Source: Recusant History 10 (1969) 96


by S. E. Sprott

Sir Edmund Baynham was notorious in his time as the messenger of the Gunpowder Plotters to the Pope. Since his name turns up in modem writings, but his biography has never been printed, a brief account of him may be found informative.

Edmund Baynham was the only son of William Baynham of Boxley in Kent. At various times William had received crown grants of parcels of land in sundry counties, a park, and premises that had been forfeited by Sir Thomas Wyatt; he was Member of Parliament for Much Wenlock in 1584, 1586, 1589, 1593 and 1597, and in 1594-1595 he was living in Fleet Street in London, where he died intestate on 5 November 1597.

He had taken some interest in a nephew, John Baynham of Bromyard in Hereford, a graduate of Oxford and barrister of the Middle Temple, and he was survived by his wife Martha, son Edmund, and a daughter, Alice.

Martha Baynham made a will on 31 December 1599, which was pro on the following 12 February. She was probably a pious Catholic, for not only did she bequeath her soul "to almightie god or blessed Ladye and to all the holie companye in heauen", a formula that might, indeed, have been conservatively Anglican, but along with three religious pictures she left "a great Crosse wth Christ nailed on yt".

Apparently, William Baynham had been her second husband, for she referred to "my son Anthonye Wheatleye", and her first husband had probably been William Wheteley of Holcome in Norfolk. She also made bequests to "my two marryed daughters" Bennett Hassillwoode and Prudence Fortescue (doubtless the wife of Nicholas Fortescuee) and to "my daughter Alice Bainham". These seem to have been "my thre daughters Bennett Prudence and Alice".

In addition, she bequeathed "to my daughter Alice Fiske the gowne that was her mothers". Presumably, this Alice was not the one referred to already, who received virginals and two hundred pounds, unless an Alice Fiske had been adopted by William and Martha Baynham and on occasion took their name. To "my sonne Edmund Bainham" she left only "my great weddinge Ringe".

Edmund had been born on or about 18 November 1577. A person of his name and age matriculated at Oxford on 1 February 1594 and graduated Bachelor of Arts on 20 February 1596. This Edmund was perhaps not then a very conscientious Catholic.

Though recorded as of the county of Cambridge, he may be assumed to have been the Edmund who as son and heir apparent of William Baynham entered the Middle Temple on 4 May 1596, being bound with his father and John Baynham, and appointed with others to provide the Reader's Feast on 11 February 1597.

He was probably Member of Parliament for Bishops Castle for the session 24 October 1597 to 9 February 1598. When he came of age, after his father's death, he was a young man with no full brothers and in control of his own estate.

After arranging a small income for his cousin John and making some minor sales for cash, for which he was in London in January and February 1599, he probably went to Ireland with the Earl of Essex's expedition at the end of March; at all events he was knighted "On the Sands" on 24 September, when the Earl was about to return.

In October the queen considered revoking thirty-eight of her earl's eighty-odd creations, and Baynham was marked down, but she did not act.

Back in the city, which he seems to have confused with the camp, the new knight displayed his mettle by attacking the watch. Between six and seven o'clock on Tuesday evening 18 March 1600, he went with a group to sup at the Mermaid Tavern in Bread Street. His companions were young men of his own age, some with their servants (he had two), numbering about a dozen in all.

William Grantham of Llangollen in Lincolnshire, aged about twenty-two, had been his contemporary at Lincoln College in Oxford, where he had matriculated on 5 July 1594, but perhaps had not taken a degree; he was then living near St. Paul's. Thomas Dutton of Isleworth in Middlesex, sometimes known as "capten Dutton", was about twenty-three, and so probably was Thomas Badger of Prestbury in Gloucestershire. John Grymes was reputed to be a gentleman of Gray's Inn, and Gregory Fenner lived in the Strand.

They sent out for musicians, whom the Mermaid's keeper, William Williamson, refused to admit because he would "usually debarr & deny Musitions & soch lyke Company to enter or resorte vnto his said house at any tyme by day or nyght". The turmoil was such that the constable was summoned.

About midnight the revellers yielded up the Mermaid, allegedly handed over their cloaks to servants, drew rapiers and daggers, and advanced "in their doubletts and hoses ... and with a great Noyse, outcry and clamor". On the corner of Friday Street they clashed with the watch and "putt them in the great Danger of their lives", and Baynham shook an old man's beard until he made his eyes water. Passing through Watling Street, they entered St. Paul's churchyard. There James Briggs, constable of the parish of St. Gregory, sent forward four watchmen, "armed with halberde or Bille as the manner of watchmen is" to call on the rioters to halt and explain.

In retort, Thomas Badger, "pressing forward before the rest, and swearing a great oath, asked, what they ... did there with their halbards, adding further; that if they would not stand back he would runne some of them through wth his rapior". A fight followed. 'Watchman Hugh Williams was downed under his own halberd, Baynham gave him "a great wound in the head, whereby blood did yssue out ... abondantly", and Dutton ran a rapier through his jerkin but missed flesh.

While Constable Briggs brought up reinforcements, Baynham "in violent manner" relieved Williams of his halberd and used it to "strike a great blowe on the head of the said James Briggs and therewith felled him to grounde geving him one sore wound on the head, and afterwards two other wounds in his Body". Blood was spilled by both sides, until at Ludlow Gate the rebels were subdued. All then went to a local barber in Paul's Chain for first aid.

