UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Sir James Croft, 1518-1590 Wright, Patrick Dermot 1969

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969_A8 W75.pdf [ 7.31MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104406.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104406-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104406-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104406-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104406-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104406-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104406-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104406-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104406.ris

Full Text

SIR JAMES CROFT, 1518-1590 by PATRICK DERMOT WRIGHT B. A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 16, 1969 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I a g r e e t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and Study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of H i s t o r y The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date A p r i l 16, 1969. i i ABSTRACT This thesis i s biographical i n form, and follows a chronological develop-ment. James Croft's l i f e i l l u s t r a t e s many of the problems of an ambitious man of the period, and spans more than seventy years and four reigns. His early career was as a so l d i e r , and this aspect, as well as a survey of his family background, has been dealt with i n Chapter One. In 1551, Croft served i n Ire-land, o r i g i n a l l y as leader of an expeditionary force, but lat e r as Lord Deputy, the f i r s t post i n his career of major importance. The accession of Mary to the throne i n 1553 prompted Croft to take part i n the poorly-planned and i l l - f a t e d Wyatt's Rebellion, which led to Croft's imprisonment and subsequent loss of revenue. Following Elizabeth's accession i n 1558, Croft was made Governor of the town of Berwick, on the Scottish border, and took a major part i n the action against the French troops at Le i t h . His eventual disgrace led to his e x i l e from Court u n t i l 1570, i n which year he was created Comptroller of the Queen's Household, a position he held for the remainder of his l i f e . Chapter Five deals not only with his duties as Comptroller, but contains an examina-tion of Croft's growing importance i n his home county of Herefordshire, and shows his increasing influence and range of contacts at Court. Croft's f i n a l appearance two years before his death, was as a commissioner to negotiate with the Spanish i n the Low Countries i n early 1588. The f i n a l chapter of this thesis attempts to examine the significance of Croft as t y p i c a l of a section of Tudor society, and deals with some of the problems raised by modern h i s -torians of the period. Investigation has necessarily been limited by the shortage of records available for research. In the absence of any c o l l e c t i o n of family papers, the p r i n c i p a l sources have been various collections of state papers and l e t t e r s , contemporary annals and d i a r i e s , and such sources as the Acts of  the Privy Council and parliamentary records. In spite of the d i f f i c u l t i e s involved, a surprising amount of information concerning James Croft i s extant. A reasonably clear outline of his a c t i v i t i e s can be seen, and i t has been possible to place him i n the larger context of sixteenth century society. Iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I AN ARMY APPRENTICESHIP (1518-1551) 1 I I SERVICE IN IRELAND (1551-1553) 13 I I I WYATT1S REBELLION AND ITS AFTERMATH (1553-1558) . . . . 30 IV CROFT IN SCOTLAND (1558-1560) 52 V EXILE, AND POLITICAL RESURRECTION (1560-1587) 73 VI NEGOTIATIONS WITH SPAIN (1587-1590) 91 VII CONCLUSION 105 FOOTNOTES 113 BIBLIOGRAPHY 136 1 CHAPTER I AN ARMY APPRENTICESHIP (1518-1551) To obtain a position of power and prestige, and, therefore, of wealth, at any time during the sixteenth century, i t was not enough only to have talent. The primary consideration making advancement possible was d e f i n i t e l y not what you knew, but who you knew. The Court was the source for advance-ment of any kind, and a position at Court, or connection with somebody who had a position at Court, was essential i f one wished to obtain placement of any kind, be i t c i v i l , p o l i t i c a l , or e c c l e s i a s t i c a l . Of course, i f one was born into a noble family, advancement was made considerably easier, and posi-tions of importance were frequently given to young men who had l i t t l e more to recommend them than an inherited t i t l e . The example of such men as Thomas Cromwell,''" the son of a smith, who entered royal service under Wolsey, became Chancellor, Treasurer, and eventually was given the t i t l e of Earl of Essex, shows that a b i l i t y could be rewarded, but even Cromwell had needed influence to reach his position, and that was not enough to save him from the block. In most other cases, r i s e to power was neither as spectacular nor as sudden as Cromwell's, but i t would be impossible to find an example of anyone reach-ing a position of importance without influence being used. Talent was recog-nized during the Tudor era, but never inevitably and never e n t i r e l y for i t s own sake. To one who was neither born into a noble family nor was of outstanding natural a b i l i t y , advancement i n any f i e l d was d i f f i c u l t , and often dependent to a large extent on good fortune. And yet, by far the largest number of o f f i c i a l s , of the r e l a t i v e l y new c i v i l service, the army, or the church, came 2 from families which were not among the foremost i n England, and power and wealth, even i f on a r e l a t i v e l y small scale, were for them a question of hard work, luck, and a great deal of time. I t i s easy to remember the Cromwells and C e c i l s , whose importance dominates so much of the sixteenth century i n England, and to overlook the vast mass of administrators and o f f i c i a l s who were responsible for implementing the programmes and p o l i c i e s of the Tudor monarchs. Cromwell and Burghley, because of their talents and success, were r e a l l y a t y p i c a l . Much more r e a l i s t i c a picture of the Tudor o f f i c i a l can be seen by studying the l i f e of one of those minor figures who do not feature i n general studies of the age, and who have not merited f u l l - s c a l e biographies. One such o f f i c i a l , and one whose work for Tudor monarchs spans four reigns and f i f t y years, and yet who has rated only passing mention i n accounts of 2 the period, was a Herefordshire gentleman named James Croft. I f events had followed a normal pattern, and i f Croft had not been ambi-tious, his l i f e would have followed a different course. Born into a Hereford-shire family of considerable l o c a l importance and with a background which 3 could be traced back to the time of William the Conqueror, he could have been expected to have a position of power as a landlord and l o c a l administrator i n the area of north-west Herefordshire where he l i v e d . As the eldest surviving son of the family, he would probably have become a Justice of the Peace, might be expected to represent his county i n Parliament, and might even have taken a part as a member of the Council of the Lords of the Welsh Marches, which met i n Ludlow, a few miles to the north, i n Shropshire. As events occurred, he held a l l these positions at various times, but he also became Lord Deputy of Ireland, Governor of Berwick, and spent the l a s t twenty years of his l i f e as Comptroller of Queen Elizabeth's household and as a member of the Privy Council. 3 To understand how he reached these positions and what part he had to play i n English a f f a i r s of the sixteenth century i s to understand a l i t t l e better the p i t f a l l s and the rewards which awaited .a f a i r l y t y p i c a l and ambitious admini-strator of the period. The birth-date of James Croft has to remain speculative, as do the b i r t h -dates of many Elizabethans, because of the absence of church or other records. However a probable date i s 1518, as i t was recorded upon the death of Richard Croft, his father, on January 1, 1562, that "... the said James Croft i s son 4 and heir and 44 years of age." James Croft's father, Richard, l i v e d the type of quiet l i f e that one might expect of a country gentleman, serving as a Justice of the Peace, and, no doubt, looking after his lands and tenants. At his death i n 1562, the estate l e f t to James, his heir, included more than three thousand acres of land, together with cottages, water m i l l s , and fur-ther income i n rent,"* which would have provided a comfortable income i f one did not have ambitions further a f i e l d . I t would not be necessary to mention James's grandfather, S i r Edward Croft, were i t not for the fact that, i n July, 1625, he had been appointed one of the counsellors to Henry VIII's daughter, Mary,^ who was to become Queen i n 1553. Edward Croft had a distinguished career i n l o c a l a f f a i r s and i n the western counties of England, bordering Wales. He died i n March, 1547, and i t i s quite possible that his long and successful career had an influence upon his grandson. The family into which James Croft was born was not only a long-estab-lished one, but also a large one containing a wide range of connections. James's great-grandfather, S i r Richard Croft, held a number of high posi-tions under Edward V, including those of Treasurer of the Household and ad-v i s e r to Arthur, Prince of Wales. 7 His wife, Eleanor, had previously been 4 married to S i r Hugh Mortimer, and her descendants included John Dudley, F i r s t Q Duke of Northumberland, and his son, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. The eleven children of S i r Edward Croft, James's grandfather, jmarried p r i n c i p a l l y into l o c a l Herefordshire and Shropshire families, as did the seven brothers and s i s t e r s of James. Thus, through marriage a l l i a n c e s , S i r James already had very close connections throughout the Welsh border regions, and these were to be useful to his later career. The relationship with those men of national importance, such as Northumberland and Leicester, i s extremely tenu-ous, but i t i s possible that S i r James attached much significance to the con-nection. At lea s t , i n 1561, Dudley, later to be Earl of Leicester, was acting on Croft's behalf i n pressuring John Scudamore to allow a marriage between his 9 nephew and Croft's daughter, Eleanor, whom he referred to as "my kinswoman." S i r James married twice, the f i r s t time to A l i c e Warnecombe, widow of William Wigmore of Shobdon, near Croft Castle, by whom he had three sons and four daughters, and the second time to Katherine Blount, by whom he had no issue. Katherine was a daughter of "Edward Blount, Esq.,"'1'^ but whether she was con-nected to the important family of the same name i s not clear. The most im-portant connection Croft was to obtain through the marriages of his children was the one above mentioned, that of his daughter Eleanor to John Scudamore. He was to become Gentleman Usher to Queen Elizabeth, and his s i s t e r a lady-in-waiting to the Queen, and there are frequent references made, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the 1570's and 80's to influence which Lady Scudamore was able to wield at Court on her kinsman's behalf. In his book Two Tudor Conspiracies, D. M. Loades notes that Croft was connected by marriage with S i r Nicholas Throckmorton,'1"'1' with whom Croft certainly had many close contacts, but there does not appear to be any evidence to support this statement of a marriage relationship. Nevertheless, influence obtained through kinsmen was to play 5 an important part i n Croft's career, and was one of which he was to take f u l l advantage. Except that he was probably born i n 1518, nothing i s known about the early l i f e of James Croft u n t i l the f i r s t reference i s made to him i n 1540. As the eldest son of a well-to-do gentleman, he would have several courses of action open to him. I f he were not p a r t i c u l a r l y ambitious, he could f o l -low the l e i s u r e l y country pursuits of his father, l i v i n g at the family r e s i -dence of Croft Castle and tending his estates. I f he desired to get ahead, he may have wished to attend university, and from there obtain a position, perhaps i n the Church, or possibly i n some f i e l d of the King's service. How-ever, the records of Oxford and Cambridge, the only u n i v e r s i t i e s i n England at the time, do not show his having attended either university, and, while i t i s possible that he could have studied i n Europe, no references at later dates indicate that this happened. The f i e l d of endeavour which Croft chose, and which was not surprising considering his family background and probable lack of a university education, was that of m i l i t a r y l i f e , and f i r s t references to him depict him as a s o l d i e r . Croft's interest i n m i l i t a r y a f f a i r s persisted throughout his l i f e , and his early career i n the army was served i n r e l a t i v e l y unimportant positions. However, Croft i s not an uncommon name, and i t i s possible that the "Jas. Crofte" referred to i n December, 1540, as a gunner serving at s i x pence a day i n the King's fortress at the "Castle next Sandwich" was a different man with 12 the same name. The p o s s i b i l i t y increases with the next mention of Croft as 13 a knight of the shire of Hereford i n 1541, and with notice of his responsi-b i l i t y , i n the following year, of mustering a force of thirty-seven men at 14 Shobdon, a v i l l a g e about four miles distant from Croft Castle. Listed as a 6 "demilance", Croft's duties included not only making sure that thirty-seven men were available, but also that they were provided with "harness, a r t i l l e r y and other habiliments of war." 1 5 Although his duties as a member of P a r l i a -ment and as a l o c a l o f f i c i a l might suggest that Croft intended to s e t t l e into l o c a l a f f a i r s , the next references to him indicate a different type of l i f e to be i n store for him. In 1544, with a grandiose show of force, Henry VIII sent some forty thousand men to invade France from Calais i n a move intended, as G. R. Elton states, "... to combine with a Spanish thrust towards Paris ."^ The only re-sult of this unnecessary attack was the rapid conquest of Boulogne, which England was permitted to keep u n t i l 1554, under the treaty made between France and England i n June, 1546. Henry, although infirm and, at f i f t y - f o u r , an old man, i n s i s t e d on accompanying his forces. He was joined by Edward Seymour, later to become the f i r s t Earl of Hertford, Duke of Somerset, and Lord Protec-tor i n the f i r s t half of Edward VI's reign. Seymour was not i n charge of the siege of Boulogne, which was under the command of the Earl of Surrey, son of the Duke of Norfolk. There was already bitterness between Surrey and Seymour, because Seymour was known to favour e c c l e s i a s t i c a l reform, while Surrey ( a l -though not a Catholic) and his father were r e l i g i o u s l y conservative. The bitterness must have increased with the addition of personal jealousy when Seymour was called i n to r e c t i f y the blunders of Surrey i n late October of 1545. 1 7 The details of their relationship would not be relevant to the topic were i t not for the fact that i t was under the Earl of Surrey that Croft f i r s t began his r i s e , and under Seymour (then Duke of Somerset) that he was later to be given a knighthood and his f i r s t major position of authority. At Boulogne, however, Croft was, at f i r s t , i n no position to be thinking 7 of a knighthood, or of a clash i n l o y a l t i e s between his immediate superior, the headstrong Surrey, and the more i n f l u e n t i a l Seymour. F i r s t mention of Croft i s as an under-officer, where he i s described as a w a t e r b a i l i f f , with 18 four men serving under him. Although Boulogne was a port, and most sup-pl i e s would have to be sent by ship from England, his duties could not have been heavy, as he was late r discharged from his position, which was described V as "superfluous," i n a l e t t e r from the Council at Boulogne i n February, 1546. The Council, headed by Surrey, recommended Croft as a lieutenant of "the Old Man," the ancient tower which had been f o r t i f i e d by the English and which 20 guarded the approach to the harbour of Boulogne. However, the position had 21 already been f i l l e d , as Paget informed Surrey late r that month. The fact that the same l e t t e r also contained the news that Seymour was being sent over to replace Surrey as lieutenant general at Boulogne would indicate that favour shown by Surrey might not be advantageous to a soldier seeking advancement, but, i n any case, the post was no longer available. A month l a t e r , however, on March 21, Surrey was informed that, the position of under-marshal being void, "... the King has ordained Mr. Croft, whom you l a t e l y commended, to be 22 under-marshal." Seymour was, at this time, i n Boulogne, and Surrey techni-c a l l y under his command. However, Surrey may well have found i t easier to have his way with the Privy Council i f Seymour was not present to veto his recommendations, and, for this reason, he may not have objected to Seymour's presence i n Boulogne. I t i s not clear what authority Croft had as under-marshal, but the posi-tion probably made him a member of the Council of Boulogne, which governed the town and adjacent t e r r i t o r i e s under dire c t i o n from the King and Privy Council. That this i s l i k e l y i s indicated by the fact that Croft's name f i r s t turns up 8 as a member of the Council on August 21, 1546, and, i n September of that year, he was l i s t e d as being a vice-marshal, with authority, with others, "... to hear and determine according to the laws of the county of Guisnes a l l causes criminal and c i v i l a r i s i n g within the towns of Upper and Lower Boulogne, and the castles or f o r t i f i c a t i o n s called le Olde Man, Bolenberge and le C i t i d e l [sic] ." Mention of Croft as a Councillor continues u n t i l February, 25 1547, although i t i s possible he may have served longer. The Council, by the time Croft f i r s t appears as a member, was under the d i r e c t i o n of Lord Grey, Surrey having returned to England, where he was shortly to become rashly i n -volved i n a plot against Henry, and to lose his head. The p r i n c i p a l purpose of the Council, as a l e t t e r of January 4, 1547 states, was probably to keep the Council i n England informed about "... the garrisons i n every piece, the money i n the treasurer's hands, the furniture of v i c t u a l s , and a l l other 26 things meet to be advertised." Position on the Council would have given Croft an opportunity of being noticed by those who would be able to advance his career, and he would no doubt have attempted other than purely administra-t i v e methods i n order to advance his cause. The three years Croft spent i n Boulogne would not e n t i r e l y be taken up with his duties as an o f f i c e r and, l a t e r , a Councillor. In July, 1546, Dud-ley, l a t e r to become Duke of Northumberland, arrived i n Boulogne, from where he travelled to Melun, near Paris, to meet with the French King. At this time Dudley was Lord Admiral, and his entourage as ambassador included "divers 27 lords and gentlemen." I t i s not u n l i k e l y to suppose that Croft was one of these gentlemen, although this i s e n t i r e l y conjecture. As indicated by Dud-ley's v i s i t , relations with France at the time were c o r d i a l , although this was only a temporary s i t u a t i o n . As with the other o f f i c e r s at Boulogne, Croft 9 entertained, and was entertained by, his French counterparts, and evidence exists that he and "other English gentlemen" dined and hunted with C h a s t i l l o n , 28 the French commander. At Croft's house i n Boulogne, the French were wined and dined, and no doubt army l i f e could be made quite pleasurable i n such ways. Celebrations were held on February 24 to 28, 1547, marking the corona-tion of Edward VI, Henry having died on January 28, and at the ceremonies Croft took part as a "padrino," or leader, of the challengers i n the jousts 29 between the English and the French. The four days of "honourable pastimes" ended with a masquerade, at which Croft was a t t i r e d "... i n a very f a i r mask, a l l suited i n pilgrims' [sic] apparel of black velvet ... ."^ I t i s u n l i k e l y that Croft would have got ahead i f he had not been a hard-working member of the Council, but frivolous a c t i v i t i e s , of the type mentioned, probably brought him attention which was equally as important as that aroused by his admini-s t r a t i v e a b i l i t i e s . Between the l a s t mention of Croft i n Boulogne, i n February 1547, and his next recorded appearance, i n 1549, he was granted a knighthood. Unfortunately, no evidence exists as to the exact circumstances surrounding his receipt of this honour, which cert a i n l y indicated that he was well thought of by Somerset, the Lord Protector. I t i s improbable that he received i t for service at Boulogne, which was, as indicated, peaceful at this time, even though h o s t i l i -t i e s were to break out again shortly afterwards. As a f a i r l y junior o f f i c e r , i t i s not u n l i k e l y that Croft may have been transferred to serve i n Scotland, which was invaded early i n 1547 by troops under the leadership of Somerset. The campaign i n Scotland was remarkably successful for the English, and at the end of the year the Lord Protector raised a large number of gentlemen to the rank of knight. Although Croft's name i s not included i n the l i s t given 10 by Grafton i n his Chronicles, this does not preclude Croft from having re-ceived a knighthood at this time, and, i n fact, this i s most probably what occurred. In May, 1549 Croft was i n Haddington, a town on the Scottish border, where he may have been since leaving Boulogne two years previously. In a l e t t e r from the Council to the Earl of Rutland, who had been appointed Lieu-tenant of the North, Croft, and a Mr. Cotton, are recommended as men who 32 "... serve the King very w e l l and i n places of credit but the places of credit are not mentioned, although the inference i s that they were both i n Haddington. Henry Manners, second Earl of Rutland, was apparently a friend of Warwick's, and had made depositions early i n 1549 against Seymour, the Lord Admiral and brother of the Protector. Later, he was to show himself an extreme member of the reformed church party, and was imprisoned, on Mary's 33 accession, for being an adherent of Lady Jane Grey. These facts are i n -teresting, as they explain a good deal of Croft's actions during the next few years. Like Rutland, Croft was to benefit from Lord Protector Northumberland, and was also to spend some time i n imprisonment as a rebel against Mary Tudor. Rutland and Croft appear to have been quite close friends, and Croft's r i s e would not be hurt by the amity which existed between Rutland and Northumber-land . Even before Rutland arrived i n Haddington, he was apparently well known 34 by Croft. At least, Croft describes himself as "your poore frende" and does not hesitate i n giving Rutland a great deal of advice about his duties. Much of the advice appears largely a matter of common sense—"doo noo ponishmente upon colour jjL.e., anger] ," "advise well what you promese and kepe i t , " " d e a l l 3 5 streyght" --but Croft would hardly be l i k e l y to offer such advice to a new commander unless he already knew him w e l l . Croft must have had himself i n mind when he suggested that "In matters of warr tacke thadvise of men of warr, 3 6 and soo i n a l l other matters use men of the s e l f s k i l l . " Croft was trusted s u f f i c i e n t l y by Rutland to be sent to report to the Council on the state of 37 a f f a i r s i n Scotland i n October, 1549, but by this time had reached a posi-tion of some importance, having become general of Haddington. Croft's appointment as general appears to have come about almost by luck, as he was one of the best q u a l i f i e d men available when S i r James Wilford, the appointed general, was taken prisoner by the French, who controlled the g a r r i -38 son of Dumbarre. Of course, the job could have been given to someone else, but Croft was readily available, had some knowledge of warfare, and was, to put the cap on i t , a friend of Rutland's. ... S i r James Crofts was thought a man most meet to supplie the place and therefore by the lord protector and others of the counsell was ordeined generall of that towne of Hading-ton, and the garrison there, i n which room he bare himself so w o r t h i l i e , as i f I should not be suspected of f l a t t e r i e , for that he l i v e t h yet, and i n such credit (as the world knoweth) I might moove myself matter to saie rather much than s u f f i c i e n t l i e inough i n his due and right deserved com-39 mendation. Holinshed was over-complimentary, but he was no doubt correct i n assuming that Croft did his job w e l l . Rutland was probably sorry to lose a gambling com-panion^ almost as much as he was to lose a general when, on November 12, 1549, 4 the Council decided to appoint Croft as "Generall of the Fotemen" at Boulogne. The conquest of Boulogne i n 1544 had never been an outstanding success. England controlled the town, but against mounting French bitterness. Tension was increased when the French provided money, arms, and men to help the Scots, as evidenced by their capture of Croft's predecessor as general, S i r James Wilford. The o r i g i n a l agreement was that France would repurchase Boulogne, 12 but neither side wished to l i v e up to the bargain. Although both France and England hesitated to commit themselves to war, on August 8, 1549, war was f i n a l l y declared by the English. Mounting pressures both i n Scotland and i n France, coupled with several ignominious defeats, forced the Council to make peace, and on A p r i l 25, 1550, Boulogne was returned to France after less than 42 s i x years i n English possession. As "Generall of the Fotemen," Croft would have had an important position, but i t i s u n l i k e l y that any blame would be attached to him for the English abdication of the c i t y , which was a p o l i t i -c a l , rather than a m i l i t a r y , defeat. In fact, Nicolas records that two of 43 Croft's brothers, John and Edward, were k i l l e d at the siege of Boulogne, and Croft's appointment less than a year l a t e r , as Lord Deputy of Ireland, would hardly have been made i f Croft had not borne himself w e l l . 13 CHAPTER I I SERVICE IN IRELAND (1551-1553) By 1551, Croft may well have f e l t that he was due for further recogni-t i o n . He had managed to hold increasingly important positions i n the army, both as a soldier and administrator, and, most importantly, had not made any i n f l u e n t i a l enemies. His friendship with such men as Rutland would be use-f u l to him, and he had doubtless brought himself to the attention of other i n f l u e n t i a l men at Court. The position he was eventually given was i n . I r e -land, and depended on his m i l i t a r y a b i l i t i e s . Considering the perpetually unsettled conditions existing there, the task facing him was one which would tax his ingenuity to the utmost. Conditions i n Ireland i n the mid-sixteenth century could best be de-scribed, i n an understatement, as "tangled," and any attempt to cut the Gordian knot of confusion and to sort out the problems i s d i f f i c u l t indeed. 1 What makes the task p a r t i c u l a r l y complicated i s that no internal unity exis-ted within the country, with the exception of the unity which England was able to impose on that small s t r i p of t e r r i t o r y , extending along the coast north and south of Dublin, known as the Pale. Although England nominally controlled Ireland, i t was not u n t i l the mid-1530's that England decided to re-establish control over Dublin, a decision which was prompted primarily by fears that, after the English Reformation, an I r i s h Catholic n o b i l i t y might combine with a foreign power, Spain, or, possibly, France, to eject the English. Re-establishment of control was complicated by the fact that great r u l i n g lords had carved out what amounted to small kingdoms of their own, and objected to relinquishing any of their power. Religious disunity, although 14 i t had originated with Henry VIII's Reformation, did not become a v i t a l issue u n t i l 1547, with the application to Ireland of changes which had been brought 2 about i n England by Somerset, and, l a t e r , Northumberland. The situation fac-ing England by 1551, therefore, was of a semi-barbaric and wholly disunited country, consisting of rebels fight i n g both themselves and the English, with the added threat of possible intervention by a foreign power. England's policy of forcing re l i g i o u s changes onto<an already d i s s a t i s f i e d people fur-ther complicated the issue, and made the job of administrator both onerous and extremely d i f f i c u l t . The Lord Deputy of Ireland, through whom England governed the country, had been S i r Anthony St. Leger from 1540, with a hiatus i n 1548. He had been responsible for Henry V I I I 1 s programme of gradually subduing the I r i s h 3 and replacing the old t r i b a l system of land tenure with the English system. St. Leger's policy of "a j u d i c i a l admixture of force and c o n c i l i a t i o n " was successful, although Henry thought that St. Leger was somewhat too free i n granting Irishmen the i r requests. This complaint was, i n fact, to lead to St. Leger's dismissal, although this did not occur u n t i l Edward's reign and was to prove to be only temporary. ' Although his methods had proved remark-ably successful, St. Leger had encountered jealousy and resentment, particu-l a r l y among certain Anglican c l e r i c s , who were offended by his policy of en-lightened tolerance. I t was complaints from Archbishop Browne of Dublin i n 1551 which eventually led to his dismissal i n A p r i l of that year, and to his replacement by S i r James Croft, who was already i n Ireland at the time. Croft had been summoned by the Council on February 3, 1551, to return immediately to London,5 presumably from Boulogne where he was General i n charge of the Foot. Apparently, i t had previously been decided that an ex-15 pedition commanded by Lord Cobham would be sent into Ireland. Although this plan had been altered, Croft was sent to make necessary preparations for such an expedition. St. Leger was ordered to credit Croft, who was "... to view Cork and Kinsale and the ports adjoining; to appoint places to be f o r t i f i e d ; to view Baltimore and Beare, and the havens between them and Kinsale ...."7 The Council, which included Lord Cobham, a devoted adherent of Northumberland and the man who had been chosen to lead the I r i s h expedition, ordered two g hundred pounds to be paid over to Croft for his duties i n Ireland. By the end of March, the young King Edward was noting i n his chronicle that Croft had arrived i n Waterford, where he was consulting with St. Leger about f o r t i -es fications for that town. The o r i g i n a l purpose i n sending Croft to Ireland had been to prepare for an expedition to be led by Cobham. The suspected threat from France, however, had diminished, and Cobham1s proposed expedition had been cancelled by the Council. Nevertheless, i t was decided to keep Croft i n Ireland, and even to increase the number of foot and horsemen under his command. This decision suggests that Northumberland had decided that the co n c i l i a t o r y efforts of St. Leger were unsuccessful, and that a m i l i t a r y government, led by Croft, might succeed where the gentler methods of St. Leger had f a i l e d . Croft was qu a l i f i e d to serve as a m i l i t a r y governor, having had some ten years of army experience, and, as this was v i r t u a l l y his only recommendation, i t i s most l i k e l y that he was chosen to replace St. Leger i n the hope that the problem of Ireland could be solved by a display of force. On A p r i l 11 "... i t was determyned S i r Anthony Seintleger, now Deputie there, shulde be revoked and that the saied S i r James Crofte s h a l l supplie the p l a c e , b u t St. Leger was not n o t i f i e d of this decision by the Council u n t i l A p r i l 15, when he was 16 ordered to leave the King's lands in the same state as he had found them, and to see government turned over to C r o f t . 