Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:05:23.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Question of Jurisdiction. Richard Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon, and the Catholic Laity, 1625-31

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2016

A. F. Allison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the problems left unresolved by historians who have treated of the troubled episcopate of Richard Smith concerns Smith’s claim to jurisdiction over the Catholic laity in England. Two questions have never been satisfactorily answered: What exactly was the nature of the jurisdiction that he claimed? and How did he set about trying to exercise it in practice? Anyone who has read the published histories that touch upon these questions will be aware that they aroused bitter and prolonged controversy but will have been left with no very clear idea of what Smith actually claimed the right to do and did.

Type
Articles
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , October 1982 , pp. 111 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 The principal modern works that treat of Smith’s episcopate are: Hughes, Thomas, The History of the Society of Jesus in North America, 4 vols (1907–17), Text vol. 1, pp. 202–28Google Scholar; von Pastor, Ludwig, The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages (English translation, 1891, etc.), vol. 29 (1938), pp. 303–09;Google Scholar Hughes, Philip, Rome and the Counter-Reformation in England (1942), pp. 329–430.Google Scholar Although these draw upon much previously unpublished material, none of them uses the most important of the sources for Smith’s episcopate, the papers of the English secular clergy in O.B.A. and A.A.W. More recently there have been two specialist articles which fill in some of the background to the present study, though they do not deal specifically with Smith and the laity: Allison, A. F., ‘Richard Smith, Richelieu and the French Marriage. The political context of Smith’s appointment as bishop for England in 1624’ (R.H. January 1964),Google Scholar and Maurus Lunn, ‘Benedictine Opposition to Bishop Richard Smith, 1625-1629’ (R.H. January 1971).

2 It began with the appointment of William Bishop, Smith’s immediate predecessor, in March 1623.

3 Text printed in Dodd, vol. 3, p. 7. For the background see Allison, art. cit., note 1 above.

4 Bishop and Smith were both given jurisdiction over Scotland as well as England. Although Bishop petitioned the Pope to relieve him of responsibility for Scotland and the Scots clergy pressed for their own local superiors, no action was taken by Rome until 1653 when a local prefect was appointed for the Scottish mission. See Bellesheim, A., History of the Catholic Church of Scotland (English translation 1887, etc.), vol. 3, pp. 437–8.Google Scholar Neither Bishop nor Smith attempted to extend their administrative network to the areas north of the border.

5 … tibi ut… ad solatium animarum et spirituale bonum Christi fidelium Catholicorum in regnis Angliae et Scotiae praedictis existentium sive quos pro tempore ibi existere contigerit ad nostrum et Sedis Apostolicae beneplacitum omnibus et singulis facultatibus olim Archipresbyteris Angliae a Sede Apostolica deputatis per fel. rec. Clementem VIII et Paulum V Romanos Pontifices praedecessores nostros concessis neenon quibus ordinarii in suis civitatibus et dioecesibus utuntur fruuntur et gaudent ac uti frui et gaudere possunt similiter uti frui et gaudere libere et licite possis et valeos Apostolica auetoritate tenore praesentium licentiam et facultatem impertimur.

6 There is a discussion of them in Philip Hughes, op. cit., note 1 above, pp. 296-7, note 1.

7 Much information on this will be found in the sources cited in note 13.

8 For the use made by the government of the mediaeval statutes of Praemunire in framing the legislation against Catholics in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, see The Catholic Encyclopaedia (1911, etc.), vol. 11, article ‘Penal Laws’.

9 A list of the faculties given to the third Archpriest, William Harrison, in 1615, written up early in Smith’s episcopate in the form of a memorandum, notes that of the eighteen faculties granted eight are facultates praecipuae ultra ordinarias. O.B.A. vol. 1, no. 53.

10 Epistola R.A.P. Praesidis, et Regiminis totius Congregationis Anglicanae: ordinis S.B. Ad RR.PP. Provinciales & ad Definitores eiusdem Congregationis in apostolica missione laborantes [1628]. Known from the opening word of the preface as ‘Mandatum’. For an account of the work and its publication, see Lunn, art. cit., note 1 above.

11 Dodd, vol. 3, p. 7, prints the two briefs in parallel columns.

12 A list of the seven vicariates established by Smith in 1625, with the archdeaconries comprised by each, and the counties in each archdeaconry, together with the names of the office-holders, will be found at A.A.W. A. 19, no. 116. A similar list embodying some adjustments, undated but probably drawn up c. 1627, is at A.A.W. A. 19, no 59.

