BX 1492 D 77 15 + THE INSTITUTION OF THE ARCHPRIEST BLACKWELL JOHN HUNGERFORD POLLEN, S.J. QIartttU HmuEtaitg Sitbrarg Uttjaea, New $orfi BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF HENRY W. SAGE 1891 DEC 2 2 1943 A PR IB IQ^clh^ C121974DR I ^ 197SU Cornell University Library BX1492.P77 15 + Institution of the Archpriest Blackwell; 3 1924 029 382 391 olin Overs Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029382391 THE INSTITUTION OF THE ARCHPRIEST BLACKWELL A STUDY OF THE TRANSITION FROM PATERNAL TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND LOCAL CHURCH GOVERNMENT AMONG THE ENGLISH CATHOLICS, 1595 TO 1602. JOHN HUNGERFORD POLLEN, S.J. LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 39, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS I9l6 It- ^JrHOc^Ci A.amffi ROEHAMPTON : PRINTED BY JOHN GRIFFIN INTRODUCTION. The history of the Catholic Church in England since the Reformation is one of much and varied interest, but the chief no doubt is that of the stricken field. It makes one's heart beat again, to see so small and weak a body fighting for years, first against a tyranny so overwhelming as that of the Tudors, and then against despots, less vigorous indeed than their predecessors, but still incomparably more powerful than the defence- less minority, which they strove so violently to extir- pate . That minority had, as is evident, but one source of strength, the religious faith inherited from the an- cient Church, and kept alive by missioners educated abroad in the atmosphere of the Catholic Church, and governed by communication with Rome. From this it must follow that, if we could trace the exact history of that government, we should also learn much that was supremely important concerning the heroic endur- ance of our forefathers . But constitutional history has difficulties of its own. It treats of abstract principles, of laws and rights, mat- ters not easy to realize and describe, whose history cannot be traced without some trouble . Again, it has to busy itself with debates and disputes, and thus be- comes liable to party -prejudices ; and these in turn prove serious obstacles, if the parties in those debates were related to institutions which are still alive. Fin- ally, the debate in which we are interested was carried on with quite extraordinary quarrelsomeness and ob- stinacy. That our estimable forbears deserved both those reproaches will become only too evident to my readers before we finish. The truth is admitted on all hands. Mr. Usher writes of "those fiery sixteenth century tempers," and Mr. Law describes the Appel- lant controversy as " turning in large part upon ques- b vi Introduction. tions of temper," and as having " rapidly degenerated from questions of canon law to the grossest person- alities." Again, it would be easy to quote actual exam- ples of the quarrelsomeness engendered by the Re- naissance spirit. A contemporary traveller in France, Sir Toby Matthew, wrote home on March 16, 1602, 1 that Henri IV. had had to issue no less than 1,800 pardons in two years for murders in duelling I In England the corresponding figures, though of course not quite so high', were still far above the average. And who shall wonder if, while gentlemen so frequently stabbed each other to the heart, the clergy, when ex- cited, fought with pointed and poisoned pens, and strove to wound one another to the quick ? In regard to the English Catholics in particular, it must further be remembered that those who live under constant per- secution, are notoriously inclined to> take offence at their fellow-sufferers, when debates do arise between them : the result no doubt of their overwrought tem- pers and of the strain on the' nerves of both sides. Moreover, it will be clear to those who have studied previous historians on this subject that even they have too often fallen under the influence of the fiery tempers which they describe. Few indeed are they who ap- preciate, or bring before their readers, what was really of chief importance : that the debate was for the estab- lishment of a form of Church government, and that all else was secondary. History has been written as if the justification or condemnation of one side or other were the only topic worth considering, as if the pro- gress of the Church at large, and the formation of her general laws, were hardly worth attending to . In what follows the reader will find the stress laid on a different line of considerations. We begin by re- flecting what the essential features of government are in a hieratic Church such as that founded by Christ upon Eeter, and how, the Catholic Church is governed ' R.O., France, vol. 49, under date. Introduction. vii by Bishops, even in a land where no Bishops reside. We consider in particular how, the Catholic Church in England continued to be governed, after the whole hierarchy of Bishops had been made incapable of exer- cising episcopal government by imprisonment and the other persecuting measures of Elizabeth's ministers {below ch. i) ; and once we see how Church government can be carried on under those circumstances, we are in a position to see how. that same government can be improved and amplified. In the next two sections we see in detail what great need there was for some further development for the establishment of permanent local government in England, in spite of the grave dangers to the flock which this involved. In the fourth sec- tion we find an Archpriest appointed, and then com- mences a delicate part of our task, to keep clearly and prominently before our eyes the steps taken in the con- stitutional development of the situation, while not con- cealing the serious mistakes made on both sides (ch. vi. to ch. x.). By eliminating speculations as to the ulterior motives of the various actors, much more room has been found for the study of exterior influences ; the influence of French, cisalpine, and quasi-Gallican ideas is now, clearly seen. The conclusion of the whole con- troversy (cc. xii. xiii.) will also be found to have been much more thorough and better attested, than has pre- viously been represented. I cordially thank H. E. Cardinal Bourne, and the Rector of Stonyhurst College for admission to their archives, and the latter for the loan of several valuable books. To Mgr. Canon Ward, and the Rev. Dr. P. Guilday I am much indebted for their kindly criti- cisms ; and I also gladly acknowledge my obligations to the Editor of The Month for leave to reproduce the text that follows, which originally appeared (1912 — 1915) in his columns. John Hungerford Pollen, S.J. iyth February, 1916. 31, Farm Street, W. x Introduction. Thomas Graves Law, Jesuits and Seculars in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, with a reprint of Bagshaw's " Faction begun at Wisbich," London, 1889. With this should be read an article in The Dublin, April, 1890, by Father John Morris, S.J. Idem, Archpriest Controversy (see above). With this should be read a review in The Month by Father John Gerard, S.J., January, 1897. Ethelred Taunton, The History of the Jesuits in England, 19O1. Reviewed in The Month for May, 1901. The present writer has also written somewhat fully on the Politics of the Catholics, during and immediately after the accession of James I,, in The Month between August 1902 and June 1903. These will be reproduced in due course. Roland G. Usher, The Reconstruction of the English Church, 2 vols., 1910. Arnold Oskar Meyer, England und die Katholische Kirche unter Elisabeth. Rom 1911 — England and the Catholic Church under Elizabeth, authorized English translation by Father J. R- McKee, of the Oratory. Kegan Paul, 1916. Peter Guiidav, The English Catholic Refugees on the Continent, 1558 — 1795, London, 1914. The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Dictionary of National Biography, etc. See also the Appendix below for the Books of the Controversy. ABBREVIATIONS. A. C.= Archpriest Controversy, by T. G. Law, described above. Arch. West., or A.W.=Archives of the Archbishop of Westminster. Cat. Dom.=Calendar of State Papers Domestic. These are the printed in- ventories of the Government Archives. They are here quoted under years. R.O., Dom. Eliz.=Record Office, State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth. These are the original MS. volumes from the Archives. Those relating to England are called — Domestic ; dispatches from France are called — France, etc. CONTENTS. PAGE Introduction ....... v CHAPTER I. The Need for a Superior (1558 — 1598) . . .1 CHAPTER II. The Stirs of Wisbech (1594, 1595) .... 7 CHAPTER III. The Pacification (October 1595 to 1597) . . • z 5 CHAPTER IV. An Archpriest appointed (1597, 1598) . . . .21 CHAPTER V. The Opposition to the Archpriest Blackwell (1598) . . 30 CHAPTER VI. The First Appeal at Rome (1599) . • • • 4 1 CHAPTER VII. War and Peace (April to June, 1599) . . • -44 CHAPTER VIII. The Quarrel Re-opened (March — October, 1600) . . 47 CHAPTER IX. The Second Appeal (1600 — 1602) . . . .54 CHAPTER X. Dr. Cecil becomes Spokesman (January, 1602) 64 CHAPTER XI. The Case at Rome opens (February to April, 1602) . 71 CHAPTER XII. The Settlement (April to October, 1602) . . .82 CHAPTER XIII. The Sequel (1603, 1604) . 97 Appendix ....•■■ io1 CHAPTER I. THE NEED FOR A SUPERIOR. (1558-1598.) Everyone acquainted with the history of our Church in England has heard of the Appellant Priests, so called be- cause they carried their case against the newly-appointed Archpriest Blackwell to Rome, and won it there in the year 1602. But, though a good deal has been written about this from the point of view of one or other of the contending parties, little has been attempted to make clear the cause itself from a constitutional point of view. To explain this it will be necessary to go back, and begin with the downfall of the ancient Ecclesiastical hierarchy, and with it of " ordinary " Church government ; then to notice the rudimentary forms of Church rule in this country,; which super- vened ; until we came to the establishment of permanent local government under an Archpriest. This is what will be here attempted, following, so far as one can, the sequence of peti- tions and concessions, of institutions and confirmations and the like; and dealing with the actual controversy, only in so far as may be necessary to explain the pleadings and motives of those concerned. When Elizabeth's Government suppressed by violence the old government of the Church, by imprisoning or otherwise disabling every surviving member of the ancient hierarchy, she did not thereby prevail against Christ's institution of a Church governed by Bishops.. For besides episcopal hier- archies with "ordinary" jurisdiction over various countries, there is also the Pope, who has "apostolic jurisdiction," not in Rome, only, but in every country in the world. So episcopal government in England went on as before, despite Eliza- beth's violence. 1 The Pope immediately began to grant facul- ties to priests as need required, and after a time, gave to men of greater standing, the power to sub-delegate. Humble ' Colleton, Just Defence, 251 : " His Holiness hath been these forty years our immediate Bishop." B 2 The Need for a Superior. though the Church was in her renaissance, she almost immedi- ately gave birth to an army of noble martyrs and confessors, whose heroism reflected, and still reflects, glory upon her, and gave to her seminary at Douay, and to its President, Doctor Allen, a unique position. He became Father and patriarch of the English Church, as it were automatically or by acclamation. The Pope gradually entrusted to him almost all the faculties needed for the regular government of the rising Church, and eventually made him Cardinal. But though Allen now governed the English Church from Rome, it is worth noting, in view of what will follow, that he never became the Cardinal Protector of England. Cardinal Protectors were heads of departments, or special ministers in the Papal curia, appointed to act for this or that country, college or Religious Order, whenever its affairs came before the Holy See. In the course of the next generation the Pope would develop the Congregation de Propaganda Fide to exer- cise for missionary countries (England amongst others), the functions which Cardinal Protectors had previously discharged for them: and this arrangement went on for us until quite lately. Those who remember Propaganda's relations to Eng- land up to eight years ago, will easily understand the similar, though not so well defined position of the Cardinal Protectors at the times of which we are writing. Allen did not discharge these duties, but was, as it were, the head of the English Hierarchy, living in exile at Rome. Thus we have already seen two phases of Church govern- ment in England : I ) The most rudimentary of all, when the only ruling Bishop is the Pope, and the holders of jurisdiction are simple priests, without at first any connection or subor- dination inter se. This lasted from about 1559 to 1575. 2) Then came Allen's patriarchal rule. He is the inter- mediary for almost all faculties, but he governs from abroad, in a sort of paternal, happy-family way, without fixed subor- dination or law, or custom, practically with no other machinery than his own admirable personal influence (1576 — 1594). In 1594 Allen died, leaving no obvious successor to his Patriarchate, and a very unfortunate Interregnum of four years ensued. Some people proposed this name for his post, some that. The ablest man of the Catholic party, taking him all round, was undoubtedly Father Robert Persons, the Jesuit, then living in Spain. But there was a rule, sane- The Need for a Superior. 3 tioned by previous Popes, that Jesuits should not be raised' to high dignities. Of course, the Popes can change the rules which they and their predecessors have made or approved;: and this rule was in time to be modified occasionally. But it had never been hitherto, and I do not think that Pope Cle- ment VIII. would ever have changed it in Father Persons's case; though many people thought otherwise. No doubt a great deal might be said in favour of their plan. If Father Persons had now been, as it were separated from his Order, and in a way incorporated among the secular clergy by high dignity, much, perhaps all, the suspicion which afterwards attached to his motives, would have been avoided; and he would have acquired an intimate sympathy with his secular fellow-priests, which would have enabled him to avoid giving unintentional offence on some occasions, to be mentioned be- low. Still, all things considered, the course eventually taken was surely for the best. Father Persons, in fact, not only begged off for himself, he also saw that the time was come when Patriarchal govern- ment should cease. " At this moment," he wrote, " the Eng- lish have no one sufficient for this dignity [of Cardinal] ac- cording to public opinion and popular favour. Therefore it seems to me a lesser evil and inconvenience, to have none, than to have one who is insufficient." 1 He further recognized that the corollary was, that local Church-government must be set up in England itself, and, as he then thought, under episcopal controL 2 That was a step in advance, and I do not think that Persons's good service in foreseeing and pre- paring for it has yet been sufficiently acknowledged. By the time, however, that Father Persons's suggestion had been carried into execution (1598) the interregnum had lasted nearly four years. This was a great misfortune. First, because Allen's position, being principally due to his personal character, merits and efforts, which enabled him to act with hardly any government machinery,— the result of his death 1 Persons to Ximenes de Murillo, 18 May, 1597. (Spanish), Knox, Douay Diaries, p. 394. 3 Persons had worked for the sending of bishops (i.e. Bishop Goldwell) to England as early as 1580. We find him doing so still in 1591 (see Apologie, p. 101). In 1596 he wrote from Spain to ask various representative men for their ideas in regard to the problem of English Church government, and one of the answers which survives, written by Father Holt, gives the earliest extant scheme and recommendation for Bishops. Father Persons's ampler scheme of August, 1597, comes next, and this probably reflects all the recommendations received by him since his circular in 1596. It is printed, Tierney-Dodd iii. cxvii., from a document now at Westminster, vi. 80 ; another copy, Vat. Lib., 6227. ff . 26, 38. 6 The Need for a Superior. Jesuits to keep order over two or three score of adventuresome and excitable young Elizabethans at the English College ; while neither the Pope nor the General of the Jesuits, themselves Italians, was able to diagnose the origin of the discontent. The curia tried their best to find a remedy; but the rivalry between pro-Spaniards and pro-French came in. For in- stance, the Protector, Cardinal Caetano, was a pro-Spaniard, Cardinal Borghese, the Vice-Protector, was pro-French, and the English youths soon learnt how to play off one side against the other. One of the most remarkable of these cross- workers was Cardinal Francis Toledo, a Jesuit and a Spaniard, who, however, had now warmly . espoused the French side, and frequently thwarted the Jesuits, who were supposed to be pro-Spanish, while he gave the English students all the rope they wanted. At last the young men had worked themselves up into a mood, in which they boldly told Persons himself that no human power should move them from their opinions, and that they would gladly die for their cause, fidelity to which they considered a sign of predestination. One went so far as to own that he meant to join the heretics, in spite of their perse- cution, in everything short of apostasy. 1 In May, 1596, they boldly sent one of their number, Robert Fisher, 2 to Flanders and England in order to combine the dissentients in each country; and this he effected in the winter of 1596 — 97, when he re-enkindled the old fires at Wisbech. 3 Here we must go back, and treat these troubles from their beginning with greater fulness, for we are now dealing with the very men who were ere long to become the Appellant party. 1 Persons's Relation de la Turbacion del Colegio, 22 May, 1597, Westminster Archives, VI. n. 36, /. 136. Another copy, Brit. Mus. Add. 21,203, u. 3. See also Persons's Letter of 20 Oct., 1597, Stonyhurst MSS., Collectanea P. 307. These papers give a number of boyish freaks indulged in by the students. E.g., they would never salute their Jesuit superiors, unless the latter saluted first : they walked past the Spanish Ambassador in a body with their hats on : they would not eat at the same table with any of their confreres who kept on good terms with the Padri. These appear to have quite lost heart, the divided opinions in the papal curia having deprived their authority of all effective power. 3 Robert Fisher, "of the diocese of Carlisle," was at Rheims from J 590 to 1593 (see Douay Diaries), and went for theology to Rome till May, 1596 (Foley VI., IQ 3> 565). Passing through Flanders he wrote thence a very bitter letter, 22 July (4-C i. 9). There are other mischievous letters in the Petyt MSS. 3 Garnet reports this 14 May, 1597, giving an outline of his chief anti-Jesuit accusations. (Stonyhurst MSS- Anglia II., f. 106). CHAPTER II. THE STIRS OF WISBECH. (1594, I595-) It had long been the policy of the persecutors to keep in wearisome restraint such victims as they could neither re- lease nor execute, and in the year 1579, the decayed and now destroyed Castle of Wisbech was requisitioned for this purpose. Thither were transferred Bishop Watson and other survivors of the Marian clergy, and as they died off, others of the later Seminary priests were sent in to fill their places'. The treatment was severe, and the prisoners had little inter- course with one another,, as they only met at meals under the keeper's eye, being, as a rule, locked up each in his own room. But somewhere about the year 1 593, the rigour of their imprisonment was much relaxed. On November 16, 1592, the Privy Council had allowed the government of the castle to be remodelled on that of the Fleet prison, which was the easiest in London, and about the same time, Thomas Gray, the keeper, having died, William Medeley, a gentleman by birth, was appointed to the fairly lucrative post. Despite his faults, this man at least understood the impolicy of severity for its own sake ; and he was not afraid of granting a certain amount of liberty. By degrees many of the old irritating restraints were removed. The keeper and his wife no longer sat watching their prisoners during meals, nor were they locked up all day solitary in their cells, but were allowed to converse with each other, and even, under restraints, to re- ceive the visitors who brought them money and other means of subsistence. This was for England a quite unusual amount of toler- ation, and Catholics would come long journeys with their little gifts to offer to the " confessors of Wisbech," and re- turn delighted with having been for a time in an openly and exclusively Catholic house, where they could obtain not only encouragement and advice, but also the sacraments, with hardly any concealment. Father Henry Garnet; accompanied by three or four gentlemen, was among the first to go there ; and on his return he wrote ; , 8 The Stirs of Wisbech. I assure you that the being with you hath wrought such effect in the hearts of all that were with me, that they never saw place or persons which more delighted them. For my own part I tell you very sincerely, that it was the greatest comfort to be amongst you, which I had these whole seven years. y Later on, recurring to the same visit, he added that: "The time he was with them, he thought himselfe all that while, to have felt the joys of Heaven." 1 Of the relative good fortune of priests imprisoned there —that is, when compared with the anxieties of those at liberty, John Mush wrote, when hearing that one of the prisoners had escaped, " Alas, why did not he know when he was well off? Many of us would be right glad to change places with you."* But liberty always brings with it the duty of self-govern- ment, and at the moment there was a strong conflict of opinions as to the proper course to follow. This opposition of ideals corresponded with' the difference in character between two remarkable men in the community, the Jesuit, Father Wil- liam Weston, and Christopher Bagshaw, D.D. Their careers had to some extent run closely parallel. Both had been at Oxford at the same time, and both had done well there, but Weston had been converted sooner, and had passed most of his University studies abroad. Bagshaw not only completed his course at Oxford', but had risen to be Vice-Principal of Gloucester Hall, before he too felt the call. Both had been at Douay, or Rheims, and Weston, when he left to become a Jesuit, had given over to the College all he then possessed. Both returned to England about the same time, but Bagshaw had been arrested immediately (!i 585), Weston after two years (1584 — 1586) of very suc- cessful missionary work. Besides high intellectual gifts, both had excellent moral qualities, but with shortcomings. Wes- ton was very spiritual and ascetic, and an excellent discip- linarian ; but on the other hand he was distinctly suspicious of the free and easy, and if severe to himself, none too easy with others. Both had the power of making devoted friends. The firmness with which the majority of the priests at Wis- bech held to Weston, under difficulty, is very remarkable; and Bagshaw's power of binding his friends to him is not less signal. 1 Bagshaw, True Relation, pp. 61, 62. ■' Arch. West., v., n. 51. The Stirs of Wisbech. 9 Judging exclusively from his good qualities, one might have expected from Christopher Bagshaw a career of re- markable honour to himself, and of utility to his cause; but unfortunately he had a propensity, one might almost say a genius, for quarrelling, which marred every chance of his doing great good on behalf of religion. At Oxford, at Rheims, and at Rome he had proved intractable, impatient of advice or reprehension, excitable, combative. 1 At Wisbech the opportunities for discord were few, while the confinement was solitary, and such differences as did arise were overruled by the authority of Father Thomas Metham, who had been admitted to the Society while in prison, which indeed he never after left. Besides considerable learning and affability, Metham had the prestige of having been ap- pointed in some informal way, by Bishop Watson, the last of the old hierarchy. Anyhow, he managed to keep order until his death, which, according to Father Weston, took place just as the days of greater liberty were beginning, when the presence of a commanding, but conciliatory mind, was so much needed to encourage and bind together all that made for peace and contentment,, and to bring healthy public opinion to bear upon those who required its restraint. For, if we shall have a good deal to say of the disturbing ele- ments, it must not be forgotten that there was also on all hands much zeal and kindliness, and that nearly two years passed before the troubles came to a head. There were good students on both sides, and they had accumulated a fair store of books, insomuch that we find priests in freedom begging books of them.2 Even those whom we shall have to criti- cize were worthy men, whose peccadilloes would in ordinary circumstances have been corrected well enough by ordinary means. At present, however, there were no means whatever of putting pressure upon the unruly, while the close and con- stant herding of those who hated noise with those who loved it, might have been sufficient even by itself to have created an atmosphere of great nervous tension. Among those who enjoyed debate, besides Bagshaw, there was also William Norden, a Doctor of Medicine, and Thomas Bluett, D.D., who were almost as combative as he, and rougher in their methods. There was Thomas Stampe, who ' See Dictionary of National Biography, under " Bagshaw, Christopher " ; Persons, Apologie, p. 70; T. F. Knox, Douay Diaries, p. 330, where an unfavour- able character of him is given by Dr. Barrett. ' Dudley to Bagshaw, Westminster Archives, v. n. 32. io The Stirs of Wisbech. apostatized in the middle of 1594, Ralph Ithell and Fran- cis Tillotson, who followed his example later on, and always gave cause of anxiety to their fellow-priests ; and there were one or two others, like George Potter, who had been unruly at the seminaries, and were still rough of tongue, or otherwise unsociable. These disturbing elements were often opposed to each other, but when they began to join forces, the situation gradually became a very difficult one for those who, like Father Weston, were decided admirers of ecclesiastical dis- cipline. Not only were they galled by " daily brawling, chiding and contumelious slanders " ; there was also room for an- xiety (Weston erroneously thought for serious fear), lest the rough horse-play and neglect of clerical conventions should end, as it so often does, in public scandal. Had such oc- curred, all would have been involved in the disgrace, and Weston feared that he, as a Jesuit, "might have been more decried than any. After the Christmas festivities of 1594 therefore, Father Weston made up his mind that he would, so far as possible, keep aloof from the clamorous. He said he had business in his roomi, got his commons taken there, and there he stayed. 1 Ere long the quieter priests began to join him, and by the beginning of February twenty, that is sixty per cent, of the whole number of thirty-three prisoners, had resolved to adopt a form of college life in prison; and on February 7 th they wrote to Father Garnet announcing their intention, and their desire to have Father Weston as their Superior. Weston, however, had refused, unless Garnet would consent, which they therefore begged him to do. They also sent copies of the twenty-two rules they had drawn up for their guidance, and a paper on the disorders and dangers from which they wished to preserve themselves. 2 Father Garnet received the application with pleasure. He took a very hopeful view of the future, and too easily per- 1 Bagshaw in his later book jeeringly suggested that Weston was shocked at the introduction of a hobby-horse into the hall at dinner (True Relation, p. 18). Certainly, if a priest acted that part, it may Well be that the Padre had reason. Bagshaw, in his book, hdwever, was so reckless in his gibes that they must not be interpreted seriously. He was especially vexed by Weston kneeling down to say a small prayer before meetings, a practice now so general. 2 The original letter of the eighteen priests (Weston and Pound the layman,, being Jesuits, would have written separately) is at Stonyhurst (Anglia, ii. 2), printed Tierney, iii., ap. 104. In the Westminster Archives there are two copies (v. nn. 7, 81), giving also the twenty-two rules. The table of disorders appears to be lost, but Persons prints the heads of four sections in his Apologie jib. The Stirs of Wisbech. 1 1 suaded himself that "all the prisoners would ere long join body and soul in so holy and useful a reform." 1 Still he was also aware that for the time there was the opposition of a considerable minority to reckon with ; and he therefore pro- ceeded cautiously. Weston must not have the title of Superior, nor the place of honour at table, still less should he have the power to inflict penances. In other respects he might act as "Agent" of the company, to settle and super- vise any matters of discipline and regularity, to give ex- hortations, and discharge other such offices. The main authority was to be the vote of the majority. Excellent as Father Garnet's intentions were, his plan of an Agency, when subjected to the test of incessant and unfriendly criticism, did not prove a permanent success. Garnet had unfortunately miscalculated the temper of the minority; and he might have foreseen that several of the rules, especially the first, to which we shall return, would not prove generally acceptable. One feels that if the scheme was not workable without Garnet's somewhat petty precautions, it was not likely to be a good practical measure. Owing, perhaps, to the loud and vigorous opposition which Bagshaw and his cojnpany were making against the separation, Weston did not at once publish Garnet's answer ; at all events not in full % and the separation, though begun, was not carried through. One of the regular visitors to Wisbech at this time was an old priest called Alban Dolman, then going under the name of Mr. Newton, an enthusiastic friend of Bagshaw's, for whom he used to collect alms. Sure of his man,2 Bag- shaw pressed him to act as arbitrator between them, and Dol- man consented. This was very characteristic of Bagshaw, and though perhaps, considering the simplicity of the times, not very blameworthy in Dolman, it was nevertheless a very short-sighted policy, and led to still greater divisions. Dolman began proceedings, but soon discovered that, if his opinion was to carry any weight, he ought to have an asses- sor to back him up. So he broke off his inquiry, and left Wis- bech, meaning to return after Easter. On their side, Wes- ton's party agreed that they would not complete their plans for separation till his return. Riding to Norwich, Dolman 1 Tierney-Dodd's Church History, vol. iii., p. cix. * " We were content Mr. Newton should hear the case : their calumniations he knew sufficiently befpre." (Bagshaw to Windham, n.d. Arch. West, v, 12 The Stirs of Wisbech. met an old Doctor of Laws, Edmund Windham, then going by the name of Clarke, td whom' he told the whole story. Windham listened, and with so much attention, that Dolman flattered himself that he was altogether on his side, though for various reasons he refused to undertakte the post of arbiter. Thinking, therefore, that he now had the support that was necessary, Dolman actually turned his horse, and rode back to Wisbech, to tell the prisoners that Dr. Windham, having heard the story, had agreed with him. They ought, therefore, now to accept his verdict without further demur; and that verdict was that " their separation was against charity, their canons [i.e., the twenty- two rules] without authority, and their libelling against good learning." Weston's party were not so easily moved as he had expected. Let him come back after Easter with his assessor, as he had arranged, and complete his inquiry, according to agreement. Then they would take further resolution. When he had gone they wrote to Dr. Windham to inquire into the grounds of his alleged support of Dolman, and his answer was so different from Dolman's report of it, that the majority now actually reckoned him on their side. Though this letter is lost, we have a letter from Bagshaw, expostulat- ing with Windham for countenancing the division, and to this we have his answer, in which he now formally denies every clause of the answer attributed to him by Dolman. "Such things were said to him" by Dolman, and he had given hypothetical answers, but he had explicitly declined any formal opinion on the subject. "The reporter [Dolman] hath delivered his own opinion, not mine." This is a small point, but it is eminently characteristic of the childish anxiety of Bagshaw and his "fautors" to score against their opponents, an anxiety so overwhelming that it deprived them of all chance of acting, or of writing with fairness. Thus Bagshaw has incorporated in his printed book Dolman's account (somewhat shortened) of Windham's opinion, 1 though he kept among his papers Windham's letter denying its authenticity, and Dolman continued to pose as an arbitrator, though partiality such as his was sure in that office to deepen and embitter the quarrel. "A fortnight after Easter," (that is, the 4th of May), Dolman returned, bringing with him John Bavant, D.D., Fellow of St. John's, Oxford, and then one of the most res- pected priests in England. He was well received by both 1 True Relation, p. 33; Westminster Archives, »., u. 9. The Stirs of Wisbech. 