318 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2°* S. IX. April 28. '60. 



The next inaccuracy is of more importance, as 

 it is one which has dislocated the whole chrono- 

 logy of the dealings of James with the recusants. 



In common with Dr. Lingard and Mr. Tierney 

 (Dodd's Church History, note to vol. iv. p. 38.), 

 Mr. Jardine assigns James's speech to the council, 

 which preceded the reimposition of the fines, to the 

 year 1G04. Mr. Tierney states that it was uttered 

 on Feb. 19, 1604. Mr. Jardine quotes as his au- 

 thority Win wood, ii. 49. The letter in Winwood 

 is certainly dated Feb. 26, 1604 ; but that of 

 course means 1604-5, not 1603-4. From internal 

 evidence it appears that the true date of the letter 

 is in all probability Feb. 16, 1604-5. The exact 

 date of the speech may be obtained from a letter 

 written to the Bishop of Norwich, dated Feb. 14, 

 1604, i. e. 1604-5 (Ellis's Letters, 2nd Ser. iii. 

 215.). In this the king's speech is assigned to 

 "last Sunday," i.e. Feb. 10. 



The importance .of this rectification consists in 

 this — 1st, that the character of the king may be 

 cleared by it from some of the charges which have 

 been thrown upon it ; and, 2ndly, that the provo- 

 cations under which the Gunpowder-plot was 

 entered upon are shown to have been considerably 

 less than is usually supposed. 



It becomes, therefore, now possible to survey 

 the ground anew, and to give a true sketch of 

 the variations of James's policy. If they were not 

 always very wise, they at all events become intel- 

 ligible by the help of the true chronology. 



It is well known that before the death of 

 Elizabeth, James made promises to the Roman 

 Catholics which they afterwards considered that 

 he had broken. But. it is by no means so certain 

 that he did not intend to keep them at the time that 

 they were made. We have no means of knowing 

 exactly what those promises were. If he only 

 promised generally to do much for the Roman 

 Catholics, it may be thought that his promise was 

 fulfilled when he relieved the laity from the fines 

 for recusancy. If he used the word toleration, he 

 bound himself to do something more than this, 

 and at least to wink at the celebration of the mass 

 in private houses. He may have used it intending 

 no more than this, though it was certain to awaken 

 larger hopes in those to whom it was addressed. 



The evidence is not clear, but it is rather in 

 favour of the hypothesis that he did not promise 

 toleration. On the one side Beaumont, the 

 French ambassador, assured his master that he 

 had been told by Northumberland that he had a 

 letter from James giving such a promise. T'lis, 

 however, is not very good evidence, as it is only 

 the report of a foreigner of Northumberland's 

 impression of the contents of a letter. On the 

 other side Northumberland himself, when he was 

 examined on his supposed connexion with the 

 Gunpowder-plot, and when it was his interest to 

 show that he had the king's authority for the hopes 



wliich he had given, says nothing about toleration, 

 but alleges that he had received a message " that 

 the king's pleasure was that his lordship should 

 give the Catholics hopes that they should be well 

 dealt withal or to that effect." It may also be re- 

 marked that Watson, under similar circumstances, 

 gave a somewhat similar account of the promises 

 of the king, making no mention of any promise of 

 toleration. 



There remains one piece of evidence which 

 proves that, whatever James's words were, at least 

 he did not give unlimited promises. 



Among the Harleian MSS. (No. 589 ) is what 

 appears to be a rough draft of an official account 

 of Northumberland's trial in the Star Chamber. 

 In Coke's speech the following passage occurs: — 



" And after Piercyes Retorne into Englande, he told 

 thesaid Earle that his nia tiM pleasure was that thesaid 

 Earle should winde and worke himself into the Calho- 

 likies and geeve them all hopes of tolleration of Religion 

 & to be well dealt w th all as thesaid Earle likewise hath 

 confessed And althoughe the said answere so brought by 

 thesaid Pearcy from his ma 1 ' was farre from any trueth 

 his ma' 8 goodly & Religious zeale having been ever op- 

 posite to any such tolleration w ch thesaid Earle could not 

 but understande having Receaved a Ire also from his 

 ma'y by thesaid Piercy w ch thesaid Earle this day p'duced 

 & was Reade whearby his ma tio playnly advertised 

 thesaid Earle that he ment no Manner of chaunge or al- 

 teration either of the church or state w ch his ma'y sithence 

 also on the worde of a kinge hath affirmed he sent no 

 such answere by Piercy to the said Earle." 



Coke's own assertions may be taken for what 

 they are worth, but the quotation from the letter 

 must surely be genuine, and shows that James at 

 least was not ready to promise anything that 

 might be demanded of him. 



Leaving this obscure inquiry, let us see what 

 James's conduct actually was after his accession. 



For the requisition of the recusancy fines due 

 at Easter he was not responsible. In 1603 Easter 

 Day fell on April 24, and on that day James had 

 only reached the neighbourhood of Stamford on 

 his journey into his new kingdom. The simplest 

 way of explaining the fact that the fines paid at 

 Easter were less than those paid at the preceding 

 Michaelmas, is to attribute the decrease to the 

 general uncertainty that prevailed of the king's 

 intentions. Many persons would hang back from 

 paying, and the authorities would be unwilling to 

 press them. 



That James's intentions were hostile to the Ro- 

 man Catholics at his first entrance is the almost 

 invariable deduction from the well-known story 

 of his defending the appointment of Lord Henry 

 Howard to the privy council by saying that, " by 

 this one tame duck, he hoped to take many wild 

 ones : " " at which," as Rosny informs us, " the 

 Catholics were much alarmed." It is difficult to 

 see why, unless they were afraid that others of 

 their body would be corrupted by court favour. 

 The obvious meaning of the king's words is, that 



