Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Henry Gardiner and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)






       *       *       *       *       *

Transcriber’s Note: The original publication has been replicated
faithfully except as shown in the TRANSCRIBER’S AMENDMENTS near the end of
the text. To preserve the alignment of tables and headers, this etext
presumes a mono-spaced font on the user’s device, such as Courier New.
Words in italics are indicated like _this_. But the publisher also wanted
to emphasize names in sentences already italicized, so he printed them in
the regular font which is indicated here with: _The pirates then went to
+Hispaniola+._ Superscripts are indicated like this: S^{ta} Maria.
Numerically-tagged footnotes are in the FOOTNOTES: section near the end of
the text.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Illustration]

[Illustration: PLOWLAND HOUSE, HOLDERNESS, E.R. YORKSHIRE.]




                           THE GUNPOWDER PLOT

                                  AND

                       LORD MOUNTEAGLE’S LETTER;
                BEING A PROOF, WITH MORAL CERTITUDE, OF
                    THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE DOCUMENT:

                             TOGETHER WITH

                   SOME ACCOUNT OF THE WHOLE THIRTEEN
                        GUNPOWDER CONSPIRATORS,
                               INCLUDING
                              GUY FAWKES.


                                   BY

                        HENRY HAWKES SPINK, JUN.
     (_A Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England_).


                                LONDON:
             SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT & CO., LTD.

                                 YORK:
                             JOHN SAMPSON.

                                 1902.
                        [_All rights reserved._]


    “_Veritas temporis filia._ Truth is the daughter of Time,
    especially in this case, wherein, by timely and often
    examinations, matters of greatest moment have been found
    out.”——SIR EDWARD COKE (_the Attorney-General who prosecuted the
    eight surviving conspirators_).

    “Suffer no man and no cause to escape the undying penalty which
    History has the power to inflict on Wrong.”——LORD ACTON.

    “History, it is said, revises the verdicts of contemporaries,
    and constitutes an Appeal Court nearest to the ordeal of
    heaven.”——DR. JAMES MARTINEAU.


                                   TO

                  THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES LINDLEY
                        SECOND VISCOUNT HALIFAX

                       OF HICKLETON AND GARROWBY
                         IN THE COUNTY OF YORK
         ONE OF YORKSHIRE’S MOST GIFTED AND DISTINGUISHED SONS
                               THIS BOOK
                                 WHICH
                          AMONGST OTHER THINGS
                  TELLS OF SOME OF THE WORDS AND DEEDS
                       OF CERTAIN YORKSHIREMEN IN
                        THE DAYS OF SHAKESPEARE
                                   IS
                          (BY KIND PERMISSION)
                      MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
                             BY THE AUTHOR.


                                                     BLAND’S COURT,
                                                         CONEY STREET,
                                                             YORK.

  TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX.

  My Lord,

The book which your characteristic generosity has permitted me to dedicate
to you wears a two-fold aspect. For it is as to one portion——and
predominantly——an Inquiry taking the form of a discourse with questions
and proofs, propositions and demonstrations. While as to another
portion——but subordinately——it is a History taking the form of a narrative
of events, a relation of mental occurrences, a statement of concrete
facts. Now these twain aspects will be found duly to play their respective
parts in the course of the subsequent pages, in accordance with a selected
order and method.

With most of the allegations of fact and the inferences therefrom, and
with many of the assumptions and conclusions which this work contains,
your Lordship will agree. From others you will disagree. Whilst in the
case of a third class, it may be that you will deem a suspension of
judgment to be the part which wisdom and justice alike enjoin.

Speaking for myself, both as a man and as a native of our great County of
Yorkshire——whose sons are at once speculative and practical, imaginative
and concrete——necessity, in the form of an imperative sense of duty, has
been laid upon me, to declare, with unmistakable emphasis and
straightforward directness, what I hold to be the Truth governing the
subject-matter wherewith I have sought to deal. For TRUTH IS THAT WHICH
IS, AND ITS CONTRADICTORY IS ERROR. This line of action I have pursued
with the greater determination, inasmuch as daily observation of external
events——and, if less frequent, still actual reflection thereupon——has
strongly convinced me, even against my will, that much of the “forcible
feebleness” and most of the “stable instability” of modern British
Statesmen and Politicians have their origin and rise in nothing else than
this:——lack of clarity of thought and want of knowledge of those, fixed
fundamental intellectual, moral, and political principles which ought to
be the sure inheritance of the human Race. And pre-eminently of that
portion of the Race which is conscious of a lofty imperial mission. “For
evil is wrought by want of thought as well as by want of heart.”

The ancient Stagyrite ranked Poetry above History, because the former
bequeaths to Man universal principles of action, whereas the latter
bestows upon Man only a relation of individual facts.

But the History of the Gunpowder Treason Plot rises to a higher unity.
Because for a man to have read and mastered an impartial record of that
deliberate and appalling scheme of “sacrilegious murder,” which happily
Destiny first frustrated, and afterwards, through Nemesis, her unerring
executioner, signally avenged in the sight of all men, is to have
witnessed, with the eye of the historic imagination, a drama that is a
poem in action.

Nay, more; it is to have had a personal, experimental realization, through
the historic feeling, of what is meant, in the realm of Moral actualities,
by the infliction of Retribution, the working out of Expiation, the
regaining of Justness, the restoration of Equality between outraged Right
and outraging Wrong, and the attaining by the tempestuous, passionate
human heart of final tranquillity, rest, and peace.

For one of the greatest recorded Tragedies in the world is the History of
the Gunpowder Treason Plot, regard being had to the intellectual and moral
ends effected by that history’s recital.

The man who has truly, if indeed but commemoratively, through force of the
medium of language merely, taken his part in this great Action, even at a
distance of well-nigh three hundred years, will have had his soul cleansed
and purified by cleansed and purified pity and terror. Then will he have
had that soul soothed and healed. He will have been first abased and then
exalted.

For so to act is to weep with a Humanity that weeps. Then with that same
Humanity to join in a triumphant pæan of victory that has for its
universal and glorious theme this reality of realities which cannot be
broken, namely, that Universe——whereof Man, though not the measure,
constitutes so large a part——is primevally founded and everlastingly
established in Goodness, Being, and Truth.

Trusting that your Lordship will crown your gracious kindness by pardoning
the great length of this Introductory Letter,

                                                  I beg to remain,
                                             My dear Lord Halifax,
                                   Yours sincerely and gratefully,
                                          HENRY HAWKES SPINK, JUN.

  _Saturday, 26th October, 1901._

       *       *       *       *       *

Tragedy primarily implies imitation of Action by action, not by language,
although of course language forms a constituent part.

                           See the “_Poetics of Aristotle_,” chap. vi.


“Although it is by no means proved to be impossible that this nobleman
[Lord Mounteagle] was a guilty confederate in the Plot, the weight of
evidence is at present in his favour. It is, however, a most curious State
mystery: and I am persuaded that, if the truth is ever discovered, it will
not be by State papers, or recorded confessions and examinations. When
such expert artists as Bacon and Cecil framed and propagated a State
fiction in order to cover a State intrigue, they took care to cut off or
divert the channels of history so effectually as to make it hopeless, at
the distance of three centuries to trace the truth by means of documents
which have ever been in their control. If the mystery should hereafter be
unravelled, it will be probably by the discovery of some letters or papers
of a domestic nature, which either slumber in private repositories, or
remain unnoticed in public collections.”——_Letter by David Jardine, Editor
of_ “Criminal Trials,” _to Sir Henry Ellis, F.R.S._, “Archæologia,” _pp.
94-95. Dated 30th November, 1840._




                                PREFACE.


The writer of the following work desires respectfully to put forward a
modest contribution to the solution of one of the greatest problems known
to History.

The problem referred to arises out of that stupendous and far-reaching
movement against the Government of King James I. known as the Gunpowder
Treason Plot.

This enterprise of cold-blooded, though grievously provoked, massacre was,
of a truth, “barbarous and savage beyond the examples of all former ages.”
But because the movement had a profoundly——in the Aristotelian
sense——political _causa causans_, therefore it is of perennial interest to
governors and governed.

The _causa causans_, or originating cause, of the Gunpowder Treason Plot,
in its ultimate analysis, will be found to involve that problem of
problems for Princes, Statesmen, and Peoples all the world over:——How to
allow freedom of human action, and yet faithfully to maintain Absolute
Truth concerning the Infinite and the Eternal——or that which is believed
to be Absolute Truth.

To the intent that the mind of the reader may ever and anon find relief
from the stress and strain occasioned by the dry discussion of Evidence
and the severe reasoning from necessary or probable philosophical
assumptions, the writer has designedly interspersed, both in the Text and
in the Notes, matter of a Biographical and Topographical nature,
especially such as hath relation to the author’s honoured native
County——Yorkshire——and his beloved native City——York.

The writer has thought out his thesis, and has treated the same without
fear or favour——limited and conditioned only by a regard for what he knew
or supposed, and therefore believed, to be the truth governing the
subject-matter under consideration. Nobody can say more, not even the most
advanced or emancipated thinker living.[A]

[Footnote A: _Cf._, “_The Ethic of Free-thought_,” by Professor Karl
Pearson. (Adam and Charles Black, 1901.)]

If it be demanded of the author why a member of the lower branch of the
legal profession hath essayed the unveiling of a mystery that has baffled
the learning and ingenuity of men from the days of King James I.——the
British Solomon——down to the days of Dr. Samuel Rawson Gardiner, the
renowned historian of the early English Stuarts, the author’s answer and
plea must be——for it can only be——that by the decrees of Fate, _his_ eyes
first saw the light of the sun in a County whose history is an epitome of
the history of the English people; and in a City which is an England in
miniature.

In conclusion, the writer would be fain to be pardoned in saying that he
has not had the advantage of frequenting any British or Foreign
University, or other seat of learning——all the education that he can make
his humble boast of having been received in Yorkshire Protestant Schools.

The writer’s guide, during the past eighteen months, wherein he hath
“voyaged through strange seas of thought alone,”[A] has been “the high
white star of Truth. THERE he has gazed, and THERE aspired.”[B]

_Saturday, 26th October, 1901._

[Footnote A: Wordsworth.]

[Footnote B: Matthew Arnold.]




                           TABLE OF CONTENTS.


                                                                  PAGE

  INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO THE VISCOUNT HALIFAX                      vii

  PREFACE                                                         xiii

  PRELUDE                                                         xxxv

  Three movements against Government of James I. in the year of the
    Gunpowder Treason Plot (1605) distinct though connected——(1)
    General wave of insurrectionary feeling on part of Papists by
    reason of penal laws of Queen Elizabeth——(2) Gunpowder Plot
    devised by Robert Catesby——(3) Rebellion in Midlands under
    leadership of Sir Everard Digby——Earl of Salisbury, his spies
    and decoys, may have fomented first movement but not others——
    Certainly not projectors of Gunpowder Plot——Traditional story
    accepted in main outlines.

  CHAPTER I.                                                         1

  Reasons given why subordinate conspirator, Francis Tresham, cannot
    have “discovered” Plot——True principles laid down to guide mind
    of Inquirer into _personnel_ of (1) Revealing Conspirator, (2)
    Penman of Letter.

  CHAPTER II.                                                        4

  A “division of labour” in beneficent work of “discovering” Plot——
    Why?——Probabilities of case suggest at least three persons
    engaged in “swinging round on its axis diabolical Plot”——Whom
    Revealing conspirator would employ——Persons most likely.

  CHAPTER III.                                                       6

  Who was Lord Mounteagle?——Ancestry——Father: Lord Morley——Title,
    Mounteagle, derived through mother, Honourable Elizabeth
    Stanley, heiress of William Stanley third Lord Mounteagle——
    Mother akin to Howards through Leybournes of Westmoreland.

  CHAPTER IV.                                                        9

  Lord Mounteagle receives Letter 26th October, 1605, between “six
    and seven of the clock,” at Hoxton, near London——Opened by
    Mounteagle——Read by a member of his household, Thomas Ward——Full
    text of Letter given——27th October, Ward tells Thomas Winter, a
    conspirator, that Letter had been received by Mounteagle——Had
    been taken to Robert Cecil first Earl of Salisbury, Principal
    Secretary of State——28th October, Winter repairs to White Webbs
    by Enfield Chase, ten miles north of Westminster——Informs
    Catesby that “game was up”——Catesby says “would see further as
    yet”——Guy Fawkes sent from White Webbs to view cellar under
    House of Lords——Finds all marks undisturbed——Thirty-six barrels
    of gunpowder, wood, and coal all ready for fatal Fifth——Fawkes
    returns at night safely——Thomas Winter meets (or is met by)
    subordinate conspirator, Christopher Wright——Fawkes captured
    early on Tuesday, November 5th——Christopher Wright announces to
    Thomas Winter Fawkes’ capture.

  CHAPTER V.                                                        14

  In reign of Queen Elizabeth and early part of James I., “the
    castellated castles, moated halls, and gabled manor-houses” of
    old England “the sheltering, romantic roof-trees of those who
    clung” to the ancient Faith——Why?——Henry VIII.’s religious
    “change” and that of his progeny, King Edward VI. and Queen
    Elizabeth, unlikely to be acceptable “all on a sudden” to bulk
    of English people——Why?——Penal Legislation against Papists on
    part of Government——Jesuits in England, 1580——Campion and
    Parsons——Three Classes of English Jesuits——Mystics, _or_
    Politicians——Mystics _and_ Politicians——The thirteen Gunpowder
    plotters well-disposed towards Jesuits——But plotters only
    Politicians.

  CHAPTER VI.                                                       19

  Sir William Catesby (father of the arch-conspirator Robert
    Catesby) and Sir Thomas Tresham (father of Francis Tresham),
    fine old English gentlemen——Types of best class of Elizabethan
    Catholic gentry——Both persecuted by Government——Sir Thomas
    Tresham for more than twenty years pays for Fines equal in our
    money to £2,080 a year, as a “popish recusant”——Sir Thomas
    suffers imprisonment for at least twenty-one years after being
    Star-Chambered——Such transactions account for phenomenon of
    Gunpowder Treason Plot.

  CHAPTER VII.                                                      21

  All thirteen plotters “gentlemen of name and blood” (save Thomas
    Bates, a respectable serving-man of Catesby)——Names of plotters
    as follow:——Robert Catesby (Ashby St. Legers, Northamptonshire)——
    Thomas Winter (Huddington, near Droitwich, Worcestershire)——
    Thomas Percy (Beverley, E.R. Yorkshire)——John Wright (Plowland,
    Holderness, E.R. Yorkshire)——Guy (or Guido) Fawkes (York)——
    Robert Keyes (Drayton, Northamptonshire)——Christopher Wright
    (Plowland, Holderness, E.R. Yorkshire)——Robert Winter,
    (Huddington, near Droitwich, Worcestershire)——Ambrose Rookwood
    (Coldham, Stanningfield, Suffolk)——John Grant (Norbrook,
    Warwickshire)——Sir Everard Digby (Gothurst, near Newport
    Pagnell, Buckinghamshire)——Francis Tresham (Rushton,
    Northamptonshire)——Four out of conspirators natives of
    Yorkshire: Thomas Percy, John Wright, Christopher Wright, and
    Guy (or Guido) Fawkes——Five others indirectly connected with it:
    Thomas Winter, Robert Winter, John Grant, Robert Keyes, and
    Ambrose Rookwood——Thomas Winter and Robert Winter, grandsons of
    distinguished Knight, Sir William Ingleby, of Ripley Castle,
    near Knaresbrough and Bilton-cum-Harrogate, Nidderdale,
    Yorkshire——John Grant’s wife, Dorothy Grant, a grand-daughter of
    said Knight——Robert Keyes, a grandson of Key (or Kay), Esquire,
    of Woodsome, Almondbury, near Huddersfield.

  CHAPTER VIII. (same continued)                                    26

  CHAPTER IX.                                                       32

  Jesuit Father Edward Oldcorne a native of York——Oswald Tesimond
    most probably a native of York likewise——Before going to Rheims
    and Rome Oldcorne studied medicine.

  CHAPTER X.                                                        35

  Further analysis of problem as to what conspirator would be likely
    to “discover” Plot——A subordinate plotter——Introduced late into
    Plot——One with good moral training at home in childhood——One
    with trustworthy friend to act as Penman of warning Letter——One
    with trustworthy friend who could act as Go-between with
    Government——Christopher Wright, Edward Oldcorne, Thomas Ward.

  CHAPTER XI.                                                       37

  Fawkes, in Confession, dated 17th November, 1605, says mine from
    Percy’s house, adjoining Parliament House, begun 11th December,
    1604, by five principal conspirators——Christopher Wright sworn
    in to help in mining work “soon after”——Text of conspirators’
    secret oath.

  CHAPTER XII.                                                      40

  Christopher Wright’s family further described——Father: Robert
    Wright, Esquire, of Plowland, Holderness——Mother: Ursula
    Rudston, of Rudstons, Lords of Hayton, near Pocklington——Mother
    akin to Mallories, of Studley Royal, near Ripon——Wrights akin to
    Wards, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, near Ripon, likewise——
    Christopher Wright’s wife, Margaret Wright, possibly _née_
    Margaret Ward, of the Wards, of Mulwith.

  CHAPTER XIII.                                                     45

  Edward Oldcorne described——A native of St. Sampson’s Parish, York——
    A student of medicine——Goes to Rheims and Rome for higher
    studies——Ordained Priest——Joins Society of Jesus——In 1588 lands
    in England——Stationed by Father Henry Garnet, chief of Jesuits
    in England, at Hindlip Hall, four miles from Worcester——Hindlip
    Hall home of Thomas Abington, Esquire, and the Honourable Mary
    (Parker) Abington, daughter of the Lord Morley and sister to the
    Lord Mounteagle——Oldcorne’s extraordinary influence in
    Worcestershire——Styled “the Apostle of Worcestershire”——A man of
    mental equipoise.

  CHAPTER XIV.                                                      48

  “The Letter” critically examined.

  CHAPTER XV.                                                       54

  Further critical examination of “the Letter.”

  CHAPTER XVI.                                                      56

  Mounteagle “knew there was a Letter to come to him before it
    came”——Who was his “Secretary,” Thomas Ward?——Almost certainly
    brother-in-law to Christopher Wright——Proofs of this assertion——
    Entry of marriage in St. Michael-le-Belfrey’s Church, York, of a
    “Thomas Warde of Mulwaith, in the p’ishe of Rippon, and M’rgery
    Slater, 29th May, 1579”——Entry of burial of “Marjory wife of
    Thomas Warde of Mulwith,” in Register at Ripon Minster, about
    eleven years after, 20th May, 1590.

  CHAPTER XVII.                                                     59

  Entry of christening of Edward, son of Christopher Wright, of
    Bondgate, Ripon, in Ripon Minster Registers, 6th October, 1589——
    Of Eliza, daughter of Christopher Wright, of Newbie, 23rd July,
    1594——Of Francis, son of Christopher Wright, of Newbie, 12th
    July, 1596——Of Marmaduke, son of Christopher Wright, of Skelton,
    3rd February, 1601——Thomas Warde, of “Mulwaith,” in 1579——Thomas
    Warde, of “Mulwith,” in 1590——Inference of propinquity between
    Christopher Wright and Thomas Warde, at least between years 1589
    and 1590 inclusive——Thomas Warde probably in diplomatic service
    of Queen Elizabeth, under Sir Francis Walsingham——Probably sent
    on mission to Low Countries in 1585.

  CHAPTER XVIII.                                                    63

  Proof that William Ward, a son of Marmaduke Ward, of Newby, had an
    uncle who lived at Court——Inference that this was Thomas Ward,
    member of household of Lord Mounteagle.

  CHAPTER XIX.                                                      68

  Inference drawn that Christopher Wright, Thomas Warde, and Lord
    Mounteagle were personally acquainted.

  CHAPTER XX.                                                       70

  Marmaduke Ward at Lapworth, in Warwickshire——Arrested by
    Government——Released——Inference that he had a powerful friend at
    Court.

  CHAPTER XXI.                                                      74

  Suggested proof of how Mounteagle came to be associated with
    Thomas Ward——Biographical and Topographical evidence adduced in
    support.

  CHAPTER XXII. (same continued)                                    76

  CHAPTER XXIII. (same further continued)                           81

  CHAPTER XXIV.                                                     85

  Letter conveyed to Hoxton on Saturday evening, 26th October, 1605,
    between six and seven of the clock, in pursuance of
    pre-arrangement——Suggested that pre-arrangement was made by
    Thomas Ward.

  CHAPTER XXV.                                                      87

  Thomas Ward sees Thomas Winter, one of the chief conspirators——
    Suggested inference that Christopher Wright had bidden Thomas
    Ward so to do——In order to compass flight of rest of
    conspirators.

  CHAPTER XXVI.                                                     90

  Thomas Winter interviews Francis Tresham, one of subordinate
    conspirators, on Saturday night, 2nd November, one week after
    delivery of Letter to Lord Mounteagle.

  CHAPTER XXVII.                                                    92

  Tresham tells Winter that Government knew of existence of _the
    mine_——How had Government such knowledge?——Suggested
    concatenation of evidence that Christopher Wright told fact to
    Thomas Ward (or Warde); Ward to Lord Mounteagle; Mounteagle to
    Francis Tresham; Tresham to Thomas Winter.

  CHAPTER XXVIII.                                                   94

  Earl of Suffolk (Lord Chamberlain) accompanied by Lord Mounteagle
    visits cellar under House of Lords, where thirty-six barrels of
    gunpowder are stored——They light upon Guy (or Guido) Fawkes.

  CHAPTER XXIX.                                                     96

  Quotation from “_King’s Book_”——Version of Gunpowder Plot put
    forth by “lawful authority”——Showing procedure of Earl of
    Suffolk and Lord Mounteagle on search of cellar under House of
    Lords, Monday, 4th November——Thirty-six barrels of gunpowder
    stored ready for firing by Fawkes on fatal Fifth.

  CHAPTER XXX.                                                      99

  Quotation from the “_Hatfield MSS._,” giving account of meeting at
    Fremland, Essex, in July, 1605——Present thereat (amongst others)
    Lord Mounteagle, his brother-in-law Francis Tresham, and Father
    Henry Garnet, then Superior of English Jesuits——Account of Sir
    Edmund Baynham——Despatched in September on double mission to
    Pope of Rome——Baynham described——A Gloucestershire Roman
    Catholic gentleman——Belike of the swashbuckler type.

  CHAPTER XXXI.                                                    102

  Christopher Wright.

  CHAPTER XXXII.                                                   104

  Marmaduke Ward, of Newbie (or Newby), near Ripon, comes up to
    Lapworth, in Warwickshire——Lapworth, the birthplace of
    arch-conspirator Robert Catesby——One of the large Catesby
    Warwickshire possessions——In May, 1605, Lapworth let by Catesby
    to John Wright——Marmaduke Ward, brother-in-law to John Wright
    and Christopher Wright, arrives at Lapworth about 24th October,
    1605——Suggestion that Marmaduke Ward was sent for by Thomas
    Ward——In order, haply, to prevail upon brothers Wright to
    abandon scheme of insurrectionary stir in Midlands.

  CHAPTER XXXIII.                                                  107

  What _objections_ against hypothesis that Christopher Wright was
    Revealing conspirator?——What _objections_ against hypothesis
    that Father Edward Oldcorne was Penman of Letter?——Evidence of
    one William Handy, serving-man to Sir Everard Digby, Knt.,
    quoted, weighed, and disposed of.

  CHAPTER XXXIV.                                                   110

  Evidence of a certain Dr. Williams, of reign of Charles II.,
    author of pamphlet purporting to be History of the Gunpowder
    Treason Plot, quoted.

  CHAPTER XXXV.                                                    112

  Probable untrustworthiness of Dr. Williams’ reported statement
    manifested by convincing argument——Singular story that Letter
    was penned by the Honourable Anne Vaux, one of the daughters of
    William Lord Vaux of Harrowden——Story told, examined, and
    disposed of.

  CHAPTER XXXVI.                                                   116

  Dr. Williams’ reported statement a faint adumbration of truth——
    Why?——Because Williams’ report tends to corroborate evidence
    that Letter _emanated_ from Hindlip Hall——Suggestion made as to
    whence and how Williams’ report had its origin——The Lady of
    Hindlip may have _guessed truth_, through her womanly
    perspicacity.

  CHAPTER XXXVII.                                                  120

  Evidence, deductions, and suggestions finally considered tending
    to show that Christopher Wright _after_ delivery of Letter
    exhibited _consciousness_ of having revealed Plot.

  CHAPTER XXXVIII.                                                 124

  Old Dutch print, published immediately after detection of Plot
    (reprinted in “_Connoisseur_” for November, 1901), shows
    Christopher Wright in act of engaging in earnest discourse with
    arch-conspirator Robert Catesby——Slightly tends to confirm
    tradition that (1) Christopher Wright first ascertained that
    Plot was discovered, and that (2) Christopher Wright counselled
    that “each conspirator should betake himself to flight in a
    different direction from any of his companions.”

  CHAPTER XXXIX.                                                   126

  Evidence of William Kyddall——Kyddall accompanies Christopher
    Wright from Lapworth (twenty miles from Hindlip Hall) to London,
    on Monday, 28th October——Arrive in London, on Wednesday, 30th——
    Evidence of Mistress Dorathie Robinson, Christopher Wright’s
    London landlady, as to padlocked hampers, evidently containing
    fresh gunpowder.

  CHAPTER XL.                                                      131

  Conspirators are “shriven” and “houselled” at Huddington by Jesuit
    Father Nicholas Hart——Ambrose Rookwood——Rookwood “absolved” by
    the Jesuit priest “without remark”——Reason why suggested.

  CHAPTER XLI. (same continued)                                    134

  CHAPTER XLII.                                                    136

  Robert Cecil first Earl of Salisbury, Principal Secretary of
    State, instructs Sir Edward Coke, Attorney-General, _to disclaim
    that any of these wrote Letter_——Reason why suggested.

  CHAPTER XLIII.                                                   140

  Archbishop Usher reported divers times to have said “that if
    Papists knew what he knew, the blame of the Gunpowder Treason
    would not lie on them”——Suggested explanation of the oracular
    words——Second Earl of Salisbury reported to have confessed that
    the Gunpowder Plot was “his father’s contrivance”——Suggested
    explanation of this strange report.

  CHAPTER XLIV.                                                    144

  Critical examination of the Letter renewed——Writer must have
    regarded Plot as a scheme defecated of criminous quality——Reason
    why.

  CHAPTER XLV.                                                     148

  Coughton Hall (now Coughton Court), in Warwickshire, ancestral
    home of grand old English Roman Catholic family of Throckmorton——
    Father Henry Garnet, Superior of English Jesuits, harboured here
    from 29th October, 1605, to 16th December, 1605——Father Oswald
    Tesimond at Coughton on Wednesday, 6th November——Bates sent with
    letters from Catesby and Sir Everard Digby to Father Garnet and
    Lady Digby——Bates despatched from Norbrook, in Warwickshire——
    Arrives at Coughton——Fathers Garnet and Tesimond have conference
    for half-an-hour——Garnet gives leave to Tesimond to proceed to
    Huddington, in Worcestershire——Whither conspirators and rebels
    were come, early on Wednesday, 6th November——Tesimond arrives at
    Huddington——Psycho-electrical will force of Catesby works on
    mind of Tesimond——Tesimond inspired with rebellious ardour
    against Government——Dashes on to Hindlip, within five miles of
    Huddington.

  CHAPTER XLVI.                                                    152

  Tesimond arrives at Hindlip——Urges the Master of Hindlip and
    Father Oldcorne to join rebels——Master of Hindlip and Father
    Oldcorne decline——Anger kindled in breast of Tesimond——Rides off
    towards Lancashire in hope of rousing to arms dwellers in that
    Catholic county.

  CHAPTER XLVII.                                                   154

  Who and what was Father Henry Garnet?——A native of Nottingham
    (1555)——A scholar of Winchester School——Joins Jesuit Novitiate
    in Rome (1575)——Problem of Garnet’s moral and legal guilt (or
    otherwise) impartially discussed.

  CHAPTER XLVIII. (same continued)                                 157

  CHAPTER XLIX.                                                    160

  At the end of August, 1605, Garnet leaves London for Gothurst——
    Famous pilgrimage to St. Winifred’s Well, Flintshire, North
    Wales, about 5th September, made from Gothurst——Lady Digby,
    Ambrose Rookwood and his wife, the Honourable Anne Vaux, and
    upwards of thirty others, join the pilgrim-band——Father Garnet
    and Father Percy, chaplain to Sir Everard Digby, lead the
    cavalcade——Away about a fortnight.

  CHAPTER L.                                                       165

  Pilgrims return from St. Winifred’s Well to Gothurst——A fortnight
    before Michaelmas (11th October, old style)——Father Garnet at
    Great Harrowden, Northamptonshire,——Ancestral home of Edward
    Lord Vaux of Harrowden.

  CHAPTER LI.                                                      167

  4th October, 1605, Father Garnet at Great Harrowden——Pens a long
    letter to Father Parsons in Rome.

  CHAPTER LII.                                                     169

  21st October, Father Garnet at Gothurst (most probably)——Pens a
    short _post scriptum_ to letter of 4th October——Blots out three
    lines of letter——Assigns as cause therefor “FOR REASON OF A
    FRIEND’S STAY IN THE WAY”——_Who was this friend?_

  CHAPTER LIII. (Chapters XLV. and XLVI. with more particularity)  172

  Sir Everard Digby rents Coughton, near Alcester, Warwickshire——Sir
    Everard to be in command of Midland Rising against Government——
    Many Catholic gentlemen from Midland counties expected to rebel
    by reason of galling anti-Catholic persecution——Sir Everard
    Digby, on Sunday, 3rd November, rides to Dunchurch, near Rugby,
    in Warwickshire——Robert Winter, of Huddington, joined by Stephen
    Littleton, of Holbeach, Staffordshire, also by latter’s cousin,
    Humphrey Littleton——Tuesday, November 5th, Cousins Littleton,
    Sir Robert Digby (Coleshill), younger Acton (Ribbesford), and
    many others, join “hunting match” on Dunsmore Heath——Some of
    these gentlemen with leader, Sir Everard Digby, await arrival of
    Catesby and the rest of conspirators in an Inn at Dunchurch——At
    six of the clock in evening of Tuesday, fatal Fifth, in wild
    headlong flight from London, Catesby, Percy, two Wrights, and
    Ambrose Rookwood rush into ancient mansion-house of Catesbies
    at Ashby St. Legers, Northamptonshire——Announce capture of
    Fawkes——Hold short council of war——Snatch up weapons of warfare——
    North-westwards that November night——Arrive at Dunchurch Inn——
    Digby told of capture of Fawkes——Many Catholic gentlemen return
    to their homes——Plotters and rebel-allies plunge into the
    darkness——Make for “Shakespeare’s country”——Arrive at Warwick by
    three of the clock on Wednesday morning——From stables near
    Warwick Castle take fresh horses, leaving their own steeds in
    exchange therefor——Dash on towards John Grant’s “moated grange,”
    Norbrook, Snitterfield (where Shakespeare’s mother held
    property)——At Norbrook “take bite and sup”——Rest their fatigued
    limbs awhile——On saddle-back once more——This time bound for
    Huddington, near Droitwich, Worcestershire, the seat of Robert
    Winter——Arrive there probably about twelve o’clock noon of
    Wednesday (some authorities say two o’clock in the afternoon)——
    Tesimond comes from Coughton to Huddington——Catesby hails
    Tesimond with joy——Tesimond proceeds to Hindlip Hall——On
    Thursday morning, at about three of the clock, all company at
    Huddington “assist” at Mass offered by Father Nicholas Hart, a
    Jesuit from Great Harrowden——Whole company “shriven and
    houselled”——Before daybreak all on march again north-westwards——
    Halt at Whewell Grange, seat of the Lord Windsor——There help
    themselves to large store of arms and armour——Plotters and
    rebels then numbered about sixty all told——Cross the River
    Stour, in flood——A cart of gunpowder rendered “dank” in
    crossing——Proceed to Holbeach House, in Staffordshire——
    Mansion-house of Stephen Littleton, Esquire, a Roman Catholic
    gentleman of ancient lineage.

  CHAPTER LIV.                                                     177

  High Sheriffs of Warwickshire and Worcestershire with _posse
    comitatus_ in pursuit——Plotters and rebels arrive at Holbeach
    (near Stourbridge) at ten of the clock on Thursday night——Early
    Friday morning explosion of drying gunpowder at Holbeach——
    Catesby, Rookwood, and Grant burnt——Catesby unnerved——
    Arch-conspirator and others betake themselves to prayers——
    “Litanies and such like”——Make an hour’s “meditation”——About
    eleven of the clock on Friday, 8th November, Sheriff of
    Worcestershire and “hue and cry” surround Holbeach——Siege laid
    thereto——Thomas Winter disabled by an arrow from crossbow——
    Catesby and Percy, standing sword in hand, shot by one musket——
    Catesby expires——John Wright wounded unto death——Christopher
    Wright mortally wounded——Percy grievously wounded——Dies a day or
    two afterwards——Ambrose Rookwood wounded——Sir Everard Digby
    apprehended——Rest taken prisoners, except Stephen Littleton and
    Robert Winter, who escape.

  CHAPTER LV.                                                      181

  Father Henry Garnet changes his mind——Does not go up to London——
    But from Gothurst, in Buckinghamshire, goes down to Coughton, in
    Warwickshire, on the 29th October——All Saints’ Day (November
    1st) at Coughton Hall (now Coughton Court)——Mass “offered” by
    Father Garnet.

  CHAPTER LVI.                                                     185

  Stephen Littleton, the Master of Holbeach, and Robert Winter, the
    Master of Huddington, harboured at Rowley Regis, in
    Staffordshire, by a tenant of Humphrey Littleton, Esquire, of
    Hagley, Worcestershire, a cousin to Stephen Littleton——Humphrey
    Littleton harbours the two fugitives from justice at Hagley
    House, home of his sister-in-law, Mrs. John Littleton——Both
    fugitives betrayed by man-cook at Hagley——Delivered over to the
    officers of the law and conveyed to the Tower of London.

  CHAPTER LVII.                                                    188

  Humphrey Littleton consults Father Edward Oldcorne, the Jesuit,
    respecting the moral rightness or wrongness of the Gunpowder
    Plot——Father Oldcorne’s Reply to Littleton _in extenso_.

  CHAPTER LVIII.                                                   190

  Reply analyzed——Divisible into two distinct parts——First part:
    gives an answer sounding in abstract truth alone, in other
    words, leaves Littleton in abstracto——Second part: disclaims
    knowledge of _end_ plotters had in view and _means_ they had
    recourse to.

  CHAPTER LIX.                                                     193

  Metaphysical Argument grounded on Oldcorne’s Reply to Humphrey
    Littleton——Argument seeks to demonstrate that from tenour and
    purport of Oldcorne’s Reply, the Jesuit must have had a special
    interior knowledge of the Plot.

  CHAPTER LX. (same continued)                                     195

  CHAPTER LXI. (same continued)                                    198

  CHAPTER LXII. (same continued)                                   200

  CHAPTER LXIII. (same continued)                                  201

  CHAPTER LXIV. (same continued)                                   204

  CHAPTER LXV. (same continued)                                    208

  CHAPTER LXVI. (same continued)                                   210

  CHAPTER LXVII. (same continued)                                  212

  CHAPTER LXVIII. (same continued)                                 215

  CHAPTER LXIX. (same continued)                                   220

  CHAPTER LXX.                                                     222

  Fathers Garnet and Oldcorne captured at Hindlip Hall the last week
    of January, 1605-6——Conveyed to the Tower of London——Father
    Oldcorne “racked five times, and once with the greatest severity
    for several hours”——On 7th April, 1606, at Redhill, near
    Worcester, Father Edward Oldcorne, Priest and Jesuit, hanged,
    drawn, and quartered as a traitor——Brother Ralph Ashley, his
    servant, hanged at the same time and place.

  CHAPTER LXXI.                                                    224

  True inferences to be drawn from Father Oldcorne’s “last dying
    speech and confession.”

  CHAPTER LXXII.                                                   227

  Edward Oldcorne——Ralph Ashley.

  CHAPTER LXXIII.                                                  229

  Thomas Ward.

  RECAPITULATION OF PROOFS, ARGUMENTS, AND CONCLUSIONS.            233

                              SUPPLEMENTA.

  SUPPLEMENTUM I.                                                  239
    Guy Fawkes.

  SUPPLEMENTUM II.                                                 260
    Letter of Lord Bishop of Worcester (Dr. Bilson), to Sir Robert
      Cecil, as to Diocese of Worcester.

  SUPPLEMENTUM III.                                                264
    Thomas Ward (or Warde).

  SUPPLEMENTUM IV.                                                 271
    Mulwith, near Ripon.

  SUPPLEMENTUM V.                                                  279
    Plowland, Holderness.

  SUPPLEMENTUM VI.                                                 287
    Equivocation. Letter of the Rev. George Canning, S.J., Professor
      of Ethics, St. Mary’s Hall, Stonyhurst.

                              APPENDICES.

  APPENDIX A                                                       295
    Circumstantial Evidence defined. (a) Evidence generally: (by Mr.
      Frank Pick, York).

  APPENDIX B                                                       299
    Discrepancy as to date when immaterial (per Lord Chief Justice
      Scroggs, _temp_. Charles II.).

  APPENDIX C                                                       300
    List of those apprehended for Plot in Warwickshire, &c. (a) List
      of those frequenting Clopton (or Clapton) Hall,
      Stratford-on-Avon, Warwickshire.

  APPENDIX D                                                       304
    Richard Browne (servant to Christopher Wright), his evidence.

  APPENDIX E                                                       306
    William Grantham (servant to Hewett, Hatter), his evidence.

  APPENDIX F                                                       307
    Robert Rookes (servant to Ambrose Rookwood), his evidence.

  APPENDIX G                                                       308
    John Cradock (Cutler), his evidence.

  APPENDIX H                                                       310
    Lord Chief Justice Popham’s statement as to Christopher Wright.

  APPENDIX I                                                       312
    Sir Richard Verney, Knt., John Ferrers, William Combe, Bart.
      Hales (Warwickshire Justices): Joint Statement to Earl of
      Salisbury, as to Mrs. John Grant and Mrs. Thomas Percy.

  APPENDIX J                                                       313
    Paris (boatman), his evidence, as to taking Guy Fawkes to
      Gravelines, France, during “vacation,” 1605.

  APPENDIX K                                                       314
    Miss Emma M. Walford, her opinion as to resemblance between
      Edward Oldcorne’s original Declaration of 12th March, 1605-6,
      and original Letter to Lord Mounteagle (both in Record Office,
      Chancery Lane, London, W.C.).

  APPENDIX L                                                       315
    Professor Bertram C. A. Windle, M.D., F.R.S., his opinion as to
      distances between certain localities in Warwickshire,
      Worcestershire, Northamptonshire, and Buckinghamshire.

  APPENDIX M                                                       318
    Letter of Lieut.-Colonel Carmichael as to same.

  APPENDIX N                                                       319
    Order of Queen Elizabeth in Council, dated 31st December, 1582,
      addressed to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of York.

  NOTE (as to authenticity of Thomas Winter’s Confession)          323

  NOTES (1-180)                                                    327

  FINIS                                                            411




                                ERRATA.


The author regrets to have to request his indulgent readers to be kind
enough to make the following corrections [Transcriber’s Note: These have
been applied.]:——

  Page 19, line 14 from top.——Put ) after word “conspirators,” _not_
    after word “_Tresham_.”

  Page 77, line 9 from top.——Read: and “great great grandfather of
    Philip Howard Earl of Arundel,” _instead of
    “great-grandfather.”_

  Page 79, in note, line 5 from top.——Read: “ninth Earl of
    Carlisle,” _instead of “seventh Earl of Carlisle.”_

  Page 87, in note, line 8 from bottom.——Read: “Burns & Oates.”

  Page 117, line 5 from top.——Read: “William Abington,” _instead of
    “Thomas Abington.”_

  Page 122, in note, line 2 from top.——Read: “Duke of Beaufort,”
    _instead of “Duke of St. Albans.”_

  Page 140, line 4 from top.——Read: “incarcerated,” _instead of
    “inccarerated.”_

  Page 285, in note, line 2 from top.——Read: “kinswoman,” _instead
    of “kinsman.”_

  Page 321, line 16 from top.——Read: “Deprave,” _instead of
    “depeave.”_




                                PRELUDE.


In order that the problem of the Gunpowder Plot may be understood, it is
necessary for the reader to bear in mind that there were three
movements——distinct though connected——against the Government on the part
of the oppressed Roman Catholic recusants in the year 1605. The first of
these movements was a general wave of insurrectionary feeling, of which
there is evidence in Yorkshire as far back as 1596; in Lancashire about
1600; and in Herefordshire, at a later date, much more markedly. Then
there was the Gunpowder Plot itself. And, lastly, there was the rebellion
that was planned to take place in the Midlands, which, to a very limited
extent, did take place, and in the course of which four of the
conspirators were slain. That Salisbury’s spies and decoys——who were, like
Walsingham’s, usually not Protestants but “bad Catholics”——had something
to do with stirring up the general revolutionary feeling is more than
probable; but that either he or they planned, either jointly or severally,
the particular enterprise known as the Gunpowder Treason Plot——which was
as insane as it was infamous——I do not for a moment believe.

All students of English History, however, are greatly indebted to the Rev.
John Gerard, S.J., for his three recent critical works on this subject;
but still that the main outlines of the Plot are as they have come down to
us by tradition, to my mind, Dr. Samuel Rawson Gardiner abundantly proves
in his book in reply to the Rev. John Gerard.

The names of the works to which I refer are:——“_What was the Gunpowder
Plot?_” the Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. (Osgood, McIlvaine & Co.); “_The
Gunpowder Plot and Plotters_” (Harper Bros.); “_Thomas Winter’s Confession
and the Gunpowder Plot_” (Harper Bros.); and “_What Gunpowder Plot was_,”
S. R. Gardiner, D.C.L., LL.D. (Longmans).

The Articles in “_The Dictionary of National Biography_” dealing with the
chief actors in this notable tragedy are all worthy of careful perusal.

“_The History of the Jesuits in England, 1580-1773_,” by the Rev. Ethelred
L. Taunton, with twelve illustrations (Methuen & Co., 1901), contains a
chapter on the Gunpowder Plot; and the Plot is referred to in Major Hume’s
recent work, entitled, “_Treason and Plot_” (Nisbet, 1901).




                               CHAPTER I.


One of the unsolved problems of English History is the question: “Who
wrote the Letter to the Lord Mounteagle?” surely, one of the most
momentous documents ever penned by the hand of man, which discovered the
Gunpowder Treason, and so saved a King of England, Wales, Scotland, and
Ireland——to say nothing of France——his Royal Consort, his Counsellors, and
Senators, from a bloody, cruel, and untimely death.

In every conspiracy there is a knave or a fool, and sometimes, happily, “a
repentant sinner.”

Now it is well known that the contrivers of the Gunpowder Treason
themselves suspected Francis Tresham——a subordinate conspirator and
brother-in-law to Lord Mounteagle——and many historians have rashly jumped
to the conclusion that, therefore, Tresham must have been the author.

But, when charged at Barnet by Catesby and Thomas Winter, two of his
infuriated fellow-plotters, with having sent the Letter, Tresham so
stoutly and energetically denied the charge that his denial saved him from
the point of their poniards.

Moreover, the suspected man when a prisoner in the Tower of London, and
even when in the act of throwing himself on the King’s mercy, never gave
the faintest hint that the Letter was attributable to him. But, on the
contrary, actually stated first that he had _intended_ to reveal the
treason, and secondly that he _had been guilty_ of concealment.

Now, as a rule, “all that a man hath will he give for his life.” Therefore
it is impossible, in the face of this direct testimony of Tresham, to
maintain that to him the discovery of the Plot is due: and the force of
the argument grounded on Tresham’s being the brother-in-law to Mounteagle,
and that the accused man showed an evident desire that the Plot should be
postponed, if not altogether abandoned, melts away like snow before the
sun.[1][2][A]

[Footnote A: See Notes at End of Text, indicated by figures in [ ].]

To whatever decision the Historical Inquirer into this hitherto
inscrutable mystery is destined to come after reviewing and weighing the
Evidence now available——which to-day is more abundant from a variety of
accidental circumstances, than when Lingard and Mackintosh, and even
Gardiner and Green, wrote their histories——it is manifest that the
Inquirer’s decision in the matter cannot be as certain as a mathematical
conclusion. But, it may be morally certain, because of the many degrees of
probability that the information now ready to our hand will inevitably
give that are favourable to the conclusion which the following pages will
seek, by the evidence of facts, to sustain. And, as the ancient historian
tersely says: “_Ubi res adsunt, quid opus est verbis?_”——“Where facts are
at hand, what need is there for words?”

The Evidence to be relied on is mainly the evidence known as
Circumstantial,[B] and consists of two classes of acts. One of these
classes leads up to the performance of the transaction——namely, in the one
case, the dictating of the Letter by the primary Author; in the other
case, the penning of the Document by the secondary Scribe. Whilst the
other class of acts tends to demonstrate that the Author of the Letter
and the Penman respectively were conscious, _subsequent_ to the commission
of the transaction——in the former case, of having incurred the
responsibility of being the originating Cause of the Document; in the
latter case, of being the Agent for its physical production.

[Footnote B: As to the nature of Circumstantial Evidence——see Appendix.]

Before we begin to collect our Evidence, and, _à fortiori_, before we
begin to consider the inferences from the same, we ought to bear in mind
certain fixities of thought, or, in other words, certain self-evident
fundamentals which are grounded in logic and daily experience. These
fixities of thought or self-evident fundamentals will be points from which
the reason of the Historical Inquirer can take swing. And not only so;
but——like the cords of the rocket life-saving apparatus of the eager
mariner——they will be lines of attachment and rules of thought, whereby
first to secure to ourselves the available Evidence; and secondly, to
prove to the intellect the truth of a theory which, if allowed, shall
redound, in respect of courage and integrity, to the praise and honour of
Man.




                              CHAPTER II.


Now, to my mind, it is a proposition so plain as not to require arguing,
that there must have been at least _two_ persons engaged in the two-fold
transaction of dictating the Letter and of being the penman of the same.
For although it is, of course, physically possible that the work may have
been accomplished by one and the same person, yet that there was a
division of labour in the two-fold transaction is infinitely the more
likely supposal: because of the terrible risk to the revealing conspirator
of his handwriting being detected by the Government authorities, and,
through them, by his co-partners in guilt, should he have rashly
adventured to be his own scribe; and this though he feigned his penmanship
never so cunningly.

Now if such were the case, it follows that there must have been some
second person——some entirely trustworthy friend——in the conspirator’s
confidence. Nay, if the exigencies of the nature and posture of affairs
demanded it, a third person, or even a fourth, might have been also taken
into confidence. But only if absolutely necessary. For the risk of
detection would be proportioned to the number of persons in the
secret:——it being a rule of common prudence in such cases that confidences
must not be unnecessarily multiplied.

Therefore it follows that, supposing there was a second person in the
confidence of the “discovering” or revealing conspirator to pen the
Letter; and supposing there was a third person in the confidence of that
conspirator, with or without the knowledge and consent of the second
person, to act as a go-between, an “_interpres_,” between the conspirator
and Lord Mounteagle, these two persons must have been very trustworthy
persons indeed.

Now a man trusts his fellow-man in proportion as he has had knowledge of
him either directly or indirectly; directly by personal contact,
indirectly through the recommendation of some competent authority.

_Experientia docet._ Experience teaches. A man has knowledge of his
fellow-man as the resultant of the experience gained from relationship of
some kind or another. And relationship is created by kinship, friendship,
or business——intending the word “business” to embrace activity resulting
from thought, word, and deed extending to the widest range of human
interests conceivable. Relationship creates bonds, ties, obligations
between the several persons united by it.

Hence, the practical conclusion is to be drawn that if “the discovering”
or disclosing Gunpowder conspirator, with a view to revealing the intended
massacre, had recourse to one or more confidants, they must have been one
or more person or persons who were united to him by kinship, friendship,
or business, in the sense predicated, possibly in all three, and that they
must have been persons bound to him by bonds, which if “light as air were
strong as iron.”

Let us now turn to the Evidence to-day available bearing upon the
momentous document under consideration. We will begin by saying a few
words respecting the Lord Mounteagle, whose name, at least, the Gunpowder
Treason will have for ever enshrined in the remembrance of the British
people.




                              CHAPTER III.


William Parker,[3] the son and heir of Lord Morley, whose barony had been
created by King Edward I. in 1299, was called to the House of Lords as the
fourth Baron Mounteagle, in right of his mother the Honourable Elizabeth
Stanley, the only child and heiress of the third Baron Mounteagle, whose
wife was a Leybourne of Westmoreland.

At the time of the Plot (1605) the fourth Lord Mounteagle was thirty years
of age. His principal country residence appears to have been at Great
Hallingbury, near Bishop Stortford, in the County of Essex. His chief
town-house seems to have been in the Strand. He married before he was
eighteen years of age, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Thomas Tresham of
Rushton, Northamptonshire, a high-minded, scholarly Roman Catholic
gentleman of great wealth, who had been knighted at Kenilworth by Queen
Elizabeth in 1577.

Mounteagle was connected through his mother alone, to say nothing of his
father, with some of the noblest families in the land. Besides the then
well-nigh princely Lancashire House, the Stanleys Earls of Derby, to whom
he was related in both the paternal and maternal lines, through his mother
Elizabeth Stanley, Mounteagle was related, as cousin once removed, to
those twain gracious, beautiful souls, Anne Dacres Countess of Arundel and
Surrey, widow of the sainted Philip Howard Earl of Arundel and Surrey, and
to her sister the Lady Elizabeth Howard, wife of “Belted Will Howard”[4]
of Naworth Castle, the ancient home of the Lords Dacres of Gilsland, near
Carlisle, commonly called the Lords Dacres of the North, in
contradistinction to the Lords Dacres of the South, of Hurstmonceaux
Castle in the County of Sussex.

Mounteagle was, therefore, through his mother, a near kinsman to the
remarkable Thomas Howard Earl of Arundel, who married Aletheia, the only
child and heiress of Gilbert, seventh Earl of Shrewsbury, and god-daughter
of Queen Elizabeth.

This Earl of Arundel eventually became the well-known patron of the fine
arts. But in the year 1605 the young peer had not yet quite attained his
majority.

Mounteagle, again, through his mother’s relationship with the gifted
Thomas Howard Earl of Arundel just mentioned, would be also connected with
a nobleman who at that epoch was counted a very model of “the pomp, pride,
and circumstance of ancient nobility,” with John Lord Lumley[5] of Lumley
Castle in the County Palatine of Durham, whose wife was Jane, daughter of
Henry Fitzalan Earl of Arundel, a nobleman “exceeding magnifical,” who
indeed in his day had even cherished aspirations to the hand of the last
representative of the Royal House of Tudor herself.

Lord Mounteagle consorted much with English Roman Catholics, and, in some
sense, prior to the year 1605, was of that religion himself. He had been
present with his wife’s brother Francis Tresham a little after the
Midsummer of 1605 at Fremland in Essex, on the occasion of the celebrated
meeting when Father Henry Garnet, the head of the Jesuits in England, took
occasion to have special warning speech with Catesby respecting a general
question propounded by Catesby to Garnet about a month or six weeks
previously (_i.e._, the beginning of Trinity Term, 1605), and from the
answer to which general question Catesby shamefully drew that particular
conclusion which the promptings of his evil will desired, in order that
the enormity he had purposed might be made acceptable to the wavering
conscience of any dubious fellow-plotter against whose resurgent sense of
right and wrong he thought he might have to strive.

Lord Mounteagle is a difficult man accurately to reckon up, either
intellectually, morally, or religiously. For he seems in all three aspects
to have been a slightly ambiguous person.[A] Yet certainly he was no mere
titled fool, with a head-piece like a windmill. Far from it: he was
probably a man of sufficient, though not, I think, of the very highest
intelligence, good-natured, easy-going, and of very engaging manners.[B]

[Footnote A: It is curious and amusing to hear that the following was the
opinion of Robert Catesby concerning the peerage of his day:——“He made
account of the nobility as of atheists, fools, and cowards; and that lusty
bodies would be better for the commonwealth than they.”——See “_Keyes’
Examination_,” Record Office.]

[Footnote B: A certain English periodical, a few years ago, spoke
admiringly of Lord Mounteagle’s twentieth century connection, the present
Duke of Devonshire, as being one’s _beau-ideal_ of the “you-be-damned”
type of Englishman. Probably the same periodical would have found, had it
been in existence in the seventeenth century, a similar contentment in the
contemplation of the fourth Lord Mounteagle.]

By his contemporaries, it is evident that even prior to 1605 Mounteagle
was made much of and greatly courted. But less, I opine, on account of the
intellectual and moral qualities wherewith he was endowed, than on account
of the exalted station of his kith and kin and the general excellency and
eminency of his own external graces and gifts of fortune.

So much, then, for the present, concerning the now famous William Parker
fourth Baron Mounteagle, whom History has crowned with a wreath of
immortals.




                              CHAPTER IV.


On Saturday, the 26th of October, ten days before the intended meeting of
Parliament,[A] Lord Mounteagle, we are told, unexpectedly and without any
apparent reason or previous notice, directed a supper to be prepared at
his mansion at Hoxton, where he had not been for more than a twelve-month
before that date.

[Footnote A: Parliament had been prorogued from the 3rd of October to the
5th of November. Lord Mounteagle was one of the Commissioners.

The “_Confession_” by Thomas Winter, which I regard as genuine, I have
also drawn upon freely in my relation of facts.——See Appendix.]

It will be well, however, to relate the history of what occurred in the
exact words provided for us in a work published by King James’s printer,
and put forth as “the authorised version” of the facts that it recorded.
The work bears the title——“_A Discourse of the late intended Treason_,”
anno 1605. “_The Discourse_” says:——“The Lord Mounteagle, sonne and heire
to the Lord Morley, being in his own lodging ready to go to supper at
seven of the clock at night one of his footmen whom he had sent of an
errand over the streete was met by an unknown man of a reasonable tall
personage[6] who delivered him a Letter charging him to put it in my Lord
his Master’s hands, which my Lord no sooner received but that having
broken it up and perceiving the same to be of an unknown and somewhat
unlegible hand, and without either date or subscription, did call one of
his men unto him for helping him to read it. But no sooner did he conceive
the strange contents thereof, although he was somewhat perplexed what
construction to make of it ... yet did he as a most dutifull and loyall
subject conclude not to conceal it, whatever might come of it. Whereupon
notwithstanding the latenesse and darknesse of the night in that season of
the year, he presently repaired to his Majesties palace at Whitehall and
there delivered the same to the Earle of Salisbury his majesties
principall secretarie.”

The Letter was as follows:——

“My lord out of the loue i beare yowe to some of youere frends i haue a
caer of youer preseruacion therfor i would aduyse yowe as yowe tender
youer lyf to deuys some exscuse to shift of youer attendance at this
parleament for god and man hath concurred to punishe the wickednes of this
tyme and thinke not slightlye of this aduertisment but retyere youre self
into youre contri wheare yowe maye expect the euent in safti for
thowghe[7] theare be no apparance of anni stir yet i saye they shall
receyue a terrible blowe this parleament and yet they shall not sei who
hurts them this councel is not to be contemned because it maye do yowe
good and can do yowe no harme for the dangere is passed as soon as yowe
have burnt the letter and i hope god will give yowe the grace to mak good
use of it to whose holy proteccion i comend yowe.”

(Addressed on the back) to “the ryght honorable the lord mouteagle.”

The full name of the member of Lord Mounteagle’s household who read the
Letter to Lord Mounteagle, we learn, was Thomas Ward.[8]

Ward was acquainted with Thomas Winter, one of the principal Gunpowder
plotters; for Winter himself had formerly been in Mounteagle’s service,
and at the time of the Plot was almost certainly on amicable terms with
the young nobleman.

On the 27th of October, the day following the delivery of the Letter,
_Thomas Ward came to Thomas Winter_ (being Sunday at night) and told him
that a Letter had been given to Lord Mounteagle, which the latter
presently had carried to Robert Cecil Earl of Salisbury.——“_Winter’s
Confession._”

Winter, thereupon, the next day, Monday, the 28th October, went to a house
called White Webbs, not far from Lord Salisbury’s mansion Theobalds.

White Webbs was a lone and (then) half-timbered dwelling, “with many trap
doors and passages,” surrounded by woods, near Enfield Chase, ten miles
north of Westminster.

At this secluded spot Thomas Winter had speech with Catesby, the
arch-conspirator, “assuring him withal that the matter was disclosed and
wishing him in anywise to forsake his country.”——“_Winter’s Confession._”

Catesby told Winter, “he would see further as yet and resolved to send Mr.
Fawkes to try the uttermost protesting if the part belonged to himself he
would try the same adventure.”——“_Winter’s Confession._”

On Wednesday, the 30th October, from White Webbs, “Mr. Fawkes,” as Thomas
Winter styles him, went to the cellar under the House of Lords, where
thirty-six barrels of powder, wood, and coal were stored in readiness for
the bloody slaughter purposed for November the Fifth.

Fawkes returned to White Webbs at night, at which the conspirators “were
very glad.” Fawkes had found in the cellar his “private marks” all
undisturbed.

“The next day after the delivery of the Letter,” says Stowe (though as a
fact it was probably five days after the delivery of the momentous
document, namely, on the following Thursday), _this self-same “Thomas
Winter told Christopher Wright”_——a subordinate conspirator,——“that he
(Winter) understood an obscure letter had been delivered to Lord
Mounteagle, who had conveyed it to Salisbury.”[9]

_Hence, most probably, either Thomas Winter went in search of Christopher
Wright to afford him this piece of information; or Wright went in search
of Winter to obtain it._

At about five o’clock in the morning of Tuesday, November, the Fifth,
about five hours after Fawkes’ apprehension by Sir Thomas Knevet and his
men,[10] the said Christopher Wright went to the chamber of the said
Thomas Winter and told him that a nobleman (_i.e._, the Earl of Worcester,
Master of the Horse) “had called (_i.e._, summoned) the Lord Mounteagle,
saying, ‘Rise and come along to Essex House,[11] for I am going to call up
my Lord of Northumberland,’ saying withal, ‘the matter is
discovered.’”——“_Winter’s Confession._”

Of this conspirator, Christopher Wright, it is said,[12] that “he was the
first to ascertain that the Plot was discovered.” Probably this refers to
the information he (Christopher Wright) obtained as the upshot of his
interview with Winter on (probably) Thursday, the 31st October.

Christopher Wright was, likewise, the first to announce the apprehension
of Fawkes on the morning of the 5th of November.

It is also further said of Christopher Wright by one[13] who wrote during
the last century, that “He advised that each of the conspirators should
betake himself to flight in a different direction from his companions.
Had this been followed several of them would have probably succeeded in
making their escape to the continent. The conspirators, however, adopted
another course, which issued in their discomfiture in Staffordshire, where
Christopher Wright was also killed.”




                               CHAPTER V.


During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and during the earlier part of the
reign of King James I., almost all those castellated castles, moated
halls, and gabled manor-houses which to-day, still standing more or less
perfect, “amidst their tall ancestral trees o’er all the pleasant land,”
go to constitute that “old England” which her sons and daughters (and
their brethren and kinsfolk beyond the seas) know and love so well; during
the reign of Elizabeth and during the earlier part of the reign of James
I., these now time-honoured, ivy-clad abodes and dwellings of English men
and English women, over whom the grave has long since closed, but who in
their day and generation were assuredly among the heroic and the supremely
excellent of the earth, were the sheltering, romantic roof-trees of those
who clung tenaciously to the ancient religious Faith of the English race.

This Faith was indeed that faith which had been taken and embraced by
their “rude forefathers” of long ages ago, in the simple hope and with the
pathetic trust that it might “do them good.”[A] And this their hope, they
believed and knew, had been not in vain, neither had been their trust
betrayed.

[Footnote A: See the beautiful apologue of the Saxon nobleman of Deira,
delivered in the presence of St. Edwin King of Northumbria; given in
Bede’s “_Ecclesiastical History_.”]

In the days of the second Henry Tudor——_fons et origo malorum_——the
fountain-head and well-spring of almost all of England’s many present-day
religious and social woes——the men and women of England and Wales knew
full well, whether they were of Cymric, Saxon, Scandinavian, or Norman
race (or a mixture of all four), that to that assemblage of ideas and
emotions, laws and rules, habits and customs, which had come to them from
men of foreign blood and alien name, dwelling on the banks of the far-off
“yellow Tiber” and under sunny, blue Italian skies——these men and women, I
repeat, knew full well that to their religious Faith they owed almost
everything that was best and truest and most enduring, either in
themselves or their kith and kin.[A]

[Footnote A: Yorkshire, being the greatest of English Shires, had among
the inhabitants of its hills and dales and “sounding shores,”
representatives of the various races which compose the English nation. In
the West Riding especially, those of the old Cymric or British stock were
to be found. (Indeed, I am told, even now shepherds often count their
sheep by the old British numerals.) This strong remnant of the old British
race in the West Riding probably accounts for the marvellous gift of song
wherewith this division of Yorkshiremen are endowed to this day, just as
are the Welsh. In none other portion of England was there such a wealth of
stately churches and beautiful monasteries as in Yorkshire, the ancient
Deira, whose melodious name once kept ringing in the ears of St. Gregory
the Great, of a truth, the best friend the English people ever had. But
Yorkshire realised that “before all temples” the One above “preferred the
upright heart and pure.” Therefore, canonized saints arose from among her
vigorous, keen-minded, yet poetically imaginative sons and daughters. York
became sacred to St. Paulinus and St. William; Ripon to St. Wilfrid, the
Apostle of Sussex; also to St. Willibrord, the Apostle of Holland;
Beverley was hallowed by the presence of St. John of Beverley; Whitby by
the Saxon princess St. Hilda, the friend of Caedmon, the father of English
poetry. The moors of Lastingham were blest by the presence of St. Chad and
St. Cedd; and Knaresbrough by St. Robert, in his leafy stone-cave hard-by
the winding Nidd.]

Now regard being had to the indisputable fact that for well-nigh a
thousand years England had been known abroad as “the Dowry of Mary and the
Island of Saints,” by reason of the signal manifestations she had
displayed in the way of cathedrals and churches, abbeys and priories,
convents and nunneries, hospitals and schools (which arose up and down the
length and breadth of the land to Northward and Southward, to East and
West, thereby, by the aid of art, adding even to England’s rare natural
beauty), it was never at all likely that the bulk of the English people
would, all on a sudden, cast off their cherished beliefs and hallowed
affections respecting the deepest central questions of human life.[14]

Moreover, it may be taken as a general rule, to be remembered and applied
by princes and statesmen, all the world over and for all time, that Man is
a creature “full of religious instincts:”——“too superstitious,” should it
be thought more accurate and desirable so to describe this undoubted habit
and bent of the human mind.

Thence it follows that it is the merest fatuous folly for princes and
statesmen if and when they have got themselves entangled in a false
position, from some external cause or causes having little or no relation
to the Invisible and the Eternal, to bid their subjects and denizens,
“right about turn,” at a moment’s notice: however “bright and blissful”
such mental evolutions may be deemed to be by those who have unwisely
taken it into their foolish head to issue the irrational command.[A]

[Footnote A: That able and strong-minded Englishman, Dr. Temple,
Archbishop of Canterbury, said (in 1901) in the House of Lords, during the
debates on that pathetically ridiculous document, the Sovereign’s
Declaration against Popery, when speaking on Lord Salisbury’s proposed
amended form, that England was resolved “to stand no interference with her
religion from the outside.” It is a good thing that the heathen Kings
Ethelbert and Edwin were _less abnormally patriotic_ 1300 years ago. For
the idea of “independence” has to be held subject to the “golden mean” of
“nothing too much.” A fetish must not be made of that idea, especially by
a people conscious of lofty imperial destiny. And “unity” must there be
between ideas that are controlling fundamentals——in other words, between
ideas intellectual, moral, and spiritual.]

Now, in the days of Queen Elizabeth[A] those whom religious loyalty
prompted to worship supremely “the God of their fathers” after a manner
that those eager for change counted “idolatry,” were marked by different
mental characteristics. This was so throughout England; but especially was
it so in those five northern counties which comprised what was then by
Catholics proudly styled “the faithful North.”

[Footnote A: The mother of Queen Elizabeth, Anne Boleyn, died reconciled
to the Church of Rome. Her daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, was brought
up in the tenets of that Church; but, like one type of the children of the
Renaissance, Elizabeth was unconsciously “a Tribal Deist.” Margaret Roper,
the daughter of Sir Thomas More, was equally “cultured,” but she accepted
the Catholic tradition in its letter and in its spirit. I may here state
that I have a great intellectual admiration for Queen Elizabeth, whose
virtues were her own, while her faults, to a large extent, were her
monstrous father’s and her Privy Counsellors’, _who told her not what she
ought to do but what she could do, which no really faithful adviser of a
Sovereign ever does_.]

Some of these English “leile and feile,” that is loyal and faithful,
servants of Rome were, on the subjective side, retained in their
allegiance to the Visible Head of Christendom by bonds formed by mere
natural piety and conservative feeling——dutiful affections of Nature which
are the promise and the pledge of much that is best in the Teutonic race.

Others were mainly ruled by an overmastering sense of that lofty humility
which foes call pride, but friends dignity.

Whilst a third class were persuaded, by intense intellectual, moral, and
spiritual conviction that——“in and by the power of divine grace”——come
what might, nothing should separate them from those hereditary beliefs
which were dearer to them far than not merely earthly goods, lands, and
personal liberty, but even than their very life.

This last-mentioned class, from and after the year 1580, “the year of the
Lord’s controversy with Sion,” as the old English Catholics regarded it,
who loved to recall that “good time” when Campion and Parsons “poured out
their soul in words,” especially Campion, who was remembered in the north
for three generations: this last-mentioned class, I say, were oftentimes,
though certainly not always, found to be greatly attached to the then new
Society of Jesus, which, in England, was in the glow and purity of its
first fervour.

This last-mentioned class——I mean the Jesuitically-affected class of
English Catholics——were also again sub-divided into three sub-divisions.
One sub-division was composed of Mystics; another of Politicians; and a
third of those who, realising a higher unity, were at once Mystics _and_
Politicians——or, in other phraseology, _they were Men of Thought and Men
of Action_.

Now, the Gunpowder conspirators belonged to the last-mentioned class, and
to the second division of that class. That is to say, they were mere
Politicians, speaking broadly and speaking generally.




                              CHAPTER VI.


It hath been truly observed by one of the most knowing and candid of
modern students of Elizabethan biographical literature, that Sir William
Catesby, the father of the arch-gunpowder conspirator, Robert Catesby, in
common with the great majority of the country gentry throughout England,
who were resident upon their own estates, and unconnected with the
oligarchy which ruled in the Queen’s name (_i.e._, Queen Elizabeth’s) at
Court, threw in his lot with the Catholic party, and suffered in
consequence of his conscientious adherence to the old creed.[A]

[Footnote A: Dr. Augustus Jessopp: Article——“Robert Catesby,” “_National
Dictionary of Biography_.”]

While Sir Thomas Tresham (the brother-in-law of the last-mentioned Sir
William Catesby and father of Francis Tresham, one of the subordinate
conspirators), was so attached to the ancient faith of the English people
that, we are told, he not only regularly paid——by way of fines——for more
than twenty years, the sum of £260 per annum, about £2,080 a year in our
money, into the Treasury rather than not maintain what (to him) was “a
conscience void of offence,” but he also spent at least twenty-one years
of his life in prison, after being Star-Chambered in the year 1581 along
with Lord Vaux of Harrowden and his brother-in-law, Sir William Catesby,
on a charge of harbouring Campion.

The Fleet prison in London, Banbury Castle and Ely——his “familiar prison,”
as Sir Thomas Tresham pleasantly styled the last-named place of
incarceration——were the habitations wherein he was enabled to make it his
boast in a letter to Lord Henry Howard, afterwards the Earl of
Northampton, writ in the year 1603, “that he had now completed his triple
apprenticeship in direst adversity, and that he should be content to serve
a like long apprenticeship to prevent the foregoing of his beloved,
beautiful, and graceful Rachel; for it seemed to him but a few days for
the love he had to her.”[A]

[Footnote A: Quoted from papers found at Rushton in Northamptonshire, the
seat of Sir Thomas Tresham, which he himself designed, being an architect
of some skill.]

Well may the spiritual descendants to-day of these grand old Elizabethan
Catholics exclaim:——“_Their_ very memory is pure and bright, and our sad
thoughts doth cheer!”




                              CHAPTER VII.


The men known to history as the Gunpowder Plotters were thirteen in
number.

They were at first Robert Catesby, already mentioned, Thomas Winter,
Thomas Percy, John Wright, and Guy (or Guido) Fawkes.

Subsequently, there were added to these five——Robert Keyes, Christopher
Wright (a younger brother of John Wright), and lastly Robert Winter (an
elder brother of Thomas Winter),[A] Ambrose Rookwood, John Grant, Sir
Everard Digby, Francis Tresham, and Thomas Bates.

[Footnote A: Lord Edmund Talbot, brother to the present Duke of Norfolk,
K.G., Hereditary Earl Marshal of England, is allied to Robert Winter,
through the latter’s marriage with Gertrude Talbot, the daughter of John
Talbot, Esquire, of Grafton in Worcestershire. The brother of Gertrude
Winter became Earl of Shrewsbury. John Talbot had married a daughter of
Sir William Petre. Lord Edmund Talbot, I believe, now owns Huddington.]

Of these thirteen conspirators, all, with the exception of Thomas Bates, a
serving-man of Robert Catesby, were, as Fawkes said, “gentlemen of name
and blood.”

Thomas Percy was the eldest of the conspirators and in 1605 was about
forty-five years of age.

Sir Everard Digby was the youngest, being twenty-four years of age, whilst
the ages of the others ranged betwixt and between.[15]

Thomas Percy, a native of Beverley, an ancient and historic town in the
East Riding of Yorkshire, was therefore a Yorkshireman by birth. He was
the son of Edward Percy and Elizabeth his wife. Though not the ringleader
of the band of conspirators, Thomas Percy must have cut the greatest
figure in the eyes of the public at large. For he was a “kinsman” of
Henry, ninth Earl of Northumberland, according to the testimony of the
Earl himself,[16] and through this nobleman Thomas Percy had been made
Captain of the Pensioners-in-Ordinary——Gentlemen of Honour——in attendance
at Court. At the time of the Plot, too, Thomas Percy——the Constable of
Alnwick and Warkworth Castles——acted as officer or agent for his noble
kinsman’s large northern estates, at Alnwick, Warkworth, Topcliffe,
Spofforth, and elsewhere.

Robert Catesby, the arch-conspirator, was——as we have seen already——the
son and heir of Sir William Catesby, whose wife was a daughter of Sir
Robert Throckmorton of Coughton in Warwickshire.

Sir William Catesby was a gentleman of ancient, historic and distinguished
lineage, who had large possessions in Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, and
Warwickshire, yielding him about £3,000 a year, or probably from £24,000
to £30,000 a year in our money.

These large estates his ill-fated son Robert Catesby succeeded to in
expectancy in 1598.[17]

Catesby, the younger, diminished his annual revenue very considerably by
involving himself in the rising of the brilliant Robert Devereux, second
Earl of Essex (1601), who had given to Catesby a promise of toleration for
Catholic recusants, who chafed greatly under a system of
politico-theological persecution, at once galling, cruel and despicable.

But this promise of toleration was conditioned by the very vital condition
precedent that the insurrectionary movement of the gallant but rash Essex
against the Government of Elizabeth had a successful issue.

The movement, however, was emphatically not smiled on by Fortune, that
fickle goddess, with the result that Catesby found himself locked up in
prison, and was only ransomed by payment of a sum of £3,000.

This heavy fine, together with the fact that in the year 1605 his mother,
the Dowager Lady Catesby, was living at Ashby St. Legers in
Northamptonshire, and owned for life all rents of the estates, except
Chastleton near Chipping Norton in Oxfordshire, seems to have been the
cause that, at the time of the Gunpowder Plot, Catesby had not any very
great amount of ready money in hand.

Besides this, until some four or five years prior to 1603, the year of the
death of Queen Elizabeth, when he began to practise the religion which in
1580 his father, Sir William Catesby, had embraced or re-embraced, and for
which the latter had suffered imprisonment and heavy fines, Robert Catesby
“was very wild; and as he kept company with the best noblemen of the land,
so he spent much above his rate, and so wasted also good part of his
living.”

“He was of person above two yards[18] high, and though slender, yet as
well proportioned to his height as any man one should see.” He was,
moreover, reputed to be “very wise and of great judgment, though his
utterance was not so good. Besides, he was so liberal, and apt to help all
sorts, as it got him much love.”

At the time of the Plot Catesby was about thirty-five years of age. He had
married Catherine Leigh, a daughter of Sir Thomas Leigh, of Stoneleigh, a
Protestant gentleman of wealth and influence in Warwickshire. The Parish
Register of Chastleton has the following entry:——“Robert Catesbie, son of
Robert Catesbie, was baptised the 11th day of November, 1595.”[19] He had
only this one surviving child, who is said to have married the only child
of Thomas Percy.

Catesby had the misfortune to lose his wife by death before the year 1602,
and at the time of the Plot his home seems to have been with his mother,
the Dowager Lady Catesby, at Ashby St. Legers in the County of
Northampton, the family ancestral seat. For in 1602 he had sold his
residence, Chastleton, in Oxfordshire.

Now, as Robert Catesby, it seems by many circumstances, was the first
inventor and chiefest furtherer of the Plot, it is worth while thus
lingering on a description of what manner of man he was.

It, however, may be asked how came it to pass that this one person gained
such prodigious ascendency over twelve other persons so as to make them,
in the event, as mischievously, nay fatally, deluded as himself?

The answer is manifold: for besides the wrongs which these ruthless
plotters sought to avenge, they evidently came under a potent
psychological spell when they came under the influence of this wayward,
yet fascinating, son of the brilliant age of Elizabeth——an age in which
men’s intellectual and physical powers too often attained a complete
mastery over their moral powers.[20]

For a proof of Catesby’s immense influence over others, it may be
mentioned that Ambrose Rookwood, one of those whose blood afterwards
stained the scaffold at the early age of twenty-seven for his share in the
wicked scheme, says of Catesby that “he (Rookwood) loved and respected him
as his own life.”[21]

Four things seem to have caused those who came in contact with Robert
Catesby to have been carried captive at his will, if from the first they
were at all well affected towards him——his personal appearance, his
generosity, his zeal, and his skill in the use of arms.

We are told that Tesimond (alias Greenway), another contemporary of
Catesby, says that “his countenance was exceedingly noble and expressive.
That his conversation and manners were peculiarly attractive and imposing,
and that by the dignity of his character he exercised an irresistible
influence over the minds of those who associated with him.”[22]

His zeal was of that kind which is contagious and kindles responsive fire.

As for his martial prowess, it was sufficiently attested by his behaviour
at the time of the Essex rising, when Father Gerard, his contemporary,
tells us that “Mr. Catesby did then show such valour and fought so long
and stoutly as divers afterwards of those swordsmen did exceedingly esteem
him and follow him in regard thereof.”[23]




                             CHAPTER VIII.


Thomas Winter came of a Worcestershire family. His father, George Winter
(or Wintour), had married Jane Ingleby, the daughter of Sir William
Ingleby, a Yorkshire knight of historic name, whose ancestral seat was
Ripley Castle, near Knaresbrough[24] in Nidderdale, one of the most
romantic valleys of Yorkshire.

Jane Winter’s brother, Francis Ingleby,[25] a barrister, and afterwards a
Roman Catholic priest, was hanged, drawn and quartered at York, on the 2nd
of June, 1586, for exercising his priesthood in York and his native
County.

He was a man of rare parts, and the heroic story of his life and death
must have often thrilled the hearts of his sister’s children.

Would that they had taken him as their model. For of all those many Roman
Catholic Yorkshiremen[A] who, of divers ranks and degrees, in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, preferred “death” to (what to them)
was “dishonour,” none has left nobler memories than this self-sacrificing,
exalted soul.[26]

[Footnote A: At least 49 persons, priests and laymen, suffered death in
York alone for the Pope’s religion, between the reigns of Henry VIII. and
Charles II. inclusive. The place of execution was usually the Tyburn,
opposite Knavesmire, near Hob Moor Gate, in the middle of the Tadcaster
High Road. In the reign of Philip and Mary no Protestant was burned to
death in Yorkshire. Archbishop Heath, of York, like Bishop Tunstall, of
Durham, and the great Catholic Jurist, Edmund Plowden, who, for conscience
sake, declined the Chancellorship when offered to him by Elizabeth, did
not think they could “save alive” the soul of a “heretic” by roasting
“dead” his body at the stake. And they were right.]

Thomas Winter, the ill-fated nephew of him just mentioned, was a
courageous man and an accomplished linguist.

He had seen military service in Flanders, in behalf of the Estates-General
against Spain, and in France, and possibly against the Turk.

We are told by a contemporary that “he was of such a wit and so fine a
carriage, that he was of so pleasing conversation, desired much of the
better sort, but an inseparable friend of Mr. Robert Catesby. He was of
mean stature, but strong and comely and very valiant, about thirty-three
years old, or somewhat more. His means were not great, but he lived in
good sort, and with the best.”[27] He seems to have been unmarried.

Sir Everard Digby was a tall, handsome, singularly generous, charming
young fellow, and like Ambrose Rookwood, previously mentioned, had won the
loving favour of all who knew him. Digby had two estates in the County of
Rutlandshire (Tilton and Drystoke), also property in the County of
Leicestershire; and through his amiable and beautiful young wife, Mary
Mulsho, a wealthy heiress, he was the owner of Gothurst[A] (now Gayhurst)
in the parish of Tyringham, near Newport Pagnell, in the County of
Buckinghamshire, still one of England’s stately homes.[28]

Francis Tresham was married to a Throckmorton, and was connected with many
English families of historic name, high rank, and great fortune.

[Footnote A: Gothurst (now Gayhurst), resembles in its style of architecture, The
Treasurer’s House, York, on the North side of the Minster, the town-house
of Frank Green, Esquire. Walter Carlile, Esquire, now resides at
Gayhurst.]

He was a first cousin to Robert Catesby through his mother——a
Throckmorton. Tresham and the Winters were also akin.

Francis Tresham, like his cousin, Robert Catesby, had been involved in the
Essex rising, and his father, Sir Thomas Tresham, had to pay a ransom of
at least £2,000 to effect his son’s escape from arraignment and certain
execution. Powerful interest had been exerted in the son’s favour with
Queen Elizabeth by Lady Catherine Howard, the daughter of Lord Thomas
Howard, Lieutenant of the Tower, and afterwards Earl of Suffolk.[29]

John Grant was a Warwickshire Squire, who had married Robert and Thomas
Winter’s sister Dorothy. Grant’s home was at Norbrook, near Snitterfield,
a walled and moated mansion-house between the towns of Warwick and
Stratford-on-Avon.[30] Grant was a taciturn but accomplished man, who had
been likewise fined for his share in the Essex rising.

John Wright and Christopher Wright were younger sons of Robert Wright,
Esquire, of Plowland (or Plewland) Hall, Welwick, Holderness, in the East
Riding of Yorkshire.

They were related to the Inglebies of Ripley, through the Mallories of
Studley Royal near Ripon. Hence were they related to Thomas Winter, Robert
Winter, and Dorothy Grant.

Robert Keyes, of Drayton in Northamptonshire, was the son of a Protestant
clergyman and probably grandson of one of the Key or Kay family of
Woodsome, Almondbury, near Huddersfield, in the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Through his Roman Catholic mother, Keyes was related to Lady Ursula
Babthorpe, the daughter of Sir William Tyrwhitt[31] of Kettleby, near
Brigg, Lincolnshire, and wife of Sir William Babthorpe, of Babthorpe and
Osgodby, near Selby, in the East Riding of Yorkshire Sir William Babthorpe
was “the very soul of honour,” one of the most valiant-hearted gentlemen
in Yorkshire, and himself, likewise, related to the Mallories, the
Inglebies, the Wrights, and the Winters. His sister was Lady Catherine
Palmes, the wife of Sir George Palmes, of Naburn, near the City of York.

Ambrose Rookwood, of Coldham Hall——an ivy-clad, mullion-windowed mansion
still standing——in the parish of Stanningfield, near Bury St. Edmunds,
Suffolk, was of an honourable and wealthy Suffolk family, who had suffered
fines and penalties for the profession of their hereditary faith.

His wife was a Tyrwhitt and sister to Lady Ursula Babthorpe. At the time
of the Plot he was twenty-seven years of age.[A]

[Footnote A: Edward Rookwood, of Euston Hall, Suffolk, was cousin to
Ambrose Rookwood. At Euston in 1578 Queen Elizabeth was sumptuously
entertained by Edward Rookwood.——See Hallam’s “_Constitutional History_,”
and Lodge’s “_Illustrations_.”]

Of the engaging Ambrose Rookwood a contemporary says, “I knew him well and
loved him tenderly. He was beloved by all who knew him. He left behind him
his lady, who was a very beautiful person and of a high family, and two or
three little children, all of whom——together with everything he had in
this world——he cast aside to follow the fortunes of this rash and
desperate conspiracy.”[32]

Guy Fawkes was also a Yorkshireman, being born in the year 1570, in the
City of York.

His baptismal register, dated the 16th day of April, 1570, is still to be
seen in the Church of St. Michael-le-Belfrey, hard-by the glorious
Minster.

Probably that one of four traditions is true which says that the son of
Edward Fawkes, Notary and Advocate of the Consistory Court of York, and
Edith, his wife, was born in a house situated in High Petergate. In fact,
in the angle formed by the street known as High Petergate and the ancient
alley called Minster Gates, leading into the Minster Yard, opposite the
South Transept of the Minster, and at the top of the mediæval street
called Stonegate.[A]

[Footnote A: The house I refer to is occupied by the Governors of St.
Peter’s School (where Fawkes was himself educated), by Mr. T. H. Barron,
and Mr. Matkins. It is still Minster property. It is a brick Elizabethan
house refaced. Fawkes’ grandmother, Mrs. Ellen Fawkes, almost certainly
lived in a house in High Petergate, on the opposite side of the road,
probably. His father may have had a house also at Bishopthorpe.——See
Supplementum I.]

Though the property Guy Fawkes inherited was small, his descent and
upbringing had made him the equal and companion of the gentry of his
native County.

In the thirty-third year of Elizabeth (1592), in a legal document dealing
with his property, Guy Fawkes is described as of Scotton, a picturesque
village in the ancient Parish of Farnham, between Knaresbrough and Ripley,
in Nidderdale.

Fawkes was a tall athletic man, with brown hair and an auburn beard. He
was modest, self-controlled, and very valiant. He left England for
Flanders most likely in 1593 or 1594. At the time of the conspiracy he was
about thirty-five years of age. He was unmarried.

Fawkes was highly intelligent, direct of purpose, simple of heart,
well-read, and, as a soldier of fortune in the Netherlands, not only
“skilful in the wars,” but, apart from his fanaticism, which seems to have
grown by degrees into a positive monomania, possessed of many attractive,
and even endearing, moral qualities.

Fawkes held a post of command in the Spanish Army when Spain took Calais
in 1596, and gave promise of becoming, like his friend and patron, Sir
William Stanley, an ideal “happy warrior,” and one of England’s greatest
generals.[A]

[Footnote A: It is interesting and instructive to compare the Forty Years’
War between Spain and the Netherlands with the present unhappy strife in
South Africa between Britons and the descendants of those that repelled
the arms of the once greatest soldiery in the world. The war between Spain
and the Dutch was not a religious war at the commencement of the struggle.
It arose out of a chafing under the sovereignty of Spain, and a dispute
about tenths. In fact, many Catholics fought against Philip II. in this
war at the beginning.

I visited Scotton for the first time on the day set apart in York as a
general holiday for the Relief of Mafeking (19th May, 1900).]

It is said by an old writer, “Winter and Fawxe are men of excellent good
natural parts, very resolute and universally learned.”[33] In the days of
their joyous youth these two gifted men may have many a time and oft
played and sported together in Nidderdale, with its purple moors, its
rock-crowned fells, its leafy woods, its musical streams, its flowery
ghylls, its winding river.

Guy Fawkes was a son of destiny, a product of his environment, a creature
of circumstances——always saving his free-will and moral responsibility.

But, dying, he must have remembered his dear York and sweet Scotton.




                              CHAPTER IX.


Let us deal with the inferences from the Evidence, and ascertain to what
further suggestions those inferences give rise.

Now, among the first things that must strike the reader of the list of
actors in the Gunpowder tragedy is the large number that were, directly or
indirectly, connected with the far-stretching, prolific province of
Yorkshire. Of the whole thirteen conspirators, four first drew the breath
of life in that grandest and fairest of English Counties, namely: Thomas
Percy, John Wright, Christopher Wright, and Guy (or Guido) Fawkes. While
five of the other intending perpetrators of an action which, if
consummated, would have indeed “damned them to everlasting fame,”
indirectly had relations with it.

Nay, more; of the four members of the clerical profession whom the
Government sought to charge with complicity in this nefarious designment,
namely: Fathers Garnet, Tesimond, Gerard, and (subsequently) Oldcorne——two
out of the four, Oswald Tesimond and Edward Oldcorne, were likewise
Yorkshiremen.[A]

[Footnote A: The late Bishop Creighton, in his fine illustrated work
entitled, “_The Story of some English Shires_” (Religious Tract Society),
says:——“Yorkshire is the largest of the English shires, and its size
corresponds to its ancient greatness.”]

Edward Oldcorne was certainly a native of the City of York, and it is very
likely indeed that Oswald Tesimond was a native also.[34]

Moreover, Oswald Tesimond, John Wright, Christopher Wright, and Guy Fawkes
were all educated at the Royal School of Philip and Mary in the Horse
Fayre, at the left-hand side going down Gillygate, York, where Union
Terrace is now situated, just outside Bootham Bar, and not far from the
King’s Manor, where Henry Hastings Earl of Huntingdon, or his preceding or
succeeding Lords President of the North, presided in State over the
Council of the North and the Court of High Commission.[A]

[Footnote A: Lord Strafford, the representative of Charles I. in Ireland,
was in after years Lord President of the North. In his day the King’s
Manor was known as the Palace of the Stuart Kings, for both James I. and
Charles I. sojourned there. It is now used as a beneficent Institution for
the Blind, as a memorial to that illustrious Yorkshireman, William
Wilberforce, M.P., the immortal slave emancipator. One of the rooms in the
old Palace is called the Earl of Huntingdon’s room to this day. William
Wilberforce’s direct heir, William Basil Wilberforce, Esquire, resides at
Markington Hall, near Ripon.

The Earl of Huntingdon was a scion of the House of York, and had Elizabeth
become reconciled to the Church of Rome the Puritans would have probably
rallied round Lord Huntingdon as their King. The Honourable Walter
Hastings, the Earl’s brother, was a Roman Catholic. They were, of course,
akin to Queen Elizabeth, and were descended from the “Blessed” Margaret
Plantagenet Countess of Salisbury.]