1 1 St. Leger can hardly have been pleased at the news, even i f , as Strype suggests, the King had declared he 12 wished him close at hand, where he could be of more use to the kingdom. At any rate, St. Leger could not have antagonized Northumberland i n any way, as he was to replace Croft i n the same position only two years l a t e r . As Lord Deputy, Croft would be forced, because of the distance and time involved i n sending directions, to use his own i n i t i a t i v e , but, i n general, he had to follow the orders l a i d down for him by the Council, which acted as a rubber stamp for Northumberland. His pr i n c i p a l duties would be to increase English sovereignty over the island, to build up defences against a possible invasion, and to ensure that rel i g i o u s attitudes were suitably Protestant, i n accordance with Northumberland's policy. Of more immediate concern, how-ever, Croft was ordered to farm out lands, and to s e l l wardships and marriages, which were i n the King's holding. Also, he was to hear complaints made against English s o l d i e r s , and to punish offenders according to martial law. These i n -structions, which included the statement that the Lord Deputy was to be paid one thousand pounds a year, are included i n the King's Warrant-Book, which mentions, i n addition, that a surveyor of mines and metals was to be appointed, 13 who would also look into the matter of coinage. Although Croft was now appointed Lord Deputy, his position was already i n jeopardy. According to Strype, the young King included i n a l i s t of things to be deliberated upon the interesting consideration that, for the good of Ireland, i t might be better i f three councils were set up there, each under a 14 different chairman', and each s i t t i n g i n a different part of the country. Although nothing came of this idea i t showed a surprising degree of maturity 17 and o r i g i n a l i t y on Edward's part. No doubt, i f the idea was ever broached to Northumberland, he would be eager to suppress i t , partly because i t would lessen his control on the government of Ireland, and also because i t would i n -dicate a weakening of his personal r u l e . In addition, Edward made the sugges-tion "... whether Croft should s t i l l remain deputy, or some person of n o b i l i t y ...be placed i n his room."1'5 There i s no indication that this thought had anything to do with Croft's a b i l i t i e s , or lack of them, but i t probably sug-gests that Edward believed that someone of noble b i r t h i n the position of Lord Deputy would indicate the importance England placed upon I r i s h a f f a i r s . The change-over from St. Leger to Croft was smooth and apparently with-out acrimony. Croft had been appointed Lord Deputy on A p r i l 11, but even as late as May 20 o f f i c i a l n o t i f i c a t i o n of his appointment had not been received i n Ireland, and i t was recorded that " S i r Anthony Sentleger governs but by S i r 16 James Croft's advice t i l l the patent for Croft's deputation s h a l l arrive." One thousand of the soldiers which the Council had decided should be sent to Ireland had landed, but, as was often the case, i n similar situations, money to pay the troops was not forthcoming. Shortly before the soldiers arrived, Richard Croft, presumably a r e l a t i v e (but not l i k e l y Croft's father), had also been sent there by the Council, and was to be given "... some rome there con-venient for him i n the consideracion of his service."''"7 I t was, of course, common for nepotism to f l o u r i s h at Court, but this i s the f i r s t recorded time that James Croft had been able to reward his own r e l a t i v e s i n any way. How-ever, as an i l l u s t r a t i o n of this facet of administrative l i f e , he also re-warded a nephew of St. Leger's, by giving him a position i n the north of 18 Ireland because he had "... honestly served his uncle i n those parts." Re-lationships between St. Leger and his successor could not have been too a c r i -18 monious i f Croft would use his position to reward St. Leger's r e l a t i v e s . The primary reason that Croft had been appointed Lord Deputy was probably because of Northumberland's desire to increase English control over Ireland. To bring this policy into e f f e c t , Croft had to lead the large number of soldiers which had been sent and to establish direct rule over parts of the country beyond the Pale. Although he did not o f f i c i a l l y become Deputy u n t i l 19 June 1, i t i s probable that before that date Croft had begun to subdue some of the more rebellious parts of Ireland. Among his orders from the Privy Council were those which would ensure "... the f o r t i f i c a t i o n of certain havens in the south and north," and the reducing of Leinster to order, "... wherein 20 the Cavernaghs, Tooles, and Byrnes doo inhabite." By June 10, the Council was noting that Croft was i n the remote parts of Ireland, "... beginning to 21 set justice and law i n good hand where they were unknown." The same l e t t e r from the Council mentions that many of the havens which had belonged to the enemy had been captured by Croft, and were being f o r t i f i e d by English troops. To begin with, therefore, Croft seems to have been successful i n effecting Northumberland's prime objective, that of tightening English control, and the Council must have been pleased that i t could j u s t l y affirm that "Ireland grows 22 towards good policy." To someone of Croft's temperament, the act of subduing the rebellious I r i s h must have come a l o t easier than finding a solution to some of the other problems to which the Council had referred. As mentioned above, Croft's pre-decessor, St. Leger, had been dismissed largely on the strength of objections raised by Archbishop Browne, who believed St. Leger's policy of toleration to be objectionable. One of St. Leger's suggestions had been that the l i t u r g y used i n the service should be i n the I r i s h language, understood by a vast 19 majority of Irishmen, rather than i n English, which was spoken by only an edu-23 cated few. This suggestion had been turned down f l a t , by the Council as well as by Archbishop Browne, but would undoubtedly have made advancement of the Reformation easier among the Irish-speaking population. St. Leger, how-ever, had ordered to be printed an edition of the recently established l i t u r g y (i n English), and this Book of Common Prayer, the f i r s t book ever to be prin-ted i n Dublin, ended with a prayer for the Lord Deputy "... S i r James Croft, now governour over this realm, under our most dread and sovereign Lord, 24 Edward the Sixth." Not a l l church leaders i n Ireland were as zealous Protestants as Browne, the Archbishop of Dublin. Croft's major opponent i n effecting changes within the I r i s h church was the Archbishop of Armagh, George Dowdall. Dowdall had refused point-blank to accept any of the proposed changes i n the l i t u r g y "... by which, as he expressed i t , every i l l i t e r a t e fellow might be enabled 25 to read Mass." Dowdall"s forthright disapproval made him extremely popular among the majority of Irishmen, and their wish to keep the old form of service was strengthened by the conduct of many of the English troops, who had looted churches and sold what they had stolen. Croft himself seemed to be i n favour of the new changes within the church. At least, he must have given Northumberland that impression, or he would never have been chosen as the successor to St. Leger. Croft's position, i n this as in other matters involving religious changes, appears to be one of opportunism. At no time i n his l i f e did he evidence any particular preference or leaning either towards protestantism or Catholicism, but there i s no doubt that he realized the necessity of supporting his superior's policy i f he did not want to be speedily replaced. Because Dowdall was such an i n f l u e n t i a l figure i n 20 the I r i s h church, one of Croft's f i r s t cares, as Leland suggests, "... was to labour by persuasion and address, to soften his opposition, and reconcile him 27 to the new regulations of public worship." Of course, Croft could have attempted a heavy-handed approach and thus have further angered Dowdall, who had r e t i r e d to an abbey outside Dublin and refused to have any contact with those, such as Browne, who accepted the new l i t u r g y . But i t i s to Croft's credit that he attempted a c o n c i l i a t o r y approach and requested a meeting with Dowdall to discuss the changes i n worship, thus f l a t t e r i n g Dowdall and at least averting a confrontation before l e t t i n g each side of the question be heard. Croft further reminded Dowdall that even the bishops of Rome acknow-ledged that a subject must be obedient to his sovereign, and suggested that a public debate be carried out between Dowdall and himself, supported by the 28 Bishop of Meath, who advocated reform of worship. Although Dowdall thought the meeting would be to no a v a i l "... as our judgments, opinions, and con-29 sciences are dif f e r e n t , " he agreed to accept Croft's o f f e r , and the confer-ence was held on June 17, 1551. I t was vain to hope that either side would be converted by the arguments of the other, but as a diplomatic gesture towards c o n c i l i a t i o n , the confer-ence was a hopeful idea on Croft's part. The meeting might also have helped to di s c r e d i t the r e l i g i o u s conservatives, although, considering the nature of the protagonists and the s i t u a t i o n chosen for the debate, this hope would have been somewhat i n vain.. I t was also diplomatic of Croft to agree that the talks should take place i n St. Mary's Abbey, where Dowdall had been i n seclusion. "Croft himself had l i t t l e part i n the conference, which was p r i n c i -p a l l y a theological dispute on such matters as the origins of the Mass and the importance of the V i r g i n Mary, and l e f t the debate to Staples, Bishop of Meath. 21 However, at the beginning of the debate, i n answer to a question of Dowdall's, Croft explained that his reason for wanting Dowdall to comply with the bishops 31 favouring reform was that he "... would fain unite you and them, i f possible," a noble motive, but one pre-doomed to f a i l u r e . As Dowdall noted at the end of the meeting: ... I s i g n i f i e d to your honour, that a l l was i n vain, when two parties should meet of a contrary opinion; and that your lord-ships pains therein would be l o s t . . . . ^ 1 However, the debate had been amicable, and i t i s doubtful that Leland i s correct when he writes of Croft and Dowdall that "... each r e t i r e d with s t i l l 32 greater acrimony against the other." Although nothing profitable resulted from the discussion i t was a worthwhile attempt on Croft's part, and certa i n l y nothing had been lost by i t . Needless to say, however, reli g i o u s controversy had not been s t i l l e d by this debate, and was to remain a major problem. I t was in t e n s i f i e d by Browne's insistence on being named Primate of A l l Ireland, a t i t l e which had previously been given to the Archbishop of Armagh, but which the King granted to Browne, 33 much to Dowdall's chagrin. Dowdall, although at the height of his popular-i t y , r e t i r e d to the continent, probably because he feared further sanctions being carried out against him, and remained there u n t i l the beginning of Mary's reign, when he resumed his former position as Primate. Croft also had the re-34 s p o n s i b i l i t y of recommending bishops to vacant sees. Although Leverous, whom 35 Croft suggested should be made Bishop of Ossory, was known to be attached to the old doctrines, Croft probably put forward his name because Leverous was acknowledged to be both learned and discreet. However, the see was eventually given to John Bale, an Englishman who was eloquent and sincere, but had l i t t l e 22 feeling or sympathy for the problems of the I r i s h . Croft's suggestion of Basnet for the now-vacant see of Armagh was apparently prompted by the con-36 sideration that Basnet was "... experimented i n the wars of the country," but Edward turned down this appointment and named another Englishman, Hugh Goodacre, as bishop. The f i n a l vacant see, that of Cashel, remained without a bishop during the rest of Edward's reign. Croft's suggestions for the two posts were unorthodox but imaginative, and although neither man was appointed bishop, they might have been more helpful to Croft than the two men who were appointed, as w e l l as been more acceptable to the I r i s h . The other major problem which faced Croft during his period as Lord 37 Deputy was the new I r i s h coinage. There had been no difference between English and I r i s h coinage u n t i l 1460, when, with the intention of loosening English t i e s , the coinage had been degraded. By the time of Henry VI I I , I r i s h coinage was more than half a l l o y , and trade was thrown into confusion, with re s u l t i n g discontent. I r i s h coinage came to be used only within Ireland, and trade had to be carried out with a reputable currency, either s t e r l i n g or foreign crowns. Inhabitants of the major I r i s h c i t i e s had signed a petit i o n to the King, asking that coinage be i d e n t i c a l i n both kingdoms, but the Coun-c i l hesitated to act. Although the King's advisers did not deny the facts, they took no action u n t i l early 1552, after a year of r i s i n g c r i s i s i n the coinage. That Croft recognized the problem to be of primary importance i s 38 shown by a l e t t e r he wrote to the Council i n August 1531, i n which he re-quested that I r i s h money be made of equal value with English. To anyone with a fixed income, which Croft nominally had as Deputy, i n f l a t i o n would be par-t i c u l a r l y bad, as he pointed out: Neyther ys ther any man presentely habull to lyve apon his 23 entertaynemente, but as we force the country, the continu-ance whereof woll growe to a weryness.39 Although goods were p l e n t i f u l , prices were beginning to soar, and "... every thing that was worth one penny i s now worth four . .. ."^ The Council was be-ginning to r e a l i z e that the si t u a t i o n would have to be set r i g h t , as was shown when the Councillors commented, on September 25, on the f a l l of the money, and added "... that ordre may be taken therein according to the sayd Deputie and 41 Counselles request." The year 1551 had been a good one for Croft. His appointment as Lord Deputy was a major achievement, and his f i r s t months i n o f f i c e had been reason-ably successful, even i f the p r i n c i p a l problems s t i l l existed. He had t r i e d to extend English power without being involved i n any major c o n f l i c t , and had secured and strengthened many of the ports against a possible foreign attack. Relationships with the Church had been c o r d i a l , even i f Dowdall had not been convinced by any arguments to a l t e r his strong Catholic stance. The problem of the debased coinage had at least been noticed by the Council, which ap-peared ready to act to make coinage of the two countries equal. Although Edward may have had doubts about Croft's effectiveness, i n November he s i g n i -fied his pleasure at Croft's months i n o f f i c e by rewarding him with one thou-42 sand pounds, and by making him a member of the Privy Chamber. Unfortunately, 1552 was not to be as successful a year for the new Lord Deputy. I n f l a t i o n , which had been growing rapidly, got completely out of hand i n the f i r s t few months of 1552. The Council could no longer continue i t s policy of mouthing platitudes and was forced to take concrete action to prevent trade from breaking down completely. In January, a "common supplication" had been sent to the Council from Croft and the Council i n Ireland, which included 24 signatures of members of the I r i s h n o b i l i t y , merchants, and "gentlemen." The lack of goods i n Ireland, they asserted, was caused by the money c r i s i s "... without remedye thereof yt i s thought almost ympossible to sett a 44 staye." On March 22, the situat ion had s t i l l not been remedied, and Croft reported that corn which should be s e l l i n g for two or three s h i l l i n g s a mea-sure, but which had been s i x s h i l l i n g s and eight pence when Croft f i r s t arrived i n Ireland, was now s e l l i n g for t h i r t y s h i l l i n g s . He added that the sit u a t i o n did not bother the average Irishman, who "carethe onely for his bealy and that not d e l i c a t e l y . ..," but was most grievous to those with fixed 45 incomes, such as himself. While Croft was correct i n assuming that those with fixed incomes suffered most during a period of i n f l a t i o n , i t was un-r e a l i s t i c to include himself among these. His pay as Deputy was fixed, but i t would be naive to consider this amount his t o t a l income. As J. E. Neale 46 has explained, compensation was obtainable i n such forms as "fees" or "gra-t u i t i e s , " which swelled an o f f i c i a l ' s income far beyond what i t would appear to be simply looking at his salary. I t was true that a money c r i s i s had no great effect on the : average I r i s h peasant, who probably had l i t t l e chance to use money, and Croft was correct, i f somewhat hard-hearted, when he ascribed the greatest suffering to gentlemen with fixed incomes. A l l things being r e l a t i v e , an I r i s h peasant probably suffered no more i n the Spring of 1552 than he had a year e a r l i e r , while pensioners, or "stypendaries" as Croft called them, were beginning to fe e l the pinch. F i n a l l y , on June 7, the Privy Council took the long-overdue step of making I r i s h money of equal value with English money,^ but i t s da l l y i n g had been quite unnecessary and had increased English unpopularity. However, no blame for the situ a t i o n should be l a i d on Croft, who had recognized the problem early and urged solutions many.times. The I r i s h coinage problem cannot be treated independently from the 25 English coinage problem, although conditions were undoubtedly worse i n Ireland than i n England.^ The process of debasement had begun under the direction of Cardinal Wolsey, i n 1526, and had continued throughout Henry VIII's reign. As a result of Wolsey 1s and later measures, after the contemporary gold coins and good s i l v e r coins of an e a r l i e r date had been withdrawn by hoarders,, the base-ness of coins l e f t i n c i r c u l a t i o n contributed to a sharp r i s e i n prices. Edward VI's councillors continued to s t r i k e base currency from Henry VIII's dies, but, by 1551, reform of the coinage, prompted by increasing evidences of discontent, had begun. However, the efforts of Northumberland and Gresham, his f i n a n c i a l adviser, were unsuccessful, p r i n c i p a l l y because bad money con-tinued to drive out good, the proportion of improved coins i n c i r c u l a t i o n be-ing very small compared to the mass of debased coins s t i l l current. As J. D. Mackie states, "Only the complete demonetization of the base issues could effect a true r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of the coinage, and this was not f i n a l l y achieved 49 u n t i l the reign of Elizabeth." However, Northumberland's attempts at mone-tary reform had had some e f f e c t , and might have been even more successful, as A. E. Feavearyear suggests, i f he had had time to complete the plans he had begun.^ The problem of the coinage i n Ireland was inextricably linked with that i n England, and any hopes of reform i n the I r i s h situation were f u t i l e u n t i l the problem had been solved i n England. Although there had been few uprisings i n Ireland i n 1551, their absence was only r e l a t i v e and temporary. 5 1 Within the Pale i t was possible to keep f a i r l y stable government, but throughout the rest of the island this was im-possible. I t would have required an enormous number of.troops stationed throughout the country to have kept order by force, and this the Council was neither w i l l i n g , nor able to afford, to do. Ulster was the most turbulent 26 part of the country, and was kept sp, by constant incursions of Scots, who aided the native chieftains against English troops or I r i s h farmers who were under English protection. I r i s h hatred for the English was fanned by loot-ing which p e r i o d i c a l l y broke out, even though i t had been forbidden by suc-cessive Lord Deputies. At the beginning of 1552 the great church at Kieran had been thoroughly looted, not as a r e p r i s a l , but presumably on.the i n i t i a -t i v e of the chronically unpaid soldie r s . There was not l e f t , moreover, a b e l l , small or large, an image, or an a l t a r , or a book, or a gem, or even glass i n a window, from the w a l l of the church out, which was not carried o f f . The soldiers' looting, combined with the attempted enforcement of unwanted relig i o u s changes, and an unstable currency acted on a wild and naturally re-bellious people to ensure that uprisings would occur constantly. In 1552 the trouble, as usual, took place i n Ulster. Croft himself led the English troops into Ulster against the I r i s h , commanded by Hugh O'Neill, and the Scots. A preliminary party of English troops was defeated, and even though Croft managed to reach Belfast and to erect a f o r t i f i c a t i o n there, his vict o r y was hollow. As the Chronicle states, "... they gained no vi c t o r y , and obtained no hostages or s p o i l s ; and their s p i r i t s , were greatly damped 53 on this occasion." Although O'Neill's son, i n a t y p i c a l l y complex man-oeuvre, decided to help Croft, he was, i n turn, attacked by one of his kins-men at night and thoroughly routed. Croft was forced to retreat south, having accomplished nothing. Although he made another foray into Ulster i n the Autumn, the results of this expedition were even more disheartening for him: ... he effected nothing, except that he destroyed corn-fields. After having lost a great part of his people, he returned with-out submission or peace. 27 I t i s d i f f i c u l t to decide how Croft could have managed any better. The best course would probably have been to have l e f t well enough alone, stopping i n -cursions into the Pale and against English troops wherever possible, and hop-ing that the sit u a t i o n would gradually improve i n time. This might have taken many years, but conditions were already better i n most of Ireland than they had been f i f t y years previously, and might have changed for the better i n Ulster too, particularly, when the Scottish problem was overcome. As i t was, Croft had to fight against what amounted to g u e r i l l a warfare, often carried on at night, and had to attempt to s e t t l e soldiers i n acompletely a l i e n t e r -r i t o r y , with not enough money or troops to do a r e a l l y effective job. He can-not be blamed for f a i l i n g to subdue Ulster, but his expedition into the north was i l l - a d v i s e d and demonstrated the need for a complete re-thinking of the I r i s h problem. Probably because of the f a i l u r e of Croft's expeditions into Ulster, on November 6, 1552, he was given leave to return to England, 5 5 presumably so he could report d i r e c t l y to the Council about the general state of a f f a i r s i n Ireland. There had been other complaints raised against Croft, including one made i n July by the Earl of Tyrone, who had been arrested by Croft, and who asked that a commission be sent from England to hear the accusations made against him. 5^ Also, the King's p r o f i t s accruing from mining leases granted i n Ireland had been n e g l i g i b l e , 5 7 and Northumberland may have l a i d blame for this on Croft. Whatever the reason, his r e c a l l indicates d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with his services and, even though he did not eventually leave his post i n Ireland u n t i l early i n 1553, the events of 1552 marked his downfall. In May of 1553, the King wrote to Tyrone that he should make contact with S i r Anthony St. 58 Leger, "... whom he purposes to send presently into Ireland as Lord Deputy," 28 and.on the twelfth of the month, Croft received a payment of one thousand 59 pounds, probably to soften the blow of being deprived of his position. Even i f Croft had not been able to solve a l l the problems i n Ireland, he had made a good attempt at providing an e f f i c i e n t government, and had shown himself sympathetic to the I r i s h i n such matters as hardening the currency and l i s t e n i n g to their point-of-view regarding Church reform. Some years l a t e r , Campion, wri t i n g i n his History of Ireland, b r i e f l y recorded of Croft's two years i n o f f i c e : Upon Saintleger came S i r James Croftes, of whose bounty and hon-ourable dealing towards them, they yeald at this day a generall good report.^0 In fact, i t i s possible that Northumberland f e l t Croft had been too zealous, and that his proposals had been too costly for England. Croft had made l i t t l e headway i n subduing the Ulster chieftains, but neither had St. Leger, who pre-ceded him and was named to succeed him. The reappointment of St. Leger sug-gests that the attempt to solve the problem of Ireland by m i l i t a r y means (which were expensive) had f a i l e d , and that a return to a " p o l i t i c a l " deputy-ship was called f o r . At any rate, Croft could s t i l l count on i n f l u e n t i a l friends on the Council, among them C e c i l , who had shown himself useful to Croft before,^ 1 and Northumberland. Although he had been responsible for Croft's dismissal from the post of Lord Deputy of Ireland, Northumberland gave him another job, which, while not having the prestige of-his former posi-t i o n , would have given Croft a reasonable income. Croft and S i r Andrew Dudley, brother of Northumberland, were both attached to S i r Edward Warner, Captain of the Tower i n London, positions which would have been p r i n c i p a l l y honorary, but which j u s t i f i e d the statement that Croft had "... placed himself i n the service 29 of the Duke of Northumberland." This statement, made by a Spaniard working for the Emperor, was contained i n a l e t t e r which also foreshadowed, although unknowingly, Croft's f a l l from even this position. The young King was already extremely i l l and i n danger of death, and i t was to be only two months after this l e t t e r was written, on July 6, that Edward was to die. Although Croft had been chosen to replace St. Leger because Northumber-land intended to pursue a " m i l i t a r y " policy, his position depended on his keeping i n Northumberland's good graces. Croft had accepted Northumberland's plans for church reform, which were part of his policy of creating a party which would be h o s t i l e to Mary when she came to the throne, but i t does not seem l i k e l y that Croft was a member of the inner group which surrounded Northumberland. I t i s true that he had been granted a p r o f i t a b l e , but v i r t u -a l l y meaningless, position i n the Tower, but the events which followed the death of Edward VI were to show that Croft could not legitimately be termed a pawn of the Duke of Northumberland. 30 CHAPTER I I I WYATT1S REBELLION AND ITS AFTERMATH (1553-1558) By the beginning of 1553 rumours of Edward's extremely i l l health were c i r c u l a t i n g , and his death on July 6, at the age of f i f t e e n , caught nobody by surprise. However, i t made an enormous difference to Northumberland, and to a l l those who owed their positions e n t i r e l y to his patronage. Northumber-land's chief adherent had probably been Edward, and i t i s not an exaggeration to state, as G. R. Elton does, that "... the whole English Reformation depen-ded on the l i f e of Edward VI." 1 Under the terms of Henry VIII's w i l l , Mary would succeed to the throne, and her accession would bring a sudden halt to the Reformation i n England, and to the career of Northumberland, the chief proponent of Protestantism. Realization of these facts prompted Northumber-land to attempt to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne, an abortive plan which, i n two weeks, was completely broken. Mary was l e f t triumphantly in power with a completely mistaken impression of the popularity of her Catholic position rather than her legitimate position as Queen by right of being the daughter of Henry VIII. James Croft had, as i t were, backed the wrong horse. There i s no doubt that he had reached positions of power because he had been an adherent of Northumberland, and of Northumberland's protestant p o l i c i e s . Whatever his i n t r i n s i c value as a soldier or administrator, he was not important or b r i l -l i a n t enough that Northumberland could not have done without him. Even i f he had not been an ardent protestant, and his co n c i l i a t o r y attempts i n Ireland show that he was at least sympathetic to the Catholics, he would have had no chances of advancement i f he had not accepted wholeheartedly the Reformation 31 po l i c i e s l a i d down by Northumberland. Therefore, Croft could not expect any favours to be shown to him on the accession of an avowedly Catholic monarch. His best policy would probably have been to r e t i r e d i s c r e e t l y to the family estates i n Herefordshire, and wait to see just how far Mary intended to take repr i s a l s against those, such as himself, who had helped to bring about the reli g i o u s changes of the past few years. This, however, Croft was unwilling to do, and the f i v e years of Mary's reign were to see him involved i n a plot against the Queen, imprisoned, fined, and relegated to finding an income by accepting money from Catholic Spain. As a supporter of Northumberland, Croft was extremely fortunate that he was neither p a r t i c u l a r l y i n f l u e n t i a l nor, as events turned out, p a r t i c u l a r l y . favoured by the Regent. The day after Edward's death, Northumberland, r e a l i z -ing that immediate action was necessary, re t i r e d to the Tower with his sup-porters and proceeded to barricade i t and to strengthen i t with arms and ammunition. Croft, as a constable of the Tower, and one placed there only a few months e a r l i e r by Northumberland himself, might have been expected to stay as a member of Northumberland's rebellious band, but this i s not what happened. As soon as Northumberland's men had taken the Tower, "... they discharged s i r James Croft of the constabullshype of the Towre, and ther thay put [ i n the -i " 2 said lordj (sic) Admerall, and toke ys othe and charge of the Towre ...." I t i s possible that Croft had requested the discharge himself, r e a l i z i n g the f o l l y of Northumberland's ambitions, or that Northumberland realized Croft could be of no use, and that a more confirmed adherent, namely Clinton, the Lord Admiral, would make a more trustworthy Constable. This l a t t e r course i s more l i k e l y , because, as Tytler states, Northumberland "... dreaded intrigue, 3 aware that he had heads as cra f t y as his own to deal with." Whether one re-32 gards Croft's dismissal as of his own i n i t i a t i v e or because Northumberland did not consider him important or f a i t h f u l enough, he was extremely fortunate to be free from the Tower and Northumberland's patronage, and not to be i n -volved i n any way with the preparations to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne. By the end of July, the reign of the Nine Days Queen was over, North-umberland and his cohorts were imprisoned, and Mary was firmly i n control of the throne and the country. S i r James was by no means out of suspicion, nor was he l i k e l y to receive any favours from Queen Mary, having been a l l i e d with Northumberland for too long. Nevertheless, on July 23, Croft, with several other protestant noblemen and knights, was o f f i c i a l l y given a pardon by Mary: ... the lord admirall, and the lords Greye, Garrett, Wormon, and the lord Fitzwarren, s i r Henry Sidney, and s i r James Cr o f f t s , with divers others, have already their pardon graun-ted them.