No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 September 2015
Robert Cecil, the first Earl of Salisbury and James I’s principal secretary of state, had every reason for regarding Hugh Owen with intense dislike. Born at Plas Du on the Lleyn peninsula in Caernarvonshire in 1538, he belonged to a family that was completely devoted and committed to the old faith. For some time until 1571, he was secretary to Henry Fitzallan, twelfth and last Earl of Arundel of his house. He left Wales for the Low Countries in 1571 looking for the freer life that the Marian exiles sought abroad under Mary I. It was alleged by some that this was a virtual admission that he had been involved in the recent Ridolfi plot. Lord Lumley who knew him was prepared to defend him from any implication in that conspiracy. In fact the plot, like most of the plots of the period, was more likely to have been a contrivance to get rid of rivals and opponents.
1 For a short life of Hugh Owen, see Loomie, Albert J. S.J., The Spanish Elizabethans: the English Exiles at the Court of Philip III (The S.E.), London 1963, chapter 3, An ‘Intelligencer’: Hugh Owen 1538–1618, pp. 53–93 Google Scholar. Loomie, A.J., ‘Spain and the English Catholic Exiles’, 1560-1604, PhD. thesis, London 1957 Google Scholar. This does not include a life of H. Owen but gives an excellent overall view of the historical context. For the Ridolfi plot, see F.Edwards, S.J., The Dangerous Queen, 1964, and The Marvellous Chance, 1968. See also, ‘The certain note of such English gentlemen which came into Spain for entertainment at the King’s hands there, and what the King gave them in money at times’; Salisbury MSS, 198, no. 138. See also, ‘A census of the king’s pensioners attached to the regiment, 1587–1603’; AJL, The SE, pp. 240–268,
2 For attempts to get Owen extradited, see Nicholls, Mark, Investigating Gunpowder Plot, Manchester/New York 1993, passim; AJL, The SE, pp. 83–89 Google Scholar; Edwards, F., Guy Fawkes: The Real Story of the Gunpowder Plot, London 1969, pp. 189–195 Google Scholar.
3 Dr. John Storey: see Dictionary of National Biography (DNB.); Edwards, Francis, ‘The attempt in 1608 on Hugh Owen, intelligencer for the Archdukes in Flanders’, Recusant History, vol. 17, pp. 141f Google Scholar.
4 ‘The manner of my first arrival and entertainment at Brussels the 21th of April 1605’, State Papers Flanders, Bundle 7, part 1, ff. 119r-125v. Statement in a clerk’s hand made while Turner was in England and signed by him.
5 Cf. Captain Dautrey to Sir Robert Cecil, 21.vii.1594, Calendar of the Salisbury MSS (Sal.Cal.), vol. 4, London 1892, pp. 566–7, original signed and sealed.
6 John Hammond to his brother, 28.xii.1603,O.S., from Prague, holograph; Sal.Cal., vol. 15, London 1930, p. 339; from MS vol. 48, no. 71. At this time peace with Spain was under negotiation. Hence the presence of Juan de Tassis, Count of Villa Mediana.
7 Sir Thomas Edmondes to Sir Robert Cecil, 12.ix.1598, from Paris: British Library (BL), Stowe MSS, vol. 167, f. 45 (Edmondes Papers, II).
8 William Turner to John Treadwaye, 25.ix.l598,holograph; from Sal.Cal., 15, p. 363; MS vol. 64, No. 54.
9 Ibidem.
10 Anstruther, G., Vaux of Harrowden, Newport 1953, p. 267 Google Scholar; reference to the document given as State Papers 78 [Flanders], vol. 42, f. 240.
11 AJL, The S.E., p. 197.
12 ‘N.W.’ to Du Pre [Salisburyl, 25.iii.1606, from Calais; Salisbury MS 116/115; Sal.Cal., vol. xviii, pp. 84–85.
13 William Turner to Sir Thomas Vane, 8.iv.1606 NS, from Calais, signed; PRO. SP 14, vol. 20, f. 17r.
14 Same to same, 8.iv.1606, signed by Turner; ibidem, f, 20r. Turner commented, ‘The bearer hereof can inform you of me more at large’, so Buck did not carry the letter.