It is more than probable that Edward Oldcorne also quaffed his first
draught of classical knowledge at the same “Pierian spring;” for we are
told that his parents “in his young years kept him to school, so that he
was a good grammar scholar when he first went over beyond the seas.”[35]

Before going to Rheims and Rome Edward Oldcorne had studied medicine.

Who among these unparalleled conspirators is then the most likely, either
through fear or remorse or both feelings, to have first put into motion
the stupendous machinery whereby the Gunpowder conspiracy was revealed?
Only an energy practically superhuman would be, or could be, sufficient
for the accomplishment of such an end, as——well-nigh at the eleventh
hour——speedily to swing round on its axis a project so diabolical and
prodigious as the Gunpowder Plot.

For the passion——the concentrated, suppressed, yet volcanic passion——that
had purposed so awful a catastrophe was deep as hell and high as heaven.

And well might it be, regard being had to the indisputable facts of
English History from the year 1569——the year of the Rising of the North,
which was stamped out with such cruel severity——down to the year 1605.
Truly, the measure of the Gunpowder conspirators’ personal guilt was the
measure of their representative wrongs. Yet this, in itself, for these
wrong-doers was no ground of pardon or release: for, by a steadfast decree
of the universe, “The guilty suffer.”




                               CHAPTER X.


Now, according to the laws which govern human nature, a subordinate
conspirator, introduced late into the conspiracy, whose early training was
such as to lead him, on reflection, to regard as morally unlawful the
taking of a secret oath, such as the Gunpowder conspirators had taken: a
conspirator in whose heart emotions, not only of compassion but also of
compunction, were likely to be awakened by the remembrance of that
training, as the day was about to dawn and as the hour was about to strike
when would be consummated one of the bloodiest tragedies that had ever
stained an evil world: a conspirator answering to this, I say, was the
most likely to be the conspirator who revealed this purposed appalling
massacre, the bare thought of which causes strong men to shudder, even to
this day.

Still more likely would be a conspirator who, fulfilling the description
just mentioned, adds to that the following, namely——that he possessed an
entirely trustworthy friend who would act as penman of any document he
might wish to use as a means of communicating a secret yet warning note to
a representative of the intended victims.

And yet still more likely would be a conspirator who, to the descriptions
of the two preceding paragraphs, added a third, namely——that he possessed
a second entirely trustworthy friend who would act as an “_interpres_”——a
go-between——to drive home the full intended effect of the document penned
by the hand of the first; and this with the express knowledge and consent
of that first.

Hence, such go-between would be the agent common to both the revealing
conspirator and his scribe, and would be informed, directed and controlled
by them.

Regard being had to the fixities of thought or self-evident fundamentals
which in the introduction to this Inquiry were enunciated, these two
friends, these two confidants must have been bound to the revealing
conspirator by bonds, ties, obligations, “light,” indeed, “as air, yet
strong as iron,” which were the outcome of kinship, friendship, or
business (in a superlatively wide sense), possibly of all three.

Now the inference that I draw, from a reviewing and weighing of the
Evidence to-day available in relation to this matter, is this, that
_Christopher Wright_ was the conspirator who revealed the Plot, and that
his worthy aiders and honourable abettors were, first, _Thomas Ward_, the
gentleman-servant (and almost certainly kinsman) of Lord Mounteagle
himself, _amicus secundum carnem_; and, secondly, _Edward Oldcorne_,
Priest and Jesuit, _amicus secundum spiritum:——friends according to the
flesh and to the spirit respectively_.




                              CHAPTER XI.


Let us proceed to support these statements with Evidence and with
Argument.

(1) Now was Christopher Wright a subordinate conspirator, introduced late
into the conspiracy? It is plain that he was, from “_Thomas Winter’s
Confession_,” where he says: “About Candlemas we brought over in a boat
the powder which we had provided at Lambeth and layd it in Mr. Percy’s
house, because we were willing to have all our danger in one place. We
wrought also another fortnight in the mine against the stone wall which
was very hard to beat through, at which time we called in Kit Wright
(sometime in February, 1605), and near to Easter as we wrought the third
time, opportunity was given to hire the cellar in which we resolved to lay
the powder and leave the mine.”

Again, in the published “_Confession_” of Guy Fawkes (17th November,
1605), Fawkes says, that a practice “in general was first broken unto me
against his majestie, for releife of the Catholique cause, and not
invented or propounded by myself. And this was first propounded unto me
about Easter last was twelve-month,[36] beyond the seas, in the Low
Countries of the Archdukes’ obeyance by Thomas Wynter.”

Fawkes says, in his “_Confession_” further on: “Thomas Percy hired a howse
at Westminster ... neare adjoyning the Parlt. howse, and there wee beganne
to make a myne about the XI. of December, 1604. The Fyve that entered
into the woorck were Thomas Percye, Robert Catesby, Thomas Wynter, John
Wright, and myself, and soon after[37] we tooke another unto us,
Christopher Wright, having sworn him also, and taken the sacrament for
secrecie.”[38]

Therefore Christopher Wright must have become a confederate about ten
months after Fawkes himself and the other prime movers in the nefarious
scheme, and his services were requisitioned——as the modern phrase
goes——primarily for the purpose of adding to the amount of manual labour
available for the digging of the mine, which was afterwards abandoned for
the cellar as the receptacle for the gunpowder that was to effect the
explosion purposed.

(2) Now, was Christopher Wright a conspirator whose early training was
such as to lead him, on reflection, to regard as morally unlawful the
taking of a secret oath such as the Gunpowder conspirators had bound
themselves by, and one in whose heart emotions, not only of compassion but
also of compunction, were likely to be awakened by the remembrance of that
training as the day was about to dawn and the hour was about to strike
when the awful tragedy would be consummated?

If a man’s character may be presumptively known by his friends, still more
may it be presumptively known by his progenitors; and in the light of this
principle I therefore answer the foregoing question emphatically in the
affirmative.

But what was the form of the oath taken by all these conspirators save
one, namely, Sir Everard Digby, who was _specially_ “sworn in” on the hilt
of a poniard?

It was this:——“You shall swear by the Blessed Trinity and by the Sacrament
you now propose to receive, never to disclose, directly or indirectly, by
word or circumstance, the matter that shall be proposed to you, to keep
secret nor desist from the execution thereof until the rest shall give you
leave.”

This oath was administered to the conspirators by each other in the most
solemn manner——“kneeling down upon their knees with their hands laid upon
a primer.”[39]

Immediately after the oath had been taken,[40] we are told, Catesby
explained to Percy, and Winter and John Wright to Fawkes, that the project
intended was to blow up the Parliament House with gunpowder when the King
went to the House of Lords.[41] This would include the Queen, the Commons,
Ambassadors, and spectators who would be present during the King’s Speech.

From Fawkes’ “_Confession_,” already quoted, it would seem probable that
all five prime conspirators imparted their prodigious designment of
sacrilegious, cold-blooded murder to the conspirator Christopher Wright.




                              CHAPTER XII.


Who and what then, with more particularity, was Christopher Wright?

He was the third son of Robert Wright and Ursula his wife, who was the
daughter of Nicholas Rudston, Esquire (of the Rudstons, Lords of
Hayton,[A] near Pocklington, in the East Riding of the County of York,
since the reign of King John). Ursula Rudston’s mother was Jane, the
daughter of Sir William Mallory, of Studley Royal, near Ripon.[42]

[Footnote A: It is gratifying to the historic feeling to know that the
Manor of Hayton is still owned by a member of this ancient family, the
present possessor being T. W. Calverley-Rudston, Esquire, J.P., of
Allerthorpe Hall, Pocklington.]

Christopher Wright was born about the year 1570, the year after the Rising
of the North[43] under “the Blessed” Thomas Percy Earl of Northumberland,
and Charles Neville Earl of Westmoreland, in which movement many of
Christopher Wright’s mother’s relatives and connections (notably “old
Richard Norton,” his sons, and the Markenfields) were implicated.[44]

Plowland (or Plewland) Hall, in the Parish of Welwick, in Holderness, was
doubtless where Christopher Wright first beheld the light of the sun.
Plowland Hall, or Great Plowland as it is sometimes called, is situated on
the left of, and a little distance from, the high-road, on slightly rising
ground, between the ancient town of Patrington and the pretty village of
Welwick. When Robert Wright and Ursula, his wife, and their sons, John and
Christopher, and their daughters, Ursula and Martha, knew the place, now
so historic, Plowland Hall was a fortified dwelling, surrounded by a deep
moat and approached by a drawbridge, much after the fashion of Markenfield
Hall, in the Parish of Ripon, the ancestral seat of the Markenfields,
heroes of Flodden and kinsmen of the Wrights, Wards, Nortons, Mallories,
and numberless others amongst the ancient and wealthy Yorkshire gentry.

Christopher Wright and his elder brother John were educated, along with
Guy Fawkes and Oswald Tesimond, at the Royal Grammar School (as we have
already stated) in the Horse Fayre, Gillygate, in the City of York.

Their master was the Reverend John Pulleyn, who probably belonged to the
ancient and honourable West Riding family of the Pulleyns (or Pulleines),
of Killinghall, near Bilton-cum-Harrogate, and of Scotton, in the Parish
of Farnham, near Knaresbrough.

The two Wrights’ parents were stanch Roman Catholics, and their mother had
suffered imprisonment “for the Faith” in York for the “space of fourteen
years together,” during the time when Henry Hastings Earl of Huntingdon
was Lord President of the North, _i.e._, between the years 1572 and 1599.
(Henry third Earl of Huntingdon was one of the few members of the ancient
nobility who accepted whole-heartedly the Calvinistic Protestantism then
gradually taking root in England.)

One of Christopher Wright’s sisters, Ursula, was married to Marmaduke
Ward, Gentleman, of Mulwith, in the Parish of Ripon; another, named
Martha, was married to Thomas Percy, Gentleman, the Gunpowder
conspirator.

It is said of John Wright, Christopher Wright’s brother, and of his
brother-in-law, Thomas Percy, that they were formerly Protestant, and
became Catholic about the time of the rebellion of the Earl of Essex. But
it is certain John Wright and Thomas Percy[45] must have been both brought
up Roman Catholics in the days of their childhood; although they probably
ceased to practise their duties as such until about the year 1600. For it
is incredible that the son and son-in-law of Robert Wright and Ursula, his
wife, should have been brought up as children and youths anything other
than rigid Catholics, whatever else for a season they might, in the days
of their early manhood, have become, either from conscientious conviction
or reckless negligence, whereof the latter alternative is doubtless the
more probable.

From the account of the Gunpowder conspirators given by Father John
Gerard, the friend of Sir Everard Digby, and, it is highly probable, the
friend of the Wrights also, it would seem that Christopher Wright was a
taller man than his brother John,[A] fatter in the face and of a
lighter-coloured hair. “Yet,” says Gerard, “was he very like to the other
in conditions and qualities and both esteemed and tried to be as stout a
man as England had, and withal a zealous Catholic and trusty and secret in
any business as could be wished.”[46]

[Footnote A: It is, however, possible that John Wright may have come under
the influence of the Blessed William Hart (styled the Apostle of York and
the second Campion), a priest who suffered death at the York Tyburn in
1583. Because Hart was indicted for (amongst other things) “reconciling” a
“Mr. John Wright and one Cooling.”——See Challoner’s “_Missionary
Priests_.” If so, John Wright would then be about fourteen years of age.
It, however, may have been another John Wright; perhaps of Grantley and
one of the brothers of Robert Wright, the father of John Wright, the
conspirator. Cooling was probably Ralph Cowling, of York, a shoemaker, the
father of Father Richard Cowling (certainly of York), a Jesuit and
relative of the Harringtons, of Mount St. John, and, therefore, of Guy
Fawkes. See Note 147, where will be found a letter under the hand of this
Father Cowling (or Collinge) to a gentleman in Venice——possibly Father
Parsons or someone else of authority among the Jesuits——respecting the
Harringtons and Guy Fawkes. Ralph Cowling, the father, died in York Castle
a captive for his Faith, and was buried under the Castle Wall——I think
facing the Foss towards Fishergate.]

Christopher Wright was married. His wife’s name, we know, was
Margaret.[A][47] I strongly suspect that Mrs. Christopher Wright was a
sister of both Marmaduke Ward and Thomas Ward, of Mulwith, in the Parish
of Ripon; yet of this there is only, perhaps, slight evidence, so that no
positive argument can be grounded upon it, _considered by itself_; though
the evidence of Mistress Robinson, Christopher Wright’s landlady in
London, indirectly tends to confirm such a suspicion.——See Evidence of
Dorathie Robinson, _postea_, where she says that Wright had “a brother” in
London.

[Footnote A: See “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vol. i., p. 89.]

When Guy Fawkes was examined in the Tower of London, in the forenoon of
the 6th of November, he said, in answer to a question——“You would have me
discover my friends; the giving warning to one overthrew us all.”

Now, if Guy Fawkes eventually revealed the conspiracy by reason of the
agony caused by the _physical_ pains of the rack, when after the first
racking he was told he “must come to it againe and againe, from daye to
daye, till he should have delivered his whole knowledge,” is it, I ask, a
thing incredible that the son of a Yorkshire Catholic mother that had
spent fourteen years of her life in “durance” for her profession of her
forefathers’ ancient Faith, should have revealed the conspiracy itself, by
reason of the agony caused by the _moral_ pains of a pricking conscience,
goading him to madness for having committed _in act_ (in the case of the
unlawful oath), _in desire_ (in the case of the intended murder) most
horrible crimes against the offended Majesty of Heaven?

I think not.

_Therefore_ I conclude that it is antecedently probable that in the heart
of Christopher Wright, emotions, not only of compassion but also of
compunction, _were_ awakened by the remembrance of the early training he
had received at his mother’s knee: emotions which were potent enough,
under the wisdom and skill of one whose special duty it was to “work good
unto all men,” speedily to swing right round on its axis, though well-nigh
at the eleventh hour, the diabolical designment known to History as the
Gunpowder Treason Plot.

Had Christopher Wright any entirely trustworthy friend, one who not only
would prove a healing minister to a mind diseased with the leprosy of
crime, but also be an able and ready helper for giving effect to an all
but too late repentance? Was there anyone to whom he could have recourse,
who was at once wise of head, sympathetic of heart, and skilful of hand?

There was.




                             CHAPTER XIII.


For at Hindlip Hall, near the City of Worcester, there had dwelt for the
past sixteen years one who was not only the trusted spiritual guide of
Thomas Abington, Esquire, and the Honourable Mary (Parker), his wife,
daughter of the Lord Morley and sister to the Lord Mounteagle, but who by
reason of his remarkably zealous labours in that part of the country had
come to be accepted as a very Apostle of Worcestershire.

This was Edward Oldcorne, a Priest and a Jesuit.

He was the son of John Oldcorne, Tiler, a schismatic Catholic, of St.
Sampson’s Parish, in the City of York. His mother was Elizabeth Oldcorne,
a rigid Catholic recusant, who had suffered imprisonment “for the Faith.”
He was born about the year 1560, and proceeded to the English College at
Rome in 1582, aged twenty-one, for the higher studies. He was most
probably at the Royal School in the Horse Fayre, in York, and he may have
been there at the same time as Oswald Tesimond,[48] John Wright,[49]
Christopher Wright, and Guy Fawkes, though about ten years the senior of
the three latter. As already has been stated, before going beyond the seas
he had studied medicine. He was a man remarkable alike for mental acumen,
tranquillity of spirit, gentleness of nature, and strength of will. He was
one of those Jesuits who, realising a higher unity, were at once Mystics
_and_ Politicians. His equipoise of mind shows him to have been a very
great man——indeed, on account of his combination of mental gifts and
graces, I think the greatest, in reality, of _all_ the early English
Jesuits. For “he saw life steadily and saw it whole.”[A]

[Footnote A: Matthew Arnold.]

“All the chiefest gentlemen,” says Father Gerard, Oldcorne’s contemporary,
“and best Catholics of the county where he remained and the counties
adjoining depended upon his advice and counsel, and he was indefatigable
in his journeys.”[50] Again, a MS. Memoir[51] says, “so profuse was his
liberality in aiding others that he supplied the necessities of life to
very many Catholics. It was very evident his residence was well selected
in the midst of the Catholics of that district of the Society of Jesus, so
great and so promiscuous was the concourse of people flocking thereto for
his sermons, for his advice, and the sacraments.”[52][B]

[Footnote B: See Supplementum II.]

Now, Father Oldcorne was the spiritual adviser of Robert Winter, another
subordinate plotter, and also of Catesby, according to the statement of
one Humphrey Littleton, who knew Oldcorne well. And as John Wright was a
tenant of Catesby’s Mansion House, at Lapworth, in Warwickshire, about
twenty miles distant from Hindlip, Christopher Wright must have not only
heard of Father Oldcorne’s fame as a “counsellor of the doubtful” and a
“friend in need,” but it is at least possible he may have been among those
divers Catholics and Schismatics[53] in the country thereabouts who
flocked to him for conference and to have his exhortations.[54][C]

[Footnote C: Evidence of the practical side of Oldcorne’s mind is
furnished by the fact that we are told he often begged leave in Rome of
his superiors to visit the hospitals and serve in the kitchen. And when
the English College was in low water, owing to the parents of the scholars
not being able to pay for their sons through stress of the persecution,
Oldcorne was sent to the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily to negotiate
pecuniary assistance. His business embassy was eminently successful, and
he brought back “a good round sum” to the College.——See Gerard’s
“_Narrative_,” p. 272.]

Again, Christopher Wright appears to have been especially friendly with
two other conspirators, namely, Thomas Winter and Ambrose Rookwood. And it
is worthy of notice that Huddington Hall, in Worcestershire, the seat of
Robert Winter (of which place Thomas Winter is also described), and
Clopton Hall, in Warwickshire, near Stratford-on-Avon (whither Ambrose
Rookwood removed soon after Michaelmas, 1605), were easily accessible to
and from Hindlip Hall, where Father Oldcorne was, in general, to be found
when not engaged at some other missionary station, such as Worcester City
or Grafton Manor, the seat of John Talbot, Esquire, then heir presumptive
to the Earldom of Shrewsbury and father-in-law to Robert Winter, who had
married Miss Gertrude Talbot.[A]

[Footnote A: The site of Shakespeare’s new residence, which he built and
called New Place, at Stratford-on-Avon, had belonged to the Clopton
family.

Clopton Bridge and Clopton Hall (or House) are still well known to all
visitors to the shrine of Shakespeare. It is to be remembered that Clopton
Hall, the property of Lord Carew, whither Ambrose Rookwood repaired for
temporary residence soon after Michaelmas, 1605, was by road twenty-three
miles from Hindlip Hall, where Father Oldcorne resided.

Ambrose Rookwood and Christopher Wright were particular friends. Rookwood
was a man of very tender conscience, which, however, unhappily failed him
at the most crucial moment of his life, namely, when he consented to join
in the Plot which proved his ruin. But indirectly he probably unknowingly
strengthened Christopher Wright’s resolve to reverse the Plot, by
revelation. The influence of “associating” (even if of not always
“according”) “minds” one upon the other is very subtle but very
powerful.]




                              CHAPTER XIV.


Let us now examine the Letter itself.

The first thing to be noted is that no reprint that I have seen of the
famous Letter, whether in ancient or modern continuous Relations of the
Gunpowder Plot, is strictly correct. For they all omit the pronoun “yowe”
after the words “my lord out of the loue i beare.” This pronoun “yowe” is
indeed crossed out in the original Letter with a blurred net-work of
lines.[55] But, this notwithstanding, it can be still detected in the
original document, happily, even to this day, to be seen in the Record
Office, London.

Now the fact that this word “yowe” is crossed out in this mysterious
fashion, coupled with the fact that the words used at the end of the
Letter are as follow: “and i hope god will give yowe the grace to mak
good[56] use of it to whose holy proteccion i comend yowe,” makes it clear
(to my mind) that an universal temporal salvation of the destined victims
was intended by the revealing conspirator and by his penman, and not
merely the particular salvation of the recipient of the Letter.

Again, the meaning of the words “for the danger is passed as soon as yowe
have burnt the letter,” is in one sense fairly clear. For as Wilson says,
in his “_Life of James I._” (1653), p. 30, “the writer’s desire was to
have the letter burned, and then the danger would be past both to the
writer and the receiver, if he had grace to make use of the warning.”[57]

This must be the, at least, _ostensible_ meaning. For it is obvious that
neither Wright nor Oldcorne (_ex hypothesi_) would, for different but most
potent reasons, wish the penman of the Letter to be known to the then
public, either Catholic or Protestant.

Now it was in accordance with universal right reason and moral fitness
that Father Oldcorne should——so far as was consistent with his being
satisfied that warning of the Plot had been given through trustworthy
channels to the King’s principal Secretary of State——keep in the
background and not himself in person adventure upon the theatre of action,
even for the purpose of compassing an object which he was bound by his
vocation, alike in Justice and Charity, to compass. For by the Act 27
Elizabeth, he was “a traitor,” being a Priest and remaining in England for
more than forty days. While the fact that he was a Jesuit into the bargain
would be, of course, counted an aggravation of his statutory offence.[58]

Again, Father Oldcorne had to remember, besides the ideal standard that
his vocation imposed upon him, the practical standard which was the
unwritten law that guided the conscience of the best of the average
Catholics in that period of their intolerable sufferings.[A] For it is a
fact of human nature that every man seeks to instruct his conscience by
some objective rule or standard of Truth and Right; but that instincts
and emotions oftentimes finally rule men rather than reason and
argumentative proof.

[Footnote A: The English papists groaned under the following
persecution:——The poor were practically liable to be fined (and therefore
sold up “stick and pin”) one shilling every time they absented themselves
from their parish church. The richer members of the community were
compelled to pay £20 per lunar month. Many of the English nobility,
gentry, and yeomanry were ruined by this; indeed the Catholics must have
been very rich on the whole to hold out as long as they did. It was the
Government authorities (Clerical and Lay) that did the persecuting;
individual Protestants often sought to mitigate the miseries of their
fellow-countrymen from whom they differed in religion. Being reconciled to
the See of Rome was death, and to be a popish priest was by the terrible
Statute 27 Eliz. to be “a traitor” and to be liable to be hanged, cut down
alive, bowelled, and quartered. To say Mass was to be liable to a fine of
200 marks _and_ imprisonment for life (a mark was 13s. 4d.). To hear Mass
was to be liable to a fine of 100 marks _and_ imprisonment for life. To
harbour a priest was death and forfeiture of property.]

It was, furthermore, incumbent upon Oldcorne to recollect that more harm
than good is frequently occasioned in this entangled world by an
unseasonable, indiscriminate, “heroic” application of abstract principles
(faultless in themselves) to the varied and perplexing circumstances of
man’s terrestrial life.

To illustrate my propositions: It is worth while remembering that even so
lofty a soul as Mrs. Ambrose Rookwood evidently regarded her husband,
primarily, as a sufferer for conscience sake, and only secondarily, if at
all, as a repentant sacrilegious traitor and murderer in desire, who was
suffering condign punishment and paying the just penalty of his ruthless
crimes.

No doubt special allowances have to be made for this poor woman, inasmuch
as her husband and children were all the world to her. But still the
following recorded statement proves that the _tendency_ was for even the
best of the average English Catholics of that day, of whom Mrs. Rookwood
is a fair type and specimen, to centre their sympathies on the wrong-doers
rather than on the wronged.

This was natural enough; for man’s disposition is to be led by his
unconscious instincts and emotional sympathies rather than by drawn-out
reason and cool argument, as has been mentioned above.

It was the bounden duty of Oldcorne to hold that disposition strictly in
check and to keep himself absolutely master of the tendency. But, on this
being assured, he was bound likewise to remember that the tendency
existed, and that he lived in a world not of angels, nor of machines, but
of _men_——of men indeed who were not totally depraved, nor utterly
corrupt, yet who were sorely wounded and weakened in intellect, heart, and
will.

The crying want of the present day——as of Oldcorne’s day——is not only for
men but for men who are statesmen. And no man can be a statesman unless he
has a wide and profound knowledge of human nature, and who, while he
pities human nature and loves it, never makes the mistake of expecting too
much from it. In other words, we require men who are humanists and
humorists, as I cannot but think was the character of Edward Oldcorne.

Now, no man in England knew better nor recognised more fully (for he knew
the virtually omnipotent transforming power of the precedent conditions of
person, time, and circumstance) the truth of the propositions I have just
enunciated than did Father Oldcorne. But this notwithstanding, I hold it
was _not_ the truth of the foregoing propositions ALONE——indisputable
doubtless as he regarded them——that finally controlled the motives that
ruled the action——in substance and in form——at the most critical moment of
the existence of this acute, disciplined, high-minded Yorkshireman, when
by Fate he was called upon to contemplate, _after the fateful November the
Fifth_, the bloody, prodigious Gunpowder Plot, and the mighty feat which
Destiny had imposed upon him for helping to spin the same right round on
its axis, even though well-nigh at the eleventh hour.[59]

What finally controlled the motives, the positive _not_ negative motives,
that ruled that beneficent and never-to-be-forgotten action of this
Yorkshire Priest and Jesuit in that supreme moment——the Plot having then
become, through his instrumentality, as a mere bubble-burst——will be
discovered in due course of this Inquiry.

The remark of Mrs. Rookwood to which I have referred is given in Gerard’s
“_Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot_,” p. 219. Thomas Winter, Rookwood,
Keyes, and Fawkes were drawn on their hurdles from the Tower to the Yard
of the old Palace of Westminster over against the Parliament House.

“As they were drawn upon the Strand, Mr. Rookwood had provided that he
should be admonished when he came over against the lodging where his wife
lay: and being come unto the place, he opened his eyes (which before he
kept shut to attend better to his prayers), and seeing her stand in a
window to see him pass by, he raised himself as well as he could up from
the hurdle, and said aloud unto her: ‘Pray for me, pray for me,’ She
answered him also aloud: ‘I will; and be of good courage and offer thyself
wholly to God. I for my part do as freely restore thee to God as he gave
thee to me,’”

This was Friday, the 31st day of January, 1605-6.

On the previous day in St. Paul’s Churchyard had been likewise hanged, cut
down alive, drawn, and quartered, Sir Everard Digby, Robert Winter, John
Grant, and Thomas Bates.

Catesby, John Wright, and Christopher Wright had been slain at Holbeach on
the 8th of November previously.

Thomas Percy died of wounds there received the next day.

Father Tesimond had proceeded to Huddington, doubtless mainly in the hope,
let us trust, of stirring up in the hearts of these desperate creatures
sorrow——that great natural sacrament——for their awful crimes that, not in
vain, had cried to Heaven for vengeance! For truly the guilty suffer and
the blood-guilty man shall not live out half his days.




                              CHAPTER XV.


Now there is a sentence in the Letter whose wording is peculiar, but
which, I submit, is pre-eminently a wording likely to be used by two
natives of Yorkshire.

I mean the sentence, “I would aduyse yowe as yowe _tender_ your lyf to
deuys some excuse to _shift off_ youer attendance at this parleament,”
meaning thereby, “I would advise you as you _have a care_ for your life to
devise some excuse to _put off_[60] your attendance at this parliament.”

Once more, a comparison of the Letter sent to Lord Mounteagle with a
Declaration not only signed by Father Oldcorne but entirely in his
handwriting, dated the 12th of March, 1605-6,[61] reveals this remarkable
fact that there is, first, a general similarity between the penmanship of
both documents; and, secondly, there is a particular similarity in the
case of the following letters:——the small c/s, l/s, i/s, b/s, w/s, r/s,
long s/s (as initials), and short s/s (as terminals); also the m/s and n/s
are not inconsistent with being written by one and the same hand. The
handwriting in the Letter is, for the most part, not in round hand, but in
roman character. The letters do not all lean at the same angle to the
horizontal. Evidently the writer had endeavoured “painfully” to disguise
his handwriting, but conscientious carefulness and a disciplined will
emphatically characterise both documents.[62] See Appendix.

Now Thomas Ward, the gentleman-servant of Lord Mounteagle, was, I
maintain, the intermediary——the diplomatic intermediary——through whom
Christopher Wright (_ex hypothesi_) acted in communication with
Mounteagle. And this, with the express knowledge and consent of Father
Edward Oldcorne, who was, almost certainly, well acquainted with Thomas
Ward.[63]

In short, the revelation was a curvilinear triangular movement.




                              CHAPTER XVI.


Mounteagle, we are told, knew there was a Letter to be sent to him before
it came.[64]

Lingard says the conspirators suspected that Tresham had sent the Letter,
and that there was a “secret understanding between him and Lord
Mounteagle,[A] _or at least the gentleman who was employed to read the
Letter at the table_.” (The italics are mine.)

[Footnote A: It is to be recollected that the conspirators themselves
suspected that there was a secret understanding, at least between the
gentleman-servant of Mounteagle and Tresham, whom they thought was the
revealing conspirator.——See Greenway’s MS., quoted by Lingard.]

In a letter dated 19th November, 1605, of a certain Sir Edward Hoby to Sir
Thomas Edmondes, the King’s Ambassador at Brussels, after giving an
account of the discovery of the Plot, Hoby says:——“Such as are apt to
interpret all things to the worst will not believe other but that
Mounteagle might in a policy cause this letter to be sent, fearing the
discovery already of the letter, the rather that one Thomas Ward, a
principal man about him, is suspected to be accessory to the conspiracy.”

Now there is evidence which creates a moral certainty that Christopher
Wright and a certain Thomas Ward (or Warde, for the name was spelt either
way at that time) were closely allied by virtue of at least one marriage
(if not indeed more than one) subsisting between certain (virtually
undoubted) relatives of theirs then living.

Christopher Wright’s sister, Ursula, was (as has been already mentioned)
the wife of one Marmaduke Ward (or Warde), of Mulwith, in the Parish of
Ripon, in the County of York.

A lady of high family named Winefrid Wigmore, the daughter of Sir William
Wigmore, of Lucton, in the County of Herefordshire, says, in her “_Life of
Mary Ward_,” the gifted daughter of Marmaduke Ward and Ursula, his wife:
“Mary Ward was the eldest daughter of Mr. Marmaduke Ward, of Givendale, in
the County of York. Mulwith and Newby were Manor-houses of his.”[65]

Now in the Parish Register, which was published in the year 1899,
belonging to the Church of St. Michael-le-Belfrey, in the City of York, is
to be found the following remarkable entry: “_Weddinges 1579.——Thomas
Warde of Mulwaith in the p’ishe of Rippon, and M’rgery Slater, S’vant to
Mr. Cotterell, maried xxixth day of May._”[66]

But for only eleven years (lacking nine days) were Thomas Warde and
Margery his wife destined to be united in the bonds of wedlock. For the
Register of Ripon Minster records “_the burial_,” under date “_May the
20th, 1590, of Marjory wife of Thomas Warde of Mulwaith_.”[67]

They do not seem to have been blessed with offspring. At any rate there
are no names of any children of these two spouses entered in the Register
of Christenings still kept at Ripon Minster. Although, of course, there
may have been such baptized at home[A] “secretly,” or even at some other
church than at the chapel of the Skelton Chapelry, or than in Ripon
Minster, the mother church of the great Parish of Ripon.

[Footnote A: But see Supplementum III. _postea_, and the evidence there
given; evidence which is also interesting as showing how, at any rate
sometimes, “the oracle was worked,” with reference to that curious
historical problem, the apparent baptism of the children of papists by the
minister of the parish church. In Ireland, I have been told, at one time
the authorities of the then establishment accepted the mere “allegation”
that certain rites had been complied with by the popish clergy.

Dr. Elzé is grossly wrong in arguing that _because_ Shakespeare’s name is
found in the Register of Christenings in the parish church of
Stratford-on-Avon, _therefore_ Shakespeare’s father was a Protestant. Such
a conclusion founded on such proof is simply ludicrous.——See Elzé’s “_Life
of Shakespeare_” (Bell & Sons), p. 457. One really is disposed to distrust
many of the _conclusions_ of “German learning” when Elzé argues like this.
To my mind, much of “the critical” work (so called in a certain
department) may be hereafter found to be full of flaws from building on
too _narrow a foundation_ of evidence. How little man can know of the Past
which affords him evidence to hang even a dog on with absolute, as
distinct from moral, certitude! (I wish especially not to be thought to
imply any disrespect towards the great German people, whose love for him
who is for all nations and all time fills me with the profoundest
admiration. But Truth is no respecter of persons when it detects errors,
or the probabilities of errors, on the part of such as should be “masters
of those that know.”)

For even the Rigmaydens, of Woodacre Hall, Garstang (harbourers of Campion
in 1581), in the most Catholic part of Lancashire, _apparently_ had at
least some of their children baptised at the parish church.——See Colonel
Fishwick’s “_Parish of Garstang_” (Chetham Soc.)]




                             CHAPTER XVII.


Now we know that Marmaduke Warde was of Mulwaith (or Mulwith) in the year
1585. For the “_Life_” of his daughter Mary expressly states that she was
born at Mulwith in that year. And if _a_ Thomas Warde was of Mulwaith (or
Mulwith) only six years prior to 1585, and again of Mulwith in 1590, when
he lost his wife, the inevitable inference is that the said Marmaduke
Warde and the said Thomas Warde belonged to one and the same family, and
that, in all probability, they were akin to each other as brothers.[68]

Again, the Register of Ripon Minster records on the 6th day of October,
1589, the baptism of Edward,[A] the son of a certain Christopher Wright,
of Bondgate, Ripon.

[Footnote A: If this Edward Wright is the same as a certain Prebendary
Edward Wright, of Ripon Minster, who received his nomination from King
James I. on the 26th of March, 1613, then at least one cousin of Mary Ward
must have conformed to the Established Church.——See “_Memorials of
Ripon_,” in 3 vols. (Surtees Society.)

He would be about 23 years of age when the royal favour was thus
vouchsafed to him.

An Edward Wright was Mayor of Ripon in the year 1635.——Gent’s
“_Ripon_.”——Probably the son of Prebendary Edward Wright.

Another cousin of Mary Warde, I find, had likewise conformed——a Dr. Warde,
the Master of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. He belonged, I think, to
the Wardes, of Durham, descended from a brother of Sir Christopher Ward.]

On the 23rd day of July, 1594, of Eliza, daughter of Christopher Wright,
of Newbie.[69]

The baptism on the 12th day of July, 1596, of Francis, son of Christopher
Wright, of Newbie.

And furthermore, on the 3rd day of February, 1601, the baptism of
Marmaduke, the son of Christopher Wright, of Skelton.

Now, when we recollect that _a_ Marmaduke Warde was certainly
brother-in-law to _a_ Christopher Wright; and when we recollect that we
have proof that _a_ Thomas Warde and _a_ Marmaduke Warde were,
respectively, of Mulwaith (or Mulwith) in the Parish of Ripon, and that
_a_ Christopher Wright was of Bondgate, Newbie, and Skelton, all likewise
in the Parish of Ripon; and when we further recollect that these three
gentlemen were of these several places in the closing decades of the years
of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, only one conclusion is forced upon the
mind of even the most sceptical, namely, that the said three gentlemen
must have known, and been known to, one another personally, without the
shadow of any reasonable doubt.

And again; that between those years, 1589 and 1590 inclusive, the said
_Thomas Warde_ and the said _Christopher Wright_ had known each other
intimately, by meeting within the bounds of the Parish of Ripon,——nay even
within the chapelry of Skelton——is surely one of the likeliest things in
the world.

Furthermore, it is possible that the Thomas Warde, of Mulwaith (or
Mulwith), was in the diplomatic service of Queen Elizabeth in the
Netherlands, along with Queen Elizabeth’s well-known diplomatist and
Treasurer of the Chamber, Sir Thomas Heneage, the step-father of Lord
Southampton, Lord Mounteagle’s friend, as well as Shakespeare’s patron.

For I find that the great Sir Francis Walsingham, in a letter dated from
“the Court,” the 24th of March, 1585——six years _after_ the marriage of
Thomas Warde, of Mulwaith, to Marjory Slater, and five years _before_ her
lamented death——that the great Sir Francis Walsingham, in a letter to the
Earl of Leicester, “Lord Lieutenant-General of Her Majesty’s Forces in the
Low Countries,” speaks of _a_ “Mr. Warde.”[A]

[Footnote A: See the “_Leicester Correspondence_” (Camden Soc.), p. 187.]

Now we know for certain from Winwood’s Memorials[B] that a Mr. Walter
Hawkesworth, of the Hawkesworths of Hawkesworth Hall, in the Parish of
Otley, in the County of York, was in the diplomatic service of King James
I., and that, according to Foster’s “_Pedigrees of Yorkshire Families_” he
was poisoned at Madrid when on an embassy there.

[Footnote B: See also Sir Ralph Sadler’s Papers. Edited by Sir Walter
Scott.]

Hence, is it quite within the bounds of possibility that his remote
kinsman, Thomas Warde, of Mulwith, may have been in the diplomatic service
of Queen Elizabeth. The Hawkesworths and the Wardes had, in days long gone
by, twice formed alliances by marriage, so that the families were
distantly akin. Indeed it was from Sir Simon Warde, of Esholt, in the
Parish of Otley, and of Givendale, in the Parish of Ripon, that the
Hawkesworths of Hawkesworth had by marriage alliance gained the
Hawkesworth Estate.——See Foster’s “_Pedigrees of Yorkshire Families_.”

But is there any evidence that links Thomas Ward (or Warde), of Mulwaith
(or Mulwith), and the Ward (or Warde) family in general, of Givendale,
Newby and Mulwith, with the Lord Mounteagle?[C]

[Footnote C: It will be seen as this narrative further unfolds itself that
it is almost certain that Thomas Warde (or Ward) was in the service of the
Government as a Catholic diplomat under Walsingham. And, moreover, it will
appear probable that the servant Warde (or Ward) “had as much, off” as the
master Walsingham.]

And, first of all, is there any evidence to show that Marmaduke Ward ever
had a brother in London, who lived at Court?

There is.




                             CHAPTER XVIII.


For in Foley’s “_Records_”[70] we are told that Father George Ward, alias
Ingleby, was a son of Marmaduke Ward, Esquire, of Newby, near Ripon, by
his wife Ursula Wright.[A] And in a note at the foot of the self-same
page, it is stated that William Ward entered the English College at Rome
in the name William Ingleby vere Ward, 4th October, 1614, at the age of
twenty-three; that the family was of distinction in the county, _and his
uncle lived at Court_. (The italics are mine.)

[Footnote A: I am, however, inclined to think that Ursula Ward died early
in the year 1588, after the birth of her son, probably George, and that
the Elizabeth Ward, who is mentioned in Peacock’s “_List of Roman
Catholics in Yorkshire in 1604_” as the wife of a Marmaduke Ward, of the
Parish of Ripon, was the mother of Elizabeth Ward, Teresa (or Ann) Ward,
William Ward, and Thomas Ward. Indeed, the mother of all Mary Warde’s
father’s children, except Mary herself, Barbara, John, and George.

I think, moreover, that Elizabeth Ward was a Sympson, probably of Great
Edston, near Kirbymoorside, Rydale, in the North Riding of the County of
York. The Sympsons, of Edston, had a daughter Elizabeth at this time.——See
Foster’s Ed. of “_Glover’s Visitation_.”

In the Ripon Minster Registers there is certainly the entry under date
15th May, 1588, of a wedding between a “Marmaduke Warde and Elizabeth
Sympson.” Now Mary Warde, the eldest child of Ursula Warde, was born the
23rd day of January, 1585-86, and Barbara in the year 1586; so that if
Ursula Warde died in the year 1588 (at the early part) after giving birth
to George Warde, Marmaduke Warde might be conceivably married again in
May, 1588. Sir Thomas More’s case would afford a precedent for so early a
second marriage. The marriage of Marmaduke Warde and Elizabeth Sympson may
have taken place at Ripon from the house of friends, in the presence of
some semi-popish conforming Vicar. Winefrid Wigmore styles George Ward
Mary’s “owne brother,” implying that there was at least one
half-brother.——See “_Life of Mary Ward_” vol. i., p. 427. John Ward, the
elder brother, died from wounds received in a duel. He must have taken
after his uncle John Wright, who was one of the most expert swordsmen of
his time, and never happy but when sending a challenge to some swordsman
or another who specially boasted himself of skill in the use of that
ancient weapon.]

Moreover, there is evidence tending to prove, with absolute certitude,
that the “Ward” or “Warde” family, of Givendale, Newby, and Mulwith were
connected with the family of Mounteagle, both on his mother’s side through
the Mounteagles, and on his father’s side through the Barons Morley.[71]

Also is there evidence tending to prove, with moral certitude, that either
through the Stanleys or the Morleys, or some other family or families, the
Wards (or Wardes) were connected by marriage and actually related to Lord
Mounteagle by blood.

The proof is this:——In the “_Life of Mary Ward_,” [72] by Mary Catherine
Elizabeth Chambers, it is stated that Mary Ward was in some way related to
the before-mentioned lady of high family, Winefrid Wigmore, of Lucton,
Herefordshire, who was an accomplished woman, speaking five languages
fluently.

Now it is known that Winefrid Wigmore’s father, Sir William Wigmore, had
married Anne Throckmorton, one of the daughters of Sir Nicholas
Throckmorton. Now Lady Wigmore, through the Throckmortons and the
Treshams, “was connected with the families of Lord Mounteagle, Morley,
Berkeley, and Vaux.”[73]

Hence it follows that, through the Wigmores,[A] the Throckmortons, and the
Treshams, there was a connection of some kind or another between Mary
Ward’s family and the families of Mounteagle, Morley, Berkeley, and
Vaux.[74]

[Footnote A: Since the text was written, I have found out that Winefrid
Wigmore, through her mother, was a cousin once removed to Elizabeth, Lady
Mounteagle (_née_ Tresham).——See Notes 30 and 76 _postea_.]

Again, Mary Ward was related to Mary Poyntz (pronounced Poynes), a lady
whose ancient family had come over with William the Conqueror.[75] Mary
Poyntz, herself a lovely woman, was the daughter of Edward Poyntz,
Esquire, of Iron Acton and Tobington Park, in the County of
Gloucester.[76]

Sir Nicholas Poyntz, who was living in 1580, the father of Edward Poyntz,
had married Margaret Stanley, the daughter of Edward Earl of Derby. This
lady was the mother of Edward Poyntz, the father of Mary Poyntz, the
relative of Mary Ward.

Now I find (from Burke’s “_Extinct Peerages_”) that Henry Parker Lord
Morley, the grandfather of William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle, had
married Elizabeth Stanley, daughter of Edward Earl of Derby.

Hence the Poyntz and the Mounteagles were cousins. Again, the Wards were
in some way or other related to the Poyntz family. Hence it follows that
through the Poyntz the Wards were related in some sort with Lord
Mounteagle, by means of the Stanleys, Mounteagle’s father’s ancestors and
mother’s ancestors.[77]

For it is obvious that families connected with or related to the same
family are connected with or related to each other.

Again, there was certainly a further marriage connection and a probably
blood relationship between the Morleys, Mounteagles, and Wards through the
great House of Neville.

(We may be sure that a young nobleman like the fourth Lord Mounteagle
would be glad to recognise the Wards of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale as
“Cousins” if such were the fact, and to treat them in every respect as
being on an equality with him.)

Therefore the combined Evidence so far gives us this conclusion:——

That a Christopher Wright was the brother-in-law of Marmaduke Ward, of
Mulwith, in the Parish of Ripon.

That Marmaduke Ward was of the same place——Mulwith (or Mulwaith)——as a
person named Thomas Warde, who was married in a church in York in the year
1579, and whose wife died in the year 1590, and whose burial is recorded
to this day at Ripon Minster.

That _a_ Christopher Wright, most probably the brother-in-law of Marmaduke
Ward, and thus most probably the connection of Thomas Warde, was residing
at Newby, near Mulwith,[78] in the Parish of Ripon, between the years 1594
and 1596 inclusive, and in the neighbourhood of the City of Ripon, and
within the boundary of its parish, from the year 1589 to 1601.

That Marmaduke Ward’s son, William, had an uncle who lived at Court.[A]

That the Wardes were connected with, and related to Lord Mounteagle by
common family ties.[79]

[Footnote A: The fact that a Christopher Wright who lived at Newbie in
1596, and at Skelton (Newbie itself is in the Parish of Skelton) in 1601,
when he called one of his children “Marmaduke,” raises a strong
presumption, I maintain, that this Christopher Wright was the
brother-in-law of Marmaduke Ward.

At this time there was also a Francis Wright at Newbie, and a John Wright
at Grantley. They may have been the children of John and Christopher
Wright, _the uncles_ of John and Christopher Wright, the Gunpowder
plotters. And, of course, it is _possible_ that the Christopher Wright who
lived in Bondgate, Newbie, and Skelton between the years 1589 and 1601
_may have been a cousin or other kinsman_ of Christopher Wright the
plotter, or even of different families altogether. But in the Register of
Welwick Church are the following entries of Burials: “13 October 1654
ffrauncis Wright Esquire and 2 May 1664 ffrauncis Wright Esquire”
(communicated by the Rev. D. V. Stoddart, M.A., Vicar of Welwick), entries
which tend to prove that the Newby Wrights and the Plowland Wrights were
one and the same persons, and, therefore, of one and the same clan.

There seem, from the “_Memorials of Ripon_,” vol. iii. (Surtees Soc.), to
have been “Wrights” in Ripon and the neighbourhood for many generations,
certainly long before the reign of Henry VIII., when the grandfather of
the plotters is said to have come from Kent into Yorkshire.——See Foster’s
“_Glover’s Visitation of Yorkshire_.” Possibly the Wrights of Kent
originally sprang from Yorkshire.

“A Christopher Wright” lived at South Kilvington, near Thirsk, in the
nineteenth century.——See the tablet to his memory in the church of that
parish.]

Hence, from the foregoing evidence, the conclusions are inevitable, first,
that Thomas Warde, of Mulwith, who married Marjory (or Margery) Slater[A]
in 1579, was almost certainly a connection and relative of Lord
Mounteagle, in whose household Warde held an honoured and honourable
position; or, as doubtless we should say nowadays, was the young peer’s
private secretary: and, secondly, that, through the said Thomas Warde,
Christopher Wright likewise was almost certainly by affinity connected
with, if not related by blood to, the same highly-favoured English
nobleman.

[Footnote A: This marriage of Thomas Warde, of Mulwaith, to Marjory (or
Margery) Slater, “servant to Mr. Cotterill,” of the Parish of St. Wilfrid,
York, forcibly reminds one of the romance which Lord Tennyson has
immortalized in his charming little poem, “The Lord of Burleigh.”
Moreover, it is worthy of remark that there was a family connection
between the family of Cecil and a family of Ward, most probably the Wards
of Mulwith, or those akin to them.——See Hatfield’s “_Hist. MSS._” (Eyre &
Spottiswoode), pt. viii., p. 553, where it says, “Pedigree connection of
the Cecil and Ward families, partly in Lord Burleigh’s hand,” pt. i.,
204-289.]




                              CHAPTER XIX.


But again, seeing that we know that a certain Thomas Ward lived at Court,
by reason of his being a member of the household of Lord Mounteagle, who
had been admitted to Court ever since the accession to the throne of James
the First, by this point also I know not how to escape from these several
probable conclusions: that the Thomas Warde (or Ward), the
gentleman-servant of Lord Mounteagle, was the brother of Marmaduke Warde
(or Ward); that, by consequence, he was the connection of Christopher
Wright; and that by remoter consequence, Christopher Wright himself was a
connection of Lord Mounteagle likewise.

Now, granting the family connection between Thomas Warde and Wright, there
is no antecedent improbability, but the contrary, in the supposal that
Christopher Wright, if and when stricken with remorse at the thought of
his sworn part and lot in the iniquitous Gunpowder Plot, had recourse to
this Thomas Warde, who was his connection, for trustworthy and effectual
help in saving from a sudden and cruel death, haply himself and his
confederates, but certainly his Sovereign and the Senators of his
Fatherland, along with Heaven alone knows whom else beside!

Furthermore, if there were any antecedent improbability in such a supposal
as that Christopher Wright should have recourse to this particular
Yorkshireman, Thomas Warde, in the hour of his need, it should be had in
continual remembrance——as a self-evident proposition from the constitution
of human nature——that the person or persons to whom a Yorkshireman like
Christopher Wright (supposing him to have been the revealing plotter)
almost certainly would have recourse would be, if possible, some tried and
constant native of his own County, whose intellect, he would think, there
was some guarantee for being shrewd and practical, his heart not devoid of
fellow-feeling with a “brother in adversity,” and his will at once
indomitable and energetic.[80] One who indeed laughs at alleged
impossibilities and who cries: “_It shall be done!_”




                              CHAPTER XX.


Lastly, there is proof, indirect indeed but very telling, that Thomas
Warde must have been closely akin to Marmaduke Warde, and that both must
have been related to Lord Mounteagle.

This proof is contained in the following “Examination of Marmaduke Warde,
Gentleman, in the County of Yorke, taken at Beauchamp Court before Sir
Fulke Grevyll, Knight, and Bartholmewe Hales, Esq^{re.}, on Wednesday, the
6th day of November, the day following the arrest of Fawkes and the flight
of the others of the conspirators from London towards Dunchurch, in
Warwickshire:——

    “GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——PART I., NO. 47.[81]

    “The examinacion of Marmaduke Warde, gent. of Newbie in the
    countie of yorke taken before S^{r.} ffowlk Grevyll[A] Knight
    and Bartholmewe Hales esq^{r.}

    “This ex^{t} beinge demaunded when he came into this Countreye
    saith a fortnight since & hath since continued at Mr Jo: Writes
    at Lapworth, where Mr Write discontynuinge the space of on weeke
    past his sister in lawe Mrs Write intreated him (beeinge
    accompanyed w^{th} on Marke Brittaine her man) to goe to Mr
    Winter w^{th} a horse to Huddenton where as theye past by
    Alcester about an hower after the troope past this ex^{t} was
    apprehended but the saide Brittaine beeinge well horst escapt
    hee further saith hee knewe not of the companies passinge y^{t}
    way vntill they came to Alcester nor of theire purpose any
    thinge at all.”

[Footnote A: This was the celebrated Sir Fulk Greville, the friend and
biographer of Sir Philip Sidney. Greville was afterwards created Lord
Brooke. His tomb, with a famous inscription, is in the church of St. Mary,
Warwick.]

Now, from the “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vol. i., p. 91, it is evident, first,
that Marmaduke Warde got into no trouble of any kind, notwithstanding that
for a fortnight he had been actually dwelling under the roof-tree of one
of the principal conspirators, and when apprehended was even in the act of
taking a horse from Lapworth to Huddington, the mansion of Robert Winter,
one Gunpowder traitor and armed rebel, who was also the brother of another
Gunpowder traitor and armed rebel——the latter, indeed, being among the
very chiefest of the traitors and rebels.

It is evident, secondly, that on reaching London town the Master of
Newbie, in the County of York, lodged in Baldwin’s Gardens, Holborn,
apparently as a matter of course.

Moreover, the marvel of the whole thing is enhanced by the fact, first,
that Marmaduke Ward’s name is bracketed along with Richard Yorke (a
follower of Robert Winter) and Robert Key (doubtless Robert Keyes), the
Gunpowder traitor, who was arrested in Warwickshire by himself and not in
the company of the others (it is supposed he had been to Turvey, in
Bedfordshire, to see his wife and children at Lord Mordaunt’s, and was
making his way towards Holbeach); and by the fact, secondly, that the
said Marmaduke Ward, Richard Yorke, and Robert Key are specially described
as “suspected persons usually resorting to Mr. Winter, Mr. Grant, and Mr.
Rookwood’s.”[A]

[Footnote A: See add. MS. 5874, fo. 322, British Museum. See also Appendix
for the list of suspected persons usually resorting to Mr. Winter’s, Mr.
Grant’s, and Mr. Rookwood’s.

Mr. Winter’s house would be Huddington, in Worcestershire; Mr. Grant’s,
Norbrook, in Warwickshire; Mr. Rookwood’s would be Clopton Hall (or
House), Stratford-on-Avon. Mabie’s “_Life of Shakespeare_” (Macmillan,
1901), p. 393, contains a picture of the dining-hall at Clopton.]

Now the inferences that I draw from these two truly astounding
circumstances are these following:——That Marmaduke Warde must have had
literally “a friend at Court,” or his lodging when he reached the great
Metropolis, as a matter of course, would have been not——emphatically
_not_——Baldwin’s Gardens, Holborn, but, of a surety, the Tower of London.

That this “friend” must have been very closely allied to him in some way
or another.

And that this “friend” must have been a very powerful friend indeed,
especially when one remembers the punishment that was inflicted after the
Plot had become a mere bubble-burst by the Court of Star Chamber upon
Marmaduke Warde’s own connection (through the Gascoignes), Henry Earl of
Northumberland,[82] and upon the Lords Montague, Mordaunt, and Stourton,
the latter of whom had married a daughter of good Sir Thomas Tresham; and
the prosecution of Marmaduke Warde’s other connection, Sir John Yorke, of
Gowthwaite Hall, in Nidderdale, as late as the year 1612, on a charge of
complicity in the Plot.[83]

Now, from all these three inferences, surely the further inference is
inevitable, that the probabilities are so high as to amount to moral
certitude, that Thomas Warde and Marmaduke Warde were each allied, in
blood, to William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle.

And “probability” that amounts to moral certitude is, as every-day
experience, as well as philosophy, tells us, “the very guide of life.”

Therefore the historical Inquirer henceforward is warranted in reason in
pursuing his inquiries into this matter on the following assumption, at
the very least, namely, that Christopher Wright, Marmaduke Warde, Thomas
Warde, and Lord Mounteagle had common family ties subsisting between them
in the year 1605.

And, consequently, upon such an assumption the Inquirer may justifiably
build his hypothesis respecting the revelation of the Gunpowder Treason
Plot.[84]




                              CHAPTER XXI.


But, it may be asked, is there any Evidence, however remote, to show how
it is possible that Mounteagle may have been brought into personal contact
with his morally certain kinsman, Thomas Warde (or Ward)?

There is.

For it is to be remembered that although Mounteagle seems to have spent
most of his time in London and Essex, his grandmother, Elizabeth Lady
Morley, the wife of Henry Parker Lord Morley, was, as we have seen, of the
then well-nigh princely house of the Stanleys Earls of Derby, she being,
in fact, a daughter of Edward Stanley Earl of Derby, as was Margaret Lady
Poyntz, the wife of Sir Nicholas Poyntz,[A] of Iron Acton, in the County
of Gloucester, the father of Edward Poyntz, Esquire, the relative of the
Wardes of Yorkshire.

[Footnote A: It is a remarkable fact that Sir Thomas Heneage (whose name
frequently occurs in the correspondence of Sir Francis Walsingham with the
Earl of Leicester when in the Low Countries), married for his first wife
Anne Poyntz, the eldest daughter of Sir Nicholas Poyntz and the Honourable
Margaret Stanley, the daughter of Edward Stanley Earl of Derby.——See
“_Visitation of Essex, 1612_” (Harleian Soc.) under “Poyntz.”——Sir Thomas
Heneage is described as Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth and
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Sir Thomas Heneage married for his
second wife the Dowager Countess of Southampton, the mother of
Shakespeare’s friend and patron. Now this Earl of Southampton, like the
Earl of Rutland, was an intimate friend of Lord Mounteagle.]

Besides, as we have also seen, this was not William Parker fourth Lord
Mounteagle’s only relationship with England’s “North Countrie,”——that
birthplace and home of so much that is most original and energetic in the
English race. For this happily-circumstanced young peer was related doubly
to the great Lancashire house of Derby, being, indeed, the heir and
successor to the honours and estates of the Stanleys Lords Mounteagle, of
Hornby Castle, near “time-honoured Lancaster.”

In fact, through his mother Elizabeth (Stanley) Lady Morley, William
Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle was the owner of Hornby Castle, situated in
the Vale of the Lune, one of the grandest portions of North-east
Lancashire.

Again, through his grandmother Anne (Leybourne) Lady Mounteagle, Lord
Mounteagle was descended from two other families belonging to the ancient
and wealthy Catholic gentry of the North, some of whom the Wards, of
Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, in the Parish of Ripon, in the County of
York, must have known personally, and certainly all of whom they must have
greatly honoured.

I refer to the Prestons, of Levens and Preston Patrick, in the County of
Westmoreland, and of Furness and Holker, in Lancashire, “North of the
Sands,” and to the Leybournes (or Labourns), of Cunswick, Skelsmergh, and
Witherslack,[A] in the County of Westmoreland, and of Nateby-in-the-Fylde,
in the west of the County of Lancaster.[85]

[Footnote A: The modern Witherslack Hall, in Westmoreland, is the property
of the present Earl of Derby. It is situated in a lovely neighbourhood
which instinctively recalls the words of the poet:

        “Daffodils,
  That come before the swallow dares, and take,
  The winds of March with beauty.”——_Winter’s Tale._

Witherslack is reached from Arnside, Silverdale, or Grange-over-Sands.

The old Witherslack Hall of the Leybournes is now a farm-house.]




                             CHAPTER XXII.


Lastly, it should be remembered, in endeavouring to trace out by
inevitable inference the nature of the tie or ties, manifestly very
strong, that bound Mounteagle to Marmaduke Ward (and therefore to Thomas
Ward), that the ancestors of both Mounteagle and the Wards had, in the
year 1513, fought together at the great battle of Flodden Field, in
Northumberland, in which the Scots were led by King James IV. of Scotland,
who married Margaret Tudor, the daughter of King Henry VII. of England,
and whom naught would content, like many a valiant Scot before and since,
save “a soldier’s death or glory.”

In the memorable fight, the fifth son of Thomas Stanley first Earl of
Derby, namely, Sir Edward Stanley (whose mother was a Neville),[A] turned
the fortunes of the day in favour of the English by attacking with his
archers the rear of the Scottish centre——which centre, led by King James
himself in person, was assaulting, with some success, the English forces,
whose vanguard was led by Lord Thomas Howard, in 1514 created the Earl of
Surrey.

[Footnote A: The first Lord Mounteagle’s mother was Lady Eleanor Neville,
the sister of Richard Neville, so well known to history as “the King
Maker.” The Wards were related to the Nevilles in more than one way.——See
“_Life of Mary Ward_,” vol. i., the earlier chapters.

In Staindrop Parish Church, three miles from Winston, Darlington, are
still to be seen the monuments of the great Ralph Neville and his two
wives. This was the first Neville who bore the title Earl of Westmoreland.
There are also the monuments of Henry Neville fifth Earl of Westmoreland,
and two out of his three wives. His son Charles was the last Neville who
bore this title.——See Wordsworth’s “_White Doe of Rylstone_.” I visited
Raby Castle, Durham, with its famous Hall and Minstrels’ Gallery, on the
1st of July, 1901. Raby Castle is owned now by Henry De Vere Vane ninth
Lord Barnard, who also owns Barnard Castle, overlooking the Tees,
celebrated by Sir Walter Scott in “Rokeby.”]

This Earl of Surrey was afterwards the second Duke of Norfolk, of the
Howard line of the Dukes of Norfolk, and great great grandfather of Philip
Howard Earl of Arundel, who died in the Tower of London in 1595.

The Mowbrays had been the holders of the coveted title Duke of Norfolk[A]
from the year 1396 down to 1475, when John de Mowbray Earl of Warren and
Surrey, the fourth of the Mowbray Dukes of Norfolk, died leaving no son
but only a daughter, Anne, in her own right Baroness Mowbray and Segrave,
and also in her own right Countess of Norfolk. This lady was contracted in
marriage to Richard, afterwards created Duke of Norfolk, a son of King
Edward IV., but they had no issue.

[Footnote A: The first Earl of Norfolk was Thomas of Brotherton, a brother
of King Edward II. The date of this ancient Earldom was 1312. It fell into
abeyance on the death of Richard Duke of Norfolk and his wife Anne Lady
Mowbray.

Thomas Howard Earl of Arundel and Surrey (the half-cousin of Lord
Mounteagle) was created Earl of Norfolk by a patent of King Charles I.
(formerly Duke of York) in 1644. At the present date (25th June, 1901) the
House of Lords has under consideration a claim by Lord Mowbray Segrave and
Stourton that he be declared senior co-heir to the Earldom of Norfolk
created in 1312. (A case of great historic interest.)]

The second of the Howard Dukes of Norfolk, the hero of Flodden Field, was
the father of Thomas third Duke of Norfolk, commonly called the “old Duke
of Norfolk.”

He was that Duke of Norfolk, under Henry VIII., who opposed the insurgent
Yorkshire and Lancashire “Pilgrims of Grace” (1536) led by the gallant
Robert Aske,[A] of Aughton, on the banks of the Yorkshire Derwent, when in
the event Aske was hanged from one of the towers of the ancient City of
York——probably Clifford’s Tower——and many of his followers tasted of Tudor
vengeance.

[Footnote A: Representatives of the family of Robert Aske are still to be
found at Bubwith, near Aughton, and, I believe, at Hull. Aughton is
reached from the station called High Field on the Selby and Market
Weighton line. Aughton Parish Church is a fine mediæval structure. Hard-by
is Castle Hill, the site of the ancient castle of the Askes, showing also
evident traces of two large moats which had surrounded the fortified
buildings on the hill which constituted the Aughton Hall of days gone by.]

“The old Duke of Norfolk” was the father of that illustrious scion of the
house of Howard who, under the name Earl of Surrey, has left a deathless
memory alike as warrior, statesman, and poet.

The Earl of Surrey’s son was Thomas Howard fourth Duke of Norfolk, who is
the common ancestor of the present Duke of Norfolk and the present Earl of
Carlisle.

The fourth Duke of Norfolk’s head fell on the scaffold, by reason of the
Duke’s aspiring to the Royal hand of Mary Queen of Scots.[B]

[Footnote B: Slingsby Castle, 28 miles north-east of York (now
dismantled), is associated with the Mowbrays Dukes of Norfolk, they giving
the Vale near the Howardian Hills and Rydale the title, Vale of Mowbray.
While Sheriff Hutton Castle, 10 miles north-east of York (rebuilt by the
first Earl of Westmoreland), is associated with the Howards Dukes of
Norfolk; for the “old Duke” lived there for 10 years during the reign of
Henry VIII. (The occupier of part of Sheriff Hutton Castle now (1901) is
Joseph Suggitt, Esq., J.P.)]

The then Lord Dacres of the North, “who dwelt on the Border” at Naworth
Castle,[A] near Carlisle, was likewise a sharer in the renowned laurels of
Flodden Field.

[Footnote A: The Howards Dukes of Norfolk give their name to the Howardian
Hills, through Lord William Howard, who married the Honourable Anne
Dacres, of Naworth Castle and Hinderskelfe Castle, now Castle Howard.
Historic Naworth and that veritable palace of art, Castle Howard, belong
to that cultivated nobleman, Charles James Howard ninth Earl of Carlisle,
whose gifted wife, Rosalind Countess of Carlisle (_née_ Stanley of
Alderley), is akin to the famous William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle, of
the days of James I.]

This before-mentioned Sir Edward Stanley, the fifth son of Thomas Stanley
first Earl of Derby, was created by Henry VIII. Baron Mounteagle, and he
was the great-great-grandfather of William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle,
who married Elizabeth Tresham.

The story of the battle of Flodden Field[86] and its famous English
archers must have been familiar to Mounteagle from his earliest years. And
he, doubtless, would have learned from maternal lips that, in consequence
of his ancestor’s prowess in that historic fight, his mother’s family
received from Henry VIII. the famous title whereby he himself had the good
fortune to be known to his King and his fellow-subjects.

I find from Baines’ “_History of Lancashire_,” vol. iv., ed. 1836, that
Hornby Castle, in the Vale of the Lune, in the Parish of Melling, did not
pass out of the family of the Lords Morley and Mounteagle until the reign
of Charles II. (1663), when it was sold to the Earl of Cardigan: that
James I. confirmed to William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle certain
ancient rights and privileges, such as court view of frankpledge, etc.:
and that James stayed at the Castle in the year 1617, on his return from
Scotland to London through Lancashire. Baines also says that Sir Edward
Stanley first Lord Mounteagle (who married Anne Harrington, daughter of
Sir John Harrington) successfully petitioned Henry VII. for the Hornby
Estates, in consequence of the attainder of James Harrington, apparently
his wife’s uncle.




                             CHAPTER XXIII.


The first Lord Mounteagle left Hornby Castle to his son Thomas second Lord
Mounteagle.

William third Lord Mounteagle, the son and heir of Thomas the second Lord
Mounteagle, died in 1584, and is buried in the Parish Church of St. Peter,
Melling.

Lady Mary Brandon,[A] the eldest daughter of the Duke of Suffolk, was the
first wife of Thomas second Lord Mounteagle, whose second wife was Ellen
Leybourne (_née_ Preston), the mother of Anne, the wife of William third
Lord Mounteagle, who died in 1584.

[Footnote A: Lady Mary Brandon was the daughter of Charles Brandon Duke of
Suffolk, who was married four times, one of his wives being a sister of
Henry VIII. The Duke of Suffolk was grandfather of Lady Jane Dudley,
commonly called Lady Jane Grey, one of the finest moral characters
Protestantism has produced.——See Spelman’s “_History of Sacrilege_”
(Masters, ed. 1853), p. 228.]

Ellen Preston’s father was Sir Thomas Preston; her mother was a
Thornborough, of Hampsfield Hall, Hampsfell, in the Parish of Cartmel,
North Lancashire. The Thornboroughs (or Thornburghs) had held some of the
following manors from the time of Edward III.:——Hampsfield Hall, Whitwell,
Winfell, Fellside, Skelsmergh, Patton, Dallam Tower, Methop, Ulva, and
Wilson House, all either in North Lancashire or Westmoreland.

In the parish church of Windermere, at Bowness, near Lake Windermere,
there is a window containing, besides royal arms (possibly those of Henry
V.), the arms of Harrington, Leybourne, Fleming de Rydal, Strickland,
Middleton, and Redmayne, most of which houses of gentry of “the North
Countrie” were more or less allied to the fourth Lord Mounteagle.

Sir Edward Stanley first Lord Mounteagle was in possession of Hornby
Castle and its broad acres at the date of Flodden Field, 1513.[A] This is
interestingly evidenced by the two following stanzas from the old “Ballad
of Flodden Field”:——

[Footnote A: In the battle of Flodden Field, which caused such
lamentation, mourning, and woe in Edinburgh, several citizens of York
behaved themselves valiantly under Sir John Mounville. Among English lords
in this fight were the Lords Howard (Edmund Howard), Stanley, Ogle,
Clifford, Lumley, Latimer, Scroope (of Bolton), and Dacres; among knights
were Gascoyne, Pickering, Stapleton, Tilney, and Markenfield; and among
gentlemen were Dawney, Tempest, Dawbey, and Heron.——See Gent’s “_Ripon_,”
p. 143.

It is said that the gallant Northumbrian Heron knew all the “sleights of
war.”]

      “Most lively lads in Lonsdale bred,
        With weapons of unwieldly weight;
      All such as Tatham Fells had bred,
        Went under Stanley’s streamers bright.

      From Silverdale to Kent Sand Side,[87]
        Whose soil is sown with cockle shells;
      From Cartmel eke and Connyside,
        With fellows fierce from Furness Fells.”

Now, the fourth Lord Mounteagle would, almost certainly, know that among
the many valiant knights that fought with his forbear, Sir Edward Stanley,
was Sir Christopher Ward, who led the Yorkshire levies to the victorious
field, and who came of the great family of Ward (or Warde), long famous in
the annals of the West Hiding of Yorkshire about Guiseley, Esholt, and
Ripon.

For, as the grand old “Ballad of Flodden Field” again tells us, the
English arms were reinforced

      “With many a gentleman and squire,
        From Rippon, Ripley, and Rydale,
      With them marched forth all Massamshire,
        With Nosterfield and Netherdale.”

The honourable fact just mentioned concerning the valiant Yorkshire
knight, Sir Christopher Ward, together with the fact of the relationship,
whatever was its precise degree, between the families of Mounteagle and
Ward, through the Nevilles and, almost certainly, other ancient houses
besides, would tend to cement the bond of union betwixt William Parker
fourth Lord Mounteagle and his private secretary or gentleman-servant,
who——as we have proved by evidence and inevitable inferences therefrom——it
is all but absolutely certain must have been Thomas Warde,[A] of Mulwith,
the brother of Marmaduke Ward, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale.[88]

[Footnote A: Sir Edward Hoby is the only contemporary, so far as I know,
that has written in English the name of Lord Mounteagle’s
gentleman-servant as such who read the Letter on the 26th of October,
1605.

Now, Hoby writes Ward without the final “e.” If this be borne faithfully
in mind there is no objection to my writing the name either “Ward” or
“Warde” indifferently.

To write Thomas Warde as well as Thomas Ward helps the mind, I think, to
realize the force of the evidence and arguments of this Inquiry; hence my
so doing. But, of course, I wish to make it clear that it is _inference_
only, _not direct proof_, that supplies the missing link in identifying
Thomas Ward.]

With the consequence that both Lord Mounteagle and his older——almost
certainly diplomatist-trained——Elizabethan kinsman would share the lofty
traditions, memories and ways of looking at things common to both, which
would characterize an historic race that had been of high “consideration”
long before the sister Kingdom of “bonnie Scotland” gave to her ancient
foe a King from her romantic and fascinating but ill-fated Stuart line.




                             CHAPTER XXIV.


Having then thus established the point that if Christopher Wright and his
conjectured Penman of the Letter wished to put themselves into
communication with the King’s Government, Christopher Wright himself had
family connections in Mounteagle and Ward, who were pre-eminently well
qualified——from their Janus-like respective aspects——for the performance
of such a task, let us proceed with our Inquiry.

For there is Evidence to lead to the following conclusions:——

(1) That the revealing conspirator (whoever he was) had arranged
beforehand that Mounteagle should be at Hoxton on the memorable Saturday
evening, the 26th day of October, 1605, at about the hour of seven of the
clock.

Moreover, my strong opinion is that this arrangement was made through the
suggestion of Thomas Ward, the diplomatic intermediary, with the express
consent of Mounteagle himself.

The suggestion, I think, may have been made by Thomas Ward at Bath,[A] a
town which Ward possibly took on his leaving Lapworth, in Warwickshire,
whither, I surmise, he repaired some time between the 11th of October and
the 26th of that month.

[Footnote A: It is possible that Mounteagle and Catesby may have been
together at Bath between the 12th of October, 1695, and the 26th October.

See a curious letter dated 12th October, but without date of the year,
from Mounteagle to Catesby (“_Archæologia_,” vol. xxviii., p. 420),
discovered by the late Mr. Bruce.

There is a copy of this “_Archæologia_” in the British Museum, which I saw
in October, 1900.]

(2) That Thomas Ward’s was the guiding mind, the dominant force, or, to
vary the metaphor, the central pivot upon which the successful
accomplishment of the entire revelation turned, inasmuch as, I submit,
that Ward must have received from the conscience-stricken conspirator a
complete disclosure of the whole guilty secret, with full power, moreover,
to make known to Mounteagle so much of the particulars concerning the
enterprise as in the exercise of his (Ward’s) uncontrolled diplomatic
discretion it might be _profitable_ to be made known to Mounteagle, in
order that the supreme end in view might be attained, namely, the entire
spinning round on its axis of the prodigious, diabolical Plot.

(3) That Thomas Ward (or Warde) was the diplomatic go-between, the trusty
mentor, and the zealous prompter of his master throughout the whole of the
very difficult, delicate, and momentous part that Destiny, at this awful
crisis in England’s history, called upon this young nobleman to play.

If Ward (or Warde) were born about the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, in
the year 1605 he would be well-nigh in the prime of life, namely,
forty-six years of age; whereas Mounteagle, we know, was just about
thirty. Hence was Warde, by his superior age and experience of men and
things, well fitted to play “the guide, philosopher, and friend” to
Mounteagle in the matter.[A]

[Footnote A: If Thomas Warde were sent to the Low Countries, as I think it
almost certain he was sent, although I cannot prove it, belike he may have
been one of those Elizabethan gentlemen Shakespeare had in mind when he
wrote in the “Two Gentlemen of Verona”:

      “Yet hath Sir Proteus ...
      Made use and fair advantage of his days:
      His years but young, but his experience old:
      His head unmellowed, but his judgment ripe;
      And, in a word (for far behind his worth
      Come all the praises that I now bestow)
      He is complete in feature and in mind,
      With all good grace, to grace a gentleman.”

It sheds some very faint corroborative light on the supposal that Thomas
Ward was the “Mr. Warde” mentioned by Sir Francis Walsingham in the “_Earl
of Leicester’s Correspondence_” (Cam. Soc), that Sir Thomas Heneage, a
trusted diplomatist of Queen Elizabeth in the Low Countries, married Anne
Poyntz, the daughter of Sir Nicholas Poyntz and Margaret Stanley, a
daughter of Edward Stanley Earl of Derby, especially when it is
recollected that the Poyntz and the Wards, of Mulwith, were related.——See
“_Life of Mary Ward_” (Burns & Oates, 2 vols.)

Also a “Mr. Wade” mentioned, by Walsingham to Leicester in a letter dated
3rd April, 1587, may have been really “Warde.”——See Wright’s “_Elizabethan
Letters_,” vol. ii., p. 335.

Again, “_The Calendar of State Papers_,” Domestic Series, 1581-90, gives,
page 93, a Thomas Warde, as an examiner for the Privy Council, taking down
evidence in the cause of Robert Hungate and wife _v._ John Hoare and John
Shawe, in the year 1583.]




                              CHAPTER XXV.


Now what is the Evidence to support the preceding paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3)?

As to paragraph (1), the Evidence is direct.

There was a tradition extant that _Mounteagle expected the Letter, told to
a gentleman named Edmund Church his confidant_.——See Gardiner’s
“_Gunpowder Plot_,” p. 10.

Moreover, the fact that the footman was in the street at about seven of
the clock when the missive was given to him _is strongly suggestive of the
fact that he had been anxiously sent thither by some one, so that he might
be ready at hand to receive the document immediately on its arrival_.

As to paragraphs (2) and (3), the Evidence is indirect and inferential.

It is this:——Thomas Ward was manifestly on excellent terms with Mounteagle
on the one hand and with the conspirators on the other.

For it is evident that no sooner had Mounteagle arrived back from his
errand of mercy on that dark night of Saturday, the 26th day of October,
1605, than he divulged to his servant almost all, if not quite all, that
had passed at Whitehall during his never-to-be-forgotten interview with
Salisbury, the King’s principal Secretary of State.[A]

[Footnote A: The days of the week and the dates of the month run parallel
for the years 1605 and 1901. Thus both the 26ths of October are on a
Saturday. _What was the condition of the moon on that memorable Saturday
night?_]

That Lord Mounteagle had imparted to Thomas Ward almost all, if not quite
all, that had passed between Lord Salisbury and himself on the delivery to
the latter of the peerless document to my mind is clear from the fact
_that the faithful Ward, the very next day (Sunday) repaired to Thomas
Winter_, one of the principal conspirators, _and told Winter that the
Letter was in the hands of Salisbury_!——“_Winter’s Confession._”

Assuming that Thomas Ward was a Ward of Mulwith, he would be a family
connection of Thomas Winter as well as of Christopher Wright through
Ursula Ward and Inglebies, of Ripley, in Nidderdale.

Now, what is proved by this very significant fact of _Thomas Ward’s_ so
unerringly darting off to _Thomas Winter_, one of the prime movers in this
conspiracy of wholesale slaughter, when he (Ward) had all the adult male
inhabitants of London and Westminster to make his selection from?

Plainly this: that the revealing conspirator (whoever he was) _must have
“primed” Thomas Ward by previously telling Thomas Ward that Thomas Winter
was one of the chiefest of those involved in the conspiracy_.

Again; as Winter had been formerly in Mounteagle’s service (a circumstance
doubtless well known to the revealing conspirator), _that revealing
conspirator_ would naturally, nay inevitably, _bid Ward_ put himself _not
only into speedy communication with Mounteagle_, in order to reach
Salisbury, the principal servant of the King, _but, this done, also into
speedy communication with Thomas Winter_, one of the chief promoters of
the baleful enterprise, in order that by dint of _Winter’s_ powerful
influence the general body of the latter’s co-conspirators might be
warned, and not merely warned, but haply prevailed upon to take to their
heels in instant flight.

Thus the great end aimed at by the curvilinear triangular
movement——wherein (_ex hypothesi_) the Penman, Father Oldcorne, as well as
the go-between, Thomas Ward, and the revealing Christopher Wright, was a
party and responsible actor——would be, with clear-eyed, sure-footed,
absolute certitude, secured and accomplished——nothing being left to the
perilous contingencies of purblind, stumbling, limited chance.




                             CHAPTER XXVI.


Now, I maintain that there is Evidence, from a very unexpected quarter,
that Thomas Ward had received from the revealing plotter a complete
disclosure of every one of the material facts and particulars of the Plot,
including the existence of the mine, the hiring of the cellar, the storing
therein of the gunpowder, and even the names of the conspirators. And
that, moreover, Thomas Ward had received the fullest power “to discover”
to his master, Lord Mounteagle, all that had been told to him (Ward) by
the revealing plotter, _if_, in the exercise of his (Ward’s) uncontrolled
diplomatic discretion, he deemed it necessary in order to effect,
_primarily_, the temporal salvation of the King and his Parliament, and,
this done, in order to effect, _secondarily_, the escape of the
conspirators themselves.

The Evidence to which I refer is deducible from the testimony of none
other than Francis Tresham, Evidence which he gave to Thomas Winter in
Lincoln’s Inn Walks on Saturday night, the 2nd day of November, just one
week after the delivery of the Letter to Lord Mounteagle, and just one day
after the Letter had been shown by Salisbury to the King.[89]

Thomas Winter, in his “_Confession_,” writes thus: “On Saturday night I
met Mr. Tresham again in Lincoln’s Inn Walks, where he told such speeches
that my Lord of Salisbury should use to the King, as I gave it lost the
second time, and repeated the same to Mr. Catesby, who hereupon was
resolved to be gone, but stayed to have Mr. Percy come up whose consent
herein we wanted. On Sunday night came Mr. Percy and no ‘nay,’ but would
abide the uttermost trial.”[90]

To what purport can these “speeches” have been, I should like to know,
which so mightily wrought on the nerves of even the doughty Thomas Winter
that they were potent enough to break down and sweep away the barriers
formed by the strong affection which he naturally must have harboured for
the pet scheme and the darling project that had cost himself and his
companions the expenditure of so much “slippery time,”[91] so much sweat
of the brow, and so much treasure of the pocket? Yea, indeed, to what
purport can these “speeches” have been?




                             CHAPTER XXVII.


In the King’s Book, after describing Salisbury’s first visit to James in
“the privie gallerie” of Whitehall Palace, it is stated that it was
arranged that there should be another meeting on the following day,
Saturday, the 2nd of November.

The precise words of the Royal Work are these: “It was agreed that he
[_i.e._, Salisbury] should the next day repair to his Highness; which he
did in the same privie gallerie, and renewed the memory thereof, the Lord
Chamberlaine [_i.e._, Suffolk] being then present with the King. At what
time it was determined that the said Lord Chamberlaine should, according
to his custom and office, view all the Parliament Houses.”

This pre-arranged meeting with the King on the Saturday was duly held just
one week after the delivery of the Letter, Salisbury and Suffolk the Lord
Chamberlaine being present thereat; and I suggest that, most probably,
Mounteagle himself was, if not then actually within ear-shot, yet not afar
off.

Now it is evident from Lingard’s “_History_” that Tresham had told Winter
that the Government had already intelligence of the existence of “the
mine.”[92]

Tresham also told Winter that he (Tresham) knew not how the Government had
obtained this knowledge (vol. ix., p. 72).

The inevitable inference, therefore, that reason demands should be drawn
from these statements of Tresham is that Mounteagle must have _either_
sent for his brother-in-law, _or_ gone himself to see him, and that
Mounteagle then must have told the terrified Tresham that he (Mounteagle)
knew for a fact that a mine had been digged,[A] and that the same
information probably that very day (Saturday) would be imparted to the
King’s Government likewise.[93]

[Footnote A: I hold that the probabilities are that Christopher Wright
told Thomas Ward of the existence of the mine: that Thomas Ward told
Mounteagle: that Mounteagle told Tresham: and that Tresham told Winter.

Thus would be the concatenation complete, naturally and easily, with no
link missing.]

This explanation, moreover, stands unspeakably more to reason than the one
which woodenly says that Tresham himself revealed the dread secret
respecting the mine to Mounteagle, and that then, out of his own mouth,
the unhappy man hazarded self-condemnation in the presence of the astute
Winter only one day after his (Tresham’s) life had been in the gravest
possible jeopardy at Barnet, near White Webbs, from the poniards of the
infuriated Catesby _and_ Winter.[94]




                            CHAPTER XXVIII.


Again, on Monday, the 4th instant, Mounteagle offered to accompany his
distant connection, the Earl of Suffolk, to make the search in the cellar.

Whyneard, keeper of the King’s wardrobe, declared to the two noble
searchers that Thomas Percy had hired the house and part of the cellar or
vault under the same, and that “the wood and coale” therein were “the said
gentleman’s own provision.”

Mounteagle, on hearing Percy named, let drop——probably in an unguarded
moment——words to the effect that perhaps Thomas Percy had sent the Letter.

Now, guarded or unguarded, to my mind, the fact that Mounteagle, in any
shape or form, mentioned Percy’s name on that momentous occasion tends to
show that Mounteagle knew all the material facts and particulars of the
Plot, including even the names of the conspirators.[95]

But Mounteagle, I hold, was resolved to do his duty to his King and his
country on the one hand, and to his friends——his reprobate, insane, but
(he full well knew) grievously provoked friends——on the other.

He was determined, spurred on, I suggest, by Thomas Ward, to save the King
and Parliament from bloody destruction by gunpowder on the one hand, and
to save his own kith and kin and boon companions on the other: of whose
guilt, or otherwise, he did not constitute himself the judge, still less
the executioner.

To this end the young peer watched and measured the relative value and
effect of every move on the part of the Government like a vigilant
commander, bent, indeed, on securing what he deemed to be the rights and
interests of the wronged and the wrong-doers alike.

And, most probably, being driven into a corner at the last and compelled
so to do by the imperious exigencies of his _primary and supreme duty_,
namely, the saving of the King and Parliament from being rent and torn to
pieces in a most hellish fashion, truly “barbarous and savage beyond the
examples of former ages,” Mounteagle actually himself told Salisbury to
inform Sir Thomas Knevet and his band of armed men to keep a sharp lookout
for a certain tall, soldierly figure, “booted and spurred,” in the
neighbourhood of the cellar, before the clock struck the hour of midnight
of Monday, November the 4th. If this were so, it accounts for the efforts
of Knevet, Doubleday, and others being so speedily crowned with success.

Fawkes was probably _taken into custody_ in the court adjoining Percy’s
house and the House of Lords’ cellar, and a few moments afterwards
_secured_ by being bound with such things in the nature of cords as Knevet
and his men had with them.——See Gardiner’s “_Gunpowder Plot_,” pp.
132-136.

The dark lantern, now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, was left burning
in the cellar by Fawkes.




                             CHAPTER XXIX.


Let me now make two quotations.

One is from the King’s Book, giving an account of the procedure followed
by the Earl of Suffolk the Lord Chamberlain, and the Lord Mounteagle, the
champion, protector, and hero of the England of his day, in whose honour
the “rare” Ben Jonson[96] himself composed the epigram transcribed at the
end of this Inquiry.

The other quotation, collected from the relation of a certain interview
between Catesby, Tresham, Mounteagle, and Father Garnet, is one which
plainly shows that Mounteagle was closely associated with Catesby, not
merely as a passive listener but as an active sympathiser, as late as the
month of July, 1605, in general treasonable internal projects, which
indeed only just fell short of particular treasonable external acts.

But this, of course, does not prove any complicity of Mounteagle in the
particular designment known as the Gunpowder Treason Plot, of which
diabolical scheme, I have no reasonable doubt, the happy, debonair,
pleasure-loving, but withal shrewd and generous, young nobleman was
perfectly innocent.

These two quotations show, first, how zealously and faithfully Mounteagle
of the Janus-face, looking both before and after——as henceforward we must
regard him——kept his hand on the pulse of the Government at the most
critical hour of his country’s annals, with a view to doing what both he
and his mentor deemed to be justice in the rightful claims and demands,
though diverse and conflicting, of each group of “clients.”

And, secondly, how wisely and prudently Christopher Wright and his
counsellor or counsellors had acted in determining upon this favoured
child of Fortune as their “vessel of election” for conveying that precious
Instrument, which for all time is destined to be known as Lord
Mounteagle’s Letter, to the Earl of Salisbury and, through him, to King
James, his Privy Council and Government, on that Saturday night, the 26th
day of October, 1605.

The King’s Book says: “At what time hee [_i.e._, the Earl of Suffolk,[97]
the Lord Chamberlain] went to the Parliament House accompanied with my
Lord Mounteagle, being in zeale to the King’s service, earnest and curious
to see the event of that accident whereof he had the fortune to be the
first discoverer: where having viewed all the lower roumes he found in the
vault under the upper House great store and provision of Billets, Faggots,
and Coales; and enquiring of Whyneard, keeper of the Wardrobe, to what use
hee had put those lower roumes and cellars; he told them that Thomas Percy
had hired both the house and part of the cellar or vault under the same,
and that the wood and coale therein was the sayde gentleman’s owne
provision. Whereupon the Lord Chamberlaine casting his eye aside perceived
a fellow standing in a corner there, calling himself the said Percyes man
and keeper of that house for him, but indeed was Guido Fawkes the owner of
that hand which should have acted that monstrous tragedie.”[98]

The Discourse then goes on to say that the Lord Chamberlain reported to
the King in the “privie gallerie,” in the presence of the Lord Treasurer,
“the Lord Admirall,” “the Earles of Worcester, Northampton, and
Salisbury,” what he had seen and observed, “noting Mounteagle had told
him, that he no sooner heard Thomas Percy[A] named to be possessour of
that house, but considering both his backwardnes in Religion and the old
dearenesse in friendship between himself and the say’d Percy, hee did
greatly suspect the matter, and that the Letter should come from him. The
sayde Lord Chamberlaine also tolde, that he did not wonder a little at the
extraordinarie great provision of wood and coale in that house, where
Thomas Percy had so seldome occasion to remaine; as likewise it gaue him
in his minde that his man looked like a very tall and desperate
fellow.”[99]

[Footnote A: I think that Lord Mounteagle or Thomas Ward (or both) must
have given some member of the Privy Council a hint that a Christopher
Wright was a probable conspirator, for it is noticeable that on the 5th of
November several persons testified as to Christopher Wright’s recent
whereabouts. Ward probably hoped that Wright’s name would be joined with
Percy’s in the Proclamation, and so haply warn the conspirators the better
that the avenger of blood was behind. _Or_, the Government may have
procured Christopher Wright’s name from some paper or papers found in
Thomas Percy’s London house, on the 5th of November, the day of Fawkes’
capture.