^ Croft had not, apparently, taken part i n the attempt to replace Mary, but several of the lords named had been active participants. They had also, how-ever, been quick to desert Northumberland, whose fears of intrigue had been well founded, when i t became obvious that his was a lost cause. As early as July 19, a delegation of some of Northumberland's leading supporters "... had been persuaded that the Lady Mary was r i g h t f u l Queen, and had decided to pro-claim her as such this very day Their support was, of course, a matter of necessity, considering Northumberland's steadily waning popularity, and their decision to implore the Queen's foragiveness was another prudent ges-ture. Mary realized that she could not, afford to alienate the country by im-prisoning or decapitating a l l her erstwhile enemies, and she knew she needed their support, however h y p o c r i t i c a l , during the c r u c i a l early period of her 33 reign. Her decision, therefore, to pardon such men as Grey i s understandable, considering the circumstances, and. Croft, being only a minor and unimportant figure, featured i n the large number of pardons handed out on July 23. Mary's personal claim to the throne had been overwhelmingly endorsed, but i t was not apparent to Mary that popular support did not mean an eagerness to refute a l l that had taken place i n the English Reformation. Protestants would not w i l l i n g l y surrender the achievements of the previous twenty years, and yet i t appeared obvious, considering Mary's avowedly Catholic tendencies, that r e l i g i o u s s t r i f e was inevitable. Both France and Spain feared the ambi-tions of the other i n England, and Renard, the Spanish ambassador, urged the Emperor to consolidate his position. Noailles, Renard's French counterpart, feared an a l l i a n c e of England and Spain, and had even offered aid to North-umberland, although i t had never materialized. Although both Renard and Noailles over-emphasized the precariousness of Mary's position, there was a r e a l danger, as events were soon to show. Mary, who had been accustomed to look to her Spanish kin f o l k for advice, began to do so again, and the fears which many i n England had of a marriage all i a n c e between England and Catholic Spain began to seem wel l founded. This background to the events which were to occur i n early 1554 explains some of the reasons why a group of discon-tented Protestants, including James Croft, were to attempt an uprising against a monarch who had been greeted with genuine feelings of approval only a few months e a r l i e r . 7 The rumours which had been c i r c u l a t i n g were confirmed on January 15, 1554, when i t was o f f i c i a l l y announced that Mary was to marry P h i l i p of Spain. Although Mary indicated that she realized the match might be unpopular, she 34 t r i e d to a l l a y fears that England would be at a l l dominated by the Spanish by adding that "... the said Prince was not to meddle with the public a f f a i r s of the state, but the Queen's great Council of the realm, as before was accus-9 tomed." Although some of Mary's Council, including Paget, approved of the match, there were others, among them Gardiner, the Chancellor, who had t r i e d to persuade Mary to marry Edward Courtenay, newly created Earl of Devon. Courtenay had the primary advantage of being English, and he was also of royal blood and had not made any important enemies. 1^ To many Englishmen, who had a genuine and well-based fear of a union between the Spanish and English royal houses, almost anyone other than P h i l i p would have been accept-able, and Courtenay was loudly championed throughout the country. The announcement of January 15, however, meant that a l l hopes of averting the dreaded Spanish marriage by arranging, a l i a i s o n between Mary and Courtenay were l o s t . The only course which now seemed open to many was a show of force, and within ten days of the announcement, reports of the beginnings of a rebel-l i o n were being heard throughout London. The uprising was not a spur-of-the-moment idea, and even though i t was ultimately to f a i l , plans had apparently been l a i d at least a month previously, i n the event, that the Spanish marriage should materialize. The conspirators, according to Loades, who c i t e s a later indictment, included Croft, S i r Peter Carew, S i r Nicholas Arnold, S i r William Pickering, William Winter, S i r Edward Rogers, S i r Thomas Wyatt, S i r George Harper, William Thomas, S i r Edward Warner, and S i r Nicholas Throckmorton.''"''" They were a l l men who had held reasonably important positions under Edward, who stood to gain nothing by the accession of Mary, and who probably had a genuine fear of an English alliance with Spain. Although the connection i s tenuous, Croft and the other conspirators were 35 probably w e l l known to one another ..u Several of them, including Pickering, 12 Wyatt, Throckmorton, and Carew, had served i n France during the 1540's, and Throckmorton had also accompanied Protector Somerset to Scotland i n 1547, and 13 had taken part i n the Battle of Musselburgh, as had Croft. Two of the con-spirators, S i r Nicholas Arnold and William Thomas, were probably acquainted with Croft from their positions i n the area of England and Wales near Here-fordshire. In 1551, Arnold was l i s t e d with Croft as being a member of the 14 Council i n the Marches of Wales. Thomas, as his name suggests, was a Welsh-man, and as Clerk of the Privy Council secured a number of valuable grants. In December, 1551, he obtained a patent for l i f e "... of a t o l l of a l l c a t t l e , merchandise, and other customs and subsidies, within the towns of Prestend [Presteigne] , Beelth [Builth] , and E l v e l [ ?] , i n the Marches of Wales: . . . and an annuity of 40 marks of the fee-farm of the c i t y of Hereford Presteigne and B u i l t h , though i n Wales, are very close to Croft Castle, and contact between Croft and Thomas was quite l i k e l y . In addition to these con-tacts, Croft had served under S i r Edward Warner, Lord Cobham's son-in-law, who 16 was Lieutenant of the Tower from October, 1552, to July 28, 1553, during much of which time Croft, together with S i r Andrew Dudley, had been Deputy Lieutenant. Loades states that Croft also knew the Duke of Suffolk, who joined the conspirators late i n December,'''7 by which time plans for the up-r i s i n g must have been well l a i d . The project of these men was given impetus by the interest shown by Noa i l l e s , the French ambassador, who feared the marriage plans almost as i n -tently as the majority of Englishmen did. Obviously, a Spanish-English m i l i -tary a l l i a n c e would pose a far greater threat to French interests than Spain by herself. Noailles had already heard, i n December, about plans for an 36 uprising, and had been'informed on the 23rd. that Croft " . . . had plans for stirring up "infinite troubles" in England and Ireland and wished to enter 18 the French King's service." Croft later admitted that there was an under -19 standing between the rebels and Noailles, and Renard, whose figures should be regarded with some suspicion even i f he is correct in the broad outlines, reported to Prince Philip that: The King of France had promised help in troops and money, and had already distributed some 10,000 to 12,000 crowns to pri -vate individuals.20 Henry II, however, apparently had doubts as to the effectiveness of the English conspirators, and the help which he offered eventually came too late. Success on the part of the conspirators would have been in the interests of. France, and Croft and his associates appear to have counted on French support. It is unlikely that they would have been as sure of themselves in January i f they had realized that unconditional aid from France would not necessarily be forthcoming. When the conspirators met at the beginning of December, they were faced with the immediate problem of deciding on an objective. It was one thing to begin a revolution which would force Mary off the throne, but a totally dif-ferent problem to decide what would happen to her when they had succeeded, and who would replace her. Several accounts indicate that plans had been con-sidered to assassinate Mary, and Renard reported that the French had approached Croft with the suggestion " . . . to hinder the marriage of his Highness and the Queen, to raise Elizabeth to the crown, to marry her to Courtenay, and put the 22 Queen to death . . . ." However, a contemporary account mentions that the idea of assassinating Mary was broached by William Thomas, who was repulsed by both 37 Croft and Wyatt when he suggested the idea:. ... Nicholas Arnolde . . . told yt to maister Croftes, who also tolde i t to maister Wyat; and they bothe detesting the horryble-nes of the cryme, the said Wyate ware, under his long gowne, a great waster [cudgel] . . . t o beat the said William Thomas with, that he wolde have l e f t e him for dedd.23 2, Loades mentions that leadership, at the end of December, had passed to Croft, but, while there are numerous indications of his playing a leading r o l e , there i s no suggestion that he led the movement at any time. I f Mary was to be de-posed, as was the only alternative to assassination, then Elizabeth would have to be chosen to succeed her, and the suggestion which Renard indicated the French had put forth--that Elizabeth should marry Courtenay--was part of the plan adopted by the conspirators. As Mary was to discover l a t e r , Elizabeth was extremely cautious regarding any written commitment, and there are no papers i n her w r i t i n g , or signed by her, which indicate that she was i n any way associated with the plot. How-ever, i t was important that the French should be convinced that Elizabeth was i n the conspirators' confidence, and Croft indicated to Noailles that E l i z a -beth was f u l l y aware of the plans being made. Noailles wrote i n January that: ... she sees the fine claim she has to the crown and the expec-tation she has of gaining i t , especially i f the matters under-taken for her come to a successful end." Croft may have been indulging, as Harbison suggests, i n wishful thinking, but he apparently managed to persuade the French that the conspiracy was worthy of support, because Noailles l a t e r reported that " I s h a l l continue to encour-2 6 age Croft and his companions i n this good intention." With the understand-ing that France would support the r e b e l l i o n , and that Elizabeth approved 38 t a c i t l y of their plans, the conspirators were prepared to act on their plans as soon as the announcement of the Spanish marriage was made on January 15. L i t t l e more than a week l a t e r , Wyatt's Rebellion was set i n motion. Attachment of Wyatt's name to the re b e l l i o n i s somewhat misleading, con-sidering the facts leading up to the actual outbreak of the r e b e l l i o n i n January. There i s nothing to indicate that, at this time, Wyatt was any more than merely a conspirator, and although various people have been suggested as leader, including Thomas and Croft, Wyatt was probably simply one of many. The reason that his name has been attached to the r e b e l l i o n i s that, of the four uprisings which were planned, the one i n Kent under his leadership was the only one which served as a threat of any sort to the Queen, and the only one which appeared to have even the shadow of a chance of succeeding. For his comparative success, Wyatt was to f o r f e i t his l i f e , but the l i v e s of most of his co-plotters, who were equally as much to blame for the concept of the conspiracy as he was, were to be spared because of the last-minute thoughts they had and the d i l a t o r y way i n which they carried out their part of the scheme. I t had been decided i n December that the projected uprising would occur 27 simultaneously i n four areas, and would then converge on London. Croft would raise a force i n Herefordshire, Wyatt would see to Kent, Carew and Courtenay to Devon, and the Duke of Suffolk to Leicestershire. Although the Council had urged the population to accept announcement of the marriage "with 28 a l l humblenes and rejoycing," a contemporary chronicler records that " ... allmost eche man was abashed, loking daylie for worse mattiers to growe 29 shortly after." Expectations were confirmed when word came, on January 21, 30 that Carew and others i n Devon had captured the c i t y and castle of Exeter, 39 and, on January 25, when i t was learned i n London that various castles i n Kent 31 had been captured by the rebels. Croft had probably l e f t London a few days e a r l i e r , and i t was rumoured that "... about this time s i r James Croftes de-32 parted to Walles, as yt i s thought to rayse his powre there." Soon a f t e r -wards, probably on January 30, reports were c i r c u l a t i n g that "ther was a com-33 panye upp i n Hervodeshire," but t h i s , as i t turned out, was nothing more than unsubstantiated gossip, even though i t had been Croft's purpose to raise such a force. The r e b e l l i o n , which had begun with confidence and some success, was, however, doomed to f a i l u r e , and a few weeks after the reports of castles being captured i n Devon and Kent, and forces being raised i n Herefordshire, the conspirators were a l l to be securely immured within the Tower. The end of the conspiracy occurred within a remarkably short time. Carew, 34 in Devon, had already fled to Normandy on January 25, having found that he was unable to whip up anti-Catholic f e e l i n g , and that he was hampered by the diligence of l o c a l authorities and the f a i l u r e of the Earl of Devon to declare 35 himself. On January 26, the Duke of Suffolk had been declared a t r a i t o r (as 36 had Carew, Wyatt, and others) after he had f l e d to Leicestershire, where he 37 was captured on February 6, after putting up a weak opposition. Suffolk's attempted insurrection had been minimal, but at least had more effect than Croft's. As Loades states: With the exception of the projected Herefordshire r i s i n g , which-never materialized at a l l , this was the weakest stroke of the 38 conspiracy. Croft was apparently arrested at Ludlow, i n Shropshire, on February 13, or, i f not arrested, was at least examined on his connection with Lord Thomas Grey, 39 one of Suffolk's brothers, about whom Croft denied any knowledge. In spite 40 of his denial, Croft must have known about Grey, who had fled towards Wales with the intention of escaping from there into France, and who would probably have stayed with Croft on his way to the Welsh c o a s t . ^ As for Wyatt, he had 41 succeeded i n leading his Kentishmen, numbering approximately two thousand, into Southwark, across the Thames from the Tower. Having crossed the r i v e r upstream on February 8, Wyatt and his men marched up Fleet Street to Ludgate, where they were repulsed by Lord William Howard and forced to retreat to Temple Bar. Wyatt decided to give himself up, and was brought down the Thames to the Tower as a prisoner. Two days l a t e r , Suffolk was i n the Tower, and soon after that, Croft, too, was imprisoned. With the exception of Carew, who had fled to France, the leaders of the proposed uprising were now immured in the Tower, the r e b e l l i o n having been a complete f a i l u r e . Shortly after their imprisonment, Elizabeth joined them, suspicions of her involvement i n the con-spiracy being reasonably w e l l founded, i f unproveable. I t i s not d i f f i c u l t to find reasons for the f a i l u r e . What we would to-day term "lack of communications" must have hindered the ef f o r t immensely, but even more would lack of confidence. The idea of r a i s i n g opposition i n four parts of the country may have seemed a good idea, but four such isolated move-ments would have been easier to suppress than a more coordinated uprising i n one area. As w e l l , Wyatt could not know, while he was waging his reasonably successful struggle i n Kent, that Carew, i n the south-west, had already given up the f i g h t , and that Croft, on the Welsh border, had never begun his part of the conspiracy. Native cautiousness on Croft's part may account for his hav-ing l e f t Wyatt and the others i n the lurch, or he may have f e l t that his i n f l u -ence i n Herefordshire was not strong enough that he could act decisively. I t i s true that his was an old family and that the area was scattered with r e l a -41 t i v e s , but i t was to be several decades before the Crofts could by any means be considered the leading family i n the county. However, Croft was not the only one of the rebels who could be faulted for indecision at the l a s t moment, and only Wyatt, i n Kent, put up any sort of a fight whatsoever. The attempted re b e l l i o n against Mary was symptomatic of the discontent f e l t by many throughout England, but the fact that i t had been suppressed i n so short a time indicated that popular feeling was not so strong that the country wished to plunge i t s e l f into c i v i l war. Mary could f e e l well s a t i s -fied that the r e b e l l i o n had been so i n e f f e c t i v e and short-lived, and, because i t had not posed any great threat to her, she was probably more lenient to the conspirators than she would have been had they been more successful. I f Mary had taken harsh, recriminatory action, i t i s l i k e l y that she would have antagonized i n f l u e n t i a l people whose support she needed, and severe punish-ment of the conspirators would.not have made this p o s s i b i l i t y worth while. However, once the r e b e l l i o n was over and the ringleaders safely locked inside the Tower, judgment was carried out with great speed. In fact, several of the leading conspirators, including Wyatt and Lord John Grey, had been arraigned even before Croft arrived at the Tower. Wyatt had been t r i e d , and condemned to death, on February 19 and Grey on the 20th, but Croft was not brought to the Tower from Shropshire u n t i l the 21st, accompanied by Lord Thomas Grey.^ Numerous of Wyatt's followers had been executed, and Renard reported to the Emperor as early as February 17 that "..: i n London execu-tions have taken place i n twenty or t h i r t y different places, and one sees nothing but gibbets and hanged men."^ However, Mary had also pardoned a large number of Kentishmen, and Machyn t e l l s of a group of them who had been forgiven by the Queen: 42 ... the powr presonars knelyd down i n the myre, and ther the Quen('s) [ s i c ] grace lokyd owt over the gatt and gayff them a l l pardon, and thay cryd owt 'God save quen Mare'. ^ I t was a simple enough matter to forgive the ignorant peasants of Kent, but quite another to be as generous to the knights and peers of the realm who had led the uprising. On February 23, shortly after Wyatt had been condemned to 47 die, the Duke of Suffolk was beheaded i n the Tower. Suffolk had been t r i e d 48 on the 17th and convicted of treason, and, as the father of Lady Jane Grey as w e l l as an outspoken protestant and leading conspirator, had no hope of being spared the death penalty. Neither, of course, had Wyatt, but with the exception of these two, and of Suffolk's brothers, the rest of the conspira-tors were to be l e t off l i g h t l y . The p a r t i c i p a t i o n of Elizabeth i n the conspiracy, i f any, i s impossible to prove, as she never committed herself i n w r i t i n g . However, she had been considered essential i n the p l o t , as a reassurance to the French, from whom the conspirators had hoped to get help. Elizabeth was l i v i n g at Ashridge, some twenty-seven miles from London, and i t i s probable that she had been v i s i t e d by Croft while he was on his way to Herefordshire i n mid-January. Croft had intimated that he had conferred with Elizabeth about the projected conspiracy late i n December, when he wished to assure Noailles of her support, and Elizabeth lat e r showed that she was acquainted with him, when they were both imprisoned i n the Tower. At that time, on being questioned whether or not there had been talk at Ashridge between her and Croft about moving from there to Donnington Castle, she replied: ... as concerning my going unto Dunnington Castle, I doe re-member Master Hobby and mine Officers, and you s i r James Acroft had such talke, but what i s that to the purpose, my Lords, but that I may goe to my own houses at a l l times.^ 43 In spite of her protestations, i t would appear l i k e l y that such a talk took place. Mary had realized that any uprising could well be centred around her s i s t e r , and had requested, as early as January 26, as soon as the conspiracy had been confirmed, that Elizabeth leave Ashridge and come to the Court. Mary mentioned i n the l e t t e r that "certain e v i l disposed persons" had recently "spread divers lewd and untrue rumours,"^ but made i t quite clear that E l i z a -beth was to come to London without delay. Elizabeth's reply, that she was sick and could not t r a v e l , seems a patent falsehood, and i t i s not surprising on Mary's part that she had her s i s t e r f o r c i b l y carried to Court, and from there to the Tower. However, Elizabeth's imprisonment was only for a short period, because, as Mary might have guessed, nothing d i r e c t l y incriminating could be found to prove her involvement i n the r e b e l l i o n . Croft was p a r t i c u l a r l y fortunate i n escaping the axe, because i t appears that Wyatt was implicating him deeply i n the conspiracy. Although Wyatt had been condemned to death, he was probably being tortured to t e l l everything he knew. At least, i t i s recorded that the Chancellor and other Councillors had "... laboured to make S i r Thomas Wiat confess concerning the Lady E l i z a -b e t h , " 5 1 and that Wyatt had said that " S i r James Croft knows more of the 52 matter." As indicated above, Croft probably did know a good deal about the negotiations which had taken place with Elizabeth. Later, i n March, he was examined as a witness against Elizabeth, and protested that: ... I take God to record before a l l your honors I doo not know anie thing of that crime that you have l a i d to my charge, and w i l l therupon take my death, i f I should be driven to so s t r i c t a t r i a l l . 5 5 His fervour may have convinced his examiners that he was speaking the truth; 44 at least, he did escape the death penalty. His reluctance to speak at the time may have been that he realized that a confession would be f a t a l not only to Elizabeth but to himself, but perhaps one should grant him the benefit of the doubt and see his statement as one of particular loyalty to Elizabeth. At any rate, his silence must have paid dividends when Elizabeth came to the throne. Wyatt cannot be blamed for attempting to save his neck, but any such efforts were useless . No amount of information he could give would help him, nor would any efforts to get i n f l u e n t i a l people to intervene on his behalf. According to Renard, both Wyatt and Groft were making fra n t i c efforts to speak to Gardiner, the Chancellor, whom Renard feared "... out of sp i t e , may 54 behave i n a manner contrary to the Queen's hopes." Even i f Gardiner had opposed the Spanish match, i t was f u t i l e to hope that he would r i s k his neck for the sake of the rebels, and Wyatt and Croft were simply clutching at straws. On A p r i l 11, after an imprisonment of thirty-four days, Wyatt was beheaded on Tower H i l l and his body quartered. 5 5 As an example to the c i t i -zens "... his quarters were set up i n divers places, and his head set upon 5 6 the gallowes on Hay H i l l . . .." Six days l a t e r , Croft and three other rebels were taken to the Guild H a l l , but, of the four, only Throckmorton was arraigned, and he, after defending himself with s p i r i t , was acquitted by the j u r y . 5 7 This a c q u i t t a l was an unexpected, and unwelcome, surprise to the Council, who ordered the jurors to the Star Chamber, where some were 58 fined and others sent to Fleet prison. No doubt the next jury was given e x p l i c i t orders not to show any such o r i g i n a l i t y as had occurred at Throck-59 morton's t r i a l , but when i t met, on A p r i l 29th, four jurors apparently re-fused to convict Croft, and had to be replaced with four men more amenable.^ After these setbacks, the expected verdict was passed: 45 ... S i r James Croft, knight, was arrayned i n the Gui l d h a l l of treason, and there by a j u r i e of the c i t i z e n s of London condemned and had judgment of death.61 Croft's t r i a l , although nothing i s recorded of i t except the bare fact s , i s interesting i n that i t shows how far jurors were w i l l i n g to oppose the stated wish of the Council. The fact that four men wished to acquit him, even though they would be punished for their disobedience, shows not that they believed Croft innocent of being involved i n the conspiracy, but that he was not g u i l t y of treason. They obviously sympathized with his fear of Spanish domination, and believed that his involvement was for the good of the nation. Even though Croft had been sentenced to death, for some reason he was not executed. Obviously, his death would not increase Mary's popularity, but Mary could not afford to allow " t r a i t o r s " to go scot-free. An interesting s i t u a t i o n had been reported by Renard on March 22, which might explain Croft's escape. The Council, i n Gardiner's absence, had met to inform the Queen that they believed the rebels to have been " c r u e l l y punished" already, and that they did not think i t good for the Queen to follow the opinion of "blood-t h i r s t y men," by whom they meant Gardiner. Gardiner had c e r t a i n l y opposed the Spanish match, and by this had given the conspirators hope of a mild sen-tence, but he was also a l o y a l servant of the Queen and would have taken strong measures against Croft and the others had Mary desired i t . The Coun-c i l further urged Mary to pardon Suffolk's brothers, and stated that "... the Council would not allow the other prisoners i n the Tower to be executed."^ Renard i s a somewhat unreliable source of information, but i t i s true that there was a s p l i t i n the Council, that Gardiner was absent at the time, and that 'the rebels, excluding Suffolk's brothers, were.eventually pardoned. 46 Mary might perhaps have agreed to the Council's suggestion, but insisted on a form of t r i a l taking place. Once Croft and the others had been sentenced to death i t would appear that the Queen's w i l l had triumphed, and a discreet par-don and release some years later would pass v i r t u a l l y unnoticed. Whether or not the conversation occurred as Renard reported i t , events did follow the pattern indicated above. After the t r i a l Croft was taken back to the Tower, where he remained for the remainder of 1554, being there at the same time as Elizabeth. Then, on January 18, 1555, he and other prisoners, including S i r Nicholas Throckmorton, who had apparently been imprisoned i n spite of his acquittal by the jury, were suddenly released, after spending 63 6^t less than a year i n the Tower. Richard Baker, i n his chronicle, suggested that the release of the prisoners occurred i n January " i n hope of the Joy that was expected" 6 5 of Mary being delivered of a c h i l d . Mary's pregnancy,' as i t turned out, was a false one, but i t i s possible that she would wish to express her thankfulness i n January, at which time she believed herself three months pregnant, by pardoning the conspirators. I t would, at least, have been a con-venient excuse, and a way of ridding herself of an embarrassing reminder of the r e b e l l i o n . Croft's release on January 18 l e f t him free, but hardly i n an enviable position. Never r i c h at the best.of times, the fine he incurred of two hun-66 dred pounds must have put a heavy s t r a i n on his finances, even though he was fortunate not to have to pay the two thousand pounds demanded of S i r Nicholas Throckmorton. Croft's pardon acquitted him of treason, and included "... remission of a l l pains, etc., incurred thereby," 6 7 but, in spite of t h i s , he appears to have suffered from loss of revenue during Mary's reign. On 47 August 6, 1554, for example, one John Wall was named keeper of a wood i n Here-fordshire and Shropshire, which position had been for f e i t e d by Croft when he had been sentenced, together with "... a l l due and accustomed fees and 68 p r o f i t s . " Having burned his fingers once, Croft would have had no wish to be involved i n any more conspiracies, as Throckmorton apparently was the following year, when one of his kinsmen attempted to rob the Exchequeur "to 69 maintain war against the Queene." For the next few years, although there i s no d i r e c t evidence, Croft probably settled down i n Herefordshire, u n t i l he was next called upon i n mid-1557. By 1557, the chief disadvantage of the Spanish match became apparent when Mary f e l t i t her duty to provide m i l i t a r y assistance to Spain i n i t s con-f l i c t with France. Although the Council disapproved, war was declared against France i n June, 1557, and dragged on into 1558, arousing nothing but violent d i s l i k e against Mary throughout England.^ Because, of the war i n France, and because of incessant warfare on the Scottish borders at the same time, Mary needed a l l the m i l i t a r y experts she could muster. In June, various captains were appointed for duty i n France, among them S i r Peter Carew, an avowed pro-testant who had been involved i n the conspiracy three years previously. The captains also included "... other nobles, knights, and gentlemen of right approved valiancie: although diverse of them were supected [ s i c ] to be pro-testants ."^ England i t s e l f was remarkably free of rebellions, and for this reason i t was probably thought safe to make use of those who had been involved i n former r i s i n g s , and whose expertise the government could now use. On July 11, the Council, i n a l e t t e r to the Earl of Shrewesbury, Lord President of the North, ordered S i r James Croft to go to Berwick, "... to thende he might use his advise and service i n the governaunce and orderinge tharmie committed 48 to his charge i f nede s h a l l require." Croft was to give advice about the f o r t i f i c a t i o n s of Berwick, and was also to assist the Governor, Lord Wharton, 73 xn trai n i n g and positioning the troops there. For the rest of Mary's reign Croft was to remain on the Scottish borders, during which time he would have accumulated the experience which caused him to be placed i n a more responsible position shortly after Elizabeth ascended to the throne. Because the border troubles were increasing, and because the Earl of Shrewesbury did not have much experience i n m i l i t a r y a f f a i r s , the Council had decided to send to his assistance "some expert and wyse man of 74 credytt." For this stated reason, the Council sent Croft and, shortly afterwards, Wharton, "... with whome he may conferre and use their advise i n suche thinges as he s h a l l think convenyent . ,.."7"' The Council had been hav-ing some trouble with Lord Wharton, who was suspected of not being as d i l i g e n t i n guarding against the Scots as he might, and at the beginning of August de-clared that the Earl of Northumberland was to share the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of 76 Warden of the East and Middle Marches with him. Croft was told to break with Wharton and support Northumberland, 7 7 a decision which apparently annoyed 78 Shrewesbury, who wished Croft to attend him. Northumberland, aided by Croft, had more success against the Scots than had Lord Wharton, and was thanked by the Council, on August 25, for his "advertisementes of the Scottes dispers-79 ing." The decision of the Council to bring back former rebels, such as Croft, appears to have been a wise one. At least, Croft's a b i l i t i e s were widely i n demand i f both the Earl of Shrewesbury and the Earl of Northumberland speci-a l l y requested his services i n the North, and the Council seems to have r e a l -ized the value of his m i l i t a r y experience. Shrewesbury soon indicated that he valued Croft highly, and praised him 49 as equal with Northumberland, Wharton, the Earl of Westmoreland, and S i r Ralph Bulmer: . ... they have shewed i n this present service a great good w i l , much i n t e l l i g e n c e , and a patience i n doing and suffering the weather and the want of things.^0 Croft had also been one of the signers of l e t t e r s written to the Privy Council 81 from Scotland, and had apparently been sent down to London to communicate at 82 f i r s t hand with the Council there. Part of Croft's value may have been i n his a b i l i t y to worm information out of the Scots, such information being necessary because the Council was unwilling to embark on a major expedition u n t i l i t knew i f Scotland was merely continuing i t s constant pressure on the border, or whether i t intended to send troops further south into England. Strype reports that Croft and Bulmer had managed to get together with a Scot and a Frenchman, and "... where using free and open conversation together, (and perhaps that accompanied with l i b e r a l drinking,) they learned divers 83 material points r e l a t i n g to the Scots' present designed enterprise...." I f 84 Croft had managed t h i s , Mary's reported comment, that she " l i k e d i t well," was deserved, and augured well for him. A responsible position i n the army, although accompanied by effusions of gratitude from his commander and the Queen, did not, however, make up for the income Croft had l o s t . There are no indications that Mary intended to restore the income he had received from lands he had formerly held i n Herefordshire, and the pay he would have made i n Scotland would not be close to his previous income.. Therefore, i t i s not surprising to find Croft l i s t e d as being a pen-sioner of the King of Spain, from whom he had received two hundred crowns, 85 equivalent to f i f t y pounds, for the l a s t s i x months of 1557. I t i s not 50 apparent whether or not he had been a pensioner before mid-1557, but i t i s un-l i k e l y , for the simple reason that he would have had no information of any im-portance to impart. As a man of some importance i n the North, he might be ex-pected to pass along an occasional t i d - b i t to the Spanish spy network, and, even i f he did not, i t was as well to keep Spain i n Croft's good graces at a hundred pounds a year. This amount, compared to what others were receiving, was very small. The Earl of Derby was c o l l e c t i n g f i v e hundred pounds per annum, as was Croft's commander, the Earl of Shrewesbury, and the amount owed to "pensioners, chamberlains, gentlemen and other servants" i n A p r i l , 1558, was^£8,814. 