¹ For an outline of the Bye and Main conspiracies see Gardiner, S. R., History of England from the accession of James I to the outbreak of the Civil War 1603–1642 (10 vols., London, 1883–1884), I 108–40Google Scholar. I am grateful to the marquess of Salisbury for permission to draw upon sources at Hatfield House.

² See, for example, George Brooke's examination of 17 July (Public Record Office [P.R.O.] SP 14/2/59), Copley's answers of 1 August (SP 14/3/7i), Watson's confession of 10 August (SP 14/3/16, 17, clean copy with Coke's annotations and original), and the reference to [Nicholas?] Orme in the transcript of a lost statement by Watson on 12 August (Bodleian Library MS Carte 205, fo. 120V, compare the existing examination of 12 August, SP 14/3/23). See also George Brooke's casual accusation, retracted shortly before his death, of Sir George Carew and Sir Henry Brouncker (Hatfield House MS 102/55).

³ For Watson's career see Anstruther, G., The seminary priests (Ware and Durham, 1968), I 372–4.Google Scholar

⁴ For Markham's conduct at and shortly after the time of James's accession see P.R.O. SP 14/3/18; Tierney, M. A. (ed.), Dodd's church history of England…from the commencement of the sixteenth century to the revolution in 1688 (5 vols., London, 1839–1843), IV appendix I, xxi–xxii, xxv–xxviGoogle Scholar; Hatfield MSS 99/96; 102/153. Markham's importance to the conspiracy did not escape Cecil, see Tierney, ibid. p. xxxvii.

⁵ The distrust was, as Watson admitted, not without good grounds (P.R.O. SP 14/3/28). For the cases against Grey, Ralegh, and Cobham see Nicholls, M., ‘Two Winchester Trials: the prosecution of Henry, Lord Cobham, and Thomas, Lord Grey of Wilton, 1603’, Historical Research, LXVIII (1995), 26–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ They were tried, as was customary, before a special commission of oyer and terminer, the sessions having been removed from London because of plague. The account published in Howell, T. B. and others (eds.), A complete collection of state trials… (34 vols., London, 1809–1828), II, cols. 61–5Google Scholar, is taken from Bodleian MS Ashmole 830, fos. 51V–52. Gilbert Freville's account can be found in British Library [B.L.] Egerton MS 2877, fos. 175–6, others in West Yorkshire Archive Service MS 32D86/27, fos. 60–1, and Northamptonshire Record Office, Isham Correspondence IC 3481. The report enjoying the widest circulation prefaces an account of Ralegh's trial. More or less corrupt early versions are found in B.L. Stowe MS 396, fos. 67–70V; Inner Temple Petyt MS 536/8, fo. 254; Cambridge University Library [C.U.L.], Add. MS 335, fo. 50; Bodleian MS Willis 58, fos. 251–62V; Bedford Estates, Woburn MS 195, fos. 1–4. There is a brief account of the trial in B.L. Add. MS 34218, fo. 224, and a letter from Francis Aungier describing the arraignment appears in Kempe, A. J. (ed.), The Loseley manuscripts (London, 1836), pp. 374–7.Google Scholar

⁷ P.R.O. SP 14/3/29; Bodleian MS Carte 125, fos. 60–1. See also his correspondence with Markham around the time of James's accession (Hatfield MSS 99/96; 102/153). For Clark's earlier career see Anstruther, , Seminary priests, I, 77.Google Scholar

⁸ Hatfield MSS 101/57, 112; P.R.O. SP 14/2/51, 54; Tierney, , Dodo's church history, IV appendix I, iv, xiii–xivGoogle Scholar; Larkin, J. F. and Hughes, P. L. (eds.), Stuart royal proclamations (2 vols., Oxford, 1973–1983), I, 41–3Google Scholar. As early as 30 June, Clark had heard disquieting rumours that he was being sought for questioning, and wrote via Bancroft to assure the king of his loyalty, reminding James of his efforts to frustrate Jesuit plans prior to the accession (Hatfield MSS 100/143, 144; 101/7).

