Sir Thomas Tresham came of an old Northamptonshire family, who were seated at Sywell. He alludes with pride to his ancestors on more than one occasion. Writing to Sir Christopher Hatton in 1583, he declares that he will defend the Queen against foreign invasions and home conspiracies, with as much zeal as any of his ancestors "did bear to her Highness' most worthy progenitors, under whom they were dignified with many noble offices and advancements, and lived in high prosperity; and at whose feet and in whose service sundry of them (even hundreds of years since) have faithfully ended their lives with honour in the field" (p. 27). He was, perhaps, thinking particularly of his great-great-grandfather, the first Sir Thomas, Comptroller of the Household to Henry VI, who after fighting at Towton and both battles of St. Albans, was taken by the victorious Yorkists at Tewkesbury and put to death.

In 1603, after a stormy interview with Sir Edward Montague concerning some lands, Sir Thomas wrote to his son: "I truly might, but respectively forebore to put him in mind that his father and his grandfather were beholding to my grandfather in the beginning of Queen Mary's time, more than I (I hope) shall be to him or his: his grandfather being a principal actor in King Edward's time for disinheriting Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth and the Scottish title to the crown of England (and was in the Tower for the same), my said grandfather, the late Lord of Saint John's, Jerusalem, obtained of Queen Mary his dismissment thence in favourablest terms, and specially commended to her Majesty his son (this Sir Edward Montagew's father) for his readiness in serviceable affection to Queen Mary in the charge of this shire, then conducted by my grandfather on the behalf of Queen Mary, against the then proclaimed and invested Queen Jane" (p. 128). On another occasion, Sir Thomas did not so "respectively forbear," for in writing to Lord Spencer he declares, “To equal Tresames to Spencers I repute no disparagement to them . . . I commend to your memory whether the Tresames or the family of your Spencers have been in this country of longest continuance, both in honourablest and worshipful calling; who in country and court, in peace and in war, within this realm and forth of this realm, more used or more commanding?” (p. 138).

The only relics of his ancestors amongst Sir Thomas Tresham's papers are two short, indented deeds, one on paper and one on parchment, concerning certain moneys, household effects and jewels delivered to Isabel Tresham, daughter of Lord Vaux, widow of William Tresham, Attorney General to Henry V, and mother of the Sir Thomas who fought in the wars of the Roses.

This Sir Thomas had a son John, who was father to Sir Thomas, Grand Prior of St. John, alluded to above. The last named had two sons, the elder of whom, John, married Eleanor, daughter of William Catesby, and died in his father's lifetime, leaving three children, Thomas, William and a daughter, Mary, who married William, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. The eldest son, Thomas, succeeded his grandfather in possession of the estates in 1558-9, being then fifteen years old. After his father's death, he is said to have been brought up as a Protestant, but was reconciled to the Roman Church in 1580. The only notices of him amongst these papers before that date are a letter of thanks on behalf of his younger brother William (p. 2), and a note in relation to the Market house at Rothwell, which will be mentioned later.

In August, 1581, a considerable sensation was created amongst the English Catholics by the statement that Campion, the Jesuit, had given up the names of his friends and those who had entertained him at their houses. Amongst these names were those of Sir Thomas Tresham and his brother-in-law, Lord Vaux. Bewildered and dismayed, uncertain whether to believe the announcement of the Queen's ministers, the accused persons hardly knew how to act. Sir Thomas would appear to have been doubtful whether Campion had been to his house or no, and so refused to depose either way, upon which he was committed to the Fleet, as was also Lord Vaux.

Sir Thomas gives the date of this, his first committal, as Saturday, the 10th of August. This is a mistake, as the 10th, in 1581, was a Thursday. As his examination before the Privy Council was not until Friday, the 18th, it is probable that Saturday, the 19th, was the true date. (See Acts of the Privy Council under this date.)

The term Catholic is used in its restricted sense of Roman Catholic, the sense in which it was generally employed in England in the 16th century.

Presently the idea gained ground that Campion, probably under torture, had really betrayed them, although the weight of evidence, as appeared afterwards, was strongly against his having done so.

Sir Thomas wrote on the subject to the Lords of the Council, and also separately to one of them (probably Leicester). He feared, he said, on the one hand, to be detected of perjury, on the other, to be suspected of secret and undutiful actions. He had kept house for sixteen years, whereto not only his friends and acquaintances, but also their friends and followers, had repaired, to the number of twenty, forty or even a hundred, many of whom he knew only "as it pleased themselves or friends to deliver their names" and others whose names he never asked at all, so that Mr. Campion might have been there, yet pass away unknown, especially as their Lordships said he confessed that he came disguised and only once had speech of Sir Thomas, and that twelve or fourteen years since; in which case to admit his having been to the house (when in truth he did not know him) were to haste himself to utter ruin; while on the other hand, if he declared Campion's confession false, "likely it is that again he will as falsely justify it," in which case even an indifferent jury, not believing that a priest would wrongfully accuse a fellow Catholic, would certainly declare Tresham a "false perjured caitiff" (pp. 16, 17). He called God to witness that he was guiltless of all disloyalty, and offered to depose to sundry articles which he gave, in order to prove the same. Incidentally he describes his imprisonment as "close, noisome and moist," without the liberty and favour given to brawlers, loose people and bankrupts.

