Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:04:19.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Attempt in 1608 on Hugh Owen, Intelligencer for the Archdukes in Flanders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2016

Francis Edwards
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hugh Owen was a Welshman, born at Plas Du in Caernarvonshire in 1538, who refused to forego his Catholic religious allegiance in the reign of Elizabeth I. Secretary to Henry, twelfth and last of the Fitzalan Earls of Arundel, he fled abroad at the time of the Ridolfi Plot in 1571. Although only on the fringe of it, he, no doubt, considered himself, with reason, to be in danger of implication. Certainly he appears to have been involved, about this time, in a project to secure the release of Mary, Queen of Scots, which would have made it extremely perilous for him to stay in England. By the 1580s he enjoyed the full confidence of the Duke of Parma, governor of the Spanish Netherlands, as the organiser of an intelligence network which enabled him to counteract in large measure the very effective system of espionage established by Sir Francis Walsingham. Parma passed him on to Archduke Albert, who described him as ‘diligent, very discreet and suitable for any business’.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , October 1984 , pp. 140 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 There is an outline life of him in Loomie, chap. 3.

2 See Francis, Edwards, S. J., , The Dangerous Queen (London 1964), pp.209–213.Google Scholar

3 Simancas E. 613/125, 7 March 1596; quoted in Loomie, p.59.

4 Simancas E. 176, n.f., letter of 15 November 1596; quoted in Loomie, p.63.

5 Simancas E. 2584/17; quoted in Loomie, p.83.

6 See Martin, Hume, Treason and Plot (London 1901), pp.88, 113 Google Scholar. For the Ridolfi, Plot, Edwards, , Dangerous Queen and The Marvellous Chance (London 1968)Google Scholar. For Parry’s and other plots of 1584–5, Leo Hicks, S. J., An Elizabethan Problem (London 1964)Google Scholar. For the Gunpowder, Plot, John, Gerard, What was the Gunpowder Plot? (London 1897)Google Scholar; Hugh, Ross Williamson, The Gunpowder Plot (London 1951)Google Scholar; and a number of other works of the same school.

7 H.M.C. Salisbury 17, pp.497–646, passim; Flanders bundle 8, part 2, f. 222r.

8 Loomie, p. 87.

9 D.N.B. (1975) 54.

10 Stowe 169, ff. 1–2v, signed original.

11 Salisbury MSS 194, no. 84, signed.

12 Stowe 170, ff. 115–116v, draft. This Thomas Wilford would appear to have been the ‘cousin to Sir Thomas Wilford’ indicated in a list of ‘the captains of the regiment of the English companies serving under the Archdukes: and other English serving there’ (Flanders bundle 7, part 1, ff. 329–332v, undated, ?1605). Sir Thomas Wilford was Provost Marshal of London in 1595, and he presumably is the knight indicated in the relationship. The same list describes Mr. Thomas as of Kent. This would appear to identify him with the Thomas Wilford in a 1592 list of ‘recusants in the county of Kent remaining at liberty’ (H.M.C. Salisbury 4, p.264). A letter of 17 April 1606 from ‘W. J.’ to [Sir Thomas Studder] refers to a letter (‘sent by Father Norton enclosed in a letter of his’) which W. J. had given to ‘Mr. Wilford’ to be collected by Studder (Flanders bundle 8, part 1, f. 90).

13 Cf 12, 23, 29, 30 August 1608: Flanders bundle 9, part 1, ff. 178–181v. The first two examinations were taken at Villeford without torture, the last two at Truremburg under torture. All are copies but carry the signatures of Wilford and of Anthony William Espalart, Auditor-General of the Army of His Majesty, before whom the examinations were taken. All are in Spanish. They will here be referred to as nos. 1–4.

14 Faith Wilson to Mrs Wilford at East Hampstead, from Brussels, 18 July 1608 (N.S.), signed holograph, addressed ‘to my much beloved and approved dear mother’ and endorsed ‘Carta de la mujer de Wilford a su suegra.’

15 Flanders bundle 9, part 1, ff. 171–172v, 173–174v, 176–177v, all signed holographs.

16 These are, no doubt, the letter referred to in the second examination as of 10 May and 25 June. Even allowing for a difference between O.S. and N.S., there is a certain discrepancy in the dating which can be sufficiently explained, perhaps, as faults of the notary or amanuensis.

17 ‘Pleadings of Thomas Wilford sent by Edmondes’: copy of Whitebread’s examination of 9 August 1608, signed by Whitebread and Espalart, Flanders bundle 9, part 1, ff. 167–170v.

18 Stowe 170, ff. 121–126V, draft; Flanders bundle 9, part 1, ff. 102–105v, dispatch as sent, signed. This would appear to be the first reference to this incident in Edmonde’s dispatches. If there was any substance in the story, it is difficult to see why Edmondes did not make use of it at the time of Owen’s return to discredit him with the Archdukes.

19 Stowe 170, ff. 125–126V, draft.

20 Ibid., ff. 127–129v, signed original.

21 Edmondes to Salisbury, 3 September 1608 (N.S.): Stowe 170, ff. 140–143, draft; Flanders bundle 9, part 1, ff. 108–110v, as sent. The remaining letters and dispatches referred to in this article occur in the same two sources. It will be convenient to tabulate them here without further reference from the text.

Salisbury to Edmondes, 24 September: Stowe, ff. 159–162v.

Edmondes to Salisbury, 17 September: Stowe, f. 157; Flanders, ff. 121–122v.

Edmondes to Salisbury, 1 October: Stowe, ff. 173–176v; Flanders, ff. 127–130v.

Edmondes to Salisbury, 8 October: Stowe, ff. 183–186v; Flanders, ff. 131–134v.

Edmondes to Salisbury, 29 October: Stowe, ff. 212–215v; Flanders, ff. 145–147v.

Salisbury to Edmondes, 23 October: Stowe, ff. 203–206v.

All the dates given are N.S. The original dispatches as sent are in Flanders, the drafts in Stowe. The letters from Salisbury are signed originals occurring only in Stowe.

22 ‘Exceptions…’, Flanders bundle 9, part 1, ff. 139–140v, in English.