Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:52:21.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Embassy of Sir Anthony Standen in 1603 Part I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

L. Hicks S.J.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Before discussing more particularly the embassy on which Sir Anthony Standen was sent by James I in 1603, it has been thought well in the present article to narrate the story of this Elizabethan adventurer previous to that event.

Type
Articles
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , October 1959 , pp. 91 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Sir Anthony Standen's discourse of the murder of Rizzio, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVI, p.15. His younger brother was also called Anthony and this has led writers at times to confuse the two; but if it is kept in mind that the elder, unlike his younger brother, was an exile from England for about twenty-eight years, the reference in the documents to “Anthony Standen” can be assigned to the right person.

2. Mary was married to Darnley in the chapel at Holyrood on Sunday 15 July, 1565.

3. Cf. Randolph to Leicester, Edinburgh, 4 October 1565, and the same to William Cecil, 4 October 1565, Scot Cal. II, pp.217 and 219. A similar plan was suggested in 1566 by the spy, William Rogers, who had recently been in Edinburgh. But among those to be kidnapped by him besides the two Standens was Christopher Rokesby, an agent of Cecil who under the guise of a Catholic had been sent by him to the Queen of Scots to implicate her in an association with the Catholics of the North of England to the prejudice of Queen Elizabeth. Rokesby, however, was arrested on suspicion by the Scottish queen and Cecil's letter found in his effects. The incident which has been overlooked by historians is very revealing of Cecil's methods. It can be followed in Scot. Cal. II. Rogers suggested his plan of kidnapping in a letter to Cecil, Oxford, 5 July 1566. Ibid, p.293.

4. Memorial of Sir Anthony Standen presented to King James I (Dom. James I, 1, n.102), printed in The History of Mary Stewart by Claude Nau, ed. J. Stevenson, S.J., Edinburgh, 1883, pp.cii—civ; and Sir Anthony Standen's discourse, ut supra. William Rogers in his examination on 16 lanuary 1567 also stated that Standen was Master of the Horse. (Scot. Cal. II, p.310.) On January 23 1566, Thomas H— wrote to the younger Anthony that he was glad to hear of his prosperous estate with his brother, the writer's master, and that it was grievous to all of them when it was known that Standen had gone from them. Cal. Salisbury Mss. X p.71.

5. Petition and Statement of Facts by Sir Anthony Standen, Knight, and Anthony Standen, Gentleman, presented to king James I (Dom. James I, 1. n.100), printed in Stevenson's edition of Nau's History of Mary Stewart, ut supra, pp. c—cii

6. There appears to be no evidence to support his statement. In her own account of the assassination Mary did not even mention his name, though she did report that “she was not only struck with great dread but also by sundry considerations was most justly induced to extreme fear of her life.” (Queen of Scots to the Archbishop of Glasgow, Edinburgh, 2 April 1566, Labanoff, Recueil des Lettres de Marie Stuart, 1, pp.340—350.) That Standen wished to impress on James that he owed his life and position to him is clear from his own statement. “He was the instrument,” he wrote to him, “ordained by God to save her and her son's dear lives whereby he [is] now so mighty a monarch and so noble honourer and rewarder of many.” Memorial of Sir Anthony Standen, ut supra p.civ.

7. Ibid. It must, however, be noted that Standen was never addressed as “Sir” by his intimate friend, Anthony Bacon, until early in 1596 when he did so in a letter of 7 March. (Birch, T., Memorials of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, London, 1754, 1, p.443)Google Scholar Birch, accordingly concluded that he was knighted shortly before that date by Queen Elizabeth at the request of Essex. Standen recalls some thirty-eight years later a speech, albeit a short one, made to him by Mary when on her invitation he was shown her infant son some days after his birth, and bidden to take an oath of allegiance to him who, so the queen stated “some day must be king of England and yours.” Memorial of Sir Anthony Standen, ut supra, p.ciii.

8. Petition and Statement of Facts, ut supra. His statement in his discourse is somewhat different, viz. “The king [Darnley] was desirous to recover some fair horses, whereunto the queen [then enjoying her dowry in France] willingly gave consent, and accordingly the knight was sent over unto France to provide the horses and other furnitures which in Scotland were not to be had.” Hugh FitzWilliam reported Standen's coming to France from Scotland in a letter to Cecil, Paris, 17 August 1566. (For. Cal. 1566—1568, p.49.)