2s. l d . ^ ^ Some men, such as Shrewesbury, received money because they were "good Christians," or, i n other words, good Catholics, but i t i s 87 recorded of Croft simply that "He i s a serviceable man." Croft continued to be a pensioner of Spain for much of the rest of his l i f e , but, although i t was at various times reported by Spanish o f f i c i a l s that he was a Catholic, i t i s more l i k e l y that Croft was a. r e l i g i o u s opportunist. Knowing that he would receive an income from Spain i f he appeared Catholic, he would be unwilling to cut off a profitable source of income by denying what Spain believed, but neither would he want to damage the even more profitable relationship he held with Elizabeth. Receiving an income from Spain was a penalty Croft incurred, as did many others, because of their chronic need for money which was not forthcoming from a notoriously grudging Court. For the remainder of 1557, and u n t i l Elizabeth succeeded Mary i n November, 1558, Croft remained i n service on the Scottish border. In January, 1558, he 88 was i n command of three hundred men at Berwick, where, at the end of A p r i l , 89 he was reported "sore disseased," most l i k e l y of the plague, although this i s conjecture. To add to his distressed f i n a n c i a l position, he had apparently 51 not received any pay for over a month, a condition which was not uncommon i n the army, and r e s t i t u t i o n of twenty s h i l l i n g s a day "for his dyettes" was 90 ordered to be paid him. For their exploits i n a border skirmish i n July, Croft and others were thanked by the Council i n a l e t t e r of September 7, "... both that they were so redy and forwarde to serve and also that they kept 91 their men i n so good order...." F i n a l l y , on October 17, exactly one month before Mary was to die, the Council ordered Croft to return to London, and to delegate whom he thought most responsible to look after the Borders and the 92 town of Berwick, which indicates that he had risen even further up the scale. What the Council wished to consult with Croft about i s unclear, and, i n any event, the consultation may not have occurred, because of the Queen's death. The accession of Elizabeth, while Croft was i n London, must have pleased Croft greatly, and hopes for advancement, and for a return of his lost income, must have seemed a de f i n i t e p o s s i b i l i t y . 52 CHAPTER IV CROFT IN. SCOTLAND (1558-1560) Elizabeth's accession to the throne was accompanied by great hopes on the part of those Englishmen who had suffered under Mary for their Protestantism or suspected lack of faithfulness to the Queen. However, Mary had not been un-popular only because of her rel i g i o u s p o l i c i e s , but, as indicated above, her entanglement i n the Spanish wars with France had antagonized the whole country. Elizabeth, of course, had to tread warily, but her accession could hardly help but be the occasion for joy among many, and Elizabeth soon indicated that her subjects' hopes were not to be i n vain. Barely two months after Mary's death, many of the Protestant clergy who had been i n voluntary e x i l e on the Continent returned to England,''" and the f i r s t Parliament of Elizabeth's reign, called on 2 January 25, 1559, proved to consist largely of protestants. Hayward records that Elizabeth was gaining the good w i l l of the country ,r. . . by erecting a m i l i t a r y d i s c i p l i n e i n every shire, and by giving pensiones and preferments 3 to men of actione," and was having a l i s t drawn up of a l l those who had served her father, brother, or s i s t e r , to discover who were most suitable for advance-ment.^ Such news must have been most welcome to Croft, who had not only served Henry VI I I , Edward, and Mary, but knew Elizabeth personally, having been im-prisoned with her. I f anyone were to benefit from the new monarch, Croft was one who stood an excellent chance. In A p r i l , 1559, peace was concluded be-tween England and France and, at the same time, between England and Scotland. With the signing of the peace treaty, one of the major grievances of the people appeared to be at an end. However, the war with Scotland was not to conclude for another year, and i t was i n this war that Croft was to be given his f i r s t 53 important post under Elizabeth, a post which was to end i n his disgrace and i n involuntary absence from Court for almost ten years. The f i r s t m i l i t a r y problem facing Elizabeth after she came to the throne was that of a threatened invasion from the north. Mary, Queen of Scots, was also Queen of France and, i n her absence, the country was ruled by the Dowager Queen, Mary of Guise. There were French troops i n Scotland, and England faced the p o s s i b i l i t y of a combined attack of Catholic forces from both north and south. However, although Mary and the Dowager were firm Catholics, not a l l Scots wished to follow this r e l i g i o n , nor did they r e l i s h French troops being stationed on Scottish s o i l . Opposing Mary was the formidable John Knox, who supported Maitland of Lethington, the leader of the faction which sought to depose Mary of Guise and eject the French soldie r s . England's defences i n the north had never been strong, as^could be seen by the periodic forays made by Scots into the northern counties, which frequently went unpunished. Secu-r i t y of the fro n t i e r was under the direction of the Wardens of the East, Middle, and West Marches, and of the commander of Berwick, the chief town, located near Edinburgh on the east coast. Part of the problem lay i n the d i f -f i c u l t y of keeping Berwick supplied with food, a problem often referred to later by Croft, but another major d i f f i c u l t y occurred because the Council was notoriously stingy with money, and troops were often unpaid and unable to be clothed and armed properly. Outside of Berwick, defence of the Marches lay i n the hands of the three Wardens, and these were occasionally incompetent and even d i s l o y a l , turning a blind eye to in f r a c t i o n s , and seemingly unable to id e n t i f y the offenders. With a growing militancy on the part of the Lords of the Congregation, led by Maitland of Lethington and Knox; with an ever-in-creasing number of French troops being shipped to Scotland; and with a border 54 situa t i o n that appeared to be growing as a problem, i t was obvious that E l i z a -beth had to take steps to a l t e r the si t u a t i o n , and that she needed competent and lo y a l men to carry out the plan. Although a peace treaty had been signed with France i n A p r i l , 1559, which had ostensibly ended English-Scottish d i f f i -c u l t i e s , the situ a t i o n i n the north steadily deteriorated, and outright hos-t i l i t i e s were again to occur early i n 1560. However, long before that time, there had been minor outbreaks of violence, and i t was obvious that the s i t u a -t i o n would have to come to a head. Among those who had received experience on the border and i n combat was James Croft and, as a protestant who had been punished by Mary, his advancement was only a matter of time. For a year previous to Mary's death, Croft had been serving i n Berwick as an adviser to the Ear l of Westmoreland, and had several times been commended for his good service. His advancement was u n l i k e l y , however, as long as Mary l i v e d . Croft was probably i n London at the time of Mary's death, but shortly afterwards was sent back to Berwick with a message from the Council to West-moreland concerning the management of the Marches.^ At the time, Berwick was without a Captain, although one was needed immediately because the town was to be f o r t i f i e d and extra troops sent there. The importance of the position of Captain was indicated by the Council when i t declared that "... the most s u f f i c i e n t man i n the realm should be placed there, i t being a place of so g great moment." The Council decided eventually to appoint Lord Thomas Evers as Captain, presumably because he had served as a lieutenant on the borders 9 10 for several years, and summoned him to London. Evers indicated that he wished to confer about his o f f i c e with C e c i l , i n the presence of Croft and Sir John Brende, two others who had had considerable experience i n the north. Therefore, i n early January, 1559, Evers, Croft, and Brende went down to 55 London, where Croft was to receive additional orders from the Council. Evers' appointment i s somewhat of a mystery. I t may have been meant purely as a stop-gap u n t i l a more suitable candidate could be found, or i t may have been a deserved reward for services rendered. At any rate, there are several indications that Evers accepted the post rel u c t a n t l y , and his v i s i t with Croft to London may have been to convince the Council that Croft would be a more suitable man than himself as Captain of Berwick. E a r l i e r , i n December, Evers had requested that he be allowed to leave Scotland for a time, but had been informed that "... his Lordshipp i s required to forbeare that matter u n t y l l a more convenyent tyme hereafter...."'''''' Berwick was not the most pleasant place at the best of times for a courtier to while away the hours, and i t i s quite reasonable that Evers would prefer to be i n London rather than i n an isolated and cold l i t t l e Scottish border town i n mid-winter. At any rate, whether or not his appointment was intended as being temporary or permanent, he served for only a few months before being o f f i c i a l l y replaced by Croft, and, even during that time, he was generally i n London, and l e f t Croft i n command at Berwick. Even though the war between England and Scotland had not been concluded at the beginning of 1559, both sides appeared to be continuing the fight re-luc t a n t l y . Nevertheless, while i n London Croft was ordered to confer with the Earl of Northumberland and with the Bishop of Durham concerning the r a i s -12 ing of another thousand troops to serve i n Scotland, which he did before returning to Berwick on January 23. On his a r r i v a l there, he passed on to Evers a l e t t e r from the Council permitting him to go to London, and naming 13 Croft as deputy i n his absence. Although Evers did not leave immediately, 56 because of increased h o s t i l i t i e s on the border, from January 23 u n t i l he was formally named Captain i n March, Croft held a l l the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s that Evers would have had. In fact, although Evers was s t i l l at Berwick, Croft made decisions that cannot have pleased Evers, p a r t i c u l a r l y as the Council concurred with Croft. On January 4, Evers had complained about the insubor-dination of a Captain Vaughan, whom he asked to be dismissed,^ but on the 30th, Croft was w r i t i n g to the Council, praising Vaughan as "trusty," and ask-ing that he be returned to Berwick,^ which he was. Croft; 1 s p r i n c i p a l duty i n the next few months was to take part, with the Earl of Northumberland and his brother, S i r Henry Percy, i n the peace negotiations with the Scottish com-missioners. These included Lord Bothwell, a Frenchman named Sarlabos, and the 16 Secretary of Scotland, Maitland of Lethington, the three representing a rather odd combination of inter e s t s , both national and r e l i g i o u s . As Croft had reported e a r l i e r , "... a l l parties are weary of the wars,"^ and both England and Scotland must have been pleased by the signing of a preliminary peace treaty on March 6, which provided for a cessation of fightin g for two 18 months. However, peace was not o f f i c i a l l y declared u n t i l A p r i l 2, at the same time the treaty was signed between England and France, at which time the Scots agreed to tear down the fortresses b u i l t by them and the French along 19 the borders. By March 28, Croft had been o f f i c i a l l y declared Captain of 20 the town and castle of Berwick. His duties included that of supervising the withdrawal of forces from the border area, but i t i s unl i k e l y that either he or the Council ever seriously considered carrying out this part of the agreement. Money continued to be a major problem at Berwick, and a shortage of funds made dismissal of the troops impossible. With the peace treaty signed, i t was 57 presumed i n England that a smaller body of men would be required i n the border area, and Croft was told to cut down on the number of troops there. Elizabeth 21 had intimated that "she thinks he w i l l do w e l l " i n cashiering two bands of horsemen, which Croft had proposed i n order to "abridge the Queen's charges at 22 Berwick," but this was easier said than done. On A p r i l 14 the soldiers were s t i l l not dismissed, because they had not been paid, and Croft suggested that "... i t were better for the Queen to borrow money on interest than that those 23 men should remain i n wages...." On approximately the same date, however, the Council i n London had decided to send "the Quenes Majesties threasure" 24 northwards, and presumably the troops at Berwick were paid and dismissed shortly afterwards. However, the problem of cutting down expenses at Berwick continued, and Croft was to write to the Council several times i n reference to 25 the necessity of paying the s o l d i e r s . Adding to the expense of maintaining the garrison at Berwick was the d i f -f i c u l t y of procuring food. The town could not be supplied from the surround-ing countryside, p a r t i c u l a r l y during the winter months, and most supplies had to be shipped up from London. At this date, early i n 1559, the problem was not as great as i t was to become s i x months l a t e r , but was nevertheless an item often raised by Croft i n l e t t e r s to the Council. There was also the pos-s i b i l i t y that the Surveyor of V i c t u a l s , Abbingdon, was either incompetent or crooked. Croft referred to there being fi v e or s i x thousand pounds worth of provisions at Berwick, but that he "... remembers 13,0001. or 14,0001 being 2 6 delivered into the hands of the surveyor of v i c t u a l s . " On May 19, Croft reported that Abbingdon would leave his post at the end of the summer, and requested that the Council choose someone to replace him, because he could find "... no one dwelling here about desirous to meddle with so great a bur-58 then." This i s of interest, because Croft was lat e r to be accused by the 28 Duke of Norfolk of using his position as Captain for his own benefit, i n t i -mating that Croft had as good as stolen money from the Treasury. I f this had been the case, however, i t i s u n l i k e l y that Croft would have asked the Council to appoint a suitable person to the position of Surveyor of Victuals, a post which was extremely responsible and included the handling of large amounts of money. Had Croft wished to st e a l from this o f f i c e , i t i s far more probable that he would have at least suggested someone to f i l l the-post. That he did not suggests'his innocence of Norfolk's charges. Croft's concern with money was not, however, confined to his position as Captain of Berwick. The position was a responsible one, and carried a salary 29 of twenty s h i l l i n g s per day, besides which Croft was e n t i t l e d to payment for servants and for such expenses as food, accommodation, and arms. However, he was chronically short of money, and frequently requested that C e c i l grant him extra sources of revenue. At Elizabeth's f i r s t parliament, which met from January 25 to May 8, 1559, Croft, and others who had been involved i n Wyatt's Rebellion, were given back the revenue of which they had been deprived by 30 Mary. This, however, did not s a t i s f y Croft, who wrote to C e c i l on May 2, complaining p i t i f u l l y about his poor health, and asking to-be allowed to with-31 draw for a time and to appoint a deputy. He added that he hoped "... that some greater man w i l l be appointed i n his behalf, one able to support himself of his revenues, whereof he i s u t t e r l y destitute," and begged C e c i l " — to 32 remember his small tithes to help to find his children bread." Obviously, C e c i l was not to take Croft's hand-wringing at. surface value, such melodrama-t i c utterances being part of the rhetoric generally applied i n such cases, and i t i s most unl i k e l y that Croft ever seriously considered leaving his hard-59 earned and long hoped-for position. The piteous appeal did bear f r u i t , though, and on August 3, Croft thanked C e c i l ,r... for his opinion of the tenths which he f c r o f t ] sued for , and d esires that the Queen be thanked on his behalf. 1 1 The grant he received was that of a twenty-one year lease on lands i n Hereford-shire which had formerly belonged to Leominster priory, and which had a yearly _r 34 rent of «t 40.16.0. Previous to t h i s , i n January, he had been granted a simi-35 l a r lease of land i n the same area, with a yearly value of/98.16.9%, pro-bably at the time he had been restored i n blood. His income from these two leases of land, plus the land his father already owned at Croft Castle, plus his salary and perquisites from his position at Berwick, plus a pension which 36 he may s t i l l have been receiving from Spain, would have given Croft a reason-ably large income, and he had l i t t l e to fear of being unable "to find his c h i l -dren bread," as he had p l a i n t i v e l y stated to C e c i l . Religious dissension within Scotland was becoming more pronounced through-out 1559, and i t was increasingly d i f f i c u l t for England to avoid being em-broiled i n the c o n f l i c t between the Lords of the Congregation and the forces of Mary of Guise and France. In May, Croft reported that "the dissension of 37 r e l i g i o n continues," and clashes between the followers of Knox and those of the Dowager occurred frequently. Croft was approached secretly by the protes-38 tants, who asked that assistance be given them by England, and on July 8 C e c i l had replied to Croft that he should tread warily, but that he should "endeavour to kindle the f i r e " : The Protestants there s h a l l be essayed with a l l f a i r promises f i r s t , next with money, and l a s t with arms. Wisdom i s to pro-vide for the worst. Promises being of scanty comfort to the Scots, Croft reminded C e c i l that " 60 i n a l l practices, money must be one part," but that the Queen should hesi-41 tate to aid the Scottish protestants u n t i l they were completely u n i f i e d . The problem of whether or not to offer aid to the Lords of the Congregation and, i f so, what form the assistance should take, continued to bother the Council for several months. I f money were proferred ostentatiously, i t could well by taken by the Dowager as a deliberate provocation, while support by English troops would be tantamount to an outright declaration of war. As the year progressed and i t seemed to England that increasing numbers of French troops were a r r i v i n g i n Scotland, and that m i l i t a r y i n s t a l l a t i o n s were being strengthened rather than destroyed, aid to the protestant forces increased and became more blatant, u n t i l , i n the Spring of 1560, direct confrontation of English and Scottish forces was to occur. Reports from Berwick indicated not only a growing Catholic-Protestant antagonism, but, as suggested above, an increasing preparedness for war. Croft had indicated, on June 26, that he was unwilling to discharge any more 42 sol d i e r s , and that "... the loss of Calais should also be remembered," a subtle hint that must have jolted the Council. Throckmorton wrote to C e c i l that he had been told that Croft's secretary was being entertained by the Dowager, a report that may have been circulated to dis c r e d i t Groft, as Throck-morton says, or which may have indicated treachery on the part of the secre-tary. Throckmorton believed "... that S i r James Crofts himself i s u t t e r l y 43 void of a l l suspicion, but what his secretary may be, God knoweth." Of course, i t i s possible that Croft was g u i l t y , but as nothing else was said of the matter, i t i s u n l i k e l y . Throckmorton was a friend of Croft's and, had been imprisoned with him after Wyatt's Rebellion, so he would be u n l i k e l y to report that Croft was a t r a i t o r . The Dowager had replied several times to Croft that 61 44 f o r t i f i c a t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y at Eyemouth, were being destroyed, as had been promised under the treaty, but there was l i t t l e evidence that any serious work was being undertaken to p u l l down the battlements. The situation i n Scotland going from bad to worse, the Council decided to send to Berwick S i r Ralph Sadler "... as well to view the state of the f o r t i f i c a t i o n s there as also to 45 consider the reckoning of the Treasurer there." Sadler's appointment, on August 6, marks a turning point i n England's rapidly deteriorating r e l a t i o n -ship with Scotland. Throughout the remainder of 1559, Croft and Sadler worked together i n negotiating with the Scottish protestants and i n looking after the f o r t i f i c a -tion and government of the border area. Sadler, described i n the Dictionary 46 of National Biography as a "diplomatist," had had considerable experience i n Scotland i n the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, but, as a keen protes-tant, had gone into voluntary retirement on the accession of Mary. In August, 1559, together with Croft and the Earl of Northumberland, Sadler was appointed a commissioner to s e t t l e the border disputes with Scotland, and to meet with 47 their Scottish counterparts, Bothwell, Lord Hume, and the Laird of Cesford, to discuss the ransom of p r i s o n e r s . ^ However, i t was unknown to Sadler's fellow commissioners that he had been entrusted with secret instructions by C e c i l "... to conferr, treate, or practise, with any manner of person of Scot-land," and that he could reward any suitable person he chose with sums of up 49 to three thousand pounds. As this was what Croft had been urging the Coun-c i l to do for several months, i t i s not surprising that he. was very soon told of the plan by Sadler, and that a l l negotiations from then on were carried on by both men together. Sadler arrived i n Berwick on August 18 or 1 9 , a n d on the 29th wrote to C e c i l that he had taken Croft f u l l y into his confidence: 62 ... for besyds that he i s best acquaynted with the matier, so i s he a wise man, secret and d i l i g e n t , both i n this and a l l other things tending to the advauncement of the quene's majesties service.->1 C e c i l had recommended that Sadler use the advice of any he f e l t most compe-tent, but Croft was apparently the only man he trusted. Northumberland he dismissed as "very unmete," and Percy, the Earl's brother, he considered not "... a man of such integryte as i n any wise may be comparable to s i r James 52 Croft." The fact that both Northumberland and his brother were Catholics explains Sadler's decision, as i t would hardly be possible for these two men to be involved i n discussions with the anti-Catholic Lords of the Congrega-t i o n . Croft's r e l i g i o u s feelings were i n no way an interference, and his imprisonment i n 1554 a good recommendation, and he and Sadler worked together well while they were i n Berwick. As the months passed, i t became more apparent to Croft and Sadler that a confrontation would be unavoidable, although the Council was s t i l l not con-vinced. Sadler had numerous verbal clashes with Northumberland, whom he re-buked when he stated that he had never known the border area to be worse 53 governed, and he and Croft intimated to C e c i l that Northumberland had been 54 receiving secret information from the Clerk of the Council. On September 9 Ce c i l asked Sadler's opinion about changing the wardens of the East and Middl Marches (Northumberland) and the West Marches (Lord Dacre), both of whom were Catholics and unable, or unwilling, to stop the constant incursions there. Although Sadler had suggested Croft for warden of the East M a r c h e s , a n d had protested that he did not wish to bear the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or expense himself, nevertheless, on October 30, Elizabeth made him warden of both East and Middl Marches i n Northumberland's stead, "... as one whome we w i l l i n g l y can be con-63 tente to burden with a charge of s p c i a l l trust and a u c t o r i t i e . . . . " This f l a t t e r y was small comfort to Sadler, although his appointment would mean the border area would be. better governed. He shifted the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y somewhat by creating deputies of Relph Grey, i n the East Marches, and S i r John Forster 58 i n the Middle Marches, but the burden would s t i l l largely be Sadler's. Northumberland's dismissal indicates that the Council was r e a l i z i n g at l a s t that i t could not continue government of the border area i n the old, lacka-d a i s i c a l manner, and that preparations were under way for decisive action i n Scotland. Further developments throughout 1559 showed that competent and f a i t h f u l leadership was very necessary there, p a r t i c u l a r l y as a l l indications were that England would soon be involved i n another war. 59 Rumours that French troops were being sent to Scotland, and that Mary of Guise was preparing for war, continued to c i r c u l a t e , and were eventually confirmed. Among Mary's preparations was that of f o r t i f y i n g the town of Le i t h , a seaport just outside Edinburgh, which the Lords of the Congregation wished to attack, and for which purpose they requested a i d , i n the form of money, from England. 6^ Sadler and Croft favoured open support of the protes-tants by England, 6 1 but, as C e c i l pointed out, such support could not be given 62 without bringing about a t o t a l breach with Scotland, and England was not yet ready to do that. However, the Council was supplying money, and was beginning to prepare for b a t t l e , i f i t should eventually occur. There was l i t t l e chance of keeping these measures secret, p a r t i c u l a r l y after Bothwell had captured a messenger, on November 3, who was carrying one thousand pounds to the protes-63 tants. C e c i l was also beginning to fear that the skirmishes that had occurred between the troops of the Lords of the Congregation and those of the Dowager were proving disastrous for the protestants, and that i f England 64 did not involve herself d i r e c t l y , the protestants might well be beaten entire-l y . In a l e t t e r to Sadler and Croft on November 12, he gave reasons why the c o n f l i c t should be stepped up, the chief reason being that "... whensoever they [ i e . the French] s h a l l make an ende with Scotlande, they w i l l begin with 64 Inglande. . . ." Two days l a t e r , on November 14, the Duke of Norfolk was 65 appointed lieutenant-general of the north, a move which marked the beginning of d e f i n i t e plans for the by-now inescapable confrontation. Thomas Howard, fourth Duke of Norfolk, was, i n 1559, a young man of twenty-one, and his post as lieutenant-general was the f i r s t important one i n 66 his career. As the head of one of the leading families i n England, i t was c r u c i a l for Elizabeth, during the somewhat precarious early years of her reign, to attract his allegiance. This she did by giving him the charge of the f i r s t great undertaking of her reign, the expulsion of French troops from Scotland. Norfolk was not due to arrive at Berwick u n t i l the end of December. He was to be assisted i n his f i r s t campaign by Lord Grey, a s o l -dier of much experience i f l i t t l e imagination, who was made leader of the 67 foot., and S i r William Wynter, a s a i l o r who had taken part i n many sea bat t l e s , including the burning of Leith and Edinburgh i n 1544, and who was 68 put i n charge of the navy to ensure that no more French troops were landed. As w e l l , Norfolk had been ordered by the Queen and the Council to take the advice of such men as Sadler and Croft, who were experienced i n warfare and 69 i n the a f f a i r s of Scotland. To further ensure that Norfolk did not make any f o o l i s h mistakes i n his f i r s t assignment, both C e c i l and Elizabeth wrote numerous l e t t e r s to him, giving advice on matters both t r i v i a l and important. Norfolk could be expected to do his best, but, being very young, inexperi-enced, and headstrong, his best might well not have been good enough. I t i s 65 possible that he resented the advice, and the advisors, that had been thrust upon him, feeling himself too confined, as he indeed was, to do much on his own i n i t i a t i v e . However, he soon showed that he did not wish to accept a l l the blame as well as a l l the glory, and when the major defeat of the campaign occurred, he quickly exonerated himself by blaming others. I t so happened that one of Norfolk's p r i n c i p a l scapegoats turned out to be S i r James Croft, but i t i s quite l i k e l y that someone else could have been chosen to shoulder the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for f a i l u r e . Although Norfolk arrived at Berwick with no apparent animosity to Croft, after several weeks the f i r s t indications of antagonism appeared. Norfolk's early indications of friendship might have been feigned, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f he had known that Croft was d i s t a n t l y related to Robert Dudley, whose a f f a i r with the Queen was well under way by the time Norfolk l e f t for Scotland. As a d i s -appointed r i v a l , Norfolk had reason to be jealous of Dudley, and may have ven-ted his anger on one of Dudley's kinsmen, although there are.no signs during Norfolk's f i r s t month i n the north that Croft was i n disfavour. By the time the war with Scotland was over, however, Croft was to be i n disgrace, e n t i r e l y through the i n i t i a t i v e of Norfolk. I t i s important, therefore, to understand Norfolk's q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and experience before judging Croft's g u i l t , and events would appear to prove that Norfolk's charges were e n t i r e l y unfounded, and that Croft was to be a s a c r i f i c e necessary for Norfolk's self-esteem. Elizabeth could afford to r i d herself of a minor o f f i c i a l i f i t meant keeping Norfolk firmly attached to herself and to the Crown. Disagreement between Croft and Norfolk began almost as soon as the Duke had arrived at Berwick i n mid-February. As Captain of Berwick, Croft was i n charge of f o r t i f i c a t i o n s for that c i t y , but on January 23, 1560, Norfolk was 66 complaining to the Council that Berwick was "... marvelously unapt to be f o r -t i f i e d without great pain, t r a v a i l , and i n d u s t r y , " ^ and requested that some-one be sent from the Court who had more s k i l l than Croft i n planning f o r t i f i -cations . However, Norfolk had not yet broken with Croft, and he admitted that there were good reasons on both sides on the d i f f e r i n g plans for f o r t i f i c a -tions . I f i t should seem odd that Norfolk, a completely inexperienced young man, should be d i f f e r i n g with Croft, who had almost twenty years of m i l i t a r y experience under his b e l t , over what was a m i l i t a r y matter, his reasons should not be hard to uncover. I t i s not unusual for someone taking over a new job to try to win favour with his superiors by uncovering errors, r e a l or imagined, in a predecessor's or subordinate's work, and i t appears that such was Norfolk's strategy. Nevertheless, for the f i r s t month at his new assignment, Norfolk attempted to m o l l i f y Croft, by praising him i n l e t t e r s , ^ while, at the same time, complaining to C e c i l , the Council, and the Queen about his conduct. 