13 In appointing a plurality of vicars-general, Bishop and Smith were following established precedent in the churches of continental Europe and in the mediaeval English church. For the general history of the office of vicar-general, see E. Fournier, Les origines du vicaire général. Etude d’histoire et de droit canon, 1922. Much information about the office in the pre-Reformation English church will be found in Hamilton Thompson, A., The English Clergy and their Organization in the Later Middle Ages (1947)Google Scholar, and in Storey, R. L., Diocesan Administration in the Fifteenth Century (1959)Google Scholar.

14 John Ward, whose history of the Chapter, written in the late seventeenth century, is preserved in MS. in the archives of the Old Brotherhood, summarises (pp. 10-12) what he describes as a ‘Papal decree’ sent to William Bishop at the time of his election, i.e. in March 1623. In this document the grantor gives specific permission to the grantee to hear and conclude all suits pertaining to a bishop’s court and to appoint a number of vicars-general who shall exercise the same authority. No trace of the original document from which Ward is quoting has been found and no other early references to it are known. Tierney (T-D, vol. 4, p. cclxxiv) reprints Ward’s summary of this ‘decree’ which he treats as authentic while offering no evidence for doing so. In fact, it is quite clearly not what Ward and Tierney take it to be. In Ward’s summary of the document, where he is evidently quoting much of the text verbatim, neither the grantor nor the grantee is named: both are indicated merely by the letter ‘N.’, the symbol used in standard forms leaving the names to be filled in as required. Though the document is certainly addressed to the bishop-elect for England, there is no mention of William Bishop or of anyone else by name; Ward’s introductory statement that this is ‘a Papal decree directed to the said William elect Bishop of Chalcedon’ appears to be no more than an assumption. Tierney, it must be added, goes one stage further, silently suppressing the letter ‘N’ in the text and substituting William Bishop’s name as grantee. The probability is that this document is simply a draft prepared by some of the leaders of the secular clergy at the time when they were pressing Rome for a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, i.e. prior to William Bishop’s appointment. It is quite certain that, if any such permission as that contained in this document had ever been sent to Bishop by the Pope, Smith, whose eagle eye later scanned every recent papal document cenceming England for any word or phrase that appeared to support his case against his opponents, would have cited it in justification of his claim to ordinary jurisdiction. But Smith never mentions it.

15 The text of BIshop’s commission to Bennet, dated 6 August 1623, will be found at O.B.A., vol. 1, no. 69; that of his commission to Colleton, of 30 August 1623, at A.A.W. B.25 unnumbered and A.A.W. A.17, no. 31; that of Smith’s commission to Bennet, dated 2 June 1625, is at A.A.W. A.19, no 42; that of his commission to Bosvile, of the same date, at A.A.W. A19, no. 43.

16 Concedentes tibi plenam et liberam postestatem dispensandi et commutandi vota et iuramenta in omnibus casibus nobis permissis, causas omnes ad officium Episcopale spectantes et pertinentes cognoscendi et decidendi, praecepta faciendi, excommunicandi, suspendendi, interdicendi, caeteraque omnia quae sunt Episcopalis iurisdictionis exercendi et terminandi, et omnia alia et singula faciendi et committendi, etiamsi talia essent quae mandatum exigent speciale, et maiora et graviora expressis, prout ad vicariatus officium noscitur quomodolibet pertinere.

17 Praeterea quo Catholici qui in comitatibus tui districtus habitant lites suas facilius componere valeant, volumus ut singulis annis, aut quando gravions momenti negotia praesentiam tuam postulant, ad ea loca districtus tui iustitiae administrandae gratia te conferas, quo nemini opus sit ultra duas dietas profiscisci ad controversias suas terminandas.

18 He died, according to the contemporary diary of John Southcote, at Bishop’s Hall in Essex (C.R.S. 1, p. 100). The manor of Bishop’s Hall was in the parish of Lambourne in the hundred of Ongar, a few miles east of London. It does not appear to be known who owned the manor at this period: V.C.H, Essex 4 (1956), p. 79. Later chroniclers, beginning with Anthony Wood (Athenae Oxonienses, 1691, col. 415) give the place of Bishop’s death as ‘Bishop’s Court in London’ but this is clearly a corruption resulting from an imperfect recollection by Dr Leybourne whom Wood cites: Wood himself says that he cannot identify any place of this name. Dodd (vol. 3, p. 58), citing a manuscript at the English College, Douai, says that the house in which Bishop died belonged to Sir Basil Brooke. The Douai manuscript appears to be no longer extant.

