Web of plots in Europe

The second stage of the century conflict put in the forefront the methods of secret war which were not playing so significant role in the first half of the 16th century. At the first stage fight within the conflict, as a matter of fact, was conducted between the emperor and the German Protestant princes who were supported by opponents Gabsburgov in Catholic camp. At the second stage fight extended to all Western Europe, but, gaining nature of all-out warfare, took the form of a number of the conflicts intertwining among themselves — in the Netherlands, in France, in England and Scotland. Feature of the century conflict were transformations of civil wars into the international collisions, their tightening for long terms, sometimes for many decades. Almost in each country of the Western and Central Europe there was more or less considerable pursued religious minority connected by bonds of a uniform veroispo-iyedaniye with ruling circles another hostile given the states. And here on a proscenium methods of secret war especially as at political structure of the states of that time palace plot under the pretext of protection of the dynastic rights of this or that applicant for a throne was very effective tool of change of the power moved forward. The camp of Counter-Reformation was an aggressor eventually steadily. However in each case, at separate stages of an antagonism there were also other situations. And it gave to secret war not only special scope, but also some ambiguity which was not allowing to reveal sometimes original intentions and a role of participants of fight. Therefore already presently some conservative historians manage to represent camp of Counter-Reformation by the defending party. Let’s stop on one of vozmolshy examples — on one of plots in not stopping secret war of Counter-Reformation against England. In the middle of the 16th century and later, the considerable part of the population of England remained Catholic. It is not excluded that even certain English diplomats-intelligence agents, like the sworn enemy of Jesuits of the sir Edward Uotton (1548 — 1626), were katolikami1. Catholic plots concentrated around Maria Stewart — the Scottish queen who had the dynastic rights for the English throne. Drama history of life of Maria Stewart drew attention of great poets, writers and artists. It is enough to remember F. Schiller and Stefan Zweig. But will be not superfluous to add that it is difficult to find a figure which would serve as such bright embodiment of the century conflict in the 16th century. In this regard in one row with the ardent and romantic queen of Scotland among contemporaries it is possible to put, perhaps, only her long-term secret correspondent, the gloomy owner Eskurial — Philip II. The role of Scotland in many respects was defined by the changing position which was held by her southern neigbour in system of the international relations. During government of Maria Tudor who left as we remember, in marriage for Philipp (then still the successor of a throne), England was at war together with Spain against France. And the French government, in turn, sought to use dynastic communications with Scotland to the maximum to achieve active participation of this country in fight against England. In such situation it was also got married between Maria Stewart and the French dauphin Francis (is later, in 1559 — 1560, occupying a royal throne). The dynasty Styuartov was connected by family bonds with Gizami, dukes Lotharingian still earlier (representatives of this dynasty held key posts in the government of France and later headed the organization of the French militant Catholics). Therefore long time of the relation of Madrid and Edinburgh decided not so much by the accruing contradictions of Spain on England, how many the relations with France which younger partner was Scotland. The way of Madrid to Scotland then was also defined not so much by the century conflict which how many was difficult intertwining with it rivalry between Spain and France. However as were put fight between Gabsburgami and England in the forefront and intervention of Spain in the civil wars in France entirely fitting into the course of the century conflict, Philip II’s relation to the Scottish events everything more depended on development of this conflict. Maria Stewart and the English queen Elizabeth so never also met face to face. Elizabeth constantly evaded from such meeting. In their rivalry personal motives were closely weaved with political. Elizabeth who because of the congenital or acquired anomaly could not hope to have posterity did not aspire to a marriage, preferring to bring favourites. She could not but remember unenviable, and sometimes and tragic destiny of wives of the father Henry VIII, and first of all the mother Anna Boleyn sent by the spouse to a scaffold. At the same time the hope to receive a hand of the English queen was a convenient bait which was used decades by the English government in diplomatic game. Also the situation and with childless Elizabeth’s unwillingness to tell the name of the successor was: the queen said that it will loom at her before eyes as a shroud. But here besides to usual indecision of Elizabeth and fear of death cool political calculation was added. An opportunity to take expensive price for a consent to recognize the rights of this or that applicant was too strong trump, much more important, than danger that lack of regulation of a question of a succession to the throne