15 Sir Thomas Vane to Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, 13.iv.1606 NS, from Dover, signed; ibidem, f. 15r.
16 ‘Informations touching Buck’, undated, signed by William Turner; ibidem, ff. 23r-24v.
17 Vane to Northampton, 7/17.iv.1606, signed; ibidem, f. 43r.
18 See n. 16 above.
19 Ibidem.
20 ‘W.N.’ to Salisbury, , 1.iv.1606; Sal.Cal., vol. xviii, pp. 92–93 Google Scholar; ms vol. 115/150.
21 Sir Thomas Edmondes to Salisbury, 27.ix.1605, from Brussels; BL, Stowe MSS, vol. 168, ff. 151r-152v., draft; PRO, State Papers, Flanders, Bundle 7, part ii, ff. 236r-237v., as sent, received 9.x.1605; partly published in Birch, T., Negotiations . . . 1592–1617, London 1749, p. 228 Google Scholar.
22 Sir Thomas Parry to Salisbury, 28.xi.1605 (OS), from Paris, signed; PRO, State Papers France, vol. 52, ff. 349r-351v.
23 Same to same, 13.xii.1605, endorsed ‘Minute to Parry’; ibidem, ff. 368r-369v.
24 Ibidem.
25 Ibidem.
26 Quoted in Birch, T., The Court and Times of James I, vol. I, London 1848, p. 169 Google Scholar.
27 Bodleian Library, Oxford, Tanner MS 299, f. 12r. This was one of thirteen extremely uncomplimentary doggerel verses in this manuscript of which one includes Suffolk and Walsingham. They circulated about the time of Salisbury’s death in May 1612. Whether the popular view came nearer to the truth than that of established history is a matter for individual judgment. A slight variation on the verse as cited was also in circulation condemning him as the encloser of Hatfield Wood. There were probably many other populat outpourings of the kind. More than one of these versicles refers to his death from syphilis.
28 Parry to Salisbury, l.i.1605/6 (OS); ibidem, vol. 53, ff. 1r-4v. The convention was for English ambassadors abroad to date their dispatches according to the style of England and not according to the reformed style of the continent.
29 Same to same, 20.xii.1605 (OS), from Paris, signed; ibidem, vol. 52, ff. 364r-365v.
30 ‘Edward Stanhurst’s [Stanihurst/Stanyhurst] letter from Flanders’ to Turner, 28.xi.1605, signed holograph; SP Flanders, bundle 7, ff. 275r-278v. Stanihurst was described in a list of pensioners (see n. 1 above) as ‘A gentleman from Ireland, very loyal to the king, not a soldier but very useful in other ways’. He received an income varying from 30 to 50 escudos. Another reference, when he was only getting 20 escudos, claimed, ‘He never stays with the regiment; every day he is at the door of the treasurer demanding his pay. He is restless and believed to be willing to serve with the “regrouped” Irish’; AJL, The SE, pp. 258–259.
31 Stanihurst’s ‘letter from Flanders’, 28.ix.1605. See n. 30.
32 Ibidem.
33 William Turner to Salisbury, l.i.1505/6, signed holograph; SP France, vol. 53, f. 218r. Turner himself dated this letter ‘the frist of January 1605’ which explains why it has been bound with the papers of 1606/7. The date intended is quite clear if only from the reference to Sir Thomas Parry as ambassador leger at Paris. By January 1607, Sir George Carew had already replaced him for some months.
34 Parry to Cecil, 16.ii.1605/6 (OS), from Paris, signed; ibidem, f. 28r.
35 Ibidem.
36 SP Dom. James I, vol. 19, no. 70. The simple entry, ‘A safe-conduct for Captain Turner’ appears in the Doquet Books under the date 26.iv.1604. See SP 38, vol. vii, f. 113r. It seems unlikely that he had an earlier pass to come into England.
37 ‘The searchers’ testimony made in Margate’, undated, signed by John Bawden, John Bushe, search officers; SP Dom., James I, vol. 20, f. 26r.
