2>»* S. X. Nov. 24. '60.} 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



413 



Edmund L. Swift, Esq. Levet Desdaile. J. S., Cambridge. 

 E. N. Bellchambers. J. H. B. Eugenius Roach. Ed- 

 ward Simpson. George Taylor. John Pytches, Esq. of 

 Groton House, Suffolk. Hugo Arnot, Esq. Icarius. J. 

 H. C. William Wastell, Esq. John Gorton. J. N. R. 

 J. G. David Huston. H. C. Moir. George Terrj'. Samuel 

 Lock Francis. F. T. T. J. Bavius. .These, of course, 

 are only a selection, as one hundred and twelve Addresses 

 were forwarded, some written by men of great, some by 

 men of little, and some b}' men of no talent. Vide the 

 Preface to the first edition of Rejected Addres$ea.2 



Attoub. — What is the meaning of the word 

 " Attour," used so frequently by Lindsay of Pits- 

 cottie in his History of Scotland ? B. 



[ Jamieson, in his Scottish Dictionary, s. v. Atour, At- 

 tour, defines it, 1. Moreover; 2. Out from, or at an in- 

 definite distance from the person speaking or the object 

 spoken of. To stand attour is to keep off; to go attour, 

 to remove to some distance.] 



ISit^liti* 



JAMES I. AND THE RECUSANTS. 

 (2»<» S. X. 351.) 



I am desirous of expressing my sincere regret for 

 the want of courtesy of which Mk. Tieknet com- 

 plains, and to offer him my apologies for it. 



I must acknowledge that my words did not at 

 all clearly express the charge which I intended to 

 bring. 



Unless Mb. Tiebney hypothetically assigned a 

 date subsequent to Feb. 22, 1604, his argument 

 that the letter is hypocritical breaks down. Be- 

 fore that date James was not engaged in persecu- 

 tion. If, however, Mb. Tiebney only meant that 

 James, having expressed confidence in the good 

 intentions of the Pope, had no right afterwards to 

 take measures against " papal interference," I re- 

 ply that esteem for the Pope's personal character 

 was not inconsistent with a desire to repress the 

 interference which, at least in his opinion, was 

 part of the Papal system. 



I can assure Mb. Tiebney that I never thought 

 of ^attributing to him any improper motives. I 

 raerdy believed that he was carried away by a false 

 historical theory. 



Of my misquotations, three (ix. 320. notef, and 

 X. 82. col. 1. note*) are misprints. Dec. ^| (x. 

 82. col. 2. note *) was a mistake of my own, which 

 I regret the more, as it caused Mb. Tiebney so 

 much trouble. The other reference (x. 82. col. 1. 

 note f) was not intended to give the date of the 

 paper. It relates to its place in the bundle at the 



S. P. o. 



My account of the Pope's letter (x. 81.) was 

 derived from Cranbourne's letter to Lennox. 

 (France, Jan. 1604-5.) I now suspect that both 

 Mb. Tiebney and myself have been mistaken ; 

 and that this, and James's account only refer to a 

 message sent through Lindsay, the letter con- 



taining " only generall curtesyes." There is no 

 actual discrepancy between the two accounts. 



It is not impossible that James's story to Eliz- 

 abeth may be true. His reason, derived from his 

 touchiness about titles, is characteristic."' He 

 may have been persuaded afterwards to open the 

 letter. It is not absolutely necessary to suppose 

 that he ever did open it. 



James in his Latin letter asserts that some in- 

 structions in writing were given in Scotland (Doddy 

 App. Ixviii.), and this with the full knowledge 

 that his statements would go to Rome, and would 

 eventually be compared with Lindsay's narrative. 



This is supported by Cecil's letter to Parry 

 (France, Nov. 6. 1603), who represents Lindsay 

 as fearing lest " the ancient date of his instruc- 

 tions and dispatch, not having any new direct 

 Ires to the Pope, would make his credytt to be 

 called in question." 



Mb. Tiebney suggests that the instructions 

 may have been altered, especially as regards the 

 education of the prince. He argues — 



1. That Lindsay thought it necessary to apply 

 for other instructions. 



So would any one who had received a message 

 so long before. 



2. That the Pope's letter and the memoranda 

 are not in accordance on the point of the prince's 

 education. 



Not so, if my explanation of the letter just 

 given be correct. Besides, any father having 

 stated his own adherence to a particular form of 

 religion, would think it unnecessary to add that 

 he would not allow his son to be educated in 

 another, especiallyif hehad just written that such 

 a course was abhorrent "ab ipsis naturae legi- 

 bus." ^ ^ 



On the other hand, if James had made the con- 

 cession in order to obtain help from the Pope, he 

 would certainly have sent information of it by 

 another messenger, when Lindsay was prevented 

 from going. 



If he forged instructions at all, they would have 

 been more to the purpose. 



If Lindsay had really reported that such a eon- 

 cession had been made, Bellarmine would have 

 made use of it in his book. 



Cranbourne's account of the instructions (in 

 his letter to Lennox) may be quoted against me. 

 I believe he is writing loosely. The dates which 

 seem to follow from his narrative are incorrect. 

 He seems to make the date of the instructions 

 later than the real date can possibly be. This 

 overthrows Mb. Tieeney's argument that he was 

 anxious to create a false impression by untrue 



* For the same kind of conduct see Calderwood, vi. 

 794. I have no space to enter into the question of Lord 

 Balraerino's conduct. The real difficulty for those who 

 believe that James's statement was a simple falsehood is 

 to explain the paper printed in Calderwood, vi. 811. 



