Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Michaela Macková

The Elizabethan Secret Service Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Pavel Drábek, Ph. D.

2009

1

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..

2

Acknowledgement I would like to thank to my supervisor Mgr. Pavel Drábek, Ph. D. for his valuable advice and kind support and to Bc. Vlastimil Šprta and Mgr. Libor Dorňák for the introduction to the world of espionage which inspired this work.

3 Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 6

2. Key events which Influenced the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I ...... 8

3. Basic Facts about the Elizabethan Secret Service ...... 11

3.1 The Origin of the Elizabethan Secret Service ...... 11

3.2 Functions of the Elizabethan Secret Service ...... 11

3.3 The Mechanics of the Elizabethan Secret Service ...... 13

4. The Spy Masters ...... 16

4.1 William Cecil, 1st Baron of Burghley (1520-98) ...... 16

4.2 Sir Francis Walsingham (1530-90) ...... 17

4.3 Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (1532-88) ...... 19

4.4 Robert Cecil (1563-1612) ...... 19

4.5 Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex (1567-1601) and Anthony Bacon ...... 20

5. People Working for the Elizabethan Secret Service ...... 22

5.1 Types of the Service Carried out for the Spy Masters ...... 22

5.1.1 The Intelligencer-Informer ...... 22

5.1.2 The Intelligencer-Spy ...... 25

5.2 The Recruitment ...... 27

5.3 The Payment ...... 29

6. Espionage Techniques ...... 31

7. Plots and Operations in which the Elizabethan Secret Service was Involved .. 36

7.1 The Norfolk Conspiracy ...... 36

7.2 Abduction of John Story ...... 38

7.3 The Ridolfi Plot ...... 39

7.4 The Throckmorton Plot ...... 41

4 7.5 The Parry Plot ...... 43

7.6 The Babington Plot ...... 45

7.7 The Stafford Plot ...... 49

7.8 The Defeat of Armada ...... 51

7.9 The Lopez Conspiracy ...... 54

8. Conclusion ...... 57

9. Czech Resume ...... 59

10. Works Cited and Consulted ...... 61

5 1. Introduction

Queen Elizabeth I‟s reign is often seen as the golden age in the history of

England. Culture in the form of literature, poetry and drama flourished; naval forces explored the sea, brought great fortune to England, and became more powerful; national feelings started to emerge; the religious question seemed to be more or less peacefully settled – the Reformation was accepted; and the country expanded economically.

However happy these times in retrospective seem to be, there was a dark side to all of that: religious discontent appearing from time to time needed to be repressed and a good deal of political scheming had to take place in order to maintain England‟s position in

Europe and the Queen‟s position on the throne. As the Queen‟s chancellors and advisors

William Cecil, Lord of Burghley and Sir Francis Walsingham took care of this task, they began to form, as their aid, first networks of secret agents.

Historical records show that these networks of agents, so called secret service, played an important part in protecting England, Queen Elizabeth I, and her interests and those of her country. Unfortunately, due to the fogginess of some facts, the part secret service played in important events of history is in their contemporary descriptions often neglected. Thus the aim of this thesis is to examine this role, especially the role the secret service played in revealing plots against the Queen, and outline mechanics, functions and organisation of Elizabethan intelligence network.

In order to explain how the secret service protected the Queen and the country, it is desirable to introduce the reason why such protection was needed. Therefore the second chapter of the thesis continues in the introductory tone and presents the historical insight into the events which influenced the reign and the safety of the Queen.

Such a background is also important for a proper understanding of the issues of the era, as they stood behind the very existence of the Elizabethan secret service.

6 In order to ease the comprehension of the role the secret service played in particular plots, chapters three, four, five, and six are concerned with the origins, functions, organisation and mechanics of the Elizabethan secret service, with people working in it and with techniques the secret service used. So, the origin of the

Elizabethan secret service is described in the third chapter as well as its functions and mechanics. The fourth chapter discusses the spy masters directing the operations as the people of theirs time, as the bearers of theirs functions and as the espionage masterminds. The fifth chapter then introduces the types of people which worked for the secret service, explains circumstances under which they were hired and defines the specific jobs they performed. Finally the sixth chapter delves into the techniques the secret service used.

The core of the thesis is chapter 7, on plots and activities in which the secret service played an important part. The actual historical events are discussed with particular focus on the role the secret service played in the protection of the Queen and with emphasis on the examples of techniques and espionage professions introduced in chapters 5 and 6. This chapter is followed by the final part of the thesis, where all the facts concerning the role of the secret service are summarized and the conclusion of the thesis is drawn.

7 2. Key events which Influenced the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I

The times of Queen Elizabeth‟s reign were, as well as the whole Tudor Era, very turbulent. The Queen was almost constantly in great danger of being overthrown or even assassinated. It is therefore suitable to introduce the events which preceded

Elizabeth‟s reign, led to the religious discontents, to the complication of foreign relations and subsequently to the formation of various conspiracies and plots aimed at overthrowing of Elizabeth and restoring of Catholicism in England.

The first and the most important problem putting Elizabeth in danger was that the question of the succession as well as the question of the state religion had been complicated by the several marriages of Henry VIII, Elizabeth‟s father. It was because of Elizabeth‟s mother, Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII broke free of Catholic Church in 1534, declared himself the Head of the Church of England (Davies), and gave the primary impulse to religious conflicts which later affected Elizabeth‟s reign. It was because of

Henry‟s marriage to his next wife, Jane Seymour, Elizabeth was proclaimed illegitimate and only later she gained the right to the throne again, but as the third in line after

Edward, the son of Jane Seymour, and Mary Stuart, the daughter of Catharine of

Aragon (Dobson 33).

In the time Henry VIII died, Edward VI was only ten years old and Edward

Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, became the Lord Protector of England (Tudor Place).

Protestantism was fully established in the country. Unfortunately young Edward‟s health was not very good in 1553, and in the same year, only at the age of 15, he died

(ibid). For a few days the new Queen was Jane Gray, descendant of Henry VIII‟s sister, who was proclaimed the Queen by her father Henry Grey and her father-in-law John

Dudley, Duke of Northumberland (ibid). However, Mary Tudor, the rightful heiress to the throne, had the bigger support of the army and of the people. She quickly got the

8 throne back. Although Mary was only the half-sister of Elizabeth and a devoted

Catholic, when she entered the London as the new Queen, Elizabeth came with her in the place of honour (ibid).

During her reign Mary Tudor proceeded with the restoration of the Catholic faith and her religious persecutions and her marriage with Philip II of Spain caused many riots and displeasure among the people (“Mary I”). Despite the religious differences, it seemed that Mary and Elizabeth got on well, especially because Elizabeth consented to attend Mass, but soon it became apparent that it was not so (Dobson 33).

Mary started to be suspicious about Elizabeth, especially when her name was mentioned in connection with Wyatt‟s uprising of 1554 (Tudor Place). This led to the interrogation of Elizabeth in Tower of London and after that to her deportation into the house-arrest in Woodstock where she patiently waited for her chance to inherit the throne (Dobson

34).

Eventually, after a few bloody years of reign, Mary Tudor was to die childless in

1558 and the succession finally went to the Protestant Elizabeth (Tudor Place). That not only influenced the relations with Spain, as Mary‟s husband Philip proposed to

Elizabeth in order to maintain his rule over England and therefore she could control the relations with Spain by procrastination of the answer (Britain Express), but it also brought gradual changes in religious life of people of England once again. In April 1559 the Act of Supremacy passed “repudiating the authority of the Pope and re-establishing a national English Church” (Browning 52). The Queen was declared the Supreme

Governor of the Church of England and everyone in public or church office had to swear allegiance to her (Britain Express). The new Act of Uniformity was issued and therefore the Book of Common Prayer was modified and the ministers were to use the prescribed form of ceremonies. Such a settlement was “simply an elaborate compromise

9 designed to avoid giving offence to any one” (Browning 53). Despite Elizabeth‟s efforts to establish the Protestantism in this nonviolent way, the discontent of Catholics appeared from time to time.

Especially after the abdication of Mary Queen of Scots in 1567, Catholic opposition started to be very active, the example of which was the Northern Rebellion in 1569 (Browning 81). For Elizabeth that meant constant threat of conspirators wanting to overthrow her, of attempts to bring the England back to the Catholic faith and of efforts to put Mary Queen of Scots on the throne. The Catholic threat became more severe in 1570, when the bull Regnans in Excelsis excommunicating Elizabeth was issued by Pope Pius V (Hutchinson 23). Catholics naturally started to be more vigorously pursued by authorities since every Catholic, not only from the realm of

England but also from abroad, could be a menace to the Queen and his doings would be endorsed by the Pope.

Concerning the recent history of successions, and the nature of the threat jeopardizing Elizabeth, she needed the protection desperately, especially since she stayed unmarried and without an heir. Thanks to William Cecil 1st Baron of Burghley1,

Sir Francis Walsingham, Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester or Robert Cecil, she had that protection. They and actions they conducted, people they employed, information they were able to get, in other words the secret service they directed, rescued the Queen and the country many times.

1 or Burleigh (spelling can differ in various sources)

10 3. Basic Facts about the Elizabethan Secret Service

The first time England had a formally established secret service was in 1909 when the Committee for Imperial Defence decided to establish a Secret Service Bureau

(The Official SIS Website). Until then only informal organisations engaged in intelligence activities existed from time to time, the intelligence network in Elizabethan era being one of them. The following chapter offers a few facts on the origin of the

Elizabethan secret service, describes its functions and briefly explains how it worked.

3.1 The Origin of the Elizabethan Secret Service

The first reference about intelligence activities of England dates back to 14th century. During the reign of Henry VII permanent agents abroad obtained information and were paid from special funds (Čerňak 18). This was further developed in times of

Cardinal Wolsey who used the technique of interception of letters as well. Also Henry

VIII‟s chief minister Thomas Cromwell employed people for interception of correspondence, but the difference was that his men copied letters and sent them to their original destination (Čerňak 21). The same man, Thomas Cromwell “ran secret agents in Europe on behalf of Henry VIII” (The Official SIS Website). During Elizabeth‟s reign the network of agents, their use and their techniques evolved even more and they became more systematic and elaborate (see following chapters). But it was no sooner than in “the 1580s, [when] the country was facing the twin threat of Catholic conspiracy and Spanish invasion, that [Sir Francis Walsingham] actually created his „secret service‟” (Nicholl 125).

3.2 Functions of the Elizabethan Secret Service

The main function of the secret service was the same as the function of every espionage organisation – to gather information. In Elizabethan times obtaining the fresh

11 and reliable information was the key element leading to the success of the majority of operations in which the secret service was involved.

In those times, espionage also served as the useful means of making the policy.

The first intelligence activities went hand in hand with diplomatic duties (Čerňak 19).

Some foreign envoys, for example, performed not only their diplomatic duties and negotiations, but also their secondary task – collecting information on the economics of the foreign country, on the military power, on the ruler, on the people at court, on exiles from his country etc. In this way they were providing their superiors with useful information which made their decision making process concerning the negotiations with foreign countries much easier.