can serve as the reason of armed struggle for the British throne. At the same time it was noticed that the queen who sat up in brides with purely female jealousy condemned a possibility of the introduction in new marriage of Maria Stewart who almost for nine years was younger than it. Maria did not refuse the right to occupy a throne after Elizabeth. This right which is not recognized by London had to be inherited by Maria Stewart’s children. Therefore Elizabeth wanted that the husband of the Scottish queen if she nevertheless decides to marry again, was suitable for the English government. The spouse of the ruling queen became the king of her country — as Philip II became the king of England during Maria Tudor’s government, and Francis II — the king of Scotland, having married Maria Stewart. However, neither that, nor another managed to use political benefits which promised their dynastic marriages, but unexpectedly early death of one of spouses was the reason for that (in the first case — to Maria Tudor in 1558, and in the second — Francis II in 1560) . Maria Stewart’s hands began to solicit many monarchs and crown princes now, among them — kings of France, Denmark and Sweden. Among applicants representatives both, Austrian and Spanish, branches of the Habsburg house — archdukes Ferdinand and Karl (sons of the emperor Charles V) and Don Carlos, the son and Philip II’s successor seemed especially dangerous to England. Inclusion of Scotland by means of dynastic marriage in a sphere of influence of Habsburg powers and by that camp of Counter-Reformation hardly immediately would change a ratio of forces, but, certainly, created conditions for such changes in the near future. Using resources of camp of Counter-Reformation, the Catholic king could not only suppress Protestantism in Scotland, but also make an attempt of overthrow of Elizabeth and transfer of the English throne of Maria Stewart. The greatest fears in this regard caused claims on Maria’s hand from outside Don Carlos’s infanta. Though Philip II’s son had nothing in common with the heroic image created by Schiller’s imagination in his Drama “Don Carlos” behind the Spanish crown prince there were a power of the huge state of Philip II, support of Catholic camp. By the end of 1563 Don Carlos never differing in physical and mental health finally lost mind, and in April, 1564 negotiations on its marriage with Maria were interrupted. Still almost in a year before, in June, 1563, Elizabeth notified one of the most influential Scottish lords — Meytlanda that in case of Maria’s marriage with Don by Carlos she will be considered as the enemy of England and if, on the contrary, she follows advice from London at the choice of the husband, then it will be recognized as the successor of the British throne. The candidacy proposed by Elizabeth was difficult be not to considered as an intended insult. It was the long-term favourite of Elizabeth Robert Dudley, the count Leyster. Besides Leyster was accused of murder of his wife (who unexpectedly died in September, 1560) for the purpose of a marriage on Elizabeth. (There will pass only several years, and Maria Stewart will be accused of partnership in a similar crime with the purpose to marry the murderer of the husband.) Leyster’s candidacy, probably, was also put forward counting on the fact that it will be for certain rejected й thereby the pretext to refuse to Maria her claims on the English throne will be created. However probably for this reason advisers to the Scottish queen gave a definite answer to Elizabeth’s proposal not at once — negotiations were conducted prior to the beginning of 1565. In June, 1565 Maria unexpectedly married the cousin Henry Stewart, lord Darnley, the son of count Lennox. According to one court, sir James Melville, Darnley “more reminded the woman, than the man. He was pretty, beardless and the person resembled the lady”. From the dynastic point of view Maria’s choice was not so bad. As well as Maria, her husband had the rights for the English throne. Thereby also the rights of any their successor became stronger. And still this choice was a serious political mistake. The spouse of the queen was the haughty pettiness which at once entered conflicts with influential lords, including also Merey. Elizabeth was angered by Maria’s marriage. Rivalry united Merey with Darnley and Hamilton — old enemies Lennoksov. However the revolt lifted by them without special work was suppressed. Merey ran to England, Elizabeth publicly condemned Merey, and secretly gave him support. Both to, and after suppression (in September, 1565) the mutiny headed by Merey, the politician Maria represented maneuvering between Protestants and Catholics. In December, 1565 the queen declared that she will not be guided by Protestants and to risk loss of friends on the continent, without having got instead of any guarantees supports from Elizabeth. Having won a victory over part of Protestant lords, Maria Stewart found it possible to rely more frankly on the help of Catholics and in the country, and beyond its limits. As the chief agent of Catholic Counter-Reformation in Scotland considered — without the special basis — Italian David Richchio, the musician by profession who became the queen’s secretary. Influence which this native of Savoy got on Maria aroused indignation of the lords seeing derogation of the power in the Italian upstart’s eminence. They explained Richchio’s career with the fact that he as if was a lover of the queen and the father of the child whom it expected. This fiction was supported even by Darnley. He revenged Maria for frank neglect with which she began to treat it as soon as understood what it cost. Darnley entered into a secret collision to rebellious lords: they agreed to support its claims on the power, and it undertook not to allow confiscations of manors of Merey and his allies. At night on March 9, 1566 conspirators rushed into the royal palace and in the face of Maria killed Richchio begging the sovereign about protection. It is very probable that calculations of lords included elimination and the queen. They assumed that the young woman, kotopy had to give rise soon, just will not sustain chilling horror of this gloomy night, swords directed to it in the hands of murderers covered with blood. However Maria escaped. It managed to win round skillful pretense Darnley and to be exempted by such way from submission to conspirators who had to run soon to England. On June 19 Maria gave birth to the son — future king Yakov that, appear, even more promoted reconciliation of spouses. But it was only visible. Maria did not forgive to Darnley of his treachery, and now when she with its help got rid of pressure of rebels, there was no more need to hide the true feelings. In August and especially in September, 1566 all knew about a gap between spouses. The English salting count Bedford who arrived to christening of prince Yakov wrote: “It is impossible out of decency and ad honores the queen to tell that she spoke about it”. Darnley scented danger and hurried to go to Glasgow where influence of his father was strong. It is possible that hatred and disgust for Darnley were caused in Maria by suddenly flashed feeling to zo-year-old James Hepburn, the count Bosvel, the self-confident and impudent leader of fighting groups of the borders made of inhabitants. Stefan Zweig in “Maria Stewart” pays much attention this flown as a hurricane of invincible passion which turned the proud and imperious queen into the obedient tool of the predatory ambitious man. Under a hypnotic look of the lover the queen resignedly plays the comedy of new reconciliation with Darnley, entices it from safe Glasgow and on February 9, 1567 carries out the plan of artful murder. The house Kirk о’Филд about a city wall in which placed Darnley flew up on air – Maria Stewart in several hours went to the Holyrood lock before to be present at a wedding of the prydvorny. And soon the queen marries Bosvel to whom for this purpose hastily arranged divorce with the first wife. Such is the version to which Maria Stewart’s enemies adhered and which was retold by hundreds of times even many sympathizers to it historians (of course, in various style, with different estimates and psychological motivations of behavior of the main characters). However only in this history Darnley’s murder is undoubted. All the rest is guided by not so faultless proofs, is based upon rather any assumptions, upon conjectures, sometimes even not considering some indisputable facts. About “criminal passion” queens to Bosvelu learned from her own letters. But authenticity of these documents cannot be considered incontestably established in any way. In the absence of originals of “letters from a chest” four centuries of discussion which are not stopping already are hardly capable to lead to a certain answer. The data on intimacy of the queen Maria and Bosvel relating at the right time before Darnley’s murder do not exist at all. Scandalous details became known from compositions of the enemy queen George Buchanan, being lord Merey’s tool subsequently. His stories though are rich with the colourful details urged to give them reliability, but nevertheless are fiction and do not maintain any check. Conspirators, blowing up Kirk о’Филд, consciously sought to show that Darnley was killed, but did not die a natural death. So only those who were sure that they will manage to shift fault for the committed crime to shoulders of others could act. At the same time Maria’s behavior in December, 1566, that is shortly before explosion in Kirk to an o’filda (including her attempts to get support of Protestant church by generous monetary grants), demonstrates that she was aware of plot of lords against her husband and prepared for political crisis which could follow its murder. At the same time on December 23 the Catholic archbishop Saint-Endryussky John Hamilton was restored in the powers which were taken away from him for not allowed service of a mass. Now it possessed the jurisdiction allowing it to cancel Maria’s marriages with Darnley and Bosvel with his wife. Next day, on December 24, were forgiven the murderer Richchio who became ardent enemies of the former accomplice Darnley. On January 9 1567 Mr. John Hamilton were deprived of some powers again. Whether meant it that did not need its services any more and Darnley it was decided to get off with other way? Darnley tried to present to the life himself the advocate of interests of camp of Counter-Reformation in recent months, addressed for support Philip II and the Pope. But his last behavior was so ambiguous that in Madrid and Rome it could not be obviously considered as the jealous Catholic who should be preferred to Maria Stewart. The behavior of Maria who enticed Darn-ley into Edinburgh can be explained with political reasons — fear of its flight abroad. The role of the careful wife which the queen played in Kirk to an o’filda could speak what she sought “to legalize” thus the child who was expected it. (Maria in the past mistakenly considered more than once herself as the pregnant woman, and itself could be a source of the rumors going in this respect.) In a word, there is a set of the indirect data convicting the queen of participation in plots against her husband that, however, is not equivalent to her direct participation or just to a consent to explosion in Kirk to an o’filda at all. After Darnley’s murder, having got beaten in fight against the Scottish lords-Protestants, Maria Stewart ran to England. Elizabeth ordered to keep it under arrest and organized court formally to dismiss charge of murder of the husband from the Scottish queen. During the first process of Maria Stewart one of members of the commission judging her — Thomas Howard, the duke Norfolk actually came over to the her side. Hostility with the chief minister Cecil and Elizabeth’s favourite duke Leyster, with the anti-Spanish course conducted by them in foreign policy, and, above all — such tempting purpose as the Scottish crown, Maria Stewart’s hands induced the duke of Norfolk to look for disagreement. The angered Elizaveta ordered to accuse Norfolk of high treason on the basis of the fact that supposedly the Scottish queen did not refuse the rights for the English throne (as Maria claimed — only from the right to inherit to Elizaveta, but this reservation was not taken into account the English government). In 1569 in the northern counties of England revolt — national discontent as it happened at the time of the Reformation more than once broke out, developed into the movement under Catholicism banner. As it was already mentioned, in February, 1570 the father Pius V published the bull, the separating Elizabeth I from Catholic church (to which it, however, also did not belong) and, the main thing, exempting citizens from the oath to “queen-heretic”. This bull was published counting on the revolt, already, however which is cruelly suppressed by the time of its publication. The papal bull contained many legal ambiguities and inaccuracies, and they were at once used by dexterous English interpreters to give arguments for non-compliance by her British Catholics (the majority of which needed for this purpose only a plausible excuse). Anyway, no noticeable signs of disobedience to Elizabeth’s government — after suppression of revolt in northern counties — followed. Nevertheless intensive Catholic promotion — especially by means of the emissaries sent from abroad — bore some fruits. And the imagination of the English Catholic emigration immensely exaggerated the reached, most likely very limited, progress. Later the head of this emigration the doctor (subsequently the cardinal) William Allen heard from the persons which arrived from England as if “the number of those who daily come back to a bosom of Catholic church surpasses everyone veroyaty that one of the missionaries sent by Rome catholicized not less than 80 people a day”. Risen in 1569 it was not succeeded to release Maria Stewart, and the duke Norfolk which the Catholic feudal lords who were at the head of revolt were going to make the commander-in-chief of insurgent army, was afraid, betrayed the accomplices and, having been by order of Elizabeth to London, was put in the Tower. As against Norfolk there was no direct evidence, it was released from prison, but left under house arrest. It did not interfere with involvement of the duke in “plot of Ridolfi”. The Florentine banker Roberto Ridolfi, by name which plot is called acted as the agent of the Pope, the king Philip II and his bloody deputy in the Netherlands of the duke Alba. The Italian supported close ties with the Spanish ambassador by Don Gerau Despes, with the Catholic bishop Lesley — Maria Stewart’s ambassador at the English yard, the slastolyubivy zhuir and the coward ready for any treachery. At secret appointment to Ridolfi the duke Norfolk promised to lift revolt in case of receiving a monetary subsidy and to stick before arrival from the Netherlands to the Spanish army numbering 6 thousand people. Plans of conspirators provided Elizaveta’s murder. However Alba considered Ridolfi’s plans difficult to achieve and besides doubted that it will be possible to keep in secret plot in which the Italian managed to devote too many. Alba preferred to get rid of Elizaveta by means of the hitman what reported to Philip II about. Ridolfi considered necessary to notify on a situation of the bishop Lesley, the duke of Norfolk and one more conspirator — lord Lemli. He chose as the courier the young Fleming Charles Bailly who was repeatedly in England.
Bailly spoke fluent English also in several other languages and therefore he managed to change easily an appearance, deceiving vigilance of the authorities. But this time — business took place in April of the same 1571 — happiness changed the Fleming. In Dover at customs inspection found the composition of the bishop Lesley published in Flanders in English in it “Protection of honor of Maria, queen Scottish” in which her rights for a throne unambiguously located. There was quite enough one such rebellious work for Bailly’s arrest. Besides, still some suspicious papers and letters which are obviously written by the code were withdrawn from it. Addressees were not specified them, there were only numbers 30 and 40. The arrested assured that these letters to London simply asked to bring him and that no names of persons to which they are addressed, the code by which they are written are known to it. Soon, however, it became clear that Bailly lay. At more careful search under a lining of its camisole the code was found. There was no doubt left that threads of new plot against the queen fell into hands of the authorities. The governor of the southern ports sir William Kobgem which was interrogated by Bailly solved, without wasting time, to go with the taken papers to the chief royal minister William Cecil, lord Berli. At interrogation there was a brother of the governor Thomas Kobgem who secretly adopted Catholicism. The Fleming managed to exchange with him meaningful glances. After that Thomas unexpectedly declared that if papers get to lord Berli, the duke Norfolk — the wreckage. The governor, however, did not begin to listen to the brother and ordered to send the boat. Thomas undertook to accompany it and on the road began to convince persistently again not to hurry with transfer of papers to the chief minister. William Kobgem began to hesitate, having thought that it is about plot, organized Ridolfi with whom it also was somehow connected, and was afraid that this circumstance will come up outside. Kobgem understood that not to transfer papers in its interests to William Cecil. But it was even more dangerous to hide them. Lord Berli all the same soon would learn about Bailly’s arrest and his interrogation by William Kobgemom. The boat already approached Berli’s house, it was necessary to decide on something, and … Kobgem ordered to turn back. He resorted to cunning. Papers were sent to John Lesley with a polite request to the bishop as to the foreign ambassador to be to the governor next day and together with him to unpack and read the received correspondence. In other words, Kobgem gave to the Scot precious time for substitution of papers. The respectable prelate did not need to be asked twice. He rushed to the Spanish ambassador to Don to Gerau Despes at once. Feverish work began. Instead of original letters were made false, written by the same code. For credibility they contained polemic attacks to the queen, but everything that could suggest an idea of existence of antigovernmental plot was lowered. Other original letters which conspirators, but who contained no proofs exchanged were even in addition enclosed in a package. The present letters received from Ridolfi were sent to Norfolk and lord Lemli. Now Kobgem could send the forged correspondence for the intended purpose — to lord Berli, and Lesley, playing the role, even officially demanded return of the letters directed to it to which diplomatic immunity extended. Cecil if was deceived, then only half. His spies in Flanders already managed to inform him on some preparations for new plot. Besides, it was struck with impudent tone in which Lesley’s book was written: in it obviously looked through calculations of the ambassador Maria Stewart on what the captivated queen will occupy not only the Scottish, but also English throne. However Berli gave nothing the suspicions. He preferred that it was considered fooled. Its bargaining chip was the fact that was under arrest obviously, much knowing Bailly. Persistence with which Lesley tried to achieve release of the Fleming, referring to belonging of the last to a staff of the Scottish Embassy, only strengthened Berli in belief that Bailly holds a key to secret in the hand. And when to Bailly imprisoned in the London prison of Marshalsi people of the Spanish ambassador, and then some Irish priest at the request of the bishop Rossky tried to get, this confidence even more became stronger. The prison authorities intercepted the people directed to the Fleming who pined in uncertainty and concerning the future, and to what line to stick on the interrogations which are coming it. Berli perfectly understood confusion in which there was Bailly. … At night in a gloomy, crude chamber where on a bundle of straw lay, shivering from cold, Bailly, the person unexpectedly appeared. The prisoner with pleasure recognized in him the old acquaintance William Gerli, the brave Catholic whom his pious brothers in faith esteemed for the Saint great martyr. He assured that Northumberland is the cousin of the lady, the wife of the leader is not given – it revolt. For participation in this revolt of Gerli it was flung in prison. Prisoners and visitors of prison of Marshalsi saw how the unfortunate sufferer was chained in heavy chains and for weeks kept in underground dungeons on bread and water. Catholics, including the bishop Rossky and Don of Gerau, considered Gerli as the innocent victim of Protestants. Many tried even to secure with councils or blessing of the prisoner in pious confidence that on him the God’s grace descends. It is difficult to prove the last, of course. Another is for certain known: Gerli was on a constant salary at lord Berli who characterized it as “the gentleman having high advantages, wisdom and education, a wide experience … It is well-known to Her Majesty which treats it favourably”. Both William Gerli’s origin, and the reasons of his death in 1588 remain unknown. Its related communications with family of the lord of Northumberland, perhaps, belong to the legend invented by it for advantage of service. It is established that Gerli was a sort from Wales. His letters demonstrate that he got a thorough education. He claimed that he well knows several foreign languages, and it, probably, was not an invention. Some of its messages are written in Latin. It is known that he spoke Italian. Subsequently this prison spy considerably promoted on service of lord Berli. Even diplomatic mission was charged to it. Gerli’s history — history of one of many noblemen — playboys, not too legible in means, so far as concerned money or about an opportunity to be quit with tiresome creditors. In 1565 he was accused that he was engaged in piracy near the Isle of Wight. The ship seized by Gerli and his company was in addition Dutch, but not Spanish, and the conflict with the Netherlands did not include in the plans of the government. In Gerli’s justification made the detailed diary of own acts from July 3 to July 27, 1565 (this document remained with William Cecil’s mark). Anyway, Gerli acquired the right to go to London personally to present the justifications. Probably, they were accepted, and itself “innocently accused”, perhaps, was accepted to former craft. By 1569 Gerli’s letter concerns to Cecil with attempts to justify oneself already for new reprehensible actions. Next year Gerli appeared in the conflict with the law and the authorities again. In November, 1570 it was among four persons sent according to the decision of Privy Council to prison of Marshalsi. Contacts with other prisoners were forbidden them. Gerli expressed repentance, low offered the services to Cecil, begging about release and the help because “freedom without favor — all the same that life without the movement”. The favor was rendered., but within the walls of Marshalsi. Life of the prison spy and provoker was provided to Gerli “full of the movement”. Certainly, Bailly had no the slightest concept about ticklish details of the biography of “the prison Saint”, and that, having managed to gain considerable skill in the busy craft, in the beginning inquired nothing at Bailly. On the contrary, Gerli entrusted it “important secrets”, and then the Fleming himself paid back with trust for trust. Demand for services of prompt “great martyr” quickly increased. Gerli was carried to number of prisoners to whom allowed appointments to visitors. The messenger of the bishop Lesley who asked Gerli was one of them to help with establishment of communication with Bailly. Gerli readily agreed. Correspondence between the Fleming and Maria Stewart’s ambassador began to pass through Gerli’s hands, and actually — through Cecil’s office where copies were made of all letters. But letters were encoded, and it was not possible to open a code in any way. Here still Gerli made an annoying mistake. He had to write nearly daily long reports to lord Berli in which, certainly, it was necessary to use official government terminology at the mention of all foes of the queen. It was necessary to find in talk with Bailly Guerli absolutely other words for the name of the same persons and events. And here at “Saint”, as ill-luck would have it, the word “rebels” concerning participants of recent Catholic revolt once slipped out. It was enough that the Fleming guessed an original role of Guerli. It was necessary to act openly. Bailly was brought to the terrible minister who demanded from him to decipher correspondence with Lesley. The prisoner referred to the fact that he allegedly lost a key to the code. After this interrogation of Bailly it was transferred to the Tower. There in a solitary confinement it was reliably isolated from the accomplices. The minister ordered to subject the Fleming to torture to force to open a code secret. Bailly, apparently, was inclined to give manuals even to himself. On walls of its chamber the inscription which is cut out on a stone remained: “Wise people should act with discretion, to consider that they intend to tell, examine that they are going to take in hand, not to meet with people without analysis and above all it is precipitate not to trust them. Charles Bailly”. However he probably forgot the weighty fact that people too often arrive contrary to own wise lectures. In Bailly’s Tower examined under torture, however, not really severe on concepts of that cruel time. It is clear, as the Spanish ambassador Don Gerau and the more so the bishop Lesley with breathless attention waited for news of whether it was succeeded to break persistence of the Fleming. Don Gerau reported in the dispatches that Bailly is frightened, but did not put him big injuries. It was easy for Philip II’s representative to keep coolness — not that to his colleague, the bishop Lesley who was very poorly protected by a post of the ambassador of the queen dethroned in Scotland and who is held in custody in England. He understood that any minute he can share Bailly’s fate if torture loosens tongue his accomplice. However the only thing that Lesley could make, it to send Bailly bedding and good food with reminders as Christian fighters for belief should behave in pagan dungeons. Meanwhile Berli still did not consider a rack in the best way to learn from the Fleming of secret of conspirators. Let Guerli made a booboo. But, considering the come to light Bailly’s pliability on arrangements of “Christian great martyrs”, it was necessary to send to him “Saint” with faultless reputation. And here by itself the candidacy of the doctor of divinity Stori arose. It was the ardent Catholic fanatic calling for Elizabeth’s murder. Stori emigrated to the Netherlands where the duke Alba charged him a role of the customs censor. Its duty was to look through the books which were by the ships arriving to Antwerp and to confiscate Protestant compositions which tried to take in the illicit way in Philip II’s possession. It is clear, that neither doctor Stori, nor its charitable as he considered, activity did not cause delight in London. Therefore when once Stori was on the English ship for usual examination, the team unexpectedly lifted sails, and the doctor soon came to be in one of the London prisons. The court sentenced him to death, but Elizabeth who these years was quite often playing the comedy of mercy and who was going on about unwillingness to send people to a scaffold for political crimes (it after execution of hundreds of participants of revolt in the north!) did not approve the death sentence. Stori remained in the Tower, expecting the solution of the fate, and his name was at full disposal of lord Berli. Why to “doctor Stori” not to continue the game which is so successfully begun by William Gerli? The Fleming never in eyes saw the respectable theologian though, certainly, could not but know his history. To put it briefly, one of intelligence agents Berli — a certain Parker, apparently, was invited to Stori’s role (who, by the way, and organized Stori’s kidnapping from Antwerp). We speak “apparently” as in literature it was suggested and that Stori’s role was played by disguised William Gerli. Light got into Tower chambers poorly, Bailly could not recognize the recent friend. Nevertheless, as the risk was too big, it is difficult to believe that Berli went to it without special need. Anyway, the next action of the drama began in accuracy as previous. At night in a dungeon where Bailly with fear expected the next interrogation, the long figure of the doctor of divinity appeared. New “saint”, as well as Guerli, did not ask on anything too Bailly but only he hotly sympathized with sufferings of the Fleming. And not only sympathized, and sought to find a way out of a trap to which Bailly got. And “with the God’s help” found this way out. Bailly, not to undergo the torture which was coming him for the next day more severe, than former, just it was necessary to pass to service to lord Berli. Of course, only just for show, in practice remaining the stalwart of the queen Maria. As to it, Stori, faithful people reported, the impious minister already somewhere got a key to the code. Bailly therefore is the best of all to open voluntarily this key and by that to gain trust of the authorities. Thus he will manage not only to avoid cruel tortures, but also to render big service of sacred Catholic church. Bailly accepted seemed to him shining the plan and on interrogation without any denial opened a key to the encoded correspondence. Only after that from behavior of the interrogating his faces he with horror understood that he completely gave the principals. Finally it became clear when its offer to come on service to the English intelligence was rejected. As for lord Berli, Bailly did not interest him any more. Leisure was provided to the Fleming — to fill walls of the chamber with moralizing sayings in the English, French and Latin languages. In several years it was sent home. Bailly gave everything that knew, but he knew not all. And first of all he did not know whom were mysterious “30” also “40”. Only the bishop Lesley could answer this question. Berli decided to act according to already repaid scheme again. New game there began the same William Gerli of whose original role Lesley had no idea. Messengers of the bishop who is extremely concerned by lack of data from Bailly repeatedly visited Guerli. The prison spy, shaking by shackles, complained of torments which undergoes in glory of true belief, and gradually reduced conversation to value of two numbers 30 and 40. But servants of the bishop could not satisfy his curiosity as also were not educated in this respect. Guerli sent then the tearful letter to Lesley who, however, despite the sympathy to “the innocent sufferer”, did not see the reasons to acquaint it with the content of the confidential correspondence. Berli it was necessary to use the force. It became important to reveal a secret especially that by then the minister already clearly understood subfalsehood of the letters transferred to him from Flanders. It was necessary to seize original letters. The Privy Council gave the warrant of arrest and Lesley’s interrogation. To the bishop was, the corresponding Latin formula about inviolability of diplomats is perfectly known. (“The ambassador is not senut, do not cut” — so approximately then it is free the tsar Ivan the Terrible translated this formula.) But Lesley understood how illusive was such protection for the representative of the queen who is held in custody. Therefore Maria Stewart’s ambassador tried to get out by means of new lie. He assured what “30” is meant Don by Gerau, and “40” — Maria Stewart that it burned both of these letters and they contained only Philip II’s answer to a request to give help in fight against party of opponents of the queen in Scotland. Lord Berli did not doubt that the bishop lies and tries to cover up tracks of plot which trudges in England. But the English government had no proofs. Berli still did not know original value of numbers 30 and 40 though his agents reported to him about the Spanish plans of invasion into England and calculations of Spaniards for assistance of the duke of Norfolk. It is unknown, what is the time it should remain Berli in ignorance if not a happy occurence. Maria Stewart received from France a monetary subsidy in 600 pounds sterling for fight against the enemies in Scotland. At its request this money was transferred by the French ambassador to the duke to Norfolk which promised to render assistance in their delivery to destination. Really Norfolk ordered to the personal entrusted secretary Robert Hikford to send this money to Shropshire to the managing director of northern estates of the duke Lowe-rensu Benister that that transported them to Scotland. Still it was impossible to see high treason in the transfer of money. The main thing, however, that the ciphered correspondence was enclosed letter to Benister. Hikford asked the merchant going to Shropshire, a certain Thomas Brown from Shryusberi, to bring Benistera a small bag with silver coins. That willingly agreed to satisfy such for those times quite usual request. However on the road Brown had suspicions: too heavy was a bag transferred to it. The merchant broke the press on a bag and found in it gold for a large sum and the encoded letters. Braun could not but know that the duke was let out only recently from Tau-eraa where held on suspicion of high treason. It was easy to guess that was meant by secret transfer of gold together with the encoded messages. The merchant turned a horse back and went to the chief minister. Having received this unexpected production, Berli could act. Hikford was immediately arrested, but swore that does not know a code secret. But other confidant of the duke in a fright gave existence of a hiding place in a bedroom of Norfolk. The representatives of Privy Council sent there found the letter in which plans of Ridolfi were stated. After that Hikford, having understood senselessness of a further zapiratelstvo, opened a key to the code of the letter which was sent in a bag with gold. It was now simple to solve who disappeared under numbers 30 and 40 in the correspondence brought by Bailly from Flanders. At the same night the duke Norfolk was arrested and sent to the Tower where at first tried to deny everything, but then, having felt that complete submission, maybe, will possible to save life, began to give evidences. At the same time, however, he tried to send the order on will to burn its encoded correspondence. It was to the good only for Berli. The letter was intercepted. Servants of Norfolk under torture gave the place where this correspondence with the Scottish queen was stored. And to be convinced that nothing is concealed, they were placed in Marshalsi where they got on care of William Gerli continuing career of “the prison Saint”. The easy rider managed to turn reputation of the martyr into the real pot of gold. Now it was possible to bring charge and Jonah Lesley. Berli wisely considered that this glutton and the admirer of the fair sex (evil tongues attributed it three illegal children) will not begin to go obstinate if to it it is transparent will hint that it will be not the first Catholic bishop sent to a scaffold in addition to accompany this threat of tempting promises. Lesley’s resistance was short. “It is silly to hide the truth, having seen that business is opened” — he added, having tendency to instructive maxims. As later Falstaff in the Shakespearean drama, the bishop considered that the best line of bravery — prudence. Lesley decided also that silly to do serious work half. He reported everything that knew about participation of Maria Stewart and the duke of Norfolk in the suppressed Catholic revolt, about plans of new revolt — now in East Anglia, about intentions to capture Elizabeth. Moreover, Lesley declared that Maria Stewart took direct part in Darnley’s murder. But also it is not all yet. On Lesley’s assurance, he for certain knew (though it was not known by nobody else) that the Scottish queen poisoned the first husband Francis II and tried to get rid in the same way of Bosvel. Then Lesley as the ecclesiastic, wrote it the long letter where along with fatherlike admonitions council contained to hope for favor of the queen of England. And that this document was not the only thing, Lesley made also the flattering sermon in honor of Elizabeth. “This pop fleecer — the terrible priest!” 4 — Maria Stewart furiously exclaimed, having received the episcopal message. However only one could disturb John Lesley now — as if the English government did not give in to temptation and in exchange for the leaders of Catholic revolt who took refuge in Scotland did not give it to supporters of party of the king Yakov from whom the bishop had not to wait for mercy. But also here business was arranged without threat for the precious person of the respectable prelate. Exempted from cares of the guilty flesh, Lesley could already watch with philosophical tranquility from a window execution of the duke of Norfolk who was beheaded on June 2, 1572 in the Tower. Lesley did not even conceal the opinion that the duke’s fate would hardly be the best if he managed to marry Maria Stewart. “Plot of Ridolfi” ended with execution of Norfolk. Don Gerau Despes tried to organize attempt at Berli, but soon had to leave England. And the bishop Lesley after release from the Tower went to France. There it was waited by new feats for the sake of the benefit of many persons — the queen Elizabeth and Philip II, the French king Henry III and the Pope … In a word, on advantage of everyone who as the respectable bishop hoped, could provide him with worthy pension and achieve return of the lands confiscated at it in Scotland. And as the purposes of all these persons were, as a rule, opposite, repeatedly convicted Lesley of occupation by double espionage, of theft and a fake of the state papers and of many other, so “laudable” acts.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.