Institute of Historical Research



M. S. Giuseppi (editor)

Year published





Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'Introduction', Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House, Volume 17: 1605 (1938), pp. V-XLIV. URL: Date accessed: 20 April 2014. Add to my bookshelf


(Min 3 characters)


With the exception of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot towards the end of the year 1605 and the events arising out of it little of striking domestic interest is dealt with in the papers calendared in the present volume which describes the manuscripts at Hatfield for the whole of that year. Parliament was prorogued on February 7 (p. 52) and did not meet again until November 5 when the Plot would appear to have driven all other matters out of the minds of its members. For the time being, therefore, we hear little or nothing further here of the differences which were noted in the preceding volume as beginning to arise between the King and the Commons.

On the other hand there is much of interest in the papers before us concerning the relations of this country with its immediate neighbours on the continent. Although the war in the Netherlands was of secondary importance in comparison with the military events of the preceding years the difficulties of England after the conclusion of the treaties with Spain and the Archdukes in 1604 in maintaining an attitude of neutrality between her new friends and their foes of the Dutch Republic, her allies of so long standing, were great indeed and are exemplified in a number of incidents which will be dealt with later in this Introduction.

Following the practice adopted in the more recent volumes of this Calendar the principal subjects of interest to be found in the present one will here be briefly indicated under a series of headings.

The King and the Royal Family. A considerable part of the year was again spent by James away from London and every opportunity was apparently seized by him to indulge his passion for the chase. His itinerary may generally be traced in the various accounts already printed by Nichols in his Progresses of James I. So far as the papers contained in the present volume are concerned they show that on 14 January he was already on his travels for on that day he left some place not stated, where on account of the foulness of the weather he had had very little pleasure, for Huntingdon (p. 14) and appears to have remained in that town or at Hinchinbrook close by until 26 January. A letter from him written from the latter place to Cranborne deals chiefly with questions of trade which had arisen between England and France (pp. 29, 30), but apart from his sports his principal preoccupation during this period was with the enforcement of uniformity in the ceremonies of the Church and the troubles caused by the Puritans, matters which will be considered later.

"What with a prophet and a conjuring priest as is supposed" writes the Dean of the Chapel Royal, "and a multitude of Puritans his Majesty hath had little rest since his coming from London" (pp. 28, 29). He returned to Whitehall probably at the beginning of February and on the 11th is said to have assisted the Lords of the Council (p. 52) but was expected to leave for Royston about Friday, the 15th (p. 53). Actually he seems to have gone there on 20 February (fn. 1) and was certainly there on the following day (p. 63). He remained there until the 25th, paying at least one visit to Ware (p. 65), and on the 26th he arrived at Newmarket (p. 72). His visit there was apparently of short duration for on the following day, writes the Earl of Worcester, he was to go to Thetford

where he longeth to be by reason he is borne in hand it is a fair country and plentiful of game. If it prove true we shall stay the longer, for I never came in a worse town than this (p. 72).

At any rate by 1 March he was at Thetford (p. 78) and, although Sir Thomas Lake writes "I do not perceive that his Majesty is in love with this place or like to make many journeys hither" (p. 90), he remained there until the 12th when he was back again at Newmarket (p. 94) intending to be at Greenwich by the 16th or 18th at the furthest (p. 95). He was still at Newmarket on the 14th (p. 98) but by the 16th had arrived at Royston (p. 100). He probably left that place on that day or the day after as on the 19th Lord Zouche understood that he had returned to town (p. 102). Thence until the middle of July he appears to have remained in the neighbourhood of London, mostly at Greenwich where the Princess Mary was born on 8 April. (fn. 2) We hear of a visit in the company of the Duke of Holstein on 13 May to Richmond which he appears to have reached by water, but walking from Kew to Richmond by the Park (p. 202). On 3 June he visited the Tower of London (p. 241), on 8 June he was at Windsor (p. 244), and on the 27th at Richmond again (pp. 280, 281), whence he went to Oatlands (p. 286) where he killed a great stag and stayed until 2 July (p. 297). On the next day he was on his way to Windsor again, hunting by the way (p. 300).

From Nichols we know that from 16 July to the end of August the King and Queen made a progress of which the principal objective was their reception at Oxford on 27 August. During it they were entertained at Theobalds by Salisbury who accompanied them for the most part if not the whole of the progress, for there is evidence in these papers that he was with the Court at Grafton on 20 August (p. 380). at Woodstock on the 26th (p. 395), and probably at Oxford on the 30th (p. 404). The King was at Windsor in the early part of September and on the 8th of that month the King of Denmark was by his proxy Henricus Ramelius installed there as a knight of the Garter. Salisbury refers to the visit of Ramelius and to the performance of the ceremony in two undated letters (pp. 409, 440).

On 4 October James was again at Royston intending to remove on the 7th to Huntingdon (p. 446). He was at Hinchinbrook on the 10th (p. 451). at Royston again on the 25th and 28th (pp. 467, 470). and at Ware on the 30th (p. 471), presumably on his return to London in readiness for the opening of Parliament on 5 November. According to Nichols, (fn. 3) who gives no authority, the King was at Royston and Hinchinbrook at the end of November and during part of December. However this be he was from the papers before us certainly at Hampton Court on 27 November (p. 516) and a letter from him to the Archduke Albert is dated on 2 December from Westminster Palace (p. 538).

There was during the year a scheme for building the King a house upon the ruins of Ampthill, sufficient for his enjoyment of the pleasures of hunting and hawking but with accommodation also for the Queen and Prince and with convenient rooms for such of the officers of state and privy councillors as might be required to attend upon him. The letter from the Lord Treasurer of 3 August to the officers of the Works ordering the place to be surveyed and plans prepared will be found on pp. 349, 350. But the idea does not appear to have been carried out.

Of James's own attitude towards his councillors and his views on the matter of government there is some evidence here in his letters of which some fourteen will be found in this volume. Eight of these are addressed to his principal secretary, five of them being written in that more personal vein to which we have been already accustomed. Free for the time from the cares caused by Parliament he is more concerned with the conduct of the nation's affairs by his Council, with whose proceedings anent the puritans he expresses himself in February as wonderfully well satisfied. "There is not a King in the world," he writes, "so proud of his Council as I am of mine" (p. 75).

The Council on its part was anxious to carry out his wishes in the matter of the enforcement of uniformity in religious worship with the least possible disturbance to his recreation.

When we consider how short time your Majesty hath of abode there for your necessary recreation and how intentive your mind is to the course of affairs here, we cannot but be extremely sorry that you have cause to rob yourself of your own ease by diverting your thoughts to those troublesome occasions: and much more that you should lose one minute of your recreation, serving for your health, by taking the pains to write any line of acceptance or thanks unto us, who wish ourselves subject to all pains and travails of body and mind, even to pass per saxa, per ignes, if thereby our service may yield your Majesty the more opportunity of recreation abroad (pp. 123, 124).

Salisbury writing in May to Lord Fyvie is satisfied that the King by his wise and just proceeding multiplies the affections of his people (p. 201) and shortly afterwards writing to another Scottish peer (Dunbar) with reference to James's moderation in dealing with the grievances of the Commons says:

I assure you without flattery that the King has so failed between both extremes, either of using too much authority or suffering too little respect to be used towards him, as I think whatsoever has been effected (and more was never effected in any of our Parliaments) may be in effect wholly attributed to his excellent temper and great judgment. We are now therefore like to spend this summer in less occupations of this nature (p. 223).

The question of the increasing expenses of the royal household was engaging attention and a fairly drastic list of economies recommended was drawn up by the Privy Council (pp. 463, 464).

There is little in this volume about the Queen and the other members of the royal family. The birth in April of the Princess Mary is only incidentally mentioned. Cobham uses the event as another pretext for claiming the King's clemency (p. 135). A visit to this country was paid during the year by the Queen's brother, the Duke of Holstein, and there are occasional references to his entertainment and to the pension which he obtained from James (p. 226). A sign manual letter from the Queen to Salisbury recommends for favour one Paulo Lardo, a Venetian, who is petitioning to be allowed to promote one or more lotteries (p. 338), a subject which will be referred to later. Questions regarding the functions of the officers of her Council and her jointure still remained to be settled (p. 570).

In this year Prince Henry was released from the guardianship of the Earl of Mar who received his discharge with the King's acknowledgment of the great care he had shown for the Prince's virtuous education (p. 571). There is a bill for the books supplied to the latter from November 1604 to the end of the year 1605 (p. 565). In August he was reported to be in very good health, though his tutor was of opinion that too much hunting might do him great hurt (p. 364). In October he appears to have been at Richmond where it was thought that he might have been exposed to infection from smallpox. The Prince, although suffering from hoarseness, refused to be alarmed. "He makes no account if he should have them and says, better now than when he should be elder" (p. 174).

Of Prince Charles, now Duke of York, we hear still less. There is a letter from the Attorney General regarding his patent of creation (p. 4) and an assurance from Salisbury in May of his perfect health (p. 201). Of the Lady Elizabeth we hear little more than that her presence was required at Greenwich, probably in February, to meet her uncle, the Duke of Holstein (p. 77).

Home Affairs. As already stated Parliament did not sit for the greater part of the year. It was prorogued on 7 February until 3 October (p. 52), but some time before the latter date Salisbury imparted through Sir Michael Hicks to Lord Chancellor Ellesmere reasons for its still further prorogation. Ellesmere concurred in the desirability of this if the predominant Exchequer argument of empty coffers could be answered and wrote on 30 July (p. 340) to suggest the 5th or 7th of November, but on 1 August he received the King's bill appointing 3 November for the re-assembly (p. 345). That day, however, he pointed out was a Sunday, which was not a dies juridicus and so could not serve for the beginning of a session. The following day, Monday, was appointed by ancient statute for the judges to sit in the Exchequer to name the sheriffs. He therefore adhered to his former suggestion of 5 or 7 November (the 6th being a Star Chamber day) and as we know the former of the two dates was ultimately adopted.

In the temporary suspension of the conflict between the King and the Commons the chief question, as appears from these papers, in matters of domestic polities other than those of religion was the constitutional right of the Crown to levy certain duties without the consent of Parliament. This question centred mainly in the legality of the imposition upon currants which had been enforced by the Council in the previous year and was to be settled in the following year, 1606, by the celebrated judgment in Bate's case. So urgent were the Levant merchants, who were especially affected by the tax, as to its injustice that, presuming perhaps upon the reply of the Council to their remonstrances that its discharge was in the power of the King alone, they insisted on following him to Huntingdon in January and there forcing themselves upon his presence, an intrusion much resented by James when he was at his sports and away from those who had before his departure and after much deliberation advised him in the matter (pp. 16, 17). Nothing further is heard here on this subject beyond a letter from two of the merchants to Salisbury by which it appears that they had already paid the impost on some of their currants but desired that certain persons should be appointed to view others of the currants which were thought to be in too bad a condition to be saleable (p. 208).

There are again a few references to the issue of privy seals for loans (pp. 37, 257), the most important being a detailed return from the Lord Lieutenant of those who excused themselves for non-payment in the county of Surrey (pp. 405, 406).

But by far the chief interest in these papers so far as domestic affairs are concerned lies in the efforts of James and his Council to enforce that uniformity in religious worship which had been desired at the Hampton Court Conference. This resulted in the increased severity of the measures against the nonconforming clergy and the puritans on the one hand and the papists and Roman Catholic recusants on the other, the latter culminating in the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot.