When Briggs came in, "Pox", Baynham was heard to swear; "art thou alyve yett I thoughte thou haddst bene (k]illed or ells I would haue runne my rapior vpp to the hilte in the". Led to Wood Street Compter, the captives swore vengeance on the city. Baynham was not nice; he is reported to have "affirmed with great oathes at that time, that if he hadd but fifty horses, he could overrunne the said citty, and that he cared not a fart for the Lord Maior or any Magistrate in London and that he hoped shortly to see a thowsand of the cittizens throats cuff with divers other most vile and opprobrious words".

At the gate of the Compter, he observed, with what we may hope was a ready wit, that he had intended to go out of town within three days (Easter Friday being near) but now he would stay three weeks-or perhaps he said three months, for witnesses disagreed; he had influence to be revenged, he seems to have claimed, "what wth makinge of friends and what wth geueinge of Brybes", and he would see Constable Briggs in gaol in ten days.

The Lord Mayor, Sir Nicholas Mosley, held the culprits for trial, and on complaint of Briggs that he was being threatened with violence after their release, authorized their being bound over. The Queen commanded that they be called to answer their "great misdemeanour" in the Star Chamber. There they later pleaded "inebriety" and "fury and anguish", and professed themselves to be "greatly astonyed and amazed" at the whole affair.

Grymes and Fenner had eluded arrest. Baynham, Dutton, Badger, and Grantham were fined two hundred pounds apiece. Williamson of the Mermaid was also in peril for aiding and abetting, but escaped a threatened fine of forty pounds "because he was known an honest man and of good government and would not suffer music and illegal games in his house, and sent for the Constable"' In Shakespeare's day the Mermaid was a respectable tavern to stagger out of.
After less than a year Baynham was back in prison, this time for complicity in the rebellion of a greater man. Early in January 1601 the Lord Treasurer informed the Earl of Essex that his own exertions to soften Queen Elizabeth had been hindered by the Earl's "permitting base captains and rascals (as Capt. Baynam by name) to have free access unto him, who, being desperately bent upon all occasions, her Majesty might justly fear no good meaning"" Baynham was, then, identified as an Essexian, and this fact may have got the St. Paul's fracas into the Star Chamber.

Essex denied that he recognised rascals among his followers, but in the disturbances on Sunday morning, 8 February 1601, he was accompanied by "swaggerers and Baynham, who had been with him, was arrested and imprisoned in the Fleet with the earl's secretary, Henry Cuffe, while his Mermaid companion William Grantham went to the Compter in the Poultry.

On Tuesday, 17 February, an indictment was found against twenty-four accused, including Baynham; on Thursday Essex was judged guilty of treason; on Friday Baynham with nine others stood trial and pleaded not guilty. Six were granted a stay of trial; Baynham, Captain George Orrell, and John Lyttleton were proceeded against and condemned to be executed at Tyburn as traitors''

Baynham had been implicated by Essex himself, who before he was arrested had burnt a black taffeta bag, the contents of which he (and later the prosecution) judged would embarrass him; he had thrown the evidence into the fire "in the presence of my lady his wyfe, the lady Riche, and the lords and knights and gentlemen that were with him, and as he thinketh Sir E[d]ward Baynham sawe hym burn them"-"

The next week at eight o'clock on Ash Wednesday the Earl was executed in the Tower Yard. Yet the Queen was "very gracious" and inclined "much to mercy"; executions did not "follow thicke and threfold", as had been anticipated:' Baynham survived Lent, Easter, and Spring, with only a change of residence to the King's Bench Prison, and on 13 August he was let out of prison and put under house arrest at the dwelling of William Stone in the Strand. His pardon had been sealed on 10 August.

Meanwhile a gentleman in Kent named John Note was endeavouring in vain to collect tax to the sum of fifty-three shillings and four pence from Baynham's estate in Boxley, but the assessee was not to be found, "nether had there anye goods or cattles ... to distreyne". What can an official do? Her Majesty's Tax Collector took a corporal oath that he was unable to levy the subsidy because the Sheriff of the County had seized the property into Her Majesty's hands.

Inquisitions (partly illegible) of Baynham's possessions survive. The goods and chattels in the Mansion House at Boxley were valued at two hundred and forty pounds sixteen shillings and eight pence; "one Bible and a service booke" were in the gallery; so was "one payre of playinge Tables"

In some measure Baynham owed his pardon to the  good offices of Sir Walter Ralegh. William Camden's account of the affair is as follows:-

A Letter came from the Queene, wherein shee (hauing beene informed by Sir Fulk Greuill that they were most of them drawne in vnwittingly) commanded that Littleton,. . . Baynham a most lasciuious man, and a contemner of Magistrates, and Orell, should be subiected to their tryall, and the rest should be remitted to prison. Baynham and Orell pleaded ignorance for excuse, and that they followed the Earles out of their observance towards them ... Yet were all their flues spared, which Baynham redeemed with a summe of money paid to Raleigh.

The last statement has been repeated by modern writers' with varying details and effects; yet Camden's words may be accepted without distress, for the Crown might distribute a traitor's forfeited estate among favourites, as the Baynhams had had the manor of Boxley after the revolt of Wyatt, and Ralegh had been granted lands after the plot of Babington."