72 Even though Croft agreed with Norfolk that "men of s k i l l and judgment" should be sent from London to consider the f o r t i f i c a t i o n s , animosity between the two men appears to have been increasing. The si t u a t i o n must have been worsened by a l e t t e r from the Council to Norfolk on February 20, i n which i t was stated that his l e t t e r containing his difference of opinion with Croft over Berwick had been discussed with Elizabeth, "... who doth not disallow the answer of 73 Crofts." The state of a f f a i r s could not continue i n d e f i n i t e l y , and i t was no doubt f e l t by the Council that the most strategic move would be to separate. Croft and Norfolk. This was done, but instead of abating, animosity continued and became even more b i t t e r . I t was decided by the Council that Croft should be released from his posi-tion as Captain of Berwick and put out of Norfolk's way by making him second-67 in-command to Lord Grey, who was i n charge of the foot soldi e r s . This was an obvious move to make, although rather unfortunate for Croft, who had done nothing wrong except to cross Norfolk. Apparently, i t was realized i n London that Croft might well f e e l slighted, and a f l u r r y of l e t t e r s passed from C e c i l , the Council, and the Queen to both Norfolk and Croft, explaining their reasons and underlining the fact that Croft was i n no way to f e e l he had done anything wrong. The move had f i r s t been suggested by Lord Grey himself, on February 19, when he asked that Croft accompany him with the army into Scot-land: <• ... i t was requisite to have some discreet man of good authority and credit to go with him i n that journey, that i n case any mis-fortune happen to himself, the other might be able to go forward with the enterprise Croft learned of this plan from Grey on the 23rd, and, comparing himself to "an overburdened horse," 7 5 said he would be unable to take the position, being a man of small means. However, on the 28th, the Queen informed Norfolk that 76 Croft was to receive payment "which s h a l l seme convenient for his Degree," and Croft was promised by the Council that "... the Lord Lieutenant w i l l have due regard of your lacks, and therafter augment your intertaynment," 7 7 Sadler commended Croft to C e c i l upon the appointment and, presumably referring to a complaint made by Norfolk, said that Croft "... w i l l show himself a service-able man, being right honestly determined so to do, notwithstanding his late 78 warning." With Croft safely out of the way, Norfolk could carry out his plans unhindered and could probably f e e l that he had won a major v i c t o r y . Un-fortunately for Croft, however, i t was inevitable that their paths would shortly cross again. Elizabeth had never been eager to invade Scotland, but had accepted the 68 majority decision of her Council. Although Norfolk had been sent north to keep peace i n the border area, to organize defences, and to encourage the pro-testants, he soon realized that the si t u a t i o n would never be resolved without a direct show of force. Writing to C e c i l on February 2, Norfolk declared: ... I beleve that i f any Thinge make them ["ie. the protestants] shewe themselfe open Ennemys to the Frenche, i t must be our open Hostylytie agenste the Frenche; wyth out the plain Shewe and Manyfestacion whereof, and t i l l they s h a l l perfectly see the Entrye of our Aide, they w i l l suerly sett s t i l l as they have donn hitherto.80 Recognizing the inevitable, Elizabeth made preparations for war, but refused to give the word for invasion u n t i l she was convinced, by reports from Scot-land and France, that open intervention was the only alternative to a French occupation of Scotland. F i n a l l y , on March 29, the English army, which had been assembled on the border for almost four months, was given orders to cross into Scotland. Lord Grey, leading s i x thousand infantry, crossed the border and headed towards Edinburgh. The march was uneventful, and by A p r i l 6 the troops had arrived at Leith , where some four thousand French troops were en-trenched, and where the p r i n c i p a l action of the Scottish campaign was to occur. Although the French soldiers were firmly i n possession of Leith , Mary of Guise had r e t i r e d to Edinburgh Castle, and i t was decided to negotiate with the Dowager before i n i t i a t i n g an attack. Accordingly, a safe-conduct pass was 81 provided for Croft, S i r George Howard, and s i x others, and both sides pro-mised not to begin h o s t i l i t i e s while the conference was going on. Croft and the other negotiators declared to the Dowager that, i f she could persuade the French to depart, the English troops would also leave Scotland. Mary replied that she would have to confer with the French before giving an answer, which apparently annoyed the English, although they agreed to her wish.82 I n s p i t e 69 of the agreement to halt h o s t i l i t i e s while the negotiations were being carried out, some one thousand f i v e hundred French troops had issued forth from L e i t h 83 and had begun a skirmish with Lord Grey's troops. The engagement was incon-clusive, but was the opening round of the battle which was to occur soon af t e r -wards, and showed the r e l a t i v e strength of the two opposing forces. The English had two choices regarding the plans for Leith; they could surround the c i t y and starve i t into submission, or they could mount a direct attack. The f i r s t would be costly i n terms of time and money, the second would e n t a i l a large loss of l i f e . However, i t was decided to prepare for a siege, largely because the Scottish protestants were beginning to get the wrong impression of England's intentions. On A p r i l 14, Elizabeth wrote to Norfolk that: As she would not have the Scots mistrust her, she desires that the siege should be more earnestly prosecuted, and the treaty less regarded... .84 Accordingly, the English troops began to dig trenches and to mount various attacks on the town throughout A p r i l , none of which were successful, because Leith was so strongly f o r t i f i e d and because the incursions were not thoroughly planned. However, at the beginning of May a new campaign was drawn up, which was to be a f u l l y coordinated and f u l l - s c a l e attempt to dislodge the French. This attack, while not successful, was to lead to conferences which would end the war, and, i n e f f e c t , was successful i n the long run i n removing the French from Scotland. The attack on Leith was scheduled for May 7, and on the evening before, Grey gathered the troops together to announce the plan of action. In the days previous, a breach had been made i n the walls of the c i t y by the a r t i l l e r y , 70 and i t was intended that this would be the focal point of the attack. How-ever, on the evening of the 6th, Croft, Sadler, and Lord Grange had made an 86 inspection of the breach, which they decided to be " v e r i i n s u f f i c i e n t . " Sadler and Grange returned to the camp, agreeing that the plan was not ready to be put into operation, while Croft was delegated to report their findings to Lord Grey. He, however, after a cursory examination of the s i t u a t i o n , de-cided to go ahead with the attack as planned, and the order to advance was 87 given shortly after three i n the morning. I f Grey had listened to Croft's advice to delay the operation u n t i l a larger breach had been made i n the walls, the attack would have stood a much better chance of success, and Croft may well have evaded the ignominy that was heaped on him afterwards by Norfolk. As matters stood at the time, the operation appears, i n retrospect, to have been doomed from the s t a r t . The accuracy of Croft's information was proved as soon as the f i r s t men reached the walls of Le i t h . The attack was to be on three sides, concentrat-ing on the breach, with Vaughan and Randall leading two bands of soldiers, and 88 Croft the t h i r d . Stow records that the attack f a i l e d because the French had diverted the r i v e r flowing through the town and had f i l l e d up the moat sur-rounding i t , and adds that "... by reason of the unfitnesse of the ladders, 89 being too short, the assailants were repulsed...." After several hours of f i g h t i n g , the English troops were forced to draw back, having l o s t , according 90 to Stow, seven or eight score, besides at least two or three hundred wounded. The actual t o t a l was undoubtedly higher than Stow's estimate, and the entire attack had been a major disaster. Grey now altered his t a c t i c s and decided to starve the French into submission, and an investigation began to decide whom to blame for the fiasco. By the beginning of June, the inhabitants and 71 occupiers of Le i t h , no doubt sick of a diet of irdoggs, catts, and vermine of 91 more v i l e nature," appeared ready to surrender, and the death of the Queen Dowager on June 10 made the English situation stronger. The French position was immeasurably weakened by the death of Mary of Guise, and without her for-midable presence, the French were far more ready to come to terms with the English than they would have been while she was a l i v e . Peace was eventually concluded on July 7, under which a l l Frenchmen were to leave Scotland, and 92 Mary Stuart was to give up her claims to the English throne. By the end of July the French forces had departed for France and the English forces back to England, and the f i r s t m i l i t a r y campaign of Elizabeth's reign had come to a successful, i f ignominious, conclusion. While i t was a r e l a t i v e l y simple matter to starve the French into sub-mission, p a r t i c u l a r l y after the death of Mary of Guise, i t proved less easy to a f f i x the blame for the defeat of May 7. Grey and Norfolk each blamed the other, but, considering their importance, they escaped r e l a t i v e l y unscathed, while a major portion of Norfolk's denunciation f e l l on Croft. Knox, who was tr u l y a fair-weather friend, recorded that Croft "was blamit of mony for not doing his dewitie that day," and that "sum a s c r i b i t the schortnes of the ledderis [ladders^ to him,"^ but these observations do. not bear up under scrutiny and were made after Croft had been indicted. Norfolk wasted no time in deciding where the blame lay, and on May 28 wrote to C e c i l that he had sent 94 for Croft to answer charges. These were presented on August 19, and i n c l u -ded the charge that since Croft had gone into Scotland he had done everything 95 possible to "discourage her Majesty's friends there," that he had neglected his duty during the siege of L e i t h , and that he had outrageously deceived the Queen. The f i r s t charge i s patently r i d i c u l o u s , the second unproveable, and 72 the t h i r d so vague as to be meaningless, but a scapegoat had to be found, and,, being no friend of Norfolk's, Croft had l i t t l e chance of acquittal from an a l -96 ready committed jury. In spite of protestations from Lethington and Randolph, who wrote to C e c i l that "he never found man franker:-than he [ c r o f t ] was to set 97 forth the purpose," Croft, whose t r i a l took place i n London, was duly found g u i l t y of the charges l a i d against him by Norfolk, and for a short time was 98 confined i n Fleet prison. I t was hardly an auspicious ending to a hard-fought campaign, and Croft must have f e l t unjustly punished. However, i f one could r i s e through the ranks of administrative or m i l i t a r y service by having important connections at Court, one could also f a l l through crossing someone as i n f l u e n t i a l as Norfolk, as Croft had discovered to his chagrin. Once again, Croft was i n disfavour and bereft of a Court appointment, and, as he had done six years previously, he returned to Herefordshire to ruminate and to wait un-t i l o f f i c i a l favour would again f a l l on him. This time he had ten years to wait u n t i l he was once more called upon to serve the Queen i n London, but i t was the l a s t time that he was to go into involuntary e x i l e away from the favours of Court. 73 CHAPTER V EXILE, AND POLITICAL RESURRECTION (1560-1587) As a private c i t i z e n once again, with few prospects i n sight of changing his s i t u a t i o n , Croft returned to Herefordshire. His term of imprisonment i n the Fleet was apparently a short one, and his conviction had not been accom-panied by any penalties, with the exception of the loss of revenue he had re-ceived as a Crown o f f i c i a l . Elizabeth did not penalize him further, and he continued to enjoy the income from lands that had been returned to him on her accession and others which had been granted him l a t e r . The fact that Croft did not suffer unduly indicates that he had not incurred great disapproval by Norfolk's charges, and i t i s more than probable that Elizabeth, C e c i l , and the Council realized that Norfolk's accusations were wild and unproveable. A l -though Croft returned to Herefordshire, he did so u n w i l l i n g l y , and for the next ten years was to make repeated efforts to be restored to the Queen's favour. These attempts were only p a r t i a l l y successful, and u n t i l 1570 Croft had to be s a t i s f i e d with l o c a l o ffices within his home county, and with minor appointments which he managed to secure outside Herefordshire. Being a big frog i n a small puddle i s seldom s a t i s f y i n g after one has occupied centre stage for even a short time, and Croft must have accepted his county r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s with a feeling of anti-climax. However, his duties i n Herefordshire were of at least l o c a l importance, and Croft managed to c o n t r i -bute to l o c a l administration i n a number of ways. In 1562, and again i n 1564, he was l i s t e d as being a member of the Commission of the Peace, consisting of t h i r t y - f i v e of the most prominent gentlemen i n the county. These Justices of the Peace also included important Court personages such as the Earl of Arundel 74 and the Marquis of Winchester, who were members of a large number of Commis-sions i n various counties, 1 and they were given a prescribed l i s t of offences 2 on which to give judgment. Later, i n 1569, Croft was one of the Commission-3 ers of Musters for the county, his duties p r i n c i p a l l y being to inform the Council of the number of horses, condition of armour, and number of men who would be available to f i g h t , i f necessary. These duties could not have been very onerous, nor were they t e r r i b l y distinguished, but Croft also managed to keep i n touch through his election to the House of Commons as the senior mem-ber for the county i n the second parliament of Elizabeth's reign, which met in 1562-1563.^ Croft had been elected previously, i n 1541, but had not sat in parliament from that date u n t i l 1562. However, his election was to be the beginning of a long and continuous record, and he sat i n every parliament from 1562 u n t i l his death i n 1590. Other than attending to his duties i n l o c a l a f f a i r s , Croft must have spent some time looking after his estates i n the county, as he was the p r i n c i p a l beneficiary of his father's w i l l , Richard Croft having died i n January, 1562.5 Finances continued to be a major preoccupation with Croft, even though the opportunities or need to spend conspicuously had been curtailed by his exit from Court c i r c l e s . One of the best recognized ways to obtain an income was to procure the wardship of an orphan, the marriage of whom could often be extremely profitable to the guardian. The system led inevitably to abuses, as i t s major purpose was to raise money for the State, rather than to protect orphans. I t has been calculated that the Elizabethan government could c a l l 6 upon an income of f i f t e e n thousand pounds a year from the Court of Wards. Besides providing revenue, wardships were handed as rewards to f a i t h f u l ser-vants, thereby saving royal expenditure. The receiver of a wardship would 75 generally have to pay out a large sum of money, which he would hope to recoup upon the marriage of his ward. I t i s not recorded how much Croft had to pay for the two wardships he obtained i n the early 1560's, but on May 10, 1560, he was granted the wardship and marriage of William Rudhale,^ and on July 11, g 1561, that of John Scudamore. The date of the f i r s t grant i s s i g n i f i c a n t , as i t occurred at the time Croft was presumably i n disgrace, and i t would surely have been withheld had Elizabeth wished to punish him severely. Neither would the second wardship have been granted i f Croft had not maintained i n f l u e n t i a l friendships. In fact, the wardship of John Scudamore had been procured through the intervention of Robert Dudley, who, i n a l e t t e r to an uncle of Scudamore's i n December, 1561, said that "... at the request of my Lady Croft, I obteyned the wardship of your nephew for her husband, trusting therby to 9 procure a mariage for my kinswoman S i r James Crofts daghter...." Scudamore's uncle had been demanding large sums of money from Croft, and Dudley requested him to be more reasonable, hinting that he might find occasion to "Favor you from tyme to tyme."1^ A family l i n k between Dudley and Croft does much to ex-plain the wardships Croft received, and was to be of considerable importance at a l a t e r stage i n his career. After fi v e years i n e x i l e from the Court, Croft must have believed that, by 1566, time was ripe for him to attempt to get back into public l i f e . A l -though England was at peace with Scotland, there were s t i l l troops positioned on the border marches and at Berwick. Croft may have wished to return there, or could have had aspirations i n Ireland, which was s t i l l i n a state of con-stant turmoil. On A p r i l 13, 1566, the Spanish ambassador was reporting that "warlike stores" were again being sent to Berwick, and that Croft was i n Lon-don, as he was usually consulted on matters of this s o r t . 1 1 The writer's 76 opinion of a f f a i r s i n Berwick may have been at f a u l t , as may his opinion that Croft was attached to the service of the King of Spain, but i t i s quite reason-able to suppose that Croft would have liked to return to service, preferably at his former position of Governor of Berwick. Nevertheless, Croft apparently did not return to Scotland but to Ireland, where, i n December, 1566, the Spanish ambassador wrote that "... they had only two good soldiers here who 12 understood war, and now that Randolph i s dead, the only one l e f t i s Crofts." The Lord Deputy requested, on May 12, 1567, that "Mr. Vice-Chamberlain Knollys or S i r James Croft . . . be sent to take the government, while Sydney [" i e . him-•J 13 s e l f j i s absent i n the f i e l d , " but whether Croft did so or not i s unclear. However, his appointment to service i n Ireland, and even more the considera-tion that he would be suitable to serve as temporary Deputy, indicates that he was again returning to the good graces of the Council. This was made s t a r t l i n g l y apparent by his sudden appointment to the o f f i c e of Comptroller 14 of the Queen's Household, on January 9, 1570, the most important position he had yet occupied, and which he was to hold for the remainder of his l i f e -time . The position of Comptroller had apparently been vacant for several years, the previous holder of the o f f i c e , S i r Edward Rogers, having died i n 1567. 1 5 Croft's appointment i s somewhat of a mystery, as there had been no previous indications that he might be given the o f f i c e , nor were there any reasons stated (as might be expected) for the position being offered him. He had shown an interest i n the a f f a i r s of the Household when, as a Member of P a r l i a -ment i n 1563, he had assisted the current Comptroller, Rogers, i n the making 16 of the Statute of A r t i f i c e r s . At one point, i n March, 1563, the Statute had been referred to a "committee," consisting solely of Croft, which had the task 77 of examining certain clauses r e l a t i n g to compulsory service and apprentice-ship. 1'' Even though Croft had had this experience, this alone would not have been enough to determine his worth, though i t may have been an important con-sideration. A possible reason can be seen i n the f a l l from grace of Norfolk, Croft's foremost opponent, whose aspirations were matched only by the over-estimation of his limited a b i l i t i e s . Norfolk resented the fact that lesser men, as he saw them, were being given positions he f e l t due to him as f i r s t peer i n the realm, and i t was probably Elizabeth's treatment of him which gave him the idea of marrying Mary, Queen of Scots. From the end of 1568 un-t i l his execution three years l a t e r , he became increasingly reckless, and his 18 thorough implication i n the R i d o l f i Plot made his death a certainty. As an enemy of Norfolk, and one who might have been remembered by Elizabeth as un-j u s t l y treated, Croft benefited from Norfolk's sudden downfall. A thi r d pos-s i b l e reason for Croft's selection as Comptroller was, as Wallace MacCaffrey suggests, that Croft was thought to be friendl y to the Catholics and was pro-Habsburg, and his appointment would be a co n c i l i a t o r y move towards Elizabeth's 19 Catholic subjects. The selection of Croft would make the Council more evenly balanced, and would give a voice on the Council to those who favoured a conservative, pro-Habsburg policy, and were r e l a t i v e l y un-bellicose on the question of the Queen of Scots. I t i s c e r t a i n l y true that Croft was a Spanish pensioner, but there i s l i t t l e to suggest that his r e l i g i o u s feelings were h e a r t f e l t , or anything more than opportunistic. Nevertheless, after ten years of waiting, Croft suddenly found himself the possessor of one of the most i n -f l u e n t i a l positions i n the country, and one he was to hold for the remaining twenty years of his l i f e . Unfortunately, as a previous writer has stated, "the duties of Comptrol-78 l e r of the Household are not of a description to produce an o f f i c i a l corres-20 pondence," and there are very few records that one can draw upon to deter-mine what Croft was doing i n his position as Comptroller. The Royal Household 21 was the largest department i n the Elizabethan c i v i l service, and was both elaborate and costly. The three chief o f f i c e r s consisted of the Lord Steward, who had complete control, although i t was seldom exercised, the Treasurer of the Household, and the Comptroller, who j o i n t l y supervised the whole House-22 hold i n the absence of the Lord Steward. As indicated above, Croft held the position of Comptroller from 1570 to 1590, while that of Treasurer was 23 held even longer, from 1570 to 1596, by S i r Francis Knollys, the two men thus having v i r t u a l l y complete control over a l l Household matters and finan-ces for two decades. Under such circumstances, i t would not be surprising i f they should r e a l i z e the p o s s i b i l i t i e s for graft, but whether they avoided the temptation or not i s open to question. Most royal servants were hopelessly i l l - p a i d , p a r t i c u l a r l y as many of the tasks they were called upon to perform f e l l outside the formal boundaries of their positions. As Wallace MacCaffrey states of the i n d e f i n i t e nature of the assignments of numerous royal o f f i c i a l s : From the government's point of view this arrangement provided a reservoir of servants of many-sided competence, from the o f f i c i a l ' s i t meant burdensome, sometimes costly tasks to per-form, but also opportunities for wider reaches of connection, of influence, and perhaps of p r o f i t . ^ I f i t seems strange that a professional soldier should be appointed to a posi-t i o n where he would be required to check costs and amounts of food, accommoda-tion for Court figures, and entertainments for v i s i t i n g personages, Croft's appointment can probably be explained i n the l i g h t of the above quotation. Although nominally Comptroller, Croft served numerous other purposes, and was p a r t i c u l a r l y conscientious i n his attendance at meetings of the Privy Council. 79 There i s l i t t l e doubt that he made use of his position to widen his connec-tions and influence, and thereby p r o f i t himself, but i t i s doubtful whether one can state, as Miss Woodworth does, that he "practiced graft and placed 25 his own interests above those of the queen." Throughout his period as Comp-t r o l l e r he frequently referred to his poverty and need for further grants from Elizabeth, and i f he was, i n fa c t , stealing from the Household, i t cannot have been on a large enough scale to be profitable or to incur the wrath of the Queen. Although Burghley attempted to keep a l i d on the ever-increasing expenses of the Household, he had l i t t l e success. This was partly because the o f f i c e r s of the Household held only loose control over the number of servants that abounded, but also because the Queen appeared to have small regard for l i m i t -26 ing her expenses i n any way. One of the major causes of increased Household charges was the large number of progresses made by Elizabeth, which necessita-ted extra expense not only for transportation but for food and service. Croft accompanied the Queen on many of these progresses, as when she v i s i t e d Worces-ter i n August, 1575, escorted by a large retinue of noblemen, bishops, and ladies-in-waiting, plus their servants and members of the Household st a f f gen-27 e r a l l y employed at Court. I t i s we l l known that entertaining Elizabeth on her progresses could e a s i l y be c r i p p l i n g l y expensive, but not so obvious that expenses must have been correspondingly high for the Queen. As Comptroller of the Household, Croft would be i n charge of such expenses, together with Knollys, but f i n a l authority for providing expenses would have rested with Burghley. As for d a i l y expenses at Court, a l i s t showing the amount provided for members of the Household i n 1576, together with the sums of money actually 28 spent, i l l u s t r a t e s a wide discrepancy. For example, the Queen herself was 80 e n t i t l e d to have a diet costingXl , 2 8 8 . 8 . 9 ^ per year, when, i n fact, the , 29 eventual cost was«L 2,509 .18 .4, an increase of almost one hundred per-cent. Croft was allowed Z494.2.2. but s p e n t X 5 8 5 . 1 4 . 9 ^ and the rates of diet of other members of the Household show similar increases. As Comptroller, Croft should probably have attempted to put a curb on spending, and there are i n d i -cations that he at least made the e f f o r t , but there were l i m i t s to his powers, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f he did not wish to offend the Queen, and Household costs con-tinued to r i s e throughout the century. Part of the correspondence which has survived i s a remembrance issued by Croft to Burghley, concerning Household expenses and written on December 7, 31 1583. I t i s of interest as i t provides an example of some of the problems facing Croft, and shows that he was concerned with r i s i n g expenses, although he did not know how he could deal with them. Among the reasons for increased costs, Croft l i s t e d the keeping by o f f i c e r s and ministers of more servants and pages than necessary, many of whom "hang upon the Butterie barre, wasting the fragments which should be geaven to the poore." Because wages were so low, servants were forced to steal from the kitchen, and also "everie o f f i c e that can help with bred Drinke F u e l l and lyghtes, are corrupted." Croft suggested that, to redress these disorders, wages and allowances should be raised to a reasonable l e v e l , p a r t i c u l a r l y as he was already supplying extraordinary allow-ances to some members of the Household. Costs had also been r i s i n g because "the pryces of v i c t u a l l s and incydents are encreased above ten or twelve thou-sand pownds by the yeare," and he suggested that a new book of allowances be drawn up, r e f l e c t i n g the increased costs. The remembrance indicates that Croft knew what the problems were, but i t i s doubtful that he could have dealt with any of them by himself, and cer t a i n l y could not be held to blame because 81 of Elizabeth's extravagances or r i s i n g prices i n general. One of the f i r s t positions to which Croft was appointed after being made Comptroller and a Privy Councillor was as a member of the Council i n the Marches of Wales. As mentioned i n Chapter Three, Strype l i s t s Croft as being 3' a member of the Council, together with S i r Nicholas Arnold, as early as 1551, but even i f Strype i s correct, Croft's appointment at this early date would 33 have been of short duration. His appointment, on May 27, 1570, less than f i v e months after he had been made Comptroller, indicates that Elizabeth valued Croft as much for the advice he could give elsewhere as on the Council. The Council, which sat i n Ludlow, i n Shropshire, was, as Penry Williams ob-serves, "... part of the remarkable Tudor policy of creating regional admini-34 strations within England and Wales." Like the Council i n the North, i t was created to administer a d i f f i c u l t and r e l a t i v e l y isolated area, and had j u r i s -d i c t i o n over a l l of Wales, as well as the counties of Shropshire, Hereford, Worcester, Gloucester, and Monmouth. The Council had wide and somewhat vague powers, both criminal and c i v i l , and could enforce particular aspects of the 35 Crown s policy. Later, i n 1586, i t s authority was to be r e s t r i c t e d , a move which pleased many of the Councillors, including Croft, who favoured l i m i t a -36 tion of i t s powers. Croft continued as a member of the Council through the 37 1570's and 80's and was a p a r t i c u l a r l y i n f l u e n t i a l figure, both because of his importance i n national l i f e and as one of the leading gentlemen i n the a f f a i r s of Herefordshire. Croft's importance i n the county can be determined not only by the offices he enjoyed himself, but also by those which were held by his friends and r e l a t i v e s . Not only did Croft s i t for every parliament as the senior mem-ber for the county from 1562 onwards, but various r e l a t i v e s were also elected 82 as members. These included his son, Edward, i n 1584 and 1586, as M.P. for Leominster, his son-in-law, John Scudamore, i n 1572, 1584, 1586, and 1589, as junior member for the county, and a cousin, Fabian Philippes i n 1572, as jun-i o r member for Leominster. As w e l l , James Warnecombe, junior member for the shire i n 1562 and senior member of the City of Hereford i n 1572, was related 38 to S i r James through his wife, and Thomas Wigmore, a close friend, was 39 twice member for Leominster, i n 1584 and 1586. John Scudamore, the uncle of Croft's son-in-law of the same name, had been Sheriff of the county i n 1553,^ and i n 1565 was Steward of Hereford Ci t y . He was a member of the 42 Council of Wales i n 1560 and probably i n 1570 and 1578, although i t i s not clear whether i t i s the elder John Scudamore or his nephew who i s referred to i n the two l a t t e r years. Fabian Philippes was l i s t e d as "one of the justices of North Wales" i n 1586, and a member of the Council of Wales i n the same 43 year. Thus, through a widely spread network of relationships, Croft could well be said to be the most important man i n Herefordshire i n the 1570's and 80's, and his influence must have been strong throughout the area of the Welsh Marches . Although Croft sat i n the House of Commons for a span of almost t h i r t y years, the scarcity of records makes i t almost impossible to discover i n what ways he was involved i n parliamentary business. However, i n 1572, he spoke on the B i l l to reform the Book of Common Prayer, and supported C e c i l , who de-clared that matters of r e l i g i o n should be l e f t to the discretion of princes. Croft added that "... since we acknowledge her [ i e . Elizabeth] to be supream head, we are not i n these petty matters to run before the b a l l , which to do, 44 and therein to offend, were great f o l l y . " I t i s quite l i k e l y that Croft had received instructions from the Queen to inform the Commons that she disapproved 83 of parliament meddling with what she considered her prerogative, or the state-ment may reveal Croft's own views. In the same parliament, Croft was also named a member of a committee appointed to look into the situation of the Queen of Scots, which resulted i n a b i l l being passed by both Houses, but 45 quashed by Elizabeth, who "would not suffer i t to pass into a law." Be-sides these mentions of Croft, there i s l i t t l e to t e l l what part he played in parliament. His appointment to the committee i s s i g n i f i c a n t , though, be-cause fourteen years lat e r he was named one of the commissioners to try Mary Stuart at Fotheringay Castle. Mary had been a constant embarrassment to Elizabeth ever since she had fl e d to England i n 1568, after being forced to abdicate i n favour of her two year old son, James. The discovery of Mary's implication i n various plots against Elizabeth brought matters to a head, and the conspiracy of 1586--the so-called Babington P l o t - - was her f i n a l undoing. The disclosures of the conspirators caused a commission to be appointed to try Mary, which assembled 46 at Fotheringay on October 12, 1586. At f i r s t , Mary refused to appear, deny-ing that the commissioners had any right to try her, and saying that she "was 47 a free prince, borne a quene, and, therfore, not subjecte to any but to God." Nevertheless, she eventually appeared and her t r i a l continued. The outcome, considering the mass of evidence against her, was a foregone conclusion, and when the commissioners reassembled on October 25, the death sentence was given. Elizabeth had a horror, however, of ordering the death of a fellow r u l e r , and delayed putting the sentence into effect for as long as possible. On November 14 she had replied to parliament that she ... could be well pleased to forbear taking of her blood; i f by any other means to be devised, by the Great Council of this realm, the safety of her maj.'s person and govt, might be preserved, without danger of ruin and d e s t r u c t i o n . ^ 84 Elizabeth could not temporize i n d e f i n i t e l y , however, and eventually, on Febru-ary 7, Mary mounted the scaffold at Fotheringay Castle. Although she had signed the warrant for Mary's execution, Elizabeth was distraught when i t was put into e f f e c t , and vented her anger on William Davison, the second Secre-tary of State, whom she had t r i e d and, for a short time, imprisoned. At Davison's t r i a l i n March, none of the Queen's ministers who had sat i n judg-ment on Mary and signed the l e t t e r s that had accompanied the warrant for her execution appeared, with the exception of Croft, who had, as S i r Harris 49 Nicholas states, "the modesty and good sense to say l i t t l e on the occasion." Elizabeth's anger did not l a s t for long and, with the exception of Davison, none of her ministers suffered for their part i n the t r i a l and execution of Mary Stuart. Although the above account covers some of Croft's p r i n c i p a l a c t i v i t i e s of the 1570's and 80's, his duties were not confined to these. The Acts of  the Privy Council show that he was a conscientious attender at meetings, and a large number of l e t t e r s sent from the Council bear his signature. His ad-vice was also apparently sought on a f f a i r s i n Ireland, and the Spanish Ambas-sador wrote to his master i n November, 1582, that Croft was appointed to a commission to enquire into I r i s h a f f a i r s , w h i l e , i n A p r i l , 1583, a servant of Croft's was sent to Ireland to find out whether the rebel, Desmond, was w i l l i n g to submit to Ormond.