The nonconforming clergy would seem to have been most numerous and active about the diocese of Peterborough and in the counties of Lancaster, Leicester and Lincoln. Cranborne's reply (pp. 165, 166) to the gentlemen of Leicestershire who had petitioned him on 7 January (pp. 7, 8) to mediate with the King not to take away from them the spiritual comforts they had long enjoyed by the godly labours of their ministers nor to cause these ministers the distress that deprivation of their livings would bring about no doubt expresses his own views on the need for the perpetual peace of the Church of insisting upon uniformity, and has been quoted at some length by Gardiner. (fn. 4) Cranborne making light of the scruples of the nonconforming ministers in matters of ceremony begged his petitioners on his part

that you (foreseeing the dishonour and danger like to ensue by these separations of ourselves one from another in matters of this nature, concurring otherwise in all main points of faith and doctrine) would so interpose your private authorities over these poor men (who are easily carried by your breath in things indifferent) as they may not be found ready to strain the gnat and swallow the camel, nor wilfully to stop their own mouths from instructing those of whom they profess to take so great care, but rather to conform themselves to the ordinances of the Church, to which they owe obedience, seeing we so fully agree in one true substance of faith and religion, and ought all to strive in a brotherly course to maintain the bonds of unity and conformity, for the advancement of God's glory and furtherance of our own salvation.

Feeling, however, was stronger in the matter than Cranborne was ready to admit and the objectors had powerful allies to press their claims. The Bishop of Lincoln thought it full time that some strict course be used against them and quotes the bold words used by one of them, Cooke, late of Louth, who "makes small account of your [Cranborne's] proceeding, as not in his case his competent judge, and that he has appealed from you accordingly."

Whereupon, as he says, he looks hourly for an inhibition to be served upon you, and he hopes that there will be such a curb put into the jaws of your lordship and my Lord of Peterborough for these proceedings against him and others, as upon the same shame will ensue to you both (p. 34).

The Bishop understood that many knights of Lincolnshire had set their hands to a petition to the King wherein they justified the denial of those ministers to conform and condemned most of the ministers in the county. In a later letter the Bishop expresses the grief to him, as to others of his brethren, to see men of great learning, pains and fruit breed such a grievous schism in the Church for matters of ceremony, wherein is reposed no substance of religion or godliness other than decency, order and obedience, and was fully persuaded that the most part of them would not remain so obstinate were they not encouraged by their favourers. It was a greater grief to remove them from their livings, whereby their wives and children who had given no cause of offence, neither were able to shift for themselves, should be distressed (p. 133).

Similarly the Bishop of Peterborough had done all in his power to win over the recalcitrant ministers by disputations both privately and publicly. When nothing would prevail "in the anguish of my soul" he had suspended nine or ten and deprived one only, praying them to demand time for further conference that he might conceive some hope of their submission. They, however, continued obdurate and said they had as lief be deprived at first as at the last. Whereupon he had deprived fourteen more, of whom ten were amongst those he had previously suspended (p. 46). There was a difficulty in filling their places as they had all appealed from his sentence and pending their appeal they must take care of their own cures themselves. But he had written to the preachers of his diocese who dwelt conveniently near to the vacant benefices to minister to the comfort of the people there, and this had been well performed save at Northampton where the minister had locked up the pulpit door and would suffer no one to preach. He hoped that upon the failure of the ministers' appeal the patrons of the churches would supply men of good conformity (p. 59).

Other instances of influence used in high places on behalf of suspended ministers may be cited in the letter of Sir Thomas Posthumus Hoby in favour of Mr. Egerton of the Blackfriars in London (p. 38) and that of Sir Richard Holland to the Council in support of a petition for the mitigation of the penal laws against the nonconforming clergy which had been subscribed by him and other knights and gentlemen of Lancashire (pp. 56, 57).

Of individual instances of nonconformity in the Church of which a good deal is heard in this volume may be singled out the case of Bywater and Pickering and the alleged outrages committed in the church of Enborne, Berks. Thomas Bywater an unbeneficed clergyman, who had been sometime tutor to Lord Sheffield's children (p. 108) and also chaplain to Lord Hunsdon (p. 83), presented to the King when he was at Ware in February a book in which according to Montague, the Dean of the Chapel Royal, "he spares neither King, Councillor nor Court but teaches the King in every point his duty" (p. 65). Bywater whilst confessing that he had written the book accused Lewis Pickering of being the real author and that he had written merely at his dictation (p. 35). Both were committed to prison and examined by the Attorney General Coke who found Bywater "utterly unlearned" (p. 107) and so far as Pickering was concerned was "now persuaded that some Puritan minister made this libel" and that it "came never out of his quiver for he is no scholar" (p. 114). Bywater would seem to have been kept in custody at all events until October when he was in the Clink (p. 459), having been previously in the Tower (p. 213). Pickering, who at one time was in the Fleet prison (p. 271), appears to have been released by that month (pp. 469, 623) but not before he had attempted to involve Dean Montague in a charge of having said that the King did wickedly in silencing the ministers who refused conformity (p. 271), although he himself had been a special instrument in depriving them (p. 622), a charge for which some evidence was adduced in a declaration (now much mutilated) by Nathaniel Gilby, a minister in Bedford (pp. 595, 596).

In the Enborne case it appears that a commission had been given in January to Thomas Dolman, a justice of the peace of the county, to inquire concerning certain abuses suspected to have been committed in the church by Robert Brooke the parson by tearing and defacing the book of Common Prayer, the register book and the book of ecclesiastical canons recently published and Brooke was expected to be found guilty (p. 178), when in February he himself laid an information of these offences (p. 76) and obtained a new commission in which Dolman was indeed included but with others, amongst whom a Mr. Alexander Chocke (p. 73) was said to be a special friend of the parson, so that it seemed to the parishioners that Brooke was likely to go unblamed, especially as he was suspected of using extraordinary means with the Bishop of Salisbury (p. 178). We are left in doubt as to the final issue. There was evidently much hard swearing on both sides and we must agree with Dolman that one side or the other was most wilfully perjured (p. 195).

At the opposite pole to the puritans were the Roman Catholics of whose increasing numbers and power to become a danger to the country there are frequent complaints. They were alleged to be specially troublesome about Northumberland where they were protected by the high position and immunity enjoyed by that noted recusant Roger Woddrington (or Widdrington). Henry Sanderson was deputed by Lord Sheffield, the President of the Council of the North, to search out recusants and we have here letters written to him by the minister of Hexham (p. 112) and the Archdeacon of Durham (pp. 189, 190) in which a daily increase of superstition and idolatry and a growing boldness and insolence of the recusants in the district were attributed solely to the "great countenancing" of Woddrington. These and other complaints against the priests and recusants were duly communicated to Sheffield by Sanderson in a long letter (pp. 192–194) and in due course passed on to Salisbury by Sheffield (pp. 219, 220), who himself strongly urged the removal of Woddrington. Salisbury, however, was inclined to be cautious (pp. 293, 294). Perhaps Woddrington stood too high in the favour of the King to be easily dismissed from his offices. He had been recommended to James by the former Warden of the Marches. Sir Robert Carey, for his old affection to him, and the Secretary of Scotland when in England had procured him special favour. Something more than mere recusancy should be charged against him and the accusations should come from someone who was known to be less passionately affected against the papists than Sanderson. If such could be forthcoming or if Woddrington's letter to the Sheriff of Northumberland in which he was alleged to have warned him not to be too forward in the prosecution of recusants (p. 189) could be sent up good advantage might be taken to chasten him further than otherwise was possible.

Elsewhere in the northern counties there is evidence of much activity amongst the recusants. At the assizes at York in April about a thousand are reported to have been indicted and at Lancaster about 600, few or none of the better sort being omitted (pp. 143–145). The Bishop of Chester alludes to the many Jesuits and popish priests who were secretly harboured in Lancashire and urges that a commission should be issued to search out the stores of armour and warlike habiliments which had been collected by the recusants before and since the death of Elizabeth and bestow them safely in the chief towns in order to prevent any sudden attempt which might be contrived (pp. 320, 321).

Further south, in Herefordshire and in Wales and the Marches, the recusants were giving trouble. The Bishop of Hereford complains of the slackness of the local justices in dealing with them (p. 235). Many of these justices had wives and families who were themselves recusants and a recent commission of inquiry into recusants' lands had succeeded in producing only 2s. a year more for the King than had been obtained in the late reign, as the commissioners were men "of the most suspected note" and had impanelled a jury like themselves. There had been a riot in the town which the Bishop had reported to the Council and in a letter to Sir Everard Digby written in June and doubtless found amongst his effects after the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot (pp. 252–254) the writer (presumably a Roman Catholic himself) states that the King was no longer inclined to spare the blood of the recusants but was thought to be intending for the repressing of future attempts of this nature to make the rioters an example. Sir Charles Morgan, one of the suspected justices mentioned in the Bishop's letter, had left the shire the day after the riot for London and had there been committed to the Fleet prison for neglecting his place in a time of such disorder. The Earl of Worcester was sent down to the Marches to assist in the proceedings against the recusants and ordered general searches in all suspected houses for priests and obstinate recusants (pp. 304–306). A particular agent in the troubles was one Rice Griffiths or Williams who had been recommended to the Bishop as an abjured priest by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself (p. 361). The Bishop, however, had found him to be a spy acting for the papists, who presuming upon the Archbishop's countenance had succeeded in seducing them into an assurance of toleration for their religion. He had committed him but the judges acting upon letters from the Archbishop, who seems to have resented the Bishop's mistrust of his protegé and was disposed to belittle the nature of the riot (p. 389), had dismissed him upon bond to appear in the King's Bench in the following term. The Bishop, however, is supported in his action by Paul de la Hay, whose examination of the witnesses against Griffiths justified his proceedings which had been the means of bringing about the reformation of many in those parts who before relied on the priest's "false alarms of toleration in their popish error, so that since his apprehension of above 1000 recusants in this county the tenth part of them are now scarce left for the Pope, and most part of them women" (pp. 455, 456).

Further west, in Wales itself, the Bishop of St. Asaph complains of the "ungodly increase" of papists in his diocese, who within the last three years had become near thrice as many. In 1602 about 140 recusants had been presented, whilst in his own visitation there were about 400 (p. 374). As far south as Wells the Bishop of Bath and Wells writes of public disturbances and outrages committed in aid of the recusants in that city and their continuous offensive behaviour notwithstanding the measures which had been taken by the Lord Chief Justice (pp. 396, 397).

The steady influx of seminary priests from the continent into this country "to win souls" is mentioned by a customs officer at Poole in March of this year (p. 113). Information as to a regular traffic of priests and papists to and from Rochester or Sittingbourne and Calais carried on largely by one Henry Keene is forthcoming, probably soon after the discovery of the Plot (pp. 626. 627).

The Church and the Universities. No important changes in the episcopate are recorded this year. In the matter of the internal government of the Church requests to renew the commissions for Causes Ecclesiastical were sent at the beginning of the year from each of the provinces of Canterbury (p. 13) and York (p. 12). In the commission for the former it was especially requested that the names of Cranborne and Northampton should not be omitted (p. 31). A list of the former Commissioners of Appeal in Ecclesiastical Causes (the Court of Delegates) and of those suggested for a new commission probably belongs to the early part of this year (pp. 182, 183).

