No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 September 2015
It seems beyond controversy to say that the most controversial subject of study for the Jacobethan period is the series of plots that occurred between 1571 and 1605. The word Jacobethan—not the writer’s—is a useful reminder of the essential continuity in important respects of the historical scene between 1558 and 1612. The continuity during this period was mainly supplied by the domination of the Cecils, father and son, William and Robert. In what would appear to be an unique occurrence of a virtual reign within two reigns in our island history, the Cecils, dominating the two monarchs with subtlety and discretion, pursued with skill, intelligence and determination the policy of turning England into a Protestant country. With their allies and subordinates in government, the aim was to turn the clock not back but into a direction from which it would never turn again.
1 Holleran, James V., A Jesuit Challenge: Edmund Campion’s Debates at the Tower of London in 1581, Fordham University Press, New York, 1999 Google Scholar.
2 Hammer, Paul E. J., The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585–1597, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 41 and n.7, 42Google Scholar.
3 Edwards, Francis S.J., The Dangerous Queen, London, 1964 Google Scholar, and The Marvellous Chance, London, 1968. The late Neville Williams told me in amicable conversation that he did not accept my thesis but did not proceed to details.
4 R. Persons’s letter will be found at the end of this article. The full reference in C. Grene’s Collectanea P.II, ff.354b-355a is as follows, ‘1599. 30 Jan. A copy of F. Persons l.re to F. Garnet about the arraignment of Squire dated 30. Jan. Incipit, I have rec,d [sic] yours of 18 of June & c. [sic]. (He giveth a very good ac/ [f.355a] count of all that matter[)]’. Edwards, F., ‘The Strange Case of the Poisoned Pommel, Richard Walpole, S.J., and the Squire Plot 1597–1598’, Archivům Historícum Societatis Jesu, vol.LVI, 1987, pp. 3–82 Google Scholar. Many of the sources quoted here formed the basis of the present article.
5 The Baga de Secretis, pouch 55, PRO, KB/8, contains 12 membrances, the legal instruments required for Squire’s trial: No.7 is Justice Roger North’s precept for the return of the petty jury for the trial; no.8 gives a list of 26 names from which 12 were chosen; no.9 is the justice’s precept to John Peyton, lieutenant of the Tower, to have Squire at Westminster Great Hall on Thursday 9 November; no.12 is Elizabeth’s writ of Mandamus of 6 November to form a commission of Oyer and Terminer.
6 For the earlier career of William Herle, see The Marvellous Chance, ch. 1 and pp. 97–99, 248–266, and for his latter activities, Hammer, op.cit., pp. 44–5, 68. His life seems to call for a biography.
7 The following are the main sources in print for the Squire plot. Martin Aray, The Discovery and Confutation of a Tragical Fiction Devysed and Played by Edward Squyer, yeoman, soldier, hanged at Tyburn the 23 of November 1598, wherein the argument and fabric is, that he should be sent from Spaine by William Walpole, Jesuit, to poyson the Queen and the Earl of Essex, but the meaning and moralisation thereof was, to make odious the Jesuits, and by them, all Catholiques. Written for the only love and zeale of truth againste forgerie by M. A. Freest, that knew and dealt with Squyer in Spayne. Imprinted with licence. Anno MDXCIX. Quotations here are from a transcript of the Folger Library copy, Washington, 3.D.C. The book has been reissued as Scolar Reprint 71. The spelling of Squier adopted in this study is that used by himself. Aray was cautious. ‘I meane not in this place to take upon me to averre that all the whole narration touching Squyer is faygned or that Squyer was in all poynts that he was accused of, or hanged for (notwithstanding his denyals at his death) yet dout I not but to shew most evidently that all and everything that concerneth the Jesuites and William Walpole by name, condemned in this action by a wrong name, (for his true name is Richard) is a meer fable and malicious device of Squyer, or those that set him a worke to make Spain odious and to slander the Jesuites’, p. 2.