At that time the Privy Council undertook all preliminary inquiries in
regard to the crime of High Treason. It is different now; at first the
case may be brought before an ordinary magistrate.]




                              CHAPTER XXX.


Shortly after Midsummer (_i.e._, July), 1605, Father Garnet was at the
Jesuit house at Fremland, in Essex. Catesby came there with Lord
Mounteagle and Tresham.

At this meeting, in answer to a question, “Were Catholics able to make
their part good by arms against the King?”——Mounteagle replied, “If ever
they were, they are able now;” and then that young nobleman added this
reason for his opinion, “The King is so odious to all sorts.”

At this interview Tresham said, “We must expect [_i.e._, wait for] the end
of Parliament, and see what laws are made against Catholics, and then seek
for help of foreign princes.”

“No,” said Garnet, “assure yourself they will do nothing.”

“What!” said my Lord Mounteagle, “will not the Spaniard help us? It is a
shame!”[A]

[Footnote A: If Mounteagle was in the company of Catesby at Fremland in
the summer of 1605, these two may have been together at Bath between the
12th October and the 26th. Catesby probably would endeavour to induce Lord
Mounteagle to join Sir Everard Digby’s rebellion, as he did induce Stephen
Littleton and Humphrey Littleton.]

Then said Father Garnet, “You see we must all have patience.”[100]

It is also to be remembered that when Sir Edmund Baynham, a
Gloucestershire Catholic gentleman of good family——but of whom Winter
said “he was not a man fit for the business at home,” _i.e._, the purposed
Gunpowder massacre——went to Flanders and Rome in the first week of
September, 1605, Mounteagle appears to have written certain letters of
introduction or of general recommendation, in Baynham’s behalf, to English
Catholics residing in Flanders or in Rome. Jardine says that “it is not
quite certain that Baynham was himself entrusted with the great secret of
the Plot.”[101]

I think that it is morally certain he was not.

Sir Edmund Baynham[A] was intended by the prime conspirators to be at Rome
to justify (_if he could_) to the Pope any action that the conspirators
might have perpetrated on or after November the Fifth in behalf of their
religion. But the prime conspirators were far too astute “to open their
mouth” to let a chattering, hare-brained swashbuckler like Baynham “fill
other people’s” in every wine-shop _en route_ for “the Eternal City.”

[Footnote A: Father Garnet was also employing Sir Edmund Baynham as _his_
diplomatic intermediary with the Pope in order “to gain time,” so that
meanwhile the plotters might find space for repentance! Garnet was
apparently one of those men who though possessed of a profound knowledge
of Man know little or nothing of men. Whereas Oldcorne seems to have had
practical reason as well as theoretical wisdom. Oldcorne, I take it, had a
good, strong, clear, practical head on his shoulders, which included in
its armoury _will_, in the sense of _power_, as well as intellect and
heart, and “_where there’s a will there’s a way_.”]

Guy Fawkes probably was authorised to impart and possibly actually did,
under the oath, impart some knowledge of the Plot to Captain Hugh Owen, a
Welsh Roman Catholic soldier of fortune serving in Flanders under the
Archdukes.[102] Owen’s name figures in the Earl of Salisbury’s
instructions to Sir Edward Coke, the Attorney-General who prosecuted the
surviving Gunpowder conspirators in the historic Westminster Hall.

Moreover, I have thought that at least some of the powder must have been
purchased in Flanders through the good offices of the said Captain Owen.
The powder and the mining tools and implements appear to have been stored
at first in the house at Lambeth and placed under the charge of Robert
Keyes and, eventually, of Christopher Wright. The powder was, I take it,
packed in bags, and the bags themselves packed in padlocked hampers.
Afterwards, I conclude, the powder bags were deposited in the barrels, and
the barrels themselves carried by two of the conspirators, with aid of
brewers’ slings, and deposited in the cellar, which apparently had at
least two doors.




                             CHAPTER XXXI.


Now, when deep within the depths of the moral being of Christopher Wright
there first arose that tender day-spring, a realization of guilt and
shame: that crimsoned dawn, a sense of grief and sorrow for those two high
crimes whereby his wretched conscious-self had been made darksome and
deformed: acts, wondrous in the telling, in that soul had been indeed
wrought out; regard being had to the overmastering power of Man’s
conditioned yet free will.

Furthermore, the historical Inquirer cannot but seek, if possible, by the
exercise of the philosophic faculty, to penetrate to what, on the human
side, may have been the originating cause, the moving spring, of the
limited yet responsible moral nature of a guilty creature, whose eyes for
well-nigh three hundred years have been closed by a violent death; of a
guilty creature who, in the awful tragedy of his end, verified in himself,
in the sight of all men, the sublimely terrible words of the old Greek
tragedy, “The guilty suffer.”

For wrong-doing, by a steadfast law of the universal reason, “till time
shall be no more,” will ever entail temporal punishment; and, by nature,
expiation and atonement must be wrought out in the criminal’s own keen
consciousness.

Yet, by a compensating law of universal reason, as inexorable as its
fellow, according as Man does work out that measure of punishment,
expiating and atoning, which to him Destiny has allotted for his guerdon,
in that proportion does his soul regain its forfeited harmoniousness and
peace.

Now the originating cause, the moving spring, in the case of the, I hold,
contrite Christopher Wright was, on the human side, the flooding of his
soul by memories pure and bright of days long, long ago.

I need not labour this point; but in a note I will relate certain facts
concerning her to whom Christopher Wright owed the gifts of life and
nurture, which will sufficiently tell what manner of woman that
Elizabethan Yorkshire mother was, in respect of courage, humanity, and
devotedness to her ideals.[103]

I furthermore opine that, although it was the personal dawning
consciousness of Christopher Wright himself that _primarily_ prompted the
happy step of recourse to Father Edward Oldcorne,[104] yet Christopher
Wright, in my judgment, already had confided the just scruples of his
conscience to the ear, not of a “superior” judicial Priest, but of an
“equal” counselling Layman.

That Layman, I hold, was Thomas Ward, who, belike, heightened and
strengthened his connection’s laudable resolve.[105]

Now, if such were the case, I do not doubt that Father Oldcorne, that
skilled, tried “minister of a mind diseased,” the duties of whose vocation
urged him, with persistent force, promiscuously “to work good unto all
men,” voluntarily offered to pen the immortal Letter; _provided he were
released from the obligations of that solemn secrecy imposed by “the seal
of the Confessional”: released by the Penitent himself, in whom alone
resided the prerogative of granting or withholding such a release_.




                             CHAPTER XXXII.


Again; I think that probably Thomas Ward had either at Hindlip, Evesham or
elsewhere at least one interview with the great Jesuit himself——“the
gradely Jesuit,” as the good, simple-hearted Lancashire Catholics would
style him——in order that Father Oldcorne might receive from Ward in person
satisfactory assurance that, with certainty, when the Letter had been
prepared it would be delivered directly by Ward himself, or indirectly by
him, through Mounteagle, to the Government authorities.

Nay, to make assurance doubly sure, it is even possible that Father
Oldcorne may have insisted on a _second Letter_ being penned and sent to
_another nobleman at the Court_, the Earl of Northumberland, a man of
ancient lineage and great name, with whom Ward, through the Gascoignes,
would be distantly connected.[106]

It appears to me that the moral certitude is so strong that Thomas Ward
was brother to Marmaduke Ward, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, that it
seems practically almost the mere extravagance of caution to express a
doubt of it.[A]

[Footnote A: It will be remembered that we have evidence that William
Ward, a son of Marmaduke Ward, _had an uncle who lived at Court_.

This evidence is of the greatest value and importance in identifying
Thomas Ward, the secretary and friend of Lord Mounteagle, and should be
continually borne in mind by all my readers.

It should be also remembered that Edmund Neville, the claimant of the
Earldom of Westmoreland, was the man who accused Dr. William Parry of a
plan to assassinate Queen Elizabeth. Now this Neville became a suitor for
the hand of Mary Ward, though about double her age. Neville would be
related to the Wards, and perhaps knew Thomas Ward when in 1584 Parry was
tried and executed. Parry had invited Neville to join in assassinating the
Queen. I believe Parry to have been a great liar; but all the same it is
not absolutely certain that the wretch was not the victim of a state
intrigue. If we could ascertain at Hatfield more about Thomas Ward there
might be a clue to the Parry mystery.]

Now, the suggestion that Thomas Ward was probably in the Midland counties
of Warwickshire and Worcestershire sometime about the 11th of October,
1605,[107] is, I maintain, to some very slight extent supported by the
fact that we know for certain that Marmaduke Ward came up from Yorkshire
to Lapworth about thirteen days afterwards, and that he was bracketed with
those who were said to have been at the houses of John Wright, Ambrose
Rookwood, and John Grant at that time.[A]

[Footnote A: See the List of the names of conspirators, insurgents, and
others arrested in the Midlands given in the Appendix.]

Now, if about the 11th of October Thomas Ward found at Lapworth, Clopton,
and Norbrook every inchoate evidential sign of a heady, hopeless, armed
rebellion, what was there more natural than that he should have despatched
some trusty horseman, fleet of foot, “from the heart of England” down into
Yorkshire, bearing an urgent missive adjuring Marmaduke Ward, by the love
that he bore to his kith and kin, to come up to Lapworth with all speed
possible? To the end that he might use his counsels and entreaties to
induce his late wife’s combative brother, John Wright,[108] the
close-natured Christopher Wright, the gallant Ambrose Rookwood, and the
strong-willed John Grant, to abandon all designment of insurrectionary
stirs.

For Thomas Ward, from the experience of a man at Court aged forty-six, who
knew from the daily observation of his own senses, how firmly James’s
Executive was certainly established, must have clearly perceived that, at
that time Catholic stirs against the Government could be fated to have
only one unhappy issue and disgraceful termination, namely, the utter,
bloody, irretrievable ruin of all that were so thrice wretchedly bewitched
as to have become entangled in them.[A]

[Footnote A: It is to be borne in mind that hereafter proof may be
forthcoming that Christopher Wright married Margaret Ward, the sister of
Marmaduke and Thomas Ward. I _think_ that they had another sister named
Ann Ward, who married a Marmaduke Swales.——(See Ripon Registers). There
was an old county family called Swales at Staveley Hall, near Farnham and
Scotton. They were Roman Catholics. They are the same, I opine, as the
Swales (or Swale) family, of South Stainley, between Ripley and Ripon,
whose descendants are of the ancient faith in Yorkshire to this day.

The late Sir James Swale, Bart., of Rudfarlington, near Knaresbrough, I
conclude, likewise belonged to the same race. I was introduced in the year
1898 to this fine specimen of an old Yorkshire Catholic by my friend,
Charles Allanson, Esq., of Harrogate——himself of an old West Riding family
that “had never lost the Faith.”]

And this the rather, when it is remembered that, the names of John and
Christopher Wright were already unfavourably known to the Government;
since during Elizabeth’s reign, in the year 1596, they, together with
Catesby, Tresham, and others, had been put under arrest by the Crown
authorities, who feared that on the death of Elizabeth these “young
bloods” would, at what they deemed to be “the psychological moment” for
the execution of their revolutionary designs, lead, sword in hand, the
oppressed recusants in some wild, fierce dash for liberty.[109]




                            CHAPTER XXXIII.


We have now considered the Evidence leading up to the commission of the
respective acts that this Inquiry, at an earlier part, has attributed
severally to Christopher Wright and Father Oldcorne, who stand, as it
were, at the angular points in the base of that triangular movement of
revelation, at whose vertex is Thomas Ward (or Warde), the entirely
trustworthy friend and diplomatic intermediary common to both the
repentant conspirator and the beneficent Priest of the Society of Jesus.

But before proceeding with the Evidence and the deductions and suggestions
therefrom, which tend to prove that, _subsequent_ to the dictating of the
Letter by Christopher Wright and the penning of the same by Father
Oldcorne, these two Yorkshiremen were conscious of having performed the
several parts attributed unto them, let us deal with certain _objections_
that may be put forward as preliminary objections fatal to the contentions
of this Inquiry.

Now, there is an objection which, with a _primâ facie_ plausibleness, may
be advanced against the hypothesis that Christopher Wright was the
dictating, repentant, revealing conspirator, through whom primarily the
Plot was frustrated and overthrown.

And there is also a second objection that may be urged against the
hypothesis, with even still greater _primâ facie_ plausibleness, that
Father Edward Oldcorne, Priest and Jesuit, was the meritorious Penman of
the dictated Letter.

Each objection must be dealt with separately.

Let us take the objection in the case of Christopher Wright first, and,
having laid that one, proceed to the objection in the case of Edward
Oldcorne.

Now, a certain William Handy, servant to Sir Everard Digby, on the 27th
day of November, 1605, before (among others) Sir Julius Cæsar, Kt., Sir
Francis Bacon, Kt.,[110] and Sir George More, Kt., High Sheriff of Surrey
and Sussex, deposed (among other things) the following:——

That early on Wednesday morning, the 6th of November, as the fugitives
were proceeding from Norbrook to Alcester, he (Handy) heard the younger
Wright say, “That if they had had good luck they had made those in the
Parliament House fly with their heels upward to the sky;” and that “he
spake these words openly in the hearing of those which were with him,
which were commonly Mr. John Grant, the younger Grant, and Ambrose
Rookwood.”[111]

Now, Christopher Wright _may_ have used these words in the early part of
that November day, and every candid mind must allow that they are _not_
the words that one would expect to find in a sincerely repentant criminal.

But the philosopher knows that there is “a great deal of human nature in
Man.” While the experienced citizen of the world who knows men
practically, as the philosopher knows Man theoretically, will not be
literally amazed, or even unduly startled, at finding these words recorded
against Christopher Wright, even after (_ex hypothesi_) he had become as
one morally resurrected from the dead.

For it is to be remembered that Christopher Wright was the brother of John
Wright, and the brother-in-law of Thomas Percy, Thomas Percy having
married Martha Wright, of Plowland Hall. Now, concerning John Wright and
his brother-in-law, Thomas Percy, the following traits of character are
chronicled by their contemporary, Father John Gerard.[112]

“It was noted in him [_i.e._, Thomas Percy] and in Mr. John Wright (whose
sister he afterwards married) that if they had heard of any man in the
country to be esteemed more valiant and resolute than others, one or the
other of them would surely have picked some quarrel against him and fought
with him to have made trial of his valour.”

On the march then, with such relatives as these close at hand, there is no
antecedent improbability, but the contrary, in the supposal that
Christopher Wright used these words by way of a feint, to the end that he
might, peradventure, draw his companions away from those scaring
suspicions, by the haunting fear of which Wright’s self-consciousness
would be sure to be continually visited.

For “Conscience doth make cowards of us all.”

Truly, “The guilty suffer.” And it was part of the awful temporal
punishment wherewith severe, just Nemesis, the dread executioner of
Destiny, visited this——I still hold, all outward shows to the contrary
notwithstanding——repentant wrong-doer, that he should be fast bound to one
of the spiked, lacerating wheels of a flying chariot that he desired, “to
the finest fibre” of his tortured, writhing being, to have no part nor lot
in driving: fast bound, for the residue of that all too brief mortal
career, which, on that chill November morning, was rapidly drawing to its
shattered close.




                             CHAPTER XXXIV.


What objection, then, can be brought against the hypothesis that Father
Edward Oldcorne, Priest and Jesuit, and native of the City of York, was
the Penman of this most momentous perhaps of all Letters ever writ by the
hand of man?

It is this, that in a pamphlet by a certain Dr. Williams, published about
the year 1680,[113] purporting to be a History of the Powder Treason, with
a parallel between the Gunpowder Treason and the Titus Oates’ alleged
Popish Plot of the reign of Charles II., there occurs the following
statement:——

“Mrs. Habington was sister to the Lord Mounteagle and so being solicitous
for her brother, whom she had reason to believe would be at the
parliament, _she writ the aforesaid letter to him_, to give him so much
notice of the danger as might warn him to provide for his own safety, but
not so much (as she apprehended) as might discover it. From this relation
betwixt the two families, it was that Mr. Habington alone of all the
conspirators, after sentence, had his life given him. _This account Mr.
Habington himself gave to a worthy person still in being._” (The italics
are mine.)

Now, of course, if Mrs. Habington (or Abington), of Hindlip Hall, near
Worcester, where Father Oldcorne was domesticated for sixteen years,
actually wrote the Letter, then Father Oldcorne did not. There can be no
two opinions about _that_, even with the most sceptical.

But did she?

I submit that this testimony of Dr. Williams, second,[114] third, or
fourth hand possibly, is hopelessly inadequate for the establishing of any
such conclusion.

First, let it be noted that, although “the worthy person” to whom Mr.
Abington is said to have imparted this tremendous secret——and apparently
to none other human creature in the wide world beside——was living in the
year 1680 (or thereabouts), _his thrice-important name is not divulged by
the learned author, neither is the faintest hint given as to where he may
have resided_.

Accordingly, we cannot submit the now dead but once highly privileged
gentleman to the salutary ordeal of cross-examination: a fact which is
well-nigh fatal to his credibility for any serious student of true
history; with the further consequence that a grave suspicion is, by this
very fact alone, at once cast upon the entire story.

Secondly, Dr. Williams does not say that he (Williams) himself had this
testimony direct from the unnamed and unidentified witness——“the worthy
person still in being” in (or about) the year 1680.

Therefore, this story may have been handed on by wagging, irresponsible,
chattering tongues, whose name is legion. With the result that it gained,
not lost, in the course of transmission to the mind of Dr. Williams, who
has enshrined in the printed page, still to be viewed in the British
Museum, the far-fetched tale for the benefit of succeeding ages.




                             CHAPTER XXXV.


Now, if Dr. Williams solemnly had said that he knew Mrs. Abington
personally, and that she (Mrs. Abington) had told him (Williams) with her
own lips that she had writ the Letter, the case would have been _a good
way_ towards being established: assuming the lady to have been
intellectually and morally capable at the time when she made such
statement, and Williams himself a man whose word could be relied on.

Or, if _Mr. Abington_ had told _Williams_ that _he knew his wife had writ
the Letter because he saw with his own eyes the lady do it_, then the case
would have been _also a good way_ towards being established.

Or, if _Mr. Abington_ had told _Williams_ that _he believed his wife had
writ the Letter because she had told him (Abington) she had done so
immediately after she alleged she had performed the meritorious deed_, the
case would have been some _slight way_ towards being established.

But when the only shred or patch of evidence we have to support the
stupendous article of belief that Mrs. Abington accomplished the immortal
feat is an uncircumstantial, uncorroborated allegation by Dr. Williams
that _some person or another unknown_ (on the most favourable view) _told
him_ (Williams) that Mrs. Abington had writ the Letter _merely because her
husband said so_, then the case for Mrs. Abington’s authorship of the
document is _in no way_ towards being established.

And, therefore, the story falls to the ground.

And, therefore, it should be, in reason, henceforward consigned to the
limbo of exploded myths and idle tales.

It is true that Dr. Nash in his work on Worcestershire,[115] written in
the eighteenth century and published in 1780, declares that “Tradition in
this county says that she [_i.e._, Mrs. Abington] was the person who wrote
the Letter to her brother, which discovered the Gunpowder Plot.”

But then, obviously, this alleged tradition is absolutely worthless,
unless it can be shown to have been a _continuous_ tradition from the year
1605 down to the time when Nash was writing his “_History_.” For if the
tradition sprang up at a later date, for the purposes of true history its
value as a tradition is plainly nothing.

The learned David Jardine——to whom all students of the Gunpowder Plot will
be for ever indebted for his labours in this conspiracy of
conspiracies——in his “_Narrative_,” published in the year 1857, and to
which reference has been already frequently made in the course of this
Inquiry, says,[116] “No contemporary writer alludes to Mrs. Abington as
the author of the Letter.”

And Jardine evidently does not think that the penmanship of the document
can be brought home to this lady.

Moreover, if Mrs. Abington had written the Letter of Letters, surely she
would have, at least, _shared_ her brother Lord Mounteagle’s reward, which
was £700 a year for life, equal to nearly £7,000 a year in our money.

For if £700 a year was the guerdon of _him_ that _merely delivered_ this
Letter of Letters, what should have been the guerdon of _her_ that
actually _penned_ the peerless treasure?

But the hypothesis that Mrs. Abington penned the Letter of Letters has
absolutely no foundation in contemporary evidence. For there is not the
faintest echo of an echo of testimony, nor the merest shadow of a shade of
proof that _either_ she _or_ Mr. Abington had the remotest previous
knowledge of the Gunpowder Treason Plot.

And the mere fact that Mr. Abington, although the harbourer of Fathers
Garnet and Oldcorne, was spared from undergoing the extreme penalty of the
law, in itself tends to disprove the allegation that either he or his wife
had been in any way privy to the Plot. For no plotter’s life was spared.

Mr. Abington became a celebrated antiquary, especially in regard to his
own County of Worcestershire, within the confines of which he was ordered
by the King to remain for the rest of his days.——See Jardine’s
“_Narrative_,” p. 212.[A]

[Footnote A: The splendid Elizabethan mansion known as Hindlip Hall, four
miles from Worcester, with a large and magnificent prospect of the
surrounding country, was demolished early in the nineteenth century. A
picture of this mansion is in the Rev. Ethelred Taunton’s book, “_The
Jesuits in England_” (Methuen & Co.). The present Hindlip Hall is the seat
of the Lord Hindlip.]

In these circumstances, Dr. Nash’s alleged tradition cannot possibly
outweigh the inferences that the facts known and inferred concerning the
Plot all tend to establish. For these inferences, both in respect of what
happened _before and after_ the penning of the Letter, all go to show
this: that the conjectures, surmises, and suggestions of this Essay are
indeed probable to the degree of moral certitude.

And I respectfully submit these same conjectures, surmises, and
suggestions cannot be upset, still less broken, by knowledge commensurate
with zeal.

Jardine mentions the singular hypothesis that this famous Letter was
penned by the Honourable Anne Vaux, at the dictation of the Honourable
Mrs. Abington.

Now, the Honourable Anne Vaux was one of the daughters of the Lord Vaux of
Harrowden, in Northamptonshire, at whose house Father Henry Garnet (the
chief of the Jesuits in England) lived for many years, from 1586, when
Garnet returned to England from Rome. Anne Vaux and her sister, the
Honourable Eleanor Brookesby, were high-minded women who lived at White
Webbs, Stoke Pogis,[A] Wandsworth, and other places of Jesuit resort,
rendering, along with Edward Brookesby,[B] Esquire (the husband of Eleanor
Brookesby), the members of the Jesuit Society in England signally devoted
service.

[Footnote A: The mansion-house at Stoke Pogis, where the Dowager Lady Vaux
lived for a time along with Miss Anne Vaux, had been built by Elizabeth’s
favourite Chancellor, Sir Christopher Hatton. If this was the manor-house
of Stoke Pogis, then Gray, the author of the immortal “Elegy in a Country
Churchyard,” sojourned at the place.]

[Footnote B: Edward Brookesby was of Arundel House, Shouldby,
Leicestershire. Frances Brookesby (his sister, probably, and one of Queen
Anne’s Maids of Honour), became a devoted friend of Mary Ward.——See “_Life
of Mary Ward_,” vol. ii., p. 23.]

This was especially so in the case of the Honourable Anne Vaux, who spent
and was herself spent in behalf of labours wherein the English Jesuits
busied themselves for, as they thought, the greater glory of God and the
greater good of man.

Jardine, however, after comparing the Letter with many letters and papers
at the then State Paper Office, which are undoubtedly in the Honourable
Anne Vaux’s handwriting, says, “I am quite unable to discover the alleged
identity of the handwriting.”[117]




                             CHAPTER XXXVI.


Now, regard being had to the fact that “there is seldom smoke except there
be, at least, some little fire, the question arises: Is it possible to
account, on rational grounds, for any such statement of the worthy person
still in being in 1680 as Dr. Williams credits him with?

(Nash’s evidence, in the absence of proof of a _continuous_ tradition, is
not one whit more worthy of credence than Dr. Williams’ impalpability.)

It is possible.

For, it is well within the bounds of rational probability that what Mr.
Abington said to some person or persons unknown (assuming that he ever
said anything whatever) was _not_ that his wife _“had writ the Letter,”
but that_ his wife “_knew, or thought she knew, who had writ the Letter_.”

The way in which to test the matter is this: Supposing, for the sake of
argument, that my hypothesis be true, and that Father Oldcorne _did_
actually pen that Letter which was the instrument, not only of the
temporal salvation of Mrs. Abington’s brother, the Lord Mounteagle, but
also of her father, the Lord Morley, together with many others of her
kinsfolk, friends, and acquaintance, as well as of her lawful Sovereign
and His Royal Consort, _is it, or is it not, probable that Mrs. Abington
would guess, in some way or another, the mighty secret_?

It is probable.

For let it be remembered who and what Mrs. Abington was.

The Honourable Mary Parker, the daughter of Edward Parker Lord Morley and
the Honourable Elizabeth Stanley, was the mother of William Abington, the
well-known poet[118] of that name, who was born, in fact, on or about the
5th of November, 1605.

Therefore Mrs. Abington was the mother of a son who was a man of
distinguished intellectual parts.

Moreover, seeing that usually it is from the mother that a son’s
capabilities are derived rather than from the father, it is more, rather
than less, likely that Mrs. Abington herself was a naturally clear-minded,
acute, discerning woman, gifted with that marvellous faculty which
constitutes cleverness in a woman——sympathetic, imaginative insight.

Now if this were so, Mrs. Abington’s native perspicacity would be surely
potent enough to enable her to form a judgment, at once penetrating and
accurate, in reference to such a thing as the penmanship of the great
Letter——a document which had come home, as events had proved, with such
peculiar closeness to her own “business and bosom.”[119]

In these circumstances, may the Lady of Hindlip not, in after days, when
the tragic scenes of those fateful years 1605 and 1606 had become a sad,
pathetic memory merely, have recalled to mind certain special aspects in
the play of the countenance, in the tone of the voice, aye, in the general
mien of Father Edward Oldcorne that she had noted shortly from and after
the Michaelmas of that unhappy year 1605, forming evidence whence she
might draw her own shrewd, wise conclusions?

May not this honourable woman——honourable by nature as well as by
name——have recollected that _she_ had then observed that the holy man
sought more than hitherto had been his wont the retirement of his “secret
chamber?” That, at that period, he seemed more than ever absorbed, nay
hidden, in thought?

May she not have recalled that at that “last” Christmastide, too, he, who
was by nature so severely yet sweetly just, and the humblest among men,
had shown himself disposed to judge those wicked wrong-doers with a
mildness and a leniency that assuredly, perforce, betokened——what? I
answer, a consciousness of some high prerogative, some kingly right,
abiding in him, whereby he was _warranted_ in thus speaking.

Again; did he not _then_ manifest a disposition, remarkable even in _him_,
to act in diametrical opposition to the ordinary way of men, which is so
well expressed by the sarcastic, cynical, yet only too true saying, that
“the world is ready enough to laugh with a man, but it leaves him to weep
alone.” And this, when “a compassionate silence” (save in extraordinary
circumstances) was the utmost that Justice and Charity alike would prompt
even a Priest and a Jesuit (nay, even a Priest and a Jesuit of the type of
Edward Oldcorne) to display towards the wretched, erring victims of that
“_ineluctabile fatum_,” that resistless decree of the Universe——“The
guilty suffer.”

Now, I submit, with sure confidence for an affirmative answer, to the
judgment of my candid readers——of my candid readers that know something of
_human_ nature, its workings, its windings, and its ways——the question:
Whether or not it is not merely possible, but probable, that Mrs. Abington
_divined that stupendous secret_, through and by means of the subtle, yet
all-potent, _mental sympathy_, which must have subsisted betwixt herself
and the disciplined, exalted, stately soul, who, as a Priest——aye! as a
very Prophet——this high-born lady, or at least her spouse, had “counted it
all honour and all joy” to have harboured, as a beloved spiritual Father,
“elect and precious,” for no less than sixteen years?[120]




                            CHAPTER XXXVII.


Let us finally consider the Evidence and the deductions and suggestions
therefrom which tend to prove that _subsequent_ to the dictating of the
Letter by the contrite, repentant Christopher Wright, _and subsequent_ to
the penning of the Document by the deserving, beneficent Edward Oldcorne,
each of these two Englishmen, aye! these two Yorkshiremen, _were conscious
of having performed_ the several functions that these pages have
attributed unto them.

Let us take, then, the case of Christopher Wright first.

Now, the Evidence that tends to show that Christopher Wright was conscious
of having been the revealing plotter and dictating conspirator[121] has
been already mainly set forth, but let me recapitulate the same.

It is as follows:——

(1) That either Thomas Winter must have gone in search of Christopher
Wright, or Christopher Wright must have gone in search of Thomas Winter,
in order that it might be possible for Stowe to record on p. 880 of his
“_Chronicle_” the following allegation of facts:——

“T. Winter, the next day after the delivery of the Letter, told
Christopher Wright that he understood of an obscure letter delivered to
the Lord Mounteagle, advising him not to appear at the Parliament House
the first day, and that the Lord Mounteagle had no sooner read it, but
instantly carried it to the Earle of Salisbury, which newes was presently
made known unto the rest, who after divers conferences agreed to see
further trial, but, howsoever, Percy resolved to stay the last
houre.”[122]

(2) Poulson says, in his account of the Wrights, of Plowland (or Plewland)
Hall, in his “_History of Holderness_,” vol. ii., p. 57, that Christopher
Wright “was the first who ascertained that the plot was discovered.”

(3) Christopher Wright was possibly being harboured by Thomas Ward in or
near Lord Mounteagle’s town-house in the Strand during a part of Monday
night, the 4th of November, and during the early hours of Tuesday, the
5th.

Or, if Christopher Wright were not being so harboured, then it is almost
certain he must have been taking such brief repose as he did take at the
inn known by the name of “the Mayden heade in St. Gyles.”[A] For there is
evidence to prove that this conspirator’s horse was being stabled at that
hostelry in the afternoon of Monday, the 4th of November.

[Footnote A: The Strand is not far from the Church of St.
Giles-in-the-Fields. This well-known church has now two district churches,
Christ Church, Endell Street, and Holy Trinity, Lincoln’s Inn Fields.
(Communicated by Mr. J. A. Nicholson, Solicitor, York.) In 1891 the
population of St. Giles’s Parish was 15,281.]

This we know from the testimony of William Grantham, servant to Joseph
Hewett, deposed to on the 5th of November, 1605,[B] taken before Sir John
Popham, the Lord Chief Justice of England.

[Footnote B: See Appendix.]

Moreover, the Lord Chief Justice Popham[C] reported to Lord Salisbury on
the 5th of November as follows: “Christopher Wright, as I thyncke, lay
this last night in St. Gyles.”——“_Gunpowder Plot Book_,” Part I., No. 10.

[Footnote C: Of the Leyborne-Pophams, of Littlecote, Co. Wilts.]

(4) Again; from the following passage in “_Thomas Winter’s Confession_” it
is evident that Christopher Wright, at a very early hour in the morning of
Tuesday, November 5th, must have been _in very close proximity to
Mounteagle’s residence_, in order to ascertain so accurately——either
directly, through the evidence of his own senses, or indirectly, through
the evidence of the senses of some other person (presumably of Thomas
Ward)——what _there_ took place a few hours after Fawkes’s midnight
apprehension by Sir Thomas Knevet.

Thomas Winter says:——

“About five o’clock being Tuesday came the younger Wright to my chamber
and told me that, a nobleman[A] called the Lord Mounteagle, saying, ‘Rise
and come along to Essex House, for I am going to call up my Lord of
Northumberland,’ saying withal ‘the matter is discovered.’

[Footnote A: It was Edward Somerset Earl of Worcester, Master of the
Horse, I believe, an ancestor, lineal or collateral, of the Duke of
Beaufort. Worcester was a Catholic.]

“‘Go back, Mr. Wright,’ quoth I, ‘and learn what you can at Essex Gate.’

“Shortly he returned and said, ‘Surely all is lost,[123] for Leyton is got
on horseback at Essex door, and as he parted, he asked if their Lordships
would have any more with him, and being answered “No,” he rode as fast up
Fleet Street as he can ride.’

“‘Go you then,’ quoth I, ‘to Mr. Percy, for sure it is for him they seek,
and bid him be gone: I will stay and see the uttermost.’”

(5) Furthermore; Lathbury, writing in the year 1839,[A] asserts that
Christopher Wright’s advice was that each conspirator “should betake
himself to flight in a different direction from any of his
companions.”[124]

[Footnote A: Lathbury’s little book, published by Parker, is a very
careful compilation (_me judice_). It contains an extract from the Act of
Parliament ordaining an Annual Thanksgiving for November 5th; also in the
second Edition (1840) an excellent fac-simile of Lord Mounteagle’s Letter.
In Father Gerard’s “_What was the Gunpowder Plot?_” (1896), on p. 173, is
a fac-simile of the signature of Edward Oldcorne both before and after
torture.]




                            CHAPTER XXXVIII.


Now, as somewhat slightly confirming this statement of Lathbury, is the
fact that in an old print published soon after the discovery of the Plot,
which shows the conspirators Catesby, Thomas Winter, Percy, John Wright,
Fawkes, Robert Winter, Bates, and Christopher Wright, Christopher Wright
is represented as a tall man, in the high hat of the period, facing
Catesby, and evidently engaged in earnest discourse with the
arch-conspirator. Christopher Wright to enforce his utterance is holding
up the forefinger of his right hand. Catesby’s right hand is raised in
front of Christopher Wright, while Catesby’s left hand rests on the hilt
of the sword girded on his side.[125]

(Of course the evidence in paragraphs (2) and (5) of the last chapter may
have emanated from one and the same source; but the great point is that it
_has emanated from somewhere_.)

In connection with Christopher Wright’s propinquity to Thomas Ward
possibly, and to Thomas Winter possibly likewise, on the Sunday
immediately previous to the “fatal Fifth,” the two following items of
evidence are of consequence:——

(1) In Jardine’s “_Narrative_,” p. 98, we are told: “On Sunday, the 3rd of
November, the conspirators heard from the same individual who had first
informed them of the Letter to Lord Mounteagle, that the Letter had been
shown to the King, who made great account of it, but enjoined the
strictest secrecy.”

_This individual was Thomas Ward._——(Jardine.)

Now, we have seen already that Stowe’s “_Chronicle_” records “the next day
after the delivery of the Letter” there was a conjunction of the
planets——Thomas Winter and Christopher Wright.

This conjunction at or about this period I hold to be a very significant
fact, tending to show that _either_ the one or the other must have sought
his confederate out, as has been remarked already.

But from the following important Evidence of William Kyddall, servant to
Robert Tyrwhitt, Esquire,[A] brother of Mrs. Ambrose Rookwood, and kinsman
of Robert Keyes, it is evident that it was physically impossible for
Christopher Wright to have met Thomas Winter on Sunday, the 27th of
October; inasmuch as Christopher Wright was then at Lapworth, only twenty
miles distant from Hindlip Hall.[B]

[Footnote A: Robert Tyrwhitt and William Tyrwhitt and one of Thomas
Winter’s uncles, David Ingleby, of Ripley (who married Lady Anne Neville,
a daughter of Charles fifth Earl of Westmoreland), along with “Jesuits,”
were, about the year 1592, great frequenters of Twigmore, in Lincolnshire,
twelve miles from Hull by water. John Wright afterwards lived at Twigmore.
Father Garnet is known to have been at Twigmore.]

[Footnote B: For the information as to the distances between Coughton and
Hindlip; and Stratford-on-Avon and Hindlip; also between Lapworth and
Hindlip, I am indebted to Charles Avery, Esq., of Headless Cross, near
Coughton; the Rev. Father Atherton, O.S.B., of Stratford-on-Avon; and
George Davis, Esq., of York.]

Yet this does not disprove the material _fact_ of the meeting itself, the
date or circumstance of time not belonging to the essence of the
assertion. (See Appendix.)




                             CHAPTER XXXIX.


GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——PART I., NO. 52.

    “The examinacon of William Kyddall of Elsam in the Countie of
    Lincolne s^{r}vant to Mr. Robert Turrett of Kettleby[A] in the
    said Com. taken the viii^{th} daie of November 1605 before S^{r}
    Richard Verney Knighte high Sherriff for the Com. of Warr. S^{r}
    John fferrers & Willm Combes Esq^{r} Justices of peace there
    saith as followeth.

[Footnote A: Kettleby is near Brigg, in Lincolnshire. Twigmore, where John
Wright had lived, is also near the same town. (Communicated by R. H.
Dawson, Esq., of Beverley, a descendant of the Pendrells, of Boscobel.)]

“That he was intreated of Mr. John Wrighte, who was dwellinge at Twigmore
in the Countie of Lincolne, to bringe his daught^{r} beinge eight or nine
yere old to Lapworth to Nicholas Slyes[B] house where he hath harbored
this half yere. He brought the child to Lapworth the xxiiii^{th} of
October, and there was Mr. John Wrighte and his wife and Mr. Christopher
Wrighte and his wife, soe he continued at Lapworth from Wednesdaie to
Monday, from thence he goeth to London w^{th} Mr. Christopher Wrighte and
came to London on Wednesdaie betwixt two & three a Clocke to St. Giles to
the signe of the Maydenhead from whence Mr. Wrighte wente into the Towne
and he stayed at the Inn, uppon ffriday one Richard Browne s^{r}vant to
Mr. Wrighte wente downe into Surrey, and on ffriday at night Browne
returned and he & Browne wente uppon Sattersdaie for the Child to a Towne
he knoweth not about Croydon Race and broughte it to the Maydenhead at St.
Gyles to Mr. Wrighte the ffath^{r} who seeinge the child too little to be
carried sent them backe w^{th} it to the place whence thei fetched it on
Sonday Morninge, and thei retorned Sondaie night to the Maydenhead and it
was purposed by Mr. Wright to come awaie w^{th} this examinate uppon
Mondaie morninge but staied because Mr. Wrightes Clothes were not made
till Tuesdaie morninge and then Mr. Wrighte sent this examinate _and[A]
William Ward nephew to Mr. Wrighte downe to Lapworth in Warwickshire_
whither they were now goinge. He saith he lefte Mr. Wright at London and
knoweth not the causes why he came not away w^{th} them he saith that
Browne lyeth in Westminster neare Whitehall at one Bonkers house. Thei
broughte in their Cloakbagge a suit of Cloathes for Mr. John Wright a
Petronell and a Rapier & dagger thinkinge to find him at Lapworth.

[Footnote B: Probably Nicholas Sly and his house were well known to
Shakespeare. John Wright appears to have gone to Lapworth (which belonged
to Catesby) about May, 1605. Who Mrs. John Wright was I do not know.]

[Footnote A: William Ward, one of the sons of Marmaduke Ward, _it will be
remembered, had an uncle who lived at Court_. This surely must have been
Thomas Ward. And I opine that the boy had been on a visit to this uncle;
for at this time his father was at Lapworth, the house of John Wright. It
is possible, however, that Christopher Wright and Kyddall may have brought
young Ward up to London from Lapworth; but I do not think so, otherwise we
should have been told the fact in Kyddall’s evidence, most probably. (The
italics are mine.)]

  “Richard Verney.[B]
  Jo: fferrers.[C]
  W. Combes.”[126][D]

[Footnote B: Sir Richard Verney, Knt., would be a friend, belike, of Sir
Thomas Lucy, Knt., of Charlcote (a Warwickshire Puritan gentleman).]

[Footnote C: Of the Ferrers, of Baddlesley Clinton (a very old Catholic
family).]

[Footnote D: From whom Shakespeare bought land. To John Combes, brother to
William, the poet bequeathed his sword by Will.]

(No endorsement).

Mistress Dorothie Robinson, Widdow, of Spur Alley, on the 7th of November,
1605, also deposed as follows:——

GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——PART I., NO. 41.

    “The examinacon of Dorathie Robinson[127] widdow of Spurr Alley.

    “Shee sayeth that one Mr. Christopher Wright gent did lye in her
    house about a Moneth past for xviii^{en} dayes together and no
    more. And there did come to him one Mr. Winter w^{ch} did
    continually frequent his Company and about a moneth past the
    said Winter brought to her house two hampers[A] locked w^{th}
    two padlockes, and caused them to be placed in a little Closet
    at the end of Mr. Wright’s Chamber. But what was in the said
    hamps, was privately conveyed away by Winter w^{th}out her
    knowledge, and the hamps was geven to her use.

    “Shee sayeth that Mr. Wright could not chuse but know of the
    conveying of those thinges w^{ch} were in the hamper as well as
    Mr. Winter.

    “Shee sayeth that Mr. Winter by report of his man, was a
    Worcestershire man, and his living Eight score poundes by the
    yeare at the lest.

    “_The said Mr. Wright hath a brother in London,[B] whose servant
    came to him in this woman’s house, and the same morning of his
    going away, w^{ch} was a Moneth on Tuesday last._

    “That the said Wright was to seeke his loding againe at this
    woman’s house; but she tould him her lodgings were otherwayes
    disposed of. And then he went his wayes. And since that tyme
    shee never saw him.

    “_She sayeth that shee saw Mr. Winter uppon Sunday last in the
    afternoone. But where he lodgeth she knoweth not._ (The italics
    are mine.)

    “I can find no manner of thing in this woman’s house whereby to
    geve us any incouragem^{t} to proceede any further.

    “The said Mr. Wright did often goe to the Salutation to one Mr.
    Jackson’s house; And one Steven the drawer as shee thinketh will
    tell where hee is.”

[Footnote A: These hampers contained the fresh gunpowder, no doubt,
mentioned by Thomas Winter in his “_Confession_” written in the Tower.
This sentence tends to confirm the genuineness of the Confession.]

[Footnote B: _Who was this brother?_ I _suggest_ that by brother is meant
brother-in-law, and that as a fact Christopher Wright _had_ married
Margaret Ward, the sister to both Marmaduke and Thomas Ward. If this be
correct, then we have demonstrative proof of the servant of Thomas Ward
calling upon Christopher Wright (probably with a message from Thomas Ward)
the very same morning as, I hold, that Christopher Wright went down into
Warwickshire, where he would be within twenty miles of Father Oldcorne.
This evidence is important. The word _came_, too, is noticeable, implying,
I think, a habit of coming, a frequentative use of the past tense of the
verb. Observe also “_and the same morning_,” implying _cumulative_ acts of
“_coming_,” the visit of that day being the last of a series of visits.]

Mr. Jackson also deposed:——

    “He sayeth that he knoweth Mr. Wright very well, _But it is
    about a fortnight past,[128] since he ws at his house, and since
    that tyme he knoweth not what is become of him._ (The italics
    are mine.)

    “He sayeth further that he knoweth not any other of his Consorts
    or Companyons, yf hee did he would reveale it.

    (Endorsed) “The examinacon of Dorathy Robinson Widdow of Spurr
    Alley.”

Furthermore, we have the following Evidence of Mistress Elizabeth More:——

7 Nov: 1605.

STATE PAPERS DOMESTIC——JAS. I., Vol. xvi., No. 13.

“The Declaracon of Elizabeth More the wief of Edward More taken the 5th of
November 1605.

“She saieth that the gent that lay at her howse w^{th} Mr. Rookwood this
last night and the night before his name is Mr. Keyes and he took upp the
Chamber for the said Mr. Rookwood.

“And she saieth that uppon ffryday night last Mr. Christofir Wright came
to this exaite howse w^{th} the said Mr. Rookwood and lay that night in a
chamber on the said Mr. Rookwoode Chamber.

(Endorsed) “5th No: 1605.

                                   “The Declaracon of Elizabeth More.”

Mistress More, I find, lived near Temple Bar.[A]

[Footnote A: Where was Spur Alley? and how far were Temple Bar and Spur
Alley from the town-house in the Strand of the Lord Mounteagle, and
therefore of his Lordship’s secretary, Thomas Ward?

It will be noted by the judicious reader that the conjectured fact that
Christopher Wright’s London lodgings were within a short distance of
where, doubtless, his——I suggest——_brother-in-law_ (Ward) was to be found
tends to support my theory.]




                              CHAPTER XL.


Before we well-nigh finally take our leave of Christopher Wright, I should
like to bring before my readers two pieces of Evidence, from each of
which, at any rate, may be drawn the inference that it was one of the
conspirators themselves that revealed the tremendous secret.

That Christopher Wright was that revealing conspirator, the manifold
considerations which the preceding pages of this Inquiry have established,
I trust, will satisfy the intellect of my readers, seeing that those
considerations, I respectfully but firmly urge, must be held to have built
up a “probability” so high as to amount to that “moral certitude” which is
“the very guide” of Man’s terrestrial life, in that it furnishes Man with
those sufficient rules which direct his daily action.[129]

But, in bringing the first piece of Evidence to which I allude before the
eyes of my readers, I desire, with great respect, to say that I am keenly
conscious that I run the risk of incurring the condemnation implied in the
words: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

But, since “circumstances alter cases,” I feel warranted (under
correction) in adventuring, in this one instance, upon a particular line
of argument which I feel is, as an affair of taste, _primâ facie_
unseemly, and, as a matter of feeling, a line of action, in ordinary
cases, to be rigorously eschewed.

Yet, seeing that such a course of conduct cannot be held to be morally
wrong, my plea is——and I respectfully submit my all-sufficient plea
is——that an Inquiry, having for its purpose the elucidation of the
hitherto inscrutable mystery as to who revealed, or who were instrumental
in revealing, so satanic an enterprise as the Gunpowder Plot, being far,
far removed beyond the range of mere logic-chopping, dry-as-dust,
non-human investigations, justifies the following, in one instance, of a
course of action which unquestionably would clash with mere, decorous
taste, and would collide with mere delicate feeling, except, by the case
being altered, it were lifted into the realm of the categories of the
extraordinary and the special.

_Then_ the nature of the act _or_ action composing that course of conduct
would be, in a sense, fundamentally and meritoriously changed. And,
_therefore_, it would be, by a double title, morally justifiable.

Now, when the Gunpowder conspirators were at Huddington, the mansion-house
of Robert Winter, on Thursday, the 7th day of November, certainly most of
the conspirators, and probably all of them, received the Sacrament of
Penance through the ministry of a Jesuit Father, named Nicholas Hart
(alias Strangeways and Hammond), who besides being an _alumnus_ of
Westminster School, and for two years a student of the University of
Oxford, had, prior to his becoming a Priest and a Jesuit, “studied law in
the Inns of Court and Chancery in London.”[130]

Now, William Handy, the serving-man of Sir Everard Digby (of whom we have
already heard), further deposed as follows:[131]

“On Thursday morning, about three of the clock, all the said company, as
well servants as others, heard Mass, received the Sacrament, and were
confessed, which Mass was said by a priest named Harte, a little man
whitely complexioned, and a little beard.”

Now, Ambrose Rookwood, on the 21st day of January, 1605-6, deposed[132]
that he confessed to Hammond at Huddington, on Thursday, the 7th of
November, that he was sorry he had not revealed the Plot, it seeming so
bloody, and that after his confession Hammond absolved him without remark.

The precise words of the ill-fated Rookwood hereon are these:——

                 GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——NO. 177.

    “The voluntarie declaration of Ambrose Rokewood esquier. 21
    Janu. 1605 [1606]

    “I doe acknowledge that uppon thursday morninge beeing the 7th
    of November 1605 my selfe and all the other gentlemen (as I doe
    remember) did confesse o^{r} sinnes to one Mr. Hamonde Preeste,
    at Mr. Robert Wintour his house, and amonges other my sinnes I
    did acknowledge my error in concealing theire intended
    enterprise of pouder agaynste his Ma^{tie} and the State, having
    a scruple in conscience, the facte seeminge to mee to bee too
    bluddye, hee for all in generall gave me absolution without any
    other circumstances beeing hastned by the multitude that were to
    come to him.

                                              “Ambrose Rookewoode.

  “Ex^{r} p. Edw. Coke
      W. Ward.”
  (Endorsed)

                                          “... pouder
                                              xx^{th} of January 1605.
                                          hamond
                                          Declaration of Ambrose
                                          Rookewoode of his own hand.”




                              CHAPTER XLI.


Now, regard being had to the fact that this kneeling young Penitent was,
with his own lips, avowing the commission in _desire and thought_ of
“murder most foul as at the best it is”[A] (and “we know that no murderer
hath eternal life abiding in him”[B]), by confessing to a fellow-creature
a wilful and deliberate transgression against that “steadfast Moral Law
which is not of to-day nor yesterday, but which lives for ever”[C] (to say
nothing of his avowal of the commission _in act and deed_ of the crime of
sacrilege,[D] in taking a secret, unlawful oath contrary to the express
prohibitions of a visible and audible Institution which that Priest and
that Penitent alike believed was of divine origin), I firmly, though with
great and all-becoming deference, draw _these_ conclusions, namely, that
_one of the plotters_ had _already_ poured into the bending ear of his
breathless priestly hearer _glad tidings_ to the effect that he (the
revealing plotter, whoever he was) had given that one supreme external
proof which heaven and earth had then left to him for showing the
genuineness of his repentance in regard to his crimes, and the perfectness
of his contrition on account of his transgressions, by taking
premeditated, active, practical, vigorous steps for the utter frustrating
and the complete overthrowing of the prodigious, diabolical Plot.

[Footnote A: Shakespeare.]

[Footnote B: St. John the Divine.]

[Footnote C: Sophocles.]

[Footnote D: Of course the Gunpowder Treason Plot was a “sacrilegious
crime,” because it sought to compass the death of a king who was “one of
the Lord’s anointed,” _as well as_ because of the unlawful oath of
secrecy, solemnly ratified by the reception of the Sacrament at the hands
of some priest in a house behind St. Clement’s Inn, “near the principal
street in London called the Strand.”——See “_The Confessions of Thomas
Winter and Guy Fawkes_.” This house was probably the London lodging of
Father John Gerard, S.J. Winter and Fawkes said that the conspirators
received the Sacrament at the hands of Gerard. But “Gerard was not
acquainted with their purpose,” said Fawkes. Gerard denied having given
the conspirators the Sacrament.——See Gardiner’s “_What Gunpowder Plot
was_,” p. 44. One vested priest is very much like another, just as one
soldier in uniform is very much like another. So Fawkes and Winter may
have been mistaken. Besides, they would not be likely to be minutely
examining the features of a priest on such an occasion.]

Furthermore; that it was _because_ of the possession by Hammond of this
happy intelligence, early on that Thursday morning, before sunrise, that
_therefore_, in the Tribunal of Penance, “he absolved” poor, miserable
(yet contrite) Ambrose Rookwood “for all in general”——“without any other
circumstances.”

That is, I take it, without reproaching or even chiding him——in fact
“without remark.”[A]

[Footnote A: Father Nicholas Hart (alias Hammond) appears to have been
stationed with the Vauxes, of Great Harrowden, usually. Foley (iv., Index)
thinks it probable that the Father Singleton, S.J. (alias Clifton),
mentioned by Henry Hurlston, Esquire, or Huddlestone, of the Huddlestones,
of Suwston Hall, near Cambridge; Faringdon Hall, near Preston, in
Lancashire; and Millom, “North of the Sands,” was in reality Father
Nicholas Hart (alias Hammond). I do not think so. For, according to the
Evidence of Henry Hurlston (Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. iv., pp. 10, 11),
who was at Great Harrowden, on Tuesday, November 5th, at five o’clock in
the afternoon, Father Strange, S.J. (a cousin of Mr. Abington, of
Hindlip), and this said Father Singleton, “by Thursday morning took their
horses and intended to have ridden to Grote.” They were apprehended at
Kenilworth. This Father Singleton is a mysterious personage whose “future”
I should like to follow up. Was he the same as a certain “Dr. Singleton”
who figures in the “_Life of Mary Ward_” vol. i., p. 443? and was he of
the Catholic Singletons, of Singleton, near Blackpool?]




                             CHAPTER XLII.


The other piece of Evidence that I wish to bring before my readers which
tends to show that it was _one of the conspirators themselves that
revealed the Plot_ is this:——

Jardine gives in his “_Criminal Trials_”[133] a certain Letter of
Instructions to Sir Edward Coke,[134] the Attorney-General who conducted
the prosecution of the surviving Gunpowder conspirators at Westminster
Hall[135] before a Special Commission for High Treason, on the 27th day of
January, 1605-6.

This very remarkable document is in the handwriting of Robert Cecil first
Earl of Salisbury.

It is as follows:——

    “These things I am commanded to renew unto your memory. First,
    that you be sure to make it appear to the world that there was
    an employment of some persons to Spain for a practice of
    invasion, as soon as the Queen’s breath was out of her body. The
    reason is this for which the King doth urge it. He saith some
    men there are that will give out, and do, that only despair of
    the King’s courses on the Catholics and his severity, draw all
    these to such works of discontentment: where by you it will
    appear, that before his Majesty’s face was ever seen, or that he
    had done anything in government, the King of Spain was moved,
    though he refused it, saying, ‘he rather expected to have
    peace,’ etc.

    “_Next, you must in any case, when you speak of the Letter which
    was the first ground of discovery, absolutely disclaim that any
    of these wrote it, though you leave the further judgment
    indefinite who else it should be._ (The italics are mine.)

    “Lastly, and you must not omit, you must deliver, in
    commendation of my Lord Mounteagle, words to show how sincerely
    he dealt, and how fortunately it proved that he was the
    instrument of so great a blessing as this was. To be short, sir,
    you can remember how well the King in his Book did censure[A]
    his lordship’s part in it, from which sense you are not to vary,
    but _obiter_ (as you know best how), to give some good echo of
    that particular action in that day of public trial of these men;
    because it is so lewdly given out that he was once of this plot
    of powder, and afterwards betrayed it all to me.

    “This is but _ex abundanti_, that I do trouble you; but as they
    come to my head or knowledge, or that I am directed, I am not
    scrupulous to send to you.

    “You must remember to lay Owen as foul in this as you can.”

[Footnote A: The word “censure” here means, formed an opinion of his
lordship’s part. From Lat. _censeo_, I think.]

Now, strangely enough, in the day of public trial of these men, the
learned Attorney-General forgot in one particular the aforesaid clear and
express Injunctions of his Majesty’s principal Secretary of State.

For, if he be correctly reported, Sir Edward Coke then said:——[136]

“The last consideration is concerning the admirable discovery of this
treason, _which was by one of themselves_, _who had taken the oath and
sacrament, as hath been said, against his own will; the means was by a
dark and doubtful letter sent to my Lord Mounteagle._”[A] (The italics are
mine.)

[Footnote A: “Truth will out!”]

Now, regard being had (1) to what Salisbury bade Coke _not say_; and (2)
to what Coke as a matter of fact _did say_, I infer, first, that it _was_
one of the conspirators who revealed the Plot; because of just scruples
that his conscience had, well-nigh at the eleventh hour, awakened in his
breast: that, secondly, not only so, but that the Government, through
Salisbury, Suffolk, Coke, and probably Bacon, strongly suspected as much:
that, thirdly, this was the explanation not only of their _comparatively_
mild treatment of the Gunpowder conspirators themselves,[137] but also, I
hold, of the subsequent _comparatively_ mild treatment of the recusants
generally throughout the country.[138]

For had the Government stripped all English Papists of their lands and
goods and driven them into the sea, Humanity scarcely could have
complained of injustice or harshness, regard being had to the devilish
wholesale cruelty of the Gunpowder Plot.

Contrariwise, the entire action of the Government resembles the action of
a man in whose hand the stick has broken whilst he is in the act of
administering upon a wrong-doer richly deserved chastisement.

For, indisputably, the Government abstained from following after, and from
reaping the full measure of, their victory (to have recourse to a more
dignified figure of speech) _either on grounds of principle, policy——or
both_.

Moreover, none of the estates of the plotters were forfeited. And this,
regard being had to the fact that the plotters were “moral monsters,” and
to the well-known impecuniosity of the tricky James and his northern
satellites, is itself a circumstance pregnant with the greatest possible
suspicion that there was some great mystery in the background.——See
Lathbury’s “_Guy Fawkes_,” pp. 76, 77, first Edition.

For, even if deeds of marriage settlement intervened to protect the
plotters’ estates, an Act of Parliament surely could have swept them away
like the veriest cobwebs. For Sir Edward Coke himself might have told the
King and Privy Council that “an Act of Parliament could do anything, short
of turning a man into a woman,” if the King and Council had needed
enlightening on the point.




                             CHAPTER XLIII.


Again: the primary instinct of self-preservation alone would have
assuredly impelled the bravest of the brave amongst the nine malefactors,
including Tresham, who were incarcerated in the Tower of London, either to
seek to save his life when awaiting his trial in Westminster Hall, or, at
any rate, when expecting the scaffold, the ripping knife, the embowelling
fork, and the quartering block, in St. Paul’s Churchyard or in the old
Palace Yard, Westminster, to seek to save his life, _by divulging the
mighty secret respecting his responsibility for the Letter of Letters, had
anyone of them in point of fact penned the document. For “skin for skin
all that a man hath will he give for his life.”_

Hence, from the silence of one and all of the survivors——a silence as
unbroken as that of the grave——we can, it stands to reason, draw but this
one conclusion, namely, that the nine surviving Gunpowder conspirators
were stayed and restrained by the omnipotence of the impossible from
declaring that _anyone of them_ had saved his King and Parliament.

Hence, by consequence, _the revealing conspirator must be found amongst
that small band of four who survived not to tell the tale_.

Therefore is our Inquiry reduced to within a narrow compass, a fact which
simplifies our task unspeakably.

If it be objected that “a point of honour” may have stayed and restrained
one of the nine conspirators from “discovering” or revealing his share in
the laudable deed, it is demonstrable that it would be a _false_, not a
_true_, sense of duty that prompted such an unrighteous step.

For the revealing plotter, whoever he was, had duties to his kinsfolk as
well as to himself, and, indeed, to his Country, to Humanity at large, and
also to his Church, which _ought, in justice_, to have actuated——and it is
reasonable to believe would have assuredly actuated——a disclosure of the
truth respecting the facts of the revelation.

But I hold that the nine conspirators told nothing as to the origin of
this Letter of Letters, _because they had none of them, anything to tell_.

Moreover, I suggest that what Archbishop Usher[139][A] meant when he is
reported to have divers times said, “that if Papists knew what he knew,
the blame of the Gunpowder Treason would not lie on them,”[140][B] was
this:——

[Footnote A: Protestant Archbishop of Armagh.]

[Footnote B: Such a secret as the answer to the problem “Who revealed the
Gunpowder Plot?” was a positive burden for Humanity, whereof it should
have been, in justice, relieved. For it tends to demonstrate the existence
of a realm of actualities having relations to man, but the workings of the
causes, processes, and consequences of which realm are invisible to mortal
sight; in other words, of the contact and intersection of two circles or
spheres, whereof one is bounded by the finite, the other by the infinite.
Now, in the case of strong-minded and intelligent Catholics, the weight of
_this_ fact would have almost inevitably impelled to an avowal of the fact
of revelation had not the omnipotence of the impossible stayed and
restrained. Hence, the absence of avowal demonstrates, with moral
certitude, the absence of ability to avow. And this latter, with moral
certitude, proves my point, namely, that one of the four slain divulged
the Plot.]

_That it was “the Papist Doctrine” of the non-binding force of a secret,
unlawful oath that (Deo juvante) had been primarily the joint-efficient
cause of the spinning right round on its axis of the hell-begotten
Gunpowder Plot._

It is plain that King James’s Government[A] were mysteriously stayed and
restrained in their legislative and administrative action after the
discovery of the diabolically atrocious Gunpowder Treason Plot.

[Footnote A: It is the duty of every Government to see that it is true,
just, and strong. Governments should confine their efforts to the calm and
faithful attainment of these three ideals. Then they win respect and
confidence, even from those who fear them but do not love. James and the
first Earl of Salisbury, and that type of princes and statesmen, oscillate
betwixt the two extremes, injustice and hysterical generosity, which is a
sure sign of a lack of consciousness of absolute truth, justice, and
strength.]

And illogical and inconstant as many English rulers too often have been
throughout England’s long and, by good fortune, glorious History, this
extraordinary illogicalness and inconstancy of the Government of King
James I. betokens to him that can read betwixt the lines, and who “knows
what things belong to what things”——betokens Evidence of what?

Unhesitatingly I answer: _Of that Government’s not daring, for very
decency’s sake, to proceed to extremities._

Now, by reason of the primal instincts of human nature, this consciousness
would be sure to be generated by, and would be certain to operate upon,
any and every civilized, even though heathen, government with staying and
restraining force.

Now, the Government of James I. was a civilized government, and it was not
a heathen government. Moreover, it certainly was a Government composed of
human beings, who, after all, were the persecuted Papists’
fellow-creatures.

Therefore, I suggest that this manifest hesitancy to proceed to
extremities sprang from, and indeed itself demonstrates, this fact,
namely, that the then British Government realized that _it was an
essentially Popish Doctrine of Morals which had been the primary motive
power for securing their temporal salvation. That doctrine being, indeed,
none other than the hated and dreaded “Popish Doctrine” of the
“non-binding force” upon the Popish Conscience of a secret, morally
unlawful oath which thereby, ipso facto, “the Papal Church” prohibited and
condemned._

Hence, that was, I once more suggest, what Archbishop Usher referred to,
in his oracular words, which have become historic, but which have been
hitherto deemed to constitute an insoluble riddle.

For certainly behind those oracular words lay some great State mystery.

The same fact possibly accounts for the traditional tale that the second
Earl of Salisbury confessed that the Plot was “his father’s
contrivance.”——See Gerard’s “_What was the Gunpowder Plot?_” p. 160.

For the Plot _was_ “his father’s contrivance,” considered as to its broad
ultimate _effects_ on the course of English History, in that the Plot was
made a seasonable handle of for the destruction of English Popery. And a
valuable and successful handle it proved too, as mankind knows very well
to-day. Though “what’s bred in the bone” is apt, in this world, “to come
out in the flesh.” Therefore, the British statesman or philosopher needs
not be unduly alarmed if and when, from time to time, he discerns about
him incipient signs, among certain members of the English race, of that
“staggering back to Popery,” whereof Ralph Waldo Emerson once sagely
spoke.

“_’Tis a strange world, my masters! And the whirligig of Time brings round
strange revenges!_”




                             CHAPTER XLIV.


We come now to the last portion of this Inquiry——to the last portion,
indeed, but not to the least.

For we have now to consider what Evidence there is tending to prove that
_subsequent_ to the penning of the Letter by Father Edward Oldcorne, he
was _conscious_ of having performed the meritorious deed that, I maintain,
the Evidence, deductions, and suggestions therefrom all converge to one
supreme end to establish, namely, that it is morally (not mathematically)
certain that his hand, and his hand alone, actually penned that immortal
Letter, whose praises shall be celebrated till the end of time.

Before considering this Evidence let me, however, remind my readers that
there is (1) _not only a general similarity_ in the handwriting of the
Letter and Father Oldcorne’s undoubted handiwork——the Declaration of the
12th day of March, 1605-6——_a general similarity_ in point of the size of
the letters and of that indescribable something called style,[141] _but
(2) a particular similarity_ in the formation of the letters in the case
of these following, namely, the small c/s, l/s, i/s, b/s, w/s, r/s, long
s/s (as initials), short s/s (as terminals), while the m/s and n/s are not
inconsistent.[A]

[Footnote A: Bentham aptly terms the comparison of Document with Document,
“Circumstantial real Evidence.”——See Best’s “_Principles of the Law of
Evidence_,” and Wills on “_Circumstantial Evidence_.” See Miss Walford’s
Letter (Appendix).]

Moreover, there is (3) this fact to be remembered, that in both the Letter
and in the said Declaration, the name “God” is written with a small “g,”
thus: “god.”

It is true that, of course, not only did this way of writing the name of
the Supreme Being then denote no irreverence, but it was commonly so
written by Englishmen in the year 1605.

Still, it was certainly _not by them universally so written_. For in the
fac-simile of “_Thomas Winter’s Confession_” the word “God” occurs more
than once written with a handsomely made capital G,[142] to mention none
other cases.

There is to be also remembered (4) the user of the expressions “as yowe
tender youer lyf,” and “deuys some exscuse to shift of[143] youer
attendance at this parleament for god and man hathe concurred to punishe
the wickednes of this tyme.”

For these expressions are eminently expressions that would be employed by
a man born in Yorkshire in the sixteenth century.

Again; there is to be noted (5) the expressions as “yowe tender youer
_lyf_,” and “god and man hathe concurred.” Inasmuch as I maintain that as
“yowe tender youer _lyf_” was just the kind of expression that would be
used by a man who had had an early training in the medical art, as was the
case with Edward Oldcorne.

For “Man to preserve is pleasure suiting man, and by no art is favour
better sought.” And a deep rooted belief in the powers of Nature and in
the sacredness of the life of man are the two brightest jewels in the true
physician’s crown.

Once more; (6) the expression “god and man hathe concurred” is
pre-eminently the mode of clothing in language one way, wherein a rigid
Roman Catholic of that time would mentally contemplate——_not_, indeed, the
interior quality of the mental phenomena known as the Gunpowder Plot, in
which “the devil” alone could “concur,” but the simple exterior designment
of the same, provided he _knew_ for certain that it could be considered as
a clear transparency only——as a defecated cluster of purely intellectual
acts.[A]

[Footnote A: It is manifest that if, _in intent_, Oldcorne by his own
Letter had destroyed the Plot, he, of all other people in the world, would
have _the prerogative_ of regarding the Plot as a clear transparency;
_while of the Plot as a transparency_, he would feel a freedom to write
“god and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme.” If
the Writer had not the prerogative of regarding the Plot as a clear
transparency then these results follow——that he regarded Him (Whose Eyes
are too pure even to behold iniquity) as _concurring_ in the designment of
a most hellish crime, nay, of participating in such designment; _for he
couples God with man_. Now the Letter is evidently the work of a Catholic.
But no Catholic would regard God as the author of a crime. Therefore the
Gunpowder Plot to the Writer of the Letter can have been regarded as no
crime. But it was obviously a crime, _unless and until_ it had been
defecated of criminous quality, and so rendered a clear transparency. Now,
as the Writer obviously did not regard it as a crime, therefore he must
have regarded it as defecated, by some means or another; in other words,
as a clear transparency. And _this_, I maintain, proves that the Writer
had a special interior knowledge of the Plot “behind the scenes,” that is,
deep down within the depths of his conscious being.]

Furthermore, in reflecting on these preliminaries to the general
discussion of the Evidence tending to prove a consciousness on Edward
Oldcorne’s part, _subsequent_ to the penning of the Letter, of being
responsible for the commission of the everlastingly meritorious feat, let
it be diligently noted that the Letter ends with these words: “_the
dangere is passed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter and i hope god
will give yowe the grace to mak good use of it to whose holy proteccion i
contend yowe._” (The italics are mine.)

Now, I opine that what the Writer intended _to hint at_ was a suggestion
to the recipient of the Letter to destroy the document. _Not_, however,
that as a fact, I think, he really wished it to be destroyed.[144] Because
it is highly probable that (apart from other reasons) the Writer must have
wished it to be conveyed to the King, else why should he have said, “i
hope god will give you the grace to mak _good_ use of it”?

And why should the King himself in his book have omitted the insertion of
this little, but here virtually all-important, adjective?[145]

Besides, the Writer cannot have seriously wished for the destruction of
the document. For in that case he would not have made use of such a
masterpiece of vague phraseology as “the dangere is passed as soon as yowe
have burnt the letter.”[146] But, on the contrary, he would have plainly
adjured the receiver of the missive, for the love of God and man, to
commit it as soon as read to the devouring flames!

Lastly should be noted the commendatory words wherewith the document
closes. These words (or those akin to them), though in use among
Protestants as well as Catholics in the year 1605, were specially employed
by Catholics, and particularly by Jesuits or persons who were “Jesuitized”
or “Jesuitically affected.”[147]




                              CHAPTER XLV.


Having dealt with the _preliminary_ Evidence, we now come to the
discussion of the _main_ Evidence which tends to show that _subsequent_ to
the penning of the Letter Father Edward Oldcorne, Priest and Jesuit,
performed acts or spoke words which clearly betoken _a consciousness_ on
his part of being the responsible person who penned the document.

That this may be done the more thoroughly, it will be necessary to ask my
readers to engage with me in a metaphysical discussion.

But, before attempting such a discussion, which indeed is the crux of this
historical and philosophical work, we will retrace our steps somewhat, in
the order of time, to the end that we may, amongst other things, haply
refresh and recreate the mind a little preparatory to entering upon our
severer labours.

Now, on Wednesday, November the 6th, Father Oswald Tesimond went from
Coughton, near Redditch, in Warwickshire, the house of Thomas
Throckmorton, Esquire, to Huddington, in Worcestershire, the seat of
Robert Winter, who had married Miss Gertrude Talbot, of Grafton. The
Talbots, like the Throckmortons, were a people who happily managed to
reconcile rigid adherence to the ancient Faith with stanch loyalty to
their lawful Sovereign.[A]

[Footnote A: I believe that the grand old Catholic family of Throckmorton
still own Coughton Hall, which is twelve miles from Hindlip.]

Tesimond, leaving behind him his Superior Garnet at Coughton, went, it is
said, to assist the unhappy traitors with the Sacraments of their Church.
But, I imagine, he found most of his hoped-for penitents, at least
externally, in anything except a penitential frame of mind.

This was the last occasion when Tesimond’s eyes gazed upon his old York
school-fellows of happier, bygone days——the brothers John and Christopher
Wright.[148]

Now, to Father Tesimond, as well as to Father Oldcorne, Hindlip Hall[A]
and Huddington[B] (in Worcestershire), Coughton,[C] Lapworth,[D]
Clopton,[E] and Norbrook[F] (in Warwickshire), must have been thoroughly
well known; for at Hindlip Hall for eight years Tesimond likewise had been
formerly domesticated.

Where resided either temporarily or permanently:——

[Footnote A: Thomas Abington.]

[Footnote B: Robert Winter and Thomas Winter.]

[Footnote C: Thomas Throckmorton.]

[Footnote D: John Wright and Christopher Wright.]

[Footnote E: Ambrose Rookwood.]

[Footnote F: John Grant.]

Dr. Gardiner’s “_History of James I._” (Longmans) contains a map showing
the relative positions of these places.

On Wednesday, the 6th November, Fathers Garnet and Tesimond were at
Coughton. Catesby, along with Percy, John Wright, Christopher Wright, Sir
Everard Digby, Ambrose Rookwood, and others, was at Huddington. Catesby
and Digby had sent a letter to Garnet.

Bates was the messenger, and was come from Norbrook, the house of John
Grant, where the plotters rested in their wild, north-westward flight from
Ashby St. Legers. For to Ashby the fugitives had posted headlong from
London town on Tuesday, the “fatal Fifth.”

Catesby and Digby urged Garnet to make for Wales.[A]

[Footnote A: Catesby had great influence over Tesimond, and it was
Tesimond whom Catesby first informed of the Gunpowder Plot, in the
Tribunal of Penance. Tesimond had a sharp and nimble, but probably not
very powerful, mind. Catesby gave Tesimond permission to consult Father
Henry Garnet as to the ethics of the Plot. Moreover, Catesby gave the
Jesuits permission to disclose the particular knowledge of the Plot they
had received, provided they thought it right to do so. This is how we come
to know what passed between Catesby and Tesimond, and then between
Tesimond and Garnet. Tesimond had received from Catesby about the 24th
July, 1605, in the Confessional, a particular knowledge of the Plot, in
the sense that he was told there was projected an explosion by gunpowder,
with the object of destroying the King and Parliament; but all particulars
respecting final plans he did not know till a fortnight before the 11th of
October, I think.]

After half-an-hour’s earnest discourse together, Father Garnet gave leave
to Tesimond to proceed to Huddington to administer to the wretched
fugitives the rites——the last rites——of the Church they had so disgraced
and wronged. Garnet remained at Coughton. Tesimond tarried at Huddington
about two hours.

Tesimond arrived at Hindlip from Huddington in a state of the greatest
excitement possible. He showed himself on reaching Hindlip to be a
choleric man, while Father Oldcorne——who seems to have kept perfectly calm
and cool throughout the whole of the momentous conference——Tesimond
himself denounced, if he did not reproach, as being phlegmatic.

Tesimond, evidently, had been commissioned by Catesby,[B] at Huddington,
to incite Mr. Abington, his household, and retainers, including (I take
it, if possible) Oldcorne himself, to join the insurgents at Huddington,
Holbeach, Wales, and wherever else they might unfurl the banner of “the
holy war,” or, in other words, the armed rebellion against King James, his
Privy Council, and Government.

[Footnote B: Tesimond, in my opinion, was completely over-mastered by the
more potent will of his penitent (?) Catesby. _Cf._, The case of Hugh
Latimer and Thomas Bilney; Bilney made a Protestant of Latimer, who was
Bilney’s confessor. These afford striking examples of the power of
psycho-electrical will force.]

Tesimond’s mission, however, to Hindlip, proving fruitless, he thereupon
rode towards Lancashire, in the hope of rousing Lancashire Catholics to
arms, as one man, in behalf of those altars and homes they loved more than
life.




                             CHAPTER XLVI.


Now, in this calm and dignified demeanour of Oldcorne, at Hindlip, which
evidently so annoyed, nay, exasperated——because it arrested and
thwarted——his younger brother Jesuit (both of whom, almost certainly, had
known each other in York from boyhood), the discerning reader, I submit,
ought in reason to draw _this_ conclusion, namely, that Edward Oldcorne
was tranquil and imperturbable because, in regard to the whole of the
unhappy business, that so possessed and engrossed the being of Oswald
Tesimond, Edward Oldcorne’s was a _mens conscia recti_——a mind conscious
of rectitude——aye, a mind conscious of superabounding merit and virtue.

So important evidentially do I think the diverse demeanour[149] of
Tesimond and Oldcorne on this occasion, that I will transcribe from
Jardine’s “_Criminal Trials_”[150] Oldcorne’s testimony of what took place
at Hindlip Hall at this interview:——[151]

“Oldcorne confesseth that upon Wednesday, being the 6th of November, about
two of the clock in the afternoon, there came Tesimond (Greenway) from
Huddington, from Mr. Robert Winter’s to Hindlip, and told Mr. Abington and
him ‘that he brought them the worst news that ever they heard,’ and said
‘that they were all undone.’ And they demanding the cause, he said that
there were certain gentlemen that meant to have blown up the Parliament
House, and that their plot was discovered a day or two before; and now
they were gathered together some forty horse at Mr. Winter’s house, naming
Catesby, Percy, Digby, and others; and told them, ‘their throats would be
cut unless they presently went to join with them.’ And Mr. Abington said,
‘Alas! I am sorry.’ And this examinate and he answered him that they would
never join with him in that matter, and charged all his house to that
purpose not to go with them. He confesseth that upon the former speeches
made by this examinate and Mr. Abington to Tesimond, alias Greenway, the
Jesuit, _Tesimond said in some heat ‘thus we may see a difference between
a flemmatike [phlegmatic] and a choleric person!’, and said he would go to
others, and specially into Lancashire, for the same purpose as he came to
Hindlip to Mr. Abington_.” [152][153] (The italics are mine.)




                             CHAPTER XLVII.


Father Henry Garnet, the chief of the English Jesuits, left London at the
end of August, 1605,[154] and proceeded towards Gothurst (now Gayhurst),
in the Parish of Tyringham, three miles from Newport Pagnell,
Buckinghamshire.[A]

[Footnote A: The seat of Walter Carlile, Esquire, as has been already
mentioned. I have to thank this gentleman for his courteousness in
informing me that Gayhurst (formerly Gothurst) is three miles from Newport
Pagnell. An excellent picture, together with descriptive account, of
Gayhurst, is given in the “_Life of Sir Everard Digby_,” by one of that
knight’s descendants. Gothurst contained a remarkable hiding-place, which
was probably constructed by Nicholas Owen, the lay-brother of Father
Garnet. According to Father Gerard, the friend of Digby, Gothurst was ten
miles from Great Harrowden, the seat of the young Lord Vaux.]

Now, who was Henry Garnet, whom the Attorney-General, Sir Edward Coke,
described in Westminster Hall as “a man——grave, discreet, wise, learned,
and of excellent ornament, both of nature and art;” but around whose name
so fierce a controversy had raged for well-nigh 300 years? He was born in
1555, and brought up a Protestant of the Established Church; his father
being Mr. Briant Garnet, the head master of the Free School, at
Nottingham; his mother’s name was Alice Jay. Henry Garnet was a scholar of
Winchester School, and the intention was to send him to New College,
Oxford. However, he resolved to become reconciled to the Pope’s religion,
and in 1575 joined the Jesuit Novitiate in Rome, where the great Cardinal
Bellarmine was one of his tutors.

Now, to the end that the claims of Truth and Justice, strict, severe, and
impartial, may be met in relation to this celebrated English Jesuit, it
will be necessary to repeat that as far back as about the beginning of
Trinity Term (_i.e._, the 9th June, 1605), Catesby, in Thames Street,
London——_outside the Confessional_——had propounded to Garnet a question,
_which ought to have put the Jesuit expressly upon inquiry_. For that
question was, in case it were lawful to kill a person or persons, whether
it were necessary to regard the innocents which were present, lest they
also should perish withal.

And this the rather, when Catesby on that very occasion “made solemn
protestation that he would never be known to have asked me [_i.e._,
Garnet] any such question as long as he lived.”——See “Hatfield MS.,”
printed in “_Historical Review_,” for July, 1888, and largely quoted in
the Rev. J. Gerard’s articles on Garnet, in “_Month_” for June and July,
1901.

On the 24th of July, 1605, Garnet had sent a remarkable letter to Rome,
addressed to Father Aquaviva, the General of the Jesuits.——See “Father
Gerard’s Narrative,” pp. 76, 77, in “_Condition of Catholics under James
I._,” edited by Rev. John Morris, S.J. (Longmans, 1872).

In this letter, which of course was in Latin, Garnet says——amongst other
things betokening an apprehension of a general insurrectionary feeling
among Catholics up and down the country in consequence of the terrible
persecution which had re-commenced as soon as James I. had safely
concluded his much-desired peace with Spain——“_the danger is lest secretly
some Treason or violence be shown to the King, and so all Catholics may be
compelled to take arms._”

Garnet then proceeds: “_Wherefore, in my judgment, two things are
necessary, first, that His Holiness should prescribe what in any case is
to be done; and then, that he should forbid any force of arms by the
Catholics under Censures, and by Brief, publicly promulgated; an occasion
for which can be taken from the disturbance lately raised in Wales, which
has at length come to nothing._ It remains that as all things are daily
becoming worse, we should beseech His Holiness soon to give a necessary
remedy for these great dangers, and we ask his blessing and that of your
Paternity.” (The italics are mine.)

Now, by the word “censures” here, I presume, Garnet meant excommunication,
that is, a cutting off from the visible fellowship of Catholics and (what
would frighten every Catholic, whether his faith worked by love or fear,
that is, whether it were a rational form of religion or a mere abject
superstition) a deprivation of the Sacraments of his exacting Church,
which are, according to Rome’s tenets, the special means devised by the
Founder of Christianity whereby Man is united to “the Unseen
Perfectness.”




                            CHAPTER XLVIII.


When Garnet penned this letter to the General of the Jesuits in Rome, he
had, _outside the Confessional_, a general knowledge of the Gunpowder
project from Robert Catesby.

Thus much is clear.

That is to say, Garnet had a great suspicion, tantamount to a general
knowledge, that Catesby had in his head some bloody and desperate
enterprise of massacre, the object whereof was to destroy at one fell blow
James I. and his Protestant Government.——See Gerard’s “_Narrative_,” p.
78.

_Garnet most probably in the Confessional even did not at first know all
particulars._

That is to say, he did not know that it was intended to put thirty-six
barrels of gunpowder in a cellar under the House of Lords——consignments of
explosives which it was further intended were to be ignited, when
Parliament met, by Guy Fawkes, booted and spurred, by means of a
slow-burning match, which would give him one quarter-of-an-hour’s grace to
effect his escape to a ship in the Thames bound for Flanders: and that the
young Princess Elizabeth was to be seized at the house of the Lord
Harrington, in Warwickshire, and proclaimed Queen _after_ her parents and
two brothers, Henry Prince of Wales and Charles Duke of York, had been
torn and rent into ten thousand fragments.

But this able, learned, sweet-tempered, yet weak-willed, unimaginative,
irresolute man _knew enough outside the Confessional_——which is the point
we have to deal with here——to render himself liable to have been sent to
the galleys by the Pope, if His Holiness could have laid hold of him,
when, notwithstanding this atrocious knowledge, he actually refused to
give ear to the arch-conspirator, even although Catesby, on Father
Gerard’s own admission, “offered sometimes to tell him [Garnet] that they
[Catesby and his friends] would not endure to be so long so much abused,
but would take some course to right themselves, if others would not
respect them or could not relieve them.”——Gerard’s “_Narrative_,” p. 78.

Truly “Evil is wrought by want of thought as well as by want of heart.”

The fact that Garnet knew violence was likely to be shown to his lawful
Sovereign, coupled with the fact that Garnet _might have learned all the
particulars about that purposed violence_ had he not, through a negligence
which can be only characterized as grossly criminal, passively omitted, if
indeed he had not actively declined, to obtain those particulars from the
lips of the arch-conspirator himself——such facts make the case _up to the
24th of July, 1605, absolutely_ fatal against Garnet. And such facts can
lead the unbiased mind of the philosophical historian (who does not care a
pin about all the ecclesiastical spite, on either one side or the other,
that ever was or ever shall be), can lead to one inevitable conclusion
only: that Henry Garnet was justly condemned to death by an earthly
tribunal for misprision, that is, for concealment, of High Treason
_against the Sovereign power of his Country_. Although, being a priest, he
ought to have been ecclesiastically “_degraded_” first, according to the
provisions of the Canon law, and then handed over to the secular arm for
condign punishment, according to the law of the outraged State.

For, “_Id certum est quod certum reddi potest_,” that is, certain
knowledge which can be reduced to a certainty.

Again, the damning evidence against Garnet is clenched by a letter that he
sent to Rome, dated 28th August, wherein, amongst other things, he said:
“And for anything we can see, Catholics are quiet, and likely to continue
their old patience, and to trust to the King or his son for to remedy all
in time.”——Gerard’s “_Narrative_,” pp. 78, 79.

Now Garnet[A] was a man of most acute mind and very clear-sighted; but he
was intellectually unimaginative as well as morally weak-willed. And such
a man is never a far-sighted man.

[Footnote A: Garnet was a profound mathematician and accomplished
linguist, amongst other acquirements.]

But as Garnet’s moral character was almost certainly good on the whole,
the conclusion that Justice suggests in reference to this letter of the
28th August especially is that, through intense grief and anguish of mind,
Garnet had lost his head, and was not wholly responsible for either his
words or actions.[B]

[Footnote B: After Father Tesimond had told Garnet (with Catesby’s leave)
of the Plot, thereby bringing the matter as a natural secret indirectly
under the seal of the Confessional, Garnet could not sleep at nights. Now,
sleeplessness, combined with carking care and keen distress of heart,
would inevitably tend to unbalance even the very strongest of human minds,
at least, temporarily. Tesimond told Garnet _generally_ of Catesby’s
diabolical plan “a little before” St. James’-tide (_i.e._, the 25th of
July, 1605), at Fremland, in Essex, but by way of confession. The
Government, however, it seems to me, from the report of the trial in
Jardine’s “_Criminal Trials_” and from Lingard, condemned Garnet _not_
because he did not reveal particular _knowledge_ he had received _in the
Confessional from Tesimond_, but because he did not reveal _general
knowledge_ he had _from Catesby outside the Confessional_. This, in
fairness to James I., Salisbury, and the King’s Council, should be
faithfully borne in mind. Moreover, according to one school of Catholic
moralists, in _either case_ the Government ought to have been communicated
with _if_ Garnet could have done so without risk of divulging Tesimond’s
name. Indeed, Garnet himself took this view——the view which most princes
and statesmen will prefer, I should fancy. Garnet, however, had not the
machinery ready to his hand to carry _both views_ into practical effect.
_Therefore Garnet, to my mind, was eminently justified in not divulging
the particular knowledge he had from Tesimond by way of confession. For
according to the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, the Christian Aristotle, a
natural secret may be indirectly_ protected by the seal of the
Confessional if the priest _promises_ so to protect it. I conclude,
however, that (1) according to the dictates of right reason the promise
may be _either implied or expressed_, and (2) that in the case of
overwhelming necessity the promise may be broken, as in the case of High
Treason, _if the priest_ can avoid, _with absolute certitude_, exposing
the name of the depositor of the wicked secret. It was because Garnet
could not avoid exposing Tesimond’s name _practically_ that he was
justified in not acting upon his own _abstract_ principles in relation to
the knowledge he had from Tesimond by way of confession.]




                             CHAPTER XLIX.


At the beginning of the month of September, 1605, Father Garnet was at
Gothurst,[A] three miles from Newport Pagnell, in the County of
Buckinghamshire, and about the 5th of September from this still standing
stately English home there proceeded the nucleus of a pilgrim-band bent
for the famous well of St. Winifred, the British Saint, situated at
Holywell, in North Wales.

[Footnote A: Gothurst (now Gayhurst) is twelve miles from Northampton and
from ten to fifteen miles from Great Harrowden. Weston Underwood and
Olney, immortalized by William Cowper, are not far from both places. The
poet would be distantly related to young Lord Vaux of Harrowden, through
the Donnes, who, like Lord Vaux, through the Ropers, were descended from
Sir Thomas More. To Walter Carlile, Esquire, who now resides at Gayhurst,
which was the ancient name of the Estate (Gothurst, however, being its
name in Sir Everard Digby’s day), I am indebted for the information as to
the distance of Gayhurst from Northampton. Cowper was, it will be
recollected, the intimate friend of the Throckmortons of his day.]

Sir Everard Digby, the Master of Gothurst, was not of the company, as he
was engaged in negotiating a match between the young Lord Vaux of
Harrowden, then a youth of about fourteen years of age, with one of the
daughters of the Lord Chamberlain, the Earl of Suffolk. But Lady Digby
formed one of the band, as did the uncle of Lord Vaux, Edward Brookesby,
Esquire, of Arundell House, Shouldby, Leicestershire, and his wife the
Honourable Eleanor Brookesby, together with her sister the Honourable Anne
Vaux.

At least two Jesuits formed part of the cavalcade, Father Henry Garnet and
Father John Percy, the chaplain to Sir Everard Digby.

Father John Gerard, who had “reconciled to the Church,” as the phrase
went, both Sir Everard and Lady Digby and was their intimate and honoured
friend, as well as the friend of the Dowager Lady Vaux of Harrowden and
her family, did not join the pilgrimage.

Father Gerard was most probably in Yorkshire at this time. For there is
interesting evidence tending to prove that about the 25th of August, 1605,
this Lancashire Jesuit was being harboured as the guest of Sir John and
Lady Yorke, at Gowthwaite (or Goulthwaite) Hall, near Pateley Bridge, in
Nidderdale.[A]

[Footnote A: See “_The Condition of Catholics under James I._” Edited by
John Morris, S.J. (Longmans, 1872), p. 257.]

