circumstances such as you may hear too soon: insomuch as Mr. Smith dareth not to go. . . For mine own part I could wish the journey to be respited for a time, till both the clergy and laity had to each other bemoaned ourselves of that woful misery, whereto we may not need to doubt but the fathers of the society have brought us, raising their lofty towers with our unfortunate ruins. Alas! what hath either the clergy or we of the laity demerited to be debarred of access, either by person or by letter to the see apostolic, for whose eminent prerogative we lose our lives and livelihoods, while father Persons flourisheth, if he tyrrannize not, at Rome, and his brethren here commonly scape all real danger." 1 2 Thus, the months slipped by till, with the coming of January, 1608-9, the idea again was broached by his adherents and accepted by Birkhead, of sending an envoy to Rome, not openly to advocate the appointment of bishops to which Parsons had led them to believe the Pope was irrevocably hostile, but to require an authoritative interpretation of the words of the breve of 1602 which forbade Birkhead to consult with the Jesuits. In fact, the new Archpriest had not been long in office before Parsons and Holtby suggested to him how much benefit he could derive from their wisdom and experience; and in due time informed him that the breve really prohibited him only from concerting measures with the Fathers which might be offensive to the English Government.3 With this ostensible object, then, of obtaining a new papal order, but with the actual intention of viewing the state of affairs at Rome, to ascertain whether the Jesuit was telling the truth, Dr. Richard Smith and Father Thomas More set forth for Rome on February 26, 1608-9. "They are desperate," wrote one of the Flemish Jesuits, "for they give out that they will not return homewards to England again, unless they prevail. It is thought that they are accompanied with my Lord Montacute's letters (and God grant not others) to deal for the removing of the fathers. (i.e. Jesuits) out of England and are to make large offers. We, here in Flanders, provide to prevent their intended plots, by our letters with the first post. ' "1 Their mission had Bancroft's full approval; and, indeed, while the ports were so strictly guarded, the two could not possibly have left England without his consent. Every thing was conducted much more openly than had been the case in 1602 or 1606. A large assemblage of priests had met with Birkhead in London, to draw up a commission and discuss the venture; and had the Archbishop not been fully informed as to what was progressing, he would have imprisoned them; and had he not in truth protected them, they would all have been arrested by the pursuivants and private searchers who swarmed in London. The great diligence of Bancroft's agents had more than once attracted the attention of the Venetian Ambassador; and, in fact, no better evidence of the connivance of Bancroft at all these doings between 1606 and 1 Tierney, IV, ccxix, April 9, 1609. 2 Yet I have heard that no priest was landed any time in England, but the bishop (Bancroft) had a perfect character of his temper and relations: the easier brought about by him that (in the estimation of the Puritans) owned most of their tenets, being beside no rigid persecutor of any who had not in his composition the gall of treason mixed with religion. . And from this indulgence of the archbishop grew more security than danger, because such priests as were connived at (the most of other orders) looked upon the Jesuits as enemies, and all newcomers of their owne under a no milder aspect then intruders on their profit; and therefore the more inquisitive after their conditions, and if found pragmaticall, it was no hard matter to purchase their remove by the mediation of one so neere the helme as the bishop was, who, besides the quality of secrecy remaining so constant to his promise, as it was more safety than danger for them to rely upon his word. And that some cunning seminaries did indeavour the monopolizing amongst themselves all the profit to be made by the English catholickes I have a presumption of mine owne from a priest I met with on the other side the water, who told me he lived farre better during the tyranny (as he was pleased to call it) of Queene Elizabeth, then since the licence afforded under King James, by which divers young schollars of both universities were daily tempted into orders, and many (restrained before out of love to their safety) did not goe over in shoales, to the great detriment of the old standers. Yet, notwithstanding the incomparable diligence of this prelate under two princes, for the preservation of peace and unity, he was abominated by the preciser sort. ... I confesse I have heard him charactered for a joviall doctor, but very zealous of the clergies revenue, no lesse than his countries safety, which he indeavoured to bring about through a reduction of Britanny into one forme of worship by the traine of Calvine most rigidly opposed: but the two contrary factions at court (one of them thinking all things fit to be destroyed the other laboured to preserve) did, upon the vacancy of every bishoprick, but one insutable to their humours that had the luck to prevaile. The cause the present incumbent did . . . unravell what his predecessour had with more policy and charity twisted." Osborne's Historical Memoirs, 62, 63, 65. 3 Tierney, V, liii, and liv. 1610 could be desired than the continuance of these schemes, meetings, embassies, and quarrels. "Some four or five more, not yet discovered are said to be intelligencers for the bishops, and to give notice of all they know: whereof Leak is named for one, a principal factor for bishops, with Mr. Colleton, Mush, R. S. (Smith) Bishop, and others. My lord of Canterbury looketh daily for news of R. S. his negotiations. But the Jesuit tales that nothing was done by More (who had been left at Rome as the secular agent) without the approval of the English Privy Council were no doubt exaggerations, for they were meant to apply to all the details of the negotiation. Still, there can be no doubt, that Salisbury, James, and most of the Privy Council were cognisant, through Bancroft, of what was going on. Meanwhile Blackwell had been well treated. His defence of the oath had been issued, by Bancroft's order, in a Latin translation early in the year 1610, and he was given a pension by the King to supply the place of the money from the alms fund which the Jesuits took good care he should not get. He was in name a prisoner, but was free to go and come as he liked, visit whom he pleased, and, as the Venetian Ambassador thought, gave no signs of a desire to be discharged.3 Well aware that they should need all of the friends they could possibly have at Rome, Smith and More first visited Father Bennet, a Capuchin at Rouen; then, avoiding the Jesuit-ridden college at Douay, and the Pope's nuncio at Paris, pushed on to Rheims where they met Giffard, a secular, and Father White of the English Benedictines, who came from Douay for the express purpose of the conference. Thence the pair departed for Lorraine to interview Pitts and other English seculars. In May they reached Rome where Parsons had for some time been prepared for their reception. He told the Pope that only a few discontented priests were behind 1 Holtby to Parsons, May 6, 1609. Tierney, V, 25, note. Tierney, jealous for the defence of the seculars, regarded this as a calumny. Very possibly Colleton and Mush did not themselves still deal with Bancroft in person; and if they had, it was politic to deny it at such a time. Some one in the confidence of the priests certainly did keep Bancroft informed of the state of affairs, with their knowl edge and approbation. Yet, all of them could have sworn faithfully that they held no intercourse with heretics to the detriment of the Catholic religion. Naturally, such a matter as this is hardly demonstrable by absolute proof. 2 Tierney, IV, clxv, note. 3 Venetian Calendar, XI, no. 786. 1609. February 1 February 11, 1610. 4 Tierney, V, lviii and 51 note. the demand for bishops; and that, although the unpopularity of the Archpriest made the confusion great, it would be much worse if bishops were appointed. Peace and concord were necessary, but the project of every malcontent could not be tried on his unsupported assurance that it was the long-sought remedy. There was sound sense in what he said, and, had his facts been true, his position would have been unassailable. He was unwilling, however, to allow the priests to state their view of the situation, and hence resorted to the same dilatory tactics he had used so successfully in 1602 and 1606. "The old fox and all his Cubbes about him do what they can to discredit him (Smith) as sent from a few malcontents," wrote Mush, who was anxious to aid by extending Smith's powers. He thought that two points might be added to the petition already signed; the one congratulating the Archpriest on the beginning the agitation for a bishop; the other, "yt all the Jesuites and there dependants abroad should be forbidden by a Breue to deale any way with the Clergie or their affayres." He also wished the priests to delegate to the Archpriest the right to subscribe their names "to what soeuer he pleas," and insisted that the main point after all was the agreement of all the seculars to some one thing.1 Smith was finally able to present to the Pope, on May 24, his memorial regarding the breve of 1602, and received a verbal reply at once to the effect that the breve bound Birkhead as strictly as it had his predecessor, and forbade any intercourse with the Jesuit Fathers, a statement which was confirmed in writing on June 6,2 by Cardinal Blanchetti. When Smith began to sound rather cautiously about the bishops, Parsons told him, as he had written to Birkhead in the previous September, that the unanimous consent of all the English clergy would be necessary before the Pope would consider the appointment of bishops. "You know it is impossible," wrote Birkhead dejectedly in reply to Smith's communication, "for me to get the names of all our brethren. Some will never give their consent." 4 This was precisely what 1 Stonyhurst MSS. Anglia, A, VII, f. 59. Ex literis cuiusdam sacerdotis Religiosi. 2 Tierney V. lxi, lxv, xxxix, note. The memorial seems to have been that on the condition of the English clergy in Additional MSS. 31824, f. 18. Other memorials to the Pope, begging 4 Tierney, V, 19, note. Parsons thought. So matters dragged on and on, and nothing was done. "It seemeth, our adversaries are too strong," wrote Birkhead, "God, of his mercy, help us! Plain and sincere dealing will bear no sway. "1 "It seemeth' they mean to weary me out. In the following spring (1610) Smith came back, discouraged. He found, indeed, as Parsons had told him, that "Rome is a large stable, wherein a horse may outlabor himself in kicking and winching, without striking others that will keep themselves far enough from him." 3 But the seculars in England did not give up hope. The Pope had declared that the unanimous consent of all priests was necessary before he could appoint bishops, and the only way to obtain that consent was by the subscribing of a petition, and by the collection of letters in favour of episcopal authority. This the chief seculars proceeded to do with great vigour during May, June, and July, of 1610. "The appellants run about more than ever," wrote Holtby, the Jesuit Superior, "collecting votes in favor of bishops, and their importunity is very troublesome in these times of persecution. They obtain the subscription of all those who show themselves indifferent or not opposed to it. . . . And among those who desire Bishops there is a great controversy as to the number, and how many should be Archbishops, etc." "We have nine score names for Bishops which is three parts of the whole clergy," declared Birkhead on July 20, 1610.5 Harrington told Champney that already two hundred votes in favor of episcopal government had been collected, and that not forty more were outstanding in opposition. It was difficult to collect these votes; "many priests dwell so uncertainly like birds, now on one bush, and now on another, as they are hard to find: and others dwell so far off from 1 Tierney, V, lxxxii, October 11, 1609. 2 Tierney, lxxxv, note. 1609. October 9, 3 Tierney, V, xlv, Parsons to Birkhead. September 13, 1608. Foley, Records, VII, Pt. II, 1017, July-August, 1610. 5 Tierney, V, 50, note. This and the two succeeding quotations were printed from the originals. According to Tierney's estimate, however, 115 sent their names with votes, and 29 sent only names, making 144 in all. So that only about fifty per cent. of the clergy actually registered their assent, if we assume that Mush's estimate of 300 is correct. If we take the larger figures which the Jesuits gave, we shall, of course, find the proportion less, which perhaps reveals one reason for the overstatement of the number of priests in England, of which the Jesuits seem to have been guilty. On the other hand, the seculars might as justly be suspected of an unwillingness to face the number of men opposed to them, were it not that these figures come from their confidential letters to each other. |