After Elizabeth Page 24

  De Rosni identified three factions. The first was a pro-Spanish faction headed by the House of Howard. The second he described as the “old English.” It was neither pro-French nor pro-Spanish but was “desirous of restoring the ancient kingdom of Burgundy . . . and sought to render Flanders independent of both.”39 All those he named as belonging to this faction had been involved in peace negotiations with Aremberg in the 1590s. They included Lord Buckhurst, Sir John Fortescue and Cecil—“at least as far as one could judge from a man who was all mystery.” Buckhurst and Fortescue may well have supported the Archdukes’ dream of an independent Burgundy allied to England; both were crypto-Catholics and Scaramelli also considered Buckhurst anti-French. As for Cecil, his goal remained peace with Spain, and Catherine Howard was pushing for a Spanish pension for him, as well as for herself and her husband (it would be granted the following year and Cecil would continue to receive it until his death in 1612). He must have considered an independent Burgundy an attractive idea, but little more.

  De Rosni’s “third faction” was described as a group of “seditious persons, of a character purely English, and ready to undertake anything in favour of novelty, were it even against the King himself.” These, he continued, “had at their heads the Earls of Northumberland, Southampton, and Cumberland, Lord Cobham, Ralegh, Griffin and others.”40 It is an interesting collection of names. The three earls had all been shown James’s favor, while the others were among the greatest losers in his accession. But de Rosni’s assessment was astute: names from both groups appeared in the verbal message given to Fawkes in Brussels and all, with one exception, would be arrested for plots against the state over the next thirty months (the exception being the Earl of Cumberland, who died in 1605).

  De Rosni was very impressed by Northumberland: “no one amongst the English Lords has more understanding, capacity, courage, or possesses more authority than this nobleman.” But Northumberland had told de Rosni quite openly that “he had no great share of fidelity or esteem for James,” disliking both James’s treatment of Catholics and his peace policy towards Spain.41 The third earl named by de Rosni, Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, was a friend of the Earl of Essex, whom James had ordered to be released from the Tower in March. Southampton, still only thirty, was one of the most handsome and accomplished members of Elizabeth’s court. A patron of poets, most notably William Shakespeare, he was already the recipient of the captaincy of the Isle of Wight and James would restore his earldom in July, stripped from him after the Essex revolt. Southampton should have been delighted with James becoming king, but like Northumberland and Cumberland, he resented the power and influence of the Scots, of Cecil and the Howards; he supported the principle of religious toleration and was anti-Spanish. Southampton would be arrested the following year after being “rumoured by his enemies to be plotting to slay several Scots much about the King’s person.” 42 His first intended victim was said to be Sir George Home, James’s principal Scots favorite: nothing was proved, but the fact that the rumors were believed is suggestive of his feelings, and in the years ahead the old Essex faction—James’s most loyal supporters until the Earl’s death—would become a source of opposition to James’s government.

  The three other men named by de Rosni—Cobham, Ralegh and Sir Griffin Markham—were in a very different situation from that of the favored earls. They had been deprived of position and office. Cecil had no need to manufacture a plot with which to ruin them; he knew from experience that it was enough to set the conditions for one. Humiliations were therefore being piled upon them and all were plotting against James. The Catholic Sir Griffin Markham was involved in an entirely English plot with the priest William Watson, while Lord Cobham and Sir Walter Ralegh were looking to Spain for support.

  Ralegh had fought and lost a desperate legal battle to keep Durham House and at the end of May a royal command ordered him to “deliver quiet possession” of the palace to Tobie Matthew. The Bishop demanded that Ralegh leave promptly and another royal command followed, ordering him out of the house before 24 June. Ralegh was further instructed not to remove “any ceiling, glass, iron etc.,” and was informed that the stables and garden were to be vacated “instantly.” Matthew had agreed to hand them over to Robert Cecil, who was looking forward to extending his new house at the earliest opportunity.

