¹ Coke, Edward, The Reports of Sir Edward Coke, Knt (revised by Wilson, George) (London, 1777) Pt. XII, P. 75. Later editions transfer this statement to pt. vi.Google Scholar

² The triumph of this decision is traced in Heinze, R. W., ‘Tudor Royal Proclamations, 1485–1553’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of History, University of Iowa, 1965).Google Scholar

³ Youngs, F. A. Jr., ‘The Proclamations of Elizabeth I’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1969), p. 116 ff.Google Scholar

⁴ Hughes, Paul L. and Larkin, James F. (eds.), Tudor Royal Proclamations, 11: The Later Tudors (1553–1587) (New Haven, 1969), no. 660, p. 491.Google Scholar Exact citations of these definitions are to be found below, n. 43.

⁵ This insistence on ascertaining the legal bases for the martyrs' deaths is made notably in Hughes, Philip, The Reformation in England, iii (New York, 1954), 357–62.Google Scholar

⁶ 23 Eliz. i, c.1.

⁷ 27 Eliz. i, c. 2. On debates over the propriety of the relative penalties proposed and of making physical presence rather than an act treason, see Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, 1584–1601 (London, 1957), pp. 37–8.Google Scholar The Lords scaled down the penalty for aiding priests from treason to felony, ibid. p. 38.

⁸ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, ii, no. 650, pp. 469–71;Google Scholar no. 655, pp. 481–4; no. 660, pp. 488–91. There are references to other proclamations in the contemporary writings of Father Persons which, however, probably refer to local edicts. See Hicks, Leo (ed.), Letters and Memorials of Father Robert Persons, S.J., i, To 1588 (Catholic Record Society, xxxix) (London, 1942),Google Scholar xv (‘new proclamations,’ in June, 1580), xv ( ‘third’ and ‘fourth’ proclamations since their entry, in October and November, 1580); also in an edition of other parts of Persons’ memoirs, by Pollen, J. H., in Miscellanea, ii (Catholic Record Society, ii) (London, 1906), 177 ( ‘many proclamations were read in every province’).Google Scholar

⁹ Read, Conyers, Mr. Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth, ii (Oxford, 1925), 13–32, 283–5;Google ScholarPollen, J. H., English Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, 1558–1580 (London, 1920), pp. 355–61.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The Government learned of this in April, Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth… (London, 1863–1950), xiv, 158.Google Scholar Haile suggested that this was probably done as a counter against the proposed match between Elizabeth, and Anjou, Martin Haile [Hallé, Marie], An Elizabethan Cardinal, William Allen (London, 1914), p. 181.Google Scholar

¹¹ The articles are cited in full in Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts … Venice (London, 1864–1898), VII, 650–1.Google Scholar

¹² Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, ii, no. 650, pp. 469–71.Google Scholar

¹³ Public Record Office, SP/12/140/18. Read cited this draft, including the quote above, as if it were identical with the final printed broadside. Read, Conyers, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth (New York, 1960), pp. 244–5.Google Scholar As propaganda, Read rated it a failure, ibid. p. 245.

¹⁴ P.R.O. SP/12/140/19. As is the case with most drafts, one cannot tell if Burghley had second thoughts about the penalty, or if it was deleted when discussed by the Council or by other persons.

¹⁵ The beginning of the renewed severity can be dated to the Council order of 18 June 1580, Dasent, John R. (ed.), Acts of the Privy Council of England (London, 1890–1907), XII, 59.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See the references cited in Pollen, , English Catholics, p. 341.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Letters from the Council to renew work of ecclesiastical commissioners are found in APC, xii, 156–7 (15 08), 236 (23 10).Google Scholar The first man accused of harbouring Campion and his accomplices was SirPeckham, George, APC, xii, 282 (18 12);Google Scholar since he later conformed, one cannot tell what penalty might have been assessed against him for his action, APC, xii, 325–6 (7 02 1581), 346 (1 03).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Pollen, , English Catholics, p. 360.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The names of those sent are given in Foley, Henry (ed.), Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, iii (London, 1878), 41–3.Google Scholar