The following abstracts from the Evidence of two of Sir Everard Digby’s
serving-men, who accompanied their devout, charming young mistress on
this now famous pilgrimage, will give the best account of what took place
on this occasion.[A] They are as follow:——

[Footnote A: St. Winifred’s Well is at Holywell, Flintshire, Wales, and is
sacred to St. Winifred of Wales, an early British Virgin and Martyr. Her
“Life” will be found in Butler’s “_Lives of the Saints_,” under date
November 3rd, her Feast Day. The waters of the Well are of healing
quality, very copious and icy cold. There is an elegant mediæval stone
Chapel built over the Well. (I visited this ancient shrine of a British
Maiden——who still rules human hearts——in September, 1897, on my return
from Ebbsfleet, where the thirteenth Centenary Commemorations had been
held in honour of the spiritual grandsire and sire of the English race,
the Italian Pope Gregory the Great and the Italian Benedictine Monk
Augustine.)]


                     GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——NO. 153.

                              [Abstract.]

                             ii. Dec. 1605

                        [In Cal. 11 Dec. 1605.]

    “Th’examination of James Garvey serv^{t} to S^{r} Everard Digby

       *       *       *       *       *

    “Saieth about Bartholmew tide last his ladie roade to St.
    Wenefred’s Well from Gotehurst: first daie to Deyntrie:[A] 2 to
    Grantz:[B] 3 to Winters:[C] 4 to Mr. Lacon’s:[D] 5 to
    Shrewsberie: 6 to holte:[E] 7 to the well: they staied at the
    well but one night: and retorned the first day 2 to holt 2 to
    Mr. Banester’s at Wen[F] 2 to Mr. Lacon’s againe and so retorned
    to Gotehurst.

    [Footnote A: Daventry, Northamptonshire.]

    [Footnote B: John Grant’s, at Norbrook, Snitterfield,
    Warwickshire.]

    [Footnote C: Huddington Hall, near Droitwich, Worcestershire.]

    [Footnote D: Most probably at Kinlet Hall, about five miles from
    Cleobury Mortimer, Shropshire.]

    [Footnote E: Holt, in Denbighshire.]

    [Footnote F: Wem, Shropshire.]

    “Saieth ther were in that jorney the ladie Digby, Mrs. Vaux,[B]
    Mr. Brookysby and his wief Mr. Darcy[C] one Thomas Digby[D] a
    tall gentleman: one fisher[E] a little man: S^{r} frauncis Lacon
    and his daughter and two or 3 gentlemen more went with them from
    Mr. Lacon’s to the well, &c., &c.

    [Footnote B: Miss Anne Vaux.]

    [Footnote C: An alias of Father Garnet; Farmer was another of
    Garnet’s aliases.]

    [Footnote D: An uncle of Sir Everard, belike.]

    [Footnote E: An alias of Father Percy, afterwards famous for his
    historic controversy with Archbishop Laud.]

    (Endorsed) “11 Dec. 1605.

    “The Exam^{n} of James Garvie srv^{t} to S^{r} Everard Digby.”


                     GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——No. 121.

                              [Abstract.]

      “Th’examination of William Handy servaunte to S^{r} Everard
              Digby taken the xxvij^{th} of November 1605

       *       *       *       *       *

    [Par. 4]——“Saith that he haith bin at many masses since Easter
    last sometimes at the howse of the said Digby sometimes at the
    howse of the L: Vaux sometimes at the howse of Mr. Throgmorton
    at the howse of Mr. Graunt at the house of Mr. Winter and at the
    house of Mr. Lacon in Shropshire and at Shrosbury in an Inn and
    at a Castle in the Holte in Denbeghe or Flintshire, and at St.
    Wynyfride’s Well in an Inn, from whence the gentlewomen went
    barefoote to the said well and in their retourne from the said
    well at one Farmer’s howse about 7 miles from Shrosbury, and
    from thence to Mr. Lacon’s where they had masse whereat S^{r}
    Frauncis Lacon was from thence to Mr. Robert Winter’s and from
    thence to Mr. Graunte’s from thence to Deyntree and from thence
    to S^{r} Everard Digby at all which places they had masse.[A]

    [Footnote A: The reason why the Examiner who took down the
    Evidence was particular to inquire about Masses was that for a
    priest to say (or offer) Mass was to be liable to a penalty of
    200 marks (a mark being 13s. 4d.) _and_ imprisonment for life;
    while for a lay person to hear (or assist at offering) Mass was
    to be liable to a penalty of 100 marks and imprisonment for
    life. To harbour a priest was felony and the penalty was
    hanging, but without the cutting down alive, drawing and
    quartering. This last was the portion of the priests who, by
    remaining in England 40 days, were held _ipso facto_ guilty of
    High Treason without proof of the exercise of priestly
    functions. This last penalty, of course, rendered unnecessary
    the having recourse to the penalty of 200 marks fine _and_
    imprisonment for life, since the greater included the less.]

       *       *       *       *       *

    (Endorsed) “27 Nov. 1605.

    “Th’examination of Wm. Handy serv^{t} to S^{r} Everard Digby.”




                               CHAPTER L.


The pilgrim-band numbered about thirty souls, and included Ambrose
Rookwood and his wife in addition to those before mentioned. Ambrose
Rookwood appears to have been sworn in as a conspirator by Catesby and
others in London about ten weeks before the 2nd day of December, 1605, so
that I conclude this must have been very soon after his return from
Flintshire.

Sir Everard Digby was also made a confederate by Catesby alone about this
time, and in the “_Life_” of that well-favoured but misguided knight there
is an admirably-written account of the unhappy enrolment of the ill-fated
young father of the famous cavalier and diplomatist, Sir Kenelm Digby.

It would seem that Father Garnet proceeded to Gothurst with the pilgrims
on their return. But he must have shortly afterwards retraced his steps to
Great Harrowden.

For a fortnight before Michaelmas (11th October, old style) the chief of
the English Jesuits was being harboured at Great Harrowden, the house of
the Dowager Lady Vaux and the young Lord Vaux.

Great Harrowden Hall appears to have been rebuilt by the guardians of the
youthful baron a little before the year 1605. For in “_The Condition of
Catholics under James I._,” being largely the life of Father John Gerard,
there is (p. 147) the following statement: “Our hostess set about fitting
up her own present residence for that same purpose, and built us separate
quarters close to the old Chapel.... Here she built a little wing of three
stories for Father Percy and me. The place was exceedingly convenient, and
so free from observation that from our rooms we could step out into the
private garden, and thence through spacious walks into the fields, where
we could mount our horses and ride whither we would.” On p. 175 Father
Gerard says: “Our vestments and altar furniture were both plentiful and
costly ... some were embroidered with gold and pearls and figured by
well-skilled hands. We had six massive silver candlesticks on the altar,
besides those at the sides for the Elevation; the cruets were of silver
also, as were the basin for the lavabo, the bell, and the thurible. There
were, moreover, lamps hanging from silver chains, and a silver crucifix on
the altar. For greater Festivals, however, I had a crucifix of gold, a
foot in height.”

The Hall at Great Harrowden contained hiding-places for the priests,
probably contrived by Brother Nicholas Owen, the servant of Father Garnet.

The priests that resided at Great Harrowden were at that time mainly
Jesuits. And besides Father Gerard himself, Fathers Strange, Nicholas
Hart, and Roger Lee were there oftentimes to be found.[A]

[Footnote A: The present Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in the course of a most
courteous reply to various historical questions the writer ventured to
propound to him, says, in a letter dated 15th November, 1901, that his
residence, Harrowden Hall, was erected in the year 1719. It will,
therefore, not be the self-same mansion as that wherein Fathers Garnet,
Gerard, Fisher, Roger Lee, etc., were wont to be harboured by his
Lordship’s distinguished ancestors.

None of the grand old English Catholic families, those “honourable
people,” if such were ever known to mortal, have a better right than the
Lords Vaux of Harrowden, to take as their motto those fine words of Gerald
Massey:——

      “‘They wrought in Faith,’ and _not_
      ‘They wrought in Doubt,’——
      Is the proud epitaph that we inscribe
      Above our glorious dead.”

The name “Vaux of Harrowden” is still to be found in the bead-roll of
English Roman Catholic Peers. And, along with such historic names as
Norfolk, Mowbray and Stourton, Petre, Arundell of Wardour, Stafford,
Clifford of Chudleigh, and Herries, the name “Vaux of Harrowden” was
appended to “the Roman Catholic Peers’ Protest,” dated from the House of
Lords, 14th February, 1901, addressed to the Earl of Halsbury, Lord High
Chancellor of England, anent “the Declaration against Popery,” that Our
Most Gracious King Edward VII. was compelled, by Act of Parliament, to
utter on the occasion of meeting His Majesty’s first Parliament.]




                              CHAPTER LI.


On the 4th of October, Father Garnet wrote a long letter to Father Parsons
in Rome, who was then virtually the ruler of the Catholics of England,
though that sturdy Yorkshireman, Father John Mush,[A] among secular
priests, together with many others, resented being dictated to by Father
Parsons, certainly a man of great genius, but indulging too much the mere
“wire-puller” instinct and propensity to be reckoned a prince among
ecclesiastical statesmen.

[Footnote A: Mush may have been of the Mushes, of Knaresbrough, stanch
Catholics, but in humble circumstances.——See Peacock’s “_List_.”]

This letter of Father Garnet’s, to which reference has been just made, is
a remarkable production. It begins as follows:——


  “My very loving Sir,

    “This I write from the elder Nicholas[A] his residence where I
    find my hostess with all her posterity very well; and we are to
    go within few days nearer London.”

    [Footnote A: Father Nicholas Hart, S.J., as distinguished from
    Brother Nicholas Owen, S.J.]

    The letter then says:——

    “The judges now openly protest that the King will have blood and
    hath taken blood in Yorkshire.”[B]

    [Footnote B: The “Venerable” Thomas Welbourn and John Fulthering
    suffered at York on the 1st August, 1605; and William Brown at
    Ripon on the 5th September.——See Challoner’s “_Missionary
    Priests_.” Ed. by T. G. Law (Jack, Edinburgh).]

    There were four paragraphs at the end of the letter.

    Now, a short but separate paragraph of three lines is carefully
    obliterated between the first and the third of these paragraphs.

    The third paragraph ends thus:——

    “_I cease 4th Octobris._”

    The fourth paragraph then continues:——

    “My hostesses both and their children salute you. Sir Thomas
    Tresham is dead.”[C]

[Footnote C: The hostesses would be those valiant women, Elizabeth Dowager
Lady Vaux of Harrowden (_née_ Roper), the Honourable Eleanor Brookesby,
and the Honourable Anne Vaux. William Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who
harboured Father Parsons in 1580-81, had married for his second wife a
sister of Sir Thomas Tresham. This Lord Vaux’s eldest son Ambrose, a
priest, resigned his title in favour of his half-brother the Honourable
George Vaux, afterwards Lord Vaux of Harrowden. The first wife of William
Lord Vaux was Elizabeth Beaumont, of Gracedieu, Leicestershire. She was
the mother of Ambrose, Elizabeth, and Anne Vaux. Father Garnet for many
years lived at Harrowden, from 1586 as the guest of William Lord Vaux,
whose son, George Lord Vaux of Harrowden, married Elizabeth Roper,
daughter of the first Lord Teynham. This lady was the above-named Dowager
Lady Vaux of Harrowden, mother of Edward Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who
became as “noble a confessor for the Faith” as were his numerous other
relatives. (The present Lord Vaux of Harrowden, whose family name is
Mostyn, is descended from the above-mentioned Lords Vaux, through the
female line.)]

_Here ends the body of the letter._




                              CHAPTER LII.


_After the body of the letter there is a post scriptum._

Now, there are nine words in the _post scriptum_ that suffice to clench
the argument of this book.

And why? Because, I respectfully submit, those nine words show that
between the 4th day of October, 1605, _and_ the 21st day of October,
Garnet had received from somewhere _intelligence to the effect that
machinery was being put into motion whereby the Plot would be squashed_.

For the _post scriptum_ to this letter of Father Garnet is as follows:——


                            “_21º Octobris._

    “This letter being returned unto me again, FOR REASON OF A
    FRIEND’S STAY IN THE WAY, I blotted out some words, purposing to
    write the same by the next opportunity, as I will do apart.

    “I have a letter from Field, the Journeyman in Ireland, who
    telleth me that of late, there was a very severe proclamation
    against all ecclesiastical persons, and a general command for
    going to the churches, with a solemn protestation that the King
    never promised nor meant to give toleration.

    “I pray you speak to Claude, and to grant them, or obtain for
    them all the faculties we have here; for so he earnestly
    desireth, and is scrupulous. I gave unto two of them, that
    passed by me, all we have; and I think it sufficient in law; for
    being here, they were my subjects, and we have our faculties
    also for Ireland, for the most part. I pray you procure them a
    general grant for their comfort.”

The letter and the _post scriptum_ are alike unsigned. The letter and the
_post scriptum_ are still in existence, and, I believe, are preserved in
London in the archives of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster.

I am indebted for my copy to the work entitled, “_A True Account of the
Gunpowder Plot_,” by “Vindicator” (Dolman), 1851——taken from Tierney’s
Edition of “_Dodd’s Church History_.”

The Claude referred to in the _post scriptum_ is Father Claude Aquaviva,
the then General of the Jesuits, who lived in Rome.

(Irish Catholics will not fail to notice the interest this afflicted,
much-tried Englishman took in their case on the 21st October, 1605.)

Father Gerard says in his “_Narrative of the Plot_,” p. 269: “Father
Oldcorne his indictment was so framed that one might see they much desired
to have withdrawn him within the compass of some participation in this
late Treason; to which effect they first did seem to suppose it as likely
that he should send letters up and down to prepare men’s minds for the
insurrection.”

Again; respecting Ralph Ashley, the Jesuit lay-brother and servant of
Father Oldcorne, Gerard says, on p. 271: “Ralph was also indicted and
condemned upon supposition that he had carried letters to and fro about
this conspiracy.”

_Now, my deliberate conjectures are these: That Edward Oldcorne had indeed
sent “Letters” which his servant Ralph Ashley had carried concerning “this
conspiracy.” That one of those Letters was sent and carried to Henry
Garnet. And another to William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle._

On the 12th of March, 1605-6, Father Garnet, when a prisoner in the Tower
of London, before the Lord Chief Justice Popham, Sir Edward Coke, Sir
William Waade (Lieutenant of the Tower), and John Corbett, “confessed that
Father Parsons wrote to him certain letters last summer [_i.e._, 1605]
_which he received about Michaelmas last_, wherein he requested this
examinat to advertise him what plotts the Catholiques of England had then
in hand; _whereunto for that this examinat was on his journey he made no
answere_.”

Yea, indeed, this was a part of the truth, no doubt. _But the remainder of
the truth, I suggest, was that the Plot of Plots Garnet had learned, a few
days after the aforesaid Michaelmas, was being assuredly squashed by
Edward Oldcorne._

Poor Henry Garnet, a sorry, pathetic figure in the history of his Country,
surely. Yet, because _much_ was lost, he knew that it did not therefore
follow that _all_ was lost. For this gifted, distraught, erring man still
held “something sacred, something undefiled, some _pledge_ and keepsake of
his better nature.”

_That something was his point of honour as a Priest of the Catholic
Church._[A]

[Footnote A: How many a gallant soldier and sailor in our own day, young
and old, has been sustained in life and death by the consoling _infinite
thought of fidelity to the commands of a lawful superior_; by the
comforting _transcendental thought of duty done_! _Cf._, Frederic Denison
Maurice’s fine passage on the inspiring and ennobling idea of Duty, in his
“_Lectures on the Epistles of St. John_ (Macmillan); also Wordsworth’s
magnificent “Ode to Duty.”]




                             CHAPTER LIII.


Sir Everard Digby had rented Coughton, near Alcester, in Warwickshire,
from Thomas Throckmorton, Esquire, as a base for the warlike operations,
which were to be conducted in the Midlands as soon as intelligence had
arrived from London that the King, Lords Spiritual and Temporal, together
with the Gentlemen of the House of Commons, “were now no more.”

On Sunday, the 3rd of November, the young knight rode from Coughton to
Dunchurch, near Rugby.

Robert Winter the same day left Huddington and, sleeping on the Sunday
night at Grafton, at the house of his father-in-law, John Talbot, Esquire,
rode on to Coventry, in company with the younger Acton, of Ribbesford, and
attended by several servants.

At Coventry, Robert Winter was joined by Stephen Littleton, of Holbeach
House, in Staffordshire, just over the borders of Worcestershire; and also
by his cousin, Humphrey Littleton, brother to the then late John
Littleton,[A] of Hagley House, Worcestershire, who had been engaged in the
Essex rising.

[Footnote A: All the Littletons were descended from the great Judge
Littleton, author of “_Littleton on Tenures_.” The present Lord Lyttelton
belongs to the same family.]

On the following Tuesday, November the 5th, the whole party proceeded
towards Dunchurch, the armed cavalcade continually increasing in numbers.

The plan was, that at Dunsmore Heath, under a feigned hunting or coursing
match, there should be a gathering of the Midland Catholic clans, then
very numerous and powerful. Dunsmore Heath, in fact, was to be the
rendezvous of the insurgents.

Robert Winter left the cousins Littleton at “the town’s end” of Dunchurch,
and rode on to Ashby St. Legers, the ancestral seat of the Catesbies,
where, indeed, the Dowager Lady Catesby was then residing.

Here Robert Winter hoped to meet Catesby, with whom, after the latter had
reported progress with reference to things done in London on that Tuesday
morning, Winter purposed to gallop off to the rendezvous at Dunsmore
Heath.

Ambrose Rookwood was one of the latest to leave for the provinces. He
owned many fine horses; and he had placed relays of horses all the way
from London to Dunchurch. Rookwood rode one horse at the rate of fifteen
miles an hour. Riding for dear life, he overtook Catesby, Percy, and the
two Wrights, near Brickhill. Percy and John Wright cast off their cloaks
and threw them into the hedge to ride the more swiftly.[155]

About six o’clock in the evening of Tuesday, just as Lady Catesby, Robert
Winter, and some others were about to sit down to supper in the old
mansion-house, there fell upon their ears a mingled din, occasioned by
horses’ feet and men’s excited voices.

Soon in rushed, with scared faces and travel-stained garb, grievously
fatigued and intensely agitated, the son of the house (Robert Catesby),
Thomas Percy, John Wright, Christopher Wright, and Ambrose Rookwood. Their
announcement was the capture of Guy Fawkes early that Tuesday morning.

After holding a short council of war, the whole band of conspirators,
snatching up all the weapons of warfare they could lay their hands on,
took horse again and rode off to Dunchurch.

Sir Everard Digby, his uncle (Sir Robert Digby, of Coleshill), Stephen
Littleton, Humphrey Littleton, and many others were awaiting their arrival
at Dunchurch, in an inn.

The six fugitive conspirators, all bespattered with the mire of November
high roads, with dejected looks and jaded aspect, arrived in due time to
tell their tale.

Soon Sir Robert Digby departed with one of his sons, then Humphrey
Littleton, and speedily many others of the hunting party.

It was determined by the ringleaders to make for Wales; for the Catholics
of the Principality were then very strong,[A] and the Counties of Warwick,
Worcester, and Stafford were to be traversed, from all of which valuable
reinforcements were expected.

[Footnote A: It is a curious fact that in the reign of Elizabeth, Father
Weston, S.J., specially spoke of Wales, along with the counties bordering
on Scotland, as being firm in its attachment to the Church of Rome. It was
the lack of a Welsh College in Rome which, causing the supply of priests
to fail, gradually caused the interesting Cymric people to lose the Faith
which they of all the inhabitants of the British Isles were the first to
embrace.

It is to be remembered, however, that there has always been a remnant in a
few of the valleys of Wales faithful to the See of Rome; and Dr. Owen
Lewis, the Bishop of Cassano, a Welshman, aided Cardinal Allen to found
Douay College, in 1568. Several of the Martyrs of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, too, were Welsh.

At the English College at Rome the Welsh and the English students had
violent and, to read of, amusing quarrels. Evidently the Welsh, students
looked down upon their Anglo-Saxon compeers as belonging to a
comparatively inferior race.]

About ten o’clock on Tuesday night the full company, now about thirty
strong, set out for Norbrook,[A] the house of John Grant.

[Footnote A: At Warwick, _en route_ for Norbrook, they took some horses
out of a stable near the Castle, and left their own steeds in exchange
therefor. They arrived at Warwick at about three o’clock on Wednesday
morning.]

Thence, it will be recollected, Bates was sent with a note from Catesby
and Sir Everard Digby to Father Garnet, at Coughton, urging Garnet to join
the rebels in Wales.

Lady Digby had also a letter from her husband, but the poor young wife, we
are told, could, alas! do naught but cry.

After a halt of about two hours for refreshments and the procuring of more
arms, the insurgents once more slipped their feet into the stirrups, and
on they rode for Huddington, near Droitwich, where they arrived at two
o’clock in the afternoon of Wednesday, the 6th. Sentinels were posted at
the passage of every way at Huddington, possibly by the order of John
Winter, half-brother to Robert and Thomas Winter.

Here they were joined by Thomas Winter, who had come down from London with
the latest news; also by the Jesuit, Father Tesimond, whom Catesby hailed
with joy.

They rested for a good few hours at Huddington; and, as we have seen
already, at about three o’clock in the morning of Thursday all the
gentlemen assisted at Father Nicholas Hart’s Mass, went to Confession, and
received, at the Jesuit’s, hands, what most of them from their childhood
had been taught to believe was “the Bread of Angels,” and “the Food of
Immortality.”[B]

[Footnote B: Certainly Man’s nature _needs_ these things; but the question
is: Can it get them? “Aye, there’s the rub.”]

Before daybreak of Thursday the fugitives were on the march north-westward
again. For “there is no rest for the wicked.”

The rebels made for Whewell Grange, the seat of the Lord Windsor, one of
the numerous Worcestershire Catholic families.

At Whewell Grange the traitors helped themselves to a large store of arms
and armour.

Then they sped on towards Holbeach House, near Stourbridge, in
Staffordshire. Their number was then about sixty all told, although
earlier in the march it had increased to about a hundred. In two days they
had traversed about sixty miles, “over bad and broken roads, in rainy and
inclement weather.”

To the dire disappointment of Catesby, Sir Everard Digby, and the rest,
John Talbot, of Grafton, drove Thomas Winter and Stephen Littleton from
his door when they sought his aid for the rebellion.[A]

[Footnote A: See Jardine’s “_Narrative_,” p. 112, to which I am indebted
for this account; also Handy’s evidence, Jardine’s “_Criminal Trials_,”
vol. ii., pp. 165, 166.]

And Sir Everard was constrained to avow that of the wealthy Catholic
gentry “not one man came to take our part though we had expected so
many.”[B]

[Footnote B: Jardine’s “_Narrative_,” p. 112. Holbeach House is no longer
standing.]




                              CHAPTER LIV.


The High Sheriffs of Warwickshire and Worcestershire, with their _posse
comitatus_, were in pursuit of the fugitives, who arrived at Holbeach
House at ten of the clock on Thursday night.

At Holbeach they prepared to make their last stand. And alack! never more
were the brothers John and Christopher Wright destined to behold Lapworth,
Twigmore, Ripon, Skelton, Newby, Mulwith, York, or Plowland,[A] nor any of
those scenes around which must have clung so many endearing associations
and sacred memories.[156]

[Footnote A: For an account of recent visits to Mulwith and Plowland, see
Supplementum IV. and Supplementum V.

To the generosity of my friend, Miss Burnham, the lady of Plowland, my
readers owe the view of the present Plowland House, which forms the
Frontispiece to this Book. The old Hall occupied the site of the present
dwelling, and faced the river Humber towards the south. The gabled
buildings in the rear are ancient, and behind them are a few mossy Gothic
stones, evidently belonging to the old chapel. Behind the ancient
buildings is a willow-fringed remnant of the old moat. George Burnham,
Esq., brother to Miss Burnham, is the owner of this historic spot. Edward
Wright Burnham, Esq., of Skeffling, Holderness, is their brother. The
names _Edward Wright_ suggest descent from Edward Wright, the son of
Christopher Wright, the revealing conspirator.]

Early in the morning of Friday some of the company went out to descry
whether or not reinforcements were in sight. Others began to prepare their
shot and powder.

Catesby, Rookwood, and Grant were severely burnt in the face, especially
the two latter, with some damp or dank gunpowder which they were drying
on a platter before the kitchen fire, and into which a hot cinder fell.

This incident seems to have thoroughly unnerved Catesby and all his wicked
confederates. They saw in the fact a stroke of poetic justice——nay, the
flaming, avenging sword of Heaven.

Thomas Winter was told by Catesby and the rest, in reply to his question,
“We mean here to die.”

Winter thereupon replied, “I will take such part as you do.”

“Then they all fell earnestly to their prayers,” says Gerard, “the
litanies and such like.” They also “spent an hour in meditation.”

About eleven o’clock in the forenoon of that black Friday, November the
8th, 1605, the High Sheriff of Worcestershire arrived with the whole power
and force of the county, and beset the house.

Thomas Winter, going into the court-yard, was shot in the shoulder with an
arrow from a cross-bow, and lost the use of his right arm.

John Wright was shot dead.

Christopher Wright was mortally wounded.

Ambrose Rookwood was wounded in four or five places.

John Grant was likewise disabled.

Catesby and Thomas Percy, each sword in hand, and “standing before the
door” close together, were mortally wounded by two successive shots fired
by one musketeer, who afterwards boasted of his resolute carriage of
himself on that eventful day.[A]

[Footnote A: The man’s name was John Streete. He received a pension of two
shillings a day for life, equal to about sixteen shillings a day in our
money. Gerard’s “_What was the Gunpowder Plot?_” p. 155.]

Catesby, before receiving his fatal shot, we are told by Father Gerard in
his “_Narrative_,” p. 109, “took from his neck a cross of gold, which he
always used to wear about him, and blessing himself with it and kissing
it, showed it unto the people, protesting there solemnly before them all
it was only for the honour of the Cross, and the exaltation of that Faith
which honoured the Cross, and for the saving of their souls in the same
Faith that had moved him to undertake the business; and seth he saw it was
not God’s will it should succeed in that manner they intended, or at that
time, he was willing and ready to give his life for the same cause, only
he would not be taken by any, and against that only he would defend
himself with his sword.

“This done, Mr. Catesby and Mr. Percy turned back to back, resolving to
yield themselves to no man, but to death as the messenger of God.

“None of their adversaries did come near them, but one fellow standing
behind a tree with a musket, shot them both with one bullet,[A] and Mr.
Catesby was shot almost dead, the other lived three or four days.

[Footnote A: It was with one musket, but two successive bullets.]

“Mr. Catesby being fallen to the ground, as they say, went upon his knees
into the house, and there got a picture of our Blessed Lady in his arms
(unto whom he was accustomed to be very devout), and so embracing and
kissing the same, he died.”[B]

[Footnote B: The mind of each of the thirteen Gunpowder conspirators
affords the intellectual philosopher and the moral philosopher rich food
for thought. What a reflection from human nature is not the soul of these
men, one and all——especially Catesby, Thomas Percy, Thomas Winter, Guy
Fawkes, Ambrose Rookwood, and Christopher Wright. I would especially point
out the strange superstition that Catesby exhibited in wishing to blow up
the _Parliament House_, because it was _there_ the iniquitous laws had
been made against the Catholics. He primarily wished, like some pagan, to
be revenged on the _material object_, which had been the unconscious and
irresponsible instrument of his kinsfolk’s and friends’ hurt.

Moreover, how true to daily experience is the behaviour of Catesby in his
last moments: of one who in his youth had been very wild, but who, on
reaching maturer years, had grown to have a great devotion to _her_ whom
Wordsworth has so beautifully styled “our tainted nature’s solitary
boast.”

Again; the dying soldier’s flying for protection to, and the kissing in
his last agony, when the light of life was about to be quenched in his
mortal eyes for ever, a picture of _her_ who is “the Mother of Christ,”
and whom millions hold to be likewise “the Refuge of sinners,” is
startlingly true to human nature.

But——“Close up his eyes, and let us all to meditation.” For “_In la sua
volontade è nostra pace_”——“Only in the Will of God is man’s peace.” And
the essence of that Will is the Everlasting Moral Law.]

On the 9th of November Sir Edward Leigh wrote to the Privy Council that
the Wrights were not slain as reputed, but wounded. Not till the 13th was
their death certified by Sir Richard Walsh, High Sheriff of
Worcestershire.——See Gerard’s “_What was the Gunpowder Plot?_” pp. 153,
154.

Whatever was the case with John Wright, it seems clear that the weight of
evidence inclines to show that Christopher Wright did not expire on
Friday, the 8th November, but that he lingered at least a day or two. The
exact day of Christopher Wright’s death, and what became of his remains,
may be ascertained facts hereafter, possibly. At present, they are
unknown.[157]




                              CHAPTER LV.


Father Garnet did not go nearer London than Gothurst, in Buckinghamshire,
between ten and fifteen miles distant from Great Harrowden.

We know that he was at Gothurst when Catesby was there, on Tuesday, the
22nd of October, one day after the date of the _post scriptum_ mentioned
in the last chapter. Probably the _post scriptum_ of the 21st October was
written at Gothurst and not at Great Harrowden, though the letter itself
of the 4th October undoubtedly was penned at Harrowden, between ten and
fifteen miles distant from Gothurst, as just remarked.

The Honourable Anne Vaux, whose maternal grandfather was Sir Thomas
Beaumont, Master of the Rolls, was a level-headed woman of acute mental
perceptions as well as of great moral ardour and intense spiritual
exaltation.[A]

[Footnote A: The psychologist will have observed that these qualities are
not seldom combined in a certain order of minds. _Cf._, Shakespeare’s
“great wits to madness are near allied”——some thinkers will be inclined to
say.]

Miss Vaux was allied to both Catesby and Tresham, and their words, and
still more their doings, during the few months then last past, had been
not unnoticed by her. She evidently had that strange premonitory
foreboding, that curious sense of swift approaching doom, which have
marked all tragedies written or unwritten since the world began.

Moreover, the large number of cavalry horses in the stables of Norbrook
and Huddington (those places being her fellow-pilgrims’ and her own
places of sojourning when _en route_ for Holywell) had alarmed Anne Vaux’s
imagination. And in reply to the lady’s anxious inquiries she had been
told by her iniquitous, head-strong connections——Catesby and the
rest——that the horses were wanted for the troop of horse whereof Catesby
was to be in charge, with King James’s permission, in aid of the cause of
the Spanish Archdukes in the Low Countries, then still in rebellion
against the Spanish sovereignty.

Again; at either Harrowden or Gothurst, Miss Vaux sought out her father’s
friend, and her own honoured and beloved spiritual counsellor, the chief
of the English Jesuits, and told him that she feared that some trouble or
disorder was a-brewing; and, moreover, that some of the gentlewomen,
namely, the wives of the conspirators, “had demanded of her where they
should bestow themselves until the burst was past in the beginning of the
Parliament.”

Garnet, in reply, asked his inquirer who told her this; but she said “she
durst not tell who told her so; she was [choked] with sorrow.”[A]

[Footnote A: Garnet’s examination of the 12th March. Foley’s “_Records_,”
vol. iv., p. 157.]

At Coughton, Father Garnet said Mass on the 1st of November, All Saints’
Day.

There “assisted” at this Mass the Lady Digby,[B] Mr. and Mrs. Brookesby,
Miss Anne Vaux, and almost the whole of Sir Everard Digby’s Gothurst
household.

[Footnote B: Lady Digby had been brought up a strong Protestant, and, like
most converts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to the Church of
Rome from Calvinistic Puritanism, she became an ardent devotee of the
Jesuits. (The point of contact was probably a common interest in the
problems of the mystical life, and a tendency towards a grave, sober,
strict regularity of “daily walk and conversation.”) George Gilbert, a
gentleman of high Suffolk family and great wealth, was likewise a convert
from Calvinism, through the instrumentality of the Jesuit Fathers,
Darbyshire and Parsons. Gilbert, as a young man, daily “waited upon the
ministry” of the once celebrated Puritan Divine, Dering, the friend of
Thomas Cartwright. George Gilbert died in Rome in 1583, holding in his
hand a crucifix made in prison by “the Blessed” Alexander Briant, a martyr
friend of “the Blessed” Edmund Campion. Of Briant it is said he was “of a
very sweet grace in preaching,” and that he was “replenished with
spiritual sweetness” when suffering the tortures of the rack. George
Gilbert mainly defrayed the cost of painting on the walls of the Church of
the English College at Rome certain pictures of some of “the English
Martyrs,” although “old Richard Norton,” of Norton Conyers, near Ripon,
and some others who as exiles had “with strangers made their home,”
likewise subscribed to the expense of the pious and artistic work. I saw,
on the 13th October, 1900, through the kind courtesy of the Right Reverend
Monsignor Giles, D.D., Rector of the English College, copies of these
remarkable pictures, copies which are painted on the walls of that very
College where Father Oldcorne himself had been educated.

The original pictures on the walls of the Church are no longer in
existence. The copies, however, even in our own day, have played an
important part in “the beatification” of those of the English Martyrs
already beatified, including “the Blessed” Thomas Percy Earl of
Northumberland, who suffered death at York in 1572.——See the “_Acts of the
English Martyrs_,” by the Rev. J. H. Pollen, S.J. (Burns & Oates).]

At Gothurst, however, was Sir Everard himself, busy making his final
preparations for the war he was about to levy upon his King.

We find Sir Everard there also on November 2nd, All Souls’ Day, the last
he and his ill-fated comrades were destined to keep on earth.——See
Gerard’s “_Narrative_.”

On All Saints’ Day, Father Garnet appears to have offered some prayers, or
otherwise advised the offering of the same, which had a certain reference
to the King, the Parliament, and the hoped-for triumph of his Church over
her enemies, especially over those then molesting the faithful English
remnant of “the elect.” He also appears, according to his own admission,
to have spoken a sermon which might be easily construed as bearing some
allusion to the then wretched condition of the unhappy English
Catholics.[A]

[Footnote A: See Letter to Miss Anne Vaux, dated 2nd March, 1605-6, quoted
in Foley, vol. iv., p. 84, where Garnet says: “There is a muttering here
of a sermon which either I or Mr. Hall [an alias of Father Oldcorne] made.
I fear mine, at Coughton. Mr. Hall hath no great matter, but only about
Mr. Abington, though Mr. Attourney saith he hath more.”]

Now, I infer that all this tends to demonstrate that Father Henry Garnet
felt that a great burden or load had been lifted from his heart in regard
to the aforetime perilous, but then practically abortive, Gunpowder
Treason Plot. Therefore he must have known, from some source or another,
that the Plot would be squashed before Tuesday, November the 5th, had
dawned upon a “fallen world,” and all danger from the Plot finally swept
away.

Again, in the Mass for All Saints’ Day there is a hymn, one verse of which
is: “Take away the faithless people from the boundaries of the faithful,
that we may joyfully give due praises to Christ.”

Cardinal Allen had induced the Pope “to indulge” the recital of these
words by Catholics for the harmless “intention” of the “Conversion of
England.”

Garnet, at Coughton, appears to have urged the recital of the same words
for “the intention” of the “confounding” of the anti-popish “politics,”
and the “frustration” of the “knavish tricks” of James at the forthcoming
Parliament. If Garnet did so, then he must have known that James and his
_Parliament_ would be in _existence_ to work mischief! _And this once more
proves that he knew the Plot would be squashed and finally swept away._




                              CHAPTER LVI.


Soon after Catesby, Rookwood, and Grant had been injured by the exploded
gunpowder at Holbeach House (as has been already mentioned in Chapter
LIV.), Robert Winter, the Master of Huddington, deeming discretion the
better part of valour, quitted the ill-fated mansion of Stephen Littleton.

Now, it so fell out that Robert Winter met with Stephen Littleton, the
Master of Holbeach, in a wood about a mile from Holbeach. And for no less
than two months these two high-born gentlemen were wandering disguised up
and down the country. Having plenty of money with them, the fugitives
bribed a farmer near Rowley Regis, in Staffordshire, a tenant of Humphrey
Littleton, cousin to Stephen Littleton, to grant them harbourage.

On New Year’s Day the rebels came very early in the morning to the house
of one Perkes, in Hagley. After an extraordinary adventure there (an
account of which may be read in Jardine’s “_Criminal Trials_,” vol. ii.,
pp. 90-93), at about eleven of the clock one night, Humphrey Littleton
conveyed the two hunted delinquents to Hagley House, in Worcestershire,
the mansion wherein dwelt his widowed sister-in-law, Mrs. John
Littleton,[158] a Protestant lady, to whose children the place apparently
belonged.

Mrs. Littleton was herself either in, or on the way to, London at this
time, so the two traitors were harboured without the lady’s knowledge or
consent.

By the treachery, however, of the man-cook at Hagley, or rather, in
justice it should be said, by his diligent zeal in the service of his
sovereign lord the King, Stephen Littleton and Robert Winter were captured
by the lawful authorities, and forthwith conveyed to the Tower of London.

Now, some time during these two months of the wanderings of these two
gentlemen, with whose efforts to elude the vigilance of the law of the
land Humphrey Littleton had connived, this same Humphrey Littleton
repaired to Father Edward Oldcorne, probably at Hindlip, in order to be
resolved in respect of certain doubts which he (Humphrey Littleton) said
had entered into his mind as to whether or not the Gunpowder Treason Plot
were or were not morally lawful.

Now, although an English Roman Catholic gentleman, it is certain that
Humphrey Littleton, like a great many more of his co-religionists before
and since, was by no means perfect. Inasmuch as, first, we hear tell of “a
love-begot” boy of his (if Virtue’s pure ears can pardon the phrase), who
was to become a page of Robert Catesby, in the event of Catesby’s going in
command of that company of horse to Flanders to fight, with James’s
permission, in behalf of the Spanish Archdukes, whereof we have already
heard. And, secondly, Humphrey Littleton was plainly deemed by the astute
Edward Oldcorne to be what we should nowadays style “a dangerous fellow,”
who was capable, from various motives, of propounding a question of that
sort in order to entrap. That is to say, in order wantonly to cause
mischief, whatever might be the tenour or purport of Oldcorne’s
answer——mischief among either Catholics or Protestants.[159]

We will, however, let Father Oldcorne tell his own tale as to what took
place on the occasion of this momentous visit to him by Humphrey
Littleton. For the great casuist’s own words are contained in his
holograph Declaration of the 12th day of March, 1605-6, written by him
when a prisoner in the Tower, and which I beheld in the Record Office,
London, on the 5th of October, 1900.[160]




                             CHAPTER LVII.


GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——Vol. II., No. 202.

    “The voluntarie declaration of Edward Oldcorne alias Hall
    Jesuite 12 Mar. 1605 [_i.e._, 1605-6].

  A.

    “Mr. Humfrey Litleton[A] telling me that after Mr. Catesbie saw
    him self and others of his Companie burnt w^{th} powder, and the
    rest of the compnie readie to fly from him, that then he began
    to thinke he had offended god in this action, seeing soe bad
    effects follow of the same.

    [Footnote A: I do not know the exact point of time when Humphrey
    Littleton thus spoke to Father Oldcorne, except that it was
    certainly after the fatal 5th of November, 1605.]

  B.

    “I answeared him that an act is not to be condemd or justified
    upon the good or bad euent that follow^{th} it but upon the ende
    or object, and the meanes that is used for effecting the same
    and brought him an example out of the booke of Judges wher the
    11 tribs of Israel weare comannded by god to make warrs upon the
    trib of Benjamin; and yett the tribe of Benjamin did both in the
    first and secound battaile overthrow the other 11 tribs. The
    like said I wee read of Lewis King of france who went to fight
    against the Turks and to recouer the hoolye Land, but ther he
    loost the most of his armie, and him self dyed ther of the
    plague the like wee may say when the xtianes defended Rhoodes
    against the turks wher the Turkes preuayled and the xtianes
    weare overthrowne, and yet noe doubt the xtians cause was good
    and the turks bad and thus I applied it to this fact of Mr.
    Catesbie’s it is not to be approved or condemned by the euent,
    but by the propper object or end, and meanes w^{ch} was to be
    vsed in it; and bycause I know nothinge of thes I will neither
    approve it or condeme it but leave it to god and ther owne
    consciences and in this warie sort I spake to him bycause I
    doubted he came to entrap me, and that he should take noe
    advantage of my words whither he reported them to Catholiks or
    Protestants.

                                        “(Signed) Edward Oldcorne.

    “Acknowledged before vs

                            “J. Popham.[A]
                            Edw. Coke.[B]
                            W. Waad.[C]
                            John Corbett.”

(The A and B at the left side of the Declaration are Coke’s own marks.)

[Footnote A: The Lord Chief Justice of England.]

[Footnote B: Afterwards the celebrated Lord Chief Justice of England, and
Editor of “_Littleton’s Tenures_.” This Humphrey Littleton, mentioned in
the Text, was a descendant of Sir John Littleton, Author of the immortal
legal work.]

[Footnote C: Lieutenant of the Tower of London.]




                             CHAPTER LVIII.


We are now come to the crux of this Inquiry.

To every philosophical thinker who takes the trouble to ponder the matter
it must be evident that the ethical principles enunciated in the first
part of the Declaration, given _in extenso_ in the preceding chapter, are
intellectually irrefutable and morally irreproachable; although their
obviousness, certainly, will not be palpable to “the man in the street.”

The answer of this clear-sighted, strong-headed Yorkshireman, is indeed
the answer that is the resultant of exact ethical knowledge, that is, of
moral science. _For what is science, either in the realms of the
intellectual, the moral, the political, or the physical, but “exact
knowledge.”_

Moreover, these principles are the resultant of abstract moral science, or
exact ethical knowledge pure and simple.

Now, “Morality is the science of duty.”[161] But, just as it is most
mischievous _indiscriminately_ to apply abstract principles of morality,
however faultless in themselves, to the complex affairs of individuals and
of States, so is it most dangerous to strew broadcast statements of the
abstract principles of ethics for the untutored mind of the _merely_
practical man——first of all, to misunderstand; and, secondly, to wrest to
his own undoing and that of his equally unfortunate fellow-men.

This is certainly so in the present stage of the world’s imperfect
education. Though one lives in the hope that sooner or later that “ampler
day” may dawn, when, from the least unto the greatest, men shall come to
have a happy conscious realization of the truth of the poet’s dictum:
“_Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas_;”[162] “Happy is he who hath
been able to learn the causes of things.”

Still, _truth——that which is——is truth_.

_And partial truth is not less true, according to its measure and in its
degree, than the full orb of truth._[A]

[Footnote A: Strategy in war has for its intellectual and moral
justification the fact that partial truth is not less true, in its measure
and in its degree, than the full orb of truth.]

Furthermore, “Wisdom is justified by all her children;” even although some
of those children are tardy in realizing and in expressing their sense of
such justification.

Now, although all this stands to reason——nay, because it is true, is even
the perfection of reason——it was an enunciation of principles by Father
Oldcorne, which it was more than probable would be misinterpreted by two
sets of people, the intellectually stupid and the morally malicious.

Nay, it may be allowed that even persons of the highest intelligence and
of the utmost good faith——such as, in the last century, the late David
Jardine[163]——might easily enough think that Edward Oldcorne deserved
condemnation and chiding for thus apparently showing such a marked
disposition to look at this grave matter, the moral rightness or wrongness
of the Gunpowder Plot, as though it were as purely abstract and
scholastic a question as that famous moot of the middle ages: “How many
angels can dance on the point of a needle?”[A]

[Footnote A: Oldcorne had special private knowledge that the Plot would
never be a Plot _executed_, because (1) he knew Christopher Wright had
resolved to reveal it; because (2) he knew that his own personal act had
ended the Plot by his penning the Letter.]




                              CHAPTER LIX.


Now, the contention is this: That regard being had to the extraordinary
heinousness of the Gunpowder Plot, in point of underhand stealthiness and
secrecy as well as of deliberateness, malice, magnitude, and cruelty, no
man of moral uprightness and intellectual keenness could be——without doing
a violence to his human nature that is all but incredible——so unspeakably
reckless and utterly insane as to fling broadcast to the winds, for the
wayfaring man and the fool to pick up and con for their own and their
hapless fellow-creatures’ moral destruction, an _oral statement_ as to
this diabolical Plot, that expressed ways of looking at the Plot merely
speculative and simply in the abstract,[A] _save and except_ on one
condition only, namely, that such speaker had had both from without and
from within, _et ab extra et ab intra_, a special _knowledge_.

[Footnote A: It is to be noted that in this momentous Declaration of the
12th March, 1605-6, Oldcorne in the first part reserves or conceals
“_partial truth_;” that is to say, in _this_ case, _truth in the concrete,
or truth in action_. While in the second part of the Declaration Oldcorne
orally disclaims, denies, or dissembles integral truth, that is here a
special and particular knowledge of the end the plotters had in view, and
the means they purposed to adopt. The knowledge he had received was of a
nature _official_, and at least conditionally, though not absolutely,
_private_ knowledge.]

Furthermore, _a special knowledge, with absolute certitude_, which
_warranted_ the speaker in mentally surveying that Plot not merely as it
_then_ was at the moment when he was giving utterance to his speculative
statement concerning it, but, as he full well knew, at some point of time
prior to that fateful day, November the 5th, 1605, it had been destined to
be perpetually, namely, A PLOT _ante factum in æternum_, a mere abstract
mental plan for ever. Aye, a mere abstract mental plan to all eternity;
because transmuted and transformed by some process wherein that speaker
had himself taken a primal, an essential, a meritorious part.[A]

[Footnote A: The argument is that a man at once good and clever, like
Edward Oldcorne, would not, according to the rules that govern human
nature and daily experience, have clothed in words and then let loose to
wander about the world seeking whom it might fall in with and victimize, a
bare abstract proposition regarding the Plot, _unless_ he had been first
absolutely certain that the foundation-thing, the Plot itself, was too
attenuated and ghost-like to work hurt or mischief to any human creature.

Now, since Littleton propounded his question _after_ the 5th of November,
Oldcorne had an _ordinary_ ground for allowing himself to speak of the
defunct Plot purely in the abstract. But this was an obviously very
dangerous thing to do, both for Littleton’s sake, the general public’s
sake (Catholic or Protestant), and for the speaker’s own sake. Therefore
the fact that Oldcorne did so speak postulates something _more than
ordinary_. Hence, as Oldcorne was a man of virtue both intellectually and
morally, the reasonable inference is that Oldcorne _had an extraordinary
ground_ for his answer which endued him with a special liberty of abstract
speech in regard to the matter. _That extraordinary ground, I maintain,
was based deep down within the depths of his own interior knowledge._]




                              CHAPTER LX.


But it may be objected that instead of assuming that Father Oldcorne was a
man not only of mental keenness but also of moral uprightness, and
proceeding forthwith to build an argument on such an assumption, the
writer ought in truth and justice to have proved, by evidence or reason,
the latter part of the proposition. And this the rather, seeing that so
many of the co-religionists both in our own day as well as in the days of
Father Oldcorne have regarded that society, whereof Oldcorne was a
distinguished English member, with not merely unfeigned suspicion but with
sincere dislike, and even with genuine loathing.[A]

[Footnote A: The most formidable adversaries of the Jesuits far and away
have been Roman Catholics of a particular type of mind. Blaise Pascal,
that colossal genius, has been probably their most successful enemy.]

Now, the unbiased historical philosopher is content not only to let the
dead bury their dead but also to let theologian deal with theologian. To
the historical philosopher, a Jesuit is a man and nothing more: nothing
more, that is, so far as his being entitled to receive at the former’s
hands the benefit of all those natural rights which belong to all members
of the human species. For all men (including Jesuits) are, in the mind of
the philosopher, “born free and equal.”

Hence it follows that when, amid the chances and changes of this mortal
life, the historical philosopher is thrown across the path of a Jesuit, he
looks at him, as a matter of duty, straight in the face, just as he looks
at any other rational creature; and then seeks to ascertain, by dint of
normal touchstones and tests, what manner of man the person is whom that
philosopher, by the ordinances of fate, has then and there confronted.

Now, in the case of Edward Oldcorne, the Text of this Inquiry, and also
the Notes thereunto, supply abundant proof that Oldcorne came of a good,
wholesome, Yorkshire stock——hard-working, honest, and honourable; that his
own mental nature was broad, rich and full, high-minded, just, and
generous.[A]

[Footnote A: Father Henry Garnet, S.J., landed in England in 1586 along
with the gifted Robert Southwell, whose prose and poetical works belong to
English literature. Father Weston was then the Jesuit Superior. Father
John Gerard landed, along with Father Edward Oldcorne, off the coast of
Norfolk, in August, 1588, shortly after the decisive fight with the
Spanish Armada, off Gravelines. As illustrating the conscientiousness and
courage of this Yorkshire Elizabethan Jesuit, the following quotation from
Foley, vol. iv., p. 210, may be of interest: “Father Oldcorne was employed
sometime in London by Father Garnet, diligently labouring in the quest and
salvation of souls. He was ever of a most ready wit, and endeavoured as
far as possible to adapt himself to the manner of those with whom he
lived. There were exceptions, however, in which, consumed with an ardent
zeal of asserting and defending the Divine honour, he could not refrain
from correcting those whom he heard uttering obscene and injurious
language either towards God or their superiors. When in London, in the
house of a Catholic gentleman, he struck with his fist and broke into
pieces a pane of stained or painted glass representing an indecent picture
of Venus and Mars, which he considered wholly unfit for the eyes of a
virtuous family.”

[The curious philosopher wonders whether this Elizabethan Catholic
gentleman, having been deprived of his “Venus and Mars” in such a
high-handed fashion, afterwards became anti-Jesuitical.]]

Therefore is it, alike by evidence and reason, borne in upon the mind of
the philosopher that, on grounds of probability so high as to afford
practical certitude, he may proceed to build his argument upon the
assumption that Edward Oldcorne was a man not only of intellectual acumen
but also of moral integrity, as has been already predicated of him.




                              CHAPTER LXI.


Now, in the first part of his Declaration, Father Oldcorne uttered
concerning the Gunpowder Plot a proposition which expressed partial truth
alone. Because he expressed truth in the abstract only, not truth in the
concrete also, concerning that nefarious scheme.

In other words, Father Oldcorne severed in thought the two kinds of truth,
the two aspects of truth, the two parts of truth, which being _unified_
gave the _whole_ truth respecting the moral mode of judging the Gunpowder
Treason Plot.

Oldcorne severed concrete truth from abstract truth,[A] practical truth
from speculative truth, and so far as his hearer, Humphrey Littleton, was
concerned, held that concrete truth, that practical truth, suspended at
the sword-point over Littleton’s head.

[Footnote A: Or, it may be said, Oldcorne separated concrete truth from
abstract truth, practical truth from speculative truth, holding the former
in solution, and putting into the hands of Littleton the latter alone, in
the form of a dangerous precipitate.]

Now, I maintain that, regard being had to the terrific danger of
Littleton’s occasioning mischief, either through stupidity, malice, or
both, a man of the intellectual and moral calibre of Edward Oldcorne would
have never suffered his tongue to give utterance to a proposition
dividing, as with a sword, concrete truth from abstract truth, practical
truth from speculative truth, and then holding the former suspended above
the head of his questioner, _unless and until_ that great Priest and
Jesuit had been first possessed of the living consciousness that he had
had, and then was, at that very instant of time when speaking, having that
Plot, which represented “the sum of all villainies,” in that it involved
“sacrilegious murder,”[A] _firmly and unconquerably crushed under his
feet_.[164]

[Footnote A: This phrase is used by Shakespeare in “Macbeth” (1606), I
suggest, with indirect reference to the Gunpowder Plot, which Shakespeare
must have followed with the most breathless, absorbing interest. For
Norbrook was in Snitterfield, where his mother (Mary Arden) had property;
while Coughton was the home of the Throckmortons, the Ardens’ relatives.
Clopton House, where Ambrose Rookwood was living from Michaelmas, 1605,
Lapworth, where John Wright resided from May, 1605, and where Christopher
Wright and Marmaduke Ward visited him (all of which places were in that
“garden of England,” Warwickshire), must have been as familiar to the poet
almost as his own Stratford-on-Avon.

I find the name “Robert Arden,” of Pedmore, Worcestershire, 1-1/2 miles
from Stourbridge, down as “a popish recusant” for the year 1592, in the
“_Hatfield MS._,” part iv.]




                             CHAPTER LXII.


And how could this be?

It could be only by dint of a _two-fold knowledge_, a two-fold,
warranting, justifying, vindicating knowledge, which this Priest and
Jesuit held stored-up deep down within the depths of his conscious being,
a knowledge _passive_ or receptive which had come to him “from without,”
_ab extra_; a knowledge _active_ or self-caused which he had bestowed upon
himself “from within,” _ab intra_.

Now, the passive knowledge “from without” was the knowledge Oldcorne had
had from the penitent plotter of that penitent’s resolve to reveal the
Plot to his lawful Sovereign by the most perfect means for so doing that
by the human mind could be devised.

The active knowledge “from within” was the knowledge that Oldcorne had
possessed, and was at that moment possessing, of his own sublimely
conceived and magnificently executed act and deed: although even this
active knowledge “from within” was itself _indirectly_ traceable to that
penitent plotter’s repentant resolve and repentant will.[A]

[Footnote A: We know on the authority of Sir Edward Coke himself that one
of the conspirators was supposed to have revealed the Plot, and indeed
such _must_ have been inevitably the case. Now, the proved position of
Thomas Ward in the work of communicating with Thomas Winter suggests that
Ward was the diplomatic go-between. But it is obvious that Ward cannot
have himself penned the Letter; for if he had been in the service of
Elizabeth’s Government his handwriting would be known to the Government.
Now, circumstantial evidence tends to prove that Father Oldcorne did.
Therefore the relationship of priest and penitent and the machinery of the
Tribunal of Penance is forthwith, naturally and easily, brought into play.
Now, in these days of “_emancipated and free religious thought_,” it is
difficult for us readily to realize the _stupendous_ force that the
alleged supernatural facts of historical Christianity had upon _the mind
of all those who lived consciously_ hemmed in, as it were, by an alleged
supernatural tradition of Christianity, _whether_ Calvinistic _or_ Roman
Catholic, at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Those alleged facts
were assumed and deliberately calculated upon as among the ruling and
controlling _realities_ of daily life. Now, a Yorkshire Roman
Catholic——especially one brought up in the Wright, Ward, Babthorpe,
Ingleby, Mallory circle——might be easily frightened, nay, terrified, into
confession and avowal of his crimes, and _therefore_ into satisfaction,
and _therefore_ into reversal, by the mere fact that about the Feast of
St. Michael and All Angels, 11th October (old style), 1605, when
“examining his conscience” he came to realize the tremendous and awful
wickedness of his two crimes, sacrilege and murder. For the Archangel
“_Michael——who is like unto God_”——would be to _him_ a being as real and
living and of transcendently greater _power_——an important
consideration——than even the stern reality of the hangman of the
gallows-tree and the ripping knife; while a close-natured, thoughtful
Yorkshireman like Christopher Wright would vividly realize, with his
shrewd instinct for values and tendencies, that, _unrepentant_, his
ultimate fate——either here or hereafter——was not worth while the risking.
For, on the one hand, he may have peradventure, consciously or
unconsciously, argued there is the certainty of falling, sooner or later,
into “the Hands of the Living God,” and of being by Him consigned to the
charge of Michael, the Minister of His Justice; while, on the other, there
is the going, _not_ to the chill, viewless wind, but to a sympathetic
rational creature with a brain, heart, eyes, hands, and feet, and the
getting _him_, in the solid reality of flesh and blood, to put a speedy
stop, here and now, to the whole unhappy business, and so save further
trouble. (A man of middle age, well educated, belonging to an old
Yorkshire Roman Catholic family that “had never lost the Faith,” told a
relative, not long ago, that “after being on the spree” he should have
certainly committed a great crime had he not been stayed by the knowledge
that, if he did so, “_he would go plump into Hell_.” I mention this to
show how, at least, sometimes the Catholic conscience works even in these
“enlightened” days. Hence, the antecedent probability of the truth of my
suggested solution of _how_ the revealing conspirator was motived to
reveal the conspiracy. For an Inquiry into the Gunpowder Plot is a great
philosophical study of human _motives_ as well as of _probabilities_; and
the case of Christopher Wright (_ex hypothesi_) is, in relation to the
example just cited, an _à fortiori_ case.)]




                             CHAPTER LXIII.


But, it may be plausibly objected, if it were of such dangerous tendency
_indiscriminately_ to give utterance to bare, abstract, moral principles
only, how came it to pass, then, that Oldcorne, who was a good man,
morally, as well as a clever man, intellectually, suffered himself _thus_
to act when questioned by Humphrey Littleton respecting the moral
lawfulness, or otherwise, of the Gunpowder Plot?

Now, Oldcorne, as we have already seen in his Declaration quoted above,
has recorded a——that is one——reason why he left Littleton _in
abstracto_——that is furnished with truth in the abstract merely. And
beyond a doubt, as subsequent events so signally proved, the astute
Jesuit’s judgment of Littleton’s character had not erred one whit.

Littleton, as Oldcorne justly feared, was a “dangerous fellow,” one who
was likely to entrap the innocent, and one who was, therefore, not
entitled, either in Justice or in that more refined kind of justice called
Equity, to have his question dealt with by anything other than a flanking
movement; or, in other words, by anything other than such an intellectual
manœuvre as would _turn aside the question_ Littleton had elected to
propound to the great mental strategist——as would turn aside the question
Littleton had elected to propound, on the face of it, probably, and as the
event proved, certainly, from sinister motives and with crooked aims.

Hence, _partly_ because of his questioner’s inferred insincerity and
pernicious purposes _did Oldcorne sever speculative truth in thought from
concrete truth in action_; or, in other words, _Oldcorne gave to Littleton
an answer “sounding” in partial truth alone_.




                             CHAPTER LXIV.


Now, _partial truth_, as has been affirmed already, _is not, in its
proportion, less true than the full orb of truth_.[A] And many are the
times and many are the circumstances in this strangely chequered human
life of ours, with its endless movements and its perpetual
vicissitudes, when apparently conflicting and antagonistic duties can
be in justice, equity, and honour reconciled on one condition only,
namely, that man shall leave to Omniscience alone, “from Whom no
secrets are hid,” a knowledge of the full orb of certain degrees of
some particular kind of truth, governing some particular
subject-matter under consideration.[165][B]

[Footnote A: _It is never morally lawful to tell a lie_, that is, to speak
contrary to one’s mind, or to deceive by word contrary to that law of
justice which bids a man render to all rational creatures their due.

_To act a lie_ is as base and wicked as to tell a lie, and often more
unmanly and contemptible besides: else might the deaf and dumb be unjustly
deceived with impunity.]

[Footnote B: The noble science of casuistry is founded on the fact that
_partial truth is not less true, in its measure and in its degree, than
the full orb of truth_.

A knowledge of casuistry, that is, of the principles of moral science
scientifically applied to the living facts of the living present, will be
of primal necessity to British statesmen in the twentieth century, which
will be a century of few, but strong, principles, and of few, but strong,
men to apply those principles.

Efficiency, and efficiency through scientific exactitude, will be the
characteristic aim of all the great Imperial Powers of the world in the
near future. Here, in England, with all our intellectual, moral, and
physical virtues (which indeed are neither few nor contemptible), we have
been too apt to allow a number of persons to speak for us, able in their
way, no doubt, but of limited mental vision, and hopelessly incapable of
grappling with the problems that confront a world-wide Empire, embracing a
fifth (some say a fourth) of the human race. A democratic Empire must
choose leaders that are _wise_, just, self-controlled, courageous; and
then that Empire must entrust freely and fearlessly their destinies with
such leaders, who must not be afraid faithfully to go “full tilt” against
ignorant prejudice or short-sighted prepossession.

Now, wisdom (or prudence) is the cardinal virtue which presides over all
the other three virtues. And wisdom (or prudence) tells us that strategy
in war, that sometimes necessary evil; diplomacy betwixt the
representatives of nations; and above and beyond all the imparting to the
general body of the people only so much knowledge of the tendencies of
current events as is for the common good, can have intellectual and moral
justification on this one fundamental ethical principle only, namely, that
_partial truth is not less true, in its measure and in its degree, than
the full orb of truth_.

Again; where a sound intellectual and moral basis is not consciously held,
man, by the rules that govern his rational nature, will not “walk
sure-footedly.” Moreover, it is impossible for a self-respecting free
people to allow that essential _unity_ does not prevail betwixt the
fundamental principles of both private action and public action. _For just
wars and politics are not the pawns of a game that has been devised and
patented by the devil._ Just wars and politics are ethics working in the
living present, in the wider field of human conduct. And, properly
understood, they are, after their kind, and must be, if they are lawful to
rational creatures, as noble and as much under the reign, rule, and
governance of the _Ideal Man_ as are those solemn acts of life which have
been (amongst other purposes) devised to remind man of the transcendental
nature of his origin and destiny.]

Just as on some wild, tempestuous night, the full orb of the silvery moon
is obscured to the eye of the gazer by a dark, driving cloud.

Now, it has been said that, partly, _because_ Oldcorne inferred
insincerity of heart in Humphrey Littleton, and, partly, _because_
Oldcorne inferred in his questioner pernicious purposes in propounding the
question he did propound respecting the moral lawfulness, or otherwise, of
the Gunpowder Plot, _therefore_ Oldcorne gave Littleton an answer sounding
in partial——that is, in this case, in abstract, in speculative——truth
alone.

Oldcorne’s own expressed words are as follow:——

“_In this warie sort I spake to him bycause I doubted he came to entrap
me_, _and that he should take no advantage of my words whither he reported
them to Catholics or to Protestants._”

Unquestionably, this must have been _a_ reason——_one_ reason, that is——for
Father Oldcorne’s flanking, evasive reply, sounding in partial——that is,
in this case, in abstract, in speculative——truth alone.

For otherwise a man of such approved goodness and established character
would have never declared it to be a reason. The contrary supposal it is
impossible to entertain.

But because Oldcorne’s declared reason was undoubtedly _a_ reason, it does
not follow——regard being had to persons, times, and circumstances——either
from the demands of universal reason or moral fitness, that it was _his
only and sole reason_, nor (still less) that it was his _paramount and
predominant reason_ for his action in question, that is, for his mode of
couching the aforesaid Declaration in partial truth alone.

What leads to the conclusion with resistless force that Oldcorne’s alleged
reason cannot have been his paramount, his predominant, reason is the
simple, indisputable fact that such an aim so egregiously miscarried.

Therefore, in the case of so astute and clever a man, as all the evidence
we have concerning Oldcorne to demonstration proves him to have been, it
is rendered probable, to the degree of moral certainty, that the great
casuist had some far stronger reason latent within him than the reason he
chose to put forth for couching an answer to Humphrey Littleton, sounding
in partial truth alone.

Besides the sufficient, indeed, _yet inferior reason_, grounded on the
primal instinct of personal self-preservation, or, in other words, to put
the matter bluntly, the mere brute instinct of not being entrapped, wisdom
suggests that Oldcorne must——his moral character being what we know it
was——have had a reason latent deep down within the depths of his conscious
being, which was not only a sufficient but _superior reason_, not only a
true but a sublime reason, for severing in this grave matter, and holding
suspended, truth _in thought_ from truth _in action_.

Yea, Father Oldcorne, I maintain, gave Humphrey Littleton the flanking,
evasive answer that he did give him, notwithstanding the inevitable,
possible, and even probable dangers attendant thereon, because he
(Oldcorne) felt within himself, “to the finest fibre of his being,” a
_freedom_, a _three-fold freedom_, which warranted, justified, and
vindicated him in so answering.

Now this freedom was a three-fold freedom, because it was a
thrice-purchased freedom.

_And it was a thrice-purchased freedom because it had been purchased by
the merits_:——

(1) Of the personal, actual repentance of the revealing plotter himself.
By the merits

(2) Of the imputed (or constructive) repentance of that penitent’s
co-plotters. And by the merits

(3) Of the laudable action of Oldcorne himself.




                              CHAPTER LXV.


Now, Oldcorne, being a man as good as he was clever, and as clever as he
was good, manifests from the inherent nature of his answer to Humphrey
Littleton a sense, a consciousness, an assurance of freedom from the
restraints and obligations which would have undoubtedly stayed and bound
him had he not been already freed from their power.

Now, it is a superior power that countervails, that renders impotent an
inferior power.

_Now, Oldcorne would be freed from the restraining power of moral
obligations, as to the user of a particular character of speech, if he had
had residing within him a power of superior, of sublimer, that is, of
countervailing force._

_Now, Oldcorne, in his answer to Littleton, manifestly gives evidence of
power, of countervailing power._

_Knowledge gives power: gives countervailing power._

_Therefore it follows that the presence of power, of countervailing power,
in Oldcorne proves likewise the strong probability of knowledge, of
countervailing knowledge likewise._

_And what kind of knowledge can such two-fold knowledge have been, save a
meritorious knowledge of what aforetime had been, but which was then no
longer, the Gunpowder Treason Plot?_

For, from the very moment of Oldcorne’s becoming conscious that the Plot
as a plot had vanished into thin air by (1) personal, actual repentance;
by (2) imputed or constructive repentance; by (3) a personally heroic act:
had vanished like the morning mists before the beams of the rising sun,
Oldcorne would feel himself, so to speak, immediately to be endued with an
extraordinary power: with a power that would straightway cause him to grow
to a loftier stature than all his fellows: with a power that then would
enable him, as it were, to scale the heights, and, at length, to mount up
to the very top of what aforetime had been the baleful Plot, but which
Plot Oldcorne full well knew would be henceforward and for ever emptied
and defecated of and from all murderous, criminous, sacrilegious
quality.[166]

Hence was Oldcorne warranted, justified, and vindicated in viewing and
surveying “the fact of Mr. Catesbie’s” simply speculatively and purely in
the abstract.

Hence was Oldcorne warranted, justified, and vindicated in leaving
Humphrey Littleton _in abstracto_, after the latter had propounded to him
his dangerous question: of leaving the doubter with an answer sounding in
partial truth alone.




                             CHAPTER LXVI.


Now, this conclusion leads inevitably to the further conclusion that
Edward Oldcorne must have had latent within him, deep down within the
depths of his conscious being, a particular knowledge, _as distinct from a
general knowledge, a private knowledge as distinct from a public
knowledge_, not indeed of this Plot as a plot, but of the Plot _after_ it
had been, _when_ it had been, and _as_ it had been _first transmuted and
transformed, by the causes and processes hereinbefore mentioned:
transmuted and transformed into an instrument, sure and certain for the
temporal salvation of his fellow-men_.

Yea, _because_ Edward Oldcorne’s noblest mental faculty, his conscience,
gazing with eagle-eye, sun-filled, yet undazzled and undismayed, upon
absolute truth was able unshrinkingly and calmly to bear witness to the
other indivisible parts of his rational nature, that _his_ mind in
relation to that fell enterprise, which from first to last must have “made
the angels weep,” was a mind not only of passive innocence, but of active
rectitude, _therefore_ must he have felt himself to be not barely, but
abundantly _free_. Free, because he knew there was no mortal in this
world, and no being in the world to come, to condemn _him_ at the bar of
eternal Justice; nay, none rightly even to be so much as his accuser: free
to survey the baleful scheme purely speculatively: free, orally to express
the results of that survey, _either as to whole or part, in abstracto, in
the abstract merely; and this notwithstanding the risk of
misinterpretation from his questioner’s “want of thought,” or “want of
heart_.”

For everlastingly was it the truth, that none could gainsay nor resist,
that in relation to _this_ matter, at any rate, it was the lofty privilege
of Edward Oldcorne——indeed a man, if ever there were such, “elect and
precious”——to have been made “a white soul:” to have been made a soul like
unto “a star that dwelt apart.”

_Res ipsa loquitur._ Yea, the words of Edward Oldcorne speak for
themselves. And from those words evident is it that it was the kingly
prerogative of this disciplined, self-repressed, humblest of men, _to know
the truth as to the once atrocious plan: to know the truth and to be
free_.

For his language implies, and, his mind and his character being what they
were, his language is intelligible on none other supposal than this: That
at the very moment when his tongue gave utterance to this now famous
flanking, evasive answer to his inquirer, _he, even he, had possession of
a power, a knowledge, a living consciousness, that he had been exalted to
be the chosen agent of that Supreme Power of the Universe_, to Whom by
infinite right, Vengeance belongs: _the chosen agent whereby the
aforetime, but then no longer, stupendous Gunpowder Treason Plot had been,
to all eternity, overthrown, frustrated, and brought to nought_.[167]




                             CHAPTER LXVII.


Hence may we say, of a surety, has it been proved that Edward Oldcorne,
Priest and Jesuit, used words which imply that, as a fact, he viewed the
Plot _ante factum_, before the fact, and in the abstract merely.

That, being a man as good as he was clever, and as clever as he was good,
he must have had his warranting reasons, his justifying reasons, his
vindicating reasons for so doing, when such a course of action was
obviously likely to be attended with danger from misinterpretation from
both the fool and the knave; from both the man lacking thought and from
the man lacking heart.

That such warranting reasons, such justifying reasons, such vindicating
reasons would be found in the fact that Oldcorne knew the Plot was no
longer a plot, but a scheme emptied and defecated of all evil, all
murderous, all criminous, all sacrilegious quality. Nay, that it was a
scheme sublimated and transfigured by his (Oldcorne’s) own superabounding
merit and virtue in relation to the once diabolical, but then repented of,
prodigious plan.

Therefore is the inevitable conclusion pressed upon us with resistless
force, that, according to the changeless laws which govern man’s
intellectual and moral nature, Oldcorne must have had some _official or
semi-official particular and private knowledge_ of the thirteen Gunpowder
traitors’ heinous project, as distinct from and in addition to that merely
personal, general knowledge, which he necessarily cannot have failed to
possess in his capacity of an ordinary English citizen: some professional
or quasi-professional special, private knowledge, as distinct from that
general, public, common knowledge, which every sane man then a subject of
the British Crown could not help not being possessed of, at that very
instant of time when Humphrey Littleton propounded to the great casuist
Humphrey Littleton’s aforetime unhappy question.[A]

[Footnote A: It is quite clear to my mind that Christopher Wright, the
revealing plotter, must have himself expressly freed his confessor from
the obligation to _absolute_ secrecy, which the seal of the Confessional
would impose. It may have been that Oldcorne made this a condition
precedent to his agreeing to pen the Letter. Or, it may have been that
Wright’s own strong Catholic instincts and natural sense of justice
suggested the necessity of this course. As already remarked, a natural
secret, that is, a something that is not a sin, which alone forms matter
for Sacramental Confession, may _indirectly_ come under the seal, if the
confessor promises expressly or impliedly to accept the natural secret
under the obligations of the seal. But in Wright’s case there could be no
question of his communication being in the nature of a natural secret
protected _indirectly_ by the seal by reason of Oldcorne’s promise. And
though _freed_ by the penitent from the duty of absolute secrecy, Oldcorne
would be still under a positive duty _of discretion_.]

I say advisedly _aforetime unhappy question_.

For, I respectfully maintain that the ratiocinative faculty to-day, of a
surety, demonstrates that in the majestic cause of impartial, severe,
historical truth, the act of this frail, erring child of man, Humphrey
Littleton, has proved itself now to be thrice happy.

“_O felix culpa!_” “O happy fault!” Out of bitterness is come forth
sweetness.

Humphrey Littleton was not pardoned by King James, his Privy Council, and
Government, notwithstanding the invaluable disclosures he had made.[168]

This high-born English gentleman was executed at Redhill, Worcester, on
the 7th day of April, 1606, along with (among others) another open rebel,
John Winter, the half-brother of Robert Winter and Thomas Winter, the
Gunpowder traitors.

Humphrey Littleton, we are told by his contemporary, Father John Gerard,
asked forgiveness of Father Oldcorne more than once, and said that he had
wronged him much.

He also asked forgiveness of Mr. Abington, who, though condemned to death,
was ultimately pardoned at his wife’s and Lord Mounteagle’s intercession.

Humphrey Littleton “died with show of great repentance, and so with sorrow
and humility and patient acceptance of his death made amends for his
former frailty and too unworthy desire of life.”

Stephen Littleton, the Master of Holbeach——who had likewise joined in the
rebellion in the Midlands, under Sir Everard Digby, which grew out of the
Gunpowder Plot, although a distinct movement from it, albeit connected
with the Plot——was made a public example of in his native County of
Staffordshire, _in terrorem_, as a terror to evil-doers: this unfortunate
English gentleman suffering the extreme penalty of the law, according to
his contemporary, the aforesaid Father John Gerard, in the ancient town of
Stafford.




                            CHAPTER LXVIII.


We now come to the second and latter part of Father Oldcorne’s Declaration
to Humphrey Littleton, from the whole of which Declaration Littleton drew
the conclusion that Oldcorne answered “the action was good, and seemed to
approve of it.”[A]

[Footnote A: By thus disclaiming knowledge of “_these_”——that is, the
object the plotters had in view in their nefarious Plot, and the means
they purposed having recourse to, to attain their object——Oldcorne
deliberately throws a veil over the full orb of truth. But Littleton might
have discerned, had he taken the trouble so to do, that Oldcorne was
equivocating under a sense of prior obligation; and the clue was afforded
by the person of the speaker and the tenour of the answer itself. In the
former part of the Declaration, by leaving Littleton _in abstracto_, he
had thrown a veil over a portion of the full orb of truth. Just as the
silvery moon, on some tempestuous night, may be first partially obscured,
by a thick, dark, driving cloud, and then afterwards wholly obscured, from
the view of the gazer.]

“And thus I applied it to this fact of Mr. Catesbie’s; it is not to be
approved or condemned by the event, but by the proper object or end, and
means which was to be used in it; _and because I know nothing of thes_, I
will neither approve it or condeme it, but leave it to god and ther owne
consciences, and in this wary sort I spoke to him bycause I doubted he
came to entrap me; and that he should take noe advantage of the words
whither he reported them to Catholics or Protestants.”[B]

[Footnote B: Oldcorne’s full answer to Littleton would be, “and because I
know nothing of these [that I am at liberty to tell you, Humphrey
Littleton”]: _these last words being interiorly expressed, perhaps_.]

Now, in the first place, let it be remembered that these words were spoken
_not before but after_ Wednesday, the 6th of November, when, as Oldcorne
himself has left on record, and which indeed we have seen already, Father
Tesimond came from Coughton to Huddington, and from Huddington to Hindlip;
and when “_he said that there were certain gentlemen that meant to have
blown up the Parliament House, and that their plot was discovered a day or
two before_.”[A]

[Footnote A: Father Oldcorne says that Tesimond reached Hindlip at two
o’clock. Now, as Tesimond came _from_ Huddington, where, already, he had
had an interview with Catesby, the conspirators must have reached
Huddington _before_ two o’clock; probably they reached the mansion-house
at twelve o’clock mid-day. Bates says that Tesimond was at Huddington
half-an-hour; but Jardine says two hours. Query, what does “_Greenway’s
MS._” say?]

Again; Fawkes, we are told by Eudæmon-Joannes,[169] explained at the Trial
of the conspirators why the prisoners pleaded “‘Not guilty,’ which was
that the Indictment contained ‘many other matters, which we neither can,
nor ought to countenance by our assent or silence,’ though none of them
meant to deny that which they had not only voluntarily confessed before,
_but which was quite notorious throughout the realm_.”[170] (The italics
are mine.)

Now, seeing that Oldcorne told Littleton that “_he knew nothing_” as to
the “_end or object_” the plotters had in their Plot, nor “_the means
which was to be used in it_,” when the whole of England, not to say
Europe, had been ringing with a knowledge of _not only the end or object,
but also the means_, for the last past few days, and perhaps weeks, at the
very least, I draw this inevitable conclusion:——

That because Oldcorne was a man as morally good as he was intellectually
clever, _he must have met his questioner’s inquiry with this nescience, by
reason of some antecedent, official, and professional duty; or, at least,
semi-official and quasi-professional duty, which had been imposed upon
him, ab extra, from the outside, prior in time to Humphrey Littleton’s
coming to him to be resolved of his doubts as to the moral rightness or
wrongness of the Gunpowder Plot_.[171]

In other words, that Oldcorne felt instinctively that he could recognise
in _a private individual, like Humphrey Littleton_, no valid right, title,
claim, or demand to call forth an answer, which might discover or disclose
to Littleton the secret of the repentant Christopher Wright.

Yea, neither in Justice, nor in Equity, nor in Honour could the grand
Yorkshireman betray to Humphrey Littleton the secret of trust that in a
semi-official, quasi-professional mode or fashion had come to be entrusted
to him by another, as that other’s private property and exclusive
possession.

_That other was Christopher Wright, the penitent revealing plotter, and
whomsoever he had, explicitly or implicitly, willed should share a
knowledge of the mighty secret. But to none other or others beside. And
certainly not to men probably prompted by sinister motives and crooked
aims._

For a knowledge of truth in action, truth in the result, truth in the
event, truth in the external, and every other kind of truth in relation to
the Gunpowder[A] Plot, _integral or partial, was irrevocably held in
trust_ by Edward Oldcorne, not for Humphrey Littleton, or the like of him,
but for Christopher Wright and men that were true of heart.

[Footnote A: THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS: NEITHER CAN A MAN OR A
WOMAN DO EVIL THAT GOOD MAY COME. But Oldcorne would contend that, in
perfect Reason, Truth may be concealed, subject to certain limitations
and, regard being had to person, time, and circumstance, the
clue-affording possibilities; and this whether partial truth or whole
truth, _in pursuance of a prior and superior moral obligation_. And so
would say all modern diplomatists and commanders in the field, however
conscientious and upright they might be, unless they wished to court
defeat, or to give away their Country, and (if justice be meted out to
them) to be cashiered. Now, _unity at all times and in all places must
prevail. For all men are subject to the one Moral Law of Right Reason, and
nowhere will you find men without souls_, notwithstanding that certain
members of the English middle classes sometimes seem to labour under a
delusion to the contrary.

Equivocation cannot be had recourse to in matters of Contract, nor for
pecuniary gain, nor sordid profit. Remember _that_, O all ye worshippers
of Mammon! For, “a more glorious doctrine for knaves and a more disastrous
doctrine for honest men,” it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
conceive of than equivocation, if it were not held strictly and severely
in check and under control by the dictates of Intellectual Reason and
Moral Justice. Now, this highly scientific liberty, “equivocation,” is
never morally lawful to the witnesses in a Court of Justice, where the
judge has jurisdiction to try the parties and the cause, whether those
witnesses be the parties themselves to the cause, or strangers
“subpœnaed” to give testimony therein. Such persons would be justly
punishable for perjury who professed that, when bearing insufficient or
inadequate witness in a Court of Justice by not telling “the whole” truth,
they were merely “equivocating.” Nor can equivocation be had recourse to
for working hurt or injury to a fellow-creature, whether bond or free,
white, black, or copper-coloured, contrary to the primary obligations of
Justice, which bid man render unto _all men_ their due. Nor with reference
to Divine Truth can equivocation be used. (Hence the piteous absurdity of
the Royal Declaration against Popery.)

By the mild and merciful Law of England, a criminally-accused person may
equivocate, on the same moral principles as justify strategy in warfare,
until his guilt has been brought home to him by sufficient proofs. Such a
person equivocates by pleading “_not guilty_.”

_Because_ I believe the ethical doctrine which justifies equivocation,
when properly taught, to be true and not false, _and because_ I
furthermore believe that, in the interests of my Country and of Humanity
at large, it is of practical consequence, as well as mentally salutary,
that a knowledge of equivocation, its foundation principles, extents, and
limitations, should be “understanded” by all those that have the
guardianship of the People, whether in the senate, in the field, or at
sea, _therefore_, I have requested one, who has a competent mastery of the
subject, to explain the matter to my readers. This has been kindly done in
a letter, which will be found in Supplementum VI. For “_Melius petere
fontes_,” the jurist as well as the poet has it. “_Better is it to have
recourse to the fountain-head._”

The philosophical explanation of the fact that, under the pressure of
necessity, certain combatants can and do exhibit in action at the theatre
of war the highest strategetical skill, in spite of their knowing nothing
of the scientific doctrine of equivocation, springs from the law of reason
that, as a rule, _doing_ is the condition precedent _to knowing_;
experience to cognition. See Ferrier’s “_Institutes of Metaphysic_”
(Blackwood), p.15.]

This was an obligation, that flowed from the truth expressed by the
luminous maxim, “_Qui prior est tempore potior est jure_.” “He who is
first in time is the stronger in point of right.”

The Jesuit could never that trust, that confidence betray. If needs be, he
must be “true till death.” For it was not necessary that he should live.
But it was necessary that he should live undishonoured.




                             CHAPTER LXIX.


Again; to all those that are “knowing” enough, the facts of this woeful
tragedy “observingly” to “distil out,” the form and substance of this
document of the 12th March, 1605-6, under the hand of Edward Oldcorne,
alike afford evidence——conclusive evidence——that Father Oldcorne regarded
the Gunpowder conspirators as repentant conspirators, through the virtual
_representative_ repentance of one of their own number.

And though it is true that, by the inexorable decree of the Universe, “The
Guilty suffer,” each man for himself and not another, temporal punishment,
searching, terrible, and keen, yet this is not the whole of the truth
governing the perfected ethics of the matter. For “Man learns by
suffering.” And guilt is pardoned on repentance, that is, on the
observance and on the performance of certain equally decreed conditions.

These conditions are (1) confession, (2) contrition, which implies sorrow
and regret, and (3) satisfaction or “damages,” which involves amendment,
withdrawal, or reversal. And when all three conditions have been observed
and performed, then

      “Whoso with repentance is not satisfied,
      Neither to earth nor heaven is allied.”

Hence, could the great moralist, by a _complexus_ of intellectual acts,
personal and vicarious, justly regard the whole band of plotters as
transgressors released from the abstract guilt of their double crime. For
it is a dictate of reason that the release of one joint debtor operates
derivatively to the release, _ipso facto_, of all the rest.

Now, if Oldcorne possessed a conscious realization that, through the
_repentance, personal and representative_, of the Gunpowder plotters, that
Plot was no longer a plot, then, to speak after the manner of men, he must
have had that realization as the resultant of two particular kinds,
aspects, or sides of _knowledge: ab extra_, from without, that is, passive
knowledge, or communicated, in the _first_ step; and _ab intra_, from
within, that is, knowledge active, or self-bestowed, in the _second_ step.

Now, both passive knowledge and active knowledge here would imply, in the
final analysis, a communication by some external mental agency, the agency
of some living, intelligent being.

It would be implied in the first case, directly; in the second case,
indirectly. But, directly or indirectly, the source would be the same.

Now, who can that aforesaid living, intelligent being, which reason
demands, have been, if not _a repentant plotter himself_?

Therefore, by irresistible inference, the Letter is surely, with moral
certitude, traced home at last.




                              CHAPTER LXX.


Father Edward Oldcorne was racked in the Tower of London, “five times, and
once with the utmost severity for several hours,”[172] in order that,
haply, information might be extracted from him that would prove him to be
possessed of a guilty knowledge of the Plot. But this princely soul had
nothing of that kind to tell, so that King James and his Counsellors
wreaked their lawless severity in vain.[A]

[Footnote A: Torture, for the purpose of drawing evidence from a prisoner,
was contrary to the Law of England. Brother Ralph Ashley, the servant of
Father Oldcorne, who, I maintain, carried the warning Letters to Father
Henry Garnet and Lord Mounteagle, was tortured, but without revealing
anything apparently. Brother Nicholas Owen, the great maker of priests’
hiding-places and secret chambers in the castles, manor-houses, and halls
of the old English Catholic gentry, was tortured with great severity; but
he, too, seems to have revealed nothing. Owen “died in their hands,” but
whether he was tortured to death or committed suicide in the Tower is a
mystery to this day. One would like to see this mystery bottomed.]

On the 7th day of April, 1606, at Redhill, one mile from the City of
Worcester, on the London Road, “the silver cord was loosed, the golden
bowl was broken, the pitcher was crushed at the fountain, the wheel was
broken on the cistern.” For on that day, at that spot, the happy spirit of
Edward Oldcorne mounted far, far beyond the fading things of time and
space.[173]

It may be objected that Father John Gerard’s relation of the last dying
speech and confession of the great Jesuit Priest and Martyr is hostile to
the hypothesis that Oldcorne penned the great Letter, “_Litteræ
Felicissimæ_.”

Gerard’s reported words are these; but, I contend, we have no absolute
proof that they are the _ipissima verba_ of Father Oldcorne, though he may
have uttered some of these words, and something resembling them in the
case of the others.——See Gerard’s “_Narrative_” p. 275.

“He declared unto the people that he came thither to die for the Catholic
faith and the practice of his function, seeing that they neither had, nor
could prove anything against him which, even by their own laws, was
sufficient to condemn him, but that he was a Priest of the Society of
Jesus, wherein he much rejoiced, and was ready and desirous to give his
life for the profession of that faith which he had taught many years in
that very country, and which it was necessary for everyone to embrace that
would save their souls.[174] _Then being asked again about the treason and
taking part with the conspirators_, he protested there again that he never
had the least knowledge of the treason, and took it upon his death that he
was as clear as the new-born child from the whole plot or any part
thereof. Then commending his soul, with great devotion, humility, and
confidence, into the hands of God and to the Blessed Virgin, St. Jerome,
St. Winifred, and his good Angel, he was turned off the ladder, and
hanging awhile, was cut down and quartered, and so his innocent and
thrice-happy soul went to receive the reward of his many and great
labours.” (The italics are mine.)




                             CHAPTER LXXI.


Now, in the first place, it is to be noticed that Father Oldcorne made the
special disclaimer of ever having had the least knowledge of the Plot only
_after being asked again about the treason and taking part with the
conspirators_.

My respectful submissions to the judgment of my candid readers, therefore,
are these:——

First, that we have no exact, that is, no scientific, proof[175] that
Father Oldcorne, as a fact, employed these _precise words_.

And, secondly, that, even if he did so employ them, what he meant to
convey to his hearers’ mind by the words was, I maintain, that he had no
criminal, no traitorous knowledge of the ruthless Gunpowder enterprise;
or, in other words, _no guilty knowledge, no knowledge that his King and
his fellow-subjects had any right, title, claim, or demand, in Reason,
Justice, Equity, or Honour, to obtain or to wring from him_.

For “_Qui prior est tempore potior est jure_.” “He who is first in time is
the stronger in point of right.”

Again; “There is on earth a yet auguster thing, veiled though it be, than
Parliament or King.” And that is the Human Conscience, instructed by Truth
and Justice. _Her_ rights are invincible and eternally sacred.