Unfortunately receiving information from envoys and diplomats was not often reliable and possible to realise due to “confessional boundaries, political indifference and royal parsimony” (Haynes 15). When envoys did not want to perform the task, or they could not be sent (i.e. embassy was closed) agents had to fill the gap in information gathering (ibid). Therefore, for example “Sir Francis Walsingham became responsible for the government‟s intelligence-gathering operations in a number of areas: the growing Catholic threat, both internally and externally; the religiously inspired plans to invade England; and the intentions and policies of the major players on the European political stage” (Hutchinson 83). This shows that in the Elizabethan era agents and informers were also used in order to protect the Queen from the conspirators, assassins and attempts to overthrow her and to restrict and report on activities of Catholics in the country and abroad.

When the diplomatic solution failed and the country found itself on the verge of the war with Spain, the secret service gained another function – to weaken the enemy.

For example the recruitment of sailors for the attack of the first Spanish Armada was

12 very negatively influenced by the prognoses of fortune-tellers and oracles foretelling the disasters and storms in the summer of 1588, which were spread by secret service agents who were told to do so by their spy master Francis Walsingham (Hutchinson 224). This shows the effective means for this kind of task were disinformation and propaganda (see

6).

Sir Francis Walsingham, being one of the most successful of the spy masters, was not only the master of propaganda, but also the master of the “sham” plots (Nicholl

135), plots which demonstrated that it was the spy masters who controlled agents and their activities, not the Queen who had only a partial influence on the spy masters‟ actions and employees. It comes to the least honourable function of the secret service, which was to play an active part in such plots. When Walsingham needed to catch a

“big fish” among the conspirators, or needed the Queen to feel endangered, he did not hesitate to fabricate, with the assistance of his agents, a new plot against Her Majesty to help him reach his goal (see 7.7).

3.3 The Mechanics of the Elizabethan Secret Service

As can be seen from previous subchapters, the secret service was not a formally established organisation. There was no elaborate system of agents in Elizabethan

England. Intelligence activities of the Elizabethan espionage was, as Haynes points out,

“the work of individuals collaborating, […] controlled by individual officers of state, but [which] ultimately had a collective, that is national, purpose” (xi). The types of individuals employed and their techniques will be discussed in the following chapters as well as the officers controlling the secret service, William Cecil, Baron of Burghley; Sir

Francis Walsingham; Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester and Robert Cecil.

These very officers, the spy masters, were the pillars of the secret service. All of them had their contacts at home and abroad which they gained during their social

13 intercourses, on study or diplomatic journeys abroad or during their service to the

Queen (Hutchinson 84). “At its peak, [Walsingham‟s] extensive espionage network is said to have numbered fifty-three spies and eighteen agents in foreign courts, as well as a host of informers within the English realm itself” (Hutchinson 16). These contacts, agents, informers and even various random people feeling obliged to serve the country wrote letters to the spy masters. Every spy master, with the assistance of his secretaries, was able to handle and sort out an enormous number of correspondence (Haynes 15).

With information in these letters every spy master disposed according to its importance or reliability – answered with advice or further instructions, sent another agent to solve the task, informed the Queen, took preliminary measures etc.

Concerning the fact the means of delivering information were very limited in the

Elizabethan era, these letters, or in some cases oral messages, had to be carried from the dispatcher to the receiver (Nicholl 126). The possibility of interception of the correspondence was therefore very high and government‟s official posting arrangements were not the best either. Roads were miserable, postmen were badly paid and indolent, the number of horses available was not sufficient enough to handle all dispatches, or the animals were not treated very well and therefore were unreliable (Haynes 20). Under these circumstances the spy masters had to keep their own stables of postal horses and to maintain the large households of servants-messengers who could be available immediately to deliver their correspondence (Haynes 21).

These households of servants, as they were private, were financed by the spy masters themselves. The same applied to their own private networks of intelligencers they first directed mainly in order to use them for their own purposes (Haynes XV).

Even though they later used them as a means of protecting of the Queen and the country, the Queen tended to underfund the espionage efforts in general, so even in

14 times employment of agents became more systematized and Walsingham‟s secret service was fully established, the spy master still had to pay some expenses by himself

(Haynes 54). “Calculations of the annual sums on [Walsigham„s] secret service offer amounts varying between a few hundred and thousands of pounds” (Haynes 55). The

Queen‟s first subvention on secret service was recorded in 1982 (Nicholl 125). Here is the example of one such summary of sums, the royal exchequer, therefore the Queen, paid out for the secret service annually.

1583-4: £5,753 14 s. ½ d.

1584-5: £10,030 9 s. 4 d.

1585-6: £9,455 16 s. 11 d.

1586-7: £13,260 (Haynes 55)2

Those are the sums Robert Cecil in 1610 included into his memorandum with secret service details, so they are probably the most accurate estimates available.

Concerning the cost of the secret service, of the most importance is that gradually

Elizabeth started to “[regard] spying as the cheapest [and] handiest substitute for resident diplomats” (Haynes 192), which explains why the Queen, although she did not have the direct command on the operations of the secret service, was finally willing to invest at least some amount of her money in it.

2 Haynes quoted from Read, Conyers. Mr Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth. Vol 2. Oxford: The Clarendon P, 1925. 370-1.

15 4. The Spy Masters

What we call the Elizabethan secret service could not work or be established without men who not only conducted their own networks of agents, but who also functioned as councillors and advisors of the Queen and thus knew very well what was going on in the realm of England and outside it. The secret service was directed by the most influential men of the Elizabethan Privy Council, by the trio: Lord Burghley, the

Earl of Leicester and Sir Francis Walsingham. Of course they also had their successors as far as the conducting of the secret service matters is concerned, who are of a similar importance: Robert Cecil, son of Lord Burghley and Queen‟s favourite Earl of Essex, who cooperated with Anthony Bacon (Haynes 124-5). In the following subchapters all of these men will be briefly introduced, not so much as the important statesmen, but as the spy masters.

4.1 William Cecil, 1st Baron of Burghley (1520-98)

William Cecil was a prominent figure at court already in the reign of Edward IV

(Pulman 30). During the reign of Mary Tudor he remained in the country and stayed in contact with Elizabeth (ibid). As soon as Elizabeth succeeded the throne, he became her chief minister and main advisor (ibid). Thus from 1558 until 1578 he was Secretary of

State and from 1572 Lord Treasurer (Golding). The title of the 1st Baron of Burghley he received in 1571 (ibid). Until his death he remained in good terms with Elizabeth.

The position of Secretary of State was, before William Cecil was appointed, more or less the office of clerk, but he made it the most important office of state

(Budiansky 90). He controlled foreign affairs as well as domestic, he knew of everything presented to the Queen and became her most important advisor, one who

“could get decisions and answers out of [her] as no one else could” (Budiansky 46). His position requested capability to manage enormous amount of work and the knowledge

16 of everything what was going on in the country and abroad. Because of the need to revise and summarize all he knew he wrote a countless number of memoranda filled with facts he got. It is only natural, that such a man, in need of information, but reluctant to share it with others, created the network of his own informers.

The correspondence from these informers, which he received in 1578, came from 55 sources (Haynes 15). “In 1572 he had material from eight French cities, six towns in German states and empire, five in Low Countries, five in Italy, four in

Scotland, two in Spain and one in Africa” (Haynes 16). Casual correspondence he managed with the help of two personal secretaries, but with secret matters, with dispatches from his informers, he preferred to deal himself, especially in case of ciphered letters (Haynes 18). These dispatches only sometimes endorsed his secretary

(ibid).

From the high number of informers, his most capable one was Francis

Walsingham, who “supplied [Cecil] with information and advice on foreign affairs and

[...] was [his] chief agent in breaking up the Ridolfi plot” (Nicholl 123). Walsingham became his protégé and successor even though Cecil had more conservative approach to the matter of foreign policy, especially in case of France and Spain, and preferred

“balance-of-power diplomacy” (Budiansky 109).

4.2 Sir Francis Walsingham (1530-90)

Francis Walsingham was a man of extraordinary intelligence with a talent for diplomacy and foreign affairs. After the accession of Mary Tudor he left for abroad where he studied and travelled and gained most of his foreign contacts (Pulman 33).

When he returned, he spent some time at court and in 1568 he was already working for

William Cecil (Haynes 26). In 1570 he was sent to France and soon he was given the post of ambassador there (Pulman 33). When he returned he became the Queen‟s

17 advisor and in 1573 he was appointed Secretary of State and remained in the office until his death (ibid). He not only served as the Secretary of State, but was also “the spy master, secret policeman, and de facto propaganda chief” (Hutchinson 16).

The office of Secretary of State in Walsingham‟s times retained the same importance as it had in the times of William Cecil. Walsingham was, as well as Cecil, obsessed with information gathering and secrecy. He maintained more secretaries, but he also had written more memoranda filled with more detailed information. He also had to manage a bigger amount of work than Cecil, because in 1570s Cecil‟s correspondence of Secretary of State inevitably shifted to Walsingham (Haynes 97).

In 1585 he had 111 correspondents and it is said that around 1580 he “had agents based in twelve towns or cities in France, nine in Germany, four in Italy, three in the Low Countries, four in Spain and others within the huge Turkish Empire in Algiers,

Tripoli and Constantinople” (Hutchinson 89). With communication four servants helped him: Nicholas Faunt, Francis Milles, William Waad and Robert Beale (Nicholl 130).

The last two were the close secretaries of his, who helped him manage secret service matters. Walsingham was not as secretive as William Cecil, at least in case of the secret correspondence. Some of the agents wrote directly to Walsingham, others to his assistants and some conveyed their information through other agents (Hutchinson 98).

Because of this, his secretaries criticized him. They thought that he was employing too many people, in comparison to Cecil, and therefore endangering the secrecy of his dispatches (Bossy 147). Nevertheless, it seems that he obsessively kept the identities of his agents in secret – when he was sent to Scotland, he was unwilling to let William

Cecil or the Queen to handle his arrangements and thus minimal intelligence came from

Salisbury when he was outside the country (Bossy 75).

18 The secret service of Francis Walsingham already was not really private secret service as he shared some intelligence with William Cecil and Leicester. Thanks to the high number of his foreign contacts his secret service developed into the huge network of spies abroad and home serving the country as any other before.

4.3 Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (1532-88)

Earl of Leicester was a controversial figure at court and was one of the Queen‟s favourites. He was said to desire to marry Elizabeth and once he was a possible husband to Mary Queen of Scots (Martin). In 1563 he became the member of Privy Council and

Master of Horses, the office he held until his death (Pulman 29). The title he gained in

1564 (Martin). From 1585 to 1587 he led the military campaign in the Netherlands and in 1588 he should lead forces prepared to fight Armada (ibid).

His network of spies was clearly personal, created in order to keep up with

William Cecil, who was said to be his rival. The secret service contacts of Leicester are difficult to trace as the records were destroyed (Haynes 18). The number of his correspondence only once surpassed the limit of 55 of William Cecil (Haynes 15). Still he plentifully used the help of his secretaries. At first Edmund Campion worked for him, before he went to exile, then he employed Jean Hotman and Gabriel Harvey. All of these men were profound academics (Haynes 18). From 1579 Arthur Atey handled the secret correspondence for him. Atey not only took care of ciphered materials, but also offered Leicester informants he had in Europe (Haynes 18-9).