9. Petition and Statement of Facts, ut supra. Darnley was murdered on 9 February 1567, and the queen was restrained in Lochleven on 16 June 1567. It may be that Standen had really decided to leave Scotland for good; for surely it can hardly have taken a whole year to announce the birth of James or even to buy horses. His younger brother had decided to return to England either before or immediately after Darnley's death. The Scottish queen asked the Governor of Berwick, Sir Wiliam Drury, for free passage for him and four other Englishmen who desired to return to their country only a few days after Darnley's murder. (Queen of Scots to Drury, Edinburgh, 15 February 1567, For. Cal. 1566—1568, p.193.) On the same day she wrote to Robert Melville, her ambassador in London, to show Standen favour and spare “no benevolence unto him,” should he need it. (Queen of Scots to Melville, Edinburgh, 15 February 1567, Labanoff, op. cit. II, p.5.) For some unknown reason, the calendarist altered the date of the former letter to 15 March. Drury imprisoned the young man for a short time at Berwick, but on receipt of a letter from Cecil, set him free, bearing a letter of recommendation to Queen Elizabeth's minister. (Drury to Cecil, Berwick, 16 June 1567, For. Cal. 1566—1568, p.252.) Sir Anthony's statement, therefore, that his brother was imprisoned for a whole year is not true (Petition and Statement of Facts, ut supra, p.ci).

10. Sir Anthony Standen's discourse ut supra. Sir Henry Norris mentioned the cardinal's pension in a letter to Cecil, Niort, 10 December 1569. (For.Cal. 1569—1571, p.149.)

11. Sir Henry Norris to Cecil, Paris, 30 September 1568. (For.Cal. 1566—1568, p.583.)

12. Sir H. Norris to Cecil, Niort, 10 December 1569, ut supra.

13. Sir H. Norris to Cecil, Paris, 27 July 1570. (For.Cal. 1569—1570, p.280.)

14. “1571 Dec. 16. Ant. Standen, 150 ducats with entertainment for Flanders; left 31 March 1572.” (“Notes addressed to Walsingham of such Englishmen as came into Spain for entertainment at the king's hands there, the dates of their arrival at Madrid and the amount of pension granted to each” Dom. Cal. Add. 1566—1579, p.467). The date of his departure can hardly be correct, for he was at Blois on his return journey in March 1572, Cf. infra.

15. Walsingham to Burghley, Blois, 29 March 1572. (For.Cal. 1572—1572, p.198.)

16. Captured by Count Lewis on 23 May 1572.

17. Wilson to Burghley, Antwerp, 6 March 1575, reporting the French ambassador's adverse opinion of Standen and his past activities. (For.Cal. 1575—1577, p.40.) It was reported from Antwerp on 18 July 1572 “that there were slain three leagues from Mons, of M. Genlis’ company, 1800 besides 600 prisoners and that M. Genlis and de Lagny were taken prisoners and M. de Rentz slain and that the Duke of Alva had sent to the French king to know whether he will avow Genlis’ enterprise. (For.Cal. 1573—1574, p.153). Mons capitulated on 19 September after Orange had been defeated on 9 and 11 September in attempting to relieve it. Meanwhile at Paris had occurred the massacre of Huguenots on the night of St. Bartholomew, 24 August.

18. Walsingham to the Secretary, Thomas Smith, Paris, 12 November 1572, printed in Digges, , The Compleat Ambassador, London, 1655, p.286.Google Scholar There were certainly practices in hand, though not in the sense Walsingham reported. It was in September and October that the English Government were negotiating with the Earl of Mar and others for the handing over to them of the Scottish Queen on condition she should be put to death. Killigrew was sent to Scotland on 7 September 1572, (Burghley to Shrewsbury, Woodstock, 7 September 1572 (printed in Lodge, E., Illustrations of British History, London, 1791, II, p.73)Google Scholar and his correspondence on the “great matter” can be followed in the Scot. Cal. IV, pp.389—435. On September 29 Burghley wrote to Killigrew earnestly requiring him to employ all his labours to procure that the special matter committed to him be both “earnestly and speedily followed there and yet also secretly as the cause requireth.” (Burghley to Killigrew, 29 September, printed in Tytier's History of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1866, VII, p.315.) One wonders whether the speed enjoined on Killigrew was due to Elizabeth's serious illness about that time, for Shrewsbury, Mary's jailor, wrote to Burghley on 16 October: “Five weeks is past since I had any advertisement from your L. which I think long, and now specially that it is spoken the Queen's majesty hath been lately sick of the small pox and as yet no certainty is here of her Majesty's recovery or perfect health. (Lodge, op.cit. p.78.) The negotiations, however, were suspended for the time being, though not altogether abandoned, owing to the death of Mar on 29 October, and were revived in 1574, Cf. Tytler, op.cit. VII, pp.317—325, and 384—389, and VIII, pp.7—13; Hosack, J., Mary, Queen of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1874, II. pp.146–153, 166–167, and 181–185,Google Scholar and the life of John Erskine first or sixth Earl of Mar in D.N.B. It may be that some hint of such negotiations, despite the secrecy, had leaked out and that the hurried conferences of Standen with the Scottish Ambassador at Paris had reference to them.

19. Anthony Standen, who since the defeat of Genlis … has remained in this country, etc. (Daniel Rogers to Walsingham, Antwerp, 1 April 1576. For.Cal. 1575–1577, p.299.)