²⁰ Persons wrote a life of Campion, to be found now in the Stonyhurst MSS; copious citations are found in Hicks, Letters and Memorials of Father Persons. Persons ‘own memoirs are edited by Pollen, J. H. in Miscellanea, vol. ivGoogle Scholar (Catholic Record Society, ii) already cited, and in Miscellanea, vol. iv (Catholic Record Society, iv) (London, 1907).Google Scholar The opposition to the arrival of the Jesuits because of the fear that persecution would be increased is found in the former collection of Persons’ memoirs, pp. 177–S; opposition to them on the part of English Catholic exiles on the Continent is summarized in Clancy, Thomas H., Papist Pamphleteers (Chicago, 1964), p. 6.Google Scholar

²¹ The term of derision is the title of one officially inspired response to Campion, by Meredith Hanmer. The first note of the Government's attempt to deal with Campion's ‘Challenge ‘was on 1 December 1580, APC, xii, 270.Google Scholar

²² Cardinal Allen once said ‘Books opened the way’, cited in Hughes, , The Reformation tn England, iii, 296.Google Scholar Persons used as a reason for leaving England in 1581 the necessity of bringing to a conclusion certain important books; see Hicks, , Letters and Memorials of Father Persons, p. xxxix.Google Scholar The principal concern of the Government had been to seal off the ports through which those books, printed on the Continent, were smuggled into England; see the discussion of this in Southern, A. C., Elizabethan Recusant Prose, 1559–1582 (London, 1950), pp. 33–43.Google Scholar Royal proclamations were used several times in that regard: Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, ii, no. 561, pp. 312–13Google Scholar (in 1569); no. 577, pp. 341–3 (in 1570); no. 580, pp. 347–8 (in 1570); no. 598, pp. 376–9 (in 1573).

²³ The exhausted controversy was that carried on between the late Abbot of Westminster and several protagonists over the former's refusal to take the oath of supremacy (the ‘Feckenham-Horne’ controversy, Southern, Elizabethan Recusant Prose, pp. 125–35).Google Scholar Of the two controversies which lasted beyond the 1570s but which had effectively ended, the most notable was the ‘great controversy’ which followed Bishop Jewel's challenge sermon of 1559 in which over 60 works appeared; only one Protestant book appeared in the 1570s, and a final Catholic work in 1581 concluded the controversy. Ibid. pp. 60–n8. The other continuing controversy was sparked by the letter of the well-known Portuguese humanist, Bishop Osorio de Fonesca (Orosius) to Elizabeth to win her back to the old faith; there were Protestant contributions in the 1570s and one final Protestant book in 1581. Ibid. pp. 119–25.

²⁴ Ibid. pp. 144–8, 136–40, 170–2 (answered only in 1591), respectively.

²⁵ The former is treated in ibid. pp. 149–60. It will be useful to recite the contributions: Campion's ‘Challenge’ was printed for the first time and answered by Charke, William, An Answere to a seditious pamphlet, and by Hanmer, Meredith, The Great Bragge of M. Campion a lesuite.Google Scholar Persons replied to them both in A Brief Censure, only to be answered in turn by Charke's A Replie to a Censure and Hanmer's The lesuites Banner. Campion carried the matter further in his Decem Rationes, and Persons in A Defence of the Censure. The controversy over the Decem Rationes was conducted entirely in Latin; for the works involved, see Simpson, Richard, Edmund Campion (new ed., London, 1907), pp. 492–3.Google Scholar

²⁸ Persons 'writings for the former purpose carried on a controversy already begun earlier, ibid. pp. 136–40. On Nichols, see below, n. 32.

²⁷ An Apologie and true declaration of the institution and endeuours of the two English Colleges, the one in Rome, the other now resident in Rhemes. He sent 900 copies of this into England; Renold, P. (ed.), Letters of William Allen and Richard Barrett, 1572–1598 (Catholic Record Society, LVIII) (London, 1967), pp. 29–30.Google Scholar On the encouragement he had received from the Pope to answer the proclamation ‘without bitterness’, see Haile, , An Elizabethan Cardinal, p. 182.Google Scholar Allen sent a copy to the English ambassador in France so it would be forwarded to the Queen, ibid. p. 192. He also had the proclamation translated to excite sympathy on the Continent for his cause; Ryan, Patrick (ed.), Miscellanea, vii (Catholic Record Society, ix) (London, 1911), 30–3.Google Scholar

²⁸ On the allegations, see ‘Some Hostile “True Reports” of the Martyrs’ in Miscellanea [xv] (Catholic Record Society, xxxii) (London, 1932), 390–2.Google Scholar These were concerned with the priest Everard Hanse, executed in the summer of 1581.