Aray’s work seems to have been prompted by an apology for the other side which also appeared this year 1599. This was, A letter written out of England to an English Gentleman remaining at Padua, containing a true Report of a strange Conspiracie, contrived betweene Edward Squire, lately executed for the same treason as Actor, and Richard Walpole, a Jesuit as Deviser and Suborner against the person of the Quen ‘s Majesty. Imprinted at London by the Deputies of Christopher Barker, Printer to the Queene’s most excellent Maiestie. 1599. The BL copy was used in this study: 9512.aa.l. The inside of the cover carries a manuscript note giving a brief, traditional outline of the Squire story, ending, ‘For an account of Squire’s extraordinary treason, see «An Order for Prayer and Thanksgiving, 1598, reprinted in «Liturgical Services of Queen Elizabeth» 1847 (Parker Society) pp. 473 and 679’. It will be noted that the true name of the accused Jesuit has been put in the title, which argues that the unnamed author was someone much above the level of a hack writer. This is also suggested by the contents. Aray very reasonably supposed that the writer was Francis Bacon. He commented, ‘The writer whereof (if it be M. Smokey-Swynesflesh, at the instances of R[obert] C[ecil]) presumes so much upon the faith of the reader, who he hopeth will believe him, that he telleth him so direct and reddye a tale, as though himself had been in every place, at every time, when, and where the maker was dealt in, or spoken of; or else he hath an intelligence by special revelation, for that he seems to know all so precisely and perfectly, yea he knows how to call the Jesuit in Spain Richard Walpole, that so often in the indictment was William Walpole’. p. 13r. A Letter . . . was reprinted as Authentic Memoirs of that exquisitely villainous Jesuit, Father Richard Walpole, being the Copy of a Letter, written from London, by a Gentleman, to his friend, another English Gentleman, residing at Padua in Italy: laying open his abominable practices and base Dealings with that wicked Traytor EDWARD SQUIRE who was lately and most deservedly executed for his poisonous attempts against the sacred and precious LIFE of her Most Excellent MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH. And also on that of his Excellency ROBERT Earl of ESSEX. Illustrated with a very pertinent APPENDIX. LONDON: Printed for W. Williams near Piccadilly, MDCCXXXIII. Quotations in the present text are usually from this edition, which is faithful to the original in meaning but modernised in spelling and orthography and so easier for a modern reader to follow.
A third work, dated in Madrid ‘the last of August 1599’, vindicated the thesis set out by Aray, and likewise nailed many of the falsehoods in A Letter written out of England . . . Thomas Fitzherbert had already set down an apology of his own when ‘a certayne brief pamphlet written in Rome by M.Mar.Ar. presentile upon the execution of Squier in England’ came to his hands. He decided to add his own defence ‘shewing the whole subject and argument to be a feigned thing’:p. A2. He was expecting Aray to bring out a larger work on the subject himself so he did not now trouble himself to include letters and the inquisition reports in his own (p. A2V). Unfortunately Aray’s extended study never appeared. Fitzherbert’s work had to wait for its printing. AN APOLOGY OF T.F. IN DEFENCE OF HIMSELF AND OTHER CATHOLYKES, FALSLY CHARGED WITH A FEIGNED CONSPIRACY against her Majesty’s person, for the which one Edward Squyer was wrongfully condemned and executed in the year of our Lord 1598. Wherein are discovered the wicked, and malicious practises of some inferior persons to whose examination the causes of Catholykes are commonly committed, and their injurious manner of proceeding, not only against the sayd Squyer but also against many Catholykes that have been unjustly condemned for lyke fayned conspiracies, against her Majesty and the State. Written in the year of our Lord 1599, and dedicated to the right honourable the Lords of her Mayestie’s counsel. . . Imprinted with licence 1602. Fitzherbert referred again in his text to his decision to go into print himself. ‘Having determined to speak no more of Squyre’s affair but rather to have ended with this that hath been said, I received from a friend of mine a pamphlet printed in England by the deputies of Christopher Barker, the Queen’s printer . . . entitled A LETTER WRITTEN OUT OF ENGLAND . . . This pamphlet and «M.A.’s» one sufficiently refute the Squyre episode, but since the unknown author claims so much particular knowledge, and so seems to be someone that had his hand in the pie, and also because this has the authority of the Queen’s printer behind it; and also because it aims at T.F., the latter had to say something’: p. 37v. This treatise of 104 pp. was appended to A Defence of the Catholyke Cause . . ., 144 pp.