^ ''" Although much of Croft's time must have been taken up with similar duties, as well as with his o f f i c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as Comptroller, there i s l i t t l e to show that his remuneration was p a r t i c u l a r l y great, and by far the largest amount of correspondence of the period concern-ing Croft has to do with his efforts at getting favours from the Queen, and with the pension which he was receiving a l l the while from Spain. 85 As Comptroller and a Privy Councillor, the opportunities open to Croft were far greater than they had been previously, but the amount of money he needed for his position at Court was also necessarily greater. He kept on good terms with Burghley, who had the power to reward those he saw most s u i -ted, and several times asked favours of him. On July 14, 1578, for example, he requested that Burghley remember his suit for a grant of lands having an annual value of twenty-five pounds, and reminded Burghley of his long ser-52 vices . His p e t i t i o n to the Queen had probably been presented e a r l i e r by Lady Croft, as there i s note taken i n the same year of "... such debts and bonds as S i r James Croft" [ s i c ] and his friends j o i n t l y stand i n danger of." 5' As was the case with a majority of the courtiers, Croft maintained a good relationship with Elizabeth by giving her a New Year's g i f t each year, which was occasionally reciprocated. Thus, i n 1578, the Queen was given by Lady Croft "a feyer cushyn embrawdered with s i l k e of sundry c o l l a r s , with t h i -story of Icorus," 5^ while the following year, Croft's wife presented "a peticote of carnation satten, enbrawderid with flowers of s i l k e of sondry c o l l o u r s . " 5 5 In return, Croft was given a g i l t plate and, i n 1579, two g i l t 56 bowls from the Queen. The exchange of these g i f t s indicates that Croft was i n favour at Court and, while the presentation of g i f t s had become a formal-i t y , the f a i l u r e of a courtier to remember the Queen with a costly present at the beginning of each new year would doubtless be a black mark against him. The Queen was petitioned again by Croft i n 1583, when he asked for a grant of land "to r e l i e v e his present wante of n e c e s s i t e . " 5 7 While i t i s not clear whether or not his request was granted, he did receive a monopoly license to export grain from Norfolk to Ireland. This must have been ex-tremely p r o f i t a b l e , as there were several complaints made to Burghley about 86 the cost of grain i n Ireland having increased "by reason of exportation under 58 Mr. Comptroller's license." On December 14, 1585, S i r William Heydon wrote to Walsingham from Norfolk of the "... hard dealings of Mr. Comptroller's sub-s t i t u t e for concealed lands, who had more regard for his own benefit than for 59 Her Majesty's service," and this o f f i c e must have provided a handsome income Besides these favours shown to Croft, he was also allowed, i n January, 1583, to share an award for the wardship and marriage of the daughters of Anthony 60 Bowrne (or Browne), an arrangement similar to the two wardships he had been given i n the 1560's. As i n the former instance, one of Croft's children was married to one of his wards; i n this case, Edward Croft wed Ann Browne, thus bringing her fortune into the Croft family.^ 1 I t i s apparent, therefore, that S i r James remained i n good favour at Court, and that he was able to procure a healthy income by reason of his friendship with important o f f i c i a l s and with the Queen. However, his income cannot have been as high as he wished, because he continued to receive a pension from Spain throughout the entire period he was Comptroller of the Household. Being a Spanish pensioner, Croft must have f e l t a c o n f l i c t of l o y a l t y on occasions, but the money he received from Spain was not of the order to make him a t r a i t o r , and numerous complaints from the Spanish Ambassador show that he sometimes had a d i f f i c u l t time getting any information out of Croft. How-ever, as soon as he had been made Comptroller, Croft indicated that " i n what-ever thing he can honestly serve your Majesty [ i e . P h i l l i p II] he w i l l do 62 so." Perhaps i t i s important to emphasize the word "honestly" here, as i t q u a l i f i e s the opinion one might otherwise receive that Croft was e n t i r e l y a Spanish puppet. There are numerous instances reported of Guerau de Spes, the Spanish Ambassador, attempting to induce Croft and other pensioners to i n f l u -87 ence events to the benefit of Spain. In March, 1570, for example, he attemp-ted to persuade Croft to delay the opening of trade relations between England 63 and Portugal, and this subject continued to be a major point of issue. Croft was not, of course, the only Council member receiving money from Spain, and others included such men of importance as Sussex, C e c i l , and the Earl of 64 Leicester, beside whom Croft would have appeared quite i n s i g n i f i c a n t . Nevertheless, Croft's acceptance of Spanish money i s not admirable, from a twentieth century viewpoint, even i f his position can be blamed on a penurious monarch, or a system which allowed men such as Croft l i t t l e choice but to accept money from Spain i f they wished to continue to hold o f f i c e . In 1579, Croft told Bernadino de Mendoza, who had replaced de Spes, that "... i f his Majesty w i l l not help him i t w i l l not be possible for him to remain at Court, 65 he being at the end of his resources," which Mendoza assured the King was 66 r e a l l y the case, "and not mere vapouring." While Mendoza's statements must always be regarded with a degree of suspicion, i n this instance he may not have been far from the truth. Croft's constant iterations of penury may be exaggerated, but i t i s quite probable that he was i n frequent need of money, even i f he was not i n quite such dire distress as he t r i e d to make Mendoza believe. As the situation deteriorated i n the 1580's between England and Spain, Croft had to be more c a r e f u l , and Mendoza reported, on A p r i l 1, 1582, that Croft "... has been almost dumb with me for some months past, and has 67 told me nothing of importance." However, Croft apparently desperately needed the money he was getting from Spain, and he may even have accepted a 68 further pension of two thousand crowns a year from France. Under the c i r -cumstances b r i e f l y described above, one must regard Croft's position as a Councillor with some suspicion, as i t i s inevitable that he would act occa-sio n a l l y i n the interests of Spain rather than England i f he wished to con-88 tinue receiving his pension. Also, i t i s possible that accusations which were later to be leve l l e d at Croft, after he had taken part i n negotiations with the Spanish before the s a i l i n g of the Armada, had some basis i n fact, although i t i s u n l i k e l y his accusers realized how long Croft had depended on Spain for an income. One can only say, charitably, that Croft needed the money, which he should have been able to get from the Queen, and that the information he gave Spain, i f not useless, was seldom of great value. Although Croft was undoubtedly a Spanish pensioner, this fact does not appear to have counted against him, and he continued to enjoy the friendship of i n f l u e n t i a l men. I t i s possible that i t was not realized that Croft was i n Spain's pay, although this i s u n l i k e l y considering Cecil's widespread information network. However, i n June, 1574, a Roger Bodenham wrote to C e c i l of "... a nest of Spaniards who do nothing else but spy what i s done and what i s intended to be done, and give advertisements thereof," but added the names "... of two men whom he may make his assured friends, and who be worthy to be 69 embraced and made much of," one of them being S i r James Croft, the other a Mr. Dyer. This was probably S i r Edward Dyer, whose patrons included Leicester and C e c i l , and who became the Queen's personal favourite after the f a l l of Hatton.^ I f there was a connection between Dyer and Croft, he could have been a most i n f l u e n t i a l f riend. Another of Croft's friends was S i r Thomas Smith, who had been made a mem-ber of the Council at about the same time as Croft, and who had been sent as an ambassador to France i n 1572 to discuss the marriage of Alencon and E l i z a -beth.^ 1 In that year he wrote a number of l e t t e r s to Croft, almost e n t i r e l y of a personal nature, i n one of which he mentions his desire "... to be at home with you to eat a good piece of court beef and mustard, a cowsheel, and 89 72 a piece of l i n g and sodden oysters." Mary Dewar writes that Croft was, at 73 the time, contemplating marrying of f one of his daughters to Smith's son, and the friendship between the two men appears to have been one formed over a considerable period of time. Smith's other intimates of longstanding were Burghley and John Thynne, and i t i s surely carping of Miss Dewar to refer to 74 them as "hardly a gay sparkling t r i o , " even i f the description f i t s . Dr. Dee, the astrologer and mathematician, and a man frequently consul-ted by the Queen, also was closely connected with Croft. Although Dee had been born i n Mortlake, near London, his family t i e s were with Knighton, i n Radnorshire, some f i f t e e n miles from Croft Castle. His biographer, Richard Deacon, writes that Dee "maintained his links with Wales throughout his l i f e , " 7 5 and i t would appear that the links extended from Wales into Hereford-shire. In October, 1574, Dee asked his patron, Lord Burghley, to obtain for him the muniments of Wigmore C a s t l e , 7 6 which was even closer than Knighton to Croft's county residence. In the same year, Mistress Scudamore had helped Dee by asking the Queen to grant him a position at Winchester, 7 7 and the close ties which Dee had both with Croft and Mary Scudamore can be seen by the following entry i n his diary for 1581: June 10th, baptisata a meredie hor. 5% Katharina. Mr. Pack-ington of the court, my Lady Katarin Crofts, wife to S i r James Crofts, Mr. Controller of the Quene's household, Mystres Mary Skydmor of the P r i v i e Chamber, and cosen to the Quene, by theyr deputies christened Katharin Dee.^8 Mary Scudamore was a s i s t e r of the John Scudamore whose wardship Croft had obtained i n 1561, and who had become his son-in-law the same year, and later 79 a Gentleman Usher to the Queen. Both John and Mary Scudamore would thus . have had close access to the Queen, and have been able to promote their kins-90 man's cause. Croft's range of contacts indicate a number of ways i n which he could have applied influence at Court. Although i t i s not possible to discern a l l of Croft's patrons and friends, the number of i n f l u e n t i a l people he could c a l l upon for help appears to have been widening with time. The Earl of Leicester had been of assistance to Croft as early as 1561, but i t i s probable that he had given his kinsman help even before this date. In an u n o f f i c i a l , but very important, capacity, Mary and John Scudamore may have been as important con-tacts as any of the great Councillors, such as Burghley. So, also, may John Dee, who had great influence over the Queen at various times. Croft himself would have been a useful contact for such men as Dyer and Smith, and they would probably have counted on him for assistance as much as he counted on them. Throughout the 1570's and 80's, there i s l i t t l e doubt that Croft used his connections whenever possible to attempt to bolster his apparently inade-quate fortunes and to remain at Elizabeth's Court, the centre of a l l power i n England. 91 CHAPTER VI NEGOTIATIONS WITH SPAIN (1587-1590) The relationship between England and .Spain, which had been a close one during the early half of the century, began a steady deterioration shortly after Elizabeth came to the throne, and reached i t s nadir i n 1588 with the de-feat of the Spanish Armada. Reasons for this are not hard to f i n d . France, which was kept divided by religious and p o l i t i c a l factions, was no longer a threat to English security, and Spain had become the champion of Catholicism in Europe, and of Mary Stuart i n Scotland. The imprisonment and eventual exe-cution of Mary offered P h i l i p the opportunity for a re l i g i o u s crusade against the h e r e t i c a l English, and Elizabeth and her advisers thought i t p o l i t i c to prepare for the worst by seeking better relations with France. To this end, Elizabeth had appeared to consider an a l l i a n c e with France by suggesting mar-riage f i r s t with the Duke of Anjou, i n 1570, and l a t e r with Catherine de Medici's youngest son, the Duke of Alencon. Although neither plan came to anything, and were probably not intended to, they had served the purpose of securing f r i e n d l i e r relations between the two countries. Spain, on the other hand, continued to foment plots, and to ensure the support of some i n f l u e n t i a l men by providing them with pensions. One of the most important causes of antagonism was England's growing encroachment on Spain's erstwhile monopolis-t i c trade with the New World, with the exploits of such men as Hawkins and Drake increasingly i n f u r i a t i n g the Spanish. In the Netherlands, too, England and Spain faced one another with a sense of mounting tension, and from 1585 an expeditionary force had been maintained i n the towns which England con-t r o l l e d i n the Low Countries. Under such conditions i t appeared inevitable : 92 that a major c o n f l i c t between Spain and England was only a matter of time, and that l i t t l e could be done to halt the coming confrontation. However, such a war was not desired by a l l of Elizabeth's c o u n c i l l o r s , and efforts to keep the peace were attempted throughout the 1580's. The most serious of these attempts was made less than a year before Spain sent the Armada down the English Chan-ne l , when a group of commissioners were sent to the Netherlands to negotiate with the Spanish to seek a settlement for peace. Elizabeth herself probably feared taking the f i n a l step which would lead to war, and hoped u n t i l the l a s t moment that i t could be evaded. War with Spain would be costly not only i n terms of paying for troops and equipment, but would also mean the end of the B r i t i s h cloth trade with the Netherlands, which provided England with an important source of revenue. However, the suc-cesses of the Duke of Parma i n 1584 and 1586 i n the Low Countries, with the resulting loss of trade, caused Elizabeth to send an army to the Netherlands under the leadership of the Earl of Leicester, her current favourite. Leicester's incompetence, plus the heavy drain on resources, explain why Elizabeth was w i l l i n g to seek peace by 1587, and i n this she was encouraged by Parma. I t appeared that he was spurring on English hopes for peace i n an ef f o r t to gain time while P h i l i p b u i l t up the navy, i n which case the negotia-tions would have been nothing more than a farce. Nevertheless, Elizabeth was w i l l i n g to continue with the peace t a l k s , probably because she had been f a l s e l y persuaded that Parma had the power to conclude a treaty. As the end of 1587 approached, a commission was selected to be sent to the Low Countries to nego-t i a t e with Parma, and for almost a year the talks dragged on to their hopeless, and pre-ordained, conclusion.''' Although Elizabeth probably favoured a peace policy, many of her Privy 93 Council were opposed to any form of peace-making. CHief among these was Leicester, who was i n charge of m i l i t a r y operations i n the Netherlands, and who stood a better chance of making a reputation i f the war was continued than i f a peace were signed. Walsingham, the Queen's pr i n c i p a l secretary, continually urged Elizabeth to oppose Spain vigorously, but his warnings had 2 l i t t l e e f f e c t . The chief proponent of peace was probably Burghley, although i t i s u n l i k e l y that he was any more ardent than Croft, even i f his influence was greater. Both Burghley and Croft had been j o i n t l y involved i n negotia-tions for peace since mid-1586. A l e t t e r from Parma to Burghley on June 23, 1586, mentioned that Andrea de Loo, a merchant who acted as an intermediary between the English and Spanish, had "... put before me what more he thought needful for me to understand of the continuation of the good i n c l i n a t i o n which 3 you show towards peace." The Queen's i n c l i n a t i o n being towards peace, i t i s not surprising that she should seize the opportunity offered to deal d i r e c t l y with Parma i n 1587, and that some of the leading advocates of a peace policy should be put on the commission which was appointed. Although a few of her advisers, p a r t i c u l a r l y Leicester and Walsingham, feared that Elizabeth might pursue peace to the neglect of the defense of England, their advice was i g -nored. On September 12, 1587, Bernardino de Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador i n England, wrote to P h i l i p that "the Commissioners the Queen was sending to Flanders were being hurried o f f , " and that they included the earls of Derby and Hertford, Lord Cobham, Dr. Dale (Master of Requests), John Herbert (doc-4 tor of the Court of Admiralty), as well as the Comptroller, S i r James Croft. Croft's presence on the commission was an obvious one. During a l l the years he had been on the Council, and even before 1570, he had been a Spanish pensioner, and had been the most ardent proponent of a peace policy. His 94 appointment by Elizabeth was no doubt made, as Conyers Read suggests, because she believed that Croft would do his utmost to achieve peace. 5 Not only had he been involved with Burghley i n preliminary negotiations, but a cousin of hi s , named Bodenham, was i n the service of Parma, and an Edward Morris, de-scribed as "Mr. Controller's man,"7 acted as an intermediary between Bodenham 8 and Croft. Parma had "good l i k i n g of Mr. Controller," and kept i n close con-tact with him through de Loo, who had been persuaded by Croft to deal with 9 Parma and to ensure him of the Queen's desire for peace. The other commis-sioners eventually included the Earl of Derby, Lord Cobham, and Dr. Dale, as de Mendoza had l i s t e d e a r l i e r , but not the Earl of Hertford or John Herbert. The f i f t h member was o r i g i n a l l y S i r Amias Paulet, but, for some reason, he was later replaced by Dr. John Rogers. 1^ Derby, appointed chief commissioner, was l i t t l e more than a figurehead, and Cobham was an old friend of Burghley's. Both of these men, as well as Croft, were Privy Councillors. Dr. Dale was a c i v i l i a n who had been ambassador i n France for some years and who had sat on a number of important royal commissions, including that which had met to try Mary S t u a r t . 1 1 John Rogers was a brother of Daniel Rogers, Clerk of the Coun-12 c i l , and had been employed previously on diplomatic missions abroad. None of the commissioners, with the exception of Croft, was noted as an enthusias-t i c p a c i f i s t , and Croft was kept i n check by the two experienced men on the commission, Dale and Rogers, who had had s u f f i c i e n t experience previously to understand the problems they faced. Elizabeth's instructions to the commissioners made i t clear that they were to do l i t t l e on their own i n i t i a t i v e , but were to refer back to England for d irections. Although the Queen gave directions that the commissioners were to use a l l d iscretion "... as s h a l l , with regard of her honour tend most 95 speedily . . . to the conclusion of a good and sound peace," i n almost every pa r t i c u l a r , instructions were sent from England. Croft was to discover later that i t was f a t a l to attempt to act on one's own i n i t i a t i v e . Above a l l , the Commission was to make sure that i t s Spanish counterpart had f u l l authority to conclude a peace. Although the commissioners had departed from England on February 26, 1588, the negotiations did not get under way for another three months, the interven-ing period being occupied with wranglings over where the conference should be held. Elizabeth wanted the meeting to take place i n Ostend, whe re the commis-sioners had landed, but P h i l i p favoured Antwerp. After much pointless argu-ment, during which the names of Bruges and Ghent, among other c i t i e s , were suggested, eventually the town of Bourbourg was chosen as a compromise, and 14 the Commission proceeded there on May 23. The delay was not as pointless as i t may seem; at le a s t , not on the part of the Spanish. In March, Parma had written to P h i l i p that i t was the general feeling that i t might be a good idea to conclude a peace in the Low Countries, i n which case "... we should not jeopardize the Armada which your Majesty has prepared." 1^ However, he intended to delay the English commissioners as long as possible, and to con-fer with them u n t i l the Armada was ready to s a i l : ... I w i l l not, u n t i l I am obliged, desist from the negotiations, so that i n case the Armada does not come, or any other unforseen accident should prevent the pr i n c i p a l enterprise from being carried out, your Majesty may be able to choose the course you think f i t . I greatly doubt, however, being able to entertain the English so long as w i l l be necessary for such a contingency as t h i s , as I am not able to produce for them a special power from your Majesty, which, as usual, they appear to desire before they w i l l enter into the discussion of the main points. I t i s quite possible, therefore, that they may break off the negotiations for this reason.... 96 In spite of Parma's delaying t a c t i c s , however, and his i n a b i l i t y to produce the authority which would permit him to conclude a peace, the English com-missioners were prepared to s e t t l e down at the conference table. Before the Commission was ready to confer with the Spanish--in fact, be-fore i t had even arrived i n the Netherlands--a preliminary, and t o t a l l y un-authroized meeting had already occurred between the Spanish and S i r James Croft. Writing to the Queen on February 16, Croft had intimated that he i n -tended "to have this colloquy hastened," because he was "throughly [ S L C ] per-suaded that he [ i . e . Parma] greatly desireth peace."'''7 When the Commission departed for Ostend on February 26, Croft was not present, having been, as 18-he said, "detained at Dover by an accident and then by the weather." In consequence of the wind, he had sailed for the Spanish-held town of Dunkirk, where he had been received by the Governor, royally entertained, and sent to 19 re j o i n his colleagues two days l a t e r . While at Dunkirk, Croft had been feasted by the Spanish, "... with manifest tokens of their desire to have a 20 peace," and had, no doubt, been convinced even further of his be l i e f s i n this regard. The rough weather, which necessitated a landing at Dunkirk, appears most fortuitous for Croft, p a r t i c u l a r l y considering his previously de-clared intention of meeting with the Spanish to hasten the peace negotiations, and his actions must have angered his fellow commissioners. In f a c t , Croft's high-handed behaviour continued to be a source of annoy-ance to his colleagues, p a r t i c u l a r l y as he appeared to think of himself as the only one capable of producing a peace formula. Robert C e c i l , writing to his father, noted of Croft's a r r i v a l i n Ostend from Dunkirk that "Mr. Controller i s i n his health but crazy, though not sick, this having proved a cold journey 21 for his old years." I t i s important to remember that Croft was, i n 1588, 97 seventy years old, a fact which might explain, i f not excuse, some of his un-usual actions. Through March and A p r i l , reports continued to be sent by other of the commissioners to Burghley and to Elizabeth, complaining of Croft's un-cooperativeness and his overbearing manner. On A p r i l 17, Elizabeth was forced to write to Derby and Cobham to order them to l e t Croft "... understand how greatly we are offended with this his manner of dealing," and to t e l l him "to forbear to use any singular courses; but jo i n with you i n common concurrency 22 according to your instructions...." Complaints made against Croft included that he had termed the governor of Ostend, S i r John Conway, a f o o l , that he had licensed members of the garrison to meet with the enemy, and that he had 23 meddled i n the government of the town. S i r James had managed to offend the other commissioners by threatening to charge his colleagues i f the peace did 24 not go forward, and had boasted that "... i f he had the dealing of this 25 peace alone, i t had been concluded." Elizabeth's admonitions to Croft leave no doubt that his efforts were unappreciated i n England, and that he was con-sidered more of a hindrance than a help to the commissioners. However, his increasingly common references to the advantages which would accrue i f he carried on the negotiations by himself, and the increasingly belligerent tone he was adopting towards his colleagues, make his subsequent action easy to f o r e t e l l . On A p r i l 28, the commissioners, with the exception of Croft, signed a l e t t e r to the Privy Council reporting that "Mr. Controller i s this day (of his own voluntary w i l l ) gone to the Duke of Parma," where he intended to propound his own terms of peace to the Duke. Considering the favours shown to Croft previously by the Spanish, Croft might we l l have believed his plan had some chance of success, but i t was ex-tremely naive not to r e a l i z e that Parma may just have been using him to stretch 98 out English hopes for an early peace. Croft, of course, had no authority to conclude a peace treaty with Parma, but that did not stop him from putting for-ward a l i s t of a r t i c l e s he considered necessary before talks could begin with himself and the other commissioners. These included a sight of Parma's com-mission from the King to conclude a peace, a cessation of arms, a toleration of protestantism within Holland and Zeeland, and ten other points referring 27 to such considerations as trade and hostages. Ignoring his fellow com-28 missioners completely, and not even t e l l i n g them what he had been doing, Croft reported d i r e c t l y to Burghley that he had seen Parma's authority to conclude a peace, signed by P h i l i p , and "... giving ample authority to do everything as i f the King were there i n person, and to r a t i f y a l l that i s past [ s i c j ."^ Parma had indicated that he was w i l l i n g to accept Croft's 30 proposals "as things to be considered of," but Champagney, one of the chief Spanish negotiators, wrote to Burghley of Croft requiring evidence that S i r 31 James had the Queen's approval of his actions. On May 4, Croft, i n a l e t t e r to Elizabeth, asked for her mercy "... for presuming to go to the Duke of 32 Parma without her d i r e c t i o n , " but excused himself by saying that he had feared the treaty would be completely overthrown i f he had not acted speedily, and that he had gone to impress Parma with the s i n c e r i t y of the Queen's inten-tions. The Commission, s t i l l at Ostend, was understandably skeptical of Spain's s i n c e r i t y , because, as Cobham wrote on May 4, "... their actions d i f -33 fer from their negotiations." Nevertheless, they showed admirable re s t r a i n t 34 i n w riting to Burghley, as both Derby and Dr. Dale did, excusing Croft and hoping that his dealings with Parma would "... qualify H. M.'s displeasure for 35 his dealing alone which, for ought I can gather, was w e l l meant by him." Elizabeth, however, was furious: 99 We cannot forbear to l e t you, Mr. Controller, understand what cause of offence you did give to us, besides some discountenance to our commissioners and others i n that you took upon you alone without any warrant from us or any determination of the r e s t , to repair to the Duke of Parma to treat with him alone as you dare do i n sundry places and i n secret manner, assuring you that such an extraordinary attempt . . . may be drawn to a further reproof than can be either answered or we l l endured.36 On May 21, Croft was ordered to return to England to explain to the Queen why he had f e l t i t necessary to deal with Spain without any dire c t i o n from her, 37 and without l e t t i n g his colleagues know what he was doing. Elizabeth's anger was, however, short-lived, and Croft's return to England to answer her charges was delayed a few months. Using a form of writing to which he was w e l l accustomed, Croft begged that "... he may be allowed by re-maining to repair his errors being so affected by her displeasure that his aged limbs have not force enough, without present death, to put i n practice 3 8 her cornmand." His i l l n e s s may not have been feigned, but there i s l i t t l e doubt that Croft realized into what bad graces he had f a l l e n , and that his reprieve was purely a temporary one. Nevertheless, by the beginning of June, 39 he had again resumed his place i n the negotiations, and, nothing daunted, wasted no time i n continuing his complaints against the other commissioners. On June 7 he c r i t i c i z e d Dr. Dale for "not making him privy to any l e t t e r s 40 either received or^sent, concerning this cause," and on the 18th was i n t i -mating to Burghley that the proposals Croft had made privately to Parma e a r l i e r were much more acceptable to the Spanish than the ones being proposed 41 by the commissioners. I t was f a i r l y obvious by this time that further negotiations for peace were f u t i l e , notwithstanding Croft's continual o p t i -mism, and that Parma was f u l l y occupied with preparations for war. By the end of June, the commissioners were prepared to return to England, after f i v e 100 months of f r u i t l e s s e f f o r t , which had included scarcely a month of actual 42 negotiations. On July 18, i t was reported that they were leaving from Ostend. The negotiations had proved a f a i l u r e , i n that the stated intention of achieving a peace settlement had not come to pass, but Elizabeth had gained much valuable information and possibly some time. Failure of the Bourbourg peace talks showed that war was inevitable, however l i t t l e the Queen relished the idea, and that preparations to meet the Armada would have to be made. However, the commissioners could not be blamed for f a i l u r e of the ta l k s , and Elizabeth had no intention of punishing them for their e f f o r t s . Croft, how-ever, was i n a different position. He had d i r e c t l y contradicted the Queen's orders, had been uncooperative with his colleagues, and had made a general nuisance ojf himself while i n the Netherlands. He obviously anticipated the trouble which lay i n store for him, when he wrote to Walsingham shortly be-fore returning to England, reminding Walsingham that he had "done his utter-most to further her [ i . e . Elizabeth's] s e r v i c e . A l t h o u g h he continued as a functioning member of the Privy Council for several weeks after his return, on August 24th the Council recorded that "This daie S i r James Crofte, knight, Comptroller of her Majesties Household, was by their Lordships, uppon her f 1 44 Majesties commandement [ committed] to the prison of the Fleete." The reasons for Croft's imprisonment were not stated, but chief among them must have been his disobedience. The punishment was not severe, however, and by the begin-45 ning of 1589 Croft was once again f u l f i l l i n g his duties as a Councillor, having apparently experienced no disgrace other than his short term i n prison. Croft's conduct as a commissioner had been eccentric, to say the least, and he was extremely fortunate that his punishment was such a minor one. Just 101 what i t was that prompted him to revolve " i n an orbit of his own," as one 46 writer puts i t , i s d i f f i c u l t to decide. Probably the most l i k e l y explana-tion i s that he suffered from an excess of z e a l , which, combined with an i n -flated idea of his importance and a b i l i t y , and a desperate b e l i e f that peace should be secured under any event, caused him to act unwisely and extremely rashly. His desire for peace was cer t a i n l y sincere, but, i n spite of his be-ing i n Spain's pay, there was no suggestion made that he had been i n any way treacherous. Indeed, i f he had, Elizabeth would have taken far more drastic measures against him than merely imprisoning him for a few months. Although there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that Croft may have been acting i n secret under the Queen's orders, and that his dealings with Parma were therefore authorized, this does not seem l i k e l y considering Elizabeth's obvious anger at his actions, and the sentence handed out lat e r by the Council. I t i s true that Croft was a soldier and not a diplomat, but he had negotiated successfully before, with both the I r i s h and the Scots, and was not such a neophyte that he would o r d i n a r i l y be so uncautious. One has to f a l l back, eventually, on the explanation that Croft acted as he did because of his age and waning fac-u l t i e s . As mentioned previously, i n 1588 Croft was seventy years old, which, in an era when few li v e d to that age, was considerable. His signature i s c e r t a i n l y that of an old man, and he was considered past him prime by such as Robert C e c i l , who had termed him "crazy." Parma, writing to P h i l i p , had 47 described Croft as a "weak old man of seventy with very l i t t l e sagacity," and there are constant references i n l e t t e r s to his i l l health and poor con-s t i t u t i o n . The above reason for Croft's actions do not excuse him, but do provide an explanation. They may also have been the reason why Elizabeth, r e a l i z i n g S i r James was a man who would probably not l i v e much longer, kept him i n prison such a short time, and why he maintained his positions as 102 Comptroller and Privy Councillor, i n which, i f he could not be of great use, at least he could do l i t t l e harm. With the exception of one bizarre incident, Croft's connection with the peace commission was over by the end of 1588. In an unusual display of f i l i a l devotion, Croft's eldest son, Edward, decided that his father's imprisonment could be blamed on the machinations of the Earl of Leicester, and, to revenge his father, he hired a conjurer named Smith to accomplish Leicester's death.