Pages v-xxxi

Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House: Volume 18, 1606. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1940.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying and sponsored by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. All rights reserved.



The present volume covers the MSS. at Hatfield which can be definitely dated in or tentatively assigned to the year 1606. In the matter of domestic affairs no such striking event as the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot in the previous year occurred in it but there is considerable interest in the papers which relate to the trials of the various offenders in that Plot and their final bringing to book. Outside England there are no events of outstanding military importance in the campaign in the Netherlands to record and the chief interest in the foreign relations of this country is the continual difficulty in the maintenance of its treaty with Spain in face of the inborn hostility of the two peoples. Following the practice of recent volumes in this Calendar the chief topics of interest in the present one are here summarised under a series of subject headings.

The King and the Royal Family. The story of the King's itinerary during the year to be deduced from Nichols's Progresses of James I can again be supplemented by the information respecting his movements contained in these papers. Thus it appears that on 15 January he was at Enfield (pp. 18, 19) but on the 17th was proposing to return to London on the morrow (p. 23). Thereafter until the end of April he was mainly at Greenwich or Whitehall, except that according to Nichols he was at Woking on 22 March and according to these papers at Newmarket on 4 April (p. 97). On 30 April he was at Royston (p. 125) which he left for Newmarket on 2 May (p. 128). He was there until the 8th but was to be in London on the Saturday [10 May] (pp. 128– 131). He appears to have remained chiefly in London and its neighbourhood until the King of Denmark's departure from England in August, but on 30 June Humfrey Flyntt writes that he had been with him at Havering and that he had appointed to be at Theobalds on Thursday night (3 July) and to hunt in the park there and at Cheshunt on the Friday (p. 185). The King of Denmark arrived in England on his visit to his sister and brotherin-law on 17 July and was received by James at Greenwich. On 24 July the two Kings were received by Salisbury at Theobalds (p. 209) and stayed there five days to the 28th. An account of the entertainment charges shows that they amounted to 1180l. (p. 237). There is a note by Salisbury of the gratuities to be given to the principal members of the King of Denmark's suite (p. 269) and an account of the postmasters for London and the Court for horses supplied to the King and his suite (p. 432). On 31 July the Kings paid a state visit to the city of London and were welcomed in a short Latin speech by the Recorder (p. 218). The festivities there seem to have been extended until 7 August and an account of the shows prepared for the reception of their Majesties will be found on pp. 227, 228. The King of Denmark as we know from other sources left England on 11 August, shortly after which James prepared himself for a progress to the New Forest. On the 17th he was at Hampton Court and left on the following day (p. 239). On 22 August he was at Farnham (p. 243) and remained there until the 26th (pp. 245–252 passim). (fn. 1) He was at Titchbourn on the 27th (p. 256) and on or before 1 September at Beaulieu (p. 270). By 3 September he was on his way homeward and had reached Ivychurch. He had "taken a great affection to the New Forest, as it deserves for its largeness," but was not forgetful of returning homewards, although he was "grieved for the growing of the sickness in London lest it should be occasion of delay of his Parliament affairs" (p. 272). On 5 September he left Ivychurch (p. 274) and arrived at Truntor, a place which cannot be readily identified (p. 275). The news of the sickness at Windsor troubled him and he did not purpose to stay there above two nights but to spend his time for the conclusion of his hunting season about Farnham and Bagshot. On 7 September he had arrived at Farleigh Wallop near Basingstoke and proposed to be two nights at Sir Richard Tichborn's near Farnham, two nights at Bagshot, one at Woking and so on Saturday (13 September) to Hampton Court (p. 276). However exactly this programme may have been carried out he appears to have reached Hurley on 8 September (p. 277) and Aldershot on the following day (p. 278). He was certainly at Bagshot on the 10th where information reached him from the inhabitants of Windsor that the report of the sickness in their town was false and he purposed in consequence to go there on Monday the 15th (p. 279). By the 13th he had duly arrived at Hampton Court (p. 284). He probably stayed mainly there for the rest of the month, at the end of which according to Nichols's account he received the visit of the Prince of Vaudemont, son of the Duke of Lorraine. On 4 October he was at Royston (p. 313) and from the letters of Sir Thomas Lake, who was as usual in constant attendance upon him, he spent his time between that town and Newmarket until the 25th (p. 332), proposing to be in Whitehall on the following Friday (i.e. the 31st). From 1 November to the end of the year he appears to have kept to London and its immediate neighbourhood.

Of the ten letters of James printed in this volume only the three undated ones to Salisbury (pp. 372–375) are of an informal character. Although they have been tentatively assigned to the year 1606 the attribution must be open to question. Who is the Don Diego to whom the King refers in the first and third of these letters? One may hazard a guess that he is using the name as a sort of nickname for the Spanish Ambassador (Don Pedro de Cuniga or Zuniga). Clearly the reference cannot be to Gondomar (Don Diego di Sarmiento) who did not arrive in this country until more than a year after Salisbury's death. And who is "my Lord of Warwick"? There was no Earl of Warwick between the years 1590 and 1618.

In the second of the three letters James is evidently referring to the discussions which had been taking place in Parliament over the bill for the Union of the two Kingdoms and objects to the preface which had been drafted by Salisbury. He says

I pray you do me not that wrong as to think that either out of any presumption of my own gifts, for God knows I know myself to be but a man in many things inferior to many other men, or yet out of any light account of your sufficiency, for I had rather others should report unto you than tell it myself what I think of your wisdom, diligence and honesty above all; do not think, I say, that out of these grounds I made animadversions upon your preface, but only that of nature I cannot but censure any man's doing according as my natural sense teaches me and not for the author's respect; and therefore it will not be the twice nor the ten times reading over that will make me change my mind, but by the contrary some things which at the first reading thereof I thought but slender I now find pernicious (p. 373).

He insists in face of a possible objection by Parliament that he has "no entrance to have a voice in their proceedings" and to its dislike of his meddling "to give them my advice in anything" that "my consent is as free mine as theirs is their own." He recommends that either there shall be no preface at all or that the place for it be left blank by Parliament to be filled in by the Commissioners for the Union with his advice before the bill be presented to Parliament and he will take it upon himself that whatever form he shall agree upon to be presented in England, the like shall be presented to the Parliament of Scotland (p. 374).

Nevertheless, in spite of the King's opposition to Salisbury's proceedings in this respect the latter could still write of him

It has pleased Almighty God to bless us all with a prince of such an excellent composition for wisdom and benignity as not only in the general he has made the realm happy, but in particular by his acceptation of my endeavours and benign dispensation with my errors and weakness daily adds (if more it were possible to increase it) to the dear and humble affections of your affectionate friend (p. 441).

With regard to his financial difficulties we find James in a letter to the Privy Council of 25 August insisting upon the urgency of his present need for money, "yet our disposition is not to supply our needs with hard measure to any" (p. 248). A memorandum by Sir Baptist Hicks shows the large sums advanced to the King by that gentleman both before and since his accession to the throne of England (pp. 408, 409). Mention in this connexion may also be made of the large debts (referred to below) owing to Sir Horatio Palavicino and others.

An interesting question of etiquette and international politics arose out of the invitation given to James during this year by Henry IV of France to be godfather to that King's eldest daughter. It was proposed to have a general christening at the same time of the King's three children, the Pope and the Duchess of Mantua being godparents to the Dauphin and the Duke of Lorraine and the Grand Duchess of Florence to the youngest daughter.

His Majesty made great profession of kind acceptance of the honour which the French King did him in it, but in respect that the Pope was to be assisting at the same time and had the prerogative for the Dolphin his Majesty desired to be excused because he could not avoid scandal in suffering himself to participate with the Pope in any public action. But if it should please the French King to have the solemnity of the eldest daughter's christening performed some convenient time before the others, although his Majesty knows the difference between the Dolphin and a daughter of France, yet he will be most ready to accept of it and send his Ambassador thither. How this answer will be digested here we shall shortly hear; always the world must know that it is full of courtesy and reason (p. 172).