Of the two universities it is naturally of Cambridge that we hear the more. The Vice-Chancellor at the beginning of the year writes favourably to Cranborne of the gradual progress of his efforts to enforce conformity. Nevertheless there was resistance to his attempt to insist upon everyone called to preach in St. Mary's pulpit first subscribing the three articles which had been prescribed at the late Conference, many disliking to be so restrained, although as the Vice-Chancellor pointed out none had obtained licence to preach from the University before he had consented under his hand to the articles (p. 9). This successful result at Cambridge of his favourite policy was a matter of special satisfaction to James to whom it had been explained as due to Cranborne's own efforts as Chancellor of the University (p. 28). The King was approached to confirm the old immunities and privileges of the University, "in such a manner nevertheless that they may appear to be consenting to the natural disposition of a most clement King to grant them their just desire rather than to be declaring or demanding it themselves" (p. 14). Later in the year the University petitions the King that the regius professorship of theology should be, as had recently been granted at Oxford, royal in fact and condition as it was in origin and name (pp. 326, 327).

Other matters concerning the University are a complaint that certain new made knights resident in the town had of late taken upon themselves to oust the doctors from their seats in St. Mary's and at colleges and chapels next to the Vice-Chancellor (p. 137) and a complaint against the printers of London who were said to be surreptitiously attempting to infringe the rights of the University press to the sole printing of a certain dictionary (p. 462). There is a petition to the King from the Fellows of Pembroke Hall against a suspected attempt to force upon them as Master one not of their own choice (p. 577). Both the Earl of Salisbury, as he had now become, and his son Viscount Cranborne were admitted by grace to the degree of M.A. on 31 July "without performance of exercises," the latter acting as proxy to his father on the occasion (p. 343).

Of the University of Oxford we hear in January of a gift of books which Cranborne had made to the recently founded Bodleian library (p. 8), and there is a letter in November from the Warden and Fellows of All Souls regarding one Yeo who had been recommended for election as a probationer of the College by the King and Salisbury (pp. 480, 481). Yeo had not satisfied the injunction of the College that he should submit himself for examination by a certain date and other scholars had in fact been elected before the application for him had been received.

The Gunpowder Plot. The papers relating to this will doubtless be carefully perused for any light they may throw on those questions concerning the Plot which are still not universally admitted to have been solved. It is doubtful, however, whether those included in the present volume will prove of much help in this respect. There is little regarding the actual discovery of the Plot beyond the account given by Salisbury in his letter to Sir Thomas Edmondes on 9 November (p. 481). This, a copy of the original which is in the Stowe MSS. and with only such slight variations as the different offices of his correspondents demanded, is practically verbatim the same as Salisbury's letter to Sir Charles Cornwallis of the same date which is printed in extenso in Winwood's Memorials and has already been very fully dealt with by Gardiner in his What Gunpowder Plot was. The original draft of Thomas Winter's confession made on 23 (or 25) November (p. 509), wherein the story of the Plot from its inception until the deaths or capture of many of the leading conspirators at Holbeche on 8 November is very circumstantially narrated, was seen by Gardiner who printed in full in the said work (fn. 5) the final copy of it in the Public Record Office. The more material differences between the draft and the copy in Gardiner's work have been noted in this Calendar. Winter's further confession of 26 November (pp. 512, 513), in which he described the result of his mission to Spain at the end of Elizabeth's reign to urge the King of that country to send an invading force to England on behalf of the Catholics and the very different result which attended the similar mission of Christopher Wright on the accession of James, has been dealt with by the same writer in his History of England (I. 234). The examination of Catesby's servant, Thomas Bate, on 4 December (p. 540) is merely a rather inaccurate copy of the document in the Public Record Office.

The traditional history of the Plot has been so fully narrated by Gardiner in the two works above mentioned that it is unnecessary here to do more than call attention to such papers in this volume as may supply any additional details or tend to modify any opinions that have been previously formed. The copy of the letter from the Council to the Lord Mayor of London written immediately on the discovery of the Plot (pp. 177, 478) will show how anxious the King and government were that the enraged populace should not be led to acts of violence against the Spanish Ambassador. So far from his having been "touched with this horrible practice of Treason" he had applied for and obtained permission to be present at the opening of Parliament, so that he was "in the same condition and fortune as all the rest to have been destroyed."

With regard to the question of the delivery of the anonymous letter to Lord Monteagle and the action taken upon it we have only Salisbury's account in his letter to Edmondes of 9 November, which as we have seen is the same as that in his letter to Cornwallis printed long ago in Winwood's Memorials. The authorship of this is now generally attributed to Francis Tresham but we may note another suggestion made by Waad in a letter of 12 December (p. 550) that the author may have been Percy on the ground that his wife was owed a sum of 500l. by Monteagle. The fact that there was some bond between Percy and Monteagle is borne out by a remark of the latter, quoted by Salisbury in his letters to Cornwallis and Edmondes, at the time that Monteagle was accompanying the Lord Chamberlain on his tour of inspection of the Parliament house on 4 November, when he was informed that the piles of wood they found heaped up in the vault belonged to Percy "that there was great profession between Percy and him," a remark which induced the Lord Chamberlain to infer that the warning letter had come from a friend and decided him to proceed further in the search. It may be doubted, however, whether the relationship between Tresham and Monteagle was not a stronger tie, so that with what we know of the characters of the two men and the other evidence available we need not be too ready to deprive Tresham of the credit of the authorship of the letter.

As to the proceedings after the discovery of the Plot there is a good deal of correspondence from Sir Richard Walsh, the Sheriff of Worcestershire, and others relative to the deaths or capture of the conspirators at Holbeche which accords with what is already known. We may note the assertion of one John Streete (p. 531) that it was "his good fortune at two shots to slay three of the principal of them, viz. Percy, Catesby and Wright, and to hurt Rookwood sore beside" and his petition, in view of the King's promise of 1000l. and his estate for bringing in Percy alive, for the 1000l. or a pension. (fn. 6) Other letters relate to the closing of the ports against the escape of Percy and other suspected persons (pp. 484, 485) and there is a draft of the Council's order for their re-opening on 16 November, "the Plot being now thoroughly discovered and the principal offenders in the hands of his Majesty" (pp. 492, 493). There is much concerning the various persons who were arrested on suspicion of connexion with the Plot and of the evidence taken about them. Salisbury in his letter of 2 December to Edmondes (pp. 533–537) explains the reasons for the arrest and imprisonment in the Tower of the Roman Catholic peers; Montague, Mordaunt and Stourton, because Catesby had told his accomplices that he was sure they would be absent from the Parliament. As for the Earl of Northumberland, though it could not be cast upon him that he was absent, yet Percy's inwardness with him and his resort to him not twenty hours before the Plot should have been put in effect furnished sufficient presumption for his arrest. Nevertheless Salisbury believed that "Percy never durst acquaint a nobleman of his birth, alliance and disposition with so unnatural and savage a plot." Northumberland, however, was destined to remain a prisoner for many years. Dudley Carleton who had returned recently from the continent was kept a close prisoner for some days (p. 533), apparently on some suspicion of the nature of his errand to Spain (p. 530), but was afterwards allowed to remain in the custody of friends (pp. 550, 560). Whether there was any suggestion that Ralegh in the Tower was implicated in the Plot is doubtful but he thought it at all events necessary to write to disclaim all knowledge of it (p. 480). There is a list "whereof haply there may be some use made at this present" drawn up by Thomas Wilson of the Jesuits and their known haunts for some time back (pp. 500, 501). Some of the suspected lady relatives or friends of the conspirators were hardly dealt with. Lady Digby had met such ill usage at the hands of the Sheriff of Bucks that the Lord Chief Baron had to intervene for her redress and for the restoration to her of her personal possessions (pp. 538, 539), Lady Lovell (pp. 613, 614) and Mrs. Vaux (p. 645) were other sufferers.

Fawkes's examinations had early involved Hugh Owen who was then resident in Brussels as one who had been cognisant of the conspiracy and in his letter of 10 November (p. 482) Salisbury requests Edmondes to procure his custody from the Archdukes. Edmondes was able to report on the 19th that he had procured the committal of Owen and also of Bailey his secretary to the prison of the town, although Owen was specially supported by the Secretary Mansciscidor who had succeeded in procuring some liberty for him (p. 497). In a further letter he suggests that Sir Edmund Baynham who had been much favoured by Owen might also have been privy to the conspiracy (p. 499). The imprisonment of Owen who had been for nearly forty years in the service of the King of Spain in Flanders caused much discontent in Brussels, where many attempts were made to free the Catholics from the scandal of the Plot (p. 508). It was said by some to be a device of the Puritans against the Catholics and others would even have associated the Huguenots and the Dutch with the discontented Puritans in England in a common practice to reduce the State to a Commonwealth. In any case it could not be denied that the King of England would be justified by it in severer measures against the Catholics.

On 2 December Salisbury has occasion to write to Edmondes that the priest Baldwin was also privy to the Plot and that the Archdukes should be asked to send both him and Owen to England. As for Sir William Stanley he was more than suspect and the Archdukes might be requested to keep a watch on him, although until further evidence was forthcoming his actual arrest need not be required (p. 534). In a letter of the same date to the Archduke Albert James writes of the part played in the conspiracy by those "gens de mesme farine" Owen and Baldwin (p. 537). On 20 December Edmondes had to write of the difficulties with which he was meeting in obtaining the delivery of Baldwin and Owen, Baldwin because being a religious the orders of the Church restrained the Archdukes from dealing with him and Owen because he was a servant of the King of Spain, from whom direction must first be received (pp. 556, 557). The Archdukes would, however, take order for assuring the persons of Baldwin and Stanley and Bailey would be continued in restraint until further news about him came from England. Sir George Carew in his letter of 31 December from Paris reports that he was informed by Henry IV that Baldwin had been sent away into Spain and that Owen would not be delivered (pp. 563, 564). An undated letter in this volume (p. 611) refers to Owen having also got away into Spain. It is clear from Edmondes's letters that he was still in Brussels at the end of the year, so that if he did eventually succeed in getting away from there the date of this letter must be subsequent to the year 1605.

There remains the question how far Salisbury may have known of the Plot prior to the receipt of the letter to Monteagle or whether, as has even been suggested, he did not actually concoct the details of it for his own purposes. So far as the papers in this volume are concerned there is nothing in them to give any support to either of these theories. The letter of 10 December from Thomas Coe (pp. 549, 550) which was printed by Lodge was thought by him to show that Salisbury had received some earlier information and was adduced by Father Gerard in support of that view. (fn. 7) But as Gardiner points out (fn. 8) no previous letters of Coe exist amongst the State Papers (or indeed in the Hatfield MSS.) nor is there any record of any favour he may have received from the Crown for his intelligence. In any case it is obvious from his letter that whatever "primary intelligence of these late treasons" he may have had was communicated in so enigmatical a manner that Salisbury may well have believed his letters "were written by the sudden motive of a distracted brain" and declined to take action upon them. There seems indeed no reason to doubt the sincerity of Salisbury's excuse in his letters of 9 November to Cornwallis and Edmondes for not being as forward as the Lord Chamberlain in taking action upon the letter to Monteagle, "not but that I had sufficient advertisement that most of those that are now fled (being all notorious recusants) with many other of that kind had a practice in hand for some stir this Parliament: but I never dreamed it should have been in such nature, because I never read nor heard the like in any state to be attempted in gross by any conspiration without some distinction of persons." (fn. 9) As to Salisbury's invention of the Plot there is not a hint in any of the letters here from the various Roman Catholics who write to express their detestation of it that they did not believe it to have originated from some of the more hot-headed and less scrupulous of their number. The letter of the Archpriest Blackwell of 28 November to the English Catholics (pp. 518, 519) fully expresses this view. Naturally, and perhaps with reason, Salisbury was suspected of taking full advantage of the strong feeling aroused by the discovery of the Plot against the Roman Catholics to press on the enforcement of the penal statutes against them. He is so accused of doing in the anonymous and threatening letter which was thrown into his court on 4 December (p. 540).