38 William Turner to Salisbury, 5.xii.1605, signed holograph; SP France, vol. 53, ff. 196r-199v. Turner’s spelling and caligraphy are extraordinarily idiosyncratic even for the times, and suggest very incomplete education. The most obvious rendering of the date is S.xii.1606. The letter is bound with the papers of that time, but internal evidence leaves no room for doubt that it is of the previous year, ‘Inbostar’ for ambassador, and ‘agckines deeies’ for Agnus Deis, are fairly typical examples of spelling. See also, Sal.Cal., vol. xvii, pp. 544–546.
39 Ibidem.
40 ‘Captain Turner to my Lord from Paris’. 7 or 8.xii.1605, signed holograph; Salisbury MSS, vol. 192, nos. 52–53. See also Sal.Cal., vol. 17, pp. 544–546. The transcriber of the printed calendar gives the date as 5.xii. but it appears to be rather 7 or 8.xii. This argues no carelessness on his part, of course, in view of Turner’s hand. It is unlikely that Turner wrote two such letters on the same day.
41 Turner to Salisbury, 5.xii.1605; see n. 38 above, ibidem, f. 196v.
42 Same to same, 7/8.xii.1606; see n. 40 above, ibidem.
43 Ibidem.
44 ‘Informations touching Buck’. See n. 16 above.
45 For the problem of Thomas Wintour’s confession of 23/25.xi.1605, see Edwards, F., Guy Fawkes, The Real Story of the Gunpowder Plot?, London 1969, pp. 196–199 Google Scholar. Compare, Nicholls, Mark, Investigating Gunpowder Plot, London 1991, pp. 27–29, 33, 161Google Scholar. For the narrative of Francis Tresham’s alleged death in the Tower, see F. Edwards, Guy Fawkes . . ., pp. 201–208, 232–233, and photographs of documents facing p. 144; The Gunpowder Plot: the Narrative of Oswald Tesimond, alias Greenway, The Folio Society, London 1973, Appendix 3, pp. 251–253.
46 Turner, ‘The manner of my first arrival . . .’ See n. 4 above.
47 Ibidem.
48 ‘Instructions for Captain Will Turner “Intertaynador” to the King’s Majesty of Spain’, undated; SP Flanders, bundle 7, ff. 333r-336v. See also Turner to Salisbury, 7/8.xii.1605; see above n. 40.
49 Assassination—tyrannicide—was very much in the contemporary air among artists as well as politicians: Judith and Holofernes was a recurrent if not favourite theme. Elizabeth I seems not to have been generally aware of such attempts on behalf of her policies although she hoped Sir Amyas Paulet, as is well-known, would save her the trouble of signing Mary, Queen of Scots,’ death-warrant by using his own initiative. According to K. Pearson, ‘There is evidence to show that the plot to assassinate Rizzio was known to Bedford and Randolph and that they considered it unnecessary to warn the Queen of Scots. They wrote to Elizabeth (from Berwick, March 6, 1566; the murder was on March 9th) that “a matter of no small consequence is intended in Scotland” and “We hope by this means my Lord of Moray shall be brought home without your Majesty’s further suit or means to the queen his sovereign, and therefore we have thought it good to stay the sending of your Majesty’s letters in his behalf’. In other words, Queen Elizabeth’s agents knew of the Darnley-Moray-Morton band, that Rizzio was to be murdered, Moray brought back from exile, and the crown matrimonial given to Darnley’; See Pearson, K., ‘The skull and portraits of . . . Lord Darnley . . .’, Biometrika XXb, 1, July 1928, p. 4 Google Scholar. See also SP Scotland, II, p. 259, entry for 6.iii.1566. The European tradition in the matter, crowned by the St. Bartholomew massacre in 1572, is too well-known to call for illustration. It seems worth noting that this same year Henry Killigrew, with the knowledge of Burghley and Leicester, was sent to Scotland on an eliminating mission, if not by his own hand. See Tytler, P. F., History of Scotland, 1866 edition, vol. vii, pp. 311f Google Scholar. For the Jesuit position, see Clancy, T.H., Papist Pamphleteers, Chicago 1964, pp. 96–106 Google Scholar. The question was discussed academically in the schools, but it was never proved to be applied in practice by any Jesuit. See also Edwards, F., Robert Persons . . ., St. Louis 1995 Google ScholarPubMed, passim. Sir Francis Hastings in his Watchword . . ., charging Jesuits with a readiness to kill princes, received an emphatic answer from Persons for his own case in A Temperate Watchword ... of 1599, claiming ‘he was never consenting, witting, willing, inducing, yielding, nor privy to any such personal attempt against her Majesty in his life’; ibidem, p. 85. There is no good reason to doubt his word.