^ Why Leicester should be selected i s d i f f i c u l t to imagine, p a r t i c u l a r l y as he was a kinsman who had previously shown favours to S i r James, but apparently Edward Croft had given Smith a l i s t of the Council members, and Smith had de-49 cided that "the Earl of Leicester was S i r James Crofts great enemy." Un-fortunately for Edward, on September 4, after a short i l l n e s s , Leicester died."^ This event occurring so soon after Smith had declared that "he had muzzled the great bear,"^ 1 Edward Croft was brought to t r i a l , but the results are not known. He indeed had reason to declare, upon his father's imprison-52 ment, that "he and a l l his were undone except he had help," as not only he, but also his brother James and a cousin named John, had been employed by S i r James while he was commissioner i n the Low Countries . The incident throws an interesting l i g h t on the b e l i e f s of even the well-educated i n witchcraft and sorcery, besides showing how important i t was for Croft's children that their father should hold a position of influence i n which he might aid them. For the remaining years l e f t to him, S i r James Croft continued to hold the positions he had obtained before going to the Netherlands. He was again elected as senior member from Herefordshire i n the parliament which met from 53 November 12, 1588, to March 29, 1589, although this was the l a s t session he 103 was to attend. On A p r i l 21, 1589, i t was noted that "Her Majesty defers the pardon of the two C r o f t s , " 5 ^ which would ce r t a i n l y refer to Edward Croft, but not necessarily to his father. As noted above, S i r James had been readmitted to the Privy Council at least as early as the beginning of January, 1589, which indicates that he was already back i n the Queen's good graces by that time. Also, on January 1 Croft had presented Elizabeth with the customary New Year's g i f t , and had, i n return, been given " g u i l t plate" of equivalent value to that given other knights who attended the Court. 5 5 Possibly the Queen's charity can be explained by sympathy for Croft's age and waning f a c u l t i e s , but no doubt her generosity and magnanimity were increased by the overwhelming success the English had achieved over the Spanish f l e e t some months previously. By September 10, 1590, S i r James Croft had died, and his l a s t recorded attendance at a meeting of the Privy Council had occurred on June 28th of the 5 6 same year. Although the circumstances of his death are unknown, his age and i l l health, which were frequently alluded to, cannot have made i t a surprise. The e a r l i e s t mention of this i s rather i r o n i c , as i t was referred to by S i r Thomas Shirley i n a l e t t e r to Burghley, i n which he requested Croft's job: He has heard that Mr. Comptroller, S i r Jas. Crofts, i s dead. S o l i c i t s his [ i .e .] Burghley's] influence to obtain that o f f i c e for him, and his thankfulness s h a l l be 500 1. to Burghley. Hopes no e v i l opinion of ambition w i l l be cast upon him, as those who do not offer themselves i n this world are seldom advanced , 5^ The l a t t e r sentiment i s , no doubt, one i n which S i r James would have concurred, his l i f e having been devoted to the "offering of himself" i n the hope of ob-taining positions of influence and importance. Although he had achieved con-siderable success, one wonders i f the s t r a i n and worry were r e a l l y worth the small amount of glory. In a l i f e t i m e of hard work, he had been f a l s e l y accused 104 of treachery, imprisoned, castigated for the efforts he had made, forced to accept money from Spain because of the Queen's penuriousness, and had suc-ceeded i n ruining his health to such an extent that his la s t appearance oh the world's stage had caused him to be referred to as r rcrazy' r and "a weak old man" of " l i t t l e sagacity." I t i s no wonder that his health was broken, and a surprise that he had succeeded i n staggering through to a ripe old age. And yet, there i s l i t t l e doubt that Croft relished his position, i n which he could be an intimate at Court of the great men of the country, could dispense favours to his friends and r e l a t i v e s , and could be considered the leading figure i n his home county. The causes of ambition are impossible to define, but i n his desire to achieve success Croft had, i n his own small way, been successful, and had carved out for himself a niche i n the gallery of those remarkable administrators and servants of the Crown who helped to make the age of Elizabeth remembered as one of the greatest i n the history of England. 105 CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION Few readers would dispute the necessity of biographical studies of such sixteenth century giants as Cardinal Wolsey, Protector Somerset, or Lord Burghley. Obviously, i t can be considered important to discover facts about the major individuals i n history, whose backgrounds and personalities may have had direct bearing on actions which affected the course of events. How-ever, no such d i s t i n c t i o n s can be claimed for James Croft, and i t i s not an exaggeration to state that the course of history i n sixteenth century B r i t a i n would have been very l i t t l e changed i f Croft had never existed. However, the same claim could not be made i f figures of a type similar to Croft were not i n existence. I t i s his importance as a type of i n d i v i d u a l , rather than as a particular i n d i v i d u a l , that j u s t i f i e s a study of this kind. Seen against a background of particular problems and trends which appeared i n Tudor England, and which have been raised by modern historians, an examination of the l i f e of S i r James Croft helps put the century into a clearer perspective. Although there are aspects of Croft's career which do not f i t a c l e a r l y definable pattern, in: the broad outlines his l i f e was t y p i c a l of that of many an aspiring Englishman. To begin with, his background and family connections placed him as a member of a certain class, and his career and intense efforts at r a i s i n g his position are worth examining to see whether he q u a l i f i e d as a member of that much-examined and controversial group, the r i s i n g gentry. As a l l aspects of Croft's l i f e i l l u s t r a t e , by far the most important way to raise one's position was to have important contacts at Court, the centre of a l l p o l i -t i c a l and s o c i a l a c t i v i t y i n England. Without patronage, Croft's chances of 106 becoming an important figure i n the nation were n i l , and without being impor-tant i n London, one's chances of becoming a leading figure i n one's county were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lessened. Croft's career also i l l u s t r a t e s the precarious-ness of Court l i f e , and i t s drawbacks as well as i t s rewards. In an age where r e l i g i o n has been considered one of the most important problems, i t i s s i g n i -ficant that r e l i g i o n played a very minor role i n Croft's l i f e , and that, a l -though he was attacked many times, i t was never ostensibly for religious rea-sons. In t h i s , as i n other aspects, Croft was t y p i c a l not of the entire cen-tury p a r t i c u l a r l y , but of a generation which came to power at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign after serving under three monarchs before her. F i n a l l y , the necessity of using a biographical approach to history at a l l should be considered; f o r , i n an age when history i s generally examined i n i t s s o c i a l or economic aspects, rather than as a study of personality, a j u s t i f i c a t i o n of this approach seems called for. Exactly what constituted a member of the gentry has long been a matter of dispute. S i r Thomas Smith's d e f i n i t i o n of a gentleman as a man who spends his money l i k e a gentleman i s vague, but wisely so. Attempts to give l i m i t s to the class of gentry are almost impossible. Professor Tawney i d e n t i f i e d i t s members as landed proprieters above the yeomanry and below the peerage, together with well-to-do farmers, some professional men, and the wealthier merchants. 1 Lawrence Stone has concurred with Tawney's d e f i n i t i o n , and iden-t i f i e d i t more clo s e l y . Of the upper group of gentry, who were distinguished 2 by "wealth, p o l i t i c a l influence, and style of l i v i n g , " Stone had this to say: They are the men who controlled county p o l i t i c s under the patronage of the l o c a l nobleman, who provided the M.P.s and Deputy Lieuten-ants, and who dominated the bench of Justices. In a large southern county they seemed to have comprised about 20 to 25 families, the t o t a l being perhaps about 500 i n the whole country.^ 107 This description could apply almost word-for-word to James Croft, and would seem to place him squarely i n the centre of the gentry. In County p o l i t i c s he obtained a wide variety of positions, ranging from membership on the Com-mission of Musters to a seat on the Council of the Welsh Marches. He himself was a Member of Parliament for over twenty-five years, and had caused numer-ous of his r e l a t i v e s to be elected. In addition, he sat as a Justice of the Peace for the county, thus f u l f i l l i n g a l l of Stone's requirements but that of Deputy Lieutenant, and i t i s even possible that he held this o f f i c e . I t i s un l i k e l y that there would be twenty families i n Herefordshire equal to Croft's, the county being isolated and sparsely populated, and Croft would cert a i n l y q u a l i f y as a member of Stone's fiv e hundred leading English gentry, while not yet achieving a position as member of the aristocracy. However, i t i s a problem whether Croft can be considered a " r i s i n g " mem-ber of the gentry. I f one can include the gentry as members of the middle cl a s s , i t can easily be questioned that Croft was a member of a " r i s i n g " mid-dle class family. I t i s true that he had had to work his way up through the army and minor administrative posts before he eventually was given an impor-tant job, and that his father was a good example of the rusticated country land-owner, but examination of Croft's prior antecedents t e l l a different story than that of the r i s i n g gentry. Members of the Croft family had been Members of Parliament and important figures i n county p o l i t i c s , had been granted lands for meritorious service to the Crown, and had held important positions at Court at various times over the preceding f i v e hundred years. Croft's great-grandfather, S i r Richard, for example, had been Sheriff of the county and a Member of Parliament, and, for a short time, had even been Trea-surer of the King's Household.^ His grandfather, S i r Edward, had held posi-108 tions of almost equal importance, and only his father had broken the long t r a d i t i o n of service. However, Richard Croft had not squandered the property which had accumulated over the years, but was s a t i s f i e d with a quiet, country l i f e . James Croft, therefore, had simply returned to the pursuits which his family had followed, as a r u l e , throughout the preceding centuries. His way of l i f e q u a l i f i e s him as a member of the gentry, and even of the middle class, but i t i s d i f f i c u l t to see his l i f e as an example of the r i s e of such a class. Unless one were w i l l i n g to l i v e a purely r u r a l existence, ambition i n Tudor England could be s a t i s f i e d i n only one way, and that was through the Court. As Anthony Esler has stated, "The court was the l i v i n g heart of the 6 English government," and "the most important p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n of early modern times."'7 The monarch had i n his power an enormous amount of patronage which was dispersed either personally or through members of the inner c i r c l e of the Court. Anyone who wanted to obtain a lease of land, for example, or a wardship, monopoly, or charter, had to compete with other suitors at the Court. Obviously, the closer one could come to the privileged inner c i r c l e , the more l i k e l y one would be to obtain royal favours, and the greater one's influence would become. J. E. Neale defines membership of the inner ring of the Court to "... those o f f i c i a l s and courtiers--not excluding the ladies of the Court--g whose place or friendship gave them the Queen's ear." Considering the t e r r i -f i c competition for Court position, the chances of ever becoming a member of the inner c i r c l e were very slim. The most ambitious, and talented, members of the aristocracy had r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y , and the opportunities given to such men as the Duke of Norfolk i n 1560 would not have been available to the majority of suitors for placement, who were generally ambitious members of the gentry. Esler states that the basic q u a l i f i c a t i o n s for membership were 109 " b i r t h , education, and a considerable amount of wealth," but, of these, by far the most important must have been b i r t h . Relationship, however tenuous, with somebody who already had a Court position made admission there immeasur-ably more easy than i f one was merely w e l l educated and wealthy. The l i f e of James Croft i l l u s t r a t e s the importance of the Court i n s i x -teenth century England, and shows not only the rewards but also the disadvan-tages and precariousness of Court l i f e . Of Esler's three qu a l i f i c a t i o n s for membership at Court, Croft was deficient i n two, being neither well educated nor p a r t i c u l a r l y wealthy. However, the generation Esler i s describing i s the one of 1560, while.the older generation, characterized by Lord Burghley, who was born i n 1520 and was thus a contemporary of Croft, did not necessarily share the same qu a l i f i c a t i o n s for Court membership with members of the younger generation. Education, for example, was much more important i n 1575 than i t would have been i n 1535. Wealth, however, was essential at Court i n any era, and the disadvantages of not having a s u f f i c i e n t income can be seen by Croft's many requests for favours, and by the necessity of his having to accept money from Spain. His success i n becoming a member of the inner c i r c l e i s a tribute i n part to his tenacity, but also i l l u s t r a t e s the importance of connections, p a r t i c u l a r l y family connections, i n obtaining Court position. Exactly how much Croft r e l i e d on his friends and rel a t i v e s for advance-ment i s impossible to prove, but there i s l i t t l e doubt that they were over-whelmingly important. Robert Dudley, Ea r l of Leicester, quite obviously gave assistance to S i r James, and referred to him as "my kinsman" even though he was only a distant cousin. Neale mentions "the ladies of the Court" as being members of the inner c i r c l e , and Lady Scudamore, lady-in-waiting to the Queen, 110 must have been of invaluable assistance. Friendships, too, were important,, and the most remarkable contact that Croft could have made was with Elizabeth herself. Among Croft's friends who were held i n high repute at Court were William C e c i l , Lord Rutland, John Dee, and S i r Thomas Smith, and Croft probab-ly cultivated their acquaintance as much for the assistance they could provide as for their i n t r i n s i c worth. Esler estimates membership i n the inner group as being confined to, at most, one hundred men, who made up "the l i v i n g heart" of Elizabeth's government: It was a f a i r l y homogeneous l i t t l e group, many of them related by t i e s of blood or marriage. Most of them knew each other personally or by reputation; almost a l l of them must have been known to one or another of the Queen's chief ministers.^® As holder of the position of Comptroller of the Household for twenty years, and as an ambitious seeker of placement on the fringes of Court l i f e for approximately twenty years before that, Croft must have known everyone of importance, and used whatever contacts he was able to take advantage of. His career i l l u s t r a t e s the importance of such contacts, and the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of carving a career for oneself at Court without them. In a century when one of the most s i g n i f i c a n t developments i n England, i f not the most s i g n i f i c a n t , was the reformation of the Church, i t might be considered impossible to have negotiated the rel i g i o u s intrigues and upheav-als without taking a d e f i n i t e stand on r e l i g i o n . However, r e l i g i o n appears to have played a minor role i n Croft's career, and there are no indications that he p a r t i c u l a r l y favoured either Catholicism or Anglicanism. At various times he was referred to as a Catholic, by the Spanish, and as anti-Catholic, by informants of C e c i l ' s . In Ireland, he followed the judicious policy of attempting to m o l l i f y the Catholic bishops, and was unsuccessful only because I l l his recommendations were overturned by Northumberland. His participation i n Wyatt's r e b e l l i o n does not, however, appear to have been prompted by fears that Mary would attempt to impose Catholicism on the country, but because he genuinely feared Spanish domination of England. I t i s true that Croft later accepted money from Catholic Spain, but this indicates his heed for money rather than any r e l i g i o u s feelings. In his attitude towards, r e l i g i o n , as i n temporal matters, Croft was a r e a l i s t . He must have known that to become activ e l y involved i n r e l i g i o u s controversy might be profitable for a short time, but that, considering the unsettled conditions of the time, an excess of religious zeal was more l i k e l y to lead to banishment or the block than to position and favour at Court. Croft's r e l i g i o u s attitudes may not have been at y p i c a l , however, and many an aspiring courtier and position-seeker must have followed a s i m i l a r , circuitous path to avoid becoming embroiled i n damaging relig i o u s arguments. The study of a man such as Croft does not, i n i t s e l f , answer any of the important questions of the Tudor period, but, as I have t r i e d to indicate, Croft i s important as a type of i n d i v i d u a l . J. E. Neale has said that "... we cannot f u l l y understand the nature and functioning of any human group without knowing about the individuals who compose i t . " 1 1 Such knowledge, he continues, can only come from a series of biographies. Some of the problems which Neale feels might be solved by the biographical approach include that of clientage--"the p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l relationship of patron and dependant, which pre-vailed i n the sixteenth century"--and that of the connections of l o c a l a f f a i r s 12 with national p o l i t i c s . Although i t would be presumptuous to suggest that this study of Croft solves either of Neale's problems, i t does throw some l i g h t on both of them. Through a series of biographies which showed similar 112 relationships as those of Croft's to i n f l u e n t i a l Court figures, or examined the li n k s between important county personages and their roles i n national government, one might be able to postulate some conclusions about English a f f a i r s of the Tudor period. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to imagine another approach than the biographical that would be able to answer Neale's questions. Neale explains that he has inherited, from A. F. P o l l a r d , a prejudice against bio-graphical w r i t i n g i n the conventional sense, but that biographical writing "... can be as exacting and searching a d i s c i p l i n e as most types of h i s -13 tory." His major prejudice "... i s against young people writing of l i f e 14 before they have gathered s u f f i c i e n t experience to interpret i t . " To this complaint the writer has no defence, except to say that an examination of the l i f e of.James Croft, and of others similar to him, i s overdue, and that the mature historians of our age, of whom S i r John Neale i s one, have not found the time, or the interest, to make studies of these neglected figures of the sixteenth century. 113 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I 1 From G. R. Elton, The Tudor Revolution i n Government (Cambridge, 1966) . 2 As with most names of the period, Croft's i s spelled i n various ways. I have used the sp e l l i n g "Croft" partly because i t was spelled i n this way i n perhaps a majority of instances, and partly because i t i s the spelling which has persisted i n the family to the present day. Other spellings which were used a great deal are Crofts and Croftes, but variations which occur include Crofte, C r o f f t s , Acroft, Cross, and even Grof. 3 For d e t a i l s on Croft's ancestry I have r e l i e d e n t i r e l y on 0. G. S. Croft The House of Croft of Croft Castle (Hereford, 1949), which, as the t i t l e suggests, i s a f a i r l y detailed and complete account of the Croft family from c. 1100 to the early twentieth century. 4 Escheators Inquisitions Hereford 4. E l i z . 1562, No. 2, Public Record Office. Quoted i n Croft, House of Croft, p. 53. 5 Croft, House of Croft, pp. 52-53. 6 I b i d . , p. 48. 7 I b i d . , p. 40. 8 Ibid ., p. 44. 9 B r i t i s h Museum, Additional MS 11,049, Scudamore Papers, IX (December 1, 1561). 10 Croft, House of Croft, p. 77. 11 D. M. Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies (Cambridge, 1965), p. 18. 12 Calendar of Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of  Henry VI I I , ed. James Gairdner and R. H. Brodie, 21 vols. (London, 1862-1932), XVI, 168. Hereafter this i s referred to as L,P. 13 B r i t i s h Sessional Papers, House of Commons (London, 1878), LXII, part 1, 372. 14 L.P., XVII, 500. 15 Loc. c i t . 16 G. R. Elton, England Under the Tudors (London, 1960), p. 197. 114 17 For details on the r i v a l r y between Seymour and Surrey, I have r e l i e d on A. F. Po l l a r d , England Under Protector Somerset (London, 1900), and on the accounts of the two men given i n The Dictionary of National Biography (here-after referred to as D.N.B.) . 18 L.P., XIX, 383. 19 L.P., XXI, 92. (The l e t t e r i s actually dated 1545 by the old calendar. However, to avoid confusion, i n quoting dates I have used the dating of the new calendar, which began the year on January 1 rather than mid-March.) 20 Charles Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the  Tudors, from A .D. 1485 to 1559, ed. William Douglas Hamilton, Camden S o c , 2nd Ser., Nos. 11 and 20 (London, 1877), I I , 22, n. e. 21 L.P., XXI, 117-118. 22 I b i d . , pp. 203-204. 23 I b i d . , pp. 740-741. 24 I b i d . , pp. 89-90. 25 L.P., XXI, 741 (August 21), 748 (August 24), 754 (August 29), and 354 (January 4) . Also Calendar of State Papers, Foreign: Sterles, of the Reign of  Edward VI, 1547-1553, ed. William B. Turnbull (London, 1861)', p ^ '294. Here-after this i s referred to as C.S.P.F., Edward. 26 L.P., XXI, 353. 27 Wriothesley, Chronicle, I , 174. 28 C.S.P.F., Edward, pp. 344-345. 29 I b i d . , pp. 309-310. 30 I b i d . , p. 310. 31 Richard Grafton, The Cronicle of Briteyn (London, 1568), pp. 1286-1287. 32 The Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Rutland, ed. H.C. Maxwell Lyte, 4 v o l s . (London: H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts Commission, 1888-1905), I, 35. Hereafter this i s referred to as Rutland MSS. 33 D.N.B., XII , 935. 34 Rutland MSS, I, 35. 35 Loc. c i t . 36 Loc. c i t . 37 I b i d . , pp. 194 and 197. 115 38 Edward Ayscu, A Historie Contayning the Warres, Treaties, Marriages, and Other Occurrents Betweene England and Scotland, from King William the  Conqueror, U n t i l l the Happy Union of Them Both i n Our Gratious King James (London, 1607), p. 352. 39 Raphael Holinshed, Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 6 vols. (London, 1808), I I I , 907. 40 Rutland MSS, I, 362. 41 Acts of the Privy Council, ed. John Roche Dasent, New Series, 32 vols. (London, 1890-1907), I I , 256. Hereafter this i s referred to as A.P.C. 42 For an account of the wars i n Scotland and France, I have r e l i e d on the account given by Pollard, England Under Protector Somerset, chs. 5 and 6. 43 N. H. Nicolas, "Biographical Memoirs. S i r James Croft, Privy Counsel-lor and Comptroller of the Household of Queen Elizabeth," Retrospective Review, 2nd Ser., I (1827), 475. The only a r t i c l e extant dealing solely with Croft. 116 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I I 1 For accounts of conditions i n Ireland during the early part of the sixteenth century, I have r e l i e d p r i n c i p a l l y on R. Dudley Edwards, "Ireland, Elizabeth I and the Counter Reformation," contained i n Elizabethan Government  and Society, ed. John Neale (London, 1961); Richard Bagwell, Ireland ..Under the  Tudors, 2 vo l s . , 1 (London, 1885); and Thomas Leland, History of Ireland from  the Invasion of Henry I I , -3 vols., I I (London, 1773) . 2 Edwards, "Ireland, Elizabeth I and the Counter Reformation," p. 319. 3 D.N.B., XVII, 653. (Biographical details on St. Leger contained i n this paragraph have been taken primarily from the above-mentioned a r t i c l e i n the D.N.B.) 4 Loc. c i t . 5 A.P.C., I I I , 206. 6 Calendar of the State Papers Relating to Ireland, of the Reigns of  Henry V I I I , Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth, 1509-1573, ed. Hans Claude Hamilton (London, 1860), p. 111. Hereafter this i s referred to-as C.S.P., Ireland. 7 I b i d . , p. 112. 8 A.P.C., I I I , 224. 9 W. K. Jordan, The Chronicle and P o l i t i c a l Papers of King Edward VI (Ithaca, New York, 1966), p. 57. 10 A.P.C., I I I , 256. 11 I b i d . , p. 261 12 John Strype, E c c l e s i a s t i c a l Memorials, Relating Chiefly to Religion, and the Reformation of I t , and the Emergencies of the Church of England, Under King Henry VI I I , King Edward VI, and Queen Mary I , 3 vols (Oxford, 1822), I I , part I, 470-471. 13 I b i d . , pp. 471-473. 14 I b i d . , p. 524. 15 I b i d . , pp. 523-524. 16 C.S.P., Ireland, p. 113. 17 A.P.C., I I I , 271. 117 18 C.S.P., Ireland, p. 113. 19 Ib i d . , p. 114. 20 Loc. c i t . 21 C .S.P.F., Edward, p. 126. 22 Loc. c i t . 23 An H i s t o r i c a l Sketch of the Church i n Ireland (London, 1839), pp. 203-204. 24 I b i d . , p. 205. 25 Leland, History of Ireland, p. 195. 26 John 0'Donovan, ed., Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four  Masters, from the E a r l i e s t Period to the Year 1616, 5 vols ., V (Dublin, 1851), 1523-1525. 27 Leland, History of Ireland, p. 197 28 H i s t o r i c a l Sketch of the Church i n Ireland, pp. 206-207. 29 I b i d . , p. 207. 30 I b i d . , p. 208. 31 I b i d . , p. 211. 32 Leland, History of Ireland, p. 198. 33 Bagwell, Ireland Under the Tudors, I, 367. 34 For an account of the recommendations made by Croft, and those eventu-a l l y made by the King, see Bagwell, Ireland Under the Tudors, I , 367. 35 C.S.P., Ireland, p. 118. 36 Bagwell, Ireland Under the Tudors, I, 368. 37 For a general account of the problems caused i n Ireland by the debased coinage, I have r e l i e d on Bagwell, Ireland Under the Tudors, I , 335-336, 370-372. 38 C.S.P., Ireland, p. 116. 39 Loc. c i t . 40 Loc. c i t . 41 A.P.C., I I I , 363. 118 42 I b i d . , pp. 427-428. 43 C.S.P., Ireland, p. 122. 44 Loc. c i t . 45 I b i d . 46 J. E. Neale, "The Elizabethan P o l i t i c a l Scene," Essays i n Elizabethan  History (London, 1958), pp. 59-6.0. 47 C S .P., Ireland, p. 127. 48 For accounts of the tangled monetary system which existed i n England i n the early sixteenth century, I have r e l i e d p r i n c i p a l l y on A. E. Feavearyear, The Pound St e r l i n g : a.History of English Money (Oxford,.1931), and J . D. Mackie, The E a r l i e r Tudors, 1485-1558 (Oxford, 1962). 49 Mackie, The E a r l i e r Tudors, p. 607. 50 Feavearyear, The Pound S t e r l i n g , p. 70. 51 For an account of the state of Ireland i n 1552 I have r e l i e d p r i n c i -pally on the Introduction to the Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts, ed. J . S. Brewer and William Bullen, 3 vols. (London, 1869), I I I , v i i - x x v i i i . Also use-f u l were Bagwell, Ireland Under the Tudors, I, 373-378, and John 0'Donovan, ed. Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland, pp. 1521-1527. 52 0'Donovan, ed., Annals, pp. 1523 and 1525. 53 I b i d . , p. 1525. 54 I b i d . , p. 1527. 55 C.S.P., Ireland, p. 128. 56 Loc. c i t . 57 Ibid ., p. 130. 58 Loc . c i t . 59 A.P.C., IV, 269. 60 Edmund Campion, Historie of Ireland (Dublin, 1633), p. 124. 61 See C.S.P., Ireland, December 21, 1551, p. 120, i n which Croft thanks C e c i l for his friendship and asks him "to be good to his brother." 62 Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers, Relating to the  Negotiations Between England and Spain, Preserved i n the Archives at Vienna, Simancas, Besancon and Brussels, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), XI (Edward VI and Mary, 1553), 37. Hereafter this i s referred to as C.S.P., Spanish. 119 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I I I 1 Elton, England Under the Tudors, p. 212. 2 Henry Machyn, The Diary of Henry Machyn, Citizen and Merchant-Taylor  of London, from A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1563-, ed. John Gough Nichols, Camden Soc., 1st Ser., No. 42 (London, 1848), p. 35. 