  Predictably enough, Ralegh was incandescent. He had spent almost £20,000 restoring Durham House over twenty years and many of the fixtures were his. In a furious letter to the authorities on 9 June, he complained that his treatment was “contrary to honour, to custom and to civility . . . I am of the opinion that if the King’s Majesty had recovered this house or the like from the meanest gentleman and servant he had in England that his Majesty would have given six months time . . . to cast out my hay and oats into the streets at an hour’s warning and to remove my family and stuff in fourteen days after is such a severe expulsion as hath not been offered to any man before.”43

  On the same day Lord Cobham was with his brother George Brooke. The younger sibling’s hopes that James would grant him the mastership of the St. Cross hospital in Winchester had been dashed when James had allowed his Scots agent, James Hudson, to sell it to Dr. Lake—the brother of the court official Thomas Lake, who had dealt with Ralegh at Burghley. As Brooke and Cobham discussed their disappointments Cobham revealed that he and Ralegh believed James could be overthrown in favor of Arbella Stuart. The Spanish and the French had been working toward nominating an English-born candidate before Elizabeth’s death and had considered Arbella’s name. It was furthermore apparent that she was discontented with her lot. The bright and optimistic seventeen-year-old seen at court in 1592 had soured into what Scaramelli described as “a regular termagant.” Although she was pleased to be away from Hardwick, she found she had to plead with James for financial support and he proved humiliatingly slow to give it.

  Cobham was already in contact with one of Arbella’s servants and he intended to raise money from the Archdukes or Philip III to help finance a revolt in her name. The Privy Council had refused him a passport to travel abroad on 23 May but he hoped to enter into discussions with Aremberg in London instead. Brooke told Cobham that he too was discussing the genesis of a plot with his fellow soldier Sir Griffin Markham. In private, Sir Griffin’s habitual loyalty was still making him reluctant to turn traitor, but there seemed to be no other way out. As Brooke and Cobham gossiped he was being given official notice that the Earl of Rutland had been granted the post of Keeper of the Parks of Beskwood and Clipston. The following day he went to see Sir John Harington in prison. He assured his cousin that Cecil intended to help him, and Harington immediately wrote to thank the Secretary. But the help was never offered and would never come. It seems Sir Griffin had convinced himself that one way or another he would soon be able to clear his debts and free Harington, but he could not tell his cousin what his plans were and so invented Cecil’s goodwill to give Harington heart.

  On 11 June Sir Griffin left London for York. Anna had just arrived in the city and women from all over the north were pouring into it hoping to give her supplications for toleration of religion. Sir Griffin hoped that, as a fellow Catholic, she might also see him. It was one last desperate attempt to pull back from the brink.44

  Unlike James, Anna was completely at ease in York and spent the next few days waving to the crowds and accepting the usual gifts of goblets and gold for herself and her children. On one occasion, after a tour in the blazing sun, she spotted the wife of the mayor and her lady friends sipping from a wine cup and asked if she could join them, adding that if possible she would prefer to drink beer. Lord Burghley, who as President of the North, was at Anna’s side, was captivated by his new queen and unconcerned about the approaches of Catholics, assuring Cecil, “She is wise enough how to answer them.” Her refusal to see Sir Griffin Markham when he arrived on the fourteenth suggests that she was indeed prepared to take Burghley’s advice, on this occasion at least.45 Sir Griffin accepted
his failure and left for Beskwood immediately. That night he invited his brothers Charles and Thomas to supper and a family meeting.

  Beskwood Park was surrounded by hills where watch could be kept for any unwanted visitors; there were no entrances to it save by gates, and the house itself was hidden from view until you were virtually upon it. Sir Griffin nevertheless avoided any sensitive subjects until after they had eaten, when he took his brothers for a walk. The three men were as close as brothers could be. Charles and Thomas Markham had fought under Sir Griffin in Ireland, making them brothers in arms as well as siblings. They even looked alike: tall and muscular with swarthy complexions and large noses, Sir Griffin distinguishable by a wispy beard, a broader face and his crippled arm and hand. The brothers made small talk until Sir Griffin turned to ask Charles how happy he was with the state of the world. Charles replied that he was content if Sir Griffin was in good grace with the King. Sir Griffin told him that he was in despair about that—the parks were gone and he had been unable to speak to the King despite his best efforts. “But,” he said, “let that pass, when will you go into London?” His shocked brothers, absorbing the possibility of family ruin, replied that they weren’t sure. He persisted: was it possible they could be there on Thursday? Again they told him they didn’t know. “Well,” he said, “suppose I should have engaged myself so far into an action, that I neither could nor would withdraw, being for so good a purpose as the advancement of the Catholic faith, and peradventure the raising of our house, seeing my disability for action [would] you two . . . go with me or no?” Charles answered that as he had been commanded by him in war and other ways, so he would be commanded by him in this. “By God,” he replied, “if I may have you two . . . I shall think myself safe.” His brothers assured him they would not leave him.46

