The Watchers (52 page)

William Parry's letter to Lord Burghley, 23 May 1577, is BL Lansdowne MS 25 ff. 125r–126r. On Parry's life and career see Hicks (1948). Parry's letter to Burghley, 7 Apr 1580, is BL Lansdowne MS 31 ff. 2r–v, 3v, and his letter to Lord Burghley from Paris, 1 May 1580, is BL Lansdowne MS 31 ff. 6r–7v. Sledd's activities in London, 16–26 May 1580, are from BL Additional MS 48029 f. 141v, Talbot (1961), 244–5. For Parry's intelligence of June 1580 see his letters to Burghley of 4 June 1580 (SP15/27B/17), 15 June 1580 (BL Additional MS 34079 f. 15r) and 30 June 1580 (CP 161/150). For two reports on the fate of Sir James Fitzmaurice's soldiers see the report to Sir Francis Walsingham, [11] Nov 1580, SP 63/78/27, and Lord Grey's letter to the queen, 12 Nov 1580, SP 63/78/29. Sir Henry Radcliffe's report of activities on the coast of Spain, 10 July 1580, is SP 12/140/10. The key letter from Nicholas Sander to William Allen was that of 6 Nov 1577, of which there are two official copies, SP 12/118/13, and (in the papers of Robert Beale) BL Additional MS 48029 f. 50r. For the context of the letter see Pollen (1891), Veech (1935), ch. 5, and
ODNB
. Lord Burghley's draft proclamation suppressing rumours of invasion, 15 July 1580, is SP 12/140/18, Hughes and Larkin (1964–9), 2:469–71. On the mission to England of Edmund Campion and Robert Persons see Simpson (1896), Pollen (1906), Hicks (1942), McCoog (1996), ch. 4, and McCoog (2007).

The Marshalsea prison is described in Harrison (2000), 118. On John Hart see Anstruther (1969), 153–5, and Harrison (2000), 193–4. On the movements of Campion and Persons and the objectives of their mission see Pollen (1906), Pollen (1920), ch. 9, Hicks (1942), Meyer (1967), ch. 2, Clanchy (1988), Carrafiello (1994), McCoog (1996), McCoog (2001) and Bossy
(2007). Campion's letter to the Privy Council is printed in Miola (2007), 64–6, Charke (1580) and Hanmer (1581). On Stephen Brinkley's secret printing press see Pollen (1906), 182, Hicks (1942), Southern (1950), 355, and Bennett (1965), 114–21. The dates of imprisonment in the Tower for Thomas Cottam, Robert Johnson, Luke Kirby, Henry Orton and Ralph Sherwin can be found in the Tower bills printed by Harrison (2000), 87–100. On the Tower of London in Elizabeth's reign see Stow (1908), 1:59, and Keay (2001), 57, 59. For the Tower inscriptions see Harrison (2004), 475–500. The answers of Ralph Sherwin to the interrogatories put to him on 12 Nov 1580 are printed in Barker (1582), sig. C1v. On Sherwin see Anstruther (1969), 311–13. John Hart's statement of 31 Dec 1580 is SP 12/144/64. For the faculties granted to Persons and Campion by the Pope see Meyer (1967), 138–43, 486–8. Hart's statement of 31 Dec 1580 was used by Lord Burghley in his defence of the government's prosecution of the priests as traitors,
The execution of Justice
(1583–4): see Kingdon (1965), 17–19. For a description of the rack and other forms of torture and punishment used in the Tower of London see Harrison (2000), 123–30. For an Elizabethan account of the Spanish inquisition see González de Montes (1569), sigs. G2r–G3r, and Kamen (1997). On Thomas Norton and torture see [Allen] (1582), sigs. b2r–b4v, c4v–c5v; Thomas Norton to Sir Francis Walsingham, 27 Mar 1582, SP12/152/72; Kingdon (1965), 44–50 (
STC
4901); and Graves (1994), ch. 8. William Allen's account of the exchange between John Hart and Thomas Norton is from [Allen] (1582), sig. b4v. To Elizabeth's government torture was necessary in the defence of the realm. In English law torture played no part in the prosecution of crimes, as it did in many countries in Europe that used the code of Roman law. The burden of proof in a Roman law trial was very high, demanding for a conviction either the sworn evidence of two eyewitnesses or the confession of the defendant. This confession could be extracted by torture carried out according to precise and formal rules. English common law demanded nothing like this quality of evidence, and so torture was unnecessary. The torture of prisoners in the Tower of London constituted acts of state protected by the royal prerogative, those powers of a monarch blessed and ordained by God but not limited by law. If torture was thought to be necessary the instruction came from the Crown, mediated through Elizabeth's Privy Council. Elizabeth did not have a prerogative power to torture her subjects as such, but the royal prerogative did allow the queen and her Council to bypass the ordinary processes of the law. The object of threatening a prisoner with torture, or of putting him on the rack and breaking his body if he refused to talk, was simply to discover information. There was no need to force a confession from the prisoner or to make him acknowledge his wrongdoing. This was exploratory torture; the guilt of the
