352 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2°d S. X. Nov. 3. 'GO. 



that the Latin letter, referred to by Mr. Gas- 

 diner, and printed in my Dodd (iv. Append, p. 

 Ixvi.), was despatched to the ambassador, Sir 

 Thomas Parry, to be by him communicated to the 

 Nuncio. In that document, James first replies to 

 the contents of the Nuncio's letter, and then pro- 

 ceeds to notice the communication which he had 

 previously received from the Pope himself. He 

 describes the circumstances which I have stated 

 above, as connected with the mission of Lindsay ; 

 and he details, or professes to detail, the instruc- 

 tions which had been given to that envoy on his 

 departure for Rome.* Now, it is to this last part 

 of the King's letter that one of the questions 

 raised by Mr. Gardiner refers, — Were the in- 

 structions, described by James and delivered or 

 renewed to Lindsay in London, the same as those 

 which he had previously received in Scotland ? I 

 have said that this " is uncertain " (ibid. p. Ixxi. 

 note.) On the other hand, James, with an earnest- 

 ness that really provokes suspicion, declares, no 

 less than five times in the letter, that they are the 

 same : while Mr. Gardiner, who omits all mention 

 of the journey to London, and the revised there of 

 the instructions, comes forward in support of the 

 King, and produces a paper of memoranda, which 

 he says " must have been written in 1602," and is 

 "completely in accordance" with what James has 

 stated (p. 82.). But, if the instructions in Scot- 

 land, ^'' particularly as regards the education of the 

 young prince^'' were the same as those described in 

 the letter, what could have prompted Lindsay to 

 seek a revisal of theui ? The only passage in the 

 papal letter, which required or admitted more than 

 a general reply of acknowledgment and thanks, 

 was that which contained the offer relative to the 

 prince's education. Now, supposing the King 

 indeed, in the first instance, to have accepted that 

 oifer, we can readily understand the motive of 

 Lindsay's journey to London. But he declares to 

 Parry that he had done nothing of the sort. On 

 the contrary, if we are to believe him, he had re- 

 fused to surrender the religion of his son, even for 

 assistance which might have placed him on the 

 English throne : and, now that he was in posses- 

 sion of that throne, it was not likely that he 

 would recall or modify the reply whic'n he had 

 then commissioned his messenger to convey to 

 Rome. Why, then, I ask, did Lindsay think it 

 necessai-y to apply for other instructions ? 



But the memoranda, argues Mr. Gardiner, are 

 in accordance with the King's statement, and the 

 memoranda "must have been written in 1602." 



* It is woitliy of remark tbat, for some reason or other, 

 James was evidently afraid of what Lindsay might sa}-. 

 Thus, he writes to Parry, " lest Lindsay should have mis- 

 ■understood him " (Dodd, ibid. Ixix) ; and he makes Cecil 

 write at the same time, in order " to prevent Sir James 

 Lindsay's enlarr/einent, if any he shotdd use hereof ler." — 

 S. P. O., France, Cecil to Parry, Nov. C, 1603. 



But why " must " they have been written at that 

 time, and not at the later period, when Lindsay 

 was in London ? * Supposing, however, that we 

 accept Mr. Gardiner's date, is it quite certain 

 that the paper of memoranda does really accord 

 with the letter, 'or that either of those documents 

 agrees with the instructions originally given to 

 Lindsay ? I say nothing at present of the King's 

 anxiety, even by means of direct falsehood, to 

 conceal the nature, and even the existence, of this 

 transaction ; but, of the several articles contained 

 in the memoranda, the second only can, by any 

 possibility, be made to refer to the point in ques- 

 tion ; and that article James himself has inter- 

 preted as alluding, not to the education of his 

 son, but simply to his own resolution of adhering 

 to the religion in which he had been bred.f It is 

 clear, therefore, that the letter, whose principal 

 point relates to the education of the Prince, and 

 the memoranda, which make no allusion to that 

 subject, are not in accordance ; and it may, con- 

 sequently, be justly said to be " uncertain " how 

 far either one or the other agrees with the real 

 instructions given to Lindsay in Scotland. 



But to come to the more immediate question 

 between Mr. Gardiner and myself. Having 

 mentioned the King's letter to Parry, he says, — 



" Mr, Tierney, who prints this letter, makes use of his 

 own guess at the date of it, which happens to be erro- 

 neous, to bring an unfounded charge of hypocrisy against 

 James." — x. 82. 



Nov/ this, I think it will be readily allowed. Is 

 not very civil ; let us see whether it is very true. 



1. The letter in question is a copy, by Sir 

 Joseph Williamson's secretary, from a paper in 

 the handwriting of the secretary of Cecil. It is 

 without date ; but when I copied it, some nine- 

 teen years ago, it was endorsed, or otherwise 

 marked, in pencil, '■'■about 1G04," and was cer- 

 tainly placed among the papers of that year.J 

 On examining its contents, however, I saw that, 



* I ought, however, to say that, besides the one seen 

 by Mr. Gardiner, there are at least two other conteni- 

 porarj' copies of this document in the State Paper Office 

 (Scotland, vol. Ixix.), — both endorsed as being copies of 

 a paper, written by the King himself, in Scotland, "ime- 

 diatly before the Q.'s death," and one bearing this en- 

 dorsement in the handwriting of Sir Robert Cecil. But, 

 not to mention the entire absence of James's Scottish 

 characteristics of orthography, dialect, &c., is there not 

 something suspicious in the care which has evidently 

 been taken, to multiply the copies of an apparently un- 

 important paper, and to reiterate the assurance of its 

 having been written in Scotland ? 



f " £a certe (clausula) hunc habet sensnm atque banc 

 sententiam, nimirum, Nos ex ea. religione quam profite- 



mur tantum solatii liausisse ut ratuni lirmuiiique 



nobis sit ab ea.non divelli," &c. — James to Parry, Dodd, 

 iv. Append, p. Ixx. 



J It was then among the Recusant Papers, No. 456. It 

 has since been removed to the collection marked "France,"' 

 and the pencilled endorsement has been altered to "No- 

 vember C, 1C03." * 