Gerard continues, after Father Oldcorne “followed Ralph, his faithful
follower and companion of his labours, who showed at his death great
devotion and fervour, as may be guessed by this one action of his; for
whilst Father Oldcorne stood upon the ladder and was preparing himself to
die, Ralph, standing by the ladder, suddenly stepped forward, and takes
hold of the good Father’s feet, embracing and kissing them with great
devotion, and said, ‘What a happy man am I, to follow here the steps of my
sweet Father!’ And when his own turn came, he also first commended himself
by earnest prayers unto God, then told the people that he died for
religion and not for treason, whereof he had ‘not had the least knowledge;
and as he had heard this good Father, before him, freely forgive his
persecutors and pray for the King and Country, so did he also....’ He
showed, at his death, great resolution joined with great devotion, and so
resigning his soul into the hands of God, was turned off the ladder and
changed this life for a better.”——See Gerard’s “_Narrative_,” pp. 27,
5276.[176]

Furthermore, Father Gerard says, on p. 269 of his “_Narrative_,” as we
have seen already, that “Father Ouldcorne his indictment was so framed
that one might see they much desired to have drawn him within the compass
of some participation of this late treason; to which effect they first did
seem to suppose it as likely that he should send letters up and down to
prepare men’s minds for the insurrection.... Also they accused him of a
sermon made in Christmas, wherein he should seem to excuse the
conspirators, or to extenuate their fact, and, withal that speaking with
Humphrey Littleton in private about the same matter, he should advise him
not to judge of the cause, or to condemn the gentlemen by the event.”

Although Father Oldcorne was found guilty and sentenced to death, it is
not clearly shewn, from Gerard’s Relation, or that of anybody else, what
offences were proved against him. Probably, reliance was mainly placed
(1) on the fact of his being a notorious Priest and Jesuit, reconciling as
many of the King’s subjects to the See of Rome as possible; (2) on his
providing, through the Jesuit, Father Jones, a place of refuge for Robert
Winter and Stephen Littleton, two of the fugitives from Justice; and (3)
on his aiding and abetting the concealment of his Superior, Father Garnet,
a proclaimed traitor, at Hindlip.[A]

[Footnote A: The reason why Humphrey Littleton, at his execution, begged
pardon of Mr. Abington, as well as of Father Oldcorne (see _ante_ p. 214),
was that Humphrey Littleton, when in Worcester Gaol, had reported to the
Government, in the hope of getting a respite, that the Jesuits, Garnet and
Oldcorne, were being concealed at Hindlip.

Father Garnet left Coughton for Hindlip, accompanied by the Honourable
Anne Vaux, on the 16th December, 1605, and lay concealed there until the
last week of January, 1605-6, when Garnet and Oldcorne, together with the
lay-brothers, Nicholas Owen and Ralph Ashley, were captured at Hindlip, by
Sir Henry Bromley, of Holt Castle, a Worcestershire magistrate, in
pursuance of elaborate instructions from Lord Salisbury himself. The
captives were all four solemnly conveyed to the Tower of London. Miss Vaux
was herself afterwards locked up in the Tower, but finally released. This
unconquerable lady seems to have “come to her grave in a full age, like as
a shock of corn cometh in in its season.” For, as late as the year 1635,
we find her name being reported to the Privy Council of Charles I., for
helping certain Jesuits to carry on a school for the education of the sons
of the English Catholic nobility and gentry, at her mansion, Stanley
Grange, about six miles from Derby.]




                             CHAPTER LXXII.


Edward Oldcorne might have, perchance, saved his life had he told his
lawful Sovereign that he had been (_Deo juvante_) a joint efficient cause
of that Sovereign’s temporal salvation and the temporal salvation of the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, Commons of England, Ambassadors, and Heaven
only knows whom, and how many else beside. For King James, with all his
faults, was averse from shedding the blood even of popish Priests and
Jesuits. But Oldcorne did not do so. And I hold that he had two
all-sufficient reasons for not so acting.

First, he may have thought there was a serious danger of his entangling
Thomas Ward, in some way or another, as an accessory, at least, after the
fact, in the meshes of the Law of that unscrupulous time: the time, be it
remembered, of the Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission.

And, secondly, although this great Priest and Jesuit, _by virtue and as a
result of the releasing act of his Penitent_, Christopher Wright, had
come, _practically_, to _receive a knowledge of the tremendous secret as a
Friend and as a Man_, and not as a Priest, yet, _because_ that Man and
that Friend _was a Priest_; and _because_ it was impossible for that
Priest in practice, and in the eyes of men, to bisect himself, and make
clear and manifest the different sides and aspects in which he
had——subsequent to the Penitent’s release from the seal of the
Confessional, _sigillum confessionis_——thought and acted in relation to
the revealing plotter, _therefore_ did Oldcorne, I opine,
deliberately——because, according to his own principles, he was
predominantly “a Priest,” and that “for ever”——_therefore_ did he
deliberately choose the more excellent way, aye! in the chamber of torture
and upon the scaffold of death, the way of perfect self-sacrifice for the
good of others.

For, by a Yorkshire Catholic mother, dwelling in a grey northern city——and
who in January, 1598, is described as “old and lame”[A]——Edward Oldcorne
had been taught long years ago “_to adjust his compass at the
Cross_.”[177][178]

[Footnote A: Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. iv., p. 204.]

Brother Ralph Ashley, too, possibly might have saved his life, had he
disclosed that, whatever other letter or letters he had carried to and
fro, he had carried that great Letter, that Letter of Letters, which had
proved the sheet-anchor, the lever, of his Country’s temporal salvation
through the temporal salvation of its hereditary and elected rulers.

But Brother Ralph Ashley knew he had a duty to perform of strict fidelity
to his master, a duty which, though unknown to man, would not escape the
Eye of Him to advance Whose greater glory this humble Jesuit lay-brother
was solemnly pledged.

Father Gerard says, as we have already seen, in his “_Narrative_,” that
Ralph Ashley “was divers times put upon the torture but he revealed
nothing.” Gerard furthermore says that Ralph Ashley “was indicted and
condemned upon supposition that he had carried letters to and fro about
this conspiracy.” “But,” says Gerard, “they neither did nor could allege
any instance or proof against him.”——See “_Narrative_,” p. 271.




                            CHAPTER LXXIII.


A few final words as to Thomas Ward (or Warde), who was, I hold, no less
than Edward Oldcorne and his Penitent, the joint arbiter of destinies and
the controller of fates.

Indeed, as previously stated in an earlier portion of this Inquiry, my own
opinion is that Christopher Wright probably unlocked his burthened heart
to his connection, Thomas Ward, of whose constancy in friendship he would
be, by long years of experience, well assured, at a time anterior to that
at which he unbosomed himself to the holy Jesuit Priest, that skilled,
wise, loving minister of a mind diseased.

While Ward, on his part, readily and willingly, though at the imminent
risk of being himself charged as a knowing accomplice and accessory to the
Plot, undertook the diplomatic engineering of the whole movement, whereby
the Plot was so effectually and speedily spun round on its axis, even if
well-nigh at the eleventh hour.

In bidding farewell, a long farewell, to Thomas Ward, the following
extracts from a letter of Sir Edward Hoby[179] to Sir Thomas Edmunds,
Ambassador at Brussels, are important, although some of the passages have
already appeared in the earlier part of this Inquiry:——

    “Such as are apt to interpret all things to the worst, will not
    believe other but that Lord Mounteagle might in a policy cause
    this letter to be sent, fearing the discovery already of the
    letter; the rather that one Thomas Ward, a principal man about
    him, is suspected to be accessory to the treason. Others
    otherwise ... some say that Fawkes (alias Johnson) was servant
    to one Thomas Percy; others that he is a Jesuit and had a shirt
    of hair next his skin.

    “Early on the Monday [_vere_ Tuesday] morning, the Earl of
    Worcester was sent to Essex House to signify the matter to the
    Earl of Northumberland, whom he found asleep in his bed, and
    hath done since his best endeavour for his apprehension ... Some
    say that Northumberland received the like letter that Mounteagle
    did, and concealed it ...

    “Tyrwhyt is come to London; Tresham sheweth himself; _and Ward
    walketh up and down_.”[180] (The italics are mine.)

Surely, the twain facts that Thomas Ward “walked up and down,” and that
his brother, Marmaduke, was also at large, with the latter’s eldest
daughter, Mary, lodging in Baldwin’s Gardens, Holborn (although we have
seen the Master of Newby apprehended in Warwickshire, in the very heart
and centre of the conspirators), _tend to demonstrate that the King, his
Privy Council, and Government were very much obligated to the
gentleman-servant and, almost certainly, distant kinsman of William Parker
fourth Lord Mounteagle, and that they knew it_.[A]

[Footnote A: Is it possible that some time after the Plot, Thomas Ward
retired into his native Yorkshire, and became the officer or agent for
Lord William Howard’s and his wife’s Hinderskelfe and other Yorkshire,
Durham, and Westmoreland estates? I think it is possible; for I find the
name “Thomas Warde” from time to time in the “_Household Books of Lord
William Howard_” (Surtees Soc). See Supplementum III. I am inclined to
think that the reason Father Richard Holtby, the distinguished Yorkshire
Jesuit, who was _socius_, or secretary, to Father Henry Garnet, and
subsequently Superior of the Jesuits in England, was never laid hold of by
the Government, was that Holtby had two powerful friends at Court in Lord
William Howard, of Naworth and Hinderskelfe Castles, and in Thomas Warde
(or Ward). Father Holtby was born at Fryton Hall, in the Parish of
Hovingham, between Hovingham and Malton. Now, Fryton is less than a mile
from Slingsby, where I suspect Thomas Warde (or Ward) finally settled
down, and both are only a few miles distant from Hinderskelfe Castle, now
Castle Howard. Fryton Old Hall is at present, I believe, occupied by Mr.
Leaf, and is the property of Charles James Howard ninth Earl of Carlisle,
the descendant of Lord William Howard. The late Captain Ward, R.N., of
Slingsby Hall, I surmise, was a descendant, lineal or collateral, of
Thomas Ward, of the days of Queen Elizabeth and King James I.]

From a grateful King and Country, Lord Mounteagle received, as we have
already learned, a payment of £700 a year, equal to nearly £7,000 a year
in our money.[A]

[Footnote A: Lord Mounteagle’s reward was £300 per annum for life, and
£200 per annum to him and his heirs for ever in fee farm rents. Salisbury
declared that Mounteagle’s Letter was “the first and only means” the
Government had to discover that “most wicked and barbarous Plot.”
Personally, I am bound to say I believe him. The title Lord Morley and
Mounteagle is now in abeyance (see Burke’s “_Extinct Peerages_”); but let
us hope that we may see it revived. An heir must be in existence, one
would imagine; for the peerages Morley and Mounteagle would be granted by
the Crown for ever, I presume. There is at the present date a Lord
Monteagle, whose title is of a more recent creation.]

But Ben Jonson, the rare Ben Jonson, the friend of Shakespeare, of
Donne,[B] and other wits of the once far-famed Mermaid Tavern, Bread
Street, London, deemed the temporal saviour of his Country to be still
insufficiently requited. So the Poet, invoking his Muse, penned, in the
young peer’s honour, the following stately epigram:——

[Footnote B: John Donne the celebrated metaphysical poet, afterwards Dean
of St. Paul’s, and author of the once well-known “_Pseudo-Martyr_,” which
Donne wrote at the request of King James himself. For one of Donne’s
ancestors _and descendants_, see _ante_ p. 160.

Henry Donne (or Dunne), a barrister, was brother to John Donne. He was, I
believe, implicated in the Babington conspiracy along with Edward
Abington, brother to Thomas Abington, and about ten other young papist
gentlemen, some of very high birth, great wealth, and brilliant prospects.
At the chambers of Henry Donne, in Thavies Inn, Holborn, London, “the
Venerable” William Harrington, of Mount St. John, near Thirsk, was
captured. Harrington fled to the College at Rheims to study for the
priesthood, in consequence of the impression made upon him by Campion, who
was harboured, in the spring of 1581, for ten days at Mount St. John;
Campion there wrote his famous “_Decem Rationes_.” Harrington was executed
at the London Tyburn, for his priesthood, in 1594. He is said to have
struggled with the hangman when the latter began to quarter him alive.
Harrington is mentioned in Archbishop Harsnett’s “_Popish Impostures_,” a
book known to Shakespeare. Harrington was a second cousin to Guy Fawkes,
through Guy’s paternal grandmother, Ellen Harrington, of York.]

“TO WILLIAM LORD MOUNTEAGLE.

      “Lo, what my country should have done (have raised
        An obelisk, or column to thy name;
      Or if she would but modestly have praised
        Thy fact, in brass or marble writ the same).
      I, that am glad of thy great chance, here do!
        And proud, my work shall out-last common deeds,
      Durst think it great, and worthy wonder too,
        But thine: for which I do’t, so much exceeds!
      My country’s parents I have many known;
      But saver of my country, thee alone.”




                RECAPITULATION OF PROOFS, ARGUMENT, AND
                              CONCLUSIONS.


(1) The revealing plotter cannot have been Tresham or any one of the other
eight who were condemned to death in Westminster Hall; otherwise he would
have _pleaded_ such fact.

(2) The revealing plotter must have been amongst those who survived not to
tell the tale: that is, either Catesby, Percy, John Wright, or Christopher
Wright.

(3) Christopher Wright, a subordinate conspirator introduced late in the
conspiracy, was the revealing conspirator.

(4) Father Edward Oldcorne, S.J., was the Penman of the Letter.

(5) Thomas Ward was the diplomatic Go-between common to both.

_All these three were Yorkshiremen._

(6) Ralph Ashley was the messenger who conveyed the Letter to Lord
Mounteagle’s page, who was already in the street when the Letter-carrier
arrived.

_Perhaps a Yorkshireman._

(7) Mounteagle knew a letter was coming. Known to Edmund Church, Esq., his
confidant.

(8) Thomas Ward, on Sunday, the 27th October (the day after the delivery),
told Thomas Winter, one of the principal plotters, that Salisbury had
received the document; and on Sunday, the 3rd November, that Salisbury had
shown it to the King.

(9) Christopher Wright, who was at Lapworth when the Letter was delivered,
and within twenty miles of Father Oldcorne, saw Thomas Winter some little
time subsequent to the delivery of the Letter.

(10) Christopher Wright is said to have been the first who ascertained
that the Plot was discovered.

(11) Christopher Wright is said to have counselled flight in different
directions.

(12) Christopher Wright announced to Thomas Winter, very early on Tuesday,
the 5th of November, the capture of Fawkes that morning.

(13) Father Oldcorne’s handwriting to-day resembles that of the Letter; by
comparison of documents, certainly one of which is in Oldcorne’s
handwriting.

(14) Oldcorne was accused by the Government of sending “letters up and
down to prepare men’s minds for the insurrection.”

(15) Brother Ashley, his servant, was accused of carrying “letters to and
fro about this conspiracy.”

(16) Father Henry Garnet, Oldcorne’s Superior, mysteriously changed his
purpose expressed on the 4th October, of returning to London; and on the
29th October went from Gothurst to Coughton, in Warwickshire. (I think
Garnet’s main reason for going to Coughton was in order to meet Catesby,
and endeavour to induce him to discard Percy’s counsel and to seek refuge
in flight.)

(17) Father Oldcorne evaded giving a direct answer as to the Plot, when
questioned by Littleton, after November 5th.

(18) Hence, the facts _both before and after_ the delivery of the Letter
are consistent with, and indeed converge towards, the hypothesis sought by
this Inquiry to be proved.

(19) The circumstance that Christopher Wright displayed a strangely marked
disposition to “hang about” the prime conspirator, Thomas Winter, _after_
the sending of the Letter, is a suspicious fact, strongly indicative of a
consciousness on Christopher Wright’s part of a special responsibility in
connection with the revelation of the Plot; as showing anxiety for
personal knowledge that the train of revelation lighted by himself had, so
to speak, taken fire.

(20) Christopher Wright lived not to tell the tale.

(21) Hence, the hypothesis is a theory established, with moral certitude,
mainly by Circumstantial Evidence, which latter “mosaics” perfectly.

(22) Finally, the crowning proof of the theory sought by this Book to be
established is found in these nine words of the _post scriptum_ of 21st
October, 1605, to letter dated 4th October, 1605, under the hand of Father
Garnet to Father Parsons, in Rome[A]: “This letter being returned unto me
again, FOR REASON OF A FRIEND’S STAY IN THE WAY, I blotted out some words
purposing to write the same by the next opportunity, as I will do
apart:”——The word “stay” here being used to signify “check.” _Cf._,
Shakespeare’s “King John,” II., 2: and see Glossary to Globe Edition
(Macmillan).

[Footnote A: This letter, I understand, is still extant, and is in the
archives of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster. I wonder whether by
any of the rigorous tests of modern science these “blotted out” words can
be discerned. Probably they have some reference to the Plot. The late Rev.
John Morris, S.J., thought they had not. But on this point I am obliged to
differ, _in toto_, from that painstaking editor of much invaluable
Elizabethan Catholic literature. See the learned Jesuit’s remarks on this
letter of the 4th October, 1605, in “_The Condition of Catholics under
James I._” (Longmans), p. 228.

Father Morris contends that for Father Garnet to have inserted a reference
to the Gunpowder Plot “between two such subjects as the choice of
Lay-brothers and his own want of money,” would have been for Garnet to
have exhibited a disposition “to be the most erratic of letter-writers.”

But, surely, Father Morris’s argument is feeble in the extreme when regard
is had to the fact that poor Henry Garnet’s mind, _from the 25th July,
1605, when he first heard from Tesimond, by way of confession, the general
particulars of the Plot, down to the 4th of October, 1605_, was a very
weltering chaos of grief, distress, and perplexity. And, therefore, the
most natural thing in the world was for him to exhibit a trifle of
eccentricity in the style of his epistolary correspondence, in such trying
circumstances, even with so acute and caustic a critic as Father Parsons.

I have said that about the 25th July, 1605 (St. James’-tide), Garnet had,
by way of confession, the _general particulars_ of the Plot, because I
think that Garnet obtained from Tesimond final details of the Plot at
Great Harrowden a fortnight before Michaelmas (11th October); in fact,
after the return from St. Winefrid’s Well, in Flintshire, Wales.

It is, however, probable that about the 21st of October, at Gothurst,
Tesimond may have made a further communication to Garnet, possibly in
consequence of Garnet’s sending for Tesimond _after_ he (Garnet) had
received “_the friend’s stay in the way_.” For the old tradition was that
Garnet _first_ had particulars from Tesimond, by way of confession, about
the 21st October. (See the earlier editions of Lingard’s “_History_.”)
But, of course, this was an error by _three months_, Garnet first
receiving at least general particulars from Tesimond about the 25th of
July. (At some future date I may, perhaps, write an essay on “_Garnet
after the 21st October, 1605_,” but at present I have not space to pursue
this matter further.)]




                              SUPPLEMENTA.


                            SUPPLEMENTUM I.

                              GUY FAWKES.

The forefathers of Guy Fawkes almost certainly sprang from Nidderdale, in
the West Riding of Yorkshire. See Foster’s “_Yorkshire Families_,” under
Hawkesworth, of Hawkesworth, and Fawkes, of Farnley.

Guy’s grandfather was William Fawkes, of York, who married a York lady,
Ellen Harrington.[A]

[Footnote A: Ellen Harrington’s father was Lord Mayor of York, in the
reign of Henry VIII., in the year 1536.]

William Fawkes became Registrar of the Exchequer Court of the Archbishop
of York, and died between the years 1558-1565.

William Fawkes had two sons and two daughters——Thomas Fawkes, a
merchant-stapler, and Edward Fawkes, a Notary or Proctor of the
Ecclesiastical Court, and afterwards an Advocate of the Consistory Court
of the Archbishop of York. (Certainly it is a strange and bitter irony
that an ancestry like this should have brought forth such a moral monster
as poor Guy Fawkes afterwards became. But our guiding motto must be:
“Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.”)

Edward Fawkes married a lady whose Christian name was Edith, but her
surname is unknown. She was the mother of four children——two sons and two
daughters. Only one of her sons grew to man’s estate, and this was the
hapless Guy.

(Only four children are known of with certainty; but Guy _possibly may_
have had another brother, who was a student at the Inns of Court, in
November, 1605.)

Now, the exact house where Edith Fawkes gave birth to her ill-fated boy is
at present not known with certitude. There are four traditions respecting
the place. Two traditions say the house was on the south side of High
Petergate, York; one tradition that it was on the north side, adjoining
the alley called Minster Gates; the fourth tradition that it was at
Bishopthorpe. Personally, I am in favour of the Minster Gates’ tradition.
But the Bishopthorpe tradition is worthy of a respectful hearing.

My friend, Mr. William Camidge, F.R.H.S. (than whom no man now living in
York has a greater, if indeed as great, knowledge concerning the City’s
antiquarian lore) tells me in a letter, dated the 5th of November, 1901,
that in old Thomas Gent’s “_Rippon_” (1733) there is mention made of
Bishopthorpe as being Guy’s birthplace. Gent says, “The house opposite the
church[A] is said to be the birthplace of Guy Faux.”

[Footnote A: _I.e._, the _old_ Bishopthorpe Church. The present
Bishopthorpe Church is a handsome structure of recent date, at the
entrance to the village from York.]

Mr. Camidge continues: “I found, a few years ago, rooted in the minds of
the oldest inhabitants of Bishopthorpe, the positive assurance that Guy
Fawkes was born at Bishopthorpe, and the site of the house was indicated
by several persons. I found one of the descendants of the former owner of
the house, who assured me that her father always held that Guy Fawkes was
born in the house; that my informant’s great grandfather maintained the
same; and that for two or three generations they had shown the house as
the place of Guy Fawkes’ birth. The site of the house is now a
pleasure-garden; but a stone was put in the ground to mark the site.”

Now it is a remarkable fact that in almost all, if indeed not quite all,
of those places where there has been a strong local tradition to the
effect that the Gunpowder conspirators had some association with a
particular spot, subsequent investigation has found the tradition to be
well authenticated. (This was pointed out by David Jardine sixty years
ago.)

Yet the strongest argument against the Bishopthorpe tradition is that
Guy’s baptismal register is to-day found at the Church of St.
Michael-le-Belfrey, in the City of York.

Now, in the time of Elizabeth, as Dr. Elzé has pointed out in his “_Life
of Shakespeare_,” a child would be _baptized on the third day after
birth_. Hence, on the whole, I cannot personally accept the Bishopthorpe
tradition as to the _birthplace_ of Guy Fawkes.

It is, however, more than possible that as a babe in arms Guy Fawkes may
have _lived_ at Bishopthorpe. For the Act of Uniformity, whereby the York
Court of High Commission had been established, would bring much legal work
to his father, Edward Fawkes; and that the latter found it convenient to
have a house in close proximity to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of York,
a leading member of the High Commission, is one of the likeliest things in
the world.

In these circumstances, then, the present-day inhabitants of Bishopthorpe
may still lay the flattering unction to their souls (if they wish so to
do) that Guy Fawkes drank in his mother’s milk in their picturesque
Yorkshire village, on the banks of the noble Ouse.

Mr. J. W. Knowles, of Stonegate, York, another gentleman well versed in
York’s antiquities, informed me in August, 1901, that a Mr. John Robert
Watkinson, of Redeness Street, Layerthorpe, York, held a tradition that
Guy Fawkes’ birthplace was in the house adjoining the Minster Gates.

Accordingly, some little time afterwards, I wrote to Mr. Watkinson, who at
once kindly replied in a letter, dated 22nd October, 1901, as follows:——

    “My reason for thinking that the house in High Petergate, at the
    corner of the Minster Gates, ... is the house where Guy Fawkes
    was born, is this:

    “Some fifty years ago I was working at the same house when an
    old Minster mason, named Townsend, told me it was the house
    where Guy Fawkes was born. Job Knowles, an old bell-ringer and
    watchman at the Minster at the time Jonathan Martin set the
    Minster on fire, also told me it was the same house.

    “It is an Elizabethan[A] house, but it has been re-fronted,
    which you would see if you went inside and looked at the
    wainscotting and the carved mantel-piece.”

[Footnote A: In a subsequent letter, Mr. Watkinson, who is a Protestant,
tells me that he is in the seventieth year of his age, and that he is
descended collaterally from Thomas Watkinson, of Menthorpe, near Selby,
the father of “the Venerable” Robert Watkinson, priest, who suffered
martyrdom at the London Tyburn in 1602, two years before the Gunpowder
Plot was hatched.]

Edward Fawkes died, aged forty-six, when his son, Guy, was not quite eight
years old. He was buried in the Minster on the 17th January, 1578-9. About
twenty-seven years afterwards this Yorkshire citizen’s thrice hapless
child——by nature a tall, athletic man, but then, by torture of the rack,
so crippled “that he was scarce able to go up the ladder”——met on the
shameful gallows-tree, and on the quartering block, in the Old Palace
Yard, Westminster, over against the Parliament House, the terrible death
of a condemned traitor. The whole world knows the reason why.

Mistress Edith Fawkes, Guy’s mother, was married a second time to a
gentleman named Dennis Bainbridge. He was connected with the John Pulleyn,
Esq., of Scotton, near Knaresbrough, and the probabilities are that Mr.
and Mrs. Dennis Bainbridge, and that lady’s children by her first husband,
namely Guy, Elizabeth and Ann Fawkes, all lived by the favour of the young
squire, John Pulleyn, in patriarchal fashion, at Scotton Hall. The
Pulleyns and the Bainbridges were Roman Catholics, and their names (along
with the names Walkingham, Knaresborough, and Bickerdyke) occur in
Peacock’s “_List of Roman Catholics in Yorkshire in 1604_,” under the
title “Parish of Farnham.” The name Percy, of Percy House, is not found in
Peacock’s “_List_.”

[If the Bainbridges did not live at Scotton Hall, they may have lived at
Percy House, hard-by the Hall. Percy House is now owned by Mr. Slater, of
Farnham Hall, the property of the relatives of the late Charles Shann,
Esquire, of Tadcaster.]

It is, therefore, easy to understand how it came to pass that the mind of
young Guy Fawkes became impregnated with Roman Catholicism. For man is a
creature of circumstances.

Yorkshire abounded in Roman Catholics in the time of Elizabeth (see the
“_Hatfield MSS._” and numerous other contemporary records). Such was
especially the case with the district round about Knaresbrough and Ripon.
And recollecting that many Yorkshiremen had suffered a bloody death for
their conscientious adherence to their religion between the years 1582 and
Easter, 1604, when the Gunpowder Plot was hatched, one ceases to marvel at
such a psychological puzzle as even the mind of Guy Fawkes.——See
Challoner’s “_Missionary Priests_” and Pollen’s “_Acts of the English
Martyrs_,” already frequently referred to.

[“The Venerable” martyrs, Robert Bickerdyke, Peter Snow, Ralph Grimston,
Francis Ingleby, and John Robinson (some priests, others laymen) came from
Low Hall, Farnham; “at or near Ripon;” Nidd, near Scotton; Ferensby and
Ripley respectively. While the “Blessed” John Nelson came from Skelton,
York, and the “Blessed” Richard Kirkeman from Addingham, near Ilkley (both
priests). All these men suffered death for legal treason or felony based
upon their religion between the years 1578 and 1604. And, therefore,
according to the laws that govern human nature, such events were sure to
tell an impressive tale to a man like Guy Fawkes. Princes and statesmen
should avoid, as far as possible, inflicting punishments that impress the
imagination. Moreover, an inferior but potent objection against all
religious persecution is found in the wisdom enshrined in the exclamation
of Horace, “O imitators, a servile crowd!”]

The following testimony of Father Oswald Tesimond, one of Guy Fawkes’ old
school-fellows, along with John Wright and Christopher Wright, at Old St.
Peter’s School, in the Horse Fayre, Gillygate, York, where Union Terrace
now stands, will be of interest.

Fawkes was “a man of great piety, of exemplary temperance, of mild and
cheerful demeanour, an enemy of broils and disputes, a faithful friend,
and remarkable for his punctual attendance upon religious observances.”
His society was “sought by all the most distinguished in the Archdukes’
camp for nobility and virtue.”——Quoted by Jardine in his “_Narrative_,” p.
38.

How sad to think that such a man should have so missed his way in the
journey of life as to become so demoralized as to join in the Gunpowder
Treason Plot; nay, _in intention_, to be the most deadly agent in that
Plot. What can have caused, in the final resort, such a missing of his
way, and have wrought such dire demoralization? Echo answers what?

Yet nothing more clearly shows that Guy Fawkes deserved all the punishment
he got than the fact that he returned to his post in the cellar, where the
thirty-six barrels of gunpowder were, after no less than _three_ distinct
warnings that the Government had intelligence of the Plot. One warning was
given him on Monday, the 28th October, at White Webbs, by Thomas Winter; a
second, on Sunday night, the 3rd November, by Thomas Winter, after the
delivery of the Letter to the King; and the third, on Monday, the 4th
November, after the visit to the cellar of the Earl of Suffolk and Lord
Mounteagle, of which visit Fawkes informed Thomas Percy.——See Lingard’s
“_History_.”

Copies of the three following Deeds given in Davies’ “_Fawkeses, of
York_,” will be read with interest. One of the Deeds is an “Indenture of
Lease;” the second, an “Indenture of Conveyance;” and the third, a “Deed
Poll,” whereby Dennis and Edith Bainbridge release all right to Dower in
Guy Fawkes’ real estate that he “heíred” from his own father, Edward
Fawkes; all the property was outside Bootham Bar, in the suburbs of York.

In “_The Connoisseur_,” for November, 1901, is given a fac-simile of the
“Conveyance.” Thomas Shepherd Noble, Esq., of Precentor’s Court, York, one
of York’s most respected citizens, saw these Deeds sixty years ago in
York, he informed me on the 5th of November, 1901; and Mr. Noble then told
me he had no doubt that the fac-simile given in “_The Connoisseur_” of the
“Conveyance” is a fac-simile of one of the documents he saw _more than
half a century ago_.

The Pulleyns, Pulleines, Pulleins, or Pullens (for the family spelt their
name in all four ways) bore for their Arms one and four azure, on a bend
between six lozenges or, each charged with a scallop of the first, five
scallops sable: two and three azure, a fess between three martlets.——See
Flower’s “_Visitation of Yorkshire_,” Ed. by Norcliffe.

Flower gives the Pulleyns, of Scotton, first, and then the Pulleyns, of
Killinghall, near Harrogate.

Walter Pulleyn, the step-grandfather of Guy Fawkes, is given as a Pulleyn,
of Scotton. Walter Pulleyn married for his first wife Frances Slingsby, of
Scriven; for his second wife Frances Vavasour, of Weston, near Otley. One
branch of the Vavasours, of Weston, settled at Newton Hall, Ripley, which,
embosomed in trees, can be seen to-day by all those who drive from
Harrogate,[A] through Killinghall and Ripley, on towards Ripon. Their son
was William Pulleyn, who married Margaret Bellasis, of Henknoll; and
_their_ son and heir was John Pulleyn, almost certainly the John Pulleyn,
Esquire, of Scotton, given under the Parish of Farnham, in Peacock’s
“_List of Roman Catholics in Yorkshire in 1604_.”

[Footnote A: How lovely is this drive from Harrogate to Ripon on a bright,
balmy summer-morn! How amiable the fair sights and sounds that greet from
all sides the traveller’s eye and ear! What historic memories well-up in
the heart as Scotton Banks, on the right hand, and Ripley Valley, on the
left, appear through charming sweet vistas never-to-be-forgotten!]

Flower’s “Pedigree” shows that the Pulleyns, of Scotton, had intermarried
with the Ruddes, of Killinghall; the Roos, of Ingmanthorpe, near
Wetherby; the Tankards, of Boroughbridge; the Swales, of Staveley; the
Walworths, of Raventoftes, Bishop Thornton; the Coghylls, of Knaresbrough;
and the Birnands, of Knaresbrough; one and all old Yorkshire Catholic
gentry.

Flower also shows in his “Pedigree” of the Pulleyns, of Killinghall, that
James Pulleyn, of Killinghall, married first Frances, daughter of Sir
William Ingleby, of Ripley; and secondly Frances Pulleyn, daughter of
Walter Pulleyn, of Scotton. They must have been cousins in some degree.
Among _their_ numerous children were Joshua and William, both Roman
Catholic priests.

The “_Douay Registers_” (David Nutt) show that Joshua Pulleyn was ordained
priest in 1578. He returned to England on the 27th August of that year. He
was educated at Cardinal Allen’s[A] College in Douay. His brother, William
Pulleyn, was ordained in 1583, at the same time as the future martyr, “the
Venerable” Francis Ingleby, afterwards the friend of “the Venerable”
Margaret Clitherow, of York, and for harbouring whom, along with her
spiritual director, Father John Mush, belike of Knaresbrough, Margaret
Clitherow was indicted in the Guildhall, York, at the Lent Assizes of
1586.

[Footnote A: Cardinal Allen had been a lay canon of York Minster during
the reign of Philip and Mary. He was a Lancashire man, being a native of
Rossall, near Blackpool.]

In 1578 the College of Douay was transferred by Cardinal Allen to Rheims
(or Reims), where it remained for twenty-one years, when it was
transferred back to Douay. Fathers William Pulleyn and Francis Ingleby
were educated at the College at Rheims (or Reims).——See “Order of Queen
Elizabeth,” dated last day of December, 1582, in Appendix _postea_ where
Reims is mentioned in connection with the popish missionary priests it
was then sending forth into the City of York.[A]

[Footnote A: Miss Catharine Pullein, of the Manor House, Rotherfield,
Sussex, courteously tells me in a most interesting letter, under date 13th
May, 1901, that from the _inq. post mortem_ the above-named Walter Pulleyn
died in 1580. That his son William, whose wife was a Bellasis, died before
his father, so that in 1580 John Pulleyn (the one mentioned in Peacock’s
“_List for 1604_”) was the young squire. In 1581 or 1582 John seems to
have married. He suffered from the infliction of fines for popish
recusancy, and appears to have left Scotton between 1604 and 1612.
(Scotton Hall is to-day (1901), I believe, owned by the Rev. Charles
Slingsby, M.A., of Scriven Hall, near Knaresbrough. The tenant is Mr.
Thrackray.)]

There is a tradition to this day at Cowthorpe (or Coulthorpe, as it is
pronounced by ancient inhabitants), near Wetherby, that Guy Fawkes was
wont to visit that old-world village (until recently so quaint from its
thatched farm-houses and cottars’ dwellings, and but little changed belike
since the days of “Good Queen Bess”).

This tradition is certainly probably authentic; for a Roman Catholic
family, named Walmsley, at that time lived at Cowthorpe Hall, a dignified
“moated grange” between the Nidd and the historic “Cowthorpe Old Oak.” Guy
Fawkes, possibly, many a time and oft, may have stabled his horse at the
old Hall when, after fording at Hunsingore the shallow Nidd, he traversed
the pleasant fields betwixt Cowthorpe and Ingmanthorpe, near Wetherby,
where dwelt the family of Roos, who were, as above stated, allied by
marriage to Guy’s friends, the Pulleyns, of Scotton.

Lastly; so intelligent a Yorkshire lad as was, beyond all doubt or cavil,
the son of Edward Fawkes and Edith his wife——the lad whose manly but
delicately-formed handwriting may be seen to-day by all who have the
privilege of obtaining a sight of the precious document fac-similed in a
well-known monthly periodical for November, 1901[A]——must have visited, I
opine, Ribston Park, between Knaresbrough, Hunsingore, and Cowthorpe
(where had been in mediæval times a celebrated Preceptory of the Knights
Templars, the record of whose deeds against “the infidel Turk” may have
fired Guy’s imagination from his earliest years). Moreover, Richard
Goodricke, Esquire, of Ribston, had married Clara Norton, one of
chivalrous, old Richard Norton’s daughters, of Norton Conyers; and this,
to the popish youth, would be an additional attraction for going to view
Ribston Hall, its chapel, park, and pale.[B]

[Footnote A: “_The Connoisseur._”]

[Footnote B: Richard Norton fled to Cavers House, Hawick, in the Border
Country of Scotland, and afterwards to Flanders, where he died.——See “_Sir
Ralph Sadler’s Papers_,” Ed. by Sir Walter Scott.]

The Goodrickes derived the Ribston Estate (which included the Manor of
Hunsingore and the Lordship of Great Cattal) from Charles Brandon Duke of
Suffolk, William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle’s great-great-grandfather.
The Goodrickes were akin to the Hawkesworths, who again were akin to the
Fawkeses, and likewise to the Wards (see _ante_). The Ribston branch of
the Goodrickes died out early in the nineteenth century——Sir Harry
Goodricke being the last baronet. The ancient Ribston, Hunsingore, and
Great Cattal demesne is now owned by Major Dent, of Ribston Hall, near
Knaresbrough.

From _“The Fawkes Family of York.”_

    This Indenture made the fourtenth daye of October in the yere of
    the reigne of our Sovereigne Ladye Elizabeth, by the Grace of
    God Queen of England Fraunce and Ireland, Defender of the Faith,
    &c. the xxxiijrd, Betwene Guye Fauxe of Scotton in the County of
    Yorke gentilman of the one partye, and Christofer Lomleye of
    the cittie of Yorke taylor, of the other partye, Witnessethe
    that the said Guy Fauxe, for divers good cawses and
    consideracions him thereunto speciallye moveinge, hath demysed
    graunted and to farme letten, and by theis presentes doth demyse
    graunt and to farme lett, unto the sayd Christofer Lomleye, one
    barne and one garth on the backside of the said barn, with the
    appertenaunces, scytuate lyeinge and beinge in Gilligaite in the
    suburbes of the said cittie of Yorke, and three acres and half
    of one acre of arrable lande, with the appertenaunces, in
    Clyfton in the said countie of Yorke, whereof halfe of one acre
    called a pitt lande, and one roode of lande lyinge at
    Newe-Close-gaite, are lyinge and beinge in the common field of
    Clyfton aforesaid towards Roclyffe, one half acre lyeth in the
    field called Mylnefeilde in Clyfton afforesaid, one rood lyinge
    in the flatt or field called Layres, one half acre called Layres
    in the Fosse-feild, one half acre called Hungrine lande, one
    half acre beyond the newe wynde mylne, and one half acre at the
    More-brottes, all whiche are lyinge and beynge in the feildes of
    Clyfton afforesaid; and also one acre of medowe lyinge and
    beynge in the ynges or medowe of Clyfton afforesaid, with all
    and singuler the appertenaunces in Clyfton aforesaid, nowe or
    laite in the tenure or occupacion of the saide Christofer or his
    assignes; to have and to holde the said barne, garth, three
    acres and half of one acre of arrable lande, and the sayd acre
    of medowe, and all other the premisses, with all and singuler
    the appertenaunces, in Gilligaite and Clyfton afforesaid, unto
    the sayd Christofer Lomley his executors and assignes, from the
    feast of St. Martyne the Bishop, comonlye called Martinmas daye,
    nexte ensewynge the daite hereof, for and dureinge the terme of
    twentye and one yeres from thence nexte and ymediatlye
    ensewinge and followinge fullye to be complett fynished and
    ended, yeldinge and payinge therfore yerelye dureinge the said
    terme unto the said Guye Fauxe his heires or assignes, fortie
    and two shillinges of lawfull Ynglish monie at the feastes of
    St. Martyne the Bishop in winter and Penteycost, or within ten
    dayes nexte after either of the sayd feastes, yf it be lawfully
    demaunded, by even and equall porcions. And the said Christofer
    Lomley, for him his executors and assignes, doth by theis
    presentes covenaunte and graunte to and with the said Guye
    Fauxe, that he the said Christofer Lomley his executors and
    assignes, at his and their proper costes and chardges shall well
    and sufficyentlye repaire maintayne and uphould the said barne
    at all tymes dureinge the said terme in all necessarie
    reparacions, greate tymber onely excepted, whiche the said Guye
    Fauxe, for him his heires and assignes, doth by theis presentes
    covenaunt and graunte to and with the said Christofer Lomley his
    executors and assigns, to delyver upon the ground at all tymes
    as often as neede shall require dureinge the said terme. And the
    said Guye Fauxe, for himself his heires executors and assignes,
    doth by theis presentes covenant and grante to and with the sayd
    Christofer Lomley, his executors and assignes, that he, the sayd
    Christofer Lomley, his executors and assignes, shall or lawfully
    maye at all tyme and tymes, and from tyme to tyme, dureynge the
    sayd terme of twentye and one yeres, peacablye occupie and
    quyetlie enjoye the said barne and all other the premisses and
    every parte and parcell thereof, with all and everie their
    appurtenaunces, without lett disturbance or interrupcion of any
    person or persons whatsoever. And that the sayd barne, and all
    other the premisses, with the appurtenaunces, at the daye of the
    daite hereof are, and dureynge the sayd term of twenty and one
    yeres shall and may continewe, clere and clerelie dischardged,
    or well and sufficyently saved harmeles, by the sayd Guye Fauxe
    his heires and assignes, of and from all former leases,
    grauntes, charges, incumbraunces, and demaundes whatsoever, the
    rentes by theis presentes reserved, and the covenauntes in theis
    presentes expressed on the behalf of the said Cristofer Lomley,
    to be observed and performed, onely excepted and foreprised. And
    the said Guye Fauxe and his heires all and singuler the
    premisses, with the appurtenances, before by theis presentes
    demysed to the sayd Cristofer Lomley his executors and assignes,
    dureigne the terme afforesayd, against all people rightfully
    claimynge shall warrante and defende by theis presentes. In
    witnes whereof, the partyes abovesaid to theis present
    Indentures have interchangeablie set to their handes and seales
    the daye and yere above written.

                                                 GUYE FAWKES. L.S.

  Sealed and delivered, in the presence of us——DIONIS
    BAYNEBRIGGE——JOHN JACKSON——CHRISTOPHER HODGSON’S marke ×

This Indenture maide the firste daie of Auguste in the xxxiiijth yere of
the reigne of our Soveraigne Ladie Elizabethe, by the grace of God Quewne
of England Fraunce and Ireland, Defendour of the Faithe, &c. Betwene Guye
Fawkes of the cittie of Yorke gentilman, of the one partye, and Anne
Skipseye of Cliftone in the countie of Yorke, spinster, of the other
partye Witnessithe that the said Guy Fawkes, for and in consideration of
the sum of xxix^{li} xiij^{s} iiij^{d} of good and lawfull English moneye
to him, the said Guye Fawkes, well and trewlie contentid and paid by the
said Anne Skipseye, at and before the ensealinge of these presentes,
whereof and wherewith the said Guye knowlegith him self to be fulie
satisfied contentid and paid, and the said Anne Skipseye, hir heires
executors administratores and assigneis, thereof to be fullie acquited and
dischargdgid for ever by theis presentes, hath geven grauntid alliened
bargained and sollde, and by these presentes dothe clerelie and absolutlye
geve graunt allien bargaine and sell unto the said Anne Skipseye, hir
heires and assigneis, that his messuage tenement or farme-hollde, with the
appurtenaunces, and a garthe and a gardine belonginge to the same, lyeinge
and beinge in Cliftone in the countie of York, and towe acres and an half
of arrable lande liinge in severall feilldes in Clifton aforesaid, half an
acre of medowe grounde liinge in a closse callid Huntingtone buttes,
within the townshipp and territories of Cliftone aforesaid, one acre of
medowe lyinge in Lufton Car, thre inges endes, and towe croftes or lees of
medowe in a crofte adjoyninge on the garth endes in Cliftone aforesaid, of
the easte parte of the said messuage; all which premissis are nowe in the
tenure and occupation of the said Anne Skipsie; and also one acre of
arable land and medowe liinge in the towne-end felld of Clifton aforesaid,
nowe or late in the occupation of Richard Dickinsone; and all other his
landes and tenementes in Clifton aforesaid, with all comons of pasture,
more grownde, turffe graftes, and all and singuler the appurtenaunces to
the same belonging or apperteyninge, in whose tenures or occupations
soever they nowe be, excepte thre acres and an half of arable land with
the appurtenaunces in Cliftone aforesaid, whereof half an acre callid a
pitt land, and a roode of land liinge at Newe Close Gate, and being in the
comon felld of Clifton aforesaid towardes Roclif, one half acre lyenge in
the felld callid Milne felld, one rood lying in the flatt callid the
Laires, and half acre callid Laires in Fosse filde, one acre callid a
hungrie land, one half acre beyonde the newe windemill, one acre of land
at the More Brottes; all which are lyinge and beinge in the felldes of
Cliftone aforesaid; and also one acre of medow lyinge and beinge in the
medowe or inges of Clifton, with theire appurtenaunces to the same
perteyninge or belonginge, by the said Guye Fawkes heretofore demissid
grauntid and to ferme letten for diverse yeres yett to come and unexpirid
to one Cristofer Lumleye of the cittie of Yorke tailor, as shall appeare
by one Indenture maid thereof betwene the said Guye Fawkes of the one
partie, and the said Cristofer Lumleye of the other partie, bearinge date
the xiiijth daie of October in the xxxiijrd yere of the said our
Soveraigne Ladie the Quenes Majestie reigne more at lardge maie appeare;
together with all the deedes evidences writinges, and escriptes, towchinge
and concerninge the premissis with the appertenaunces, before by these
presentes bargaind and solde by the said Guye Fawkes to the said Anne
Skipsie, which the said Guye nowe hathe in custodie, or which any othere
persone or persones have in their custodies to his use or by his
deliverie, which the said Guye Fawkes maie lawfullie come by withowte
suite in lawe: To have and to holld the said messuage cotage or
farme-holld, and all and singuler the premissis, with the appurtenaunces,
by these presentes before bargaind and solld (except before exceptid),
with all and singuler the appurtenaunces to the same perteyninge and
belonginge, in Cliftone, and the felldes of Cliftone aforesaid, together
with all the said deedes, evidences, writinges, and escriptes, towchinge
and concerninge the same, as is said, to the said Anne Skipseye her
heires and assigneis, to the sole and proper use and behowfe of the said
Anne Skipseye hir heires and assigneis for ever. And the said Guye Fawkes,
for him his heires executores and administratores, doeth covenant and
graunt by these presentes to and with the said Anne Skipseye, hir heires
executores administratores and assigneis, that he the said Guye Fawkes,
the daie of the makinge hereof, ys the verie and trewe owner of the said
messuage tenement and farme-hold, with all and singuler the landes,
medowes, pastures, comon of pasture, turbaries, with the same pertenyinge
or belonginge in Cliftone, and within the felldes and territories of
Clifton aforesaid, with other the appurtenaunces whatsoever to the same
perteyninge or belonginge before bargaind and sold, and that he is
lawfullie seassid thereof in his demesne as of fee in fee simple, and hath
full power and lawfull authoritie to bargaine and sell the same unto the
said Anne Skipeseye hir heires and assignes for ever. And also that the
said messuage tenement or farme-holld, and other the premissis, with the
appurtenances, before bargaind and sold, the daie of the makinge hereoff,
and at all tymes hereafter, and from tyme to tyme, is and shall stand
clerely acquittid and dischardgid, or otherwise savid harmeles, by the
said Guye Fawkes, his heires, executores or assignes, of and from all
former bargaines, sailles, joyntores, doweres, thirde parties,
feoffamentes, statutes-marchant and of the staple, recognizances,
writinges of eligit, condempnations, judgmentes, executions, fines,
forfaiturs, intrusions for allienations, rentes-chardges, rentes-seke, and
all othere chardges and incumberances whatsoever theye be, the rentes and
services hereafter to be dewe to the cheife lord of the fee thereof onely
exceptid. And also the said Guye Fawkes, for him his heires executores
and assigneis, dothe further covenant and graunt to and with the said Anne
Skipseye hir heires and assigneis, that Edeth the late wife of Edward
Fawkes deceassid, mothere to the said Guye Fawkes, and now wife to Dionese
Baynebridge gentillman, nor any other persone or persones whatsoever,
which have, shall have, or shall clame any lawfull right or title in or to
the premissis or any parte thereof, shall at any tyme hereafter moleste,
interrupt, or trowble, the said Anne Skipseye hir heires or assigneis, of
for and concerninge the premissis or any parte thereof, but that the said
Anne Skipseye hir heires and assigneis shall and maie at all tyme
peacablie and quietlie possess and enjoye the same and everie parte
thereof, and that all and everie persone or persones whatsoever, which doe
stand seazid of the premissis or any parte thereof, shall at all tymes,
and from tyme to tyme, within five yeres next ensuinge the date hereof,
upon the reasonable requeste and desire of the said Anne Skipseye hir
heires administratores or assigneis, make, knowledge, sealle, and deliver,
unto the said Anne Skipseye hir heires executores and assigneis, all such
further assurance and assurances whatsoever as shall be devisid or advisid
by the learnid councell in the lawes of this realme, beinge of the
councell of the said Anne Skipseye, whether the same shalbe by dede or
dedes inrollid, with warrantie against all men, inrollment of these
present Indentures, fine with like warrantie, recoverie with vocher or
vochers single or doble, release with warrantie against all men, or
otherwise or by soo manye of them as shall be advisid or requirid by the
said learnid councell of the said Anne, the cost and chardges whereof in
lawe shalbe at thonelie cost and chardges of the said Anne Skipseye hir
heires executores or assigneis. In witness whereof, the parties abovesaid
unto these present Indentures interchangable have sett there handes and
seall the daie and yere abovesaid.

                                                 GUYE FAWKES. L.S.

Seallid and delyverid in the presence of——GEORGE HOBSON——WILLIAM
MASKEWE——LANCELOT BELT——THOMAS HESLEBECKE——CHRYSTOFER LUMLEYE——IHON LAMB
marke ×——JOHN HARRISON——JOHN CALV’LEY.

Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos hoc presens scriptum pervenerit
Dionisius Baynbrige de Scotton in comitatu Ebor’ generosus et Edetha uxor
ejus salutem in Domino sempiternam. Noveritis nos prefatum Dionisium
Baynbrige et Edetham remississe, relaxasse ac omnino de et pro nobis et
heredibus nostris per presentes inperpetuum quietum clamasse Anne Skipseye
de Cliftone in dicto comitatu Ebor’ spynster in sua plena pacificaque
possessione et seisina die confectionis presentium existenti heredibus et
assignatis suis, totum jus, statum, titulum, clameum, usum, interesse et
demaunda nostra quecunque que vel quas unquam habuimus, habemus, seu
quovismodo infuturum habere poterimus seu deberimus de et in uno cotagio
sive tenemento cum una clausura vocata A Grisgarthe et duobus croftis vel
selionibus cum suis pertinentiis in Cliftone predicto in comitatu Ebor’
predicto ac de et in una roda terræ arrabilis jacentis in Favild-nooke in
campis de Cliftone, inter terram Johannis Bilbowe ex parte occidente et
terram Leonarid Weddell ex parte oriente, dimidia acra terræ jacente in
les Sokers inter terram nuper Roberti Wright ex parte australi et terram
Thome Hill ex parte boriali, una roda terræ jacente in Longwandilles inter
terram Thome Hill ex parte boriali et terram nuper Roberti Wright ex
parte australi et Thome Hill ex parte boriali, dimidia acra terræ jacente
inter regias vias ibidem inter terram nuper Roberti Wright ex parte
australi et Thome Hill ex parte boriali, dimidia acra terræ jacente in lez
shorte layeres inter terram Johannis Bilbowe ex parte boriali et terram
nuper Rogeri Browne ex parte australi, dimidia acra jacente in Huntington
buttes inter terram Johannis Bilbowe ex parte occidente et terram Roberti
Walker ex parte orientali, una acra terræ jacente in Lupstone Carre in le
Northfelld sive campo juxta Roclif inter terram nuper Roberti Wright ex
parte australi et le moore dike ex parte boriali, et tribus dimidiis acris
prati jacentibus in fine prati vocati ynge endes quarum una dimidia acra
jacet inter pratum Edwardi Turner ex parte boriali et Thome Burtone ex
parte australi, alia dimidia acra inde jacet ex parte australi Leonardi
Weddell, et tertia dimidia acra inde jacet inter Thomam Hill ex parte
boriali et Henricum Granger ex parte australi, cum omnibus et singulis
suis pertinentiis in Cliftone et in campis de Cliftone predicto modo in
tenura sive occupatione prefate Anne Skipseye, ac etiam de et in una acra
terræ et prati jacente in le Towne-end felld de Cliftone predicto modo vel
nuper in occupatione Ricardi Dickensone, necnon de et in omnibus aliis
terris et tenementis in Clifton predicto que nuper fuerunt Guidonis Fawkes
generosi (tribus acris et dimidia acra terræ cum pertinentiis in campis de
Cliftone predicto et una acra prati in prato vocato le ynges de Cliftone
modo in tenura Cristoferi Lumleye, tantum modo exceptis per presentes),
ita viz. quod nec nos prefati Dionisius Bainbrige et Edetha aut nostrum
uterlibet nec heredes nostri nec aliquis alius sive aliqui alii pro nobis
seu nominibus nostris aut nomine nostrum alterius aliquod jus, statum,
titulum, clameum, usum, interesse vel demandum de et in predicto cotagio
sive tenemento cum clausura predicta, et de predictis duobus croftis vel
selionibus, aut de et in predictis premissis cum pertinentiis in Clifton
et campis de Cliftone predicto ut prefertur, seu de et in aliqua inde
parte sive parcellis (exceptis prius exceptis) decetero exigere, petere,
clamare vel vendicare, poterimus nec debemus in futuro, sed ut ab omni
actione, jure, titulis, clameo, usu, interesse, vel demando aliquid inde
habendi sive petendi sumus penitus exclusi et quilibet nostrum sit inde
penitus exclusus in perpetuum per presentes. Et nos vero prefati Dionisius
Baynbrige et Edetha et haredes nostri predicta omnia premissa cum suis
pertinentiis universis ut prefertur (exceptis prius exceptis) prefate Anne
Skipseye heredibus et assignatis suis in forma predicta contra nos et
heredes nostros warrantizabimus et imperpetuum defendemus per presentes.
In cujus rei testimonium nos prefati Dionisius Baynbrige et Edetha huic
presenti scripto nostro sigilla nostra apposuimus. Datum xxi^{mo} die
mensis Octobris, anno regni domine Elizabethe Dei gratia Anglie, Frauncie,
et Hibernie Regine, fidei defensoris &c. tricesimo quarto.

  DIONIS BAYNEBRIGGE (L.S.)——E.B. (L.S.) Seallid and delyverid in
    the presence of——GUYE FAWKES——WILLIAM GRANGE——JAMES RYDING.


                            SUPPLEMENTUM II.

                        HATFIELD MSS.——Part VI.

         [Dr. Bilson] Bishop of Worcester to Sir Robert Cecil.

1596, July 17. I have viewed the state of Worcester diocese, and find it,
as may somewhat appear by the particulars here enclosed, for the quantity,
as dangerous as any place that I know. In that small circuit there are
nine score[A] recusants of note, besides retainers, wanderers, and secret
lurkers, dispersed in forty several parishes, and six score and ten
households, whereof about forty are families of gentlemen, that themselves
or their wives refrain the church, and many of them not only of good
wealth, but of great alliance, as the Windsors, Talbots, Throgmortens,
Abingtons, and others, and in either respect, if they may have their
forth, able to prevail much with the simpler sort.

[Footnote A: This letter will be read with interest, as affording
independent testimony to the strength of Popery in the County of Worcester
during the period of Father Oldcorne’s labours.]

Besides, Warwick[B] and the parts thereabout are freighted with a number
of men precisely conceited against her Majesty’s government
ecclesiastical, and they trouble the people as much with their curiosity
as the other with their obstinacy.

[Footnote B: This is interesting as showing that in the native county of
Shakespeare, Puritanism was gaining strength in 1596, probably through the
influence of the Earl of Leicester, Sir Thomas Lucy (of Charlcote), and
Sir Fulke Grevyll, as well as others.]

How weak ordinary authority is to do any good on either sort long
experience hath taught me, excommunication being the only bridle the law
yieldeth to a bishop, and either side utterly despising that course of
correction, as men that gladly, and of their own accord, refuse the
communion of the church, both in sacraments and prayers.

In respect therefore of the number and danger of those divers humours both
denying obedience to her Majesty’s proceedings, if it please her Highness
to trust me and others in that shire with the commission
ecclesiastical,[A] as in other places of like importance is used, I will
do my endeavour to serve God and her Majesty in that diocese to the
uttermost of my power.

[Footnote A: Under the provisions of the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity.]

First, by viewing their qualities, retinues, abilities, and dispositions;
next, by drawing them to private and often conference, lest ignorance make
them perversely devout; thirdly, by restraining them from receiving,
succouring, or maintaining any wanderers or servitors that feed their
humours; and, lastly, by certifying what effects or defects I find to be
the cause of so many revolting.

Her Majesty hath trusted me fifteen years since to be of the _quorum_ on
the commission ecclesiastical in Hampshire, and therefore age and
experience growing, as also my care and charge increasing, I hope I shall
not need to produce any further motives to induce her Majesty’s favour
therein, but the profession of my duty and promise of my best service with
all diligence and discretion, which I hope shall turn to her content and
good of her people.

With which my most humble petition, if it please you to acquaint her
Majesty; I will render you all due thanks, and make what speed I may
towards the place where I long to be and wish to labour to the pleasure of
Almighty God and good liking of her Majesty.

  London 17 July 1596.

  Signed

  Encloses:——

The names and qualities of the wealthier sort of Recusants in Worcester
diocese:——

  The Lady Windsor, with her retinue.
  M^{r} Talbot.
  Thomas Abington Esq. and Dorothy, his sister.
  Thomas Throgmorton, Esq.
  John Wheeler gent. and Elizabeth his wife.
  Thomas Bluntt gent. and Bridgett, his wife.
  John Smyth gent. Thomas Greene, gent.
  Hugh Ligon gent., and Barbara, his wife.
  Michael Folliatt, gent., and Margaret, his wife.
  William Coles gent., and Marie, his wife.
  M^{r} Bluntt, gent. of Hallow.
  Hugh Day gent. and Margaret, his wife.
  Lygon Barton, gent.
  John Taylor, gent., and Ann, his wife.
  John Midlemore, gent., Hugh Throgmorton gent.
  Humphrey Packington, gent.
  John Woolmer gent. of Inkbarrow.
  Rowse Woolmer, gent.
  John Woolmer gent. of Kingston.
  M^{r} Busshop gent. of Oldbarrow.

                                                          [Total]——23.

The names of the gentlewomen that refuse the church, though their husbands
do not.

  Margaret, wife of Roger Pen gent.
  Jane wife of John Midlemore.
  Alice wife of John Hornyhold gent.
  Margaret wife of William Rigby gent.
  Mary wife of Thomas Sheldon gent.
  Dorothy wife of Thomas Rauckford gent.
  Ann wife of William Fox gent.
  Joan, wife of Thomas Barber gent.
  Prudence wife of Thomas Oldnall gent.
  Frances wife of John Jeffreys gent.
  Elizabeth wife of Thomas Randall gent.
  Mary wife of William Woolmer gent.
  Elizabeth Ferreys widow.
  Jane Sheldon widow.
  Katherine Sparks of Hinlipp.
  Dorothy Woolmer.
  Jane Mary Eleanor daughters of Anthony Woolmer gent.

Of the meaner sort:——

Fourscore and ten several households where the man or wife or both are
recusants, besides children and servants.


                           SUPPLEMENTUM III.

                              THOMAS WARD.

It is probable that diligent search among the Cecil and Walsingham papers
will shed more light on Thomas Ward (or Warde) than I have been able
hitherto to gain.

The probabilities are, as has been already indicated, that Thomas Ward was
a younger son of Marmaduke Ward, of Newby, and Susannay, his wife. That
Marmaduke Ward’s elder son was Marmaduke Ward (who married Ursula Wright,
and afterwards, in all likelihood, Elizabeth Sympson), the father of that
extraordinary woman, Mary Ward.

I opine that Thomas Ward attached himself to the Court party of Queen
Elizabeth, through the Council of the North, established by Henry VIII.
after the defeat of the first Pilgrimage of Grace (1536).

Thomas Ward was just the sort of man (_me judice_) that Queen Elizabeth
would affect. Moreover, I find that a Captain John Ward was on the side of
the Crown on the occasion of the second Pilgrimage of Grace, commonly
called the Rising of the North, or the Earls’ Rebellion (1569).

Therefore, through the influence of a man like Sir Ralph Sadler, who was a
distinguished Privy Councillor of the Queen in the northern parts, a
Yorkshire gentleman, such as a Ward, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale,
would have no difficulty in obtaining an _entrée_ at Elizabeth’s Court,
who, as is well known, was, from a certain English conservative instinct
probably, favourably inclined to those Catholics whose leaning was
towards the easy side of things.[A]

[Footnote A: See “_Sir Ralph Sadler’s Papers_,” Ed. by Sir Walter Scott.
It is observable that although the Nortons and the Markenfields were for
the Earls, yet members of the following Yorkshire Catholic Families (many
of them kinsmen of the Wards) were for the Queen, who was not then
excommunicated:——The Eures, the Mallories, the Inglebies, the Constables,
the Tempests, the Fairfaxes, the Cholmeleys, the Ellerkers, and the
Wilstroppes.

For these Families and their alliances see the “_Visitations of
Yorkshire_,” by Glover, Ed. by Foster; and by Flower, Ed. by Norcliffe.
Also “_Dugdale_” (Surtees).]

Now, if Thomas Ward became a member of Elizabeth’s diplomatic service
under Sir Francis Walsingham, the inevitable question arises: Can Thomas
Ward (or Warde) have always maintained a conscience void of offence, or
did he sometimes stoop to compliances which were unworthy of his
principles and name?

At present I cannot say, yet I am constrained to allow that the following
two pieces of evidence afford curious reading and suggest many
possibilities:——

HATFIELD MSS.——Part VI., p. 96.

Thomas Morgan to Mary Queen of Scots.

1585, Mar. 30./Ap. 9. Informs her of his apprehension at the request of
the Earl of Derby. Mr. Ward’s negotiation to procure his being delivered
up into England. Requires her support. Lord Paget’s money taken in his
(Morgan’s) lodging. Efforts of Charles Paget and Thomas Throgmorton in his
behalf.

[It is to be recollected that this said Thomas Morgan was a Catholic of a
sort, who had been in the service of Archbishop Young, of York. Hence, a
Ward, of Ripon and York, was the very man the subtle Walsingham would
employ to negotiate a delicate matter requiring an accurate knowledge of
Morgan’s intellectual and moral characteristics; for Ward most likely had
known Morgan at York.]

       *       *       *       *       *

Thirteen years later we find the name “Ward” again in the “_Hatfield
MSS._”

                   HATFIELD MSS.——Part VIII., p. 295.

1598 Aug. 4. Steven Rodwey to secretary Cecil for permission to go to
Italy to go over to accompany M^{r} Paget into Italy.

“The disgrace with your Honour I suspect to proceed, either of Lord
Cobham’s disfavour at another man’s suit, which I have not deserved; or by
the suggestion of _Ward_ M^{r} Paget’s, solicitor, because I refused to
carry his[A] letters that was so lately “jested” with high treason, and
might father all the faults I am charged with.”

[Footnote A: Whose letters? Paget’s or Ward’s?]

[Who or what Mr. Steven Rodwey was, one can only surmise. Possibly he was
a spy, who had been doing more business on his own account than on account
of his master. Hence, his disgrace with “his Honour.”

Charles Paget, a younger brother of Lord Paget, and his friend, Thomas
Morgan, figure in all histories of Mary Queen of Scots; also in “_Cardinal
Allen’s Memorials_,” Ed. by the late Dr. Knox (Nutt), there are some
interesting particulars about these two men, Charles Paget and Thomas
Morgan. They were hostile to Father Parsons and Parsons’ Spanish faction
among the English papists.]

But here, for the present, we must take our leave of Thomas Ward,
excepting to say that it is possible that he may be the same as the Thomas
Ward (or Warde) who is mentioned several times in the “_Household Books of
Lord William Howard_,” as his agent for the Howard-Dacre, Yorkshire,
Durham, and Westmoreland estates.[A]——See Note to p. 231 _ante_.

[Footnote A: The Rev. A. S. Brooke, M.A., the Rector of Slingsby, informs
me that his parish registers begin only in 1687. The late Captain Ward,
R.N., of Slingsby Hall, who lies in Slingsby Churchyard, perhaps may have
had some family tradition bearing on the point. It is certainly remarkable
that there should have been Wards, Rectors of Slingsby, from the time of
James I., and long afterwards. It suggests that Thomas Ward, the agent of
Lord William Howard, may have either married again after 1590, and had a
family; or else that some of the Wards, of Durham, or others that had
conformed to the Established Church received this ecclesiastical
preferment at the instance of Thomas Ward. Valentine Kitchingman, Esquire,
the grandson of Captain Ward, and owner of Slingsby Hall, has, however, no
such tradition. (I am told through the Rector of Slingsby, September,
1901.)]

The Right Honourable Charles James Howard ninth Earl of Carlisle, in the
course of two most gracious replies to letters of mine, informs me that,
although he has caused search to be made at Naworth and Castle Howard, he
has not been able to find any particulars concerning Thomas Ward (or
Warde) beyond what are mentioned in the “_Household Books of Lord William
Howard_” (Surtees Soc.); and that probably, owing to the fire at
Hinderskelfe Castle, after the time of Thomas Ward, letters or papers
containing possible reference to him may have been destroyed.

Lastly; I beg to bring before my readers the following document from the
Record Office, which makes mention of the name Ward; but whether or not
that of Thomas Ward, of Mulwith, in the Parish of Ripon, I cannot say:——

         STATE PAPERS DOMESTIC——ELIZ., Vol. ccxxxviii., 126 I.
                              A. D. 1591.

  Obiections against one Fletcher vicar of Clarkenwell for the
    permission of these maters followinge

Fyrst at conveniente tymes of receivinge the holye communion at which time
he is to give warninge to all his parishioners for his privat comoditye he
excepteth sume particuler persones whose names are under written and of
them taketh money.

M^{r} Wardes[A] Two daughters.

M^{r} Gerrat his wiffe a watinge mayde called M^{ris} Marye and a man
called Anthenie recevinge of him for theire absence divers somes of money
and in my knowledge at Easter was Twoo yeares the some of xx^{s} in
goulde.

M^{r} Saunders and his Two Sonnes certen unknowne money.

Besides M^{ris} Gerrat being delivered of a doughter aboute Twoe yeares
since he did forbeare to cristen yt beinge bribed with a peece of money ye
Chillde being Cristned in the house, by a priest and she churched by th’
afforsaide preist being knowne to this Fletcher.

[Footnote A: What Mr. Warde can this have been? Not Thomas Ward (or
Warde), of Mulwith, I think. For the presumption is that he had no
children, for none are registered at Ripon Minster; and Thomas Ward was
more likely to have his children christened by a Protestant minister than
was his brother, Marmaduke; for the former evidently associated with
Protestants much more than the latter. Moreover, in 1591 any daughters
that Thomas Warde had can have been only about nine or ten years of age.
His wife died the previous year, 1590. (Still it may have been.)]

       *       *       *       *       *

Norris and Watson persevantes have been divers times latly in ye closse
and Norris hath receved in ye way of borrowinge of sume V^{s} of others
more. But Watson by vertue of a comission from my L. of Cant. hath latly
serched Gerates house and M^{r} Wardes where he found nothinge at all they
being partly privie before of his cominge. But in M^{r} Wardes house
theire did latly remayne hidden under ye higest place of ye stares within
a nayled boarde divers bookes [not specified] pictures and other folishe
serimonyes.

  Orders amungst ye papistes for ye releyse aswell of prisoners as
    of ye porer sorte at libertye.

Yt is an order amungst ye papistes for ye releyse of prisoners aswell
Jesuytes as Laymen that there be a generall colleccion which beginneth at
ye L. Mountegue and so by degree to ye meaner sorte for ye maytenance of
three prisones in London, viz. the Klinke, the Marshallseas and Newgate
which cesseth not tyll ye some of a hundred and ffyftye poundes be
gathered quarterly which somme is sente by some trustye messinger to
London where yt is comitted to dyvers mens handes apoynted by the cheyfe
and from them to ye foresayde prysones.

Yt is further ordered for ye porer sorte of them beinge at libertie to
have theire dyett at several houses kepinge certen dayes for theyre
repayre to evereye house with certen money allowed to everye one at ye
wekes end And yf any recusante dye a piece of money is bequeathed to ye
porest sorte to saye dirge for theire sowles for a xii moneth to be payde
weklye both to men and women tyll this money be spente And thus they lyve
untyll ye lyke comoditye fall agayne.

                                           per me Robartum Weston.
                               (Endorsed) 20 April. Robert Weston.

[On p. 76 of Text, in Note 1 at foot of page, it is stated that the first
Lord Mounteagle’s mother was Lady Eleanor Neville, sister to Richard
Neville, the King-maker. But I find that, under “Stanley,” in Flower’s
“_Visitation of Yorkshire_,” Ed. by Norcliffe (Harleian Soc.), _the great
grandfather_ of Edward Stanley first Lord Mounteagle, namely, Thomas Lord
Stanley, is said to have married Eleanor, daughter to Richard Nevell Earl
of Salisbury. _Their_ son is given as George Lord Stanley; _his_ son as
Thomas Stanley first Earl of Derby; and _his_ son as Edward Stanley first
Lord Mounteagle, who married Elizabeth Lady Grey, daughter of Sir Thomas
Vaughan, and whose son was Thomas second Lord Mounteagle.

But the “_National Dictionary of Biography_” (under “Stanley Earl of
Derby”) says that Eleanor Countess of Derby (_née_ Neville) was the
_daughter_ of Warwick, the King-maker. So the “learned” must be left to
determine the truth upon the point.

Again; on p. 160 of Text, in Note at foot of page, I have stated that the
young Lord Vaux of Harrowden was a descendant of Sir Thomas More.

But I find that that strong-minded lady his mother, Elizabeth Dowager Lady
Vaux of Harrowden, was _only distantly connected_ with Sir Thomas More.
For she was descended from _Christopher_ Roper, a younger brother of
William Roper, who married Margaret More.

Hence, Christopher Roper is the ancestor of the Lords Teynham, of Kent,
who, I believe, conformed to the Established Church after “1715,” as did
many old English papist families.]


                            SUPPLEMENTUM IV.

    AN ACCOUNT OF A VISIT TO GIVENDALE, NEWBY, AND MULWITH,
    ANCIENTLY IN THE CHAPELRY OF SKELTON, IN THE PARISH OF RIPON, IN
    THE WEST RIDING OF THE COUNTY OF YORK.

On Sunday, the 22nd day of April, 1901, it fell out that the writer found
himself sojourning in the good City of Ripon; a city which a few years
ago, calling its friends and neighbours together, kept, amid high
festival, the one thousandth anniversary of its own foundation: at Ripon,
around the time-honoured towers of whose hallowed Minster abidingly cling
memories, strong and gracious, of canonized Saints and beloved
Apostles.[A]

[Footnote A: St. Wilfrid, Archbishop of York and Apostle of Sussex
(634-709) and his friend St. Willibrord, Archbishop of Utrecht and Apostle
of Holland.]

“Hail, smiling morn!” I exclaimed, on seeing at an early hour the bright
sunshine stream through my chamber windows. On this day of rest and
gladness will I hie me to the sites of the ancient roof-trees of those
whose graves, parted by long distances of space and time, are known
to-day, for the most part, no longer to Man, but to Nature merely.

Not to you and to me, gentle reader, are those graves to-day known (save
with one exception), but to the verdant grass, the crimson-tipped daisy,
the golden celandine, who are pre-eminently faithful watchers by the
dead. For steadfastly will _they_ remain watching until the daybreak of an
endless day.[A]

[Footnote A: This exception is the grave of Mary Ward, the daughter, it
will be remembered, of Marmaduke Ward and Ursula Wright, and,
consequently, the niece of Christopher Wright and, I maintain, of Thomas
Ward, the guide, philosopher, and friend of Lord Mounteagle. Mary Ward
died at the old Manor House, Heworth, on the 20th January, 1645-46, and is
buried at Osbaldwick, near York, where a stone, bearing a simple but
touching inscription, is still to be seen by an increasing number of her
admirers, Protestant and Catholic, the former of whom have ever styled her
“that good lady, Mary Ward.” The inscription on the gravestone bears out
this view of this great-hearted, truly human, English gentlewoman. It runs
thus: “To love the poore, persever in the same and live, dy, and rise with
them was all the ayme of Mary Ward, who, having lived 60 years and 8 days,
dyed the 20 of Jan., 1645.” That gravestone might also fittingly bear a
second inscription, consisting of those triumphant words of victory over
death: “_Credo_; _Spero_; _Amo_” (“I believe; I hope; I love”). The Rev.
F. Umpleby, the Vicar of Osbaldwick, and his churchwardens guard the
gravestone of Mary Ward with the most commendable care.]

Having duly paid my orisons to heaven in the ancient manner, and having
broken my fast with such fare as my place of sojourning bestowed, I set
out upon my quest.

I set forth alone, yet not alone; for mine was the companionship of lively
historical ideas. But as soon as I had journeyed about one mile to the
south-east of Ripon, I perforce came to a halt. For my footsteps, on a
sudden, had been arrested by the ear being struck with that most musical
of natural sounds——the sound of living, gurgling, murmuring waters.

I hearkened again, being infinitely pleasured by such natural music. And,
mending my pace somewhat, soon found myself at Bridge Hewick, looking down
from the parapet of the old grey bridge upon the rushing, boulder-broken,
glancing waters of the Ure, which, after gladdening fruitful Wensleydale,
flows through Ripon; and after skirting Givendale and Newby, and laving
“the green fields of England,” in front of Mulwith, hurries on towards
Boroughbridge; thence to Myton, where, by the junction of the Ure and
Swale, the Ouse[A] is formed, that majestic flood, which, with broad
swelling tide, flows past the towers of York, the far-famed Imperial City,
whose only peer in the western world is Rome.

[Footnote A: The winding Nidd, known to St. Wilfrid and dear to St.
Robert, pours itself into the Ouse at Nun Monkton, a few miles above York,
and not far from historic Marston Moor.]

I say I set out upon my quest for Givendale, Newby, and Mulwith alone, yet
not alone; because I had the companionship of lively historical ideas.

Thus much is true. And more: for romantic fancy conjured up visions before
my mental gaze during that sunny Rest-Day morning,

      “When all the secret of the spring
      Moved in the chambers of the blood,”[B]

[Footnote B: Tennyson’s “In Memoriam.”]

as I traversed those fair budding country-lanes, “made vocal by the song”
of a thousand warbling birds, and paradisaical

                    “With violets dim,
      But sweeter than the lids of Juno’s eyes
      Or Cytherea’s breath; pale primroses
      That die unmarried, ere they can behold
      Bright Phœbus in his strength.”[C]

[Footnote C: Shakespeare’s “Winter’s Tale.”——Shakespeare may have possibly
known, or at least heard of, Father John Gerard, S.J., the life-long
friend of Mary Ward, and the first “to English” Lorenzo Scupoli’s
“_Spiritual Combat_.” Any educated Buddhist or Mohammedan British subject
who wishes to understand the genius of Christianity should carefully study
the “_Spiritual Combat_.” It will repay his pains.

Francis Arden, who was in the Tower of London, escaped from that prison
along with Gerard during the night of 8th October, 1597. Francis Arden was
probably a relative of Edward Arden, who was executed as a traitor
on the 23rd December, 1583, in connection with the mysterious
Somerville-Arden-Hall conspiracy against the life of Queen Elizabeth. The
Shakespeares were justly proud of their connection with the Ardens, a fact
which is evidenced by the well-known application of John Shakespeare (the
poet’s father) to the College of Heralds for the grant of a coat-of-arms
that impaled and quartered the arms of the Ardens, of Wilmcote, his wife’s
family. I cannot doubt that the Ardens, of Wilmcote, Warwickshire, were of
the same clan as the Ardens, of Park Hall, Warwickshire, to which family
Edward Arden belonged, who was executed in 1583. To disallow the
relationship of the Ardens, of Wilmcote, with the Ardens, of Park Hall
(both in Warwickshire), simply because the former were less liberally
endowed with worldly goods in the reign of Elizabeth than the latter,
proves to demonstration that such disallowers, merely on such ground, have
something yet to learn respecting the England of “Good Queen Bess”——and of
every other England too.]

Yea, before my mind’s eye I seemed to behold, ever and anon, riding
towards and passing me on horseback, to and fro, from east to west, and
from west to east, the shadowy yet tall stately forms of Elizabethan
gentlemen, in feathered hat, girded sword, and Ripon spurs; aye, and of
Elizabethan gentlewomen likewise, in hooded cloak, white ruff, and pleated
gown.

Sometimes the groups, methought, were accompanied by one showing a graver
mien and more reverend aspect than the gentlefolk among whom he rode,
although apparelled and equipped externally as they. The breviary,
crucifix, and large jet rosary-beads which, in my phantasy, lay concealed
within the last-named’s breast, would betoken that he was a priest of the
ancient faith of the English people, although at that period one of such a
vocation was, by law, counted a traitor to his sovereign.

But my day-dreams vanished: from a vivid realization of a near approach to
Givendale, which was announced by a new guide-post visible to the eye of
flesh. A few paces further of walking, under the boughs of noble
interlacing trees, brought me by the gate leading to the dwelling-house
to-day known as Givendale——that historic name. The old hall occupied a
site most probably a little to the north of the present Givendale, and was
surrounded by a moat. Leland, writing in the reign of Henry VIII.,
describes it as “a fair manor place of stone.” Lovely views does Givendale
command of the valley of the Ure,[A] looking westward towards the sister
valleys of the Nidd and Wharfe and Aire.

[Footnote A: Givendale, in the time of Sir Simon Ward, who lived in the
reign of Edward II., was evidently the Wards’ principal seat near Ripon;
for Sir Simon Ward is described as of “Givendale and Esholt.” Esholt is in
the Parish of Otley. The arms of the Wards were azure, a cross patonce,
or. Sir Simon Ward’s daughter, Beatrice, was married to Walter de
Hawkesworth, and, through her, the Hawkesworth estate, in the Parish of
Otley, between Wharfedale and Airedale, came into the ancient family of
Hawkesworth (see Text _ante_). To-day, the well-known Fawkes family, of
Farnley (the friends of the artist, Turner, and of his great interpreter,
Ruskin), own Hawkesworth Hall, a fine, ivy-clad, antique mansion looking
towards Airedale. Campion was probably harboured here in the spring of
1581, and possibly also by the Hawkesworths, of Mitton, near Clitheroe.]

A kind wayfarer, whom I chanced to meet near Givendale, pointed out to me
the way to Skelton, Newby, and Mulwith.

I had to retrace from Givendale my steps for Skelton; but I soon found
from a second friendly guide-post that my good friend of a few moments
before had directed my eager steps aright.

The faithful following towards the south-east of the high road, running
parallel with the woods of Newby on my right, brought me in due course to
Skelton, a large limestone village, characteristic of that part of the
West Riding of Yorkshire.

I walked down the town street of Skelton and found that the Park-gates of
Newby entered from the village.

I passed, on my left, the little chapel of Skelton, standing in its
grave-yard, which, rebuilt in 1812, had taken the place of the chapel
where once or twice a year, “after long imprisonment,” it is probable
that Marmaduke Ward——though not Elizabeth, his wife, nor Mary, nor any of
his other children——“against his conscience” went to hear read the Book of
Common Prayer, in order to avoid the terrible penalty of having “to pay
the statute,” that is, to pay £20 per lunar month by way of fine for
“popish recusancy.”[A]

[Footnote A: This would be about £160 in our money. Thirteen of these
payments in one year would amount to about £2,080. Father Richard Holtby,
S.J., was a friend of the Wards, and the priest who decided Mary Ward’s
“vocation” in Baldwin’s Gardens, Holborn, London, after Marmaduke Ward had
been released from his brief captivity in Warwickshire. (See “_Life of
Mary Ward_,” vol. i., p. 89.) Holtby speaks of Mary as “my daughter
Warde.” Now, Father Holtby, of Fryton, near Hovingham, has recorded that
“after long imprisonment Mr. Blenkinsopp [of Helbeck, Westmoreland, no
doubt], _Mr. Warde_, Mr. Trollope [of Thornley, in the County of Durham,
no doubt], and Mrs. Cholmondeley [probably of Brandsby, near Easingwold],
and more” were “overthrown,” which clearly means became (temporarily at
least) “Schismatic Catholics,” by consenting to attend “the Protestant
church.” (See Morris’s “_Troubles_,” third series, p. 76.) This would be
in the years 1593-94-95, or previously. Peacock’s “_List_” for 1604, under
“Ripon,” gives “Elizabeth wief of Marmaduke Ward,” _but ominously no_
Marmaduke Ward. Therefore, like his relative Sir William Wigmore,
Marmaduke Ward, it is almost certain, for a time frequented his parish
church (contrary to what he deemed “the highest and best”) perhaps once or
twice a year. Poor fellow! he was, however, very strict in not allowing
his children to do the like. (See “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vol. i., pp. 30,
31.)]

The Newby Hall of to-day, the seat of R. C. De Grey Vyner, Esquire, is a
grand structure, having been designed by Sir Christopher Wren about the
year 1705. In the Park is the beautiful Memorial Church, built by the late
Lady Mary Vyner, in memory of her son, Frederick George Vyner, who was
slain by Greek brigands in the year 1870.[B]

[Footnote B: The late Dr. Stanley delivered, in Westminster Abbey, one of
his beautiful and pathetic “Laments,” after the sorrowful tidings reached
England that this fine young Englishman, by a deed of violence, had passed
into the world of the “Unseen Perfectness.”]

One mile from Newby is Mulwith.[A] It is reached by what evidently has
been an avenue in days of yore, connecting the two manor-houses.

[Footnote A: R. C. De Grey Vyner, Esquire (brother-in-law to the Most
Honourable the Marquis of Ripon, K.G., of Studley Royal, Lord Lieutenant
of the North Riding of Yorkshire), to-day owns Givendale, Newby, and
Mulwith. They are within about five miles of Ripon, and can be also
reached from Boroughbridge.]

The old hall of Mulwith was most probably a castellated mansion,
quadrangular in shape, with a Gothic chapel, gateway, drawbridge, and
moat, pretty much like Markenfield Hall, near Ripon, at the present day.
There was a fire at Mulwith in the year 1593, we know from the “_Life of
Mary Ward_.” And it may be, that the hall was then razed to the ground and
never afterwards rebuilt.[B]

[Footnote B: Mary Ward was born at Mulwith, in 1585 (see _ante_, p. 59).
Among her devoted scholars, who crossed the seas either with her or to
her, were Susanna Rookwood, Helena Catesby, and Elizabeth Keyes, each
respectively related, closely related, to the conspirators bearing those
names.——See “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vols. i. and ii.]

To-day Mulwith is a pleasant farmstead, built of brick with slated roof.
It is a two-storied, six-windowed dwelling, with homestead, gardens, and
orchards all adjoining.[C]

[Footnote C: My friend Mr. Renfric Oates, of Maidenhead, Berks., kindly
made me, when in Harrogate (in May, 1901), a sketch of Mulwith, which I
value highly. Since then a relative of his has bestowed upon me a portrait
of Mary Ward herself. So I am fortunate indeed. In the “_Life of Mary
Ward_,” by M. Mary Salome (Burns & Oates), the lady who so generously
gifted me with a picture I can scarcely prize enough, there is a copy from
the first of that remarkable series of paintings known as the Painted Life
of Mary Ward, which represents Mary (then a little maiden betwixt two and
three years old) toddling across the room, attired, as to her head, in a
tiny close-fitting cap. This picture bears the following note in ancient
German:——“‘Jesus’ was the first word of the infant, Mary, after which she
did not speak for many months.” Another of the famous pictures in the
Painted Life is one representing Mary, at the age of thirteen, making her
first Communion, at Harewell Hall, Dacre, Nidderdale. (I visited Harewell
Hall, which is still owned by the Inglebies, of Ripley, as in the days of
Mary Ward, on Wednesday, the 10th April, 1901, being courteously shown
round the Hall by Miss Simpson, the tenant. The River Nidd flows at the
foot of this ancient, picturesque dwelling.)]

In front of Mulwith still flows, as in the ancient days, the historic
waters of the Ure.[A] On almost every side the eye is gladdened with
woodland patches embroidering the horizon with that “sylvan scenery which
never palls.”[B]

[Footnote A: Near Newby, in February, 1869, Sir Charles Slingsby, Bart.,
of Scriven, when a-hunting was, with some other gentlemen, drowned in the
act of crossing in a boat the River Ure, then swollen high through
February floods. The event cast a profound gloom over Yorkshire for many a
long day. (The writer was eight years of age when this melancholy
catastrophe took place, and well does he remember the grief depicted on
the faces of the good citizens of York on the morrow of that sad
disaster.)]

[Footnote B: Lord Beaconsfield.]

Hence, at last I was come to my journey’s end. For I had reached Mulwith,
or Mulwaith, in the Parish of Ripon, whereof “Thomas Warde” is described,
who married M’gery Slater, in the Church of St. Michael-le-Belfrey, York,
on the 29th day of May, 1579.

Mrs. John Hardcastle and her son most kindly conducted me round the place
once more; for I had visited Mulwith about ten years previously, with my
sister, then approaching it from the east.

And on that Sunday evening (April 22nd, 1901), an evening calm and bright,
to the sound of sweet church bells, again I satisfied historic feeling by
the recollection of the Past; the sense whereof bore down upon me with a
force too strong for words, “too deep,” too high, “for tears.”

“_Many waters cannot quench Love; neither can the floods drown it._”


                            SUPPLEMENTUM V.

  AN ACCOUNT OF A VISIT TO GREAT PLOWLAND (ANCIENTLY PLEWLAND), IN
    THE PARISH OF WELWICK, HOLDERNESS, IN THE EAST RIDING OF THE
    COUNTY OF YORK.

On Monday, the 6th day of May, 1901, the writer had the happiness of
accomplishing a purpose he had long had in mind, namely, that of paying a
visit to Great Plowland (anciently Plewland), in the Parish of Welwick,
Holderness, the birthplace of John and Christopher Wright, and also of
their sister, Martha Wright, who was married to Thomas Percy, of Beverley.
These three East Riding Yorkshiremen have indeed writ large their names in
the Book of Fate. For, as the preceding pages have shown, they were among
that woeful band of thirteen who were involved, to their just undoing, in
the rash and desperate enterprise, known as the Gunpowder Treason Plot, of
the year 1605, the second year of the reign of James I., King of England,
Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and progenitor and predecessor of our own
Most Gracious King Edward VII. Long may he reign, a crowned and sceptred
Imperial Monarch: and in Justice may his house be established for ever![A]

[Footnote A: How full of happy augury for the future of our Empire was the
fine speech of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, delivered in the
Guildhall, London, the 5th December, 1901, shortly following on the
Prince’s and His Princess’s return to Old England’s shores, after their
historic sojourning, during the year 1901, in His Majesty’s loyal
Dominions beyond the seas.]

The writer arrived at the town of Patrington (the post-town of Plowland)
somewhat late in the afternoon. He had not been before; but he well knew
that Patrington is famous, far and near, for its stately and
exquisitely-beautiful church, so aptly styled “the Queen of Holderness,”
the church of Hedon being “the King.”