Scotland, Ireland and Wales. There is little concerning these three countries. In April the Earl of Dunfermline reports that he had never known Scotland as calm and quiet within the last twenty-nine years though he speaks of rumours of discontent amongst the Puritans (p. 149). Later in the year (September) Salisbury writes to the Duke of Holstein that despite certain "bruits" all was as quiet in the realm of Scotland as in the city of London, although he too refers to some trouble likely to arise from the King's attempt "to adorn the Church there with episcopal authority, as here it is and must be in all monarchies," but belittles it as the work of "some dozen or twenty of the rash puritan ministry," who sought "to become famous by this singularity" (p. 439). There is a letter to James from the Council on 14 November on his happy delivery from the abominable conspiracy signed by thirty of the councillors (pp. 486–489).

The greater part of the correspondence with regard to Scottish affairs concerns the Borders and comes from the English commissioners. Hopes were running high that with the union of the crowns on one head this age-long trouble would now be soon settled for ever. Sir Wilfrid Lawson, one of the English commissioners, writing in April and commending the impartiality of the Scottish commissioners says "there is no doubt but in short time the people here, formerly inured to all kind of vice will be brought to know God and yield due obedience to the King and his laws" (p. 151). Sir William Selby in August understood that masterful theft and murder were well banished out of the Border shires on the English side and doubted not but before a year those shires might as well be governed by the ordinary service of justices of the peace as the rest of England (p. 382). Captain Bowyer at Berwick, "being these two years the only instrument of curbing this disordered people." in an undated letter probably of this year knows there is no need of one quarter of the forces retained in the Borders (p. 574). The chief means advocated for securing final tranquillity was the expatriation of such turbulent and lawless families as the Grahams. Sir William Selby, another English commissioner, writes on 11 April that the Privy Council had left to the commissioners the nomination of such of the Grahams as should be sent into Ireland but had inclined to the sending away of householders, "for their houses were the receptacles of the rest."

That course carries with it great difficulties. Their number will be great, 700 persons at least, which will require much shipping for transportation, a large territory to inhabit in furnished with houses, and if they be not of ability themselves many oxen and horses for tillage, great quantity of corn to sow, and a chargeable maintenance till the earth yield her increase. This will be a matter of great expense to his Majesty, which your lordships sought diligently to avoid: and the King cannot with his honour expose them on the Irish coast without means to live, if they want of their own (p. 132).

He himself advised as a matter of small charge to the King and he thought not much less serviceable for the peace of the country to send away 150 of the ablest young men to be divided among the garrisons of Ireland with order not to return. In June it was decided to send away 150 Grahams, 100 to Flushing and 50 to the Briel. On the 28th 85 of the 150 had been secured, of whom the commissioners sent 50 to Newcastle for the Briel (p. 289). On 6 July there is a list of 72 of the family sent to Flushing (p. 308). There is an undated petition (probably of the same month) of the 50 Grahams who were now employed in the King's service at the Briel, in which they joyfully accept the service but beg for mercy on their distressed wives and orphans (pp. 343, 344). On 3 August Sir William Waad announces the receipt of a letter from Sir Edward Conway at the Briel certifying the delivery of the 50 Grahams who had been placed in the garrison there (pp. 350, 351).

Several letters will be found from the Border commissioners reporting their proceedings at various times at Carlisle (pp. 191, 289, 309), at Berwick in June (pp. 237–239), and at a joint convention at Hawick in August and September (pp. 400, 410). The only reference we have here to the old family feuds by which the peace of the Borders had been for so long disturbed is an account of a raid committed by Sir John Kerr (or Carr) on the lands of Sir Ralph Gray (pp. 168, 169). On 25 July both Gray and Kerr appeared before the Council in Scotland and Kerr was committed to Edinburgh Castle for four days for contempt and bonds taken of him not to molest Gray's possession (p. 394).

Of Ireland and Wales there is little to which attention need be called here. The Chief Justice of Munster complains of the pluralism in the Church in the province and of the great lack of godly ministers and preachers "to reclaim the people from their inbred idolatry and superstition." He recommends the appointment of a commission to inquire into the bishoprics, spiritual dignities and benefices in the province (pp. 154, 155). A new establishment was sent in April into Ireland by which the army was to be reduced, the King being induced thereto "out of the confidence of the good disposition of those people to his obedience and the inclination they show to live under justice" (p. 159). The Earl of Thomond writes in August that there is no news in the kingdom worth the advertising (p. 406). A writer in London, however, hints that the show of obedience was enforced through want of means; but the consultations of the Irish were secret and their executions sudden, "which I never saw prevented till the act was performed" (p. 542).

There are several instances of Irish soldiers enlisted for service with the Archdukes landing in England for one reason or another on their way to the Netherlands. At the end of June 166 such soldiers under Captain Boyes had been forced to land at Ilfracombe and for want of victuals were threatening to commit outrages there (pp. 278, 279). In October Waad reports that numbers of Irish soldiers under Captain De la Hide had halted for some time on the north side of Tower Hill and were causing trouble by their demonstrations on behalf of the titular Earl of Desmond then a prisoner in the Tower (pp. 448, 449). Other Irish troops enlisted by Captain Darcy were at the same time held up at Dunstable on their journey across England (p. 454). Apparently there was a hitch in the arrangements for their transport to the Netherlands which the Spanish Ambassador was expected to provide. If he or Darcy failed to do so it was suggested by the Earl of Devonshire that order should be given for their transportation back to Ireland (p. 468).

In the Marches of Wales the Earl of Worcester received a commission to assist and relieve the infirm Lord Zouche in his duties as President of the Council there (p. 308). Of the Earl's activities in the matter of the religious troubles in those parts some account has been given above. There are letters between Zouche and Salisbury relative to a conflict of jurisdiction between the Auditor of the Exchequer and the Auditor of the Council of the Marches (pp. 351–354 passim).

Of Naval Matters the chief concern in these papers other than the transport from and to England of the various ambassadors was to ensure the neutrality of English seamen towards both parties in the war in the Netherlands. To do this it was necessary to secure compliance with the proclamation which forbade English subjects to take service with any foreign prince at sea. Complaints were made by the Spanish Ambassador of mariners being suffered "to betake themselves to foreign service at sea and serving their own wickedness thereby in robberies of his Majesty's subjects and of the subjects of other princes with whom his Majesty is in good amity" (p. 243). A case occurred in which the captain of a Hollander which had put in at Plymouth was reported to have received into his ship certain English mariners with intention to spoil on the coast of Spain and direction was sent to the Mayor and Vice-Admiral there to report on the matter, with the result that the departure of the ship was stayed (pp. 211, 631). On the other hand, it could, as will be seen later, be urged against the Spaniards that they themselves had acted contrary to the spirit of the proclamation by engaging English ships for the transport of their soldiers to the Netherlands.

There is little or nothing with reference to Military Matters in England other than the questions which arose concerning the levying of Englishmen for service with either of the two armies in the Netherlands. These questions are dealt with below.

Foreign Relations. A large part of the present volume is concerned with the proceedings of Sir Thomas Edmondes, the English Ambassador Leger appointed to the Court of the Archdukes in the Spanish Netherlands. This information we owe to the existence amongst the Hatfield MSS. of the letter book kept by Edmondes and containing careful copies of his letters from the King and Salisbury and of his own to them from 3 May, 1605, to 9 August, 1609. Of the latter it should be stated that nearly all of the originals are in the State Papers at the Public Record Office but as there is little probability of their being calendared there in the near future it has been thought desirable to abstract them more fully in this calendar than would otherwise be necessary. The entry book does not belong to the manuscripts which were actually in the possession of the first Earl of Salisbury. It is bound in limp vellum and on the cover is a stamp of the arms of Lord Strangford, a shield of twelve quarters with his crest and supporters, and the signature "Strangford, 1824." A note on the verso of the fly-leaf states that the book was "bought at Brusselles, Deer. 2, 1824" and on the recto of the same leaf is a note by the third Marquess of Salisbury to the effect that it was given to him by Lady Strangford in 1876. It has been numbered Vol. 227 amongst the Hatfield MSS.

The conclusion in the previous year of the treaties with the King of Spain and the Archdukes necessitated the sending by James of Ambassadors extraordinary to their respective countries to secure the ratifications of those treaties. At the same time an Ambassador Leger was appointed to reside permanently in each country. On the Earl of Hertford, despite his plea of insufficiency through age for the service (pp. 5, 118), fell the choice of heading the embassy to ratify the treaty with the Archdukes. Others who were ordered to attend him and endeavoured to excuse themselves on various grounds were Sir Richard Spencer (p. 9), Sir Richard Giffard (p. 69), Sir Thomas Seymour (p. 73) and Lord Cromwell (p. 106). Hertford embarked at Dover on 19 April and landed at Dunkirk on the following day (p. 150), Sir Thomas Edmondes as Ambassador Leger accompanying him on another ship (p. 146). From the account of Lord Say and Sele who was with the party it appears the crossing was not without incident, the ships inviting the attention of some of the Dutch ships which were in the Channel. However, after some parley between the ships of the two nations the matter was settled amicably enough and the landing at Dunkirk safely effected (pp. 146–148). On 3 May Hertford writes to Cranborne a short but enthusiastic account of his reception at the Archdukes' Court and of the taking of their oaths (p. 172). On the same date we have Edmondes's first letter from Brussels (pp. 173, 174). After about a week or two of festivities and the business of ratifying the treaty, in the English part of which many errors appear to have been found, Hertford left for England, having performed his legation according to Edmondes to his Majesty's great honour (p. 205). From other sources we know that he reached England on 20 May.

The Lord Admiral, the Earl of Nottingham, was appointed Ambassador to Spain for the purpose of obtaining the ratification of the treaty, with Sir Charles Cornwallis to reside permanently in that country as Ambassador Leger. Nottingham's first intention was to leave England about the beginning of March (p. 42) but it was not until 5 April that he sailed from Dover Road, passing Plymouth on the night of 9 April (pp. 132, 145). He was reported to have reached Corunna on 15 April and to have gone on from there to Valladolid where the Court then was (pp. 169, 170): We have a detailed account of the christening of the Prince of Spain, born at Valladolid on 8 April (N.S.). on 19/29 May. Nottingham viewing the procession from a window near by the church and afterwards watching the proceedings at the font from a passage above the altar of Christ (pp. 232–234). There is also a full account of the ceremony of the swearing to the Peace by the King on 30 May (O.S.) (pp. 228–230). Soon after these events Nottingham probably took his leave of the Court. He is said to have left Corunna about 20 June being accompanied by Don Pedro Zuniga (or Cuniga), the new Spanish Ambassador to England who was to succeed the Count of Villa Mediana (p. 303). By 2 July he was back in England and reassuming the charge of the Admiralty Court (p. 295). Reports were rife that he had received great gifts from the King of Spain but an English correspondent writing from Bayonne discredits such reports as mere fables and had been told that Nottingham had given more than he had received (p. 303). Edmondes too writing from Brussels seems to cast doubt on the report that he had received a pension of 40,000 crowns (p. 280).

Of the foreign resident Ambassadors in England the Count of Villa Mediana (Tassio) was as just stated succeeded by Zuniga during the year, whilst the Baron of Hoboken, who had been acting as the Archdukes' agent during the treaty negotiations and whose conduct of their affairs since the completion of the treaty seems to have given James much satisfaction was formally established as their Ambassador Leger in June (p. 268).

