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.]