Appendix J.

Gunpowder Plot Books— Part I., No. 75.

Orhumble dutyes remembred. We have this day apprehended & deliwed to his Matymessenger Berrye the bodie of MrisGraunt, 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 MrJohn Wright, and have thought fitt to take this opportunitie to send vpp to yorhonors’ wththe said MrisGraunt aswell the said MresPercye 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.

MrSherief taketh care & charge of these woomens children vntill yorhonors pleasures be further knowne.

ffrom Warr this xijthof November 1605

yorhonors most humbly at comaundmentin all service.

Richard VerneyJo: fferrersWmCombeBar: Hales

(Endorsed) 12 9bre 1605SrRych: Verney and other Justices to me(Addressed) To the right honorable my especyall goodLord the Earle of Salisbury & the rest ofhis Matymost honorable privie Counsaylewthall speed.

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 wthhim but this Vaux[B]nor to returne wthhim This paris did Attend for him back at Gravelyng[C]sixe weekes yf Cause quier there are severall proffs of this matter.

[A]Contraction for “man.”

[B]I.e., Faux.

[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 toGravelyng and others.

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.

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 theVicar 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 therouteI should go, if I were cycling, I should take

Worcester to Stratford-on-Avon23miles.Stratford-on-Avon to Warwick8”Warwick to Daventry19”Daventry to Northampton12”Northampton to Newport Pagnell12”——74miles.——

“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.”

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.,rethe 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 Droitwich31⁄4miles.Do. from Coughton, near Alcester, Warwickshire171⁄2”Do. from Lapworth, Warwickshire30”Worcester from Northampton64”

“Yours faithfully,George Carmichael,Lieut.-Col., and Chief Constableof Worcestershire.”

“H. H. Spink, Jun., Esq., Solicitor,Coney Street, York.”

Extract from York Corporation House Book— Vol.xxviii., f. 82.

4 Jany vicesimoquinto 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 tenorwherof 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 wthin this orRealme and other our dominions haith ben notoriouslie knowen unto all orSubjects 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 orSubjects 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 detestabledoctrine they have and do dailie repare over disguised and in most secreet manner into this orRealme and especiallie into this orCounty 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 orpeople. 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 orRealme of Irland as by the treasonable actions of others wthin 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 orwholl 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 orexpectacon 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 yorduties for some other respect than for want of good affection to our service. We have thought good therforoftsons to renew unto yow the remembrance of yorduties, 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 wthin yorseverall 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 wthin 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 wthaccording to orLawes wherein ormeaning 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 orfavor.Geven under orSignet at orCyttie of Yorke the last of December 1582 the 25thyeare of orreigne.

And by hir Counsell.

(Addressed to) To our right trustie and welbeloved the Maiorof our Cittie of Yorke and to the Aldermen his bretheren. (On the back.)

MrHarbart MrRobinson Maister Maltby MrAppleyard MrTrew & MrMay, 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]

[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.

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 GeorgeWynterson and heyr ofRobert Winterof 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.

[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 backby the omnipotence of the impossible; anybody can seethatwho 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.

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 backby the omnipotence of the impossible; anybody can seethatwho 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.

[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 ofQueen 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 whatthatis.The ideas of Truth and Right imply a oneness orunity. 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 theoriginating 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 becausefirstthey 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!

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 whatthatis.

The ideas of Truth and Right imply a oneness orunity. 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 theoriginating 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 becausefirstthey 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!

[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).

[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 leftthe religion of his ancestors, though his wife (néeTresham) 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.

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 leftthe religion of his ancestors, though his wife (néeTresham) 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.

[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 ofhis 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 thattheyconfer nobility upon theirrace.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).

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 thattheyconfer nobility upon theirrace.

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).

[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).

[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.

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.

[7]— The letters “wghe” are not, at this date (5th October, 1900), clearly discernible.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[10]— Fawkes was apprehended at “midnight without the House,” according to “A Discourse of this late intended Treason.” Knevet havinggiven 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!

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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

See Supplementum for account of my visit to Plowland (or Plewland) Hall, in the Parish of Welwick, Holderness, on the 6th of May, 1901.

[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.”

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.”

[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.

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.

[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.)

[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.)

[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 ownavowal, 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 anovus 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 thatcarpe 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 worldhasmade 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.)

Back to Index Next