20. Daniel Rogers to Walsingham 1 April 1576, ut supra. He added that it was thought they were married, and that Standen was returning to France and was well thought of “here” by the best of the country. The last clause sounds ominous in view of Standen's later employment as a spy of Walsingham. Had his spying activities already begun?

21. Sir Anthony Standen's discourse, ut supra. The Hist. Mss. Comm. lists a relation of Sir Anthony Standen: “Memoirs of a Turkish voyage, collected in 1578.” (Appendix to the First Report, p.61.) The purpose of the voyage does not appear from his own discourse, though he may possibly disclose it in the above memoir. He was hardly the man to undertake such an expensive voyage merely for the pleasure of it. His journey may possibly have to do with the beginning of the Levant Company and trade and other relations with Turkey.

22. Sir Anthony Standen's discourse, etc. (Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVI p.19.) He there states that he was “nourished by this humane prince for the space of fourteen years,” until the death of Francesco. This would place his arrival in Florence in 1573, for the Grand-Duke died on 18 October 1587. But the documents, to which reference has already been made, show that he had not settled there by that year: he was still in Flanders as late as the spring of 1576. The humanity of Francesco did not appear so great when Standen wrote to the Queen of Scots that if she, of her accustomed bounty, had not given him some aid, he could have done nothing, “for it is not possible for him to follow the court on horse, as he is bound, for 16 crowns a month.” He requested her to remember him and that he was the first of his nation who entered her service. Though not envious of or discontented with others, it seemed to him hard that all who had served since, had been provided for, and that for the twenty years he had served her, he had not any assurance yet of a morsel of bread, due not to her fault, he believed, but to his misfortune, though he hoped she would promptly remedy the situation. (Standen to Mary, Queen of Scots, Florence, 2 October 1584. (Scot. Cal. VII, p.345.)

23. Memorial of Sir Anthony Standen, ut supra. Cf. also Standen to the Archbishop of Glasgow, Florence, 23 March 1583; to the Bishop of Ross, 23 March 1583 (Scot. Gal. VI pp. 335 and 340); Talk between Mr. John Somer and Mary, 2 September, enclosed in Sir Ralph Sadleir to Walsingham, Wing-field, 4 September 1584 (Scot. Cal. VII p.313) and Standen to the Queen of Scots 2 October ut supra.

24. Memorial, ut supra. In his discourse, however, he stated the sum to be 10,000 crowns. “Her majesty having need of 10,000 crowns, they were told out and by way of bank to have been made into France to the Archbishop of Glasgow, then her ambassador there, but the bitterer troubles approaching and so her death, the coin was stayed.”

25. Cf supra and note 13.

26. Cf. supra and note 20. This statement of Rogers should be compared with what Henry IV reported of Standen to de Beaumont, the French ambassador in England in 1603. Standed, so the king stated, told the ambassador of the States General in Paris, that he considered them rebels (Henry IV to de Beaumont, 28 September 1603, in Birch, op.cit., II, p.502.)

27. A. S[tanden] to Walsingham, Pisa, 10 December 1582, For.Cal. January to June 1583 and Addenda, p.644.

28. The letter to Walsingham is not now extant, but the Secretary referred to it in a letter to Beale, York, 30 September 1583, (Scot.Cal. VI, p.345.) Standen's letter to the Archbishop is dated from Florence, 23 June 1583. (Ibid. p.509.) This was probably the letter a copy of which was sent to Walsingham by Sir Henry Cobham in July 1583. (Cobham to Walsingham, Paris, 5 July 1583. (For.Cal. July 1583–July 1584, p.4.)

29. “I hear that Mr. Arundel has access to your lordship and I think that I need not advise your lordship that he is much at the devotion of Walsingham, the Secretary.” Standen to the Archbishop of Glasgow, Florence, 23 March 1584 (Scot. Cal. VI. 339.) Cf. also Standen to the Bishop of Ross, 23 March 1584. (ibid, p.340.) The calendarist placed both these letters in 1583, but the correct year is 1584, for Charles Arundel only left England, in company with Lord Paget, late in November 1583. (Cf. Examiation of William Warde, Solicitor, and Secretary to Lord Paget, 14 and 20 December 1583, Dom Eliz. 164, nn.27 and 46, and extracts from the examinations of John Clynsall who conveyed them to France, 9 and 18 December 1583, and another undated, Dom. Eliz. 167, n.59.) It must not be overlooked that, not many months after Standen's statement, Thomas Morgan and Charles Paget, who were really Government agents, attempted, though unsuccessfully, to defame Arundel in much the same manner.

30. “The enclosed out of Italy comes from Standen. I refer the use thereof to your discretion on condition that his name be suppressed. The man you know and how ill he is affected. He does not write without dispensation. Yet I shall not seem to know it.” Walsingham to Beale, York, 30 September 1583, ut supra.

31. Pompeio Pellegrini to Giacopo Mannucci in London, 27 April/7 May 1587. For. Cal. June 1586–June 1588, p.283. Conyers Read has proved what the Calendarist suspected, that Pellegrini was Standen, Cf. Mr. Secretary Walsingham, III, p. 289, note 1.