13 parties, and set to work to see if some common form of " regiment," acceptable to both sides, could not be devised. On the second day, however, Bagshaw and his company de- clared that they had not agreed to the formulation of new rules ; all they wanted the arbiters to do was to end the separa- tion. This declaration, involving, as it seemed to do, the principle that the majority must yield absolutely to the minority, was ominous. It was next proposed that all should sign a general " form of pacification," declaring that they forgave, and forgot all past offences, and again all declared themselves ready. But when Weston pointed out that their company did not consider their separation a fault, Dolman let the matter drop, exclaiming that " all the breach was about that matter." It was now becoming clear that there was below the sur- face a more serious cause of division than any which had yet been debated. The party of reform had declared that they desired the protection of clerical conventions. It need not surprise us that Bagshaw and his company, men of warm tempers, and inclined to suspect the worst, should declare that they had been charged, by implication at least, (and as they believed, also in terms), with having failed, and failed grievously, against those conventions. This inference was not just, for the reformers aimed at no extraordinary precau- tions. They only proposed such regulations as priests, living together in colleges, might or did practise, without occasion- ing any sinister reflections to fall upon those who did not. The provision was prophylactic, not remedial. It had in view ? threatening dangers, not past disorders. It is in fact clear that there was no foundation for Bagshaw's charge; Weston and his company had never propagated " enormious charges " against their opponents, nor " pretended great and horrible crimes." 1 Still the reformers must have specified some abuses, and the question arises: How far did they go? Their list of gravamina appears to be lost, but Father Persons quoted some of its headings, 2 and it is probable that he would have not omitted a hint at serious matters if they had been there. The extracts, however, treat solely of bad manners and oc- 1 We can tell the worst that Bagshaw suspected from a clause in his letter to Windham. It seems that Dolman had heard say that " one of the company was accused of little less than rape, another of incontinent behaviour, another of betraying secrets to the keeper " (Arch. West. v. p. 9). But we have already seen that Dolman's credulity was excessive. * Persons, Apologie, p. 71b. 14 The Stirs of Wisbech. casional rowdyism. From Father Garnet, however, the majority did not conceal that there were also suspectae cum foeminis familiaritates; and that they feared [nay they mis- takenly even thought] that scandal would some day ensue (sccmdalosum quid aliquando eventurum pulant). 1 This is the worst, and the important point to notice is, that they have in view the future, not the past ; not anything yet done, but a possible, a dreaded contingency. 2 The party of reform had therefore never brought any "gross charges" against their fellow- prisoners; 3 nor, I add in passing, has anyone done so, an argument from silence, which in a case like this, where the prisoners were always watched with suspicious eyes, must be considered conclusive. Nevertheless, the matters that did need reform, must in- evitably have formed a very thorny subject for discussion be- fore arbitrators, one of whom at least was a mere partisan. We cannot wonder that the attempt to discuss them was soon given up. Both sides declared it was not they who were to blame, and some heated correspondence followed the depar- ture of the mediators re infecta. The situation was worse than before. Weston's company completed their secession. The minority, by their favour with the keeper, kept the majority out of hall and kitchen, and they were driven with great inconvenience to cook and take their meals in their own rooms. 1 Garnet to Aquaviva, 12 July, 1595. Tierney-Dodd, iii., p. cvi. An example of such suspectae familiaritates, in Bagshaw, True Relation, edit. Law, pp. 43, 44. In the pessimistic paper, drawn up for the procurators of the Archpriest by. Persons, the same charge is brought against Bagshaw himself, as well as against Calverley and Potter, who were of his company (Oscott MS., 534). Exaggerated as Persons's paper is, Tierney's summary (Tierney-Dodd, iii., p. clvii.) makes it worse. The charges do not, in fact, go beyond "suspicious familiarities." See below p. 77. - A very serious misinterpretation by Mr. Law needs correction. He states roundly that Weston, charging his adversaries, " used the words, ' whoredom, drunkenness, and dicing.' " Tierney (perhaps misled by the same passage) says that Weston " charged them with the grossest violations of morality " (vol. iii. p. 43 n.)). Blut when one finds the original passage, one discovers that Law's phrase is only a third-hand version of Weston's words, and that the channels were first Bluett, then Bagshaw, both passionately reckless partisans. To describe these as Weston's words, without further explanation, is quite indefensible. (Compare True Relation, edit. Law, p. 21, with p. liv.) 3 So far as we know Weston never made any charges at all. He had indeed to explain his conduct to his superiors, but in the only letter extant (Stonyhurst, Anglia, ii. 34) he uses quite brief, unimpassioned terms, " corrupti et incom- positi quorundam mores," In his Memoirs he only alludes vaguely to the subject : " I think [it] had better be omitted entirely, or the narration may bo left to others, which I should prefer." (Catholic Record Society, i. 73.) Bagshaw, pp. 54, 35, followed by Law (note ibid.) and Tierney, p. cxiii. n., say that Weston seemed to take pride in using general terms, which while libelling all, could be said " not to injure anyone in particular." Until it is shown that Weston made any charges, Bagshaw's malicious^ ingenuity is alto- gether out of place. CHAPTER III. THE PACIFICATION. (October, 1595 to 1597.) THE arbitrators left about the middle of May, and the relations between the two parties continued to be strained for the next half-year. At first there was some angry cor- respondence. Bagshaw took Bavant to task, South worth and Dolman wrote long, but important statements of their res- pective lines of conduct, Dolman touching up his adversary's "folly," "arrogance," and "devilish speeches," declares he will "pull off the mask" from this "Jackanapes," "the per- fidiousest man that ever took pen in hand, and the lyingest that ever spake with a pair of lips." * The game was not always played with scrupulous fair- ness. Thus Dolman complained (May 20th) to Bagshaw, of the Rev. [? William] Drayton, a secular priest (afterwards one of the Assistants of the Archpriest), who charitably, gathered alms for the majority. At Michaelmas he came to Wisbech, presumably to bring what he had collected; but Bagshaw's party wished "to bar him the place." Hereupon, Calverley, one of that company, went to Hall, the porter, and told him to warn Drayton that a warrant for his arrest had come out, and was in the chief keeper's hands. Hall, though well aware that this was not true, gave the message, and Drayton hastily departed, and did not return for some time. 2 In course of time, however, the initial irritation began to calm down. There was some talk about the matter outside the prison walls, but not much ; the English Catholics of that day being of necessity a very reticent generation. It was" ' Westminster Archives, v., nn. 15 to 17, and 18, 19, all undated, 1595. * Dolman's letter in Arch. West, v., n. 12, and is quoted in the True Relation, p. 49, where, however, Drayton's name is suppressed. The story of his being " barred " from the castle is told by Hall, the porter {Domestic Calendar, 1596, p. 196). It is true that he uses the name Laiton, not Drayton, and that we cannot prove their identity, which is nevertheless extremely probable. Of course this in no way affects the unsportsmanlike character (to say nothing) worse) of Calverley's trick. For Drayton, otherwise Hance, see Morris, John Gerard, p. 63. 1 6 The Pacification. not until July that Father Garnet gave his report of the occur- rence to the Father General, and he was then still under the impression that the opposition would gradually die down. Bagshaw himself admits that public opinion now began to go against him ; 1 and we may suppose, too, that his anxiety lest he should have been libelled, would become less acute, when for many months nothing more was heard about it. In October he again procured the intervention of his friends, and this time with better results. John Mush, the elder of the new mediators, was an honest, outspoken York- shireman, who was in time, under Bagshaw's influence, to de- velop a great animosity against the Padri. In early years, however, he had been a great admirer of the Society, and indeed there was as yet no valid reason why he should not be accepted and trusted by both sides; as in fact he was. The other arbiter, Richard Dudley, eldest son of an important Westmorland family, but cast out on becoming a Catholic, was a good deal younger. He had been Bagshaw's com- panion at Rome, and a great intimacy had sprung up between them. The younger man regarded the elder with genuine affection, and always called him his second Father; while Bagshaw could, it seems, take hints from Dudley, which he would have resented if offered by others. Coming to Wisbech in October, Mush and Dudley found the situation far more promising than it had been-. The oppo- sition no longer demanded an inquiry into alleged accusa- tions, and they were ready themselves to undertake some form of "regiment." The "pacification" suggested did not at once win the acceptance of Weston's company, but they ad- mitted that it gave hopes of success. The arbitrators, having business in London, then con- tinued their journey, hoping to complete the negotiation at their return. This will have taken place on or about the 2 2nd of October, on which day Garnet wrote to Mush and to Bagshaw, warmly advocating reunion. 2 Originally, as we have seen, Garnet had expected that the minority would be absorbed by the majority. On the 8th of October he wrote to Bagshaw, a letter in which we find that he has given up this hope, and pleads that each side should be left free to do as they thought best. Now that he has spoken to the delegates, he is strongly in favour of a corn- 1 True Relation, pp. 48, 50. * Westminster Archives, v., nn. 26, 27. The Pacification. ij promise. He begs the twenty to give up some of their good practices for the sake of peace, and the rest to admit some further reforms for the same good reason. But he rightly refused to interfere, or to use his authority even over Weston, and he begs all to stand to the constitutional principle, that the voice of the majority should be binding. Strengthened with these letters, Mush and Dudley re- turned, and began to discuss anew the plan of conciliation, indeed, according to Mush, he had to revise it not less than twenty times. Finally, however, it was accepted on the 6th of November, and signed by both sides. Both, no doubt, had some difficulty to overcome, but once the step was taken, there was no restraining the yearning for union, which, in spite of all exterior differences, burned strong in the hearts of all. Tears suddenly burst from their eyes', they fell upon one another's necks, and embraced with tenderest affection : for a long time no one could speak for joy. Nor was this a mere passing emotion. Bagshaw wrote in cordial and affectionate terms to Garnet on the day of reconciliation and again on the 4th of December, when he went so far as to treat the whole quarrel as an example of amantium irae, which would eventually strengthen the bond of union between them. This happy day throws back a useful light on several points previously in debate. In the first place we see that no principles were involved in the separation, and no consti- tutional changes were necessary for peace; secondly, the quarrel was due to personal peculiarities and incompatible temperaments^, and to the strain on the nerves caused by the prolonged imprisonment; thirdly, some discipline was needed, as is proved by the common consent by which it was eventually admitted; lastly, the charge of libelling one another was not profoundly felt, or it would not have been tacitly allowed to drop altogether. The " General Agreement " contained ordinations, which provided and defined the duties of two treasurers, four stew- ards, and other domestic officers. The most interesting rules are those for avoiding further breaches of the peace. Fines from two to twenty shillings (payable to the common purse), might be inflicted, for breach of order by "words notoriously injurious and scandalous" (fine 2s.), "detraction" (5s.), " upbraiding" ,( 5s.), " breach of the canons " ( 10s.), " telling tales" (20s.). The charges were to be investigated by a committee of five, two for plaintiff, two for defendant, one 1 8 The Pacification. appointed by lot: the majority to decide. If a charge proved unfounded the plaintiff was to pay poena talionis. Com- pared with Father Weston's rules, one advantage is at once evident; they are better drafted. Weston's first rule bound all to submit to censure "in any matter of scandal, or other- wise any light unseemly behaviour, especially towards women." To put this subject into the foreground was a mis- take ; it provoked comment, and gave the legislation a wrong perspective. That some caution was needed seems clear; but the comprehensive phrase, an offence " against the canons," was a far more fitting formula. Leave room (by the suppression of roughness and quarrelling) for healthy public opinion to express itself freely, and all else would be soon put right. The sudden and touching outburst of brotherly feeling, by which the " Stirs of Wisbech" were appeased and atoned for, had not been expected, nor could a similar strength of that emotion be expected to continue indefinitely. Even to the last Mush and Dudley had been afraid that the pacification might fail. Mush, for instance, had not dared to publish his award in the division of rooms, a specially thorny subject; but left it in writing to be opened after his departure. For- tunately it led to nothing worse than a few letters. Another characteristic difficulty arose over the working of the committees of five, mentioned above, which recalls the old witticism on the obstinate Briton : " Call that arbitra- tion? Why, they've given it against us ! " Bagshaw (but his letters are unfortunately lost) had written to ask Mush, what on earth was to be done when he was overruled by a majority? How could he in conscience submit to what he felt sure was wrong? Mush's answer is extant. He has asked various friends, but "no one can find any difficulty in that point." Of course the minority " may with safety of conscience, and ought also, — to let .the sentence of the three pass without more ado." 1 Excellent as all this is we see that the pacification re- mained an anxious matter, and we must enumerate some of the rocks on which shipwreck was only just avoided. Early in the spring of 1596, a priest, Francis Tillotson, one of Bagshaw's company, escaped. For some reason, Bagshaw had a great objection to escapes, and when Tillotson was arrested almost immediately, the rumour went abroad that 1 Westminster Archives, v. n. 88. The Pacification. 19 Bagshaw had informed against him. This does not seem to have originated with the opposite company, and it was cur- rent among Bagshaw's own friends. But for some cause or other Bagshaw would not contradict it. It is quite conceiv- able that he was awaiting attack, and meaning to get poena talionis from some unwary accuser. The accusation did not fail to come. John Green, a priest of the other side, poured out upon him a long and furious tirade, calls him nefarium, sceleratum proditorem, and his deed a plusquam sacrilegum /acinus. Still, this overwrought charge will tend with most people to awaken rather sympathy thah an adverse feeling for the man attacked. Bagshaw now denied the charge, and Mush, who had also feared from Bagshaw's silence, that he must be guilty, wrote him a long and interesting letter. He apologizes for his mistake, but says that Bagshaw should have spoken sooner, and cannot be excused for now quarrel- ling with him, and hereupon follows some straight speaking : ;Sir, — I love you well, and honour you as becometh me. I have not known or been much conversant with you, yet the most that have been acquainted with you, think your inclination (unless it shall be moderated much with virtue) to be vehement, restless, imperious and factious, which they confirm by experience in all places where you have lived. This is the chiefest argument your enemies make at all times against you, this is also the only reason of fear in us your friends. Besides I fear exceedingly, if we could justly vanquish those we reckon adversaries, we should denounce and tyrannize, one over another, more cruelly, than either they or we do now ; so little humility do I find amongst us, or charity either. 1 Mush's letters on this occasion are long, and travel over more than one recent fracas, especially a quarrel with the Rev. Philip [Stranguish] as to which " I will say no more, but you know you harme yourself more than him by your hard con- ceits and disgraceful language," — and the unpleasant, noisy debate on the subject of houses of ill-fame in Rome. 2 Troublesome as these contests had been, the rules of the pacification succeeded in preventing an open breach, and it was not until the end of 1 596, or the beginning of 1597, that Robert Fisher most unfortunately succeeded, not exactly in reviving the old debates, but in giving the controversy a new and much more serious colour. After this we have no longer * Westminster Archives, v., n. 88, 24 Nov., 1596. Green's charge is n. 73. • The debate was whether they were licensed or wittingly left unnoticed. 20 The Pacification. the old personal quarrels, sometimes very loud, though not so very profound. Henceforth the "debate begins to turn on politics, on the government of the mission, on rivalries be- tween the secular and regular clergy. The importation of these new quarrels, caused fresh excitement, more vehement than the old remedies could cope with. Weston's side brought out the old instrument of the accord, but Norden snatched it away and would not return it. 1 The mutual re- pulsion increased, they would no longer eat at the same table. This time, however, the majority retained their places in the hall, the opposition (reduced to seven, the others having re- fused to secede) took their commons in smaller private rooms. Looking back at the story of those " Stirs," as told in Bagshaw's correspondence, we find it .all appears in a clearer and more intelligible light. His True Relation was written later, after he had given up his dossier to Bancroft, and in a passionate and exasperating tone that almost defies sober his- torical analysis. Garnet, for instance, is described as a " Machiavel," a " devilish politician," " the spit from Father Person's mouth." From taunts such as these it seemed hopeless to attempt any historical conclusions, and a writer like Father Morris might, well wish that the story under such circumstances should be forgotten. Now we are able to go to the original letters, on the occasion of each of the above charges, and to show that Bagshaw and Garnet were then still on comparatively, or even on distinctly friendly terms. The fire and fury of the True Relation were due to subsequent complications. The historian may pass over its violence and abuse. 1 This may account for the presence of two copies among the Bagshaw Correspondence. Westminster Archives, v. nn. 29, 30. CHAPTER IV. AN ARCHPRIEST APPOINTED. (1597, 1598.) Fisher, as we have seen, leaving the English College, Rome, full of the fire of intrigue, became still further imbued with the spirit of unrest by intercourse with the leaders in Flan- ders. Then coming to England he succeeded in renewing the late quarrels, infuriating Mush about the English Col- lege, 1 and introducing new jealousies about the Spaniards. Then he returned to Flanders,2 and drew out a Memorial at Cambray (about August, 1597) against the Jesuits, which contained the worst charges in vogue against them at all three storm-centres. 3 Finally, he had the impertinence to set this forth to the public in the name of the English clergy, and Charles Paget persuaded the Nuncio at Brussels to send it to Rome in September. The whole episode shows but too clearly how rapidly seri- ous evil consequences were multiplying during the cessation of Church government in England. On the other hand, that the trouble was not deeply seated was sufficiently clear from this, that Fisher had no sooner launched his bolt than he be- gan to change his mind again, and going back to Rome, con- fessed all his offences (March, 1598): but this is antici- pation. Meantime important changes had taken place in Rome. Cardinal Toledo died in September, 1596, and Father Per- sons, having been recalled from Spain, and reaching Rome * Fisher reported . , . that " The Jesuits make me [Mush] the author of the Stirrs in Rome " (A.C., i. 2). This slander wounded Mush deeply, as the rest of his letter too clearly shows, and it is probable that it had much effect on the great estrangement with the Jesuits which gradually followed. 2 The instructions given him are described by Bagshaw, A.C. i. 205-6, and to these he added that if the Jesuits were banished, toleration in England would follow, ibid. pp. 15, 16. 3 Fisher's Memorial, Brevis Declaratio miserrimi status Catholicorum in AngUa, is in Westminster Archives, vi., n. 57. Other copies, ibid., n. 58; and Petyt MSS. 538, vol. 38, n. 1 18-— 120. It was afterwards printed, but no copy is now known. 22 An Archpriest Appointed. at the end of March, 1597, quieted the disturbances at the English College (May 15th), 1 not indeed in a moment, but so skilfully, generously and thoroughly, that the Pope and his curia were delighted, and Persons' favour at court grew con- siderably. Yet it must be always remembered that, as he was a Jesuit and a decided pro-Spaniard, the prevalent tone at the curia was not in his favour, for the Pope was now distinctly French in sympathy, and he was also taking sides against the Jesuits in the great debates, De Auxiliis Gratiae, which were beginning. These considerations, however, would have had no appreciable effect in regard to England and the interregnum., The most probable explanation of Clement's con- tinued delay in dealing with them, was the non-appearance of Dr. Stapleton, who had been summoned to Rome to act as Eng- lish adviser there. But he was prevented by weak health from travelling until the summer heats had passed. Then he en- deavoured to start, but wrote, on September 1 5 th, from Lou- vain to say that he was still too weak to make the journey, and his death in October, 1598, shows that his ailment was but too genuine. To call in such a man was, no doubt, a very wise move ; but whether, if he had come, he would infallibly have succeeded in solving the difficult task in hand, who can say? For though he had won a European reputation as a theologian, he had never yet been tried in government, and he was (or lately had been) a more advanced pro-Spaniard than Father Persons. It proved, however, a misfortune that there was no English secular clergyman of name to take the lead in Rome at this juncture. So things went on till August, 1 597, Persons still anxious to return to Spain, and an Italian again Rector of the English College. On the 1 2th Persons himself began to move. He had received some important letters from England,2 which he sent to the Pope, and with them a memorial in favour of con- secrating two Bishops, one for England, one for the English in 1 This was done with all due formalities in a written document, entitled, Con- cordia inila inter Scholares Col. Angl., cum Patribus, S.J., and dated Ascension Day, 1597. Preserved in Arch. West, vi., u. 39. It has been printed from Petyt MSS. in A.C. 1. p. 16. ' We do not know what they were, but we may conjecture that his budget comprised news that Stapleton was not to be expected, and that the unquiet party at Wisbech had attempted to solve the question of a subordination in their own way, by setting up self-governing sodalities, of which we shall hear more later. In reality those Sodalities had been given up again in July (A.C. i. p. 2). An Archpriest Appointed. 23 Flanders. 1 At the same time he begged the Pope to appoint a small commission of Cardinals to examine the plan (which appears to have been done), and the Cardinal Protector sent to England to ask for informations on the possibility of establishing a subordination among the clergy. Answers to his inquiries were sent from England about the middle of September, but only one of these now survives. It is signed by six priests of some note, Southworth, Stranguish, Bramp- ton, Tyrrwhit, Bavant and Blackwell; and they speak feel- ingly of the dangers even of giving names and votes for a new authority. It is essential, they think, that no external honours should be given to the Superior, if one is appointed. For the rest, they leave themselves entirely in the Protector's hands, who should consult the English clergy then in Rome. 2 About the same time (September 20th), Dr. Gifford wrote to Dr. Bagshaw that his party ought to send their views to Rome forthwith, as the appointment of a Superior was now proximate. But this advice was not followed. Bagshaw's pet project for self-governing associations had lately been disapproved by some, both of the clergy and laity. 3 It may easily be that for the moment he was himself uncertain how to act. During the months which followed, the projected " subor- dination" got more and more talked about, and in 1601, six Assistants could write that the Archipresbyterate had been instituted " with the consent and privity of the more part of the clergy."* This evidence fits in well with the evidence of 1 Printed Tierney-Dodd, iii. Ap. 117, from MS. West Arch., vi., a. 80. Another copy, Vatican cod. 6227, f. 26. The covering letter to the Pope, 13 August, is at Stonyhunst, Col. P., 355. See Apologie, 102. According to H. More, Historia Prov. Anglicans, p. 147, the project was for three Bishops and six Archpriests. 2 Arch. West., vi., 54, original, dated 14 September, 1597. At Stonyhurst, Col. P., f. 548, there is an extract from a letter by Garnet to Father Persons which gives various views. Some think there will be great difficulty ; Garnet's idea is that a bishop might survive, if he used very great precautions. " Most people think Mr. Blackwell or Mr. Tirwit the fittest." 3 Gifford to Bagshaw, Petyt MSS., 538, vol. 38, f. 378. Bagshaw's Mem- orandum, " The device of associating priestes was utterly disliked and left off, for that the wisest lay Catholiques are most desirous, that the actions of priestes should not extend beyond their spiritual function, &c." (A.C. i. 205). Colleton, " We . . . desisted from prosecuting our purpose, as soon as we first understood that some two or three of our brethren [In margin, Mr. Blackwell, Mr. Dr. Bavin, and Mr. Tyrrwhit] misliked our endeavours." Just Defence, p. 124. Garnet reported the abandonment of the Association, 10 September, 1597. 4 This letter forms the last Appendix to the Scriptum Secundum in the pro- ceedings in Rome in 1602. See Introduction, above, 24 An Archpriest Appointed. the Protests of the secular clergy against Fisher's Memorial? and it is further borne out by the Letters of Congratulation, which followed the Archpriest's installation, of which we shall hear in due course. Meantime a lapse from domestic discipline at the Eng- lish College, Rome, of small importance in itself, chanced to give the whole subject of the interregnum a new import- ance. A few scholars were found drinking in a tavern, and, when asked who they were, thought it a capital joke to say that they were from the German College. On the other hand, the Jesuit authorities of that college, on hearing that their good name had been touched, not unnaturally appealed to their Cardinal Protector to discover and punish the offen- ders. So when, at the end of September, the same merry company paid another visit to " The sign of the Rose, beside St. Mark's," they were promptly run in by the sbirri or police of the time. Under these circumstances the affair took a seri- ous aspect; for Italians are much less inclined than we are to condone such offences. The Pope, though appreciating the humorous side of the adventure, did not overlook the offence against discipline. He laughed, but added rather grimly, that " as the English had drunk the Germans' wine, they should also go to prison for them," — that being the ordinary punishment for their offence. Fortunately Father Persons was at hand, and he managed to arrange a compromise. They were to be confined, but in private rooms at the College. Then the Pope sent his fiscal, Don Accarizio Squarcioni, Canon of St. John Lateran's, to conduct an inquiry, which ended rather badly for the unruly section of the scholars, to which these young adventurers were found to have belonged. Previous peccadilloes were proved against them, and the op- portunity was naturally utilized to break up the old clique, by giving the young men a new start in some other college, and bringing in new men to take their places. At the same time, Robert Markham, one of the same clique, died, unexpectedly, and among his effects was found a considerable amount of old correspondence, including the letters sent in to the faction 1 Garnet's request for a counter protest to Fisher, made I March, 1598, is printed in A.C. i. 17 — 20. Blackwell's response, 12 March, is in Arch. West., vi., n. 71, Persons's Apologie, p. 98, thus enumerates the rest: "Letters of the Priests from the North of 24 March, with others of 20 April, and others after 30 July. Letters from Priests in the South in great number 18 May, from the quiet at Wisbech 27 March. . . One of these showed over 100 hands, others 40 or 50. . " These protests frequently contained -a clause welcoming in advance any subordination which the Pope might institute'. An Archpriest Appointed 25 by the wire-pullers in Flanders and elsewhere. All this new evidence proved again, and more incontestably than ever, the seriousness of the late agitation, and the need for immediate legislation, while it was now shown by experience that the dis- turbers would not (as many of the Italians had feared) throw up their faith, when called to order. On the contrary, when these young men saw the justice of the proceedings against them, they accepted their penalties like men, and the troubles at the English College, Rome, herewith came to an end. Now, therefore, the process of constitution-building was taken in hand with every prospect of a speedy termination. There could now be no division of opinion on the necessity for prompt action; and by this time no prospect remained of Stapleton, or any such Englishman, arriving to carry the measure through, while the letters from England showed a readiness to accept any subordination the Pope might impose. The Pope accordingly recommenced the sittings of the com- mission at the Holy Office, and it was eventually decided that the new hierarchy should be sacerdotal, not episcopal, with an Archpriest at its head. Father Persons, who had been in favour of episcopal rule, 1 did not easily give up his plan, and he persuaded Cardinal Caetano to take him round to all the Cardinals on the com- mission, in order to press his views upon them. But in vain. It seems that the Pope himself advocated the change for caution's sake, and for the same reason he resolved not to set up the Hierarchy by papal brief, but gave orders to the Car- dinal Protector Caetano to issue Constitutive Letters to the same effect ; the draft, however, for these letters was prepared in the papal Archivio dei Brevi, where it is still extant. 2 Whilst this was being done, who should arrive in Rome but Robert Fisher, now penitent for his former excesses. He was treated, however, exactly as the tavern-haunting scholars had been ; confined to his room, examined by Accarizio, and sent away from Rome, this time to Spain, where he lived quietly, without communicating with his previous friends, who could not for a long time discover his whereabouts. His confessions, which are extant, 3 show the seriousness of the 1 From Father Holt's letter of 1596, and Garnet's of 10 September, 1597, I infer that all the English Jesuits were then of the same opinion. * Meyer, Katholische Kirche unier Elizabeth, 1911, p. 35 6 - 3 Stonyhurst, Anglia, VI., n. 22. See also Apologie, p. 94. 26 An Archpriest Appointed. mischief done by the factious in the clearest light. They lasted a week, beginning on the day on which the new con- stitution was finished and dated, March 8th, 1598. The man selected as Archpriest was George Blackwell. Though eventually he was not a success, he had so many good qualities that we cannot wonder at his having been chosen. He was a good correspondent, charitable, learned, free from reproach, not involved in the disputes of Wisbech, a univer- sity man and a general favourite. One of the less passionate of the Appellants declared that, " If the choice had been by election, I would have given my voice to him as soon as to any man in England." Another of the same party described their second breach with him as being due to the artfulness of the Jesuits, who feared lest the intimacy between him and their party (during the short period of "the atonement") would soon make the secular clergy as a body so strong as to have defied Jesuit attacks. 