After the first interchange of compliments and presents of which Edmondes's first letters contain glowing accounts the new resident Ambassadors were not to be long in finding that their paths were beset with many thorns. There was naturally the trouble of overcoming the strong prejudices of their hosts against anything approaching the public observance of the protestant religion in their countries. This difficulty had been foreseen by the Council which sent last minute instructions to Nottingham and Cornwallis that great care was to be used, whilst not robbing their trains of "that Christian comfort which comes by the exercise of God's word," yet at such hours to keep their gates so private "as none without shall be scandalised with the form, or take direct notice by the habit of your minister in the streets for what purpose he is there with you" (p. 139). The Council's apprehensions would appear to have been soon justified if such gossip as is reported from Spain by R. Cocks in a presumably intercepted letter of 14 July to an unknown correspondent may be taken as representing the general feelings of the Spanish priesthood (p. 302). Thomas Wilson in his letter to Salisbury of 21 August is probably referring to this letter when he mentions the talk of "the repining of the priests at the English Ambassador having preaching in his house" and speaks of "the difficulty and stir about burying English dead" (p. 383), for Cocks mentions a case of a mariner or some other of Nottingham's followers who had died at Corunna and been refused burial ashore.

The chief troubles, however, in carrying the new treaties into effect arose no doubt out of the difficulty of reconciling the country's professions of friendship to Spain and the Netherlands without breaking altogether the long standing engagements to its old allies which James had taken over from his predecessor. Here Edmondes at the Court of the Archdukes was particularly concerned and his correspondence will be found to provide ample illustrations of the difficulties. In England Caron the agent of the States General was striving to be recognised as an ambassador (p. 2), as D'Aerssens was striving in France (p. 55), a recognition carrying with it that of the independent status of the United Provinces which it was not easy for James to accept readily without causing offence to Spain and the Archdukes. The incomplete draft of the letter from Salisbury to James (pp. 627, 628) refers to this question and although from its incompleteness it is not possible to be certain of its exact drift seems to acquiesce in the recognition. Both sides at the English Court were evidently on the watch for any evidence of favouritism towards the other. The Spanish Ambassador alleged that the ships of Holland and Zeeland were unduly favoured in the matter of obtaining victuals in the English ports, a grievance which led to order being sent to the officers of the ports not to suffer any ship of Holland or Zeeland or of any subjects of the Archdukes coming into any port to be victualled to stay there longer than twenty days, "which is a proportion reasonable for them to use in trade of merchandise" (p. 243). Caron's jealousy resulted in more than one diplomatic incident. One of these occurred when Viscount Lisle was returning to his charge at Flushing in August. He had landed at Gravelines and been reported to pass further into Flanders for which he had had no warrant from the King or Council (p. 380). Considering his importance to them as Governor of Flushing the States General were evidently afraid of the results of any possible meeting of him with the Archdukes, which he might be suspected of planning. He was ordered to return immediately to London. Lisle, who on his arrival at Flushing had sent his lieutenant-governor, Sir William Browne, over to England, wrote a long letter on 24 August before he could have received the Council's letter in explanation of his proceedings (pp. 390, 391). He had been driven by stress of weather into the Archdukes' country and deeming no passport was necessary in a now friendly country he decided to make a journey through it to his own government. He had had no intention of visiting Antwerp either privately or officially but had taken the liberty which peace gives to all governors of places to know the country about them, a necessary duty he held of a governor of a frontier place. He never had a purpose to go to Brussels and acknowledges that he would have required the King's particular allowance to see the Archdukes. On the evening of writing this letter the Council's letter arrived and he wrote the next day to say that as soon as he could provide a deputy, who he proposed in Browne's absence should be Captain Throckmorton, the sergeant-major of Flushing, he would return to London (p. 392). The Council on receipt of his letter wrote on 30 August to instruct him to postpone his return until Browne was back again in Flushing (p. 403), but before he could receive this letter Lisle had left for England and was at Canterbury on 2 September (p. 411) and in London on the 5th (p. 413).

Another diplomatic incident which arose out of Caron's watchfulness and in which James's honour was particularly concerned was occasioned by the surreptitious manner in which Lord Arundel succeeded in crossing over to Flanders in company with the returning Spanish Ambassador, the Count of Villa Mediana. The States had expressed their willingness to allow the King's ships which were carrying the Ambassador to Flanders a quiet passage but naturally were not ready to permit the English soldiers who were joining the Archdukes' service to take advantage of such a safe means of transport. They had apparently obtained James's word that this would not happen. That he should allow a person of the quality of Lord Arundel to carry over troops to the Archdukes was sufficiently galling to the States and in consequence when word got about that he was attempting to steal a passage in the King's ships appointed for the Ambassador's service Caron found it necessary to lodge a strong protest. The Council thereupon wrote to Sir Lewis Lewkenor at Dover to appeal to Villa Mediana to stop any such proceeding (pp. 394, 395). Lewkenor duly saw the Ambassador but wrote back to Salisbury that he was unable to draw from him what he intended to do, though he was much angered and perplexed by the request, as he had previously received direction from the Council to pass over Arundel freely in his ship. Arundel, wrote Lewkenor, "not receiving any direct prohibition" was determined to adventure in the passage (p. 399). Arundel himself wrote on the same day pleading the pass he had received from the King to serve any prince in amity with him and somewhat ingenuously stating that Caron could not make him confess that he intended to serve the Archdukes. He asked to be allowed to enjoy any privilege he might have as a peer of the realm (p. 397). Salisbury, however, again wrote to Lewkenor definitely forbidding Arundel to embark in any of his Majesty's ships or in any vessels of his subjects which were to be protected in the convoy (p. 441). Nevertheless, Monson on arriving on 3 September with the Ambassador at Gravelines discovered that Arundel had secretly and in disguise secured a passage in the Adventure, the Vice-Admiral to the Vanguard, notwithstanding the strait charge that Monson had given to Bredgate, the captain of the former ship, not to take either passenger or follower of the Ambassador's aboard without his warrant (p. 412). Bredgate. who it appears could not have been unaware of the identity of his passenger, was sent by Monson in company of his lieutenant to London (pp. 415, 416), where he was committed to the Fleet prison, from which he wrote several letters to Salisbury pleading his innocence in the matter and praying for release and re-instatement in the service (pp. 442, 453, 472). Salisbury on 12 September wrote to Edmondes a full account of the event and directed him to command Arundel, as soon as he should have put in order the troops under his charge and ended their summer service, to return to England and render his person before the Council (pp. 420–422). This, however, was not pressed and on 14 November, perhaps because the events following on the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot had tended to make other matters of secondary importance, Salisbury wrote again to Edmondes to say that the King was pleased at the Archduke's entreaty to dispense with Arundel's return,

albeit that the example of such an impunity might draw on others hereafter not to carry such due regard of his Majesty's commandments as they ought; but herein his Majesty doth labour to prevent all bruits abroad of any jealousies between the Princes, which oftentimes is as much apprehended by such circumstances as by matter of greater consequence (p. 488).

An event which resulted in much correspondence between Salisbury and the English representatives both at the Court of the Archdukes and with the States General and arising out of which James was expected by the Spanish Ambassador to have taken a wholly unreasonable course was the attack by the States' men-of-war early in June on the ships which were transporting Spanish troops to the Archdukes, wherein a number of the troopships, all of which appear to have been hired from England, Scotland or Germany, were taken, burnt or run aground with the loss of about 400 of the soldiers and five ships only with the rest of the troops succeeded in finding refuge in Dover under the protection of the guns of the garrison which drove off the pursuing States' ships. An account of the incident is given by Salisbury in his letter to Edmondes of 12 June (pp. 254–256). There was no doubt that the Hollanders had infringed James's neutrality by carrying their pursuit within the limits of his port and on the strength of this the Spanish Ambassador had approached him with the request that in revenge of such injury he would afford shipping or safe conduct to transport the soldiers in Dover into Flanders. This demand James had rejected as unreasonable, both because to accede to it would be making him a party in the war and because he had reason to expostulate with Spain for using his subjects' shipping contrary to an article in the treaty. He was, however, willing to consider any other means the Ambassador might suggest for the safe transport of the soldiers. This reply was accepted by the Ambassador who admitted his error in making his proposition and in conjunction with the Archdukes' Ambassador so far modified it as to request that James would propound to the States that they should allow the soldiers to cross into Flanders without molestation from their fleet. This James agreed to do and Winwood was instructed to bring the proposal before the States General (pp. 281, 282). A copy of the propositions as presented by Winwood is printed on pp. 312–314. The States' answer was made on 2 August (p. 348 (fn. 10) ) and as could be hardly otherwise expected was a refusal, for as they pointed out it was hardly reasonable to ask them at a time when the United Provinces were being invaded with very large forces of the enemy to allow the free passage of yet further troops to oppose them. This answer was communicated by Caron to Salisbury on 7 August (pp. 356, 357) and by the latter on the 12th to Edmondes (p. 365). who informed the Archdukes that his Majesty "knew not how to proceed further in the matter but prayed him to take in good part his goodwill, and that he was sorry he had to deal with a people who so little respected their honour and so much their apprehension" (p. 401). The refusal, however, was not wholly unexpected in Flanders where many of the best sort had thought the request dishonourable and worthy of the Count of Villa Mediana, "to whose sufficiency they little ascribe" (p. 336). Nevertheless. James on the Count's taking his final leave of him went so far as to promise him that if the Spanish soldiers would go into Spain he would take a course to convey them safely there. He would not, however, be the author of any attempt to hazard their passage in the dark nights but would suffer the hiring of any of his subjects' vessels necessary for their transport. He declined to press the States further or to deceive them by protecting the passage of the soldiers into Flanders (p. 420). It was not until 28 November that Monson was able to report to Salisbury the departure of the Spaniards from Dover that day

about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, with a great and large wind, so that I assure myself about 9 o'clock in the night they will arrive safely in Dunkirk. Their business was carried both secretly and subtly, for neither did the masters of the ships that carried them, or any other of the town, ever suspect their going until the very hour of their embarking, though the barks had been hired above 5 weeks (p. 517).

There is much in the correspondence with Edmondes and others concerning the levying of troops in England, Scotland and Ireland for the Archdukes' service. In answer to the request of their Ambassador and that of Spain consent was given to the raising of 2000 men in England, 1500 in Scotland and 500 in Ireland but not in the manner in which it was asked, namely "by striking of drums and displaying of ensigns" (p. 197). For public levies of that sort, besides being unusual in the country and "little sorting with his Majesty's subjects' peaceable disposition," would it was felt lead to much inconvenience, especially when it was likely that the men would be wanted for places where only Roman Catholics were likely to be received. It was desirable, therefore, that the levies should be made "privately and without drawing great troops and numbers together." A case is reported during the year of such levies being made with sound of drum at Southampton and in the Isle of Wight by one Grimston (p. 276), who was at once summoned before the Earl of Southampton and told that he had exceeded the limits of his commission (p. 286). The restrictions on the public levying of the soldiers led to rumours in the Netherlands that there was no possibility of making the levies because the State directly disfavoured them and because the men-of-war of Holland, "emboldened by the knowledge of the same disposition of the English State," were on the watch to intercept the troopships as they passed (p. 247). Any complaints that the Archdukes may have made of partiality shown to the United Provinces in this matter of the levies are answered by Salisbury in his letter to Edmondes of 12 August, in which he writes:

since the concluding of the peace his Majesty knoweth not of any extraordinary courtesies he hath used towards the States whereof the like hath not in a far greater proportion been yielded to the Archdukes. For his Majesty hath not suffered any person of blood or quality to go to the States' service as he hath done on the other side in the person of the Earl Hume, an ancient nobleman of Scotland, to take a public charge to conduct a new regiment of soldiers to their service; and the Lord Arundel of England to do the like, a person who by his late advancement to his barony carrieth the marks of his Majesty's extraordinary favour as may be thought to be so graced of purpose for that employment (pp. 365, 366).