One Monday morning Ralegh wrote from Durham House to Sir Edward Coke:-

Mr: Aturney, it would greatly expedite my business for Baynam if you would 'so pleas to write me a few lines to this effect. Yt whereas I intreated you to know whether her maiestye might reape any profitt by Baynham's deathe, or wher Baynham weare farther in in any of thes trasons then the comon sort of ye L. of Essex servants and followers, you will answere that you have looked into his estate and have deliverd your knowledge, ffor the land in Essex you shall order it as it shall pleas yow.

Your most assured loving friend,

This letter has been thought to throw "a somewhat dreadful light" on Camden's statement' and perhaps something sinister might be read into another missive that Sir Thomas Egerton wrote to Sir Robert Cecil on 11 August 1601: "Sir Edward Beynham's pardon was sealed yesterday. Sir W. Ralegh's book is ready, but I will stay it, as you direct". Yet Ralegh may have saved the young Essexian a goodly parcel of his estate.

How Baynham's property was disposed of appears in a Patent Roll dated 8 August 1601 .1 In this document the Crown affected to proceed "in consideration of the good, true, and acceptable service done and rendered us by our loving servant Sir Walter Ralegh, and moved by singular clemency, pity, and piety towards the aforesaid Edmund Beynham, as well as at the humble petition of the aforementioned Sir Walter Ralegh"; accordingly, all of Baynham's estate was granted to Nicholas Fortescue of London and John Shelbery of Lincoln's Inn.

Now Nicholas Fortescue was doubtless the husband of Baynham's half-sister Prudence; he was a Roman Catholic who was later cleared of complicity in the Gunpowder Plot, became Chamberlain of the Exchequer, and was knighted 8B Shelbery was Ralegh's steward. Over the next fifteen months these two sold off parcels of property in such a way that most of the proceeds were paid directly to Baynham; in the largest single deal he received one thousand pounds, they ten shillings.

Whether he then paid off Ralegh does not, of course, appear. Yet even if he did, the most valuable parts of the estate were reserved for his use or benefit. Properties in Boxley, totalling at least one hundred and forty acres, were sold "vpon truste and confidence and for the benifitt and to be at the disposition" of his unmarried sister Alice, or if she died without issue before the age of twenty-one, "to be . . . for the only benifitt & to be at the disposicion of the sayd syr Edmunde Beynham". (In November 1603 further provision was made for Alice.)

On 23 June 1602 the centre-piece of the estate, the Mansion House at Boxley, with sundry lands, woods, and pastures, were granted to Baynham and his heirs to be held "peacably and quietly" as before." He soon sold some minor parcels in his own right; how he disposed of the remainder we shall see. In addition, the Manor of Powershall or Little Wytham in Essex was leased to him; Edward Coke had an interest in this property, which was probably what Ralegh referred to in his letter.

By the summer of 1602, then, Baynham had been rehabilitated. He was not reformed. Shortly after 2 October he fought a duel with Sir Edward Michelbourne, both being "sore hurt. The cause of the quarrel
is not apparent. In March 1603, when the Queen was ill, Baynham burst out in opposition to King James VI of Scotland the presumed successor, and identified himself as a Catholic. In a letter to James on 17 March the Earl of Northumberland described him as "a wyld and free speaking youthe, who brauing it", had protested that "he wold loose his lyfe, and so wold 40,000 Catholikes more, ere your Maiesty should come in".

He had been condemned, the Earl assured the King, by almost all those who were "Catholiklye affected", except perhaps for the "puritan papistes that thrist after a spanish tytle". As in the St. Paul's fray, Baynham had talked in large round numbers and boasted influence that he did not have: "he hathe laid vniustlie imputation vpon others) as I think, only by naming them over whom he nather had power nather vnderstood there hartes" .

Again his "brauing it" led to his being restrained, and his companions on this occasion were probably the Essexians and Catholics named in a letter written by Camden on 15 March : during an indisposition of the Queen the Council had been moved to commit some Gentlemen hunger starved for innovations, as Sir Edmund Bainham, Catesby, Tresham, two Wrights, &c. and after
ward the Count Arundel of Warder to a Gentleman's House, for
speeches used by the foresaid turbulent Spirits as concerning him,
or for that he made- lately some provision of armour."

The gaol this time was-pace Camden-the Marshalsea, from which Baynham wrote to Sir Robert Cecil on 7 March. On 21 March he expressed his gratitude for Mr. Secretary's favour and begged him to continue it. By 30 March he was at liberty-or so rumour said. He had anticipated expenses, for by an indenture dated 31 December 1602 he had raised six hundred and twenty-five pounds by mortgaging property at Boxley to Thomas Lake of London until 4 July 1603.

On 15 April 1604 King James himself may have had Baynham in his eye when he took note of "certain loose people commonly [?] called Swagerers or of the damned crew" who had lately raised many quarrels against Scots; he instructed the Lord Chief Justice Sir John Popham to "cause these fellowes to be apprehended or anie other [?] of like quality" and bound over to keep the peace.

The Damned Crew' were a class or group of roisterers and swaggerers who had been known in London for some ten years or more by their swearing and false swearing, drinking, fighting, and dislike of the government. They were thought by their scandalized contemporaries to be already reprobate with the devils in hell, and they probably thought as much themselves, acknowledged the title, and challenged the worst.

Their names are unknown, except for that of Edmund Baynham. As we shall see, in 1605 he was reported to have called himself their captain. If that allegation was slanderous, his career exhibits the traits of behaviour and character commonly ascribed to the Crew, and the Crew was being recognized as having Catholic associations from about 1603," though it was not confined to Catholics. We may assume that so pertinacious a
disturber of the peace as Baynham would not have escaped the Lord Chief Justice in 1604.