1 Blackwell had his defects cer- tainly, but his eventual ill-success did not result from in- herent unfitness for the post. His main defect appears to have been an entire want of experience in government, joined with exaggerated ideas of his position as Superior. Tudor times had accustomed Englishmen to an extraordinary assumption of self-import- ance by all holders of office under the Crown ; and Blackwell seems to have fallen innocently in with the custom of the day. While nothing can be more urbane or respectful than his let- ters to his friends or to the authorities at Rome, his communi- cations with his subjects, when he was vexed or irritated, were found to be deplorably stilted and unconciliatory in tone, while he sometimes seriously exceeded the powers given to him. The chief error made in the new constitution was that of connecting it too ostentatiously with the anti- Jesuit agitation, which was for the moment so strangely to the fore. The truth was that the Roman officials were over-anxious, as ab- sent friends so often are ; and over-emphasized a point which would have been better secured by a mere hint, or entire silence. It was no doubt true that Blackwell would have for the moment to pay special attention to the agitation; and Caetano began well by laying down from the first the 1 So Champney, in Divers Discourses, p. 34. An Archpriest Appointed. 27 broad fundamental principle, " the Jesuits neither have, nor seek to have, jurisdiction over the secular clergy." But in other parts of the letter he returns to the disputes too fre- quently ; and this suggested to fault-finders the exclamation, " Jesuits again 1 The archpriest has been instituted for the sole purpose of helping them! " 1 The words which gave chief offence were found in the sixth clause of the instructions sent with constitutive letters, but on a paper apart. They run as follows : 2 Although the Superior of the said Fathers is not among the consultors of the Archpriest, yet, since it is of the greatest im- portance, and is the earnest desire and command of his Holiness, that there should be complete union of mind and agreement be- tween the 'Fathers of the Society and the secular clergy; and as the said Superior, on account of his experience of English affairs and the authority he has amongst Catholics, may greatly assist all consultations of the- Clergy, the Archpriest will be careful in matters of greater moment to ask his opinion and advice ; so that everything may be directed in a more orderly manner, with greater light and peace, to the glory of God. To obtain a general idea of the Holy See's meaning here (for the Pope afterwards deliberately renewed the instruc- tion de verbo in verbum) one must remember that the Archi- presbyterate was set up with an eye to the possibility of great changes ensuing on the death of Elizabeth ( then proximately expected), and to the need of thereupon taking important resolutions quickly. Whilst, therefore, the Jesuit Superior " is not among the consultors of the Archpriest," so that the affairs of the clergy will not ordinarily come before him, novel cir- cumstances "of greater moment " might occur at any time, in which the experience of the long-established Jesuits might be most useful. Moreover, the Jesuits were then the only Catholic body which then had well-tested means of intercommunication with the remoter parts of the country, and especially with Rome. The Archpriest and his Assistants would no doubt establish their own channels in time, but it must clearly be of advantage, in the present circumstances, 1 Blackwell's own views on his position may be seen in his letter of thanks to the Pope, I August, 1598. They seem quite normal and correct. R.O. Roman Transcripts No. 112, from Borghese I. 448. ab. 2 An original sealed duplicate of these letters is in the English College, Rome ; the translation here followed is by Father Gerard in The Month, Jan. 1897; cf. A.C- ii- xvii. 28 An Archpriest Appointed. to make free use of the channels of the Jesuits' information, as well as of that information itself, and this could only be acquired by unusual freedom of intercourse. Finally, as teachers and managers of several large seminaries for the clergy, there might from time to time be confidential mes- sages to be communicated to the head of the clerical body. But whatever we may think of the intention of this in- struction, it was undeniably liable to misunderstanding. If one strings together clipped quotations from the paragraph above, and puts the emphasis on the wrong words (a method of quoting common among the Appellants as among other ex- cited and unscientific controversialists), one easily obtains an entirely inverted sense. For instance: As it is the earnest command of his Holiness that there should be complete union, between the Fathers of the Society and the Secular Clergy; and the Superior of the Jesuits, because of the authority he has, may greatly assist all the consultations of the clergy; the Archpriest will be careful to ask his advice, so that everything may be directed in a more orderly course, &c, &c, &c. So far we have only perverted the sense by clipped quo- tations and false emphasis. Of course, there were many other sources of half-unconscious misrepresentation. During translation (for instance), a partizan spirit easily gives a new shade of colour to phrases as they pass through the mind. Thus, without perhaps any conscious malice, a form of this sort is evolved. Orders were sent in secret to the Archpriest, binding him to follow the Jesuits' advice, on all occasions. Each word italicized here being a distinct misrepresenta- tion, though a plausible one, of the original Latin terms; and all these faults have been actually and constantly made. Finally we arrive at Watson's frankly hostile version: All Catholics must hereafter depend upon Blackwell, and he upon Garnet, and Garnet upon Parsons, and Parsons upon the devil, who is the author of all rebellions, treasons, murders, dis- obedience, and all such designments as this wicked Jesuit hath hitherto designed against her majesty, her safety, her crown and her life. 1 It is clear that, when the time should come for removing 1 Sparing Discovery, p. 70, quoted in Law's Jesuits and Seculars, p. lxv. An Archpriest Appointed. 29 everything liable to misconception in Caetano's instruction, there would be hardly anything of this clause left. Some party writers have laid the whole blame for these shortcomings upon Father Persons. There is indeed no doubt that he was held in much esteem by Cardinal Caetano ; that his advice was fairly often taken, 1 and that this would not have been done, unless it was followed at least occasionally. Persons must bear his part of the blame for what went wrong, in so far as it may fairly be ascribed to him. But there is no evidence to show that his advice was asked on this occasion ; in fact, the little we know about the moulding of this con- stitution suggests the contrary. His counsel was rejected in regard to the creation of Bishops, and the draft of the Con- stitutive letters survives in the office, not of the friendly Car- dinal, but of a Pope not overmuch inclined to the Jesuits. All that is clear is that first the Cardinal and then the Pope undertook the responsibility for the letter with emphasis. The Constitutive letters were sent to England under cover of a letter from the Cardinal to Father Garnet, to which Garnet answered on May 8th. To the Cardinal, who had evidently taken a dark view of the dissentients in England, Garnet replies in a more cheering tone. " There would be peace in England, but for the outcries raised overseas. Not more than one or two here would profess themselves our enemies: though some outsiders write as though quarrelling was of daily occurrence." 2 Then he set off to find Blackwell, and delivered him his packet about the 9th. Some humble sort of "reception" of the new Superior was reported by Garnet on the 27th, " with the applause of almost all the good, though a few grumble." By the end of the year the Cardinal Protector reported that he had received letters of congratula- tion "from well nigh 200 who had written to him from England." 3 The erection of local Church government in England was now at last an accomplished fact. 1 There are several minutes for letters extant in Persons's hand, evidently intended to be used by Caetano's clerks. Perhaps half a dozen or so in the Archives of Stonyhurst, and as many in those of Westminster. From these we might argue that, though these particular drafts were not used (or they would not have been where they are, but at the Palazzo Gaetano), such papers must have been sometimes used, or there would not be so many of them remaining. ' Stonyhurst, Anglia, II., n. 35. By the "outcries from overseas," are pro- bably meant such complaints as those of Fisher or Paget. 3 Archpriest Controversy, i. 118. CHAPTER V. THE OPPOSITION TO THE ARCHPRIEST BLACKWELL. (1598.) In this parliamentary age we so clearly recognize the dignity of a rival party to that in office, and of its importance for good government, that we sometimes term it, by a happy paradox, "His Majesty's Opposition." But in the Elizabethan age, when absolutism was everywhere in the ascendant, among Catholics as among Protestants, our paradox would have been rejected with horror as dangerous nonsense, if not treason. And so it came that the English Church government which the Pope set up in 1598, began almost naturally to regard its opponents as rebels and schismatics ; while the non-contents almost as inevitably described the government as tyrants and oppressors. They could hardly judge otherwise. But it must be our task to take the maturer view. We must study how, in the give and take of debate, crude ideas grew towards ma- turity, and extravagant projects were gradually discarded, how the opponents of Blackwell, though often wayward and reprehensible in details, are in the end found to have been fulfilling a genuine constitutional function. The Opposition, having grown out of the " Stirs of Wis- bech" in 1595, had the double advantage of being both or- ganized and in the field long before the appearance of the Archpriest. But with this came the disadvantages of being at first considered merely contentious and devoid of worthy purpose. At the end of 1596, however, the idea occurred to its members that they too would arrange plans, as the majority of the prisoners in the Castle had done, in order to obtain some positive benefits. They thought of setting up " Associations," in which they would enrol priests outside, as well as inside the prison walls. This would not only facili- tate the gathering of alms and mutual self-help in many ways, it would also indirectly turn their minority into a majority. On paper their proposals had very much to commend them ; but the student of Church law will notice one grave de- fect. The organization, though intended to govern the clergy, The Opposition to the Archpriest Blackwell. 31 had no dependence on the higher powers of the Church, through whom alone jurisdiction for Church rule is derived. Everything was to be decided by the votes of the " Associ- ates." They chose their " Rectors " for a short term of office, and they might also depose them. Even when, at a later period, the question of Bishops for England began to be debated, the Associators proposed that they too should de- pend on the votes of the clergy. Rome would never have accepted that programme ; it would, on the contrary, inevit- ably regard its proposers with suspicion. In point of fact, however, the projected Association never reached maturity through difficulties of a more common- place kind. Organization meant correspondence, meetings, parties, all which in those days were fraught with grave dan- ger; and the Catholic gentry, whose houses were the sole refuges for the Catholic clergy, declared that " they were most desirous that the actions of priests should not extend beyond their spiritual function." Whereupon, to use Bag- shaw's words, " The device of associating priests was utterly disliked and left off." This took place about September, 1597.1 The proposed " Associations " therefore came to nothing, but the debates about them had this unfortunate effect, that as soon as Blackwell received his new authority, he found himself at once faced by a well-organized, but bitter and resentful Opposition. And it will be well to consider yet more closely the three leaders of that Opposition, John Col- leton, Christopher Bagshaw and John Mush, though we have already met some of them before; for they have charac- ters not easy to understand, especially if one considers them as opponents only. Let us begin with the last-named. John Mush was a sturdy, straightforward Yorkshireman, pious and honest, strong and hearty. Though he was ex- tremely irascible, and often obstinate and rude, he was of all the party the most human. Storms of anger may sweep over him, as over the rest, but they have not the frankness to let us see in their correspondence the return to greater sobriety and higher aspirations as Mush does. He had been brought up by the Jesuits, and so long as he was in touch with them, so loved and admired them that he asked to be admitted " Archpriest Controversy, i. 205. The rules of the Association, Stonyhurst, Angl. ii. 32. 32 The Opposition to the Archpriest Blackwell. to their Society, and was refused because, as the need of labourers for England was instant, it was Mush's duty to return at once : he was, however, made a participant in all the merits of the Order. 1 What steps led him downwards from these amiable dispositions we do not know; but at this moment he had been infuriated by the ne'er-do-well, Robert Fisher, who calumniously told him that the Jesuits held him responsible for the late troubles at the English College. Still his heart was not hardened, and next year Garnet describes him as " blunt but kindly, as is his wont," though after that there were worse quarrels still : but even when temper is hot- test, we also see better tendencies at work. Changes for the better, made by the Appellant party, are again and again first formulated by Mush. It may be that the recovery of his side from the orgies of passion and malevolence, to which so many of his companions gave way, was chiefly due to John Mush's fidelity to what was spiritual in his vocation. Christopher Bagshaw had a still more complex, puzzling character. The attractive features were power, wit, the gift of leadership, and devotion to his friends : the repellent were a quick temper, a bitter tongue, and an unforgiving nature. But for his conversion he might very possibly have risen to eminence at Oxford, or at the bar, or as a politician. But his character and training accorded less well with the neces- sarily humble and much enduring life, which the English missioner of that day had to lead. Suffering made him, not meeker, but more irritable. As we have already heard a good deal about him in the previous section, I need only add here that, after having en- rolled himself in the " Welsh " party under Morgan and Paget, he had been arrested as soon as he landed in England, with a cipher on him for correspondence with Paget. This led to his imprisonment in the Tower, and then at Wisbech, un- til the time of which we are writing, without the mellowing influence of even one day of missionary life. He did not, therefore, owe his leadership to any special achievement, nor do his letters, much less his books, explain it. But of the fact no doubt can be felt by those that will look into his cor- respondence, now preserved in the Petyt MSS. in the Inner Temple Library, and elsewhere. Some write asking advice, to which they promise obedience beforehand; some send 1 See Anglia Historica, i., f. 322; Persons, Manifestation, 95, 96; C.R.S., vii., 87. The Opposition to the Archpriest Blackwell. 33 papers to be corrected or revised; some send him alms with genuine regret that they cannot give more, and attest their, love and respect in scores of little ways. On the other hand, his bitter tongue and violent quarrels, in which he courted the aid of Protestants, made some worthy people think that such a man must surely in the end go back to the Protestant side. 1 But Bagshaw's uprisings against Catholics in immediate contact with him, did not come from readiness to quarrel with the Church itself, but from the hot, unreasoning assumption that his cause must be that of the Church itself. To understand Bagshaw in fact— and mutatis mutandis the .same thing holds true for both sides of the Appellant struggle — one must keep constantly reminding one* self that Englishmen of the later sixteenth century were far more emotional than they are now. And, if they show this to our admiration in their poetry, their loyalty, their religion, we should not be scandalized if, in their politics, controversies, and conflicts, they show anger and quarrelsomeness in an equally marked degree. As Mush was the standard-bearer of the sacerdotal and spiritual virtues of the Appellant party, while Bagshaw en- kindled their emotions and inspired their ideas, so it was Colleton to whom that party looked for an example of stead- fastness and moderation, qualities which count for very much in a clerical leader. Not a man of brilliant talents or ex- ceptionally lofty principles, he was of good average abilities, controlled his temper, and very rarely demeaned himself by abuse. His books, nevertheless, display him to us as a melan- choly, 2 dour, heavy person, incapable of sympathy, of compro- mise, or of comprehending an opponent's position. He had at first entered among the Carthusians, but had not the strength for that very austere life, and thereafter he devoted his fairly ample means to the relief of poor Catholics, and he was especially generous to Bagshaw and his friends. He was also able to live in London, and to pay the fees of letter carriers, which few other priests could do. These advan- tages, though they do not account for his leadership, helped him materially to keep up his position, which he was destined to preserve till the end of a very long life. 1 A.C. i. 122; Jesuits and Seculars, p. 150. 2 "Since seven and twenty years past or thereabouts, I have felt that en- cumbrance of melancholy, as God knoweth what it- would have wrought in me, if I had lived a solitary contemplative life." Colleton, Just Dejen.ee, p. 302. D 34 The Opposition to the Archpriest BlackwelL We must now study the reception of the new Government by the " Associators." As soon as Blackwell had received the Letters Constitutive (May 9, 1598), he asked Colleton to come and see them, and to bring two of his party with him. He came with Robert Charnock on the 12th, and read the letters; but to Blackwell's annoyance, demurred to accept- ing them. Indeed, " He used so hardly my patience," wrote the Archpriest that same evening to Garnet, " with such words for the proceedings of our superior, the Protector, in this order, that I was enforced to leave my accustomed temper in speech, and to deal after an austere manner, albeit but by way of advice." Charnock, though more temperate, told him " they were now in a collection of voices for a Government here, and a Superior," that is, they were about to set up a Government of their own. Blackwell told them he was ready to allow any exceptions against himself to be sent to Rome, " and I am content to leave [my post] at the word of my superior." But he strongly "dehorted" attempts to ques- tion the authority itself, or the clear orders of the Cardinal Protector. " But I fear they will proceed, God give them the spirit of unity." 1 This start was certainly of bad omen. If the opposition of the Associators was not predetermined, it was adopted with lamentable facility: and equally regrettable was the Arch- priest's ready departure from " his accustomed temper of speech." These were destined to be the ever-recurring features of the four years of combat which follow. It naturally took the leaders and their friends some time to decide what cause they should now follow. On reflection they neither proceeded with their Association, nor with the election of a Superior, nor yet did they openly reject Black- well. Mush wrote " perhaps all our intendements will sur- cease" (July 13th). They began, however, to organize, agi- tate, and beg for funds, with so much vigour that Blackwell felt constrained to forbid "meetings" for this purpose. As to their cause, they said: It was the Cardinal Protector, not the Pope, who had set up the archipresbyterate. They knew of no precedent for this, and thought his action suspicious. Moreover, several of their number had been at variance with a Cardinal Protector before during the troubles at the English College, Rome; and the scholars had then managed to play him off, or to evade his orders, as has been 1 Blackwell to Garnet, 12 May, 1598. Stonyhurst MSS. Angl. ii. 52. The Opposition to the Archpriest Blackwell. 35 explained before. Why not try the same manoeuvres again? Some returning scholars told them, on the assertions of the Roman gossips, that these late orders (which indeed profes- sed to be only temporary), would not be confirmed by the Pope unless they were well received in England. In de- murring to accept them under these circumstances, they seemed to themselves to be acting within their rights. 1 In reality, however, these rumours had no satisfactory founda- tion; and the non-contents (whatever their bona fides), were in truth resisting a decree which was sufficiently promulgated. " You ought in sooth to have submitted to your superior, and to have obeyed him," was the Pope's comment in the brief of August, 1 60 1 . In August things came to a climax. They sent terms to the Archpriest, which are now lost, bu,t we can tell their drift from his answer. They asked either for a certain number of assistantships to be given them (and this of itself involved a recognition of the new order), or else for " dimissorial let- ters " in order that Bishop and Charnock might proceed to Rome, ad melius informandum Sanctissimum . Blackwell, on August 17th, refused both alternatives. The request for assistantships he interpreted as ambition : and again he would not recognize a case for an appeal by giving dimissorials : though he would not prohibit the journey. 2 Thus there was no formal "appeal"; but still it is usual to call this " stand off " the first Appeal, in view of what followed later. The two delegates were at the time generally called " Mes- sengers" or "Envoys." On August 22nd Blackwell wrote to ask Doctor Bag- shaw and Bluet, the leaders of the party at Wisbech, whether they acknowledged his authority, and received a refusal couched in language of studied rudeness. Blackwell had ad- dressed them as "Reverend Fathers and Brothers"; Bag- shaw in answer drops the word "Father"; Bluet drops the word " Reverend " as well ; and both use the belittling " tu " for Blackwell's polite "vos." Bagshaw asks him why he "obtrudes the Cardinal's institutions or your superiorship upon us, who ignore and reject it." JBluet adds, "If by 1 See Charnock's letter, A.C. i. 70. Undated, but presumably the earliest statement we have of the Appellants' case. * Colleton, Just Defence, p. 174. Persons, Apologie, 130 b; and R.O., D.E. 268, 11. 37. Though Blackwell wrote an important letter to Rome that same day, countersigned by the 12 Assistants (mentioned above), he does not mention the Appeal. He wrote again for this on the 1st of November, probably the time he learnt of their going on from Paris. R.O., Bliss. 112. 36 The Opposition to the Archpriest Blackwell. chance a child of this world creeps by fraud into primacy and power; know that the sentence of Rome, in cases of sub- reption, may be changed for the better," etc., etc. 1 More moderate and more important were the letters con- signed to the envoys when they started for Rome. The party then counted nearly thirty, and they sent eight letters, bear- ing in all twelve signatures, with their attestations of sup~ port from three more who would not sign. 2 The prime objects for which the envoys were to work are indicated in the fol- lowing decidedly imperious prayers: " The Archipresbyterate of Master Blackwell, being neither asked for, nor useful — is to be revoked. ... A hierarchy, approved by the free votes of the seminarists and by them alone, is to be insti- tuted," etc., etc. The actual petitions may be grouped under three heads. The substitution of a Bishop for an Archpriest, and the petitioners proceeded at once to vote for him, naming almost exclusively the leaders of their own side. Secondly, they have their thrust at the Jesuits, asking that the English Col- lege, Rome, should no longer be a prey to dissensions; by which in reality they mean that the Jesuits were to be ousted, and the disturbers given the command. Thirdly, they beg a decree against books which irritate the State. But how could the Holy See pledge itself to prohibit books offen- sive to a State which punished orthodoxy as a treason worse than any political offence? Besides, who could help suspect- ing that this was in reality a feint to draw the Pope into the Appellants' quarrel with the Catholic pro- Spaniards? With this should be compared Blackwell's enumeration of the inner reasons for the appeal, when he appointed Richard Haydock and Martin Array as his proctors (Nov. 1, 1598). 1) The spirit of faction, which originated in the stirs of Rome and Belgium. 2) Ambition in some who wished to be Assistants, though quite unfit, because of their restlessness. 3) In some intolerance of discipline, arising from past quarrels., and excessive freedom or licence. They are un- 1 A.C. i. 7578. The probable explanation for this rudeness is that they thought Blackwell was a Jesuit in disguise, and therefore fair game. = There are copies of these Stonyhurst MSS. Aagl. ii. 47. Bagshaw's letter is also in the Petyt MSS., printed in A.C. i. 148. The words to be quoted immediately are from the prologue. The Opposition to the Archpriest Blackwell. 37 willing to have any superior at all, who might quietly recall or remove them. The heretics are tacitly helping them. 1 Here we must pause in our history to face a question which will loom large later on in our story., It was then asked whether the initial refusal to acknowledge Blackwell was not schism, properly so called? Now that we have seen something of the principal papers of this period, we should do well to ask ourselves whether those papers make for an affirmative or negative answer. 1. It seems true that the Appellants went much further in their " stand off " than is generally stated. The letters of Bagshaw are deplorably rude, disrespectful and diso- bedient. And nowhere at this period does one see a trace of "mere standing off until the voice of the ,Pope is heard." They were soliciting others, if possible all, to withhold their obedience ; indeed it would seem that nothing would satisfy them except their own way in full. On reflection, we can now, of course, see that there was a predominant resolution to accept the Pope's orders, whatever they should be; but considering the first utterances of the Appellant party, we cannot seriously blame Blackwell's followers for think- ing, at the beginning, that the predominant motive of the Appellants' action was obstinate adherence to their own ideas. 2. Again the dissentients were clearly in error on some important points. For instance, they thought that the secu- lar clergy should elect their own head. This was an errone- ous principle. The Church is not a priestly aristocracy, but a monarchy; the headship resting with the Bishop of Rome. None of the Appellants would have questioned that for a moment, in an heretical sense. What they meant was pos- sibly this, that the right in England to elect Bishops had for centuries been vested in the cathedral chapters, and that on their dispersion the right had reverted to the digniores among the clergy, under which term of course they would mean themselves. 2 In the same self-confidence they calmly claimed 1 R.O., Bliss, 112; from Borghese, I. 488. He goes on to say that all but a dozen have accepted the subordination gladly. If the two agents are treated severely, 'or forbidden to return, there will be an end of dissension. Blackwell from the first warned the envoys of the danger of imprisonment. A.C. i. pp. 66, 68. 2 This is evidently the conclusion to be drawn from Bishop's final letter from Rome, 20 February, 1599, to Bagshaw, "As for that point of free election, it hath place where there is a Dean and Chapter, which failing with us, the right of election revolveth to him that hath charge of the flock [i.e. the Pope]." A.C. i. 124. A certain English respect for their old law of premunire also induced a certain number to look askance at any nominations from Rome. 38 The Opposition to the Archpriest Blackwell. the benefit of the old canon, Nullus invitis deiur episcopus, as if their little band were absolutely the whole of Catholic England. 3. There was then from the first some confusion of prin- ciples, some rudeness, some disrespectfulness to properly con- stituted authority. In one of our next paragraphs we shall meet with another serious failing. But nowhere is the excess committed exorbitant; there are always some circumstances which excuse. In none, therefore, is there a grave breach with the government of the Church, nor is there even the danger of such a breach. One does not see how a severe cen- sure, like that of schism, properly so called, can possibly be passed upon them. Irritating they were, passionate and ob- stinate. They stuck grimly and for years to some of their errors, as for instance to this claim for a right to elect. They did themselves harm at Rome, and then imputed their mis- fortunes to others. But, taking them as a party, there was never a tendency to split from the main body of the Church. Occasionally, or for a moment, the passionate acts of one or two seemed to tend in that direction ; but party discipline was not only steadfast on the right side, it was also strong enough to carry vacillators with it, when the critical moments came. Those who talked of the Appellants as schismatics did their own side very bad service. Unfortunately the word schismatic was at that period used loosely, to indicate those Catholics who went to Protestant churches. This lax and un theological use of the word was to pave the way for an erroneous application of it, of which more immediately. Attention must again be directed to the danger which underlay the third petition of the Appellants (viz., that books should be prohibited which irritated the State). The danger was that among partisans this principle should become cur- rent, — that it was allowable to work for the favour of the per- secutors, by denouncing or otherwise prejudicing fellow- Catholics on the score of party or political differences. An example of this occurred a month pr so after the envoys started. On October 7th, Dr. Bagshaw was sent for by the Coun- cil and charged with being 1 a party to Squire's plot., This was a ridiculous story, alleging, for instance, that Persons and Bagshaw had conspired to use the said Squire to poison the pommel of the Queen's saddle. Nonsensical, however, as The Opposition to the Archpriest Blackivell. 39 this may seem to us, it was the sort of fiction which com- mended itself highly to the credulous of the sixteenth cen- tury; and Bagshaw himself, while stoutly maintaining his innocence, accepted without demur all those parts of the fable which made against Father Persons, and regarded him as having brought his (Bagshaw's) life into danger. Moreover, his friend Bluet, in revenge, charged Weston, before the Protestant keeper, with being a pro-Spaniard, and some thought that Bagshaw did something similar, but this is not clear. Anyway, the result of the denunciation was that Wes- ton, and four others of his party at Wisbech, were now car- ried to the Tower, threatened with death, and left to linger there under very severe treatment, which cost the Jesuit much suffering and almost total blindness .< Bagshaw, on the con- trary, now figured as a persona grata to the persecutors. He was able to procure special favours for men of his own party. His collection of papers about Catholic quarrels having been seized, or communicated to Bishop Bancroft, he aided the Bishop in planning a book about them. He also promised Bancroft to prosecute the appeal to Rome, " not weighing or respecting any sentence, judgment or action to the contrary," 1 a strangely suspicious pledge for the leader of a Catholic party to give to the official leader of the enemies of his Faith. This was, no question, a bad case of currying favour with the persecutors, in prcejudicium Catholicorum . Still there was probably no malice prepense; Bluet spoke with tears in his eyes, and his charges were for him mere commonplaces ; so too were words of wrath on Bagshaw's tongue. Almost simultaneously with this grave fault on the side of the Appellants, came a very serious offence from a friend of the Archpriest. The offender was a Jesuit 5 Father Thomas Lister, who had recently been a reader of philosophy and theology, though Father Garnet had found' him 1 a difficult per- son to manage. He now composed a tiny MS. tract of eleven pages called Adversus Factiosos in Ecclesia, which after a time became known as Lister on Schism. Both his reasons and conclusions contain exaggerations characteristic of the day. As Elizabeth's justices ruled that attempts against the Queen's Ministers were really treason against the Sovereign, so does Father Lister declare that se- dition against the magistrate is sedition against the supreme ■ For Bluet's charges see Apologie, 152, and Petyt MS. 538, v. 38, f. 399. For Bagshaw's papers, A.C. i. 210, etc. 40 The Opposition to the Archpriest Blackwell. power, whether in Church or State ; whence he concludes that those who defy Blackwell are schismatics properly so called, and fall under the penalties of suspension and excommuni- cation. Gross exaggerations of a theorist, destined, after a time, to react disastrously on the cause they were meant to support. For the present, however, the little essay remained unknown. It was a book of principles, it named no persons, it kept to generalities, it was not addressed to the public, but was written in Latin for a fellow-priest, who had begged his opinion on the subject. 