennett that he had been sent to Brussels by Matthew Kellison to meet with François de Carondelet. Carondelet had recently arrived from England ‘to treate with the infanta uppon speciall affaires in the behalfe as well of the k[ing] of England as the k[ing] of Spaine’. Harewell saw ‘the passe’ Carondelet ‘had from the k[ing] of England’ and said that he had ‘done extraordinarie great offices for the clergie of Eng[land] with the infanta’ and others, and had defended Kellison against the ‘aspersion which was cast uppon him for his booke’ (The Right and Iurisdiction of the Prelate, and the Prince (Douai, 1617; 2nd edition, 1621): AAW, A XVII, no. 6, p. 21; see also Letter 25.

⁴⁰⁸ George Abbot.

⁴⁰⁹ John Williams.

⁴¹⁰ Jean-Baptiste van Male. Another representative of the infanta, Ferdinand Boischot, had recently arrived in order to negotiate the proposed armistice in the Palatinate: see CSPV, 1621–1623, p. 577; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fos 189r–v, 208r–209r.

⁴¹¹ Philippe de Caverel, OSB, abbot of St Vaast at Arras. See NAGB, p. 182; Allison, RSGB, II, pp. 255–256.

⁴¹² Carlos Coloma.

⁴¹³ See, e.g., DSSD, pp. 121–122.

⁴¹⁴ Matthew Kellison.

⁴¹⁵ 12 March.

⁴¹⁶ John Jackson.

⁴¹⁷ See Letter 14.

⁴¹⁸ On 20 February/2 March 1623, William Bishop had written to John Bennett that, ‘upon suspition of some writings, F[ather] Fishers [John Percy's] lodging was searched in the New Prison, but he’, with the prison keeper's connivance, was with ‘the countes[s] of Buckingham in Leicestershire’, as Bishop had been informed by Richard Broughton, who was resident with the Manners family at Belvoir: see AAW, A XVII, no. 7, p. 25; Letter 29. Alvise Valaresso noted the confiscation of Percy's books and ‘sacred implements’ by ‘the king's special command’, but also, a week later, the restoration to him of ‘everything taken from him’: CSPV, 1621–1623, pp. 573, 578; see also Hacket, SR, I, p. 116; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 177v.

⁴¹⁹ Letter 27.

⁴²⁰ See DSSD, p. 119; Redworth, PI, pp. 77–79.

⁴²¹ William Bishop had been appointed as bishop of Chalcedon (i.e. as a titular bishop in partibus infidelium) in February 1623. The breve for his consecration was issued on 13/23 March 1623. The consecration took place in Paris on 25 May/4 June 1623: Anstr., I, p. 37; AAW, A XVII, no. 12, p. 41; TD, V, p. cclxxiii.

⁴²² See M. Maclure, The Paul's Cross Sermons 1534–1642 (Toronto, 1958), p. 245.

⁴²³ Matthew Kellison.

⁴²⁴ Letter 28.

⁴²⁵ John Percy SJ.

⁴²⁶ See Letters 14, 27.

⁴²⁷ For a copy of the allegations made during this month (March 1623) against Mary Ward by Mary Alcock, see AAW, A XVII, no. 17, pp. 59–62; Dirmeier, MW, I, pp. 762–765; M.M. Littlehales, Mary Ward (London, 1998), pp. 88, 91, 111–112. Alcock's accusations were similar to those presented at Rome by both the secular clergy and others, such as the Benedictine Robert Sherwood: see Littlehales, Mary Ward, pp. 111–112. Alcock claimed that Mary Ward ‘came licke a dutches to visite the Ignatian prisoners att Wisbitche in [a] coache attended with two pages ridinge with her in the sayde coache and two or three attendantes of her owne sexe and was so bowntifulll or rather prodigall that she gave to eache keeper (who wished more suche guests) an angell a peece’. She and her company ‘lived att Hungerford Howse in the Strand verye riotouse, with excessive charge bothe for coastlye garments and daintie fare, nott omittinge to dress herselfe and the rest in the newest and most phantasticall maner then (and yeat) used by that companie, videlicet as ieolowe ruffes etc.’ In this, they took after Anne Turner, who had been executed (with dramatic shows of repentance) for her part in the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury: ‘they seeme to imitate M^ris Turnors institution (a sainte latlie hanged att Tiburne for notoriouse crimes, and canonised by my late Lord Cooke), rather than the institution of S^t Ignatius latelye canonized by Pope Gregorie’. At Hungerford House they ‘weare esteemed curtisans and suspected for hoores’, as Ward's ‘owne brother [William] (nowe called M^r Inglebie) with others will testifie’. Furthermore, ‘in imitation of the boyes at S^t Omers they have playes called actions, manye times, through the helpe of Father [John] Willsons procurement, whearat theire creditors repine, wishing they wowld refraine suche chargable toies and paye theire depts’. Some of the Jesuits urged them on: ‘The Ignatians (and namlye Father [Richard] Gibbons, Father [William] Flacke, and Father John Lhoyd [i.e. Floyd] with others before and since the death of Father [Roger] Lea) encoraged and exhorted the sayde companie by sermons and otherwise to dilate and extend themselves though they were butt twoo in a howse’. Mary Ward ‘woulde <often> affirme and saye shee was sure, when her order was confirmed, whiche shee kneawe would be shortlye, that manye of her companie by reson of theire worthynes and perfection showld be imploy[e]d by his Holines[‘s] comande and placed in diverse monasteries to reforme other religiouse orders. Therfore it behoved them to take corage and shew themselves more than woemen’. See AAW, A XVII, no. 17, pp. 59–62; Birch, CTJI, I, p. 377; cf. H. Peters, Mary Ward (Leominster, 1994), pp. 354–355; T.J. Dandelet, Spanish Rome 1500–1700 (London, 2001), p. 180.

⁴²⁸ Barbara Babthorpe.

⁴²⁹ Carlos Coloma.

⁴³⁰ Matthew Kellison.

⁴³¹ For the appointment of Thomas Rant as William Bishop's agent in Rome, see AAW, A XVII, no. 35, pp. 129–130. John Bennett had returned from Rome in the summer of 1623, and accompanied Bishop to Douai in July 1623, on Bishop's journey to England. Bennett came back to England via Brussels in early August 1623 but died almost immediately after he arrived: Anstr., I, pp. 32, 37. For Rant's instructions, as Bishop's agent, see AAW, A XVII, no. 36, p. 131. On 7 November 1623, Arthur Pitts informed Rant that Bishop had dealt with the French ambassador in London, so that letters to Rant might ‘passe in his packet’ to the French ambassador in Rome, and that Rant should send his letters to London by the same means: AAW, A XVII, no. 50, p. 167.

⁴³² AAW, A XVII, no. 41, pp. 143–144 (15 September 1623). Bishop's officials had written on 10 September 1623 to congratulate the new pope, Urban VIII (Maffeo Barberini), who had been elected on 27 July/6 August 1623: AAW, A XVII, no. 37, pp. 135–136. See also Letter 34. For the Francophile Barberini papacy, see T.J. Dandelet, Spanish Rome 1500–1700 (London, 2001), pp. 188–190.

⁴³³ For William Bishop's letter of 16 September 1623 to Cardinal Bandini, see AAW, A XVII, no. 42, pp. 145–146. Bishop's vicars-general and archdeacons also wrote to Bandini, on 18 September: AAW, A XVII, no. 45, pp. 153–154.

⁴³⁴ Ottavio Corsini, archbishop of Tarsus.

⁴³⁵ Francesco Barberini, nephew of Urban VIII.

⁴³⁶ Pierre de Bérulle, the founder and general of the French Oratory. On 17 September 1623, William Bishop wrote to Bérulle concerning Rant's agency in Rome on behalf of the English secular clergy: AAW, A XVII, no. 43, pp. 147–148. See also John Gee, New Shreds of the Old Snare (London, 1624), pp. 51–54, for the copy of a letter, dated 14 September 1623, from John Colleton, Richard Smith, Richard Broughton, and Edward Bennett to Bérulle requesting that Rant might serve as William Bishop's agent. For the probable means of Gee's acquisition of this letter, see T.H.B.M. Harmsen (ed.), John Gee's Foot out of the Snare (1624) (Nijmegen, 1992), pp. 109, 161–162; BL, Additional MS 72255, fo. 101v.

⁴³⁷ Noël Brûlart.

⁴³⁸ Philippe de Gamaches, a professor of theology at the Sorbonne. See Letter 31.

⁴³⁹ Prince Charles arrived back in England on 5 October 1623.

⁴⁴⁰ Carlos Coloma and Juan Hurtado de Mendoza, marquis of Inojosa.

⁴⁴¹ Innocenzio de Massimi, bishop of Bertinoro.

⁴⁴² See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 26, 40; Redworth, PI, pp. 102–104.

⁴⁴³ John Williams, bishop of Lincoln.

⁴⁴⁴ See above, p. 000; Hacket, SR, I, pp. 155–159; Cabala, pp. 79–80; PRO, SP 14/152/46, 46.i (for Williams's dealing with the Spanish ambassadors over the pardons, and his attempt to mislead them as to the cause of the delay, i.e. to gain time until Prince Charles returned from Spain). Williams informed Conway on 10 October that, on his own initiative, he had delayed sending out orders to suspend the penal laws against Catholic separatists because of the extent of popular opposition. This was a course which, on 11 October, Conway noted that the king had approved: see PRO, SP 14/153/38, 39.

Calvert had written to Conway on 18 August that ‘further direction’ was needed for the grant of toleration to Catholics. This was because, in the present form of the articles, there was no provision for dispensing Catholics from the oaths of supremacy and allegiance and from ‘their coming to church’. On the same day, Calvert was forced to admit that the Spanish ambassadors were so annoyed at the delays to the toleration grant that Inojosa threatened to write to the court in Spain to ‘unsay all he hath sayd in his last letters’. The Spaniards also insisted that Lord Zouch should be compelled to take his oath to observe the treaty conditions in order to ‘prevent many complaints, which otherwise would come from the Cinque ports, of people landing there to whom the oath of allegiance is administered’: PRO, SP 14/151/5, fo. 6r; PRO, SP 14/151/6, fo. 8r–v. The following day, Conway replied that, in spite of James's ire at the Spaniards’ demands, clauses concerning the dispensation from the oaths and ecclesiastical conformity would be dealt with, as would Lord Zouch's taking of the oath: CSPD, 1623–1625, p. 60; BL, Additional MS 35832, fo. 124r; see also PRO, SP 14/151/27, 43, 60, 61, 62, 63, 79. For the dispensation for Catholics, see PRO, SP 14/151/76, 77; PRO, SP 14/152/4; CSPD, 1623–1625, pp. 70, 76; McClure, LJC, p. 513. On 7 October, Conway ordered Williams ‘to prepare and put in immediate execution the order for enlarging priests’, and to inform the Spanish ambassadors thereof: CSPD, 1623–1625, p. 89.

⁴⁴⁵ André du Val, a professor of theology at the Sorbonne.

⁴⁴⁶ For Jean Filesac (Edmond Richer's successor as syndic of the Sorbonne), see Allison, RSGB, I, pp. 333–334; NCC, pp. 174, 241.

⁴⁴⁷ For William Bishop's appointment of episcopal officials and his creation of a chapter, see Allison, RS, pp. 149–150.

⁴⁴⁸ William Harewell, in July 1624, described Edward Bennett as ‘most about my lord [William Bishop] the time he was heere, and [the] cheefest of his counsell’: AAW, B 26, no. 82.

⁴⁴⁹ John Jackson.

⁴⁵⁰ Cardinal Pompeo Arrigoni. See NAGB, pp. 119, 148, 157, 160, 214.

⁴⁵¹ For Thomas Rant's journey to Rome, see Letter 34.

⁴⁵² AAW, A XVII, no. 30, pp. 117–118, no. 31, pp. 119–120, no. 32, pp. 121–124.

⁴⁵³ AAW, A XVII, no. 67, pp. 211–212 (1623), ‘Instructiones pro archdiaconis maxime cum visitant suas provincias’, defining the archdeacon's functions when on visitation. Significantly, the thirteenth article to be observed and implemented reads as follows: ‘tam sacerdotes quam laicos exitent ad Deum sancte colendum, et ad debitam regi obedientiam praestandam, pro cujus salute et tranquillo ac prospero regno divinam majestatem quotidie orent, nec non pro Carolo principe et infanta Maria’.

⁴⁵⁴ See Letter 34.

⁴⁵⁵ For the secular clergy leadership's long-standing antagonism towards Giovanni Garzia Millini, cardinal viceprotector of the English nation, see NAGB, pp. 13, 158. William Bishop, in a letter to Rant of early January 1624, repeated these accusations and stated that Millini had appointed, at the Jesuits’ direction, a visitor of the English College in Rome in September 1623 ‘who, to gratify the cardinall and the fathers, made no bones to dismisse the scholers’, i.e. the anti-Jesuit students ejected from the college (for whom see Letters 33, 34): see AAW, A XVII, no. 78, p. 249; TD, V, p. cclxxi.

⁴⁵⁶ In March 1624, Bishop again insisted that Millini must be removed, and thought ‘it most convenient to request to have Cardinall [Francesco] Barbarino the popes nephew, who is already protector of Scotland’, since ‘England and Scotland’ were ‘now made all one kingdome’, and William Bishop was himself bishop ‘aswell of Scotland as of England’: AAW, A XVII, no. 101, p. 327. On 12 March 1624, Bishop's officials set their hands to a formal petition for Millini's replacement by Barberini: AAW, A XVII, no. 105, pp. 341–342; see also AAW, A XVII, no. 110, pp. 355–356, no. 114, pp. 363–364.

⁴⁵⁷ For William Bishop's account, of 5 December 1623, of his tours during which he dispensed the sacrament of confirmation, see AAW, A XVII, no. 55, p. 181. On 25 December 1623, Joseph Haynes reported to Rant that Bishop was received ‘by al sortes of well meaninge good Catholiques’, including the 2nd Viscount Montague. Haynes enclosed a copy of Montague's letter of 1 August 1623 to Bishop ‘at his first comminge’: AAW, A XVII, no. 29, pp. 115–116. Haynes noted that Montague ‘sent for him afterwards to his house where 500 were confirmed with wonderfull joyfull harts to have a Chatholique byshop amongest them’: AAW, A XVII, no. 59, p. 191; see also Questier, C&C, p. 402.

⁴⁵⁸ i.e. Jesuits.

⁴⁵⁹ On 5/15 June 1623, Rudesind Barlow OSB had written to William Bishop from St Gregory's, Douai, promising obedience to him: AAW, A XVII, no. 21, pp. 81–82; TD, V, pp. cclxxv–cclxxvi.

⁴⁶⁰ Juan Hurtado de Mendoza, marquis of Inojosa had arrived in England in June 1623: see CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 51. For the other Spanish ambassadors at this time (Diego de Mendoza (who landed in October 1623) and Diego de Messia (who arrived, as ambassador from the archduchess Isabella in Flanders, in November 1623)), see PRO, SP 14/153/41, 47; CCE, p. 110; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 150; APC, 1623–1625, p. 116; McClure, LJC, pp. 516, 522; PRO, SP 77/16, fo. 333r. The fourth ambassador (though not ‘extraordinary’) was, of course, Carlos Coloma: PRO, SP 14/154/27.

⁴⁶¹ Tanneguy Leveneur, count of Tillières.

⁴⁶² Anthony Champney came from the North Riding of Yorkshire.