Although Leicester himself did not hunt for informers as much as William Cecil or Francis Walsingham, his network of agents cannot be omitted and his capability to keep up with Walsingham and Cecil shows he really was not only a man of great importance, but also a spy master.

4.4 Robert Cecil (1563-1612)

19 Robert Cecil was the younger son of William Cecil who followed his father‟s footsteps. In 1591 he became member of the Privy Council and soon he was practically performing the duties of the Secretary of State, although he was appointed in this function only in 1596 (Lockyer). During the last years of Queen Elizabeth‟s reign he rivalled with Earl of Essex both in contest for Queen‟s favour and in the successes of theirs personal secret services (ibid). In these last years he also started secret communication with James (ibid). When James came to the throne, this communication brought him a privileged position of a member of James‟s Council and of his advisor

(ibid).

Robert Cecil at first was not interested and did not have time to run the secret service as large as was Walsingham‟s. However, as soon as he became Secretary of

State, he realized he would not do without a network of informers (Haynes 168). His secret service was built up on informers of his father and some of Walsingham‟s, even though it was not easy to identify, who Walsingham‟s informers were, and was influenced by the need of intelligence to help in the war against Spain (Haynes 171).

Robert Cecil‟s organizers recruiting agents and his agents were scattered throughout the whole Europe. They were all sending him valuable information and were paid from government funds (Haynes 171). These payments he sent to his agents via merchants and the organizers (ibid). This information as well as the precise numbers of agents are nowadays known thanks to the document he created before 1598, where his employees and payments given to them had been enlisted (Haynes 170). His extensive intelligence network and his brains were successful followers of the previous spy masters and proved that by their activities in war with Spain.

4.5 Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex (1567-1601) and Anthony Bacon

20 Robert Devereux was another of Elizabeth‟s favourites and courtiers. In 1587 he was appointed Master of Horses and in 1587 he gained his title (“Essex”). He took part in many important military activities. In 1596 he captured Cadiz and in 1599 he was in

Ireland to suppress Tyrone‟s rebellion (ibid). He is best known for his attempt of regaining his power in 1601 when he sponsored the performance of Richard III and consequently, when threatened to be arrested, he tried to raise the rebellion in London

(ibid).

As well as other spy masters, in his position even Essex needed the informers.

Especially when he felt his position at court is threatened by Robert Cecil. However, he was not able to handle the everyday work of spy master and so he needed someone reliable who would have contacts, and who would provide him with an intelligence network (Haynes 124). Such a man was Anthony Bacon, William Cecil‟s nephew, previously working as informer both for Walsingham and for William Cecil (Haynes

125).

Though Bacon did not really like handling the correspondence and directing the spies, he took the post and deciphered materials he received, prepared extracts of the most important information and forwarded that all to Essex (Haynes 148-9). Even though Essex was not particularly good in assessing intelligence materials, this secret network worked quite well, especially in France and Italy (Haynes 148). Essex was therefore able to keep up with Robert Cecil, at least in times when Cecil was not really interested in the secret service matters. Because of this lack of Cecil‟s interest in secret service matters was Essex able to employ some of former Walsingham‟s agents.

Nevertheless, Essex‟s secret service started to fall apart as Essex started to fall out of

Queen‟s favour and as soon as Robert Cecil turned his attention to conduction of his own secret service.

21 5. People Working for the Elizabethan Secret Service

“The typical Elizabethan spy was a man of middling to low status” (Nicholl

130). Merchants, travellers, soldiers, ambassadors, servants, students, academics, writers, musicians, even the former criminals and conspirators were hired by, or in another way persuaded to work for, the spy masters. More or less all these claimed, they were great patriots but in fact they did the job for money or from fear (ibid).

They performed various different services. Their social position, religious conviction, profession and skills usually influenced which task they were asked to perform and the longevity of theirs service. Therefore the people of certain social status, of certain skills, could be usually found in the certain position in the secret service. In the following subchapters the way of recruiting such people and the specific types of service they performed, together with their social and working background, will be discussed.

5.1 Types of the Service Carried out for the Spy Masters

5.1.1 The Intelligencer-Informer3

The informers were simply ordinary observers who gathered information and passed it to the spy masters. They were not involved in any dirty work and they did not infiltrate in any important position (Nicholl 127). They merely reported on events both in England and abroad. As a matter of fact, nowadays, they would not be needed because of reporters and elaborate news system, but with the speed information spread in the 16th century, the good informers were the necessity and the basis of the secret service.

Of course their information did not have to be reliable every time. They could misinterpret what they had seen or they could be misinformed on purpose. Some of

3 The labels “intelligencer-informer” and “intelligencer-spy” are based on Nicholl‟s division of agents (127).

22 informers even made up the new information in order to be rewarded (Nicholl 135). To check the information, the spy masters used, if it was possible, number of observes in one area.

It was ordinary merchants, travellers, writers, casual eavesdroppers, and also servants or other households‟ members who worked as the informers. Merchants were recruited, because they had to know what was going on in the world in order to prosper in their profession, and as businessmen they saw such a service as a profitable opportunity. Students saw this service as a good starting point of their carriers, as the carrier and quality of living depended on the system of patronage (Nicholl 120), but they considered it “no more than an anxiety-inducing temporary option” (Haynes 13).

Those students, who desired for more anxiety, were willing to perform not only the task of the mere informer, but also the task of the spy (see 5.1.2). As well as students and merchants, also writers “were an obvious source of recruits. They were intelligent, educated, observant young men. They knew the international language, Latin, and the literary tastes of the day gave them a good smattering of French and Italian” (Nicholl

202). They were often in need of money, they travelled a lot and their profession offered a great social mobility (ibid). All of these were good premises for espionage work. Of course that, as well as students, the more adventurous ones, became spies. Hence the profession of intelligencer-informer and intelligencer-spy overlapped sometimes.

Nevertheless, the overlap of the roles of informers and of spies appeared more often in cases of envoys, ambassadors and their secretaries. Those could be mostly also regarded as mere informers, but often they became moles. To decide what task they performed is thus very hard.

An ordinary observer could improve his skills so much and inform the spy masters so well that he was eventually hired as more specialized agent, the custom

23 searcher. Such agents could be found mostly in ports and on the border with Scotland as horsed patrols (Budiansky 93). They searched ships and travellers from abroad for suspicious materials, hidden messages and letters (Hutchinson 84), watched the ports and informed on peculiar activities there.

The task had to be carried out by the inconspicuous personality with the inconspicuous behaviour. Therefore it was performed by men of lower status, who did not raise the suspicion when in ports. These men often did the job because they needed to be in good terms with the spy masters, but their main concern was again money

(Haynes 4). Thus it is not surprising that the custom searchers were sometimes suspected to be corrupted and some of them really were (Haynes 41). However, their use was essential (see 7.3) as they were the first, the front line of the secret service for the protection of the country.

The searchers were used not only by English spy masters, but also by their counterparts. Therefore, as the written correspondence was the main means of communication among agents, the carriers of the correspondence had to be chosen carefully and they had to have certain skills too. These messengers, although they were mere letter carriers or fund and letter distributors of the spy masters, had to remain anonymous or unknown, had to risk their lives by carrying the secret messages and often had to cross-dress or hid the messages in imaginative way in order to carry them through the searchers (see 6). They also played an important part in interception of correspondence by carrying the letters whenever and wherever they were asked to, in case deciphering or another manipulation was needed.

The men hired for this task were agents performing it beside the task of mere information-gatherer (Haynes 49); former agents, who were not successful or were discovered and therefore could not continue in their previous work (Haynes 51); or

24 bribed ordinary people like merchants, who were paid to smuggle the messages (see

7.6).

In case messengers failed in their task to carry a letter safely to its receiver, the most important letters were ciphered. This was done by the people of skills suitable for the work of deciphering or cipher making – decipherers. The job usually managed secretaries of ambassadors and of the spy masters, or the decipherers hired purposely for the task.

Secretaries handled the secret service matters like the deciphering of letters, the forwarding sensitive information and sorting out the correspondence (Haynes 17). They were able to decipher the letter when they had at their disposal the key, and they were able to write the ciphered letter according to the given key. The specialized decipherers, on the contrary, were not only able to decipher unknown ciphers without the key but also to forge letters. They had knowledge of languages, cryptanalysis, diplomacy

(Haynes 14) and other areas, like geography (Hutchinson 85).

5.1.2 The Intelligencer-Spy

The spies, in comparison with intelligencers-informers managed not only the task of the gathering of information, but also infiltration to the suitable positions, places or groups and playing “dirty game” in order to gain the needed information or in order to achieve the wanted outcome. It is convenient to describe several types of spies according to tasks they performed most often and places where they operated.

Of the most importance, considering the tense religious situation in England and the high number of Catholics involved in various plots against the Queen, were anti- catholic agents. As the label suggests, they spied on Catholics. They either were

Catholics, and in order to save their own skin had to work for the spy masters, or they pretended to be Catholics, in order to bring them down.

25 They usually operated among the Catholic cliques of conspirators, at English colleges like Cambridge or Oxford and in Catholic seminaries like the ones in Rheims and Douai. The anti-catholic agents infiltrated seminaries, plotted against them and informed on their activities and on planned travels of missionaries to England (Haynes

148). Among the catholic cliques of conspiracies they performed espionage work

(Haynes 49) and sometimes functioned as agents-provocateurs.

Agents-provocateurs, or projectors, actively encouraged the conspiracies and offered new seductive options to the conspirators. They reported on plotters, or directed their moves in the way the spy masters wanted or needed (Nicholl 135). They plotted together with plotters and acted as if they were ones of them. Therefore, they had never been truly trusted by the spy masters.

These agents were the most useful ones, but the least reliable, because the spy masters could not really know whether their dealings were not double. Thus the spy masters spied on these agents, although the agents usually had gone through the long period of probation as prison agents, the task for them most useful as the cover (Nicholl

136).

One could become a prison agent when he was an ordinary spy, most often the anti-catholic agent, and needed, or the spy masters needed him, to get more information and more contacts. As the prison agent man could befriend arrested catholic priests, supposed conspirators and others by offering them, for example, the help with sending messages to their collaborators, or by pretending to be on the same side (Nicholl 161)

(see 7.3). Also, when the clique of conspirators knew the man had spent some time in

26 prison for crimes somehow connected to their conviction, they trusted him more easily.

Therefore a lot of agents sooner or later ended up in prison4 as prison agents.

Some of the proper agents turned to be double agents, were asked by the spy masters to be double agents, or they were ones from the beginning of their service.

Sometimes, the spy masters knew about agents‟ double dealings and hired them in order to use them, sometimes they found out later and used them anyway. Because they were not easy to recognise there also must have been many of them the spy masters did not know of.