After viewing the general features of the little town of Patrington,
which, maybe, is but slightly changed since its main street was trodden by
English men and English women of “the spacious days of Good Queen Bess,” I
(to have recourse to the first person singular, if the liberty may be
pardoned) went in search of some ancient hostelry such as wherein “Jack
Wright, Kit Wright, and Tom Percy,” then in the hey-day of their youthful
strength and vigour, quaffed the foaming tankard of the nut-brown ale, or
called for their pint of sack, when William Shakespeare[A] was the Sir
Henry Irving of his day, and was writing his immortal dramas for all
Nations and all Time.

[Footnote A: The common consent of mankind ranks Shakespeare, along with
Homer and Dante, as one of the world’s three Poet-Kings.]

Such a house of entertainment “for man and beast” I found in the inn
bearing the time-honoured and sportsmanlike sign of the “Dog and Duck”.

On entering the portals of this ancient hostelry the historic imagination
enabled me to conjure up the sight of some of the gentlemen who, three
hundred years ago, must have formed the company who assembled at the “Dog
and Duck;” to discuss, maybe, a threatened Spanish invasion of England’s
inviolate shores; “a progress” of the great Tudor Queen; or the action of
her Privy Counsellors, Lord Burleigh, Sir Francis Walsingham, the Earl of
Leicester, Sir Robert Cecil, Sir Walter Raleigh, and the ill-fated Robert
Devereux Earl of Essex; or, belike, to sound the praises of that model of
chivalry, Sir Philip Sidney, the General Gordon, Lord Bowen, and Matthew
Arnold of his day, and the darling of his countrymen for ever.

If I had to content myself with the historic imagination alone for the
sight of John Wright, one of the most expert swordsmen of his time; of
Christopher Wright, who was a taller man than his brother, of a closer and
more peaceable disposition; and of Thomas Percy, their brother-in-law, who
was agent for his cousin, the great head of the House of Percy; and also
for the vision of all those high-born, courageous, but self-willed,
wayward Yorkshire Elizabethan gentlemen, in their tall hat, graceful
cloak,[A] and short sword girded on their side, with their tinkling
falcons on their wrist, with their cross-bows and their dogs: if I had to
be content with imagination alone for all this, on that Monday, the 6th
day of May, 1901, I had the sight and vision in the solid reality of flesh
and blood of “mine host” of the “Dog and Duck,” who bade me welcome in
right cheery tones; and, in answer to my question, told me he well knew
Great Plowland, in the Parish of Welwick (being a native of those parts),
and ever since he was a boy he had heard tell that some of the Gunpowder
plotters had been at Plowland.[B]

[Footnote A: The cloak was then one of the outward tokens of a gentleman.]

[Footnote B: It is impossible to understand Shakespeare’s characters
aright except one has first made a close study of such typical Elizabethan
gentlemen as the Gunpowder plotters and their friends, and of the
Elizabethan Catholic gentry in general. Hence the wide value of the
labours of such men as Simpson, Morris, Pollen, Knox, and Law.]

Soon was the compact made that that very evening, ere darkness came on,
“mine host” should drive me to the site of where John Wright and
Christopher Wright first beheld the light of the sun. (In view of the fact
that the circumstantial evidence to-day available tends to prove that
Christopher Wright was the repentant conspirator who revealed the Plot and
so saved King James I., his Queen, and Parliament from destruction by
exploded gunpowder, it may be easily conceived that I felt great eagerness
to gaze on Plowland with as little delay as possible.)

A short drive brought my driver and myself within sight of the tall
“rooky” trees, the blossoming orchard, the ancient gabled buildings in the
background, and the handsome two-storied red-brick dwelling, all standing,
on slightly rising ground, within less than a quarter of a mile from the
king’s highway, which to-day are known as Great Plowland, in the Parish of
Welwick, Holderness, in the East Riding of the County of York.

This, then, was the fair English landscape whereon the eyes of Christopher
Wright had rested in those momentous years, from 1570 to 1580, when “the
child is father of the man!” I exclaimed in spirit.

As we were entering through the gates of Plowland I made enquiry as to the
name of the owner of this historic spot. I was informed that the gentleman
to whom the ancestral seat of the Wrights, of Plowland, belonged resided
on his own domain.

On reaching Plowland Hall (now Plowland House), Mr. George Burnham, of
Plowland House, came forward, and, with frank, pleasant courtesy, never to
be forgotten, assured me that I was at liberty to see the place where the
two Gunpowder conspirators, John and Christopher Wright, had lived when
boys.

I alighted from my vehicle, and being joined by Miss Burnham, sister to
Mr. Burnham, the owner of the estate, we all three examined the evident
traces of the moat, the remains of what must have been the old Gothic
chapel, and certain ancient buildings and doors in the rear, which were
left intact when old Plowland Hall was taken down, shortly after the
middle of the nineteenth century, to make way for the present Plowland
House.——See Frontispiece to this Book for picture of Plowland House.

[The Burnhams, of Plowland, are the grandchildren of the late Richard
Wright, Esq., of Knaith, near Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. One of that
gentleman’s descendants is _Robert Wright_ Burnham, the eldest brother to
the present owner of Plowland and his sister. The name _Richard_ Wright is
found in the Register of Christenings at Ripon Minster, under date 29th
March, 1599, as the son of one _John_ Wright, of _Skelton_.]

After taking leave of my kind friends, the “guardians” of Great Plowland,
Mr. Robert Medforth, of the “Dog and Duck” hostelry, at Patrington, drove
me to Welwick. A short survey of this characteristically East Riding
Yorkshire village and its grey old Gothic church in its grave-yard, where
John and Christopher Wright were christened, no doubt, brought the
historical travels and explorations of Monday, May 6th, 1901, to a
delightful and profitable close.

“Farewell, Plowland,” I interiorly exclaimed, when I turned myself in my
conveyance, for the last time, to take the one last, lingering look,
“Farewell, Plowland, once the home _not only_ of those who ‘knowing the
better chose the worse,’ and who, therefore, verified in themselves that
law of Retribution, that eternal law of Justice, ‘_the Guilty suffer,’ but
also_ once the home of some of the supremely excellent of the earth.
Farewell, Plowland, where Mary Ward, that beautiful soul, resided with
Ursula Wright, her sainted grandmother, the wife of Robert Wright, the
mother of Christopher Wright: where Mary Ward resided, during the five
years, 1589 to 1594, before returning to her father’s house at Mulwith, in
the Parish of Ripon, on the banks of the sylvan Ure.”

The Estate of Plowland came into the Wright family in the reign of Henry
VIII., owing to John Wright, Esquire (a man of Kent), having married Alice
Ryther, one of the daughters and co-heiresses of Sir John Ryther, of
Ryther, on the banks of the “lordly Wharfe,” between York and Selby.

John Wright’s son, Robert, succeeded as the owner of Plowland (or
Plewland). Robert Wright married for his second wife Ursula Rudston, whose
family had been lords of Hayton, near Pocklington, from the days of King
John. Ursula Wright was akin to the Mallory (or Mallorie) family, of
Studley Royal, Ripon, and so a cousin in some degree to most of the grand
old Yorkshire gentry, such as the Ingleby family, of Ripley Castle and of
Harewell Hall, Dacre, near Brimham Rocks, in Nidderdale, and the
Markenfields, of Markenfield Hall, near Ripon, to mention none others
beside.[A][B][C][D] (This is shown by the Ripon Registers.)

[Footnote A: The Most Honourable the Marquis of Ripon, K.G., Viceroy of
India (1880-85), and the Most Honourable the Marchioness of Ripon, C.I.,
are akin to John Wright and Christopher Wright, through the Mallories of
Studley Royal.]

[Footnote B: The Right Honourable the Lord Grantley, of Markenfield Hall,
is akin to the Wrights, through his ancestor, Francis Norton, the eldest
son of brave old Richard Norton; the Mallories; the Inglebies; and many
others.]

[Footnote C: Sir Henry Day Ingilby, Bart., of Ripley Castle, is likewise
akin to the Wrights, the Winters, and indeed to almost all the other
ill-fated plotters. I may mention also that Sir Henry is likewise related
to the exalted Mary Ward, who (as was the case with her great kinswoman
and friend, Lady Grace Babthorpe) lived at “lovely Ripley” in her
childhood, with the Inglebies of that day, on more than one occasion, as
we find recorded in Mary’s “_Life_.”]

[Footnote D: At Grantley a John Wright resided in the time of Elizabeth.
He was probably brother to Robert Wright, the father of John and
Christopher Wright. Grantley Hall nestles in a leafy hollow of surpassing
beauty. The swift, gentle, little River Skell flows past the Hall on
towards St. Mary’s Abbey, Fountains. Grantley Hall is now owned by Sir
Christopher Furness, M.P. It was formerly one of the estates of the Lords
Grantley.]

Robert Wright (the second Wright who owned Plowland) had been married
before his marriage to Ursula Rudston. His first wife’s name was Anne
Grimstone. She was a daughter of Thomas Grimstone, Esquire, of Grimstone
Garth. Robert Wright and Anne Grimstone had one son who “heired” Plowland.
His name was William Wright. He married Ann Thornton, of East Newton, in
Rydale, a lady who was related to many old Rydale and Vale of Mowbray
families in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The names of William Wright and
Ann, his wife (born Thornton), are still recorded on a brass in the north
aisle of Welwick Church.[A]

[Footnote A: Mass was said at Ness Hall, near Hovingham, not far from East
Newton, during the early part of the nineteenth century. _I think_ that
this was owing to the old Catholic family of Crathorne owning Ness Hall at
this time. The Crathornes intermarried with the Wrights, of Plowland, in
the days of James I. or Charles I., and I suspect that Ness Hall had been
brought into the Crathorne family, through the Wrights, from the
Thorntons. The Crathornes came from Crathorne, near Stokesley, in
Cleveland. The Thorntons conformed to the Established Church.]

William Wright was half-brother to Ursula Ward, the wife of Marmaduke
Ward, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, near Ripon, the parents of the
great Mary Ward, the friend of popes, emperors, kings, nobles, statesmen,
warriors, and indeed of the most distinguished personages of Europe during
the reigns of James I. and Charles I. William Wright (or Wryght, as the
name is spelt on the brass in Welwick Church) was also half-brother to the
two Gunpowder conspirators, John and Christopher Wright, who were slain at
Holbeach House, Staffordshire, a few days after the capture of Guy Fawkes
by Sir Thomas Knevet, early in the morning of November 5th, 1605.

The late Rev. John Stephens, Rector of Holgate, York, and formerly Vicar
of Sunk Island, Holderness, told me, in September, 1900, that Guy Fawkes
is said to have slept at Plowland Hall, on Fawkes’ departure for London
for the last time, a tradition which is very likely to be authentic. For,
as will be remembered, the Wrights, Fawkes, and Tesimond were old
school-fellows at St. Peter’s School, in the Horse Fayre, Gillygate,
York,[A] which had been re-founded by Philip and Mary, who likewise
founded the present Grammar School at Ripon.

[Footnote A: John Wright, Christopher Wright, Guy Fawkes, and Oswald
Tesimond must have many a time and oft passed through Bootham Bar, leading
towards Clifton, Skelton, and Easingwold, along the great North Road. And
besides the King’s Manor to the left of Bootham Bar, Queen Margaret’s
Gateway, named after Queen Margaret (grandmother of Mary Queen of Scots),
must have been to them all a thrice-familiar object. Queen Margaret, it
will be remembered, was wife to King James IV. of Scotland, who fell at
Flodden Field in 1513, fighting against the forces of the brother of the
Scots’ Queen, King Henry VIII.

In 1516, Henry VIII. invited his widowed sister to London, “and good Queen
Katerine sent her own white palfrey” for her poor sister-in-law’s “use.”
On this memorable occasion the bereaved daughter of King Henry VII.,
through whom His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward VII., in part at least,
traces his august Title to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, was kindly welcomed by the worthy citizens of the northern
capital.——See Dr. Raine’s “_York_” (Longmans), p. 98.

In the month of July, 1900, at the Treasurer’s House, on the north side of
the Minster, our Most Gracious Sovereign and His Beloved Consort (then the
Prince and Princess of Wales) together with the present Prince and
Princess of Wales (then the Duke and Duchess of York), graciously
sojourned for a brief season: an event memorable and historic even in the
proud annals of the second city of the British Empire.]


                            SUPPLEMENTUM VI.

                                     St. Mary’s Hall, Stonyhurst,
                                         Blackburn, 5th October, 1901.

... You are quite correct in saying that the doctrine of Equivocation is
the justification of stratagems in war, and of a great many other
recognised modes of conduct.

But I despair of its ever finding acceptance in the minds of most
Englishmen: since they will not take the trouble of understanding it;
while, at the same time, they have not the slightest scruple in
misrepresenting it. It is, of course (like most principles, whether of
art, or of science, or of philosophy), not a truth immediately to be
grasped by the average intellect, and, therefore, liable to much
misapplication. Even the best-trained thinkers may frequently differ as to
its comprehension of this or that particular concrete case.

Given the tendency of human nature, English or foreign, to shield itself
from unpleasant consequences at the expense of truth, it is unsafe to
supply the public with a general principle, which, precisely on account of
its universality, might be made to cover with some show of reason, many an
unwarrantable _jeu de mots_. There are many exceedingly useful drugs which
it would be unwise to throw into the open market. Hence, I quite recognise
the partial validity of the objection to the doctrine in question. But
since the doctrine is so often thrust in the public face, it is as well it
should appear in its true colours.

This leads me to a point which I think ought to be insisted upon, namely,
that those features, which are most objectionable to Englishmen in the
scholastic doctrine were devised by their authors with the intention of
_limiting_ the realm of Equivocation and of safeguarding the truth more
closely.

All rational men are agreed that there are circumstances in which words
must be used that are _primâ facie_ contrary to truth——in war, in
diplomacy, in the custody of certain professional secrets. In such
instances the non-Catholic rule seems to be: Tell a lie, and have done
with it. The basis of such a principle is Utilitarian Morality, which
estimates Right and Wrong _merely_ by the consequences of an action. The
peripatetic philosopher, on the other hand, who maintains the _intrinsic_
moral character of certain actions, and who holds _mordicus_ to the love
of truth for its own sake, is not content to rest in a lie, however
excusable, but endeavours, for the honour of humanity, to demonstrate that
such apparent deviations from truth are not such in reality. For he
perceives in them _two_ meanings——whence the name _Equivocation_——one of
which may be true, while the other is false. The speaker utters the words
in their true meaning, and that the hearer should construe them in the
other sense is the latter’s own affair.

“_Not at home_” may mean “_out of the house_” or “_not inclined to receive
visitors_.” It is the visitor’s own fault if he attaches the first meaning
to the phrase rather than the second, or _vice versâ_.

No sensible man would consider a prisoner to be “lying” in his plea of
“_Not Guilty_,” because a certain juryman, in his ignorant simplicity,
should carry off the impression of the prisoner’s _absolute_, and not
merely of his _legal_, innocence. Yet the plea may mean either both or
only the latter.

Similarly, an impertinent ferretter-out of an important secret needs
blame none but himself if he conceives the answer “_No_” to intimate
anything else than that he should mind his own business.

As to such _facts_ there is, I should say, an overwhelming agreement of
opinion. That they differ from what we all recognise as a sheer “_lie_” is
pretty evident. It is, therefore, convenient and scientific to label them
with some other name, and the Scholastic hit upon the not inapt one of
_Equivocation_.

The malice of lying consists, according to Utilitarian Philosophy, in the
destruction of that mutual confidence which is so absolutely necessary for
the proper maintenance and development of civilized life. But the
Scholastic, while fully admitting this ground, looks for a still deeper
root, and finds it in the very fact of the discrepancy between the
speaker’s internal thought and its outward expression. The difference
between the two positions may be more clearly apprehended in the following
formula:——The first would define a lie as “_speaking with intent to
deceive_;” whereas the second defines it “_speaking contrary to one’s
thought_” (_locutio contra mentem_), even where there is no hope (and
therefore no intent) of actual deception. The latter is clearly the
stricter view, yet very closely allied with, and supplementing, the
former. For we may perhaps say with Cardinal de Lugo——and _à la_
Kant——that the malice of the discrepancy mentioned above lies in the
self-contradiction which results in the liar, between his inborn desire
for the trust of his fellow-men and his conviction that he has rendered
himself unworthy of it——that he has, in other words, degraded his nature.

Now, where there do not exist relations of mutual confidence, such malice
cannot exist. An enemy, a burglar, a lunatic, an impudent questioner,
etc., are, _in their distinguishing character_, beyond the pale of mutual
confidence——_i.e._, when acting professionally as enemies, burglars, etc.

In regard to such outlaws from society, some moralists would accordingly
maintain that the duty of veracity is non-existent, and that here we may
“answer a fool according to his folly.” If a burglar asks where is your
plate, you may reply at random “_In the Bank_,” or “_At Timbuctoo_,” or
“_I haven’t any_.” If a lunatic declares himself Emperor of China, you may
humour him, and give him _any_ information you may imagine about his
dominions, etc.

Such is the teaching of, _v.gr._, Professor Paulsen, of Berlin, in his
“_System of Ethics_,” in which he is at one with Scholasticism, though, I
daresay, we should not follow him in all his applications of the
principle. He prefers to call such instances “_necessary lies_,” whereas
we should say they were not lies at all, because they would not be rightly
considered to imply _speaking_ strictly understood, that is, the
communication of one’s mind to another. There is no real speech where
there are no relations of mutual confidence. Practically, however, it is
so far a question of name rather than of reality, of theory rather than of
fact.

The doctrine of _Mental Reservation_ seems to me to differ from that of
_Equivocation_ only in this, that Equivocation implies the use of words
which have a two-fold meaning in themselves, _apart from_ special
circumstances, and are therefore _logical_ equivoques. Thus to the
question: “_What do people think of me?_” one might diplomatically reply:
“_Oh! they think a great deal!_” which leaves it undetermined whether the
thinking be of a favourable or unfavourable character.

But more commonly words, apart from special circumstances, have one
definite meaning, _e.gr._, “_Yes_” or “_No_.” When Sir Walter Scott
denied, as he himself tells us, the authorship of “_Waverley_” with a
plain simple “_No_,” he was guilty of no logical Equivocation: but the
circumstance that it was generally known that the author intended to
preserve anonymity gave his answer the signification, “_Mind your own
business._” This is what I should call a _moral_ equivoque. The
Scholastics call it _broad mental reservation_ (_restrictio late
mentalis_). The origin of this terminology seems to me to lie in a bit of
purism. Some moralists were not content with merely _moral_ equivoques:
they appear to insist on the junction with them of _logical_ Equivocation;
and so they would have directed the equivocator to _restrict_ (and so
double) the meaning of a word in his own mind. Thus to Sir Walter they
would have said: “Don’t say ‘_No_’ simply, but add in your own head, ‘_as
far as the public is concerned_,’” or something similar.

When this addition could not be conjectured by the hearer, it received the
name of _pure mental reservation_ (_restrictio pure_ [or _stricte_]
_mentalis_): as when one might say “_John is not here_” (meaning in his
mind “not on the exact spot where the speaker stood”), though John was a
yard off all the time. Such a position has not found favour in the body of
Catholic moralists. They regard it as not only a useless proceeding, but
as one which, although intended out of respect for truth, is liable, from
its purely subjective character, to easy abuse.

But when objective circumstances (as in the case of Sir Walter) enable the
hearer to guess at the double meaning and to suspend his judgment, then we
have a case of _broad_ mental reservation: for it is writ large in social
convention that, where a momentous secret exists, a negative answer
carries with it the limitation (restriction, reservation), “_secrets
apart_.”

I trust I have made it sufficiently clear that the doctrine of
Equivocation, properly understood, has been devised in the interests of
Veracity. That we may find in some writers, whether St. Alphonsus de
Liguori or Professor Paulsen, particular applications in which we do not
concur, surely does not affect the validity of the principle.

I may add that _all_ Catholic theologians with whom I am acquainted limit
its use by requiring many external conditions: _v.gr._, that the secret to
be preserved should be of importance; that the questioner should have no
right to its knowledge, etc. In one word, that the possible damage to
mutual confidence resulting from the hearer’s self-deception should be
less than that which would certainly accrue from the revelation of a
legitimate secret.

No one feels more keenly than we do that to have resort to Equivocation is
an evil rendered tolerable only in presence of a greater evil of the same
nature; and I venture to say, from an intimate knowledge of my brother
“religious,” that no one is less likely to recur to it, where only his own
skin is concerned, than a Jesuit.

                                 Believe me, Yours very sincerely,
                                           George Canning, S.J.[A]

[Footnote A: The above lucid explanation of the much and (_me judice_)
stupidly maligned doctrine of Equivocation will place readers of this
work, as well as the writer, under an obligation of gratitude to the Rev.
George Canning, who is the Professor of Ethics at St. Mary’s Hall,
Stonyhurst, so I am informed by the Rev. Bernard Boëdder, S.J., Professor
of Natural Theology, at that seat of learning, whom I have had the honour
of meeting in York on more than one occasion. “Wisdom builds her house for
_all_ weathers.” But England, relying too much on a long course of
prosperity in her ruling classes, and in the protected classes immediately
beneath her ruling classes, has neglected the Truth and Justice contained
in this eminently rational doctrine of Equivocation. The democracy must,
and will, however, insist on amiable, self-contenting, self-pleasing
delusions being speedily swept away. Reason and self-interest alike will
compel and compass this.

The question of Equivocation is not a question of Protestant _versus_
Catholic, but of Wise Noddle _versus_ Foolish Noddle. This is a distinct
gain.]




                              APPENDICES.


                              APPENDIX A.

             CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DEFINED AND DESCRIBED.

Circumstantial Evidence is indirect, as distinct from direct evidence. It
is likewise mediate, as distinct from immediate.

Direct evidence is testimony that is a statement of what the witness
himself has seen, heard, or perceived by the evidence of any one of his
own five senses,[A] which testimony is directly given by a witness, to
lead to the facts in issue, that is, the facts required to be proved in
order to make out or to constitute the criminal case, or the civil cause
of action, sought to be established, according to some rule of Law.

[Footnote A: By sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch.]

Indirect or mediate evidence is _inferred_ from a relatively minor fact or
relatively minor facts already directly proved.

This _inference_ is drawn by a valid process of reasoning from a
relatively minor fact or minor facts already directly deposed to by a
witness, who may be a party interested in the case or cause, or a
stranger-witness, either friendly or hostile.

Hence, Circumstantial Evidence is _specially_ inferential and cumulative
in its nature. It denotes the resultant of a method of knowledge, which
has carried the Inquirer forward by successive stages of advancement.

It implies the _inferring_ of the unknown from the known; but from a known
which has been itself transmuted from the unknown, at some point of time
anterior to the making of the successive stage of advancement in the
knowledge of the facts sought to be proved, and vindicated by some rule of
Law.

       *       *       *       *       *

The following interesting account of Evidence generally is from the pen of
Mr. Frank Pick, of Burton Lodge, York, a student of the Law:——

Evidence is the collective term used to denote the facts whereby some
proposition, statement, or conclusion is sought to be established or
confirmed.

While, as thus defined, the term Evidence primarily denotes the actual
_known_ facts themselves which form the basis or point of departure, it
connotes also a method or process in the development of those known facts
to a resultant fact or opinion: and the resultant fact or opinion so
obtained. The former is often styled _Testimony_.

This will be illustrated in Circumstantial Evidence, and in what is
commonly styled “Expert Evidence,” though better, “Evidence of Opinion,”
where a person from a consideration of certain facts not necessarily
expressed (being likewise one specially competent to form an opinion where
such certain facts are involved) gives an opinion which may be used as,
and for similar purposes with, evidence as above defined.

The value of evidence, _i.e._, the completeness and efficiency with which
it serves these ends, varies with, and the weight accorded to it in
judgment is determined from, a review of the character or quality of the
source whence these facts proceed; and the nature or proximity of the
relation which they bear to the proposition, statement, or conclusion to
be supported.

As regards the character or quality of its source, evidence is
distinguished into primary and secondary.

Primary Evidence is the witness or testimony of personal experience,
whether shown in the spoken or written word or by conduct. Or it may be
described as, on its positive side, the avowal or confession of fact of a
person present knowingly, at the manifestation, in consciousness of the
phenomenon to which the fact corresponds: on its negative side, as the
denial or negation of fact similarly conditioned.

Secondary Evidence comprises all the manifold degrees of nearness or
remoteness to primary evidence.

As all degrees are here included, it is sometimes said that there are no
degrees of secondary evidence. This must not be misunderstood to mean that
all secondary evidence is entitled to be received as of the same degree of
credibility. For a further, and in some respects parallel, distinction to
that lastly taken, arises as the speech is or is not deliberate, the
writing authenticated, the conduct reasoned. And in every case partiality,
bias, and prejudice are grounds not to be neglected in the ascertainment
of accuracy and trustworthiness.

So far as regards the nature or proximity of the relation, evidence is
either direct and immediate, or indirect and mediate, called
circumstantial; as concerned rather with the surrounding circumstances
leading to the proof of the presumed truth of a fact than with the fact
itself.

Direct Evidence comprises those facts from which, if proved, the truth of
the proposition, statement, or conclusion necessarily follows.

Circumstantial Evidence comprises those facts from which again may be
inferred facts, whence the truth of the proposition, statement, or
conclusion must necessarily follow.

This inferential method is especially involved in Circumstantial Evidence.
In all evidence there is a presumption open more or less to rebuttal, and
evidence on this account is qualified as, _e.g._, _primâ facie_,
conclusive. In Direct Evidence there is the presumption of the truth of
the proposition, statement, or conclusion from the proven facts. In
Circumstantial Evidence there is first an inference of directly connected
facts, otherwise unknown or unevidenced from remotely connected facts,
known or given in evidence; then there is further a presumption of the
truth of the proposition, statement, or conclusion from these mediately
established facts.


                              APPENDIX B.

           DISCREPANCY AS TO DATE WHEN NOT MATERIAL TO ISSUE,
           NO DISPROOF OF TRUTH OF THE REST OF THE ASSERTION.

The above doctrine of the law of Evidence applies, of course, to whatever
may be the nature or purpose of the Inquiry, whether conducted in a Court
of Law, in the library of the historical scholar, or elsewhere.

The principle was soundly stated at the trial of “the Venerable” Martyrs,
Fathers Whitbread, Harcourt, Fenwick, Gavan, and Turner, at the Old
Bailey, by Sir William Scroggs, Knt., the Lord Chief Justice of the King’s
Bench, on the occasion of the Popish Plot Trials, in the year 1679.

“If it should be a _mistake only in point of time_, it destroys not the
evidence, _unless you think it necessary to the substance of the thing_.

“If you charge one in the month of August to have done such a fact, if he
deny that he was in that place at that time, and proves it by witnesses,
it may go to invalidate the credibility of the man’s testimony, _but it
does not invalidate the truth of the thing itself_, which may be true in
substance, though the circumstance of time differ; and the question is,
_whether the thing be true?_” Quoted in Morris’s “_Troubles: The Southcote
Family_,” first series, p. 378 (Burns & Oates). (The italics are mine.)


                              APPENDIX C.


                                PART I.

                BRITISH MUSEUM——ADD. MS. 5847, FO. 322.

          _List of such as were apprehended for the Gun-Powder
                                 Plot._

            _The names of such as were taken in Warwicke and
                 Worcestershire, & brought to London._

  S^{r} Everard Digby, Knight
  Rob^{t} Winter
  John Winter
  John Grant
  Tho: Percy
  Tho: Winter
  Rob^{t} Acton
  Henry Morgan
  Christopher Litleton
  Lodwicke Grant, who was taken the _9 of Novemb_:
  & confessed there was lodged in _Holbage House_ to the
  number of _60 Persons_.
  Tho: Grant
  Will^{m} Cooke
  Rob^{t} Higgins
  Christopher Wright
  Rob^{t} Rookwood
  M^{r} Henry Hurleston, Sonne & Heire of _Sir Edward
  Hurleston_[A]
  Tho: Anderton[B]
  John Clifton[C]
  Mathy Batty, late Servant to the _Lord Monteagle_
  Willm Thornberry} Servants to _Mr. Hurleston_
  Henry Sergeant  }
  Stephne Bonne}
  Richard Daye }  Servants to _S^{r} Everard Digby_
  Willm Eadale }
  James Garvey }
  Rob^{t} Abram
  Rob^{t} Osborne
  Christopher Archer
  Ambrose Fuller
  Willm Howson
  Francis Grant
  Richard Westberry
  Tho: Richardson
  Edward Bickerstaffe
  Will Snow
  John Facklins
  Francis Prior
  Tho: Darler, Servant to _M^{r} Rob^{t} Monson_
  Reginald Miles, Servant to _Sir Willm Engleston_
  Tho: Rookwood, of _Claxton_, in _Warwickshire_
  Richard Yorke }  _Suspected Persons_ usually resorting
  Marmaduke Ward}  to _M^{r} Winter_, _M^{r}_
  Rob^{t} Key     }  _Grant_ & _M^{r} Rookwoods_
  Rob^{t} Townsend, of St. Edmund Berry
  The Lord Mountacute}  Are all comitted to the
  The Lord Mordant   }  _Tower_
  M^{r} Francis Tressam}

[Footnote A: Sir Henry Huddleston, as he afterwards became, the son and
heir to Sir Edmund Huddleston, of Sawston Hall, Cambridge, not Edward as
in Text. Sir Henry Huddleston married the Honourable Dorothy Dormer. He
was reconciled to the Church of Rome by Father Gerard, S.J.]

[Footnote B: This was Father Thomas Strange, S.J., a cousin to Thomas
Abington, of Hindlip.]

[Footnote C: This was Father Singleton.]

The Earle of North: is in the Custody still of the _Lord Archbishop of
Canterbury_.

This was Henry _Percy Earl of Northumberland, W.C._

                             _Gentlewomen_

  My Lady Mordant
  M^{ris} Dorothy Grant
  M^{ris} Helyn Cooke
  M^{ris} Mary Morgayne
  M^{ris} Anne Higgins
  M^{ris} Martha Percy
  M^{ris} Dorothy Wright
  M^{ris} Margaret Wright
  M^{ris} Rookwood

See Mr. Dod’s “_History of Catholick Church_,” vol. ii., p. 331, W.C.

[N.B.——This MS. consists of extracts from the Collections of the Rev. Mr.
Rand, Rector of Leverington and Newton, in the Isle of Ely.]


                                PART II.

                 GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——PART I., NO. 12.

       [Frequenters of Clopton (or Clapton), Stratford-on-Avon.]

  Ther hath bine at Clapton[A] w^{th} M^{r} Ambrous Rucwod
  Mr. Jhon Grant ther is with m^{es} Rucwood M^{es} Ceo (?) m^{es} munson
      and others and to of his britherin
  m^{r} Wintor
  m^{r} Bosse
  m^{r} Townesend
  m^{r} Ceo (?) w^{th} on m^{r} Thomas a Cynesman of M^{r} Rucwoode
  m^{r} Ryght
  Allso mye pepeoll hath seene ther
  Se^{r} Edward bushell
  m^{r} Robeart Catesbee
  with diuers others which I can not nam unto youer honer.

(Endorsed) Clopton.

[Footnote A: Clopton Hall, Stratford-on-Avon, was likewise styled Clapton
Hall. Lady Carew, afterwards the Countess of Totnes, was (with her sister,
Anne Clapton, the wife of Cuthbert Clapton, Esquire, of Sledwick, County
Durham) the co-heiress of the Claptons (or Cloptons), of Warwickshire.
Lady Carew was a Protestant, but her sister and brother-in-law were
Catholics. A son of the Catholic Cloptons (or Claptons) was made the
“heir” of the Countess of Totnes.——See Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. vi., pp.
326, 327.]


                              APPENDIX D.

                 GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——Part I., No. 25.

         The Examination of Richard Browne taken the 5^{th} of
                            Novemb^{r} 1605.

This Examinat sayith that xpofer Wright cam to S^{t} Gilis in the ffeild
to the Maydenhead there vpon Weddnesday laste & sent Wilt Kiddle (that cam
vp w^{t} him as his man) to Westm the same night for this Examinat to come
& speek w^{th} him, which this Examinat did com thither vpon Thursday
morning, when Wrights request was to him to fetch his child which he had
at nurss some 13 myles off. And Kiddle & this Examinat went vpon ffriday
brought the child vpon Satterday to St. Giles & carryed it away agen vpon
Sonday which night this Examinat returned back to Westm and lay there at
his owne lodging, the next morning being monday this Examinat went to
S^{t} Gyles to speak w^{t} M^{r} Wright only vpon Kiddle’s intreaty & not
fynding M^{r} Wright there he retorned towards London & mett M^{r} Wright
in S^{t} Clem^{t} ffeilds, at which tyme Wright sent this Examinat to
S^{r} ffrancis Manners w^{th} a message concerninge a kinsman of M^{r}
Wrights that serveth M^{r} Manners after which tyme this Examinat did not
see the sayd Wright.

This Examinat sayeth that he saw the sayd Wright onely 4 tymes since
Wright last coming to London, viz., vpon Thursday morning when he came
first vnto him upon Satterday night when he brought his child, vpon Sonday
morning when he carryed the child away, and vpon monday at noone when he
mett of the back syd of S^{t} Clem^{t}s

                                                              mark
                                                                 ×
                                                    Richard Browne

  (Endorsed) Examination of Richard Browne
  6 Nov. 1605 Concerning Wright.


                              APPENDIX E.

                 GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——Part I., No. 15.

  The Examynacon of Willum Grantham servaunt to Josephe Hewett taken
    before S^{r} John Popham Knighte L: Cheife Justyce of England
    the 5 of November 1605.

He sayeth that yesterdaye aboute three of the Clocke in the afternoone one
m^{r} wryght was at this Ex masters howse And there boughte three beaver
hatts and payde xj^{£}[A] for them This Ex went w^{th} the sayde wryght
and caryed the hatts to wrighte lodgyng at the Mayden heade in S^{t} Gyles
where m^{r} wryght & this Ex went into the howse And then wryght went to
the Stable and dyd aske yf his man were come the hosteler sayde that he
came longe synce, then wryght dyd aske for his horse whether he were
readye or no and the hosteler sayde he was Then the sayde wryght went into
his Chamber and wryghte man dyd will this Ex to go in And the sayde
wryghte man went downe the Stayres And this Ex went into M^{r} Wryghte
Chamber and delyvered the hatts to him And wryght dyd looke uppon the
hatts and gave this Ex vj^{d} for his paynes and then he depted.

[Footnote A: Unmistakably £11 (E.M.W.).]

                                                 William Grantham.

  (Endorsed) 5 November 1605. William Grantham Ex.


                              APPENDIX F.

           STATE PAPERS DOMESTIC——JAS. I., Vol. xvi., No. 11.

  The Examon of Robert Rookes taken the 5^{th} of November 1605.

He saieth that his Master M^{r} Ambrose Rookewood whoe dwelleth at
Coldhame Halle in Suff came from thence uppon Wensday last and noe more
w^{th} him but this exaite and Thomas Symons another of his servaunte.

He saieth his Master hath layen en sithence Thursday last at one Mores
howse w^{th}out Temple Barre and thear lay w^{th} him the last night and
the night before a talle gent having a reddish beard.[A]

[Footnote A: This was Keyes.——See “Elizabeth More’s Evidence.”]

He saieth his Masters horsses stood in drewery Lane at the grey hound.

He saieth his Master & the other gent went forth this morning about 8 of
the clock and his Master stayed not forth above an hower before he came in
againe and then going in & out some time about x of the clock went alone
to his horsse to ryde away in to Suff. and willed this exaite and his
fellowe to come after him to morowe.

He saieth his M^{rs} as he hath hard lyeth in warwick shere whear he
knoweth not for he hath not benn w^{th} his M^{r} that nowe is aboue a
senight.

               (Endorsed) 5^{o} No. 1605.

               The Ex of Robte Rokes M^{r} Rookwoode boy.


                              APPENDIX G.

           STATE PAPERS DOMESTIC——JAS. I., Vol. xvi., No. 16.

           The declarn of John Cradock cutler the vj^{th} of
                             November 1605.

He sayeth that M^{r} Rockwood whos father marryed M^{r} Tirwhyte mother
about the Begynyng of the last Som vacac dyd bespeke the puttyng of a
Spanyshe Blade off hys into a Sword hilte and appoynted the hylth to have
the Story of the passyon of Christ Richly Ingraved, and now w^{th}n these
Syxe dayes cawsed that hylth being enamlled and Rychly sett forth to be
taken of and the handle to be new wrought of clere gold and the former
hylth w^{th} hys story to be putt on agayne and delyvered yt unto m^{r}
Rockewood upon Monday last at xj of the Clocke at nyght at his Chamber at
m^{r} Mores and m^{r} Wynter a pp Gentylman of about xxx yeares or vpward
who lyeth at the Syng of the Docke an Drake beyond putrycke in the Strand
and ys a great Companyon w^{th} m^{r} Catesby m^{r} Tyrwhyt and m^{r}
Rockwood hadd a Sword w^{th} the lyke Story and was delyvered hym on
Sunday last at nyght but not so Rychly sett forth as the form for w^{ch}
he payed in all xij^{£} x^{s} pt about a quarter of a yeare past at the
bespeken thereof and the Rest on Sonday last and this term an other
Gentylman of that Cupany being a Blacke man of about xl yeares old bespake
a lyke Sword for the story & shuld pay vij^{ti} for yt gave hym x^{s} in
Ernest he ys yet out of Towne and the Sword remayneth w^{th} thys Exam
Christopher Wryght was often w^{th} thys M^{r} Rockwood at thys Exam
shoppe and he hadd the said Wryghte jugmet for the worcke and Syse of the
Blade.

                                                        Jo Cradock

  Ex p
  J. Popham

  (Endorsed) Cradocke.


                              APPENDIX H.

                 GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——Part I., No. 10.

I have sent vnto yo^{r} L. herin Inclosed the Copye off the declarac off
Mr Tatnall, off two that passed the fylde thys mornyg wherof some
Suspycyon may be gathered off confederacy he observed them so as he hopeth
he may mete w^{th} them and therfore I have gevin hym a warrant to attach
them a lyke note yo^{r} L shall receave herin off an expectacn that M^{rs}
Vaux hadd off some thyng to be done and I know yt by such a means as I
assured my selff the matter is trewe and both Gerrard and Walley the
Jesuyte make that the chefest place of their accesse and therfore lyke she
may knowe Some what both M^{r} Wenman hym selff & the lady Tasbard do
knowe of this wherfore howe farre forth thys shalbe fytt to be dealt in I
humbly leave to yo^{r} L consyderacn Chrystoffer Wright and M^{r} Ambrose
Rokewood were both together yesternyght at x of the Clocke and vpon
ffryday last at nyght they were together at M^{r} Rokwoode lodgyng and
this forenoon Rokwood Rode away into Suffolke about xj of the clocke alone
leavyng both hys men behynd hym one Keyes a Gentylma that lay these two
last nyghte w^{th} m^{r} Rokewood and gave hym hys lodgyng went away also
about eight off the clocke for w^{ch} Keyes I have layed weyet This
Rokwood ys of Coldham hall in Suffoke one of the most dangerous houses in
Suffolke he marryed m^{r} Tyrwhytte Syster & she ys now in Warwykshere
Chrystoffer Wright as I thyncke lay this last nyght in St. Gyles and yf he
be gone yt ys Lyke he ys gone into Warwykesher where I hyer John Wryght
Brother unto Chrystoffer ys marryed ther were thre hatts bought yesterday
in the afternoone by Chrystoffer Wryght the ar for his Brother and two
others for two Gentylwomen they cost xj^{£} and after that about ix of the
Clocke at nyght Chrystoffer Wryght cam again to that haverdasshers and
Boughte two hatts more for two Servante unto a Gentylman that was w^{th}
hym he thyncks that Gentylman was called Wynter but I dowbt that mans name
ys mystaken Ther cam a yong Gentylman w^{th} this wryght w^{th}in these
fewe dayes that gave to Cutler here by xix^{£} xv^{s} for a Sword whom I
am in some hoep to dyscover by the Sword and other cyrcumstance and even
so I humbly take my leave of yo^{r} L at Serienty Inn the v^{th} of
november 1605.

                                              yo^{r} L very humbly

                                                     Jo Popham.[A]

[Footnote A: The Lord Chief Justice of England.]

(P.S.) I have this mornyg the vi^{th} noveber dyscovered where Wynter [is]
w^{th} the matter which I have delyverd to m^{r} Att^{r}ney wherof happely
yo^{r} L may make good vse I wyll see yf I can mete w^{th} m^{r} Wynter
Walley the jesuyt and Strang as I am Informed are now at ffrance Brownes
pcke about Surrey as I take yt and Sundry letters lately sent over are yet
Remaynyng at fortescues house by the Wadropp but yt wylbe hard to fynd any
thyng in that house.

  (Endorsed) 5 Novemb^{r}
             L Ch. Justice

  (Addressed) To the Ryght
              honorable and my
              very good L the
              Earle of Sarysbury.

  (Declaration enclosed——short.)


                              APPENDIX I.

                 GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——Part I., No. 75.

O^{r} humble dutyes remembred. We have this day apprehended & deliwed to
his Ma^{ty} messenger Berrye the bodie of M^{ris} Graunt, from whom we
gathered that Percyes wief was not farre of, whervppon wee made search in
the most lykely place and have even since night apprehended her in the
house of M^{r} John Wright, and have thought fitt to take this
opportunitie to send vpp to yo^{r} honors’ w^{th} the said M^{ris} Graunt
aswell the said M^{res} Percye as alsoe the wives of other the principall
offenders in this last insurrection as appeth by the Kallender
heerinclosed by whos exaiacons we thinke some necessary matters wilbe
knowne.

M^{r} Sherief taketh care & charge of these woomens children vntill yo^{r}
honors pleasures be further knowne.

  ffrom Warr this xij^{th} of November 1605
  yo^{r} honors most humbly at comaundment
  in all service.

                                                    Richard Verney
                                                      Jo: fferrers
                                                       W^{m} Combe
                                                        Bar: Hales

  (Endorsed) 12 9bre 1605
             S^{r} Rych: Verney and other Justices to me

  (Addressed) To the right honorable my especyall good
              Lord the Earle of Salisbury & the rest of
              his Ma^{ty} most honorable privie Counsayle

                        w^{th} all speed.


                              APPENDIX J.

                GUNPOWDER PLOT BOOKS——Part II., No. 130.

This Last Vacatio Guy faux als Jhonson did hier a barke of Barkin the
owners name Called paris wherein was Caried over to Gravelinge a ma[A]
supposed of great import he went disguised and wold not suffer any one ma
to goe w^{th} him but this Vaux[B] nor to returne w^{th} him This paris
did Attend for him back at Gravelyng[C] sixe weekes yf Cause quier there
are severall proffs of this matter.

[Footnote A: Contraction for “man.”]

[Footnote B: _I.e._, Faux.]

[Footnote C: Gravelyng would be Gravelines in France. Most probably “the
man supposed of great import,” who “went disguised,” accompanied by
Fawkes, was one of the principal conspirators, perhaps Thomas Winter or
John Wright. I suspect their errand was to buy fresh gunpowder through
Captain Hugh Owen. Notice “Vacation,” 1605.]

  (Endorsed) Concerninge one Paris that caried faukes to
             Gravelyng and others.


                              APPENDIX K.

                                             45, Bernard St.,
                                               Russell Square,
                                                 London, W.C.,
                                                   30th October, 1901.

  Dear Sir,

The Gunpowder Plot and Lord Mounteagle’s Letter.

I well remember accompanying you to the Record Office, Chancery Lane,
London, W.C., on Friday, the 5th of October, 1900, when we saw the
original Letter to Lord Mounteagle and the Declaration of Edward Oldcorne
of the 12th March, 1605-6.

As soon as I began to compare the two documents I noticed a general
similarity in the handwritings; although the handwriting of the Letter to
Lord Mounteagle was evidently intended to be disguised. The letters were
not uniform in their slant, and seemed, as it were, to be “staggering
about.” There was also, certainly, a particular similarity in the case of
certain of the letters.

I have for the last seventeen years had great experience in transcribing
documents of the period of Queen Elizabeth and James I.; and, in my
opinion, it is at least probable that the Letter to Lord Mounteagle and
the Declaration of the 12th March, 1605-6, signed by Edward Oldcorne, were
by one and the same hand.

                                                      Yours truly,
                                                  Emma M. Walford.

  To H. H. Spink, Jun., Esq., Solicitor, York.


                              APPENDIX L.

Having recently learnt that Professor Windle, M.D., F.R.S., Dean of the
Faculty of Medicine in the University of Birmingham, had written two books
descriptive of the Midland Counties, Warwickshire and Worcestershire, with
part of Herefordshire, “_Shakespeare’s Country_,” and “_The Malvern
Country_” (Methuen & Co.), I ventured to write to him respecting the roads
from Lapworth to Hindlip (traversed on horseback, I conjecture, by
Christopher Wright, about the 11th October, 1605); and from Hindlip to
Gothurst, three miles from Newport Pagnell (traversed on horseback, I
conjecture, by Ralph Ashley, between the 11th October and the 21st of
October); and from Coughton to Huddington, and thence to Hindlip
(traversed on horseback, as we know with certitude, by Father Oswald
Tesimond, on Wednesday, the 6th November, 1605).

I append Dr. Windle’s most kind and courteous reply for the benefit of my
readers. I may say that his opinion is largely corroborative of former
opinions as to distances given to me independently by the Rev. Fr.
Kiernan, S.J., of Worcester; and the Rev. Fr. Cardwell, O.S.B., of
Coughton; as well as of those given by the gentlemen whose names occur in
the Notes to the Text——the Rev. Fr. Atherton, O.S.B., of
Stratford-on-Avon; Charles Avery, Esq., of Headless Cross; and George
Davis, Esq., of York. (I understand that Mr. Avery wrote to the Vicar of
Coughton, the parish wherein Coughton Hall, or Coughton Court, is
situated, respecting my inquiry. I desire, therefore, to express my thanks
to that reverend gentleman, as well as to the reverend the Vicar of Great
Harrowden, Northamptonshire, for certain information which the latter
likewise most readily vouchsafed to me a few months ago.)

                                                  “The University,
                                                       Birmingham,
                                                    Dec. 22, 1901.

  “My dear Sir,

...

“With respect to the distances which you wish to know, I have taken them
out as well as I can, and I think they will be exact enough; but, of
course, I have had to work from modern maps, and I cannot be certain that
all the roads now in existence were there in the time of James I. You will
observe that most of our great roads, near the parts you mention, run
approximately North and South, so that you want cross-roads.

“I expect from what I hear of that part of the county that the roads I
have taken are fairly old, or at least represent bridle tracks. I think
they may fairly be taken as representing the way by which a horseman would
travel. With this preface I now give the figures:——

“1. Lapworth to Hindlip——as the crow flies, nineteen——via Tutnal and
Bromsgrove I make it twenty-two miles, and I think this is the most likely
route. There were Catholic houses at both Tutnal and Bromsgrove.

“2. Coughton to Hindlip——twelve as the crow flies——about fourteen I make
it by road——but I am not sure that the first piece I have used is an old
road. But fifteen miles would do it, if the more devious path had to be
taken.

“3. Huddington is four from Hindlip as the crow flies; going by road by
Oddingley I should make it five.

“4. By the _route_ I should go, if I were cycling, I should take

  Worcester to Stratford-on-Avon       23 miles.
  Stratford-on-Avon to Warwick          8  ”
  Warwick to Daventry                  19  ”
  Daventry to Northampton              12  ”
  Northampton to Newport Pagnell       12  ”
                                      ————
                                       74 miles.
                                      ————

“It would be about the same distance from Hindlip; for from that place you
can get into the Worcester and Stratford-on-Avon road by a bye-road.

“I hope this information may be of service to you, and if I can help you
any further, pray apply to me.

                                                            “I am,
                                                 Yours very truly,
                                            Bertram C. A. Windle.”


                              APPENDIX M.

Since hearing from Professor Windle, M.D., of Birmingham, I have received
the following letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Carmichael, the Chief
Constable of Worcestershire, which my readers will be glad to see, I am
sure. The difference in Professor Windle’s statement of distances and that
of Colonel Carmichael is probably to be accounted for by the turns in the
road, as well as other differences in the basis of calculation.

                                 “County Chief Constable’s Office,
                                                        Worcester,
                                              27th December, 1901.

  “Sir,

“Gunpowder Plot and Lord Mounteagle’s Letter.

“Adverting to your letter of the 14th inst., _re_ the above, I am
forwarding you, as under, the required distances (by road), which are as
accurate as I can possibly ascertain, viz.:——

  Hindlip distant from Huddington,
    near Droitwich                     3-1/4 miles.

  Do. from Coughton, near Alcester,
    Warwickshire                      17-1/2  ”

  Do. from Lapworth, Warwickshire     30      ”

  Worcester from Northampton          64      ”

                                                “Yours faithfully,

                                                George Carmichael,
                                  Lieut.-Col., and Chief Constable
                                               of Worcestershire.”

  “H. H. Spink, Jun., Esq., Solicitor,
      Coney Street, York.”


                              APPENDIX N.

             EXTRACT FROM YORK CORPORATION HOUSE BOOK——Vol.
                            xxviii., f. 82.

                                                    4 Jany vicesimo
                                                        quinto Elizth.

Assembled in the Counsell Chamber upon Ousebridg the day and year
abovesaid when and where the Queen’s Maties Comission to my Lord Maior and
Aldermen directed was openly redd to these present the teno^{r} wherof
hereafter enseweth word by word:——

By the Queene

Right trustie and welbeloved we greet you well wheras the great care and
zeale we have had ever since our first coming to the crowne for the
planting and establishing of God’s holie Word & trew religon w^{th}in this
o^{r} Realme and other our dominions haith ben notoriouslie knowen unto
all o^{r} Subjects aswell by sundry lawes & ordinances maid and published
for the true serving of god and adminstracon of the Sacraments As by
divers Commissions and other directions gyven out from us for that purpose
to th’end that therby our Subjects being trayned up in the feare and true
knowledge of god might the better learne ther dutie and obedience towards
us; and yet neverthelesse sondry lewde and evill affected psons to our
present estate by nature o^{r} Subjects borne, but by disloyaltie yelding
ther obedience to other forraine potentats have of lait yeares entred into
certayne societies in the partyes beyond the Seas, as in the Cyttie of
Reimes and other places carreyinge the names of Semynaries & Jesuits where
being trayned upp and as it were full fraught with all erronious and
detestable doctrine they have and do dailie repare over disguised and in
most secreet manner into this o^{r} Realme and especiallie into this o^{r}
County of the Cyttie of Yorke where they are in sondry places well
entertained and harbored, by meanes whereof they have not onelie
malitiously gone about to seduce and pervert the simple sort of our good
subjects in matters of religion but also have practised most unnaturailie
trayterouslye to wthdraw them frome their naturall dewties and allegiance
towards us Sowing even according to the name they have receved abroad the
vere sede of all sedicon and conspiracye amongst o^{r} people. And all be
it we conceved that ther Rebellious harts and practises being thoroughlie
discovered as well by the lait trayterous attempts of some of them in
o^{r} Realme of Irland as by the treasonable actions of others w^{th}in
this our Realme And ther obstinate and sedicious manner of dyeing when
being justlie condempned by our lawes they have suffered death for the
same Yow wold most carefullie and diligentlie have loked into the seeking
owt and apphending of such wicked psons, being a matter of so great
consequence to our service and tending princepallie to the publique quiet
of o^{r} wholl State and to the p’ticuler saftie of every of our good
subjects: and the rather for that our pleasure on that behalf haith often
and sundry wayes ben signified unto yow And for the execucion wherof yow
have not wanted sufficient authoritie. Yet notwithstanding, smale care or
none at all haith ben had to annswere o^{r} expectacon and trust reposed
in yow so as we might juslie be drawen to thinke hardlie of yow if we were
not pswaded that yow have rather neglected yo^{r} duties for some other
respect than for want of good affection to our service. We have thought
good therfor oftsons to renew unto yow the remembrance of yo^{r} duties,
and do hereby straightlie charge and command yow and ev’ye of yow to have
a greater care & moare continewall circumspection on that behalf and by
all the good and discreet meanes yow may to make diligent enquirie and
searche w^{th}in yo^{r} severall wardes and devisions for all manner of
popish preasts, Jesuits Semynaries and such like psons as yow shall have
vehement cause to suspect to be malitious and obstinate mistakers of the
religeon by us established and of our present estate and the same to
apprehend and send under safe custodie unto our right trustie and
welbeloved cosine E. of Huntington President of our Counsell in these
partes and in his absence to our Counsell here. And further we will yow to
have a speciall regard that such persons as shall ether willinglie absent
themselves from the church or shall any way deprave the order of comen
praer & of the holie sacraments now established w^{th}in this realme or
shall malitiously abuse the ministers of the same or shall by anie other
meanes show themselves obstinate & contemptous in matters concerning
religeon may be throughlie p’ceded w^{th} according to o^{r} Lawes wherein
o^{r} meaning is that yow should especiallie deale with principall persons
who (we assure our selves) do by ther evill example drawe and encouradg
the Inferior sort to continew in ther blindnes and disobedience and so
requiring yow to procede and continew in the execution hereof in such
diligent manner as we may have cause to think yow desier thereby to repare
the falts of your former negligence and to dischardge yourselves in your
duties according to our expectacon and the trust we comitt to yow. We
recomend the due accomplishment of all the p’misses unto your discreet and
diligent proceding herein. Whereof yow may not fayle as yow tender o^{r}
favo^{r}. Geven under o^{r} Signet at o^{r} Cyttie of Yorke the last of
December 1582 the 25^{th} yeare of o^{r} reigne.

And by hir Counsell.

  (Addressed to) To our right trustie and welbeloved the
  Maio^{r} of our Cittie of Yorke and to the Aldermen his
  bretheren. (On the back.)

       *       *       *       *       *

M^{r} Harbart M^{r} Robinson Maister Maltby M^{r} Appleyard M^{r} Trew &
M^{r} May, Aldermen, are appoynted by these presents to view the Chambers
upon Ousebridge & Monckbarr tomorrow at after none & to see whether of the
same be most mete for the pson for Churche persons as will fullie resist
to come to Church to the intent the same may be forthwith repared for that
purpose.[A]

[Footnote A: Leave was given me to print the aforesaid Order of Queen
Elizabeth in Council by the authorities of the York Corporation, on the
3rd day of June, 1901; the Lord Mayor for that year being Alderman the
Right Honourable E. W. Purnell; and John Close, Esquire, J.P., Sheriff; J.
G. Butcher, Esquire, K.C., and George Denison Faber, Esquire,
Representatives in Parliament——the first Parliament of His Most Gracious
Majesty King Edward VII.]


       _Note as to authenticity of “Thomas Winter’s Confession,”
                             at Hatfield._

Whilst greatly admiring the erudition and dialectical skill displayed by
the Rev. John Gerard, S.J., in his recent Gunpowder Treason Works,
mentioned in the Prelude to this Book, I am of opinion that the Confession
attributed to the conspirator, Thomas Winter, is authentic. The internal
evidence for the genuineness of this document is too strong (_me judice_)
to be upset.

It is true that the change in the form of signature is undoubtedly a
suspicious circumstance; but such change was probably due to a desire, on
the prisoner’s part, _to let “a great gulf be fixed” between “Thos.
Wintour,” the free-born gentleman, and “Thomas Winter,” the inchoately
attainted traitor_.

Moreover, the name Winter, or Wynter, _was_, at that time, certainly spelt
with the “_er_” as well as with the “_our_,” just as the name “Ward” was
spelt either with the final “e” or without the same. For instance, in
Flower’s “_Visitation of Yorkshire_,” Edited by Norcliffe (Harleian Soc.,
London), Jane Ingleby is stated to be the “Wyff to George _Wynter_ son and
heyr of _Robert Winter_ of Cawdwell in Worceshyre.”

One would like to see from the pen of the Rev. John Gerard a translation
of Father Oswald Tesimond’s Italian Narrative, known as “_Greenway’s
Manuscript_.” Tesimond, it is almost certain, knew the bulk of the
plotters more intimately than did the seventeenth century Father Gerard.
Therefore, Tesimond’s Narrative, _pro tanto_, must surpass in value even
the work of the Father Gerard of three hundred years ago.




                                 NOTES.


[Footnote 1:——The following quotation is from the “_Calendar of State
Papers Domestic, 1603-1610_,” p. 254:——“Nov. 13 (1605) Declaration of
Fras. Tresham——Catesby revealed the Plot to him on October 14th: he
opposed it: urged at least its postponement, and offered him money to
leave the kingdom with his companions: thought they were gone, and
intended to reveal the Treason; has been guilty of concealment, but, as he
had no hand in the Plot, he throws himself on the King’s mercy.”

Now surely it stands to reason that if Tresham had penned the
Letter——_Litteræ Felicissimæ_——he would have never addressed his Sovereign
thus. He would have triumphantly gloried in the effort of his pen, and
“worked” (as the phrase goes) “his beneficent action for all that it was
worth.” Tresham was held back _by the omnipotence of the impossible_;
anybody can see _that_ who reads his evidence.

Besides Mounteagle, Tresham (who died of a painful disease, strangurion,
in the Tower 23rd December, 1605) probably would have had a powerful (if
bribed) friend in the Earl of Suffolk. Hence his friends saying that had
he lived they feared not the course of Justice. The Earl of Suffolk was a
son of Thomas fourth Duke of Norfolk, by his second wife, Margaret Audley,
the heiress of Sir Thomas Audley, of Walden, Essex. The Duke was beheaded
in 1572 for aspiring to the hand of James the First’s mother, Mary Queen
of Scots. It is to James’s credit that he seems to have treated the Howard
family, in its various branches, with marked consideration, after
ascending the English Throne. Thomas fourth Duke of Norfolk’s first wife
was the heiress of the then last Earl of Arundel, Lady Mary Fitzalan. She
left one son, Philip, who became the well-known Philip Howard Earl of
Arundel and Surrey.]

[Footnote 2:——In 1568 a Commission was appointed which sat at York to hear
the causes of the differences which had arisen between the Scottish Queen
and her subjects. Thomas fourth Duke of Norfolk presided over this
Commission, and the late lamented Bishop Creighton, in his fascinating
biography of Queen Elizabeth, thinks that the proposal that Mary Stuart
should be married to Norfolk came from the Scottish side at York on this
occasion. Whatever may be the true history and character of Mary Queen of
Scots, in clearness of mind she excelled her Royal cousin of England, that
wonderful child of the Renaissance, poor, pathetic, lonely, yet
marvellous, “Bess,” who for 342 years, even from the grave, has ruled one
aspect of English ecclesiastical life.[A] Moreover, I am of opinion that
the Scots’ Queen showed a singular tolerance of spirit towards the holders
of theological opinions the contradictory of her own, whilst at the same
time continuing constantly established in her own tenure of what she
believed to be the Truth: indeed a tolerance of spirit, combined with a
personal steadfastness, reached only by the very choicest spirits of that
or any succeeding age.

Tolerance is not a simple but a compound product; and its attainment is
especially difficult to women by reason of the essential intensity of
their nature. Tolerance is a habit born of a consciousness of intellectual
strength and moral power. It is a manifestation of that princely gift and
grace which “becomes a monarch better than his crown.” It ought to be the
birthright and peculiar characteristic of all that know (and therefore
believe) they have a living possession of the Absolute and Everlasting
Truth. In the interests of our common Humanity, all who think that their
strength is as the “strength of ten,” because their “faith” (whatever may
be the case with their “works”) is “pure,” should seek to place on an
intellectual foundation, sure and steadfast, the principle, the grand
principle, considered in so many of its concrete results, of religious
toleration: a principle which England has exhibited in its practical
working to the world: but rather as the conclusion of the unconscious
logic of events than the conscious logic of the mind of man. Now this
latter kind of logic alone, because it is idealistic, can give permanency;
the former kind, being primarily materialistic, will inevitably sooner or
later go “the way of all flesh;” and we know what _that_ is.

The ideas of Truth and Right imply a oneness or _unity_. Now unity is the
opposite of multiplicity, and, _therefore_, the contrary of division and
distinction. One must rule men by virtue of the prerogatives of Truth and
Right when these are ascertained. The problem at the root of the terrible
conflict on the veldt of South Africa since 11th October, 1899, to the
present time, 26th October, 1901, involves this question of the unity that
is implied in the ideas of Truth and Right. For those ideas are the
originating causes, the moving springs, the ultimate justification, and
the final vindication of all true and just claims to paramountcy and
sovereignty everywhere. But who is to determine which side has Truth and
Right, and, therefore, the true and the just claim to paramountcy and
sovereignty in South Africa?

Surely the answer is that people who have shown that they can rule
Humanity because _first_ they have themselves obeyed princely ideals of
the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. Nothing short of this can satisfy
the universal conscience of mankind.

What have our men of light and leading been about that they have not
explained clearly and straight from the shoulder these truths to the world
long, long ago? Had they done so, how much innocent blood might have been
never spilt! How many bitter tears might have been never shed!]

[Footnote A: See “_Life of Mary Queen of Scots_,” by Samuel Cowan
(Sampson, Low, 1901); also “_The Mystery of Mary Stuart_,” by Andrew Lang
(Longmans, 1901).]

[Footnote 3:——Lord Mounteagle had been a party to the sending of Thomas
Winter and Father Oswald Tesimond into Spain in 1601 to negotiate with
King Philip III. of Spain an invasion of England with an army on
Elizabeth’s death. In 1601 he seems to have been a prisoner in the house
of Mr. Newport, of Bethnal Green. But in 1602 he was with Catesby at White
Webbs, by Enfield Chase, near London; so he was then at liberty. On the
accession of James I., Mounteagle——along with the Earl of Southampton
(Shakespeare’s patron and friend), and Francis and Lewis Tresham——held the
Tower of London for the King, who seems to have welcomed Mounteagle at
Court from the first. After James’s accession Christopher Wright and Guy
Fawkes were sent on a mission to Spain to urge upon the Spanish King to
invade the realm. This mission seems to have been a continuation of the
mission in 1601 of Winter and Tesimond. Mounteagle, however, took no part
or lot in despatching the second mission. (It is important to notice the
fact that as far back as 1601 and 1603 Thomas Winter and Tesimond,
Christopher Wright and Fawkes, were co-workers in revolutionary designs
against the Government of the day.)

Mounteagle’s father, Lord Morley, was living in 1605. He did not die till
1618, when his son and heir succeeded him as eleventh Baron Morley.
Mounteagle was called to the House of Lords in the autumn of 1605, under
the title of Baron Mounteagle, in right of his mother. “Mounteagle,” says
Father Oswald Tesimond, alias Greenway, “was either actually a Catholic in
opinion and in the interior of his heart, or was very well-disposed
towards the Catholics, being a friend of several of the conspirators and
related to some of them.” After the Plot, Mounteagle evidently left the
religion of his ancestors, though his wife (_née_ Tresham) continued
constant herein, and brought up her children Catholics; but Mounteagle
“died a Catholic.”

Jardine thinks that Mounteagle held some ceremonial office at Court,
probably in the Household of Queen Anne of Denmark, wife of James I., who
was at heart a Roman Catholic, though most probably never received into
that Church.——See “_Carmel in England_” (Burns & Oates, 1899), p. 30. We
hear of Mounteagle about ten days before the 5th November, 1605, calling
at the Palace at Richmond to kiss the Prince’s hands (_i.e._, Henry Prince
of Wales). Thomas Winter told Catesby that Mounteagle, at that time,
gathered from what he heard at the Royal Household that the Prince would
not be present at the opening of Parliament. Somerset House was Queen
Anne’s Palace. It would be the centre for all the most brilliant wits,
ambassadors, and diplomatists of the day.]

[Footnote 4:——The Earl of Arundel and Lord William Howard were
half-brothers. (Lord William Howard was “the Belted Will Howard,” renowned
in Border story as the scourge of the lawless moss-trooper. For a
description of this remarkable man see Sir Walter Scott’s “Lay of the Last
Minstrel.”) The half-brothers were both the sons of that unfortunate
nobleman, Thomas fourth Duke of Norfolk, who in 1572 was beheaded for
aspiring to the hand of Mary Queen of Scots. Lord Arundel died in the
Tower of London in 1595, “a Martyr-in-will for the Ancient Faith.” Though
their father was a strong Protestant (being a pupil of John Fox, the
author of Fox’s “_Book of Martyrs_”) both his sons, Philip and William,
became strong Roman Catholics, as did his daughter, Margaret Lady
Sackville. Philip Howard Earl of Arundel, losing his father when only
fifteen years old, was, at an early age, drawn within the vortex of the
gaieties of the Court of his kinswoman Queen Elizabeth. However, in the
year 1581, while still a mere courtier and votary of pleasure, it happened
he was present, we are told, at “the disputation in the Tower of London in
1581, concerning divers points of religion betwixt Fr. Edmond Campion of
the Society of Jesus and some other Priests of the one part; Charke, Fulk,
Whitaker, and some other Protestant Ministers of the other.” We are
further told by his biographer, an unknown Jesuit writer of the
seventeenth century, “By that he saw and heard there, he easily perceived
on which side the Truth and true Religion was, tho’ at that time, nor
untill a year or two after, he neither did nor intended to embrace and
follow it: and after he did intend it a good while passed before he did
execute it. For, as himself signify’d in a letter which he afterwards writ
in the time of his imprisonment in the Tower to Fr. Southwell, he resolved
to become Catholic long before he could resolve to live as a Catholic, and
thereupon he defer’d the former until he had an intent and resolute
purpose to perform the latter. The which (being aided by a special grace
of God) he made walking one day alone in the Gallery of his Castle at
Arundel, where after a long and great conflict within himself, lifting up
his eies and hands to Heaven, he firmly resolved to become a member of
God’s Church, and to frame his life accordingly.”

Sir Robert Howard, in the reign of Henry VI., married the Lady Margaret
Mowbray, daughter of Thomas De Mowbray Duke of Norfolk, and
grand-daughter, maternally, of Richard Fitzalan Earl of Arundel (“_Law
Times_,” 9th November, 1901). The motto of the Howards Dukes of Norfolk
is, “_Virtus sola invicta_”——“Virtue alone unconquered.” The motto of the
Howards Earls of Carlisle is, “_Volo sed non valeo_”——“I am willing, but I
am not able.”

The Earl of Arundel was “reconciled” by Fr. Wm. Weston, of the Society of
Jesus, in 1584. In the next year he was imprisoned, and after an
incarceration of ten years died in 1595. Fr. Robert Southwell, the poet,
wrote for the Earl’s consolation, when the latter was in the Tower of
London, that ravishing work, the “_Epistle of Comfort_.” (The illustrious
House of the Norfolk Howards has been indeed highly favoured in being able
to call “Friend” and “Father” two such exquisite geniuses as Robert
Southwell and Frederic William Faber.) The two half-brothers, Philip and
William, married two sisters, the daughters and co-heiresses of Thomas
Lord Dacres of the North, “a person of great estate, power, and authority
in those parts (as possessing no less than nine baronies) and one of the
most ancient for nobility in the whole kingdom.” These ladies were among
the most amiable and delightful women of their time. From Philip Howard
Earl of Arundel and Surrey and Anne Dacres is descended the present Duke
of Norfolk; and from his half-brother Lord William Howard and Elizabeth
Dacres the present Earl of Carlisle: both of which Englishmen are indeed
worthy of their “noble ancestors,” and fulfil the great Florentine poet’s
ideal of “the truly noble,” in that _they_ confer nobility upon their
_race_.

For further facts concerning those mentioned in this note——who so appeal
to the historic imagination and so touch the historic sympathies——see the
“_Lives of Philip Howard Earl of Arundel and Anne Dacres his wife_” (Hurst
& Blackett), and the “_Household Books of Lord William Howard_” (Surtees
Society).]

[Footnote 5:——Lord Mounteagle would be also akin to Lord Lumley (who had
estates at or about Pickering, I believe), through the great House of
Neville. Lord Lumley’s portrait, from a painting in the possession of the
Right Hon. the Earl of Scarbrough, Lord Lieutenant of the West Riding of
Yorkshire, is to be found in Edward Hailstone’s “_Yorkshire Worthies_,”
vol. i. Edward Hailstone, Esquire, of Walton Hall, Wakefield, was a rich
benefactor to the York Minster Library, and his memory should be ever had
in grateful remembrance by all who “love Yorkshire because they know
her.”——See Jackson’s “_Guide to Yorkshire_” (Leeds).]

[Footnote 6:——It should be remembered that (i.) the page’s evidence goes
to show that the man who delivered the Letter was a “tall man.” (ii.) That
the Letter was given in the street to the page who was already in the
street when the “tall man” came up to him with the document.

Hoxton is about four miles from Whitehall. I opine that Mounteagle
proceeded from Bath to Hoxton, and that the supper had been pre-arranged
to take place at Hoxton on the evening of the 26th of October, 1605, by
Thomas Ward, the gentleman-servant of Lord Mounteagle, who indeed read the
Letter after Mounteagle had broken the seal and just glanced at its
contents. Anybody gifted with ordinary common sense can see that this
scene must have been all planned beforehand.]

[Footnote 7:——The letters “wghe” are not, at this date (5th October,
1900), clearly discernible.]

[Footnote 8:——See letter dated November, 1605——Sir Edward Hoby to Sir
Thomas Edmonds. Add. MSS. in British Museum, No. 4176, where name “Thomas
Ward” is given.]

[Footnote 9:——Stowe’s “_Chronicle_,” continued by Howes, p. 880. Ed. 1631.

From the evidence of William Kydall, it was physically impossible for
Thomas Winter to confer with Christopher Wright, Wright being nearly 100
miles away from London “the next day after the delivery of the Letter,”
for the next day would be Sunday, October the 27th. Wright reached London
in the afternoon of Wednesday, the 30th.

See Appendix respecting discrepancy as to date not affecting allegation of
fact when the former is not of the essence of the statement, per Lord
Chief Justice Scroggs, _temp._ Charles II.]

[Footnote 10:——Fawkes was apprehended at “midnight without the House,”
according to “_A Discourse of this late intended Treason_.” Knevet having
given notice that he had secured Fawkes, thereupon Suffolk, Salisbury, and
the Council went to the King’s chamber at the Palace in Whitehall, and
Fawkes was brought into the Royal Presence. This was at about four o’clock
in the morning of Tuesday, the 5th of November.

Fawkes showed the calmest behaviour conceivable in the Royal Presence. To
those whom he regarded as being of authority he was respectful, yet very
firm; but towards those whom he deemed as of no account, he was humorously
scornful. The man’s self control was astounding. He told his auditory that
“a dangerous disease requires a desperate remedy!” (See “_King’s Book_.”)

Whitehall Palace had been a Royal Palace since the reign of Henry VIII.;
it was burned down in the time of William and Mary. It was formerly what
St. James’s Palace is now in relation to royal functions.

It was at St. James’s Palace that His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward
VII. deigned to receive the respectful address of condolence on the death
of His late beloved Imperial Mother, and of loyal assurance of devoted
attachment to His Throne and Person from Cardinal Vaughan, together with
several Bishops, the Duke of Norfolk, the Marquis of Ripon, the Lord
Mowbray and Stourton, and the Lord Herries, including other peers and
representatives of the English Roman Catholic laity.

By a singular coincidence the day happened to be the 295th anniversary of
the execution of Father Henry Garnet, S.J., in St. Paul’s Churchyard,
London (3rd May, 1606): a coincidence of happy augury, let us devoutly
hope, that old things are about to pass away, and that all things are
about to become new!]

[Footnote 11:——Essex House was between the Strand and the River Thames.

Somerset House was a favourite Palace of Queen Anne of Denmark, the
Consort of James I. Here the Spanish Ambassador Extraordinary, Juan
Fernandez de Velasco, Duke de Frias, and Constable of Castile, sojourned a
fortnight, when in 1604 he came to ratify the treaty of peace between
England and Spain.]

[Footnote 12:——By Poulson in his “_History of Holderness_,” Yorks. (1841),
vol. ii., pp. 5, 7, in an account of the Wright family, where there is a
pedigree showing the names of Christopher Wright and his elder brother
John. Poulson may have been recording a local tradition, though he
mentions no kind of authority.——See also Foster’s Ed. of Glover’s
“_Visitation of Yorkshire_,” Also Norcliffe’s Ed. of Flower’s “_Visitation
of Yorkshire_” (Harleian Society).

See Supplementum for account of my visit to Plowland (or Plewland) Hall,
in the Parish of Welwick, Holderness, on the 6th of May, 1901.]

[Footnote 13:——See “_Guy Fawkes_,” by Rev. Thomas Lathbury, M.A. (J. W.
Parker, 1839), p. 21. Lathbury does not give his authority for this
interesting statement respecting this conspirator, Christopher Wright. It
is presumed, however, that he had some ground for the statement; for it is
antecedently improbable that his “imagination” should have provided so
circumstantial an assertion. Then, whence did he derive it?

Query:——Does Greenway’s Narrative make any such statement? Apparently
Jardine had a sight of the whole of this invaluable MS., and possibly
Lathbury (who appears to have been a clergyman of the Established Church)
may have seen it likewise through Canon Tierney, the Editor of “_Dodd’s
Church History_.”]

[Footnote 14:——I am afraid that when the Acts of the High Commission Court
that sat in the King’s Manor, in York, under the Presidency of Queen
Elizabeth’s kinsman, the Earl of Huntingdon, come to be published, we
shall find that “the lads and lassies” of Yorkshire and Lancashire
especially were very “backward in coming forward” to greet the rising of
the Elizabethan ecclesiastical aurora which it was their special privilege
to behold.

Mr. Thomas Graves Law knows about these invaluable historical documents,
and I hope that he will undertake their editorship. He is just the man for
this grand piece of work. To the people of “New England,” as well as of
“Old England,” these records of the York Court of High Commission are of
extraordinary interest, because they relate to “Puritan Sectaries” as well
as to “Popish Recusants,” Scrooby, so well known in the history of the
Pilgrim Fathers, being in the Archdiocese of York.]

[Footnote 15:——So that bad as they were, they were not hoary-headed
criminals, if we except Percy who seems to have been prematurely “grey.”

The name of Thomas Percy’s mother appears under “Beverley” as “Elizabeth
Percye the widowe of Edward Percye deceased,” in Peacock’s “_List of Roman
Catholics of Yorkshire in 1604_.”

The Percy Arms are in Welwick Church. (Communicated by Miss Burnham, of
Plowland, Welwick.)]

[Footnote 16:——I have seen the statement in a letter of the Earl (who was
one of the most scientific men of his age) which he wrote after the
discovery of the Plot. The letter is in Collins’ “_Peerage_.” The Earl of
Salisbury was Northumberland’s enemy, as Northumberland was looked up to
by the popish recusants as a sort of natural leader, though the Earl, on
his own avowal, was no papist. Salisbury’s native perspicacity, however,
told him that Northumberland, from every point of view, was alike to the
Royal House of Stuart and to the noble house of Salisbury dangerous. For
had the oppressed papists “thrown off” the yoke of James in course of
time, Salisbury’s life would have been not worth the price of a farthing
candle; and the philosophic, nonchalant Northumberland would have thought
that the papists’ support was well “worth a Mass,” just as did King Harry
of Navarre, the father of Queen Henrietta Maria, the wife of Charles I., a
few years previously. (An ancient portrait of Queen Henrietta Maria is in
the possession of the York Merchant Adventurers, York.) Then again,
Salisbury had a personal grudge against the proud Percy. For the latter
evidently in his heart scorned and rejected Salisbury, not only as a
_novus homo_——a new man——but as belonging to that band of statesmen who
had controlled Elizabeth’s policy, and told her not what she ought to do,
but what she could do; and whom the great Northern Earl would have been
taught from his cradle to spurn at and despise, because they were nothing
other than “a low bad lot,” who “were for themselves;” very different
indeed from the Earls of Essex, Walter and Robert, and such men as Sir
Henry Sidney and his still greater son, Sir Philip Sidney, the darling of
the England of his day. Percy indeed once declared that if Percy blood and
Cecil blood were both poured into a bowl, the former would refuse to mix
with the latter. So, human nature being what it is, no wonder the shrewd
and able Salisbury had no love for the “high and mighty” Northumberland,
and that _carpe diem_——seize your opportunity——was Salisbury’s motto as
soon as he got the chance. (I know of no stronger proof that, during the
past 300 years, in spite of back-waters, the world _has_ made true moral
progress than the contrast presented by the present Prime Minister and the
present First Lord of the Treasury and their ancestors of “Great Eliza’s
golden time” and the days of James Stuart.)]

[Footnote 17:——Robert Catesby held his Chastleton estate in possession
from his grandmother. He sold it to pay his ransom after the Essex
rebellion. (Dr. Jessopp in Article on “Catesby,” “_National Dictionary of
Biography_.”)

Had Catesby an estate at Armcote, in Worcestershire, not far from Chipping
Norton?]

[Footnote 18:——This Father Gerard of the seventeenth century was the
second son of Sir Thomas Gerard, of Byrn, Lancashire. He was an
acquaintance of the Wards, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, most
probably, for he was the early and life-long friend of Mary Ward.——See the
“_Life of Mary Ward_,” by Mary Catherine Elizabeth Chambers (Burns &
Oates).]

[Footnote 19:——Sir Thomas Leigh settled considerable property to the uses
of the marriage. Jardine says that only Chastleton actually came into
Catesby’s possession.]

[Footnote 20:——S. T. Coleridge, speaking of the age of Elizabeth, says
that, notwithstanding its marvellous physical and intellectual prosperity,
“it was an age when, for a time, the intellect stood superior to the moral
sense.” “_Lectures on Shakespeare_,” Collier’s Ed. (1856), p. 34.]

[Footnote 21:——What a lesson to us all, of every creed and philosophy, is
the just, yet terrible fate of these personally charming men, “to hug the
shore” of plain Natural Ethics, of solid Moral Virtue, which indeed is
“fairer than the morning or the evening star.” The establishment of
Ethical Societies by such men as the late Sir John Seeley and Professor
Henry Sidgwick for the diffusion of true Moral Ideas is a fact pregnant
with happy augury for the twentieth century.]

[Footnote 22:——Jardine’s “_Narrative_,” pp. 31, 32.]

[Footnote 23:——Gerard’s “_Narrative_,” p. 56.]

[Footnote 24:——Knaresborough, Knaresbrough or Knaresburgh, is thus
pleasantly celebrated in Drayton’s “_Polyolbion_”:——

        “From Whernside Hill not far outflows the nimble Nyde,
        Through Nytherside, along as sweetly she doth glide
        Tow’rds Knaresburgh on her way——
        Where that brave forest stands
        Entitled by the town[A] who, with upreared hands,
      Makes signs to her of joy, and doth with garlands crown
      The river passing by.”]

[Footnote A: The allusion is to the ancient Forest of Knaresbrough
belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster. (As to the extent and history of the
Forest, see Grainge’s “_Forest of Knaresbrough_.”)]

[Footnote 25:——“The Venerable” Francis Ingleby’s portrait is still to be
seen at Ripley Castle, an ideal English home, hard-by the winding Nidd.]

[Footnote 26:——For the facts of Francis Ingleby’s life, see Challoner’s
“_Missionary Priests_,” edited by Thomas G. Law; and “_Acts of the English
Martyrs_” (Burns & Oates), by the Rev. J. H. Pollen, S.J.]

[Footnote 27:——From Father Gerard’s “_Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot_,”
p. 59.]

[Footnote 28:——See the admirably written life of Sir Everard Digby, under
the title “_The Life of a Conspirator_,” by “One of his descendants”
(Kegan Paul & Co., 1895). The learned descendant of Sir Everard Digby,
however, evidently knows very much more concerning his gallant ancestor
than he knows about Guy Fawkes, who (excepting that “accident of an
accident”——fortune) was as honourable a character as the high-minded
spouse of Mary Mulsho himself——_honourable, of course, I mean after their
kind_.——Jardine’s “_Narrative of Gunpowder Plot_,” p. 67.]

[Footnote 29:——Sir William Catesby and Sir Thomas Tresham were excellent
types of the English gentry of their day. Each was “a fine old English
gentleman, one of the olden time.” They had both become “reconciled” Roman
Catholics——along with so many of the nobility, gentry, and yeomanry in the
Midlands——in 1580-81, through the famous missionary journey of the Jesuit,
Robert Parsons, probably forming with Edmund Campion two of the most
powerful extempore preachers that ever gave utterance to the English
tongue.

We may readily picture to ourselves “the coming of age” of the son and
heir of each of these gallant knights and stately dames. And we may easily
conceive of the bright hopes that either of the gentlewomen (especially
the two sisters), in their close-fitting caps, laced ruffs, and gowns
falling in pleated folds, must have cherished in their maternal hearts for
an honourable career for the child——the treasured child——of their bosom.
Alas! through the evil will of man, for the pathetic vanity of human
wishes.]

[Footnote 30:——Jardine, in his “_Narrative_,” p. 51, says that John
Grant’s ancestors are described in several pedigrees as of Saltmarsh, in
Worcestershire, and of Snitterfield, in Warwickshire; that Norbrook
adjoined Snitterfield, though it is not now considered locally situate
therein. Students of Shakespeare will be interested to learn that in the
Parish of Snitterfield, near Grant’s ancestral home, the poet’s mother,
Mary Arden——herself connected with the Throckmorton family——owned
property. Moreover, through his mother, Shakespeare was distantly
connected with several of the plotters. For Catesby and Tresham, as well
as Lady Wigmore, of Lucton, Herefordshire, were all first cousins to Lady
Mounteagle, who was a daughter of Sir Thomas Tresham. Sir Nicholas
Throckmorton (the father of Francis Throckmorton, who was executed in the
reign of Elizabeth) having three daughters whom he married to Sir William
Catesby, Sir Thomas Tresham, and Sir William Wigmore.——See Jardine’s
“_Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot_,” p. 11; also Foley’s “_Records of the
Jesuits in England_” (Burns & Oates), vol. iv., p. 290.

Probably Shakespeare knew Grant personally, and not only Grant, but
Catesby, Percy, the Winters (Robert and Thomas Winter were likewise akin
to the Throckmortons), and Tresham. That the bard of Avon knew Lord
Mounteagle, the associate of his friend and patron the Earl of
Southampton, is even still more probable.

How is it that Shakespeare never in his writings sought to make political
capital (as the sinister phrase goes) out of the Gunpowder Plot? For
several reasons: first, his heart (if not his head) was with the ancient
faith he had learned in the old Warwickshire home; secondly, his large
humanity prompted him to sympathise with all that were oppressed. I hold
that in this studied silence, this dignified reserve of Shakespeare, we
may discern additional proof of the nobleness of the man, supposing that
he knew personally any of the plotters. He would not kick friends that
were down, when those friends were even traitors. He could not approve
their action——far from it. He might have condemned with justice, and with
the world’s applause. But upon himself a self-denying ordinance he laid,
tempting as it must have been to him to perform the contrary, especially
when we recollect the course then followed by his brother-poet——Jonson.
But Shakespeare would not “take sword in hand” with the pretence of
restoring “equality” between these wrong-doers and their country. He
deemed that the ends of justice——exact, strict Justice——were met in “the
hangman’s bloody hands”——“Macbeth,” 1606——and that sufficed for him.

Since writing the above note I find it stated in “_The Religion of
Shakespeare_,” by Henry Sebastian Bowden (Burns & Oates, 1899)——chiefly
from the writings of that great Elizabethan scholar, the late Richard
Simpson——that “among the chief actors in the so-called Gunpowder Plot were
Catesby; the two Bates; John Grant, of Norbrook, near Stratford; Thomas
Winter, Grant’s brother-in-law; all Shakespeare’s friends and benefactors”
(p. 103); so that my conjecture is, belike, warranted that the poet knew
Catesby, Winter, and Grant. Moreover, from the same work, it appears that
Shakespeare, through the Ardens and Throckmortons, was connected by family
marriages, not only with Catesby, the Winters, and Tresham, but distantly
with the Earl of Southampton himself, who was a relative of Lord
Mounteagle. Hence it is still more probable that Shakespeare knew
Mounteagle personally.

Again, Shakespeare probably was present as one of the King’s players in
1604 at Somerset House, on the occasion of the Constable of Castile’s
visit.——See Sidney Lee’s “_Life of Shakespeare_” (Smith & Elder), p.
233.——If this were so, then it is well-nigh certain that the poet must
have there beheld Mounteagle, who would be one of the Lords then present,
most probably in attendance on the Queen Consort. The festivities in
honour of the Spanish Ambassador Extraordinary wound up with a magnificent
banquet at the Palace of Whitehall, when the Earl of Southampton “danced a
correnta” with the Queen. This was August 19th, 1604.——_Cf._ Churton
Collins’s “_Ephemera Critica_” (Constable) as to religion of
Shakespeare.]

[Footnote 31:——The name is also spelt Tirwhitt. Sir Robert Tyrwhitt, Lady
Ursula Babthorpe’s grandfather, had entertained Henry VIII. at the old
Hall at Kettleby. A new Hall was built in the time of James I., but this
was pulled down about 1691, I believe. The Tyrwhitts, of Kettleby, were
allied to such as the Tailboys, Boroughes, Wymbishes, Monsons, Tournays,
Thimbelbies, Thorolds, and other Lincolnshire houses. They were rigidly
Roman Catholic. The marriage between Sir William Babthorpe and Ursula
Tyrwhitt was one of those marriages “that are made in heaven.” The lovely
pathos of the lives of this ideal Yorkshire family is indescribable;
beginning with Sir William Babthorpe, who harboured Campion in 1581. It
was continued through Sir Ralph Babthorpe, who married that “valiant
woman” (the only daughter and heiress of William Birnand, the Recorder of
York), Grace Birnand by name, of Brimham, Knaresbrough, and York. Lady
Grace Babthorpe’s active and contemplative life was one long singing of
_Gloria in excelsis_. Sir William Babthorpe and Lady Ursula his wife, like
their noble parents, Sir Ralph Babthorpe and Lady Grace, “for conscience
sake” became voluntary exiles “and with strangers made their home.” Sir
William died a captain in the Spanish Army fighting against France. Lady
Ursula, his wife, died of the plague at Bruges. They had many children,
some of whom were remarkably gifted. Mary Anna Barbara Babthorpe, the
grand-daughter of Sir William Babthorpe, and great-great-grand-daughter of
the Sir William Babthorpe who harboured Campion, was the Mother-General of
the Nuns of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin, one of whose oldest
convents, St. Mary’s, is still situated near Micklegate Bar, York, on land
given by Sir Thomas Gascoigne, Bart., of Barnbow Hall, near Aberford, in
the time of James II. In Ireland the nuns of this order are styled the
Loretto Nuns. The story of the Babthorpes is a veritable English “_Un
Récit d’une sœur_.”——See “_Life of Mary Ward_.”——The Wards——like the
Inglebies, of Ripley; the Constables, of Everingham;[A] the Dawnays, of
Sessay; and the Palmes, of Naburn——were related to this “family of
saints.”——See also “The Babthorpes, of Babthorpe” (one of whose ancestors
carried the sword before King Edward III. on entering Calais in 1347), in
the late Rev. John Morris’s “_Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers_,”
first series (Burns & Oates).