8 Aray, op.cit., p. 3. For a life of Robert Persons and his relations with the English colleges in Spain, see, Edwards, F., S.J., Robert Persons: the Biography of an Elizabethan Jesuit 1546–1610, St. Louis, 1995 Google Scholar.
9 Richard Walpole to H. Garnet, 12.iv. 1599, from Seville, signed original (?), English College, Valladolid, MS Ser.II, L.l, unfoliated.
10 British Library (BL), Egerton ms 1508, Papeles del Consejo de la General Inquisicion. Memoriales y relaciones varios. III 1592–1600, ff.3i3r-14v. Endd. on f.314v., ‘Ricardo Rolls y Duarte Esquier ingleses en Sevilla’.
11 Canon F. de Quezada to J. Creswell, from Seville, 3.iv(?).1597, signed holograph: BL, Egerton ms, 1508, III, ff.316r-17v., Spanish.
12 Quoted Loomie, A. J., S.J., The Spanish Elizabethans, New York, 1963 Google Scholar; Ch.6, ‘A Seminarie: Joseph Creswell, S.J.’, p. 196. See also p. 193.
13 BL Egerton ms 1508, ff.311r-12v. Spanish, endd. on f.312v., ‘Los inquisidores de XII de Junio. Informan cerca de lo contenido en una peticion y otros papeles presentados por Richarse Rolo y Duarte Esquier yngleses y dizen come se han vido’. The original letter of Squire and Rolls, if it exists, has not come to light.
14 Aray, op.cit., p. 7. The letter does not appear to have survived even in copy. I could not find it at Valladolid, where I was allowed to research by the courtesy of Mgr Greenstock. Over the centuries this archive has lost a large amount of its original holding. The archives of the V.E.C., Rome, also suffered much in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. But see Williams, Michael on the surviving archives, The Venerable English College, Rome, Dublin, 1979 Google Scholar, Appendix I, pp. 184–91.
15 The original examinations and depositions are in the PRO., S.P.12, vol.268, nos.62–157. They were printed by Henry Foley, S.J., in vol.11 of The Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, 1877–84, although with inaccuracies and omissions. Where quotations and dates cited here differ from Foley, it may be taken that they have been corrected from the Record Office documents. For the confession of 23.x., see S.P., 12, 268, no.89, ff.l80r-181v., signed by Squier on f.l80r; no.90, ff.182r–183v, also no.91, ff.l84r-185v. This last was signed by Squier on f.l85r. Cf. Foley, II, pp. 248–50.
16 Edwards, Francis, S.J., The Elizabethan Jesuits, London/Chichester, 1981 Google Scholar. This is a translation of the first six books of More, Henry, S.J., Historia Missionis Anglicanae Societatis Jesu, St. Omers, 1660, which relate to the Elizabethan period. See p. 279 Google Scholar.
17 For the Terceira expedition see Monson’s account from which the rest are largely derived: Navy Records Society, vol.XXII, (Monson’s Tracts, II); Cheyney, E. P., A History of England from the Defeat of the Armada to the death of Elizabeth . . . London, 1926, pp. 421–46 Google Scholar; Hammer, The Polarisation. . ., (See n.2 above), gives a brief summary, pp. 264–5.
18 John Stanley’s ‘Spanish’ life is in Simancas, Archivo Nacional, E.182, unfoliated.
19 John Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, 3.x. 1598, Calendar S.P.Domestic, 1598–1601, p. 102.
20 Richard Bayley to Sir William Stanley, 19.xi.1598, intercepted letter; Ibidem, p. 120.
21 John Stanley’s letter and depositions are Cal. Salisbury mss, VIII, pp. 549–80, passim. The long narrative or ‘English life’ is Hatfield, Salsibury ms 233/5; also on BL microfilm M.485/59. A 62-page report begins with a flattering apostrophe to the privy council. The first 46 pages and the most important part ends, ‘I directed this book and written by the said Lysson Williams’ followed by ‘L.W.’. The remaining 16 pages, presumably in Stanley’s hand, are written in a scarcely legible scrawl.
