414 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2°«i S. X. Nov. 24. '60. 



indorsements, stating that they were written in 

 Scotland. 



Nor are the instructions " an apparently unim- 

 portant paper." They had to be copied for trans- 

 lation to be sent to the Nuncio in 1603, and again 

 for transmission to ambassadors, &c. in 1605. 

 Cecil's secretaries were not likely to retain James's 

 Scotch orthography, &c, 



Mr. Tierney denies the existence of any such 

 negotiations as I have described. 



The Nuncio's message was sent on to James by 

 Parry in August, 1603. James replied in Novem- 

 ber, 1603, and in February, 1604 (France, Parry 

 to Cecil, Feb. 13, 1604) two letters of Cardinal 

 Aldobrandini were lorwarded from Paris. Parry 

 considered the contents of them to be highly un- 

 satisfactory. 



Cecil's answer is not preserved, nor are the 

 Cardinal's letters (so far as I know) ; but there 

 can be no doubt that the negotiation was then 

 broken off. There is no trace of it in the S. P. O. 

 afterwards. James's letter was written in the same 

 month as that in which a favourable reception was 

 given to the deputation at Wilton, which looks 

 well for his intentions at the time. There is no 

 sign of any attempt to spin matters out with a 

 view to deceive the Pope. 



It is not the case that Parry was invested with 

 power to treat with the Nuncio " in any manner," 

 nor that the instructions about negotiating through 

 a third person were only given " privately " to 

 Parry. " lUo " {Dod. Ap. Ixviii.) plainly refers 

 to " homine," not to " Nuncii." 



The argument that there was no real negotia- 

 tion in 1603, because James hesitated not to de- 

 clare in 1605 that he had no private dealings 

 with the Pope, refutes itself. Its only appearance 

 of validity is derived from the words " in anything 

 that he had done " (x. 354.), which have no foun- 

 dation whatever in the letter from which they are 

 supposed to have been taken. (France, Cran- 

 bourne to Parry, Feb. 20. 1605.) The writer is 

 referring to James's intentions at the time at vihich 

 he is writing. 



The statement that Lindsay " gave out that he 

 was charged with an embassy," rests on Parry's 

 letter to Cranbourne (France, Jan. 9, 1605). He 

 says that Lindsay had, in Germany and Savoy, 

 qualified " hyself w"" y^ title of Ambassad^" Sem- 

 ple (x. 354.) acquaints Lindsay with the charge. 

 Lindsay does not distinctly deny it,, but merely 

 says (Spain, Lindsay to Semple, Sept. 18. 1605) 

 that he is ready to answer, 



" That 1 nather did nor said anything ather in Roome, or 

 in my pasage bot that q«h« I had chairge quhich indeed 

 was no more bot ane memorial, as my lord of Sallisberrie 

 did namit in the Star Chahner, nather did I euer pas the 

 boundes of general Complements of courtesie." 



On the other hand, " charge " is not necessarily 

 translated " charge or commission." If Mr. 



TiERNEY is right in his translation he has con- 

 victed Lindsay of falsehood. Probably Lindsay 

 only meant that he had no public and acknow- 

 ledged commission. 



For one correction I have to thank Mr. Tier- 

 NEY. Instead of " on his arrival," I should have 

 written " at Venice." Villeroi does not speak of 

 his information as a mere report. He probably 

 got it from the French ambassador at Venice. 

 He adds : — 



" Je prie Dieu qu'il (i. e. Lindsay) soit aussi veritable 

 encelaqueje I'ay reconnu menteur en plusieurs autres 

 discours qui sont sortis de sa boutique." (Dec. 22. 1604.) 



The utter disbelief of Villeroi in the stories which 

 from time to time reached him from Rome speaks 

 strongly in favour of James. The French govern- 

 ment was generally in a mood to credit him with 

 a foolish action, without looking too closely into 

 the evidence. 



Perhaps my phrase was rather too strong about 

 Cardinal Camerino's books. The sense of the 

 letter quoted (France, Cranbourne to Parry, Feb. 

 20, 1605), seems to be, " We do not want the 

 present, but if it is pressed, take it quietly rather 

 than make a scene." 



I admit that the sentence in x. 82. col. 2. 1. 7, 

 should have been worded, " The Pope expressed 

 to Lindsay his intention of sending an envoy into 

 England, though the particulars of the mission 

 were not decided on. (Italy, Lindsay to the 

 King, Feb. 5. 1605.) It soon became publicly 

 known that consultations were being held on the 

 affairs of England. (Parry to Cranbourne, Feb. 

 7. 1605.*)" 



Mr. Tierney thinks this to have been in 

 answer to a message from James. Even if such 

 a message were given in Scotland, it must have 

 been retracted in England, so that the argument 

 from Lindsay's expressions is worthless. But in 

 fact the supposition that Lindsay brought any 

 such message is irreconcilable with the passage 

 from his letter to the King quoted by Mr. Tier- 

 ney (x. 354,), and still more so with the extract 

 quoted above from his letter to Semple : except 

 upon the hypothesis that Villeroi was right in 

 describing him as a liar, an hypothesis which Mr. 

 Tierney is hardly likely to look upon with favour. 

 Nothing can be more distinct than Lindsay's as- 

 surances tliat he said nothing but what was in the 

 four articles. 



I should be sorry to see anything ridiculous in 

 the personal character of the Pope, earnestly as 

 he hoped against hope for what was in his eyes 

 the prospect of conferring on England the greatest 

 of possible benefits. Still there certainly was a 

 ridiculous side in the way in which the most un- 



• This is the true date of the letter ; though Parry 

 wrote by mistake, Jan. 7. He had information from the 

 Nuncio, and also from " y" Cursory Gazette y' came from 

 Rome." 