The most usual motivation of such agents was religion, which is not surprising concerning the religious situation in those times. Nevertheless the greed, the ambition or ordinary fear were also common. One way or another, they could not be fully trusted, but they needed to be used. Robert Beale, on the basis of observation of Walsingham, advised: “Hear all reports but trust not all; observe them that deal on both hands lest you be deceived” (qtd. in Budiansky 98). This advice shows that the spy masters had the only option – to hope these agents would stay on their side long enough to be used for the best. Indeed, hiring such people was the big lottery. Conducting the whole network of them was even bigger one. However, “knowledge [was] never too dear5” (qtd. in

Nicholl 195) and the dependency on such men paid out, especially to Walsingham.

5.2 The Recruitment

The first natural source from which spy masters could draw when searching for informers and spies were their own contacts. Many of them the spy masters created during their years of service abroad – on embassies, on travels, on errands, on business and government appointments.

4 The prisons where prison agents mostly operated were prisons with Catholic prisoners – Marschalsea, Tower, Wisbech Castle, Rye, Dover and Portsmouth (Nicholl 157). In Marschalsea the number of agents was the greatest (Nicholl 157). 5 Walsingham‟s well known maxim

27 From these contacts the spy masters choose their agents themselves and such agents worked for them for longer periods of time or repeatedly. They usually had some kind of special talent or contact, which could be very well used in such a service.

Another reason the spy masters contacted them could be that these men were bound to the spy masters somehow.

Of these people hired because of their skills and contacts, decipherers, ambassadors and ambassadors‟ secretaries were mentioned in previous subchapters.

Their position usually offered the better access to specific kind of information needed by the spy masters. Thus they were recruited more wittingly.

The usage of contacts and acquaintances is bound to Elizabethan system of patronage. Everyone had some contacts and wanted to pull strings for someone. Even among the agents of the Elizabethan secret service. Thus another way the spy masters could hire new agents was through recommendation of an “established” agent.

The recommended ones were often those who were chosen by established agents for one time jobs, as their assistance – either because of their skills or contacts. Many of these one-time employees left their respectable businesses and employments to take part in secret service‟s operations, often under the false impression, as their tasks were presented to them as the duty to their country (Haynes 5). Sometimes, when they did their job well and later they happened to seem to be useful again, they could get another assignment and gradually prove their reliability and quality.

Other well-tried sources of agents, especially of the anti-Catholic ones, were colleges and Inns. At colleges were Catholics allowed to study, although being watched, and there they tried to turn people to Catholicism or to recruit/gather their hidden followers. Agents were of course among those. That is to say, that agents hired at such places could easily pretend to be Catholics or be (hidden) Catholics in service of

28 the secret service and infiltrate the established Catholic seminaries. Besides, the majority of students happily took a chance on boosting their carrier or on some extra earnings (see 5.1.1).

As was suggested at the beginning of this chapter, not all the people served entirely voluntarily. Of course that some of the caught conspirators or Catholic priests were forced to cooperate and spy on their former colleagues in order to save their own skin. Those had to be watched closely, but often the risk of trusting them paid out.

The places where they were recruited were prisons. Usually the prison agents, or freshly arrested defendants already persuaded to cooperate, “[trawl] the prisons for potential agents” (Haynes 54). For that they could be pardoned or released. Defendants themselves, often when tortured, offered cooperation and revealed information on their accomplices. Then they either stayed in prison to spy on others of their kind right there, or were released and operated as double agents, even agents-provocateurs.

5.3 The Payment

To be the agent was neither easy nor lucrative task and only some of agents were properly rewarded. The fact is, that “the spy masters ruthlessly exploited […] desire of their employees to thrive” (Haynes 14). The payment of agents happened in many different ways which depended on the nature of the service agents performed and on the longevity of their employment.

The long time agents, top secret agents, were paid unofficially by government‟s clerks. Walsingham, for example, just said which men ought to receive certain amount of money for their service he did not specify, and they got it (Nicholl 131). These payments remained unrecorded as well as the activities and records of the employment of agents who got paid.

29 On the contrary messengers were paid fully officially. They were paid for their errands directly “through the office of the Treasurer of the Queen‟s chamber […] on presentation of a warrant” (Nicholl 131). Warrants were again “signed by [the spy master] under such […] formulae as „carrying letters for Her Majesty‟s special and secret affairs‟, or „employed in affairs of special importance‟” (ibid).

Aside from the warrants there was one another way how agents could get their deserved reward – in form of the permission to profit from their victims. Agents asked money, for example, from Catholic prisoners and promised them the release. Then they arranged the release with the spy masters. Of course this happened only with unimportant prisoners who did not committed too high crimes and were not considered to be further threat. In this way agents not only got the reward, but they also did not reveal their covers as catholic sympathisers or accomplices of the prisoners and could freely perform their espionage work.

Nevertheless, the spy masters were not always so much obliging as in the case of the long time employed agents. As was indicated at the beginning of this subchapter, many of the men, especially those hired only for one operation, find out difficult to persuade the spy masters to pay them, or adequately reimburse them, for the work done.

In these cases, it was the part of the spy masters‟ tactics, as they, as well as for example

William Cecil, “thought to use them again [,] and [the promise of payment] was [their] way to keep them dependent” (Haynes 5). Such agents usually gained, if they gained something, just very little (ibid), and they really kept waiting for every spy masters‟ offer of the job in hope for reward.

30 6. Espionage Techniques

Hand in hand with specialized tasks of agents went specific techniques they used to successfully carry out their duty. Intelligencers-spies could be and often needed to be resourceful the same way their masters were, still they, as well as intelligencers- informers, “relied on simple methods of collecting material and on rudimentary methods of transmission” (Haynes 14).

As was already mentioned above, the informer relied on what he saw and heard.

Therefore his greatest worry was how to pass on the information without the correspondence being intercepted, without the correspondence being read by anyone else and without him being exposed. This he could influence by techniques of writing and sending the message.

The simplest way to hide what was written was to write in secret ink of alum, of lemon juice and milk, or of urine with water (Hutchinson 98). The more complicated way was to write in ciphers. The spy masters themselves usually did not create them.

They took them from books on codes, for example Giovanni Battista della Porta‟s De

Furitivis Litteratum (Nicholl 126); they were in contact with scholars making and searching for new ciphers, for example William Cecil knew Girolamo Cardano, the creator of cardan grille, or John Dee, the occultist and mathematician (Haynes 21-2); or they employed the skilful decipherers and cipher-makers like Thomas Phelippes.

The ciphers used in the Elizabethan age were based on two principles: substitution and transposition (Haynes 23). In the first case characters or words were substituted by other letters, numbers or whimsical terms, and in the second case the characters were shuffled (ibid). In order to make deciphering difficult for an unwanted decipherer, sometimes “nil significantia” (Haynes24), symbols which did not substitute anything, were used; or one character had more possible substitutes (Budiansky 140).

31 For a long time also cardan grille was used – the piece with numbered holes which was laid down on the text and the letters, syllables or words visible in holes, sorted by the numbers, gave the message (Haynes 22). In a similar way the message could be hidden in the book – in form of specific words on specific pages, which were both marked in a separate cipher (Hutchinson 98).

To further protect the message during the transport several various techniques were used. “Multiple copies might be sent by different routes” (Haynes 21), the letters might be send in diplomatic bags in order to avoid the search at ports, the dead letter boxes could be used, and finally they might be hidden in various hiding places as “a bound book‟s leather cover” or “high heels of ladies‟ shoes” (Hutchinson 98).

As these techniques were used not only by agents of the secret service, but also by agents of Mary Queen of Scots, agents of the Spanish king, or French agents, the counter-intelligence was necessary. Searchers, searching ships and people at ports and boarders, or searching houses of suspects, were familiar with some of these techniques, so, for example, a blank paper in documents they found suspicious. However, because the spy masters often needed some evidence of mischievous activities done by sender or receiver of the correspondence, a more elaborate technique of interception of correspondence was used. The spy masters, with help of double agents, used to establish channels for correspondence of a suspect in order to have control over all messages going in and out. Not only double agents, but also skilful decipherers and forgers like Arthur Gregory, who could perfectly reseal the letter, were needed for this task, since it was not desirable to reveal the correspondence had been read or altered by a third person (see 7.6).

Naturally, information of higher importance was not simply discussed on streets, or conveyed in letters, even the ciphered ones. Such information was conveyed orally

32 and was needed to be lured out from the source. Hence the truly simplest, but not honest techniques were used by the secret service – bribery, blackmail and coercion.

However there were also more elaborate techniques, such as use of another identity, use of pseudonyms and cross dressing, without agents could not do.

Pretence and cross dressing had always been essential parts of the profession of agent. Especially prison agents (see 7.3) and messengers needed to cover their real missions in this way. Elizabethan agents most often used “[t]he simple ruse of

Englishman claiming to be a Catholic exile” (Haynes 183). It was by this technique, anti-catholic agents as Charles Sledd infiltrated the catholic colleges. He, in this way, got into the English College in Rome in 1579, stayed there with another spy of the same sort, Solomon Aldred, and gave the description and the list of Catholic exiles and priests seen there (Hutchinson 80).

Concerning the importance of written communication, it is only natural that pseudonyms and alter-egos were used in order not to be revealed as the spy through the correspondence. The decipherer and agents‟ coordinator Thomas Phelippes used pseudonyms John Morice and Peter Halins (Haynes 14). To Morice senders wrote as to the Catholic and to Halins as to the merchant (ibid). In a similar way the famous French embassy spy Henry Fagot, who was in touch with Walsingham and played the key role in revealing the Throckmorton plot (see 7.4), protected his precious identity. His pseudonym is the most famous one, because his real identity had been questioned for a long time6. It is an example of successful use of this technique.

The most extreme means to get information from someone was torture. It was not executed by agents and in Elizabethan era it certainly was no secret matter7.

6 Nowadays it is settled that he was probably Giordano Bruno. Evidences for this statement are gathered in Bossy‟s another work: Bossy, John. Giordano Bruno and the Embassy Affair. Yale, 1991. 7 The law did not allow use of torture as means to obtain confession and there were several protests against it in the Elizabethan era (Haynes 58-9).

33 However, it often was the spy masters‟ last chance to make those, whom their agents caught, speak. Two famous rack masters cooperating with the spy masters are known:

Thomas Norton, who made Francis Throckmorton to talk (see 7.4) (Hutchinson 73-4); and Richard Topcliff, who tortured mainly Catholic prisoners, who was obsessed with the power torture gave him and who was paid by Lord Burghley (Haynes 58). The most used instrument of torture was the rack. Other methods were: pressing – placing heavy objects on the prisoner‟s body, hanging by hands (in manacles), crushing hands in gauntlets, Scavenger's daughter – the band pressing the head, Little Ease – the cell where to stand properly or lie properly was impossible, and The Pit – the deep oubliette

(Hutchinson 72-3).

However, before getting someone to the torture or trial, it was needed to arrest him and brought him to prison. With Catholic refugees it was difficult. Therefore

Robert Cecil liked to use method of “kidnapping someone abroad to bring them back to England” (Haynes 183). It was difficult to prepare and execute such an operation

(ibid), but with skilful agents, like with the abduction of John Story, this technique worked (see 7.2).