  Sir Griffin explained to his loyal brothers that before he could describe his plan of action they had to take an oath. The two men duly swore to do all they could for the raising of the Catholic faith, to secure the King’s person and to keep the action secret unless commanded otherwise by one of the leaders. They then discovered that chief among these leaders were the secular Appellant priests Watson and Clark—the latter being the priest who had warned Sir Griffin in April that the Jesuit John Gerard was planning to depose the King. The brothers were told that the plan was to recruit a large body of Catholics who would take the court by surprise on Midsummer Night, capture the King and take him to the Tower; the plot would be later sometimes referred to as “the Surprise.” Once at the Tower the plotters would demand a royal pardon, religious toleration for Catholics and the removal of Privy Councilors associated with their repression. The inspiration for the plot was the Scots habit of kidnapping their King and there was no intention to harm James or even to overthrow him.

  Sir Griffin suggested to his brothers that they should expect between 500 and 1,000 supporters and assured them that they had the support of a nobleman. George Brooke had recruited the Puritan Lord Grey of Wilton, the courtier who had demanded James’s power be limited before he was offered the throne. Grey had subsequently found himself shut out of favor and abandoned by his former ally Cecil, and he had agreed to lead a hundred soldiers to court under cover of presenting the King with a petition. The promise gave the Markhams heart, but it had appalled the priest Watson. Such a prominent figure could take charge of events after the plot had succeeded and he believed that Grey was as much an enemy to Catholics as he was to the King. His real role, Watson hoped, would be to take the blame for the plot, with Catholics presenting themselves as James’s “saviour” against Puritan treachery. He and Clark were now touring the country trying to gather support.

  Watson promised potential recruits that once their action was effected 40,000 Catholics would rise in support. It was a figure often bandied around. Sir Edward Baynham, the wild young gentleman arrested on the eve of Elizabeth’s death, had quoted the same Catholic numbers and so had the factious priest Thomas Hill—but only a handful of hotheads and extremists proved prepared to sign Watson’s oath, among them the two future gunpowder plotters (and former Essex rebels) Francis Tresham and his neighbor Robert Catesby.47 The English had learned the habit of obedience under the Tudors and were instinctively opposed to rebellion. Clark tried to convince his Catholic friends that as there was no legitimate government until James was crowned, a revolt could not be considered treason, but the Jesuits had countered that Catholics should lie low and keep out of trouble and this is exactly what they did.

  In desperation Watson spun lies to gain recruits. Anthony Copley, the gentleman poet who had accused Robert Persons of incest, drunkenness and heresy, was told that they would be presenting James with a petition on 20 June and no more. Sir Edward Parham was assured that he was needed to save James from Grey’s Puritan plot: “Will you not be ready to draw your sword against Lord Grey, and, if the King’s servants be overmastered, help to carry the King to the Tower, for his relief from Lord Grey’s control, and for the advancement of the Catholic religion?” Watson asked him. 48 Parham asked for proof of Grey’s intentions. He never got it and never signed Watson’s oath.

  Cobham and Brooke, meanwhile, continued to discuss their plans. Cobham thought Watson’s plot to kidnap the King was insufficiently ambitious and boasted to his brother that “Mr Brooke and the rest were upon the bye, but he and Sir Walter Ralegh were upon the main, which was to destroy the king and all his cubs.”49 The words eventually gave the plots their better-known names, the Bye, or secondary, plot and the Main, or principal, one. Cobham’s Main plot, with its threat to murder the entire royal family, had not, however, gotten very far. Aremberg learned that Cobham was out of favor and refused to see him unless it was agreed with Cecil first. He and Ralegh had no better luck with de Rosni, who gave neutral responses to their queries as to what Henri IV’s attitude might be to James’s removal.

