[A]It is quite clear to my mind that Christopher Wright, the revealing plotter, must have himself expressly freed his confessor from the obligation toabsolutesecrecy, which the seal of the Confessional would impose. It may have been that Oldcorne made this a condition precedent to his agreeing to pen the Letter. Or, it may have been that Wright’s own strong Catholic instincts and natural sense of justice suggested the necessity of this course. As already remarked, a natural secret, that is, a something that is not a sin, which alone forms matter for Sacramental Confession, mayindirectlycome under the seal, if the confessor promises expressly or impliedly to accept the natural secret under the obligations of the seal. But in Wright’s case there could be no question of his communication being in the nature of a natural secret protectedindirectlyby the seal by reason of Oldcorne’s promise. And thoughfreedby the penitent from the duty of absolute secrecy, Oldcorne would be still under a positive dutyof discretion.
[A]It is quite clear to my mind that Christopher Wright, the revealing plotter, must have himself expressly freed his confessor from the obligation toabsolutesecrecy, which the seal of the Confessional would impose. It may have been that Oldcorne made this a condition precedent to his agreeing to pen the Letter. Or, it may have been that Wright’s own strong Catholic instincts and natural sense of justice suggested the necessity of this course. As already remarked, a natural secret, that is, a something that is not a sin, which alone forms matter for Sacramental Confession, mayindirectlycome under the seal, if the confessor promises expressly or impliedly to accept the natural secret under the obligations of the seal. But in Wright’s case there could be no question of his communication being in the nature of a natural secret protectedindirectlyby the seal by reason of Oldcorne’s promise. And thoughfreedby the penitent from the duty of absolute secrecy, Oldcorne would be still under a positive dutyof discretion.
I say advisedlyaforetime unhappy question.
For, I respectfully maintain that the ratiocinative faculty to-day, of a surety, demonstrates that in the majestic cause of impartial, severe, historical truth, the act of this frail, erring child of man, Humphrey Littleton, has proved itself now to be thrice happy.
“O felix culpa!” “O happy fault!” Out of bitterness is come forth sweetness.
Humphrey Littleton was not pardoned by King James, his Privy Council, and Government, notwithstanding the invaluable disclosures he had made.[168]
This high-born English gentleman was executed at Redhill, Worcester, on the 7th day of April, 1606, along with (among others) another open rebel, John Winter, thehalf-brother of Robert Winter and Thomas Winter, the Gunpowder traitors.
Humphrey Littleton, we are told by his contemporary, Father John Gerard, asked forgiveness of Father Oldcorne more than once, and said that he had wronged him much.
He also asked forgiveness of Mr. Abington, who, though condemned to death, was ultimately pardoned at his wife’s and Lord Mounteagle’s intercession.
Humphrey Littleton “died with show of great repentance, and so with sorrow and humility and patient acceptance of his death made amends for his former frailty and too unworthy desire of life.”
Stephen Littleton, the Master of Holbeach — who had likewise joined in the rebellion in the Midlands, under Sir Everard Digby, which grew out of the Gunpowder Plot, although a distinct movement from it, albeit connected with the Plot — was made a public example of in his native County of Staffordshire,in terrorem, as a terror to evil-doers: this unfortunate English gentleman suffering the extreme penalty of the law, according to his contemporary, the aforesaid Father John Gerard, in the ancient town of Stafford.
We now come to the second and latter part of Father Oldcorne’s Declaration to Humphrey Littleton, from the whole of which Declaration Littleton drew the conclusion that Oldcorne answered “the action was good, and seemed to approve of it.”[A]
[A]By thus disclaiming knowledge of “these” — that is, the object the plotters had in view in their nefarious Plot, and the means they purposed having recourse to, to attain their object — Oldcorne deliberately throws a veil over the full orb of truth. But Littleton might have discerned, had he taken the trouble so to do, that Oldcorne was equivocating under a sense of prior obligation; and the clue was afforded by the person of the speaker and the tenour of the answer itself. In the former part of the Declaration, by leaving Littletonin abstracto, he had thrown a veil over a portion of the full orb of truth. Just as the silvery moon, on some tempestuous night, may be first partially obscured, by a thick, dark, driving cloud, and then afterwards wholly obscured, from the view of the gazer.
[A]By thus disclaiming knowledge of “these” — that is, the object the plotters had in view in their nefarious Plot, and the means they purposed having recourse to, to attain their object — Oldcorne deliberately throws a veil over the full orb of truth. But Littleton might have discerned, had he taken the trouble so to do, that Oldcorne was equivocating under a sense of prior obligation; and the clue was afforded by the person of the speaker and the tenour of the answer itself. In the former part of the Declaration, by leaving Littletonin abstracto, he had thrown a veil over a portion of the full orb of truth. Just as the silvery moon, on some tempestuous night, may be first partially obscured, by a thick, dark, driving cloud, and then afterwards wholly obscured, from the view of the gazer.