The technique of kidnapping was one of the more elaborate ones. Of the same kind were other techniques, usually devised and practised by the spy masters – propaganda and disinformation. Propaganda was most often spread in form of copied public letters or pamphlets; as the pamphlet of 1568 spreading the knowledge of Duke of Norfolk‟s intention to Mary Queen of Scots (see 7.1) (Hutchinson 39), or the

Declaration of the Causes Moving the Queen of England to give the aid to the Defence of the People afflicted and oppressed in the Low Countries explaining why the Queen offered the help to the Dutch Protestants against Spain (Budiansky 181). Both of these were works of Walsingham, who was expert on this task.

34 Disinformation, on the contrary, was spread orally by agents who circulated false information which the spy masters told them to pass. This technique was used when the spy masters wanted to do harm to the Armada (see 7.6), or when they wanted

Elizabeth to sign warrant of Mary Queen of Scots‟ execution – they spread false rumours about Philip preparing the fleet to invade England, and about Duke of Parma being ready to execute the rescue operation from the Low Counties (Hutchinson 178).

35 7. Plots and Operations in which the Elizabethan Secret Service was Involved

7.1 The Norfolk Conspiracy

Since Mary Queen of Scots crossed the border of England, she was an inspiration of plotters and conspirators. She even weaved conspiracies herself and asked foreign countries for aid. Reports from agents abroad came through Walsingham to

William Cecil concerning French and Spanish schemes to overthrow Elizabeth. All vague, but still deserving some attention.

One of such rumours came to William Cecil in 1568 when the complicity of

Mary in the murder of her husband was investigated. One of the commissioners,

Thomas Howard, Fourth Duke of Norfolk was said to be approached by Scottish lords with the proposition that he should marry Mary and was said to be delighted at such an idea (Budiansky 71-2).

Norfolk proceeded to get the Privy Council‟s decision that Mary would be free when married to an English lord (ibid). It was a part of his plan for Mary‟s potential succession. William Cecil did not dare to confront the Duke directly in this matter, so it was him who, in 1569, asked most likely Walsingham to write a pamphlet Discourse

Touching the Pretended Match between the Duke of Norfolk and the Queen of Scots

(Hutchinson 39). Of course Norfolk denied rumours about the marriage at first.

However William Cecil did not give up and continued to fight with his special means.

He “repeatedly dropped just enough hints to Elizabeth to make it clear that the Duke was up to something” (Budiansky 73), and Elizabeth finally confronted Norfolk directly. Norfolk revealed his plan and she naturally considered it treasonous, burst in anger and forbade the marriage (Hutchinson 38). Norfolk then departed from the court hoping the Queen would calm down. Instead she issued two royal commands ordering

Norfolk to come to Windsor (Hutchinson 39). He was arrested and taken to the Tower

36 of London (ibid). It did not help though – in August 1570 he was released, but already in 1572 he ended up on the scaffold (see 7.3).

In the meantime Walsingham was asked to further investigate on the matter by examination of the Florentine banker Roberto Ridolfi8 who was observed to deliver sums of money from abroad to Norfolk and Bishop of Ross (Hutchinson 41). This proved the Norfolk matter was really a broader conspiracy, which could be considered

(and by many historians is considered) as the beginning of so called Ridolfi Plot (see

7.3). Ridolfi admitted he delivered money, but during the search of his lodging no discriminating materials were found, he was suddenly released on bond of £1,000

(Hutchinson 42). The partial reason for his detention was to prevent him to contact the

Spanish Ambassador De Spes, known to be the ally of Mary, who would surely undertake some further action to help Norfolk (Budiansky 75). So when this possibility was out of question, Ridolfi was released.

This conspiracy does not seem to threaten the life of the Queen directly and probably was not the threat to the country at all. Only Walsingham‟s propagandist pamphlet made it to appear so. As an example of activities in which the secret service was involved it does not show any amazing espionage techniques and elaborate plans.

However, it does show the importance of gathering of information and their verification, even though only rumours were in question. In a similar way the use of

Walsingham‟s propaganda to bring the Queen to the realisation Norfolk was plotting against her is a good example of the outstanding solution of the situation, with which

Walsingham and William Cecil usually came. On the other hand, the release of Ridolfi is one of the few mistakes the great spy masters occasionally made and foretells something about Ridolfi‟s skills of escaping the spy masters. Or, as Hutchinson

8 or Ridolphi (spelling can differ in various sources)

37 suggests, it shows Walsingham‟s skills to persuade people to work for him as double agents, as he could be, when detained, released under the promise of performing intelligence (54). Of the most importance is that this conspiracy shows the secret service sometimes had to intervene in some matters just to be sure.

7.2 Abduction of John Story

The abduction and later execution of John Story was “the first major spy operation abroad under [William] Cecil‟s direction” (Haynes 1). It set the standard to the operations of the secret service and laid the grounds for later successes of Sir

Walsingham. The matter involved John Story, once a Parliament member, who opposed the Bill of Uniformity, who during the reign of Mary Tudor became zealot active in the process of converting the country back to Catholicism, and who finally opposed even the Act of Supremacy (Weinewright). Because of his uncontrollable tongue and these oppositions he ended up in prison for several times. Finally he escaped from prison into exile in Flanders where he became a Spanish citizen and in need of money and from a desire to support anti-English stands he started to work for Duke of Alva (Haynes 2).

Among other jobs he was a searcher of smuggled Protestant literature (ibid). What is more, together with John Prestall, he planned the plot of several royal murders and the possible invasion of England (ibid). By this he appeared on the black list of William

Cecil. To catch John Story was desirable, so the operation was approved and started to be prepared.

The plan was simple – to play on Story‟s zealousness as a searcher and persuade him to board an unknown ship and transport him back to England (Haynes 3). As the connection of the spy master and men executing the abduction served Cecil‟s long-time agent, John Marsh, who was originally in Flanders to report on the work of John Prestall

(ibid). He contacted other intelligencers John Lee, John Taylor and John Bradley, who

38 had useful contacts and means to find and hire the actual kidnappers Roger Ramsden,

Martin Bragge and Simon Jewkes and the crew of the ship which should transport Story

(ibid). The key work was then executed by the searcher William Parker – he informed

Story about three seemingly good Catholics, supposedly knowing about religious materials hidden at one ship (Haynes 4). Story met with them, spent some time with them and eventually went in search for the material in the ship at Bergen, where they trapped him on board (Wainewright). He managed to escape, but soon he was recaptured and deported to England (Haynes 4). There he ended up in Tower where he was tortured on the rack for several times and held until the reasonable charge, which would not discredit Cecil, as Story was actually the Spanish subject, was constructed against him (Haynes 5). He was condemned at the end of May 1571 (Wainewright) and even before that he became the legend and martyr among Catholics.

The secret service acted whenever something suspicious was happening, and in this case Cecil‟s agents did their job properly. The plan of John Story could eventually develop into a real threat to Elizabeth and they prevented that. This operation is an example of secret service‟s technique of abduction. It shows both long-time agents‟ and one-time hired men‟ typical utilization and cooperation as it was outlined in chapter 5.

What is more, the detention of Story and his reputation was used to uncover another dangerous plot against Elizabeth – the Ridolfi Plot (see 7.3).

7.3 The Ridolfi Plot

In the April 1571 the use of agents-searchers in ports proved to be useful, when

Charles Baillie9, a man of Scottish descent was detained because of the suspicious packages he carried (Budiansky76). The packages contained several documents, among them some letters, even ciphered ones, reputedly dictated by Roberto Ridolfi and

9 or Bailly (spelling can differ in various sources)

39 dispatched to John Leslie, Bishop of Ross (Hutchinson 54). According to Budiansky, before the Warden of the Cinque Ports, Lord Cobham, sent these materials to William

Cecil, Leslie convinced him to replace some letters for the older ones and send them instead (76). Nevertheless, Baillie was imprisoned in Marshalsea Prison in Southwark and Beauchamp Tower in Tower of London10 where he was tortured on the rack, interrogated and instigated to decipher the letters (Haynes 7).

In order to get Baillie talk about the key to the ciphers the secret service agents were of use again. Not only was Baillie tortured in prison, but also an agent was placed in his cell to gain his trust and get the information. His name was William Herle, but he succeeded only partially, he just made it possible to intercept letters sent by the imprisoned Baillie to Bishop of Ross (Haynes 10). The next agent, who actually made

Baillie speak, was William Parker who entered the cell of Baillie pretending to be Dr.

John Story, the man Baillie admired. This tactic proved to be brilliant. Baillie gave away the cipher key and confessed that the letters were really from Ridolfi, who on behalf of Mary Queen of Scots tried to get the support of the Duke of Alva (and Philip

II) and the Pope for an invasion of England (Hutchinson 55). The plan was to coordinate invasion with a Catholic uprising, to dethrone Elizabeth and replace her by

Mary married to Norfolk (Haynes 11). The problem was that Bishop of Ross, who was put into the confinement, claimed otherwise. According to him Mary asked only for assistance in Scotland (Haynes 10). He at least admitted meddling with letters and destroying the original ones (Budiansky 77). Still he would not tell more.

Although Walsingham confirmed from France that Ridolfi really met with Alva, carrying letters from the Spanish Ambassador in London, and with the Pope and the

King as well, he was not able to find out why Ridolfi did that. Luckily again agents did

10 Haynes asserts Baillie was firstly in Marshalsea where being spied on by Herle, and then in the Tower where he was tortured and where he met Parker. Hutchinson reverses the order – according to him was Baillie firstly tortured in the Tower and then in Marshalsea with Herle (Hutchinson 54-6).

40 their work properly and William Cecil was informed that the Duke of Norfolk sent money and letters to North, probably to Scotland and to Mary‟s supporters (Haynes 11).

Norfolk‟s house was searched and his secretaries interrogated, the ciphered letter was found and Norfolk‟s contact with Mary confirmed (Budiansky 78). Bishop of Ross was called once more from his custody to clarify all the information. This time Bishop succumbed to threats and confirmed Baillie‟s testimony as well as Norfolk‟s participation in the conspiracy (Haynes 11).

Norfolk was rearrested and in June 1572 executed for treachery (Hutchison 80).

Baillie and Ross were eventually released (ibid). Roberto Ridolfi, safely outside

England, wrote to Mary how disappointed he was with the situation which did not allow him to return to England (ibid). He was never caught and brought to justice for his conspiracy activities. It is possible that he could not be, because he was double agent or agent provocateur, as was suggested in subchapter 7.1, whose task was to help to get

Norfolk to the scaffold (Hutchinson 54). But nothing of this is sure.

Yet it is sure that William Cecil‟s arrangements concerning his agents were effective – searchers intercepted suspicious materials, prison agents managed to lure out the information from prisoners and observers were able to verify information. All that with use of techniques described above. Because of the watchfulness of Cecil‟s men

Mary‟s plans on the dethronement of Elizabeth failed and Norfolk was brought to justice.