50 ‘Copia de un billet de son Altesse al Presidente Richardot’, undated, included in Edmondes to Salisbury, 19.xi.1605; SP Flanders, bundle 7, f. 289. The copy was probably obtained by bribing one of the minor officials in the archduke’s secretariat. Rougher methods were sometimes employed by ambassadors, as is hinted in Carew to Edmondes from Paris, 14.ii.1605/6. ‘One who served Sir Edmund Baynham as his cook, coming this way from Rome with letters from his master to Baldwin the Jesuit, he happened not altogether voluntary into my hands, and perusing his letters, I found one from his master to Baldwin the Jesuit . . . which I sent unto you enclosed in a letter of mine’. Stowe MS, vol. 168, f. 332r, signed original.
51 Turner’s narrative. See n. 46.
52 Ibidem.
53 Agnus Deis, small impressed plaques, are made from the wax left over from any year’s consumption of the Easter candle burnt in St. Peter’s. It was and is forbidden to colour them or treat them so as to conceal what they are. Much of Turner’s material could have come from largely invented sources such as were used to secure the curious confessions and examinations produced in the Squier plot of 1598. See ‘SirCecil, Robert, Squier, Edward and the poisoned Pommel’; Recusant History, vol. 25, pp. 377–414 Google ScholarPubMed. Squier claimed that Richard Walpole, S.J., urged him to kill the queen. For good measure, ‘It were a very meritorious act to stab or kill the earl of Essex if you can come at him, but this against the queen is all in all’ (p. 394). Walpole assured him of spiritual advantages. ‘And if you prefer it before all others, and perform it, . . . you shall be a glorious saint in heaven’. Hugh Owen could never have seen this document, but he knew all about Turner. Nuce, who claimed credibly to be on fairly intimate terms with Owen, reported to Salisbury that Owen ‘would send such a relation of Turner unto your master that he doubted not but would be very welcome’ (‘N.W.’ to Du Pre [Salisbury], 13/23.v.1606, from Brussels, original); Salisbury MS, vol. 116, no. 62.
54 Edmondes to Salisbury, 19.vi.1605, from Brussels, signed original; SP Flanders, bundle 7, part II, ff. 187r-188v.
55 Ibidem.
56 Edmondes to Salisbury, 27.vi.1605, signed original; ibidem, ff. 192r-193v.
57 Same to same, 23.vii.1605; signed original; ibidem, ff. 204r-207v.
58 Ibidem.
59 W. Turner, ‘The manner of my first arrival . . .’ ff. 122v-123r. See n. 4 above.
60 Gonzales, Tomas, ‘Apuntamientos . . .’, Alba to Philip II, 27.viii.1571, printed in Memorias de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. vii, pp. 446–447 Google Scholar. See also Pollen, J. H., The English Catholics in the Reign of Elizabeth, London 1920, p. 161 Google Scholar. Pollen gives the date as 29.viii.
61 This part of Turner’s, ‘The manner . . .’ (see n. 59 above) was printed in G. Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, p. 269.
62 Undated but possibly of June 1603. The basis facts of the situation had not changed much in two years. See SP Domestic, James I, vol. 2, no. 25.