“And thus I applied it to this fact of Mr. Catesbie’s; it is not to be approved or condemned by the event, but by the proper object or end, and means which was to be used in it;and because I know nothing of thes, I will neither approve it or condeme it, but leave it to god and ther owne consciences, and in this wary sort I spoke to him bycause I doubted he came to entrap me; and that he should take noe advantage of the words whither he reported them to Catholics or Protestants.”[B]
[B]Oldcorne’s full answer to Littleton would be, “and because I know nothing of these [that I am at liberty to tell you, Humphrey Littleton”]:these last words being interiorly expressed, perhaps.
[B]Oldcorne’s full answer to Littleton would be, “and because I know nothing of these [that I am at liberty to tell you, Humphrey Littleton”]:these last words being interiorly expressed, perhaps.
Now, in the first place, let it be remembered that these words were spokennot before but afterWednesday,the 6th of November, when, as Oldcorne himself has left on record, and which indeed we have seen already, Father Tesimond came from Coughton to Huddington, and from Huddington to Hindlip; and when “he said that there were certain gentlemen that meant to have blown up the Parliament House, and that their plot was discovered a day or two before.”[A]
[A]Father Oldcorne says that Tesimond reached Hindlip at two o’clock. Now, as Tesimond camefromHuddington, where, already, he had had an interview with Catesby, the conspirators must have reached Huddingtonbeforetwo o’clock; probably they reached the mansion-house at twelve o’clock mid-day. Bates says that Tesimond was at Huddington half-an-hour; but Jardine says two hours. Query, what does “Greenway’s MS.” say?
[A]Father Oldcorne says that Tesimond reached Hindlip at two o’clock. Now, as Tesimond camefromHuddington, where, already, he had had an interview with Catesby, the conspirators must have reached Huddingtonbeforetwo o’clock; probably they reached the mansion-house at twelve o’clock mid-day. Bates says that Tesimond was at Huddington half-an-hour; but Jardine says two hours. Query, what does “Greenway’s MS.” say?
Again; Fawkes, we are told by Eudæmon-Joannes,[169]explained at the Trial of the conspirators why the prisoners pleaded “‘Not guilty,’ which was that the Indictment contained ‘many other matters, which we neither can, nor ought to countenance by our assent or silence,’ though none of them meant to deny that which they had not only voluntarily confessed before,but which was quite notorious throughout the realm.”[170](The italics are mine.)
Now, seeing that Oldcorne told Littleton that “he knew nothing” as to the “end or object” the plotters had in their Plot, nor “the means which was to be used in it,” when the whole of England, not to say Europe, had been ringing with a knowledge ofnot only the end or object, but also the means, for the last past few days, and perhaps weeks, at the very least, I draw this inevitable conclusion: —
That because Oldcorne was a man as morally good as he was intellectually clever,he must have met his questioner’s inquiry with this nescience, by reason of some antecedent, official, and professional duty; or, at least,semi-official and quasi-professional duty, which had been imposed upon him, ab extra, from the outside, prior in time to Humphrey Littleton’s coming to him to be resolved of his doubts as to the moral rightness or wrongness of the Gunpowder Plot.[171]
In other words, that Oldcorne felt instinctively that he could recognise ina private individual, like Humphrey Littleton, no valid right, title, claim, or demand to call forth an answer, which might discover or disclose to Littleton the secret of the repentant Christopher Wright.
Yea, neither in Justice, nor in Equity, nor in Honour could the grand Yorkshireman betray to Humphrey Littleton the secret of trust that in a semi-official, quasi-professional mode or fashion had come to be entrusted to him by another, as that other’s private property and exclusive possession.
That other was Christopher Wright, the penitent revealing plotter, and whomsoever he had, explicitly or implicitly, willed should share a knowledge of the mighty secret. But to none other or others beside. And certainly not to men probably prompted by sinister motives and crooked aims.
For a knowledge of truth in action, truth in the result, truth in the event, truth in the external, and every other kind of truth in relation to the Gunpowder[A]Plot,integral or partial, was irrevocably held in trustby Edward Oldcorne, not for Humphrey Littleton, or the like of him, but for Christopher Wright and men that were true of heart.