On 22 June the Queen gave birth to a daughter who survived for one day only, after being christened by the Dean of the Chapel (p. 178). We do not hear much here of the Queen's doings during the year but know from Nichols and other sources that she was present at Court, as we should expect, during the visit of her brother, the King of Denmark, as also at the end of September at Hampton Court for the reception of the Prince of Vaudemont. An undated letter from her to his father, the Duke of Lorraine, expresses the pleasure she had had in seeing and knowing the Prince (p. 375). Sir Roger Aston writing a little after this visit states that the Queen was never more respecting and more lovingly disposed towards the King (p. 326).

Although we are not told much in these papers of the incidents attending the King of Denmark's visit there is the reflection of one of them which Nichols (Progresses, II, p. 69n) quotes from Pegge's Curialia in the report to James of the unheralded forcing of herself upon the Queen's presence by the Countess of Nottingham and of the Queen's resentment of the intrusion (p. 276). The King's will was that the Lord Admiral should seek to give the Queen satisfaction and restrain the Countess from her presence or her Court or his Majesty's until she be licensed.

As to the Prince of Wales we find him supporting his tutor Adam Newton's appointment to the deanery of Durham (p. 29). Salisbury presents him with a mare for his race (p. 168) and on 20 June we hear of his fishing and hunting at Carshalton and Beddington (p. 175). With the exception of a brief note of some jewelry for him (p. 105) we hear nothing of the little Duke of York and of the Lady Elizabeth there are only two letters from her guardian Lord Harington relative to her gentleman usher and to an account for the 1500l. Harington had half-yearly for her diet (pp. 65, 405, 406).

Home Affairs. Parliament sat from 21 January to 27 May when it was prorogued to 18 November. The earlier session besides resuming the business of the Union with Scotland was devoted to a variety of other matters of which the questions of purveyance and of provision for the King's estate were the most important. Touching the evils of purveyance we have a long letter from Sir Robert Johnson who had introduced into the Commons a bill to restrain purveyors "that they exceed not the limits of their commissions," although he believed that subjects could be fully eased of their grievances by the due execution of the existing laws (pp. 55–57). A draft minute on the subject by Salisbury, setting out the King's own views, will be found on pp. 88. 89. Another minute by Salisbury expresses the King's views in a letter to the Commons on the provisions they should make for the maintenance of his estate and refers to the loans with which he had been accommodated by so many honest men when his occasion could not await the decisions of the House and for the repayment of which he wished "to preserve his princely word" (pp. 89, 90). Another matter which was engaging the attention of the Commons at this time was that of the levies of soldiers for the service of the Archdukes. Salisbury in a letter to Edmondes of 27 February says that

The Lower House had conceived such a deep impression that those soldiers which served the Archdukes would have been made the sword for England's destruction, as they were now about to make laws for the general restraint of any that should offer to go to serve any Prince or State that is different from them in religion but under good caution that they shall continue loyal, as well in the points of conscience as of civil obedience (p. 62).

There are several references in these papers to the new duty on currants which resulted this year in the celebrated Bate's case. A letter from an applicant for a farmership of the impost states that he was daily expecting for himself and his partner a ship laden with currants which will bring into the farm well near 1000l. being laden from the isles of Zante and Cephalonia contrary to the decree of the state of Venice, not without danger both to ship and goods (p. 16). With regard to the proceedings in the Exchequer Chamber the Lord Treasurer is certain they "will prove the best judgment and clearest for the Crown that ever was" (p. 219). He writes again more fully setting out the arguments in court for the Crown and the merchants, is pleased to refer to the weakness of the latter's cause and is sure his Majesty may have comfort in this cause as of that which assuredly will pass clear on his side (pp. 395–397). Papers setting out the results of the imposition for two years ending at Michaelmas 1606 will be found on pp. 305, 306.

The Union with Scotland was more particularly the business of the later session of Parliament, although it was receiving attention in the earlier one of the year, when the King whose special interest in the pressing forward with the measure has already been seen wished that it might be hastened (p. 130). A draft possibly of a speech in Parliament advises care in the penning of the act of abrogating hostility and thinks it fit that some words be "interlaced in the preface or elsewhere which declare that we conclude that there can be now no enmity between the two kingdoms which are subject to one King" (p. 443). The question of the naturalization of the Scots which was bound up with that of the Union is discussed in a paper in which the writer concludes that a Scottishman is the King's liege man in England enjoying all personal privileges within this realm equally with the English, but not local privileges till he has acquired them (p. 443). Lord Eure unable himself to attend Parliament in November hopes and prays the good work begun of Union shall receive a happy conclusion (p. 343).

So far as events at home are concerned the chief interest in these papers for the earlier part of the year lies in the captures and trials of some of the principal conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot. Of these the most interesting, because of the questions involved in his trial, is Henry Garnet, the superior of the Jesuits in the English Province. In a letter of 12 February Salisbury informs Edmondes that Garnet with some other Jesuits had been taken at Mr. Abington's house in Worcestershire (Hindlip) and brought to London after the execution of eight of the principal traitors (p. 52). (fn. 2) On 26 February Garnet writes that he had passed "my last examination as I suppose, for they say I am obstinate and indeed they have nothing against me but presumptions" (p. 60). His declarations of 8 and 10 March which are preserved at Hatfield (pp. 73, 74) were printed in full by Gardiner in 1888 in the English Historical Review and there is probably little else in these papers to alter the conclusions as to his actual knowledge of the details of the Plot expressed many years ago by Jardine (fn. 3) and Gardiner. (fn. 4) Certain papers, however, which do not appear to have been seen by the latter may be noted. There is the summary of Garnet's examinations drawn up by Chief Justice Popham with his comments upon the several points (pp. 75–77). Popham's general conclusion is that "Garnet was a principal part and actor in the Gunpowder Treason, and most of the Jesuits, if not all." That Garnet afterwards knew of the actual plot is certain but he says only from Tesmond (Greenway) and that under the seal of the confession. His conscience which forced him to hold that secrets given under such a seal must be inviolable would hardly appeal to Popham who merely says "Garnet knew of the Gunpowder Treason as himself saith about Whitsuntide 1605 and yet never acquainted the State with it whereby it might be prevented."

"He was the principal man on whom Catesby relied and was seldom out of his company then, Catesby affirming he had put the case touching the Gunpowder Treason and was assured of the lawfulness of it." This, of course, ignores Garnet's constant assertion that Catesby had only spoken to him in general terms as to the lawfulness of killing any innocents who might be present in any attack upon the guilty and had given him no details as to the particular plot intended. (fn. 5)

Amongst the papers at Hatfield are two letters of Garnet subsequent to his trial which Jardine thought to have been regrettably lost. The first of these is his letter to Greenway of 4 April (pp. 95. 96) (fn. 6) of which, however, abstracts had been cited in Abbott's Antilogia. The second (pp. 107–111) is what Jardine regarded as the much more important letter addressed by Garnet to Dilectissimis in Christi Patribus et Fratribus meis, dated on Palm Sunday (o.s. 13 April) and apparently written to remove from the English Catholics an unfavourable impression thought to have been created against him by reason of his accusations of Greenway. (fn. 7) This again asserts his innocence of having had any intelligence of the Plot from Catesby and his belief that what he heard from Greenway was given in confession only. Yet he adds

The Commissioners and the King say that Mr. Greenway acknowledges that it was not sub sigillo confessionis, and it may be he meant not so, but I stand to it as the truth is, that I took it so, both because he offered confession and after few days came to confession. If it had been any less degree of secrecy I had written of it to Rome (p. 107).

The relation goes on to explain the nature of his overheard, but as he says misrepresented, conversations in the Tower with Oldcorne (Mr. Hall) and states that these were not confessions as the two had already confessed to each other whilst "in the hole at Hindlip."

These men heard us discourse what we should answer to this point or that; and falsely they deposed two things against me, first that I said Mr. Catesby asked me in the Queen's time whether it were lawful to blow up the Parliament House; and that I said it was, which was most false; for I told Mr. Hall that the Commissioners said so, but indeed I never said so. They are honest men but could not hear us well (p. 109).

He had been approached lately by "the three Deans" (fn. 8) as to making confession and satisfaction but would not have anything to do with them because it was unlawful. "Yet we conferred of many points of divinity." He relates how Salisbury having first accused him of being married to Mrs. Anne Vaux afterwards asked his forgiveness and said he spoke in jest and held his arm long on his shoulders. "and all the rest said that I was held for exemplar in those matters." He had written to the three Deans

that I disallowed the powder action and all insurrections; and that I asked forgiveness of God and the King for that I had not disclosed the general knowledge which I had of Mr. Catesby, which all proceeded from hope of prevention by the Pope, and lothness to betray my friends (p. 111).