During those years he was keeping company with known Catholics. Robert Catesby and Francis Tresham had been arrested after Essex's rebellion' and again during Elizabeth's illness. In 1603 Baynham was in a house of Catesby's near Uxbridge when the Jesuit Strange acknowledged an obligation to Sir Robert Cecil for his recent release from prison.

Baynham objected that anyone who praised Cecil had no spark of the true Catholic religion in him, and when Strange, though hating Cecil's Protestantism, voiced admiration for his policy over fines, Baynham threw his dagger at him.

Strange himself disclosed the event to the government three years later, adding that Baynham subsequently protested zeal and service to Cecil and had acted intemperately from a misunderstanding in passion" On another occasion, probably in Lent 1605, Baynham was present at the Horns, a tavern in Carter Lane in London, in an assembly that included Catesby and Tresham.

He was then consorting with the ringleaders of what came to be known as the Gunpowder Plot to blow up the king and parliament on 5 November 1605. He was probably not present at the meeting at which the conspirators took their oath and I see no direct evidence that he was privy to particulars of a device, but he was alerted to expect an action and must, in view of his behaviour, have been made acquainted with at least its general character and expected consequences.

About the middle of July 1605 Father Henry Garnet, the Jesuit English Superior, aware that Catesby broached a move but refusing to hear its details, suggested to Catesby that Baynham should be sent to the Pope to acquaint him with the difficult situation of Catholics in Eugland and with the "matter" Catesby proposed. He thought, he later maintained under examination, that Catesby promised not to proceed without the Pope's "advice and directions therein" and that the Pope would gainsay violence;' a lay messenger was needed to convince Catesby, and he knew, he later said, that Baynham was going over to the Continent "and had been so resolved for above two years".

Baynham came to Garnet; the meeting was "but once", the conference "very short"; the place and time are not certain-"soon after Midsomer", Garnet thought in retrospect, though others said August. The Jesuit briefed him on evidence of persecution of Catholics and advised him "to take his instructions of gentlemen of experience, which he or Mr Catesby should know".

What instructions Catesby gave Baynham the priest preferred not to know, but "imagined . . . some pretence in general for the Catholic cause"" Guy Fawkes testified that he was told by Catesby "that Sr Ed Baynham was directed by him to goe to the pope and to acquainte him VII the hard estate of the catholiques of England; this confirms Garnet, who at the time of Fawkes's statement had not yet been captured.

The untrustworthy record of Fawkes's further confession of what Catesby intended Baynham to do is ambiguously worded : "the pope [was] to be by him acquainted wch the persecutions [?] to be prepared for the whole
of Catholiques after the proiect [?] of the powder had taken effect ... " I take this to mean that Baynham was to enlighten the Pope after the explosion, and Fawkes added that "then" Baynham might conduct "further" negotiations. Under examination, Thomas Wintour also confessed that "after the proiect of the powder" Baynham was "to haue signified the event to the pope and to haue negotiated ... ".

At Garnet's trial Fawkes's testimony was given into evidence against him, but he answered, "What they determined, I know not. And it may be, they thought at that time to have conveyed him [the Pope] some letter to give him notice thereof. But it is more than I know. The official published version, though insinuating, did not press the point about the time at which the Pope was to be told: the purpose of the mission to Rome was "that the Pope . . . might be acquainted with all their proceedings; And that Baynham might then learne of the Pope, what course hee would aduise the Catholiques in England to take for their own
good ...".

Whatever was in his head, to Rome Baynham went. By indentures dated 29 August 1605 he mortgaged his properties to raise twenty-four hundred pounds from Sir Francis Hubbard of Stansted Mountfitchet, in the process assigning his rights in the Manor of Powershall to James Pounte (or Ponnte) of London for nine hundred pounds." He could hardly, then, have left England much before September.

On the first stage of his journey he carried letters from Lord Monteagle and a letter from Garnet to the Papal Nuncio in Flanders, but he had been told by Garnet not to make himself the Superior's messenger, and he carried no letter from him to the Pope, for Garnet wished not to seem to meddle in lay affairs and "took no knowledge" of the journey to Rome, beyond Baynham's intention to obtain the Pope's advice.

In Brussels, Baynham was reported to be "very inward with Owen and much favoured by him".',' This information may have coloured the record of the confession by Thomas Wintour that the intended tactics after the explosion were for Hugh Owen "to have giuen instructions to Sr Ed Baynham to haue signified the event to the pope"." Whether Baynham had other dealings on the Continent as a soldier, then or earlier, is not evidenced, despite the contemporary verses in which he was made, when in the Low Countries, to instruct Guy Fawkes in demonology.

After eight days in Brussels he "rid post" to Ronpe, perhaps passing through Paris is the first half of October and Florence about the twentieth of the same month u Cecil later appealed to the world to judge that the date of this itinerary made it clear that Garnet had not wished Baynham to arrive back in England with a prohibition from the Pope before the opening of Parliament in November. Garnet's defence was that he had expected•Baynham to leave earlier and Catesby not to act before his return, even if Parliament were in session, and indeed in a letter to his superiors dated 24 July 1605 Garnet had reported that the messenger had been sent and letters written by himself to the Nuncio in Flanders.