For “the Kayes,” of Woodsome, see Canon Hulbert’s “_Annals of Almondbury_”
(Longmans).

“The Venerable” Richard Langley, of Owsthorpe and Grimthorpe, near
Pocklington, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, who suffered at the York
Tyburn on the 1st December, 1586, for harbouring priests, was
great-grandson of one of the Kayes, of Woodsome. (Communicated by Mr.
Oswald C. B. Brown, Solicitor, of York.)]

[Footnote 32:——“_Greenway’s MS._,” quoted by Jardine, “_Narrative of the
Gunpowder Plot_,” p. 151.]

[Footnote 33:——Hawarde, “_Reportes of Star Chamber_.”

See “_The Fawkeses, of York_,” by Robert Davies, sometime Town Clerk of
York (Nichols, Westminster, 1850); and the “_Life of Guy Fawkes_,” by
William Camidge (Burdekin, York). Davies was a learned York antiquary.

William Harrington, the elder, first cousin to Edward Fawkes (Guy’s
father), and Thomas Grimstone, of Grimston, were both “bound over” by the
Privy Council, on the 6th of December, 1581, to appear before the Lord
President of the North and the Justices of Assize at the next Assizes at
York, for harbouring Edmund Campion.——See “_Acts of Privy Council, 1581_”
(Eyre & Spottiswoode), p. 282.——What was the upshot I do not know.

Their Indictments are probably still to be found at York Castle. And it is
a great desideratum that the old York Castle Indictments should be
catalogued, and a catalogue published. I believe such never has been done.
Since August, 1900, York Castle has been used as a Military Prison. All
the old Indictments that are in existence, whether at York, Worcester, or
other Assize towns, would be of interest and value re the Gunpowder Plot
_if the affair is to be thoroughly bottomed_.

The York Quarter Sessions’ Indictments appear to be irretrievably lost,
which is a great pity, as many of those of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries must have referred to Popish recusants, and those of the
seventeenth century probably to Puritan sectaries, and, later, to Quakers
as well——the latter being punished under the Popish Acts of Supremacy and
Allegiance. Indeed, the barrister, William Prynne (seventeenth century), a
Calvinistic English Presbyterian, wrote a book to prove that Quakerism was
only a sort of indirect and derivative Popery. The learned gentleman
entitled his work: “_The Quakers unmasked and clearly detected to be but
the spawn of Romish Frogs, Jesuites, and Franciscan Fryers._” Now, Prynne
was not far wrong either, the erudite historical philosopher knows very
well, who has studied the genesis of the remarkable system developed by
Fox, Barclay, and Penn.

Was there a Grimston near Mount St. John, Feliskirk, near Thirsk? Or was
it Grimston Garth, Holderness? or was it North Grimston, between Malton
and Driffield, that Thomas Grimstone came from; or Grimston, three miles
east of York?

Since writing the preceding note I have come to the conclusion that the
Grimston was, most likely, the Grimstone some twelve miles from Mount St.
John, in the Parish of Gilling East, near Hovingham and Ampleforth, in the
Vale of Mowbray, and near Gilling Castle, once the seat of the Catholic
branch of the Fairfaxes, now the seat of George Wilson, Esquire, J.P. This
Grimstone would be a spot very suitable for harbouring Campion after he
had been at Babthorpe, near Selby; Thixendale, near Leavening, east of
Malton; and Fryton, west of Malton, near Hovingham.

(How wonderful to think that the probabilities are in favour of the
supposal that these tranquil, sequestered nooks, each with its own fair
summer beauty, once rang with the golden eloquence of Edmund Campion, “one
of the diamonds of England,” in the days of Shakespeare.)

Guy Fawkes was also connected with another Roman Catholic martyr, “the
Venerable” William Knight, yeoman, of South Duffield, Hemingbrough, Selby,
East Yorkshire, who suffered death at the York Tyburn in 1596, for
“explaining to a man the Catholic faith.”——See Challoner and Foster’s
“_Pedigrees of Yorkshire Families_” (“Fawkes, of Farnley”).]

[Footnote A: The Constables, of Everingham, are one of those old English
Roman Catholic families who so appealed to the historic imagination and so
touched the historic sympathies of the first Earl of Beaconsfield. The
present Lord Lieutenant of the East Riding of Yorkshire, Lord Herries, is
the owner of this grand old home of the Constables, one of whom was
executed for his share in the first Pilgrimage of Grace under Robert Aske,
of Aughton on the Derwent, in the time of Henry VIII. (1536). The pilgrims
captured York, Pontefract, and Hull, and laid siege to Skipton Castle.
Aske was hanged as a traitor from one of the towers of York, either
Clifford’s Tower or possibly the tower of All Saints’ Church, The
Pavement, York. After the movement had been quelled, Henry VIII. came with
dread majesty to York and established the Council of the North. Lady
Lumley, the wife of Sir John Lumley, of Lumley Castle, was burned alive at
Smithfield.——See Burke’s “_Tudor Portraits_.”]

[Footnote 34:——Father Morris, S.J., in “_The Troubles of our Catholic
Forefathers_” (York volume), says that Father Tesimond was a Yorkshireman;
though in Foley’s “_Records_,” in one place, he is said to have been born
in Northumberland, perhaps a translation of the Latin “Northumbria,”
intended to represent the name “Yorkshire.” There were, at least, three
families of Tesimond in York in the reign of Elizabeth, namely, Robert
Tesimond, a butcher, of Christ’s Parish; Anthony Tesimond, a cordyner; and
William Tesimond, a saddler, both of St. Michael-le-Belfrey’s Parish. I
incline to think that Father Oswald Tesimond was the son of William
Tesimond, who lived in the Parish of St. Michael-le-Belfrey, York. Oswald
Tesimond was born in 1563; but as the Register books of St. Michael’s
Church, unfortunately, begin in 1565, two years afterwards, there are no
means of verifying my supposal. William Tesimond was, for a great part of
his life, a rigid Catholic, suffering imprisonment for his faith, although
eventually he appears to have yielded. Margaret Tesimond, the wife of
William Tesimond, also bore a more than lip testimony to the ancient
religion by suffering imprisonment for it. Whether William Tesimond died
“reconciled” or not, I cannot say. Perhaps further researches will clear
the matter up as to this and the exact parentage of Father Tesimond. In
the very learned and deeply lamented Dr. James Raine’s admirable book on
the City of York (Longmans, 1893), on p. 110, is the following:——“Whilst
the Earl of Northumberland’s head was lying in the Tolbooth on Ouse
Bridge, William Tessimond cut off some hair from the beard. He wrapped it
in paper, and wrote on the outside, ‘This the heire of the good Erle of
Northumberland, Lord Perecy.’ For this he got into great trouble.” This
must have been about the 22nd August, 1572, as Thomas Percy Earl of
Northumberland was beheaded on that day, at three o’clock in the
afternoon, in The Pavement, York, for his share in the Rising of the
North. The Church Register of St. Margaret’s Church, Walmgate, York,
contains an entry of the death of the Earl of Northumberland. The Percy
family had property in Walmgate at that time. The Earl is now “the Blessed
Thomas Percy,” one of “the York martyrs.” The Lady Mary Percy, of Ghent, a
well-known Benedictine Abbess, was his daughter. She would be probably
named after her aunt Mary, the wife of Francis Slingsby, of Scriven Hall,
near Scotton. There is a fine monument in the Parish Church of
Knaresbrough to the memory of Francis Slingsby and Mary Percy, his wife.
The Slingsbies were Roman Catholics till many years after the reign of
Elizabeth; in fact, Sir Henry Slingsby, who was beheaded during the
Commonwealth, was himself a Roman Catholic.

The Half Moon Hotel, in Blake Street, York, perhaps derives its name from
the well-known device of the Percy family.]

[Footnote 35:——Quoted from Father Gerard’s “_Narrative_,” p. 278.]

[Footnote 36:——So that the Plot was first hatched about Easter, 1604.——See
Dr. S. R. Gardiner’s “_What Gunpowder Plot was_,” as to the decisive
causes of the Plot.——Jardine, in his “_Narrative_” (pp. 45 and 46), thinks
that the Star-Chambering of that aged but charming Roman Catholic
gentleman, Thomas Pounde, Esquire, of Belmont, Hampshire, contributed to
the causes of the Plot. This is very probable. Pounde was first cousin to
the father of the Earl of Southampton, the patron and friend of
Shakespeare. Pounde was a devoted friend of Campion, and himself a Jesuit
lay-brother. He spent a large part of his life in prison. He was attired
in prison as became his rank and fortune, and was, besides being a
“mystical” Catholic, a most accomplished Elizabethan gentleman.——See
“_Jesuits in Conflict_” (Burns & Oates).]

[Footnote 37:——_I.e._, according to Winter, about two months after.]

[Footnote 38:——See pp. 269 and 271 of the Rev. John Gerard’s, S.J., work,
“_What was the Gunpowder Plot?_” (Osgood, McIlvaine, & Co., 1897).]

[Footnote 39:——_I.e._, a Prayer Book. Sir Everard Digby appears to have
been sworn in by Robert Catesby on the cross formed by the hilt of a
poniard.——See “_Life of Sir Everard Digby_.”]

[Footnote 40:——It is also said that Catesby “peremptorily demanded of his
associates a promise that they would not mention the project, even in
Confession, lest their ghostly fathers should discountenance and hinder
it.”——See “_The Month_,” No. 369, pp. 353, 4.——This would be to make
assurance double sure. But, happily, the “best laid schemes o’ men gang
aft agley.” “For there is on earth a yet auguster thing, veiled though it
be, than Parliament or King”——the human conscience, which is “prophet in
its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its
blessings and anathenas” (John Henry Newman). Also, “Conscience is the
knowledge with oneself of the better and the worse” (James Martineau).]

[Footnote 41:——See Jardine’s “_Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot_,” p. 41.]

[Footnote 42:——The Most Hon. the Marquess of Ripon, K.G., Lord Lieutenant
of the North Riding of Yorkshire, and the Marchioness of Ripon, C.I., of
Studley Royal, near Ripon, are descended from this leile-hearted and
chivalrous Yorkshire race, in whom so many idealistic, stately souls, of a
long buried Past, claim kindred.

Of what manner of men these Mallories were, the puissant owners of Studley
Royal, is evident from what we are told concerning that Sir William
Mallory, “who was so zealous and constant a Catholic, that when heresy
first came into England, and Catholic service commanded to be put down on
such a day, he came to the church, and stood there at the door with his
sword drawn to defend, that none should come in to abolish religion,
saying that he would defend it with his life, and continued for some days
keeping out the officers so long as he could possibly do it.”——From the
“Babthorpes, of Babthorpe,” Morris’s “_Troubles of our Catholic
Forefathers_,” first series, p. 227.——The Church referred to must have
been the old Chapel at Aldfield, near Studley Royal. Aldfield was one of
the Chapelries of the ancient Parish of Ripon. The old Chapel at Aldfield
is now represented by the noble new Church which is seen in the distance,
at the end of the long avenue, by all who have the rare happiness of
visiting Studley Royal and the tall grey ruins of the Cistercian Abbey of
St. Mary, Fountains, laved by the musical little River Skell. (Studley
Church is twin-sister to Skelton Church, the Vyner Memorial in the Park of
Newby. Skelton was likewise one of the old Ripon Chapelries.) This phrase
“to abolish religion,” I opine, refers to the time of Edward VI., when the
Mass was first put down, and a communion substituted therefor.——See
Tennyson’s “_Mary Tudor_.”——There is a curious old traditional prophecy
extant in Yorkshire, as well as other parts of England, that as the Mass
was abolished in the reign of the Sixth Edward, so it will be restored in
the reign of the Seventh!]

[Footnote 43:——The promoters of the Rising of the North wished:——

(1) To restore to her kingdom Mary Queen of Scots, who simply fascinated
Francis Norton, and every other imaginative, romantic, Yorkshire heart
that she came in contact with.

(2) To depose Elizabeth, whom they regarded as morally no true claimant
for the throne, until dispensed from her illegitimacy by the Pope.

(3) To place Mary Stuart on the throne of England.

(4) Above all, to restore “the ancient faith,” which they did in Durham,
Staindrop, Darlington, Richmond, Ripon, and some of the churches in
Cleveland, for a very brief season.

It is to be remembered that the Rising of the North in 1569 was not joined
in by _all_ the Catholics of Yorkshire, nor by any of the Catholics of
Lancashire. This latter fact, together with the influence of Cardinal
Allen, of Rossall, partly accounts for the circumstance that Lancashire
(especially the neighbourhood of “Wigan and Ashton-on-Makerfield, and,
above all, the Fylde, that region between Lancaster and Preston, whence
“the great Allen” sprang) is “the Rome of England” to this day. It is said
that the Parish Church of Bispham (near which the well-known sea-side
resort, Blackpool, is situated) was the parish church where last the
parochial Latin Mass was said publicly in Lancashire, the priest being
Jerome Allen, uncle to the Cardinal. In the white-washed yeoman dwellings
of the Fylde have been reared many of the sturdiest and most solidly pious
of the post-Reformation English Catholic Priests. William Allen’s plain,
honest, finely-touched spirit seems to have brooded over this fruitful,
western, wind-swept land which is well worthy of exploration by all
philosophic historians that visit Blackpool.

Also, all who travel in Yorkshire, either by road or rail, from
Knaresbrough and Harrogate to Ripon, and thence to Topcliffe, Thirsk,
Darlington, Durham, and Alnwick, pass through a part of the North of
England whose very air is laden with historic memories of the reigns of
Elizabeth and James I. And how often, when visiting Bishop Thornton (an
idyllic hamlet betwixt Harrogate, Pateley Bridge, and Ripon, that is still
a stronghold of “the ancient faith,” which, as in a last Yorkshire
retreat, has _there_ never died out), has the writer recalled the
following lines from the old “Ballad of the Rising of the North”:——

      “Lord Westmoreland his ancyent [_i.e._, ensign] raisde,
        The Dun Bull he rais’d on hye;
      Three dogs with golden collars brave,
        Were there set out most royallye.
      Earl Percy there his ancyent spred,
        The half moon shining all so fair;
      The Nortons ancyent had the Cross
        And the Five Wounds Our Lord did beare.”

Norton Conyers, in the Parish of Wath, near Ripon, was forfeited by the
Nortons after the Rebellion of 1569. It is now, I believe, the property of
Sir Reginald Graham, Bart. If the Grantley estate belonged to the Nortons
in 1569, it was not forfeited, or else it was recovered to the Norton
family. Grantley, however, may have possibly belonged to the Markenfields,
and, being forfeited by them, granted to Francis Norton, the eldest son of
old Richard Norton.——See “_Sir Ralph Sadlers Papers_,” Ed. by Sir Walter
Scott.——The present Lord Grantley is descended from Thomas Norton, who was
sixth in descent from old Richard Norton, and fifth in descent from
Francis, the eldest of the famous “eight good sons.” The Grantley property
belonged to Lord Grantley until it was recently disposed of to Sir
Christopher Furness, M.P. Lord Grantley’s ancestor, Sir Fletcher Norton,
was created Lord Grantley and Baron Markenfield in 1782. Sir Fletcher
Norton’s mother was a Fletcher, of Little Strickland, in the County of
Westmoreland. The present Sir Henry Fletcher, Bart., M.P., belongs to a
branch of the Fletcher family, who originally came from Cockermouth, in
Cumberland. There is a tradition that when Mary Queen of Scots had been
defeated at the Battle of Langside, after her romantic escape from
Lochleven Castle, Henry Fletcher, of Cockermouth Hall, waited on the
Scots’ Queen when she first landed at Workington. Henry Fletcher
“entertained” the Queen at Cockermouth Hall (17th May, 1568), “most
magnificently, presenting her with robes of velvet.” It is further said
that when James I. came to the English Throne he treated Henry Fletcher’s
son, Thomas Fletcher, with great distinction, and offered to bestow upon
him a knighthood.——See Nicholson & Burns’ “_History of Cumberland and
Westmoreland_.”

As to the Nortons and Markenfields, see Wordsworth’s “_White Doe of
Rylstone_”; “_Memorials of the Rebellion of 1569_” (1840); Froude’s
“_History of England_”; “_Memorials of Cardinal Allen_”[A] (Ed. by Dr.
Knox, published by Nutt, London); and J. S. Fletcher’s “_Picturesque
Yorkshire_” (Dent & Co.). In Hailstone’s “_Portraits of Yorkshire
Worthies_” (two magnificent volumes published by Cundall & Fleming) are
photographs of old Richard Norton and of his brother Thomas, and of the
former’s seventh son, Christopher. The photographs are taken from
paintings in the possession of Lord Grantley, now, I believe, at
Markenfield Hall.

The same valuable work also contains a photograph of a portrait of “the
Blessed” Thomas Percy Earl of Northumberland, from a painting belonging to
the Slingsbies, of Scriven.

From the Ripon Minster Registers of Baptisms, Marriages, and Deaths, it is
plain that, between the years 1589 and 1601, a “Norton,” described as
“_generosus_,” lived at Sawley, close to Bishop Thornton and Grantley,
near Ripon.]

[Footnote 44:——In 1569 the Norton Conyers estate seems to have been vested
in a Nicholas Norton, probably as a trustee.——See “_Sir Ralph Sadler’s
Papers_,” and see _ante_, Supplementum III.

The Winters were also related to the Markenfields, their aunt, Isabel
Ingleby, having married Thomas Markenfield, of Markenfield.

The Wrights and Winters were also, through the Inglebies, connected with
the Yorkes, of Gowthwaite, in Nidderdale, of which family, most probably,
sprang Captain Roland Yorke (who introduced the use of the rapier into
England——see Camden’s “_Elizabeth_”), the friend of Sir Philip Sidney, in
the Netherlands.——See Foster’s Edition of “_Glover’s Visitation of
Yorkshire_”; “_The Earl of Leicester’s Correspondence_” (Camden Soc.);
also “_Cardinal Allen’s Defence of Sir William Stanley’s Surrender of
Deventer, 29th January, 1586-87_” (Chetham Soc.).

The Wards, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, were related to the Nortons,
old Richard Norton’s grandmother being Margaret, daughter of Roger Ward,
of Givendale. Richard Norton’s mother was Ann, daughter and heiress of
Miles Ratcliffe, of Rylstone. Through her came to the Nortons the Rylstone
estates. Hence the title of the immortal poem of the Lake poet.

Rylstone and Barden (or Norton) Tower are both near Skipton-in-Craven.
Skipton Castle was the seat of the Cliffords Earls of Cumberland. The
Craven estates of the Nortons, it is said, were granted by James I. to
Francis Earl of Cumberland. (I visited Norton Tower in company with my
friend, Mr. William Whitwell, F.L.S., now of Balham, a gentleman of varied
literary and scientific acquirements, in the year 1883. Norton Tower,
built on Rylstone Fell, between the valleys which separate the Rivers Aire
and Wharfe, commands a magnificent prospect “without bound, of plain and
dell, dark moor and gleam of pool and stream.”——See Dr. Whitaker’s
“_Craven_.”)]

[Footnote A: Cardinal Allen, though a Lancashireman by his father, was a
Yorkshireman by his mother, who was Jane Lister, of the County of
York.——See Fitzherbert’s Life of Allen, in “_Memorials of Cardinal
Allen_.”——Lord Ribblesdale, of Gisburn Park, in the West Riding of the
County of York, is the representative of this ancient Yorkshire family of
Lister. Lord Masham is a representative of a younger branch of the same
family.

By a remarkable coincidence, on the 16th day of October, 1900, there were
presented to Pope Leo XIII., at Rome, on the occasion of the English
Pilgrimage, the Rev. Philip Fletcher, M.A., and Lister Drummond, Esq.,
barrister-at-law, representatives respectively of the families of both
Fletcher and Lister.]

[Footnote 45:——That Thomas Percy (of the Percies, of Beverley, not of
Scotton, I feel certain), the eldest of the conspirators, must have been a
Roman Catholic as a young man is plain from the fact that Marmaduke Ward,
brother-in-law to John Wright and Christopher Wright, had a designment “to
match” his gifted and beautiful eldest daughter, Mary, with Thomas Percy
who, however, singularly enough married Martha Wright, Mary Ward’s
aunt.——See “_Life of Mary Ward_,” by Mary Catherine Elizabeth Chambers
(Burns & Oates, 1882), vol. i., pp. 12 and 13.——Percy, being agent for his
kinsman, the Earl of Northumberland, would frequently reside at the Percy
palace at Topcliffe, which was only distant twelve miles or so of pleasant
riding across a breezy, charming country to Mulwith and Newby. Sampson
Ingleby, uncle to the Winters, succeeded Thomas Percy as the Earl’s agent
in Yorkshire. Sampson Ingleby was a very trusty man. A photograph of a
painting of him is in Hailstone’s “_Yorkshire Worthies_,” taken from a
painting at Ripley Castle.

Edmund Neville Earl of Westmoreland, _de jure_, was afterwards one of the
many unsuccessful suitors for the hand of Mary Ward.——See her “_Life_,”
vol. i.——The Government would have liked to implicate Neville in the
Gunpowder Plot, but utterly failed to do so. He eventually became a Priest
of the Society of Jesus. He petitioned James to restore to him the Neville
estates, but without avail; so that historic Middleham and Kirbymoorside
(in Yorkshire), and Raby and Brancepeth (in Durham), finally passed from
the once proud house of Neville, one of whom was the well-known Warwick,
the King-maker, owing to the chivalrous, ill-fated Rising of 1569. This
Rising first broke out at Topcliffe, between Ripon and Thirsk, where the
Earl of Northumberland was then sojourning at his palace, the site of
which is pointed out to this day. Topcliffe is situated on the waters of
the River Swale, which (like the East Riding river, the Derwent) is sacred
to St. Paulinus, the disciple of St. Augustine, the disciple of St.
Gregory the Great, the most unselfish, disinterested friend the English
and Yorkshire people ever had.

The first Pilgrimage of Grace, under Robert Aske, of Aughton, broke out on
the banks of the Derwent. Hence, each of “the holy rivers” of Yorkshire
inspired a crusade——a thing worth memory.

Mr. Thomas P. Cooper, of York (author of “_York: the History of its Walls
and Castles_”), kindly refers me to “_Letters and Papers, Foreign and
Domestic, Henry VIII., 1537_,” p. 87, for evidence tending to prove that
Robert Aske was executed “on the height of the castle dungeon,” where the
High Sheriff of Yorkshire had jurisdiction, and _not_ the Sheriffs of the
City of York.

This would be Clifford’s Tower, not The Pavement, where Aske is sometimes
said to have met his fate. I think Mr. Cooper has, most probably, settled
the point by his discovery of this important letter of “the old Duke of
Norfolk” to Thomas Cromwell.]

[Footnote 46:——Father Gerard’s “Narrative of Gunpowder Plot” in
“_Conditions of Catholics under James I._” Edited by Father Morris, S.J.
(Longmans, 1872).]

[Footnote 47:——The “very imperfect proof” to which I refer is contained in
a certain marriage entry in the Registers at Ripon Minster. The date is
“10th July, 1588” (the year and month of the Spanish Armada), and _seems_
to me to be as follows: “Xpofer Wayde et Margaret Wayrde.” Now, “Margaret”
was a family name of the Wardes, of Givendale, Newby, and Mulwith, and the
clergyman making the entry _may_ have written “Wayde” instead of Wright.
We cannot tell. Therefore, alone, it is a mere _scintilla_ of evidence to
show that Christopher Wright married a Warde, of Mulwith.

Further research among those of the Ward (or Warde) papers that are yet
extant may clear the question as to whom Christopher Wright married. The
mysterious silence which broods over the life and career of Marmaduke
Ward, subsequent to the year 1605, suggests to my mind many far-reaching
supposals. Marmaduke Ward seems to have died before the year 1614, but the
“burials” of the Ripon Registers are lost for this period apparently.]

[Footnote 48:——Born 1563. Father Oswald Tesimond was for six years at
Hindlip Hall, along with Father Oldcorne. Ralph Ashley, a Jesuit
lay-brother, was Oldcorne’s servant.]

[Footnote 49:——John Wright was born about 1568. Christopher Wright was
born about 1570. Had they a brother Francis, living at Newbie (or Newby),
who had a son Robert?——See Ripon Registers, which records the baptism of a
Robert Wright, 25th March, 1601, the son of Francis Wright, of Newbie;
also of a Francis Wright, son of Francis Wright, of Newby, under date 2nd
February, 1592.

The Welwick Church Registers for this period are lost apparently, though
the burial is recorded, under date 13th October, 1654, of ffrauncis
Wright, Esquire, and of another ffrauncis Wright, under date 2nd May,
1664, both at Welwick. (Communicated to me by the Rev. D. V. Stoddart,
M.A., Vicar of Welwick.) Probably the Francis Wrights, of Newby (or
Newbie), are those buried at Welwick, being father and son respectively.
Certainly the coincidence is remarkable.——See _ante_.]

[Footnote 50:——Foley’s “_Records of the English Province of the Society of
Jesus_,” vol. iv., pp. 203-5 (Burns & Oates, 1878).]

[Footnote 51:——Quoted in Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. iv., p. 213.]

[Footnote 52:——It is noteworthy, as illustrative of Father Oldcorne’s
character, that Robert Winter says in his letter to the Lords
Commissioners, 21st January, 1605-6: “After our departure from Holbeach,
about some ten days, we [_i.e._, himself and Stephen Littleton, the Master
of Holbeach] met Humphrey Littleton, cousin to Stephen Littleton, and we
then entreated him to seek out one Mr. Hall [an alias of Oldcorne] for us,
and desire him to help us to some resting place.”——See Jardine’s
“_Criminal Trials, Gunpowder Plot_,” vol. ii., p. 146.]

[Footnote 53:——Schismatic Catholics were those Catholics that went to Mass
in private houses, and then, more or less, frequented their parish church
afterwards to escape the fines. They were further divided into
Communicants and Non-communicants. Very often the men of a family were
Catholics of this sort, and the womenkind strict Catholics. Indeed, it was
mainly the women and the priests that have kept “the Pope’s religion”
alive in England: although, of course, _many_ men of great mental and
physical powers were papists of the most rigid class. The practice of
“going to the Protestant church,” as English Roman Catholics term the
practice to this day, was deliberately condemned by the Council of Trent.

The cause of the historic controversy between the Jesuits and the Secular
Priests in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. lies in a nut-shell. It
was this: the Jesuits, and especially their extraordinarily able leader,
Father Parsons, thought that the Secular Priests required watching. And so
they did; and so do all other human creatures. But the mistake that
Parsons made was this: his prejudices and prepossessions blinded him to
the fact that the proper watchers of Secular Priests are Bishops and the
Pope, and not a society of Presbyters, however grave, however gifted, or
however pious.]

[Footnote 54:——“_Collecti Cardwelli_,” Public Record Office, Brussels Vitæ
Mart, p. 147.

In Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. iv., there is a beautiful picture of Father
Edward Oldcorne, S.J., now “the Venerable Edward Oldcorne,” one of York’s
most remarkable sons. In the left-hand corner of the portrait is a
representation of a portion of Old Ouse Bridge, with St. William’s Chapel
(at present the site of which is occupied by Messrs. Varvills’
establishment). St. Sampson’s Church, the ancient church which gave the
name of the parish where Oldcorne first saw the light of the sun, is still
standing. It is near Holy Trinity, King’s Court, or Christ’s Parish, where
“the Venerable,” Margaret Clitherow lived. Oldcorne must have known that
great York citizen well. She was born in Davygate, and was the second wife
of a butcher, named John Clitherow, of the Parish of Christ, in the City
of York. She was married in the Church of St. Martin, Coney Street, in
1571. She was one of Nature’s gentlewomen, by birth: and the Church of
Rome, ever mindful of her own, declared in 1886 (just three hundred years
after the martyr’s death in the Tolbooth, on Old Ouse Bridge) that
Margaret Clitherow, a shrewd, honest, devout York tradeswoman, is one of
the Church’s “Venerable Servants of God,” by grace.——See J. B. Milburn’s
Life of this extraordinary Elizabethan Yorkshire-woman, entitled, “_A
Martyr of Old York_” (Burns & Oates, London).]

[Footnote 55:——This crossing-out of the word “yowe” is noticed in Nash’s
“_History of Worcestershire_.”]

[Footnote 56:——The word “good” is omitted in the copy of the Letter given
in the “_Authorised Discourse_,” which is remarkable. I think it was done
designedly, in order to minimize the merit of the revealing plotter.]

[Footnote 57:——King James’s interpretation of these enigmatical words was
simply fantastical. It may be read in Gerard’s “_Narrative_,” and in most
contemporary relations of the Plot.]

[Footnote 58:——I am of opinion that one of Father Oldcorne’s servants,
Ralph Ashley by name, a Jesuit lay-brother, was the person that actually
conveyed the Letter to the page who was in the street adjoining Lord
Mounteagle’s Hoxton residence, on the evening of Saturday, the 26th of
October, 1605. My reason for being of the opinion that Ralph Ashley
conveyed the Letter will be seen hereafter, in due course of this Inquiry.

The page’s evidence went to show that the deliverer of the Letter was a
tall man, or a reasonably tall man. There is nothing inconsistent in this
account of the height of the Letter-carrier with what we know of the size
of Ashley, which is negative knowledge merely. I mean we are not told
anywhere that he was of short stature, as we are told in the case (1) of
the Jesuit lay-brother, Brother Ralph Emerson, a native of the County of
Durham, and the servant of Edmund Campion——see Simpson’s “_Life of
Campion_”——whom the genial orator playfully called “his little
man”——“_homulus_”; and in the case (2) of the Jesuit lay-brother, Brother
Nicholas Owen, the servant of Garnet, who was affectionately termed
“little John” by the Catholics in whose castles, manor-houses, and halls,
up and down the country, he constructed most ingenious secret places for
the hiding of priests.

Ralph Ashley had acted in some humble capacity at the English Catholic
College of Valladolid, which had been founded in Spain from Rheims,
through the generosity of noble-hearted Spanish Catholics, among whom was
that majestic soul, Dona Luisa de Carvajal.——See her “_Life_,” by the late
Lady Georgiana Fullerton (Burns & Oates).——See also “_The Life of the
Venerable John Roberts, O.S.B._,” by the Rev. Bede Camm, O.S.B. (Sands &
Co.)——Father Roberts founded the Benedictine College at Douay, still in
existence. Cardinal Allen’s secular priests’ College is now used as a
French Barracks. Ushaw College, Durham, and St. Edmund’s College, Ware,
are the lineal successors of Cardinal Allen’s College at Douay.

(By the way, when are the letters of the late Dr. Lingard likely to be
published? Lingard, after Wiseman, was the greatest man Ushaw has
produced, and his letters would be interesting reading; for Lingard must
have known many of the most considerable personages of his day. Lingard
died at Hornby, near Lancaster, not far from Hornby Castle, the seat of
the once famous Lord Mounteagle.)

Brother Raphael (or Ralph) Ashley, was possibly akin to the Ashleys, of
Goule Hall, in the Township of Cliffe, in the Parish of Hemingbrough, in
the East Riding of Yorkshire, or to the Ashleys, of Todwick, near
Sheffield, in the south-east of Yorkshire. He came to England along with
Father Oswald Tesimond, in 1597.——See “Father Tesimond’s landing in
England,” in Morris’s “_Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers_,” first
series (Burns & Oates).——If Ashley were a Yorkshireman, one can easily
understand his being the chosen companion of the two Yorkshire Jesuits,
Oldcorne and Tesimond.

This Jesuit lay-brother was acquainted with London; and as, _Qui facit per
alium facit per se_, it was pre-eminently likely that Oldcorne would
employ his confidential servant to perform so weighty a mission as the one
I have attributed unto him.

Again, since “he who acts through another acts through himself,” it is
unnecessary for me to treat at large in the Text concerning my supposal
respecting the part that Brother Ralph Ashley played in the great drama of
the Gunpowder Plot. Ashley being identified with his master, Father
Oldcorne, shares, in his degree, his master’s merits and praise.

Professor J. A. Froude thought that Ralph Waldo Emerson was of the same
stock as Brother Ralph Emerson. It is quite possible. For after the
Gunpowder Plot, I opine that the younger Catholics in many cases became
Puritans, and in some cases, later on, Quakers.]

[Footnote 59:——Notwithstanding the endless chain of the causation of human
acts and human events, man’s strongest and clearest knowledge tells him
that he is “master of his fate,” nay, that “he is fated to be free,”
inasmuch as at any moment man can open the flood-gates that are betwixt
him and an Infinite Ocean of Pure Unconditioned Freedom: can open those
flood-gates, and in that Ocean can lave at will, and so render himself a
truly emancipated creature.

The antinomies of Thought and Life do not destroy nor make void the Facts
of Thought and Life. Antinomies surround man on every side, and one of the
great ends of life is to know the same, and to act regardful of that
knowledge.]

[Footnote 60:——The copy in the “_Authorised Discourse_” gives “shift off,”
not “shift of” as in the original. Doubtless “shift off” was the
expression intended. It is still occasionally used in the country
districts about York. The word “tender,” in the sense of “take care of” or
“have a care of,” is to-day quite common in that neighbourhood (1901).]

[Footnote 61:——“_Gunpowder Plot Books_,” vol. ii., p. 202.]

[Footnote 62:——It is impossible to describe the emotions that welled up in
the heart of the writer as he gazed on this small, faded, and fading
document: emotions of awe and gratitude, blended with veneration and
reverence, for the maker of this lever——this sheet-anchor——of the temporal
salvation of so many human creatures, who had been barbarously appointed
to die by those that had forgotten what spirit they were of.

The writer was favoured by the sight of the original Letter on Friday, the
5th day of October, 1900, at about half-past two o’clock in the afternoon.
He desires to place on record his sense of obligation for the courteous
civility with which he was treated by the authorities at the Record
Office, London, on this occasion.]

[Footnote 63:——Oldcorne, being a Jesuit, would from time to time go to
White Webbs, Morecrofts (near Uxbridge), Erith-on-the-Thames, Stoke Pogis,
Thames Street (London), and other places of Jesuit resort where Mounteagle
and Ward had the _entrée_. Again, he must have known well the Vaux family
of Harrowden, and all the circle that Mounteagle and Ward would move in.
Again, if Ward were married in York, in 1579, he may have met Oldcorne as
a Catholic medical student of promise in the ancient city.

Along with a dear brother, a young Yorkshireman, in London, I visited
White Webbs, by Enfield Chase, on Saturday, the 6th October, 1900. The old
house known as Dr. Hewick’s House, where the conspirators met, is now no
longer standing; but the spacious park, with its umbrageous oak trees,
meandering streams, tangled thickets, and pleasant paths, is almost
unchanged, I should fancy, since it was the rendezvous of the Gunpowder
traitors, concerning whom the utmost one can say is that they were not for
themselves; and that Nemesis in this life justly punished them, and drove
them to make meet expiation and atonement, before the face of all men, for
their infamous offences. Thereby Destiny enabled the men to restore
equality between the State they had so wronged, _in act and in desire_,
and themselves; and a happy thing for the men, as well as for others, that
Destiny did so enable them whilst there was yet time.

(In October, 1900, I was informed that the present mansion, known as White
Webbs, belongs to the Lady Meúx.)]

[Footnote 64:——Known by Edmund Church, Esq., his confidant.]

[Footnote 65:——See “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vol. i., p. 1.]

[Footnote 66:——M’rgery Slater most probably belonged to a Ripon family, as
I find the same Christian name and surname among entries of the
“Christenings” in the Ripon Minster Register, a few years after the year
1579. Possibly the child was a niece of “Mistress M’rgery Ward.” “Mistress
Warde” may have been a relative of Mr. Cotterell, as I find in the St.
Michael-le-Belfrey Register the entry of the burial (1583) of Anne ————
who is described as “s’vaunt and cozine to Mr. Cotterell, being about
twenty-six years of age.” Now, Mr. Cotterell was probably Mr. James
Cotterell, of the Parish of (Old) St. Wilfred, York, a demolished church,
whose site is to-day (1901) occupied by the official lodgings of the
King’s Judges of Assize when on circuit. For the “subsidy” of 1581, a Mr.
James Cotterell of that parish was assessed in “Lande” at £6 13s. 4d.
(among the highest of the York assessments). There was a Mr. Cotterell “an
Examiner” for the Council of the North in the time of Elizabeth, and I
have no doubt that “Mistress Warde’s” late master was this very gentleman.
Whether the young woman whom “Thomas Ward, of Mulwaith,” made his wife
(evidently direct from the house of her master), on the 29th day of May,
1579, was the equal by birth and by descent of her husband, I do not know.
Let us hope, however, that alike in gifts of personal attractiveness and
graces of character she was not unworthy of one who came from so truly
“gentle” a people as the Wardes, of Mulwith, Givendale, and Newby. If
M’gery Slater did hail from Ripon, this “faithful following” of her to
York, and from the house of her master, publicly making her, in the face
of all the world, his “true and honourable wife, as dear to him as were
the ruddy drops that visited his own heart,” bears early witness to an
idealism of mind in this Yorkshire gentleman that was thoroughly in
keeping with the chivalrous race whence he sprang. I cannot give any
personal description of Thomas Warde; but I can of Marmaduke Warde, who
was also of Mulwith, or Mulwaith, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and
from _this_ picture we may imagine _that_.]

[Footnote 67:——Speaking of Marmaduke Warde (or Ward)——for the name was
spelt either way——his kinswoman Winefrid Wigmore, a lady of high family
from Herefordshire, in after years said:——“His name is to this day famous
in that country [_i.e._ Yorkshire] for his exceeding comeliness of person,
sweetness and beauty of face, agility and activeness, the knightly
exercises in which he excelled, and above all for his constancy and
courage in Catholic religion, admirable charity to the poor, so as in
extreme dearth never was poor denied at his gate; commonly sixty, eighty,
and sometimes a hundred in a day, to whom he gave great alms: and yet is
also famous his valour and fidelity to his friend, and myself have heard
it spoken by several, but particularly and with much feeling by Mr.
William Mallery, the eldest and best of that name, who were near of kin to
our ‘Mother,’ both by father and mother.”

The William Mallery, here spoken of, was one of “the Mallories,” of
Studley Royal, near Ripon, the present seat of their descendants, the Most
Hon. the Marquess and Marchioness of Ripon.

The above quotation is taken from the “_Life_” of Marmaduke Ward’s eldest
daughter, Mary, who was one of the most beautiful and heroic women of her
age.——See M. C. E. Chambers’ “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vol. i., p. 6 (Burns &
Oates).——Mary Ward died at the Old Manor House, Heworth, near York, on the
20th January, 1645-6. She was related to Father Edward Thwing, of Heworth
Hall, who suffered at Lancaster for his priesthood, 26th July, 1600. I
think the Old Heworth Hall was built _behind_ the present Old Manor House,
which seems to be an erection of about the end of the seventeenth century.
The Thwing family, of Gate Helmsley, then owned Old Heworth Hall, where
Father Antony Page was apprehended, who suffered at the York Tyburn in
1593 for the like offence, which, by statute, was high treason (27 Eliz.).
Thomas Percy, John Wright, and Christopher Wright, as well as Guy Fawkes,
may have often visited Old Heworth Hall. In fact there is still a
tradition that the Gunpowder plotters “were at Old Heworth Hall”
(communicated to me in 1890 by the owner, W. Surtees Hornby, Esq., J.P.,
of York), and also a tradition that Father Page was apprehended there. Mr.
T. Atkinson, for the tenant, his brother-in-law, Mr. Moorfoot, showed the
writer, on the 9th August, 1901, the outhouse or hay chamber (of brick and
old timber) where this priest was taken on Candlemas Day morning in the
year 1593.——See Morris’s “_Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers_,” third
series, p. 139.——This holy martyr was a connection of the Bellamy family,
of Uxendon, with whom the great and gifted Father Southwell was captured.
Father Page was a native of Harrow-on-the-Hill. The last of the English
martyrs was Father Thomas Thwing, of Heworth, who was executed at the York
Tyburn, 1680. His vestments belong to the Herbert family, of Gate
Helmsley. I have seen them about three times at St. Mary’s Convent, York,
where they have been lent by the kindness of the owner. What a hallowed
and affecting link with the past are those beautiful, but fading, priestly
garments.

The following letter of Mr. Bannister Dent will be read with interest, as
helping the concatenation of the evidence. It is from a York solicitor who
for many years was Guardian for the old Parish of St. Wilfred, in the City
of York:——


                                                            “York,
                                                21st March, 1901.”

                      “OLD PARISH OF ST. WILFRED.”

    “In reply to your letter of to-day’s date, the streets comprised
    in the above parish were Duncombe Place, Blake Street, Museum
    Street, Lendal Hill, and Lendal. I have made enquiries, and am
    informed that St. Michael-le-Belfrey’s Church would be the
    church at which a resident in this parish would be married.”]

[Footnote 68:——Margery Warde (born Slater) was probably the sister of one
Hugo Slater, of Ripon, who, subsequently to 1579, had a daughter, Margery,
and a son, Thomas.——See Ripon Registers.

John Whitham, Esq., of the City of Ripon, has been so kind as to place at
my disposal the Index, which is the result of his researches into the
Ripon Registers. There seems to be no entry of the baptism of Mary (or
Joan or Jane) Ward in 1585-86, nor of John Ward, William Ward, nor Teresa
Ward. George Warde’s baptism is recorded: “18th May, 1595 [not 1594],
George Waryde filius M’maduci de Mulwith.” Then under date 3rd September,
1598, occurs, three years afterwards, this significant entry: “Thomas
Warde filius M’maduci _de Nubie_.” This naming of his son “Thomas” by
Marmaduke Warde, I submit, _almost_ suffices to clench the proof that
Marmaduke and Thomas Warde were akin to each other _as brothers_.

If proof be required that the name “Ward” was spelt both Ward and Warde,
it is contained in the following entries in the Ripon Minster Registers of
the baptism of Marmaduke Ward’s daughters, Eliza and Barbara[A]: “30 April
1591——Eliza, daughter of Marmaduke Warde of Mulwith;” “21 November
1592——Barbara, daughter of Marmaduke Warde of Mulwith.” The entries are in
Latin. In some subsequent entries Marmaduke Warde is described as of
Newbie, _e.g._: “5 Nov. 1594——Ellyn, daughter of Marmaduke Warde of
Newbie.”]

[Footnote A: Eliza was probably Elizabeth Warde, and Ellyn——Teresa
Warde.]

[Footnote 69:——Newby was spelt “Newbie” at that time. Newby adjoins the
village of Skelton. Mulwith is about a mile from Newby.]

[Footnote 70:——See vol. v., p. 681.]

[Footnote 71:——Henry Parker Lord Morley, the grandfather of Mounteagle,
married Lady Elizabeth Stanley, daughter of Edward Earl of Derby. He was
one of the peers who recorded his vote against Elizabeth’s Act of
Uniformity, and became “an exile for the faith” in the Netherlands after
the year 1569. His son, Edward Parker Lord Morley, Mounteagle’s father,
was born in 1555; he too lived abroad for some years, but eventually seems
to have conformed wholly, or in part, to the established religion;
although his son, Lord Mounteagle, was, on the latter’s own testimony,
brought up a Roman Catholic, and, in fact, died in that belief. From an
undated letter of Mounteagle, ably written, addressed to the King, and
given in Gerard’s “_What was the Gunpowder Plot?_” p. 256, it is evident
that (after the Plot, most likely) Mounteagle intended to conform to the
Establishment. The Morley barony was created in 1299.——See Burke’s
“_Extinct Peerages_,” and Horace Round’s “_Studies in Peerage and Family
History_,” p. 23 (Constable, Westminster, 1901).——From Camden’s
“_Britannia_,” the Morleys evidently owned, at various times, estates in
the Counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, in addition to Essex, Lincolnshire,
and Lancashire.

That the conformity to the Established Church of Edward Parker Lord Morley
(the father of William Parker Lord Mounteagle) was in part only is, to
some extent, evidenced by the fact that Mr. Edward Yelverton (one of the
well-known Yelvertons, of Norfolk) is described at the end of the reign of
Elizabeth as “a Catholic, domiciled in the household of Lord Morley.”——See
Dr. Jessopp’s “_One Generation of a Norfolk House_,” being chiefly the
biography of the celebrated Jesuit, Henry Walpole, who suffered for his
priesthood at the York Tyburn, 7th April, 1595, in the thirty-sixth year
of his age. Rome, in 1886, declared Henry Walpole to be “a Venerable
Servant of God.”]

[Footnote 72:——See vol. i., p. 244.]

[Footnote 73:——See vol. i., p. 244.]

[Footnote 74:——See vol. i., p. 238.]

[Footnote 75:——See vol. i., p. 237.]

[Footnote 76:——Edward Poyntz, Esquire, was a relative, lineal or
collateral, of the celebrated James Duke of Ormonde, Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland, whose mother was a daughter of Sir John Poyntz.——See that
valuable work, “_The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland_,” p. 254, by John
P. Prendergast (McGlashan & Gill, Dublin, 1875).

I have found much information about the Poyntz family in the “_Visitation
of Essex_” (Harleian Soc). I think that Edward Poyntz was uncle to the
Viscountess Thurles. If so, he would be great-uncle to the Duke of
Ormonde. From this it would follow that the Viscountess Thurles (who was a
strict Roman Catholic) would be a first cousin to Mary Poyntz, the friend
and companion, as well as relative, of Mary Warde, the daughter of
Marmaduke Warde, and niece of Thomas Warde.——See “_Life of Mary Ward_,”
vol. i.

Winefrid Wigmore, already mentioned, was cousin, once removed, to Lady
Mounteagle, who was a daughter of Sir Thomas Tresham, Sir William Wigmore,
Winefrid’s father, having married her aunt, Anne Throckmorton, a daughter
of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton. Lady Catesby was another daughter.——See Note
30 _supra_.]

[Footnote 77:——As slightly supporting the contention that Lord Morley, the
father of Mounteagle, was related to, or at least connected with, the
Wards, it is to be observed that John Wright, the elder brother by the
whole blood of Ursula Ward, at the time when the Plot was concocted, had
his “permanent residence at Twigmore,” in the Parish of Manton, near
Brigg, in Lincolnshire.——Jardine’s “_Narrative_,” p. 32.——Now, in Foley’s
“_Records_,” vol. i., p. 627, it is stated that Twigmore, or Twigmoor, and
Holme “were ancient possessions of the Morley family.” The brothers John
and Christopher Wright were evidently called after two uncles who bore
these two names respectively.——See Norcliffe’s Ed. of Flower’s
“_Visitation of Yorkshire_” (Harleian Soc).]

[Footnote 78:——To-day (April, 1901) Newby-cum-Mulwith forms one township.
Givendale is a township by itself. Along with Skelton they form a separate
ecclesiastical parish. Skelton Church, in Newby Park, is one of the most
beautiful in the county, having been erected by the late Lady Mary Vyner,
of Newby Hall. The Church is dedicated under the touching title of
“Christ, the Consoler.”

Formerly the Parish of Ripon included no less than thirty villages. At
Skelton, Aldfield, Sawley, Bishop Thornton, Monckton, and Winksley there
were Chapels. Pateley Bridge also had a Chapel, but this was
parochial.——See Gent’s “_Ripon_.”——At Sawley, I find from the Ripon
Register of Baptisms, there was a William Norton living (described as
“_generosus_”) in 1589. He would be the great-grandson of old Richard
Norton, who by his first wife, Susanna, daughter of Neville Lord Latimer,
had eleven sons and seven daughters. They were (according to an old
writer), these Nortons, “a trybe of wicked people universally papists.” It
is reported to this day (Easter Day, 1901), at Bishop Thornton, by Mr.
Henry Wheelhouse, of Markington, aged 84, that the Nortons, of Sawley,
continued constant in their adherence to the ancient faith till well on
into the nineteenth century.

Mr. Wheelhouse’s recollection to this effect may be well founded; because
not only has there been a remnant of English Roman Catholics always in the
adjoining hamlet of Bishop Thornton, but there was at Fountains, in 1725,
a Father Englefield, S.J., stationed there——see Foley’s “_Records_,” vol.
v., p. 722——and if the Nortons, of Sawley (or some of them) remained
Papists, one can understand how it might come to pass that there was a
Jesuit Priest maintained at Fountains and a Secular Priest at Bishop
Thornton, only a few miles off. The Roman Catholic religion was also long
maintained by the Messenger family, of Cayton Hall, South Stainley, and by
the Trapps family, of Nydd Hall, both only within walking distance of
Bishop Thornton: maintained until the nineteenth century. I think the
Messengers, too, owned Fountains in 1725. Viscount Mountgarret now owns
Nydd Hall. His Lordship’s family, the Butlers, are allied to the Lords
Vaux of Harrowden.

Mass also was said (before the present Roman Catholic Chapel was built at
Bishop Thornton) at Raventoftes Hall, in the Ripon Chapelry of Bishop
Thornton, once the home of the stanch old Catholic family of Walworth.
Then Mass was said in the top chamber, running the whole length of the
priest’s present house. Afterwards (about 1778) followed the present stone
Chapel. Clare Lady Howard, of Glossop, built the Schools at Bishop
Thornton a few years ago.

F. Reynard, Esquire, J.P., of Hob Green, Markington and Sunderlandwick,
Driffield, now owns Raventoftes Hall, which has a splendid view towards
Sawley, How Hill, and Ripon. It is rented by a Roman Catholic, named Mr.
F. Stubbs, who is akin to the Hawkesworths, the Shanns, the Darnbroughs,
and other old Bishop Thornton and Ripon families.

Peacock, in his “_List_,” speaks of William Norton as a grandson of
Richard Norton, but, according to Burke’s “_Peerage_,” he must have been a
great-grandson. The Nortons may have saved the Sawley estate from
forfeiture, somehow or another, or perchance they bought it in afterwards
from some Crown nominee. Francis Norton, the eldest son and heir of old
Richard Norton, fled with his father to the continent. His son was Edmund,
and _his_ son was William Norton, of Sawley, whose descendant was the
first Lord Grantley.

Gabetis Norton, Esquire, owned Dole Bank, between Markington and Bishop
Thornton, where Miss Lascelles, Miss Butcher, and others of Mary Ward’s
followers, lived a semi-conventual life during the reign of Charles II.,
previously to their taking up their abode near Micklegate Bar, York.——See
“_Annals of St. Mary’s Convent, York_,” Edited by H. J. Coleridge, S.J.
(Burns & Oates).——Sir Thomas Gascoigne, of Barnbow, Aberford, was the
benefactor of these ladies, both at Dole Bank and York; Dole Bank probably
at that time belonging to this “fine old English gentleman,” who died a
very aged man at the Benedictine Abbey of Lambspring, in Germany, a
voluntary exile for his faith. Dole Bank came to Gabetis Norton, Esquire,
in the eighteenth century, from his sister, who was the wife of Colonel
Thornton, of Thornville Royal (now Stourton Castle, near Knaresbrough, the
seat of the Lord Mowbray and Stourton) and of Old Thornville, Little
Cattal, now the property of William Machin, Esq. (Derived from old
title-deeds and writings in the possession of representatives of William
Hawkes, yeoman, of Great Cattal.) Dole Bank, I believe, now belongs to
Captain Greenwood, of Swarcliffe Hall, Birstwith, Nidderdale. During the
early part of the nineteenth century the Darnbroughs rented Dole Bank, the
present tenant being Mr. Atkinson.]

[Footnote 79:——I think that Thomas Warde may have been born about the
beginning of Elizabeth’s reign; for if he were married in 1579, and was,
say, twenty-one years of age at the time of his marriage, this would fix
his birth about the year 1558. Early marriages were characteristic of the
period. Mounteagle, for example, was married before he was eighteen. The
Ripon Registers begin in fairly regular course in 1587, though there are
fragments from 1574, but not earlier. If Christopher Wright, the plotter,
lived in Bondgate, Ripon, and had a child born to him in 1589 (the year
after the Spanish Armada), he must, like Mounteagle, have been married
when about eighteen years of age. These instances should be carefully
noted by students of Shakespeare, inasmuch as they render the poet’s
marriage with Anne Hathaway in 1582, when he was little more than eighteen
and a-half years old, less startling.——See Sidney Lee’s “_Life of
Shakespeare_,” p. 18 (Smith & Elder, 1898).

I should like also to add that I think there is a great deal in
Halliwell-Phillips’ contention as to Shakespeare having made the
“troth-plight.”——Concerning the “troth-plight” see Lawrence Vaux’s
“_Catechism_,” Edited by T. G. Law, with a valuable historical preface
(Chetham Soc).——Shakespeare’s “mentor” in the days of his youth was, most
probably, some old Marian Priest, like Vaux, who was a former Warden of
the Collegiate Church at Manchester, and with “the great Allen” and men
like Vivian Haydock——see Gillow’s “_Haydock Papers_” (Burns &
Oates)——retained Lancashire in its allegiance to Rome——so that “the
jannock” Lancashire Catholics style their county, “God’s County” even unto
this day.]

[Footnote 80:——The strong and, within due limits, admirable spirit of
“clannishness” that still animates the natives of Yorkshire——a valiant,
adventurous, jovial race, fresh from Dame Nature’s hand——is evidenced by
the fact that within a very recent date the Yorkshiremen who have gone up
to the great metropolis, like many another before them, to seek their
livelihood, and maybe their fortune, have formed an association of their
own. This excellent institution for promoting good fellowship among those
hailing from the county of broad acres has for Patron during the present
year, 1901, the Duke of Cornwall and York (now H.R.H. The Prince of Wales,
December, 1901), and that typical Yorkshireman, Viscount Halifax, for
President. The Earl of Crewe, Lord Grantley, Sir Albert K. Rollit, Knt.,
M.P., _cum multis aliis_, are members. May it flourish _ad multos annos_!]

[Footnote 81:——In the Record Office, Chancery Lane, London.]

[Footnote 82:——The Earl of Northumberland was fined by the Star Chamber
£30,000, ordered to forfeit all offices he held under the Crown, and to be
imprisoned in the Tower for life. He paid £11,000 of the fine; and was
released in 1621. He was the son of Henry Percy eighth Earl of
Northumberland, and nephew of “the Blessed” Thomas Percy seventh Earl of
Northumberland, and of Mary Slingsby, the wife of Francis Slingsby, of
Scriven, near Knaresbrough. Although the Earl of Northumberland that was
Star-Chambered was by his own declaration no papist, he was looked up to
by the English Roman Catholics as their natural leader. His kinship with
the conspirator, Thomas Percy, alone is usually thought to have involved
the Earl in this trouble; but probably the inner circle of the Government
knew more than they thought it policy to publish. “Simple truth,”
moreover, was not this Government’s “utmost skill.”

Lord Montague compounded for a fine of £4,000. Guy Fawkes, for a time, was
a member of this peer’s household.——See “_Calendar of State Papers, James
I._”

Lord Stourton compounded for £1,000.

Lord Mordaunt’s fine was remitted after his death, which took place in
1608. Robert Keyes and his wife were members of this peer’s
household.——See “_Calendar of State Papers, James I._”

These three noblemen were absent from Parliament on the 5th of November,
no doubt having received a hint so to do from the conspirators. This fact
of absence the Government construed into a charge of Concealment of
Treason and Contempt in not obeying the King’s Summons to Parliament.——See
Jardine’s “_Narrative_,” pp. 159-164.

The Gascoignes, through whom the Earl of Northumberland and the Wardes
were connected, belonged to the same family as the famous Chief Justice of
Henry IV., who committed to prison Henry V., when “Harry Prince of
Wales.”——See Shakespeare’s “King Henry IV.” and “King Henry V.”

The Gascoignes were a celebrated Yorkshire family, their seats being
Gawthorpe, Barnbow, and Parlington, in the West Riding. They were strongly
attached to their hereditary faith, and suffered much for it, from the
infliction of heavy fines. Like Lord William Howard, the Inglebies, of
Lawkland, near Bentham, the Plumptons, of Plumpton, near Knaresbrough, and
the Fairfaxes, of Gilling, near Ampleforth, the Gascoignes were greatly
attached to the ancient Benedictine Order, which took such remarkable root
in England through St. Gregory the Great, St. Augustine, and his forty
missionaries, all of whom were Benedictines.——See Taunton’s “_The English
Black Monks of St. Benedict_” (Methuen & Co.); also Dr. Gasquet’s standard
work on “_English Monasteries_” (John Hodges).

It may be, perhaps, gratifying to the historic feeling of my readers to
learn that the influence of these old Yorkshire Roman Catholic families,
the Gascoignes, the Inglebies, and the Plumptons, is still felt at Bentham
and in the old Benedictine Missions of Aberford, near Barnbow, and of
Knaresbrough, near picturesque Plumpton, notwithstanding that the places
which once so well knew the Gascoignes and the Plumptons now know them no
more. The present gallant Colonel Gascoigne, of Parlington, I believe, is
not himself descended from the Roman Catholic Gascoignes in the direct
male line of descent; the Inglebies, of Lawkland, recently died out; and
the Plumptons to-day are not even represented in name.

The stately Benedictine Abbey of St. Lawrence, Ampleforth, in the Vale of
Mowbray, will long perpetuate the memory of the Fairfaxes, of Gilling; H.
C. Fairfax-Cholmeley, Esquire, J.P., of Brandsby Hall, now represents this
ancient family.]

[Footnote 83:——See “_Condition of Catholics under James I._,” by the Rev.
John Morris, S.J., pp. 256, 257 (Longmans). The charge of complicity was
based on an alleged reception of Father John Gerard, S.J. (the friend of
Sir Everard Digby, and author of the contemporary Narrative of the Plot),
by Sir John Yorke at Gowthwaite Hall, after the Gunpowder Treason. Gerard
left England in 1606, and there is no evidence whatever that he had
anything to do with the Plot. I do not know, for certain, how Sir John
Yorke fared as to the upshot of his prosecution. But I strongly suspect
that the tradition that obtains among the dalesmen of Nidderdale to the
effect that the Yorkes, of Gowthwaite (or Goulthwaite, as it is styled in
the Valley), were once heavily fined by the Star Chamber for acting in the
great Chamber of Gowthwaite a political play, wherein the Protestant
actors were worsted by the Catholic actors, sprang from these proceedings
against Sir John Yorke anent the Gunpowder Plot. For long years after the
reign of James I., the Yorkes, like the Inglebies their relatives, were
rigid Catholics. This ancient and honourable family of Yorke is still in
existence, being represented by T. E. Yorke, Esquire, J.P., of Bewerley
Hall, Pateley Bridge. The old home of the Yorkes, Gowthwaite Hall, where
doubtless many priests were harboured “in the days of persecution,” is
about to be pulled down to make way for the Bradford Reservoir. I visited,
about 1890, the charming old Hall built of grey stone, with mullioned
windows. A description of this historic memorial of the days of Queen
Elizabeth and James I. is to be seen in “_Nidderdale_,” by H. Speight, p.
468 (Elliot Stock); also in Fletcher’s “_Picturesque Yorkshire_” (Dent &
Co.), which latter work contains a picture of the place, a structure “rich
with the spoils of time,” but, alas! destined soon to be “now no more.”

Ripley Castle, the home of the Inglebies, at the entrance to Nidderdale
(truly the Switzerland of England), still rears its ancient towers, and
still is the roof-tree of those who worthily bear an honoured historic
name for ever “to historic memory dear.”

“_From Eden Vale to the Plains of York_,” by Edmund Bogg, contains
sketches of both Ripley Castle and Gowthwaite Hall. Lucas’s “_Nidderdale_”
(Elliot Stock) is also well worth consulting for its account of the
dialect of this part of Yorkshire which, like the West Riding generally,
retains strong Cymric traces. There are also British characteristics in
the build and personal appearance of the people, as also in their
marvellous gift of song. The Leeds Musical Festival and its Chorus, for
example, are renowned throughout the whole musical world.]

[Footnote 84:——It is, moreover, possible that Mounteagle may have met his
connection, and probably kinsman, Thomas Warde, at White Webbs, about the
year 1602. Mounteagle, at that time, like the Earl of Southampton and the
Earl of Rutland, was not allowed to attend Elizabeth’s Court on account of
his share in the Essex tumult. He was, in fact, then mixed up with the
schemes of Father Robert Parsons’ then-expiring Spanish faction among the
English Catholics. If a certain Thomas Grey, to whom Garnet at White Webbs
showed the papal breves (which the latter burnt in 1603, on James I. being
proclaimed King by applause), were the same person as Sir Thomas Gray, he
would be, most probably, a relative of Thomas Warde. For the Wardes, of
Mulwith, certainly were related to a Sir Thomas Gray.——See “_Life of Mary
Ward_,” vol. i., p. 221, where it is said that, “through the Nevilles and
Gascoignes,” the Wards were related to the families of Sir Ralph and Sir
Thomas Gray.[A]

As to father Garnet showing the breves to Thomas Grey, see Foley’s
“_Records_,” vol. iv., p. 159, where it says:——Garnet “confesseth that in
the Queen’s lifetyme he received two Breefs (one was addressed by the Pope
to the English clergy, the other to the laity) concerning the succession,
and immediately upon the receipt thereof, be shewed them to Mr. Catesby
and Thomas Winter, then being at White Webbs; whereof they seemed to be
very glad and showed it (_sic_) also unto Thomas Grey at White Webbs
before one of his journies into Scotland in the late Queen’s tyme.”

It will be remembered that Thomas Percy, who married Martha Wright, Ursula
Warde’s sister, was one of those who waited upon James VI. of Scotland
before Elizabeth’s death, in order to obtain from him a promise of
toleration for the unhappy Catholics. James, the English Catholics
declared, did then promise toleration, and they considered that they had
been tricked by the “weasel Scot.” Fonblanque, in his “_Annals of the
House of Percy_,” vol. ii., p. 254 (Clay & Sons), thinks that Percy was a
man of action rather than of words, and that the reason he entered into
the Plot was that he was stung by the reproaches of the disappointed
Catholics, whom he had given to understand James intended to tolerate, and
that his vanity (or rather, I should say, self-love) was likewise wounded
at the recollection of the proved fruitlessness of his mission or missions
into Scotland. I think this is a very likely explanation. For, according
to “Winter’s Confession”——see Gardiner’s “_Gunpowder Plot_” (Longmans),
and Gerard’s three recent works (Osgood & Co. and Harper Bros.)——Thomas
Percy seems to have shown a stupendous determination “to see the Plot
through,” a fact which I have always been very much struck with. But if,
in addition to other motives, Percy had the incentive of “injured pride,”
we have an explanation of his extraordinarily ferocious anger and spirit
of revenge. For well does the Latin poet of “the tale of Troy divine”
insist with emphasis on the fact that it was “the _despised_
beauty”——“_spretæque_ injuria _formæ_”——of Juno, the goddess, that spurred
her to such deathless hatred against the ill-starred house of Priam. What
a knowledge of the springs of human action does not this portray!]

[Footnote A: Were Sir Ralph and Sir Thomas Gray of the Grays (or Greys),
of Chillingham, Northumberland? It may be remarked that, about the year
1597-98, Marmaduke Ward and his wife and some of his family went to live
in Northumberland, maybe at Alnwick; and as Thomas Percy was connected
with Marmaduke Ward, it is at least possible that Marmaduke Ward went
himself into Scotland on the mission to King James VI. in the company of
his brother-in-law, Thomas Percy.

But the Wards may have gone to Chillingham about 1597-9, and not to
Alnwick. Sir Thomas Gray, of Chillingham, married Lady Catherine Neville,
one of the four daughters of Charles Neville sixth Earl of Westmoreland,
whose wife was Lady Jane Howard, daughter of Henry Howard Earl of Surrey.
Lady Margaret Neville was married to Sir Nicholas Pudsey, of
Bolton-in-Bowland, Yorkshire, I think. Lady Anne Neville was married to
David Ingleby, of Ripley, a cousin of Marmaduke Ward and of Ursula Wright.
Lady Margaret Neville conformed to the Establishment, but afterwards, I
believe, the lady relapsed to popery.——See the “_Hutton Correspondence_”
(Surtees Soc.), and “_Sir Ralph Sadler’s Papers_,” Edited by Sir Walter
Scott.]

[Footnote 85:——Interesting evidence of the connection of Mounteagle with
not only these great northern families of Preston and Leybourne (whose
places that once so well knew them now know them no more), but also with
the Lords Dacres of the North and with the Earls of Arundel, is contained
in Stockdale’s book on the beautiful and historic Parish of Cartmel, on
the west coast of Lancashire, “North of the Sands.”——See Stockdale’s
“_Annales Caermoelenses_,” p. 410, a work, I believe, now out of
print.——Stockdale says that in the old Holker Hall (which seems to have
been built by George Preston, in the reign of James I.), in the Parish of
Cartmel, there was over the mantel-piece in the entrance-hall an
elaborately ornamented oak-wood carving, on which were displayed, in
alto-relievo, twelve coats-of-arms, namely:——Those of (1) King James I.,
with the lion and unicorn as supporters. (2) The Preston family, younger
branch; from whom, through an heiress, the Dukes of Devonshire to-day own
the Holker estates. The younger branch of the Prestons, viz., those of
Holker, were probably Schismatic Catholics, or “Church-papists,” for some
time, but gradually they conformed entirely to the Established Church. The
elder branch of the Prestons, namely, the Prestons, of the Manor Furness,
were strict Roman Catholics. Margaret Preston was married to Sir Francis
Howard, of Corby, third son of Lord William Howard, of Naworth. The last
of the Prestons, of the Manor, was Sir Thomas Preston, Bart., who, in
1674, became a Jesuit at the age of thirty-two.——See Foley’s “_Records_,”
vol. iv., p. 534, and vol. v., p. 358.——Sir Thomas Preston, S.J., had been
twice married, but had him surviving only two daughters, whom he amply
provided for, and then gave his Furness estates to the Society he had
joined. A subsequent Act of Parliament, however, defeated his intention
almost entirely. (3) Arundel impaling Dacre; Philip Howard Earl of Arundel
having married Anne Dacre, or Dacres, daughter of Thomas Lord Dacres of
the North. (4) Howard impaling Dacre; Lord William Howard having married
Elizabeth Dacre, or Dacres, sister to Anne Dacres Countess of Arundel and
Surrey. Through Elizabeth Howard, the Earls of Carlisle have the Naworth
Castle and Hinderskelfe (or Castle Howard) estates. (5) Morley impaling
Stanley; Edward Parker Lord Morley having married, in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, Elizabeth Stanley, only daughter of Lord Mounteagle, of Hornby
Castle, Lancashire (these were the parents of Lord Mounteagle, who married
Elizabeth Tresham). (6) Dacre impaling Leybourne, of Cunswick, near
Kendal; Thomas Lord Dacre having married Elizabeth Leybourne, daughter of
Sir James Leybourne, of Cunswick. (7) Stanley impaling Leybourne; William
Stanley third Lord Mounteagle, of Hornby Castle, having married Anne
Leybourne, sister to Elizabeth Lady Dacre. (8) Leybourne impaling Preston;
Ellen (Stockdale by mistake says Eleanor), daughter of Sir Thomas Preston,
of Westmoreland and Lancashire, having married Sir James Leybourne, of
Cunswick; this lady afterwards married Thomas Stanley second Lord
Mounteagle, the father of her son-in-law, William Stanley third Lord
Mounteagle, who married her daughter, Anne Leybourne, and who was the
grandfather of Lord Mounteagle, who married Elizabeth Tresham. (9)
Cavendish impaling Keighley; William Cavendish first Earl of Devonshire
having married Anne Keighley, daughter of Sir Henry Keighley, of Keighley,
Yorks. (10) Keighley impaling Carus; Henry Keighley, of Keighley, having
married Mary Carus, daughter of Sir Thomas Carus, of Kirkby Lonsdale. (11)
Carus impaling Preston; Sir Thomas Carus, of Kirkby Lonsdale, having
married Catherine Preston, daughter of Sir Thomas Preston, about the reign
of Philip and Mary. (12) Middleton impaling Carus; Edward Middleton, of
Middleton Hall (who died in 1599), having married Mary, daughter of Sir
Thomas Carus, of Kirkby Lonsdale.[A]

Fittingly does that great master of English, Frederic Harrison, quote
approvingly, in his charming book, “_Annals of an Old Manor House_”
(_i.e._, Sutton Place, Guildford, the home of the Westons, and the
dwelling, for a time, of the above-mentioned Anne Dacres Countess of
Arundel and Surrey——that queenly Elizabethan woman), the words of a
historian-friend of his: “Sink a shaft, as it were, in some chosen spot in
the annals of England, and you will come upon much that is never found in
the books of general history.” The late Robert Steggall, of Lewes, wrote a
fine poem in blank verse on “the Venerable” Philip Howard Earl of Arundel
and Surrey, the husband of Anne Dacres. It appeared in “_The Month_” some
years ago.]

[Footnote A: The arms of Lord Mounteagle were az., between two bars, sa.,
charged with three bezants, a lion passant, gu., in chief three bucks’
heads caboshed of the second.

The title Morley and Mounteagle is now in abeyance——see Burke’s “_Extinct
Peerages_”——since the year 1686, the reign of James II.

The last Lord Morley and Mounteagle died without issue. The issue of two
aunts of the deceased baron were his representatives. One aunt was
Katherine, who married John Savage second Earl of Rivers, and had issue;
the other aunt was Elizabeth, who married Edward Cranfield.

The present Earl of Morley, Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords,
though a Parker, is of the Parkers of Devonshire, a different family from
the Parkers of Essex.]

[Footnote 86:——The beautiful and pathetic “Lament,” so well known to
Scotsmen under the title of “The Flowers of the Forest,” was penned to
express “the lamentation, mourning, and woe” that filled the historic land
of “mountain and of flood,” on the tidings reaching “brave, bonnie
Scotland” of the “woeful fight” of Flodden Field. At the funeral of that
gallant soldier and fine Scotsman, the late General Wauchope, of the
Regiment known as the Black Watch, the pipers played this plaintive air,
“The Flowers of the Forest.” Who does not hope that those funereal strains
may be prophetic that, through the power of far-sighted wisdom, human
sympathy, and the healing hand of Time, there may be a reconciliation as
real and deep and true betwixt England’s kinsman-foe of to-day and herself
as there is betwixt herself and her kinsman-foe of the year 1513——the year
of Flodden Field!

See also Professor Aytoun’s “Edinburgh after Flodden,” in his “_Lays of
the Scottish Cavaliers_” (Routledge & Sons); also, of course, Sir Walter
Scott’s well-known “Marmion.”]

[Footnote 87:——It should be remembered that Baines says that Nichols, in
his “_Progresses of James I._,” describes Hornby Castle in Yorkshire, by
mistake, for the one in Lancashire.

The sunny, balmy, health-giving watering-place of Grange-over-Sands, built
at the foot of Yewbarrow, a pine-clad, hazel-loving fell, “by Kent
sand-side,” is in the ancient Parish of Cartmel; and, in connection with
the family of Lord Mounteagle, the following will be read with interest by
those who are privileged to know that golden land of the westering sun,
the paradise of the weak of chest.

About three miles from the Grange——so called because here was formerly a
Grange, or House, for the storing of grain by the Friars, or black Canons,
of the Augustinian Priory at Cartmel——is the square Peel Tower known as
Wraysholme Tower. In the windows of the old tower were formerly arms and
crests of the Harrington and Stanley families. A few miles to the west of
Cartmel were Adlingham and Gleaston, ancient possessions of the
Harringtons, which likewise became a portion of the Mounteagles’ Hornby
Castle estates. All this portion of the north of England abounded in
adherents of the ancient faith up to about the time of the Gunpowder Plot.
The Duke of Guise had planned that the Spanish Armada should disembark at
the large and commodious port of the Pile of Fouldrey, in the Parish of
Dalton-in-Furness, “North of the Sands.” This rock of the Pile of
Fouldrey, from which the port took its name, was not only near Adlingham
and Gleaston, but also near the Manor Furness, the seat of the elder
branch of the Prestons, from whom Mounteagle, on his mother’s side, was
descended.[A]]

[Footnote A: William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle’s great-great-uncle,
James Leybourne (or Labourn), of Cunswick and Skelsmergh, in the County of
Westmoreland, was hanged, drawn, and quartered by Queen Elizabeth, in the
year 1583.——See “_The Acts of the English Martyrs_,” by the Rev. J. H.
Pollen, S.J. (Burns & Oates).——James Leybourne is not reckoned “a Catholic
martyr” by Challoner, because he denied that Elizabeth was “his lawful
Queen.” There has been a doubt as to where this gentleman suffered “a
traitor’s death.” Baines says that he was executed at Lancaster, that his
head was exposed on Manchester Church steeple, and that prior to his
execution Leybourne was imprisoned in the New Fleet, Manchester. This is
probably a correct statement of the case. Burke, however, in his “_Tudor
Portraits_” (Hodges, London), says that Leybourne was executed at Preston.
Though a minute point, it would be interesting to know what the truth of
the matter is.

There is a marble tablet on the north wall of the east end of the fine old
Parish Church of Kendal, to the memory of John Leybourne, Esquire, the
last of his race, and formerly owners of Cunswick, Skelsmergh, and
Witherslack Halls. The tablet bears the arms of the Leybournes, and shows
that the last male representative of this ancient Westmoreland family died
on the 9th December, 1737, aged sixty-nine years, evidently reconciled to
the faith of his ancestors.]

[Footnote 88:——The exact relationship of Marmaduke Ward and Thomas Warde
to Sir Christopher Ward has been not yet traced out. Sir Christopher Ward
was the last of the Wards in the direct line. He died in the year 1521,
but left no male heir. His eldest daughter, Anne, married Francis Neville,
of Thornton Bridge, in the Parish of Brafferton, near Boroughbridge; his
second daughter, Johanna, married Edward Musgrave, of Westmoreland; and
his third daughter, Margaret, married John Lawrence, of Barley Court
(probably near St. Dennis’ Church), York. A grand-daughter married a
Francis Neville, of Holt, in Leicestershire.——But see the “_Plumpton
Correspondence_” (Camden Soc.).

I find that, along with Thomas Hallat, one Edmund Ward was Wakeman (or
Mayor) of Ripon, in 1524. He is described as “Gentleman.” He may have been
the grandfather, or even possibly the father, of Marmaduke and Thomas
Ward.——Concerning the Ward family down to Sir Christopher Ward, see
Slater’s “_Guiseley_,” Yorks. (Hamilton Adams), and the “_Life of Mary
Ward_,” vol. i., p. 102.——There is still to be found the name Edmund Ward
at Thornton Bridge (June, 1901); possibly of the same family as the Wards
of the sixteenth century; for Christian names run in families for
generations.

It is, however, possible that the name of the father of Marmaduke and
Thomas Ward may have been Marmaduke. For I find an entry in the Ripon
Registers, under date the 16th December, 1594, of the burial of “Susannay
wife of Marmaduke Wayrde of Newby.” (At least, so I read the entry.) When
this Marmaduke died I do not know. Nor, indeed, have I been able to
ascertain when Marmaduke, the father of Mary Ward, died. It is probable
that Marmaduke Ward, the younger, sold the Newby estate prior to 1614. At
what date the Mulwith and Givendale estates were sold, I cannot say.
Possibly R. C. De Grey Vyner, Esquire, of Newby Hall, their present owner,
may know. In vol. iii. of the “_Memorials of Ripon_” (Surtees Soc.) occur
the names of Edmund Ward and Ralph Ward, both as paying dues for lands in
Skelton (p. 333). Also the “Fabric Roll for 1542” (in the same work) has
the name Marmaduke Ward. This would be the husband of Susannay, who died
in 1594, probably. So that, most likely, Marmaduke and Susannay Ward were
the parents of Marmaduke Ward and Thomas Ward, if the latter were
brothers, as it is practically certain they were.

I am inclined, on the whole, to think that Edmund Ward cannot have been
the father to Marmaduke and Thomas Ward, though he may have been their
grandfather. There is a curious reference to, most probably, this Edmund
Ward, in the “_Plumpton Correspondence_,” pp. 185, 186 (Camden Soc.); but
it sheds no light on this question of the parentage of any of the Wards.
From Slater’s “_History of Guiseley_” it is evident that a branch of the
Wards settled at Scotton, near Knaresbrough.

Miss Pullein, of Rotherfield Manor, Sussex, a relative of the Pulleins, of
Scotton, tells me that in the “Subsidy Roll for 1379” the names
occur:——“Johannes Warde et ux ej. ijs. Tho. Warde et ux ej. vjd Johannes
fil. Thomae Warde iiij d.” So that the names John and Thomas were
evidently hereditary in the various branches of the Wardes, of Givendale
and Esholt. (18th April, 1901.)]

[Footnote 89:——From the “_Authorised Discourse_,” or “_King’s Book_,” we
learn that the King returned from Royston on Thursday, the 31st day of
October; that on Friday, All Hallows Day, Salisbury showed James the
Letter in the “gallerie” of the palace at Whitehall. On the following day,
Saturday, the 2nd of November, Salisbury and the Earl of Suffolk, the Lord
Chamberlain, saw the King in the same “gallerie,” when it was arranged
that the Chamberlain should view all the Parliament Houses both above and
below. This “viewing” or “perusing” of the vault or cellar under the House
of Lords took place on the following Monday afternoon by Suffolk and
Mounteagle, when they saw Fawkes, who styled himself “John Johnson,”
servant to Thomas Percy, who had hired the house adjoining the Parliament
House and the aforesaid cellar also.

Now, Mounteagle, almost certainly, must have known that there would be
this second conference with the King, on this Saturday, and from what
Mounteagle (_ex hypothesi_) had said to Tresham about “the mine,” Tresham
would have concluded that what Mounteagle knew, Salisbury would be soon
made to know, and, through Salisbury’s speeches, the King. My opinion is
that Mounteagle _saw_ and _spoke_ to Tresham _between_ the conference of
the King, Suffolk, and Salisbury (Mounteagle being made acquainted with,
by either Suffolk or Salisbury, if he were not actually an auditor of, all
that had passed), _and_ the meeting with Winter in Lincoln’s Inn Walks, on
the night of that same Saturday, November the 2nd.]

[Footnote 90:——See “_Winter’s Confession_,” Gardiner, pp. 67 and 68.

This meeting on the Saturday was behind St. Clement’s. At this meeting
Christopher Wright was present. Query——What did he say? And in whose
Declaration or Confession is it contained? If in one of Fawkes’, then
which? Possibly it may have been at this meeting that Christopher Wright
recommended the conspirators to take flight in different directions. It is
observable that, so far as I am aware, Christopher Wright and John Wright
do not appear to have expressed a wish that any particular nobleman should
be warned, except Arundel. Whereas Fawkes wished Montague; Percy,
Northumberland; Keyes, Mordaunt; Tresham was “exceeding earnest” for
Stourton and Mounteagle; whilst all wished Lord Arundel to be advertised.
Arundel was created Earl of Norfolk by Charles I. in 1644.

(Since writing the above, I have ascertained that there is no report in
any of Guy Fawkes’ Confessions of this statement of Christopher Wright,
nor in his written “Confessions” does Fawkes refer to his own mother.)]

[Footnote 91:——“_Labile tempus_”——the motto inscribed over the entrance of
the fine old Elizabethan mansion-house situate at Heslington, near York,
the seat of the Lord Deramore, formerly belonging to a member of the great
Lancashire family of Hesketh, of Mains Hall, Poulton-in-the-Fylde, and
Rufford. Edmund Neville, one of the suitors of Mary Ward, was brought up
with the Heskeths, of Rufford. In 1581 the Mains Hall branch of the
Heskeths harboured Campion.]

[Footnote 92:——As a fact, the Government did not know of the mine,
according to Dr. Gardiner, even on Thursday, the 7th of November, but
certainly they did know, says Gardiner, by Saturday, the 9th.——See
Gardiner’s “_Gunpowder Plot_,” p. 31.——Probably the entrance to the mine
was sealed up. No useful purpose would be served by either Mounteagle or
Ward telling the Government about the mine, which then was an “extinct
volcano.”]

[Footnote 93:——The exact words of Lingard are these:——“Winter sought a
second interview with Tresham at his house in Lincoln’s Inn Walks, and
returned to Catesby with the following answer: That the existence of the
mine had been communicated to the Ministers. This Tresham said he knew:
but by whom the discovery had been made he knew not.”

Lingard does not give his authority, but probably he got the material for
this important passage from “_Greenway’s_ (_vere_ Tesimond’s) _MS._” It is
an historical desideratum that this MS. should be published. Mounteagle,
conceivably, may have falsely told Tresham that the Government already
knew of the mine, in order to alarm him the more effectually; but, most
probably, it was an inference that Tresham himself erroneously drew from
Mounteagle’s words, whatever may have been their precise nature.
Mounteagle possibly said something about “the mine,” and that the
Parliament Houses would be with minuteness searched far and near. This
would be quite sufficient to inflame the already heated imagination of
Tresham, and he would readily enough leap forth to the conclusion that the
“mine” must be for certain known to the Government.

One can almost feel the heart-beats of the distraught Tresham as one reads
the relation of his second interview with Winter. Then from the pulsations
of _one_ human heart, O, Earth’s governors and ye governed, learn _all_.
For the study of true History is big with mighty lessons and “he that hath
ears let him hear.” Let him hear that Truth and Right, although each is,
in its essential nature, a simple unity, and _therefore_ imperially
exclusive in its claims, and _therefore_ intolerant of plurality, of
multiplicity, of diversity, yet that each of these high attributes of the
eternal and the ideal is the mistress not only of man’s god-like
intellect, but also of his heart and will. And _these_ two faculties are
likewise of divine original and have severally a voice which perpetually
bids man, poor wounded man, “be pitiful, be courteous” to his fellows. For
human life at best is “hard,” is “brief,” and “piercing are its sorrows.”]

[Footnote 94:——The meeting between Catesby, Winter, and Tresham, at
Barnet, on the road to White Webbs, was on Friday, the 1st of November,
the day the Letter was shown to the King.]

[Footnote 95:——Or, Mounteagle may have thought that, as it would be
meritorious in Percy supposing he had sent the Letter, he (Mounteagle)
would expressly, in the hearing of Suffolk, give Percy the benefit of the
doubt; since it might stand his old friend in good stead hereafter if
Percy were involved in the meshes of the law for the part that, I hold,
Mounteagle _by_ Christopher Wright _through_ Thomas Warde then _knew_ for
a fact, Percy, and indeed all his confederates, had taken in the nefarious
enterprise. Such a train of thought may have flashed through Mounteagle’s
brain well-nigh instantaneously; for what is quicker than thought? I
suspect, moreover, that Mounteagle conjectured that the Letter was from
one of Warde’s and his own connections: for Percy, as well as the Wrights,
would be a connection of Mounteagle, through the Stanleys, Percies,
Gascoignes, Nortons, Nevilles, and Wardes, who were all more or less
allied by marriages entered into within the last few generations. Percy
would be about Thomas Warde’s own age (forty-six).

I do not, however, think that Mounteagle knew for certain who was the
revealing conspirator; and his lordship would not want to know either.
Besides, I hold that Warde would be too good a diplomatist and too
faithful a servant to suffer his master to know, even if he had wanted.
“Say ‘little’ is a bonnie word,” would be a portion of the diplomatic
wisdom that Warde would carry with him up to the great metropolis from his
“native heather” of Yorkshire.]

[Footnote 96:——Ben Jonson was “reconciled” to the Church of Rome either in
1593 or 1594. After, and probably on account of, the Plot he left the
Church, whose “exacting claims” he had “on trust” accepted. Possibly it
was under the influence of Jonson’s example that Mounteagle wrote the
letter to the King, given in the Rev. John Gerard’s “_What was the
Gunpowder Plot?_” p. 256. Mounteagle, however, died in the Church of Rome,
and the Article in the “_National Dictionary of Biography_” says that he
had a daughter a nun. Belike, she was a member of the Institute of “The
English Virgins,” for the name “Parker” is mentioned in Chambers’ “_Life
of Mary Ward_.”[A] There has been recently (1900) published a smaller
“_Life of Mary Ward_,” by M. Mary Salome (Burns & Oates), with a Preface
by Bishop Hedley, O.S.B., which should be read by those not desirous of
possessing the more costly work by Mary Catharine Elizabeth Chambers, in 2
vols. (Burns & Oates), with a Preface by the late Henry James Coleridge,
S.J. (brother to the late Lord Coleridge). May I express the hope that
these two learned authoresses will cause the Ward Papers, at Nymphenburg,
near Munich, in Germany (that are extant), to be carefully examined afresh
to see if they contain anything about Thomas Warde, Mary’s uncle, and
anything further about her connection, through the Throckmortons and
Nevilles, the Lord Mounteagle? By so doing, they will cause to be obliged
to them all serious students of the Gunpowder Plot, which is of perennial
interest and value to human beings, whether governors or governed, by
reason of the intellectual, moral, and political lessons that with the
truest eloquence——the eloquence of Fact——it teaches mankind for all time.]

[Footnote A: Whilst it is possible that the “Parker” mentioned in the
“_Life of Mary Ward_” was one of Lord Mounteagle’s daughters, I find, from
a statement in Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. v. (by a contemporary hand, I
think), that “Lord Morley and Mounteagle,” as he is styled, had a daughter
who was “crooked,” and who was an Augustinian nun. Her name was Sister
Frances Parker. Her father is said to have given his consent to this
daughter becoming a nun “after much ado.” Lady Morley and Mounteagle, a
strict papist, brought up the children Roman Catholics.——See Foley’s
“_Records_,” vol. v., p. 973.——The same writer is of opinion that
Mounteagle was not a Roman Catholic. Evidently he was a very lax one, and
between the Plot and the time of his death he probably conformed to the
Establishment.]

[Footnote 97:——Born Lord Thomas Howard, brother to Lord William Howard, of
Naworth, near Carlisle.——For an interesting account of the Tudor Howards,
see Burke’s “_Tudor Portraits_” (Hodges); also Lodge’s “_Portraits_,” and
“_Memorials of the House of Howard_.”]

[Footnote 98:——Did Mounteagle likewise behold Fawkes? If so, his
self-command apparently was extraordinary; for, almost certainly,
Mounteagle must have met Fawkes at White Webbs, if not at the Lord
Montague’s and elsewhere. Fawkes was so strict and regular in his habits
and deportment that he was thought to be a priest or a Jesuit (I suppose,
a Jesuit lay-brother). That Tesimond should think that part of the
“_King’s Book_” fabulous which describes this “perusing of the vault” and
finding of Fawkes, is just what I should expect Tesimond, erroneously,
would think; inasmuch as this particular Jesuit would naturally enough
consider it to be simply incredible that Mounteagle should not have
displayed some outward token, however slight, of recognising Fawkes, who
would be sure to carry with him his characteristic air of calm and high
distinction, even amid “the wood and coale” of his “master” Thomas Percy.
But Tesimond did not know what a perfect tutoring Mounteagle had received
from his mentor to qualify him to play so well his part in life at this
supreme juncture. Thomas Ward was evidently a consummate diplomatist. If
he had been trained under Walsingham he would certainly “know a thing or
two.”]

