In the meantime, no attempt seems to have been made to administer the oath.1 The principal priests had no doubt already taken it, and probably the bishops and justices of the peace had offered it to some few influential men in their jurisdictions, who were practically certain to accept it. As far as can be judged by the scanty evidence, the oath was used between June, 1606, and February, 1607-8 only to induce the Catholics to look favourably upon it. As will be later seen, Bancroft was desirous that the golden opportunity should not be lost by undue haste or ill-timed severity. Indeed, according to the Earl of Sheffield's report to the King, November 1, 1606, the recusants in the North "begin to grow verrie insolente and to show themselves and there intentions more openly, since of late by what means I know not the penaltie of those lawes haue not so absolutely as before ben inflicted oppon them as allso many grases and favores showed them.” "Of late in all thes northe partes (yeat the plott as themselves say came oute of the southe) many celect men haue been imployed to goe upp and doune to gett onto a petission for tolleration of religgion all the handes of not only requsants bout also of all souche as be favourers of there religgion." 2

Meanwhile, the Archbishop occupied himself, during October and November, 1606, in unravelling that astonishing legend of the barley-corn. One John Wilks, a Yorkshire silkweaver, had been present at Garnet's execution and brought away with him an ear of barley-corn, bespattered with some of the Jesuit's blood. At the earnest entreaty of Hugh Griffin and his wife, he gave them. the straw which was soon set in crystal as a relic. "About nine

1 The exact contrary has usually been stated, on the strength of some ambassadorial reports, but chiefly of the statements of Jesuits or their sympathisers. Dr. Gardiner says (History, I, 288) "The oath which might have been used to lighten the severity of the laws which pressed so heavily even upon the loyal Catholics, was only employed to increase the burdens upon those who refused to declare their disbelief in a tenet which was inculcated by the most venerated teachers of their Church, and which might be held innocuously by thousands who would never dream of putting it in practice."

2 Earl of Sheffield to (the King) November 1, 1606 (November 2?). Hatfield MSS. 118, f. 36. Holograph. This is the original report of an eyewitness written at the time.

3 The accounts of this are plentiful but not trustworthy. The account in the text is based upon a MS. in the archives of the Old English Chapter, printed in Taunton, Jesuits, 322. See also Foley, IV, 133. Some of the extravagant fables about it will be found in Somers' Tracts, II, 110, (Scott's Edition), and F. Osborne's Traditional Memoirs of the Reign of James I, Sect. 12.

weeks since and not before," Griffin thought he saw the lineaments of a face on the straw, and having in the next fortnight looked at it some forty times, often for "half an hour or an hour together," he came to the conclusion that Garnet's face was miraculously drawn upon the straw in his own blood. The news of the miracle spread like wild fire; and it was reported that prominent priests who had known the dead man declared the likeness to be excellent. Bancroft evidently did not consider it expedient to allow Garnet to be erected so soon into a popular martyr by what seemed certainly a trick. In due time, he found the original discoverer of the face, induced him to confess how long a time had elapsed between his first sight of the straw and his discovery of the face on it, and to make various other admissions very damaging to his case. Into all of these the Bishop may have frightened the poor, superstitious man. But the information thus gathered was also spread broadcast and became a distinct factor in a complex situation.

Meanwhile, Blackwell was in an agony of indecision. It was his duty to promulgate the papal brief, which not only convicted him of error but also adopted a policy which he believed ruinous for the Catholic party in England. His dilemma was very much like Garnet's over the Gunpowder Plot. According to his own story,1 he had already dispatched Mr. Singleton to Rome in August, to explain to the Pope his position, but Singleton passed the breve on the road. Then, early in September, before the breve arrived, Blackwell had issued letters stating at length his reason for considering the oath lawful and forbidding all instructions against taking it. Then arrived the breve, directed however, "Catholicis Anglis, Dilecti filii," without any special mention of Blackwell himself. Apparently, too, more than one copy was forwarded so that others received it at the same time he did. Then it was that he took a courageous step. Taking advantage of the fact that the breve was addressed generally to the English Catholics, he drew the inference that no special promulgation was required of him and did not publish it at all. While this was perhaps a good technical defence, he had in spirit disobeyed the Pope,-a step for a man in his position sufficiently daring, and denoting clearly how firmly convinced he was of the feasibility of the new scheme. Consterna1" Fifth examination of George Blackwell, Archpriest, taken July 2, 1607, before the archbishop of Can

terbury, and the dean of Westminster. Printed by Tierney, IV, cxlii, from the original.

tion spread through the ranks of his opponents when they learned that he had practically disregarded the papal commands; and soon a letter, dated September 28, 1606, and purporting to be from Blackwell, was being passed about supporting the breve and condemning the oath. This epistle Blackwell later strenuously repudiated, and declared he never wrote.1 All the autumn and winter, the war continued. "These naughty priests afflict us very much;" wrote Blount to Parsons, on December 7,2 "for, besides Skidmore, the Bishop of Canterbury his man, Rouse, Atkinson, Grosvenor, and others relapsed which openly profess to betray their brethren, others are no less dangerous, which persuade a lawfulness of going to sermons and to service, by which means many worldlings, to save their temporals, are contented to follow their counsel, and not only that, but justify their fact also. I would to God the customer (i. e. the Archpriest) would inform of all such matters as belong to him: for his silence doth argue a kind of neglect of the points; and our information maketh us more hated of the estate and secular priests." Even the Jesuits were compelled to admit the defection of the Catholics to the side of the Government. "So it is," wrote Holtby to Parsons, "that partly by the doctrine of approvinge the oathe and much more of allowing and defending our longe abhorred churche-goenge, we are brought into that estate, that we feare in short tyme ne lucerna nostra prorsus extinguatur, neyther let our friends think that we speak this to amplifie the matter, for no doubt the case is more Lamentable then we could haue Imagined or expected. for now not onely weak persons hear and there upon feare of temporall losses do resent from their constancie, but whole countries and shires runne hedlong without scruple unto the heretickes Churches, to service and sermons, as a thinge most Lawfull, being emboldened thereunto by the warrant of their pastors and spiritual guides." The Jesuits even seem to have had an idea that the repeal of the penal laws and the favour of the Government might be bought."