²⁹ Campion had offered to defend the Catholic faith before the Lords of the Council, the doctors and masters of the universities, and the lawyers (to whom he would prove that the faith could be justified by the laws of the land).

³⁰ See n. 26 above.

³¹ These allegations have been cited often: see White, Helen C., Tudor Books of Saints and Martyrs (Madison, Wisconsin, 1963), pp. 207–8Google Scholar (Persons is there cited as asking Charke if Foxe's martyrs in Mary's time were also traitors); Clancy, , Papist Pamphleteers, pp. 48–9.Google Scholar

³² A declaration of the recantation of lohn Nichols (for the space almost of two yeeres the Popes Scholer in the English Seminarie or Colledge at Rome) …, sig. K.viij-L. [i.d]. Anthony Munday took up this theme in mid-1582 in his The English Romayne Life, sig. D.ijdE.ijd.

³³ The charge was of treasonable activities, not words. In his A True Sincere and Modest Defence of English Catholiques (1584), Allen conceded that disloyal words had been written against the Queen by Nicholas Sanders and Richard Bristow, but alleged mitigating circumstances; cited by Hughes, , The Reformation in England, iii, 297–8.Google Scholar These were just the writings thrown up before Campion for his comment in his trial; see references to this in two writings of Anthony Munday, A Discouerie of Edmund Campion, and his Confederates, their most horrible and traiterous practices… (29 Jan. 1582), sig. [B.vj-B.vjd], and A particular declaration or testimony, of the vndutifull and traiterous affection … by Edmond Campion Jesuite, and other condemned Priests… (1582), sig. B.i-B.iiijd, C.i-C.v. In the declaration read at Campion's execution, An aduertisement and defence for Trueth against her Backbiters…, the same matters were brought up again, sig. A.iii-A.iid. This declaration has been attributed by some to Munday, but this is denied by Turner, Celeste, Anthony Munday, An Elizabethan Man of Letters (University of California Publications in English, ii, no. 1) (Berkeley, 1928), 57.Google Scholar

³⁴ Southern has noted that Simpson, without citing a source, has Persons making such a conjecture. Southern dismisses the possibility, noting that it has been elsewhere noted that 10 days elapsed between the books of Charke and Persons, citing the date on which Charke's book was licensed and the less than 10 days before the date of the proclamation. Southern, , Elizabethan Recusant Prose, pp. 464–5.Google Scholar It seems from the internal evidence cited above that Southern is correct, but the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out: the writ under which the proclamation was dispersed from the Chancery for proclamation in the localities was dated two days after the date on the face of the proclamation; copied in Corporation of London Record Office, MSS Journals, xxi, fo. 90.Google Scholar

³⁵ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, ii, no. 655, pp. 481–4.Google Scholar

³⁶ The largest seminary was at Rheims; in a letter of 15 January 1582, Allen noted that ‘Altogether there are about 130 under our care’, an increase of about 15 per cent from the figures of two years previous. The former, in Ryan, Patrick (ed.), ‘Correspondence of Cardinal Allen’, Miscellanea, vii (Catholic Record Society, ix) (London, 1911), 39–41;Google Scholar the latter, in Stanfield, Raymund (ed.), ‘The Rheims Annual Report, 1579–80’, The Douay College Diaries Third, Fourth and Fifth, 1598–1654, With the Rheims Report, 1579–80, ii (Catholic Record Society, xi) (London, 1911), 558.Google Scholar The register of the English seminary at Rome becomes more exact after the first few years it was kept; granting some small inaccuracy in calculations because one can never be sure of exact dates of dismissal and the like, it would seem that there were somewhere between 59 and 64 students in the first part of 1582, Kelly, Wilfrid (ed.), Liber Rvber Venerabilis Collegii Anglorvm de Vrbe, i: Annales Collegii. Pars Prima. Nomina Alvmnorvm I. 1579–1630 (Catholic Record Society, xxxvi) (London, 1940), pp. 8–40,Google Scholar compared with Foley, , Records of the Society of Jesus, iii, 41–3.Google Scholar A third foundation had been established at Eu, for younger boys sent from England; its initial size seems not to have been over 20, Hicks, , Letters and Memorials of Father Persons, pp. xlix, i.Google Scholar See also Fabre, Frédéric, ‘The English College at Eu—1582–1592’, Catholic Historical Review, xxxvii (1951), 257–80;Google ScholarBeales, A. C. F., Education Under Penalty. English Catholic Education from the Reformation to the Fall of fames II, 1547–1689 (London, 1963), pp. 64–6.Google Scholar