22 T. Fitzherbert, An Apology . . ., p. 4. See n.7 above.
23 T. Fitzherbert, op.cit., pp. 8v-9r.
24 Salisbury ms, 233/5; BL microfilm, M.485/59, f.39v.
25 ‘Examination of John Stanley taken the 23 September 1598’. P.R.O. S.P.12, vol.268, no.62: Foley, ididem, pp. 240–1. Foley mistakenly gives the date as 23 October.
26 Cal.S.P.Dom., 1598–1601, 103. Burell’s report of l.x.1598 is also given.
27 O.P., Godfrey Anstruther, The Seminary Priests, vol.1, p. 118 Google Scholar.
28 Dasent, J. R., Acts of the Privy Council, New Series, London. 1905, vol.29, p. 506 Google Scholar. See also Edwards, Elizabethan Jesuits, p. 279. The order for Squier’s transfer probably came from the same men who recounted on 28.1.1599 the salient facts of his arrest and imprisonment; viz. the Lord Keeper, the Earl Marshal, the Lord Admiral, Lord North, Lord Buckhurst, Mr. Comptroller, and of course, ‘Mr. Secretary Cecil’.
29 Cal. Salisbury mss. ibidem., p. 396.
30 Foley, II, p. 241.
31 See Loomie, A. J., S.J., ‘Thomas James, the English Consul of Andalusia (1556—c.1613)’; Recusant History, vol.11, pp. 165–78 Google Scholar.
32 ‘The declaration of John Stanley, under his own hand, this 18 of October 1598 at the Tower about twelve of the clock at noon’. This title is in Waad’s hand. S.P.12, Ibidem, no.82, ff.l66r-168r; Foley, II, pp. 241–3. Stanley’s signature appears at the foot of f.l66v with those of Essex and ‘Ro.Cecyll’. Coke wrote in the margin of f.l67r, ‘Nota’, opposite the sentence, ‘Concerning Munday’s employment he was dealt withal secretly, for that he should not know of my coming over; they commanded me to tell him how I would run away; that thereby I should have the more credit in the court; if he should not be honest to them, then he would declare my saying. If he were honest I should deal with him, and join with him, and if he gave me the perfume, and told me where he had it, I should also write over of it; and the king knew of this perfume and his council also’. After John Stanley’s signature on f. 168 at the end of the confession, occurred the following, omitted by Foley: ‘The said John Stanley having deliberately read over again this declaration about seven of the clock in the afternoon of the same day did affirm and justify the same to be true in all things. At Essex House. [In Coke’s hand:-] Affirmed in the presence of ‘[signed] Essex, Ro. Cecyll, Edw. Coke’.
33 Ibidem.
34 Edwards, The Elizabethan Jesuits, p. 279.
35 Fitzherbert, op.cit., p. 13v.
36 Aray, op.cit., p. 3v.
37 F Edwards, The Marvellous Chance, ch.2, The Bishop Expounds, pp. 85–153.
38 ‘At the Tower. The examination of Edward Squier taken this 19th of October, 1598. P.R.O., ibidem, no.83, ff.l69r-170v: This was apparently signed once at the end by ‘Ed.Squier’, followed by, ‘Examined by us, John Peyton, E. Flemming, Edw. Coke, F. Bacon, W. Waad. Further fair copies on nos.84, 85; ff.l71r-174v. The copies are very legible and unsigned. Cecil apparently took no part in the examinations of Squier. At all events, his signatures were not added to the rest. After the main body of the document, signed by the examiners and Squier, came a supplement describing in detail Squier’s acquisition of the ingredients, ‘He further confesseth that he bought two drams of opium and five drams of mercury water, at an apothecary’s shop in Paternoster Row towards the further end, near Dr. Smith’s house, one of the residue at an apothecary’s in Bucklersbury, at the Plough, and the other two at an apothecary’s shop in Newgate Market, beyond the Three Tuns on the left hand. All which he bought in an evening in July was twelvemonth and saith that he carried them about him six or seven days; and confesseth that he compounded them, and put them in an earthen pot, and set it in a window of his house at Greenwich, where it might take the sun; (and left it in a certain window when he went to sea) [words in brackets crossed through], and saith that he applied part of it to a whelp of one Edwardes of Greenwich . . .’ [see text]. ‘Edw. Squier’ and the five signatures of the examiners named above follow. What is the significance of the fact that Cecil did not record his presence at these examinations of Squier, or was not there? See Foley, II, pp. 243–5.