At Rome Baynham was "feasted", his servant later said, by the Jesuit Father Robert Parsons at the English College. Parsons was alleged to have made a flying start for England, only to return to Rome, "much astonished", when he learned that the plot had failed.

Baynham's movements are difficult to follow. In December it was rumoured in Brussels that he had returned in speed to the Low Countries and remained in secret for a while, and in January that he had gone back to Milan l It is better attested that towards the end of December 1605 he was in R e whence he sent his servant Nicholas Burte (or Bur e, to ng n , with letters for Father Baldwin in Brussels en route. Burte had formerly been master cook to Robert Cecil's father.

On his way through France he handed over the letters to Sir George Carew, the English Ambassador, who detained some and relinquished the rest. Burte got back to London on 25 February 1606 and was interrogated by Sir John Popham at eleven o'clock the very next night.

As early as 7 November 1605 Baynham was rumoured in London to have come over from the Low Countries, but he probably did not venture on so rash an action, then or later. He was never brought to trial but was widely suspected and defamed.

At the trial of the conspirators he was stigmatized as "one of the Damned crue, and so naming himselfe". as "stiling himselfe prime of the damned Crew", as "Prince of the damned Crue", and as "Callinge himselfe the `Captain of the Damned Crewe'." Camden's official Latin account of the proceedings brought him in as "quiq' se appellauit Damnatorum Antesignanum", and as "cohortis diabolicae vexilliferum", and as "ex cohorte execranda (hoc enim nomen sibi ipsi imposuit)".

In the indictment of the conspirators he was one of the "societas damnator' Anglice the damned cewe". These terms stuck, though there is no independent evidence that Baynham had used them of himself or, on the other hand, that he specifically repudiated them. True or false, they served the prosecution and Protestants to raise a scandal against the plotters and Catholics. "That rightly darned crew", said King James. "Obserue the sending of Bainham one of the damned crew to the high Priest of Rome", scoffed Attorney-General Coke, while Sir Edward Philips remarked : ". . . An Embassadour fit both for the message and persons, to be sent betwixt the Pope and the deuill".

In a printed defence of Garnet, the Jesuit Andrew Eudaemon-Johannes called Baynham "a man of approved faith and religion, and at the same time experienced in English affairs and above all vigorous of hand and mind". The Protestant Robert Abbot replied: "I laugh that to you he is 'a man of approved faith and religion' when to himself he is a 'member of the damned crew', a man thoroughly infamous for debauchery and dissoluteness of life".

Baynham had now begun an extended European tour, a fugitive and suppliant from country to country, unwelcome to ambassadors, poor in money and health, and protesting that he was guiltless. In Spain he passed for three months as a Frenchman, while negotiating with the Jesuit Creswell and the Spanish Secretary.

Then, perhaps early in 1607, he presented himself to the English Ambassador, Sir Charles Cornwallis, saying that he had come "only to see the Country and to get some taste of the Language". When Cornwallis charged him with what was said of him in England, "He denyed all with large Oaths", and alleged circumstances to prove his innocence.

In February 1607 Sir Thomas Edmondes, the English Ambassador at Brussels, heard that Baynham (like Charles Blount) was looking for a Catholic pension; in the previous month Edmondes had reported, "There hath been of late an open sale made of much good apparel which Sir Edmond Baynham left in Baldwin's custody".'

By April Baynham had left Madrid, "neyther perfectly recovered of his Palsey nor strengthened in his Purse". While he was staying in an inn at Burgos, he was overtaken by some of Cornwallis's men on their way to England; he quickly became an Italian returning to Italy." Presumably, he was headed for Brussels, which he reached by mid-May-"to increase the number of our good Apostles in this place", observed the Ambassador's secretary William Trumbull.

Later that year, or more probably in 1608, he "fell owt in discourse abowt the powder treason" with Sir Griffin Markham and left him, so a report went, "dead in the field". It was "a bloudie battaile"; they "fought wth short sword and pistole in theyr shirts on horse back"-' Markham had shown valour with Essex in Ireland, and after being tried for treason in 1603 had trodden the scaffold before the King's reprieve arrived; commanded to depart th° realm in 1605, he joined the English Regiment in the Low Countries.

After the Gunpowder Plot was discovered, while Owen justified himself, Blount revealed to Markham that the conspirators planned to transport the Regiment to England, and Markham passed on the information Markham survived till at least 1644.

Probably in September 1608 Baynham had a brush with Sir Thomas Edmondes, to whom, according to Sir Thomas Studder, he would not "put off his hat". The Ambassador, who had long suspected that emissary to Rome, "plaide- the part of a tall gentleman" and drew his sword on him "for the little respect he used toward him"; he had also "spoken lyeingly and lewdly" of King James.

By October, "being very lately by the Archdukes commanded to avoyde out of their Countries", Baynham was returning to Spain. Hearing the news from Edmondes, Cornwallis prepared a hostile reception for the man whom King James "abhorred", and in whom he himself "placed no Confidence".

Baynham duly appeared towards the end of December 1608, "poore ... and protesting his Innocency for any Thoughte against our Sovereign", and affirming that he would prove it in England.

As for his disrespect towards Edmondes, he had "received some Wrong in Words from him". He sent an apology to Cornwallis by a third party and offered to make it in person. He was answered that the Ambassador did not believe him .

In May 1610, however, Madrid was reporting that he "is here of late very much made of, and hath received from them much Money". Little else is left to tell. On 11 November 1607 Edward Coke, who had prosecuted Baynham in more than one court, now purchased the Manor of Powershall in Essex from James Pounte at the bargain price of three hundred and fifty pounds, along with-it was a long shot-the bond of fifteen hundred pounds that Baynham had given to Sir Francis Hubbard.

On 9 March 1632 forty-eight reales were lent by the English College at Madrid to an "Edmund Baynam". On 25 March 1642 an English Knight, Eduardus Banham, along with a Spanish companion, were provided with a meal in the English College in Rome."


1. E. Hasted, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, R (Canterbury, 1782), 125. A histo of the properties to 1601 is m the Pubiic Record Office Patent Rolls, 43 pats IS, with numerous related documents William ,Baynham 's arms are depicted in the British Museum Harleian MS. 4,108, fol. 65r and Add.. MS. 14,307, fol. 9r.
2. Return. Members of Parliament. Part I. Parliaments of England, 1213-1702 ([London], 1878). I am grateful to E. L. C. Mullins, Esq., for discussing these matters.
3. P.R.O. Close Rolls, 37 Eliz., pars 30; B.M. Lansdowne MS. 78, no. 67; P.R.O. Special Commissions Exchequer, 43 Eliz., no. 1,180; Patent Rolls, 43 Eliz., pars 15. A William Baynham was buried in Boxley on 23 October 1597 (J. Cave-Browne, The History of Boxley Parish (Maidstone, 1892),
4. P.R.O. Close Rolls 41 Eliz., pars 2; John's will was proved on 7 November 1636 (P.C.C., 113 Pile).
S. P.C.C., 11 Wallopp. ke Genealogist, n.s. X (London, n.d.), 27, n. 1 contains errors.
6. Thomas (Fortescue) Lord Clermont, A History of the Family of Fortescue (London, 1869), p. 18.
7. P.R.O. Inquisitions post mortem, no. 91 (C.142/254); Patent Rolls, 43 Eliz., pars 15.
8. Alumni Oxonienses .... ed. by J. Foster, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1891-1892), I, 93; Register of the University of Oxford. II, ii (Oxford, 1887), 199; II, iii (1888), 195; Middle Temple Records, ed. by C. H. Hopwood, I (London, 1904), 363, 371; Register of Admissions to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, 3 vole., I (London, 1949); Return (1878), p. 434.
9. P.R.O. Close Rolls, 41 EliL, parses 2, 12, 13, 30; A Bibliography of Royal Proclamations ... 1485-1714, II (Oxford, 1910), October 1599; C. Metcalfe, A Book of Knights (London, 1885), p. 210.
10. P.R.O. Proceedings in Star Chamber, 42 Eliz., I, 29; XXVII, 38; XLIII, 37; XLIV, 24; XLV, 10; the episode is narrated by L. Hotson in Shakespeare's Sonnets Dated (London, 1949), pp. 89-110, and in other publications.
11. Alumni Oxonienses, II, 594.
12. London Records Office, Repertories 25, fols. 66v-67r, 74r; Acts of the Privy Council, n.s. XXX (London, 1905), 203-204; John Hawarde, Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata . . ., ed. by W. P. Baildon (Privately printed, 1894), pp. 114-115; Philip Gawdy heard that Baynham was fined five hundred marks (Letters..., ed. by I. H. Jeayes (London, 1906), p. 101).
13. A letter from Anthony Rivers to Robert Parsons, 13 January 1601, in Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, ed. by H. Foley, 7 vols. (London, 1877-1882), I, 7.
14. MS. account in B.M: s copy E. 1940(1) of [Francis Bacon's] A Declaration of the Practices & Treason Attempted ... by Robert Late Earle of Essex (London, 1601).
15. P.R.O. Baga de secretis, pouch LVII; S.P. Dom. Eliz., 278/103.
16. S.P., Dom. Eliz. 278/101; Correspondence of King James VI of Scotland, ed. by J. Bruce, Camden Society, LXXVIII (1868), 81.
17. S.P., Dom. Eliz. 281/67; The Letters of John Chamberlain, ed. by N. E. McLure, 2 vols.-(Philadelpbia, 1939), I, 121.
18. Acts of the Privy Council, XXXII, 153-154; Cal. S.P. Dom. Add. 1580-1625, XXXIV, 34; P.R.O. Patent Roll, Eliz. 43, pars 9.
19. P.R.O. Exchequer, Kings Remembrancer Certificates of Residence, vol. 69, no. 24; Special Commissions, 43 Eliz., 1,180, 2,316, etc.; Acts of the Privy Council. XXXI, 149.
20. The Historic of the Most Renowned and Victorious Princesse Elizabeth, trans. by T. Norton (London, 1630), p. 186. The original (Annales ... (Leyden, 1625), p. 801) reads in part: " ... ut Littletonus, . . . Bainhamus, qui lascivia & inagistratuum contemptu praeceps abierat, & Orellus ... judicio subjicerentur.... Vitae tames omnium parcitur, quam Bainhamus pecunia Raleipho numerate. redemit.... " A. Wilson, in The History of Great Britain (London, 1653), p. 4, implies that "Bainham" was implicated with Markham in Ralegh's alleged plot in 1603. I cannot confirm this. Wilson does not mention Baynham later.
21. E.g., W. B. Devereux, Lives ... of the Devereux, Earls of Essex, 2 vols. London, 1853), II, 198; M. Eccles, Christopher Marlowe in London (Cambridge, Mass., 1934), P. 63.
22. Folger Shakespeare Library, MS. PR/ 1405/R2.
23. Historical MSS. Commission, Report on Manuscripts in Various Collections, IV (Dublin, 1907), 325.
24. Historical MSS. Commission, Cal. MSS. Salisbury, XI (Dublin, 1906), 332. 25. P.R.O. Patent Rolls, 43 Eliz., pars 15, trans. by SE.S.
26. Thomas (Fortescue) Lord Clermont, A History of the Family of Fortescue,
11, 17-18.
27. W. Stebbing, Sir Walter Ralegh (Oxford, 1891), p. 242.
28. P.R.O. Close Rolls, 43 Eliz., partes 5, 8, 13; 44 Eliz., partes 4, 5, 6, 12, 14,
15, 23, 45; 45 Eliz., pars 2; 2 James I, pars 5. 29. P.R.O. Close Rolls, 44 Eliz., pars 8.
30, P.R.O. Close Rolls, 43 Eliz., partes 16, 19.
31. S.P. Dom. Eliz., 285/23. Michelbourne had been fined two hundred pounds for his part in the Essex rebellion (Acts of the Privy Council, XXXI, 261, 313-314, 484, 488). He survived the duet to have it rumoured in 1605 that he had been "sawed ... in peeces with a wodden sawe" in a seafight in the Indies (Letters of Philip Gawdy, p. 163), but he was in England in 1606 (Chamberlain, Letters, I, 211).
32. Correspondence of King James VI of Scotland, pp. 73-74. Northumberland to James VI is not impeccable; see S. Gardiner, History of England .. . 1603-1642, 10 vols. (London, 1884), I, 85, n. 1.
33. V.C.L. Gulielmi.Camdeni ... epistolae (London, 1691), pp. 347-348. Perhaps because of a reference to the Queen's "climacterical year" and to her "recovery", this letter of unspecified year has been dated 1595 (John Strype, Annals of the Reformation (Oxford, 1824), IV, 331-332) or 1596 (G. B. Morgan, The Great English Treason for Religion, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1931), 1, 94); but Baynham's title and companions suggest 1603 (unless the title was introduced by the transcriber of the letter), as A. Jessopp took it in an article on Catesby in the Dictionary of National Biography, referring to Cal. S.P. Dom. lames 1, 1603-1610, p. 1.
34. Historical MSS. Commission, Seventh Report ..., Part I (London, 1879), p.
189; Cal.-MSS. Salisbury, XVI (London, 1933), 42; Chamberlain, Letters, 1,
190. However perhaps the date "Martij 21 1603" should be read as 1604. 35. P.R.O. Close Molls, 45 Eliz., pars 6.
36. S.P. Dom. James I, 7/29.
37. See-S.E. Sprott, "The Damned Crew", Publications of the Modern Language sod at:
_4        M
38. A. Will et, An flu ogle (London, 1603), p. 14, in reply to R. Broughton,
An Apologicall Epistle (Antwerp, 1601), p. 6.
39. S.P. Dom. Eliz. 278/31, 38, 40, 41; Folger Shakespeare Library, MS. V.b.187,
fol. 5r.
40. Cal. MSS. Salisbury, XVIII (London, 1940), 196-197.
41. Cal. MSS. Salisbury, XVII (London, 1938), 522-523; cf. B.M. Add. MS. 6,178, fol. 62. Another meeting about 9 October was attended by Catesby, Tresham, Ben Jonson, and others, including an unidentified person who has lately been plausibly conjectured to have been Sir John Roe (B. N. DeLuna, Jonson's Romish Plot (Oxford, 1967), pp. 117-120), although he might just possibly have been Baynham.
42. According to Thomas Wintour's confession, B.M. Add. MS. 6,178, fol. 77v.
E. N. Simons is perhaps too positive: "Baynham was certainly not told the
details" (The Devil of the Vault (London, 1963), p. 105).
43. P. Caraman, Henry Garnet (London, 1964), p. 380, n. 1; J. Gerard, The
Condition of Catholics under James I (London, 1871), pp. 250, 252. 44. Gerard, Condition, pp. 76-77, 252.
45. "Two Declarations of Garnet ... ", ed. by S. R. Gardiner in The English
Historical Review, III (1888), 510-519; A Trve ... Relation of the Whole
Proceedings '51 ainst the Late ... Traitors ... (London, 1606), sig. S2r. 46. E.H.R., III, 3; Gerard, Condition, p. 252.
47. P.R.O. Gunpowder Plot Book, nos. 163, 170; Gerard, Condition, pp. 236, 253; A Trve ... Relation, sig. X3r. Cf. Fawkes on Baynham's mission to report "after ye powder action p'formed" in the version in B. M. Harleian MS. 360, fol. 4. The Venetian Ambassador in England suspected Baynham "was sent to beg his Holiness to incite the Catholics to assist and support the good effects" of the plot (Cal. S.P. Venetian, X, 337).
48. P.R.O. Close Rolls, 3 James I, panes 31, 38.
49. In J. Stowe's Annales (London, 1615), p. 876, he is said to have "departed from England but in August".
50. P.R.O. Gunpowder Plot Book, no. 197; S.P. Dom. James 1, 18/111; Gerard, Condition, p. 252; E.H.R., III, 513.
51. Cal. MSS. Salisbury, XVII, 499.
52. P.R.O. Gunpowder Plot Book, no. 170.