⁹ See, for example, C.U.L. Add. MS 335, fo. 50V. Watson and Markham also used this argument to justify their actions. The argument was, of course, flawed. ‘By the law of England,’ wrote Coke, some years later, ‘there is no interregnum, and coronation is but an ornament or solemnity of honour’ (The third part of the institutes of the laws of England (London, 1746), p. 6).Google Scholar

¹⁰ B.L. Egerton MS 2877, fos. 176V, 175V. See also Howell, State trials, II, col. 64.

¹¹ The messy execution of Watson and Clark in the market place at Winchester is described by Dudley Carleton (Bodleian MS Carte 80, fo. 626V) and by Robert Hobart (Bodleian MS Tanner 75, fo. 113; Brewer, J. S. (ed.), The court of King James the First, by Dr Godfrey Goodman (2 vols., London, 1839), II, pp. 87–8)Google Scholar. Both say that Clark suffered most, being cut down from the gallows when still alive. Hobart, without producing evidence, attributes this to the priest's apparent desire to ‘tell tales’, and also claims that these executions were ordered by the lord chief justice, Sir John Popham, acting through fear that both men might be pardoned. It seems, however, most unlikely that either man would have been spared.

¹² Howell, State trials, II, col. 64.

¹³ Venn, J. and Venn, J. A. (eds.), Alumni Cantabrigienses (Part I, 4 vols., Cambridge, 1922–1927), I, 225.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Hatfield MSS 29/56, 59; 177/136; 88/103; 101/99; 171/125. Brooke in fact enjoyed a generous provision out of his father's will. See David, McKeen, A memory of honour: The life of William Brooke, Lord Cobham (Salzburg, 1986) II, 440–5.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Hatfield MSS 91/62, 85.

¹⁶ P.R.O. SP 14/2/43i; B.L. Add. MS 414, fo. 59V; Hatfield MS 101/57, Bancroft to Cecil, 16 July 1603.

¹⁷ Jones, H. V. (ed.), ’The journal of Levinus Munck’, The English Historical Review, LXVIII (1953), 244Google Scholar. See also Hatfield MSS 101/85, 88. He received particularly lenient treatment while in the Tower, ostensibly because he was lame in one leg (P.R.O. SP 14/4/36ii; Hatfield MS 101/107).

¹⁸ P.R.O. SP 14/2/59. See also Hatfield MSS 101/57; 102/15, 41.

¹⁹ P.R.O. SP 14/2/64. Brooke alone (among Englishmen) is mentioned with Cobham and Ralegh in the indictment drawn against the Main plotters (Public Record Office deputy keeper's fifth report (London, 1844), appendix 2, pp. 135–6).Google Scholar

²⁰ Bodleian MS Carte 205, fos. 118V–124V.

²¹ Bodleian MS Carte 205, fo. 127V; P.R.O. SP 14/3/24, 34.

²² Howell, State trials, II, cols. 62, 64; Bodleian MS Carte 205, fo. 124.V, confession on 2 Aug. 1603; B.L. Egerton MS 2877, fo. 175; Bodleian MS Bodley 966, p. 254.

²³ Hatfield MSS 102/26, 41.

²⁴ Hatfield MSS 102/26, 41, 46, 48, 49; Bodleian MS Carte 80, fo. 626; Sawyer, E. (ed.), Memorials of affairs of state…collected (chiefly) from the original papers of Sir Ralph Winwood… (3 vols., London, 1725), II, 11Google Scholar. For Cobham's accusation see Bodleian MS Carte 80, fo. 622. Cobham had also obtained testimony during October from friends and servants that he had been on bad terms with his brother, but this appears simply to have been a deliberate move to discredit Brooke's testimony against him (P.R.O. SP 14/4/36xi).

²⁵ Bodleian MS Carte 80, fo. 622V.

²⁶ His mother was Mary Griffin, daughter of Rice Griffin of Braybrooke, Northamptonshire. She, unlike her husband, was a staunch catholic. Her children followed her example.