[Footnote 99:——It is to be remembered that, for the first time, the powder
was found by Knevet and his men about midnight of Monday, the 4th of
November. Previous to, possibly, late in the day of the 4th of November, I
do not think that Salisbury and Suffolk knew any more about the existence
of this powder than “the man in the moon.” Such ignorance on their part
redounded to their great discredit, and would be, doubtless, duly noted by
the small and timid, yet sharp, mind of James. But the Country’s
confidence in the Government had to be maintained at all costs; hence the
comical, side-glance, slantingdicular, ninny-pinny way in which the
“_King’s Book_,” for the most part, is drawn up. A re-publication of the
“_King’s Book_,” and of “_The Fawkeses, of York_,” by R. Davies, sometime
Town Clerk of York (Nichols, 1850), are desiderata to the historical
student of the Gunpowder Plot.

I readily allow that it is difficult to believe that neither Salisbury,
nor Suffolk, nor anybody (not even a bird-like-eyed Dame Quickly of
busy-bodying propensities residing in the neighbourhood) knew of this
powder, which had been (at least some of it) in Percy’s house and an
outhouse adjoining the Parliament House. Still, even if they did know
(whether statesmen or housewife) of the _Gunpowder_, it does not follow,
either in fact or in logic, that they knew of the _Gunpowder Plot_. For
they might reasonably enough conclude that the ammunition was to carry out
“the practice for some stir” which Salisbury admits that he knew the
recusants had in hand at that Parliament.——See “_Winwood’s Memorials_,”
Ed. 1725, vol. ii., p. 72.——Moreover, for such a purpose, in the natural
order of things, I take it, the powder would be brought in first, then the
shot, muskets, armour, swords, daggers, pikes, crossbows, arrows, and
other ordnance. (_The barrels, empty or nearly so, would be carried in
first._)

Sir Thomas Knevet, of Norfolk, was created Baron Knevett, of Escrick, near
York, in 1607. He died without male issue. He went to the Parliament House
on the night of November 4th, 1605, as a Justice of the Peace for
Westminster.——See Nichols’ “_Progresses of James I._,” vol. i., p.
582.——Escrick is now the seat of the Lord Wenlock.]

[Footnote 100:——“_Hatfield MS._,” 110, 30. Quoted in “the Rev. J. H.
Pollen’s S.J., thoughtful and learned booklet, entitled “_Father Garnet
and the Gunpowder Plot_” (Catholic Truth Society’s publication, London).]

[Footnote 101:——See Jardine’s Letter to Sir Henry Ellis, K.H., F.R.S.,
Feb., 1841, in “_Archæologia_,” vol. xxix., p. 100. This letter should be
carefully read by every serious student of the Plot.]

[Footnote 102:——Sir William Stanley, of Hooton (in that strip of Cheshire
between the Mersey and the Dee), was not seen by Fawkes between Easter and
the end of August, 1605, when Fawkes went over to Flanders for the last
time in his career so adventurous and so pathetic. Sir William knew
nothing of the Gunpowder Plot. It was said that he surrendered Deventer in
pursuance of the counsel of Captain Roland Yorke, who to the Spaniards had
himself surrendered Zutphen Sconce. These surrenders to the Spaniards on
the part of two English gentlemen were strange pieces of business, and one
would like the whole question to be thoroughly and severely searched into
again. As to Roland Yorke, see Camden’s “_Queen Elizabeth_.”

Captain Roland Yorke, like his patron Sir William Stanley, was an able
soldier. He held a position of command in the Battle of Zutphen, in which
the Bayard of English chivalry, Sir Philip Sidney, received his death
wound.——See the “_Earl of Leicester’s Correspondence_” (Camden
Soc.).——Sidney’s widow (the daughter of Sir Francis Walsingham) afterwards
married Robert second Earl of Essex. She became a Roman Catholic, like her
kinsman, the gifted and engaging Father Walsingham, S.J. Frances
Walsingham, the only child of Sir Francis Walsingham, became a Catholic, I
think, through her third marriage with Richard De Burgh fourth Earl of
Clanricarde, afterwards Earl of St. Albans. He was also known as Richard
of Kinsale and Lord Dunkellin. He was an intimate friend of the Earl of
Essex and of Father Gerard, S.J., the friend of Mary Ward.

It would be interesting if Major Hume, or some other authority on the
reign of Queen Elizabeth, could ascertain whether or not there was a
_Thomas Warde_ in the diplomatic service during the “Eighties” of her
reign. Certainly there was a Thomas Warde in the service of the Government
then. I am almost sure that the “Mr. Warde” mentioned by Walsingham, in
his letter to the Earl of Leicester, must have been this Thomas Warde, and
one and the same man with Thomas Warde, of Mulwaith (or Mulwith). It is to
be remembered, too, that the Gunpowder conspirator, Thomas Winter, had
served in the Queen’s forces against the Spanish King for a time. The
names Rowland Yorke, Thomas Vavasour, Sir Thomas Heneage, and Thomas
Winter are very suggestive of the circle in which a Warde, of Mulwith,
Newby, and Givendale, would move. Besides, there was a family connection
between the Parkers, Poyntzes, and Heneages.——See “_Visitation of Essex,
1612_” (Harleian Soc.), under “Poyntz.”

Moreover, it must be continually borne in mind that Father Tesimond (alias
Greenway), in his hitherto unprinted MS., declares that Mounteagle was
related to some of the plotters. “_Greenway’s MS._,” according to
Jardine’s “_Narrative_,” p. 92, also says that Thomas Ward was an intimate
friend of several of the conspirators, and _suspected_ to have been an
accomplice in the treason. That would imply that Ward was suspected to
have had at least a _knowledge_ of the treason.]

[Footnote 103:——Mary Ward, the daughter of Marmaduke Ward and Ursula
Wright, lived with her grandmother, Mrs. Ursula Wright (_née_ Rudston, of
Hayton, in the East Riding of Yorkshire), between the years 1589-94 at
Plowland (or Plewland) Hall, Holderness, Yorkshire; and between the years
1597-1600 at Harewell Hall, in the township of Dacre, Nidderdale, with her
kinswoman, Mrs. Katerine Ardington (_née_ Ingleby). Mrs. Ardington, as
well as Mrs. Ursula Wright, had suffered imprisonment for her profession
of the ancient faith. We have a relation by Mary Ward herself of her
grandmother’s incarceration, which is as follows:——Mrs. Wright “had in her
younger years suffered imprisonment for the space of fourteen years
together, in which time she several times made profession of her faith
before the President of York (the Earl of Huntingdon) and other officers.
She was once, for her speeches to the said Huntingdon, tending to the
exaltation of the Catholic religion and contempt of heresy, thrust into a
common prison or dungeon, amongst thieves, where she stayed not long
because, being much spoken of, it came to the hearing of her kindred, who
procured her speedy removal to the Castle prison where she was
before.”——See Chambers’ “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vol. i., p. 13.

This common prison or dungeon would be, it is all but certain, the
Kidcote, the common prison for the City of York and that portion of
Yorkshire between the Rivers Wharfe and Ouse known as the Ainsty of the
City of York. This dungeon was, according to Gent’s “_History of York_,”
under the York City Council Chamber on Old Ouse Bridge, to the westward of
St. William’s Chapel.——See also J. B. Milburn’s “_A Martyr of Old York_”
(Burns & Oates).——The Old Ouse Bridge was pulled down in 1810.——See
Allen’s “_History of Yorkshire_”——After the Kidcote was demolished, the
York City prison called the Gaol, likewise now demolished (1901), was
built on Bishophill, near the Old Bailie Hill. The prison for the County
of Yorkshire was the Castle built by William the Conqueror, the tower of
which, called Clifford’s Tower, on an artificial mound, is still standing.
There was, moreover, in York, a third prison into which the unhappy popish
recusants, as appears from Morris’s “_Troubles_” were sometimes consigned.
This was the Bishop’s prison, commonly called Peter Prison. The writer is
told by Mr. William Camidge, a York antiquary of note, that Peter Prison
stood at the corner of Precentor’s Court, Petergate, near to the west
front of the Minster. Mr. Camidge remembers Peter Prison being used as a
City lock-up prison about the year 1836, soon after which year it was
pulled down. The late Mr. Richard Haughton, of York, showed the writer,
about Easter, 1899, a sketch of this interesting old prison, a sketch
which Mr. Haughton had himself made. The building was a plain square
erection, the door of which was reached by a flight of stone steps.

Again, we are told——“_Life of Mary Ward_,” vol. i., p. 17——that one day
Mary came to her grandmother, “who was singing some hymns,” and the child
asked the old lady whether she would not send “something again to the
prisoners,” a question, we are told, which “pleased” Mrs. Wright “very
much.”

Lastly, the gifted daughter of Marmaduke Ward, and the niece of Thomas
Ward, bears this striking testimony concerning one aspect of her aged
relative’s gracious life, that “so great a prayer was she” that during the
whole five years that the child lived with her grandmother, the most of
which time she lodged in the same chamber, she “did not remember in that
whole five years she ever saw her grandmother sleep, nor did she ever
awake when she perceived her not at prayer” (p. 15).]

[Footnote 104:——Maybe Christopher Wright, from his earliest school-days,
had with reverence looked up to Edward Oldcorne, for the latter was the
senior of the former by no less than ten years, so that when Oldcorne was
a clever youth of fifteen years Christopher would be a little fellow of
five, “with his satchel and shining morning-face,” though we may be
permitted to hope that little Kit Wright did not “creep like snail
unwillingly to school.” For it was at a school second to none in England
that the future ill-fated Yorkshireman learned to con his “_hic, hæc,
hoc_.” It was a school originally founded by Egbert, Archbishop of York,
in the eighth century, and which, as the Cathedral Grammar School, had
been rendered famous by Alcuin himself, the tutor of Charlemagne. It was a
school re-founded and re-endowed in the Horse Fayre, now Union Terrace, on
the left-hand side going down Gillygate, outside Bootham Bar, by King
Philip and Queen Mary, especially for the training of priests for the
northern parts.——See in Leach’s “_Endowed Schools of Yorkshire_” for an
account concerning St. Peter’s School, Clifton, York, but no register of
scholars of this ancient seat of learning now exists prior to the year
1828. (Title deeds and writings lent by Mrs. Martha Lancaster, of York,
have enabled me to identify the site of the old school.)

It is, I take it, furthermore possible that Edward Oldcorne may have
taught Christopher Wright; and if the relation of pedagogue and scholar
ever subsisted between them, a bond of mutual regard would be created
which the lapse of long years would not weaken. For an account of the kind
of education given in a Grammar School in “the spacious days of Good Queen
Bess,” see Dr. Elzé’s “_Life of Shakespeare_” (Bell & Sons), also H. W.
Mabie’s very recent and able American “_Life of Shakespeare_”
(Macmillan).]

[Footnote 105:——“_Surgam, et ibo ad patrem meum, et dicam ei: Pater,
peccavi in cælum et coram te!_” “I will arise.”]

[Footnote 106:——Possibly the Earl of Northumberland. He was (it will be
remembered) the son of Henry the eighth Earl, and nephew to “the Blessed”
Thomas Percy the seventh Earl, and likewise nephew to Mary Slingsby, of
Scriven, Knaresbrough. Sir Kenelin Digby, the eldest son of Sir Everard
Digby, married the beautiful Venetia Stanley, who was descended from “the
Blessed” Thomas Percy. The helmet and gauntlets of this nobleman were kept
at the handsome old Church of St. Crux, in The Pavement, York, which was
pulled down a few years ago. Thomas Longueville, Esquire, of Llanforda
Hall, Oswestry, Salop, through the Lady Venetia Digby, is descended from
“the Blessed” Thomas Percy, as are several other families, including the
Peacocks, of Bottesford Manor, Lincolnshire, I believe. Mr. Longueville is
the learned author of the “_Lives_” of his ancestors, Sir Everard and Sir
Kenelm Digby.]

[Footnote 107:——We know that on the 5th day of October, two days after the
prorogation of Parliament, Christopher Wright quitted his lodging, in Spur
Alley, where he had been for eighteen days prior to the 5th October.——See
“Evidence of Dorathie Robinson,” p. 128 _ante_.]

[Footnote 108:——John Wright was acknowledged to be one of the most expert
swordsmen of his time. He was commonly known as “Jack Wright,” and his
brother as “Kit Wright.” Father Garnet says, in a voluntary statement that
he made in the Tower——Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. iv., p. 157——“‘These are
not God’s knights, but the devil’s knights.’ And related how Jack Wright
had sent a challenge by Thomas Winter to a gentleman.” The duel, however,
did not come off, though Winter measured swords. Winter appears to have
fulfilled the happy office of peace-maker on the occasion. (What “strange
mixtures” these English and Yorkshire papist gentlemen were, to be sure!)]

[Footnote 109:——See Article in “_National Dictionary of Biography_” on
“John Wright” (citing Camden in “_Birch Original Letters_”) second series,
vol. iii., p. 179.]

[Footnote 110:——Afterwards the great Viscount Verulam, commonly known as
Lord Bacon. Bacon’s particular friend and familiar was Sir Toby Matthews,
the eldest son of Dr. Tobias Matthews, in 1606 created Archbishop of York.
Sir Toby translated Bacon’s “_Essays_” into Italian.——See Spedding’s
“_Life of Bacon_,” and Alban Butler’s “_Life of Matthews_.”——Sir Toby
Matthews (in the February of 1605-6, just after the Plot) was converted to
popery by Father Robert Parsons, who was then at the English College,
Rome; and Matthews’ was, without doubt, the most remarkable and
interesting of all the conversions effected by that strong-minded and most
able Jesuit. Parsons’ intellect was one of marvellous range, reach,
versatility, and power. He was a spiritual or mystical man in his way,
too; but his spirituality or mysticism not seldom failed to control his
action in daily life. It was shut up, as it were, in a watertight
compartment. This (_me judice_) sums up, approximately, the truth about
Parsons. Of all the men in Europe, Parsons was the man Burleigh,
Walsingham, and Salisbury most feared. He died in 1610. A really impartial
Life of Parsons, if possible, by a learned lawyer and politician, is a
desideratum. In some of his political ideas this Jesuit was a progressive
born prematurely——“a man before his time.” For he believed thoroughly in
the sovereignty of the People, and in the desirableness of universal
education. In this latter respect he resembled “that good lady, Mary
Ward,” the daughter of Marmaduke Ward, and niece of Thomas Ward (_ex
hypothesi_). Campion, the Jesuit, who died a martyr in 1581, was much the
more amiable and attractive character. But Campion was no politician.
Oldcorne, I maintain, was the greatest of all the three, because of his
extraordinary mental equipoise and balance.

“_The History of the Jesuits in England, 1580-1773_,” by the Rev. Ethelred
L. Taunton, with twelve illustrations (Methuen & Co., 1901), in some sort
supplies a Life of Robert Parsons. But evidently the Jesuit Society is an
enigma to Father Taunton, as to so many papists. A man must be a jurist
and a statesman to understand the Jesuits. For their aim (_me judice_),
their noble aim, ever has been to make the “Kingdoms of the world the
Kingdoms of God and of His Christ.”

If a delusion, surely a delusion merely, not a crime, the most puissant
spirit among us must allow.

James Robert Hope-Scott, Q.C., thought that the Jesuits were the backbone
of the Church of his adoption. And Dr. Christopher Wordsworth (no mean
judge) thought that Hope-Scott might have become a more popular Prime
Minister than even W. E. Gladstone, had he chosen a political career.
Wordsworth was Hope-Scott’s tutor at Oxford.——See Dr. Christopher
Wordsworth’s “_Autobiography_.”——He was Bishop of St. Andrews, N.B., and
as a classical scholar almost without a peer.]

[Footnote 111:——See Jardine’s “_Criminal Trials_,” vol. ii., p. 166.]

[Footnote 112:——“_Narrative_” p. 57. As appears from the Lives of Mary
Ward, Father Gerard had known Mary Ward when a child in Yorkshire. Hence
he probably knew her uncles, John and Christopher Wright, and also Thomas
Percy.

Mary Ward was one of the greatest women-educationists and, in a sense,
women’s rights advocates England has ever seen. She ought to figure in the
Supplement to the “_National Dictionary of Biography_.” The following
word-portrait of Mary Warde we owe to the skilful hand of her kinswoman,
the gifted Winefrid Wigmore, a cousin once removed to Lady Mounteagle. It
is as Mary Ward, that wonderful Yorkshire-woman, appeared in the year
which witnessed the death of Shakespeare (1616). Perhaps the poet knew
her; if so, no wonder he knew how to describe queenly souls. “She was
rather tall (was Mary), but her figure was symmetrical. Her complexion was
delicately beautiful, her countenance and aspect most agreeable, mingled
with I know not what which was attractive.... Her presence and
conversation were most winning, her manners courteous. It was a general
saying ‘She became whatsoever she wore or did.’ Her voice in speaking was
very grateful, and in song melodious. In her demeanour and carriage, an
angelic modesty was united to a refined ease and dignity of manner, that
made even princes[A] find great satisfaction, yea, profit, in conversing
with her. Yet, these were withal without the least affectation, and were
accompanied with such meekness and humility as gave confidence to the
poorest and most miserable. There was nothing she did seem to have more
horror of than there should be anything in herself or hers that might put
a bar to the free access of any who should be in need of ought in their
power to bestow.”

No wonder that——with a brother to the right of him like Marmaduke Ward,
and with a niece to the left o£ him like Mary Ward, “that great soul,” who
in after years, “in a plenitude of vision planned high deeds as immortal
as the sun”[B]——Thomas Warde, the husband for eleven brief years (lacking
nine days) of Margery Warde (born Slater), was instrumental, under Heaven,
in giving effect to the all but too late repentance of the penitent,
Christopher Wright!]

[Footnote A: Mary Ward was the friend or acquaintance of some of the
greatest men and women in Europe. She was a friend of Queen Henrietta
Maria, the wife of Charles I. and daughter of Henry Bourbon, better known
as “King Harry of Navarre.”——See Macaulay’s poem, “_Ivry_.”]

[Footnote B: Line borrowed from Lord Bowen.——See his magnificent poem,
entitled, “Shadowland,” p. 214 of his “_Life_,” by Sir Henry Stewart
Cunningham, K.C.I.E. (Murray).]

[Footnote 113:——The second Edition is dated 1681. The Pamphlet was by a
Dr. Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester.——See “_National Dictionary
of Biography_.”]

[Footnote 114:——The report would be at least second-hand, and it might be
much more. For example, if Mr. Abington saw his wife write the Letter and
told the worthy person what he (Abington) had by the evidence of his own
eyes ascertained, then the worthy person would have the evidence at
first-hand. Any person to whom the worthy person conveyed the intelligence
would have it at second-hand, and so on. But if Mr. Abington had not seen
his wife write the Letter, but had only been told by his wife that she had
writ the Letter, then, although Abington would be a witness at first-hand
_as to the bare fact of such a report having been made_, he would be only
a witness at second-hand _as to the truth of the report_; for Mrs.
Abington, in herself reporting, might have spoken falsely either wilfully
or through mental defect.]

[Footnote 115:——Vol. i., p. 585.]

[Footnote 116:——Jardine’s “_Narrative_,” p. 83.]

[Footnote 117:——Jardine’s “_Narrative_” p. 84.]

[Footnote 118:——William Abington’s chief poem was “Castara,” sung in
praise of his wife, the Honourable Lucia Powys. In the recent “_Oxford
Book of English Verse_,” selected by Quiller-Couch (Clarendon Press),
there is a fine philosophic poem of the younger Abington (or Habington),
entitled “_Nox nocti indicat scientiam_.” John Amphlett, Esq., has edited
the elder Abington’s (or Habington’s) “_Survey of Worcestershire_,” with a
valuable introduction, for the Worcestershire Historical Society.]

[Footnote 119:——It is, moreover, possible that, through her brother’s good
offices with the Government, Mrs. Abington had a sight of the Letter
itself. If so, she would have been almost sure to detect the general
similarity of the handwriting, notwithstanding the disguise, with the
handwriting of Father Oldcorne, handwriting she must have known familiarly
enough, to say nothing of the particular similarity in the case of certain
of the letters.

As showing that, when at Hindlip, Father Oldcorne came into Mrs.
Abington’s company, the following quotation may be given from one of
Father Oldcorne’s Declarations, dated 6th March, 1605-6:——“Both Garnett
and he when there were no straungers did ordinarilye dyne and supp with
Mr. Abington and his wyfe in the dyninge chamber.”]

[Footnote 120:——Some idea of the feeling that Mrs. Abington and her
husband must have had for this able and upright Jesuit, a true Jesuit in
whom there was no guile, may be gathered from the following, which is
taken from Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. iv., p. 213:——“Father Edward
Oldcorne, S.J., came to Hindlip in the month of February or March, 1589,
Mr. Richard Abington keeping house there at the time, who by the advice of
other Catholics, then sojourning with him, sent into Warwickshire for the
said Father to talk with Mrs. Dorothy Abington, his sister, about her
religion, who, at the time living in the house with her brother Richard,
was a very obstinate and perverse heretic, and had left the Court of
Elizabeth, where she was brought up, to come and live with her brother
principally.” We are told that Miss Abington desired to have speech on the
subject of religion with some more than ordinarily learned Catholic.
“Father Oldcorne being sent for to that end, and after some earnest
discourses with her for the space of two days, and having yielded her full
satisfaction in all points of religion, and showed such gravity, zeal,
learning, and prudence in his proceeding with her that she was astonished
thereat, and was unable to make any reply of contradiction to what he
propounded to her.”——From a MS. at Stonyhurst, Anglia, vol. vi.,
attributed to Father Thomas Lister, S.J.

Another manuscript account of Father Oldcorne says that he fasted and
prayed for three days for the sake of this lady’s conversion to the
Catholic faith; after the third day he fell down from exhaustion, and yet
a fourth day’s fasting followed. Then the lady was converted and “became a
sharer and participant in the incredible fruit which he reaped in that
county,” _i.e._, Worcestershire.——See Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. iv., p.
213.

Father Gerard, in his “_Narrative_” of the Plot, says that the Government
accused Father Oldcorne “of a sermon made in Christmas, wherein he should
seem to excuse the conspirators, or to extenuate their act.” The
Government had this report from a certain Humphrey Littleton, concerning
whom we shall learn more hereafter.

Richard, Thomas, and Dorothy Abington were brothers and sister
respectively to Edward Abington, who suffered, in 1587, as one of the
fellow-conspirators of Anthony Babington, a distinguished and captivating
gentleman from Dethick, a chapelry or hamlet in the Parish of Ashover, in
the County of Derbyshire. In the Parish Church of Ashover may be still
seen monuments to members of the Babington family. (Communicated to me by
my partner, Mr. G. Laycock Brown, Solicitor, of York.)

The history of the romantic but ill-fated Babington conspiracy requires to
be impartially re-written, and to this end diligent search should be made
to find, if possible, the alleged contemporary history of that curious,
ill-starred movement, which is said to have been written by the gifted
Jesuit martyr, “the Venerable” Robert Southwell, S.J., the author of that
exquisitely imaginative and tender poem, “The Burning Babe,” an
Elizabethan gem of the highest genius.——See the “_Oxford Book of English
Verse_;” also Dr. Grossart’s Edition of Southwell’s Poetical Works, and
Turnbull’s Edition likewise.——A good Life of Southwell is a desideratum.]

[Footnote 121:——It is obviously unnecessary either in the former part or
in the latter part of this Inquiry to assign separate logical divisions
for the case of Thomas Ward. His evidence is common to both, and will
appear in due course of this investigation.]

[Footnote 122:——Thomas Winter lodged apparently at an inn known by the
sign of the “Duck and Drake,” in St. Clement’s Parish, in the Strand. This
fact is proved by the testimony of John Cradock, a cutler, who deposed on
the 6th of November, before the Lord Chief Justice Popham, that he had
engraved the story of the Passion of Christ on two sword hilts for Mr.
Rookwood and Mr. Winter, and on a third sword hilt for another gentleman,
“a black man,” of that company, of about forty years of age. The Winter
here referred to, no doubt, was Thomas, not Robert, the elder brother.

For Cradock’s evidence _in extenso_, see Appendix; also for evidence of
Richard Browne, servant to Christopher Wright; also for letter of Popham,
the Chief Justice to Salisbury, as to Christopher Wright; also for
evidence of William Grantham as to purchase by Christopher Wright of
beaver hats at the shop of a hatter, named Hewett.]

[Footnote 123:——This emphatic “surely all is lost,” of Christopher Wright,
is worthy of notice, as indicating the certitude of his frame of mind.
Now, “certitude” is the offspring of knowledge, and therefore of belief,
and when it is not the life is the death of Hope, an emotion Wright had
then clearly abandoned. Hence we may justly infer a special consciousness
on Christopher Wright’s part as to the genesis of the fact that the game
was indeed up, thanks to the infatuated behaviour of his brother-in-law,
Thomas Percy: “up” to all and singular the plotters’ fatal undoing; yet,
after all, traceable back indirectly to Christopher Wright’s own repentant
act and deed! Truly the repentant wrong-doer suffers temporal punishment
by the everlasting Law of Retribution, which lives for ever!]

[Footnote 124:——Was this said by Christopher Wright on Sunday, the 3rd of
November, at the meeting behind St. Clement’s? There is none such
statement recorded by Fawkes in any of his Declarations or Confessions in
the Record Office, London.]

[Footnote 125:——See H. Speight’s “_Nidderdale_” (Elliot Stock), p. 344.
The title of this interesting work is “_Nidderdale and the Garden of the
Nidd; A Yorkshire Rhineland_”: being a complete account, historical,
scientific, and descriptive, of the beautiful Valley of the Nidd.——See
also “_Connoisseur_” for November, 1901.]

[Footnote 126:——Christopher Wright must have known well the great family
of Hildyard, of Winestead, near Patrington. General Sir H. J. T. Hildyard,
K.C.B., is a scion of this ancient house. The Hildyards are mentioned in
the “_Hatfield MSS._”]

[Footnote 127:——This good woman’s evidence proves that on the 5th of
October Wright left her lodgings. Now, my suggestion is that Christopher
Wright, after quitting Spurr Alley, went down into Warwickshire, probably
to Lapworth. That thence he repaired to Hindlip Hall, four miles from
Worcester, to have his interview with Father Oldcorne. Rookwood went to
Clopton, close to Stratford-on-Avon, and not far from both Lapworth and
Hindlip, soon after Michaelmas, _i.e._, the 11th of October (old style).
That about Michaelmas the diplomatic Thomas Warde came into Warwickshire
and Worcestershire to interview Father Oldcorne, and give full assurance
to the Jesuit that he, Warde, as diplomatic go-between, would vouch for
the conveyance of the Letter, on receipt of the same, to the Government
authorities. That the shrewd, diplomatic Warde, all eyes and ears, from
what he was ear-witness and eye-witness of at Lapworth, sent post-haste
for his brother, Marmaduke Ward, of Newbie. Most probably William Ward,
Marmaduke Ward’s son, was at this time on a visit to his uncle Thomas in
London.——See Kyddall’s evidence as to “William Ward, nephew to Mr.
Wright.”——The boy was sent down to Lapworth on November the 5th, the fatal
Tuesday, in the charge of Kyddall. It is possible that William Ward,
however, came up into Warwickshire along with his father and half-sister
Mary. If so, he must have gone up to London between Marmaduke Ward’s going
to Lapworth and the flight of “uncle Christopher” on the 5th; for there is
no evidence that William Ward accompanied Christopher Wright and Kyddall
up to London on Monday, the 28th of October. Kyddall styles William Ward
“nephew to Mr. Wright.” Now, this designation would be, by common usage,
accurate if Christopher Wright married Margaret Ward; otherwise, supposing
William Ward’s mother was Elizabeth Sympson, it would not be; for Ursula
Wright would be naught akin to William Ward.]

[Footnote 128:——Mr. Jackson, “mine host” of “the Salutation,” probably
meant between a week and a fortnight when he said “about a fortnight.”
“Many things had happened since then,” so Mr. Jackson might easily fancy a
longer time had elapsed than was really the case. For Kyddall’s evidence
shows that Christopher Wright was at Lapworth on the 24th October, and
that he did not reach London till the 30th (Wednesday). On Wednesday
Wright may have again called for his quart of sack or for the foaming
tankard of the nut-brown ale, partly with a view to ascertaining whether
or not any tidings had “leaked out” as to the Letter received by
Salisbury, though, as a fact, it was not shown to the King until Friday,
the 1st of November. Christopher Wright’s last visit to “the Salutation”
was, belike, what is styled nowadays “a pop visit.”

At Patrington, in Holderness, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, there is
to-day (May, 1901) an ancient hostelry known by the sign of the “Dog and
Duck.” At this house, I doubt not, both John and Christopher Wright full
many a time and oft had quenched their thirst and heard and discussed the
rural gossip of their day; for Plowland Hall was only about a mile distant
from the “Dog and Duck” and its good cheer. The “Hildyard Arms” and the
“Holderness” Inn, Patrington, may have been likewise, belike, favourite
haunts of theirs, for human nature is pretty much the same generation
after generation. And even our social habits bind us to the Past. What
thoughts crowd into the mind when one makes a visit to the “Dog and Duck,”
at Patrington, within a short walk of Plowland Hall!

It is possible that, between the reigns of Elizabeth and Victoria,
Plowland Hall was reduced to smaller proportions than it had been in the
days of John and Christopher Wright. This was the case with Ugthorpe Hall,
the seat of the Catholic Ratcliffes, near Whitby, situate in a lovely
little dingle or dell amid the Cleveland Moors; also it was the case with
Grosmont House, the seat of the Catholic Hodgsons, near Whitby, situate
near and almost laved by the rushing waters of the Yorkshire Esk.]

[Footnote 129:——Father Henry Garnet knew John Wright, but, according to
Garnet’s testimony, he did not know Christopher Wright, a fact which alone
tends to show that the younger Wright was essentially a subordinate
conspirator; for certainly Father Garnet knew, more or less, all the
principal plotters, namely, Catesby, Thomas Winter, John Wright, Percy,
and even Fawkes, whom he once saw, and to whom he gave letters of
introduction when Fawkes went to Flanders, in 1605, to see Stanley and
Owen.]

[Footnote 130:——Father Hart was captured, along with Father John Percy
(alias Fisher, afterwards famous for his controversy with Archbishop Laud,
who could not “abide” the Jesuits), at the house of Lord Vaux of
Harrowden. Hart was banished for a time, but died in England, in 1650,
aged seventy-two.

Query——Did Hart make any communication to Bellarmine or Eudæmon-Joannes, I
wonder?]

[Footnote 131:——See Jardine’s “_Criminal Trials_;” vol ii., p. 166.]

[Footnote 132:——See Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. i., p. 173, citing
“Gunpowder Plot Book,” No. 177. Eudæmon-Joannes, in his “_Apologia_” for
Henry Garnet, gives reasons why Father Hart, S.J., may have thus acted.
Dr. Abbott, in his “_Antilogia_,” in reply to Eudæmon-Joannes, answers
Joannes at great length.]

[Footnote 133:——Vol. ii., p. 120. It may be here stated that by the Common
Law of England a confessor was obliged to reveal the fact to the
Government in the case of his receiving from a penitent the confession of
the heinous crime of High Treason.

Garnet said that “the priest is bound to find all lawful means to hinder
and discover it, but that the seal of the Confessional must be saved,
_salvo sigillo confessionis_.”——See Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. iv., p.
162.——It seems to me that this statement of Garnet is of the utmost
importance.]

[Footnote 134:——Afterwards the well-known Lord Coke, the famous Editor of
Judge Littleton’s work on “_Tenures_.”——For a diverting account of Coke
and his domestic infelicities see Lord Macaulay’s Essay on “Lord Bacon.”]

[Footnote 135:——Catesby, John Wright, Christopher Wright, and Thomas Percy
were already dead; the two first were slain at Holbeach; Christopher
Wright and Thomas Percy both were wounded unto death at the same place;
but certainly Percy and possibly Christopher Wright actually breathed
their last a day or two afterwards. Query——Where were the bodies of these
four men interred? Were they first quartered as traitors according to law?

Tresham died in the Tower, but his body was quartered, and its members
exposed at Northampton in the usual way.]

[Footnote 136:——Jardine’s “_Criminal Trials_,” vol. ii., p. 135. This of
the learned Attorney-General reminds one of the late Lord Bowen’s witty
saying: “Truth will out; even in an Affidavit!”]

[Footnote 137:——Father Henry Garnet, the chief of the Jesuits in England,
said that he considered the authors of the Gunpowder Treason were not only
deserving of the punishment that some of them had undergone, but even a
more severe one, if possible.——See Foley’s “_Records_.”]

[Footnote 138:——Fonblanque, in his “_Annals of the House of Percy_,” in
the chapter dealing with Thomas Percy, expresses the opinion that the
Government’s behaviour was comparatively mild, regard being had to the
atrocious nature of the designment against the King and Parliament. Such
is candidly my own opinion, and this, although I remember that James’s
Oath of Allegiance and very tyrannical anti-recusant legislation were the
dire consequences of the Plot, which (_me judice_)——far more than the
Marian burnings, the Elizabethan Acts of Supremacy, of Uniformity,
Constructive Treason, and the Spanish Armada, all put together——led
finally to England’s being “bereft” of what to a Roman Catholic is “the
one true faith.”

In regard to James’s Oath of Allegiance (1609), it is to be recollected
that while strict Roman Catholics, whether “Jesuitized” or not, refused to
take the oath, some Catholics thought they might lawfully take it. Among
such was the Arch-priest, Blackwell, who, however, was deposed from his
office, as, in general terms, Rome condemned the oath. “The sting” of this
famous oath was “in its tail;” inasmuch as it not only contained a
disclaimer of the deposing power of the Pope, but declared that the
doctrine of the deposing power was “impious, heretical, and damnable.” It
is remarkable that all the Roman Catholic peers took the Oath of
Allegiance, except Lord Teynham, a collateral descendant of William Roper,
the husband of Margaret More.

“An apostate” Jesuit, named Sir Christopher Perkins, aided in framing this
searching test, so the Government knew exactly how to get the unhappy
papist recusants tightly within their grip. (Perkins, like Sir Edwin
Sandys, a philosophic friend of Sir Toby Matthews, was an incipient
rationalist. Shakespeare may have known Sir Toby Matthews.)

For valuable information (derived from an unpublished manuscript) as to
the working of this Oath of Allegiance, see the late Richard Simpson’s
Article, entitled, “A Glimpse of the Working of the Penal Laws,” in “_The
Rambler_,” vol. vi., p. 401 (1856). If this Article has not been printed
separately, it ought to be. In it occur the names Middleton, Gascoigne,
Ingleby, Whitham, Cholmeley, Vavasour, Dolman, Mennell (or Meynell), and
Catterick, of Yorkshire; Preston and Towneley, of Lancashire; Tichbourne,
of Hampshire; Wiseman, of Essex; Gage, of Sussex; Vaux, of
Northamptonshire; Throckmorton, of Warwickshire; Tregean, of Cornwall;
Plowden, of Shropshire; Morgan, of Monmouthshire; Edwards, of Flintshire;
together with other English and Welsh names, which can be only described
as synonymous with honour, high-mindedness, heroism, and all goodness.]

[Footnote 139:——James Usher[A] (1581-1656), Protestant Archbishop of
Armagh, was an Anglo-Irishman, who was “learned to a miracle,” so the
great English Jurist, Seldon, said.——See “Usher,” “_National Dictionary of
Biography_.”——Usher was, through his mother, who became a Roman Catholic,
a grandson of James Stanihurst (Recorder of Dublin, and Speaker of the
Irish House of Commons), whose family were the patrons of Edmund Campion,
when in Ireland. The great orator wrote his history of that country after
leaving Oxford, and before going to Douay. Usher crossed over to England
in 1602. He held in the University of Dublin, in 1607, a divinity
professorship, worth £8 a year, which was founded by Mr. James Cotterell,
who died in York. Now, I find from the Register of St. Michael-le-Belfrey,
York, that there is a record of the burial of a “Mr. James Cotterell——in
the mynster——the 29th day of August, 1595.” This, I have no doubt, was the
self-same gentleman as the “Mr. Cotterell,” from whose house, on the 29th
day of May, 1579, Thomas Warde made M’gery Slater “his true and honourable
wife;” and the same Mr. James Cotterell as founded the Dublin divinity
professorship. Dr. Usher knew personally Lord Mordaunt, the son of the
Lord Mordaunt who died in the Tower in 1608; and also, according to the
“_National Dictionary of Biography_,” Father Oswald Tesimond. If so, it is
_possible_ that Usher knew personally Lord Mounteagle and Thomas Warde,
and it may be it was from them that he gathered hints upon which he
founded his oracular statement. (I desire here to express my sense of
obligation to the Rev. E. S. Carter, M.A., the Vicar of St.
Michael-le-Belfrey, York, who most kindly and generously gifted me with a
copy of his singularly valuable “_Parish Register_” Part I., edited by Dr.
Francis Collins, from which I have obtained that item of domestic
information so valuable as a leading clue for the purposes of this
Inquiry, namely, the marriage of Thomas Warde, of Mulwaith.)]

[Footnote A: “_The Life of Archbishop Usher_” by Barnard (1656), however,
does not bear out the statement of the Author of the Article on “Usher” in
the “_National Dictionary of Biography_.” For Barnard says that the Jesuit
who debated at Drayton, in Northamptonshire, with Archbishop Usher, was
called “Beaumond,” but that his real name was Rookwood, and that he was a
brother of Ambrose Rookwood, the Gunpowder plotter. The debate was
arranged by Lord Mordaunt (afterwards the Earl of Peterborough), to the
end that his wife, the Lady Mordaunt, a daughter of the Earl of
Nottingham, might become convinced of the soundness of the exacting claims
of the Church of Rome. The upshot was that not only was the Lady Mordaunt
_not_ convinced, but that the Lord Mordaunt himself became a Protestant!
The topics for discussion were:——Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints,
Images, and the Visibility of the Church. According to Barnard, Beaumond
at the third day of meeting sent to excuse himself, saying, “That all the
arguments he had framed within his own head, and thought he had them as
perfect as his _‘Pater noster_,’ he had forgotten and could not recover
them again; that he believed it was the just judgment of God upon him thus
to desert him in the defence of His cause for the undertaking of himself
to dispute with a man of that eminency and learning without the licence of
his superior.”

If it were a Rookwood, probably it was Robert (S.J.)]

[Footnote 140:——The “_Oliver Cromwell_,” by John Morley (Macmillan, 1900),
contains a picture of Usher, taken from the original portrait by Sir Peter
Lely, in the National Portrait Gallery. The face is one of great keenness
and power.]

[Footnote 141:——“Style” in handwriting is its genius, its ethos, its air,
its aroma, its active, its essential principle. “Style is the man.”]

[Footnote 142:——See the Rev. John Gerard’s published fac-simile.]

[Footnote 143:——“Shift off,” no doubt, is meant as “_The Kings Book_”
gives it. (I should like to say that a gentleman, a member of Trinity
College, Cambridge, the Rev. Edmond Nolan, B.A., suggested to me in
August, 1900, when I had the pleasure of meeting him in York, that
probably “shift of” was really “shift off.”)]

[Footnote 144:——This enigmatical sentence partook of the nature of a
clever sleight of mental strategy or of a skilful manœuvre of mental
tactics. In the case of a man of Oldcorne’s combination of the mystical
and the practical, it is probable that there would be wheels within
wheels, and depths below depths, which are beyond the reach of us ordinary
mortals to detect or to fathom. But all this mystery would tend to grip
hold of the attention of the reader by compelling him to peruse and weigh
the document again and again, and so would tend to beat its warning
message into his brains, and so impel beneficent action.]

[Footnote 145:——Gerard’s “_Narrative_” likewise omits the word “good,”
which shows us that the Jesuit was indebted to the Royal Author for his
copy of the document.]

[Footnote 146:——The Mounteagle Letter is a remarkably clever composition.
Its liveliness, its pithiness, its directness, and its force, in spite of
its designed obscurity, gain upon one more and more the oftener one
ponders it. But Father Oldcorne was a very clever man. His combination of
qualities, theoretical and practical, shows him to have been a man of
distinct genius.

In Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. iv., there is, as has been already remarked,
a portrait of this great Yorkshire Jesuit, showing a portion of Old Ouse
Bridge, York, and St. William’s Chapel in the left-hand corner. The face
depicted betokens an intellect of great acumen, a heart of great
benevolence, both controlled by a will strong with the strength of
persistent discipline. The keenness of the countenance portrayed struck a
distinguished Oxford friend of mine forcibly the moment he beheld the
picture, for he remarked forthwith, “He has an acute look!” The
countenance, moreover, as another Protestant friend in effect observed,
has that look of infinite patience, of calm resignation, and of sweet
melancholy, which was so characteristic of the best of the old English
Roman Catholics during “troublesome times.”

This phrase, “troublesome times,” was used in my hearing about the year
1890 by an ancient lady, the late Mrs. Ann Matterson, widow, of
High-field, Bishop Thornton, near Ripon. Mrs. Matterson was an interesting
specimen of the solid, calm, old, Garden-of-the-Soul type of English
Catholic, or as they proudly and touchingly put it, “Catholics that have
never lost the Faith.” My informant said she was the daughter of one
Francis Darnbrough——a family well known in that part of Yorkshire, a
Darnbrough being Wakeman (or Mayor) of Ripon in 1542: that her father’s
branch of the Darnbrough family had regained the Catholic Faith through
marriages with the Bishop Thornton Hawkesworths, hereditary Catholics, who
were formerly tenants under the Lords Grantley and Markenfield, of
Markenfield Hall. Mrs. Matterson furthermore told me on that occasion that
she was distantly connected (through the marriage of her aunt with a Mr.
William Bickerdyke) with one of the York Catholic Martyrs, whose cause of
canonization had been, in 1886, introduced at Rome, namely, with “the
Venerable” Robert Bickerdyke, a gentleman born at Low Hall, near Scotton,
in the Parish of Farnham, near Knaresbrough, and who suffered at the York
Tyburn, in 1586, for being “reconciled to the Church of Rome.” The aged
lady also said that her uncle, William Bickerdyke, had lived at Brampton
Hall, on the River Ure, close to Mulwith: that Brampton Hall had belonged
to the ancient and now extinct Yorkshire Catholic family of Tankard, or
Tancred——one branch of which had their seat at Whixley: and that at
Brampton Hall there had been a place to hide the priest in during
“troublesome times.”

For an interesting work on priests’ hiding-places see “_Secret Chambers
and Hiding-places_,” by Allen Fea (Bousfield, 1901).]

[Footnote 147:——The following letter (1599, probably), which ends with the
words: “I comitte you to sweete Jesus his hole protection,” etc., will be
read with interest. It was written by Richard Collinge, Coolinge, or
Cowling, a Jesuit, who was a native of York, being the son of a certain
Raulf Cowling (then pronounced Cooling), whose name appears in the York
Elizabethan “Subsidy Roll for 1581” as of “St. Olave’s parish and
Belfray’s without Bootham Bar,” and as being assessed in goods at the sum
of £3, which shows him to have been a well-to-do citizen. Raulf Cowling
died a captive in York Castle for his profession of the Catholic Faith.

This valuable letter (for which I am indebted to the great generosity of
Dr. Collins, of Pateley Bridge) was written probably in 1599, and
intercepted by the Government. From the document we learn that Father
Richard Collinge, S.J., was not only a cousin to Guy Fawkes, but also to
the Harringtons, of Mount St. John. William Harrington, the elder, who
harboured “the Blessed” Edmund Campion for ten days in the spring of 1581
at that secluded, tranquil, and lovely spot, Mount St. John, near the
Hambleton Hills, Thirsk, Yorkshire, would be not only father to “the
Venerable” William Harrington, the martyr for his priesthood at the London
Tyburn, but uncle to Father Richard Collinge, and cousin once removed to
Guy Fawkes himself. Guy’s mother married for her second husband Denis
Bainebridge, of Scotton, a Roman Catholic gentleman connected with the
ancient and honourable Roman Catholic family of Pulleyn (Pullein, or
Pulleine), of Killinghall and Scotton, by reason of the marriage of Denis
Bainbridge’s mother to Walter Pulleyn, Esq., as her third husband. We
learn also from Father Collinge’s letter that, belike, Mr. Denis
Bainbridge, Guy Fawkes’ step-father, was one of those gentlemen that are
“ornamental” rather than “useful.” He was, however, certainly a papist,
and his name, together with that of his wife, occurs in Peacock’s “_List
for 1604_,” under the Parish of “Farnham.” There is a blank left for the
name of the wife of Denis Bainbridge, probably because Mr. Peacock could
not decipher the name indicated. I think that Mrs. Denis Bainbridge must
have sprung originally from Nidderdale or Wharfedale, and that she was
akin to the Vavasours, of Weston and Newton Hall, near Ripley; to the
Johnsons, of Leathley; and the Palmes, of Lindley; both of the two last in
that part of the Forest of Knaresbrough which is near to the town of
Otley. But further researches may solve the problem as to the maiden name
of her who gave birth to Guy Fawkes.

Guy Fawkes called himself “John Johnson” when accosted by the Earl of
Suffolk and Lord Mounteagle in the cellar under the House of Lords, on
Monday, the 4th November. Possibly, therefore, his mother was a Johnson.
Query——Does the Rev. Dr. Robert Collyer, of Chicago, U.S.A., know of any
tradition hereon?

    “Good Sir,——I pray you lette me intreate y^{r} favoure and
    frendshippe for my Cosen Germane Mr Guydo Fawks who serves S^{r}
    William (Stanley) as I understande he is in greate wante and
    y^{r} worde in his behalfe may stande him in greate steede. I
    have not deserved aine such curtesie at y^{r} handes as for my
    sake to helpe my friendes but assure yrselfe that yf there be
    aine thinge I can doe for you, you may commande me for the
    respecte I beare to our ould friendshippe but also by this
    meanes you shalle bynde me more unto you. He hath lefte a
    prettie livinge here in his countre which his mother being
    married to an unthriftie husbande since his departure I think
    hath wastied awaye.[A] Yet she and the reste of our friends are
    in good health. I durste not as yet goe to them but this sommer
    I meane to see them all God willinge lette him tell my Cousin
    Martin Harrington that I was at his Brother Henries house at
    _the mounte_ but he was not then at home he and his wyfe are
    well and have manie prettie children. Mr D. Worthington’s
    brother hath wrote a letter unto him desiringe a speedie answere
    he is a good honeste and devoute man I often mete with him for
    nowe I am residente at his Cozens house in that province which
    is fallen to my lotte they expecte therefor for some helpe
    nothinge is wanting but a beginner amonge them so they saye for
    the redemption of Israel. Remember I pray you my commendacons to
    my good and honourable godmother my L. Marie[B] (Percie) and the
    twoe devoute sisters in her companie. Mr Roberte Chambers[C]
    writte to me for his mother, the charge is geven to Mr
    Duckette[D] to inquire for her for she is in his vicinitie tho
    four Sirsbies of his companie as [? are] here very well. Within
    this week I have sene both Cor^{n} & Gould and Batte, to-morrowe
    I shall mete w^{th} John Lassells. Thinges goe well forwarde
    here o^{r} enemies persecute us all more than ever and are in
    particulare feare or rather looke for some what more from o^{r}
    owne malcontents. Thus requesting y^{r} favoure in my suite and
    remembrance in y^{r} beste memories as you shall have myne _I
    comitte you to sweete Jesus his hole protection_ this St John
    Baps^{t} Eve.——Yours in Christe Richard Collinge.

    “Lette D. Kellison know that his brother Valentine is in goode
    healthe and a well wisher but noe Catholike.”

                   Addressed thus:——

                     “All Molto Mag^{co} Sig^{re}
                       il Signiore Guilio
                         Piccioli a
                           Venezia” [_i.e._, Venice].

    (Endorsed) Fugitives.

                         Vol. cclxxi., No. 21.

_Cf._ also a letter of Father Richard Holtby, S.J., of Fryton, Hovingham,
North Riding of Yorkshire, to Father Parsons, dated 6th May, 1609,
ending:——“_I commit you to our sweet Saviour His keeping._”——Foley’s
“_Records_,” vol. iii., p. 9.]

[Footnote A: Guy Fawkes’ little patrimony was situate in Gillygate and
Clifton, then in the suburbs of the City of York.——See Robert Davies’
“_Fawkeses, of York_,” and William Camidge’s pamphlet, “_Guy Fawkes_”
(Burdekin, York).

Miss Catharine Pullein, of Rotherfield, Sussex, and Edward Pulleyn, Esq.,
of York and Lastingham, I have reason to believe, likewise belong to this
ancient family so long settled near Knaresbrough.——See Flower’s
“_Visitation of Yorkshire_,” and Glover’s “_Visitation_,” for a pedigree
of the family in the time of Elizabeth.]

[Footnote B: The Lady Mary Percy was niece to Francis and Mary Slingsby
(daughter of Sir Thomas Percy), of Scriven Hall, whose monuments are still
to be seen in the Knaresbrough Parish Church. Dr. Collins tells me that
“Sirsbie” was then “a Knaresbrough name,” and occurs in the Knaresbrough
Parish Church Registers of that period. The name “Sizey,” which is given
in Peacock’s “_List_,” under “Knaresbrough,” is probably the way “Sirsbie”
was pronounced, just as “subtle” is pronounced “su(b)tle.”]

[Footnote C: I incline to think that this Robert Chambers is the same as
the Robert Chambers mentioned in the “_Douay Diary_,” edited by Dr. Knox
(David Nutt); the name, Robert Chambers, appears as one of the students at
the English College, Rome. Gould and Batte (or Bates) were probably also
the names of priests who had been at this College. Corn may have been
Father Oldcorne, S.J., who came to England as a missionary in 1588 with
Father John Gerard; or he may have been Father Thomas Cornforth, S.J., a
native of Durham, and a great friend of Edward fourth Lord Vaux of
Harrowden, whose mother was Elizabeth Roper, a daughter of Sir John Roper
first Lord Teynham. Father Cornforth became a Jesuit in 1600. He was at
the English College at Rome, and came to England in April, 1599.]

[Footnote D: The Duckette here mentioned was doubtless Father Richard
Holtby, S.J., who succeeded Garnet as Superior of the English Jesuits.
Holtby was born at Fryton——in the Parish of Hovingham, in the Vale of
Mowbray——between Slingsby and Hovingham, where his brother, George Holtby,
lived.——See Peacock’s “_List of Roman Catholics in Yorkshire in 1604_;”
also Foster’s Edition of Glover’s “_Visitation of Yorkshire_.”——It was
Richard Holtby, then a secular priest, who found for Campion secluded,
lovely Mount St. John. I think it is probable that, after being harboured
by Sir William Babthorpe, at Babthorpe Hall or Osgodby (or both), Campion
would proceed through the Vale of Ouse and Derwent to Thixendale, in the
Parish of Leavening, to the house of a Mrs. Bulmer; thence, I opine, to
Fryton, in the Parish of Hovingham; thence to Grimston Manor, in the
Parish of Gilling East; thence through the Vale of Mowbray, by Coxwold, to
Mount St. John, the home of the Harringtons, who seem to have quitted the
place soon after the year 1603, because the Gregory family are found
recorded in the Parish Registers shortly after that date, and they
certainly resided at Mount St. John. (Communicated to me by the Rev. Henry
Clayforth, M.A., Vicar of Feliskirk, near Thirsk.) Near Mount St. John are
Upsal Castle, magnificently situated, and Kirby Knowle Castle (commonly
called New Building). These were ancient Catholic houses, formerly of a
branch of the Constable family. In Kirby Knowle Castle, embosomed in
trees, is still to be seen a priests’ hiding-place. During the
early part of the nineteenth century a skeleton was found in this
hiding-place——possibly that of a priest. (Communicated to me by the late
Very Rev. Monsignor Edward Canon Goldie, of York, about the year 1889.)
George S. Thompson, Esquire, now lives at Kirby Knowle Castle, or New
Building. This gentleman married a Miss Elsley, of York, whose family, I
believe, formerly owned Mount St. John, through their relatives, the
Gregories, who seem to have succeeded the Harringtons, harbourers of the
great Campion, whom Lord Burleigh himself styled “one of the diamonds of
England.” Campion’s guides through Yorkshire were Mr. Tempest (probably of
Broughton Hall, near Skipton-in-Craven), Mr. More (probably of Barnbrough
Hall, near Doncaster, which came to the descendants of Sir Thomas More,
through the Cresacre family), Mr. Smyth (brother-in-law of William
Harrington, the elder), and Father Richard Holtby.——See Simpson’s “_Life
of Campion_,” second Edition (Hodges, London).——In recent years the Walker
family have owned Mount St. John, but I believe that to-day (1901) Sir
Lowthian Bell is the owner. When I visited this historic and ravishing
spot, the Honourable Mrs. Bosville was the lessee, and the writer has a
pleasant recollection of that lady’s gracious courtesy (1898).]

[Footnote 148:——Jardine, in his “_Narrative_” p. 37, has the following
exceptionally interesting paragraph: “Sir William Waad in a letter to Lord
Salisbury, reporting a conversation with Fawkes, says, ‘Fawkes’s mother is
alive and re-married, and he hath a brother in one of the Inns of Court.
John and Christopher Wright were school-fellows of Fawkes and neighbours’
children. Tesimond, the Jesuit, was at that time schoolfellow also with
them. So as this crew have been brought up together.’”——State Paper
Office, Add. Papers No. 481, Jardine (now Record Office).

Probably what Fawkes said was that _he_ (Fawkes) _and Tesimond_ were
neighbours’ children; for John and Christopher Wright’s parents were of
Plowland Hall, in the Parish of Welwick, in Holderness, as we have seen.
Two explanations, however, are possible, which will reconcile this
statement that, after all, Fawkes may have _said that he and the Wrights
were neighbours’ children_. One is that possibly the young Wrights boarded
with some citizen dwelling in St. Michael-le-Belfrey’s Parish, York,
whilst they were at the Royal School of St. Peter, then in the Horse
Fayre, Gillygate (but now in Clifton), York; the other explanation is that
possibly a portion of the fourteen years during which the mother of John
and Christopher Wright was (as we have seen already _ante_) imprisoned for
her resolute profession of the Catholic religion was spent in company with
her husband, Robert Wright, in some private gentleman’s house in the
Belfrey Parish, in the City of York——a thing then very common. For
example, Dr. Thomas Vavasour, a physician, of Christ’s Parish, who——_or
whose wife_, Mrs. Dorothy Vavasour——favoured Campion, and probably
harboured him in 1581, was for a time imprisoned in the house of his
brother. This was probably Mr. Edward Vavasour, a Protestant gentleman,
who resided in “the Belfray” Parish, and was a freeman of York and one of
its tradesmen, being, I find, a hatter. In the York “Subsidy Roll for
1581” Edward Vavasour’s name appears as being assessed in goods at £8. Dr.
Thomas Vavasour’s name does not appear in the Subsidy Roll. I believe he
was then in prison, at Hull, for his persistent refusal to conform to the
Queen’s demands in matters of faith.

Query——Did Father Oldcorne learn his “medicine” from Dr. Vavasour, of the
Parish of Christ? What was the system of medical training in the “golden
days”?]

[Footnote 149:——As revealing the interior state (1) of Oldcorne’s mind in
relation to the Gunpowder enterprise, and (2) of Tesimond’s mind,
respectively, the former stands in sharp contrast with the latter, and
must be pregnant with significance to the discerning and judicious
reader.]

[Footnote 150:——Vol. ii., pp. 285, 286.]

[Footnote 151:——“_Somers’ Tracts_,” Edited by Sir Walter Scott, vol. ii.,
p. 106, says: “Tesimond severely censured Hall (alias Oldcorne) for his
timidity on the occasion, calling him a phlegmatic fellow.”

Dr. Abbott’s “_Antilogia_” confirms Jardine’s report of Tesimond’s
denunciation, _although Foley most improperly omits it_.]

[Footnote 152:——The diverse demeanour on this critical occasion of these
two Jesuits (both natives of the same City, most probably, and
fellow-scholars in the then recently re-founded Grammar School belonging
to York Minster) is very striking, and reminds one of the following
sagacious remark of that clear writer, Dr. James Martineau: “In human
psychology, feeling when it transcends sensation is not without idea, but
is a type of idea.”——“_Essays and Addresses_,” vol. iv., p. 202 (Longmans,
1891).——Such feeling then is _mens cordis_——the mind of the heart.]

[Footnote 153:——Hindlip Hall, about four miles from Worcester, was built
on an eminence in 1572 and the following years of Elizabeth’s reign. It
had a large prospect of the surrounding country, and contained many
conveyances, secret chambers, and priests’ hiding-places, perhaps more
than any house in England. The old Hall of the Abingtons was pulled down
at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The present mansion was built
by the Lord Hindlip’s family, I believe. This demesne is one of the most
historic spots in the kingdom, owing to its memorable associations with
Fathers Garnet and Oldcorne, Garnet having left Coughton at the request of
Oldcorne, in December, 1605. The two Jesuits were nourished, after
Salisbury instituted his search, during seven days, seven nights, and some
odd hours, mainly by broth and other warm drinks, conveyed to them through
a quill or reed passed “through a little hole in a chimney that backed
another chimney into a gentlewoman’s chamber.” Doubtless Mrs. Abington and
Miss Anne Vaux (the devoted friend of Father Garnet, who, along with
Brother Nicholas Owen, accompanied him to Hindlip) had administered this
food to the two famishing Jesuits detained in durance.]

[Footnote 154:——Father Garnet’s house in Thames Street, London, had been
broken up, this place of Jesuit sojourning having become known to the
Government. Consequently, Garnet, at the beginning of September, 1605,
went down to Gothurst, in Buckinghamshire, the seat of Sir Everard and
Lady Digby.

Christopher Wright, it will be remembered, quitted his lodging near Temple
Bar, on October the 5th, and, I opine, then went down to Lapworth, or
Clopton, near Stratford-on-Avon. Catesby was born at Lapworth.

It will be remembered that the Ardens, the relatives of Shakespeare’s
mother, were allied to the Throckmortons, and therefore to Francis
Throckmorton, the friend of Mary Queen of Scots. It is a remarkable
coincidence that the great dramatist was, through both the Ardens and the
Throckmortons, connected with those whose quartered remains he may have
had in his mind’s eye (in addition to those of the Gunpowder conspirators)
when in 1606, in “Macbeth,” he writ of “the hangman’s bloody hands.”

For an account of the Somerville-Arden and the Francis Throckmorton
alleged conspiracies against the life of Queen Elizabeth, see Froude’s
“_History_.” For an account of Shakespeare’s family, including the Ardens,
see Mrs. C. C. Stope’s recent book (Elliot Stock, 1901).]

[Footnote 155:——In the “_Life of Sir Everard Digby_,” by “One of his
descendants” (Kegan Paul), is to be found a vivid and historically
accurate account of the proceedings of November the 5th and afterwards.
The conspirators’ line of flight would be nearly parallel with the London
and North Western Railway from Euston Station to Rugby.]

[Footnote 156:——The country crossed by these unhappy fugitives is
undoubtedly the very “heart of England,” and in spring and summer is one
of the gardens of England. As those then flying, on that gloomy November
day, from the Avenger of blood, were probably almost all men of strong
family affections, and certainly all ardent lovers of their country, how
often must the feelings have welled up in their heart, as from some
intermittent crystalline spring, so beautifully expressed by the old Latin
poet:——

      “Linquenda tellus, et domus, et placens
      Uxor: neque harum, quas colis, arborum
      Te, praeter invisas cupressos,
          Ulla brevem dominum sequetur.”——_Horace._[A]

Alas! Like many another wrong-doer, before and since, they thought of this
too late.

Well-nigh the final glimpse we get of Christopher Wright is from a letter
the conspirator, Thomas Bates, wrote to a priest, which is given in
Gerard’s “_Narrative_,” p. 210. Christopher Wright, we are told by Bates,
on the morning of the day when the powder exploded at Holbeach House,
“flung to Bates, out of a window, £100, and desired him, as he was a
Catholic, to give unto his wife, and his brother’s wife, £80, and take £20
himself:”——Wright owing Bates some money.]

[Footnote A:

      “Land must be left, and home, and charming wife,
      And of these trees which you cultivate,
      None will follow you, their short-lived owner and lord,
          Save the detested cypress.”]

[Footnote 157:——Does Greenway’s “_Narrative_” clearly state how many of
these conspirators received from Tesimond the sacraments? If so, what
sacraments were they?

The Government would have had a clear case of inciting to open rebellion
against Tesimond if they had caught him, but he escaped to Flanders. He
was “a very deep dog,” was Master Tesimond, and no mistake. But he was
wholly under the finger and thumb (_me judice_) of Catesby, which shows
what a powerful man of genius Catesby must have been.

Father Henry Garnet, at his trial, allowed that Tesimond had acted “ill,”
in seeking to rouse the country to open rebellion.]

[Footnote 158:——This lady was Muriel, the widow of John Littleton, who had
been involved in the rebellion of Robert Devereux Earl of Essex. She was
the daughter of Elizabeth’s Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas Bromley.——See
Aiken’s “_Memoirs of the Reign of James I._”

For a true estimate of the second Earl of Essex, see Dr. R. W. Church’s
“Bacon” (Macmillan).——See also Major Hume’s “_Courtships of Queen
Elizabeth_ (Fisher Unwin) and his “_Treason and Plot_” (Nesbit).]

[Footnote 159:——How well-grounded Oldcorne’s suspicions of Littleton were,
and how soundly he had discerned the man’s spirit, is proved from the fact
that after Littleton had been condemned to death for harbouring his
cousin, the Master of Holbeach, and Robert Winter, the Master of
Huddington, Littleton sought to save his life by telling the Government
that Oldcorne had “answered that the [Gunpowder] action was good, and that
he seemed to approve of it.” Littleton also said that “since this last
rebellion he heard Hall [_i.e._, Oldcorne] once preach in the house of the
said Mr. Abington, at which time he seemed to confirm his hearers in the
Catholic cause.”——See Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. iv., p. 219.]

[Footnote 160:——On the 5th of October, 1900, I saw this Declaration by the
courtesy of the authorities at the Record Office, London, and compared it
with the Letter to Lord Mounteagle. Miss Emma M. Walford was present the
while.——See Appendix.]

[Footnote 161:——This luminous definition is by that great writer, Frederic
Harrison.]

[Footnote 162:——It is not less dangerous to indulge in Irony. For an
emphatic proof of this see the “_Life of Lord Bowen_,” p. 115 (Murray), by
Sir H. S. Cunningham, K.C.I.E.

_Cf._ the great Stagyrite’s discountenancing the study by the
inexperienced (the young in years or in character) of the fundamental
grounds of those moral rules that each man must observe if he would
faithfully do his duty from day to day, and “walk sure-footedly” in this
life.——See “_The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle_,” book i. See also
Professor Muirhead’s “_Chapters from the Ethics_” (Murray).

Hector, in “Troilus and Cressida,” act ii., scene 2, speaks of “Young men,
whom Aristotle thought unfit to hear moral philosophy.”]

[Footnote 163:——Jardine thinks that Oldcorne manifests a disposition “to
hesitate and argue about the moral complexion” of the Gunpowder Treason;
and this disposition Jardine regards as exhibiting in Oldcorne,
“apparently a man of humane and quiet character,” a “distorted perception
of right and wrong.”——See “_Criminal Trials_,” pp. 232, 233.

But it is evident that, for the nonce, the London Magistrate’s judicial
temper of mind had deserted him, when he sniffed too closely the moral air
breathed by a Jesuit. For manifest is it that, _e.g._, all acts of
insubordination against an established government are not treasons and
rebellions when that government is hopelessly tyrannical, inhuman, and
corrupt. Nor are all acts of slaughter of human beings acts of wilful
murder. They may be acts of justifiable tyrannicide, as, possibly, in the
case of “the man Charles Stuart, King of England;” and acts of justifiable
homicide, as in the case of every just war, or of every legitimate slaying
upon the gallows.]

[Footnote 164:——In this connection the following words of the conspirator
John Grant should be remembered. After the Jury had found a verdict of
“guilty” against the prisoners, at Westminster Hall, on being asked what
he could say wherefore judgment of death should not be pronounced against
him, Grant replied, “He was guilty of a conspiracy intended, but never
effected.”

_Cf._ Wordsworth’s Sonnet on the Gunpowder Plot, which is very
penetrating.]

[Footnote 165:——Let it be remembered by the gentle, though unreflecting,
reader who is disposed to be unnerved at the sound of the word “Casuist,”
as at the sound of something “uncanny,” that Casuistry is that great
science, so indispensable to statesmen, warriors, and politicians,
especially in these days of democratic self-government, whereby the
electing, self-governing people are told by their own authorized expert
representatives so much of public affairs as it is for the common good
should be known by them, _but no more_. The late Right Hon. W. E.
Gladstone once styled Casuistry “a great and noble science.” Now, the
Marquis of Salisbury, K.G., the present Prime Minister of King Edward
VII., denominated Mr. Gladstone in the House of Lords, when paying his
tribute to the memory of that “king of men,” “a great Christian
statesman.” And justly; for although Mr. Gladstone was himself a master in
the science of Casuistry, the object that science has in view is to forge
a palladium for Truth, and this at the cost of endless intellectual
labour. Casuistry, properly understood, counts all mere intellectual toils
as cheaply purchased, no matter at what cost, provided only that Truth
herself——unsullied Truth——be saved. For, after its kind, in whatever
sphere, Truth is infinitely more excellent than the diamond, neither is
the ruby so lovely; while _partial Truth_, according to its degree, is not
less true than the full orb of Truth.]

[Footnote 166:——This phrase, “sacrilegious murder,” is used by Shakespeare
in “Macbeth,” and so precisely does it express the double crime of the
Gunpowder plotters that I feel certain that from this allusion——as well as
from the evident allusion to the well-known equivocations of Father Henry
Garnet (alias Farmer) before the Privy Council——the great dramatist must
have had the Gunpowder Plot in his mind the whole time he wrote this
finest of his tragedies.

I suggest, too, that the words “The bell invites me. Hear it not, Duncan?
for it is a knell that summons thee to heaven or to hell” are an allusion
to the mysterious warning bell that the plotters thought they heard whilst
working in the mine.——See Jardine’s “_Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot_,”
p. 54.

Compare also Mr. H. W. Mabie’s description of the tragedy of “Macbeth” in
his very recent and valuable “_Life of Shakespeare_” (Macmillan & Co.).
Mr. Mabie’s account sounds in one’s ears like a very echo of a recital of
the facts and purposes of the Gunpowder Plot.]

[Footnote 167:——Now, as the conspirators were engaged in a
joint-enterprise, it must be evident to every clear-minded thinker that
the repentance of _any one of the joint-plotters_ must have shed an
imputed beneficent influence over and upon all the band. For just as no
man liveth only to himself, and no man dieth only to himself, so, by a
parity of reasoning, no man is morally resurrected only to himself.
Therefore, the moment Christopher Wright was, in the pure eyes of Edward
Oldcorne, freed from the leprosy of his sacrilegious-murderous
crime——freed (1) by his owning to the same in word; (2) by his manifesting
sorrow for the same in heart; and, above and beyond all, freed (3) by his
making amends for the same in deed, through the earnest and part
performance he had given and made of his unconquerable purpose of
reversal, in assenting to the proposal of his listener to pen the
revealing Letter——from that moment Christopher Wright, I say, and, through
him (though in a secondary, subordinate, derivative sense), all the
remaining twelve plotters, would rise up, as an army from the dead; would
rise up and stand once more with head erect and in marching order——that
noble posture and manly attitude which is ever the reward, sure and
certain, of a recovered sense of justice, sincerity, truth.]

[Footnote 168:——The Government, it is said, appointed a special Commission
to try Humphrey Littleton and some others at Worcester. The following
quotation is taken from “the Relation of Humphrey Littleton, made January
26th, 1605-6,” written by one Sir Richard Lewkner to the Lords of the
Privy Council. Lewkner was one of the Commissioners.

This sentence is to be specially noted in this “Relation”:——“The servant
of the said Hall [_i.e._, Oldcorne] is now prisoner in Worcester Gaol, and
can, as he thinks, go directly to the secret place where the said Hall
lieth hid.”

Now, what was the name of this servant? It certainly was not Ralph Ashley
(alias George Chambers), Jesuit lay-brother, for he and Nicholas Owen, the
servant of Garnet, who died in the Tower, “in their hands,” whatever that
may mean, were not captured at Hindlip until a few days before their
masters. This treacherous servant of Oldcorne, whoever he was, was
possibly the self-same person who told the Government that Ashley “had
carried letters to and fro about this conspiracy.”——See Gerard’s
“_Narrative_,” p. 271.——The man may have shrewdly suspected it from
something in Ashley’s deportment or from his riding up and down the
country in a way that portended that something unusual was afoot. He may
have been a “weak or bad Catholic” servant of Mr. Abington, whom that
gentleman placed at the special disposal of Oldcorne for a class of work
which could be done by one who was not a Jesuit lay-brother. The
Government had evidently got a clue to something from somebody, because I
find Father Oldcorne making answer in the course of one of his
examinations:——“He sayth he bought a black horse of Mr. Wynter at May next
shall be three yeares, and sould him againe.” Examination, 5th March,
1606.——See Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. iv., p. 224.

According to Foley’s “_Records_,” Oldcorne was indicted at Worcester for——

(1) Inviting Garnet, a denounced traitor, to Hindlip.

(2) Writing to Father Robert Jones, S.J., in Herefordshire, to aid in
concealing Stephen Littleton and Robert Winter, thus making himself an
accomplice.

(3) Of approving the Plot as a good action, though it failed of effect.

Father Jones had provided a place of concealment at Coombe, in the Parish
of Welch Newton, on the borders of Herefordshire, which then abounded in
Catholics. Stephen Littleton and Robert Winter, being captured at Hagley,
in Worcestershire, were executed as traitors according to law. Hagley
House is now the residence of Charles George Baron Lyttelton and Viscount
Cobham.]

[Footnote 169:——A learned Cretan Jesuit, Father L’Henreux, who was
appointed by Pope Urban VIII. Rector of the Greek College at Rome, wrote a
powerful “_Apologia_” in behalf of Father Henry Garnet, which was
published in 1610. In 1613 Dr. Robert Abbott, a Master of Balliol College,
Oxford, and Regius Professor of Divinity at that University, wrote his
“_Antilogia_” as a reply to Eudæmon-Joannes’ “_Apologia_.” It would be a
boon to historical students if both the “_Apologia_” and the “_Antilogia_”
were “Englished” by some competent hand. Abbott was made Bishop of
Salisbury, partly on account of the learning he displayed in his
“_Antilogia_.” He was a Calvinist, and a vigorous writer, being styled
“the hammer of Popery and Arminianism.”

Dr. Lancelot Andrewes (in answer to Cardinal Bellarmine) and Isaac
Casaubon also contributed to the literature of the controversies anent the
Plot, and modern editions of their works with notes are desiderata.
Casaubon is best known, at the present day, through his “_Life_,” by Mark
Pattison; Andrewes, through the late Dr. R. W. Church’s “Lecture,” now in
“_The Pascal_” volume (Macmillan) of that judicious and learned man.]

[Footnote 170:——See Jardine’s “_Criminal Trials_,” vol. ii., p. 120,
quoting “_Apologia_,” p. 200.

Sir Everard Digby was the only conspirator who pleaded “guilty,” and he
was arraigned by a different Indictment from that which charged the rest
of the surviving conspirators.]

[Footnote 171:——My contention is that the conclusion is inevitable to the
discerning mind that the sphinx-like nescience——the face set like a
flint——with which Oldcorne met Littleton’s inquiry, displays indisputable
evidence of a sub-consciousness on Oldcorne’s part, of what? Of a
_special_, _private_, _official knowledge_ (as distinct from a general,
public, personal knowledge) of what had been intended to be the executed
Gunpowder Plot, but which Oldcorne himself had thwarted, and so prevented
everlastingly any one single human creature being able, even for the
infinitesimal part of an instant, to contemplate “_post factum_”——after
the fact——and in the concrete; which, indeed, judged “from the outside,”
and as the bulk of mankind are entitled to judge it, was the only side or
aspect of the baleful enterprise that was of practical and, therefore, to
them, of paramount personal consequence. The conspirator John Grant
expressed the state of the case exactly when he said in Westminster Hall,
after being asked what he could say wherefore judgment of death should not
be pronounced against him, “He was guilty of a conspiracy intended, but
never effected.”]

[Footnote 172:——See Butler’s “_Memoirs of English Catholics_,” vol. ii.,
p. 260. See also Gerard’s “_Narrative_.”——It is possible (according to
Gerard) that Oldcorne may have been even still more cruelly tortured,
namely, as Dr. Lingard says, during five hours for each of five successive
days; but to me, humanly speaking, this is incredible.]

[Footnote 173:——Father Edward Oldcorne and Brother Ralph Ashley are both,
along with others, now styled by Rome, “Venerable Servants of God.” The
Decree introducing the cause of these “English Martyrs,” dated 1886, and
signed by the present Pope, Leo XIII., is kept in the English College at
Rome, where Oldcorne had himself entered as a student a little more than
three hundred and four years previously, namely, in 1582.

Through the truly kind courtesy of the Right Rev. Monsignor Giles, D.D.,
President of the English College, Rome, the writer was privileged to see,
along with the Rev. Father Darby, O.S.B., and some other gentlemen, this
Decree in the afternoon of Saturday, the 13th of October, 1900, the Feast
of St. Edward the Confessor, King of England. In the forenoon of the same
day the first great band of the English Pilgrims for the Holy Year, the
Year of Jubilee, had received, in St. Peter’s, the Papal Blessing, amid
great rejoicing, the apse or place of honour in this, the largest Church
in Christendom, being graciously accorded to these fifteen hundred British
Catholic subjects of Her late Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria.]

[Footnote 174:——As to the precise teaching of the theologians of Father
Oldcorne’s Church respecting the famous dictum of St. Augustine of Hippo,
“_Extra ecclesiam nulla salus_,” see the book of the once celebrated Douay
theologian, Dr. Hawarden, entitled, “_Charity and Truth; or Catholics not
uncharitable in saying that none are saved out of the Catholic Communion,
because the rule is not universal_” (1728). And, again, that great
Yorkshire son of St. Philip Neri, Dr. Frederic William Faber, an
ultramontane papist of the ultramontane papists, has thus recorded his own
potent testimony on this subject in his singularly able and beautiful
work, entitled, “_The Creator and the Creature_,” first edition, p. 368.

Dr. Faber says: “We are speaking of Catholics. If our thoughts break their
bounds and run out beyond the Church, nothing that has been said has been
said with any view to those without. I have no profession of faith to make
about them, except that God is infinitely merciful to every soul; that no
one ever has been, or ever can be, lost by surprise or trapped in his
ignorance; and as to those who may be lost, I confidently believe that our
Heavenly Father threw His arms round each created spirit, and looked it
full in the face with bright eyes of love in the darkness of its mortal
life, and that of its own deliberate will it would not have Him.”]

[Footnote 175:——Either from the phonograph or even the shorthand scribe.]

[Footnote 176:——Are the Indictments in existence of Father Oldcorne and
Ralph Ashley, who seem to have been tried in the Shire Hall, Worcester, at
the Lent Assizes of 1606? If so, they and extracts from any Minute Books
still extant bearing on the subject would be of great interest and value
to the historical Inquirer, if published.]

[Footnote 177:——Oldcorne realized experimentally, in the final action of
the great tragedy, what it means, as Goethe has it, for a man “to adjust
his compass at the Cross.”

And than Oldcorne no human creature ever lived that had a better right to
anticipate those magnificent words of triumph over death of one of
Yorkshire’s supremest geniuses: “_If my barque sink, ’tis to another
sea._”]

[Footnote 178:——In Morris’s “_Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers_,”
third series, p. 325, we read: “In 1572 John Oldcorne is one of the four
sworn men against the late rebels and other evil-disposed people suspected
of papistry, for St. Sampson’s parish.”

Again, under date April 10th, 1577, we read: “And now also John Oldcorne,
of St. Sampson’s parish, who cometh not to the church on Sundays and
holidays, personally appeared before these presents, and sayeth he is
content to suffer the churchwarden of the same parish to take his
distresses for his offence.”

There is also for January, 1598, the following pathetic entry concerning
the mother of Father Oldcorne:——

“Monckewarde Saint Sampson’s, Elizabeth Awdcorne, alias Oldcorne, old and
lame a recusant.”

York is now divided into six wards for the purposes of municipal
government, namely: Bootham, Monk, Micklegate, Walmgate, Guildhall, and
Castlegate. Until the nineteenth century there were only the first four
wards, which, indeed, corresponded to the four great Gates or chief Ways
for entering the City.

The writer remembers with pleasure that, now some years ago, his
fellow-citizens of Micklegate Ward, on the west side of York, did him the
honour of electing him to occupy a seat, for the term of three years, in
the Council Chamber of his native City, which, he is proud to remember,
was the City wherein first drew the breath of life Edward Oldcorne; one,
he has every reason to believe, whose keen, sane mind, and ready, skilful
hand were instrumental, under Heaven, in penning that immortal document
which saved the life, certainly, of King James I., of His Royal Consort
Queen Anne of Denmark, of Henry Prince of Wales, and Charles Duke of York,
afterwards King Charles I., as well as the life of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, the Gentlemen of the House of Commons, and many Foreign
Ambassadors, in the year of grace 1605, now well-nigh three centuries ago.

As some readers may be, perchance, interested in a few particulars
concerning the ancient Parish of St. Sampson, which is in the heart of the
City of York, close to the Market Place, I propose to mention a few. First
of all, then, the ancient parish church which bears the name of the old
British Saint, St. Sampson, is pre-eminently one of “the grey old churches
of our native land,” whereof in the reign of King Henry V. (Shakespeare’s
ideal English monarch) there were in the City of York and its suburbs no
less than forty-one, though in the reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth the
number was reduced. That forty-one was the number originally we know from
a subsidy of Parliament which granted to King Harry, in 1413, two
shillings in the pound leviable on all spirituals and temporals in the
realm for carrying on the then war with France.——See Drake’s “_Eboracum_,”
p. 234.

St. Sampson’s Church consists of a lower nave and chancel with north and
south aisles to both, extending nearly to the west base of the tower. The
architecture of the church is in the decorated and the perpendicular
styles. King Richard III., in 1393, granted the advowson of this church to
the Vicars Choral of York Minster. The present Vicar (1901) is the Rev.
William Haworth, one of the Vicars Choral of the Minster, to whom I am
indebted for information respecting the Registers of St. Sampson’s Church
and the Church of Holy Trinity, King’s Court, or Christ’s.

Mr. Councillor John Earle Wilkinson, “mine host” of the “Garrick’s Head”
Hotel, Low Petergate, York, who was the Guardian of the Poor for the old
Parish of St. Sampson (as he is now the Guardian for Ward No. 2 of the
United Parish of York), kindly informed me on the 10th July, 1901, that
the following streets are in the Ecclesiastical Parish of St. Sampson.
Hence we may conclude that it was in a house in one of these streets that
were spent the earliest years of Edward Oldcorne, the son of John
Oldcorne, Tiler, and of Elizabeth, his wife:——

(1) Church Street, a street between the Market Place (which Market Place
is formed by St. Sampson’s Square and Parliament Street) and Goodramgate
towards Monk Bar. Here is St. Sampson’s Church.

(2) Patrick Pool, to the east of St. Sampson’s Church.

(3) The right-hand side of Newgate, leading into High Jubbergate (formerly
Jews-Gate).

(4) Little Shambles and Pump Yard.

(5) That part of Parliament Street on the south-west which includes the
site of the York City and County Bank.

(6) That part of Parliament Street on the north-east which includes Mr. F.
H. Vaughan’s “Clock” Hotel.

(7) Silver Street, to the west of St. Sampson’s Church, connecting Church
Street with High Jubbergate.

(8) On the north side of Church Street, opposite St. Sampson’s Church,
Swinegate.

Finkle Street.

(9) Back (or Little) Swinegate, between Swinegate and Finkle Street.

(10) That part of Little Stonegate which includes the back part of the
premises of Messrs. Myers and Burnell, Coachbuilders, and the Model
Lodging House opposite.

(11) Coffee Yard.

(12) The top part of Grape Lane (leading into Low Petergate), which
adjoins Coffee Yard and the north end of Swinegate.

(13) St. Sampson’s Square (forming part of the Market Place).

Some of the old Elizabethan dwelling-houses and shops in these streets and
yards, built of oak (doubtless from the famous Galtres Forest, northward
of York), with their projecting stories of lath and plaster, happily, are
still standing, “rich with the spoils of time,” and the eyes of Edward
Oldcorne must have, many a time and oft, gazed upon them at that momentous
period of life when “the child is father of the man.”

Besides these ancient dwelling-houses and shops, relics of the Past, the
grey old Parish Church of St. Sampson must have been one of the sights
which, from the earliest dawn of reason, entered into the historic
“imagination” of the great Elizabethan Englishman, who was destined to
become a learned student at Rheims and Rome and “to see much of many men
and many cities” before he came to England, in the year 1588, the year of
the Spanish Armada.

Another familiar object to the future honoured friend and trusted
counsellor of Mr. and Mrs. Abington and the highest in the land would be
also the old Market Cross, which stood in the middle of St. Sampson’s
Square, then, and even still sometimes, called Thursday Market.——See
Gent’s “_York_.”

The fact that during the month of December, 1901, the claim of the ancient
City of York to be specially represented, through its Lord Mayor, on the
occasion of the forthcoming Coronation of His Most Gracious Majesty King
Edward VII., was considered by the Court of Claims next after the claim of
the City of London, is interesting evidence to show that the City of
Edward Oldcorne is still counted the second City of the British Empire,
notwithstanding that such claim was disallowed.]

[Footnote 179:——Sir Edward Hoby was a man of parts, a learned diplomatist
and able Protestant controversialist.——See “_National Dictionary of
Biography_.”]

[Footnote 180:——Nichols’ “_Progresses of James I._,” pp. 584-587. (The
italics are mine.)]

_Sub-note to Note 178._

In 1572 John Oldcorne, we are told, was one of the four “sworn men against
the late rebels and other evil-disposed people suspected of papistry, for
St. Sampson’s parish.” This is very interesting; for on the 22nd day of
August, 1572, at three o’clock in the afternoon, “the Blessed” Thomas
Percy, “the good Erle of Northumberland,” was beheaded in The Pavement, at
the east end of All Saints’ Church. He was buried in old St. Crux Church,
adjoining The Pavement; and it is possible, I conjecture, that John
Oldcorne may have been sworn in as a special constable to help to keep the
peace on the occasion of the beheading of the Earl, who held the hearts of
nine-tenths of the people of York and Yorkshire, as well as of “the North
Countrie” generally, at the time of his long and deeply lamented death.

The York “Tyburn,” in the middle of the Tadcaster High-road, opposite Hob
Moor Gate, Knavesmire, was abolished at the beginning of the nineteenth
century.

John Oldcorne, the father of Father Edward Oldcorne, is described as a
Bricklayer as well as a Tiler. I think he was a “Master,” in partnership,
maybe, with his brother, Thomas Oldcorne, a great sufferer for the
Catholic Faith, whose wife, Alice, died——a prisoner for her conscience——in
the Kidcote, on Old Ouse Bridge, and whose body was buried on Toft Green,
near to Micklegate Bar.——See Foley’s “_Records_,” vol. iv.——The name
Oldcorne is not now found in the City of York.




                                 FINIS.


A task at once pleasurable and laborious is at length accomplished, and
the writer humbly sends forth into the world his modest contribution
towards the literature of the Gunpowder Treason Plot.

Errors, whether in matters of Fact or in points of Reasoning and Argument,
the author will be gratefully obliged by his readers at an early date
pointing out to him.

Should his book be read by any of our kith and kin in His Most Gracious
Majesty’s Dominions beyond the seas, whom “the stern behests of Duty” have
bidden “with strangers make their home,” as well as by professed students
of History and the general citizen reader in the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, then will be the writer’s joy great indeed.

The author desires to tender his respectful and cordial thanks to the
Authorities of the following Libraries for the use of their valuable, and
not seldom invaluable, works:——(1) The Minster Library, York; (2) the
Minster Library, Ripon; (3) the British Museum, London; (4) the Free
Library, York; (5) the Free Library, Leeds; (6) the Free Library, Preston;
(7) the Free Library, Wigan; and (8) the Albert Library, York.

Also the like thanks to the following persons of divers nationalities,
creeds, and parties. Their aid and assistance have been of various kinds:
sometimes the loan of rare and costly books for a twelve-month together;
in certain cases, advice and counsel; in other cases, the revising of
proof sheets, the translation from foreign tongues, and the transcription
of Elizabethan and Jacobean documents:——

To the Rev. F. A. Russell, York, formerly of India; the Rev. Edmond Nolan,
B.A., St. Edmund’s House, Cambridge; the Rev. Richard Sharp, S.J.,
Skipton-in-Craven, Yorks.; the Rev. George Machell, York; the Rev. Louis
Tils, York, formerly of Germany; the Rev. H. Rawlings, M.A., York,
formerly of South Africa; the Rev. T. Harrington, Brosna, Co. Kerry,
Ireland; the Rev. H. A. Geurts, Bishop Thornton, Ripon, Yorks., formerly
of Holland; the Rev. E. J. Hickey, Lartington, North Yorks.; A. E.
Chapman, LL.D., York; A. Neave Brayshaw, B.A., LL.B., York; Oswald C. B.
Brown, York, Solicitor (author of “_The Life of the Venerable Richard
Langley: a Martyr of the Yorkshire Wolds_”); G. Laycock Brown, York,
Solicitor; Miss Emma M. Walford, 45, Bernard St., Russell Square, London,
W.C.; Miss Georgina Kirby, York House, Middlesbrough, Yorks.; Mr. Ralph
Currie, York; and Mr. John Sampson, York.

Lastly, to all other kind friends who may have rendered assistance, but
whose names do not occur _either_ in the work itself _or_ in the
above-mentioned list, the writer begs to offer his sincere
acknowledgments.


                               PRINTED BY
            THE YORKSHIRE HERALD NEWSPAPER COMPANY, LIMITED,
                                 YORK.

       *       *       *       *       *




                        TRANSCRIBER’S AMENDMENTS


Transcriber’s Note: Blank pages have been deleted. Footnotes with
alphabetic tags now generally follow the referencing paragraph. Footnotes
with numeric tags are located near the end of the work. The publisher’s
inadvertent omissions of important punctuation have been corrected.
Duplicative book and chapter front matter has been removed.

The following list indicates any additional changes made. The page number
represents that of the original publication and applies in this etext
except for footnotes and illustrations since they may have been moved.

  Page          Change

    2  See Notes at End of Text, indicated by figures in ( )[[ ]]
    2  ['Local' footnotes are indicated with A-Z, not numerals.]
  168  This lady was the the[Delete.] above-named Dowager
  174  Anglo-Saxon compeers as belonging [to] a comparatively inferior
  176  his aid for the rebellion.[Omitted footnote tag added here.]
  192  the point of a needle?”[Omitted footnote tag added here.]
  248  owned by the Rev. Charles Slingsby Slingsby[Delete.],
  251  and from tyme to to[Delete.] tyme,
  306  William Grauntham[Grantham].
  387  Again; Fawkes, we are told by Endæmon[Eudæmon],

       *       *       *       *       *