32. Read thinks it probable that it was through Standen that Walsingham received a copy of Santa Cruz's detailed report of ships, forces and stores which the Spanish admiral sent to Philip II in March 1587, and which came into the Secretary's hands some time later. Op.cit. III, p.290.

33. “Mr. Broke,” no doubt, is the Thomas Broke, mentioned by Standen in his letter to Walsingham, Pisa, 10 December 1582, ut supra. “Being here when Thomas Broke was to close up his despatches for London, has given me occasion to write these few lines.”

34. The calendarist suggested that “R” signified Rome. That it does so, is put beyond all doubt by Standen's reply. Cf. infra.

35. [Walsingham] to Standen, undated, endorsed by Walsingham's clerk: “Heads of a letter to Standen at Florence.” For.Cal. June 1586–June 1588, p.286.

36. This must be taken into account when, later, in letters from Spain, he pleaded for milder treatment for Catholics in England. In the light of the above statement it would be uncritical to take such pleading at its face value.

37. This phrase, again, must not necessarily be taken as literal truth; for he was writing as a Catholic. Certainly in 1582 he conversed with Thomas Broke, knowing him to be an agent of Walsingham, and sent a letter to Walsingham by him. Cf supra, note 33. It is possible he may be referring to the Unton-Aldred affair which occurred in 1582 and the following years, though there is no evidence to connect him with it. Cf. An Elizabethan Propagandist: the carrer of Solomon Aldred, The Month, May-June 1945.

38. Cardinal Allen, who was created cardinal by Sixtus V on 7 August, 1587.

39. The friend who gave him advices from Rome was, no doubt, Nicholas Fitzherbert. In a letter to Persons, Standen wrote: “As for Mr. Fitzherbert, his and my acquaintance have been long, and while I lived in Tuscany no Saturday passed without letters to each other, all to honest purpose without prejudice to anyone, etc,” Standen to Persons, Paris, 17/27 December 1603 (Dom James I, XXXV, n.61.) His reference to this Fitzherbert's “long course in that court” makes it clear that he is speaking of Nicholas and not Thomas Fitzherbert. The letter cited in the text, however, throws doubt on the “honest purpose.”

40. B.C. [Standen] to Mannucci, 28 August 1587, addressed and endorsed “28 August stylo nove from Mr. Standen.” Harl Mss. 296, f.46. His earlier letter to Monsieur Mannering, 23 March 1582. (For. Cal. January–June 1583 and Addenda, p.590) suggests that he knew more about the Pallavicinis than appears in the above letter of August 28 1587.

41. “I would also be well content to hear how safely so many of my said letters be come to your hands, this being the sixth since I heard from you.” Pellegrini to Mannucci, 8/18 June 1587, Cal. Salisbury Mss. III, p.262.

42. “I have not failed every ordinary to deliver a letter to Corsini; how they are come safely to your hands, I know not, for he tells me that about the mislike between France and England, things pass with great difficulty,” ibid. He is probably referring to Bartolomeo Corsini, whose brother Filippo, was an influential merchant in London and agent of the Grand-Duke, and by his widespread trade connections acquired information which he passed on to the Elizabethan ministers. The Corsini at Florence had at first offered to lend Standen money upon any occasion of the queen's service, but “grew so cold” when Standen wanted 100 crowns for sending the Fleming to Lisbon, that he had to borrow the money from another. He asked Walsingham, therefore, to cause Filippo to authorise his relative in Florence to make such loans. Ibid. Mannucci, to whom many of Standen's letters are addressed, may have been of the household of Filippo, but more probably “Mannucci” was used as a code name for Walsingham for whom the letters were certainly intended.

43. Pellegrini to Mannucci 27 April/7 May 1587, ut supra. He mentions the Fleming again in letters of 25 May/5 June and 18/28 August 1587, Harl. Mss. 295, f.183 and 296, f.46. In the latter letter he also reported calling a man from Livorno to send him to Palermo, but cancelling his journey on finding that it was not necessary.

44. B. C. to Jacopo Mannuccio, 1/11 February 1588, endorsed “11 February 1587 from Peregrini [sic] “Harl. Mss. 286, f.122.

45. Burghley to Figliazzi, announcing the death of Walsingham, printed in Strype, Annals, IV p.46 Figliazzi was one of the agents employed later in the peace negotiations.

46. He may be referring to his letter of 1/11 February 1588, ut supra.

47. He may be referring to the “Relation of the armie of Spaine of the shipping, munitions, victuals, men both soldiers and mariners, printed in Lisbon and presented to the king 9 May 1588” (Harl. Mss. 295, n.80.). There is another report in English of the state of the Spanish fleet, 1 May 1588, and another in French of the same date, in R.O.Spain, III. Cf. also Standen to Burghley, Bordeaux prison, 7/17 June 1591, B.M. Add.Mss.4110, f.2.