Finally he desires none to be Superior till the Father General write and he appoints Mr. Blunt as their agent for all temporal things.

The execution of Garnet was protracted partly as Salisbury writes to Edmondes on 26 April by reason of Holy Week and the holy days following, "and partly because of this delay there have been many things discovered by him which serve to very good use in his Majesty's service. It is now resolved that on Wednesday next he shall be executed" (i.e. 30 April but actually the execution took place on 3 May) (p. 124).

Regarding the execution and the stories subsequently circulated amongst the Catholics we hear from Sir Charles Cornwallis of a letter sent to Spain by the Spanish Ambassador's secretary in which

he troubled himself very much to make Garnet innocent and to make known the general good inclination in England to the Roman Catholic religion; as arguments of both he instanced a sorrow expressed by the people for the Jesuits putting to death, and that when the executioner showed his head and bade God save the King, there was not one would bestow an Amen! but instead thereof fell upon the hangman, who escaped with his life, &c. (p. 265).

As to the story of the miraculous straw which, according to Jardine (op. cit., II, p. 348), the Spanish Ambassador saw and believed we have here de Zuniga's own letter in which he contemptuously dismisses the whole story (p. 357).

Of Father Oldcorne (or Hall), who was taken with Garnet at Hindlip and whose overheard conversations with him in the Tower have been mentioned, information which doubtless led to his capture was given by Humphrey Littleton on 26 January (p. 35). Other important Jesuit conspirators were Father Oswald Tesmond (alias Greenway or Greenwell), who as has been said was implicated by Garnet's confessions, and Father John Gerard. Tesmond had been arrested but escaped his captors and thereafter for the rest of the year his whereabouts as also those of Gerard were unknown to the English authorities, although numerous agents of Salisbury were searching for them. Amongst such agents was the "W.N." or "N.W." who had been sent on a secret mission to the continent and of whom numerous letters will be found in this volume reporting his activities. On 4 May (N.S.) he writes from Brussels that the common report there was that they were on that side of the sea, although their nearest friends told him that they were still safe in England (p. 120). On his return to London he writes on 21 June that he had reason to believe Gerard at least was in England (p. 176). Another of Salisbury's correspondents who was on their search was William Udall who writes on 19 June that he was able to prove that a Gerard, a priest, had been recently at the house of Mrs. Heywood in Warwickshire. He knew where Tesmond was and could prove two Jesuits at least were in the same house (p. 174). On 28 June he is persuaded that Tesmond was at Kinlet in Shropshire and Gerard was constantly reported to be about London (pp. 181, 182) and on 21 August the same writer is confident he could lay his hands upon both Tesmond and Gerard if he could be supplied with means to go into Worcestershire (p. 242). Nevertheless, in spite of these efforts to take them and those of others, such as Alexander Bradshawe, a released priest anxious to prove his loyalty (p. 382), the two Jesuits ultimately made their escape to the continent and as we know from other sources died in Italy many years afterwards.

Of less important conspirators we have a detailed account of the capture of Robert Winter and Stephen Littleton at Hagley in Worcestershire (pp. 11, 12). They were taken to Worcester gaol but a claim for their custody was made by the authorities of Staffordshire and the evidence in these papers as to their ultimate place of confinement is conflicting. The sheriff of Staffordshire (fn. 9) on 11 January writes that they were in Stafford gaol (p. 17) but on the 13th the Justices of Worcestershire write that they were in Worcester gaol (ibid.). Apparently the two until shortly before their arrest had been harbouring in Staffordshire, whence the confused claim to the right of their capture. Other persons suspected of complicity in the Plot of whom we have evidence taken in these papers were John Ingleby (pp. 12–15) and Thomas Strange alias Hungerford, the Jesuit (pp. 66, 196).

Consequent upon the intervention of the Lord Chief Baron in behalf of Lady Digby (see Part XVII, p. xviii) we have the appraisement made of the goods of Sir Everard Digby which had been seized by the sheriff of Bucks (p. 38). The bill of charges of the sheriff of Northamptonshire in connexion with the seizure and taking the inventories of the goods of Francis Tresham, Lord Mordaunt and Robert Catesby amounts to a total of 112l. 9s. 1d. (pp. 38–40) and there is a request for payment of 23s. 9d. expended upon ironwork in setting up the heads of Thomas Percy and Robert Catesby upon the Parliament House (p. 68). In an age when standards of refinement in methods of dealing with convicted traitors were rougher than they are to-day it is refreshing to find the protest of Sir Arthur Gorges against what he considered the defilement of St. Paul's Cathedral by setting up a scaffold against its greatest and fairest gate. "In my poor judgment I did not think it a fit place to be defiled with the blood of such wretches, nor to make a butchery in the churchyard and almost under the eaves of the most famous church of our kingdom." He adds "I well remember that that was the place of happy memory . . . where our late dread and dear Sovereign offered up in all humility upon her knees her thanksgiving to God for the great victory upon the Spaniards and therefore too worthy to be now polluted with gibbets, hangmen or the blood of traitors" (pp. 36, 37).

As to Owen and Baldwin and other persons in the Netherlands implicated in the Plot and pressed by James to be sent over to England to stand their trials there is constant reference throughout this volume in the letters between Salisbury and Sir Thomas Edmondes. Throughout the Archdukes resisted the appeal so far as Owen and Baldwin were concerned for the reasons already given in the previous volume of this Calendar. Indeed the Archduke Albert bemoaned the fact that his yielding so far as to imprison Owen had brought upon him mislike in Spain (p. 64). Owen was attainted of high treason by Parliament on the hearing of the proofs against him (p. 161) and the Archdukes' Ambassador directed to have a copy of the Act with an abstract of the principal proofs against him (p. 171). Nevertheless to the surprise of Salisbury and the government Owen had been suddenly enlarged out of prison (p. 170) and by 6 August he had withdrawn himself from Brussels leaving his colleague Bailey to continue the secret service which he managed there (p. 227). Baldwin remained unrestricted in any way and spoke to Southwell, whom Salisbury appears to have sent over as a spy, of a new plot for which "the time was now aptest because of the security wherein the State supposes to remain since the late enterprise." Salisbury, however, was a principal obstacle of theirs and it was necessary that he should be taken away (pp. 168, 169). Information of a plot amongst the conspirators to transport the English regiment into England was given by Captain Orme to Sir Griffin Markham and Captain James Blunt and Sir William Windsor were especially implicated (pp. 32, 72). Edmondes was doubtful of Windsor's complicity in the treason but thought it probable that Blunt had been acquainted with the designs of Catesby and Sir Edmund Baynham (p. 64). Blunt had early in the year been ordered to return to England (p. 28) but he excused himself and desired on the advice of Owen and the rest, seeing that he was in the Netherlands in the King of Spain's service, that the informations against him should be sent over and that he be tried there (p. 65). By June he was in Spain and James was loth to expose himself to a rebuff by demanding his person to be sent over by King Philip (p. 178). Sir William Windsor who had been going over to England with some of the other English captains for supplies (p. 46) arrived there during the year and we have three letters of his to Salisbury in which he disclaims all complicity in the Plot (p. 456). Another suspect in the English regiment was Sir William Stanley. He vehemently protested his innocence to Spinola who "prized exceedingly the valour of the English nation" and pleaded with Edmondes for him (p. 153).

Naturally the revelations of the Plot and particularly of the implication of the Jesuits in it created fears in the Catholics that severer penalties would be enforced against them in England. The Pope who declared his great detestation of the treason instructed his Nuncio in Brussels to intervene with Edmondes for a reduction of the severities (p. 31) and appears to have offered if James would grant any toleration of liberty of conscience to the Catholics to call all the Jesuits out of England (p. 9). Such an offer indeed was said to be going to be presented to James by the secular priests and lay Catholics (p. 173). The Jesuits, however, although even the King of Spain was said to fear their greatness and wealth in Naples and their overmuch intermeddling with the state government there (p. 147), were evidently overpowerful in the Netherlands and able to procure the revocation of the Nuncio there "because he would not run course with them in their passionate practices" (p. 159).