²⁷ Tighe, W. J., ‘A Nottinghamshire gentleman in court and country: the career of Thomas Markham of Ollerton (1530–1607)’, Transactions of the Thoroton Society, XC (1987), 39Google Scholar. The first arrests in 1603 quite deliberately included potential supporters among the ‘military’: nobably Copley, Grey, and Sir Arthur Gorges (P.R.O. SP 14/2/46, Thomas Edmondes to Cecil, 13 July 1603).

²⁸ Ungerer, G. (ed.), A Spaniard in Elizabethan England (2 vols., London, 1974–1976), II, 101Google Scholar; Hatfield MSS 37/69; 47/28, 38. In a letter of 1601 to Cecil he shows himself unhappy at the lack of preferment in Ireland (Hatfield MS 182/114). He had alienated many influential county neighbours, the earls of Rutland and Shrewsbury among them (Tighe, , ‘A Nottinghamshire gentleman’, pp. 39–41Google Scholar; Lambeth Palace MS 3200, fo. 178, a classic snub from the earl of Shrewsbury).

²⁹ P.R.O. E 407/56, fo. 89. See also Larkin, and Hughes, , Stuart royal proclamations, I, 41–3Google Scholar, the proclamation issued for his arrest on 16 July, which, after an omission in the proclamation for Copley had caused protests from the Cinque Ports, includes a physical description.

³⁰ See, for example, P.R.O. SP 14/2/43i, 51, 54, 59, 64.

³¹ P.R.O. SP 14/3/54 and Bodleian MS Carte 205, fos. 118V–125V. His first examination – by privy councillors, at least – was on 27 July (Jones, , ‘Journal of Levinus Munck’, p. 245Google Scholar, see also Hatfield MSS 101/100; 103/72).

³² P.R.O. SP 14/2/69, 88i; 14/3/31 (for which the Calendar's, suggested dating of 20 Aug. is obviously wrong, given internal references to the trials 19 Nov. is likely).

³³ P.R.O. SP 14/3/17, 18; Tierney, , Dodd's church history, IV, appendix I, xxi–xxvi, xxxvii, xli–xlvi.Google Scholar

³⁴ P.R.O. SP 14/2/69. On the scale of his debts see Hatfield MS 102/97; Lambeth MS 3205, fo. 83.

³⁵ Bodleian MS Carte 205, fo. 120.

³⁶ Hatfield MSS 101/114, 118. Thomas and Charles Markham were held prisoner for a time, although they were apparently released without charge the following year. See a letter from their mother to Shrewsbury, 12 Feb. 1604 (Lambeth MS 3205, fo. 84).

³⁷ They left the Tower on 10 or 11 Nov. (P.R.O. E 407/56, fo. 90; Stow, J., Annales, or, a generall chronicle of England (edited and continued by Howes, E., London, 1631), pp. 828–9).Google Scholar

³⁸ Howell, State trials, II, col. 64; Stow, , Annales, pp. 829–30Google Scholar; Kempe, , Loseley manuscripts, p. 375.Google Scholar

³⁹ B.L. Egerton MS 2877, fo. 175V; Bodleian MS Carte 205, fo. 123; P.R.O. SP 14/3/23. Cecil noted how the lay prisoners had accused one another at the bar, each being quick to name Watson as the first cause of their downfall (P.R.O. SP 84/64, fo. 78).

⁴⁰ B.L. Egerton MS 2877, fo. 175V; P.R.O. SP 14/3/29.

⁴¹ Gardiner, , History of England, I, 139Google Scholar. The story is told entertainingly by Carleton in another letter to Chamberlain dated 11 Dec. 1603 (Bodleian MS Carte 80, fos. 626–9; Howell, State trials, II, cols. 51–6). See also a published contemporary account, reprinted in State trials, II, cols. 65–70.

⁴² Bodleian MS Carte 80, fo. 626V.