3 Patrick Fraser Tytler, England Under the Reigns of Edward VI and Mary, with the Contemporary History of Europe, I l l u s t r a t e d i n a Series of Original  Letters Never Before Printed, 2 vols. (London, 1839), I I , 187. 4 John Gough Nichols, ed., The Chronicle of Queen Jane, and of Two Years  of Queen Mary, and Especially of the Rebellion of S i r Thomas Wyat. Written  by a Resident i n the Tower of London, Camden S o c , 1st Ser., No. 48 (London, 1850), p. 13. 5 C.S.P., Spanish, XI, 95-96. 6 I b i d . , p. 117. 7 The most complete modern account of Wyatt's Rebellion, and i t s back-ground, i s D. M. Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies (Cambridge, 1965), on which. I have r e l i e d extensively. Two contemporary accounts of great value are The  Chronicle of Queen Jane, ed. J. G. Nichols, and The Diary of Henry Machyn. 8 Machyn, Diary, p. 51 9 Strype, E c c l e s i a s t i c a l Memorials, I I I , part I , 92. 10 Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies, pp. 12-13. 11 I b i d . , pp. 15-16. 12 D.N.B., XV, 1130; XXI, 1102; XIX, 811; I I I , 968. 13 I b i d . , XIX, 811. 14 Strype, E c c l e s i a s t i c a l Memorials, I I , part 2, 161-162. 15 I b i d . , I I , part 1, 522. 16 A.P.C, IV, 156, 422. _ . 17 Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies, pp. 17-18. 18 E. Harris Harbison, R i v a l Ambassadors at the Court of Queen Mary (London, 1940), p. 117—quoting Henry I I to Noailles,, 30 Dec, 1553, A f f . E t r . , IX, f o i . I l l . 120 19 C.S.P., Spanish, XII, 119. 20 I b i d . , p. 130. 21 An account of the French position i s given i n Harbison, Rival Ambassa- dors , Chs. IV and V. 22 Renard to the Emperor, Feb. 24, 1554. Cited i n Tytler, England Under  the Reigns of Edward VI and Mary, p. 306. 23 Nichols, ed., The Chronicle of Queen Jane, p. 69. 24 Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies, p. 19. 25 Harbison, R i v a l Ambassadors, p. 122. 26 Noailles to Henry I I , Jan. 12, 1554. Cited i n Harbison, Rival Ambassa- dors , p. 122. 27 William Cobbett, A Complete Collection of State T r i a l s (London, 1816-98), I, 883. Cited i n Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies, p. 21. 28 Nichols, ed., The Chronicle of Queen Jane, p. 35. 29 Loc. c i t . 30 Loc . c i t . 31 Ibid ., p. 36. 32 Loc. c i t . 33 Ibid ., p. 40. 34 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reigns of Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth, ed. Robert Lemon and Mary Anne Everett Green, 7 vols. (London, 1856-1871), I (1547-1580), 59. Hereafter this i s referred to as C.S.P., Domes- t i c . 35 Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies, pp. 45-46. 36 C.S.P., Domestic, I, 57. 37 Nichols, ed., The Chronicle of Queen Jane, pp. 53-54, 38 Machyn, Diary, p. 54. 39 C.S.P., Domestic, I , 60. 40 Holinshed, Chronicles, IV, 14. 41 Nichols, ed., The Chronicle of Queen Jane, p. 42. 121 42 I b i d . , pp. 48-51. 43 I b i d . , p. 54. 44 I b i d . , pp. 62-63. 45 C.S.P., Spanish, X I I , 106. 46 Machyn, Diary, p. 56. 47 Nichols, ed., The Chronicle of Queen Jane, p. 63. 48 I b i d . , p. 60. 49 John Fox, Acts and Monuments, 3 v o l s . (London, 1632), I I I , 945. 50 Strype, E c c l e s i a s t i c a l Memorials, I I I , part 1, 126. 51 C.S.P., Domestic, I, 61. 52 Loc. c i t . 53 Holinshed, Chronicles, IV, 126. 54 C.S.P., Spanish, XII, 125. 55 Wriothesley, Chronicle, I I , 115. 56 Robert Fabyan, The New Chronicles of England and France (London, 1811), p. 714. 57 Nichols, ed., The Chronicle of Queen Jane, p. 75. 58 Loc. c i t . 59 I b i d . , p. 76. The chronicler gives the date as A p r i l 28th., but as both Wriothesley and Machyn.give the 29th., I have used the l a t t e r date. 60 Loc. c i t . 61 Wriothesley, Chronicle, I I , 115. 62 C.S.P., Spanish, XII, 167-168. 63 Machyn, Diary, p. 80. 64 Richard Baker, A Chronicle of the Kings of England, from the Time of the Romans Government, to the Death of King James the F i r s t (London, 1730) . 65 I b i d . , p. 322. 66 A.P.C, V, 90-91. 67 Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved i n the Public Record Office, 15 vols. (London, 1901-1966) 14:2 (1554-1555), 124-125. Hereafter this i s referred to as Cal. Patent R o l l s . 122 68 I b i d . , p. 191. 69 John Stow, Annales, or, a Generall Chronicle of England (London, 1631), p. 628. 70 Elton, England Under the Tudors, pp. 221-222. 71 Holinshed, Chronicles, IV, 87. 72 A.P.C., VI, 99-100. 73 I b i d . , p. 100. 74 I b i d . , p. 120. 75 Loc. c i t . 76 Ibid"., p. 137. 77 I b i d . , p. 138. 78 I b i d . , p. 148. 79 Ibid.,.p. 159. 80 Strype, E c c l e s i a s t i c a l Memorials, I I I , part 2, 533. (Letter from Shrewesbury to the Privy Council, undated.) 81 I b i d . , pp. 521-522. 82 I b i d . , pp. 522-524. 83 I b i d . , p. 89. 84 Loc. c i t . 85 C.S.P., Spanish, X I I I , 373-374. . 86 Loc. c i t . 87 I b i d . , pp. 455-456. 88 A.P.C., VI, 244. 89 I b i d . , p. 310. 90 I b i d . , pp. 334-335. 91 I b i d . , p. 396. 92 I b i d . , p. 415. 123 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER IV 1 John Hayward, Annals of the F i r s t Four Years of the Reign of Queen  Elizabeth, Camden Society, 1st. Ser., No. 7 (London, 1840), p. 19. 2 Loc. c i t . Also see J . E. Neale, "The Accession of Queen Elizabeth I," Essays i n Elizabethan History, (London, 1958), p. 55. 3 Hayward, Annals, p. 29. 4 Loc. c i t . 5 I b i d . 6 For a complete account of the Scottish campaign of 1559-1560, I have r e l i e d p r i n c i p a l l y on C. G. Cruickshank, Elizabeth's Army (Oxford, 1966), X I I I , 207-236. 7 Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth, ed. J. Stephenson, A. J . Crosby, A. J . Butler, S. C. Lomas, A. B. Hinds, and R. B. Wernham, 22 vols. (London, 1863-1936), I (1558-1559), 56. Hereafter this i s referred to as C, .S.P., Foreign. 8 I b i d . , p. 57. 9 Strype , E c c l e s i a s t i c a l Memorials, 10 C.S.P. , Foreign, I, 72-73. 11 A.P.C. , VII, 15. 12 C.S.P. , Foreign, I, 89-90. 13 I b i d . , p. 100. 14 Ib i d . , p. 73. 15 I b i d . , p. 108. 16 I b i d . , p. 146. 17 Ib i d . , p. 108. 18 I b i d . , p. 170. 19 Hayward, Annals, p. 35, and n. 2. 20 C.S.P. , Foreign, I , 189. 124 21 I b i d . , p. 207. 22 I b i d . , p. 200. 23 I b i d . , p. 214. 24 A.P.C., VII, 86 ( A p r i l 15, 1559). V 25 C.S.P., Foreign, I, 236-237 (May 3, 1559); 285 (May 27). 26 I b i d . , p. 238. 27 I b i d . , p. 263. 28 In a l e t t e r from Norfolk to the Queen on June 2, 1560, Norfolk states that "Her Majesty's garrison was f i r s t encouraged to robbery by the insatiable " p i l l i n g and pollinge" of her captain, S i r James Crofts, who has used himself so suspiciously i n this Her Majesty's l a s t service...." Calendar of the Manu- scripts of the Most Hon. the Marquis of Salisbury, K. C , 19 vols. (London: H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts Commission, 1883-1965), I, 229. Hereafter this i s re-ferred to as C e c i l MSS. 29 Arthur C l i f f o r d , ed., The State Papers and Letters of S i r Ralph Sadler, Knight-Banneret, 2 v o l s . (Edinburgh, 1809), I I , 3, 8-9. Hereafter this i s re-ferred to as Sadler Papers. 30 John Strype, Annals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion, and Other Various Occurrences i n the Church of England, During Queen E l i z a - beth 's Happy Reign, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1824), I, part 1, 468. Strype, who does not give the source of his information, states that "some private acts were made for the restoring i n blood divers, who were concerned i n the business of the lady Jane and S i r Thomas Wyat." Although this suggests that Croft had been attainted by Mary, there are no indications given anywhere else of this having occurred, and i t most l i k e l y that his punishment under Mary consisted of a fine and loss of revenue, but not attainder. 31 C.S.P., Foreign, I, 232-233. 32 I b i d . , p. 233. 33 Ibid.,-p. 446. 34 Cal. Patent R o l l s , XV:1, 40. 35 I b i d . , p. 113. 36 In 1556, the Spanish ambassador wrote to the King that Croft " i s said to be strongly attached to your Majesty's service." CS .P., Spanish, I , 540. As Croft was known to be a Spanish pensioner during Mary's reign, and was d e f i n i t e l y one lat e r during Elizabeth's, i t seems safe to assume that he was one i n 1559-1560, while he was at Berwick. 37 C.S.P., Foreign, I , 268. 125 38 I b i d . , p. 316. 39 I b i d . , p. 365. 40 I b i d . , p. 401. 41 Ib i d . , pp. 403-404. 42 I b i d . , p. 320. 43 Ibid ., p. 330. 44.Ibid., p. 372 (July 11); p. 384 (July 17). 45 I b i d . , p. 450. 46 D.N.B., XVII, 598. 47 C S .P. , Foreign, I, 466. 48 Sadler Papers, I , 387-388. 49 I b i d . , pp. 391-392. 50 C.S.P., Foreign, I , 485. 51 Sadler Papers, I , 404. 52 I b i d . , pp. 404-405. 53 lb i d . , p. 441 (Sept. 9). 54 I b i d . , p. 451 (Sept. 19). 55 I b i d . , p. 460. 56 I b i d . , p. 470. 57 I b i d . , p. 527. 58 I b i d . , p. 615 (Nov. 30). 59 I b i d . , p. 461 (Sept. 23). 60 I b i d . , p. 506 (Oct. 20); p. 509 (Oct. 22). 61 I b i d . , p. 522 (Oct. 27). 62 I b i d . , p. 533 (Nov. 3). 63 Ib i d . , p. 536. 126 64 Ib i d . , p. 567. 65 I b i d . , p. 577. 66 Neville Williams, Thomas Howard, Fourth Duke of Norfolk (London, 1964). This i s an adulatory and u n c r i t i c a l biography, which tends to put the blame for Norfolk's mistakes and errors of judgment on his subordinates, wherever poss-i b l e . 67 Sadler Papers, I , 639. 68 D.N.B., XXI, 692. 69 Sadler Papers, I , 668-669. 70 C.S.P., Foreign, I I (1559-1560), 323. 71 See C.S.P., Foreign, I I , 339 and 343. 72 I b i d . , p. 371. 73 I b i d . , p. 375. 74 I b i d . , p. 387. 75 I b i d . , p. 398. • 76 A Collection of State Papers Relating to A f f a i r s i n the Reigns of King  Henry VII I , King Edward VI, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth . . . Left by  William C e c i l Lord Burghley, ed. Samuel Haynes, (London, 1740), p. 257. Here-after this i s referred to as Haynes, Burghley Papers. 77 Ibid ., p. 258. 78 C.S.P., Foreign, I I , 489. 79 For this b r i e f account, I have r e l i e d on Cruickshank, Elizabeth's Army, pp. 211-218. 80 Haynes, Burghley Papers, p. 235. 81 Stow, Annales, p. 642. 82 Hayward,. Annals, p. 53. 83 Stow, Annales, p. 642. 84 Ce c i l MSS, I , 208. 85 Hayward, Annals, p. 62. 86 Haynes, Burghley Papers, p. 346. 87 Loc. c i t . 88 Loc. c i t . 89 Stow, Annales, p. 644. 90 Loc. c i t . 91 Hayward, Annals, p. 67. 92 I b i d . , pp. 70-72. 93 David Laing, ed., The Works of John Knox, 6 vols. (Edinburgh Bannatyne Club, 1846-1864), I I , 66. 94 C.S.P., Foreign, I I I (1560-1561), 242-243. 95 C e c i l MSS, I, 229. 96 C.S.P., Foreign, I I I , 268 (Aug. 29, 1560). 97 Loc . c i t . 98 I b i d . , p. 350 (Oct. 10, 1560). 128 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER V 1 Cal. Patent R o l l s , 15:2 (1560-1563), 438; 15:3 (1563-1566), 23. 2 Ib i d . , 15:2, 434. 3 C.S.P., Domestic, I, 338 (July 8, 1569); 343 (Aug. 18). 4 B r i t i s h Sessional Papers, House of Commons (London, 1878), LXII, part 1, 404. 5 Croft, House of Croft, p. 53. 6 Joel H u r s t f i e l d , The Queen's Wards (London, 1958), p. 339. 7 Cal. Patent R o l l s , 15:1, 294. 8 I b i d . , 15:2, 111. 9 Scudamore Papers, December 1, 1561. 10 Loc. c i t . 11 Calendar of Letters and State Papers Relating to English A f f a i r s , Pre- served P r i n c i p a l l y i n the Archives of Simancas, ed. Martin A. S. Hume, 4 vols. (London, 1892-1899), I (1558-1567), 540. Hereafter this i s referred to as Simancas MSS. 12 I b i d . , 599. 13 C.S.P., Ireland, p. 333. 14 Simancas MSS, I I (1568-1579), 227. 15 The D.N.B. (XVII, 118) queries Roger's death as being i n 1567 and states that Croft succeeded him i n 1565, which i s patently wrong but probably i n -spired by the same misinformation given i n the A.P.C. 16 S. T. Bindoff, "The Making of the Statute of A r t i f i c e r s ,'r Elizabethan  Government and Society, ed. Bindoff, H u r s t f i e l d , and Williams (London, 1961), p. 70. 17 I b i d . , pp. 76-77. 18 Williams, Thomas Howard, Fourth Duke of Norfolk, pp. 255-257. 19 Wallace T. MacCaffrey, The Shaping of the Elizabethan Regime (Princeton, 1968), p. 445. 129; 20 Nicolas, "Biographical Memoirs of S i r James Croft," p. 481. , 21 G. R. Elton, "The Elizabethan Exchequeur: War i n the Receipt," E l i z a - bethan Government and Society, p. 213. 22 A l l e g r a Woodworth, "Purveyance for the Royal Household i n the Reign of Queen Elizabeth," Transactions of the American. Philosophical Society, New Ser., XXXV (1945), 8-9. 23 I b i d . , p. 9. 24 Wallace T. MacCaffrey, "Place and Patronage i n Elizabethan P o l i t i c s , " Elizabethan Government and Society, p. 105. 25 Woodworth, "Purveyance for the Royal Household," p. 9. 26 I b i d . , pp. 12-15. 27 John Nichols, The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, 3 v o l s . (London, 1823), I,. 544-545. 28 I b i d . , I I , 42-44. 29 I b i d . , I I , 42. 30 Loc. c i t . 31 B r i t i s h Museum, Lansdowne MS, 34, No. 35, "Remembrances to my Lord Treasurer concerning howsehould cawsts," Croft to Burghley, Dec. 7, 1583. 32 Strype, E c c l e s i a s t i c a l Memorials, I I , part 2, 162. 33 The Manuscripts of Lord de l ' I s l e and Dudley, ed. C. L. Kingsford, W. A. Shaw, and G. D. Owen, 6 vols. (London: H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts Commission, 1925-1966), I, 333. 34 Penry Williams, The Council i n the Marches of Wales Under Elizabeth (Cardiff, 1958), p. 3. 35 I b i d . , p. 53. 36 Ibid ., p . 55 . 37 The Manuscripts of the Corporation of Rye, ed. W. J . Hardy and W. Page (London: H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts Commission, 1892), p. 247. 38 Williams, The Council i n the Marches of Wales, p. 236. 39 B r i t i s h Sessional Papers, LXII, part 1, 404, 409, 414, 418, 423, 428. • 40 The Manuscripts of the Corporation of Hereford, ed. W. D. Macray (London: H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts Commission, 1892), p. 318. 130 41 I b i d . , p. 327. 4 2 M§S of Lord de l ' I s l e and Dudley, pp. 323, 333, 350. 43 A Manuscript Volume i n the Possession of John Dovaston, Esq., of West  Felton, Co. Salop., ed. R. L. Kenyon (London: H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts Commission, 1892), p. 247. 44 The Parliamentary History of England, From the E a r l i e s t Period to the  Year 1803 (London, 1806), I (1066-1625), 746. 45 Ibid ., p. 780. 46 The Manuscripts of Lord Kenyon, ed. W. J . Hardy (London: H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts Commission, 1894), p. 621. 47 I b i d . , p. 623. 48 Parliamentary History of England, I , 843. 49 Harris Nicholas, ed., Memoirs of the L i f e and Times of S i r Christopher Hatton, K.G. (London, 1847), p. 462. 50 Simancas MSS, I I I (1580-1586), 413. 51 I b i d . , p. 461. 52 C S .P., Domestic , I, 595. 53 I b i d . , p. 613. 54 Nichols, Progresses of Queen Elizabeth, I I , 73. 55 I b i d . , p. 256. 56 I b i d . , pp. 86, 268-269. 57 B r i t i s h Museum, Lansdowne MS 37, Burghley Papers, No. 47, 1583. 58 C.S.P., Domestic, I I (1581-1590), 90 (Jan. 10, 1583). . See also p. 91 (Jan. 15). 59 I b i d . , p. 419. 60 I b i d . , p. 91 61 Croft, House of Croft, p. 81. 62 Simancas MSS, I I , 227. 63 I b i d . , I I , 241. 64 I b i d . , I I , 587. 131 65 I b i d . , I I , 674. 66 Loc. c i t . 67 I b i d . , I I I , 391 68 I b i d . , I I I , 424. 69 C.S.P., Foreign, X, 514. 70 D.N.B., VI, 283-284. 71 I b i d . , XVIII, 532-535. 72 C.S.P., Foreign, XVII, 443. 73 Mary Dewar, S i r Thomas Smith (London, 1964), p. 133. 74 I b i d . , p. 181. 75 Richard Deacon, John Dee (London, 1968), p. 13. 76 Henry E l l i s , ed., Original Letters of Eminent L i t e r a r y Men of the  Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries, Camden S o c , 1st Ser., No. 23 (London, 1843), p. 39. 77 Deacon, John Dee, p. 82. 78 Dee, John, The Private Diary of Dr. John Dee, ed. James Orchard H a l l i w e l l , Camden S o c , 1st Ser., No. 19 (London, 1842), p. 11. 79 D.N.B., XVII, 1092. 132 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER VI 1 Introductory information has been obtained from the following four sources: G. R. Elton, England Under the Tudors, pp. 295-302, 357-364; Garrett Mattingley, The Armada (Boston, 1959), pp. 187-193; Conyers Read, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth (London, 1965), pp. 391-409; Conyers Read, Mr Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1925), I I I , 216-301. 2 D.N.B., XX, 691-695. 3 C.S.P., Foreign, XXI:2, 45. 4 Simancas MSS, IV, 138. 5 Read, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth, p. 397. 6 C.S.P., Foreign, XXI:2, 143. 77 I b i d . , p. 59. 8 I b i d . , p. 143. 9 Loc. c i t . 10 C.S.P., Foreign, XXI:4, 43, 224. 11 D.N.B., V, 387-388. 12 D.N.B., XVII, 129. 13 C S .P., Foreign, XXI:4, 43. 14 I b i d . , pp. 130, 186, 418. 15 Simancas MSS, IV, 236. 16 I b i d . , p. 237. 17 C.S.P., Foreign, XXI:4, 96-98 (Croft to the Queen). 18 I b i d . , p. 129 (Croft to Burghley). 19 I b i d . , pp. 129-130 (Croft to Burghley). 20 I b i d . , p. 131 (Robert C e c i l to Burghley). 21 Ibid ., p. 145. 133 22 Ib i d . , p. 299. 23 Loc. c i t . 24 Ib i d . , p. 314 (Dale to Burghley). 25 I b i d . , p. 316 (Cobham to Walsingham). 26 I b i d . , p. 334. 27 B r i t i s h Museum, Additional MSS 38,823, , r S i r B. Hoby: Commonplace Book." 28 C.S.P., Foreign, XXI:4, 347 (Dale to Burghley). 29 I b i d . , P- 348. 30 Loc. c i t . 31 Loc. c i t . 32 Ibi d . , P- 351. 33 I b i d . , P- 352 (Cobham to Burghley). 34 Ib i d . , P- 355. 35 Loc. c i t . 36 Ib i d . , P- 363. 37 Ib i d . , P- 413 (the Queen to the Commissioners) 38 Ib i d . , P- 423 (Croft to the Queen). 39 I b i d . , P- 464. 40 Ib i d . , P- 465. 41 I b i d . , P- 499 . 42 Ib i d . , P- 515 (Cobham to Walsingham). 43 C.S.P. , Foreign, XXII, 46. 44 A.P.C. , XVI, 249-250. 45 A.P.C. , XVII, 11. 46 C.S.P., Foreign, XXI:4, x x v i i i (Preface, A l l e n B. Hinds, ed.). 47 Cited i n John L. Motley, History of the United Netherlands from the  Death of William the Si l e n t to the Twelve Years' Truce, 1609, 6 vols. (New York, 1900), I I I , 222. 48 Strype, Annals of the Reformation, I I I , part 2, 615-617. 49 I b i d . , p. 616. 50 Stow, Annales, p. 750. 51 Strype, Annals of the Reformation, I I I , part 2, 616. 52 I b i d . , p. 125. 53 B r i t i s h Sessional Papers, LXII, 423. 54 C.S.P., Domestic, I I (1581-1590), 592. 55 Nichols, Progresses of Queen Elizabeth, I I I , 9, 19. 56 A.P.C., XIX, 275. 57 C.S.P., Domestic, I I , 688 (Sept. 10, 1590). 135 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER VII 1 R. H. Tawney, "The Rise of the Gentry, 1558-1640," The Economic His- tory Reveiw, XI (1941), 4. 2 Lawrence Stone, The C r i s i s of the Aristocracy, 1558-1641 (Oxford, 1965), p. 52. 3 Loc. c i t . 4 Croft, House of Croft, pp. 40-47. 5 I b i d . , pp. 47-51. 6 Anthony Esler, The Aspiring Mind of the Elizabethan Younger Generation (Durham, North Carolina, 1966), p. xx. 7 I b i d . , p. x i x . 8 J . E. Neale, "The Elizabethan P o l i t i c a l Scene," Essays i n Elizabethan  History (London, 1958), pp. 61-62. 9 Esler, The Aspiring Mind, p. x i x . 10 I b i d . , p. xx. 11 J . E. Neale, "The Biographical Approach to History," Essays i n E l i z a - bethan History, p. 228. 12 I b i d . , p. 233. 13 I b i d . , p. 225. 14 Loc. c i t . 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY A l l items i n the Bibliography are available i n the Library of the Univer-s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, except those marked with an asterisk. 1. PRIMARY SOURCES * A. ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS IN THE COLLECTION OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM: Additional MSS, 4,160: Collection of State Letters and Papers. Additional MSS, 11,049: Scudamore Papers: Vol, IX. Additional MSS, 14,027: Caesar Papers. Additional MSS, 38,823: S i r B. Hoby: Commonplace Book. Cottonian MSS, Caligula B, IX: Transacta Inter Angliam et Scotiam, 1556-1570, Vol I I . Cottonian MSS, Galba D, I I : Transactions Between England and the Low Countries, 1587. Cottonian MSS, Vespasian C, VII: Acta Inter Angliam et Hispaniam, 1516-1588. Cottonian MSS, Vespasian C, VIII: Acta Inter Angliam et Hispaniam, 1588-1603. Harleian MSS, 643: Acts of Council, 1553-1558. Lansdowne MSS, 34: Burghley Papers, 1581-1582. Lansdowne MSS, 37: Burghley Papers, 1582-1583. B. PRINTED WORKS: Acts of the Privy Council of England, ed. John Roche Dasent. 20 vols. (1542-1591). London, 1890-1900. Arber, Edward, ed. An English Garner:.Ingatherings from Our History and  Literature. London, 1909. Ayscu, Edward. A Historie Contayning the Warres, Treaties, Marriages, and  Other Occurrents Betweene England and Scotland, from King William the  Conqueror, U n t i l l the Happy Union of Them Both i n Our Gratious King James. London, 1607. 137 B r i t i s h Sessional Papers, House of Commons. Vol. LXII. London, 1878. Calendar of Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VI I I , ed. James Gairdner and R. H. Brodie. 21 vols. London, 1862-1932. Calendar of Letters and State Papers Relating to English A f f a i r s , Preserved P r i n c i p a l l y i n the Archives of Simancas, ed. Martin A. S. Hume. 4 vols. London, 1892-1899. Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers, Relating to the Negotia-.tions Between England and Spain, Preserved i n the Archives at Vienna, Simancas, Besancon and Brussels, ed. Royall Tyler. London, 1916. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reigns of Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth, ed. Robert Lemon and Mary Anne Everett Green. 7 vols. Lon-don, 1856-1871. Calendar of State' Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Edward VI, 1547- 1553, ed. William B. Turnbull. London, 1861. Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth, ed. J . Stephenson, A. J . Crosby, A. J . Butler, S. C. Lomas, A. B. Hinds, and R. B. Wernham. 22 vols. London, 1863-1936. Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts, ed. J . S. Brewer and William Bullen. 3 v o l s . London, 1869. Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved i n the Public Record Office, 15 vols . (1258-1572). London, 1901-1966. Calendar of the State Papers Relating to Ireland, of the Reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth, 1509-1573, ed. Hans Claude Hamilton. London, 1860. Calendar of the State Papers, Relating to Scotland, ed. Markham John Thorpe. 2 vols. London, 1858. Camden, William. Tomus A l t e r , e_t Idem: Or the Historie of the L i f e and Reigne  of that Famous Princesse, Elizabeth. London, 1629. Campion, Edmund. Historie of Ireland. Dublin, 1633. Churchyard, Thomas. A Generall Rehearsal of Warres. London, 1579. C l i f f o r d , Arthur, ed. The State Papers and Letters of S i r Ralph Sadler, Knight-Banneret. 2 v o l s . London, 1809. A Collection of State Papers Relating to A f f a i r s i n the Reigns of King, Henry  VII I , King Edward VI, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth . . . Left by  William C e c i l , Lord Burghley, ed. Samuel Haynes. London, 1740. Dee, John. The Private Diary of Dr. John Dee, ed. James Orchard H a l l i w e l l . Camden S o c , 1st Ser., No. 19. London, 1842. 138 E l l i s , Henry, ed. Original Letters of Eminent L i t e r a r y Men of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries. Camden S o c , 1st Ser., No. 23. London, 1843. Fox, John. Acts and Monuments. 3 vols. London, 1632. Grafton, Richard. The Cronicle of Briteyn. London, 1568. Great B r i t a i n , H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts Commission. Ce c i l MSS, Report IX, parts 4-7, 1883-1892. Duke of Beaufort, Report X I I , part 9, 1891. Duke of Leeds, Report XI, part 7, 1888. Duke of Rutland, Report X I I , parts 4-5; Report XIV, part 1; Report XVI, part 10; 1888-1905. Earl of Ancaster, Report XVI, part 15, 1907. Family of Gawdy, Report X, part 2, 1885. Haliday, Report XV, part 3, 1897. Lord de l ' I s l e and Dudley, Report LXXVII, part 1, 1925. Lord Kenyon, Report XIV, part 4, 1894. Lord Montagu, Report XV, part 49, 1900. Marquess Townshend, Report XI, part 4, 1887. Pepys MSS, Report XVII, part 5, 1911. Rye, Hereford, Etc., Report X I I I , part 4, 1892. Various Collections, Report XV, part 53, 1903. Hayward, S i r John. Annals of the F i r s t Four Years of the Reign of Queen E l i z a - beth, ed. John Bruce. Camden S o c , 1st Ser., No. 7. London, 1840. Holinshed, Raphael. Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland. 6 vols. London, 1808. Jordan, W. K., ed. The Chronicle and P o l i t i c a l Papers of King Edward VI, Ithaca, New York, 1966. Laing, David, ed. The Works of John Knox. 6 v o l s . Bannatyne Club, No. 112. Edinburgh, 1846-1864. Lesley, John. The History of Scotland, from the Death of King James I i n the  Year MCCCCXXXVI, to the Year MDLXI. Bannatyne Club, No. 38. Edinburgh, 1830. Lewis, Thomas Taylor, ed. Letters of the Lady B r i l l i a n a Harley. Camden S o c , 1st Ser., No. 58. London, 1854. Machyn, Henry. The Diary of Henry Machyn, Ci t i z e n and Merchant-Taylor of London, from A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1563, ed. John Gough Nichols. Camden S o c , 1st Ser., No. 42. London, 1848. Murdin, William, ed. A Collection of State Papers Relating to A f f a i r s i n the  Reign of Queen Elizabeth, from the Year 1571 to 1596. London, 1759. Nichols, John Gough, ed. The Chronicle of Queen Jane, and of Two Years of Queen Mary, and Especially of the Rebellion of S i r Thomas Wyat. Written  by a Resident i n the Tower of London. Camden Soc., 1st Ser., No. 48. London, 1850. 139 * 0'Donovan, John, ed. Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland, by the Four Masters, from the E a r l i e s t Period to the Year 1616. 5 vols. Dublin, 1851. The Parliamentary History of England, from the E a r l i e s t Period to the Year  1803. Vol. I (1066-1625). London, 1806. Read, Conyers, ed. The Bardon Papers: Documents Relating to the Imprisonment  and T r i a l of Mary Queen of Scots. Camden Soc., 3rd Ser ., No. 17. Lon-don, 1909. Stow, John. Annales, or, a Generall Chronicle of England. London, 1631. * Teulet, Andre. Papiers d'Etat R e l a t i f s \ l ' H i s t o i r e de l'Ecosse au XVIe Sie c l e . 3 v o l s . P a r i s , 1851. Thomson, Thomas, ed. A Diurnal of Remarkable Occurrents that Have Passed Within the Country of Scotland Since the Death of King James the Fourth  T i l l the Year MDLXXV. Bannatyne Club, No. 43.- Edinburgh, 1833. Tytler, Patrick Fraser, ed. England Under the Reigns of Edward VI and Mary, with the Contemporary History of Europe, I l l u s t r a t e d i n a Series of  Original Letters Never Before Printed. 2 vols . London, 1839. Wriothesley, Charles. A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the Tudors  from A.D. 1485 to 1559, ed. William Douglas Hamilton. Camden S o c , 2nd Ser., Nos. 11 and 20. London, 1877. 2. SECONDARY SOURCES Aylmer, Gerald Edward. The King's Servants: The C i v i l Service of Charles I , 1625-1642. London, 1961. Bagwell, Richard. Ireland Under the Tudors. 2 vols. London, 1885. Baker, S i r Richard. A Chronicle of the Kings of England, from the Times of the Romans Government, to the Death of King James the F i r s t . London, l730~r Bindoff, S. T. Tudor England. London, 1961. Bindoff, S. T., Joel H u r s t f i e l d , and C. H. Williams, eds. Elizabethan Govern- ment and Society. London, 1961. * Croft, 0. G. S. The House of Croft of Croft Castle. Hereford, 1949. Cruickshank, C. G. Elizabeth's Army. Oxford, 1966. Deacon, Richard. John Dee. London, 1968. Dewar, Mary. S i r Thomas Smith: A Tudor I n t e l l e c t u a l i n Office. London, 1964. 140 Dictionary of National Biography, ed. S i r Le s l i e Stephen and S i r Sidney Lee. 22 vols. Oxford, 1964-1965. Edwards, Francis. The Marvellous Chance: Thomas Howard, Fourth Duke of Nor- fo l k , and the Ridolphi P l o t , 1570-1572. London, 1968. Edwards, Robert Dudley. Church and State i n Tudor Ireland. Dublin, (undated). Elton, G. R. England Under the Tudors. London, 1960. . The Tudor Constitution, Documents and Commentary. Cambridge, 1965. . The Tudor Revolution i n Government. Cambridge, 1966. Esler, Anthony. The Aspiring Mind of the Elizabethan Younger Generation. Durham, North Carolina, 1966. Fabyan, Robert. The New Chronicles of England and.France. 2 v o l s . London, 1811. Feavearyear, A. E. The Pound St e r l i n g : A History of English Money. Oxford, 1931. Froude, James Anthony. History of England from the F a l l of Wolsey to the  Death of Elizabeth. 12 v o l s . London, 1862-1870. . The Spanish Story of the Armada and Other Essays. London, 1904. * Harbison, E. Harris. Rival Ambassadors at the Court of Queen Mary. .Princeton, 1940. Hexter, J . H. Reappraisals i n History. New York, 1963. * An H i s t o r i c a l Sketch of the Church i n Ireland. London, 1839. Hume, Martin. The Courtships of Queen Elizabeth: A History of the Various  Negotiations for Her Marriage. London, 1906. . Treason and Plot: Struggles for Catholic Supremacy i n the Last Years of Queen Elizabeth. London, 1908. Hu r s t f i e l d , J o e l . The Queen's Wards: Wardship and Marriage Under Elizabeth J.. London, 1958. Lehmberg, Stanford E. S i r Walter Mildmay and Tudor Government. Austin, Texas, 19 64. Leland, Thomas. The History of Ireland from the Invasion of Henry I I . 3 vo l s . London, 1773. Lloyd, David. State Worthies: Or, the Statesmen and Favourites of England from the Reformation to the Revolution. London, 1766. 141 Loades, D. M. Two Tudor Conspiracies. Cambridge, 1965. MacCaffrey, Wallace. The Shaping of the Elizabethan Regime. Princeton, 1968. McCulloch, Samuel Clyde. "John Dee: Elizabethan Doctor of Science and Magic," The.South Atlantic Quarterly, L (1951), 72-85. Mackie, J . D. The Earlier Tudors, 1485-1558. Oxford, 1962. Mattingly, Garrett. The Armada. Boston, 1959. . Renaissance Diplomacy. London, 1955. Motley, John L. History of the United Netherlands, from the Death of William  the Silent to the Twelve Years' Truce, 1609. 6 vols. New York, 1867. Neale, J . E. Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1584-1601. New York, 1958. , ed. Essays in Elizabethan History. London, 1958. Nichols, John, ed. The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols. London, 1823. Nicolas, Sir Harris. "Biographical Memoirs. Sir James Croft, Privy Coun-sellor and Comptroller of the Household of Queen Elizabeth," Retrospec- tive Review, 2nd Ser., I (1827), 469-498. . Memoirs of the Life and Times of Sir Christopher Hatton, K.G. Lon-don, 1847. -The Oxford English Dictionary, ed. James A. H. Murray, Henry Bradley, W. A. Craigie, and C. T. Onions. 12 vols. Oxford, 1961. Parker, William Riley. The M.L.A. Style Sheet. New York, 1967. Pollard, Albert Frederick. England Under Protector Somerset. London, 1900. Pollard, Alfred William and G. R. Redgrave. A Short-Title Catalogue of Books  Printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland and of English Books Printed  Abroad, 1475-1640. London, 1926. Read, Conyers. Bibliography of British History: Tudor Period, 1485-1603. Oxford, 1959. . Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth. London, 1965. . M r . Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth. London, 1965. . Mr. Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth. 3 vols. Oxford, 1925. Rowse, A. L. The English Spirit . London, 1966. 142 . The Expansion of Elizabethan England. New York, 1955. Sears, Louis Martin. "Purveyance i n England Under Elizabeth," Journal of P o l i t i c a l Economy, XXIV (1916), 755-774. Smith, Lacy Baldwin. "Henry VIII and the Protestant Triumph," American His- t o r i c a l Review, LXXI (July, 1966), 1237-1264. . "The Last W i l l and Testament of Henry VIII: A Question of Perspective," Journal of B r i t i s h Studies, I I (1962), 14-27. Stone, Lawrence. The C r i s i s of the Aristocracy, 1558-164^. Oxford, 1965. , ed. Social Change and Revolution i n England, 1540-1640. London, 1966. Strype, John. .Annals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion, and  Other Various Occurrences i n the Church of England, During Queen E l i z a - beth' s Happy Reign. 4 vols. Oxford, 1824. . E c c l e s i a s t i c a l Memorials, Relating Chiefly to Religion, and the Reformation of I t , and the Emergencies of the Church of England, Under  King Henry VI I I , King Edward VI, and Queen Mary I. 3 vols. Oxford, 1822. Tawney, R. H. "The Rise of the Gentry, 1558-1640," The Economic History  Review, XI (1941), 1-38. Tytler, Patrick Fraser. The History of Scotland, from the Accession of Alex- ander I I I to the Union. 10 vols. Edinburgh, 1866. Wernham, R. B. Before the Armada: The Growth of English Foreign Po l i c y , 1485- 1588. London, 1966. White, Dean Gunter. "The Reign of Edward VI i n Ireland: Some P o l i t i c a l , S o c i a l , and Economic Aspects," I r i s h H i s t o r i c a l Studies, XIV (1964-1965), 197-211. Williams, N e v i l l e . Thomas Howard, Fourth Duke of Norfolk. London, 1964. Williams, Penry. The Council i n the Marches of Wales Under Elizabeth I . Cardiff, 1958. Woodsworth, A l l e g r a . "Purveyance for the Royal Household i n the Reign of Queen Elizabeth," Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. New Ser., XXXV (1945), 1-89. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104406/manifest

Comment

Related Items