⁴⁶³ See Allison, RS, pp. 152, 189. Both William Bishop and his successor, Richard Smith, received jurisdictional authority over Scotland as well as England. Despite Bishop's reluctance to accept this responsibility, and despite Scottish Catholics’ requests for Scottish prelates, ‘no action was taken by Rome until 1653 when a local prefect was appointed for the Scottish mission’: Allison, QJ, p. 140. See also AAW, A XVIII, no. 29, pp. 247–248; TD, V, pp. cclxiii–cclxv (a memorandum from David Chambers in 1624 requesting that the bishop of Chalcedon should be relieved of his jurisdiction over Scotland), pp. cclxii–cclxiii (a memorandum by Thomas Rant of 20/30 May 1624, similarly urging that Bishop should not have responsibility for the Scottish Catholics); but cf. AAW, B 26, no. 75 (Matthew Kellison to Thomas Rant, 15/25 June 1624, saying that he was ‘not sorie that Scotland is excepted from our b[ishop's] jurisdiction’). Subsequently, in 1626, it was thought that a Scot, John Trumbull, had been appointed to exercise episcopal jurisdiction in Scotland: Questier, C&C, p. 429. For Trumbull's arrest and interrogation in August 1626, see AAW, A XX, no. 22, p. 83. Trumbull had a licence from the papal nuncio in Paris ‘to administer the sacraments of baptism, penance, the eucharist, extreme unction and matrimony, throughout Ireland and Scotland’ and, with the licence of the bishop of Chalcedon, in England as well: CSPD, 1625–1626, pp. 320–321. See also PRO, SP 16/21/71; PRO, SP 16/32/116; PRO, SP 16/36/44; PRO, SP 16/38/15; PRO, SP 16/44/84; PRO, SP 16/525/85. By October 1626, however, Archbishop Abbot was convinced that Trumbull was an impostor. The archbishop claimed to know, ‘by certaine intelligence, that their purpose at Rome lately was to make one Muskett [i.e. George Fisher] to bee a bishop in Scotland’: AAW A XX, no. 28, p. 101; see also PRO, SP 16/80/10; PRO, SP 16/529/93.

⁴⁶⁴ Claude Bertin, superior of the French Oratory in Rome.

⁴⁶⁵ The fourth son of Sir Thomas Sackville, 1st earl of Dorset.

⁴⁶⁶ See CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 150.

⁴⁶⁷ Mendoza had departed on 21 November 1623: PRO, SP 14/154/67.

⁴⁶⁸ Diego de Messia. The ‘ordinary agent of Brussels’, Jean-Baptiste van Male, came back to England at the same time: CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 150.

⁴⁶⁹ Carlos Coloma.

⁴⁷⁰ This news was translated into Latin by Thomas Rant to be exhibited to the curia in Rome: AAW, A XVII, no. 55, p. 181.

⁴⁷¹ See PRO, SP 14/153/38.

⁴⁷² Archbishop George Abbot.

⁴⁷³ AAW, A XVII, no. 48, pp. 161–162 (3/13 October), no. 51, pp. 169–170 (31 October/10 November).

⁴⁷⁴ Robert Drury SJ.

⁴⁷⁵ For the ‘fatal vespers’ in the gatehouse of the French embassy in Blackfriars on 26 October 1623, see above, p. 000. Those Catholics who were opposed to the Society of Jesus did not go so far as to agree with Protestant commentators that the structural failure of the building was an act of providence. But several, like Champney, were clearly unsympathetic. In early January 1624, William Harewell remarked that he hoped the short Latin account (recently sent to Rome) of William Bishop's episcopate in England would, with other documents, ‘being well pressed [. . .] lie heavie uppon our adversaries, and crack the master-beame of their creditt’: AAW, B 47, no. 89.

⁴⁷⁶ Catherine Webb, second wife of Sir John Webb of Odstock and Canford.

⁴⁷⁷ Richard Ireland.

⁴⁷⁸ According to William Sterrell, the warning was delivered to John Percy SJ: CRS, 68, p. 162.

⁴⁷⁹ i.e. 5 November, according to New Style dating.

⁴⁸⁰ Elizabeth Knollys (daughter of Thomas Howard, 1st earl of Suffolk), wife of William Knollys, 1st Viscount Wallingford, who was created 1st earl of Banbury in August 1626. He died in May 1632, allowing her to marry Edward Vaux, 4th Baron Vaux: see NCC, pp. 80–81. In 1628, she was listed as a patron of William Harewell, who was, by then, serving as secretary to Bishop Richard Smith: PRO, SP 16/529/94, fo. 146v.

⁴⁸¹ Thomas (Placid) Hilton OSB.

⁴⁸² Matthew Kellison.

⁴⁸³ The English College at Douai.

⁴⁸⁴ Peter Biddulph.

⁴⁸⁵ Giovanni-Battista Scanarolio.

⁴⁸⁶ William Seton.

⁴⁸⁷ For the students of the English College in Rome who had been expelled for sedition in the ‘Fitton rebellion’, see above, p. 000. Peter Biddulph, Thomas Harper, John Faulkner, Anthony Shelley, and Francis Haynes were ejected from the college on 15/25 October 1623. Richard Perkins and Thomas Longueville were thrown out in November: CRS, 37, pp. 185–186, 190–192, 194. For the (undated) letter of appeal, signed by the first five, to William Bishop, see AAW, A XVII, no. 60, pp. 195–198; and for Bishop's answer (of 29 December 1623), see AAW, A XVII, no. 61, pp. 199–200; TD, V, pp. cclxx–cclxxi. See also AAW, A XVII, no. 24, pp. 87–90; TD, V, pp. cclxv–cclxviii.

⁴⁸⁸ William Bishop.

⁴⁸⁹ John Bennett.

⁴⁹⁰ 13 December.

⁴⁹¹ John Bennett had secured a papal visitation of the college, but the death of Gregory XV in July 1623 intervened and the commission for visiting the seminary was terminated. With the accession of Maffeo Barberini (Urban VIII), a new commission was drawn up, and the new visitor was more favourable to the Jesuit administrators of the seminary. This resulted in the expulsion of the rebel students: see TD, V, pp. 100–104; M.E. Williams, The Venerable English College, Rome (London, 1979), pp. 29–30.

⁴⁹² Rant had visited Cardinal Scipione Cobelluzio on 8/18 December 1623, and the cardinal asked whether ‘the Jesuitts and regulars agree well with the bishop’: AAW, B 25, no. 102. For Bishop's letter to the cardinal of 13 September 1623, see AAW, A XVII, no. 39, pp. 139–140.

⁴⁹³ Thomas Rant recorded that Cardinal Barberini had asked him, on 10/20 December 1623, whether the duke of Buckingham and the earls of Rutland and Arundel were Catholics: AAW, B 25, no. 102.

⁴⁹⁴ George Con. See Albion, CI, passim. For correspondence between Rant and Con in the summer of 1625, and Con's promise of assistance for the Collège d'Arras, see AAW, B 47, no. 123.

⁴⁹⁵ 11/21 December.

⁴⁹⁶ Elsewhere Thomas Rant recorded that on ‘St Thomas[‘s] daye after dinner I had audience of his Holines’, to whom he presented letters from William Bishop. The pope asked him what liberties Catholics enjoyed in England, and Rant replied that they could hear Mass in private houses. If the Spanish match were to proceed, however, Mass would be heard in public. The pope asked about Bishop's arrival in England, and whether the king knew of it. Rant said that without doubt he did, since he knew of his consecration (the place, persons, and time) and the joy which Catholics had shown in seeing a bishop whom they had not seen for many years. Rant argued that James must have allowed Bishop's arrival in the realm, since there was no sign of any official displeasure towards him: AAW, B 25, no. 102.

⁴⁹⁷ Francesco Ingoli, secretary to the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide. See NCC, pp. 39, 153, 156.

⁴⁹⁸ Rant wrote that Ingoli advised him to be ‘moderate in speakinge of the Jesuitts’, unlike John Bennett who had a tendency to be ‘transported’: AAW, B 25, no. 102.

⁴⁹⁹ See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 185, 188, 194.

⁵⁰⁰ Gregory XV.

⁵⁰¹ James Hay, 1st Viscount Doncaster, who had been created earl of Carlisle in September 1622.

⁵⁰² For the ‘Canones ecclesiastici ad pacem et disciplinam inter clerum saecularem et monachos Benedictinos conservandam a reverendissimo in Christo patre ac domino, D[omino] Gulielmo Episcopo Calcedonensi propositi’, see AAW, A XVII, no. 54, pp. 177–180 (an authenticated copy sent to Claude Bertin, superior of the French Oratory in Rome). On 25 December 1623, Joseph Haynes had remarked that ‘now we beginne to be much better united than formerly, both preists amongest our selves and religious with us’; via ‘spetiall articles [. . .] in this holy league are we al conjoyned; except only the Jesuits, who have not yet refused, nor yet as we heare doe seeke it, but stand aloofe harkninge what others doe’: AAW, A XVII, no. 59, p. 191. On 6 February 1624, William Bishop described how, in the previous year, he had ‘made good correspondence with the Benedictins’. He had also received ‘letters from the superior of the Franciscans’, while the ‘Dominicans, Calmelites and Cappucins have congratulated my election and tendred me their obedience and concurrence’. Richard Blount, the Jesuit provincial, had visited him, ‘desiring that we might live like good friends together’. Bishop suggested that past antagonisms might be forgotten, but remarked that the secular clergy were ‘much offended for the misgovernment of our colleges’. Blount answered ‘that he had nothing to do with those goverments but they were under the fathers of the Society who lived in the same country’; he would, however, ‘write to them to govern well’. But this ‘tooke so small effect that, shortly after, the scholers were thrust out of the college in Rome’: AAW, A XVII, no. 96, p. 314; TD, V, p. cclxxv. During the summer and autumn of 1623, the Jesuit general, Muzio Vitelleschi, had voiced extreme suspicion of William Bishop. In August, Vitelleschi warned of the factionalization of the English Catholic community in favour of either Spain or France. In September, he noted how the danger represented by Bishop was increased by Bishop's opportunity to communicate with the king: ARSJ, Anglia MS 1, fos 179r, 181r, 181v, 190v. In January 1624, Vitelleschi congratulated Blount for extricating himself from a meeting with William Bishop and his officials. He advised him that, if English Catholics thought the bishop of Chalcedon's proceedings were unacceptable, they should petition Rome against him. In particular, Vitelleschi rejected what he termed the ‘calumnies’ spread by Bishop's secretary, William Harewell, about the English College in Rome: ibid., fos 190v, 191r; and in February 1624 he positively instructed Blount to refuse obedience to Bishop: ibid., fo. 191v.

⁵⁰³ On 25 December 1623, Joseph Haynes remarked that ‘it is [. . .] reported that the bitesheepes’, i.e. Protestant bishops, ‘here, upon the newes of the matches breaking of[f], came to the king for his leave to send abrode the pursevants, but his answer was that he now grew olde and would not persecute any more for religion. If they did otherwaies offend, lett them be punished, so that it is verily thought, whether the match goe forward or no, we shal not be troubled for religion so longe as the kinge liveth, which I wish may be many yeers’: AAW, A XVII, no. 59, p. 192.

⁵⁰⁴ Noël Brûlart.

⁵⁰⁵ John Varder (see Anstr., II, p. 327). In mid-November 1620, Tillières had secured Varder's release from the New Prison (though on condition that Varder would immediately take himself abroad): APC, 1619–1621, p. 314.

⁵⁰⁶ In March 1624, Bishop remarked that this mode of sending letters was ‘the safest and most speedy [. . .] albeit the Frenc[h]e do not affect the match with Spaine as we do, yet we have in the matter of our hierarchie found more help of Frenc[h]e than of Spanish, and so do remaine indebted unto both’: AAW, A XVII, no. 101, p. 327.

⁵⁰⁷ See Letters 33, 34.

⁵⁰⁸ Anthony Shelley asked how the expelled students, returning to England, were supposed to behave towards the bishop and his officers when they were taught in Rome to question his authority: see TD, V, p. 103.

⁵⁰⁹ For Bishop's letter to Rant of 29 December 1623, advising the students to stay in Rome until the spring, and telling Rant to petition that their case should be heard by the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, see AAW, A XVII, no. 63, pp. 203–204; TD, V, pp. cclxviii–cclxx; see also Letter 36. In a letter of 6 February 1624, Bishop described to Rant how he had recently written, on 15 January, to the pope (AAW, A XVII, no. 81, pp. 267–268; part printed in TD, V, pp. cclxxii–cclxxiii) to request that ‘the visit of the college may proceed which his predecessor of happy memory did, motu proprio, begin, and that it may passe by the same <worthy> persons of the congregation de Propaganda Fide whom he appointed’. Other leading secular clergy had done the like (AAW, A XVII, no. 95, pp. 309–312); and Bishop offered his advice as to how Rant should secure their aims and objectives so that the ‘notable abuses’ in the college might be corrected: AAW, A XVII, no. 96, p. 313; TD, V, pp. 101, cclxxiv. In March 1624, the issue was referred by the pope to Propaganda Fide. The congregation decreed that the expelled students should be sent to Douai and that their expenses should be defrayed by the college in Rome: see Anstr., II, p. 291; AAW, B 47, no. 51; AAW, A XVII, no. 122, pp. 389–390; see also CGB, I, p. 461. A new college oath was drawn up in August 1624. It was ordered to be published on 11/21 February 1625: see AAW, A XVIII, no. 37, pp. 273–274; TD, V, p. cclxxx. For a further petition, of 27 May/6 June 1625, by Thomas Rant that scholars of the English College should not enter the Society, see AAW, B 48, no. 54, fo. 126r–v. A decree was promulgated that a papal licence would henceforth be required by any seminarist who intended to enter a religious order: TD, V, pp. 109, 112–113, cclxxix; AAW, B 26, nos 74, 75; AAW, A XVII, no. 123, pp. 391–392; AAW, A XIX, no. 68, pp. 205–208.

⁵¹⁰ For William Bishop's letter of 31 January 1624 to Urban VIII urging his assistance in procuring the restitution of the Rhineland Palatinate in order to secure the Anglo-Spanish dynastic treaty, see AAW, A XVII, no. 88, pp. 285–286. A similar letter had been dispatched by Bishop to the king of Spain on 30 January: AAW, A XVII, no. 87, pp. 283–284.

⁵¹¹ See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 144, 158–159; see also above, p. 000.

⁵¹² George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham.

⁵¹³ On 6 February 1624, William Bishop commented that ‘at this parlement’ it was likely that ‘we shall all of us be by proclamation commanded to depart the realm’. He continued that ‘all priests and Jesuits’ were already ‘by proclamation banished out of Ireland and the Catholike bishops also, but the prince is said to excuse it, that it is done by the deputie onely without any warrant from our king’: AAW, A XVII, no. 96, pp. 314, 315; TD, V, p. cclxxvi; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 218–219. This proclamation was dated 21 January 1624 and was brought by Irish Catholics to London to show, in translation, to the marquis of Inojosa, who took it to Prince Charles in order to complain. In Spain, an official protest was made in March to Sir Walter Aston concerning it; and William Trumbull recorded on 19/29 February how a complaint had come from the Spanish ambassadors in London to the authorities in Brussels against the ‘newe persecution [. . .] so they are pleased to style it’: PRO, SP 94/30, fo. 127r; PRO, SP 77/17, fo. 39r; see also AAW, B 26, no. 10; CGB, I, p. 431. A month after it was issued, the Irish proclamation was withdrawn: see A. Ford, The Protestant Reformation in Ireland 1590–1641 (Dublin, 1997), p. 206; C.W. Russell and J.P. Prendergast (eds), Calendar of the State Papers Relating to Ireland, 1615–1625 (London, 1880), pp. 458f.c, 464; HMCMK, p. 192; AAW, B 26, no. 58.

⁵¹⁴ George Abbot.

⁵¹⁵ See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 209, 223. For Bethlen Gábor, who had allied himself with the Bohemian rebels against the archduke Ferdinand, see G. Parker, Europe in Crisis (Brighton, 1980), p. 162; Pursell, WK, passim.

⁵¹⁶ Thomas Harper, one of the rebel students at the English College in Rome.

⁵¹⁷ See Letter 34.

⁵¹⁸ Matthew Kellison.

⁵¹⁹ William Bishop.