⁴³ P.R.O. E 407/56, fo. 99. At first, the banishment of Markham, Copley and Brookesby seems to have been intended (Bodleian MS Carte 80, fos. 626–9; PRO. SP 14/6/21).

⁴⁴ P.R.O. SP 38/7, fo. 165, promised to him the previous July (Hatfield MSS 97/54; 101/99).

⁴⁵ Lunn, M., ‘Chaplains to the English Regiment in Spanish Flanders, 1605–06’, Recusant History, XI (1968), 138–48Google Scholar; Hicks, L., ‘The exile of William Gifford from Lille in 1606’, Recusant History, VII (1964), 235Google Scholar, fn. 35; P.R.O. SP 14/34/30, 14/43/93; Historical Manuscripts Commission, , Report on the manuscripts of the Marquis of Downshire (formerly) preserved at Easthampstead Park, Berks. (5 vols. in 6, London, 1924–1988), V and VI passim.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ P.R.O. SP 80/10, fos. 166–74.

⁴⁷ An alternative view is presented by Edwards, F. in Guy Fawkes: The real story of the Gunpowder plot? (London, 1969), pp. 56–60, 143, 183–6, 197Google Scholar. For Edwards, Markham is all along a government agent, working to misrepresent Watson's attempt ‘to gain access to the sovereign as an attempt on the king's life’. After receiving sentence, Markham constantly offers his services in any form to the king (Hatfield MSS 102/59, 60).

⁴⁸ Dictionary of national biography [D.N.B.], IV, pp. 1101–2Google Scholar; Corser, T., Collectanea anglo-poetica (5 vols., Chetham Society, 1860–1883), II, Part 2, 455–63Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Gardiner, , History of England, I, 113–14Google Scholar; Tierney, , Dodd's church history, IV appendix 1, xxxiii–xxxivGoogle Scholar; Usher, R. G., The reconstruction of the English church (2 vols., New York, 1910), I, 303–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Hatfield MS 100/139. Copley himself says that the plot was disclosed on 25 June (P.R.O. SP 14/3/7i). Larkin, and Hughes, , Stuart royal proclamations, I, 35–6.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Larkin and Hughes, Stuart royal proclamations, I, 36n. P.R.O. E 407/56, fo. 89. See also Hatfield MSS 101/9, 38, 44.

⁵² P.R.O. SP 14/3/7i; Tierney, , Dodd's church history, IV appendix I, xii.Google Scholar

⁵³ Hatfield MS 101/44.

⁵⁴ The commission consisted of Bancroft, the lieutenant of the Tower John Peyton, the recorder of London John Croke, William Waad (who acted as secretary to the group), and the solicitor-general Thomas Fleming.

⁵⁵ Particularly if Copley had been held in the Tower since 9 July. An undated early list of questions – possibly the first – is at Hatfield MS 102/159.

⁵⁶ See the letters of Bancroft and the other commissioners to Cecil written on that day (Hatfield MSS 101/37, 38).

⁵⁷ Hatfield MS 101/44. The declaration of 14 July (P.R.O. SP 14/2/51) was written by Copley, acknowledged before Bancroft, Waad, Peyton, Croke and Fleming on 14 July, then acknowledged before seven privy councillors – the earls of Shrewsbury and Mar, Lords Thomas and Henry Howard, Robert Cecil, Lords Mountjoy and Wotton – on the following day. Apart from SP 14/2/43i and, possibly, Hatfield MS 102/159, not one of the ‘many and sondry’ early examinations appears to survive.

⁵⁸ P.R.O. SP 14/2/51; Tierney, , Dodd's church history, IV appendix I, i–xviiGoogle Scholar. Watson considered himself, Brooke, Markham, and Clark, to have been the ‘cheife contrivers’ of the Bye (SP 14/3/28).

⁵⁹ P.R.O. SP 14/2/54, confirmed before the same seven councillors on 15 July. For the setting of these questions see Hatfield MS 101/44.