53. F. Herring, Mischeefes Mysterie, trans. by J. Vicars (London, 1617), p. 23. Baynham is judged "worthy of a rope" in J[ervaise?] M(arkham?J's contemporary but derivative MS. poem The Newe Metamorphosis, B.M. Add. MS. 14,826, fol. 200v (the "Dammed crue" is on fol. 116r); see J. H. H. Lyon, A Study ... (New York, 1919), pp. 197, 184. Baynham may be referred to in another poem Pyramis, written in 1608 by William Gager, ed. by C. F. T. Brooke (New Haven, 1936), 11. 422-423.
54. B.M. Add. MS. 6,178, fol. 77r; Cal. MSS. Salisbury, XVII, 454; XVIII, 61; A Trve ... Relation, sig. X2r.
55. A Trve ... Relation, sig. X2r; E.H.R., III, 513; Gerard, Condition, pp. 76-77. After his conference with Baynham and a little before 25 July, Garnet learned from Father Tesimond in confession that Catesby had a plot in hand (Camman, Garnet, p. 322). At his trial on 28 March 1606 Garnet was to say that "at the going over of Sir Edmond Baynham I did not know of that treason myself, and therefore could not think that Sir Edmond went to acquaint him [the Pope] with it" (Gerard, Condition, p. 252). Together, these facts should mean that Garnet thought that Baynham had left not later than a little before 25 July, and in his declaration of 9 March 1606 (E.H.R., III, 513) he may perhaps have intended to say that when he went to St. Winifred's Well after 25 July he was no longer in a position to know what "they [the others] did with him [Baynham]", or whether Baynham was still in England or not.
56. Cal. MSS. Salisbury, XVII, 557; XVIII, 32, 61; B.M. Add. MS. 6,178, fol. 138r.
57. Cal. MSS. Salisbury, XVIII, 61; B.M. Add. MS. 6,178, fol. 138r-v. A young Catholic student, Robert Sherwood, came to St. Omer "in famulatio Domini Edmundi Beynhami" about 1606 (Registers of the English College at Valladolid 1589-1862, ed. by E. Henson (London, 1930), p. 103).
58. Chamberlain, Letters, I, 213; Stowe, Annales (1615), p. 876: Baynham "neuer returned"; A Trve ... Relation, sigs. V2r, Dlr; J. Speed, The Historie of Great Britain (London, 1632), p. 1129; Hawarde, Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata, p. 256 (cf. Chamberlain, Letters, I, 221); Actio in Henricvm Garnetvm (London, 1607), pp. 11, 38, 93; P.R.O. Baga de seeretis, pouch LIX, membrane 17.
59. His Maiesties Speech (London, 1605), sig. L3r; A Trve . . . Relation, sigs. 14v, Dlr.
60. R.P. Adreae Evdaemon-Ioannis Cydonii .. . Apologia pro R.P. Henrico Garneto (Cologne, 1610),p 252; "Edmundus Baynhamus spectatae fidei ac religionia vir, idemque & Anglicarum rerum peritus, & manu atque consilio imprimis acer"; R. Abbot, Antilogia adversvs apologiam (London, 1613), fol. 142r: "quern rideo tibi esse spectatae fidei ac religionis virum, qui sibi fuit e damnata classe popularis, homo luxu & vitae dissolutione prorsus infamis". Cf. the MS. account of the Plot in B.M. Harleian MS. 360, fol. 113: "strangely besett for a messenger in a cawse they accompted so waightie, when they would choose no man for this purpose, but the Captaine of the damned Crewe".
61. R. Winwood, Memorials of Affairs of State, 3 vols. (London, 1725), II, 285-286.
62. Historical MSS. Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Downshire . . . [ ] Volume Two [.] Papers of William Trumbull (London, 1936), pp. 454, 452.
63. Winwood, Memorials, II, 388.
64. Papers of ... Trumbull, pp. 59, 60.
65. S.P. Dom. James 1, 43/93.
66. Cal. MSS. Salisbury, XVII, 499; XVIII, 31-32, 63-64.
67. Cal. MSS. Salisbury, XVII, 546; Papers of . . . Trumbull, p. 76; Chamberlain, Letters, I, 269; Winwood, Memorials. II, 441. Thomas Overbury bad been interested in Baynham in May 1608 (Papers of ... Trumbull, p. 103).
68. Winwood, Memorials, II, 437-438, 441; Papers of ... Trumbull, p. 77.

69. Winwood, Memorials, IL 468.
70. Winwood, Memorials, III, 177.
71. P.R.O. Close Rolls, S James I,pa rs 40.
72. The English College at Madrid 1611-1767, ed. by E. Henson (London, 1929),
p. 154; Pilgrim Book in the English College at Rome, fol. 129 (this entry is not in the printed version, and a leaf relating to November 1605 may have been removed from the original in the College).

(This article was copied from a copy of the above journal using OmniPage Scanner software - no permission has been granted to publish this and I apologise in advance to both the Journal and the author…I have attempted to get permission and neither party has contacted me - some of the scan doesn't recognise some words and the end note referencing has not been copied. Note reference 37 which is another article by Sprott in which Baynham features. Professor Sprott is an eminent Professor of English and I tracked him the University of Dalhousie in Canada but was unable to have any discussions with him)