7.4 The Throckmorton Plot

One of the most dangerous plots against the Queen, the Throckmorton plot, was doomed to be uncovered from the moment the highly intelligent spy Henry Fagot started to operate with the French embassy. He managed to corrupt the French

41 Ambassador‟s Mauvissière‟s11 secretary12 and persuade him to copy the correspondence between the ambassador and Mary Queen of Scots and send it to Walsingham

(Budiansky124). The very fact the channel of correspondence with Mary was reopened meant there was some kind of conspiracy in preparation again. Walsingham went through the copied letters sent by this outstanding source and patiently waited for some useful information.

His waiting had paid out in November 1583, when a copied note came, containing information which would make it possible for Walsingham to catch Mary‟s and Mauvissière‟s courier. This information, together with another one from Henry

Fagot, revealed to Walsingham who the courier was – Francis Throckmorton. He was reported by Fagot to stay occasionally in the ambassador‟s house (Budiansky129). In

Mauvissière‟s letters he was called Sieur de la Tour (Bossy 79). Based on this information, the search of Throckmorton‟s houses was ordered and Throckmorton himself was caught in his London house in the middle of enciphering a letter to Mary

(Budiansky 129). This letter, the list of Catholic noblemen and gentlemen in England including the notes on ports suitable for landing of invading fleet, and copies of Bishop of Ross‟s pamphlet defending Mary‟s right to the English crown were confiscated

(Budiansky129-30). At first Throckmorton claimed the documents were inserted in his house by men searching it (Budiansky 130). Then he claimed he had never seen the documents (ibid). However, after the torture he confessed (ibid).

He admitted he and his brother were surveying ports suitable for the landing of the invasion fleet led by Henri, Duke of Guise (Bossy 76). Guise then selected the port

11 Michel de Castelnau, seigneur de Mauvissière 12 Mauvissiére had at that time three secretaries. The question is, which one was the mole. The most probable is Laurent Feron. Proves are discussed in Bossy, John. Under the Molehill: An Elizabethan Spy Story. Yale: Yale University Press, 2002.

42 of Arundel and sent Charles Paget and Thomas Morgan (Mary‟s agents) to survey the port in more detail. Throckmorton then served as the courier carrying letters between

Morgan and Mary and twice a week he met with the Spanish Ambassador Bernardino de Mendoza, who suggested that the second invasion force from Spain should land in

Lancashire (Budiansky130-1).

Based on this confession, in July 1584, Throckmorton was hanged, drawn and quartered (Budiansky 134). Mendoza was summoned to the Privy Council where

Walsingham enumerated his intrigues and gave him fifteen days to depart from

England. Against Mauvissière the list of charges was secretly prepared as well, but the matter was later dropped quietly for unknown reason. Nevertheless, his carrier was ruined as rumours spread in France that it was him who betrayed Mary‟s cause. Both

Fagot and the secretary of the French Ambassador remained active and unrevealed and from time to time they offered another piece of useful information. They both withdrew from their jobs at these positions when the new ambassador, Guillaume de l‟Aubépine,

Baron de Châteauneuf, assumed his position (Budiansky 134-5).

Activities of the secret service throughout these events mostly show the art of the secret service in intercepting and copying the letters, and show how important was the patience of the spy masters. The advantage of having the informers in the right places is also very clearly visible from the description above. Thanks to two moles on the French embassy and their art in copying the correspondence, one of the most serious plots against the Queen and the country was revealed.

7.5 The Parry Plot

Dr William Parry13 used to be the spy for William Cecil spying on exiled

English Catholics (Haynes 37). He did the job because he was bound to Cecil who got

13 i.e ap Harry

43 him out of debtor‟s prison (ibid). He operated on behalf of William Cecil in Paris,

Venice, Lyon and Milan (Hutchinson 113). However, it seems he gradually started to play the double agent, and what is more, started to side with Catholics. He lost the trust of the spy masters and the Queen.

However, in 1584 he came to the Queen with the exposure of an assassination plot, devised by the Pope Gregory XIII, Thomas Morgan and Charles Paget (Haynes

38). He supported it by a letter from the papal secretary Ptolemy Galli, Cardinal of

Como (ibid). By this he gained the trust again and was sent to Paris as an intelligencer and a companion of Robert Cecil (ibid). When he returned, he got a seat in Parliament, where he drew the attention by passionate opposition to the new legislation against

Catholics and was ordered to custody by the House of Commons (ibid). The Queen helped him and ordered to release him the next day, but it was for the last time – he was out of favour again.

It did not take long and Parry was again in problems because of his debts. He probably tried to regain the trust and “reveal” another plot. The plot he discussed with

Edmund Neville, a man already under suspicion (ibid). Neville gave Parry away and they both ended up in the Tower of London (ibid). In prison Parry confessed the plot was actually devised by Morgan and that they supposedly intended to shoot Elizabeth in the Palace Garden in Westminster (ibid). Parry was executed in 1585, Neville was later released and Morgan ended up, thanks to the request Elizabeth sent to Henri III, in

Bastille (ibid).

Elizabeth probably was not endangered directly by this plot, although several interesting stories about Parry‟s intentions and preparations to kill her exist: he supposedly waited in the gardens and did not assassinate the Queen only because he was suddenly caught by the surprise by the royal appearance of Her Majesty; or, he

44 should gain the private audience with Elizabeth, bring the knife in the sleeve and change the mind on the last minute again (Tudor Place). None of this is probably true and seems to be the products of propaganda.

Parry himself was a man willing to do almost anything, even change sides, to get money. Even without such a profile it was really dangerous to be an anti-Catholic agent, because one could easily get under suspicion of being double agent or being one cooperating with Catholics. This was the case of Parry. It is not sure whether he really was double agent and it makes little difference on the implications of the case. It matters, that the spy masters wanted to get rid of him as he presented a complication and a threat, and they could use Neville to achieve that. Thus this plot was either the trap on Parry or a badly performed attempt of his to gain the trust of the Queen and of the spy masters by uncovering another plot. In both cases it is an example of a dishonourable role of secret service – of constructing sham plots.

Nevertheless, this plot, together with the Throckmorton plot and other reported activities of Catholics in the country, caused that the Bond of Association was formulated by Queen‟s councillors and issued in 1584 (Haynes 39). This bond proclaimed that every person, who would take part in preparations to assassinate the

Queen, would be put to death (Hutchinson 117). It was signed by the Queen‟s loyal subjects pledging in this way to revenge on anyone who would in this treacherous way try to succeed the throne (ibid).

7.6 The Babington Plot

After the Throckmorton and the Parry plots, Mary Queen of Scots found herself in a tighter surveillance of Sir Amyas Paulet in Tutbury Castle (Hutchinson 118). The strict security measures there made all attempts to smuggle any secret correspondence to her impossible (Hutchinson 19). Still her French spy and deviser of ciphers, Thomas

45 Morgan, sought for the channels through which he could communicate with her

(Haynes 65). Eventually he decided to use as letter carrier Gilbert Gifford (Haynes 64).

However, this man was convinced by Francis Walsingham to spy for him – either when he was expelled from college in Rome (Haynes 63), or when he was caught with

Morgan‟s letters in Rye in 1585 (Hutchinson 121). Although Walsingham did not trust

Gifford completely (Haynes 65), agent represented the chance to establish the communication network between Mary and her followers which could be completely watched by Walsingham. For these purposes Mary was moved to Chartley (Hutchinson

121). To Chartley beer was delivered once a week in wooden casks, which were suitable for smuggling the correspondence (ibid). Phelippes and Paulet arranged this with brewer, whom they trusted and whom they bribed to perform the task of smuggling a cork tube in and out of the casks (Haynes 66). Thus the ritual of intercepting correspondence started: Gifford received letters from the French embassy and gave them to Phelippes and Arthur Gregory to decipher, copy and seal; then he picked them up again and gave to the brewer, who forwarded these letters to Paulet checking Gifford in this way; from Paulet they were sent to Marry; and vice versa (Budiansky 155). This was arrangement, which enabled to uncover Babington plot and to prove Mary guilty of scheming against Elizabeth.

The plotting itself started in 1586 when John Ballard, supposedly Jesuit priest zealous to get rid of Elizabeth‟s Protestantism, who was watched by his friend and

Walsingham‟s spy Bernard Maude, met in Paris with Paget, Morgan and Mendoza

(Haynes 71). He ensured them the English Catholics were prepared to get rid of

Elizabeth and introduced them the idea of combining English Catholics‟ forces with the

Spanish invasion (ibid). Mendoza assured him of some Spanish help and Ballard proceeded with preparation.

46 The English Catholics, who were according to Ballard prepared to kill the

Queen, were friends of Anthony Babington whom Ballard met in London. What is to say is, that among Babington‟s group were Walsingham spies as well. For example

Gilbert Gifford, who watched his friend John Savage (Budiansky 158), and Robert

Poley, who became Babington‟s trustee. However, the plot was endangered by

Babington himself, who tend to hesitate whether it is “lawful to murder the Queen of

England” (Budiansky 119) and whether he should not leave the country. He hesitated even though Ballard ensured him there is no need for him to do the act of assassination himself as it would be performed by John Savage (Haynes 72), who was encouraged to do so by Gifford (Budiansky 158). It was this hesitation which eventually provided

Walsingham with evidence against Mary and with confirmation of conspirators‟ intentions, because Morgan had asked of Mary to encourage Babington (Budiansky

159).

The correspondence between Mary and Babington had been opened – he asked her for an approval of their doings and informed her on exact plan they intended to execute (ibid). Mary gave the approval and some advice (Hutchinson 130-1). All exchanged letters were intercepted and altered by Phelippes in order to get more information on conspirators.

In the meantime Babington still considered leaving the country and because

Poley and Walsingham knew that, the former arranged the meeting. Walsingham needed “to fix the young man firmly into the inchoate plot and he would then either be arrested for plotting or forced to turn queen‟s evidence” (Haynes 78). Finally three meetings of Walsingham and Babington took place, and at the third one Walsingham asked Babington “to tell everything he might know” (Budiansky 162). Babington did not speak (Budiansky 184). When he changed his mind and realised they were trapped,

47 it was too late (Haynes 88). Ballard was to be soon arrested, the order to arrest

Babington and other plotters was already in preparation and their lodgings were watched by agents (Haynes 89).

When Ballard was arrested, Babington was alarmed and fled together with other conspirator Gage and was joined by Barnawell and Dunne, other members of his party

(Haynes 91). Meanwhile the first group of conspirators, Savage, Tilney and Tichborne, was arrested and their questioning began (ibid). Even though Babington‟s group used its famous cover of staining the skin with walnut juice near Uxendon, and even though

Walsingham‟s men searching for them were not inconspicuous as even William Cecil on his travel to London could see they are searching for someone, they were finally caught (Haynes 92).

Poley, as well as Maude, gave the report on their dealings with Babington

(Haynes 91). Gilbert Gifford left the country from fear of being arrested and tried with other conspirators (ibid). Documents and letters from Chartley were seized and Mary‟s secretaries Nau and Curll were questioned for details concerning Mary‟s correspondence (ibid). After torture and interrogation Babington wrote two confessions

(Haynes 93), and Savage confessed even without the torture (Haynes 91). Only a few plotters escaped the execution: Thomas Habington was placed in the Tower and Richard

Bellamy managed to escape from prison (later he was rearrested) (Haynes 95). The rest of the plotters, concerning the high number of them, were executed on 20th and 21st

September 1586 in two groups: Ballard, Babington, Barnewell, Savage, Tichborne,

Tilney, Habington and Salusbury, Henry Dunne, Edward Jones, John Travers,

Charnock, Gage, Jerome Bellamy (ibid).