48. The Cardinal Archduke Albert, Governor of Portugal.

49. B.C. to Giacopo Mannuccio, Madrid, 30 April 1588, Harl. Mss. 295 f.194. He certainly remembered Walsingham's instruction to write as a Catholic. Cf supra, notes 35 and 36. His next letter is written in the same style, begging those in England “to join here in heart and spirit” for the success of the Armada. (B.C. to [Walsingham] Madrid, 28 May 1588, Harl. Mss.245, f.190.) To write as a Catholic was all the more necessary, for, as he reported in the letter quoted above, “suspicion and searching are great here,” and for that reason he sent his letter of April by way of Italy. In his letter of May he refers again to his journey to Portugal and adds that Parma had sent pilots to conduct the fleet.

50. [Walsingham] to A.B., undated but endorsed “April 1588, M. of a letter to A.B. sent from Florence into Spain.” (For. Cal. January to June 1588, p.345.) The best treatment of these peace movements, though at times a little uncritical, is by Van, der Essen, Alexandre Farnese, Brussels, 1935–37, V, pp.85 ff.Google Scholar and 182 ff. The Elizabethan ministers employed for this purpose many agents, both English and foreign, and began their peace negotiations almost immediately after their open declaration in 1585 to help the rebels in the Low Countries against Spain 1 The negotiations were generally regarded, and with good reason, as not seriously meant. Their purpose was really to sow confusion in the Catholic ranks and delay Spanish preparations of a counter-attack and any concerted action on the part of the Catholic powers. One means used has a touch of humour about it. In his letter of 28 May 1588 Standen correctly reported: “Our queen is said here to have sent Bateson the Jesuit, to Rome about overtures with his Holiness to be reconciled, which God grant.” That Bateson had arrived in Rome about this time is evidenced by a letter of the General of the Society who wrote that he was soon to depart but would return. (Aquaviva to Oranus, Rome, 14 May 1588, Arch. S.J. Rom. Fland-Belg. 1573–1614, p.393.) It was all part of Burghley's clever propaganda which he had started some time earlier and which his son continued. Some years previously, the Jesuit, Richard Bateson, without the knowledge, still less the consent, of Aquaviva, had been employed, together with Solomon Aldred, by a highly placed individual in the Papal curia in similar negotiations between the English ministers and the Inquisition, which led to the bribing of some influential persons of the Papal court by the Elizabethan Government. (Cf. An Elizabethan Propagandist, etc. The Month, May-June 1945. Docu merits discovered since the writing of that article make certain some of the conclusions which were put forward only as surmise.) In 1586 the English ministers endeavoured to employ Bateson again, and after he had been appointed, much against the wishes of the General of the Society, a chaplain to Parma's army, and so freed to a great extent from the control of his Jesuit superiors, they succeeded. It was for these negotiations, undertaken against the will of the Jesuit General, that Bateson was dismissed from the Society in 1590, the step being delayed for fear of giving offence to the Cardinals of the Inquisition. There are a number of letters concerning this episode in Bateson's career, preserved in the Jesuit archives in Rome.

51. Standen himself. He writes as a friend of the Cavalier and indicates neither the writer nor the person to whom the letter is addressed; but the letter is undoubtedly written by him to Walsingham. The ruse of writing as a friend was used for safety reasons. Cf. infra.

52. That is–occupying the same position as Walsingham, that of Secretary of State.

53. He is referring to the insurrection at Paris in favour of the League and the Duke of Guise who entered the capital on 9 May 1588, whence Henry III fled shortly afterwards.

54. – to –, endorsed “From Madrid the 7th of June 1588,” Cal. Salisbury Mss. III, p.327. The document is a decipher and the calendarist remarked that the cipher is missing. It is, in fact, to be found in vol.295 of the Harleian collection.

55. Standen to Burghley, Bordeaux prison, 7/17 June 1591, Birch's transcripts, B.M. Add.Mss.4110, f.2. In a later letter, however, he represents the money rather as payment for specific journeys than as a pension. “By order from the late Mr. Secretary Walsingham, I did receive 300 Florentine scudi towards a voyage from Italy to Spain, for one I had made before and another after. This money was delivered me there [Florence] as by my bill of receipt thereof in the bank of Mag. Corsini may appear, whose factor here [London], as I understand doth therefore inportunate the honourable widow [i.e. Walsingham's]. Standen to Burghley, 20 September 1594, quoted by Lee, K. M. in her article, Sir Anthony Standen and some Anglo-Italian Letters, English Historical Review, July 1932. p.470.Google Scholar Cf. also, Lady Bacon to Anthony Bacon, Birch, op.cit. II, p. 129.