19 ‘Notes to be inculcated as you see cause’, items 3-4. A.A.W. A.20, no. 151. Preserved among the papers of the Bishop’s agent at Rome, Thomas White.

20 ‘Questions made by some of the laity concerning the Bishop’s power’. Copies (undated) at A.A:W. A.20, no. 99; S.P.16, vol. 99, no. 7. Copies of a Latin version headed Interrogata quorundam Catholicorum laicorum sparsa per Angliam anno 1627 mense lunii are at A.A.W. A.20, nos 97, 98. An Italian version in A.P., cited by Thomas Hughes op. cit., note 1 above, p. 203, gives the month as July 1627.

21 The instructions sent to the Roman Agent in November (see note 19 above) and the letter accompanying them, without actually naming Sir Toby, speak of the ‘cheefe procurer of the articles’ contained in the petition in terms that leave no doubt as to his identity. The fullest account of Sir Toby will be found in an unpublished doctoral thesis by Feil, John, ‘Sir Toby Matthew and his Collection of Letters’ (University of Chicago, 1962).Google Scholar

22 According to ‘Certain Observations or Notes made by N.N.’, see note 24 below.

23 Smith to Paris Nuncio, 8 November 1627. Copy at A.A.W. A.20, no. 148.

24 Copies at A.A.W. B.48, no 25; S.P. 16, vol. 99, no. 8. Although the author’s name is not disclosed in the tract, the style and argument are so similar to those of ‘The Judgment of a Divine’ which Smith wrote in 1628 (see note 34 below) as to make it virtually certain that this is also his work. The later tract repeats many of the arguments of ‘Certain Observations’, sometimes in practically the same words.

25 Copy at A.A.W. A.21, no. 122. Another forms part of A.A.W. B.47, no. 23.

26 Copies at O.B.A. vol. 1, nos 89, 90; S.P. 16, vol. 99, no. 10. Printed in C.R.S. 22, pp. 148-56.

27 Copies at O.B.A. vol. 1, no. 91; A.A.W. A.20, no. 166; S.P. 16, vol. 99, no. 1. Annex 51. None of these bears any signatures. Printed in C.R.S. 22, pp. 156-7. The names of the three gentlemen are revealed by Edward Bennet in his letter to Smith of 27 November (see note 32 below). The editorial footnote in C.R.S. 22, p. 156, saying that one of them was Sir Toby Matthew would seem to be taken from an endorsement on Smith’s letter of 2 December 1627, referred to at note 33. For further evidence corroborating Bennet’s statement see note 29.

28 He tried to persuade Lord Arundell of Wardour and Viscount Montague of Cowdray to sign; see Arundell’s letter to Montague of c. 29 November 1627, referred to at note 42 below. Arundell, who heartily disliked Toby, refers to him by the contemptuous epithet ‘Foolano’ (Spanish Fulano = so-and- so). Allusion to the part played by Toby in the affair is also made in the preface to the Manifestatio (see p. 135 above).