man strapped to the rack was already assumed. The official position was that only the guilty were tortured, as Thomas Norton made clear, the innocent left unmolested. Equally, there were no rules, merely methods and conventions which grew up over time, like how a warrant for torture was phrased, who carried it to the lieutenant of the Tower and who should attend the racking chamber. See [Norton] (1583), Jardine (1837), Langbein (1977), esp. 129–30, Heath (1982), chs. 4–6, and Hansen (1991). The most powerful Catholic statement of persecution is [Allen] (1582). The allegations made against William Pittes, probably of late Feb 1581, are SP 12/147/74. On Elizabethan Catholics who were in prison for recusancy see McGrath and Rowe (1991). The quotation by Charke is from Charke (1580), sigs. A2v–A3r, and that of Hanmer is Hanmer (1581), sigs. F1v–F2r. The royal proclamation of 10 Jan 1581 is in Hughes and Larkin (1964–9), 2:481–4, quotation at 481–2 (
STC
8127). The Act to Retain the Queen's Majesty's Subjects in Due Obedience (23 Elizabeth I, c. 1), which made it treason to reconcile Elizabeth's subjects to the Catholic Church, is printed in
Statutes
, 4:657–8. Campion's letter of 1580 to the general of the Society of Jesus, Everard Mercurian, is from [Allen] (1582), sigs. e5r–e7r (quotation at sig. e6r), printed in Miola (2007), 131–5 (quotation at 133). On Campion's
Ten Reasons
(
Rationes decem, STC
4536.5) see Campion (1632), Campion (1914), Simpson (1896), 299–306, and Southern (1950), 356–8. For official answers to
Rationes decem
see Milward (1978), 57–8. Robert Persons's letter to the rector of the English College in Rome, Alphonsus Agazzari, 16 June 1581, is printed in Hicks (1942), 68–9, Edwards (1995), 50. Maliverey Catilyn's report to Walsingham, 1581, is SP 12/151/5. Stokes Bay is in the Solent near Gosport, between Lee Point and Gilkicker Point. On John Adams and the other priest brought into England, John Chapman, see Anstruther (1969), 1–2, 72–3, who notes that Cox the merchant had a sister in Gloucestershire who stored Campion's books and burned all the heretical ones. For a study of Catholic families who sheltered Catholic priests see McGrath and Rowe (1988–9). Campion's movements in July 1581 are from Simpson (1896), 311–13. The journey of David Jenkins and George Eliot to Lyford is from [Munday] (1582b), sig. B4v. On John Payne see Harrison (2000), 208–9. For George Eliot's submission to the Earl of Leicester see BL Lansdowne MS 33 ff. 145r–149r. On 5 Mar 1581 William Herle wrote to Edmund Cornwall ‘that there is about Jesuits and papists at London seven books sowed of late' (SP 12/148/13, quotation at f. 54v). The story of Campion's capture at Lyford Grange was vigorously contested in 1581 and 1582. The first account was by Anthony Munday, writing simply and anonymously as A.M., in July 1581, which was followed a few months later (probably between Aug and Nov 1581) by George Eliot's narrative: [Munday] (1581b) and Eliot (1581). Most but not
all of Eliot's first narrative is printed in Harrison (2000), 101–10. The account later given by Eliot and Munday together, when both men had been attacked in print by Catholic writers, is [Munday] (1582b), which seems to have been written in Mar or Apr 1582. See also Hamilton (2005), ch. 2. There are modern accounts of Campion's arrest in Simpson (1896), 307–23, and Reynolds (1980), 118–20. On the plan of Jenkins and Eliot to go to Lyford Grange see Eliot (1581), sigs. B1r–B2v. Eliot's account of Campion's sermon is from Eliot (1581), sig. B2v–B3v. The moment of Campion's discovery by Jenkins is Eliot (1581), sigs. C1r–C2r. On priest-holes generally see Fea (1901). Hodgetts (1989), 13, discusses the priest-hole at Lyford Grange. For Robert Persons's account of Campion's entry into London see Hicks (1942), 91–3. Richard Jones's licence for a pamphlet on the capture of Campion can be found in Arber (1875–94), 2:397. The reference to William Wright's shop is from [Munday] (1581c). The description of Campion's story as a ‘marvellous tragedy' is from [Allen] (1582), sig. e1r. Eliot's account of what Campion said to him between Lyford Grange and the Tower is from Eliot (1581), sig. D1r. Eliot hinted at the danger to his life in Eliot (1581), sig. D1r–v. Allen's account of Campion's words to Eliot is [Allen] (1582), sig. d5v.

