become a dead letter. He wrote to Garnett in the August: "As for the clause 450, 39, etc. etc., it must stand for the present; otherwise there could be no peace; after, when inconveniences are proved, they may be represented by means of 266, who with help of 255 may procure sufficient remedy." 1 And how was the affair meanwhile received in England? The Government was kept informed by two sources of the progress of the appeal. Bagshawe in Paris was the main

informant of Bancroft; but Cecil, through Phelippes, had his reports from the Jesuit side. There are a whole series of these from Rome in the State Paper Office; and while giving full accounts very favourable to the side of the Archpriest and Jesuits, the writer is anonymous. But time reveals all things. Parsons, who was charging against the envoys their dealings with the heretical government, was the real author of these reports to Cecil. A rough copy of the report of 25th May 16022 in the handwriting of Robert Parsons is preserved, so says Foley, in the Stonyhurst Archives.

In the correspondence between Fr. Rivers, the Socius to Garnett, and Parsons, given by Foley, we can catch a glimpse of the feeling among the party in England as the cause went on.

"Their associates here make report of their very honourable entertainment by the French ambassador and others, and how Mark [Parsons] would not be seen for many days after, pretending that he was busied in some serious exercise; with that and like untruths they seek to put heart into their confederates, as though all were like to pass current for them" (30th March 1602),5

Again: "I was right glad as well to understand of your good health; as also to hear how the appellants proceeded in their business, of which subject you gave full relation; for moderator in all controversies in England, that the Archpriest might ask his counsel in government" (The Archpriest Controversy, ii. pp. 19–22).

1 The Archpriest Controversy, ii. p. 25. Mush adds: "We hear that Parsons and his bragged that the Pope had kept us so many months, and now in the end had granted us nothing to the purpose. That, poor men, we durst not return into England, for we should be little welcomed to the Q. and Council, seeing we could not procure them peace, as they expected we should. And we failing, she should be fain to seek it at their hands that could bring it to pass, meaning his and his Jesuits" (Ibid. p. 26). 2 S. P. O. Dom. Eliz. vol. 284, No. 25. Records, i. p. xiii. • Ibid. vol. i. 5P. 5.

which I heartily thank you, and it will be for good purpose for the satisfying of others who were before made believe by their associates that they had found very favourable audience, with many assurances of very good success in their designs; all of which we now perceive how assonant they are to former courses, hitherunto prosecuted by ignominious slanderers and most untrue reports" (7th April 1602).1

"The appellants' associates here exult exceedingly, and give out confidently that the [? Pope] hath defined them to have incurred no schism nor committed any sin, and that he hath [? rejected] all the accusations tendered by Fr. Parsons and the procurators against them as frivolous and untrue, and will have no more speech thereof" (20th May 1602).2

"I had now from your factor Nicholas [Smith] a letter . . . wherein he insinuateth that Clement is indulgent. I pray God it be not ne quid nimis. The associates to the appellants exult ultra modum, and friends are much dejected to hear as yet of no better success; but sic ut quimus quando ut volumus non licet. I have seen their proposition for bishops, archpriests, assistants, syndics, et quid non? Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici ! We hope the event will be more consonant to their deserts" (2nd June 1602).3

And lastly: "The friends, on the contrary, are much dejected, and will be more so if the tide turn not the sooner' (30th June 1602).*

Garnett, the Superior in England, did not like the result of the appeal. He had very extensive faculties, which were a source of considerable influence, as before Blackwell's appointment he had been able to subdelegate them to such of the Clergy as he chose. But he was not allowed now to do this, as all faculties for the Clergy were to be given only by the Archpriest. In a letter to Parsons (June 1598) Garnett had already lamented this; "for," says he, "by this also have I lost the chiefest means I had to win the favour of good honest priests." Among the Clergy there was very little satisfaction. They felt themselves, so far, beaten. But English perseverance was to gain the day in the end. The contest was to last many years, and generation after generation was to carry it on.

1 P. 26.

2 P. 36.

3

3 Pp. 36, 37.

4 P. 4.

The

general opinion at this moment is caught by Bancroft, who writes to Cecil (28th December 1602): "The success of affairs from Rome is not acceptable to the appellants, so that there is likely to be another appeal from a Pope who is chaplain to the King of Spain to a Pope the true vicar of Christ." 1 1 S. P. O. Dom. Eliz. vol. 286, No. 17.

CHAPTER X

THE GUNPOWDER PLOT

We have now to consider some of the events concerned with the accession to the English Crown of James VI. of Scotland, and with the action of English Jesuits therein. I shall endeavour in this chapter, as far as possible, to disentangle the story from the extraordinary state of confusion which makes the documentary evidence of this period so perplexing. I have had to find my way through a labyrinth of downright falsehoods and deliberate contradictions on all sides. But I think I am able, at last, to treat the subject on lines which do not admit of any attempt at confusing a plain issue.

As far back as 24th September 1599, James had written to the Pope (Clement VIII.) to defend himself against the attacks and calumnies of "ill-willers who, by commemorating our injuries done to Catholics, procure envy to us and favour to themselves"; and, in order to have a defender in the Curid, he asked that the Scottish Bishop of Vazion should be made Cardinal. The letter is signed "Your Holiness's most dutiful son, J. R."1

The practical reply of the Pope, who was then under Spanish influence, was to send two Breves to the English Catholics and to the Clergy. They are dated 5th July 1600. The laity are ordered to join no party, nor to give their support to any claimant who is manifestly alien from the Catholic faith, or has fallen under suspicion of heresy. "For," says the Pope, "there can be no fellowship between light and darkness, nor peace between Catholics and heretics; whilst these adhere to their impiety and errors, they can have no part with you. We, in fitting time and place, will aid you with God in every way as far as we can."

1 Rushworth, Historical Collections, i. p. 162.

"2

2 Tierney, iv. pp. cvi-cviii.