29 Francis Plowden, the younger (1588-1661), son and heir of Francis Plowden of Shiplake, Oxfordshire (1562-1652), Francis the younger lived at Aston-le-Walls, Northamptonshire, a property that came to him through his first wife, Elizabeth Butler. He was a lawyer by profession and used his knowledge of the law in the service of his fellow-Catholics. His younger brother, Thomas, entered the Society of Jesus in 1617. His daughter Elizabeth, who entered the English Augustinian convent at Louvain in 1652, has left on record in the convent chronicle the sufferings of the family at the hands of the parliamentarian troops during the civil war. Elizabeth says that Francis’s Jesuit brother lived with him (presumably at Aston, though this is not stated). See B.M.P. [Barbara M. Plowden], Records of the Plowden Family, Printed for Private Circulation (1887), chapter 5, pp. 49-63 (copy at Bodleian Library, shelf-mark 2182 Pd 33); also Mrs B. Stapleton, A History of the Post-Reformation Catholic Missions in Oxfordshire (1906), pp. 309-13. Foley (Records, vol. 7, p. 606) provides some particulars about Thomas Plowden (alias Salisbury) S.J., but Foley’s genealogy is defective. One or two further details about Francis Plowden the younger are to be found in other sources. He entered the Middle Temple on 26 January 1610 (H. A. C. Sturgess, Register of Admissions to the… Middle Temple [1949], vol. 1). His vigorous opposition to Bishop Smith is illustrated by a document of c. 1627 preserved among the papers of the secular clergy, Vera et Sincera Informatio de Affectionibus Catholicorum erga Episcopum Chalcedonensem, which says that Francis Plowden and Toby Matthew are the moving spirits behind the letter of the lay nobility and gentry and that they have influenced Brudenell and Brooke (A.A.W. A.21, no. 42). As a lawyer he evidently specialised in testamentary law and acted as adviser to Catholics in the matter of their wills, much to the annoyance of the Bishop and his officers: an undated letter of c. 1632 from George Leyboume in England to Peter Fitton, Smith’s Agent at Paris (soon to be sent as Agent to Rome), about Smith’s principal opponents, says of Francis: ‘Ployden is the Catholic common executor wherefore he teareth it in matter of wills, he should be called in question’ (A.A.W. A. 26, no. 22).

30 According to a contemporary Informatio on Smith’s quarrel with the regulars and with the laity, two of the three gentlemen—almost certainly Brudenell and Brooke, though they are not named—kept secular priests in their homes (E.C.R. Scritture 56 Chalcedon, no. 7). The fullest account of the life of Sir Thomas Brudenell, afterwards Earl of Cardigan (1578-1663), will be found in Wake, Joan, The Brudenells of Deene (1953 [2nd ed. 1954]), pp. 102–74Google Scholar, but it contains nothing about his part in the Chalcedon controversy. There is a brief account of Sir Basil Brooke (1576-1646?) in D.N.B. See also note 18 above.

31 Among Coke’s papers concerning Recusant affairs in 1628 is a memorandum in his own hand about the movements of the Bishop and the houses in which he customarily stayed. According to this memorandum, Smith lived ordinarily at the house of the dowager Lady Mordaunt at Turvie, near Bedford. From there he would go south to the house of Lady Dormer at Wing in Buckinghamshire, or to her other house near Aylesbury close to that of her son, Anthony, at Missenden, where Smith was also entertained. Thence he would proceed to Viscount Montague at Cowdray, near Midhurst in West Sussex. From Cowdray he would go westward to Lord Arundell at Wardour in Wiltshire, and from there northwards to the Earl of Shrewsbury at Grafton, near Bromsgrove in Warwickshire. Still proceeding northwards he would stay at the house of Sir Basil Brooke at Madeley, near Shrewsbury, before going into Lancashire. He seldom came to London. (S.P. 16, vol. 99, no. 19. Printed in Camden Miscellany, 2 [1853], pp. 59-60).

32 Bennet to Smith, enclosing the three gentlemen’s letter, 27 November 1627. A.A.W. A.20, no. 177.

33 Smith to ——— [one of his vicars-general in London] 2 December 1627. O.B.A. vol. 1, no. 92 (autograph). Printed in C.R.S. 22, pp. 157-8, wherein the heading supplied by the editor it is wrongly dated 2 October.

34 A.A.W. A.20, no. 170.

35 The original in Smith’s hand is at A.A.W. A.21, no. 99. Contemporary copy at A.A.W. A.21, no. 100.

36 A.A.W. A.21, no. 100 (page reference for the quotation is 403).

37 It was printed in April 1631 together with ‘The Declaration of the Lay Catholics (see p. 134 above). A note at the end (p. 126) says that it ‘was written two years ago when the foresaid Judgment of this Divine began to go up and down’. It has been suggested that the initials L.B. stand for Lord Baltimore (see A&R 190) but Baltimore was not in England at the time when the tract was written.

38 Page 115.

39 Page 100.

40 A.A.W. A.20, no. 173 (contemporary copy). Printed in part in the Manifestatio of 1631 (see p. 135 above).

41 Montague to Smith, 27 November 1627. A.A.W. A.20, no. 166 (contemporary copy). Another contemporary copy, with Smith’s acknowledgment of 2 December is at A.A.W. A.20, no. 175.