1 1 Letter of the six Assistants, in the Scriptum Secundum, see Introduction, above; Law, Jesuits and Seculars, pp. 143, 150. CHAPTER VI. THE FIRST APPEAL AT ROME. (15990 WHILST these things were happening in England, though without attracting notice, Bishop and Charnock were busy in Paris, but again so quietly, that we cannot give much ac- count of their doings. Their main object seems to have been to secure the powerful support of the French king, who was always ready to befriend any adversary of Spain. Father Persons, on hearing of this, appreciated the danger so well that he wrote to the Pope, then at Ferrara, on October 24th, begging that, if the envoys came to plead their cause there, nothing should be settled until the Cardinal Protector had been consulted. 1 In point of fact, however, no French sup- port could be gained. So the Appellants went on once more, and reached the English Hospice, Rome, on December 1 1 th, 1598. The Pope, who was not yet back from Ferrara, had de- clared that their journey was very displeasing to him; and that if they persevered, he would cause them to be im- prisoned. Indeed it is strange to see how many (except Persons, as his letter above shows), took it for granted from the first that severity would be used. Even Cardinal Camillo Borghese, who was to some extent in the French interest, and had been kind to the recalcitrant scholars in previous years, now shook his head, and Clement was no sooner back than, on St. Thomas's Vespers, the last day of the Christmas festivities, Don Accarizio was sent round to the lodgings of the envoys, and whisked them off in a papal car- riage to the rooms in the English College which had lately contained the tavern-haunting scholars first, and then Fisher, and they were treated on the same lines. Their papers were confiscated, they were kept apart, and examined at some length by Don Accarizio; but the formalities were fuller. A definite libellus was drawn up by Blackwell's proc- 1 Estratto di lettera del Padre Personio, 24, Ottobre, 1598. R.O., Bliss, 112, from Borghese MSS. iii. 124 g. 42 The First Appeal at Rome. tors, Dr. Haydock, Dean of Dublin, and Martin Array, priest (January 10, 1599), and it was given to the envoys at a later stage. 1 On February 19th, the Cardinals Caetano and Borghese, Protector and vice-Protector, came to the College to hear the libellus and the confessions read in the presence of the envoys, but they would not give any sentence till they had consulted the Pope. Then came one of those unfortunate delays which so frequently occur at Rome; Caetano was in failing health (he died twelve months later), and letters were expected from Blackwell. It was not until April 6th that the brief was signed which was to end the controversy, and on the 22nd the Cardinals concluded the case against Bishop and Charnock. As to the brief, we know nothing of its preliminary for- malities except that the Archduke Albert, now Governor of the Low Countries, requested the Pope, for the sake of peace, to settle the matter by a special brief (February 1, 1599). 2 When it came, this brief was characterized by a remarkable reticence. It confirmed Caetano's letter, with all its enclo- sures, ac si ad verbum insererentur , but it said not a word, either for good or for evil, of the Appellants. The sen- tence of the Cardinals is equally restrained. These priests, it says, have " engaged in controversies " in England 1 , and therefore must not return for the present; but nothing is said or insinuated which could impede their returning later on, and finding priestly employment, when the troubles of the moment had calmed down. The Pope was clearly preoccu- pied with the desire of peace. No one could say that he had encouraged the envoys ; but in those days of absolutism, the restraints under which they had been placed, were far indeed from being a mark of reprobation. 3 The moderation of this sentence did much to satisfy for the high-handed treatment of the envoys at first. On the two messengers the effect of this combination of severity with moderation was decidedly felicitous. They realized the position of Rome at once. They never committed themselves to the furious partizanship of Bagshaw, and kept ' R.O., Roman Transcripts, Bliss, bundle 112. The brief of 6 April is printed in Tierney's Dodd, iii. cxxviii. a R.O. Rom. Trans. 112. 1 In contemporary England, for instance, we find even the Queen's favourites, confined now to their own houses, now to those of others,' without anyone seeing in this anything at all extraordinary. Persons speaks of confinements elsewhere, in just the same way (Apologie, p. 177). He also states that the sentence in its original form (dated 8 April) was more severe, but that he had interceded for its modification (Ibid. 139). The First Appeal at Rome. 43 aloof from the extravagant demands of Watson, and other ex- tremists. They never questioned the Cardinal Protector's powers or broached the subject of turning out the Jesuits. They pleaded for Bishops, but were assured that that matter had been rejected after a thorough consideration. They urged the appointment of a second Archpriest of their own party (probably on the analogy of the Jesuits having an in- dependent Superior), but on being shown that two heads over the same body must lead to perpetual quarrels, they aban- doned this too, only insisting on their fears of Blackwell, 1 which, as the result showed, were not without foundation. Bishop, for some time after this, retired altogether from the controversy. There is this insuperable difficulty in determining Father Persons's responsibility for this episode of the envoys, that we do not know how far he acted on his own initiative. As a rule, no doubt, he was simply carrying out orders ; but some- times his opinion would have been asked and followed, and then the responsibility for the mistakes made would have been his. But until we can find out what share he did take in the papal councils, we cannot arrive at any definite judg- ment. What is clearer is that he acted very imprudently in not exerting himself to the utmost in order to keep free from the invidious task put upon him. A violent storm of obloquy was raging against the Jesuits in France and England, and yet he light-heartedly undertakes duties sure to excite bitter feelings of resentment against them. He acts as quasi-pro- secutor and keeper of the two envoy-clergymen, and after- wards defended his action instead of excusing it I In this episode he made unconsciously one of the greatest mistakes of his life. * Bishop to Bagshaw, 20 February, 1599, A.C. i. 123. Though occasionally ironical, this letter is of unusual importance. CHAPTER VII. WAR AND PEACE. (April to June, 1599.) We must now go back to England and to the time when the envoys left, October, 1598. Though some scandal was taken at what became known of Bagshaw's and Bluet's con- duct towards Weston, there was nothing at first to disturb the peace. At the end of December, however, Cardinal Caetano wrote to Blackwell a letter, which, among other generalities, contains these words : " Gain over (if you can) those who are restless by patience and kindness: if you cannot, reprehend and correct them." These words, followed later by the example of the severity shown to the envoys at Rome, appear to have struck Blackwell as if they were a command. He now asked Mush to acknowledge his authority. Mush's let- ter of March 8th survives. Though he does not yet accept the authority he takes a very different position from that of Charnock at an earlier period, who " denied any liking of it [i.e., the Archipresbyterate], lest by liking it, we should bring it upon us contrary to our wills "* ; that is to say, submis- sion was refused on the speculative chance of thereby up- setting the order appointed. Mush's line is that he will actu- ally obey at once, and will formally submit as soon as a reassuring answer arrives from the envoys at Rome. That attitude was not unworthy of a priest, and it is in Mush that one notices it first. Soon after this a harsher note is heard from Colleton. He had been engaged in a contest of pin-pricks during the winter with Garnet, culminating in a very long and ponderous indictment of the Jesuits, which Garnet appears to have com- municated to Blackwell, with whom Colleton had also been fencing. Blackwell thereupon wrote to Colleton in the very regrettable style which he used when offended. It was quite sui generis, a jumble of biblical and legal axioms, mixed up with classical quotations, scoldings, and a weak assumption 1 Caetano's letter is printed A.C. i. 106; Mush's in Tierney-Dodd, iii. cxxiv.; Charnock's, A.C. i. 72. War and Peace. 45 of Patriarchal dignity. Blackwell warned Colleton to beware of schism, or he would be obliged to proceed against him. 1 This prepares us for more trouble from Blackwell's pen. On April 4th he wrote a Last Admonition to Colleton, Mush and Hepbourne, that unless they made a submission in writing to his authority, he would pass ecclesiastical sentence on them for contumacy. The three priests waited a month, answered with equal quarrelsomeness, added gratuitous obloquy against the Protector and Father Persons, and appealed beforehand from Blackwell to the Holy See, both for themselves and for all their allies (May 6th). Blackwell suspended all three next day, and in this letter occurs the first clear allusion to Lister. Indeed, we know from a later letter of Blackwell's, that he. himself had secretly sent them Lister's treatise (which he had meanwhile come across), in order that they might see what others thought of them. 2 Asked if he approved the Treatise, he said that he did: at which the priests were no- thing loth in their answer to let him see what they thought of him, sending him a long paper entitled Conditions for yield- ing, of much interest because it contains their minimum terms. These included one clause that all future Archpriests should be selected by election, another that Lister's book should be withdrawn, and that Blackwell should publish another, re- storing their good name to the Appellants. Another con- dition, and an insulting one, was that the Archpriest should swear he was not a Jesuit in disguise. Mush wrote to Bagshaw that all the conditions were " most reasonable," but we do not wonder at the endorsement on the "Conditions," — "Mr. Blackwell took this in great scorn." Mush ended his letter to Bagshaw with the char- acteristic exclamation, that unless these " scandalous troubles " came to an end immediately, " I will seek to save me out of these flames in a friar's hood." 3 Fortunately the Pope's brief arrived at this very instant ; and what a contrast between his wise reticence and the flar- ing aggressiveness of both parties in England! The Ap- pellants are now no longer the only extremists. At first Blackwell had refrained from retaliating; now he was hit- ting out blindly without regard for consequences. Still, in ' Archpriest Controversy, i. 85; see Colleton's Just Defence, 248-269. = Petyt MSS. 538, v. 47, f. 73- 3 Mush to Bagshaw, 19 May, 1599, in Law, Jesuits and Seculars, p. 147. This gives us an approximate date for the Conditions, which are found in Latin in Relatio Compendiosa, p. 54; in English in Just Defence, p. 270. 46 War and Peace. reality, the quarrel was only surface deep. Now that the Pope had sent his commands in writing, they were accepted everywhere, and upon the whole, quickly. A letter from a Jesuit a: Vajladolid, repeating news sent by Garnet, puts Mush first among those who had given in their adherence; but Colleton seems to have done most of the actual negotiations. Bagshaw, too, agreed at once, though his letter, which is ex- tant, prefaced his accordance with an ominous list of the grudges he was still nursing against the Archpriest's side; as to which grudges, " what pursuit were requisite for remedy if not for revenge, any sincere Christian of judgment cannot but see." 1 For all that, the two long-divided parties at Wisbech' now dined together, and by June ist, Colleton had agreed with Blackwell, " that all quarrels and unkindness might now be forgiven." This agreement was embodied in a formal docu- ment, called "The Atonement" {i.e., The At-one-ment), written or at least signed by Blackwell. The past was to be treated as a bygone, and all writings on both sides, Lister's among the rest, were to be consigned to oblivion. Finally, Cardinal Caetano wrote what was to be his last message to England, congratulating everyone on the agreement, and praising in particular the forbearance in suppressing all de- mands for satisfaction. 2 Another period of peace now ensued. It lasted for nine months (June i, i 599, to March, 1600), and if it could have been maintained a little longer, until soirie of the Appellant leaders had been taken up into the Archpriest's ministry, the old controversy would probably never have been heard of again. At all events, one sees once more that it was not any inherent defect in the constitution itself which prevented its peaceful and satisfactory working. ¥ For Garnet's news see Jesuits and Seculars, p. 149; Bagshaw's letter (un- published) is in Petyt MSS. 538, v. 47, £. 85. * Unfortunately neither this letter nor Blackwell's are now known to exist. Lister's tract is henceforth only known through Appellant sources. Persons wrote later : " The old book of Schism .... after the reconciliation made with the Superior, was no further prosecuted, but rather by him and all men's consent suppressed." Stonyhurst MSS., Angtia, vi. 159. CHAPTER VIII. THE QUARREL RE-OPENED. ( March — October, 1600.) THE episode which we have now to survey, is a humiliating story. Clerical squabbles are notorious for the heat they de- velop on both sides ; and on this occasion nobody comes out well. The renewed dispute did not arise from any fresh gravamen : it was merely a revival of the conflict at the point reached before the "Atonement." The Archpriest, though he did not begin the war (March 15, 1600), answered its declaration by attacking his adversaries with vehemence throughout the year 1600, constantly misusing his ample powers. The Appellants regained thereby much of the pub- lic sympathy which they had lost by their previous mistakes. In 1 60 1 they counter-attacked but again by illicit means, allying themselves to the persecutors, and assailing the Arch- priest, and still more the Jesuits!, with such virulence, that they in turn lost heavily in Catholic estimation. It was not until 1602 that both parties, stained with indefensible ex- cesses, came to Rome for judgment, though their quarrel might have been settled at any moment by the recourse of either side to arbitration or other constitutional remedies. It will be remembered that, while the Pope was settling at Rome the Appellants' original objections to the Archpriest's appointment, a quite different debate had arisen in England over the word "Schismatics." That word was then often used freely {e.g., for those who went to Anglican service in opposition to the main body of the Catholics) ; and in the early stages of the present quarrel both sides had applied it loosely, the one to the other. But eventually Blackwell used it formally, and in May, 1599, sent to his opponents Father Lister's essay, De ScMsmate. At this the dying flame of quarrel had again shot up furiously, but was hap- pily quenched almost at once by the Atonement, according to which the whole quarrel, and all the writings concerning it, were to be buried in oblivion. But in his mind Blackwell still held on to his previous 48 The Quarrel Re-opened. opinion. He did not indeed press it upon others, but in the course of administering a correction on a different sub- ject to William Clerke, a priest who belonged to the Appellant party, the Archpriest advised him to obtain par- don through his confessor for his share in the previous con- test .(November ,22, 1599). From this small beginning (which implied that the previous quarrel had been sinful), trouble soon multiplied. Clerke got his friends to defend him, 1 sides were formed, and the breach began to open again without jeither side perceiving how serious the consequences of their pertinacity were. Clerke said " he must stand upon his innocence," now that the matter was semi-public, and that lay-folk knew about it. Blackwell, on his side, must insist on "silence and quiet." Neither side can see any middle way. Clerke cannot conceive that any sign of amendment was appropriate; Blackwell cannot see that, if he suggests that a body of his priests have been in schism they are bound to defend themselves, with whatever modifications his offen- sive words might have been used. It will be well to collect at once Blackwell's actual expressions on this subject. 1) In the first letter sent with the De Schismate (May 7> i 599)j> Blackwell said without qualification, "You have been branded with the note of schism by men of the highest virtue and learning." 2) On November i2 2, 1599, he wrote in much milder terms to Clerke, " In the matter of Schism, I would wish you, ... to confess it to your ghostly father . . . But if you mind not to enter into this, . . . then I condescend to your weakness and suffer you in your opinion, accounting it minus malum, quod licet tolerare ad vitandum mains malum." 3) On March 14th, 1600, he further explained, "My meaning was not upon the sight of the Treatise [De Schis- mate], to bind you to avow or follow mine opinion as a point of Faith; for I do not myself believe fide divina that in your particular fact there was schism . . . But . . . your disobedience was exceeding scandalous. Acknowledge your sin, and you shall have me not to stand peremptorily upon your schism to affirm it so : but to declare that you may con- cerning schism safely follow your own opinion." 4) Finally, looking back at the very end, he wrote, 1 Blackwell, 17 January, 1600, forbad writings relating to the last two years, Petyt MSS. 538, v. 47, f. 2cy. A marginal note, however, shows that this " edict " was ostensibly directed against books, published abroad, by C. Paget against Persons, by Dr. Cecil against Fr. Crichton, and by R. Bruce. The Quarrel Re-opened. 49 June, 1 60 1 : "The censuring them of Schism was according to tny opinion . . . which I yet retain, though with sub- mission. I gave them all express leave to think what they would therein. It was but an arbitrary [scholastic] matter, discussed among the learned, which bringeth no loss of credit to either side [i.e., which involved no stigma to the de- fendants on either side]. The tract [i.e., Lister's] I showed them was [shown] in charity, for their better instruction, and more speedy reformation, and it was also sent by me in secret. Our endeavours were for peace, in the manner of a Fatherly admonition." 1 In these views we note that, while there is an ever in- creasing emphasis laid on the mitigating clauses, the opinion in favour of schism does in fact remain. To Blackwell it seemed that the original refusal of obedience was not only wrong (which was true), but assumed the gravity of schism because of the agitation, which had been got up in order to make others, if possible everyone, join in the "stand-off" ; and for this even such illicit means had been used (so he at least believed), as asking the aid of the persecutors. Neverthe- less, even Blackwell saw that, while the charge of schism could only be maintained by assuming that the Appellants, as a body at least, were guilty of this whole series of excesses, in point of fact only one or two at most had participated in them. Many had taken but little part in the proceedings. They might therefore be excused from blame, especially if they would by silence support the present regime. This reasoning was false, as we have shown, because the public opinion of the Appellant body was not only in favour of orthodoxy, but also actually strong enough to keep straight its wilder members. Nevertheless, we must not deny a certain speciousness to Blackwell's views, nor wonder that with a certain presumption, common among men of authority in Tudor times, he insists that his opinions should be respected. It is to be noted against him, however, that he probably knew even before the conflict recommenced that Rome did not approve his terminology, and he was even then, through Garnet, inquiring after another. " As for the word schism we care not," wrote Garnet to Persons, on March 16, 1600, "if [the fact] be censored as disobedience." What else can » 1) Relatio Compendiosa, p. 53. 2) Petyt MSS. 538, 47, f. 291 (or 294). 3) Ibid. fol. 73. 4) Bennet, Hope of Peace, p. 7 ; also Law, Jesuits and Seculars. US- 50 The Quarrel Re-opened. that signify, except that a warning had already been given that Rome did not consider the " stand off " as schismatical, that she would not support censures based on that hypothesis. Colleton, a fortnight earlier (March 3rd), wrote to his friends that both Blackwell and Garnet had refused to say, though asked to do so, that the original offence was " schism." But Blackwell, as we have seen, instead of keeping to this safe course, took to reasserting his charge with modifications that did not rectify it. 1 Feeling now sure of their ground, the Appellants opened their attack in earnest. More than one common letter was sent to Blackwell, signed by Mush and Clerke, then by Col- lington and Hepbourne, of whom we have heard before, as also by Thomas More, grandson of the Martyr, and by Robert Drury, himself a martyr later on. These letters were in effect a fresh declaration of war. They write, in elaborately de- ferential language, that their only aim is peace. They have grievances, however; and as they cannot, after the prohibi- tion of January 1 7th, defend themselves by books, they beg for a disputation. Father Lister, with two other Jesuits, were to defend The Treatise of Schism. Three Appellants would impugn it, and the judges should be Alban Dolman (as their representative), with two or three Assistants represent- ing the Archpriest. A less constitutional proposal for ob- taining peace could hardly be imagined, and considering the time of persecution and other circumstances it was simply amazing. Nor did their suggestions confine themselves to only one good row. If that did not end the matter, then the field of battle should be shifted to some foreign university, and there the discussion should be carried out all over again. They also add that the plan was suggested as an alternative for a public controversy by printed books, in which, when all secrets were ripped up, the Jesuits would certainly have more to fear than they. The whole campaign of the Appel- lants, as it actually unrolled itself during the two years now under discussion, is, we see, already sketched out in these proposals '( March 7th — 13th). 2 Their cartels of defiance being now ready for dispatch, it occurred to them that they ought to say something about the gravamina, on the score of which war was to be renewed. So, as an afterthought, they add four grievances in a post- 1 Stonyhurst MSS., Garnet's Letters, Grene, Col. P. 595. Collington's Letter, A.C. i. 200. * Relatio Compendiosa, p. 61 — 65 ; Colleton, Defence, p. 273 — 284, English translation. The Quarrel Re-opened. 51 script, about which, as being their heaviest griefs, a few words must be added. In the first and fourth gravamen they com- plain that two Jesuits, Fathers Garnet and Jones, on being heckled, seemed to maintain opinions akin to Lister's. In the second and third grievance, they state that Blackwell had instructed confessors not to absolve those who " made no con- science " about the late stirs. 1 In general, however, it may be said that each does contain some gravamen of which priests might well complain, though none is very serious. A con- ciliatory arbiter would have recognized a right to some satis- faction, but he would also have pointed out that the evidence for the alleged grievances was in no case clear. Some was irrelevant, some was ancient hearsay, some were quotations unfairly clipped. Many and grave, however, as had been the faults in those " terrible offers of disputation," as Garnet termed them, those in Blackwell's answer were still more unworthy of the oc- casion. If he had had any training as a constitutional ruler, he would have referred the case (he being a party in the quar- rel) to the nearest superior power, who would have been the papal Nuncio either at Brussels or Paris. Unfortunately he was made of exactly the same clay as his subjects, and thought of nothing except of overwhelming force by force, that is by threatening every ecclesiastical punishment he could inflict, unless they gave up their proposals. In his Last Admonition, as he called it, dated March 14, 1 600, he declares he will sus- pend everyone from all priestly functions if ever they should defend themselves again, by word or writing, and in this style he ran on for page after page of feeble argument and un- worthy taunts. Where, for instance, the Appellants had been studiously, almost cumbrously respectful, Blackwell mocking- ly answers: "You infuse against us a pitiful complaint in show, but in truth a poor, needy and unlearned shift, founded upon ignorance." 2 Instead of retracting what should have been apologized for in the Appellants' gravamina, he simply renews them; and he speaks of the Jesuits in terms sure to accentuate party jealousy. "My friends," he calls them, ' Blackwell had pompously alleged as his authority for this, " i Resolution from the Mother City" — without saying what it was. The probability seems to be that it was only Martin Array's account? of the late proceedings at Rome, where a rhetorical flourish was found. " It was a plain schism which they sought to make." A.C. i. 1 18. « Blackwell's answer (14 March, 1600) consists of two parts. 1) Quaestiones. R.O., D.E., 275. n. 115. vi.; also in Petyt MSS. 538, vol. 47, f. 211. In these Quaestiones, Blackwell endeavours to explain his case in exact canonical terms. 2) English Letter covering the above,— Petyt MS. at supra, 11. 74, 73 (sic).— This was Blackwell's " Second Edict." 52 The Quarrel Re-opened. "most careful of our recovery," and writing to individual Appellants, Blackwell continued such double-edged praise with even greater infelicity. 1 After this rebuff from the Archpriest an appeal to the University of Paris followed almost as a matter of course. Such an appeal had been talked of in 1598, it was alluded to in the 5th article of the proposals for the disputation; and as Bishop and Charnock, and other friends of the party were then in Paris, there can be little wonder at an answer having been obtained as early as May 3rd. There was only one thing to be said against this appeal, which was that, not being a constitutional remedy, Blackwell might freely ignore it altogether, or resist it where he could. This he did. He left the Appellants to put their case just as they liked; and they of course proposed nothing but their own side, in its most favourable light, and received an answer exactly as they could have wished, viz. that " as the case was put " they had committed no schism, nor even sin. Blackwell, however, was not afraid to answer decree by decree. The learned University, he wrote, May 29, 1600, might make decrees as they liked, but if any priest in Eng- land defended this decree in writing, he would suspend him from the use of priestly faculties. He even fulminated chas- tisement against lay-folk who should intervene, although he had really no authority at all over them. For the moment these vigorous measures had their effect. Colleton, who had begun a book upon the decree, thought better to give it up for the time, and external peace was still preserved. Still Blackwell had lost ground, and had gathered no benefit from a most useful warning. In June there was yet another conflict. The envoy, Robert Charnock, came back to England, in spite of his oath not to do so without leave; and when he had come he con- tinued to be quarrelsome. His case should have been left to the. Cardinal Protector, who had forbidden the return; but Blackwell could not resist the temptation of rushing in, and declaring that so " notorious " an offence as this involved suspension, which was to be considered as binding (June ioth).s The Cardinal, on the other hand, ignored Black- well's interruption, and went on making inquiries as to the facts. The case was long protracted; but Charnock even- 1 See A.C. i. 85, where he calls them " your betters." * Blackwell to his assistants. R.O., D.E. 275, rt. 115. iv., no date. Relatio Compendiosa, p. 98, gives 10 June: but Garnet, Col. P. i. 595, gives 7 July. The Quarrel Re-opened. 53 tually apologized, and was declared free of censure at the general settlement of 1602. A fragment from Garnet's correspondence of August 1 6th (too brief however to be clear) indicates that Blackwell and his friends were getting afraid. In October following, how- ever, he did not shrink from a step, which was in effect the beginning of the end. Offended, says Garnet, by " the con- temptuous proceedings of Colleton here, and the attempts of Mush in the North, he revoked their faculties," and next day, October 18, 1600, he published the most extravagant of all his " edicts." * Some of its prohibitions, though novel, imprudent and involving penalties of excessive severity, might under the circumstances have been tolerated. But the third article is altogether indefensible. He recalls that his powers included those of " deciding controversies " ; and then he pro- ceeds to decide his own case in his own favour. Those who resisted him were true rebels {we note that the word " Schis- matics" is given up), and all defence of the original stand- off is forbidden under censures. Blackwell was here guilty of acting with complete dis- regard of the object for which he had been appointed. He had been made Superior " to build up, not to destroy," yet he was now charging blindly at every obstacle, without being able to see that his violence must lead to far worse confusion. Moreover, if his formal claim to be judge in his own cause were admitted, no constitutional settlement of his quarrel with his clergy would ever be possible. If he were free to fling about censures, for light reasons and beyond his powers, there was an end to peace and confidence. We must pause here to sum up, for everything turns on the facts just recorded. The Appellants had thought them- selves so virtuous for having submitted at once, that this proved they had been right before. Apologies for Lister's charges were therefore due to them. Blackwell began from the opposite point of view. In a confused, inconsistent way, he maintained that some satis- faction was still due from them. The more they strove to vindicate themselves, the more he strove to silence them by straining his authority, without any effective attempts to be conciliatory. Considering the men to whom he was opposed, this was sure to bring about a crisis ere long. 1 Garnet, 22 Oct., 1600, is in Stonyhurst MS. Col. P. f. 536. Blackwell's " Edict " of 18 October is in Petyt MS. 538, 47, f. 238, original. CHAPTER IX. THE SECOND APPEAL. (1600 — 1602.) This was the opportunity for Bagshaw and Colleton. A month later they had organized a not inconsiderable number of priests, who thought the moment had come for an appeal to the Pope against the Archpriest's unwarrantable " edicts." The drafting of the document was " done at Wisbech on the 17th of November, 1600," and the first six or seven signa- tures are those of Bagshaw and his companions. Two dozen more names (probably appended by proxy) were added later, making thirty signatories in all, and Colleton sent in "The Appeal" to Blackwell on the 25th following. Blackwell received this in very bad part. He caused his Assistants to make inquiries into the truth of the signa- tures, and he eventually suspended several of the Appellants, not, he declared, because of the appeal itself, the right to which he did not deny, but because the votes had been given in a disorderly way, which he had forbidden in his last de- cree. The future martyr, Drury, wrote against this, Decem- ber 16, 1600, a respectful and very feeling remonstrance. 1 On December 20th Blackwell published a formal answer to the appeal which showed greater moderation. What, he asks, rhetorically, have I done to injure these men? Some (men- tioning their names) will, I am sure, admit that I have shown them many a favour, to others I have sent large alms, others live so far off, that we have never once met or corresponded. I have been forced to chastise Mush and Colleton, though I should have liked to treat them with all humanity and hon- our. It is to Colleton that I attribute the responsibility for what has happened. Your appeal lies now to the Nuncio in Belgium, to whom all necessary letters will be sent. Bagshaw answered this in the name of the rest on January 19, 1 60 1, defending Colleton, and retaliating viciously against Blackwell with charges of peculation and tyranny. They refused the jurisdiction of the Nuncio in Flanders, be- 1 Petyt MS. 538, 47. ff. 261—263. Blackwell's letter, Ibid. i. 264. The Second Appeal. 