³⁷ P.R.O. SP/12/146/129, SP/12/146/137, SP/12/148/61, SP/12/175/no; B.M.Add. MSS 48029 (printed in Talbot, Clare (ed.), Miscellanea. Recusant Records (Catholic Record Society, LIII) (London, 1961), pp. 193–245);Google ScholarCalendar of State Papers, Foreign Series…, xv, 250–2.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ansttuther, Godfrey. Vaux of Harrowden. A Recusant Family (Newport, 1953), p. 138.Google Scholar

³⁹ Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, 1559–1581 (London, 1953), pp. 382–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ 23 Eliz. 1, c.i.

⁴¹ Below, part ii.

⁴² The draft, corrected by Burghley, is in P.R.O. SP/12/152/3. There are no alterations in the definitions presented above.

⁴³ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, ii, no. 660, pp. 488–91.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ [Thomas Alfield], A True Reporte of the Death and Martyrdome of M. Campion … Sherwin … Bryan … at Tiborne the First of December 1581. The ‘discovery’ begins at Sig. [D.iiijd]. There was a trial in Star Chamber in May 1582 against Stephen Vallenger for allegedly having printed Alfield's book; see Petti, Anthony, ‘Stephen Vallenger (1541–1591)’, Recusant History, vi (1962), 251 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ It was also used by the Guise family as a warning about what would happen to France if Navarre ever came to the throne, Simpson, , Campion, p. 468.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Thomas Norton wrote to Walsingham on 27 March that a book had appeared calling him ‘rackmaster’ and charging him with having so tortured Bryant that the priest was left one foot longer than God had made him. Both charges are in the English translation of Persons' book, and allow it to be dated. The letter is in P.R.O. SP/12/152/72. In continental editions, plates depicting the torments the priests suffered, notably the barbarity of hangings, drawing and quartering, were used to excite sympathy; see Petti, Anthony, ‘Additions to the Richard Verstegan Canon’, Recusant History, viii (1966), 289–90.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ This writer has seen every case brought by the Attorney-General in Elizabeth's reign in the records of the Star Chamber, and has sampled nearly 40 per cent of all other cases in 10 selected regnal years. P.R.O. Star Chamber 5, passim.

⁴⁸ APC, xiii, 260–1, 267–8, 289–91.Google Scholar The entry under 15 Dec. is not headed ‘at the Starre Chamber’ as the previous two were.

⁴⁹ APC, xiii, 148–9,Google Scholar the very first entry against harbourers of Campion when that series begins on 2 Aug. 1581. Other entries in this series, leading up to the trials, can be found under the dates of 6, 7, 14, 18 and 30 Aug.; 21 Sept.; 29 Oct.; 1, 7, 12, 22, 27 Nov.; and 4, 6 and 12 Dec.

⁵⁰ The fullest secondary account is in Anstruther, , Vaux of Harrowden, pp. 120–7,Google Scholar the main source for which are the Tresham papers, H.M.C. series 55: Various Collections, iii (London, 1904), 22 ff.Google Scholar An account in the Harleian MSS in the British Museum (Harl. MSS 859, fos. 44–51) is printed in Archaeologia, xxx (1844), 80–107Google Scholar (with an introduction by the contributor, John Bruce, pp. 64–80); an account in the Ellesmere MSS at the Huntington Library, San Marino, California, is printed in Petti, Anthony (ed.), Recusant Documents from the Ellesmere Manuscripts (Catholic Record Society, LX) (London, 1968), 5–13.Google Scholar The fines are recorded in a summary book of Star Chamber decisions, B.M. Harleian MSS 2143, Michaelmas 23 & 24 Eliz., fo. 12d.