⁵²⁰ The English College in Rome.

⁵²¹ See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 201, 207, 208.

⁵²² Simonds D'Ewes commented, in his diary for 13 February, ‘wee had ill newes spread abroad by the papists that the Spanish match should yett proceede’: DSSD, p. 180.

⁵²³ Anthony Champney likewise recorded, on 20 February/1 March 1624, that (on the basis of a report enclosed in a letter from Kellison) only three of the privy council opposed the Spanish match, and that even Londoners were now in favour of it: AAW, B 26, no. 15. On 31 January, John Chamberlain had observed that ‘the junta for forrain affaires sat hard all that weeke’ and that it was rumoured that ‘they were devided into three parts, five for the Spanish match, viz: lords keper [Williams], treasurer [Middlesex], marshall [Arundel], Weston and Calvert, fowre newters that wold not declare themselves, the duke of Richmond, Hamilton, chamberlain [Pembroke] and Belfast; three directly against yt [. . .] Buckingham [. . .] Carlile and Conway’, though the prince was now averse to the match as well, and this was what had broken the deadlock. Pembroke was arguing for the match in order to spite Buckingham: see McClure, LJC, pp. 541–542; Schreiber, FC, pp. 56–57; Ruigh, 1624, p. 41; cf., for Pembroke's position, Adams, FP, p. 156.

⁵²⁴ See AAW, A XVII, no. 78, p. 249; TD, V, p. cclxxii.

⁵²⁵ . ^{Carlos Coloma.}

⁵²⁶ On 21/31 January 1624, Anthony Champney had written to inform Thomas Rant that ‘there is in Rome a young gentleman called M^r John Browne to whome I pray you comend me and tell him that nowe I have writen to our agent to pay him everie six monethes 100 crownes haveing receaved order from his mother for it’: AAW, B 26, no. 8. Browne was a cousin of Thomas Roper: see Letter 77. He appears to have been the individual listed by Thomas Rant as a mourner at Thomas More's funeral in April 1625 (clearly distinguished from Francis Browne, son of the 2ndViscount Montague, who was also present): see D. Shanahan, ‘The death of Thomas More, secular priest, great-grandson of St. Thomas More’, RH, 7 (1963–1964), p. 26; Letter 85.

⁵²⁷ See AAW, A XVII, no. 96, pp. 313–316; TD, V, pp. cclxxiv–cclxxvi (Bishop's account of the maladministration of the English College at Rome).

⁵²⁸ For William Bishop's letters of 12 February 1624 to Cardinal Francesco Barberini and 22 February 1624 to Cardinal Edouardo Farnese, see AAW, A XVII, no. 93, pp. 303–304, no. 99, pp. 323–324.

⁵²⁹ For William Bishop's letter of 19 February 1624 to Cardinal Luigi Ludovisi, see AAW, A XVII, no. 97, pp. 317–318. Ludovisi wrote in reply to Bishop on 6/16 March: AAW, A XVII, no. 108, pp. 351–352.

⁵³⁰ Thomas Fitzherbert SJ.

⁵³¹ i.e. the rebel students at the English College in Rome.

⁵³² i.e. the members of Mary Ward's institute.

⁵³³ Ludovic Stuart, 1st duke of Richmond and 2nd duke of Lennox.

⁵³⁴ McClure, LJC, p. 545; DSSD, p. 181; Thompson, RD, p. 1; Hacket, SR, I, p. 173; PRO, SP 14/159/63.

⁵³⁵ The duke of Lennox was, in fact, generally regarded as a stalwart of the Bohemian faction: see Adams, PC, p. 306; Cogswell, BR, p. 103. However, Ludovic, the youngest son (born 14 October 1619) of Esmé Stuart, who succeeded to the title as 3rd duke of Lennox, was ordained as a Catholic priest by Richard Smith in 1652 and became almoner to Catherine of Braganza in 1661: see Anstr., II, pp. 312–313.

⁵³⁶ PRO, SP 14/159/55, 56, 57, 58; Hacket, SR, I, p. 91; LJ, III, pp. 209–210; Letter 39; ED, fos 1r–4r; Lambeth Palace Library, MS 930, no. 81. For the copy of James's speech dispatched to Thomas Rant, see AAW, A XVII, no. 98, pp. 319–322.

⁵³⁷ Berg's manoeuvre was part of a defensive strategy designed to counter the assembly of Dutch cavalry near Breda under Henry of Nassau: see CGB, I, pp. xix, 43, 428, 432. On 12/22 February 1624, William Trumbull noted that Berg, ‘lieutenant generall of our cavalry (joyned with Don Goncales de Cordova, and 12,000 men, certaine peeces of cannon, and a good quantity of munitions)’, had ‘already passed the Rheyne and other ryvers’, in order to ‘make a strong impression into the country of Freezland’: PRO, SP 77/17, fos 33r, 39r; see also J. Israel, The Dutch Republic (Oxford, 1995), pp. 386–387; CCE, pp. 76, 141, 148.

⁵³⁸ Enno III, count of East Friesland.

⁵³⁹ Christian of Brunswick, administrator of the bishopric of Halberstadt. For his employment by the Dutch, see Israel, Dutch Republic, p. 483. He had been one of Princess Elizabeth's daughter's godfathers, and was also a cousin of the Stuarts via the marriage of Anne of Denmark's sister Elizabeth: BL, Harleian MS 1581, fos 236r, 436r; Cogswell, BR, pp. 239–240; W.B. Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge, 1997), p. 29; Pursell, WK, p. 148. After getting the better of a skirmish against the count of Tilly in July 1623, Brunswick's army had been destroyed at Stadtlohn by Tilly in August: BL, Harleian MS 1581, fo. 292v; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 80; M. Lee (ed.), Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain, 1603–1624 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1972), p. 301; J.V. Polisensky, The Thirty Years War (London, 1974), p. 169; Israel, Dutch Republic, p. 483.

⁵⁴⁰ Friedrich-Ulrich, duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (d. 1634). See CGB, I, pp. 371, 379.

⁵⁴¹ See also AAW, A XVII, no. 94, p. 307.

⁵⁴² Back in mid-April 1623, Calvert had written to Buckingham that, in view of the rumoured ‘aversenesse’ of some of the Roman curia towards the marriage, James had decided that Mathew, ‘of whose loyalty and faithfulnesse to his service his Majestie rests very well assured, should instantly make his repayre’ to Spain. James believed that, ‘by the creditt and reputation which he hath with that party in respect of his profession in religion’, Mathew might, in Spain, ‘endevor to remove all rubbs arising that way and to satisfy needelesse doubts and jealousies if there bee any’. Mathew would ‘bee many other wayes usefull’ to the prince there. He had been ordered ‘to depend’ solely on Buckingham and to take his direction from him ‘in all things’. See BL, Harleian MS 1580, fo. 184r. For the count of Tillières's report of Mathew's purpose in going to Spain (‘essayer d'ouvrir les yeux’ of Prince Charles ‘affin qu'il puisse cognoistre la vérité de nostre religion’, and, failing that, to break the match altogether), see PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 204v.

⁵⁴³ In fact, as Rant noted in his endorsement of Letter 42, Bishop's missive to him of 2 April 1624 was the last letter which came to him from Bishop.

⁵⁴⁴ Philippe de Béthune, count of Sully.

⁵⁴⁵ The letter concludes with a separate note, in Latin, from More, concerning his cousin Thomas Roper.

⁵⁴⁶ See Anstr., I, p. 234.

⁵⁴⁷ See Letter 38.

⁵⁴⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁴⁹ John Williams.

⁵⁵⁰ For Williams's speech, see PRO, SP 14/159/59; ED, fo. 5r–v.

⁵⁵¹ ‘Annulum aureum ferreis stellis ferruminare’: Hacket, SR, I, p. 175.

⁵⁵² See McClure, LJC, p. 546; PRO, SP 14/159/60, 64.

⁵⁵³ See ED, fos 5v–6r, 6r–9v, 9v–13r; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 234–236, 236–238; cf. Hacket, SR, I, pp. 176, 177–179; PRO, SP 14/159/65, 66, 67; LJ, III, pp. 211–213. According to Sir Walter Earle, Williams declared that James had ‘never spared the execution of any law but for a greater law, salus reipublicae’, and that ‘all the laws are yet in force’, and there was ‘no connivence but for propagation of true religion’: ED, fos 11v–12r. Simonds D'Ewes thought that Williams, following Crew, spoke equally boldly against ‘the papists’, and that previously he had been ‘of the popish faction, but now, after the princes returne out of Spaine and the breach of that match, this upstart turned the note of his tune another way’: DSSD, p. 181.

⁵⁵⁴ On 25 February, Sir Thomas Jermyn had ‘mooved to intimate to the Lords’ what the Commons ‘had resolved concerning recusants’, inter alia ‘bannishing the priests out of the kingdom’. Jermyn and other MPs had also suggested barring Catholic recusants from London: see Thompson, HA, pp. 5, 6.

⁵⁵⁵ William Bishop. Thomas More may have meant two MPs in the lower House rather than two bishops. For Richard Dyott's speech in the Commons on 25 February concerning William Bishop's tour through Staffordshire ‘with his crosiers, myters and 6 chaplayns’ and his confirming ‘at one tym 400 in the Roman faith’, see Thompson, HA, p. 5; idem, RD, p. 13; ED, fo. 29r; Letter 42; for Dyott, see also N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists (Oxford, 1987), pp. 67, 140–143. Another MP, Christopher Brooke, argued that ‘it is treason by the law for seminaries made beyond seas to cum into Engl[and] [. . .] or for any to harbour suche, to avoyd which law this bishopp instituted suche heer’: Thompson, HA, p. 5; idem, RD, p. 13.

⁵⁵⁶ Matthew Kellison.

⁵⁵⁷ William Bishop reported on 5 March that ‘they made of late a search all London over upon the second of our March in the night after three persons principally’ (Bishop himself, Richard Blount SJ, and Matthew Kellison) but ‘found neither them nor any other priest’: AAW, A XVII, no. 101, pp. 327–328; see also CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 249; PRO, PRO 31/3/58, fo. 49r. In his diary for 2 March, D'Ewes said that ‘search was made heere in this cittie, in manye popish howses, for armor’: DSSD, p. 184. The king, said Bishop, had been told that ‘some Catholikes in London had made great provision of muskets and powder, a most gross ly’ and all part of the parliament's attempt to break the match with Spain: AAW, A XVII, no. 101, p. 328. (Simonds D'Ewes's diary for 25 February had previously narrated that, following the proposals by MPs in the Commons for ‘new lawes’, the ‘bishopp of London [George Montaigne] alsoe, upon ther instigation, sent about to manye severall howses to have enquirie madde what papists were residing in and about London’: DSSD, p. 182.) Anthony Champney recorded on 31 March/10 April 1624 that Kellison returned from England in haste, ‘upon Good Fryday [. . .] because the lower Howse tooke notice of his being there and there was a search for two nights together thorowe all London by the order of the parliament’. Although ‘neither anie one [was] taken nor trobled, nor yet was the search anie way exact but verie sleight [. . .] yet his freinds were of opinione that he showld depart’: AAW, B 26, no. 27; Questier, C&C, p. 409.

⁵⁵⁸ County Durham.

⁵⁵⁹ 13 Elizabeth c. 2 (‘An Acte agaynste the bringing in and putting in execution of Bulls and other Instruments from the Sea of Rome’).

⁵⁶⁰ John Chamberlain commented that Henry More ‘laughed all the while’ that sentence was being executed in Cheapside: McClure, LJC, p. 545. More had also said that Anne Boleyn ‘was a whore’: DSSD, p. 180; see also Whiteway, Diary, p. 59; BL, Additional MS 72255, fo. 117v. For the proceedings in the star chamber against More, see PRO, STAC 8/32/20. I am grateful to David Cressy for this reference.

⁵⁶¹ A Gagge for the Pope, and the Iesuits: or the arraignement, and execution of Antichrist (London, 1624).

⁵⁶² Sir James Ley.

⁵⁶³ George Talbot, 9th earl of Shrewsbury.

⁵⁶⁴ The Benedictine may have been Richard Huddlestone (Anstr., II, p. 164); the identity of the priest is uncertain.

⁵⁶⁵ William Bishop.

⁵⁶⁶ Alvise Valaresso said on 12/22 March that Bishop had gone to the Spanish embassy: CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 249.

⁵⁶⁷ William Harewell.

⁵⁶⁸ François Aerssens and Albertus Joachimi. See Adams, PC, pp. 337–338.

⁵⁶⁹ See CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 233; Adams, PC, p. 337. James received the Dutch ambassadors on 29 February: see DSSD, p. 183. For the treaty with the Dutch, see Letter 47.

⁵⁷⁰ See M. Lee (ed.), Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain, 1603–1624 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1972), pp. 314–315; BL, Additional MS 72255, fos 120r, 122r; HMCMK, p. 194; PRO, SP 17/77, fos 41r, 53r.

⁵⁷¹ Nicolas Brûlart de Sillery, Chancellor of France.

⁵⁷² Pierre Brûlart, viscount of Puisieux, secretary of state. See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 212, 218; C.J. Burckhardt, Richelieu and his Age, 3 vols (London, 1967), I, p. 155.

⁵⁷³ Henry Rich, 1st Baron Kensington, later 1st earl of Holland.

⁵⁷⁴ George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham.

⁵⁷⁵ For Buckingham's speech to members of parliament at Whitehall in the afternoon of 24 February 1624, see PRO, SP 14/159/72–79; Thompson, HA, pp. 3–4; idem, RD, pp. 5–11; ED, fos 16r–26r; DSSD, p. 182; R. Lockyer, Buckingham: the life and political career of George Villiers, first duke of Buckingham 1592–1628 (London, 1981), pp. 180–181; T. Cogswell, ‘The people's love: the duke of Buckingham and popularity’, in T. Cogswell, R. Cust, and P. Lake (eds), Politics, Religion and Popularity in Early Stuart Britain (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 216–219.

⁵⁷⁶ See CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 242; CSPD, 1623–1625, p. 169. For the dispatch in March of a royal safe conduct to Diego de Lafuente via a messenger of the chamber, see PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 60r. At Dover, Matthew Kellison, on his way out of the country, met Lafuente, who, while ‘passing thorowe France nere unto Abbeville’, had been ‘overtaken by 6 horsmen who tooke from him all his letters and instructions. But he sayd the instructions were so favorable for Ingland that he cared not though they were printed, and the miss of them for the present he hopeth will quickly be supplyed by a dooble out of Spayn’: see AAW, B 26, no. 27; McClure, LJC, p. 552; Cogswell, BR, p. 198. The Flanders nuncio, Giovanni-Francesco Guido del Bagno, said the incident had taken place at Calais, and that Lafuente was stopped by four men posing as customs officials: CGB, I, p. 451. Sir Francis Nethersole heard that some people believed the story of the loss of his papers was a charade in order to ‘avoyd the skorne of entering into any negocyation at this time of the day which the ambassadors see is too late’: PRO, SP 14/161/36, fo. 56r. See also PRO, SP 14/152/13 (for Lafuente's belief that those who had taken his papers were Englishmen); PRO, PRO, 31/3/58, fo. 67v; PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 113v (for Sir Edward Herbert's note, on 1/11 April 1624, that ‘it is told mee from divers that Padre Maestro was robb[e]d of his papers by such as had order afterwards to show them to this king’, i.e. Louis XIII); BL, Additional MS 72255, fo. 132r. According to the earl of Kellie on 5 April, the word was that the seizure of the letters was ‘bye one of his Majesties embassadours lyeing their’, either Kensington or Herbert himself, and that James was incensed: HMCMK, p. 197. Sir Edward Conway reported on 30 March that, at a recent audience with James, ‘Padre Maestro [. . .] pleaded not the losse of his papers’ and ‘said he had many good thinges to open, but found the estate of affaires so changed as had rendered those propositions frutelesse’: PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 83r. For Lafuente's arrival, see PRO, SP 14/160/58. Del Bagno said that Lafuente's principal objective was to assure ‘la securité du comte de Bristol’: CGB, I, p. 444, 452, 456.