55 cause that would bring them into contact with the Infanta of Spain, whom Persons's Book of Titles had made an ob- ject of suspicion to the English Government. They would, however, when they obtained the means, carry on their appeal to Rome. 1 Bickerings like this went on all through the win- ter at home, until ('before March 21st) there was a general removal of prisoners to Framlingham Castle, and this led to further developments in the contest with Blackwell. But in the meantime news of what was going on in Eng- land was slowly getting known abroad. Blackwell must have given notice to Mgr. Mirto Frangipani, Bishop of Tricarico, and the Nuncio at Brussels, to expect a possible appeal, and February 4, 1601, the Nuncio answered, and at the same time wrote to the Assistants, commissioning them to report to him on the whole subject. 2 This was the beginning of Roman intervention in the new quarrel. Even Father Persons, strange as it may seem, was as yet ignorant of what was going on in England, and it is clear that he only learnt the first details by degrees, probably through Mgr. Frangipani. It is not until April that the subject ap- pears in his extant correspondence, and it is important to notice that he at once points out to Blackwell the mis- take he was making, so far as it was as yet known in Rome. He exhorted him " to moderate his proceedings," adding that " both the Archpriest and some of the Jesuits [presumably Lister] be much blamed for too much bitterness." Black- well having responded that in England many thought him too mild, Persons answers (May 20, 1601), with all respect for Blackwell's dignity, that however this may be, the important point was what Rome would say: The eager proceeding of the Customer [Archpriest] with such brickie men and such danger, is not allowed by men here, and they look upon the event (to wit that the matter hath gone worse and worse hitherto) for an argument unanswerable; seeing that authority is given in czdificationem (as they say) and not in destructionem. Urged by us about the indignity, to suffer such insolences, they say that all is to be borne or dissembled, rather than to drive men to so great breaches [In short] they 1 Oscott MS. 534. f. 165. 2 Naples, Carte Farnesiane, 429. Their answer, in the Scriptum Secundum (see Introduction, above), was received and forwarded to Rome, 17 August, 1601. Bib. Nazionale, xii. B. 17. 56 The Second Appeal. are angry when, things standing as they do, discipline is over- much urged. 1 No letter from Blackwell in response to these letters has survived, but a line or two remains of a letter from Garnet to Rome. " You must account that the principal cause of [these troubles] is this authority [of the Archpriest] and the dis- contentment of the proceedings against the two agents." 2 The meaning of which words I take to be this. You blame the manner in which the Archpriest and his friends have acted; in our opinion you should trace the cause back to the institu- tion itself, and to the discontentment at the treatment of the envoys (May 20, 1601). Which was right? We must look for the answer to the evidence that has appeared. Faults and failings there doubt- less had been, both at Rome and in England; but those at home were surely by far the more gratuitous and blundering. There can hardly be a doubt on the subject for those who have read Blackwell's letters to his subordinates; but these were never seen by Persons, nor probably even by Garnet. The extracts contained in The Appeal, however, revealed a good deal of Blackwell's weak side; and, but for the sus- picion engendered by the evident animus with which those citations were presented, they might have been more effec- tive still. Father Persons's letters then, until July 1 5 th, had been full of warnings. But by that time he had heard of two changes for the worse. The first was that the Appellant party were attacking the Jesuits, and himself in particular, as the originators of all their grievances ; the second that these at- tacks on his Order and himself were being published to the world in bitter libels, which were making a decided sensa- tion. From this time a deterioration in his correspondence is distinctly perceptible. Hitherto there has been no idea of retaliation, or even of self-defence; prudence, self-control, forbearance are the principles insisted upon. Now contro- versy and self-defence were inevitable, and in those days they always brought with them irritation, and at least the language of harshness. We must now go back to England to see how the new situation had developed. 1 Persons to Blackwell and to Garnet, April I and 2, 1601, Stonyhurst. Col. P. it. 351, 489. Another, same subject, 30 April, ibid. f. 344. Another, 20 May, ibid. f. 436. a Garnet to Persons, 6 May, 1601, says: "You have, I doubt not, understood of an appeal here " (Col. P. f. 541). This indicates that Garnet has not written sooner. Same to same, 20 May (ibid. f. 596). The Second Appeal. 57 In February, 1601, the Privy Council decided to deport large numbers of Catholic prisoners from the Tower and else- where ,to the decayed Castle of Framlingham. The affair was managed with Elizabeth's usual niggardliness, and when the prisoners arrived, it was necessary to let some of the priests go out to beg in order to provide the rest with food and clothing. Among these alms-gatherers was the irascible Appellant, Thomas Bluet, of whom we have often heard al- ready. He had been frequently employed on somewhat similar quests when at Wisbech, and his present commission gave him an opportunity of acting vigorously in the support of his party. He came to London, and while appealing to the Catholics for alms, he also applied to Bancroft for pro- tection. 1 As Bancroft was already in touch with Bagshaw, he soon discovered a bond of friendship with Bluet in their common hatred of the Jesuits. They discussed the usual charges against the Padri, and Bancroft declared it to be " clearer than light that Persons had no other object except the con- quest of England by the Spaniards." The Catholic priest entirely agreed with the Protestant Bishop on this matter, adroitly adding that his Grace's charges against the Jesuit priest " would be proved best of all by our appeal, in which we should make all our grievances manifest to the Pope." Bancroft was naturally charmed by this, and even pleaded the Appellants' cause with the Queen herself, though without being able to extract any definite promises from her. With the help of Sir Robert Cecil, whose name, how- ever, is carefully kept in the background, means were now provided to allow the Appellants to give proof of the sin- cerity of their animus against the Jesuits, by publicly attack- ing them in books. This negotiation was, of course, con- ducted with the greatest secrecy, and nothing definite is yet known \of the details. But the results speak for themselves, and less reticence was shown later on. At first Bancroft possibly Idid no more than provide the opportunity for the Appellants to print for themselves; later on it is clear that he both printed and published for them. When the first of the Appellant publications had ap- peared, dedicated to the Pope himself, Cecil felt no further 1 Our knowledge of Bluet's negotiations are derived chiefly from his own statement, the chief portions of which are printed in Law, Jesuits and Seculars, p. 155. An English abstract of the whole is in Domestic Calendar, 1602, p. 168. 58 The Second Appeal. misgiving as to the depth and bitterness of the quarrel, and he proposed at the Council Board to give assistance to the writers. In order, however, to avoid giving offence to the Puritans, he spoke very guardedly. He suggested that the English Law distinguished two kinds of priests, old or Queen Mary priests on the one hand, Jesuits and Seminarists on the other. The persecution of the latter was severe, while the former were handled with much less rigour [the true ex- planation of course being that the old priests would very soon die out entirely]. The Appellants' address to the Pope, he continued, showed that there was as little for the Govern- ment to fear from them as from the old Queen Mary priests, and he suggested that the privileges of the latter should be extended to the former, and under this relaxation the Ap- pellants would be able to carry out their journey to Rome. So leave was given to Bluet to choose out four other priests, to go about begging for seven weeks and then to leave the country. We must now go back to the well-known Battle of Books, which had begun in May, 1601, and went on till the end of 1602. Though it therefore outruns the period immediately under discussion, it will be best to give at once a sketch of the whole. The contest was not carried on, book follow- ing book alternately, but certain groupings are clear. 1. First came four volumes in which the Appellants open their case, and denounce their opponents; the blame being laid primarily on the Jesuits ( May to July, 1 60 1 ) . 2. Then, from July to December, 1601, came more highly spiced invective, chiefly from the pen of William Wat- son, in which the abuse of the Jesuits, and especially of Father Persons, becomes scurrilous to a degree never since equalled in English ecclesiastical controversy. 3. So far the Archpriest and his party had maintained a dignified silence, expecting the reply which Father Per- sons was preparing. It had been begun as soon as the first Appellant books reached him, and the introduction was dated July 20th, 1 60 1. This was fast work; but a very long time was lost in revising the book in England and printing it in Flanders, so that The Apologie for the Ecclesiastical Hierarchie in England did not appear till the beginning of 1602. The demand for it was great, and as very few copies The Second Appeal. 59 were sent, Bancroft had a new edition of it printed In order to keep up interest in the controversy. 1 4. To meet this strong book, the Appellants printed three replies, among which Dr. H. Ely's Brief Notes, and Colleton's Just Defence, are commended as the best on the Appellant side. Meantime Persons had returned to the charge in his vigorous Manifestation, in which, however, he hits back with' unbecoming warmth ; and his volume brought out more answers of the abusive type. But by this time, December, 1602, the Appellants having now secured the chief objects for which they were contending, the repeated orders of the Holy See had their effect, and the controversy, came to an end. In all there were some twenty volumes on the Appel- lant side to two on the Archpriest's, besides translations and two or three quite small tracts which are now lost. 2 This controversy has many points of interest. As in many other clerical squabbles, the writers were all intensely earnest. Unfortunately they were also such passionate partisans that their minds were almost always warped to a greater or less extent. Some knew little or nothing of the real object for which the contest was being waged, and were only intent on throwing so much mud that some was sure to stick. This however is not universal. The majority are plainly endeavour- ing to be moderate, though incapable of keeping their good resolutions for long. The points of purely bibliographical interest are many, and the writers and promoters form a group showing the strangest contrasts, while nothing could be more complex than the clashings of their varied religious and poli- tical views. As, however, it is our special object to study this con- troversy from the constitutional side, we must turn away from other interesting issues and keep steadily to the question: How did this or that publication affect the eventual solu- tion of the Archpriest Controversy? Many had no influence at all, but others led to far-reaching results. The very first volume persuaded Elizabeth's Government to give some mea- sure of support to the Appeal ; and who shall say where the after-effects of that intervention stopped? The books may not have made many converts, but they greatly embittered the division; and as was inevitable, the forces destructive of respect for authority were at first much 1 Rivers, 3 March, 1602 (Foley, Records, i. 21). The British Museum has a copy of this edition. * For further details see Appendix. 60 The Second Appeal. more effective than those which made for its preservation. Already by the end of June, 1601, Garnet wrote "the an- cient spirit of workmen [i.e., priests] is decayed/' and when the excitement was over, we hear of cases of Catholics ask- ing penance for having maligned, or even betrayed, priests of the opposite party, under the excitement caused by Wat- son's tirades. 1 Thus by the middle of July, 1601, a new situation had grown up. 1. The initiative had now passed from the Archpriest to the Appellants. Even before the Appeal they had given up respect for their Superior, and answered his in- judicious letters with jibes and charges of being Jesuit- ridden or a Jesuit in disguise. Since March Colleton had ostentatiously set at naught his suspensions, in April Bagshaw and his party told him " they prayed he might remember with fear ' who is a liar and the father therof ' — to wit the devil." In May and June had come the campaign of libellous publications, and the compact with the persecutors. This, on the one hand, vehemently inflamed those inclined to quarrel. With the English Govern- ment in their favour they felt that they were now a powerful party, they entitled themselves the English Clergy, and they treated Blackwell's attempts to enforce discipline as offences against the body of the clergy. Nevertheless, the violence of their libels made men of peace recoil. In very deed "all moral men, even schismatics [i.e., Catholics who habitu- ally went to the Protestant Church], and heretics detest the authors," said Garnet, July 6, 1601, though doubtless some- what too warmly, for he was one of the persons affected. 2. The Archpriest, having heard from the Nuncio and Father Persons of the opinion at Rome, was sobered, and now maintained a dignified silence. On June 23, 1 601, he had issued his last letter, and a good one; and on the 24th Garnet issued an even better one, saying that, if the other side could agree on another Atonement, he would join with them for the recall of Bishop and Charnock. These two letters made a good impression; 2 but the result of the alli- 1 Garnet's Correspondence. Stonyhurst MSS. Col. P. f. 539; and tetyt MSS. 538, vol. 47. f. 386, etc. * " Archpriest's last letter satisfyeth much," Garnet's Correspondence, 6 July, 1601. (Collectanea P. f. 537.) Garnet's letter of 24 June is Stonyhurst MSS. Anglia, ix. 48. Blackwell's letter is printed and commented upon in John Bennet's Hope of Peace, pp. 5 — 10; see also p. 44. (See Appendix, n. 4.) The Second Appeal. 6 1 ance with Bancroft, was that the quarrel had to be fought out to the bitter end. Mush indeed made a last proposal for peace in the autumn, 1 but amid the crying scandals of the Battle of Books, it passed unnoticed. 3. The change effected in Father Persons had been for the worse. Though he continued to write strongly both to Father Garnet and to the Archpriest on the need for modera- tion, he had been shaken by the fierceness of the attacks on himself and his Order. From the first he had been held up by Bagshaw as the originator of all the troubles, and even in the book nominally addressed to the Pope, he had been grossly libelled as of illegitimate birth. 2 He tried to remain uncon- cerned, and he himself believed that he had succeeded; but it is impossible to contrast his calm, broad-minded letters to Garnet and the Archpriest, written before he was so griev- ously attacked with those written afterwards (especially with The Apologie), and not to notice a change for the worse in asperity, irony and suspicion — even though, broadly speak- ing, he is still restrained. Later on still, when Watson and Copley were attacking him with still more violent calumnies, we notice yet another increase of acrimony. While writing the Manifestation, he endeavoured to hit back as hard as he could, ,and he let out a great deal of what he had hitherto kept in reserve. That this was a very great mistake is doubt- less true. 3 But that should not blind us to the merit of the restraint which he had exercised in different degrees for a long period. 4. We might have hoped for an impartial account of the controversy from the Nuncio in Flanders, who, as we have heard, commenced inquiries into the troubles on February 4, 1 60 1. But the result, so far as we now know it, is disap- pointing. We can find very, very few of his dispatches ; and they do not show any great grasp of the subject. On May 26th he wrote that the Secular Clergy were uneasy at the line which the Pope was taking about the succession to the English throne, as well as at the prominence of the Jesuits, and that 1 Colleton, fust Defence, p. 284. 2 Declaratio Motuuin, p. 23. This is regretted in Clerke and Barnaby's Reply to Manifestation, see Appendix, n. 20. The origin of this libel is characteristic of those coarse times : Persons, ergo son of the parson, ergo of illegitimate birth. For the evidence about his birth see Cath. Record Soc. ii. 36 to 47. 3 Father Garnet was opposed to further publications after the Apologie. " Frantic things are thought best answered by silence." 12 Feb., 1602, Col. P. i- 539- 62 The Second Appeal. they desired to see an Englishman of eminence, such as Car- dinal Allen had been, in power at Rome. A very true remark, indeed; but, as we saw from the first, not a practical one, because there was no Englishman fit for the post of patri- arch; and constitutional government must be persevered with. Further researches may some day reveal more import- ant papers from Mgr. Frangipani ; * as things stand, we may address ourselves at once to the brief of August 17, 1601, which was intended by Clement VIII. to put an end to the whole controversy. Moreover, the Pope was probably here following in the main the informations sent by the Nuncio aforesaid. 5. Though very different from the last brief and from the Letters Constitutive, one can see the same principles in all. Strong insistence on peace and order, the main objects in view, and a readiness to pass over all matters of secondary importance. Both combatants were strongly blamed. The Appellants for their want of obedience, the Archpriest (as Persons had foretold) for his attempts to govern by pun- ishment only. But there were no sentences, no penalties, only a strong prohibition of further wrangling, even in self- defence. Not even the appeal was to go forward. 2 It was a wise solution so far as it went; but it did not go deep enough nor cover the whole ground. It took no notice of the later phases of the conflict, of the Battle of Books, of the co-operation with heretics practised by the Ap- pellants, of the instruction in which the Archpriest was told to consult the Jesuits ; as to which we have already seen that al- most every word would have to be cut out before, in the cir- cumstances of that day, all invidious misunderstandings would be removed. The brief was not out in time to prevent the Appellants from starting on their journey (Mid-October, 1601); and therewith we begin yet another phase of the long struggle, the final trial at the court of Rome. What the issue of that trial would be no one could as yet foresee. Both sides had committed such gross errors, that it was difficult to estimate which was worst. Blackwell's mis- 1 His registers, which are probably the fullest source., are at Naples. See Introduction. 2 Lister's book was suppressed, and Blackwell was ordered to prohibit other libellos famosos (Tierney-Dodd, iii., clii.). So on the ist of October he forbad four Appellant -books {Scriptum Secundum, § 19), but we do not know the text of his orders, nor the names of the volumes. The Second Appeal. 63 takes, coming from one in authority, were probably more dan- gerous to peace than those of his opponents. When one vio- lent remedy had failed, his only idea had been to try others of still greater violence. He had interfered with appeals, he had frequently exceeded his faculties, he had supported er- roneous views about schism. For a man in his position, such excesses were almost past forgiveness. The crimes committed up and down in the Appellants' ranks had also been very dark. Such calculating disobedi- ence, such rudeness, such cabals, such libels, were very seri- ous faults in priests ; while their publications and their alli- ance with heretics must, if continued, have proved fatal. But besides the grave intrinsic difficulties of the case, it would be found, when the trial began, that great political differences were also involved. The jealousies of France and Spain would flare up at every contested point, and make the arbitration more difficult than ever. CHAPTER X. DR. CECIL BECOMES SPOKESMAN. (January, 1602.) It must always be remembered that the proceedings we are studying are primarily not judicial but legislative. The conflict had begun over the question, what form of constitution was best fitted for the times; and though, as the controversy grew hot, personal faults were decried so loudly that everything seemed to turn upon them; now, as the protagonists were going abroad into a calmer atmosphere, the mutual recriminations subsided to some extent, while the legislative importance of the debate became clearer. It is important to mark this distinction at once, because, while we must necessarily use terms such as appeal, trial, &c, which are apt to suggest purely judicial proceedings, the means taken to arrive at a settlement were exceedingly ill-suited to judi- cial deliberation. We now plunge into the vortex of politics, into questions of Gallicanism, and the like, and find that al- most everything turns upon them, while no more was actu- ally done to judge or rectify the wrongs once so loudly com- plained of, except to renew the findings of the brief of August, 1 60 1. The primary object aimed at is to decide whether the institution of Archpriests is to be changed or not. This consideration will further help to explain the sort of ferment which we shall find everywhere burning beneath the surface until the settlement comes. The discussion and set- tlement of matters of public policy is always attended with a heat, which would generally be scandalous in judicial pro- ceedings, and which is at least always surprising when we compare it with the calmness of ordinary life. How differ- ent the usual placid life of the English country town or vil- lage, from the excitement that prevails before and during a well-contested election. Some form of public discussion and election, we know, there must be in every healthy body politic. There must be Papal elections, monastic, conventual and ecclesiastical chapters, and (human nature being constituted as it is), there will be in each of these some flame of excite- Dr. Cecil becomes Spokesman. 65 ment, some outburst of party feeling ; while frequently, when the discussion is prolonged" and the interests great, even dig- nified Cardinals, and holy nuns will be carried away for the moment by a hitherto unexpected paroxysm of passion. To cut off all outlet for such feelings would need an immense external pressure, under which our natural powers of election would fail to work freely. So in what will follow, some ex- pressions of hot feeling, some scheming, sharp practice and intriguing are decidedly to be expected. It has already been shown that, very slow and difficult though communication was between England and Rome in those days, the Holy See had begun to address herself to the appeal at least as early as February, 160 1, when the Nuncio in Flanders commissioned the Assistants to report to him on the whole situation. This they did on May 1 2th, 1 be- fore the outbreak of the Battle of Books, and the open alliance with the persecutors, and their report shows (1 think) that they had never seen Blackwell's infelicitous " edicts," which were the true cause of the present trouble. Their letter, therefore, in spite of various merits, was quite insufficient as a base for a judicial settlement, and the entire silence of the brief of August 17, 1601 (when it came), as to the im- portant events since November, 1600, shows clearly that the Holy Father did not at all appreciate the actual situation at the time he wrote, though he laid down with perfect accuracy the principles on which a final settlement must and would be effected. Under these circumstances we cannot wonder that Black- well, though of course he ought to have published the brief as soon as he received it (October, 1601), should have hesi- tated to do so, not only from our common propensity to put off a disagreeable duty (for the brief hit him hard), but also (as we may suppose) because he had reason to think that a more severe judgment on the recent misdeeds of his adver- saries would not be far off. He had already denounced their very objectionable books to the Inquisition, and he might well have expected that a condemnation of them and of the league with the persecutors would come from Rome soon; and in effect we find that a brief such as he would have wished, was really drafted and discussed in Rome before the end of 1 Scriptum Secundum, § 20. F 66 Dr. Cecil becomes Spokesman. the year. 1 If that count erstroke had arrived in time, it would have eased very materially the reprimand in the brief of August. So he waited on till the end of the year. In the meantime the Appellants had crossed to France, and Mush was in Paris before November (N.S.). On the 6th of that month, Mgr. del Buffalo, the Nuncio, sent news to the Pope that the Appellants were doing no little harm to his, the Nuncio's, endeavours to obtain a recall of the Jesuits, who, it will be remembered, had been banished from Paris in con- sequence of the denunciation of Arnaulde in i 594. To obviate the Appellants' ill offices, the Nuncio sent for Mush, and read him that part of the new brief, which forbade the appeal; but Mush demurred, and asked time to consult his friends. Having read del Buffalo's dispatch thus far, the Pope made this note on the margin : " Let the Nuncio use all possible dex- terity to disabuse them, and alter their resolution." This order was in the Nuncio's hands by December 3rd, and he answered that he would do his best. 2 Meanwhile the rest of the Appellant party had gone round to the Nuncio in Belgium', who was then at Nieuport, and also did his best to stay them but in vain. He was, however, extremely kind; offered to hear the appeal himself (for which he had received powers), and wrote to Blackwell in this sense, adding that all censures should be suspended now that the appeal had begun. Thence the party went to Douay, where Dr. Worthington, the new President, entertained them hospitably. He also en- deavoured to dissuade the journey to Rome, reading to them the late brief, which they were not at all anxious to hear. Worthington afterwards (December 18th) wrote a rather amusing account of the visit. Bagshaw, he says, always wanted a full half of the conversation in the common-room, while Bluet, when present, took it all. 3 Still they eventually won Worthington round, and he pro- mised to write to Rome, and beg they might have a fair hearing ; and not long afterwards, having got to Paris, they similarly prevailed with the Nuncio. So he too wrote (January 6, 1602), recommending the Pope to settle the ap- peal himself, and as soon as might be. The decisive rea- son for this change on the Nuncio's part would have been that 1 Stonyhurst MS. Angl. vi. 179. Persons' comments, 17 Dec, 1601, on the .above brief. 2 R.O., Roman Transcripts, Bundle 86 a. 3 Scriptum Secundum, § 13. Dr. Cecil becomes Spokesman. 67 the French King had already taken them under his protec- tion, Villeroy's passport for them being dated the same day. The passport states frankly that this is done because of Henri's jealousy of Spain. It says that the priests com- plain that, at the suit of the Jesuits, authority over them has been given to Blackwell in order to favour the intrigues \menees) of the Spaniards. In reality, the French Govern- ment was not as yet free from suspicion as to the honesty of their proteges, de Bethune in Rome being instructed to drop the men at once, if they turned out to be unworthy of the French King's support. 1 But the hope of injuring Spain overcame all hesitation. In Paris, as in London, the outcry of " Pro-Spaniard " against Archpriest government was found to be at once effective. We do not know through whom the all-important favour of France for the Appellant side was won. But it seems fairly clear that the prime mover in the intrigue was Dr. John Cecil, who was now taken into the band destined for Rome; and, partly because he alone had the title of Doctor of Theology, and real facility in French, he henceforth assumes the pre- cedence, though " honest John Mush," by reason of his seniority and straightforwardness, retained the real leader- ship, which Dr. Bagshaw had to abandon when he remained at Paris to act as agent there. We do not know why he stopped. 2 Perhaps he was not strong enough for the jour- ney. In any case his quarrelsome tongue was more safely left far in the rear. But before we follow the party, thus re- modelled, on their way, we must pause to scrutinize John Cecil's character more deeply, for in truth he had had a very dishonourable past, of which his companions knew little or nothing, and as he now becomes to a great extent their secre- tary and prolocutor, we must also ask ourselves how far the distrust, which we cannot but feel for the man, should extend itself to the evidence that comes to us on his authority. Quite a long chapter might be written about his still unpublished adventures, but for the present the chief events will suffice. Born in the neighbourhood of Worcester, of humble, 1 Couzard, p. 83. 2 According to later Appellant writers, he stayed in order to plead before the Nuncio, in case the cause were referred back to him. Clerke, Answer to the Manifestation. (Appendix below, n. 20), p. 81. According to Sir Robert Cecil's Advices, 16 Jan., 1602, the Nuncio in Flanders advised the others to leave him behind because of his bad temper. (Hatfield Cal. xii., p. 607.) 68 Dr. Cecil becomes Spokesman. perhaps Catholic parents, he obtained means to go to Oxford, and was educated at Trinity College. Converted in 1583., he went over to the seminaries of Rheims and Rome, where his fervour began to relax, and when he had completed his course, Allen was afraid to send him to England, but retained him honoris specie, as Latin secretary. In 1 589 he was sent to Spain, where he appeared to improve, preaching with feel- ing, as it seemed, in favour of the new English seminaries then being founded there. Under these circumstances he was sent to the English Mission, but immediately gave himself up to Lord Burghley, with large offers of service. The veteran persecutor, in reply, bade him set down evidence suffi- cient to condemn to the appalling death of traitors his friends and companions, the priests who had come to the Mission with him. Cecil at first held back, and made many specious protests; but when Lord Burghley pressed, he yielded, and gave the evidence required, which is still extant. He was then trusted so far as to be sent out as a spy on Catholics abroad, especially on the Scotch. Some account of his in- trigues there and in Spain between 1592 and 1595 will be found in the Dictionary of National Biography, whence it is but too clear that he was simulating the role of a zealous priest in Scotland in order to countervail the suspicions of treachery already rife against him', because of his dealings with Lord Burghley. Perhaps we should even infer that he was acting as minister of the sacraments to the very men whom he was betraying (perhaps even luring on) to death and ruin. // this was done in cold blood, nothing could be more hor- rible: it would be a crime without parallel in our Catholic history. But this hypothetical conclusion is not certain. Even though the gallant laird of Fintry, the most zealous among the Scotch Catholic nobles, was in fact captured and exe- cuted not long after the date of Cecil's pretended missionary visit, it does not follow that Cecil was the traitor. There were many other villains in the game, to whom the worst treacheries were quite congenial, while to Cecil they cer- tainly were not. All that we can say is, whatever Cecil's am- bitious intentions really were, he was degraded by the men to whom he offered his services, by being employed in the most sordid conceivable treachery, though we cannot say yet whether his part in these treacheries was effective. The truth is that Cecil had offered himself to Lord Burgh- ley with the intention, not of destroying the Church, but in Dr. Cecil becomes Spokesman. 