The belief expressed when the levies were first sanctioned that only men "of another religion with us" would be received (p. 197) was justified. Edmondes writes on 10 July that "all the voluntaries of English which came over to serve here are forced to derive commendations from Baldwin the Jesuit and Owen the confidant for any favourable entertainments they obtain" (p. 317); and later in the same month he writes, "It is great pity to see how easily young English gentlemen, who come to serve in the Low Countries, suffer themselves to be corrupted in religion. The English priests be the busy and daily assailers of them" (p. 337). In the voluntary declaration of one Henry Smith he states that he and several others whom he names had been referred to Lord Arundel to serve the Archdukes as captains and had all been rejected, he conceives because they were Protestants, whereas others of the contrary religion were made captains on the first day, although they had never seen previous service (p. 640). It was perhaps owing to such complaints as these, combined with the apprehensions aroused by the revelations of the Gunpowder Plot, that Sir Francis Vere was able to inform the States General in December that the King to prevent further inconveniences to his own realms was resolved his subjects should not in future be so freely let pass to the Archdukes' service (p. 553).

Two important matters which Edmondes was asked by Salisbury to bring tentatively before the Archdukes were a proposition "for a kind of trade to Antwerp, or at least to Lillo" and another for the freeing of the Narrow Seas of all sorts of ships of war and "abstaining of hostility betwixt the point of the Scilly eastward, even to the coasts of Flanders and Holland" (p. 198). Neither proposition was favoured by the Archdukes. There was some division of opinion as to permitting trade to Antwerp but the prevailing feeling seems to have been that it would serve the States' turn by raising profit from the trade to enable them to maintain the war, presumably because duty on the goods would have to be paid in Holland before the ships could pass up the Scheldt to Antwerp, and it was directly contrary to the treaties made with England and France to bring any merchandise into the Netherlands which had paid custom to Holland. Moreover, a liberty for a common trade to Antwerp without the like to Dunkirk and other places would withdraw the existing traffic from those places and inflict injury on the parts of Flanders and Artois served by them, and it was suggested that it would be better to ask for a general trade rather than one with any particular port. As for the proposition that they should agree to disarm themselves in the Narrow Seas it was rejected utterly, the Archdukes considering they had now better means to increase their strength at sea by the port of Ostend (pp. 247, 248). The Archdukes' refusal of the two propositions with the full reasons for it were communicated by their Ambassador in England at the end of June and are set out with the Council's replies to them in enclosures to Salisbury's letter to Edmondes of the 28th (pp. 281–285). Further consideration of the propositions in Brussels produced no further result than that they were willing to admit the trade to Antwerp provided there was the like provision for trading into the ports of Flanders but could not in any sort accept the proposal for forbearing hostilities on the sea (pp. 341. 342). Salisbury's reply on the first point was that the proposition had been made by way of overture only on the part of England without any consultation with the States, who were likely to mislike it as much as the Archdukes, and that the question of liberty of trade with other parts of Flanders had never been mentioned as agreed upon nor was it thought likely that the States could be induced to it (p. 366).

A matter of less importance upon which Edmondes was asked to treat with the Archdukes but in which he was unable to obtain a very satisfactory reply was an outrage resulting in death committed upon the person of some Lithuanian gentleman by the crew of a Dunkirk ship actually in the port of Harwich, an affair in which James considered his honour deeply engaged (pp. 198, 246, 247, 282). The case and the negotiations concerning it are several times referred to in the correspondence but after an examination of all the evidence the Archdukes' reply was that the offence had not been committed wilfully but through the miscarriage of the Lithuanian. They were ready, however, to show their respect to his Majesty, to give order for the restoring of all the goods taken in the ships before Harwich and for setting the prisoners at liberty (p. 315), and with that seemingly James had to be content.

Regarding other foreign powers and this country's relations with them there is comparatively little in the present volume. Winwood writes from the Hague on 16 January (pp. 17–19) with reference to the continuance of the supplies of money from France to the United Provinces that the King had written "he would do as he should see the King of Great Brittanie (sic) do." This reply when referred to him Winwood could only construe as meaning that since James's affection towards the prosperity of the Provinces must in future be regulated by the tenor of the late treaty the French King was seeking but a pretext to withdraw his assistance (pp. 17. 18). Yet. later on in the year that King was accused by the Archdukes of relieving the States openly with men and money and hindering gentlemen who were willing to serve them by the threatened confiscation of their estates (p. 247).

As to the direct relations between this country and France there is a complaint of a threat by France to insist on the forfeiture of certain English merchants' goods to a large amount upon some infringement of the arrangements between the two countries and a hint of possible reprisals if the full rigour of the sentence were demanded (pp. 26, 27) and James writes himself to suggest that a treaty of commerce between the two nations might be considered (p. 29). At the end of the year Sir George Carew succeeded Sir Thomas Parry as English Ambassador in France and we have his account of his reception by the King and Queen in Paris (pp. 563, 564).

Echoes of the domestic troubles in France during the year are heard in the brief references to the proceedings against the Marquise d'Entragues and her family (pp. 27. 53); to the outrages in Languedoc supposed to have been fomented by some of Marshal Biron's party, and suppressed partly by the intervention of the Duke of Bouillon, who had now made his peace with Henry IV (fn. 11) (pp. 439, 440); and to the attack on the town of Marseilles by Merargues resulting in exemplary justice being inflicted on him and in the imprisonment of the Spanish Ambassador's secretary with whom he had been involved (pp. 557, 564). Monsieur de Vicq, presumably the governor of Calais whose partiality to the States in sending back into Holland English soldiers who had fled from their army is mentioned by Edmondes earlier in the year (p. 247), is commended for setting a good example to the Archdukes by delivering up for justice at Carew's request, with the approval of Henry IV, one accused of complicity in the Gunpowder Plot (p. 564).

Amongst other matters of foreign interest to which some reference will be found in this volume may be noted: Sir Thomas Smith's account of his arrival at Archangel and cordial reception by the Emperor in Moscow (p. 69); the election of Pope Leo XI of the house of the Medici to the joy of the French (p. 192) (fn. 12) and his death within a month of his election from a suffocation with a catarrh but attributed by the French to an unnatural cause (pp. 173, 174), with the subsequent election of Cardinal Borghese as Paul V (p. 221); the quarrel between the papacy and the state of Venice (p. 223); the imprisonment by the Sultan of the Prince of Moldavia for whose release James instructs his agent to treat, partly on the ground of the nearness of the Prince's religious professions to his own and partly because in putting himself into the hands of Turkey he had trusted in Queen Elizabeth's assurance of his safety (pp. 277, 278); the talk of a diet for the election of a King of the Romans in view of the desperate state of Hungary and the inability of the Emperor through ill health to take charge of the wars (p. 221), and the solicitation of James by the Archdukes to use his influence with his friends in the Empire in favour of the house of Austria (p. 371); and lastly the appearance of one of the many imposters claiming to be the late King Sebastian of Portugal, a prisoner in Venice whose claims Salisbury though unwilling to accept hesitated to reject without reference to the Senate of Venice (pp. 631, 632).

The Campaign in the Netherlands. For the first time so far as this Calendar is concerned our main source of information as to the events in this war comes from the side of our former enemies. Until, however, Edmondes was settled in Brussels at the beginning of May we hear of the preparations for the year's campaign from our countrymen with the United Provinces. Winwood in January reckons their state of war as 325 companies of Foot, whereof there were 46 English and 28 Scottish regiments, and 40 companies of horse. They were to be in the field by April, "for the last year's success teaches them that to get the start of the enemy but only of one month is to hold him in awe and make him give attendance on their army the whole year after" (p. 18). Sir John Ogle writing about the same time from Dordrecht states that the assembly of the States General to decide on the forces and the campaign for the year which had met that month had owing to the absence of Zeeland adjourned till the middle of February. He speaks of dissensions between the states of Zeeland and Holland which were holding up the proceedings and is doubtful as to the scene of war which would be chosen. Many thought it would be in Flanders, a choice favoured by Zeeland, but he himself was against advising it seeing no way of entering further into the country unless Damme could be secured, an unlikely event (p. 21). It is nearing the end of April before he writes again and then it is to announce that the plan of campaign, which had been still held up mainly through the misunderstandings of the Hollanders and Zeelanders, but partly through the expectation of a fleet from Spain with 6000 or 8000 men for the Netherlands, the fate of which we have already seen, had been decided by the States General on the 22nd of the month. The army would be on foot within eight days but its actual objective was known to very few. From the number of wagons provided it should be a land journey and it was thought into Brabant. The States reckoned to bring into the field 12,000 foot and 3,000 horse besides the troops which would be left in Flanders and 5,000 for the defence of the Rhine. The English troops were disposed under the colonelcies of Ogle. Sir Edward Cecil and Captain Sutton and Sir Horace Vere was pressing hard to have the command (p. 156).

Shortly after this we hear something on 3 May from Sir Thomas Edmondes of the preparations in the Archdukes' army (p. 173). The Genoese Spinola had made himself very popular by his liberality and he was strengthened in his command through the importunity of the Archdukes but there was much jealousy of his great authority on the part of Don Louis de Velasco and the rest of the Spanish commanders. It was expected the army would be in the field shortly but they were waiting to see the intentions of the States. The levies fell very short and it was thought the forces would not rise to 30,000 men.

We now learn that Count Maurice's first objective was Antwerp upon which he was planning a surprise attack. For that purpose he had so blocked the river with his boats both above and below that town that Palavicino who was arranging for the shipping of Lord Hertford's provisions and baggage on his return journey from there was obliged to find other means (p. 196). The enterprise was a great one but as Salisbury thought an "unsperable" one (p. 200), though with his sea power Maurice might possibly reduce the town by a blockade. The attempt failed, however, and on 10 May Browne wrote that the Count had settled his whole camp before Neufchastel (p. 197). It was an attempt so hazardous as to have astonished the Archdukes' subjects by its very boldness for they could but confess that had it succeeded it would have threatened them with great danger and led to the interruption of the trade of Brussels, Mechlin and Louvain (p. 204). But it was defeated it was said by them without any show of fight on the enemy's part, the repulse being led by Don Inigo de Borga. On 14 May Edmondes adds in a postscript to his letter the news that Maurice had taken the Castle of Wouda (Vau) near Bergen-opZoom (p. 205). Thence he was thought to threaten to besiege Hoogstraeten a place of good strength, which would give him a further footing in Brabant (p. 207), but this turned out to be merely a ruse for in the meantime he had embarked his artillery and carriages at Bergen-op-Zoom, whence he had transported himself into Flanders. He had attempted to cut some dikes near the Sass of Ghent but had found the resistance too strong and had retired to Yzendyke (p. 220). With this town as his base he had by June lodged his army 20,000 strong at Watervliet, whilst Spinola had planted his forces 30,000 strong at Buckholte some two miles distant (p. 253) and there for a time the two armies remained facing and watching each other and looking likely to pass the rest of the year in mutual inactivity.