63 Salisbury to Edmondes, 2.xii.1603, signed original; Stowe MS 168, ff. 263r-266v; Sal.Cal, 17, pp. 533–537, copy, from ms. vol. 227, p. 139. T. Birch, Negotiations . . ., pp. 242f. Cecil was obviously very anxious to further the idea of invasion attempts by the Catholics even after James I’s accession.
64 See Gerard, John, ‘Traditional history and the Spanish treason of 1601’, The Month, 1896. pp. 45–65, 176–186Google Scholar. Loomie, A. J., Guy Eawkes in Spain: the “Spanish treason” in Spanish Documents, London University, Institute of Historical Research, monograph, 1971 Google Scholar; AJL, ‘Spain and the English Catholic Exiles 1560–1604’, Ph.D. thesis, London 1957 Google Scholar.
65 Salisbury to Edmondes, 2.xii,1603. See n. 63. When Owen was arrested at James I’s request, all his papers were confiscated, but the insistence of the Count of Olivares, the Count of Chinchon, and the Duke of Infantado, leading councillors, brought Philip to agree that his papers should be put in the hands of Juan de Mancicidor, secretary for Spanish affairs in the Archduke’s council. He was also the inspector-general of the army in Flanders. This was done. The papers were subsequently lost. See AJL, The SE, pp. 88–90, and his Ph.D. thesis (see n. 64), section 7/6.
66 Salisbury to Edmondes, 2.xii.1605. See n. 63.
67 ‘Instructions for Captain Will Turner . . .’. See n. 48.
68 Ibidem.
69 Robert Taylor, from Yorkshire, received the degree of Doctor Utrius Juris in November 1602 in Douai University. He sent nine reports on the peace conference at Boulogne in 1600 to Ottavio Mirto Frangipani, nuncio in Brussels. In the summer of 1603, through a brother in the Earl of Cumberland’s household, he had secret interviews with the earl, the Countess of Suffolk, Thomas Lake and others on the subject of peace with Spain before the arrival of the official envoy, Juan de Tassis. He served the Constable of Castile and all the ambassadors as a special interpreter before his death in 1609. Cecil secured a special place for Taylor at Garnet’s trial so that he could prepare a report for Philip III. He frequently presented the complaints of the Spanish merchants to the Admiralty. Philip III esteemed his services sufficiently to raise his salary from 500 to 700 escudos, about £175. See Loomie, A. J., ‘Sir Robert Cecil and the Spanish Embassy’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, vol. XLII, (May 1969), p. 36, n. 4Google Scholar. He appears in Hugh Griffin’s confession of 27.xi.1606 as having taken great interest in Garnet’s celebrated straw; H. Foley, Records . . ., ix,x,xi, p. 128, from a ms. belonging to The Old Chapter.
70 Turner to Salisbury, 7/8.xii.1605. See n. 40 above.
71 Richard Stampart to ?, 15.ii.1605/6 (NS?), from Brussels, copy of an intercepted letter; SP Flanders, bundle 8, ff. 32r-33v.
72 Acts of the Privy Council, New Series, vol. 29 (1598–1599), entry for 29.x.1598, p. 244.
73 William Willaston to the Lord Chancellor, signed letter apparently enclosed in Sir Thomas Parry to Salisbury, 20.x.1605 (OS); SP France, vol. 52, f. 297r. The dispatch is on ff. 292r-296v.
74 Ibidem.
75 W. Willaston to Salisbury (?), 1.x.1605 (NS?); ibidem, f. 244r/v.
76 Ibidem.
77 Ibidem.
78 Same to same, 14.x.1605, signed holograph, from Rouen; ibidem f. 272r/v.
79 Ibidem.
80 Ibidem.
81 Ibidem.
82 George Southaick to Levinus Monck at London, 4.xi.1605, holograph signed ‘G.S.’; SP Dom., James I, vol. 16, f. 44.
83 ibidem.
84 W. Willaston to Salisbury, 27.x.1605, signed holograph; Sal.Cal., vol. xvii (1938), p 469; from MS vol. 112/141.
85 See F. Edwards, Guy Fawkes: the Real Story. . . ? (see n. 2 above), ch. 14. pp. 165–173. This book, a rather popular account, is in need of revision but the basic thesis has not been disproved by anything printed subsequently.