42 Arundell of Wardour to Montague, c. 29 November 1627. A.A.W. A.20, no. 166; A.A.W. A.20, no. 178 (two contemporary copies). Montague’s statement on the matter, dated 31 December 1627, is at A.A.W. A.21, no. 15 (contemporary copy). A Latin version of Montague’s statement is at A.A.W. A.21, no. 16.

43 The decree of the Holy Office is printed in Coilectio responsorum S. Officii (in Analecta ecclesiastica [1894], pp. 360 et seq.) The decrees printed in this collection were extracted from the archives of the Holy Office by Cardinal Casanata when he was Assessor: he gives the date of the decree as 7 December 1627. Contemporary MS. copies are at A.A.W. A.21, no. 17 and E.C.R. Scritture 56 Chalcedon, 9B. The decree was not communicated directly to Smith but was sent to the Nuncio at Paris who was to convey it to Smith through the Queen’s confessor.

44 See note 10.

45 Southcote to Roman Agent (Blacklow), 19 December 1628. A.A.W. A.22, no. 154 (original).

46 See Philip Hughes, op. cit., note 1, pp. 371-3.

47 For Baltimore’s part in the lay opposition to Smith, see Thomas Hughes, op. cit., note 1 above.

48 Secretary Coke’s speech of 26 March 1628, quoted in Cobbett’s Parliamentary History (1807), vol. 2, p. 247.

49 S.P. 16, vol. 99, no. 20. Printed in Foley, vol. 1, p. 137.

50 See note 29.

51 S.T.C. 8911.

52 Text as quoted in a postscript to a letter from Southcote to the Roman Agent (Blacklow) for communication to ‘Barnabe Camden’ (probably an alias for John Bosvile, whom Smith had sent to Rome on a special mission, see p. 126 above), dated 19 December 1628. Southcote says that Smith’s letter to the Queen was written on this same date. A.A.W. A.22, no. 154. A copy of the French text is at A.A.W. A.22, no. 158. A Latin version sent by Smith to Rome is at A.P. Anglia 347, f. 171. (See Philip Hughes, op. cit., note 1, p. 374).

53 A.A.W. A.22, no, 157 (contemporary copy).

54 A.A.W. Old MSS.’, p. 301.

55 A.A.W. A.23, no. 86; A.A.W. A.23, no. 85 (two contemporary copies).

56 A.A.W. A.20, no. 170.

57 ‘The Answer of a Catholic Lay Gentleman’, pp. 97-98. See note 37 above.

58 S.T.C. 8919.

59 See Philip Hughes, op. cit., note 1, pp. 370-1 and the evidence there cited.

60 For the office of Official Principal see the authorities given in note 13.

61 A.A.W. A.23, no. 144 (Apparently a draft. It has a marginal insertion in Smith’s hand). It is dated from London, 6 October 1629. Another copy, endorsed by Smith, O.B.A., vol. 1, no. 114.

62 Cum itaque ea sint praesentium temporum conditio, et provinciae demandatae magnitudo, adiunctis quotidianis periculis ac laboribus nostris ut in earn curam per nos ipsos nulla ratione incumbere valeamus, et tum Vicariorum nostrorum Generalium ex propriis districtibus vel privatis vel publicis de causis crebrae absentiae tum frequens Catholicorum ex omnibus regni provinciis ad urbem Londinensem confluxus liberum et exactum iurisdictionis ecclesiasticae usum in locis ubi alias exercendo erat, identidem haud permittant, necessarium duximus virum aliquem idoneum et nobis probatum designare, cui causarum omnium ad forum nostrum ecclesiasticum spectantium cognitionem a quibuscunque Catholicis in quacunque Angliae et Walliae provincia degentibus ad ipsum perlatarum pro eorundem Catholicorum levamine committeremus.