But Spinola had other plans with which he was to take Maurice completely by surprise. Waiting until his forces were sufficiently increased with the reinforcements which were on their way from Italy he had planned to divide them into two armies, with one to keep Maurice in check and with the other and larger one to undertake some enterprise which for a time he was keeping secret (pp. 205, 220). In addition to the expected Italian troops it was reported in Brussels that his army was daily increased by the great numbers of English soldiers who were deserting from the States' service, some of whom, however, not being willing to serve with him Spinola dismissed with passports and money (p. 221).

By 11 June Spinola's plan which was to send his second army across the Rhine and thence northwards into Friesland was known to Sir Everard Digby's kinsman in London (p. 253) and on the 19th it is reported to Salisbury by Edmondes (p. 267). By that time the news of the defeat in the Channel of the ships with the soldiers from Spain was known in Brussels but on the other hand the greater part of the Italian troops had arrived and the Count of Bucquoy had been sent to take command of them and advance towards Friesland. A request had been sent to the Duke of Cleves and Juliers to permit the army to pass through his territory. On 27 June Edmondes writes that it had been resolved that Spinola should lead this army and for that purpose he had sent most of his principal troops to join Bucquoy. leaving Count Frederick Vanderberg in charge of the forces left in Flanders to oppose Maurice (p. 279). That charge was accepted with unwillingness as Spinola had assigned not more than 5 or 6,000 troops to his command and those not of the best (p. 280), but by 10 July the number had been increased to 7 or 8,000 foot and 400 horse (p. 316).

In the meantime Maurice still at Watervliet had heard of the departure of Bucquoy for Friesland but underestimating apparently the seriousness of the threatened attack had detached only 4,000 of his foot with some horse and 20 cannon and sent them under Count William of Nassau to oppose it (p. 280). He himself proceeded to build a great fort to impeach the access to Yzendyke (p. 316). According to Sir William Browne, writing on 19 July to Salisbury, Maurice was still of opinion that Spinola's design was rather to draw the States' army out of Flanders than to attempt any great enterprise in the upper parts and out of his own judgment he had "hitherto dispensed with the States' resolution for his rising, as not desirous to leave any hole open for the enemy to creep into any of the last year's ground gained." Until he had completed his new fortifications it was uncertain what he would do. Plague and sickness were said to be rife in his camp, which might hasten his dislodging (pp. 329, 330).

Before 10 July Bucquoy had crossed the Rhine between Cologne and Bonn and Spinola accompanied by Don Louis de Velasco and with very good troops had left Brussels to join forces with him on the advance into Friesland. The troops were elated with the prospects of plunder in the rich countries through which they were to pass but fear of offending the neutral owners of those countries dictated restraint and the necessity of assuring them that no wrong would be offered to their countries. The Count of Sores was sent to beg them to assist the troops with victuals for which payment would be duly made (p. 316). By 23 July it had been reported in Brussels that Spinola had joined Bucquoy and was building a fort on an island below Kaiserswerth, there to make a bridge over the river. He intended to besiege Rheinberg but the presence of Count Ernest with strong forces near that town made the enterprise too difficult. He was therefore directing his thoughts towards Lingen by the capture of which he hoped not only to facilitate his entry into Friesland but to cut off the States' commerce by land into Germany (p. 336). By the end of July Maurice had at last left Flanders leaving it was said 3,000 men in his new forts for the defence of Ysendyke and Aardenburg (p. 342). But before he could come within seven leagues of Spinola's troops that commander had taken Lingen, which held out only seven days (p. 371), being lost as was afterwards reported for want of munition (p. 410). The news of its capture was received with great rejoicing in Brussels but that of the defeat of Sores and the Baron de la Chaulx, the son-in-law of President Richardot, with a troop of horse in an ambuscade was dissembled (p. 371). All real advantage Spinola might have derived from the capture of Lingen he seems to have lost by not pressing forward immediately with his advance into Friesland. He had, however, considerable difficulties to contend with. His army was diminishing by the deaths amongst the Italian troops and by the forces he had to leave in the garrisons behind him and new levies were necessary (pp. 342, 401).

Maurice was near him at Koevorden and was fortifying that and other places. He had so stopped the passages between the Rhine and Lingen by his forces that the Archduke Albert had very hard means to send to or hear from the troops there and many of his packets had been intercepted. Moreover, Spinola was having trouble with some of the neutral princes in whose lands he had left some of his garrisons. The Duke of Cleves had demanded the removal of the fort at Kaiserswerth which was proving an annoyance to his subjects and the demand was strengthened by the refusal of his father-in-law, the Duke of Lorraine, to allow more Spanish forces to pass through his country unless right were done to his son-in-law, so that order had to be given by the Archduke to demolish the fort and for a new one to be made lower down the river. The Duke of Cleves too was unwilling for Spinola's army to winter in his country, which made it difficult for it to continue in Friesland (p. 425). Spinola's return to Brussels had been long expected there when Edmondes wrote to Salisbury on 19 November but the continuance of Maurice with his forces about Wesel had made him delay the dissolving of his army for fear of some attempt against the new forts he was building (p. 498). Of the several minor engagements between the two armies, the results of which Motley describes as causing so much jubilation in Brussels towards the end of the year, we find nothing in these papers. But in the middle of December Maurice is reported by Sir Francis Vere to have told him that the enemy was like in the following year to be far more absolutely master of the field than he had been. He had approved, however, a plan proposed by Vere to recover the places lost beyond the Rhine by a sudden assault on Spinola's fort on the other side of the river (p. 554). So far as the events of the campaign in the Netherlands are concerned the year 1605 had been one not without high aspirations on both sides but of little or no solid achievement.

Cecil Family. On 4 May, 1605, Viscount Cranborne became Earl of Salisbury, his elder brother Lord Burghley being created on the same day Earl of Exeter. The conferment upon him of the degree of M.A. by his University has been mentioned above. The gift by him of "a treble saltcellar of silver" for the upper table in the common hall of King's College in that University (p. 161) may be noted, as also his gift of books to the newly founded Bodleian Library at Oxford (p. 8). There are several letters to him from the King, a few of them of the somewhat personal nature and in the tone of affectionate banter noted in the preceding volume. Among these may be noted the letters calendared on pp. 75, 120, 121 and 456.

His reply (p. 76) to the censure of him implied in a letter from the aged Archbishop of York together with the Archbishop's letter has been printed in full in Lodge's Illustrations. It is dignified and attests the equanimity with which he could treat such attacks upon his character even from those who could most command his respect. In a letter to Lord Sheffield he expresses himself as very loth "to think that the good and reverend prelate could have any design to scandal me and glorify himself."

But that some ill-affected to me have had this end to show his zeal in writing, and his policy in directing it to me, as one not unlikely to be seduced, I know it by infallible arguments. Wherein although I despise to satisfy men by any apology, because they be only those that find no way to value themselves but by traducing of others, yet because my Lord should not condemn me by my silence, nor my friends be ignorant of my answer, seeing they have his letter to comment upon, I resolved ingenuously to impart unto him my knowledge and my affections (pp. 61, 62).

There are the usual calumnious attacks upon him (e.g. p. 225). His conduct in regard to the Gunpowder Plot has been already considered here. Perhaps the letter of his which most reveals his inner thoughts in this volume is the undated one, probably of this year, in which he deals with the suggestion of the marriage of his daughter to the son and heir of Lord Harington (pp. 629, 630). The suggestion appears to have been made to Salisbury through Harington's daughter, the Countess of Bedford. Salisbury, whilst expressing thankfulness for the affection to himself which had inspired the proposal, hesitates to accept it, modestly considering "the different value of both the parties; the one not only an heir to his father's honour and fortune, but in himself extraordinarily qualified; the other entitled to nothing but a marriage portion, and in herself promising little worthy affection." The parties to the proposed arrangement were only children at the time and as Salisbury goes on to observe:

What could be a greater folly in me than to conclude of constancy in your son in these years, whose choice is merely guided by the observations he makes of your inclination: or if to borrow anything of himself, it is most probable that by the time he shall begin to feel himself and his own ends, she shall appear far short of his expectation? (p. 629).

The proposal indeed came to nothing for the boy, who eventually succeeded to the title, died unmarried and little more than of age, whilst Salisbury's daughter married the son of the Earl of Cumberland in 1610.

An impatient note by Salisbury to a letter in which the writer refers to his attempts to trace his pedigree to the most ancient of the Welsh princes. "I desire none of these vain toys nor to hear of such absurdities" (p. 595) seems to show that he had not inherited his father's supposed liking for faneiful genealogies.

Of Salisbury's son. Sir William Cecil, who after his father's creation as an Earl is styled Viscount Cranborne, we have a report in March (pp. 81, 82) from his tutor at St. John's College, Cambridge, of his "profiting at his book." In a few weeks he had learnt "a whole oration of Tullie besides all his ordinary exercises." He is said to be "of all good parts of wit, capacity and memory" but if there was a fault in him "he takes not that delight . . . . in his book that he does in other things, the true cause whereof I impute to nothing else but his often calling home and his long keeping from hence. . . . . The delights of the Court (if I may say so without offence) have greatly estranged, if not quite alienated, his mind from his books." His presence indeed at the Court was likely to be required when the King was in the neighbourhood of Cambridge, as happened in this same month of March at Newmarket (p. 94). The interruption in this instance, however, was only for a few days and he is back again at his college on the 19th, "settled to study" as he writes to his father. From then until July he seems to have stayed more or less regularly at the University (pp. 132, 143, 268, 314). From his own account he was exercising himself in Seton's Logick and some parts of Tully (Cicero), with daily translations out of English into Latin. On 10 July his tutor suggests to Salisbury that "having, according to your lordship's desire and his own promise, applied his book diligently ever since his last return hither," he might take the opportunity of the season to recreate and refresh himself with such sports and pastimes as you shall best like of and youth takes most delight in" (pp. 314, 315). On 31 July, as already mentioned, he acted as proxy for his father at Cambridge on the conferment upon the Earl of the M.A. degree, as well as being himself admitted to that degree "without performance of exercises" (p. 343).

Amongst other matters of interest in this volume attention may be called in the first place to the numerous references to the Tower of London. On 10 August the Lieutenant, Sir George Hervey, died (p. 364) and within a few days Sir William Waad, the Clerk of the Council, was appointed to succeed him (p. 368) and on 15 August (fn. 13) duly installed in the office by the Earls of Dorset and Devonshire (p. 375). A few days later Waad writes an interesting report on the condition of the principal state prisoners in the Tower, Cobham, Ralegh, Grey and young Gowrie (pp. 377, 378) and on their respective lodgings. Both Cobham and Ralegh had received him at first with evident disfavour but had afterwards acknowledged their error. Waad in communicating Cobham's treatment of him to Salisbury begs him to remember that he had since found his error and he is anxious only to observe Salisbury's honourable rule not to add affliction to affliction. "In truth I find him very penitent. . . . If I should say to you privately what I think, his passions when the fit takes him go beyond choler" (p. 376). Later the Council sends the Lieutenant instructions as to his treatment of Cobham, Grey and Ralegh with a list of the persons who were to have access to them (pp. 443, 444). After the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot other prisoners as we have seen were sent to the Tower and Waad found some shifting of the quarters of the older prisoners necessary. Lord Grey was particularly unwilling to part from the lodging he had kept so long and where his books and other necessaries were placed (p. 514) and with Waad's consent wrote to Salisbury (p. 598). He yielded, however, at length and was willing to be transferred to the Constable Tower.