86 Southaick to Salisbury, 17.x.1605, holograph; Sal.Cal., vol. xvii, p. 456; MS vol. 112/121.
87 Same to same, 27.x.1605; from London; Sal.Cal., vol. xvii, pp. 469–470.
88 Dr. John Duport to Salisbury, 9.ii.1605/6; ibidem, vol. xviii (1940), pp. 47–48; MS vol., 136/129, holograph.
89 Same to same, 12.ii.1605, holograph; ibidem, p. 49; MS vol. 110/7.
90 Ibidem.
91 Edmundes to Salisbury, 16.vi.1606, signed; SP Flanders, bundle 8, ff. 119r-120v.
92 Ibidem. Thomas Phelippes, writing to the Lieutenant of the Tower, probably in 1606 (SP Domestic, James I, vol. 20, ff. 155r-158v.), describes himself as ‘discovering to Sir Thomas Lake the vanity of Dr. Taylor’s first negotiation’. Whether or not this is the negotiation referred to in Lord Thomas Arundell of Wardour’s letter to Salisbury of 4 October 1605, it gives us further light on Taylor and Arundell both, and is relevant to Baldwin’s story as one much involved with the English regiment. ‘Dr. Taylor told me in Somerset House before Sir William Monson (who are now both in England to witness the truth therein) that he has spoken with some of the Lords of the Council concerning my passage with the Spanish ambassador, and that he was answered that I might go with him’. Arundell referred to his crossing to Flanders in the early summer of 1606 to serve with the Archduke, against which the Dutch made a great protest. In point of fact, Arundell’s going over was more than connived at by the Council. Arundell’s task was undoubtedly to run down the English regiment as a patriotic duty undertaken for Cecil and the Councillors. Both parties needed to preserve appearances. Arundell’s letter, properly understood, appears to make Taylor something of a scapegoat. Which should not surprise one. ‘And I protest that both by the speech of Dr. Taylor in Somerset House, and by the ambassador’s relation at Gravesend, I did not conjecture, neither do I yet see how I could conjecture, that his Majesty or the Lords of the Council, had any interest to stay my going, but that their whole care was for the ambassador’s safety, and myself left to undergo the danger of my passage’ (SP Flanders, bundle 7, ff. 248r-249v). At all events, we may take it as certain that Taylor was not in the secret of Arundell’s real mission to the English regiment which amounted to more than preventing it from following policies of which Cecil did not approve. See F. Edwards, Guy Fawkes ... ?, pp. 67–69, 92–101, 133–137, 189, 215. See Lunn, David, The Catholic Elizabethans, Bath 1998, pp. 127–137 Google Scholar for Arundell’s earlier history, and passim for his father Sir Matthew and other members of the family.
93 ‘The copy of a letter cast into the Lord of Salisbury’s court December 4, 1605’; Sal. Cal., vol. xvii, p. 540; BL Additional MS 6178, f. 96r.
94 Edmondes to Salisbury, 16.vi.1606. See n. 91 above.
95 Ibidem.
96 Ibidem. Edmondes in this letter and elsewhere refers to Southaick by his other name of Southwell. Reference to the spy as Southaick is standardised throughout this article to avoid confusion.
97 Memorandum for Edmondes ? by ‘George Southwell alias Sowthaicke’, from Douai, 22.vi.1606, signed original; SP Flanders, bundle 8, ff. 125r-126v.