In England we have the usual reports of the activities of the papists in various parts of the country. Udall, whose efforts to trace the missing Tesmond and Gerard have already been mentioned, found the counties of Worcester, Stafford and Warwick most dangerous (p. 182). Lord Sheffield reports the parts about Newcastle and the North as overrun with papists, who, he feared, had some plot in hand for the overthrow of the State (pp. 333, 334). Reports come also of the activities of the papists in London (pp. 250, 251), Yorkshire (pp. 362–364), Trinity Hall, Cambridge (pp. 390, 391) and elsewhere. On the other hand the Bishop of Exeter hoped to clear his diocese of "that popish faction" within one year (p. 298). In England, as we have seen was the case on the Continent, there was a tendency among the Catholics to regard Salisbury as their chief enemy, as his father was before him (p. 421). Sicklemore, a seminary and prisoner in Durham, when informed of the execution of Garnet exclaims "then there is nothing for us but persecution. The devil is in that Lord of Salisbury; all our undoing is his doing; and executing of Garnet is his only deed" (p. 138). The Lord Admiral was required to direct the officers of every port to prevent the ingress and egress of all Jesuits, seminary priests and the like (p. 427).

The Church and the Universities. The chief event in the Church of England during this year was the death on 15 January of the aged Matthew Hutton. Archbishop of York, to whose implied censure of Salisbury reference was made in the previous volume. Sir John Ferne writing of the event ascribes the increase of popery in the province to the too pacific government of the deceased prelate (p. 21). He, as also Lord Sheffield (p. 38), suggested as the Archbishop's successor Tobias Matthew, the Bishop of Durham, a choice which was eventually made and the new Archbishop's homage appointed for Tuesday [19 August] (p. 239). Sheffield's recommendation of William James, the Dean of Durham, to the bishopric of that see was also accepted but his suggestion of Prebendary Ubanke for the deanery of Durham was shelved in favour of Adam Newton (pp. 141, 279) whose claims as already mentioned were pressed by his pupil, the Prince of Wales. The Bishop of Carlisle who complains of want of means to defray the costs of his charge was anxious to be removed "to a place of a little better maintenance" (p. 293) but no attention would appear to have been paid to his request.

There is a considerable amount of material in this volume relative to the case of Gervase Smith, the parson of Polstead, Suffolk, who was accused of having shown his dislike of the government of the Church and of having dealt in old prophecies to the detriment of King James. For reference to the many papers in this volume concerning this case recourse should be had to the index.

There is little of importance concerning the University of Oxford in this volume beyond perhaps a note of the peril in which Corpus Christi College stood and its need of being relieved by an Act of Parliament (p. 43). There are too but few references to the sister University of Cambridge. These are mainly concerned with questions respecting individual colleges, such as fellowships at St. John's College (pp. 103, 353, 354), the payment of a rent to King's College (pp. 132, 133), the removal of a scholar from Trinity College to Peterhouse (p. 137) and the complaint already mentioned of popery rampant at Trinity Hall (pp. 390, 391). There is, however, a letter of thanks from the ViceChancellor and Senate to their Chancellor for his services in rescuing John Legate, the University printer, from the jaws of the London printers who were threatening to make the University's printing privileges obsolete and would do so if Salisbury allowed the printing of the dictionary of Thomas Thomasius to be struck out of its printer's hands (p. 24). Mr. Harsnett was chosen Vice-Chancellor for the coming year (p. 423).

Scotland, Ireland and Wales. There is little in this volume concerning the internal affairs of Scotland beyond the proceedings described above relating to the Union and some correspondence in reference to the further prospecting for gold on Crawford Moor. With regard to the latter business Sir Bevis Bullmer writes to Salisbury on 14 November reporting the discovery of three several veins of gold but requiring a loan of 500l. for one year for the purchase of timber and the building of mills and houses for his workmen "until I may gather the gold out of the stuff I daily land forth of the veins" (p. 344). In order that the commissioners in Scotland upon the place should not lack expert advice the King during the year ordered one of the well-known foreign engineers, Emanuel and Daniel Hochstetter, to repair to them and assist them in their labours (pp. 387, 388).

If the material here relative to Scotland itself is small, there is on the other hand a very considerable amount of correspondence, chiefly from the commissioners of the Middle Shires as they were called (Cumberland and Northumberland) regarding the measures taken for securing the permanent pacification of the Scottish Borders. The commissioners continue to write hopefully of the growing quiet in the Borders; thus on 20 March

The state of Cumberland and Northumberland has from time to time grown better since the granting of the commission, and is especially since the last gaol delivery in January become so peaceable that there is no stealing but of trifles, and those as rare as in some other shires of England (p. 80).

and on 6 July

The country has been in so great peace these 7 weeks that but one felon has been committed, other than such as came from London, and a few fugitive soldiers returned from the Cautionary Towns (p. 192).

and on 30 July Sir Charles Hales, one of the commissioners, adds in a postscript "The country is in great peace; no prisoner tried at this gaol delivery, nor accused" (p. 215).

The government of the Middle Shires is set out in a paper at the end of the year (pp. 368–371). By this it appears that the government was ordered by two commissions, one to the English and Scottish jointly, three of the commissioners on which dwelt in Northumberland and two in Cumberland, although it is stated that the chief burden of the business fell upon the latter county whose commissioners could look for little help from those of Northumberland. The Bishop of Carlisle by whose diligence and discretion the service was especially furthered was not on this commission and had not had any allowance for his service and it could hardly be expected that he would so wholly intend to it of his own charge as it were fit he should. The other commission was one of oyer and terminer to the same persons and others named including the Lord President of the Council of York. Into this commission the Bishop of Carlisle had been lately inserted. The Earl of Dunbar by reason of his lands in Northumberland was very influential in that county, as to a still greater extent was the Earl of Cumberland in Cumberland.

The turbulent family of the Grahams was still the principal source of trouble in the West Marches and the efforts of the commissioners during the year are largely devoted to getting them out of the country, although as the Bishop of Carlisle states there were other families whom he names as offensive though not so powerful (pp. 294. 295). Most of the Grahams who had been sent to the Briel in the previous year had returned and in May Sir Francis Vere reports that "what through mortality and running away few of them are left" (p. 154). In a summary of the proceedings with this family it is further stated that of 150 of the worst and ablest malefactors sent to the Cautionary Towns, 30 and odd are dead, 20 remain there still, the rest are returned (p. 402). It was therefore decided that the Grahams should be transported to Ireland. On 30 July Sir Charles Hales writes that divers of them had come in and submitted themselves to transportation. "So now the nest of that dangerous brood is broken and scattered as we think without hope of recovery" (p. 214). On 5 October the commissioners report that "the Grahams transported into Ireland had a prosperous voyage. They were embarked at Workington on Saturday night and the next Tuesday morning arrived safe, man, wife and child in Ireland" (p. 315).

It was held that each transported householder should be furnished with 20l. at least for his maintenance in Ireland till his land there yielded profit and to raise the necessary fund for this purpose a liberal contribution was urged from all the justices, chief gentlemen and freeholders who were at the gaol delivery at Carlisle in July (pp. 192, 211). It was pointed out that not only the union of the kingdoms in his Majesty had eased them of the heavy burden of their former charge for the defence of the Border but that the King's great charge for their defence during the past three years had much increased the yearly revenue of their estates (p. 214). The Bishop of Carlisle thought that 300l. was a reasonable sum from Cumberland and 200l. from Westmorland. Northumberland had never been subject to any great danger of the Grahams (pp. 224, 225). The contributions to the fund appear to have been backward (pp. 285, 302). One at least of the gentlemen of Cumberland, Sir John Dalston, refused altogether to contribute, maintaining that only those who had the Grahams' lands should bear the charges (p. 216). In order that the transportation should not be held up until winter was upon them the Earl of Cumberland had borrowed upon his own credit the sums required by the commissioners (p. 308).

Other matters relating to the Borders during the year are the slaughter of Christopher Armstrong on 25 September by John Musgrave, the commander of the English garrison at Carlisle (pp. 301, 302, 315), complaints against another Musgrave (Thomas), the captain of Bewcastle, of harbouring thieves within his office and not observing the directions of the commissioners (pp. 286, 295, 368) and surveys of the ordnance in and condition of such Border castles as those of Tynemouth (pp. 328, 366, 367) and Wark and Norham (p. 428). Tynemouth had been appointed to the care of Sir Henry Witherington of whose coldness in his proceedings Lord Sheffield makes complaint (p. 333) and forwards an intercepted letter to him from his brother Roger, "the shrewdest papist the North has." doubtless the letter printed here on pp. 457–459.