39 ‘The declaration of Edward Squire, taken this 19th of October, 1598’; S.P.12, vol.268, no.86, ff.l75r-176r. It is apparently signed by Edward Squier at the foot of f.l75v but not on f.l76r as Foley prints it. See Foley, II, pp. 245–8. Like the previous documents in the series, the margins carry Coke’s upper case alphabetical letters as markers for preparing his case for the court. The declaration is written in the hand of a clerk. The portion unsigned by Squier (see Foley, pp. 247–8) mainly enlarged on Walpole’s alleged directions to Squier. He was to deliver a letter from Walpole addressed to ‘A.R. do P.D. Bagshawe’ in England. It was to be kept secret from the generality for no one should be ‘directly acquainted with any matter which concerns the king or the inquisition’. He referred to Walpole’s strange embrace: ‘he put his left arm about my neck in a kind of hugging manner. . .’ Squier invited him to let him have letters for his friends in Norfolk. Squier mentioned ‘the canon’s earnestness for the two priests’ which was probably responsible, as he thought, for his being allowed to depart. He referred to Spanish preparations for another armada. It was signed at the end by ‘John Peyton, Edw.Coke, Fr.Bacon., Tho.Flemmynge’.
40 ‘At the Tower. The second examination of Edward Squier, taken this 23rd of October, 1598’. S.P.12, vol.268, no.89, ff.l80r-181r.; Foley.II, pp. 248–250. S.P.12, Ibidem., no.90, ff.l82r-183v and no.91, ff.l84r-185v. Squier’s signature appears on f.l85r. No.89 is signed at the page foot of f.l80v by Peyton, Coke, Waad, Fleming and Edw.Squier. It is signed again by the same signatories on f.l81v. The examiners’ signatures appear in the endorsement on f. 181 v. Foley’s printing is substantially accurate except that on p. 249 he refers to the ‘spare deck’ which should be the ‘sparre deck’. Walpole was supposed to have directed Squier to a Mr. Woodhouse at Beccles in Norfolk, where he would find Upton, a priest. Walpole credibly rejected any suggestion that he gave Squier any information about Catholics. Presumably this was a recusant family which Cecil and his colleagues wished to pressurise.
41 ‘At the Tower. The 3 examination of Edward Squier taken this 24 of October 1598’. P.R.O., ibidem., f.185r. This was omitted by Foley. ‘He now confesseth that he received the confection of poison at the hands of Walpoole the Jesuit which composition was to the quantity of a garden bean and knoweth not whether there was any opium or mercurie in it, nor what was in it, neyther did Walpoole ever tell him whereof it was compounded, and saith that he received it in a double bladder wrapped about with many parchment papers’. In Coke’s hand, ‘Exam by Edw.Coke’. Signed by ‘Edw.Squier’. N.B. The signatures or alleged signatures, of Squier show no deterioration or alteration in any of these confessions which is not what one would expect of a man subjected to severe torture. Were the signatures forged?
42 ‘The examination of William Monday taken this 3 of November 1598’. ‘Examined by us [signatures] Edw.Coke, John Peyton, Tho.Fleming, Fr.Bacon’, and by ‘Wm Munday’: P.R.O., ibidem, no.103, f.203r/v; Foley.II, pp. 250. The quotation in the text corrects the last sentence as it appears in Foley. Fitzherbert’s alleged rage was against Rolls and Squier for having ‘betrayed a number of godly priests in England’—not ‘giddy’, as it appears in Foley!
43 ‘The examination of Richard Rolls taken this 3 of November 1598’. Signed by the same examiners as for Monday (see preceding) and signed by ‘Richard Rolls’: PRO., ibidem, FoleyJI, p. 251. Foley omitted all reference to the ransom question, which is included in the text.