69 order to reconstitute it in a manner that might (he thought) be tolerated. He was a cultivated, intellectual man; he hated bloodshed, had anticipated the ideas of the Appellants on toleration, and had gone much further than they. His idea was to bring the whole English Church to such subjection, that even Elizabeth might suffer it to exist. The seminaries, for instance, were to be in England, but under the complet- est State-control. Priests, too, might remain, if in an associa- tion under his regulation. Allen and Persons were to be cast off, and (^though he does not say so in so many words) he himself was to be the Patriarch of a re-modelled Catholicism. The Elizabethans were men of the freest imaginations, and Cecil's conceptions were of the most far-fetched. Yet they were not quite infamous in this sense, that the Church can co- exist with much miserable servitude, and Elizabeth was not altogether inaccessible to feelings of mercy. Supposing it clear that Catholicism was going to die out in time, she might, in her " clemency," have allowed it to wither up in peace. But John Cecil, not having strong instincts of honesty and hon- our, did not see the principles to which the Church was bound; and so he submitted (though under protest) to the horrible conditions imposed by the persecutors of which we have heard, in hopes of thereby obtaining a good end, the preservation of Catholicism. This state of things could not continue. He became sus- pect to many: first to Allen, then to Persons, Garnet and others, though no one knew quite enough to convict him of his crimes. About the time of which we are writing Henry Saunders, an English traveller, wrote to Sir Robert Cecil: " Dr. Cecil is ... a man generally distrusted and suspected of Catholics. ... If I were such as he, I would turn Pro- testant sure; for there is never a Catholic on that side the seas, that can trust him." 1 That is what most people even now will feel as they read his adventures. In fact, how- ever, he never seems to waver in essentials. The result of all this suspicion against him was that he had to abandon his old haunts in Rome and Madrid, and to make ,(in 1 597) a new start at Paris among the men of somewhat doubtful orthodoxy, who had gathered round Henri IV. at the close of the Wars of Religion. In this atmosphere our adventurer eventually made himself at home. He lived down his old disrepute, and aided probably by the opportunity 1 Hatfield Cal. xii., 560. jo Dr. Cecil becomes Spokesman. offered by the Appellant mission, he acquired some notice at Court, obtained later on a chaplaincy and a good bene- fice; made his peace with the Jesuits and with the never-to- be-forgiven Father Persons ; and finally died at a good old age in 1626. 1 We must now address ourselves to the question, What of the employment by the Appellants of such a man in a post of the highest trust? If they did so, knowing the worst, then surely they should utterly lose caste in our eyes. But no one on the Catholic side then knew the worst, which has only come to light with the modern "opening of the archives." We cannot, indeed, after hearing Henry Saunders's statement assume that the Appellants were quite blameless for trust- ing him ; but, as they had only recently come from England, they may not have yet had serious cause for suspicion ; and Cecil would have had many letters to show in his favour. Persons himself, for instance, had lately written to engage his services on the side of peace; and the Appellants would have been very prone to argue, if Persons could trust him, why should not they? We may also note that when, after the Appeal, a striking example of Cecil's insincerity came to light, Bagshaw protested, that " Our friends wish Dr. Cecil had never had a finger in our cause." 2 Xaking everything into consideration we may say that no serious loss of credit neces- sarily accrues to the Appellants for having taken Cecil into their counsels. Then what of the reliability of his evidence? It is true that wherever we find parallel accounts from Cecil and from the honest Mush, we soon notice the vainglorious exaggera- tions, and petty deceptions, which slip habitually from Cecil's pen. But I have not noticed any which lead utterly wrong. One must be much on one's guard certainly, but it is worth while to hear him out. If in this case one were to rule out altogether all biassed evidence, there would indeed be little left ; but if we bear in mind the due correctives, we may learn a good deal from this very well-informed witness. For Cecil's career, besides the Diet. Nat. Blog., see Cath. Rec. Soc. xiv. p. 2, n, and he is frequently mentioned in the Calendars, Domestic, Scottish, Spanish, and of the Hatfield MSS. Especially instructive is it to compare his fawning letters to Allen and Persons in 1592, R.O., Scotland, 50, nn. 4 and 5, with his diatribes against the latter below. > 3 R.O., French Correspondence, vol. 50. f . 28 ; 8 Oct., 1603. CHAPTER XI. THE CASE AT ROME OPENS. ( February to April, 1602.) Despite the winter-time the Appellants reached Rome in five weeks, arriving on February 14, 1602. They were at first in some fear of the same fate as had befallen Bishop and Charnock in 1598, the prohibition of their appeal to Rome not having been as yet publicly retracted. They therefore cautiously sent away their papers to the Abbey of San Paolo fuori delle mure. But next day the French ambassador sent to assure them of his protection, and from thenceforward be- came their chief patron and promoter of their cause. The directive power he assumed was very thorough. He at once issued a general order that no papers should be given in, even to the Pope, until he had revised and passed them. He ar- ranged with the Pope for their audiences, prepared His Holi- ness' mind for favours to be won, or when things went wrong, he boldly exerted himself to change an adverse into a favour- able answer. Nor did he restrict himself to mere matters of law and proceedings in court. Spiritual matters also must be ordered at his command. What spiritual duty more im- portant at such a time than readiness for peace? But he had ordered from the first that there was to be no peace with Father Persons, and no peace was made even at the end, hard though the Pope himself strove to arrange it. It is hardly necessary to add that all this care was taken in accordance with orders from France, and in order to pro- mote French interests. The magnificent charities of the Spanish King towards the English Catholics had naturally awakened in them a strong feeling of gratitude and attach- ment to their only strong and generous friend; and this caused the French envoy no little envy and irritation. In acting against the Archpriest and the Jesuits, de Bethune felt that he had his opportunity of thwarting a work in which the Spaniards were known to be interested, which they had supported with their usual generosity. What a triumph for de Bethune, if the Pope himself were to humble the Arch- 72 The Case at Rome Opens. priest and his supporters at the request of the friends of France ! The Abb6 Couzard, writing with the ambassador's papers before him, says quite plainly, "Le point principal 6tait de ruiner par la base, et si c'est possible par les mains mimes du Pape, l'infiuence espagnole, parmi les catholiques anglais." In a better world than this one might no doubt have ex- pected that " the principal point " of those acting for the much-tried Catholics of this country would have been their interests. But in de B^thune, a professional politician, who had but lately "rallied" from the Huguenot side, such nar- row nationalism as the above can cause no wonder; especi- ally as we hear that even French Jesuits at Rome (persecuted though they had been by Henri IV. 's Government), were pas- siones (so de Bethune says) on the side of their King, " and they keep writing me letters quite full of information and ad- vice . . . which I turn to excellent purpose." With these French Jesuit supporters of de B6thune we may also take note of the Scotch Jesuits, especially Father William Crich- ton, always " a forward man for his king," and by conse- quence favourable to the Appellants and hostile to Persons, because he, as most other Englishmen, was slow to worship the rising sun of Scotland.. Several still extant letters of Crichton to the General of the Jesuits enabled Aquaviva to hear both sides of the quarrel clearly. But, as the worthy Scotchman had no inner knowledge of the dispute, his in- formation is not such as to command much attention. Otherwise public opinion, both in the Curia and among the Romans at large, was averse to the Franco- Appellant al- liance. So much so that Dr. Cecil says with emphasis, " Not one other friend had they [the Appellants], but the ambas- sador " ; x and notwithstanding Cecil's constant exaggerations, it is certain that his words here convey an important truth. In reality, however, there was always, as among the Jesuits, so among the Cardinals, a minority sufficient to make their voices heard quite distinctly. On the other hand, the Arch- priest did not gain very much by the support of Father Per- sons, for the Jesuits were then out of favour in the Pope's eyes. The celebrated debates, De Auxiliis Gratiae, were in full course, and the Pope made little secret that his personal preference was for the side opposed to the Society. The preponderance of numbers in the Archpriest's favour, there- * AC. ii. 61. He adds that petitions innumerable came from England against the Appeal. The Case at Rome Opens. 73 fore, was not at this time a pledge that his side would even- tually succeed. Yet another source of division remains to be mentioned, and in many ways it is the most important of all. The line of cleavage between the two English parties was parallel, sometimes identical with the battle line between French and Spanish ideas on Church government. For though Spain had fallen almost as low as England or France in accepting royal despotism, she still maintained almost intact the old Church liberties, which had been wholly overthrown in England, and were grievously reduced in France under the restrictions euphemistically known by the name of the Gallican Liberties. De B6thune and the Appellants lent to the Gallican side, as- suming it as axiomatic that the liberties of the Church must yield to the dictation of the civil ruler in everything which was not absolutely essential for the Church's existence. The Jesuits and Spaniards were inclined to accept the full mediae- val theories of the temporal rights of the Church, and to think they must be almost as immutable and independent of circumstances as were her dogmas. From the first we shall see these different schools of thought coming into sharp conflict. De Bethune had wisely told the Appellants to begin very quietly at first. The greatest care was taken over the first audience. The ambassador himself arranged the time and prepared the Pope's mind. " Careful for us as a father," the Appellants said, he read beforehand their proposed speech, and returned it next day with his corrections, after which it was again revised by Cardinal d'Ossat, the ecclesiastical am- bassador for France at Rome. Nevertheless, the Pope was anything but pleased on hearing Mush deliver it (March 5th). He asked, in the same words he had used in the brief of August 1 7th, 1 60 1, why they had not obeyed at first; for that disobedience lay at the root of the whole trouble. But he objected chiefly, not to the ap- peal, but to their pretension that Elizabeth would give toleration if he would change his policy, and inflict his cen- sures no longer on the heretical persecutor, but on those Catholics whose politics were distasteful to her. 1 This Gal- lican idea was the pivot round which important changes were now about to take place. 1 See the Diaries of Mush and Cecil, A.C. ii. 6, 47. 74 The Case at Rome Opens. The Appellants left the Vatican crestfallen, and hurried to the French ambassador for consolation. De Bethune bade them send him the points of their speech, and cheerily assured them that he would make it all right. The six points of the speech were sent round next morning, and in the after- noon the ambassador addressed the Pope upon the subject (March 7th). Hitherto [he said] the catholic policy has been grossly wrong (turpiler erratum est). Nothing had been tried except arms, poisons, plots. If only these were laid aside, Elizabeth would be tolerant. Your Holiness must therefore (1) withdraw your censures from the Queen, and ( 2) you must threaten them against Catholics, if they attempt political measures against her, whether directly or indirectly. (3) Father Persons, and his like must be chastised and expelled from your Seminaries. (4) The Arch- priest, who seems to have been instituted solely to promote Spanish factions by false informations, should be removed or much restrained, (5) and if perhaps all this cannot be effected at once, a beginning should be made by giving satisfaction to the Appellant priests. (6) Then by degrees, Henri will inter- vene, and Elizabeth's anger will cool down. 1 Of the Pope's answer we have no authentic information, and the account of it given by John Cecil is evidently biassed. This is the more to be regretted, because there is no question that Clement from this time made a distinct change of policy. Keeping this in mind, however, and reading cautiously be- tween the lines of Cecil's story, we can make fairly sure of the principal points. In the first place he pressed the ambas- sador hard for Henri's assistance and intercession with Eliza- beth. Then he made some declaration of favour towards the Appellants. Of course he could not go far here, for he had not yet heard a syllable of the evidence in the inquiry he was about to open. But we may assume that he assured de Bethune that he was not likely to go back on any point fav- ourable to the Appellants, which had already been settled in the brief of August 1 7th. As to the Gallican views propounded in regard to the policy of his predecessors, the Pope seems to have said so little that de Bethune foresaw that at least no conflict was likely to arise over his bold and contemptuous rejection of the Catholic policy in the past. In truth, the Frenchman's boldness had been almost sublime. To throw over St. Pius V. and Cardinal Allen, with 1 Cecil's account. A.C. ii. 49. The Case at Rome Opens. 75 Gregory and Sixtus, and Campion and the Seminaries all with one sweeping phrase, Turpiter erratum est — -was worthy of la furie Francaise, and the old Pope would not argue with it. De Bethune had scoffed at a past, already acknowledged to be one of the glories of the Church, as a period of murder plots, diversified by armed invasions. To the Pope that would have appeared like the mere bluster of a political partisan, only concerned in belittling his opponents : again not a mat- ter to treat seriously. Nor again was he ever deceived by the allegation that Elizabeth would grant toleration. Why then did he not tell de Bethune that he was mistaken? Perhaps if we had an authentic account of the interview, we should find indications enough of the Pope's dissent from the Frenchman's proposals. But that again was not the prin- cipal matter. What he had most at heart was to work for peace. Had he not saved France, by absolving Henri IV., and yielding on points, which though very important, were not quite essential? He was, above all things, anxious to show that he was ready to do for England all that he had pre- viously done for France, and though he had no expectations from Elizabeth, he had, or came to have, some hopes in James. But, for the realization of these plans or dreams the help of the King of France was clearly indispensable, and therefore he must needs give great weight to the advice of Henri's re- presentative. And we must always remember that, though during Clement's lifetime no advantage followed from his change of policy, still the time was not so far distant when it would be rewarded, when Henri's daughter would win for England the first beginnings of toleration in religion, and the commencement of episcopal rule. From this time forth then, we see the Pope distinctly in- clined to steer a middle course between the old policy and the new proposals. Though he never subscribed to the Gal- licanizing proposals suggested by de Bethune and the Ap- pellants, still the latter believed that he actually had yielded, and was afterwards drawn back by the Spanish ambassador ; so that we may at least be sure that he did not reject de Bethune's proposals with great emphasis. How far he was, on the other hand, from following the old traditions exactly will be evident on every page that follows. The time, in fact, had come for a modification of those high mediaeval ideas of pontifical power, even in things poli- tical, to which great Popes like Pius V. had clung with almost "J 6 The Case at Rome Opens. nervous tenacity during the period of greatest darkness and danger; which Clement VIII. also maintained, as was seen in his recovery of Ferrara in 1598. But the power of France and of French ideals was growing; while the influence of Spain, and of her conservatism, was waning. Clement recognized that, if the papacy was to preserve or increase its influence now, it must be by becoming still more pacific and concilia- tory, conspicuous though it had always been for its mildness and gentleness. This is the leading idea of the negotiations that follow. On March 1 4th the Appellants gave in through the French ambassador their first petition. The Archpriest's side had written an " Information " against them soon after they had reached Rome (about February 20th), and this had been circulated somewhat widely, and had come even into their hands. 1 It was, therefore, not unnatural that they should be- gin by demanding to see the reasons in writing for that severe indictment. Though the normal course would of course have been for them as plaintiffs to open the case, the Pope made no difficulty in favouring the ambassador who supported the Appellants' petition. On March 25th, therefore, the Arch- priest's agents answered that they would not dispute the change of procedure, but would bring into court three charges — 1) That the Appellant books were full of intolerable libels. a) That they also contained propositions of a hazardous or heretical nature. 3) That serious objections might also be brought against the personal conduct or morals of some of the party. The evidence for; the first and second charge were in fact presented about April 3rd, and needless to say that, if they had been at once accepted by the Pope, there would have been an end of the Appellant case. But the Archpriest's side had gone somewhat too far; the mass of evidence adduced, and the very gravity of the charges made, caused a delay which reacted unfavourably on their cause. The investiga- tion of charges of unsound doctrine belonged by right to the Holy Office, and thither the Pope at once relegated the papers for such cautious, methodical and prolonged con- sideration as could not be expected from a couple of Cardinals 1 The Information is printed A.C. ii. 103. There are copies in Arch. West, vii. 23, 24: others at Naples, Carte Farnesiane, fuse. 429, etc. The Appellants' petition, Our Demands, is in Oscott MS. 534. f. 187 ; and the answer of 25 March is in the same archive. The Case at Rome Opens. jj appointed to settle a practical difficulty while the parties concerned were waiting. As for the third charge, against the morals of the Appel- lants, it now appears almost certain that the actual evidence was never sent in at all. We know that the Archpriest's side were much pressed for time to get the bulky evidence against the eleven Appellant volumes into form at short notice, so that there can be no wonder if they did postpone their third point at the beginning of April. Afterwards, in two later papers of about the middle of April and beginning of May, they say they have the evidence ready, but they add on each occasion that they would prefer not to send it in until the Pope asks for it ! * And this, so far as our evidence bears, Clement neither did, nor would ever have allowed. The Appellants, on the other hand, were of opinion that charges against their morals had been given in. 2 But in this case their evidence is not conclusive. They confess that they did not themselves see the paper about which they wrote ;i and they make no mention of the denunciation of their books, which certainly had been made by then. It seems, there- fore, that they mistook one denunciation for another, which, under the circumstanceSj might very easily have happened. What they said (April 11th) was, "Persons brought in an immense heap [of calumnies] : but the Pope was satisfied by that which he had heard before ; did not suffer those accusa- tions to come to the priests' hands, but there put an end to all calumnies." Whatever the truth of the premisses, this conclusion seems true. Looking at the evidence as a whole, there can be little question that hereafter those charges, De Moribus, were not brought forward in court again. Though the Pope had thus suppressed quietly, for reasons never publicly explained, an indictment, which might have led to a new conflict disastrous to the peace of the English Mis- sion; there is no reason to suspect that he was smothering an inquiry, which really needed publicity. It will be well, therefore, to look behind the curtain, in order to satisfy our- selves on the one hand that the Procurators were not without some reasons for their action, while on the other, the justice of the Pope's refusal to re-open the question is clear. He was satisfied by that which he had heard before. 1 Tierney-Dodd, iii. clix. — exempla referre poterimus, si id facere jubebimur, licet, etc., Again in the Introduction to Scriptum V. (see Introduction, p. ix ). De istorum moribus, si videbitur Scriptum exhibituri sumus. 2 Ingentem farraginem [calumniarum] affert Personius, A.C. ii. 51. Whereas in fact the paper De Moribus is not long. 78 The Case at Rome Opens. As I have explained above, 1 the debates De 'Moribus first became a matter of public interest during the old conflicts at Wisbech in 1595, 1596. Those who wished to live a col- legiate life in prison stated inter alia that there was a danger of lax life— and in the snappish mood then prevalent, the complaint was soon raised by Dr. Bagshaw's side, that they had been actually calumniated. Discussion was now inevit- able; and when informations were being taken at Rome in ,1597, preparatory to the erection of the Archipresbyterate, inquiries on the subject were made from James Standish, a secular priest once on Dr. Bagshaw's side ; and he was per- fectly justified under those circumstances in speaking out frankly; and so he did. Nevertheless, under other circum- stances, at a contentious tribunal for instance, his evidence might have been summarily ruled out of court, because of its great weakness. His information is never at first hand; it is derived from women, who did not themselves reduce their stories to writing, or confirm them by oath, or solemnity of any kind; nor are there ever two witnesses to the same charge. But, while it was perfectly right for Standish to communi- cate rumours like the above (the weakness of his evidence being stated quite frankly) to a commission of inquiry held by proper authority, it was an altogether different thing to revive or threaten to revive Standish's unverified statements in 1602, as though they were worthy of being treated as serious counter- evidence to the grave and unanswerable charges of misgovernment against Blackwell. This, how- ever, was more or less what Father Persons's party did, or meant to do. For smarting, as the Jesuit now was, under innumerable libels, from the charge of bastardy to that of unnatural treachery, he failed (we have seen an instance of this before) to maintain his usual prudence, and attached far too great an importance to Standish's story and to what seemed like a confirmation of it, viz., that the very men mentioned with suspicion as far back as 1596, should now have come for- ward as fanatical promoters of this appeal against their ec- clesiastical superior, and as editors of libellous books. When challenged, therefore, by the Appellants (March 14th, 1602) in a paper sent through the Pope, to put down his worst objec- tions in writing, Persons, in company with the other postula- 1 Chapter II., supra. The Case at Rome Opens. 79 tors, prepared the oft-mentioned paper, De moribus praeci- puorum Appellantium, which is still extant, and an abstract of which is printed by Tierney. 1 Here it was stated that not only had many of the Appel- lants been notorious for their quarrelsome tempers, even from their seminary days {which was true), but that one at least, John Cecil, had been a dishonourable spy (which was also true), while some, like Bluet, had co-operated with heretics to the injury of Catholics ; and some, again, had misbehaved themselves with the other sex in various ways, and under this head, the old charges brought by Standish were again repeated, with Standish's name, but his alone, in support of them. Now it must be remembered that it was only four years since Standish was in Rome and gave his evidence. So that even if the Pope and Cardinal Borghese had for the moment forgotten his story (which is unlikely), they would have remembered all about it as soon as they were reminded, and would not have needed to form judgment anew from the paper De 'Moribus. There was no need for them to take any notice of it, and they took none. " The Pope was satisfied with that which he had heard before." The reminders, which Father Persons sent in, one of which is as late as September 6th, only made their determination to exclude the subject more marked. That Father Persons did not perceive their determination is also clear, and it indicates a weak point in his character. The Scriptum de 'Moribus has done more harm to Per- sons than to anyone else. Though " not allowed to come into the priests' hands," they came to hear of its existence ; and er- roneously concluded that the large bundle of evidence, which had been put in against the books, was really devoted entirely to their supposed misdeeds. So they called him " the great calumniator," and on its score refused to consider him as within the pale of forgiveness. Another misfortune which ensued was that it allowed the misdeeds of John Cecil to escape uncensured. In regard to the charges of false or dangerous doctrines in the Appellant books, we may form an idea, sufficient for our present purpose, by recalling some of the propositions which we have heard the French ambassador and the Appellants ad- 1 Oscott, MS. 534. Tierney-Dodd, vol. iii. p. clvii. n. 80 The Case at Rome Opens. dress to the Pope himself. They amounted to this, that the censures of the Pope should now be at the service of the temporal ruler, no exception being made even for heresy or tyranny; while the opposite policy of St. Pius V. was de- nounced (privately to be sure, and politely, without danger of public scandal) in the strong phrase — turpiter erratum est. The charge brought against the books was this, that the same sort of Gallican propositions, or worse, had been published to the world at large by Watson and others, with many gross, scandalous and irritating exaggerations, and evident danger to the whole flock. They even went so far as to press for the public introduction of an oath to bind Catholics to fight against the Pope (no exception made for crimes of a tyrant or a heretic) in case of war between the temporal Sovereign and the Holy See ; thus paving the way for the introduction of those fraudulent oaths of allegiance, which were soon after- wards to cause the English Catholics such grave and pro- tracted sufferings, a danger which could even then be easily foreseen. The procurators, therefore, selected thirty- six " Paradoxes and temerarious propositions " of the above quasi-Gallican description from the Appellant books, and the Pope sent them to the Holy Office as the proper tribunal to discuss them. But its procedure is necessarily slow and cautious. It was July 20th before they gave in their verdict, Hos libros omnino prohibendos et damnandos esse. If the Pope had given that answer at once, the French King might have abandoned the Appellants, and their case would then probably have col- lapsed; whereas (as we shall see), it was the decree of the Holy Office which was eventually given up. Powerful, therefore, though the first indictment of the Archpriest's Proctors against the Appellants had been, it was not destined to be successful in the end ; and its immediate re- moval to the Holy Office left the field quite free for the moment. On April i ith, therefore, the Appellants petitioned for a decision on the old quarrel whether the original "stand off " had been schism, or rebellion, or a sin. This point had in reality been settled in the negative before by the brief of August 17, 1 60 1, and the Pope at once said that this de- cision of course still held. Hereupon, with characteristic pugnacity, both sides began to wrangle again. Both cried, " Victory I " and each blamed the other for doing as they did themselves. The Archpriest's side could not see that the de- The Case at Rome Opens. 81 termination in the Appellants' favour was worth mentioning at all; the Appellants, it seems, really did: not notice that, if the brief held in their favour, it also bound them by express precept to silence about the original controversy. The Car- dinals, on April i 5th, calling both sides Terribiles, ordered the silence-clause to be expressly inserted in the report of their Responsum.^- But Bagshaw, while translating the Responsum into Eng- lish for circulation in England, cut the silence-clause out again, and this omission probably accounts for the scandalous book-controversy being continued all the summer. 2 However this may be, we have now arrived at the end of what we may call the preliminary skirmish in the great trial, which had terminated upon the whole in favour of the Appel- lants. They had secured the strongest friends, they had parried the worst blows, and they had found a patient hearing for their extremest plans. Everything was now ready for the real struggle to begin. 1 Compare the Appellant report A.C. ii. n, with that of Persons, Stonyhurst MS., Collectanea P. f. 456: and the corrected formula of the Appellants, A.C. ii. p. 147, with Persons's formula at p. 193. » Bagshaw's altered translation in Oscott, M.S. 534, f. 169. The effect of the altered text on the controversy may be seen by the quotations from it made in Copley's postcript to his Second Letter (Appendix no. 15) and comparing this again with Colleton's Preface, etc. (Appendix no. 13). G CHAPTER XII. THE SETTLEMENT. (April to October, 1602.) A LETTER from the Duke of Sessa, then Spanish Ambassa- dor at Rome, fortunately survives to give us a summary of the situation at the period we have now reached. It also in- dicates, not obscurely, the lines on which the contest would work itself out. Beginning with some comments on the Gal- lican tendencies of the Appellant books published in Eng- land, he continues, ironically: Those who are here indeed deny their responsibility for these books, and say that the divisions have arisen, because the zeal •of Father Persons and the rest is not really for religion, but for Spain. They declare that he treats the English like slaves in order to sell them to your Majesty, who will then make Persons a cardinal and Blackwell a bishop . These men also declare that Persons's party is really, small, while those who desire religion only [i.e. themselves] cannot patiently endure the position of opposition to which the said Persons and the Archpriest (whom they entirely identify with the Jesuits) have reduced them, and seek to keep them, having made profit out of the Archpriest's authority, in order to declare their opponents rebels, excellent Catholics though they really are. By such pleas they have managed to throw a heavy shade over Persons and los bttenos not only in the eyes of the Pope, but also in the estimation of certain Cardinals, who though notoriously belonging to the party of Scotland and France, endeavour to appear neutral, and full of zeal for the service of God and the Holy See; 1 and God (alas for our sins) allows many grave persons, and even some of the Sacred College to credit them, until they make even his Holiness waver. Even though he ap- pears to see their frauds, yet he talks to me of the Archpriest being imprudent, and of the Jesuits being somewhat passionate, to say the least of it, for they want to apply to Catholics in England the same rigid discipline, as their general is wont to use 1 From a Spanish point of view Henri IV. as the ally of Protestant Holland (then still at war with Spain) and the advocate of a Protestant successor in England, was not acting .as beseemed a good Catholic. The Settlement. 