⁵⁷⁷ See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 209, 211; CSPD, 1623–1625, p. 169.

⁵⁷⁸ John Jackson.

⁵⁷⁹ AAW, A XVII, no. 101, pp. 327–328 (5 March 1624).

⁵⁸⁰ See PRO, SP 14/160/33; Thompson, HA, pp. 21–23.

⁵⁸¹ For James's speech, delivered at Theobalds on 5 March and reported in parliament on 8 March, see PRO, SP 14/160/30; CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 250–251; Thompson, HA, p. 25; DSSD, p. 185; LJ, III, pp. 246–247, 250–251.

⁵⁸² See Letter 39.

⁵⁸³ Sir Thomas Gerard, MP for Liverpool, had declined to take the required oaths and had also refused to take communion: Ruigh, 1624, pp. 89, 259–260; ED, fo. 47v. Holles's diary records that ‘complaint was made against Sir Tho[mas] Gerard, chosen burgess for Lerpoole [sic] in Lancashire, that he had been long in town’, and ‘came not to the the hows for he would neither swear, nor receave, beeing an obstinate recusant’: Thompson, HA, p. 18. On 8 March, Gerard ‘petitioned to be discharg[e]d, fayning sickness’, a manoeuvre which got short shrift from Sir Robert Phelips and Sir Peter Hayman: ibid., p. 25; ED, fos 56v–57r. On 9 March, a sergeant-at-arms was dispatched to find Gerard. Three MPs were appointed to determine whether he was a convicted recusant, and whose names were on his ‘writt of election’: Thompson, HA, pp. 27–28; ED, fos 62v–63r. On 13 March, Sir Arthur Ingram ‘mooved that a bill of praemunire’ should ‘be drawn against’ Gerard, though Sir Thomas Hoby was compelled to report ‘of the search whether Sir Thomas Gerard were a convict recusant’ that ‘it could not be found to be so’: Thompson, HA, p. 34; ED, fo. 81v. Six days later, it was known that he had taken refuge with the Spanish ambassador. On 3 April, MPs were still trying to proceed against Gerard: Thompson, HA, p. 60. Subsequently, in October 1625, Gerard was alleged to have used ‘traiterous speeches’, and was imprisoned in the Tower: APC, 1625–1626, pp. 205, 206, 239; PRO, SP 16/7/37, 69, 10, 42, 42.i–iv; PRO, SP 16/11/42.

⁵⁸⁴ See CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 250; PRO, SP 14/160/70.

⁵⁸⁵ On 16 February 1624, Sir Edward Herbert had reported that the embassy in Rome of Noël Brûlart was ‘revoked’ and that Philippe de Béthune, count of Sully was appointed in his stead. On 24 April, Herbert noted that Béthune had ‘charge to disavow all that’ Brûlart ‘hath done for the accommodating of the busines of Valtelina and to hold the Spaniard to the treaty of Madrid’: PRO, SP 78/72, fos 36v, 164r; D.L.M. Avenel (ed.), Lettres, instructions diplomatiques et papiers d'état du Cardinal de Richelieu, 8 vols (Paris, 1853–1877), I, p. 725; for the Valtelline, see Letter 76.

⁵⁸⁶ In early March 1624, Tillières described how he had recently lobbied James at Hampton Court on behalf of English Catholics: PRO, PRO 31/3/58, fo. 44v.

⁵⁸⁷ See Letter 31.

⁵⁸⁸ Denis Simon de Marquemont, archbishop of Lyon.

⁵⁸⁹ William Bishop.

⁵⁹⁰ See Letter 40.

⁵⁹¹ For the tax debates on 19 and 20 March 1624, following James's demand on 14 March for revenue for the waging of war, see Cogswell, BR, pp. 203–215; Alexander, CLT, pp. 56–58; Thompson, HA, pp. 39–49; ED, fos 92v–100r; LJ, III, pp. 265–266; DSSD, p. 186. Anthony Champney commented on 31 March/10 April 1624 that MPs had, at their meeting with the king at Whitehall on 14 March, urged him to ‘brake with Spayn, and offered him to that purpose their goods, lands and lives’, but James replied that ‘to pay his debts <first> they must give him 5 subsidies and 10 feefteens, and everie yeare, whilst the warrs lasted, 2 subsidies [sic] and 5 feefteenes, at which demand they went their wayes, astonished and wondering’: AAW, B 26, no. 27. For the subsidies demanded, see PRO, SP 14/160/89; PRO, SP 14/161/19, 30; Thompson, HA, p. 36; Cogswell, BR, p. 198; Ruigh, 1624, pp. 210–211.

⁵⁹² Alvise Valaresso.

⁵⁹³ Francesco della Rota. See Cogswell, BR, p. 133; Pursell, WK, pp. 208, 218; PRO, SP 77/17, fo. 1v; CGB, I, p. 504; BL, Additional MS 72255, fos 94v, 96v.

⁵⁹⁴ For Bavaria's diplomatic proposals, see CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 154, 176, 179, 193, 198–200, 203, 204, 208, 209, 212, 215, 216, 218; PRO, PRO 31/3/57, fo. 284r; BL, Additional MS 72255, fo. 101r–v.

⁵⁹⁵ François de Carondelet.

⁵⁹⁶ See PRO, SP 14/160/15, 16; HMCMK, pp. 199–200; CGB, I, pp. 449, 452–453, 462.

⁵⁹⁷ Pitts intended to refer to Thomas Erskine, 1st earl of Kellie, rather than to Theophilus Clinton, 4th earl of Lincoln. See A. Courtney, ‘Court politics and the kingship of James VI & I, c. 1615–c. 1621’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2008), pp. 240–241. I am grateful to Alexander Courtney for advice on this point.

⁵⁹⁸ James Hay, 1st earl of Carlisle.

⁵⁹⁹ See HMCMK, p. 197; PRO, PRO 31/3/58, fos 63r, 70v (Carlisle had received ‘deux commissions, l'une pour une ligue, et l'autre pour le mariage’).

⁶⁰⁰ Henry Rich, 1st Baron Kensington, later 1st earl of Holland.

⁶⁰¹ A week before, Bishop had already reported that ‘the most probable opinion is that’ James would ‘deale with France for his sonne’, and there was ‘no doubt but that he and his will do their best endevour to draw in France to assist him in warr for the Palatinate’. Bishop instructed Rant to lobby ‘the cardinals our friends’ to intervene with the French court to obtain as favourable conditions for Catholics in the treaty as the Spaniards had demanded. In Bishop's opinion, ‘they may in deed request more favour for us than did the Spaniard in regard that they do graunt greater favours to their Hugonots than we dare demand’: AAW, A XVII, no. 110, p. 355. (This was the line which the French secretary of state, Henri-Auguste de Loménie, seigneur de Villeauxclercs, eventually took over the extent of the toleration to be allowed to English Catholics as part of the Anglo-French marriage treaty: see Hacket, SR, I, p. 214.) Bishop believed that, before any dispensation was issued for the marriage, the papacy would demand proof that Catholics had been granted toleration. The count of Tillières, ‘a most sound Catholike and a very noble and wise ambassadour, hath very well informed himself of the former conditions’ offered to the Spanish court, ‘and is able in particular to relate them’. If necessary, the secular clergy would ‘provide most honest and sufficient gentlemen to cary them into France and <to> procure his Christian Majestie to effect them’. Bishop was concerned, however, that ‘some Frenc[h]e wilbe to[o] precipitate in the busines and suffer them selves to be gulled by some of the Scottish faire promises’: AAW, A XVII, no. 110, p. 355.

⁶⁰² i.e. supplicate.

⁶⁰³ Marie de Médicis.

⁶⁰⁴ Charles de Lorraine, duke of Guise.

⁶⁰⁵ Jean-Louis de Nogaret de la Valette, duke of Epernon.

⁶⁰⁶ Bernardino Spada, archbishop of Damietta.

⁶⁰⁷ Richard Sackville, 3rd earl of Dorset.

⁶⁰⁸ On 22 April 1624, John Jackson recounted Dorset's death to Rant and stressed that he ‘was noe frend of ours’: AAW, B 26, no. 40A.

⁶⁰⁹ Henry de Vere, 18th earl of Oxford.

⁶¹⁰ Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex.

⁶¹¹ See P. Little, ‘“Blood and friendship”: the earl of Essex's protection of the earl of Clanricarde's interests, 1641–6’, English Historical Review, 112 (1997), pp. 927–941. Essex's mother was Frances Walsingham, countess of Essex and countess of Clanricarde, and his sister was Dorothy Sherley: see NCC, p. 209.

⁶¹² William Compton, 1st earl of Northampton.

⁶¹³ Margaret Compton, wife of Henry Mordaunt, 4th Baron Mordaunt.

⁶¹⁴ See PRO, SP 14/162/4, 12.

⁶¹⁵ See McClure, LJC, p. 550; Cogswell, BR, p. 215.

⁶¹⁶ William Bishop died on 13 April 1624. For the accounts of his ministry, compiled for dispatch to Rome, see AAW, A XVII, no. 113, pp. 361–362, no. 116, pp. 367–374. John Jackson, on 22 April, observed of Bishop that ‘the k[ing] and State never spake against him’ and that when the lawyer and vehement anti-puritan Richard Dyott ‘did in the parlement lower Howse speak of his going from place to place the last summer in Staffordshire, and confirming hundreds [,. . .] the same man within a while after was put owt of the parlament by the rest of the same howse as one falsly elected’: AAW, B 26, no. 40A; Ruigh, 1624, p. 169; Allison, QJ, p. 141; Russell, PEP, pp. 153–154; History of Parliament Trust, forthcoming biography of Richard Dyott (article by Andrew Thrush).

⁶¹⁷ John Lockwood.

⁶¹⁸ See AAW, B 26, no. 11.

⁶¹⁹ i.e. AAW, B 26, no. 10 (Thomas More to Thomas Rant, 30 January/9 February 1624, with postscript by John Jackson).

⁶²⁰ i.e. the death of William Bishop.

⁶²¹ This is a reference to the 1624 parliament's draft legislation against recusants (‘An Act for the Explanation of a Branch of the Statute made in the third Year of the King's Majesty's Reign, intituled, An Act for the better discovering and repressing of popish Recusants’). For its introduction, and the debates over its format, see Thompson, HA, pp. 24, 57, 59, 62; LJ, III, pp. 248, 249, 252, 278; Thompson, RD, pp. 5, 12–13; ED, fo. 170r. on 18/28 June, Thomas More described its contents: ‘they provided to disannull all trusts that had bene formerlie used in behalf of Catholickes, laying extreame penalties upon such as did not, w[i]thin a certein time, bring in and discoover the said trust, and then procured all grawntes even under the broad seale to be of noe effect, being for benefitt of recusantes, for that everyone shold be, in the tearms of former times, in their monthlie paymentes ether of xx^l or two partes of their lyvings. Againe they provided that the king shold take into his handes all the lands and goods of such recusantes as payd two partes and allow the sayd parties a third part out of the exchequer. Further, Catholickes wifes shold alsoe be paid for, and their children above eight years shold be taken from ther parentes and be brought up in some Protestant howses at their parentes chardges. These were some part of their lawes, and I thinke they had dyverse others because, after the former were passed, and the whole companie had supplicated against the recusantes to his Majestie and had procured him to make a bitter speache against Catholickes and to protest his hatred against them, they had xii more pointes to urge against them, but what they were I never heard.’ James would not give his assent, of course, but had ‘given order, as some say, for the execution of former penall lawes’: AAW, B 26, no. 77.

⁶²² See Gardiner, NSMT, p. 253.

⁶²³ Carlos Coloma and Juan Hurtado de Mendoza, marquis of Inojosa.

⁶²⁴ For the anxiety caused by James's response, on 15 March 1624, to a delegation on the previous day from the Lords and the Commons, headed by Archbishop Abbot, concerning the breach of the treaties with Spain (despite Charles's and Buckingham's reinterpretation of James's words), see PRO, SP 14/160/77, 89; DSSD, p. 186. However, on 23 March, Abbot delivered the petition of both Houses to break the treaties with Spain, to which James assented: PRO, SP 14/161/19–30, 36; Thompson, HA, p. 52; ED, fos 100r–107v; DSSD, p. 187. On 16/26 April, Anthony Champney wrote to Thomas Rant that the king had assured the parliament that he would not now treat with Spain any further for any match, and, as for the Palatinate, he would recover it by military means, for which they must provide financially. As for the manner of waging war, however, ‘when, and agaynst whome, to wit whether <agaynst> the emperour or duke of Bavier, belonged only to him and his sonn, and therefore he would have no further conference with them thereof’. The wild celebrations in London ‘as if the Palatinat had bene alreadie gotten [. . .] did not please the king, and his dislike did as little please the parliament’: AAW, B 26, no. 44.

⁶²⁵ For the formal instructions issued to Carlisle and Kensington on 17 May 1624, see PRO, SP 78/72, fos 214r–220r.

⁶²⁶ Marie de Médicis.

⁶²⁷ See ED, fo. 113v.

⁶²⁸ Tanneguy Leveneur, count of Tillières.

⁶²⁹ See PRO, SP 14/161/24; Cogswell, BR, pp. 215–216.

⁶³⁰ By a letter of 20/30 April 1624, Francis Smith informed Rant that a letter was coming to him from Richard Ireland, ‘wherein he certified you of placing your nephewe by order from your sister who requested one M^r Yelverton to end that business with the consent of M^r Ireland. The youth likes his master well whoes [sic] name is Peter Windor, a taylor in Holburne and a Cath[olic]’: AAW, B 26, no. 48; see also Anstr., II, p. 167; NCC, pp. 174, 212.

⁶³¹ William Bishop.

⁶³² William Harewell.

⁶³³ Thomas More was, on 28 May 1624, appointed by the episcopal chapter to serve, jointly with Thomas Rant, as the secular clergy's agent in Rome: AAW, A XVII, no. 140, pp. 439–442.

⁶³⁴ This individual was mentioned to Rant by John Jackson in a letter of 22 April 1624: AAW, B 26, no. 40A.

⁶³⁵ 25 April. In fact, James's reply to the petition against recusants, to which Colleton refers, was delivered at Whitehall on 23 April: see PRO, SP 14/163/34; ED, fos 159v–161v (it was reported in the Commons on 24 April). For the petition, itself dated 23 April, see PRO, SP 14/163/32, 33; Ruigh, 1624, p. 250; McClure, LJC, p. 553.

⁶³⁶ See Letter 45. For Sir Robert Phelips's motion on 1 April for a proclamation against recusants, see Thompson, HA, p. 57; see also LJ, III, pp. 287, 289–290, 291–292, 297–298, 304. For the arguments in the Commons on 6, 7, and 10 April over the formulation of the petition (the Lords and the Commons both produced a draft) concerning the enforcement of the laws against Catholics, and whether it should be done via a proclamation, see Thompson, HA, pp. 62, 63–65, 74; PRO, SP 14/162/9–11; see also PRO, SP 14/163/1, 2.

⁶³⁷ ‘Some of the wisest’, wrote John Jackson to Thomas More on 22 April, ‘think that this satisfaction must eyther bee to graunt but not to execute it (for wee hope there wyll be noe execution therof), or els to tell them that he is to treat with Fra[nce] for his sonne and with Venice and others for <getting> the Palatinate which he cannot doe if he persecute Catholicks; and soe, on Saterday, get the subsidie bill twice read, if it can bee, and shortly after make an end of the parl[iament]. In secret, it is said he enterteyneth yet the matter with Spa[in], and also with Bavaria, and some <wise men> think that, if ever the prince mar[r]y, it will be with Spa[in], thowgh some of France are of an other expectation’: AAW, B 26, no. 40A.