From these Tresham papers we gather that the treatment of the recusant prisoners varied a good deal. Sometimes they dined together, and had each a bed chamber, though small and ill-furnished (pp. 19, 20, 25). At other times Sir Thomas was confined alone, and not allowed to see even his wife and daughters (p. 99). In one of his letters he speaks of his keeper often forgetting to bring him his dinner, though never unmindful to lock him up close (p. 85). Learned Protestant theologians now and again resorted to them for argument, of whom Dr. Lylly, Master of Balliol College, Oxford, seems to have pleased Sir Thomas best (p. 20).

After three months' imprisonment Tresham was tried in the Star Chamber. There is an account of the proceedings amongst these papers (p. 22), but as this has been already printed from another copy, it was unnecessary to do more than catalogue it here. At the end of the trial, Tresham was re-committed to the Fleet.

In February, 1582, there is the first mention of those family troubles which so sadly clouded Sir Thomas's life. His younger brother William, who had been introduced and kindly received at Court (p. 23), and had been made a Gentleman Pensioner by Vice-Chamberlain Hatton, suddenly left England without the Queen's permission. Her Majesty's indignation was only increased by a letter which he wrote to her, stating, firstly, that he absented himself in respect of the Earl of Leicester's anger against him, which she thought no sufficient reason for his undutifulness to herself; secondly, that he meant to return, which seemed to show that he had some other reason for his departure, and thirdly, that he was going to Rouen, a place which she "highly disliked of," and where it was feared he would not long continue "a good subject" (p. 25). His unfortunate brother was left, not only to bear the brunt of the Court's displeasure, but to answer William's debts, for which he stood bound (p. 23).

In January, 1582-3, Sir Thomas wrote to Hatton, earnestly praying for restoration to her Majesty's favour, he having paid all his fines and continued in captivity to the uttermost time adjudged by law, and all others confined for the same cause being now enlarged save Lord Vaux and himself (p. 27). Shortly afterwards, he was released, on bond not to come within four miles of London or to depart forth of such house as should be assigned to him, "without mentioning of liberty or circuit at all, and bound to his good behaviour without exception of cases of religion or conscience whatsoever, which till now were ever granted to be exempted." Lady Tresham appealed to her aunt, the Countess of Bedford, whose husband had exerted himself for Tresham's release, to obtain some relaxation of these hard terms, which shut him out from both his own houses, at Tuthill, Westminster, and at Hoxton, or as it was then called, Hogsden. Sir Thomas's health, she wrote (or rather her husband wrote for her, for the draft is in his hand), was

"

grievously impaired by his two years of imprisonment, she had been long separated from him, and their little children had been deprived of a father's care; she therefore prayed that he might be allowed to remain at his own house at Hogsden, with the enjoyment of a little orchard and less garden"; it being the next house to that in which he was at this time temporarily confined. This temporary prison appears to have been almost as bad as the Fleet could be; his chamber lying over a noisome kitchen and made almost unbearable by "noise, smoke, heat, loathsome savours and . . . ungodly, lascivious and blasphemous speeches" (p. 29).

The petition was so far successful that Sir Thomas was allowed to remain at Hogsden, living there with his family on bond "not to depart forth of the precincts of Hogsden and Shoreditch," although it appears that he was not in his own house, but in a cottage "erst a tippling house," which he had rented for a time. In the autumn he had to leave this cottage, and earnestly pleaded that he might be allowed to go to his house in Westminster, which was "further distant from London" than Hogsden, and the "liberty" no larger than Hogsden and Shoreditch parish (p. 32). Whether this was granted does not appear; probably not, as in spite of its being so "distant from London," Westminster was much more in the world than Hogsden. At this point there is a considerable gap in the correspondence.

Sir Thomas Tresham (as also Lord Vaux and other noted recusants) continued to enjoy a limited freedom until the reports of the great Spanish preparations reached England in 1587, when, as Sir Thomas states, although her Majesty was fully convinced of their loyalty and true English hearts, yet, "alonely to frustrate the enemy's expectation of finding any succour" from them, it was thought policy to shut them

up.

They earnestly implored to be employed against the enemy, but were told that their confinement would more avail than the help of their hands (p. 53). At the end of Michaelmas term, therefore, they were committed to the charge of the clergy, Sir Thomas Tresham being sent to the Bishop of Lincoln at Buckden.

They remained in episcopal custody for seven months, but in the following July, "the enemy's powerful navy