83 in governing those of their order . They do not reflect that the Queen of England and the majority of the people being heretics, the Catholics must be attracted and preserved by suavity and kind words, rather than by fear : for there is no force to com- pel or restrain anyone, however bad. The truth is that his Holiness, broadly speaking, is not well affected towards the Jesuits, and thinks poorly of their system of government, and he has given severe reprimands to the General, and does so daily, unless I am mistaken in what I have heard lately. And although he considers Persons a good man, the bad offices, which have been used against him, do not fail to have some effect on his Holiness. At least they persuade the Pope that the Jesuit is a partisan and wholly Spanish. It was not enough that Persons should answer this admirably by saying, that if he and other Englishmen had favoured your Majesty's government, it was because there was not in Christendom, another prince so zealous, so able, so desirous to free England from the oppression of the heretics, or to reduce it entirely to Catholic religion, and obedience to the Holy See, that the Catholic fugi- tives and exiles had found neither support, favour nor protection any where else. Let any one show him a better way of reaching the principal object, which he and other Catholics must aim at, and he would follow it and get others to do the same. Also that he was certain that your government had always had the same object, and that any Catholic government in England would al- ways be friendly to your Majesty's. Persons and the rest of his side, now (perceiving that the Pope means to act with clemency towards the sediciosos, who have come in person to submit to him) represent to his Holiness that the least he can do is to make them confess that the doctrine in the scandalous books (though they deny these books to be theirs) is bad, and that this should be made known in England. If the complainants have done no wrong, this will cause them no harm. If they have, their method of procedure will be seen through there. The errors of the books should be condemned by brief, that good Catholics may be on their guard against such pernicious doctrine. As to the Archpriest, the defendants are earnest in proving to the Pope what troubles would result from removing him . . . while this is not the time for making bishops, or creating more than one superior — though the said sediciosos maintain that the creation of the Archpriest was the occasion of all the trouble.; . . . I do not know yet what his Holiness will decide, and I will co- operate (indeed I have done so) so far as shall be appropriate. When the time cornels I will, if I can, induce his Holiness to give these sediciosos some entertainment over here, and if neces- sary your Majesty might give them livings in Naples. On the 84 The Settlement. other hand Father Persons, Fitzherbert and others do not think well to mention this to his Holiness, until we see how the negotia- tions proceed, by reason of the above-mentioned suspicions, which have been raised against the Father. Certainly it causes me much pain to see the persecution, which Father Persons and other good Catholics his friends are undergoing, and to note how powerful the frauds of the devil are to deceive people in this court, notwithstanding the holy intention, and zeal of the Pontiff. From Rome, 25 April, 1602. It has been said, and not without a certain truth, that the two Ambassadors of France and Spain played an almost more important part in the debates than the parties immediately concerned. But one also sees from the Duke's letter how different his methods from those of de Bethune. There is nothing here of la fwie frangaise, or of the unscrupulosity in attack which Cecil and de Bethune between them carried to such lengths. The Spaniard is grave and dignified, but regards the whole matter with a somewhat distant air. He is sorry for Father Persons, but he does not fling himself into the strife at the head of his forces, as de Bethune was wont to do. His style of speaking of Appellants as los sediciosos is certainly objectionable, and so is the hint dropped about preventing their return. But he uses irony, not to misrepre- sent their case, but to signify to the Spanish Court the truth as to what was going on in the Curia. He tells us also of the lines on which the Archpriest side meant to defend their case, lines which, as we shall see, they followed till the end. When the Commission reopened after Easter, very rapid progress was made at first. The reason for this was that^ while the Archpriest's representatives were struggling with the necessarily lengthy indictment of the books, the Appel- lants themselves had been discussing beforehand with the two Cardinals the papers they were about to bring into Court. One of these, entitled " Our Reasons for Contro- versy," had already been submitted to the Cardinal d'Ossat on March 19th, who, besides other good advice, made them add an Annexujn in which they apologized for " anything that might offend." Then, after discussion with the Rela- tores on the 23rd, 24th and 30th, it was entirely rewritten and no doubt much improved. It next appeared as three dis- tinct papers under Latin headings. 1) The Gravamina, against Blackwell and his actual rule; 2) Incommoda of the system of Archpriest rule; and 3) Remedia or Considera- The Settlement. 85 Hones, containing suggestions for reform. After still further discussions they were fair copied and given into Court about April 23rd. 1 As we have explained that the Court was not merely judi- cial, there is no need to say much of the favour, somewhat strange according to our notions, which was shown by the Pre- sidents in helping one side to draw up its case against the other. Still, if the Cardinals really went so far, as Mush relates, viz., to promise a speedy and favourable verdict, this would in any case have been imprudent., But the probability is that the sanguine Mush misunderstood them. For when later on an air of a more judicial impartiality had to be maintained, he bursts out angrily and contemptuously in his diary,. " We begin to hope for little good at these Cardinals' hands, when in so clear and manifest a case, wherein our ' Reasons ' convinced them, we could have so little justice and favour." In reality, however, Cardinal Borghese, the future Paul V., had been one of the oldest friends of their party, having stood by the recalcitrant scholars as far back as 1596.2 When the Appellants' papers had been received, they were handed over to the Archpriest's side to be answered, and in the meanwhile both sides brought into Court their proba- liones. Though it was only in these cases a question of simple quo- tations, verifying of handwritings and the like, neither side would admit the least thing that told against themselves. The Appellants rejected every citation from their party's books, as " never one truly alledged nor heretical " — while the Archpriest's side " would not confesse anything proved " t (so Mush) 3 out of the papers shown to them. Well had Car- dinal Arrigoni said that, " we were terribiles on both sides," a striking phrase, which accurately hits off one chief charac- teristic of these debates. This was also the occasion on which Mush thought it appropriate to make the contemptuous notes about the Cardinals, quoted above. 1 See the Diaries of Mush and Cecil, A.C. ii. 8, 51, etc. These, with the Archpriest Scripta and Reports (see Introduction) are the main authorities for this section. 2 When Bishop and Charnock came to Rome in 1598, they at once applied to Borghese for aid, but as Caetano was then back in Rome, Borghese had to follow the lead of his principal the Protector, and gave them no support, and Haydock sending home news of this, remarks that the new-comers " must learn that the world is changed." A.C. i. 102. 3 Ibid. ii. 13, 14. How unreliable Cecil's reports are is shown by this, that he says the Jesuits on this occasion were " struck dumb " by the sight of the probationes I Ibid, p . 51. 86 The Settlement. We must now turn to the papers put in by the Archpriest side. The Duke of Sessa has explained that their main con- tention would be to prevent any change of system during the present ferment. Accordingly we find that their first Scriptum was on this subject, that, " any change of the actual system of government was liable to serious inconveniences and dangers." Then, on receiving the three Appellant papers, of which the third contained their proposed reforms, the Archpriest's procurators immediately answered this third part before the others ; and in it they professed to prove "the newly proposed reforms have more inconveniences than any others." Unfortunately we have only a quarter of the Appellant papers, only a half of the Archpriest Scripta, so that it is almost impossible to follow their arguments consecutively. Upon the whole we may say that, though the debate was carried on at a higher level than in the Battle of Books, neither side was calm enough to deal fairly, much less generously, with their opponents. Nevertheless, as these papers were in- tended, not for publication, but for the information of a Court, we may also say that they were probably quite sufficient (when supplemented by oral inquiries) to let the Cardinals obtain an adequate and reliable view of the matter before them. As for the system of reform suggested by the Appellants, it was based on much the same ideas as those of which we heard during the first Appeal. The clergy were to elect their own Superiors. If the office of Archpriest were retained, there should be many of them, and they should be re-elected yearly, or triennially, and there should be a good deal of official machinery ; accounts, for instance, should be audited, even those for alms. These suggestions were interlarded with many bitter attacks on the Jesuits, and on the reigning Arch- priest. whose malpractices (they declared) cried out for dras- tic corrections. The answer of the defendants may easily be imagined from their previous papers on the same subjects. Of all possible suggestions, these (they say) are the very worst, and of course it was not difficult to show that they contained much that was impracticable, wrong-headed, and out of keeping with eccle- siastical tradition. Though the writers are more restrained than their adversaries, they too cannot quite keep clear from pretty strong accusations, declaring that the men who made such proposals must be ambitious and lovers of tumult. The Settlement. 8/ When this paper was given to the Appellants (May 3rd) it seems to have roused them to fury, and on the 22nd they handed back a rabid diatribe against Father Persons and the Jesuits. They re-hash all the complaints contained in their former books against Father Weston at Wisbech, against Father Holt in Flanders ; while they attempt to overwhelm Father Persons by charging him with every real or imaginary mistake made or reported on the Catholic side for the last twenty years. Not that there was anything novel in this abuse itself, the remarkable thing was that it should have occurred in a paper submitted directly to the highest authorities in the Roman Court, and that it should not only have been pre- sented without a word of proof, but with the declared prin- ciple, Si quid erratum est, in solo P. Personio cudenda est /aba. ( If any mistake has been made, Father Persons alone must bear the blame.) 1 This deliberate mud- throwing went on for several weeks. At all events there was no wonder that the Cardinals, on receiving this answer, kept it to themselves, and put an end to all further interchange of papers; and herewith the period of inquiry begins to close, and the pre- paration for the judgment commences. Both sides now had audiences with the Pope on June 1 9th to sum up their pleadings. The Archpriest's proctors, aban- doning all direct defence of Blackwell, only begged that the Pope, before he showed favour to the Appellants, would make them offer some sort of apology for their various excesses. As for the trump card of the Appellants, the promise of tolera- tion, if they and their policy were favoured at Rome, Eliza- beth had lately shown her hand again by murdering three priests and three laymen, with all the wonted barbarities'. The proctors briefly referred to this, and added further de- tails of unceasing persecution. All this, it will be noted, squares with the policy, described by tke Duke of Sessa, of confining their efforts to the task of preserving the status quo ante, and is a tacit acknowledgment that even this may not be easy. If they had been present at John Cecil's audience on the same day, they would have found still further reasons for their care and self-restraint. Cecil began by frankly acknowledging the general objects of the Franco -Appellant alliance. Though 1 A.C. ii. p. 128. This principle is indeed applied avowedly only to the events of the last few years, but in practice it is applied everywhere. ■38 The Settlement. his demands were not expressed with the same vigour as de B6thune had used in March, they coincided well enough with the Frenchman's programme. There was to be (.a) a general prohibition of all political action, which might irritate Pro- testants, and (b) the French were to be asked to become protectors of English Catholicism. As to the Archpriest con- troversy itself, the Appellants asked (a) for a public sen- tence in their favour; (b) the removal of the Archpriest, and of Archpriest government; (c) the removal of the Jesuits a castris et congressibus nostris, a vague phrase, which might, however, include a good deal. Then, warming to his task, he launched out against the Jesuits and Father Persons with all the vehemence shown in the Refutatio Personii, adding that still heavier charges •would be presented in writing by the French Ambassador. The Pope listened to everything,' and answered with his usual great moderation. " As to your chimera about toleration, I really know not what to say. Your whole endeavours are directed to this, to bring charges against Father Persons, and to overthrow those who are now so intent on doing us good service." As for this controversy, the Pope promised satisfaction for their innocence; the removal of the Jesuits from connexion with their government; to do justice in regard to the Archpriest, and to think maturely over the other important proposals. When Cecil again returned to declamation against Persons, he answered: "We will see what the French Ambassador says, and act without prejudice to religion." Though we have no other evidence for this interview except that of John Cecil himself, an adventurer, on whose honesty per se no reliance should be placed; still, broadly speaking, his story here fits in so well with what we know of the circum- stances from other more reliable sources, that we are bound for the time to accept it, as the best available account of an exchange of views, which undoubtedly took place. In any case the interview is a strange one, which needs reflection, for any of the previous Popes would certainly have turned the speaker out of his room for so contumelious an attack on one of the most faithful of their servants, whom Clement himself had for so many years trusted and employed. At this we shall naturally remember that phrase from the Duke of Sessa's letter, " The truth is that his Holiness, broadly speaking, is not well affected to the Jesuits . . . Although The Settlement. 89 he considers Persons a good man, the bad offices done to him have their effect, they persuade the Pope that the Jesuit is a partisan and wholly Spanish." It will be noticed, however, that the Pope does not here express agreement with any of Cecil's charges. - His protest against the attack is indeed omin- ously mild; but the next proceedings in the case show that Cecil's speech had not advanced the Appellants' cause in papal esteem ; while, even from a purely Jesuit point of view, there is much to be said for a policy of patience. For the Pope was at this very time endeavouring to persuade the French' to recall the Jesuits to France, and considering the bellicose temperament of Henri IV., Clement could not expect to suc- ceed in this, without allowing Henri's representatives, like the pugnacious de Bethune, the fullest freedom in discussing rea- sons to the contrary. Under which circumstances he would also have to allow de Be.thune's advisers, like Cecil, a similar licence. What may perhaps help to explain Cecil's endeavours to make the breach with Persons final was that the Jesuit was all the while endeavouring to make peace. Several Car- dinals, and finally also the Pope, joined in these endeavours (showing, one may remark in passing, how little he accepted Cecil's abuse at its face-value). It may perhaps be that de Bethune and Cecil feared that the Pope would enforce peace, and so rob the Frenchman of the laurels he coveted. The climax to this will come later. Persons' idea of arranging peace had first arisen from a con- versation of Richard Parker, one of the Archpriest's proctors, with Mush on April 27th. At Whitsuntide (May 25th), Father Persons gave some very strong, broad-minded letters to two young Jesuit missionaries (Fathers Jackson and Hunt) who were then starting for England, 1 on the great care and generosity necessary to maintain peace at whatever cost : and in the same spirit he wrote himself to Mush, begging him to work for the same object. It was a good letter, but not quite good enough; because it did not exclude the interpretation, " If this is not accepted, the fault will be yours." But, how- ever this may be, the offer contrasts well with the sordid ■ Persons to Mush, 25 May, 1602. Tierney-Dodd, iii. clxii.; Instruction to Jackson, ibid, clxviii. 90 The Settlement. mischief-making of the Appellants' spokesman, which, as we shall now see, did not accelerate his cause. The Pope had promised to pass final sentence on the Appellant controversy immediately, upon St. John Baptist's, midsummer's day; when that day arrived, he ordered in- stead a new and more thorough inquiry. It may be that the rough language of Cecil and de B£thune made him doubt whether it would be wise or judicious to wind up the cause amid clamour of that sort. It seems likely, too, that the stately Duke of Sessa was aroused by Father Persons to bestir himself again, and to press on the Pope once more the inop- portuneness of making changes under present circumstances. ■Whatever the reason may have been, instead of giving his verdict on the 24th, an order came out enlarging the Com- mission of Cardinals from two to six, and transferring the ses- sions to the Holy Office, where proceedings were carried on with greater secrecy, and with more obvious independence of possible pressure from ambassadors and other wire-pullers. Cardinals Borghese and Arrigoni continued to be presidents (Relatores) of the Commission, but as they were known to be pro-French, there was reason for balancing them with others, who were acknowledged representative of the tradi- tional Roman views. The French, and the Appellants, took this change as an act unfavourable to themselves; but I do not see that they had any reason for thinking so, except that it postponed a judgment, which they regarded as already won for their side. De B6thune therefore insisted on speed, and in spite of the summer heats, the Commission went to work again at once. Fresh copies of the principal papers previously de- livered were put in again, while members of both contending parties went round to interview the new commissioners, and to explain to them their respective causes. On July 12th' the Appellants were paternally warned to have patience, " if we had not all granted that we desired"; and on the 20th the Commission drew up a long censura containing fourteen sections, which, after being reconsidered and sanctioned by the Holy Father, was communicated to both parties on August 9th. 1 .While reprimanding both parties severely, the Archpriest's ■ Acta in congregatione habita die xx Julii, 1602, super rebus Anglicanis. Arch. West. vii. n. 5z. Extracts in Couzard, p. 90. The Settlement. 91 failings are put first and commented upon in greater detail. He was declared to have frequently abused his powers, and to have been mistaken in his theory of schism, rebellion and disobedience; as to which, if there is any excuse, it will be that he probably acted under bad advice [a hit at Father Lister and the Jesuits]. It was decided that he must no longer con- sult the Jesuits in matters connected with the government of the mission, and Cardinal Caetano's instructions were, in this respect, entirely abrogated. He was kept in office, however, and no change whatever was made in the constitution itself [a victory for the Archpriest]. Then turning to the Appel- lants (§ 10), a severe sentence is passed upon their books. Thus "very many injuries against the Jesuit Fathers" are condemned, and the "many things that savour of heresy." The commissioners think that they ought to be " altogether prohibited and condemned," some were even of opinion that the Appellants ought, at least in general terms, to declare " their disallowance of the said books." Then followed a severe prohibition of reading, or even retaining books on either side of the said controversy — so imperative had it become to silence it altogether. Finally came (§ 13) a strong prohibition of communication with here- tics in prajutficium Catholicorum, With this strong and ample decree we are now within sight of the end. All that remained was for the Pope, making use of the counsel here laid before him, to write and publish his letters in forma brevis in order to convey solemnly and to apply the decree to the persons for whom it was intended. There was therefore still room for smaller modifications to be proposed, both sides were informed that suggestions might be offered, and all (the Jesuits and the Archpriest's proctors in separate papers) 1 availed themselves of the offer. The supporters of the Archpriest suggested that the long catalogues of his mistakes should be given in shorter and more general terms. The Appellants on their side continued to press for the complete removal, both of the man and of the office. Conditionally, however, on this proving unacceptable, they begged they might at least be given some share in the government, e.g., posts among the Assistants of the Arch- priest, as these fell vacant. As this concession had already 1 There is a collection of memoranda regarding these papers in the Ad- vocates' Library, Edinburgh, 31. 4. 15. See also A.C. ii. 65. 9 2 The Settlement. been suggested by Father Persons, there was every probability of its acceptance. And as he had also suggested beforehand the withdrawal of Caetano's clause about consulting the Jesuits, he now requested that this latter suggestion should be explicitly mentioned in the brief, and the request was granted. These important amendments, with others of less import- ance, were discussed and passed in four sessions, on the i 5th and 28th of August, and the 6th and 12th of September. By this time the contents of the brief were finally settled, and the headings were ordered to be digested in forma brevis: and at this stage (it seems) the resolution was finally taken of giving up the definite charges against the books of the Appellants. John Cecil had cunningly suggested that if the Appellants' books were condemned, those of the Jesuits should be cen- sured too, naming amongst others Father Southwell's Suppli- cation to the Qu^en. This was one of Cecil's tricks. The Supplication is one of the most beautiful books of the per- secution period; but it was and is, unfortunately, very little known. Persons had never seen it ; he knew not what to say, and could not prevent a pause being called at de Bethune's instance, while the book was sent for. By this artifice time was won, and it was impossible to complete the censure on the whole controversy in time for it to be included in the brief. So the Pope decided to abandon the definite censure passed by the inquisition on the Appellant volumes, and to content himself with the suppression, as a precautionary mea- sure, of all books on both sides. This was especially fortunate for the Appellants, as they thereby escaped all direct blame. The reprehension of their initial disobedience which had been previously blamed by the brief of August, 1601, was not now reiterated (though the censures then passed on Blackwell were again repeated) ; on the contrary, a clause was inserted stating afresh that the Appellants had never been guilty of Schism or grave disobedi- ence, and the important consequence was now drawn, that the question of absolving them, or restoring them their facul- ties, did not arise at all, as all the suspensions had been void from the first. The only blame attaching to them was con- veyed in general terms, which, however, fitted their case well enough. The only persons to whom any praise was given were the Jesuits. This originated with the withdrawal of The Settlement. 93 Caetano's oft-mentioned clause on consulting the Jesuits. To guard against a sinister interpretation some commendation of the Society became necessary, and it is given cordially. Up till the last the Appellants believed that the brief would contain a clause prohibiting the Catholics from taking any share in political life (in order to mitigate the suspicions of the heretical Government), and when this did not appear, they thought the Spanish Ambassador had procured its re- moval. I fancy, however, that we have here one of the many false reports which were then current. No such matter is mentioned in any of the preliminary forms of the brief, nor in any of the proposals for its emendation, which survive in some numbers. The final petitions on the Archpriest side request the explicit condemnation of the Appellant books; not the withdrawal of any prohibition of politics. De B6thune and the Appellants had indeed demanded that prohibition, as we have seen above. But they sometimes mistakenly thought that French demands were as good as papal grants. This is perhaps another instance of the same prepossession. On October 3rd the Pope endeavoured to get the two par- ties to go through a form of reconciliation. The matter had frequently been mentioned by Cardinals and others ; and the Appellants had even consulted de Bethune what they should do, in case such an offer were made. When, however, the summons to the Vatican came, they did not know the pur- pose of the call, and it was only when they found their adver- saries already in the papal antecamera that every one under- stood what was before them:.. " They placed themselves as far opposite the others as they could," and awaited the issue with real anxiety. After their gross abuse of Persons, how could they embrace him without shame? yet how could they refuse the Pope and pretend to be worthy representatives of the priesthood? In the end, however, the Pope was pre- vented by other business from coming to carry out his pacific intention; and the Appellants promptly hurried off to their Ambassador for help. This he immediately gave, repre- senting to the Pope that it would be impossible for the Ap- pellants to unite with Persons, " unless they were desirous of renouncing the patronage of their Princess, and of the King of France . . .. for Persons had been declared the King's enemy." The Pope (according to Cecil) answered that he had not taken those serious con'sequences into consideration, 94 The Settlement. arid that under such circumstances he would not insist any further. With this all hopes of peace seemed at an end. The incident, which was in so many ways typical of the whole conflict, gives occasion for much reflection. But the Pope foresaw that, when once the legal principles had been set- tled, the mutual distrust (which he evidently did not believe to be as serious as was represented) would in great measure die down of itself ; and this proved true to a large extent. On October 12th (N.S.) copies of the brief were at last given to the contending parties. They at once sent it to Eng- land, where it was intercepted by Elizabeth's spies at its ar- rival on November 3rd (113th, New Style). The Govern- ment responded by a new proclamation against the Catholic clergy, banishing them from the realm, lest it should be thought Elizabeth had ever meant to grant toleration, " God doth know our innocency of any such imagination" (Nov. 5th) . So ended that talk by de Bethune and the Appellants about " toleration," which the Pope had so justly declared a chimera. But though Elizabeth, Cecil and Bancroft never had any other object in view than the greater injury of the Catholic Church, as they state quite frankly in their private correspon- dence, still there is another side of the subject well worthy of consideration. Both Bancroft and Cecil were in favour of adopting less barbarous methods of persecution, and this re- sulted eventually in advantages to Catholicism much greater than the harm they did by fostering Catholic disunion. Out of the small mercies shown before Elizabeth's death consider- able relaxations followed, when Laud had succeeded to Ban- croft, and Charles to James. These things belong to the his- tory of the next generation ; but an allusion to them here will enable us to judge better of the changes which were now be- ginning, and will make us more lenient in our condemnation of those Catholic priests who consented to go some way with the " Pseudo-Bishop of London." Elizabeth's proclamation orders the priests as a body to be exiled, and she declares that she is justified in this by the Ap- pellants' books (evidently meaning those of Watson). The Appellant clique, however, might hope for a lighter punish- ment, but no details are given. The Puritans (whom this proclamation was intended to pacify) were meant to believe that they would be kept in confinement. Under these cir- cumstances there is no wonder that even the Appellants were in no hurry to give themselves up. The Settlement. 95 At last, on February 1, 1603, four Appellants, Bluet, Charnock, Hepbourne and Barnaby presented themselves as representatives of a body of thirteen, and requested definite assurances that, if they did submit their faith would be res- pected, and they offered an oath of allegiance to the Queen. It had been drawn up in Paris, and was of a quasi-Gallican character, being chiefly occupied with protests of readiness to disobey the Pope in case of war between himself and Eliza- beth. The offer was not very favourably received by Ban- croft, and was presumably never formally accepted, for Eliza- beth's death was now being daily expected, and it soon en- sued. Therewith the possibility of real toleration had come, and for the moment there was a great relaxation of severity. Father Garnet wrote : " A golden time we have of unexpected freedom abroad." One of the first ideas that then occurred to the old disput- ants on both sides was that this was the opportunity for arrang- ing a new " atonement." As early as April 9th we find Father Garnet trying to bring about a 'conference between Watson and Father Gerard, and Mush also was one of the foremost in the good work. Finally, on May 1 3th, a new agreement was con- eluded, of which it will suffice to quote here the first article : That there shall be no strangeness amongst us, nor exception taken one against the other : but that we live in union and mutual love and friendly offices one towards the other, as Catholic priests ought to do, as though the controversy never had been. 1 Herewith ended, more or less completely so far as England was concerned, the controversy which had raged so long. And we are surely warranted in concluding from the rapidity with which (after the legal obstacles had been overcome) an agreement was arrived at, as soon as ever the impediment of persecution was out of the way, that a large part of the obstinacy of that conflict was really due to the nervous ten- sion which the persecution had engendered. But the small body of irreconcilables, under the vigorous leadership of Dr. Bagshaw, now at Paris, remained still de- fiant, though the Pope, and now even Henri IV., desired a reconciliation. The full story of the failure of this Concor- dia is long and intricate, for it depended on other long and 1 R.O., Dom. J amis I. vol. i, no. 8. Unfortunately there is no list of signntories. Watson stood out and possibly other extremists. 96 The Settlement. tortuous intrigues, which King James was conducting with the Pope through Sir Anthony Standen, Sir James Lyndsay, as well as on the intercourse between Sir Thomas Parry, the English Ambassador at Paris, and the Papal Nuncio there; the treacherous Parry always finding it easy work to check one negotiation by another. Parry, like Bancroft and Cecil, had adopted con animo the principle of Divide et impera. When on September 29, 1603, Bagshaw 1 had given him a plan to turn the Jesuits out of the English College at Rome, and to give it to the Secular Clergy, Parry sent the plan home with the comment that it would be better still " to set the Saducees [i.e., Bagshaw and his friends] to dispute and brawl with the Pharisees [Jesuits], and so to pump out the leaks of our ships by means of their contentions and shifts to live abroad." Again, when Henri IV. (July 21, 1604), asked him for some favour for the 'Appellants at least, if not for the Jesuits, Parry replied cyni- cally, " Our laws make no great distinction between the Je- suits and their disciples." In this case he induced the Paris Nuncio himself to postpone sine die the much desired Con- cordia (November 25, 1602), because that would facilitate Lyndsay's negotiations : negotiations which were themselves frustrated by a similar device later;; and in the same way he led up to a stroke against Father Persons, of which more later. But even if the Nuncio had persevered, there seems to have been little or no chance that Bagshaw would ever have yielded an inch. For in his letter of October 5, 1602, giving his minimum terms for treating, he angrily declared that, even as a preliminary, the whole Archpriest institution must be given up ! One remembers Wisbech, and can see no hope of con- cord with such a stickler. Thus the fire of discord was never entirely quenched; and at so important a centre as Paris, the spark remained still aglow. 2 1 The letters of Bagshaw and Parry are in the French Correspondence , R.O. ; those of the Nuncio in the Roman Transcripts under dates. 