There is little in these pages relative to Ireland and Wales that calls for special remark. Ireland was at peace but scarce able to afford men enough for "manuring the country," one of the reasons which made James hesitant to allow troops to be transported from it for foreign service (p. 62). The army in the country itself was now reduced (p. 187). There was a proposal apparently emanating from the Lord Deputy "for his own private benefit" to reduce Irish and English coin to one rate but it does not seem to have met with the approval of the Lord Treasurer of England (p. 163). Another proposal to assimilate the conditions in the two kingdoms, of which James approved, was to reduce the Irish tenures to English in the generality of the plantations (p. 314).

There are letters from Florence McCarthy relative to Donald McCarthy's claims to the country of Carbrie (pp. 188, 299) and one from Donogh O'Conor Sligo who complained of being dispossessed of his inheritance (p. 291), which supplement the particulars to be found in the Calendar of the Irish State Papers at the Public Record Office. James seems anxious to prevent Tyrone whose grievance was that much of his inheritance had been called in question under colour of grants to particular persons from having any occasion of just complaint but will not maintain him in any encroaching upon his subjects (p. 255).

A letter from Sir Edward Brabazon deals with the arrangements at Dublin Castle and with proposed works there and states that the courts were then placed in the body of St. Patrick's church, "where there is a large scope" (p. 381).

In the Marches of Wales Lord Zouche was in July still pressing to be relieved of his duties as Lord President of the Council (p. 202). On 18 August the King signed new instructions for the Council (pp. 238, 239), some of the articles of which will be found on pp. 281, 282.

Foreign Relations. The letter book of Sir Thomas Edmondes, the English Ambassador in Brussels, the chance existence of which amongst the papers at Hatfield was noted in the preceding volume, still continues to provide us during the year with most of our information here regarding the relations of this country with the Archdukes in the Netherlands. Much of the correspondence is concerned with the fruitless efforts made by the Ambassador to obtain the surrender of the two principal conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot, Owen and Baldwin, as well as of other less important offenders, a matter which has already been dealt with here. The Archdukes pressed for the levy of further troops in England and Ireland for their service, in which they were seconded by the Spanish Ambassador in England who asked for ten or twelve companies from England and as many from Ireland (p. 50). One reason of James's reluctance to spare men from Ireland for this purpose has been mentioned above. In England James pleaded that his subjects' humours were "bitterly bended against that service." The House of Commons in particular was incapable "almost of any other belief than a mere condemnation of those English troops which serve the Archdukes to have been destined for the seconders" of the Gunpowder Treason. The Spanish Ambassador was therefore desired to forbear his demand for a while. Edmondes was instructed to inform the Archdukes of this direction which surely ought not to grieve them "seeing it extends to all in general, as well to those that go to the States' service as to the Archdukes'"

for you may affirm it that Mons. Caron is denied to levy any new companies, and the Archdukes may better bear with delay, for they have the more ready and less chargeable way open to receive forces than the States have, who get men by means of transportation (p. 51).

This decision was duly communicated to the Archduke Albert (p. 71) who, perhaps in view of current reports that men were daily pressing to the service of the States (p. 72), resented it, alleging "that it was promised at the time of the Treaty that so great numbers should not be suffered to pass to their service but, contrariwise, the inclination has appeared rather to favour their levies than his." That the withholding of the levies was to be regarded by the Archdukes as a reprisal for the delay in delivering Owen and Baldwin Edmondes was instructed to deny (p. 81). The reasons for the restraining of the levies were given to Spinola who "professed to be very sorry for the occasion as he prized exceedingly the valour of the English nation" (p. 153).

Meantime there were dissensions in the English regiment fomented by Sir Thomas Studder the sergeant-major and those who were more under the influence of Baldwin and the Jesuits against the more moderate leaders such as Lord Arundell of Wardour and Sir Griffin Markham (p. 31). This was much against the will of the Archduke who desired "no occasion might be given for discontenting or breaking the regiment." Nevertheless, Studder so far prevailed that in April Edmondes reports that at the time of the drawing forth of the regiment about Maestricht he had procured the greater part to mutiny against Arundell for want of their money and clothes and in that disorder the regiment has since continued (p. 99). Edmondes had informed President Richardot that the King had no reason to suffer any more of his subjects to come to the Archdukes' service unless they would take order for stopping the intermeddling of the Jesuits with the regiment, forbid any practising for the change of religion and afford charitable burial to the Protestants.

The power of Owen and Baldwin in conjunction with Sir William Stanley in the regiment was seen by the discharge reported by Edmondes on 29 May (p. 152) of the companies of Arundell, Markham and "for form's sake" of Studder, Arundell's son, Sir Edward Parham and Captain Orme, with order that the discharged companies should be turned into those left standing. Studder advised that no one should be in any place of command in the regiment who had any dependency or expectation of fortune in England (p. 153). In an undated letter of this year Arundell (p. 376) informs Salisbury of the machinations which had brought about his overthrow in the regiment and the reforming of it. He had stiffly opposed himself to the influence of the Jesuits, permitting as near as he could none to bear office in the regiment that depended on them, with the result that they suborned Studder against him "in so foul treasons and mutinies as that it makes all men here to wonder that there is no justice done upon him." They had left the regiment destitute of any priest because he would not admit any of "the Jesuited sort"; they had denied all his demands and disgraced any whom he would have preferred, and finally, seeing all this did not drive him away, they reformed the regiment, "by which last act they have obtained all their desires." In another letter of 31 July, probably written a little before the undated letter, Arundell announces his speedy return to England having been assured that the King had remitted "all former hard conceits of him" and that in consequence he had refused a patent of 1000l. a year offered him by the Archduke (p. 218). With regard to the further history of the English regiment Spinola after its reformation seems to have appointed Colonel Francisco to its command (p. 208). This was presumably the Jacques Francisco who was concerned with his brother Tomaso in the attempt to suborn Captain William Newce to some secret enterprise which is referred to below and it was probably on the representations of Edmondes that the Archduke promised to take other order for the regiment.

A somewhat amusing incident in which the Archdukes chose to consider their dignity to be greatly affronted arose out of an invitation given and afterwards rescinded to their Ambassador to attend the tilting on Coronation day (p. 112). An explanation of the proceedings is given by Salisbury in his letter to Edmondes of 26 April (pp. 121 seqq.). The King had caused the Ambassador of Spain together with the Ambassadors of the Archdukes and Venice to be invited to the solemnities and to have placed the two latter as neither the one nor the other should have had cause of discontentment by any visible marks of priority. But on the invitation the Archdukes' Ambassador challenged the precedency before the Venetian and showed unwillingness to come but upon those terms. Whereupon James resolved to omit them both, "being but an office of courtesy which they could not challenge by virtue of their places." The gentleman sent to disinvite them both somewhat exceeded his instructions by informing the Archdukes' Ambassador that the King "could not well accommodate him if he expected an absolute and markable precedency." Thereupon the Ambassador after writing to the Archdukes came to the King with new directions to expostulate the matter as a great indignity to his masters who either as Dukes of Burgundy or as son and brother to an Emperor or as daughter to a King of Spain had a right to have precedency of all others beneath the conditions of Kings. James answered that the day before the Venetian Ambassador had held the like language in his own behalf but that on his disputing for the Archdukes' right the Ambassador had temperately expressed his willingness to yield if the Archdukes could show de facto that the right was given them in any other Court. The Archdukes' claim as Duke of Burgundy was denied since the title after its uniting in Philip and Charles of Spain had become dismembered. As to the claim as son and brother of an Emperor the world acknowledged no such right, as the Emperors being elective their dignity died with them. "And for the Infanta as daughter to Spain being now no heir immediate to the King his Majesty saw no reason why she should ascribe unto herself more than his Majesty should do unto his own daughter, who is as you know an heir general to his kingdoms." With this answer the Ambassador seemed to be somewhat satisfied. It was added in the letter to Edmondes that James reasoning with the Venetian Ambassador against his argument of the dismembered state of the Archdukes as Duke of Burgundy had informed him that the Venetians were not to be considered as heretofore they were when they had the title of Kings of Cyprus.

