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.]