⁶⁰ P.R.O. SP 14/2/61. This was an opinion shared by Markham, who thought Copley's plan to present ‘a peticion about the catholickes’ backed by no more than fifty to one hundred men ‘the way to bring them all to the halter’ (P.R.O. SP 14/2/69). Copley also suggested that a Captain Orme might be watched, and sought some more favourable treatment, though still persuaded that a combination of Jesuit machinations and his own confessions guaranteed his own fate.

⁶¹ The privy councillors did not examine the prisoners between 18 and 27 July (Jones, , ‘Journal of Levinus Munck’, pp. 244–5)Google Scholar. There is some evidence to suggest that the lieutenant of the Tower and, perhaps, other secondary commissioners were briefed to continue interviewing the suspects (Hatfield MS 101/82, 92).

⁶² P.R.O. SP 14/2/95.

⁶³ P.R.O. SP 14/3/7i.

⁶⁴ On examination procedure see Bellamy, J., The Tudor law of treason (London, 1979), pp. 106–9.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ P.R.O. SP 14/3/64. Watson was confronted with this testimony two days later (SP 14/3/67).

⁶⁶ Bodleian MS Ashmole 830, fo. 51V. See also Kempe, , Loseley manuscripts, p. 375.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ B.L. Egerton MS 2877, fo. 175V.

⁶⁸ P.R.O. SP 14/4/89.

⁶⁹ Although the ‘Tower bill’ states that he was released on 31 Dec. 1603 (P.R.O. E 407/56, fo. 99), the lieutenant of the Tower claims for expenses with respect to Copley for ten and a half weeks from 25 Dec. Copley appears on a list of Tower prisoners drawn up in Feb. 1604 (Hatfield MS 101/87).

⁷⁰ P.R.O. SP 38/7, fo. 230, dated 18 Aug. 1604. William Okey, keeper of the Gatehouse prison, accounts for Copley's expenses for nine weeks of the year's third quarter (B.L. Add. MS 41257, fos. 29V–30). Copley is last seen in Rome in 1606 or 1607 (D.N.B., IV, 1102).

⁷¹ P.R.O. SP 14/3/70, petition of Brookesby, undated.

⁷² P.R.O. SP 14/3/70i. Copley provides Brookesby with a qualified clearance on 1 Aug.: ‘Mr Broosbey, whoe had hee bein for the second intimation, viz, the action, tis not likely hee would have bein out of towne at the intended time for it, but Mr Watson told mee directly that hee was but for the first [ie the petition]’ (SP 14/3/7i, see also B.L. Egerton MS 2877, fo. 175). Watson named Brookesby as a supporter in his confession of 10 Aug. (SP 14/3/17).

⁷³ Anstruther, , Seminary priests, I, 206–7.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ P.R.O. SP 14/3/17, Watson's declaration of 10 Aug. 1603; 14/3/54, extract from a declaration by Watson dated 3 Sep. 1603.

⁷⁵ P.R.O. SP 14/3/68, 69. With regard to the wearing of identifiable garments, see Watson's first declaration (SP 14/3/18; Tierney, , Dodd's church history, IV appendix I, xxix).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Acts of the Privy Council of England 1601–1604, pp. 179, 209, 253.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Bodleian MS Ashmole 830, fo. 51V.

⁷⁸ B.L. Egerton MS 2877, fo. 176.

⁷⁹ B.L. Harley MS 2194, fo. 66. On 6 Jan. 1604 he was moved to the Fleet as the first step towards release (P.R.O. E 407/56, fos. 90, 99).

⁸⁰ P.R.O. SP 14/6/93; 38/7, fo. 133.

⁸¹ P.R.O. SP 38/7, fos. 144, 145; C 66/1648, 4 June 1603. According to Carleton, the lands were secured only at a price (P.R.O. SP 14/6/21).

⁸² He is still alive in 1615, when he and his son Gregory become involved in a chancery suit also involving his other children (P.R.O. C2 James I/B1 /1), but this is the latest reference I have yet been able to find. I am grateful to Ray Pinfold for information on the Brookesbys.

⁸³ P.R.O. SP 14/3/17.