If any plot ever really endangered the Queen, it was the Babington plot.

However, it is very controversial statement, as it is questionable, how dangerous would

48 the plot be if Walsingham would stop it at its beginning. The fact is that the secret service knew of every aspect of the plot and it was this, what minimized the risk

Walsingham had taken when he waited to catch plotters. He had the right men as

Ballard or Morgan, who really proved to be dangerous, watched. What is more, agents watching them not only proved to be skilful double agents capable to deceive even their friends (in case of Maude), but also to successfully act as agents provocateurs (in case of Gifford pressing on Savage to be assassin). The same craft showed Robert Poley, when he manipulated with Babington to make him to stick to conspiracy plans and not to run away. However, the most important part played Thomas Phelippes as the deviser of the plan of correspondence smuggled through casks, and as the decipherer, who was in short time capable to handle a great number of ciphered letters.

The most important consequence of these men‟s work was the trial and execution of Mary. Activities of these agents led to the acquisition of the evidence, in form of letters, against Mary. This operation and spy masters‟ political scheming ensured that the greatest threat to Elizabeth was removed – the Catholics lost their catalyst of joint efforts to destroy Protestantism in England.

7.7 The Stafford Plot

The Stafford Plot was most likely one of so called sham plots of Francis

Walsingham. William Stafford, brother of Sir Edward Stafford, the English ambassador in Paris, seemed to be obliged somehow to Walsingham. He should tell him in 1585 that he is “as ever at [his] command and there is no man living to whom [he is] so beholden”

(Hutchinson 177),14 which indicate he could serve as the agent-provocateur acting on behalf of Walsingham.

14 also in Read, Conyers. Mr Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth. Vol 3. Oxford: The Clarendon P, 1925.

49 In 1587 William Stafford allegedly presented to the French ambassador

Châteauneuf a plan to kill Queen Elizabeth (Haynes 96). The man who should carry out the act was Michael Moody, at that time imprisoned in Newgate (ibid). It is also to say, that Moody was once paid by Walsingham as a letter-carrier (ibid), so most likely he was brought to the cause because of these connections. So Stafford and Châteauneuf‟s secretary Leonard des Trappes visited Moody in prison to talk with him about the details. However, by that they raised the suspicion and it was probably because of this visit the whole cause was revealed.

Des Trappes and Stafford were put in prison and Châteauneuf into house arrest

(Hutchinson 176). Stafford confessed and Moody supported the claims that Stafford proposed the plan to Châteauneuf (ibid). He also confirmed that Châteauneuf supported the plan and that their inspiration was Marry Queen of Scots, at that time waiting for an execution warrant to be signed (ibid). Châteauneuf admitted that Stafford introduced him such a plan, but he claimed that he did not approve it. Nevertheless, he remained in detention and the number of Queen‟s bodyguards had been raised (Hutchinson 17).

Châteauneuf was released from house arrest in 1587, after the execution of Mary

Queen of Scots. The government apologised and asserted the matter was a big misunderstanding (Haynes 96). This, together with connections both Moody and

Stafford had to Walsingham, imply, that the plot was devised by Walsingham to prevent

Châteauneuf from contacting allies abroad willing to save Mary. There is also possibility that it should serve as means to convince Elizabeth to sign Mary‟s death warrant, as it is unlikely plotters would dare to devise another plot so soon after the executions of Babington plotters, which must have scared them off. Likewise, a discovery of another plot in such a short time after the previous one must have startle

50 Elizabeth. It is possible that after the Parry plot she was more willing to sign the warrant to execute Mary. Yet, there is no evidence for that.

In addition, agents of Walsingham‟s secret service spread disinformation and rumours about foreign forces gathering in order to save Mary (see 6), and about supposed escape of hers. In this way they spread panic among the people and at the court. Subsequently people got the feeling that the execution of Mary is necessary. All these activities reflect the spy masters‟ skilful use of the secret service for propagandistic purposes and for achieving their private goals.

7.8 The Defeat of Armada

At the beginning of the 1580s the relations between England and Spain were strained. In 1580 Spain had seized Portugal. In 1584 the Dutch Protestant rebels could not hold against Parma anymore, held only a few strongholds and were in need of help.

In 1585 Spaniards closed all ports to English trade ships. Sir Francis Walsingham and few others started to be disturbed by the possibility of the Spanish attack on England.

However, the Queen and William Cecil hesitated to perform anything provocative.

Walsingham‟s main problem was that in Spain he had only a low number of reliable informers who would obtain some information he could use to convince Queen and

William Cecil to act (Hutchinson 205).

To prevent a supposed attack, or at least delay it, Walsingham sent agents to the

English ambassador in Constantinople to suggest the Turks an attack on Spanish interests in Mediterranean (Hutchinson 204). He even consented to use Anthony Poyntz, unreliable spy with tendency to change sides, and he sent him to Paris (Haynes 100-1), where Poyntz proved to be useless again. Not sooner than in 1587 had Walsingham more information on the Spanish naval and military activities. His sources were mostly merchants and from information they provided it was apparent that Spaniards were

51 gathering men and building ships. The need for preventive attack started to be discussed in London.

In 1587 Walsingham, Leicester and Lord Admiral Howard willingly supported

Francis Drake‟s plan to attack Spanish ports (Hutchinson 208). This plan was at first rejected by the Queen, but then she changed her mind and approved it. Finally she decided to alter it and forbade Drake to attack ships in ports. Fortunately the message about alteration did not reach Drake in time (Hutchinson 210), so he successfully attacked port of Cadiz and fort on Cape Sagres (Hutchinson 211) and by this he slowed down the preparations of Armada.

The information on the progress of Spanish preparation was needed and therefore Walsigham work out the plan to gather more precise information and the plan on passing along this information more safely (Hutchinson 214). He redirected the network of his agents in Italy, who were watching English Catholics, to inform him on

Spanish activities. He also managed to get several reliable agents in Spain – for example

Anthony Standen, a former Mary‟s supporter. Standen was able to use his contacts in

Italy and under the pseudonym Pompeo Pellegrini he sent intelligence to Walsingham.

One of Pellegrini‟s contacts, the ambassador Giovanni Figliazzi, reported on activities at Phillip‟s court. Another his contact had a brother, who informed him about Spanish admiral Santa Cruz‟s plan, preparations and forces of Armada (Haynes 101-2).

Despite of these information provided by the secret service, the Queen was still reluctant to admit her realm is in danger and to give the funds for its defence

(Hutchinson 226). The plan for defence of England was drawn, but she did not allow her Councillors to carry it out. They at least alarmed their own troops. In May 1588

Armada under the command of Medina Sidonia departed (Hutchinson 230), and gentry was finally called to prepare their militias. When Armada departed for the first time,

52 ships were damaged by the storm; when it departed for the second time, they had bigger success. Although English ships tried hard, only several of Spanish ships sank or were taken. Still, for Spaniards the boarding of smaller and quicker English ships was similarly impossible. The turn came when English used several old ships loaded with gunpowder and oil to fire-attack. Spaniards counted with this tactics, but despite that, their captains were too panicked to hold the formation. Scattered ships were pursued by reinforced English ships and drifted to the Scottish waters. The rest of Armada was destroyed by the storms and wrecked on the coast or Ireland.

Beside the activities mentioned above, Walsingham monitored the Spanish finances in order to see whether Philip is capable of financing the creation of such an army and he even used his influence and made several banking houses to deny Philip‟s request for loan (Hutchinson 212-3). He also let his agents to spread disinformation about the suitable landing sites and suitable ways to get into ports – one Richard Gibbes for example told Spaniards that Thames is too shallow to bring the navy through it

(Hutchinson 224). To confuse Spaniards Walsingham also used the double agent paid by Spaniards, the English ambassador in Paris Sir Edward Stafford, who unaware of the

Walsingham lying to him, reported to Spaniards false information about military strength and intentions of English.

Throughout the time Armada was being built and prepared, Walsingham was able to establish the great network of agents. With its help he not only gained so needed intelligence on the number, size and movement of the Spanish forces, but his agents also informed him on the development of situation and of battles around the coast of

England. In addition, the efforts of Walsingham and his agents did not reside only in gathering information about Armada, but they also tried to delay its departure and to weaken it.

53 7.9 The Lopez Conspiracy

Dr. Lopez was a respected physician living in England from the beginning of the

Queen Elizabeth‟s reign and he gradually worked up the ladder until he not only obtained patronage of Leicester and Walsingham, but he also became the physician of the Queen (Hume 117-8). Unfortunately, he got involved in espionage scheming between England and Spain.

In 1590 Lopez used his contacts to free Manuel de Andrade15 the spy, who was arrested when his letters to Spanish ambassador Bernardino de Mendoza were intercepted (Haynes 138). In France then this spy interpreted to Mendoza what Lopez said to him – that as he [Lopez] was once indirectly16 asked by Mendoza to poison

Portuguese pretender Dom Antonio, task he did not performed, and as he helped to free some poor Spanish prisoners, survivors of Armada (Hume 119-20), he wants to let him

[Mendoza] know, that it is good time for him [Lopez] to arrange negotiation of the peace between Spanish and England (Hume 122).

Why he did it, it is not clear, but most likely it was instigated by Walsingham

(Hume 123) to ensure the English spies could freely pass the borders under the cover of peace negotiations (Haynes 138-9). All the same, Spaniards had most likely the same intention (Hume 124). In addition to that Spaniards followed other objectives by this – to expulse, with help of Lopez, Dom Antonio from England or to have him killed by

Lopez‟s brother-in-law. As these pretended negotiations continued, Sir Walsingham died and the rest of the spy masters did not know about his involvement. Therefore, when Andrade got back to England in order to carry out negotiations, William Cecil arrested him and for some time did not want to use his services (Haynes 139).

15 also Andrada 16 Lopez was supposedly approached by Spanish spy Vega to perform such an act, but this was not of Mendoza‟s instigation and Lopez did not have to agree with such a proposition. Mendoza also could approach Lopez another time, but about that nothing is known.

54 The things got worse for Lopez when in 1593 Esteban Ferreira da Gama, who had been from time to time housed in Lopez‟s house (Haynes 139), became suspected of collaboration with Spaniards and got arrested by Essex (Haynes 142). The order was issued to hold and read all correspondence sent to Portuguese (Hume 133). The messenger Gomez d‟Avila was then detained with correspondence to Ferreira (Haynes

142). It contained the letter drafted by Tinoco written in confusing and suspicious wording (ibid). To add to suspiciousness of their behaviour, Ferreira send from prison a message to Lopez, where he asked him to prevent d‟Avila from returning to England

(Haynes 143). Neither he nor Lopez did know d‟Avila was already in prison. Lopez sent the answer which was used against Ferreira to persuade him Lopez betrayed him (Hume

136). Under the pressure and this false assumption, he testified there was a plot to get rid of Don Antonio and the letters were connected to it (Hume 137). D‟Avila confirmed this independently. Yet, Lopez still was not endangered by this.