The best accounts of the prisoners in the Tower in 1581 are Harrison (2000) and Harrison (2004). John Collerton's inscription in the Beauchamp Tower is from Harrison (2004), 480. For William Filby's dream see Eliot (1581), sig. C3r, and [Allen] (1582), sig. d5v. The only trustworthy account of Edmund Campion's examination at York House on 26 July 1581 is Colthorpe (1985). The Privy Council's instructions to Sir Owen Hopton, Doctor John Hammond, Robert Beale and Thomas Norton on how to go about questioning Campion, 30 July 1581, can be found in
APC, 1581–2
, 144–5. The texts on loyalty to Elizabeth came from Sander (1571) and Bristow (1574), the latter known popularly as ‘Bristow's Motives'. On both these books see Holmes (1982) and Veech (1935). The account of Campion's examination is in Barker (1582), sig. B4r–v. A hostile critique of the Jesuits' and seminary priests' technique of answering questions about their loyalty to the queen is [Munday] (1582a), sig. E4r–v. On Campion's examination of 1 Aug 1581 see Barker (1582), sigs. B1r–B4v, and Simpson (1896). See also Sander (1571) and Bristow (1574). Campion's admissions under interrogation are set out by Simpson (1896), 342–3. A summary paper of Campion's confessions on the Catholic families who had sheltered him, annotated by Lord Burghley, is BL Lansdowne MS 30 ff. 201r–202r. See also Harrison (2000), 45. The four
associates of Stephen Brinkley arrested with him and sent to the Tower were John Harris, John Hervey, John Tucker and John Compton, along with John Stonor and William Hartley: Southern (1950), 355–6, and Harrison (2004), 236–7. The Privy Council's letter to Sir Owen Hopton, Doctor John Hammond, Robert Beale and Thomas Norton, 14 Aug 1581, is
APC, 1581–2
, 171–2. See Harrison (2000), 45, for the claim by John Hart that Campion was tortured on 31 Aug 1581. The official account of the first disputation between Campion and his opponents is Nowell, Day and Field (1583), sigs. C1r–F2v. On the disputations in Sep 1581 see Nowell, Day and Field (1583), Miola (2007), 67–71, and Thomas Norton to Lord Burghley, 30 Sep 1581, BL Lansdowne MS 33 f. 150r. The best modern account of the disputations is Holleran (1999), to be read in the light of McCoog (2000). The Privy Council's letter to the commissioners in the Tower of London instructing them to torture and question Campion and other prisoners, 29 Oct 1581, as well as the record of the appearances before the Council of recusant families who had sheltered Campion, are in
APC, 1581–2
, 249. John Hart's reference to Campion's torture on 31 Oct 1581 is in Harrison (2000), 47. The account of the Star Chamber proceedings against William, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, Sir Thomas Tresham and the other habourers of Campion, 15 Nov 1581, is from Petti (1968), 5–9, quotations at 6. On Campion, Vaux and Tresham see BL Lansdowne MS 30 ff. 201r–202r. See also Hodgetts (1989), ch. 1. The priests tried with Campion were James Bosgrave, Thomas Cottam, Luke Kirby, Edward Rishton and Ralph Sherwin and the layman Henry Orton. For the indictments of Campion and other prisoners in the Tower of London see BL Lansdowne MS 33 f. 156r, [Munday] (1582a), sigs. B1r–B2r,
State Trials
, 1:1049, Simpson (1896), 393–4, and Holleran (1999), 208. William Allen's description of Campion's trial as ‘The most pitiful practice' is [Allen] (1582), sig. a6v. Printed accounts of Campion's trial can be found in [Munday] (1582a), [Allen] (1582), sigs. a4v–b2r,
State Trials
, 1:1049–72, and Simpson (1896). Campion's words ‘come rack, come rope', which are not recorded by Anthony Munday or William Allen, are from the account of the trial in
State Trials
, 1:1062. The claim that Thomas Norton read Sledd's dossier during the trial of Campion and the other priests is by William Allen: ‘One notable trick Norton and he [Sir Owen Hopton] played together at this arraignment, [was] when Norton read the book at the bar which was pretended to be Sledd's, and Sledd sworn to the evidence.' [Allen] (1582), sigs. b1r–b2v. Anthony Munday described Sledd's ‘Discourse' very accurately but he did not say whether it was read out in court: ‘Charles Sledd, who sometime served Master Doctor Morton in Rome, in whose house there was many matters determined, both by Doctor Allen when he came to Rome, and divers other doctors living there in the city, as also divers of the seminary: he likewise