⁸⁴ P.R.O. SP 14/3/4Ii. Parham was also asked what he knew of Ralegh's involvement in conspiracy, and declared that he believed Sir Walter to be ‘a freinde to some Catholiques’.

⁸⁵ P.R.O. SP 14/3/41.

⁸⁶ PRO. SP 14/3/49.

⁸⁷ PRO. SP 14/3/50.

⁸⁸ Howell, State trials, II, col. 65; B.L. Egerton MS 2877, fo. 176.

⁸⁹ Bodleian MS Carte 80, fo. 623, Carleton to Chamberlain. According to Francis Aungier, Cecil's ‘honourable dealing… did cause a great and extraordinary applause in divers of the hearers, by clapping of handes’ (Kempe, , Loseley manuscripts, p. 376).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ H.M.C., Downshire, IV and V passim; P.R.O. SP 14/148/57; Lunn, , ‘English chaplains’, p. 155, fn. 143Google Scholar; Allison, A. F., ‘A group of political tracts 1621–23 DY Richard Verstegen’, Recusant History, XVIII (1986), 139Google Scholar; Anstruther, G., Vaux of Harrowden: a recusant family (Newport, 1953), pp. 431–6Google Scholar; Acts of the Privy Council of England 1630–1631, p. 325Google Scholar; P.R.O. SP 77/17, fo. 232.

⁹¹ The two junior Markham brothers are cases in point. To take two further examples, Sir Arthur Gorges, mentioned by Copley on 12 July (P.R.O. SP 14/2/43i) was arrested by 13 July (SP 14/2/46) but was exonerated – if not specifically from the Bye – by Lord Cobham on 20 July, and seems to have subsequently been released (Bodleian MS Carte 205, fo. 135). John Ashley's statement that, while Clark had told him of the plot to surprise the court, he had refused to participate in any such action, was apparently accepted (SP 14/4/35).

⁹² P.R.O. E 407/56, fo. 90. Kendall had been identified as a conspirator by Copley and arrested by 13 July (Hatfield MSS 101/34–5, 44). He was named among the principal plotters by both Copley (SP 14/2/51, 95; 3/7i) and by Watson in a marginal note to his confession of 10 August (SP 14/3/17). In the absence of evidence to hand, it remains possible that he was tried in a lower court. His own testimony rather suggests that he did not betray his colleagues, as Copley thought (Hatfield 101/34–5).

⁹³ Hatfield MS 101/96.

⁹⁴ P.R.O. SP 14/2/84; Hatfield MS 101/104.

⁹⁵ P.R.O. SP 14/3/7i. For the distinction between the first and second strategies see P.R.O. SP 14/2/51.

⁹⁶ P.R.O. SP 14/3/7.

⁹⁷ Hatfield MS Petitions 603.

⁹⁸ P.R.O. SP 14/3/17; Tierney, , Dodd's church history, IV appendix I, xliiGoogle Scholar. Scudamore conformed after his father's death in 1606, and himself died in 1616 (Tighe, W. J., ‘Courtiers and politics in Elizabethan Herefordshire: Sir James Croft, his friends and his foes’, H.J. XXXII (1989), 262n.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Inner Temple, Petyt MS 538/36, fo. 280V.

¹⁰⁰ Kendall was prepared to argue that very point in his defence, after his initial examination on 13 July (Hatfield MS 101/34–5).

¹⁰¹ Bellamy, , Tudor law of treason, pp. 81–2.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Bellamy, , Tudor law of treason, pp. 80, 169.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See, for example, Trevor-Roper, H., Historical essays (London, 1957), p. 109Google Scholar, and Bossy, J., ‘The English catholic community 1603–1625’, in The reign of James VI and I, ed. Smith, A. G. R. (London, 1973), p. 95Google Scholar. For the argument that Elizabethan treason was in some sense characteristic of a paranoid age see Smith, Lacey Baldwin, Treason in Tudor England: politics and paranoia (London, 1986). pp. 33–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar