[244] See p. 33. [245] A news-letter gives an account of the Council meeting, from which it appears that James began by haranguing against the Puritans, but Cranborne--Cecil was now known by this title--and others asked why the Catholics were not put on the same footing, on which the King got angry, and finally directed that the Catholics should also suffer. (Advices from London, Feb. 19/March 1).--_Roman Transcripts, R.O._ [246] In those days liberty of conscience meant what we should call liberty of worship. [247] Lindsay at last got off to Rome in November 1604. On his proceedings there see _History of England_, 1603-1642, i. 224. [248] In the MS. 'et non haverebbe.' Mr. Rawdon Brown, amongst whose papers, now in the Record Office, this despatch is found, remarks that mistakes of this kind frequently occur in letters first ciphered and then deciphered. [249] In the margin is 'Questo poi è troppo,' perhaps an addition by the ambassador, or even by Mr. Rawdon Brown. [250] 'Religione' is suggested by Mr. Rawdon Brown for the 'ragione' of the decipherer. [251] In the copy 'non si può far di meno di non observar le leggi,' the 'non' being incorrectly repeated. [252] "Non predicando li preti nessuna cosa più constantemente di questa che il buon Cattolico bisogna che habbia questa ferma rissolutione in se medesimo di esser per conservar la Religione pronto a solevarsi etiam contra la vita e stato del suo Principe naturale." [253] Molin to the Doge, March 7/17, 1605, _Venetian Transcripts, R.O._ [254] Lindsay to James I. Jan. 26/Feb. 5, 1605, _S. P. Italian States_. [255] Compare the last passage quoted from Molin's despatch, p. 161. [256] This is, however, precisely what James had failed to induce the Pope to do. [257] Father Gerard asks what 'our offence' was. It was clearly nothing personal to the writer, and I am strongly inclined to interpret the words as referring to Lindsay's proceedings at Rome, of which so much had been made. [258] Sir Everard Digby to Salisbury (_S. P. Dom._ xvii. 10.) As Father Gerard says, the date cannot be earlier than May 4, 1605, when the Earldom was conferred on Cranborne. [259] Father Gerard gives the date of Davies's pardon from the Pardon Roll as April 25, 1605. It should be April 23, 1604. [260] _Gerard_, 94, 95, 254. Father Gerard ascribes this application to 'a later date' than March 1606. It was, in fact a good deal later, as the endorsement 'Mr. Secretary Conway' shows that it was not earlier than 1623. The further endorsement 'touching Wright and his services performed in the damnable plot of the Powder Treason,' proves nothing. What did Conway's clerk know beyond the contents of the application itself?