understood of the provision for the great day, that it was generally spoken of among the Englishmen, and to be more certain, he kept a journal or book of their daily dealings, noting the day, time, place, and persons, present at their secret conferences, and very much matter hath he justified against them', [Munday] (1582a), sig. E3r. Sledd's ‘Discourse' (BL Additional MS 48029) was altered in a number of ways. The name of the gentleman ‘appertaining to Sir Francis Walsingham' (f. 126r) has been heavily inked out. The same is true of a name or names in the entry on Robert Persons (f. 128r). The three additions are the name of Edmund Campion (f. 128r) and the word ‘paymaster' written twice next to each of the names of John Pascall and Robert Terrill. All additions to the dossier appear to be in the same handwriting. Talbot (1961), 203, 209 missed all of these alterations except for the adding of Campion's name. On the characters of George Eliot, Anthony Munday and Charles Sledd see [Allen] (1582), sigs. a4v–b2v, and [Alfield] (1582), sigs. D1v, D4v–E1v, E3v. The reference to George Eliot as ‘Eliot Iscariot' is from SP 12/150/67, a letter written by an unidentified Jesuit and intercepted by Elizabeth's government. A supposedly eyewitness account of the executions of Alexander Briant, Edmund Campion and Ralph Sherwin is [Alfield] (1582), but see also [Allen] (1582). Anthony Munday offered his own narrative of the executions: [Munday] (1582b), sigs. C6r–D3r. Munday's verse is from [Munday] (1582b), sig. D8r. Alfield's verse is from [Alfield] (1582), sig. E2r. William Allen's account of Munday's presence at Tyburn on 1 Dec 1581 is [Allen] (1582), sigs. C1v–C2r. John Hart's letter to Walsingham, 1 Dec 1581, is SP 12/150/80. The case of Oliver Pluckytt is set out in Sir William Fleetwood's letter to Lord Burghley, 13 Jan 1582, BL Lansdowne MS 33 f. 153r–v. The true identity of Robert Wood (or Robert Woodward, or Robert Barnard, or simply Barnard) is very hard to be sure of. Charles Sledd wrote in his dossier of ‘Robert Wood, servant to Nicholas Wendon, he is minded for to come for England shortly as himself said to me' (BL Additional MS 48029 f. 124r). In SP 12/151/23, which is a report probably from 1581, probably this same man signed himself Robert Bernard. BL Additional MS 48023 (ff. 110v–111r) is a copy of one of the reports, with a precise facsimile of Barnard's monogram. The copyist has written ‘Robert Woodward' next to the monogram. Of course the copyist may have been wrong, and yet (a) the name Robert Woodward is close to Robert Wood of Charles Sledd's intelligence; (b) Sledd's Robert Wood was, like the author of the reports in question, once a servant to Nicholas Wendon; and (c) in May 1582 (SP 12/153/41) the author of the report called Sledd ‘his very loving friend' (this last point is the weakest). The letter of Barnard to Walsingham of late Nov 1581, SP 12/155/96, concerns Doctor Henshaw, Jasper Heywood and William Holt. Heywood and Holt, both of whom were Jesuits, arrived at Newcastle upon Tyne in June 1581, from
where they travelled to London and on to meet Robert Persons at Harrow. After this meeting the two Jesuits separated but met again in Staffordshire, as Barnard reported to Walsingham. See McCoog (1996), 160–62. The report by Barnard to Walsingham on 5 Jan 1582 is SP 12/147/2. Barnard's career is discussed (though with a few errors of detail) by Read (1925), 2:322–5, 335, 337. The proclamation declaring Jesuit and non-returning seminary priests traitors (
STC
8135), 1 Apr 1582, is printed in Hughes and Larkin (1964–9), 2:488–91. Thomas Norton's letter to Walsingham about torture, 27 Mar 1582, is SP 12/152/72. His pamphlet on the torture commissions, [Norton] (1583), is printed in Kingdon (1965), 44–50. The information on books is from Richard Topclyffe's record of the interrogations of William Dean and Edward Osberne, SP 12/152/54. Barnard's report of 19 Apr 1582 is SP 12/153/14, that to Walsingham of 5 May 1582, SP 12/153/38. Barnard's letter to Charles Sledd, 10 May 1582, is SP 12/153/41. Barnard's report to Walsingham, 29 May 1582, is SP 12/153/68.