  Watson and Clark’s work had one result: by the third week in June rumors were spreading fast among the Catholic gentry that there was to be some sort of action against James. The Jesuits used go-betweens to warn the government and pointed to James’s insistence on collecting recusancy fines as a possible recruiting ground. James was persuaded that he had to tread more carefully and in a private meeting with de Rosni on 17 June he indicated that he intended to hold to his original promise to remit recusancy fines. Two days later de Rosni and de Beaumont attended a religious service at Greenwich and afterward shared the King’s table. It was impressively dressed with a heavily jeweled centerpiece displaying valuable goblets and James was served by kneeling courtiers.

  The men discussed the blazing hot weather, hunting and James’s predecessor. De Rosni’s insistence on wearing mourning for Elizabeth still rankled with James and to the Frenchman’s great distaste James talked of her with contempt: “he even boasted of the dexterity which he had employed to manage her by means of her own councillors, all of whom, he said, he had gained over during her life, so that they did nothing but what was agreeable to him.”50 James was drinking his wine undiluted and began making extravagant toasts to Henri IV’s health. At one point he leaned over to de Rosni and whispered promises of a marriage between the royal houses. James may have been a little drunk, but he was not being foolish. It was unwise to fall out with France before any peace with Spain was signed. James merrily indicated interest in a defensive treaty. De Rosni seized the opportunity and the meeting ended positively.

  The following day, 20 June, James’s birthday, was the day planned for the Bye plot. The poet Anthony Copley had arrived in London as Watson had asked him to a week earlier, only to be told that the date of the plot had been moved to the night of the twenty-fourth. Watson added that the plan was not, in fact, to deliver a petition, as he had previously said, but to capture the King. Copley did his best to disguise his shock and appeared enthusiastic. The action he took next suggests that, unlike Watson, he was aware of the meeting on 13 May at which the secular priesthood and the Archpriest had agreed to work peacefully toget
her for toleration. He sought the advice of his sister, Elizabeth Gage, who was close to the Jesuit John Gerard. He also went to see the Archpriest Blackwell. Both promptly informed the government of the few details they were given. They were understandably deeply suspicious of Copley, who like Watson had been a government stooge for years.

  Messages were sent around the country warning Catholics that Cecil was behind Watson’s plot and its true intention was to ruin them all. Nothing, however, was said to Watson, and Copley continued to see the plotters. At the most significant of these meetings Sir Griffin Markham explained exactly how the plot was to be achieved. He believed that they needed around 400 men, some to disperse around Greenwich, the rest to arrive at the palace by water on the night of the twenty-fourth. He suggested ammunition be brought to the palace in chests and hidden in advance. When the court gates were about to be shut and the watch set “and everybody in court either in or toward bed,” the outer passages were to be taken “in all stillness.” He sketched in pen where these passages were. Two or three men would wait for “a sign, either of fire or of horn from without, to get the porter.” They had to be men who knew him and could fool him into opening the gate, or get him so drunk he would not know what he was doing. In the last resort, they were to knock him out, “whereby the gate once possessed, all the action may freely succeed; admitting no more numbers than may be competent to master all opposition.”

  Those not needed to surprise the court were to take command of the town and hold the river and roads so that news of their action would not reach London. With the King and Council captured their tallest men were to “clap upon their backs the guards’ coats” and take them to the Tower, where the King would be forced to tell the Lieutenant, Sir John Peyton, “that imminent treason being toward his person and the state, he and it was coming thither for their defence.”51 There was much discussion about what the plotters might do after the King’s kidnapping. Brooke, who was motivated by money, hoped to be Lord Treasurer; Sir Griffin, the soldier, wanted to be Earl Marshal. Lord Grey, obsessed with vengeance against Southampton, was to have his enemy’s post as Captain of the Isle of Wight, while Copley, who had been dismissed by Persons as “a little, wanton, idle-headed boy,” hoped the issues of the day might be resolved in trial by combat. 52 Watson alone wanted to shed blood. He took great delight in the thought of chopping off the heads of James’s Privy Councilors.