Closely associated with Hobach, the Archdukes' Ambassador in England, was Zuniga (or Cuniga) the Spanish Ambassador, who indeed was said by Salisbury to take upon himself all the business of the Low Countries (p. 50). Cases of friction between Spain and the Spanish Netherlands on the one hand and England on the other, especially in maritime matters, are of frequent occurrence during the year. Whilst the Spaniards complained of undue favouritism being shown to the ships of Holland so that the yielding to them of the passage of the Thames proved useless (p. 82, and see pp. 166, 167), English merchants had many grievances regarding their treatment in Spain (p. 3) and interference with their ships on the high seas (pp. 77, 171, &c.). Spain, it was pointed out, was at an advantage in tyrannizing over English subjects in that country having no subjects in England to be similarly oppressed (p. 262). At sea Don Louis Fachardo, "the General of the King's Armado" (p. 77), was accused of being particularly active in seizing English ships and submitting their crews to torture and indignity (pp. 264, 265). In a letter to the King of Spain (p. 345) in reply to the complaints handed by James's ministers to Zuniga he replied to the charges against him exonerating himself of all undue cruelty in a particular encounter with certain ships of other nations off Cape St. Vincent.

All the masters being assembled on board the flag-ship and having shown their papers I was particular to offer your Majesty's assistance to all those who had performed their duty and to let them go without anything being taken of them. I even refused to take a bottle of beer, which they usually bring me, without paying for it. But in order that both they and the others might see I proceeded with justice and reason, I had the other masters who had been disobedient put in the pillory. And in a few hours they were let go, on paying a barrel of powder each, which was less than had been wasted on them.

This is literally what took place. I assure your Majesty that I interfere with strangers as little as possible and have not seized a ship this year, contenting myself with making them show their papers, though I fear some of them have goods of Holland and Zeeland on board.

A conference of the Privy Council with the Ambassadors of Spain and the Archdukes was held at Whitehall at the end of August and such matters of dispute between the nations discussed, including a detailed enumeration of the complaints made by the English resident in Spain of the various infringements of the Treaty. The results of the conference will be found in Salisbury's dispatch to Edmondes of 27 August with its several enclosures (pp. 259 seqq.). Cornwallis's dispatches which are summarised here show how much ill-feeling there was in Spain against this country. The Secretary Andreas de Prada "to whom all English causes are now referred"

fell abruptly to accuse the State of England of unthankfulness and injustice, and to have broken the conditions of the peace, particularising that there was no justice done unto the subjects of Spain, their Ambassador disgraced in England, and the seas full of men-of-war robbing and foiling the Spaniards more than in time of war, and that they found and were so resolved it were better for them to have war than peace; and thereof was cause the Earl of Salisbury, who endeavoured by all means to set all the world together by the ears, being pity such a one should live, and that the King had the worst ministers of any prince in the world (pp. 265, 266).

And yet de Prada "had the reputation to be one of the most temperate spirits of that State," but to be transported with passion was according to the Archduke Albert "the general imperfection of the Spaniard" (p. 320). In England the Spanish Ambassador complained that it was permitted to inveigh publicly against the King of Spain and himself to be outraged by the throwing of dirt into his coach without punishment of so foul abuses (p. 227). Salisbury reports that a watch had been set upon the Ambassador's house to intercept such English as should resort thither to mass. This had been done by the warrant only of the Ecclesiastical Commission unknown to the Council and because some disorder had been committed three of the principal parties who had been put in trust had been committed to prison, "where they lay until the Ambassador, being thoroughly satisfied, made often intercession for their discharge. So as in that particular the Ambassador shall not need to complain for want of respect towards them" (p. 355).

An incident in which the Spanish Ambassador was involved because of the action of a member of his household was the case of Captain William Newce (or Nuce), who reported that overtures had been made to him by Jacques Francisco in Spain and afterwards in the Low Countries for the carrying out of some secret enterprise apparently for the surprising of Sluys or Flushing (fn. 10) and for the purpose Jacques's brother Tomaso had been sent to England on Newce's return to that country. An Irishman John Ball, a servant of the Spanish Ambassador, was the instrument to bring Tomaso and Newce together and most of their conferences had been in Ball's chamber at the Ambassador's lodging. The Ambassador when asked to hand over Ball as a subject of King James to the authorities at first demurred but afterwards agreed that if his Majesty would send into his house he might take him but he himself would not deliver him up (pp. 197–200). Eventually he agreed to dismiss Ball from his household. He had come to him from Spain as an interpreter but had proved incompetent (p. 204). Although a good deal of space is devoted to Newce's story it is not perhaps of much importance in itself and may have been, as was thought in Brussels, a mere practice of his to obtain some relief from the State (p. 227). (fn. 11) But the Ambassador's somewhat peremptory behaviour in the affair created some resentment and Salisbury was anxious to know whether it was approved in Spain (p. 355).

A matter of Spanish interest in this volume is the long list of moneys and valuables found in the possession of a certain Conde de Villa Luenza, apparently a wealthy upstart in Madrid (pp. 450– 452), although the reason for the existence of such a paper at Hatfield is not apparent.

Most of what little correspondence there is in this volume coming from or directly connected with the United Provinces concerns their shipping and their attempts to harass the ships of Spain. Sir William Monson reports at the end of May the refusal of a certain Hollander which, with other ships of that nation, was then off Sandwich to obey the King's proclamation that a ship of Dunkirk there should be allowed to depart two tides before the Hollanders should attempt to follow it (p. 149). In the absence of the Lord Admiral at Hampton Court the Privy Council took counsel with Caron who affirmed that the States' directions to their men-of-war always enforced obedience to the King of England's proclamations and wrote to the Hollander that if the Dunkirker had not been victualled more than was necessary to take her to any port of Flanders he should submit himself to order. At the same time Monson was directed if the Hollander did not show conformity upon his notice to him he should call upon the officers of the Lord Warden and, in conjunction with the officers of the Lord Admiral, compel him to obedience. Only, "for avoiding ructions" (fn. 12) it was to be done by civil measures rather than by violence provided the King's honour be not prejudiced (p. 151). In a letter of 6 June Salisbury explains to Captain Ersfield at Portsmouth the conditions under which both the ships of the States and Spain could be permitted to enter English harbours "to trim and make clean," the King's meaning being "out of the rules of neutrality to afford the States no more or less than is allowed to Spain" (p. 160).

We find Caron, on the solicitation of the Flemish Church, pleading for the lives of three Dutch sailors condemned to death for attempting to seize a French ship (p. 224). One incident is recorded in which the States' fleet had to acknowledge itself worsted. Falling in with about forty sail of the King of Spain's ships off Cape St. Vincent, the Vice-Admiral of the States "resolutely blew himself up with both the others," whilst the Admiral with twelve other ships hasted homewards (p. 398).

There is little in the way of fighting in the Netherlands recorded here this year beyond the forcing of the outworks at Rheinberg (Berke) by Spinola in the defence of which Colonel Edmonds and ten or twelve other Scottish captains were slain and more of that regiment, "though with great loss to the enemy, as of 2000 men they say" (p. 274). The surrender of Rheinberg is reported on 10 October by Edmondes and the consequent ceremony of receiving congratulations upon the event at the Archdukes' Court, including those of the French Ambassador, who, though he knew it would not be interpreted as really meant, "resolved to accommodate himself to the same course by the practice of a ghostly lesson of the Jesuits of mental reservation" (p. 320). James seems to have formed but a contemptible opinion of Count Maurice for his not opposing Spinola in this action (p. 270) and "to be moved with anything that sounds to the disadvantage of the States" (p. 272). Sir Edward Conway writes on 9 November from the Briel somewhat pessimistically of the hopes of the people

which now again grow cold in all, it being received for truth that the West India Fleet is safely arrived in Spain, Grolle is relieved and the States' army in garrison and the people at their former vows and prayers. France aids them with money, and they have a confidence that both England and France or one of them would declare themselves on their party rather than behold their ruin; which God forbid, for truly they are a worthy industrious people and many virtuous men of them (p. 341).

Sir John Selby writes a month later from the same place that, having been recommended into the service of the States by the King, he had been picked out in most disgraceful manner and his company cast by the General Estates without the knowledge of his Excellency or General of the Horse (pp. 357, 358).

There seems to have been a rumour that Ralph Winwood was seeking relief from his duties at the States General and we find Stephen Lesieur putting himself forward as his successor (p. 359). At the end of the year the States General seek currency in England for their newly issued "grand real d'or" and the "demi" (p. 365).

There is little here in connexion with the relations of this country with other European nations. At the end of the preceding year the Baron de Tour had been sent over by Henry IV to congratulate James on his happy deliverance from the Gunpowder Plot and by 1 January he was on his way homewards having been received by James with all the respects due to his master, "his Majesty's ancient confederate" and a gift of the value of more than 3000 crowns (p. 3). The invitation to James to stand godfather to Henry's eldest daughter has been mentioned. De Harlay, Comte de Beaumont, the leger (resident) French Ambassador, returned to France early in the year and we have his letter of 2 May (N.S.) recommending his successor La Boderie (p. 117). Two undated latters from La Boderie probably of this year are included here (pp. 379, 380). In one of them he requests that the treaty recently made between France and England might be published in England as it had been already in France as for want of publication the French did not yet enjoy the rights accorded to them. On the other hand the English merchants had cause to complain of outrages committed by French subjects contrary to the treaty (pp. 169, 170).

The quarrel between the French King and the Duke de Bouillon was entirely appeased and we have a copy of the articles agreed upon between them (pp. 101, 102). A matter of interest in Huguenot history was the destruction of the Protestant church at Dieppe by a gale on 24 March, 40 persons being killed and as many wounded (p. 101). Regarding trade between the two countries an English merchant relates how he had found that the want of sale in France for his country's fine drapery was due to want of foresight in the merchants in supplying exactly what was required and how he had successfully remedied this defect (p. 453).

Of the Empire and Eastern Europe only very occasional news seems to have filtered into Salisbury's mailbag. In January we hear of the capture of Gran (Strigonia) by the Turks and the retirement of the Imperial army to the river Raab whence it beat off with considerable losses a combined attack of Turks, Tartars and Hungarians (p. 33). Sir Thomas Shirley writing from Naples in June expected to hear of great ruin in the Turkish Empire during the summer owing to the increasing power of Persia (p. 177). The Turkey merchants beg Salisbury to be a means to the Duke of Florence to discontinue employing Englishmen against the Turks and to obtain the release of 20 Turks held captive at Leghorn in exchange for the release of as many Englishmen whom the Turks, pending the captivity of their own men, had detained at Algiers (p. 187). A letter from Colonel James Hyll, who had apparently been a prisoner in Poland since 1602, begs Salisbury to obtain King James's letter to the King of Poland for his release (pp. 338, 339 and cf. Parts XII, pp. 211, 233 and XVI, p. 284).

Complaint was made by the Elector of Cologne of the backwardness of the Emperor in proceeding to the election of a King of the Romans (p. 141) but in December we hear that the Emperor had appointed an Imperial diet to meet at Ratisbon (Regensburg) in December 1607 (p. 366).

Of other countries the visit of the King of Denmark to England during the year has been already noticed. Regarding the Republic of Venice it should be here stated that the reference on p. xxxiii of the preceding volume to the quarrel between that State and the Papacy belongs properly to this year (see p. 146). A paper in the present volume (p. 450) apparently forwarded by Sir Henry Wotton is designed to show that the Doge derived no part of his authority from the Pope. A complaint of Captain Tomkyns upon his return from the Levant of being proclaimed a pirate with all his company, himself imprisoned and six of his mariners hanged upon false accusations of the Venetians appears on p. 40 (see also Parts XII, p. 391, XVI, p. 462).

The Cecil Family. On 20 May Salisbury was installed as a Knight of the Garter at Windsor. The event is referred to here in letters of congratulation from Sir Arthur Capell (p. 129), Lord Sheffield who regrets his inability either to attend the ceremony himself or send his son, who had just received a thrust in the eye at foils, to represent him, and others (p. 139). Another honour which came to Salisbury this year was his election as High Steward of Portsmouth in succession to the deceased Earl of Devonshire (pp. 102. 103).

About August Salisbury was stricken with some complaint which he himself describes as "accidental to some heat in the kidneys," when he announces his recovery on 27 August (p. 263). Whatever the actual complaint was it was regarded as sufficiently serious by his friends to judge from the large number of congratulatory letters sent him on his recovery. Amongst many the King "was exceeding glad that you were well amended of your disease," Sir Roger Aston writes on 3 September (p. 273).

Of Salisbury's supposed active part against the Catholics and their belief that in him they had their greatest enemy mention has already been made. Edmondes supposes that the Jesuits were practising to dispose of him by poison (p. 169) and on 21 June Salisbury's secret agent in the Netherlands, "W.N.", reports on his return to England that the Pope's Nuncio was to depart from Brussels to deal with the Pope for his excommunication and some two or three more of the Privy Council (p. 176). There are, perhaps, in this volume even fewer instances than usual of those rare self-revelations in which Salisbury sometimes indulges. In a letter to the King he is at great pains to explain away a chance remark of his which appeared to have caused some offence that he saw "a fatality in the State that it would never be rich" (p. 329). In writing to some Scottish Lord he speaks of "a principle from which I cannot be removed, which is to judge other men's constancy by my own" and presumes "that in the little experience which you have had of my nature you have found no inclination to pride or rudeness" (p. 441).

There are a few references to Salisbury's son Lord Cranborne. His tutor Morrell writes on 9 April that he had hitherto trained him in Latin and logic, "wherein omitting the quirks and quiddities incident to them both he has acquainted him only with those precepts necessary for true congruity in speech and orderly reasoning in disputation." For "story" [history] if there be any writer whom Salisbury commends before another they will take him in hand. He asks Salisbury to allow him to go to Theobalds for the holidays "as a little intermission would very much refresh his wit and revive his spirits" (p. 104). On 15 April Cranborne writes to his father from Cambridge that he had on the previous Sunday [13 April] by Salisbury's directions ridden with "his cousin Harry" to Huntingdon to deliver a message to the Earl of Dunbar and been used with all kindness (p. 112). On 6 May Sir Thomas Lake reports from Newmarket that Cranborne had been there with the King who would not suffer him to return to Cambridge but stayed him to attend during his abode there, saying he would answer to Salisbury for him (p. 130). Edmond Casse, who. then appears to have been acting as Cranborne's tutor, writes on 1 September that he was preparing for a journey into Lancashire. (fn. 13)

He purposes to be diverted no way for his pleasure's sake, for he has a satiety of it; but only to signify his duty and love to her ladyship. I am glad you expect his return so soon as with conveniency he can, for although we speak Latin both travelling and hunting, yet the sound of it is so harsh amongst a cry of dogs as it comes not with a wonted facility (p. 271).

The same writer on 9 October announces Cranborne's return to Cambridge and that he promised by using diligence so to redeem the time past as Casse was fully resolved he would honour the University "in performing his disputations" (p. 318). On 11 November Morrell writes that for bodily health Cranborne was never better since he knew him and that "as his lordship grows in years, so his love of learning and liking of his book daily increase." Every Saturday afternoon, with Salisbury's leave "as he tells me and I have no cause to suspect him to tell me an untruth," he rode to Chesterford Park to see the young ladies, returning on Monday morning if the weather permitted. He had been of late with the King at Royston being carried thither by the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery (pp. 341, 342). There is a brief undated letter from him to his father (p. 389). (fn. 14)

Of Salisbury's half-brother, the Earl of Exeter, there is only an incidental reference to his long-standing complaint gout, which a Frenchman practising medicine in this country offers to cure (p. 438). Other relations of Salisbury who are mentioned in this volume, besides his aunt Lady Russell, are his great-nephew Lord Roos and his nieces the Countess of Derby and Lady Norreys. The young Lord Roos was then living in Paris where his relationship to Salisbury had procured him favourable recognition from Henry IV (pp. 71, 117). He writes to his uncle to say how much he had been honoured as his nephew (p. 130). He seeks his assistance in his courtship of the widow of the Duke of Latremoulle, "a foreigner but Protestant, and so depending of our State" (pp. 157, 158). Of Lady Derby's entertainment of her cousin mention has been made. The birth of a son to her is referred to by Edmondes in a letter of 7 March (p. 73). Four letters from her to Salisbury of this year are here printed (pp. 327, 393, 394). The sufferings of Lady Norreys at the hands of her eccentric husband, who himself refers to his reputed madness (p. 242) and speaks of the misfortunes his wife's youth and weakness have subjected him to (p. 254), call down upon that peer Salisbury's reprobation (pp. 184, 439, 440) and it was necessary to separate her from him and send her to live with her sister Lady Derby in Lancashire (pp. 243, 440).