⁶³⁸ See Letter 45.

⁶³⁹ One week before, on 22 April 1624, Colleton had written that James was resisting the parliament's calls for the newly drawn-up legislation to receive royal assent. The Catholic ‘ambassadours protest unto us that his Majestie hath promised them most constantlie that dureing his life there shalbe no more persecution’. James had said that, if the subsidies were to be granted only on condition of oppression of Catholics, he would rather refuse the money: AAW, B 26, no. 42; see also Letter 43. On 5 April 1624, Locke had written to Carleton that ‘the recusants (and not the meanest amongst them) give out that the Spanish ambassadors were humble suitors to the king for some mitigation towards recusants, and that the king should promise it in tyme convenient’: PRO, SP 14/162/16, fo. 34v.

⁶⁴⁰ For Inojosa's departure, see CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 373; CGB, I, p. 500; and for Coloma's eventual parting, see CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 463; PRO, C 115/107/8487; Letter 57. According to Sir Balthazar Gerbier (writing much later), the customary royal gifts to the Spanish ambassadors, when they left, allowed some ‘malitious tongues’ to say that James still credited their accusations against Buckingham: BL, Lansdowne MS 4181, fos 40v–41r.

⁶⁴¹ See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 366, 377, 413. Diego de Mendoza, Gondomar's nephew, had come from Spain with Prince Charles and had arrived in October 1623, though he had left again in November: see Letter 32; PRO, SP 14/154/38, 67; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 165; McClure, LJC, p. 529.

⁶⁴² On 1 April 1624, Sir Edward Coke had moved that the seventh branch of the statute of 1605 (3 James I, c. 5) should be ‘revyved [. . .] that no recusant, or [one] that hath a recusant to his wyfe shall beare office’: see Thompson, HA, p. 57. Two days later, Thomas Lovell, elected for Bletchingley, was proceeded against for corruption in the electoral process, and also because he was noncommunicant and his ‘mother, his daughter and sunn’ were recusants. On the same day it was ordered that ‘all knights and burgesses should deliver in wryting the names of all thei knew that boare office in their counties and were recusants, or had wyves so, and children’: ibid., pp. 60, 61, see also p. 83. For proceedings concerning popish and suspected office holders, see ED, fos 163r–164v, 180v–181r; PRO, SP 14/164/46, fos 76v–77r; PRO, SP 14/164/86; PRO, SP 14/165/34, fo. 66v; PRO, SP 14/165/48; TD, V, pp. 152–153; LJ, III, pp. 394–396.

⁶⁴³ Francis Manners, 6th earl of Rutland, was Lord Lieutenant of Lincolnshire: LJ, III, 394.

⁶⁴⁴ An undated letter from Sir Henry Constable, 1st Viscount Dunbar to John Kirton, his servant at Burton Constable, noted that the Commons committee ‘fell foule upon my lord of Rutland as an absolute papiste’ but ‘had a query agaynst our presidente [Scrope] for favoringe papistes and not communicatinge, and labors with all violence to have him put from his place’: BL, Additional MS 38856, fo. 4r. Rutland had been the only dissenter in the upper House when, at a conference between Lords and Commons on 22 March, a declaration was drawn up to be presented to James on policy towards Spain. Charles had laboured to make Rutland change his mind, although Buckingham (Rutland's son-in-law) had defended him: see PRO, SP 14/161/30, 36; Ruigh, 1624, p. 228. For Scrope's occasional conformity, see J.T. Cliffe, The Yorkshire Gentry (London, 1969), pp. 174, 200, 202; James Howell, Epistolae (London, 1678), part I, section 5, p. 200. Richard Broughton wrote to Rant on 28 April 1624 about the ‘4 great peeres’ and commented that ‘all of them’ were ‘in good grace with our king, our best frend’: AAW, B 26, no. 45.

⁶⁴⁵ John Jackson reported on 22 April 1624 that Mansfelt, four days previously, had been to ‘Tibballs to the k[ing], and came back this evening with the prince’ and lodged at ‘St James in the <princes quarters>, [in the] next chamber to the prince <in the same chamber which was provided for the infanta>‘. Diego de Lafuente had used the opportunity of his interview with James, also at Theobalds, to tell the king ‘how daungerous [Mansfelt] may prove to the kingdom’: AAW, B 26, no. 40A; see also McClure, LJC, p. 556; DSSD, p. 192; PRO, SP 14/163/1, 16, 48; PRO, SP 78/72, fos 144r, 146r.

⁶⁴⁶ See Letter 43.

⁶⁴⁷ AAW, B 26, no. 46.

⁶⁴⁸ William Bishop. John Colleton had written to Thomas Rant on 22 April 1624 that eleven of the members of the chapter had met and ‘we all held it necessarie to petition to his Hol[iness] for three bishopes at least’: AAW, B 26, no. 42; see also AAW, B 26, no. 46; Letter 44. However, by 3 June, Colleton had changed his mind. He recommended to Rant that he should solicit the making of two bishops, one of whom should be Matthew Kellison (with the intention that he would eventually reside in the English College in Rome, and become the rector there): AAW, B 26, no. 65. On 7 September 1624, referring to his letter of 3 June and one of the same date addressed to the pope (making the same request), Colleton wrote again to Rant and noted that he had urged that the newly appointed bishops should ‘staie, the one in the colledge of Rome, the other in Paris or in the colledge of Douaie, and to governe heere by there under officers till it should please God to calme the storme then violentlie blastering, or mitigate the aversion of his Majestie from the Catholick highe function’. Colleton ‘did not name Rome, Paris or Douaie for the places where the bishopes’ should live, and used only ‘the wordes in partibus transmarinis, but the suite had been easie after his Hol[iness] had yelded to the request’ and agreed that those chosen ‘might make there staie the one in Rome at the colledge, the other in Paris at the Englishe residence’, i.e. the Collège d'Arras, ‘or in Douaie’, until the time was right for them to go to England. Rant, however, had strongly disagreed, and had not presented Colleton's suit. Colleton had also suggested that the pope should appoint a vicar-general with the powers which the archpriest had enjoyed, but again Rant had vetoed the suggestion: AAW, B 26, no. 118.

⁶⁴⁹ Smith, who had been in London, returned to France in May 1624, traversing the Channel at the same time as James Hay, 1st earl of Carlisle, and hurried to the court at Compiègne in advance of Carlisle's arrival there: Allison, RS, p. 170.

⁶⁵⁰ Philippe de Béthune, count of Sully.

⁶⁵¹ William Harewell had explained to Thomas Rant in early May 1624 that ‘a Catholique of speciall note and qualitie in this land’ had written to the pope, immediately after William Bishop's death, to ask for ‘religious men to [be] our bishops’. Harewell thought that ‘if way should be given to such motions and conceipts of particular persons, and those lay people too’, the effect would be to ‘have the Church governed not by ecclesiasticall prelates or clergie men but by the laytie [. . .]. Withall, as one moves for one religious order, so will another move and sue for another order and a third person for a third order etc.’, and the secular clergy, ‘the maine pillar and the very bodie of Gods Church’, would be ‘cast aside’. Elections of bishops should be governed by canon law, not by ‘lay mens privat plottes and projects, not aiming at bonum totius but partis, and their owne privat ends’: AAW, B 26, no. 50.

⁶⁵² See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 332, 335, 339; Allison, RS, p. 170.

⁶⁵³ Marie de Médicis.

⁶⁵⁴ Cf. CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 363 (concerning Carlisle's instructions about toleration for Catholics in England).

⁶⁵⁵ James had acceded to the demand, in the parliamentary petition of 23 April, for a royal proclamation dealing with Catholic clergy. Though John Colleton had expected, on 29 April, that it would be deferred for a month or more (Letter 44) and John Chamberlain claimed on 30 April that the process of securing the measure had stuck, nevertheless Secretary Conway announced in the Commons on 1 May that James had instructed the attorney-general to draw up the proclamation, which was issued on 6 May: see ED, fo. 166r. The proclamation stated that, since the Catholic clergy, ‘now harboured within this realme’, ‘by their boldnesse and insolencie’, had seduced and withdrawn ‘his Majesties subjects, not onely from the religion here established, but also from their obedience and allegiance to his Majestie’, James had seen fit to ‘charge and command’ all of them to take themselves out of his dominions by 14 June ‘with the first opportunitie of winde and weather [. . .] and never after to returne into this realme’. All other such clergy were forbidden to enter the country. The utmost severity of the law would be inflicted on any priests who disobeyed, or any who harboured them: SRP, I, no. 252. Alvise Valaresso observed that the proclamation ‘was posted up to the sound of trumpets and drums, and a great crowd collected at the Spanish embassy as a sign of contempt for the ambassadors’: CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 318. Thomas Locke had believed, in early April, that if the law were to be properly enforced there would soon be an exodus abroad of many papists: PRO, SP 14/162/16. But Sir Francis Nethersole thought, on 15 May, that ‘the papists [. . .] laugh at the proclamation agaynst their priestes, now they are sure the parliament will be ended before their day come[s]’: PRO, SP 14/164/86, fo. 142v.

⁶⁵⁶ See also Ruigh, 1624, pp. 248–256; AAW, B 26, no. 71; Letter 46.

⁶⁵⁷ Juan Hurtado de Mendoza, marquis of Inojosa.

⁶⁵⁸ In late 1623, Alvise Valaresso had reported that William Bishop's appointment of his officials had provoked the anger of the privy council, but Inojosa intervened and ‘himself reproved the bishop’: CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 165.

⁶⁵⁹ William (Archangel) Barlow.

⁶⁶⁰ See PRO, SP 14/165/61, fos 141v–143v; ED, fos 204r–207r; PRO, SP 14/167/10; LJ, III, p. 424.

⁶⁶¹ See Letter 45.

⁶⁶² Tanneguy Leveneur, count of Tillières.

⁶⁶³ AAW, B 26, no. 65 (3 June 1624).

⁶⁶⁴ As the count of Tillières noted, this excluded ‘celle qui regarde la vie’: PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fo. 139v.

⁶⁶⁵ William Davies. See Letter 49; CRS, 68, p. 171; Anstr., II, pp. 82–83.

⁶⁶⁶ Sir Heneage Finch.

⁶⁶⁷ It is not clear which individual is referred to here. John Varder was serving as the count of Tillières's English chaplain (Letter 35) and, on 22 June 1624, at the insistence of Tillières, he received a warrant guaranteeing him freedom from molestation, despite the recent proclamation: PRO, SP 14/168/22.

⁶⁶⁸ See Alexander, CLT, p. 58; Ruigh, 1624, p. 249; Adams, FP, p. 170; idem, PC, p. 349; PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 83v; PRO, SP 94/30, fo. 274r; PRO, SP 94/31, fo. 71v.

⁶⁶⁹ William Douglas, 7th earl of Morton. See McClure, LJC, p. 562; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 333; HMCMK, p. 202.

⁶⁷⁰ For the appointment of regimental officers, see McClure, LJC, pp. 562, 565; PRO, SP 14/164/92; PRO, SP 14/165/12; Adams, PC, p. 349; and, for the disputes over precedence among those appointed to lead the new force, see Cogswell, BR, pp. 276–277.

⁶⁷¹ See PRO, SP 14/168/17, 48.

⁶⁷² William Bishop.

⁶⁷³ George Abbot.

⁶⁷⁴ Cardinal Richelieu. For Richard Smith's recent journey to Paris, see Letter 45; and for his patronage relationship with Richelieu, see Allison, RS, esp. pp. 168–169; Questier, C&C, pp. 212, 378–379, 418, 420, 421, 423, 425.

⁶⁷⁵ Tanneguy Leveneur, count of Tillières. Colleton, recorded Anthony Champney, had ‘taken his lodgeinge’ in Tillières's residence. Tillières's ‘family’ temporarily remained there following his departure: AAW, B 26, no. 89.

⁶⁷⁶ See CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 373; McClure, LJC, p. 568. Champney in Paris remarked to Thomas Rant, in a letter of 8/18 July 1624, that ‘the count de Tillers is come hither discontented’, and the marquis of Effiat went ‘in his place, by whose meanes I knowe not, but for our hurt doubtless’. Tillières had informed Champney of the arrest of the priest William Davies on the day before he (Tillières) left the country: AAW, B 26, no. 89; Letter 49. For Amerigo Salvetti's surprise at Tillières's recall, see PRO, C 115/107/8486. Dudley Carleton believed that Tillières was ‘suddainly revoked for haveing’ used ‘certaine punctillious language here’ about the marriage, ‘for which he had no order nor instruction’: PRO, SP 14/168/48, fos 67v–68r.

⁶⁷⁷ John Lockwood described Granett as ‘the banquier of St Benets cloister’: AAW, B 26, no. 11.

⁶⁷⁸ Bernardino Spada, archbishop of Damietta.

⁶⁷⁹ On 20/30 August 1624, John Lockwood wrote to Thomas Rant, from Paris, that the nuncio had been dealing with the Collège d'Arras for over a month. However, he had left them in the state in which he found them, so that William Rayner ‘stayeth still emongst us, wherfore the two younge men that came hether frome Doway this last winter to perfecte ther studies here were redie to be gonne agayne rather than to live in companie with him [. . .] seing that his impatient course (if itt did continew still as itt did before) would bee noe small hinderance to ther intended course’: AAW, B 26, no. 115. For the problems which had been caused in the college by Rayner (Richard Smith's cousin), see NAGB, pp. 178, 180–181, 231, 232; Letters 59, 68; Questier, C&C, p. 401.

⁶⁸⁰ For the arrival at Douai of John Faulkner, Anthony Shelley, and Richard Perkins (on 15/25 June 1624), and Francis Harris (on 6/16 July), see CRS, 10, pp. 229, 230. See also AAW, B 26, no. 91 (Anthony Shelley to Thomas Rant, 13/23 July 1624).

⁶⁸¹ Cardinal Richelieu.

⁶⁸² For the arrangements which had been made for the infanta's chapel, see above, p. 000.

⁶⁸³ See CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 373; Letter 43.

⁶⁸⁴ Cf. AAW, B 26, no. 85, where Colleton repeated, in his letter to Rant of 16 July 1624, a rumour that 6,000 troops would be sent to Ireland; see also CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 291, 302, 333.

⁶⁸⁵ For the Amboyna massacre, which briefly delayed the signing of the treaty with the Dutch, see Cogswell, BR, pp. 274, 275; Letter 75.

⁶⁸⁶ See Letter 47. On 15/25 June 1624, Kellison had written to Rant that James had finally taken ‘courage and refused to give way to the exequution of lawes against Catholikes and now Catholikes are again as free as ever and in as great troupes flocke publiquelie to the ambassadors howses’: AAW, B 26, no. 75. Thomas Locke had sulked to Carleton on 16 June 1624 that ‘the Jesuits make no great hast to be gone, though their tyme be out’, and that they intended to rely on royal favour: PRO, SP 14/167/70, fo. 109r. Thomas More thought that very few priests had seen fit to obey the proclamation which ordered them into exile: AAW, B 26, no. 77. On 15/25 June, in Paris, Anthony Champney commented that, although the proclamation had been ‘fixed upon the Spanishe embassatoures dore’, nevertheless Richard Smith had reported that the new French ambassador, the marquis of Effiat, had written to Louis XIII to prevent the execution of the proclamation: AAW, B 26, no. 74.

⁶⁸⁷ See NAGB, p. 180.

⁶⁸⁸ See CGB, I, p. 498.

⁶⁸⁹ For Tillières's recall and departure, see Letter 47.

⁶⁹⁰ Antoine Coiffier de Ruzé, marquis of Effiat. For his arrival, see PRO, SP 14/169/2, 14; McClure, LJC, p. 568; PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fos 157r–158r. Amerigo Salvetti commented that Effiat was ‘unexperienced both of countrie and affaire[s]’, though, by the second week of July 1624, Salvetti was calling him a ‘brave Frenchman’: PRO, C 115/107/8486, 8487.

