with the Lord Chancellor if he could, or else go on making as much gain as he might out of the Marprelate press, and do his best to avoid the pursuivants. Asked by Penry, when news came that Waldegrave was actually settled at Rochelle, 'if he colde not worke about the press,' his reply was, that he could in some sorte, but that he wolde not so doe, except the Lord Chancellor refused to remit him.'

About midsummer he sent his wife with his humble 'supplication' to Hatton; but she returned with but cold comfort for him. Yet he still declined a further overture from Penry, though reminded of his duplicate resolution. Presently he found it prudent to withdraw from Northampton, where he had seemingly lived in indifference to the Bishop's warrant. He went to stay for a while with his 'wyefs father' at Wolston. When he found that the secret press was settled there, he once more helped to stitch the new tracts. But the authorities were on his track, and a tenant of Roger Wigston's, one Baker, a bailiff, had him arrested. To save himself he readily told all he knew; and as we are now able to see, much that he did not know, and that was false-every scrap of idle gossip, every breath of rumour which had reached his ears and could add to the value of his confession, and secure his freedom. He may or may not have sent word to Throkmorton when he had made his betrayal. Sutcliffe says he did; but he is not always to be relied on, for his anger against Throkmorton somewhat blinded him to the truth. But the suggestion that he conspired with Throkmorton, shielding him and betraying Penry, is incredible. Penry and Waldegrave were fast friends to the end. As for Sharpe, he spared no one. If he had been likely to shield any one, it would have been the great man at Fawsley. Yet we see that the most damaging piece of evidence against Sir Richard was his proud boast to Sharpe how he would course the pursuivants, if the fellows dared to come to his house to arrest him.1

1 Sharpe's deposition in Baker's transcript is Harl. MSS. 7042, 23. It is given in extenso by Prof. Arber, Sketch, 94 et seq. See also Penry's Appellation, 47 (Sketch, 174).

His deposition made before the Lord Chancellor is dated October 15, 1589. We hear no more of him. He probably speedily gained his liberty and the abiding enmity of all his old associates by his treachery. He vanishes from the scene by the back door of the informer.

2

4. The Government's Brief against the Martinists.—The official brief, held by Serjeant Puckering, as prosecuting counsel for the Crown, produced, as we note, while Hodgkins was in the Tower, must have been immediately compiled, with Sharpe's confession as its basis. The earlier confessions of Simms and Thomlyn, after they had been put upon the rack, filled up some of the gaps; and these confessions were doubtless used in getting further confirmations from Hodgkins while he was under torture. The two men, it is remarked in the official document, were most reluctant to tell the story of the printing of the two Martins' at Wolston. This because, as they explained, ‘in yo end, Hodgkins had taken an oath of them not to reveale' anything put into their hands to print. They made a final and complete confession, giving daily details of their work under Hodgkins, which we have fully used above. This was on December 10th. When they were liberated we do not know; but in later years we find Simms established in London as a master printer. His name appears on the title-page of printed books from 1594 to 1612. An incident in his later career cannot be passed over. We are startled to find that in the year 1602, Bancroft, then Bishop of London, is accused of shielding a secret Roman Catholic press. In a document placed in the hands of the Speaker of the House of Commons it is boldly demanded that he should be arraigned for high treason. Bancroft's connection with this press seems to be well established, though he had assurance and influence enough to weather the storm. Among the printers employed 'to printe popish

1 This important digest of the evidence then available is found in the Harl. MSS. 7042 (1-12), and is reprinted in Arber's Sketch, 121 sqq.

2 Ibid. f. 9 (Sketch, 135). His exhortation to them on this point on their journey from Manchester to London will be remembered.

and dangerous bookes'-one of them, Dolman's book on the succession !-was Valentyne Simms. Bancroft protected the men who printed the treasonable Romish book, but later he had Simms prosecuted for 'printing a ballad against Sir Walter Rawley'; and in that connection said, 'I could have hanged the fellow long ere this if I had listed.' The allusion was no doubt to Simms' arrest in connection with the Marprelate press. But besides casting some light upon the character of Simms, the incident is an additional and valuable piece of evidence on the leading part played by Bancroft in all these prosecutions. It also supports and further illustrates our estimate of this unscrupulous man's character.1

5. Important Arrests.—We learn from the Puckering Brief that during the autumn of 1589 a large number of persons had been convented before the High Commission in addition to those referred to already. We only know the tenor of their depositions from this analytical document. The venerable widow Mrs. Crane was among the number. Being a dame of good social standing, and perhaps in remembrance of the harsh measure meted out to her late husband, who died in Newgate of prison disease, she does not appear to have been sent to prison. It was not her complaisant behaviour to Whitgift that saved her. Before the Commission she refused to answere vpon oath to any question, either concerning herself, for that, as she said, "she would not be her own Hangman," or concerning others, for that "she could not in her Conscience, be an Accuser of others."