Waad had to complain of infringement by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London of the amenities of the Tower. They had caused the soil from the Minories to be drained into the town ditch and thence to pass into the Tower ditch producing an intolerable noisomeness there. "And where" he writes to Salisbury, "the Tower Hill water was in request and reputation for one of the sweetest springs in all these parts it is grown so corrupt, muddy and unsavoury, as it serves for no use and spoils the meat that is dressed with it, so as I am exceedingly driven to my shifts for sweet water" (pp. 387, 388). On the advice of Salisbury the matter was referred to the Commissioners of Sewers (p. 402). During the troubles arising out of the discovery of the Plot the Council appears to have sent order to the Lord Mayor not to renew any quarrels against his Majesty's royal castle in so evil a chosen time. Nevertheless, on 20 December the Lord Mayor "compassed the greatest part of the Tower with the sword carried before him, accompanied with the Sheriffs and a rabble of sergeants, and took possession of the postern and so came back again in great bravery, bidding the people bear witness of his triumph" (p. 558).

The care of the beasts at the Tower was evidently a matter of the greatest interest to James. Sir Philip Herbert writes amusingly of a contrivance devised by the King himself for giving a young lioness milk if a lioness could not be found to give her suck (pp. 80, 81). They were to be wary, however, how they gave her overmuch milk, "but if it be in any strength accustom it to some other food" (p. 84). The King was puzzled to hear of the birth of young wolves, "because he says that he cannot imagine who should be the father of them" (p. 88). But the event at the Tower menageries which seems to have aroused the greatest excitement and interest was the birth of two lion whelps on 27 July (pp. 339, 340). A host of letters follow the event, most of them marked with postal endorsements indicating their importance and describing in great detail the progress of the whelps and the behaviour of the parents. For these letters reference should be made to the index.

There are letters from or references to men distinguished in other walks of life than politics which are worthy of notice here. Amongst them may be mentioned the letter from Samuel Daniel (p. 185) referring to his tragedy of Philotas which was published in this year and through its supposed reference to the troubles arising out of the Earl of Essex's rebellion had brought its author into trouble at Court. The letter may be compared with the one in the State Papers (fn. 14) from the same writer to the Earl of Devonshire who had felt himself specially concerned by Daniel's mention of him in connexion with the tragedy. In that letter Daniel states that the first three acts had been written and read to Devonshire (then Lord Mountjoy) before the time of the said troubles. The incident is described in the Dictionary of National Biography. In his letter to Cranborne Daniel excuses himself for having through necessity done a thing unworthy of him in making the stage the speaker of his lines but pleads he had no other object than to present the events of antiquity in "the very idea of those times as they appeared unto me, both by the cast of the story and the universal notions of the affairs of men, which in all ages bear the same resemblances."

A yet more famous literary correspondent of Salisbury's is Ben Jonson whose undated letter to him appears on pp. 605, 606. This again refers to a stage play, Eastward Ho!, which had brought its authors. Jonson, Chapman and Marston into trouble. Jonson writes indeed "from a vile prison." Like Daniel he apologises that the cause of his trouble is nothing worthier than a play. "The word irks me that our fortune has necessitated us to so despised a course." He pleads innocence of any intention to give offence. Since his first error, a reference perhaps to the seditious motives which had been attributed to his play Sejanus, he protests, "I have so attempered my style that I have given no cause to any good man of grief; and, if to any ill, by touching at any general vice, it hath always been with a regard and sparing of particular persons." The incident is well known and the Dict. of Nat. Biog. may again be referred to for a brief account of it.

An early mention of Dr. William Harvey, the celebrated discoverer of the circulation of the blood, occurs in a letter from his father-in-law. Dr. Lancelot Browne, to Salisbury (p. 324). The writer asks that the post of physician at the Tower of London, should it fall vacant, be given to Harvey.

He is every way fit for performance of so great a charge. I did never in my life know any man anything near his years that was any way match with him in all points of good learning, but especially in his profession of physician. Being examined in the College three several times, he answered so readily and fully, as the whole company took very singular liking unto him. If any doubtful matter of moment in physic should occur in his practice there, he should have me always ready to resolve him therein fully. He is both himself of that discreet carriage and his parents and friends are so honest people, as I dare venture life and limb for him. He is now in Kent with his father at Folkestone.

There are references to the distinguished musician, William Byrd, in a letter from a Frenchman describing his visit to England and adventures amongst the Jesuits (pp. 611, 612). The writer relates how he was carried to a house some distance from London where he found Garnet in company with several Jesuits and gentlemen who were playing music: "among them Mr. William Byrd, who played the organs and many other instruments." Later, being lodged near the Tower, the writer was arrested on account of certain papistical books written by William Byrd and dedicated to the Earl of Northampton. Byrd's leanings to Roman Catholicism, though outwardly he conformed to the state religion, are well known (vide Dict. of Nat. Biog.)

Other well known musicians of the period who appear in this volume are John Lanier and his more famous son, Nicholas Lanier. In a letter from the former to Salisbury (p. 297) the father asks for his son the reversion of Piero Gaye's place as one of his Majesty's musicians for the flute. He had himself served for twenty years and more in the company of the flutes for Piero by reason of his impotency, so that it would be no prejudice to Salisbury's service if he, until the years which his son was bound to his lordship had expired, were to serve in his place. He has asked Salisbury's servant to hear his son and report on his sufficiency for the flute. He prays his forwardness may be excused "in regard to a father's natural desire for his son's advancement and as he has many other children to provide for and nothing to give them."

There are some references to the occult, to prophecies, witches and such like matters, which may perhaps be of interest to the curious in those things. Early in the year James whilst on his travels is called upon to deal with two persons. Morton and Butler, accused of uttering certain prognostications of coming evils (pp. 22–25). Morton was found to be a gentleman of good ability and the King gave order that he should be spared. Butler, on the other hand, who had been "whipped a little before the Queen's death for like matters of prophesies." was a very poor creature with no means of relieving himself. "If it be thought good to keep him there, there must be order taken how he may live" (p. 36). Two maidens suspected of being bewitched were sent by the King to Cambridge to be examined by the physicians there, who certified that their disease was natural (p. 65). There is an account of their expenses whilst at Cambridge and there was a privy seal for payment of them up to a sum of 100l. (pp. 222, 223). A similar case which came under the King's notice was that of Anne Gunter who recovered whilst under observation and confessed that she had never been possessed by any devil or bewitched (pp. 450, 451, 471).

But the most remarkable instance of the mysterious which aroused the King's interest in this year was perhaps the case of the supposed sleeping preacher, Richard Haydocke (or Haddock as the name is spelt in these papers). References to him will be found on pp. 136, 162 and 171. The imposture was afterwards confessed. The incident is fairly well known and has been recently described by Mr. L. G. Wickham Legg in a paper "On a picture commemorative of the Gunpowder Plot, recently discovered at New College, Oxford." (fn. 15)

Amongst other miscellaneous matters of interest to which references will be found in this volume the following may be briefly noticed.

Several instances of false coining and one striking one of a forger, Thomas Douglas, who besides setting himself up as James's accredited ambassador to the Elector Palatine had counterfeited the King's signet and forged a letter purporting to be sent by his sovereign to the magistrates of Cologne (p. 291). At the King's request he was sent over to England, where he arrived on 13 June (p. 260), was handed over to the authorities (p. 292), very speedily tried (pp. 276, 277) and ordered to be promptly executed (p. 292).

Proposals for holding lotteries (pp. 374, 613) and a letter from Salisbury in which whilst he expresses his willingness to consider specific proposals he condemns such forms of speculation in general (pp. 423, 424). "I am." he writes, "no persuader of those things which are of that nature which lotteries are, because I know them to be deceits coloured with fair shows of lawful adventure."

A letter from the Deputies of the Hanse towns rejoices that free intercourse of trade is offered to their merchants but regrets that their former privileges in England are not to be restored to them and requests the King to reconsider his decision (p. 209).

There are several further letters on the progress of the prospecting operations for gold in Scotland. George Bowes the chief prospector is declared by the Secretary of Scotland to have no great hope that the results would prove worthy of the King's charges and to have relinquished the work (p. 246). A report by Bowes on his proceedings appears on pp. 250, 251. Sir Bevis Bulmer who succeeds him in charge of the works is more hopeful (pp. 324, 325) and is ordered by the Lord President of the Council of Scotland to continue where Bowes had wrought in Wenlock Water. He writes asking for the assistance of some workmen tinners skilled in searching for veins of tin and for further supplies of money (pp. 429, 430). There is a list of 102 men (their names are not printed in this calendar) working under him at the various mines (p. 635).

Reference is made to the punishment of pressing to death for piracy and the names are given of three pirates condemned to be so punished or hanged (pp. 295, 296).

There are some petitions from Edmund Colthurst relative to his patent for bringing the New River to London (p. 181).

The London merchants trading with France and Spain appear to have been suing for incorporation into companies, a proposal which Chief Justice Popham is inclined to disfavour fearing that it would overthrow the towns and shipping in the West parts of the country (pp. 418, 419). His fears were shared by the citizens of Exeter who write to say that they had been already incorporated by the late Queen under the great seal into a French company (p. 453).

The names of the runners at tilt in a tournament in which the Duke of Holstein took part are given (p. 107), and there is a reference in one of Salisbury's letters to a forthcoming tourney in which four challengers, whose names are given, would appear by the name of Knights of Destinies in defence of a quarrel "that no fair lady can be false nor any man wise but lovers" (p. 224). The names of 34 persons, noblemen and others, who are to fight at foils are given (p. 594). There is mention also of horse racing at Canterbury Park in which it was proposed to enter some of Salisbury's mares (p. 226).

The cardmakers of England petition to be incorporated (p. 179).

Finally, notice may be made of a complaint that the basest sort of the common people were being made petty constables and tithing men. This arose from an evil custom of late to make the tithing man by the house, never respecting the honesty of the man. So that if it happened upon a widow's house she must be a tithing man and get whom she could "best cheap" to execute the office, with the result that it usually alighted upon the poorer and baser sort of people "that dare not say buffe to a goose" (p. 492).

M. S. Giuseppi.


1 Nichols, op. cit. I, 459.
2 Nichols, op. cit I, 505. According to the undated draft of a letter from the Lord Chamberlain and others to the Earl of Nottingham in this Calendar (p. 129). noted as being dispatched on 7 April, the expected delivery of the Queen had been miscalculated and was not then expected until another 14 or 15 days.
3 Op. cit. I, 589.
4 History of England, 1603–1642, I, 200, 201.
5 Gardiner, What Gunpowder Plot Was, pp. 57–69.
6 The letter is printed in Lodge's Illustrations.
7 What was the Gunpowder Plot?, p. 98.
8 What Gunpowder Plot was, p. 175n.
9 Winwood's Memorials, II, 172.
10 This is a copy of the answer, the full text of which is printed in Winurood's Memorials.
11 Yet at the end of the year we find the King still able to speak bitterly of him and of his confederation with the Spaniards to stir up troubles amongst the French people (p. 564).
12 Windebank's letter from Bourges of 6 May reporting this is no doubt dated in the new style and should be 26 April (o.s.).
13 Waad must be incorrect in his letter of 17 August (p. 375) in saying that the Earls met at the Tower on Monday (i.e. 12 August) and gave him the oath. Dorset in his letter of the 16th clearly says the ceremony took place on the previous day.
14 S.P. Dom. James I. xi. l.
15 Archaeologia, lxxxiv, 27 seqq.