⁶⁹¹ On 13/23 July 1624, Richard Smith had announced that ‘the summe for Catholiks is that they shal not be persecuted for practise of their religion in privat’. Buckingham would not agree to more ‘lest he shold offend the puritans, of whome he hath made him self head. But if Catholiks carie them selv[e]s moderatly, more in time wilbe graunted’: AAW, B 26, no. 90. On 10/20 August, Smith observed that Richelieu ‘laboureth al he can to get good conditions for us and hopeth to obtaine’ them. The minister La Vieuville had been ‘put downe [. . .] cheefly for having so litle care of the Catholiks of England when he delt for the mach’: AAW, B 26, no. 106; see also AAW, B 26, nos 102, 104; 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; CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 443. Carlisle noted how, as a result, ‘those who have now the sole managing of the busines will labour all they can’ to improve ‘the conditions of the treaty to the advantage of this State and Rome’: PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 1r–v. See also the introduction to this volume, p. 000.

⁶⁹² Henrietta Maria.

⁶⁹³ i.e. the Oratory.

⁶⁹⁴ Cardinal Richelieu.

⁶⁹⁵ Cardinal Louis Nogaret de La Valette.

⁶⁹⁶ John Bennett.

⁶⁹⁷ William Davies was reprieved on the way to Tyburn where, according to John Colleton, ‘about a 1,000 people went [. . .] to expect his execution’: AAW, B 26, no. 95. Alvise Valaresso claimed that the count of Tillières's intervention (as well as ‘the king's good disposition’) secured Davies's reprieve, although Tillières was on the verge of leaving the country: CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 384; see also PRO, SP 14/168/59, 60, 64. Anthony Shelley narrated, on 13/23 July 1624, that ‘the holy man was exceeding sorry, and weppe [sic] bitterly’ at his reprieve, ‘sayinge that this was the second time thay had served him soe; for hee had been condemn[e]d once for the same reason, longe before, and delivered. Hee sayd it was his onworthynes whoe did not deserve soe glorius a crowne, and with his constancy and good example did aedify the people exceedingly. When hee was condemned ther was on[e] only man in the roome that cryed God save the kinge, which shoed but litle content that the people tooke at his condemnation’: AAW, B 26, no. 91. Sir Francis Nethersole commented, however, that the reprieve of a ‘Jesuiste’ would ‘encourage his fellowes to stay here still and to bring backe those that run away for feare of the proclamation’: PRO, SP 14/169/14, fo. 19r. For Davies's own account of the proceedings against him in 1624 (written for the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide and attested by two Catholics imprisoned in Newgate), see PRO, 31/9/90, pp. 145–147; for John Colleton's account, see ibid., pp. 157–158.

⁶⁹⁸ See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 333, 353; McClure, LJC, p. 567; Letters 47, 48.

⁶⁹⁹ See CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 363; PRO, SP 14/168/40. On 2/12 July 1624, William Trumbull recorded that news had arrived in Brussels of ‘Lord Vaux his resolution to staye in England, and not to returne any more to the commande of his English regiment’; and the infanta, on the advice of Inojosa, Coloma, and van Male, had ‘given the command of that regiment to Sir Edward Parham’: PRO, SP 77/17, fos 231r, 238r. Subsequent missives from Trumbull noted that the English and Scottish forces commanded by Parham and the earl of Argyll were in decline: ibid., fos 353r, 411v–412r, 438r.

⁷⁰⁰ William Bishop.

⁷⁰¹ See Letter 35.

⁷⁰² See ibid.

⁷⁰³ William (Archangel) Barlow.

⁷⁰⁴ Cardinal Antonio Barberini, a Capuchin, and brother of Pope Urban VIII. See Allison, RS, pp. 182, 183; NCC, p. 107; Letter 54.

⁷⁰⁵ On 20 June 1624, John Colleton had written to Rant that ‘two thousand writ[t]es are alreadie gone out, procured by the promoters, which swarme’; and writs ‘ad melius inquirendum’ were dispatched ‘to sease on the two partes of the landes of Catholikes, to the kings use, and spoile them of all there goods. And thes[e] writs goe within thes[e] two daies into all the shires of the realme, unlesse staie happen to be made by the mediation of the Frenche ambassadour, where of there appeares litle hope’: AAW, B 26, no. 72; see also McClure, LJC, p. 568; AAW, B 26, no. 83 (Colleton to Rant, 13 July 1624, reporting that the exchequer writs were still ‘in readinesse’ and emphasizing how severe the judges had been, on their circuits, towards recusants). From Paris, however, on 22 July/1 August, the earl of Carlisle expressed surprise that ‘the state of the recusants in England hath been (by some bodie's letters from thence) represented heer under a bitter persecution’. He thought it ‘strange’ that such claims should even be credible ‘while we are in parlie with France’: PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 361v. On the same day, he had secured an audience with Louis XIII. Louis had, despite Carlisle's denials, and evidently somewhat tongue in cheek, showed concern at the news of the ‘great persecution against the Catholiques in England’, and claimed that it was an affront to his honour, especially since the Spanish match negotiations had seen far greater, even if temporary, lenience extended to James's Catholic subjects: see PRO, SP 78/72, fos 365v–366r. Carlisle alleged that, even if such rumours were true, James was trying to ensure that any dispensation from statute law against Catholics did not appear to be the result of French pressure, though Louis lamented the internal political disruption caused in France by the rumours of persecution in England: ibid., fo. 366r–v. On 10/20 August, Richard Smith noted that, although by ‘the 2 of August, the persecution was not ceased in England’, in spite of the king's instructions, ‘by this time it is hoped that it is ceased, for bothe the k[ing] and my card[inal] have written effectually to the French embass[ador] there, and he useth diligence therin’: AAW, B 26, no. 106.

⁷⁰⁶ Carlos Coloma.

⁷⁰⁷ On 1 July 1624, John Jackson had reported that Coloma ‘liveth solitary; he goeth to none, nor none goe to him’. Also, ‘his chappel was robbed 4 or 5 dayes since, but not above x^li worth taken. The custodia [i.e. tabernacle] was turned upside downe but not opened, which I think was a speciall providence of Our Lord, who was within the same. A silver lamp and other things [were] taken’: AAW, B 26, no. 84.

⁷⁰⁸ Peter Lombard, archbishop of Armagh.

^{709 . James Hay, 1st earl of Carlisle.}

⁷¹⁰ See Letters 47, 49.

⁷¹¹ Ursula and Jane Tankard, of Brampton, Kirkby Ravensworth, Co. York, were granted a pardon for harbouring the priest Basil Norton (who was supposed to have gone into exile in July 1618): Anstr., II, p. 233; CRS, 68, p. 172; PRO, C 231/4, fo. 174r; APC, 1618–1619, pp. 202–203; J.C.H. Aveling, Northern Catholics (London, 1966), p. 246; see also AAW, B 26, nos 96, 121, 132. The pardon was drawn up for them in late December 1624 as part of the package of toleration measures agreed with the French: PRO, SP 14/177/22.

⁷¹² Sir John Denham, a baron of the exchequer.

⁷¹³ Sir Thomas Chamberlain, a justice of the king's bench.

⁷¹⁴ For John Gee, see T.H.B.M. Harmsen (ed.), John Gee's Foot out of the Snare (1624) (Nijmegen, 1992). On 20 June 1624, John Colleton instructed Thomas Rant that he should personally write out petitions and memoranda directed to curial officials in Rome, and sign them on behalf of the leading secular clergy in England, because, ‘if we sholde pen them here, they maie miscarie, as others that our bishope wrot have done, as now is apparant to the world in Gee his newe booke [i.e. New Shreds of the Old Snare (London, 1624)], where in the copies of diverse letters are set downe’. Colleton was referring primarily to a letter from William Bishop's vicars-general to Pierre de Bérulle concerning Rant's appointment as the agent of the secular clergy in Rome: see AAW, B 26, no. 72; Gee, New Shreds of the Old Snare, pp. 51–52; Letter 30.

⁷¹⁵ Thomas Cole (see Anstr., II, p. 68).

⁷¹⁶ Sir Martin Lumley.

⁷¹⁷ On Gee's own account, in his Paul's Cross sermon of 31 October 1624, ‘not above three moneths since, when I passed along the open street in this citie [. . .] I was set upon by one of that Jesuitical brood, well knowne to mee’, with ‘a stilletto’. But Gee ‘evaded’ Cole's (alleged) attack, ‘and for his commitment, I had the ayd of the justice of this honourable citie, by the authoritie of [. . .] the lord maior’: John Gee, Hold Fast (London, 1624), p. 51.

⁷¹⁸ Henry Morse, who had left the English College in Rome on 9/19 June 1624. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1625: CRS, 37, p. 190; CRS, 75, p. 139.

⁷¹⁹ i.e. the recent disputes in the English College in Rome.

⁷²⁰ Henrietta Maria.

⁷²¹ A reference, perhaps, to Marseille-en-Beauvaisis, east of Rouen.

⁷²² Antoine Coiffier de Ruzé, marquis of Effiat.

⁷²³ Sir Theodore Turquet de Mayerne.

⁷²⁴ Ange de Raconis (Angelo Rafaele da Raconiggi) was president and superior of the Capuchin mission in England: AAW, B 26, no. 130. In July 1622, Raconis had informed John Bennett that, while in London, he had dealt with John Jackson, whom he regarded as one of the most learned and judicious among the secular priests: AAW, A XVI, no. 122, p. 496. On 31 August/10 September 1622, Matthew Kellison remarked that Raconis, ‘being returned from London, sayd that our k[ing] told him he liked secular priests but not Jesuites’: AAW, B 26, no. 120. For Raconis's report from London, dated 29 September 1622, to the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, see PRO, 31/9/90, pp. 124–129.

⁷²⁵ Pierre du Moulin, for whom see A. Milton, Catholic and Reformed (Cambridge, 1995), passim; Adams, PC, pp. 289–290; Cogswell, BR, p. 40.

⁷²⁶ For Marc'Antonio de Dominis, archbishop of Spalato, see N. Malcolm, De Dominis (1560–1624) (London, 1984); see also above, p. 000.

⁷²⁷ De Dominis did not die until 30 August/9 September 1624. For the posthumous sentence formally passed on him by the Inqisition, on 11/21 December 1624, see A Relation Sent from Rome, of the Processe, Sentence, and Execution Done upon the Body, Picture, and Bookes of Marcus Antonius de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalata, after his death (London, 1624); Malcolm, De Dominis, pp. 79, 137.

⁷²⁸ Henry Rich, 1st Baron Kensington, was created earl of Holland on 24 September 1624.

⁷²⁹ See CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 412.

⁷³⁰ See Letter 49.

⁷³¹ See AAW, A XVIII, no. 31, pp. 253–254 (Cardinal Millini to John Colleton, 26 June/6 July 1624). Colleton wrote to Rant on 2 August 1624 that he had received this letter, which arrived in England on 22 July, via the nuncio in Flanders. The cardinal, said Colleton, ‘stiled me decanus cleri Anglicani, and wrot that it was his Hol[iness's] pleasure to bestowe that nomination and office upon me till an other were apointed, but gave no one facultie or jurisdiction at all, save onlie authoritie to comfort my brethren and encourage them by my good example’: AAW, B 26, no. 96.

⁷³² This letter is discussed in Questier, C&C, pp. 415–416.

⁷³³ Antoine Coiffier de Ruzé, marquis of Effiat. Effiat, in his letter of 21 August to the secretary of state, Henri-Auguste de Loménie, seigneur de Villeauxclercs, related that ‘le chancellier Brouck m'a amené un prestre seculier qui faict l'office de grand achidiacre’ (i.e. Jackson): PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fo. 210v. Sir Fulke Greville, 1st Baron Brooke, had lost the chancellorship of the exchequer to Sir Richard Weston in late 1621.

⁷³⁴ John Colleton.

⁷³⁵ Richard Smith had written to Thomas More, on 10/20 August, informing him of the departure for Rome of Pierre de Bérulle (‘who is my freind and with whome you may deale confidently’) in order to secure the dispensation, ‘which office the Jes[uits] looked to have had’: AAW, B 26, no. 106. For the dispatch of Bérulle to Rome to assist Philippe de Béthune, count of Sully in obtaining the dispensation for the Anglo-French marriage, see Allison, RS, pp. 180–181; D.L.M. Avenel (ed.), Lettres, instructions diplomatiques et papiers d'état du Cardinal de Richelieu, 8 vols (Paris, 1853–1877), II, pp. 18–19; also above, p. 000. On 1 September 1624, John Colleton wrote to Bérulle offering Rant's assistance: AAW, A XVIII, no. 53, pp. 333–334. A letter of the same date to Urban VIII expressed the English Catholics’ hope that a dispensation would be granted, and that the pope would remember their Church ‘ubi nullus [. . .] pastor episcopus praesidet, sed omnis jurisdictio et regimen jacet hoc tempore’: AAW, A XVIII, no. 54, p. 335. This letter, Gordon Albion comments, was dispatched on the advice of Effiat himself: Albion, CI, p. 59. Matthew Kellison had written to the same effect on 16/26 August: AAW, A XVIII, no. 49, pp. 325–326; see also AAW, A XVIII, no. 62, pp. 357–358 (Colleton to Urban VIII, 22 September 1624); and above, p. 000. Significantly, George Fisher opined in late October 1624 that, ‘if I may creditt report, the French ar very desirous of the match and will, if they can, conclude it uppon any termes, even without a dispensation, if it may <not> be obtained spero tamen meliora’: AAW, B 47, no. 156; see also Fisher's letter of 26 November 1624 (Letter 63). John Lockwood retailed, on 30 September/10 October 1624, a rumour that Bérulle, on his way to Rome, had all his letters taken from him, allegedly by the ‘Spanyereds [. . .] in his hye way towardes Rome, as Padre Maistro was here in Fraunce when he went last for England’: AAW, B 27, no. 13; see also Letter 39.

⁷³⁶ i.e. in Rome.

⁷³⁷ Juan Hurtado de Mendoza, marquis of Inojosa.

⁷³⁸ See Letter 45.

⁷³⁹ Philippe de Béthune, count of Sully.

⁷⁴⁰ George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham.

⁷⁴¹ See also AAW, B 26, no. 120; Albion, CI, pp. 56, 59.

⁷⁴² For Patrick Anderson SJ (who died on 24 September 1624), see W. Forbes-Leith (ed.), Narratives of Scottish Catholics under Mary Stuart and James VI (London, 1889), pp. 291, 317–347; ARSJ, Anglia MS 1, fos 191r, 201v; AAW, B 26, nos 129, 137 (Thomas Roper's report, of 24 September 1624, that Anderson ‘lyethe very dangerously sicke’ at the French embassy).

⁷⁴³ Ange de Raconis. Later, on 14 February 1625, John Jackson wrote to Rant that Patrick Anderson had taken Raconis's place by a ‘pretty wile’: Letter 72.

⁷⁴⁴ Alvise Valaresso said he had been assured that Raconis's recall by Richelieu was ‘because of some error committed by him, in certain letters, through excess of zeal or lack of judgment’: CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 424; CRS, 68, p. 169. On 13/23 July 1624, the earl of Carlisle had reported that Raconis had gone to England with the intention of converting the king ‘and the whole State [. . .] to the Romish faith’. Carlisle had learned this ‘from a great minister of State, who feares it may occasion scandall there, and yet is not approved heer’ in France. Carlisle hoped that Raconis would be recalled as soon as possible ‘because publique notice is taken of the man heer’, and also because it was believed that he had ‘composed a booke of controversies for his Majesties satisfaction’: PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 347r. For the damning report on Raconis, written by Effiat to Louis XIII, see PRO, PRO 31/3/59, fos 186v–192r.

⁷⁴⁵ Carlos Coloma.

⁷⁴⁶ Richard Blount SJ had recently sent a letter of gratitude to Louis XIII: ibid., fo. 181v. On 23 August 1624, however, Effiat complained that ‘les lettres du Père Blond me sont non plus de mon goust et particullièrement celle du nonce qui me semble n'est pas asses ample pour venir à la fin desirée’. Effiat had told him bluntly that ‘ses affections n'avoient pas rapport à ses promesses’: PRO, PRO 31/3/60, fo. 213v. On 1/11 September, Effiat recorded that he and Blount had dined together and ‘nous sommes séparés grands amis’: ibid., fo. 228v. But, for John Macbreck SJ's report of 31 December 1624 that Effiat was on bad terms with Blount, see ABSJ, Stonyhurst Anglia MS A II, 3, no. 15 and IV, no. 26, p. 19.

⁷⁴⁷ On 15 November 1624, John Jackson complained to Thomas More of Richard Blount SJ's ‘wrongful abusing’ of him to the ‘Spa[nish] imb[assador]’: AAW, B 27, no. 47.

⁷⁴⁸ i.e. during the second appeal to Rome against the archpriest George Blackwell, when the French diplomatic service, in the person of Philippe de Béthune, assisted the secular clergy who led the appeal. See J. Bossy, ‘Henri IV, the appellants and the Jesuits’, RH, 8 (1965), pp. 80–112; Allison, RS, pp. 170, 180–181.

⁷⁴⁹ Anthony Champney requested subsequently, in a letter to Rant of 8/18 December 1624, ‘I pray you lett me [know] whether either Card[inal] Barbarino or anie other sayd to you at anie tyme that capitulum cleri Anglicani est chimera. It is tould us Card[inal] Barbarino towld you so, which we would gladly knowe’: AAW, B 27, no. 81. Rant tried to set Champney's mind at rest in a letter of 18/28 January 1625: AAW, B 47, no. 49.

⁷⁵⁰ The English College in Rome.

⁷⁵¹ Thomas Fitzherbert SJ.

⁷⁵² See Dirmeier, MW, II, pp. 77–78.

⁷⁵³ Napoleone Comitoli, who died on 20/30 August 1624. See M.M. Littlehales, Mary Ward (London, 1998), pp. 127–128; Dirmeier, MW, II, p. 74; M. Chambers, ed. H.J. Coleridge, The Life of Mary Ward (1585–1645), 2 vols (London, 1885), II, pp. 102–103.

⁷⁵⁴ See Littlehales, Mary Ward, pp. 125–130; Dirmeier, MW, II, p. 47.

⁷⁵⁵ On 16 July 1624, John Jackson, in London, alerted Thomas More that Mary Ward's institute's members in the capital ‘give owt [. . .] that they have 3 howses there, one in R[ome] and [an] other 4 myle[s] on this side [of] Rome, and one at Naples, and they were sent for and intreated thither and enterteyned with a procession and ringing of bells etcetera, or els that the like was done at Rome and that before the popes face they tooke their [vo]wes in great solemnitie’: AAW, B 26, no. 84.

⁷⁵⁶ Cf. Chambers, Life, II, pp. 6–7; Dirmeier, MW, I, p. 606.

⁷⁵⁷ George Fisher.

⁷⁵⁸ A reference, presumably, to Anne Philipson, second wife of Thomas Arundell, 1st Baron Arundell.

⁷⁵⁹ For Thomas More's niece, Grace, see D. Shanahan, ‘The family of St. Thomas More in Essex, 1581–1640’, Essex Recusant, 1 (1959), p. 64. Grace More was professed OSB at Cambrai (she took Agnes as her name in religion) on 22 December 1624/1 January 1625: see Letter 61; AAW, B 47, no. 75; B. Weldon, Chronological Notes containing the Rise, Growth, and Present State of the English Congregation of the Order of St. Benedict (Stanbrook, 1881), appendix, p. 28.

⁷⁶⁰ 29 August/8 September.

⁷⁶¹ John Bennett.

⁷⁶² See AAW, A XVIII, no. 99, pp. 549–550 (draft of a petition to the pope, in More's hand, for the grant of the dispensation).

⁷⁶³ Edward Bennett.

⁷⁶⁴ Matthew Kellison.

^{765 . Cardinal Richelieu.}

⁷⁶⁶ Bernardino Spada, archbishop of Damietta.

⁷⁶⁷ On 10/20 August, Smith had recorded that ‘the Jes[uits] wold have M^r [Cuthbert] Jhonson to be b[ishop], for here is made inquiries of him. Twoe Catholiks told me of his incontinencie with a married woman as a thing certaine and knowne. And he tooke some oathe, for which he escaped death. For which causes my l[ord] of Calcedon [i.e. William Bishop] wold not give any office unto him’: AAW, B 26, no. 106. For the version of the oath of allegiance which Cuthbert Johnson (serving as chaplain to Margaret Dormer, wife of Sir Henry Constable, the future Viscount Dunbar) had offered to King James in 1610, see NAGB, pp. 77, 79, 82. For the rumoured nomination, see Allison, RS, pp. 158–159; and above, p. 000.

⁷⁶⁸ Catherine Leveneur (née Bassompierre), countess of Tillières.

⁷⁶⁹ See CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 507.

⁷⁷⁰ Daniel Du Plessis de la Mothe-Houdancourt, bishop of Mende and nephew of Cardinal Richelieu. See C. Hibbard, ‘Henrietta Maria and the transition from princess to queen’, The Court Historian, 5 (2000), p. 23.

⁷⁷¹ On 19/29 September 1624, Carlisle and Kensington alerted Conway that there had been a ‘vehement contestation’ between Richelieu and Cardinal de La Rochefoucauld, ‘as they sate in council, about the nomination of the bishop that should attend Madame into England’, with Richelieu ‘commending a young, learned and moderate man, the bishop of Mente’, and La Rochefoucauld ‘as strongly opposing him under pretence that he is an heretique’. The English ambassadors interpreted this as a factional manoeuvre by La Rochefoucauld to secure the appointment of Claude Caylar de Saint-Bonnet de Toiras, bishop of Nîmes and brother of one of the royal favourites, Marshal Toiras, who had petitioned the English to secure the appointment for his brother: PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 144r. For the rivalry between the two cardinals over ecclesiastical appointments, see also J. Bergin, The Making of the French Episcopate 1589–1661 (London, 1996), pp. 454–455.

⁷⁷² Smith's letter of 10/20 August to More had stated that ‘lately hither was a letter written out of England to the nuntio’ by ‘a nameles fellow [Sir Tobias Mathew] wherin he chargeth me that I am pr[a]eceps, ira fervidus and acerrimus, promotor factionis, contra Jesuitas’, and that Smith would, if promoted to episcopal dignity, ‘raise a tempest of sedition’: AAW, B 26, no. 106. Mathew allegedly also claimed that Smith ‘cooperated to the calling out of Co[u]nte Tillieres out of England’, which Smith denied: AAW, B 26, no. 105 (Smith to Rant, 8/18 August 1624). Mathew also denounced Richelieu (for insufficient zeal in the cause of English Catholics during the Anglo-French marriage negotiations) in a letter sent to Cardinal Barberini in October 1624: see Albion, CI, p. 56.

⁷⁷³ For Mathew's secret ordination, see Letter 3; and for the exploitation of this fact by Smith, see Anstr., II, p. 120; Questier, C&C, p. 470.

⁷⁷⁴ John Bennett. See AAW, B 27, no. 31 (cited in Letter 58).

⁷⁷⁵ Antoine Coiffier de Ruzé, marquis of Effiat.

⁷⁷⁶ On 2/12 September 1624, John Lockwood reported that Louis XIII, ‘understanding that the k[ing] of England ment to macth [sic] with him, tould him that unlesse hee did discontinew his persecution hee would in no ways entre into conditions of mariag[e] with him, to whom the k[ing] of England replied, requesting him to have patience but untill the 5 of August, which was the day he much solemnized for his delivery <out> of the handes of Go[w]ry, att which tyme he purposed of cessation of persecution’: AAW, B 26, no. 121; see also Letter 54 and the introduction to this volume, p. 000. In Sir Richard Weston's account of 23 August, Effiat had insisted on the ‘revocacion of the commissions issued out of the exchequer’ against Catholics. Weston had replied that this ‘could not be don without perticular lettres to every county, which would rayse more bruit and noyse and give more scandall to his Majesties subjects and the parlament than any thing that was don in the treaty with Spayne’. Nevertheless, when the commissions were returned to the exchequer, the king could ‘use what grace he pleased’, and would intervene in cases where undue rigour had been applied. With this statement Effiat ‘seemed to rest satisfied’: PRO, SP 14/171/68, fo. 107r. On 1 September, Sir Edward Conway passed to the attorney-general a list of Catholic clergy and laity (among whom were the priests William Davies and Thomas Cole) ‘for whom the French ambassador mediates’: CSPD, 1623–1625, p. 333; PRO, SP 14/172/1.i, fo. 2r.

⁷⁷⁷ Richard White. See Letter 4.

⁷⁷⁸ John (Bernard) Berington OSB. See D. Lunn, The English Benedictines, 1540–1688 (London, 1980), p. 233; B. Weldon, Chronological Notes containing the Rise, Growth, and Present State of the English Congregation of the Order of St. Benedict (Stanbrook, 1881), pp. 135–136.

⁷⁷⁹ Smith's letter of 16/26 September 1624 to Thomas Rant recorded that the English Benedictines in Rome were ready to support the secular clergy's petition for a bishop, and that Robert (Sigebert) Bagshaw OSB would ‘further our suite what he co[u]ld’: AAW, B 26, no. 141. Subsequently, in a letter of 2/12 December 1624, Rudesind Barlow, president of the English congregation of the Benedictines, who had been lobbied by Anthony Champney for his support, wrote to the cardinals of the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, declaring his order's assent to the appointment of another bishop. He commended, in particular, Smith himself and Matthew Kellison: AAW, A XVIII, no. 83, pp. 413–414; AAW, B 26, no. 141.

⁷⁸⁰ Robert (Sigebert) Bagshaw OSB. See Letter 54. On 17/27 August 1624, Champney had noted Bagshaw's departure for Rome: AAW, B 26, no. 110; and, on 6/16 September, John (Bernard) Berington OSB wrote to Thomas Rant recommending Bagshaw to him: AAW, B 26, no. 126. Bagshaw was one of those who signed a request, dated 17/27 September 1624, to the pope for the issue of the dispensation for the Anglo-French dynastic treaty, though this petition was never delivered: AAW, B 26, no. 146.

⁷⁸¹ The breve of Clement VIII dated 25 September/5 October 1602. See NAGB, p. 5.

⁷⁸² Peter Lombard, archbishop of Armagh.

⁷⁸³ This letter is discussed in Allison, RS, pp. 182–183.

⁷⁸⁴ Letter 53.

⁷⁸⁵ Henri-Auguste de Loménie, seigneur de Villeauxclercs. For his appointment, following the dismissal of Puisieux and Sillery, see PRO, SP 78/72, fo. 19r.

⁷⁸⁶ On 12/22 September, Carlisle had observed how confident the French were that the match would go forward. He noted that Richelieu ‘sent immediately’ to the secular clergy's Collège d'Arras ‘to invite them to rejoyceing [sic] and to blesse that day and to pray for him, for the favour which was then, and by his meanes, procured unto them’: PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 163r.

⁷⁸⁷ Antoine Coiffier de Ruzé, marquis of Effiat.

⁷⁸⁸ See Letter 53.

⁷⁸⁹ See Letter 50. In October 1624, Thomas Cole wrote to Sir Edward Conway that, although Conway had ordered his release from Newgate, the Recorder of London refused to accept ‘such bayle’ as Cole was ‘able to procure’, since the ‘sufficient housholders’ who provided it were ‘unknowen’ to the Recorder, and they were also ‘Roman Catholiques’: PRO, SP 14/173/119, fo. 148r.

⁷⁹⁰ Humphrey Cross. See NAGB, pp. 43, 77, 89, 218–219; NCC, pp. 3, 256, 257.

⁷⁹¹ A reference, perhaps, to John Percy SJ's disputation in May 1622 with the king and leading Church of England divines; see Letters 14, 16. Alternatively, Smith may be alluding to Percy's and John Sweet's more recent disputations, in 1623, with Daniel Featley and Francis White, for which see McClure, LJC, p. 507.

⁷⁹² Cardinal Richelieu.

⁷⁹³ William (Archangel) Barlow.

⁷⁹⁴ For Barlow's letter, see AAW, A XVIII, no. 59, pp. 349–352 (7/17 September 1624).

⁷⁹⁵ Cardinal Antonio Barberini.

⁷⁹⁶ On 17 May 1624, Sir Walter Aston had reported to Secretary Conway that, ‘at the princes being in this court, it pleased [. . .] Buckingham to have many conferences with one Doctor [Henry] Maylard’. Prince Charles also would ‘admitte him sometymes into his presence’ because they found ‘him [. . .] a person of very good abilityes, and one that gave extraordinary satisfaction of his affection’ in the service of his king and prince, and in particular ‘to give light’ to the prince concerning the Spaniards’ ‘unworthy proceedings’. Mayler stayed in Madrid so that ‘whylst the business of the match was in any suspence hee might bee ready to assist in any thing that might have required his service’. He had left Madrid (without receiving from the Spanish court ‘any kynde of gratuity’) on 24 March 1624: PRO, SP 94/30, fo. 264v.

⁷⁹⁷ Richard White (see Letter 53).

⁷⁹⁸ Bernardino Spada, archbishop of Damietta.

⁷⁹⁹ See CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 438; PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 162r.

⁸⁰⁰ Peter Lombard, archbishop of Armagh.

⁸⁰¹ Robert (Sigebert) Bagshaw OSB.

⁸⁰² i.e. an official visitation of the English College in Rome.

⁸⁰³ Juan Hurtado de Mendoza, marquis of Inojosa.

⁸⁰⁴ For Robert Maxwell, 1st earl of Nithsdale's mission to Rome (to assist in the procurement of the dispensation for the Anglo-French marriage), see CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 433, 439, 447, 476; Birch, CTCI, I, p. 78; R. Lockyer, Buckingham: the life and political career of George Villiers, first duke of Buckingham 1592–1628 (London, 1981), p. 232.

⁸⁰⁵ See Letter 51.

⁸⁰⁶ Ibid.

⁸⁰⁷ See ibid.

⁸⁰⁸ Richard White (see Letter 53).

⁸⁰⁹ Cf. J. Israel, The Dutch Republic (Oxford, 1995), p. 484.

⁸¹⁰ Tobias Mathew.

⁸¹¹ For the appointment of Richard Smith to succeed William Bishop as bishop of Chalcedon, see Allison, RS.

⁸¹² The statutory penalty, under the Elizabethan act of uniformity (1 Elizabeth, c. 2), for absence from church on Sundays and holy days.

⁸¹³ See AAW, A XVIII, no. 58, pp. 347–348 (an order for the reporting of recusants at the general sessions at Spittle in Lincolnshire); AAW, A XIX, no. 4, pp. 9–12 (‘Complaintes of extremities and wronges done unto the Catholickes in the parishe of Botsworthe in the county of Lincolne by the churche wardens of the sayed parishe by vertue of Sir Nicholas Sanderson his warrantes by worde and writinge’); AAW, A XVIII, no. 64, pp. 361–362 (Robert Turbott [?] to Richard Forster, 23 September 1624, concerning the course taken by Sir Thomas Hoby and Sir David Foulis at Stokesley against Catholics); AAW, A XVIII, no. 75, pp. 395–398. For other letters addresed to Forster, describing sanctions against Catholics in the autumn of 1624, see AAW, A XVIII, no. 66, pp. 367–368, no. 69, pp. 375–376, no. 70, pp. 377–378; see also Questier, C&C, p. 422.

⁸¹⁴ Antoine Coiffier de Ruzé, marquis of Effiat.

⁸¹⁵ On 15/25 September 1624, Matthew Kellison recorded that William Lane had written to him (on 3/13 September) that Effiat ‘of late, by the mediation of the d[uke] of Buck[ingham], hath gotten some lettres to the lord keeper, the attorney generall and to the chancelor of the exchequer for the suppression of al writtes and commissions sent into the countrie against recusantes. He told the k[ing] plainlie that, if he did <continew> persequution against Catholikes in Ingl[and], then the Fr[ench] k[ing] his master wold persequute in like manner the Hugonotts in France’: AAW, B 26, no. 139. The agent for the English College at Douai reported, at the same time, that Effiat had also secured restraints on ‘the promotors, informers and pursuivants, soe it is thought the matche will goe forward’: AAW, B 26, no. 139. Cf. Letter 56.

⁸¹⁶ On 8/18 September 1624, William Trumbull sent news that ‘on Tewsday last’, Jacques Bruneau, ‘secretary of the counsell of Flanders at Madrid [. . .] passed this way towards England, with the quality of agent for the king of Spaine’, in order ‘to releive Don Carlos Coloma’, and that he would stay there ‘untill the comming of another Spanish ambassador’: PRO, SP 77/17, fo. 330v; see also CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 451; CGB, II, p. 657; McClure, LJC, pp. 581, 584; PRO, SP 94/31, fo. 168r.

⁸¹⁷ See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 454, 474.

⁸¹⁸ Carlos Coloma.

⁸¹⁹ See Letter 54.

⁸²⁰ See CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 445.

⁸²¹ Edward Maddison.

⁸²² Isabella Clara Eugenia, archduchess of Austria.

⁸²³ See also AAW, B 26, no. 56 (Fisher to Thomas Rant, 12 May 1625).

⁸²⁴ For Richard Smith's complaints to Rome in 1626 concerning the Society of Jesus's sodality of the Immaculate Conception, see AAW, B 27, no. 100; AAW, A XXVI, no. 81, pp. 225–226; NCC, pp. 47, 72.

⁸²⁵ Identity uncertain.

⁸²⁶ Letter 55.

⁸²⁷ On 2 October 1624, Edward Bennett insisted that ‘in all places, the justices are busye in making enquiries upon the goodes and landes of recusants’: AAW, B 27, no. 2. Eight days before, in Antwerp, Henry Clifford believed that the Anglo-French match was doubtful because of the continuing measures against Catholics ‘in the remoter parts’. The French ambassador was ‘perplexed’, but ‘Cardinal Richlieu from France wrote a very courteous and frindly lettre assuering our Catholicks in the behalfe of his most Christian Majestie and the queene mother all assistance for their peace and benefite’, a reference to Richelieu's formal letter of 15/25 August 1624 to James's Catholic subjects: see AAW, B 27, no. 8; D.L.M. Avenel (ed.), Lettres, instructions diplomatiques et papiers d'état du Cardinal de Richelieu, 8 vols (Paris, 1853–1877), II, pp. 29–30. On 10/20 October 1624, Matthew Kellison noted that he had received reports of 300 Catholics proceeded against in Yorkshire, and 700 in Hampshire. On 17 October, Thomas Roper sent word (backed up by Colleton four days later) that, despite rumours of a ‘stay of proceedinges’ against Catholics, none had yet been released from Newgate. London's lord mayor was seizing Catholics’ property. The French ambassador had again been petitioned to intervene (AAW, B 27, nos 20, 25, 23), while, ten days later, John Jackson sent in similar reports from Lincolnshire: AAW, B 27, nos 25, 23, 47; see also Letter 55. The French ambassador, wrote Anthony Champney on 18/28 October, had received sixty petitions, and ‘2,000 are sayd to be falne in the North, partly by the extremitie <of persecution>‘. ‘Promoters swarm’ and ‘take <men> in the street by arrest for debt’ to the crown: AAW, B 27, no. 31. On 29 October 1624, Thomas Roper, in London, reported that the lord mayor ‘seased here uppon many mens goodes, and solde them under’ the French ambassador's ‘nose, who hathe hetherto prevayled in nothinge for our good’ and scarcely had ‘patience to heare our complayntes, to which he freely tellethe us that he dothe not geave us any creditte, thoughe our troubles be so appairent’, choosing, rather, to rely on the word of the king that there ‘shall be no persequution’. Roper added that, ‘in the meane tyme, many a hundred have bein utterly undonne, and many [. . .] more are in apparent danger of legall proceedings in the courte of Westminst[er]. There is some stay till Feb[ruary] but 12^d a Sunday, indightements and seasures are putt in exequution’: AAW, B 27, no. 32; see also Letter 58.

⁸²⁸ Cardinal Richelieu.

⁸²⁹ John Jackson commented on 15 November 1624 that ‘I hear that the Fr[ench] imb[assador] craveth of the Catholicks to informe into France that they think it not convenient to press the k[ing] here to[o] stricktly to points of religion’: AAW, B 27, no. 47.

⁸³⁰ See Letter 50. The cynical Francophobe Henry Clifford remarked on 22 October/1 November that ‘in England, for the present, there is caulme and, on the sodaine, informers are suppressed, and it is thought such priests and Catholicks as be prisoners shall be released out of hand, and the l[ord] keeper hath order to stay all execution against recusantes’. But, Clifford thought, ‘this is to entertaine more plausibly the secretarie of France [i.e. Villeauxclercs] who is dayly expected, and it is probable this caulme will endure to February next’, when Clifford expected that parliament would assemble, and ‘then againe a storme is expected’. The English Catholics’ only ‘hope is that his Holinesse will not lett things passe without solide meanes setled for our good and peace’, for ‘the French are sodaine and credulous when the important busines toucheth not themselves directly’: AAW, B 27, no. 33.

⁸³¹ Carlos Coloma.

⁸³² 4 October.

⁸³³ See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 436, 455, 463.

⁸³⁴ Jacques Bruneau.

⁸³⁵ The Spanish embassy in London.

⁸³⁶ Juan Hurtado de Mendoza, marquis of Inojosa. See CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 455.

⁸³⁷ George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham.

⁸³⁸ Thomas More's letter of 28 August/7 September 1624 to Sir Francis Cottington thanked him for his ‘singular cowrtesies’, and asked him, in effect, whether King James desired English Catholic assistance in obtaining the dispensation: AAW, A XVIII, no. 55, p. 337.

⁸³⁹ Theobalds.

⁸⁴⁰ On 14 October 1624, Thomas Roper further noted that he had gone ‘once or twice unto Sir Francis Cotting[ton], but it was not my good fortune to meete with him’ because he had gone to the court at Royston, but Cottington knew how to contact Roper if need be: AAW, B 27, no. 15.

⁸⁴¹ George Gage, secular priest, son of John Gage of Haling. See Anstr., II, pp. 120–124; P. Revill and F. Steer, ‘George Gage I and George Gage II’, BIHR, 31 (1958), pp. 141–158.

⁸⁴² Elizabeth Gage, wife of Sir John Stradling. For the link between the Gage and the Stradling families, see Questier, C&C, p. 80.

⁸⁴³ William Thatcher, son of James Thatcher and Mary Gage.

⁸⁴⁴ Anne Tresham, daughter of Sir Thomas Tresham.

⁸⁴⁵ Robert (Sigebert) Bagshaw OSB.

⁸⁴⁶ See Letter 75.

⁸⁴⁷ Thomas Windsor, 6th Baron Windsor.

⁸⁴⁸ This is a reference, apparently, to James Clayton. See AAW, A XIV, no. 112, pp. 353. He told Thomas Rant in late 1623 that Cardinal ‘Bandino sayde to my Lord Windsor’ that ‘hee could lay downe reasons of State why the kinge of England should bee Catholike’, and ‘a great kinge’, and that it would be possible for the court of Rome to ‘recompence his spirituall jurisdiction’: AAW, B 25, no. 102.

⁸⁴⁹ See Questier, C&C, pp. 331, 392–393.

⁸⁵⁰ Philip Roper.

⁸⁵¹ i.e. the Jesuits.

⁸⁵² John Alexander Evison SJ, whose usual alias was Bonham. See CRS, 74, pp. 163–164; NCC, pp. 148, 171, 252.

⁸⁵³ Stories about the notorious renegade William Atkinson's ties to the Society of Jesus had circulated ever since the appellant controversy. See Anthony Copley, Another Letter of M^r. A. C. to his Dis-Iesuited Kinseman, concerning the Appeale, State, Iesuites (London, 1602), p. 26; Anstr., I, p. 13; see also AAW, B 26, no. 40A.

⁸⁵⁴ Morton had served as secretary to Princess Elizabeth, electress palatine.

⁸⁵⁵ Guillaume de Bautru (see CSPV, 1623–1625, p. 456).

⁸⁵⁶ Antoine Coiffier de Ruzé, marquis of Effiat. See Tillières, ME, pp. 84–85.

⁸⁵⁷ Henri-Auguste de Loménie, seigneur de Villeauxclercs.

⁸⁵⁸ Sir Richard Weston.

⁸⁵⁹ See PRO, SP 14/172/54 (formal letter of the king to Weston, 24 September 1624, concerning the property of recusant Catholics); see also AAW, A XVIII, no. 73, pp. 385–388.

⁸⁶⁰ On 28 October/7 November 1624, Richard Ireland commented that, whereas he had written to Thomas Rant about a month earlier concerning the cessation of the persecution ‘upon the relation of letters’ received from England, ‘it seemeth nowe the relation was grounded upon good words that the French emb[assador] had for the revocation of all writs out of the exchequer against Catholiques. But, since, we doe heare such lamentable complaints both by [. . .] letters, and <by> some gentlemen [. . .] that there is extreme persecution in all parts’: AAW, B 27, no. 38.

⁸⁶¹ See CSPV, 1623–1625, pp. 456, 462.

⁸⁶² The plague.

⁸⁶³ Cf. McClure, LJC, p. 588.

⁸⁶⁴ Ibid., pp. 580, 582. Naunton had been appointed to the mastership of the court of wards on 30 September 1624: see E.B. Fryde, D.E. Greenway, S. Porter, and I. Roy (eds), Handbook of British Chronology (London, 1986), p. 112; R.E. Schreiber, The Political Career of Sir Robert Naunton 1589–1635 (London, 1981), pp. 95–96; PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 226r.

⁸⁶⁵ See McClure, LJC, pp. 583, 585, 587. Sir James Ley was appointed lord treasurer on 11 December 1624: Fryde et al., Handbook of British Chronology, p. 108.

⁸⁶⁶ See PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 226r.

⁸⁶⁷ See McClure, LJC, p. 582.

⁸⁶⁸ Carlos Coloma.

⁸⁶⁹ See Letter 56.

⁸⁷⁰ George Fisher recorded on 14 October that ‘the councell hath taken order, as I heare for certaine, for the pressing of 1,200 men for Mansfield, who is now at the Hage, but everye day expected in England’: AAW, A XVIII, no. 73, p. 386. On the same day, Thomas Roper observed that ‘there is a secrette order gon downe <in to the countrey> to the deputy lieutenantes for to use their best endevor and industry towardes the raysinge of souldiers for Mansefeilde’ and there were ‘some sixteene shippes in readinesse’ which some believed would be used as transports: AAW, B 27, no. 15. Also, on 14/24 October, John Lockwood in Paris recorded that Mansfelt, in England, would ‘have some say 10, others say 12 or 15, thousand men to helpe to remove, as many conjecture, the seige that is before Breda’ which ‘doth yett hould out, but by the opinion of most men itt will bee taken [. . .] before itt bee longe’: AAW, B 27, no. 28. Five days earlier, Chamberlain believed that Mansfelt would have ‘8,000 English and 4,000 Scotts under sixe regiments’: McClure, LJC, p. 582. For James's orders, reported by Conway on 5 October 1624, that Mansfelt should receive £15,000 ‘in assistance of his charge and arminge of his troope’, and £20,000 every month ‘soe longe as the accion shall last’, and a levy of 12,000 men to be transported at royal expense to France, see PRO, SP 78/73, fo. 225r.

⁸⁷¹ On 14 October 1624, George Fisher informed Thomas More that ‘ther is some whispering [. . .] that’ Robert Ker, earl of Somerset ‘is creeping againe into favor wich maketh some suspect that the other [i.e. the duke of Buckingham] is declining’: AAW, A XVIII, no. 73, p. 385. On 21 October, John Colleton observed that Somerset was pardoned and restored to his honours: AAW, B 27, no. 25; McClure, LJC, p. 582 (for Somerset's ‘promise not to looke toward the court’).

⁸⁷² See Letter 55.

⁸⁷³ Giovanni-Battista Portenari. Thomas More described him as ‘somtime secretarie’ to Cardinal Francesco-Maria Monti and ‘afterward’ to Cardinal Luigi Capponi: AAW, A XVII, no. 44, p. 149.

⁸⁷⁴ A reference, presumably, to Edward Bennett.

⁸⁷⁵ Thomas More had informed Edward Bennett that the calumnies against Matthew Kellison and Richard Smith (and also against William Bishop) were sent to Rome by John Cecil as well as by Sir Tobias Mathew: AAW, B 27, no. 19. (Thomas More reported to John Jackson, from Rome on 30 October/9 November 1624, that Thomas Worthington, in a letter to Thomas Rant, had been the source of the claim that William Bishop, had he lived, would have caused factional division within the English Catholic community: AAW, B 27, no. 42.) These briefings against the leading secular clergy candidates to succeed William Bishop elicited a storm of protest. Anthony Champney, for example, argued in October 1624 that the secular clergy's agents in Rome should demand to be informed of the details of the accusations, ‘for it cannot stand with anie right that the accuser be heard and the accused be not permitted to answer for him self. And, though the stile of the Holy Office be not peradventure to produce the reasons, yet the accusation must be knowne <to the accused>, unless they will condemn a man without heareing him, which is agaynst the lawe both <of> God and nature, unless it be in notoriis’. Champney remembered that John Bennett, ‘when he was there, demanded the same and obtayned the graunt which, beinge knowne, the accusations were recalled as grownded upon false information’: AAW, B 27, no. 31. For an account of the accusations against Smith, see also AAW, B 27, no. 63 (Champney to More and Rant, 17/27 November 1624). For Smith's eliciting of the accusations against himself, see Letter 59; Allison, RS, pp. 184–185. For judicial procedure in the inquisition at Rome, see G. Crosignani, ‘Richard Smith versus Robert Persons SJ: a double denunciation at the Holy Office of The Judgment of a Catholicke English Man’ (forthcoming in Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu).

⁸⁷⁶ For Robert Persons SJ's relationship with John Cecil, see Anstr., I, pp. 64–68.

⁸⁷⁷ Bernardino Spada, archbishop of Damietta.

⁸⁷⁸ Christopher Walpole SJ. I am very grateful to James Kelly for identifying Walpole, who had been sent to England on 9/19 June 1624: see CRS, 37, p. 187; CRS, 75, p. 326.

⁸⁷⁹ Edward Petre and Thomas Petre, respectively the fourth and sixth sons of William Petre, 2nd Baron Petre. Again, I am grateful to James Kelly for this reference.

⁸⁸⁰ Antoine Coiffier de Ruzé, marquis of Effiat.

⁸⁸¹ Sir Richard Weston (see Letter 57).

⁸⁸² George Fisher's report of 27 October 1624 to Thomas Rant confirmed that the lord keeper had caused a stay in proceedings against Catholics, though ‘how long this mitigation will last I know not, but a stopp is made untill the beginning of the parliament wich is in February’. Fisher feared, however, that ‘this is but a preparation to the coming of the secretary of France, whom we expect shortly, who finding a calme here will report to the world the good effects of this treaty and the clemency of our king’, and that, since ‘policy so raigneth’, and ‘religion hath allmost no place’, in the end, ‘howsoever the French bragg of the good conditions, I feare the kings word will be all the security they shall have’: AAW, B 47, no. 156; cf. Letter 57.

⁸⁸³ Carlos Coloma.