⁵¹ Powdrell, Walter; Anstruther, , Vaux of Harrowden, p. 125.Google Scholar

⁵² Cited ibid. p. 136, from the Lansdowne MSS.

⁵³ Ibid. pp. 132–40, esp. pp. 138–9.

⁵⁴ Pollen, J. H. and MacMahon, William (eds.), The Ven. Philip Howard Earl of Arundel, 1557–1595: English Martyrs, vol. II (Catholic Record Society, xxi) (London, 1919), 138–44.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid. p. 140.

⁵⁶ Ibid. pp. 140–1.

⁵⁷ Ibid. p. 141. The earlier part of Weston's autobiography is printed in Morris, John (ed.), The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers Related by Themselves, ii (London, 1875), 3–284;Google Scholar for his relations with Arundel, see especially pp. 83–95. Edward Gratley, alias Bridges, had entered Arundel's service as his chaplain, and later betrayed him. See Anstruther, Godfrey, The Seminary Priests. A Dictionary of the Secular Clergy of England and Wales, 1558–1850, i: Elizabethan 1558–1603 (Ware, [1968]), 135.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Pollen, and MacMahon, , Ven. Philip Howard Earl of Arundel, p. 142.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ibid. p. 144.

⁶⁰ Ibid. p. 220 ff. This writer has compared the excellent edition with the original in the Baga de Secretis, P.R.O. KB/8/49, and found nothing to contribute further.

⁶¹ ‘Et quod omnes post publicationem predicte proclamations scienter & voluntarie receptarent, hospitarent, auxiliarent, confortarent, releuarent, & mantenerent aliquem talem Jesuitam, Seminarii hominem, seu Sacerdotem (ut predicitur) tractarent & super eos procederent (ut supra) scienter & voluntarie, confortatores, reluatores & manutentores proditorie, committent altam prodicionem versus personam maiestatis suae’, yet Arundel knowing the priests to be seditious and traitorous men, having come into the realm for treasonable purposes ‘postea & diu post proclamacionem … factam & proclamatam … receptavit & manutenuit, proditoriis propositis & intentionibus…’ Ibid. pp. 225–6.

⁶² Ibid. pp. 225–31.

⁶³ Nor quantitatively so: ii lines of a 76–line indictment.

⁶⁴ Ibid. p. 273.

⁶⁵ One can find some evidence that ecclesiastical officers were involved: there is a notation that a call was made in January 1581 in the Diocese of London ‘for to inquire whose sons were sent to learn beyond the seas, [at] [sic] Paris, Rheims, Douai, Rome: and also servants’, Kennedy, W. P. M., Elizabethan Episcopal Administration, ii (London, 1924), 134,Google Scholar noted in Strype, John, Annals of the Reformation…, iii, pt. 1 (Oxford, 1824), 57,Google Scholar with the comment ‘This visitation was authorized by a proclamation, set forth in the said month of January, for revocation of sundry her majesty's subjects’, ibid. pp. 57–8. Two students were recalled from Rheims to England by their parents, and left 2 March 1581. Other than the terse entry ‘parentum Uteris domum revocati discesserunt’ there is no indication if the proclamation was the cause, Fathers of the Congregation of the London Oratory (eds.), The First and Second Diaries of the English College, Douay, and an Appendix of Unpublished Documents (London, 1878), p. 176.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ On that Act of 1571, see the comment by Beales, , Education Under Penalty, p. 38.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ It would seem that citing Arundel for contempts against both proclamations at his Star Chamber trial in 1584 was for the sake of effect. Pollen, and MacMahon, , Ven. Philip Howard Earl of Arundel, pp. 140–1.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Youngs, , ‘The Proclamations of Elizabeth I’, p. 116 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ The aspect of leniency is stressed throughout ProfessorNeale's, Queen Elizabeth I (London, 1934).Google Scholar His case for her intervention to scale down the penalties of the legislation in 1581 is made in Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, 1559–1581;, pp. 387–8; the case for intervention in 1584–5 is not made so directly, but is strongly implied. Many issues were involved in the former Bill; the interpretation above would not preclude the exercise of some rather stable principle she adopted, such as refusing to require Catholics to receive communion, but argues that one must not attribute all mitigation to an exercise of one facet of her personality.