3 So much did even the French Jesuits feel the " incredible harm " done to the Order by Bagshaw in alliance with the English ambassador at Paris, that a Pro- vincial Congregation held at Lyons, September, 1606, resolved that the Pope should be asked to procure Bagshaw's removal from the capital. Whether any- thing was done, I do not know. Anglia Historica, ii., 305. CHAPTER XIII. THE SEQUEL. ( 1603 — 1604.) Looking back on the settlement as a whole, we must say that the legislation of Rome had been thoroughly well done. Based on sound legal principles, it put an end for ever to the troubles with which it dealt. Never again would England be troubled by Church government after the fashion of the Tudor magistrate, such as Blackwell (however we may excuse his general good intentions) had striven to enforce; nor would Rome again issue a document liable to the misinterpretations to which Caetano's instructions were exposed. In both cases the error was characteristic of a transition from a purely pa- ternal rule. Under such a rule the day on which the father must lay down the rod, cannot be defined: and Blackwell failed to see tha^ for him, that day had passed. Under that rule again, no definite term can be set to paternal admoni- tions: and Caetano's failing was that he provided too many opportunities for giving advice. Pro tanto it was grand- motherly legislation. Nevertheless the new decree did not initiate a bright, gol- den age, nor a period of deep and prolonged peace. Both sides had had recourse to new or violent remedies, the effects of which would be felt for generations. Chief among these no- velties was that influx of French ideas, that impetuous exer- cise of French influence, of which we have necessarily heard so much, and of which so much remains to be said in future, that it will be prudent to abandon at once any attempt to fore- shadow its history. What seems in place as an epilogue, is a few words regarding the immediate sequel to successes won by such men as John Cecil and de Bethune, to the freedom from censure which befell Watson's extraordinary publica- tions, while old traditions and old advisers of the Holy See were abandoned. A few words about their fate during the next few years will throw all the light needed on this topic. The success won by Dr. Cecil, though great, was short- lived. Thinking that he had now won a position, which H 98 Tke Sequel. would be respected even by Elizabeth's ministers, he pro- ceeded to London, sending before him a boastful letter des- cribing the great services which he had rendered Elizabeth by his intrigues at Rome. The result proved exactly the contrary to what he had expected. Sir Robert Cecil, in accordance with the policy of the late proclamation, threw him into prison, while his letter falling into Catholic hands, was communicated both to the Pope and to the Appellants, both of whom were naturally disgusted, Dr. Bagshaw (October 8, 1603) expressing the wish "that he had never had a finger in our cause." Our adventurer succeeded, indeed, in wrigg- ling out of this, as out of so many other tight places. But the power he had won in Rome was gone. In truth he had only succeeded as a discoverer of battlefields advantageous for the employment of de B6thune's furie francaise. Left to himself his want of honesty or singleness of aim prevented his finesse from achieving any permanent success. Of the other Appellants, whose history we have here touched upon, the subsequent careers of " honest John Mush" and of John Colleton, were the most honourable. Mush returned to and stayed pn at his work in England ; while Bagshaw and most of the rest settled in Paris and are gener- ally remembered as controversialists, with friend as well as with foe. Colleton also remained " at the front," as we might say. He had a very long career indeed of usefulness, though he was not destined to enjoy the happiness of the peacemaker. He fought a good fight (i.e., with excellent intentions') for another whole generation, and died with the din of battle ringing louder than ever around him. Watson and Clark, authors of some very objectionable Ap- pellant books, had but a short span of life before them. Though they managed to evade the censure of the Inquisition, they were not so felicitous against Sir Robert Cecil. Having involved themselves in the Bye- Plot, these reckless calumnia- tors of others as traitors, were soon made to pay in full the dreadful penalties of their real, though not very dangerous treasons. Watson asked pardon of the Jesuits very hand- somely before his death, 1 and Copley, going to Rome, was openly reconciled to Persons. Fisher's address having been communicated to the Appellants, they brought him back to England, where he apostatised, 12 May, 1603.2 1 See Nuncio's letter of n January 1604, R.O. France, and Constable's of 9 January, ibid. * Westminster Archives vii., u. 85. SOURCES. I. Very few of the repositories of records, in which the documents concerning the Controversy were originally stored, still remain in situ. Such for instance are the archives of the Vatican, of Simancas, of Hatfield House, and in all of them some relevant documents, though not very many, may be found. Vatican Archives. Seeing that both the appeals were tried in Rome, one might have expected that the Vatican Archives would have con- tained more to our purpose than any other place. But the inquiries were not held at the Vatican itself, but before the Congregation of the Holy Office, whose Archives are separate, and not accessible to the public; or before Cardinals in their own apartments, and these papers would not normally be stored at the Papal palace. But of late years, since Pope Leo XIII. purchased the Borghese Archives, the private papers both of Clement VIII. and of Cardinal Borghese have been joined to the Papal documents, and from this new fondo documents of importance may still be expected. I have inspected several, especially in volumes II. 488, ab., and III. 124, g; but I found comparatively little. On the other hand the series of Nuncios' Dispatches from Paris is very complete, and very useful for the later phases. The correspondence for the Nunciature of Brussels, which is wanting in the Vatican, may be re- covered from Mgr. Frangipani's Registers now at Naples in the Biblio- theca Nazionale, xi. D. 13; xii. B. 15 to 24; especially vols. 15 to 19. The Carte Farnesiane in the Archivio of the same town are also very rich for English affairs of this period, when Odoardo Farnese was Pro- tector. But the utter want o'f order makes research here most difficult. (See Cauchie, Inventaire des Arch. Farnesiennes de Naples. Ac. Roy; de Belgique; Com. d'Histoire, 191 1). The "Roman Transcripts" at the Record Office are generally very full and very useful; and will be still more so when calendared; but for our purpose they do not seem to con- tain very much. The richest archive on the Archpriest's side was originally that of the English College, Rome; but during the revolutionary period its con- tents were much disturbed. Much was destroyed, a good deal was brought to England, and is now in the Archives of the Cardinal Arch- bishop of Westminster. The English Jesuits still retain a certain num- ber of their historical papers, among the Slonyhurst Manuscripts. The fullest collection on the Appellant side is at the Inner Temple Lib- rary, and it must have had an interesting history. It seems to have origin- ated in Dr. Bagshaw's dossier: which he seems to have given over to Bishop Bancroft, when he left England in 1601. Then it was presumably entrusted to some official, probably an ecclesiastical lawyer of the Court of Arches. In the middle of the seventeenth century or so, they seem to have been sold. The larger part fell to Sir William Petyt, who died in 1707, and he bequeathed them to the Inner Temple. Catalogues of these have been published (by Mr. Riley, and the Rev. W. D. Macray, Royal Commission on Historical MSS., Reports II. and XL), and two volumes of documents by Mr. T. G. Law. (Camden Society, 1896, and -1898 — The Archpriest Controversy). A smaller part of Bagshaw's papers fell into Catholic hands before the time of Canon Tierney, and they are now Introduction. ix chiefly in the Westminster Archives; a few belong to the "Old Brother- hood of the English Clergy," a few to Stonyhurst College. At Simancas I found nothing of importance, but in a bundle of Simancas MSS., in the Archives Naiionales, at Paris, I found some papers of im- portance, quoted below (chap. xii). For the papers of the French ambassa- dor at Rome I have contented myself with M. l'Abbe' R. Couzard's Une Atnbassade a Rome sous Henri IV. (Paris, Picard, ? 1900), drawn up from the family Archives at Sully-sur-Loire, from whence, no doubt, more information might still be obtained. * * * The great desiderandum at present is a book of records giving the official side of the proceedings; i.e., letters of the Pope, and the Pro- tectors, Nuncios, and especially of Blackwell, with the authentic papers put in by both sides during the trial. Those of the Appellants are fairly known, through the Archpriest Controversy. The following is the list of papers given on the Archpriest's side: SCRIPTA ON THE ARCHPRIEST SIDE, condensed from the Summary, Summa Scriptorum (Oscott MS. 534, p. 175-8, written early in July, 1602). Scriptum 1. De Paradoxis et propositionibus Scandalosis, etc., in the Appellant Books. The table of propositions is printed in A.C. ii. 147 ; Original MS. draft of the whole, A.W., vii. 79 — 135. It was originally given in about 3 April, 1602. Scriptum it. Presbyteri Appellantes sunt veri librorum horuiti authores, 40 folios. An original duplicate at Naples; Bib. Brancacciana, III. B. 3. Has a valuable appendix of documents. A contemporary Sum- mary, Farm Street MSS. i. n. 12. Scriptum hi. [Answer the Appellants' paper, De incommodis subordination's . No copy known to me. The Appellants' paper was originally given in 24 April.] Scriptum iv. Answer to the Appellants' paper, Gravamina Archipresbyteri. A copy in a library of the Society abroad. Given in 12 June. Scriptum v. Media pro componenda pace, answering the Considerationes of the Appellants. Both papers in A.C. ii. pp. 118 and 122; and see 127 for the Appellants' counter -statement. A contemporary copy at Stonyhurst, Ang. vii. n. 74. Scriptum vi. De Gravissimis Damnis which will follow, if any great change is made at the instance of agitators. Extracts printed in Tierney- Dodd, iii., clxxii., from Stonyhurst MS. Angl. iii. 18. Scriptum vii. De Veris mediis reconciliandce pads. No copy known to me. Scriptum viii. Nonnullw Considerationes. A transcript in Oscott MS. 534, pp. 219 — 225. PRINTED SOURCES. The first attempt to tell the story was made by Charles Dodd (vere Hugh Tootell) in his Church History of England, vol. ii., in the section " Factions 1 among Catholics," 1737. This was re-edited by Canon M. A. Tierney in 1840, vol. iii., article v., with notes, and a valuable appendix of documents. Dodd's biographies and bibliographies, and now represented by Joseph Gillow's Biographical Dictionary of the English Catholics, 1885, etc. Thomas Flanagan, History of the Church in England, 2 vols., 1857. Henry Foley, Records of the English Province S.J., vols. i. to viii., 1877 to 1883. The Sequel. 99 We must not part from Watson without a word about his very bizarre character. For though he must be reckoned as one of the least worthy of the Appellants, he was for that very reason often placed first by opponents, or satirists ; while Bancroft and Wade, who used the party for anti-Catholic purposes, also made much of him. He is a man very hard to depict. Ugly, coarse and vulgar, a megalomaniac, and sometimes even a traitor to his brethren, there was on the other hand a strain of muddled poetry in his composition ; ■ moreover, his many misfortunes cannot but awaken some sympathy. Being just the sort of talkative weakling, whom bullies would delight to torture and trample on, he suffered at the hands of Topcliffe and the priest-hunters a prison- treatment so brutal, as might well account for the unhinging of a human mind. It was his wont to speak of " his misera- ble life." Withal he was an abject, whose head was easily turned by good fortune, when it came. In the Battle of Books, he was severely chastised by Verstegan l and Persons, but warmly defended by Copley and Clark ; and besides his books, we have also many letters, full of confused rhe- toric and erroneous statements. There is material for a bio- graphy ; but it would take the skill of a Dickens to blend to- gether, what awakens sympathy, with what excites irritation and contempt into an interesting, human portrait. As for the leading names on the other side, Blackwell did not retrieve his reputation. He did, indeed 1 , as before, dis- charge less onerous duties well. The rapidity with which he lived down his feud with Colleton and the rest does him no little credit; but when the next severe trial came, the perse- cution connected with the Oath of Allegiance, he again showed his want of firm principle. He first condemned the oath, then took it under pressure, defended it, was deposed, and died without righting himself. A man who in easier circumstances might have borne the weight of ecclesiastical dignity creditably, but who was unequal to the strain of those arduous times. Though Father Persons had still a decade of life before him, which he was destined to fill with good works, the politi- cal jealousy of de B6thune continued to work against him so long as the Ambassador remained at Rome. We have heard of his asking for Persons's deposition from office as « This MS, tract seems to be lost. See Copley, below, Appendix, n. 15. ioo The Sequel. far back as March, 1602. The proposal was occasionally renewed, and February 23, 1604, the Paris Nuncio himself made a similar application, under the mistaken impression that King James had written to ask for it, a mistake pre- sumably due to Parry's trickiness. The Pope, however, still refused, until de B^thune renewed his pressure (June 1 1th). 1 Then at last the Pope consented; and in September, when the old Jesuit went to Naples for a rest, he was told to stay on there. But the understanding with King James (which this virtual banishment was to have accelerated) ended in smoke, like the intervention with Elizabeth in 1602. Pope Cle- ment died soon after, de Bethune returned to France, and in six months Persons was back and in favour with Pope Paul .V., who as Cardinal Borghese had so much befriended the Appellants. To those who are not aware of the paternal character of papal rule in Rome, the incident may seem somewhat inex- plicable; but its lesson is really quite simple. Clement wished to show that he was above petty partizanship, and no wise bound to put the defence or interests of a Jesuit before the general good of the Church. It was worth while, too, to take this odd way of demonstrating a matter, which to us may seem obvious, because there were in fact many in the entourage both of James and of de B6thune who believed just the contrary ; who thought, for instance, that Persons had made the Pope erect the Archipresbyterate in England, just to suit the Jesuit's ambitions. Indeed, there are still people who take that viewl It was, therefore, in Clement's eyes a much less evil, that he should be thought rough on a Jesuit, than that it should be imagined that he was subservient to the Order. From this point of view nothing could have been more felicitous for Persons himself, than his enforced holiday at Naples. The year of Paul V.'s election, 1605, was also that of the Powder Plot, which was followed by the Oath of Allegiance, and by fresh persecution. The fiery interest of these new events relegated the once burning subject of the Appellant Controversy to the realm of past history. • R.O., France, vol. 51 ; Roman Transcripts, 87, 88. Couzard, p. 119. APPENDIX. THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT CONTROVERSY. The Battle of Books was remarkable, not only because of the unusual fire and fury, with which the writers attacked one another, but also because of the elaborate precautions they took to maintain secrecy. For instance only one book in thirty {i.e., No. 14), mentions the names both of author, place and pub- lisher. Moreover, while the Appellant printers were strongly backed by the Bishop of London, he tried, but in vain, to keep his name a secret ; and for all that, some of the publishing agents were executed. The first systematic catalogue of the books was that made by the late Mr. T. G. Law in his Jesuits and Seculars in 1880: and there is now need for something more elaborate still. A good deal, we shall see, turns on small points like printers' devices, and capital letters. Nevertheless, as Mr. Law's index already fills forty-three pages, it is obvious that the end of this essay would not be a fit place to publish something still more extensive. So I keep to the opposite side, reducing the cata- logue to a mere conspectus, but adding paragraphs on some lines profitable for further study. § 1. List of Volumes. CLASS I. APPELLANT BOOKS. Group I. The Appellants Indict and Attack Blackwell and the Jesuits (1601). The first number gives the chronological sequence. The author's name is generally traditional, and is in square brackets when the publication is anony- mous. The title is much abbreviated. The Roman numeral, preceded by L., gives place of the volume in Mr. Law's Catalogue. i. [J. Mush] Declaratio Motuum, May. Opens the case. Law's Catalogue, No. ii. 2. [A. Champney] Certain Discourses, May. The other writers were Bishop, Bennett, Mush. Law iii. 3. [C. Bagshaw] Relatio Compendiosa Turbarum, July. Sup- plement to 1. Law v. 4. J. B[ennett] Hope df Peace, July. Answers Blackwell's letter of 23 June. Law iv. 102 Appendix. Group II. The Attack at its Hottest ( 1601, 1602). ,5. [C. Bagshaw] Trite Relation of Wisbech, Sept. Closely, related to No. 1. Law viii. [W. Watson or Bagshaw] Important Considerations, Sept. Defends Elizabeth's Policy. Law ix. [T. Bluet] Sparing Discovery of English Jesuits, Oct. Law x. . • [W. Watson or Mush] Dialogue between a priest and a * gentleman, Nov. Law xi. 9. [W. Watson] Quodlibets, Nov. Law xiii. 10. A. C[opley] Answer to a Jesuited Gentleman, 3,0 Nov. Law xir. 1 1. Rationes pro tibrorum editionibus, Jan. 1602. "Now lost. 12. A. P. [i.e., R. Chamock] Answer to BlackwelVs letter of 1596, Jan. Law xv. Group III. Apologetic (1602). 13. J. Colleton, Just Defence, June. Answers Apologie. Law xvi. 14. H. Ely, Brief Notes, July. Other writers were Bagshaw, Paget, Bishop. Against Apologie. Printed by Se- vestre, Paris. Law xvii. 15. A. Cfopley] Second and Third Letters, Sept. Against Manifestation, and Verstergan's Letters. See Law xii. 16. Pasquiefs Jesuit Catechism, Sept. Material for further attack. Law xviii. 1 7. Arnaulde' s Franc Discours, Nov. Material for further attack. 18. A. P. [? ,R. Chamock] and J. B[ennett] Reply to a Notorious Libel {The Apologie), Dec. Law xix. 19. [Clarke and Barnaby] Reply to a Certain Libel, i.e., The Manifestation, Dec. Law xx. CLASS II. BOOKS ON THE ARCHPRIEST SIDE. Group I. Exhortations to Unity (1601). 20. S. Nforris ?] Epistle of pious Grief, July. Entirely lost. 21. T. W[orthington] Sixteen Martyrs, and that priests agree with Jesuits, Sept. (Only 30 pages.) Group .II.: Answers to Appellant Books (1602). 22. [R. Persons] Brief Apologie, Jan. Law vi. Answers Nos. 1 and 2. Epistle dated 20 July, 1601, but revision in England and printing in Flanders was delayed, and two Appendices were added, only one of which seems to be now known, answering 1 books No. 3 and 1 4. This Appendix. 103 reached England 28 July. Bancroft printed 50 copies of the Apologie in March, in order to promote the controversy. A copy of this edition at Brit. Museum. 23. [R. Persons and R.G.] Apologia pro hierarchic, ecclesias- tica, Latin adaptation of the above, May. R.G. may stand for Richardus Gualpolus. 24. [R. Persons] Manifestation, June. Answers Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Written while Apologie was in printing. Law xiv. 25. [R. Persons and R.G. ] Appendix ad Apologiam, June. A Latin adaptation, both of the Appendices under No. 24, and also of the Manifestation. CLASS III. BOOKS BY OUTSIDERS. 26. [C. Paget] [A compendium of Father Persons' Attempts], ? 1:598. No printed copy known, but many in MS., e.g., Domestic Calendar 15Q8, p. 68. 27. [R. Fisher] Memorialede calamitoso statu Anglice, ? 1598. No printed copy known. In Latin MS. at Westminster Archives. 28. [W .Bradshaw], Motives for association, against the treatises of the secular Priests, 1601. A Puritan tract. 29. Let Quilibet beware of quodlibet, 1602, 8vo. Anon. 30. Thomas Bell, Anatomy \ of Popish Tyrannie, 1603. 1 § 2. Periods and Groups. Class I., Group I., May to July, 1601. The earliest volumes were naturally written to explain the actual appeal. The lan- guage used was Latin, in order to be of service in France and at Rome : and actual letters and proofs are given : the tone is gener- ally respectful, and repetitions are avoided. Two books were also issued in English. They did not treat of the appeal itself, but endeavoured to prove the Archpriest's side wrong on less technical grounds. .They are transitional, passing to the next Group. Group II., September, 1601, to January, 1602. When the first volumes had been launched, the Appellant leaders, taking with them a supply of the Latin volumes (and possibly leaving others ready in MS. behind therm), start for Rome. Then a change comes over the controversy. The Appeal itself falls into the background, and the writers address themselves to Protestants as much or more than to Catholics. The unbalanced Watson becomes, as it were editor, and prefaces almost every volume with an epistle in his fantastic style, signed W.W. He always suggests that he is not the author. The writers now adopt almost 104 Appendix. all Protestant traditions, all stories of plots, and of anti-English actions by the Pope and Spain. While they praise Elizabeth effusively, they denounce the old Catholic leaders, Sander, Allen, Englefield and, of course, the Jesuits. [Bluet's] Sparing discovery of the English Jesuits (No. 7), is the most typically anti-Jesuit in aim : [Watson's or Bagshaw's] Important considera- tions (No. 6) is the most cis-alpine or anti-papal. The Group ends with Watson's fantastic Quodlibets, Copley's Letter, constant in coarse abuse, and [Charnock's] insulting An- swer to Blackwell; all so unworthy of Catholic controversialists, that Bagshaw (though he objects to the style only), wrote to caution Watson ; while Dr. Bishop advised some sort of apology {A.C. ii. 183, 193). Watson probably then stopped altogether ; and a pause ensued (see § 6), during which the Archpriest's books appeared. Class II., Archpriest books. Group I. (1601) consists of simple exhortations to unity, without any defence of the Arch- priest's conduct or analysis of the appeal. Group II. ( 1602) con- sists of the Apologetic writings of Father Persons, which he began to put together in 1601 from the Archives of the English Col- lege with the help of the Archpriest, of Garnet, and of others, who also revised the work in proof. Though they were thus de- layed till January, 1602, these books have this advantage, that they are clearly built up out of evidence, most of which can still be verified. The other side do not attempt to proceed in this way, but by multiplying charges. Indeed, they had very little documentary evidence, to which they could appeal. Though always a party-man, Persons at first kept himself under control; but when stung by the taunts of Bagshaw and Watson, he let himself go much further in the Manifestation, though Garnet had deprecated this {Garnet Correspondence, 12 Feb. 1602). The Manifestation appeared in June, with the inscription Su- periorum permissic. The power to give such permissions was, in brief of October, 1602, recognized in the Cardinal Protector alone. We should, therefore, perhaps assume that Cardinal Odoardo Farnese, then Protector, and a great patron of Persons, has given leave for the publication. The third Group of Appellant Books, June to December, 1 602. The break from January to July in the series of the Ap- pellant volumes is probably, we shall see in § 5, accounted for by some arrests in London. In June, Colleton had his Defence ready, in which he published several long letters regarding his own case, and Dr. Ely tried to enliven the proceedings with an occa- sional joke. Both these books are of a distinctly higher class than those edited by Watson. Their object was to weaken or Appendix. 105 rebut the considerable effect made by Persons' Apologie. Copley, Clark, Charnock, Barnaby and Bennett afterwards endeavoured to do the same thing, but without any special skill or knowledge. § 3. Writers' Names, etc. Our list shows that 90 per cent, of the books were without the writer's name, whence it must follow that a great many names must be given by uncertain traditions. On the other hand, Father River's Letters (in Foley, Records S.J. I.), and Garnet's Cor- respondence, enables us to date the appearance of the various publications with much increased accuracy. It seems certain that there was a good deal of co-operation in the production of the books. Bagshaw's high literary powers were supposed, both by Persons and Blackwell, to have been employed in revis- ing and assisting the other Appellant writers. § 4- Typography. The British Museum, through skilful and attentive collecting, possesses an almost complete set of these rare volumes. If we were to ask for volumes 1 to 19, and arrange them in the order here set forth, we should recognize at once a certain family like- ness, though perhaps not a very striking one at first sight. Group I., four volumes, we shall find' is all on the same ex- cellent paper, all in the same large type (corresponding with what a modern printer would call " English "). Finally, all pro- fess to have been printed abroad. But upon inquiry we should find that perhaps none of these foreign printers really existed. The paper mark is English throughout; and when it comes to indicating errata at the end, English terms are used.. The foreign place-name is subsequently dropped, except in No. 8. Group II., in seven volumes, has very clear family marks of its own. Paper and print are again similar, almost all through. The paper, however, is a little cheaper, and the print a little smaller, than in Group I. The printer always describes his volume, a little oddly, as "newly imprinted," and almost all have an epistle signed W.W. The printer's device, or title- page ornament, is also noteworthy. Four times they, are crosses (somewhat varied) made of border ornament : twice they are the griffin used by Sebastian Gryphius, and once a small plaque of filigree work. In every case these had been already, used in Group I., thus proving typographically the common origin of all these volumes. Group III. shows again a fairly strong family likeness through- out, but a much less marked connection with the preceding groups. Still the later volumes of Group II. had already in- troduced the characteristics of Group III., viz. still cheaper paper 106 Appendix. and still smaller type. But there remains the binding link of ornamental capital letters. Two alphabets of such capitals are found distributed throughout all the Groups, though sometimes only sparsely. For myself, I believe all these Appellant books are from the press of Boulter and Wrench, but in the sense to be explained in the next section. The slight but distinct deterioration in type and paper is easily explained. The first Group was for presentation to the Pope, the Cardinals, etc.,, and the "get up" was /excellent. No. i, however, being a first volume, shows signs of some inexperience, e.g., in the defective numeration of the pages. No 2, on the other hand, is quite perfect. The second Group, being intended for distri- bution to the public, did not need wide margins or the largest print. The third Group consists mainly of lengthy, apologies, so still smaller type, and commoner paper would keep down the price, which might otherwise have grown rather high. § 5. The Secret Press. In 1 604, William Jones, a Puritan printer, made bold to attack Bishop Bancroft for having promoted Papist books, (R.O., Dom. James /., viii. n. 22). Jones's evidence, though often one-sided and untrustworthy, gives the following particulars, which appear to refer to our volumes. The Bishop, he says, sent one John Boulter to Staffordshire to print Popish books there, which he did, in conjunction with William Wrench, for nearly two years [say 1600 and 1601]. Then they parted, and Wrench was soon after arrested, but got off again through the Bishop ; though some minor employees were tried and executed. Amongst these he mentions James Ducket, a Catholic martyr, whose trial and death took place in March and April, 1 602. This time, it will be noted, exactly corresponds with the break between the second and third Groups of the Appellant books. After such an alarm, one ought to expect a couple of months of silence, and then some not inconsiderable variations between the typography of Group III. and that of its predecessors. Father Rivers, writing in 1602, repeatedly affirms that the London printer, who worked for Bancroft was Mann. Now Thomas Mann, as is well known, had his shop " at the Talbot in Pater Noster Row," and it may be that the books of 1602 were printed there. Nevertheless, it may have been even easier for Mann to have employed Boulter to print for him in Staffordshire, both then and previously. 4 The Need for a Superior. meant, not only the removal of a great leader, but also the paralysis of almost all government in the English Church, and this made obstacles in themselves quite small, e.g., the per- sonal defects of priests, bad temper, grumbling, etc., become really serious in their effects. Secondly, because these years saw the outbreak of new, strange, and for the moment, very serious troubles throughout Western Catholicism. These troubles arose (strange as it may seem at first) from the conversion of Henri IV. of France, who was received into the Church in France in July, 1593, and pronounced free from all censure at Rome, September 17, 1595. By re-uniting his country in religion, he enabled France to rise again, in a comparatively short space, to an equality with Spain in power and influence. This, of course, made in time a profound impression on the Catholics of England, as well as on those of Italy and Rome. Since the Reformation, Spain had been for them practically the only strong, or well-to-do protector. Now France began to play the same part as Spain ; and this would in due course bring very considerable relief to the Catholics everywhere. But for the time being the process of change and upheaval was bound to be a pain- ful one for many; it was an age of unrest. Henri IV., though personally tolerant and good-natured, had been brought up in the fierce school of war, and was still ever on the watch (as were also his Ministers) for any opportunity to score triumphs over his old enemies the Spaniards and all their allies. Among the first to suffer from this change were the Jesuits, though Henri was well-disposed towards them. They were now vehemently assailed in the Parlement of Paris, and overwhelmed by the eloquent, though bitter, plaidoyers of Etienne Pasquier and of Antoine Arnauld the Elder ( 1 593, 1 594). The Jesuits were thereupon driven into banishment, and the denunciations against them, translated into English 1 and many other languages, started a new anti- Jesuit move- ment, which coincided with the cessation of Allen's patriar- chal rule. ' Etienne Pasquier, The Jesuite displayed, containing . . . an. oration by one Master Pasquier for the University of Paris, translated by E. A[ggas]. London, 1594. This had been written in the previous year. [Antoine Arnaulde the elder], The arraignment of the whole Societie of Jesus in France . holden in Parris the 12 and 13 of July, 1594. London, Yetsweirt, 1594, British Museum, 1367, b. 32. Also The Banishment 0/ the . . . Jesuits out of France, London, 1595. The Need for a Superior, 5 Immediately after this we find troubles among the Eng- lish Catholics in Flanders, Rome and England (at Wisbech), all of which were closely connected with the swerve of the balance of power from Spain towards France, all developing some considerable heat against the Jesuits, and all due to the interregnum in this sense, — that had Allen, or a competent successor, been in power, he might easily have assuaged them. 1 Finally, we may note that the English unrest passed away al- most simultaneously with that in France; in the years 1602, 1603. The English unrest of 1595 to 1602 had three main centres. 1 . " Stirs " ensued at Wisbech Castle, of which more immediately. ,2. The troubles of Flanders, though they concern us less closely, were of all the most bitter: for they arose amid circumstances of great and extensive distress, and the com- plainants included men used to assert their grievances loudly, or play their cards cunningly, — soldiers and adventurers, di- plomatists and intriguants, as well as poor fugitives, whose protracted sufferings inevitably made them querulous. The chief cause of complaint was the delay of the Spaniards in paying promised pensions. For though in granting relief Philip and his officials were moved with the truest generosity, their bad finance and misfortunes in war led to prolonged delays in payment, during which the poor exiles were reduced to a veritable struggle for existence, and angry feuds sprang up when one was relieved before another. The Jesuit Father Holt in particular, in whom the Spanish authorities placed special trust while distributing relief, became an object of much dissatisfaction. After the peace with France (1598), however, the atmosphere soon began to clear. 2 3. In Rome the trouble was not deep, but hard to handle. The underlying cause was the inability of the good Italian 1 " I think that if the English had a cardinal, such as one might imagine, he would easily remedy the greater part of all these quarrels and differences, and keep the catholics united by his authority, if he would use it." Persons to Petro Ximenes de Murillo, 18 May, 1597. (Spanish), Knox, Douay Diaries, p. 394. s The opposing parties were the old " Welsh party," under Morgan and Charles Paget, which was now becoming the " Scottish party." They still lived on Spanish pensions, but were cool supporters of Spain. On the other side were the Pro -Spaniards under Sir William Stanley and Hugh Owen. Between these the quarrels were frequent and furious. Even the Jesuits took different sides, Fathers Manare and Crichton writing vigorously against Fathers Holt and Persons. Eventually the General called away Crichton and Holt (1598), while the Spanish Government (1597) sent away Morgan, Paget, and the faction leaders of the Scottish party.