However, two months after the detainment of Ferreira and d‟Avila Tinoco came to England and was detained (Haynes 143). Two letters were found by him (ibid). He was asked to explain the content of the letters and the whole matter (Hume 130).

However, his testimonies contradicted (Hume 140-1). This all caused that Essex and both Cecils felt there was something more behind. Therefore they arrested and interrogated Lopez (Haynes 144).

Cecils did not really believed Lopez is guilty of plotting against the Queen, but

Essex, driven by his obsessive hatred to Spaniards and by private antipathy towards

Lopez, was resolved to gain at least something from the affair (Haynes 144-5). And this he managed – all prisoners were cleverly interrogated again and again until they started to change their testimonies in order to save their own necks (Hume 144). Eventually the evidences against Lopez were gathered and even some kind of confession was drawn

55 from him (Haynes 146). On 7th June 1594 Lopez was executed even though Elizabeth herself did not believe in his guilt.

This conspiracy is interesting as the unfortunate product of ordinary activities of the secret service. Probably there was no conspiracy – it was created by the secret service. However, this time not intentionally, but by mistake. As usual, Walsingham devised one of his genial plans to get intelligence from Spain, but his death and his secrecy put men, who were involved in the matter, into great danger. Secrecy was essential for spy masters, but this plot shows it could be also quite a complication, as the spy masters sometimes did not know about activities and agents of one another.

Because of that they occasionally, in the common effort and good will, unconsciously stood against themselves. This was also caused by the fact they used agents to pursue their own agendas which often contradicted. The account of Lopez conspiracy shows very well that Essex‟s personal problems and agendas influenced the investigation so much it is not possible to decide whether there really was some threat to the Queen or was not.

56 8. Conclusion

The Elizabethan secret service was the group of individuals working independently, in common effort, under the direction of the spy masters conveyed by the correspondence. These spy masters were, at the same time, the Privy Councillors, advisors and courtiers of the Queen. From the detailed description of mechanics of the secret service, it is apparent that the spy masters were “the Alfas and the Omegas” of the secret service. Without their masterminds any operation would not have happened.

Without them, the secret service would not have existed.

The types of secret service agents employed were different – some were mere informers, others spies. They were performing different tasks and using different techniques. They were all hired and paid by the spy masters. Later with some payments government funds helped. In accounts of plots and activities of the secret service one can see the examples of these different activities of different types of agents and get some idea of the system of hiring and employing of agents. This all shows that the

Elizabethan secret service was really the systematic group.

From descriptions of events and plots which happened during Queen Elizabeth‟s reign it is apparent, that the formation and functions of the Elizabethan secret service were defined by the time in which it operated. The religious discontents inside and outside England caused by the restoration of Protestantism in the country had proven that the secret service was needed as a protective group which would prevent and suppress threats to the Queen and the country. Hast of events, the difficult communication and complicated relations between countries had shown the need of the flow of information which the secret service could provide. The participation of agents in sham plots had shown the dangerous influence personal agendas of Queen‟s Privy

Councillors had on the activities of the secrets service.

57 The role of the secret service in discoveries of conspiracies seems to be simple – the secret service was the protector of the Queen. The Throckmorton, the Babington and the Ridolfi plots show it really was so, as by the exposal of these plots the real threat to the Queen and to the country was destroyed. On the contrary, the role of the secret service in the Lopez conspiracy and in the Parry plot was the role of spy masters‟ tool used to achieve their own goals. To add to that, in the Norfolk conspiracy, in the

Stafford plot and defeat of Armada, the secret service played the role of protector of national or Queen‟s interests, even at the expanse of Queen‟s protests.

Nevertheless, from these accounts one can learn that the spy masters and their agents had to be and were on guard day and night, at all posts, because any information they could get to, or any suspicious man they could detain, could turn out to be useful for them, or lead them to the discovery of a threatening conspiracy. Every suspicious case was handled by the secret service, just to be sure to repress the potential threat and discontent – sometimes sooner than any direct evidence was available. Thus, even though the Elizabethan secret service was not as elaborate organisation as the nowadays secret services are, it was very needed group of individuals which executed its functions very well and really ensured the Queen and the country lived and prospered for so many years.

58 9. Czech Resume

Alžbětinská tajná služba byla skupinou nezávisle na sobě pracujících jedinců se společným cílem pod vedením špionážních mistrů. Tito špionážní mistři sbírali a vyhodnocovali informace, které jim tito jedinci, agenti, zasílali prostřednictvím korespondence. Na základě těchto informací pak špionážní mistři vydávali agentům další rozkazy.

Agentů bylo mnoho druhů. Někteří byli pouze informátoři poslouchající a sledující dění kolem sebe, jiní byli špioni získávající informace vydíráním, podplácením a jinými podlými technikami. Všichni však byli najímáni, placeni a podřízeni

špionážním mistrům (později je financovala i samotná vláda).

Přestože techniky, které tito agenti převážně používali, považujeme za poměrně prosté a základní, i mezi nimi byly takové, které již byly více sofistikované. Např. využití propagandy a dezinformace bylo v tomto ohledu unikátním prostředkem. Použití těchto sofistikovanějších technik však většinou bylo zosnováno opět špionážními mistry, kteří stáli za každou operací tajné služby a jak je vidno, byli alfou a omegou tohoto uskupení.

Všechny druhy agentů a všechny dostupné techniky byli používány k plnění několika funkcí, které tajná služba měla. Členové tajné služby totiž primárně fungovali jako jacísi středověcí novináři sbírající informace a předávající je dál. Proto také samozřejmě byli nástrojem politickým, vzhledem k tomu, že informovali o dění v zahraničních zemích a na dvorech cizích panovníků. Nejen tímto pak chránili svou zemi a svou královnu. Avšak tajná služba nebyla čistě vládním nástrojem, jak je tomu dnes.

Agenti sloužili svým pánům, špionážním mistrům, kteří, ačkoli byli důležití státníci a

šlo jim především o blaho země, měli i své soukromé zájmy a cíle k jejichž dosažení agenty tajné služby používali.

59 Je tedy jasné, že se tajná služba musela velkou měrou podílet na odhalování a potlačování konspirací proti královně, které byly tehdy velmi časté. V případech spiknutí vévody z Norfolku, únosu Johna Storyho nebo Lopezova a Parryho spiknutí tajná služba úspěšně zabránila rozvoji plánů konspirátorů a zavčasu zatrhla činnost podezřelým jedincům. Stejně tak odhalení Ridolfiho, Throckmortonova a Babingtonova spiknutí byla obrovskými úspěchy tajné služby a prvotřídními ukázkami jejich umění.

Bezezbytku jimi tajná služba splnila svou roli ochránce královny. Další ukázkou umění a plnění funkcí tajné služby byla její účast na poražení španělské Armady. Tajná služba pomohla získat množství informací a podniknout několik akcí, které pomohly nejenom odhadnout sílu Armady, ale také ji oslabit a porazit. Plnila tak svou roli ochránce národních zájmů i za cenu toho, že královna některé jejich akce neschvalovala a nepodporovala. Podobně tomu bylo i v případě Staffordova spiknutí vytvořeného samotnými špionážními mistry právě a výhradně za tímto účelem ochrany národních zájmů, i přestože mohlo královnu vyděsit a ohrozit.

Všechny tyto popisy událostí a činností tajné služby ukazují, že přestože nebyla

Alžbětinská tajná služba natolik sofistikovanou a uspořádanou organizací, jako jsou dnešní tajné služby, nebyla uskupením zdaleka tak primitivním, jak se na první pohled může zdát. Alžbětinská tajná služba byla organizací vytvořenou pod vlivem a potřebami své doby a byla skupinou velmi užitečnou, která plnila své povinnosti s velkým

úspěchem a nasazením. Byla skupinou, která se významným způsobem zasadila o to, že

Anglie a její královna prosperovala a žila po tolik dlouhých let.

60 10. Works Cited and Consulted

Bossy, John. Under the Molehill: An Elizabethan Spy Story. Yale: Yale UP, 2002.

Britain Express. Ed. David Ross. 13 June 2009 .

Browning, Andrew. The Age of Elizabeth. London: T. Nelson, 1935.

Budiansky, Stephen. Her Majesty's Spymaster: Elizabeth I, Sir Francis Walsingham,

and the Birth of Modern Espionage. New York: Plume, 2006.

Čerňak, J. A. Pět století tajné války. Trans. Ladislav Ducháček and Václav Dušek.

Praha: Naše vojsko, 1970.

Dobson, Michael, and Nicola J. Watson. England's Elizabeth. Oxford: Oxford UP,

2002.

“Essex, Robert Devereux, 2nd earl of.” A Dictionary of British History. Ed. John

Cannon. Oxford UP, 2009. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford UP. Masaryk U,

Brno. 28 June 2009 .

Golding, Brian. “Burghley, William Cecil, 1st Lord.” The Oxford Companion to British

History. Ed. John Cannon. Oxford UP, 1997. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford

UP. Masaryk U, Brno. 13 June 2009 .

Haynes, Alan. The Elizabethan Secret Services. London: Sutton, 1992.

Davies, Clifford S. L. “Henry VIII of England.” The Oxford Encyclopedia of the

Reformation. Ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand. Oxford UP, 1996. Oxford Reference

Online. Oxford UP. Masaryk U, Brno. 12 June

2009 .

Hume, Martin. “The Lopez Conspiracy.” Treason and Plot: Struggles for Catholic

Supremacy in the Last Years of Queen Elizabeth. Kessinger Publishing, 2004.

Google Books. 12 June 2009 .

61 Hutchinson, Robert. Elizabeth's Spymaster: Francis Walsingham and the Secret War

That Saved England. London: Phoenix, 2007.

Lockyer, Roger. “Cecil, Sir Robert.” The Oxford Companion to British History. Ed.

John Cannon. Oxford UP, 1997. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford

UP. Masaryk U, Brno. 12 June 2009 .

Martin, Ged. “Leicester, Robert Dudley, 1st earl of.” The Oxford Companion to British

History. Ed. John Cannon. Oxford UP, 1997. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford

UP. Masaryk U, Brno. 13 June 2009 .

“Mary I.” A Dictionary of British History. Ed. John Cannon. Oxford UP, 2001. Oxford

Reference Online. Oxford UP. Masaryk U, Brno. 12 June

2009 .

Nicholl, Charles. The Reckoning: The Murder of Christopher Marlowe. London:

Vintage, 2002.

The Official Secret Intelligence Service Website. 14 Mar. 2009. Secret Intelligence

Service. 20 Mar. 2009 .

Pulman, Michael Barraclough. The Elizabethan Privy Council in The fifteen-seventies.

Berkeley: California UP, 1971.

Tudor Place. Ed. Jorge H. Castelli. 27 Mar. 2009 .

Wainewright, John. “Bl. John Story.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York:

Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 13 June 2009

.

62