In the following summer, inasmuch as the situation was still unchanged, Bancroft took Blackwell into custody, or, as the Arch

1" Fifth Examination of George Blackwell.''

2 Printed by Tierney, IV, cxlv, from the original.

3 Tierney, IV, cxlv.

4 Stonyhurst MSS. Anglia, A, III, no. 71. October 30, 1606.

5 Stonyhurst MSS. Anglia, A, III, no. 62. July 14, 1606; no. 72. December 7, 1606.

priest put it, it hath pleased our gracious Lord to suffer me to fall into the mouth of one, who long hath gaped after me." Very likely Bancroft could have seized him at any moment during the past eight years had he thought it expedient. As usual, the Archbishop was excellently informed of everything that had transpired even to the priest's most secret doings; and, says Blackwell, he "made an heavie present unto me of his holines briefes, and of the coppies of my Lettres about the publicacon of the same with such other pressing Evidence of all my proceedings," that the poor man saw denial was futile. He was examined eight times, and signed a great many papers, with a full account of most of these transactions, all of which Bancroft preserved for future use. For the nonce, the Archbishop was satisfied with securing from him a letter to his clergy, dated July 7,1 1607, in which he retailed the facts of his late examinations, declared that he had taken the oath as it stood in the statute book, and urged all his clergy to do the same and instruct the laity to follow their example. Blackwell had now committed himself, and another crisis had been forced upon the Catholics. So long as there was a division of opinion amongst them, and so long as their regularly constituted authorities abstained from public commands, it was difficult to force any of them to take the oath by the pressure of their own organisation, because they could easily have recourse to the fact that their organisation had not officially registered any opinion. The head of the seculars had at last acted openly; and, although, as his letter showed, some compulsion had been used, the opinions, which he gave forth, were only those which it was well-known he had maintained in private for the past year. He had not changed his views under the pressure of the archiepiscopal authority but had merely been induced to make them public.2

1 Printed by Tierney, IV, exlvii, from the original in S. P. Dom. Jac. I, 28, no. 5. He has modernised the spelling. What seems to be the orig. inal of the oath Blackwell took is in Additional MSS. 30662, f. 73. About this time, Bancroft also examined the Jesuit, Blount, who was not communicative. Asked about the oath, "Risposi di no, perche qual giuramenta, dissi, ne da me, ne da qualsiuoglia altro Catolico si puo pigliar con buena conscienza.

MSS. Anglia, A, VI, f. 305.

2The Archpriest who is in prison has caused great satisfaction by taking the oath of supremacy and by advising others to do so too. Although he is the Pope's chief minister here and as the head of the Catholics deeply suspected of complicity in past events, it is thought that he will not fare so ill as they believed at first. By his Majesty's orders he is treated in prison in a manner that shows a Stonyhurst kindly disposition towards him."

The effects of the letter were gratifying to Bancroft. The Jesuit Vice-Prefect declared, in his yearly Report to the General of the Jesuits at Rome,' that "nothing in all these thirty years of persecution has done such injury to religion as this scandalous example of the Archpriest, whose very virtues have helped to lead men astray." "It is further said that he has persuaded himself that the Archbishop of Canterbury means well to the Catholics." "There are many who follow the Archpriest . . . (of whom) most have forsworn themselves; others abusing their false conscience, persuade themselves that they have acted aright." He further reported that in the North the Catholics were cruelly persecuted. "Their cattle are driven away, their houses ransacked, walls are broken down, chests and secret drawers are forced and searched. On all hands we hear of nothing but the violence and rigor of the authorities... (but) by taking the oath one is spared these outrages, the rage of the persecutors is softened, and gentler treatment experienced from the Government and its officers." 2 The official head of the Jesuits felt himself bound to report to his superior that the severities of the law fell only on the recalcitrant who refused the oath. "We have to bear the full brunt of the storm." The Jesuit accounts are therefore quite naturally full of complaints of the severity of the measures by which the Catholics were constrained, for, with some exceptions, only their followers suffered. Assuming that the rest, being renegades and deserters, were not to be counted among the true sheep, by that means we arrive at these amazing statements, that, because the Jesuit supporters were in difficulties, all the English Catholics were severely handled.

In September, the Bishop of Durham had summoned before him some twenty noted recusants, of whom six at once took the oath, several more promised to take it, and the rest were undecided. The Bishop somewhat doubted their sincerity, but hoped they would who is now in prison some one of higher rank, do not succeed in breaking it." (October 1607, Ibid. no. 86.)

2

12'

(September 1607. Venetian Calendar, XI, no. 59. See also no. 25 and 37.) All else is quiet and in matters of religion it seems that custom makes the regulations lighter for the Catholics. And so, there may well be peace for a period about such subjects, unless, some event in Ireland or the Pope's rumoured intentions to substitute for the Archpriest

7

17

1 Letter of 1607. Printed, very likely with important omissions, in Foley, Records, VII, Part II, 978, at 982.

2 Foley, Records, VII, Part II, 981.