98 Ibidem. This year 1606 false reports concerning the imminent excommunication of James VI were being circulated in order to exacerbate relations between Rome and London. One could not expect to know who was ultimately responsible but they would not have been unwelcome to Cecil. Early in 1606 the Venetian ambassador reported James as saying, ‘I have dispatches from Rome informing me that the pope intends to excommunicate me; the Catholics threaten to dethrone me and to take my life unless I grant them liberty of conscience. I shall most certainly be obliged to stain my hands with their blood though sorely against my will’; quoted Willson, D. H., King James VI and I, London 1956, p. 227 Google Scholar. Pedro de Zuniga, Spanish ambassador in England, reported to the Consejo de Estado on 10 November 1605 that Cecil wanted the pope to enjoin obedience on the English Catholics by a formal letter. The papal reaction was reported to Philip III by way of his Roman ambassador, Escalona. The king conveyed the papal answer to de Zuniga on 14 June 1606. ‘The pope was asked to order the Catholics of England under pain of censure to be obedient and faithful to this king. His Holiness has responded that he is not capable of ordering fidelity to what is not of God. Nevertheless, you should be able to assure the aforesaid king in my name that he [Paul V] will require through other more effective procedures that they should be obedient and remain faithful’; Loomie, A. J., Spain and the Jacobean Catholics, CRS, vol. 64 (1973), pp. 83–84 Google Scholar. Robert Persons surely spoke for all Catholics when he wrote to an unknown correspondent on August 26, 1606, ‘they acknowledge his Majesty for true lord and king over all his dominions, and to have all kingly authorities and powers over his subjects as much as any king ever had within his realm, or as any other Catholic king in the world abroad. That they will never conspire against his person, state and dignity nor conceal other. That they will never procure, provoke or persuade an ecclesiastical censure against his Majesty or his heirs, but rather will dissuade and hinder the same what they can, and do verily hope and will still, desire that no such thing be done by the pope that now is or his successors’. See F. Edwards, Robert Persons . . ., p. 330. The sort of rubbish which was retailed by the spies to stir up the excommunication ferment may be seen in ‘W.N.’ to Salisbury, 21.vi.1606, from London. ‘The pope’s nuncio is to depart from Bruxelles, who has taken upon him (as Gibbons, a Jesuit, told me,) when he comes to Rome to deal with the pope for the excommunicating you and some two or three more of his Majesty’s privy council’. See Sal. Cal., xviii, p. 176. The pope could not, in any case, excommunicate someone not of his own communion.
99 Carew to Salisbury, 30.vi.1606, from Paris, signed: SP France, vol. 53, ff. 125r-128v.
100 Same to same, 4.vii.1606, from Paris, signed; ibidem, ff. 134r-135v.
101 Same to same, 20.vii.1606; ibidem, ff. 138r-14lv.
102 Henry More remarked à propos of Holt’s departure, that he was the victim of a hate-campaign. ‘In order to quieten the clamour, however, unjust, Holt yielded his place to William Baldwin, and went to Spain. He died on the journey, having reached Barcelona, in 1599. At his final departure he said lightly, “I never lost even one hour’s sleep in the midst of all that tumult”.’ When he was gone, Baldwin was also to see for himself how far from pacific were the men who envied everyone of his own kind ... In all the thirty-six heads of the accusation, no mention was made by the rival faction of Queen Elizabeth’s destruction with Father Holt’s alleged contrivance and provocation, as Camden reports. From which it is clear that this was regarded by this time as a dead issue and empty calumny, Camden himself refuted the notion when, knowing nothing about it, he wrote, ‘that Holt, kissing the Host’—this peculiar notion once again!—-’swore that the money should be paid as soon as the murder was committed, and that he bound Yorke and Williams by an oath and the Sacrament of the Eucharist to dispatch it’. See F. Edwards, The Elizabethan Jesuits, p. 345. The original quotation is in Camden, W., Annals . . ., Gent, R. N. translation, London 1635, pp. 440, 441Google Scholar. A fuller quotation is given in this text than appears in More, who, incidentally, renders Gent’s ‘of the fugitives’ as hominum.
103 Forest, Edward, A comparative discourse of the bodies natural and politique, London 1606, p. 53 Google Scholar.
104 Carew to Salisbury. 20.vii.1606, see n. 101 above, ff. 138r-141v.
105 Salisbury to Edmondes, 20.vii.1606; S. P. Flanders, Bundle 8, ff. 223r-4v. Copy.
106 Sir Thomas Edmondes to Salisbury, 13.vii.1606, from Brussels, signed; SP Flanders, bundle 8, ff. 157–158V.