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.