Lord Monteagle was of very distinguished and ancient race, being the
eldest son of Edward third Baron Morley of his line (heir of a younger
branch of the Lovels of Tichmersh) and Elizabeth, only daughter and heir
of William Stanley, Lord Monteagle. Born in 1574, he succeeded his
mother as Lord Monteagle, and his father in 1618 as Lord Morley. His
wife was Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Thomas Tresham, and his sister Mary
was the wife of Mr Thomas Abington of Hendlip Hall.
The chief interest attaching to Lord Monteagle concerns the famous
letter: and the two questions requiring answer are--Who wrote it? and,
Was the recipient a party to the plot?
The second question, which may be first dealt with, must be answered
almost certainly in the affirmative. Nay, more, Lord Monteagle was not
only a party to the Gunpowder Plot, but there is strong reason to
believe that in conjunction with Lord Salisbury and others, he got up a
counter-plot for its discovery. The laying of the letter before Lord
Salisbury on the night of October 24th [Note 1], was probably not the
first intimation which Salisbury had received, and assuredly not the
first given to Lord Monteagle. The whole catena of circumstances, when
carefully studied, shows that the episode of the letter was a
cleverly-devised countermarch, designed at once to inform the public and
at the same time to give a warning to the conspirators. The party got
up at Hoxton, where Lord Monteagle was not living; the mysterious
delivery of the letter; the placing of it in the hands of Thomas Ward, a
known confidant of the conspirators: these and other circumstances all
tend to one conclusion--that Monteagle was acting a part throughout, and
that it was in reality he who gave warning to them, not they to him. If
the conspirators had taken his warning, they might all have escaped with
their lives; for the vessel designed to bear Fawkes abroad as soon as he
should have fired the mine was lying in the river, and there was
abundant time for them all to have made good their escape, had they not
foolishly tried to retrieve their loss at Dunchurch. This is made more
certain by the fact that the Government were, as Garnet remarked,
"determined to save Lord Monteagle," and that any reference in the
confessions of the prisoners which tended to implicate him was
diligently suppressed. In one examination, the original words ran,
"Being demanded what other persons were privy [to the plot] beside _the
Lord Mounteagle_, Catesby," etcetera. The three words in italics have
been rendered illegible, by a slip of paper being pasted over them, and
a memorandum in red ink made on the back. Time, however, has faded the
red ink, and the words are again visible. (Criminal Trials, page 67.)
Garnet, too, confessed that "Catesby showed the [Pope's] breves to my
Lord Mounteagle at the time when Mr Tresham was with him at White
Webbs." (Additional Manuscript 6178, folio 161.) These facts raise a
doubt whether the whole story of Tresham's anxiety to warn Lord
Monteagle was not false, and a mere blind to cover something else, which
perhaps is not now to be revealed. It remains to inquire, Who wrote the
letter? It has been ascribed to three persons beside Tresham: Percy,
Mrs Abington, and Anne Vaux. If it really were a part of the
Government counterplot, as is very probable, it was not likely to be any
of them. If not so, Tresham seems the most likely, though it is
customary to charge Mrs Abington with it. Lord Monteagle would at once
have recognised his sister's writing, and perhaps that of her intimate
friend, his wife's cousin, Anne Vaux. Why Percy should be supposed to
have written it is a mystery. The handwriting is undoubtedly very like
that of Anne Vaux; indeed, for this reason I suspected her as the writer
on the first investigation, and before I knew that she had ever been
charged with it. Dr Jardine votes decidedly in favour of Tresham. The
real truth respecting this matter will in all probability never be known
in this world.
Lord Monteagle was in the Essex rebellion, for which he was fined and
imprisoned until the end of 1601; but he was in high favour with King
James, probably owing to his strenuous efforts to secure his succession.
He died in 1622, leaving three sons and three daughters.
A characteristic letter from this nobleman is yet extant, which shows
his style and tone, and has not, I believe, been printed. It is that
summoning Catesby to Bath, and if it were written in 1605, rather
confirms the supposition that the writer was an accomplice. Dr Jardine
and others suppose it, I know not why, to belong rather to 1602. It
runs as follows:--
"To my loving kinsman, Rob Catesbye Esquire, give these. Lipyeat. If
all creatures born under the moons sphere cannot endure without the
elements of aier and fire In what languishment have we led our life
since we departed from the dear Robin whose conversation gave us such
warmth as we needed no other heat to maintain our healths: since
therefore it is proper to all to desire a remedy for their disease I do
by these bind the by the laws of charity to make thy present aparance
here at the bath and let no watery Nimpes divert you, who can better
live with[out] the air and better forbear the fire of your spirit and
Vigour then we who accumpts thy person the only sone that must ripen our
harvest. And thus I rest. Even fast tied to your friendshipp, William
Mounteagle." (Cott. Manuscript Titus, B. 2, folio 294.)