320 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2-4 S. IX. Amu, 28. '60. 



tified in not referring the matter to the king 

 ngain. 



In tlic copy which we have there is no men- 

 tion of James's signature, but only a certificate of 

 the wider-secretary of the Council of the North, 

 and the signature, " Ro Cecyll " is copied in the 

 margin, below which is added "Exam p r Ed. 

 Coke." 



Or, thirdly, the two facts may only be a speci- 

 men of the effects of the vacillation of James's 

 mind on this subject at this time. 



However this may be, it may be doubted whether 

 these orders were put in force. If there had been 

 any real persecution in the North, we should 

 surely have heard more of it. When persecution 

 recommenced there was no lack of outcries. 



I do not know whether anyone can bring any 

 evidence of the treatment of the priests during 

 the autumn of 1603. One instance occurs in 

 which we hear of the Act 35 Eliz. c. 2. being put 

 in force against a recusant. By this act recusants 

 were liable to be confined within a circle of five 

 miles round their places of residence.* 



From the farther disclosures made by the pri- 

 soners concerned in Watson's plot, the govern- 

 ment learned that the conspiracy which had just 

 been detected formed the smallest part of the dan- 

 gers to which they were exposed. Watson him- 

 self declared that he was certain the Jesuits had 

 been engaged in an undertaking, of the precise 

 nature of which he was ignorant, but which was 

 in some way connected with hopes of a Spanish 

 invasion. Such a plot in such hands would be 

 likely to be more skilfully conducted than the one 

 which had just failed. At the same time strong 

 suspicions arose that the ambassador from the 

 Archdukes, and such men as Cobham and Raleigh, 

 were implicated in it. 



Just at the time when James might well have 

 felt anxious, a tetter arrived from Sir Thomas 

 Parry, our ambassador in France f, in which he 

 mentioned that the Nuncio had sent him a mes- 

 sage to the effect that he had received authority 

 from the Pope to recall from England all turbu- 

 lent priests, the Pope having declared against all 

 their seditious practices. The Nuncio offered 

 "that if there remained any in his dominions, 

 priest or Jesuit or other Catholic whom he had 

 intelligence of for a practice in his state w lh could 

 not be founde out upon advertisement of the 

 names |, he would find meanes by ecclesiastical 

 censures they should be delivered to his justice." 



About the same time a similar proposition was 

 made through the Nuncio at Brussels.§ It do.js 



* Justices of Carmarthenshire to Cecil, Aug. 22nd, 1603. 

 Dom. Series, iii. 32. 



t S. P. 0., French Correspondence, Aug. 20tb. 



j The comma is here in the original. Of course, it 

 should be omitted here, and placed after "out.'' 



§ At least we have the " Instructions from the Nuncio 



not appear that for the present any notice was 

 taken of these proposals. 



The recusancy fines paid during the half year 

 ending at Michaelmas stood, as we have seen, at 

 716/. Is. 8j)d. It may be asked why they did not. 

 cease altogether ? I do not know whether the 

 following conjecture will prove satisfactory. From 

 another paper in the Lansdowne MS. 153. (p. 

 195.) it appears that the whole number of those 

 who paid the 20/. fine at the end of Elizabeth's 

 reign was sixteen. Thus the half-yearly payment 

 would be 1920/. Deducting this from the 4176/. 

 of Michaelmas, 1602, there remains 2256/. This 

 is the sum raised by seizing the two-thirds of the 

 lands of the poorer recusants. Some of them were, 

 I believe, returned to their owners on composi- 

 tion ; some were leased out to friends of their 

 owners, who returned to the true owners the 

 profits minus a rent paid to the crown. Others 

 were leased to strangers. Is it not possible that 

 rents accruing from the two former sources ceased 

 to be received, whilst the profits arising from the 

 third source would still be taken, as the govern- 

 ment would be prevented by the terms of the 

 lease from restoring the land to the owner, and 

 would have no reason to spare the lessee ? It re- 

 mains to be explained why the fines suddenly rose 

 at Michaelmas, 1604, to drop again as suddenly at 

 the following Easter. 



In November, perhaps after Coke's threatening 

 language at Winchester had been spread abroad, 

 another deputation waited on the council at Wil- 

 ton. Assurances were given them that the late 

 plots would make no difference in their treatment, 

 and that the fines would not be exacted.* 



In the same month James determined to avail 

 himself of the Nuncio's proposals, and prepared a 

 Latin letter to Parry, which he was to forward 

 to the Nuncio, though, for the sake of avoiding 

 scandal, he was ordered to avoid any personal 

 communication with him.")" 



Thus, at the close of the year 1603, James had 

 not only kept his promise with regard to the fines, 

 in spite of the plots with which he was threatened, 

 but had actually entered into a negotiation with 

 the Pope with a view to the alleviation of the suf- 

 ferings of the priests. 



How these favourable prospects were gradually 

 overclouded I hope to be able to show in a future 

 paper. 



It will be seen that though the general outlines 

 can be made out with tolerable certainty, yet 

 farther evidence on some points is desirable. 



I must, however, protest beforehand against 



at Brussels to \V. D. Gifford," to go to England. Dodd, 

 iv. App. p. lx. 



* Petition Apologetical, p. 27. 



t The letter is printed in Tierney's Dodd, iv, Appen- 

 dix, p. lxv. Its date is fixed by a letter written by 

 Cecil on Dec. Cth to accompany it, though it must have 

 been written itself a few days earlier. 