"2

After the first disclosure of Henry Sharpe, the Lord Chancellor, in consideration of the great estimation in which the knight of Fawsley was held, warned him of the peril in which he stood. Whitgift was, however, strong enough, and the Queen's antipathy to Martinism pronounced enough, to compel Sir Richard Knightley, and the other

1 'Bishop Bancroft and a Catholic Press,' by H. R. Plomer. The Library, April 1907.

2 Harl. MSS. 7042, fol. 11, 12 [Arber's Sketch, 123].

harbourers of the press in the Midlands, John Hales of Coventry and Roger Wigston and his wife of Wolston, to appear before the ecclesiastical court. It must have been towards the end of October that this cause célèbre was opened. With the confessions of Nicholas Tomkins, Sharpe, and Simms and Thomlyn in their possession, the authorities had the itinerary of the Marprelate press from the day it was housed at East Molesey to its capture at Manchester. Besides the principals, the additional witnesses were chiefly servants from Fawsley House. Jeff's the farmer, from Upton, told his part of the story; then followed Lawrence Jackson, the keeper of Fawsley House,' and Stephen, Sir Richard's factotum. Peter Greye, another servant, told the piquant story of Martin's disguise in the 'sky-coloured cloak,' and he and an ex-servant related how Humfrey Newman wore a green cloak, till he donned, for completer security from interference, Sir Richard's livery. The preliminary examinations enabled Whitgift to keep the three chief personages in the Fleet. The plain charge against them is that they had harboured the Marprelate press. But the belief of the Lambeth League is 'that the persones before mencioned are by all probabilitye acquainted with the said Martin and can disclose who and where he is.' They therefore desire that the prisoners shall be examined by 'persons of credytt and understanding.' They appoint first the Lord Busshoppe of Rochester [John Young],' 'requiring him to set other business aside and to come to London.' Associated with him are a number of chief persons, judges, members of the Council, and ecclesiastical lawyers. They are to use their best and uttermost endeavours to finde the author of the said libells.'1 prisoners remained in the Fleet until February 13th the following year, when they came up for final examination before the Lord Chancellor, sitting in the Star Chamber. Attorney-General Popham is the chief counsel for the prosecution. He delivers himself on the subject of sectaries in general; but he is evidently lacking in clear ideas 1 Acts of the Privy Council, under date Nov. 16, 1589.

The

about them. From his rambling speech we learn that some of them would give an autonomy to each congregation, whereupon would ensue more mischief than any man by tongue can utter.' These sectaries are of the very vilest and basest sort.' Then we learn of her Majesty's 'great wisdom' in issuing proclamations. The prisoners have neglected these warnings. Aseditious and leud rebel,' John Penry, came to Sir Richard, a great man in his country,' and persuaded him to accommodate his press to print another of his books about 'the Government of Wales.' Then follows a slight outline of the activities of the press, and a reference to Sir Richard's fellow-prisoners, Hales and the Wigstons. The prisoners, at this point, make a very humble defence of themselves, one and all protesting that they were not aware of the nature of the books which Penry proposed to print. Hales hides behind Sir Richard, who married his aunt. Wigston is specially jeered at because he yielded, in ignorance, to his wife's request. Mrs. Wigston is the most satisfactory of the defenders. She very contentedly takes the blame to herself, which she assigns to her zeal of reformation in the Church.' Serjeant Puckering with his full brief then gives us a few more details. Solicitor Egerton is next put up to descant upon the moral enormity of the various sectaries, including the Popish conspirators, and the wonderful fortitude of the Queen in the face of such enemies. Mr. Vice-Chamberlain protested that although the prisoners were 'beloved of all of [them],' yet justice must be done. The Lord Chancellor solemnly closed the parade of false issues by pointing to the county of Northampton, which, he said, 'did swarm with these sectaries,' and an example must be made of the prisoners. They were fined in enormous sums, taking into account the value of money at the time: Sir Richard Knightley, £2000; Hales, 1000 marks; Wigston, 500 marks; Mrs. Wigston, £1000; with imprisonment at her Majesty's pleasure. There is a tradition, started by Sir George Paull, that Sir Richard's punishment was mitigated

1 State Trials (ed. by Hargrave), vii. 29.