56. His last extant letter from Italy appears to be that of 7/17 June 1589, For. Cal. January–July 1589, p.304.

57. Standen to Burghley 7/17 June 1591, ut supra.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid. Cf. also Standen to Burghley [October] 1591, Birch, op.cit. 1. p.68. Such was the explanation of his going to Bordeaux that Standen gave to Burghley; but the truth of it may well be doubted. From the grant of Spanish pensions to Fitzherbert, Standen and Rolston, it appears that Fitzherbert was to be stationed at Rouen, Standen at Bordeaux and Rolston at St.-Jean-de-Luz, to act as intelligencers for the king of Spain. Cf. Philip II to Mendoza, Madrid, 26 April 1590, Simancas, Est. Leg. K 1449 ff.116 and 117. Spanish Cal. 1586–1603, p.580.) Fitzherbert certainly went to Rouen where he stayed for a number of years, and Rolston to St.-Jean-de-Luz where he was taken prisoner but bought his freedom from the governor for eighty crowns. Cf. also, The Confession of James Younger, 27 August 1592, printed in Strype, Annals, IV, pp.137–146. It is possible and even probable that Standen was playing the double spy, acting as one for England as well as for Spain. Rolston, his friend and fellow spy, certainly appears to have acted in this double capacity; and there are slight indications that Standen had done so earlier in his career. Walsingham died on 6 April 1590 and Standen states in his letter to Burghley, 7/17 June 1591, that he only learned of the death of the Secretary a few days after he had been imprisoned at Bordeaux.

61. The month of his arrival is known from his letter to Burghley, 7/17 June, 1591.

62. Ibid.

63. Standen to El Vedor General, Martin Darrano, Bordeaux prison, 23 April/3 May 1591, R.O. S.P.94, IV, f.17; Andrea Sandal [Standen] to Simon Alegria, Mercador, 23 April/3 May 1591, ibid. f.18. In both letters he described the desperate condition in which he found himself. His Spanish pension had not been paid for six months: he owed one hundred crowns: his creditors were pressing him and he had nothing but rags to clothe his body: never before had he experienced such misery. In such a description he probably exaggerated, thereby to arouse sympathy and obtain some relief; for it is hardly credible that after eight months imprisonment he should be clothed in rags, unless, of course, he had pawned his clothes to satisfy in some measure his importunate creditors.

64. Standen to Burghley 7/17 June 1591, ut supra.

65. Standen to Burglhey, [October] 1591 ut supra. Cf. supra note 60.

66. “This night I am to set my doubtful steps on Spanish ground.” La Faye [Standen] to A. Bacon, Sebibure, 9 December 1591, Birch, op.cit. I, p.70.

67. Burghley's instructions are given in Birch, op.cit. I, pp.69-70.

68. Standen to Bacon, 15 April 1592, Birch, op.cit. I, p.75.

69. Standen to Bacon, 8 September 1592, Ibid. p.85.

70. Standen to Bacon, 8 September and 22 October 1592, Ibid, pp.80 and 88.

71. Standen to Bacon, 22 October 1592, ut supra. Relations between James and Elizabeth were somewhat strained in this and the following years. Standen's solemn warning, however, has a touch of humour about it. He was certainly “carrying coals to Newcastle’; for such a warning was in no wise needed, as any student knows who has studied the perpetual intrigues of the Elizabethan Government in the then independent kingdom of Scotland.

72. Standen to Bacon, 8 September 1592, ut supra. The list may be that noted in Cal. Salisbury Mss. IV, p.262, endorsed “1592 delivered by Robert Russell.”

73. Bacon to Standen, 14 March 1593, Birch, op.cit. I, p.93.

74. Standen to Bacon, 20 April 1593, Ibid. p.98. Letters were not the only means used to send information. A messenger returning to England, such as Mr. Lawson, would on instructions impart it by word of mouth. By him, too, Standen sent an account of his travels. (Standen to Bacon, 8 September, ut supra.) Rolston was to do the same but his departure from Spain was delayed for some years. Cf. infra.

75. A small port in south-west France ten miles or so from the border between that country and Spain.

76. Standen to Bacon, 8 September 1592, ut supra.

77. Bacon informed Standen of such a payment in his letter of [February] 1592, Birch, op.cit. I, p.92.

78. Edmund Palmer to the Lord High Admiral, 20 July 1595, Dom. Cal.Eliz. 1595-1597, p.77. Jackson was an English Merchant, residing at St.-Jean-dt-Luz and Palmer himself was an intelligencer of the Elizabethan Government. Some of his letters are preserved in the R.O. Spanish Correspondence.

79. Standen to Bacon, 8 September 1592, ut supra.

80. Bacon to Standen, 14 March 1593. It may, however, be doubted whether, in fact, he did renounce his pension; for some years later the Spanish Council informed Juan de Velasquez that they had paid 300 ducats to Anthony Rolston, and that his salary might be continued, if Velasquez thought it useful. He was going to England to perform some service for the king and it would be well to assist him in every way. Council to Velasquez, Madrid, 6 February 1596, Simancas, Est.Leg.178.

