Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English
and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Michaela Macková

The Elizabethan Secret Service

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 <http://www.britainexpress.com>.

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 <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.

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 <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.

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 <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.

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 <http://books.google.cz>.

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 <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.

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 <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.

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

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

2009 <http://www.oxfordreference.com>.

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 <http://www.mi6.gov.uk>.

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

Berkeley: California UP, 1971.

Tudor Place. Ed. Jorge H. Castelli. 27 Mar. 2009 <http://www.tudorplace.com.ar>.

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

Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 13 June 2009

<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08485b.htm>.

62