63 Quapropter… te in Commissarium et Officialem nostrum Generalem cum potestate et authoritate canonica iure communi vel ecclesiastica consuetudine dicto officio, vel officio Vicarii Generalis competente, super personas fidem Catholicam profitentes, tam ecclesiasticas quam laicas [Marginal insertion in Smith’s hand: exceptis personis Vicariorum nostrorum Generalium] in omnibus et singulis Angliae ac Walliae provinciis eligendum deputandum et constituendum curavimus… quamdiu Londini domicilium habueris ibique resederis… Concedentes tibi plenam et liberam potestatem dispensandi et commutandi vota et iuramenta in omnibus casibus nobis permissis, causas omnes ad officium episcopale spectantes et pertinentes cognoscendi et decidendi exceptis illis quae ad cognitionem alicuius e Vicariis nostris Generalibus in suis districtibus de facto perductae aut de caetero perductae fuerint, praecepta faciendi, excommunicandi, suspendendi, interdicendi, caeteraque omnia quae sunt Episcopalis iurisdictionis exercendi et terminandi, et omnia alia et singula faciendi et committendi, etiamsi talia essent quae mandatum exigerent speciale, et maiora et graviora expressis, prout ad officium Commissarii vel Vicarii noscitur quomodolibet pertinere.

64 For an account of this phase of the conflict, see Thomas Hughes, op. cit., note 1, above.

65 The edition in English is A&R 248. There is a copy of the Latin at the British Library (shelfmark: 860.i.25).

66 A contemporary MS. copy of the Latin is at A.A.W. A.24, no. 98. There is also an English translation in contemporary MS. at A.A.W. A.24, no. 100. The Latin text is printed in the Manifestatio of 1631 (see above p. 135), where it is accompanied by the attestation of Southcote and Farrar. The Manifestatio also prints an attestation by the secular priest William Shelley to the effect that a French version was shown to the French Ambassador on 23 May (misprinted: 3 May). The Latin is reprinted in C. Duplessis d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum (1728, etc.), vol. 2, pt 2, p. 34.

67 Southcote, in London, to Smith’s Agent in Paris, the secular priest Peter Fitton, 14 June 1631: ‘This morning 21 [presumably the code for Farrar] and I went to the French Ambassador to desire him to give his attestation to counterpoise that of Don Carlos, which he hath promised to do against Wednesday next (this being Monday), but he is not willing to do it in that form which we delivered unto him, because he conceives it not to be altogether agreeable to the truth, though in effect it be very true so that by this post we hope to send it you that you may print it with the rest according to such directions as we sent you the last week’. A.A.W. A.24, no. 109. Unsigned but in Southcote’s hand. Unfortunately, the directions referred to in the last line do not appear to have survived.

68 The date is given in the Général désadveu. See note 69.

69 The only copy of the printed Général désadveu known to the present writer is at A.A.W. A.24, no. 99. For its being printed at Paris under Fitton’s direction, see notes 67 and 71. Reprinted in Annales de la Société des soidisans Jésuites (1764, etc.) tom. 3, pp. 425-7.

70 For this part of the story see Thomas Hughes, op. cit., note 1, Text vol. 1, pp. 208-11, and Documents vol. 1, pp. 7-10. Hughes prints a letter of Baltimore to Lord Petre dated 8 August 1631, describing the attempts of Lord Somerset and himself to obtain satisfaction from Fontenay. A copy of the original letter is at A.R.S.J. Anglia 33 I 289; microfilm at A.P.S.J., film 48.

71 See Appendix to this article: ‘Three Anonymous Printed Tracts by Smith’.

72 Summarised by Philip Hughes (op. cit., note 1, pp. 395-6) from a document in A.P. Anglia 347.

73 The Latin text does not appear to have been printed at the time when the brief was issued, but a contemporary English translation, made by an unnamed Benedictine, was printed at Douai in 1631 and circulated as a pamphlet: it is A&R 833. Dodd reprints this, vol. 3, pp. 158-60. A long excerpt of the Latin text was printed in Henry More’s history of the English Jesuit Province, Historia Provinciae Anglicanae (1600), pp. 457-9.

74 For the circumstances of Smith’s resignation and its acceptance, see Smith’s letter to the Pope of 30 May 1632 (O.B.A. vol. 1, no. 128), in which he refers to his resignation of a few months previously which the Pope had accepted but expresses willingness to return to England if the Pope wishes it. Smith’s own words in this letter disprove Philip Hughes’s contention (op. cit., note 1, pp. 389-90) that Smith never resigned.

75 See Philip Hughes, op. cit., note 1, p. 383.

76 See Thomas Hughes, op. cit., note 1, pp. 212, et seq.

77 There are many documents concerning this among the papers of the secular clergy for 1631-32 (A.A.W. A.26). Panzani incorporated the allegations in his report to Rome a year or two later.

A correction has been issued for this article:

Erratum