81. Standen to Bacon, 22 October 1592, Birch, op.cit. I, p.89. No doubt he is referring to the racking of Skinner, apparently another spy, well acquainted with Thomas Phelippes and his correspondent, William Sterrel, who played the same role in Flanders. In a letter, conveying news from England and addressed to Persons in Spain, Verstegan wrote from Antwerp: “Mr. Anthony Skinner is condemned but not executed, neither is it thought he shall be; for that some kind of offer of pardon hath been made to some of his friends there for the sum of 500 pounds and it is thought that less will be taken: the und-Chamberlain, I hear, hath undertaken to get it. When he was tortured, they urged him to confess that he was sent to kill the queen, the which he confessed, but so soon as he was released, he forthwith denied it, saying that their tortures were such as might make him to say whatever they pleased.” Verstegan to Persons, Antwerp, 3 August 1592, Stonyhurst, Coll. B, f.53. Skinner, just as Rolston, appears to have been a double spy.

82. Birch, op.cit. II, p.332. Cf. also, Anthony Rolston to the Earl of Essex and Sir Robert Cecil, 6 May 1597, Cal. Salisbury Mss. VII, p.188.

83. Birch, op.cit. p.98. His assertion seems doubtfully true; for, from this and later letters, one gathers that he intended to relinquish the service of the Spanish king. Standen's statements, in fact, in this very same letter hardly agree one with the other.

84. Standen to Bacon, 30 April 1593, ibid. p.98. He may have had in mind to return to Florence, but from his later letters, after his return, it would certainly seem that he hoped, if possible, to remain in England. He had been absent from England just on twenty-eight years. Cf. Standen to Faunt, Calais 2/12 June 1593, ibid. p.101. From St.-Jean-de-Luz Samuel Saltonstal, a merchant intelligencer, reported on 2/12 April that Standen had come to Fuentarabia and was then at San Sebastian with the general. Saltonstal to Bacon, St.-Jean-de-Luz, 12 April 1593, ibid. p.94.

85. Standen to Bacon, Calais, 23 May 1593, ibid. p. 100.

86. Faunt to Bacon, Dover, 30 May 1593, ibid, p.100. Standen acknowledged the receipt of the money in his letter to Faunt, Calais, 7/17 June, ibid, p.101. Faunt at one time had been secretary to Walsingham.

87. Standen to Faunt, Calais, 7/17 June 1593, ibid, p.101.

88. Standen to Bacon, Calais, 10/20 June 1593, ibid, p.102. “When Mr. Standen went from Spain, I promised to hold correspondence with Mr. Bacon and him for the queen's service.” Anthony Rolston to the Earl of Essex and Sir Robert Cecil, 6 May 1597, Cal. Salisbury Mss. VII, p.188.

89. A. Bacon to Essex, 14 June 1593, ibid, p.105. In July, Phelipes reported his return, adding: “He is very Catholic though without dissimulation, and therefore fit to be employed by the queen in Italy.” Phelippes to Sterrell, July 1593, penning a letter for Sterrell to send to Thomas Fitzherbert. Dom. Cal. Eliz. 1951-1594, p.360.

90. A. Bacon to –, September, 1596, ibid, p.105. Essex's support of Standen is clearly evidenced by the many letters quoted by Birch. For the attitude of Burghley and Sir Robert Cecil see more particularly, Standen to Bacon, 23 November 1593; ibid, p.134; Essex to Standen in reply to one of his of 27 July 1593, ibid, p.115; Standen to Bacon, 20 December 1593, ibid, p.144, and Standen to Bacon, 24 March 1594, ibid, p.164. Verstegan, giving the contents of a letter from England about the end of August 1593, wrote to Persons: “Standen kepes still in favour with Essex who beareth all the sway in open shewe. Standen dothe still profess himself a Catholique.” Verstegan to Persons, Antwerp, 17 December 1593, Stonyhurst, Coll. B. f.127. On his Catholicism, cf. also, Richard Stanihurst to Englefield, St. Lawrence, 16 August 1593, Eng. Coll. Valladolid Ser. II, 6.

91. Emanuel Dandrades, Calais, 7/17 lune 1593, Cal. Salisbury Mss. XIII, p.483. His suspicions may have been aroused by the report of another spy: “Anthoene Standen est alle en Flandres, et porra estre passera en escosse. Cet celluy qui estoit prisonnier en cette ville que Monsieur Bacon fit delivre sus esperance quil donnat de fere service.” Chasteaumartin to Burghley, Bordeaux, 23 May/2 lune 1593, ibid, p.482. Chasteaumartin was evidently a double spy, working also for Spain, and on being discovered by the French was promptly beheaded, 20 July 1595. Cf. Edmund Palmer to the Lord High Admiral, 23 July/2 August 1595, Dom. Cal. Eliz. 1595-1597, p.77.

92. Standen to Bacon, 24 March 1594, Birch, op.cit. p. 165. Cf. also, Standen to Bacon, 28 November 1593, ibid, p.136, where he mentions the queen's attitude to his being discovered at Calais.