In conclusion attention may be briefly called to certain other matters of interest which occur during the year and of which some notice appears in these papers.

There are several references to the plantation of Virginia, the charter for which was obtained this year chiefly by the means of Chief Justice Popham (p. 84). There was an offer made by the secular priests and lay Catholics that 300 Catholic households might be licensed at their own costs to leave England to inhabit the plantation on such conditions as were not against their consciences (p. 173). A ship going from the west of England to Virginia was taken in Spain and the question arose whether under the treaty with Spain Virginia was a part of the West Indies or whether the English might trade into any part of the Indies not possessed by Spain, a point which had been denied by the Spanish commissioners at the making of the treaty (p. 452).

There is a considerable amount of correspondence relative to the distinguished naval commander Sir Richard Hawkins and the attempts that were being made to rid him of his office of ViceAdmiral of Devon and injure him in the estimation of the Lord Admiral. The mayor and aldermen of Plymouth write on 10 August to Salisbury to defend him against these attacks and speak of the memorable benefits the town had received from him and his father (p. 237). Sir Richard himself writes to Salisbury on 27 August (pp. 257 seqq.) and again on 3 October with a letter to the Privy Council (pp. 309 seqq.), giving in each case a full account of the proceedings taken against him.

Two letters from Sir William Dethick refer to his deprivation of his office of Garter King of Arms this year and his supersession by William Segar (pp. 68, 127). He was granted an annuity of 200l. on his surrendering of his patent. This he said he had not as it had been taken from him "for some former fault committed" by the late Lord Treasurer (Burghley) but that he had been suffered to exercise the office durante bene placito by a duplicate. Salisbury's secretary, Thomas Wilson, admits that he has the original patent (pp. 454, 455).

There was another visitation of the plague during the year and the bill of mortality for Westminster for the week ending 29 August shows that 17 out of 18 deaths were due to it (p. 267). Reference has already been made to the King's apprehensions of its increase, but its ravages appear to have been comparatively slight, and in October we hear of a decrease of the numbers dying of it (p. 325). For the week ending 24 December only one death from it out of a total of 12 is announced in Westminster (p. 364). The Lord Mayor of London, who had been reproved by the Privy Council for not taking sufficient care to repress the contagion, replies at length setting out the measures he had taken (p. 273). The King whilst commending the orders made by the Council desired that body to call the Lord Mayor to account once a week for his procedure in carrying out these orders (p. 276).

The supply of saltpetre for the making of gunpowder which at this period was mainly obtained in England by commission to the saltpetre men to dig up the earth under barns, stables and pigeon houses was troubling the House of Commons and although complaints were rife as to the damage done to the foundations of buildings thereby yet the Commons' chief anxiety it is stated was due to the shortness of the supplies in the King's stores (pp. 335, 336).

There is a detailed statement of the large debt owing to the late Sir Horatio Palavicino and other foreign financiers for moneys advanced to Queen Elizabeth and King James (pp. 429, 430).

Another Italian, a merchant, who had been in England for many years but owing to the action of his creditors had become bankrupt (pp. 10, 24) and fled to Ireland was Matheo de' Renzi. He had left goods in Chester and North Wales. One of his creditors, Daniel de la Faille, a friend of Hobach the Archdukes' Ambassador, had obtained the Council's order to have the goods seized (p. 239). De' Renzi writes himself to Salisbury that he had no other design in going to Ireland than the payment of his debts. He was still young and could devote a good part of his life to the recovery of his credit (p. 323).

Of letters of distinguished persons to be found in this volume attention may be called to the two of Nicholas Hilliard the miniature painter, one referring to his son Lawrence (p. 130) and the other, in part already printed elsewhere, to his work on Queen Elizabeth's tomb (p. 409); to one of Sir Thomas Bodley, the founder of the Bodleian, in which he describes himself as "the most unfortunate subject that ever served any state" (p. 360); and one of Sir Josias Bodley, the military engineer, describing his hitherto unremunerated services in Ireland (p. 380). There are holograph papers of Albericus Gentilis (p. 401) and Ben Jonson (p. 413).

The weekly diet allowances for 14 persons amount to 3l. 1s. 6d. (p. 395).

In addition to the wrongs which the Lord Mayor of London had been offering to the liberties of the Tower, as described in the preceding volume. Sir William Waad had now to report an opposition on the part of divers merchants of the city to the supply of the small quantity of wine which for 300 years at least had been paid to his Majesty's royal castle (p. 120). There is also a presentment of encroachments and abuses on the bank of the Tower ditch (p. 449).

There is a somewhat gruesome account of the torture which a French prisoner suspected of being a spy of Queen Elizabeth had to undergo in Brussels (p. 438).

The terms of a patent for the supply of mulberry trees for two years may be noted. The patentee was to bring in one million a year of the white mulberry only. They were to be plants of themselves of one year's growth at least and not slips of trees and one penny only was to be taken for each plant (p. 422).

With reference to the French specialist's announcement of his successful treatment of gout mentioned above the curious in the history of medicine may note the diet which the Earl of Shrewsbury states he was taking with good results for the same complaint, eating but of one dish at a meal and drinking no other than that which was made of sarsaparilla (p. 325).

The notice of the challenge of the Knights of Destinies in the Introduction to the previous volume (p. xliv) belongs properly to this year as the letter which refers to it has. through the discovery of a late copy in which its true date is given, been found to have been misdated (p. 146). There is another reference in the present volume to the same tourney (pp. 182, 183).

Finally we may note an interesting description of a case of Sheffield knives with figures of Christ and the Twelve Apostles (p. 445).

M. S. Giuseppi.


  • 1. Sir Thomas Lake has evidently misdated the letter from Royston which has been inserted here on pp. 247, 248. Although actually dated by the writer 24 August, 1606, it is clear that James was nowhere near Royston at that date. It should have been stated in the text that the letter is endorsed "24 Jan., 1606[–7]" which is probably correct.
  • 2. Actually Garnet and Oldcorne (alias Hall) were taken on 30 Jan., the eight traitors being executed on 31 Jan. and 1 Feb. (Gardiner, Hist. of England, I, 271.)
  • 3. D. Jardine, Criminal Trials, II, 355–403.
  • 4. Gardiner, Hist of England, I, 272–283 passim.
  • 5. See Garnet's statement in his letter to Tesmond (Greenway or Greenwell) of 4 April (p. 96).
  • 6. Jardine, op. cit., II, p. 324.
  • 7. Ibid., II, p. 327.
  • 8. No doubt the clergy who according to Jardine visited Garnet in the Tower after his conviction with the object of inducing him by giving him false information to attempt explanations of his conduct to his friends abroad which could afterwards be intercepted. (Jardine, op. cit., II, p. 320.)
  • 9. In the text William Whorwood is incorrectly described as sheriff of Worcestershire, the letter being so endorsed. Actually he is known to have been sheriff of Staffordshire at the time, as indeed the contents of the letter prove.
  • 10. What this secret enterprise was is doubtful. Lord Carew did not think that Sluys was the service aimed at (p. 219).
  • 11. He appears from his own account to have been very much a soldier of fortune (p. 11).
  • 12. This is an unexpectedly early use of this word for which the O.E.D. gives no earlier reference than 1825.
  • 13. Possibly on the visit to his cousin Lady Derby mentioned in the undated letters of the Countess herself and of the Countess of Devonshire (p. 394), who describes Cranborne as "a perfect horseman who can neither be outridden, nor matched any way."
  • 14. It seems probable that the undated letter from Lord Hay on p. 407 was written to Cranborne after he had succeeded as 2nd Earl of Salisbury and not to his father. The Lady Anne referred to in it would thus be the former's eldest daughter who was born early in the year 1613.