44 P.R.O., ibidem, ff.l69r-170v.; Foley.II, pp. 243–5. See n.38 above.
45 Ibidem.
46 The ‘declaration’ of E.S.; P.R.O., ibidem, no.86, ff.l75r-176r.; Foley.II, pp. 245–8.
47 Camden, W., Annals . . ., English edition, London, 1635, p. 498 Google Scholar.
48 Salisbury, Cal. mss., vol.8, p. 421 Google Scholar; ms.65/40.
49 Baga de secretis. See n.5 above. Cf. Deputy Keeper’s Report: Appendix II to 4th report, pp. 291–2, Latin.
50 See Hicks, L., S.J., ‘The strange case of Dr. William Parry: the career of an agent-provocateur’, Studies, September 1948. pp. 343–362 Google Scholar. A new study on Parry is in preparation. There are a number of his letters in Cal.S.P. Domestic, Addenda 1580–1625. His trial is recorded in State Trials, 1730 edition, vol.1.
51 Authentic Memoirs . . ., (see n.7 above) pp. 20–3.
52 Fitzherbert, op.cit., p. 7v.
53 Ibidem, p. 9r/v.
54 F. Edwards, The Marvellous Chance, pp. 213–14.
54 Fitzherbert, p. Ir.
56 Aray, op.cit., p. 12.
57 Fitzherbert, p. 14v.
58 Ibidem, p. 15r. See Fraser, Antonia, The Weaker Vessel, London, 1984 (Mandarin Edition), pp. 213–467 Google Scholar, passim, for interesting sidelight on Coke.
59 Lingard, John, The History of England . . ., vol.vi., London, 1849, p. 582 Google Scholar. Quotes from Ellis’s Letters, 2nd Series, III, p. 189.
60 Stow, J., Annales or a General Chronicle of England. Begun by John Stow: continued and augmented with matters Forraigne and Domestique, Ancient and Moderne, unto the end of this present yeare, 1631. By Howes, Edmund, Gent, , London, 1631, p. 788 Google Scholar.
61 Fizherbert, p. 38v.
62 Aray, p. 14r.
63 Authentic Memoirs . . ., p. 26.
64 Fitzherbert, p. 40r.
65 Aray, p. llr.
66 Kennet, F., History of Perfume, London, 1975, p. 121 Google Scholar.
67 Aphorisms or certain selected points of the doctrines of the Jesuits, with a treatise concerning their secret practices and close studies. All taken out of the writings, sayings and public acts of the Jesuits and other popish doctors. London (?), 1609, pp. 13–14. The place of printing has been cut out of the copy used here (BL, T.785 [2]) but the author closes on p. 14, ‘At Ausborough’—Augsburg ?—’21 of March 1608’.
68 Archivio Segreto del Vaticano, Nunziature diverse, vol. 264, ff.221r-232v, ‘Advertimientos embiados a Su S.d di n.ro S.r Clemente papa 8 en . . . julio y agosto 1598 para la paz que entonces se tratava con la Reina de Inglaterra’.
69 F. Duckett to R. Brother, 31.v. 1599, Calendar Salisbury mss, 9, pp. 186–7; from ms. vol.70/67.
70 Edwards, The Elizabethan Jesuits, pp. 279–281.
71 Forset, Edward, A Comparative Discourse of the Bodies Natural and Politique, London, 1606, p. 53 Google Scholar.
72 Bodleian Library, MS Tanner, 299, ff.llr-13v. The item given is taken from thirteen such, none of which amount to more than doggerel.
73 Quoted in Luna, B.N.de, Jonson’s Romish Plot, Oxford, 1967. p. 67 Google Scholar.
74 Thomson, E. (ed.) The Chamberlain Letters, London., 1966, p. 92 Google Scholar.
75 From a note in the flyleaf of the BL copy of A Letter written out of England . . . (9512.aa.l). This also refers to the Liturgical Services of Elizabeth, published by the Parker Society in 1847, pp. 473, 679.
76 Walpole to Garnet, 12.iv.1599. See above, n.9.