93. Cf. Standen to Bacon, 30 April 1593, ibid, p.98; Bacon to Burghley, June 1593, ibid, p.106; Standen to Essex, 19 June 1593, ibid, p.106; and Standen to Burghley, July 1593, ibid, p.115.

94. Essex to Standen, July 1593, ibid, p.115.

95. Bacon to –, September 1596, ibid, p.105.

96. Standen to Burghley, 6 August 1593, ibid. p. 116.

97. Standen to Bacon, 15 August 1593, ibid. p. 117.

98. A week or so after his arrival in England he gave a report on Scottish negotiations to Essex. Cf. Standen to Essex, 19 June 1593, ibid, pp.106-107.

99. For the relations of James to Elizabeth in these years, cf. Tytler, History of Scotland, 1866, IX cell et seq; Stafford, H. G., James VI of Scotland and the Throne of England, New York, 1940, cc.11,Google Scholar et seq. and Sir Robert Cecil, Father Robert Persons and the Succession, 1600-1601, sections IV to VI, Arch. Hist. S.J. Jan.–Jun. 1955.

100. Standen to Bacon, 21 November 1593, Birch, op.cit. p.133.

101. When Sir Robert Cecil suggested that he might be employed again at Florence, Standen took exception to it and said “that he was not so unqualified but that at home he might be found fit for somewhat and that her majesty was not always to live in wars.” Standen to Bacon, 23 November 1593, ibid. p.134.

102. Bacon to Burghley, December 1593, ibid. p.145. Cf. also, Standen to Bacon, 1 January 1594, ibid, p.146.

103. Standen to Bacon, February 1594, ibid, p.154.

104. Standen to Bacon, 24 March 1594, ibid, p.165.

105. Standen to Bacon,’ 20 December 1593, ibid, p.144; 24 March and 5 April 1594, ibid, pp.165 and 168.

106. Standen to Bacon, 23 November 1593, ibid, p.134. Bacon's continued ill-health prevented him from attending the court. Apparently he was a martyr to gout.

107. Standen to Bacon, 25 November 1593, ibid, p.135.

108. Standen to Rolston, 22 December 1593, ibid, p.145.

109. Burghley also suffered from the aristocratic infirmity of gout. But he may be speaking metaphorically.

110. Burghley to Standen, ibid, pp.188-189.

111. Ibid, p.356. The copy of the letter used by Birch, being undated, led him to misplace the incident. Standen's letter to Burghley is in the Lansdowne collection (79, n.78.), and is dated 21 April 1595.

112. Standen to Burghley, 8 June 1595, ibid, p.249. The original letter is in Lansdowne, 79. n.86.

113. A true relation of the course Sir Anthony Standen hath held from the year 1565, etc. Cal. Salisbury Mss. XVI. pp.15–21.

114. Reference to his pension of five shillings a day is to be found in the Cal. State Papers Ireland, 1603–1606, p.284, n.487. It is there stated that it was granted during the lifetime of the late queen. Search in the Patent Rolls might possibly reveal when the grant was made.

115. Rolston to Bacon, 31 January 1595, Birch, op.cit. pp.199–203.

116. Bacon to Rolston, 30 July 1594, ibid, p.183.

117. Rolston to Bacon, 12 August 1596, ibid. II, p.110.

118. Standen to Bacon, Portsmouth, 14 August 1596, ibid. II, p. 104.

119. – to [the Earl of Essex], 10 September 1596, Cal. Salisbury Mss. VI. p.379. Apart from the contents, which when compared with other documents clearly show the writer to be the priest, John Cecil, who was at that time in Spain, the letter itself is in his hand. The contents also show that it was addressed to the Earl of Essex. Birch printed the letter from a copy, for it does not always agree with the Salisbury manuscript. (Birch, op.cit. II, pp.124 ff.) Standen wrote an account of the Cadiz expedition, which K. M. Lee recorded as having been printed in Oldys's Introduction to Raleigh's History of the World, 1736, I, p.105. Cf. Sir Anthony Standen and some Anglo-Italian Letters, English Historical Review, July 1932, pp.46 ff. The writer of the article did not always keep the two Anthony Standens distinct, and appears to have been unaware of Sir Anthony's letters under the alias of Pellegrini, a list of which was given in Notes and Queries, XI Series, I, p.469. The account, too, of Sir Anthony's embassy in 1603 is not without errors.

120. Rowland Whyte to Sir Robert Sidney, 12 February 1597, Collins, Letters and Memorials of State, London, 1746, II, p.90.

121. Sir Anthony Standen to Edward Reynolds, 27 April [1599], Cal. Salisbury Mss. IX, p.144.

122. Sir Anthony Standen to “Sigr Arrigo.” Cal. Salisbury Mss. X, p.392. The contents of the letter suggests that “Sigr. Arrigo” is Lord Henry Howard.