[A]The end does not justify the means: neither can a man or a woman do evil that good may come.But Oldcorne would contend that, in perfect Reason, Truth may be concealed, subject to certain limitations and, regard being had to person, time, and circumstance, the clue-affording possibilities; and this whether partial truth or whole truth,in pursuance of a prior and superior moral obligation. And so would say all modern diplomatists and commanders in the field, however conscientious and upright they might be, unless they wished to court defeat, or to give away their Country, and (if justice be meted out to them) to be cashiered. Now,unity at all times and in all places must prevail. For all men are subject to the one Moral Law of Right Reason, and nowhere will you find men without souls, notwithstanding that certain members of the English middle classes sometimes seem to labour under a delusion to the contrary.Equivocation cannot be had recourse to in matters of Contract, nor for pecuniary gain, nor sordid profit. Rememberthat, O all ye worshippers of Mammon! For, “a more glorious doctrine for knaves and a more disastrous doctrine for honest men,” it would be difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of than equivocation, if it were not held strictly and severely in check and under control by the dictates of Intellectual Reason and Moral Justice. Now, this highly scientific liberty, “equivocation,” is never morally lawful to the witnesses in a Court of Justice, where the judge has jurisdiction to try the parties and the cause, whether those witnesses be the parties themselves to the cause, or strangers “subpœnaed” to give testimony therein. Such persons would be justly punishable for perjury who professed that, when bearing insufficient or inadequate witness in a Court of Justice by not telling “the whole” truth, they were merely “equivocating.” Nor can equivocation be had recourse to for working hurt or injury to a fellow-creature, whether bond or free, white, black, or copper-coloured, contrary to the primary obligations of Justice, which bid man render untoall mentheir due. Nor with reference to Divine Truth can equivocation be used. (Hence the piteous absurdity of the Royal Declaration against Popery.)By the mild and merciful Law of England, a criminally-accused person may equivocate, on the same moral principles as justify strategy in warfare, until his guilt has been brought home to him by sufficient proofs. Such a person equivocates by pleading “not guilty.”BecauseI believe the ethical doctrine which justifies equivocation, when properly taught, to be true and not false,and becauseI furthermore believe that, in the interests of my Country and of Humanity at large, it is of practical consequence, as well as mentally salutary, that a knowledge of equivocation, its foundation principles, extents, and limitations, should be “understanded” by all those that have the guardianship of the People, whether in the senate, in the field, or at sea,therefore, I have requested one, who has a competent mastery of the subject, to explain the matter to my readers. This has been kindly done in a letter, which will be found in Supplementum VI. For “Melius petere fontes,” the jurist as well as the poet has it. “Better is it to have recourse to the fountain-head.”The philosophical explanation of the fact that, under the pressure of necessity, certain combatants can and do exhibit in action at the theatre of war the highest strategetical skill, in spite of their knowing nothing of the scientific doctrine of equivocation, springs from the law of reason that, as a rule,doingis the condition precedentto knowing; experience to cognition. See Ferrier’s “Institutes of Metaphysic” (Blackwood), p.15.
[A]The end does not justify the means: neither can a man or a woman do evil that good may come.But Oldcorne would contend that, in perfect Reason, Truth may be concealed, subject to certain limitations and, regard being had to person, time, and circumstance, the clue-affording possibilities; and this whether partial truth or whole truth,in pursuance of a prior and superior moral obligation. And so would say all modern diplomatists and commanders in the field, however conscientious and upright they might be, unless they wished to court defeat, or to give away their Country, and (if justice be meted out to them) to be cashiered. Now,unity at all times and in all places must prevail. For all men are subject to the one Moral Law of Right Reason, and nowhere will you find men without souls, notwithstanding that certain members of the English middle classes sometimes seem to labour under a delusion to the contrary.
Equivocation cannot be had recourse to in matters of Contract, nor for pecuniary gain, nor sordid profit. Rememberthat, O all ye worshippers of Mammon! For, “a more glorious doctrine for knaves and a more disastrous doctrine for honest men,” it would be difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of than equivocation, if it were not held strictly and severely in check and under control by the dictates of Intellectual Reason and Moral Justice. Now, this highly scientific liberty, “equivocation,” is never morally lawful to the witnesses in a Court of Justice, where the judge has jurisdiction to try the parties and the cause, whether those witnesses be the parties themselves to the cause, or strangers “subpœnaed” to give testimony therein. Such persons would be justly punishable for perjury who professed that, when bearing insufficient or inadequate witness in a Court of Justice by not telling “the whole” truth, they were merely “equivocating.” Nor can equivocation be had recourse to for working hurt or injury to a fellow-creature, whether bond or free, white, black, or copper-coloured, contrary to the primary obligations of Justice, which bid man render untoall mentheir due. Nor with reference to Divine Truth can equivocation be used. (Hence the piteous absurdity of the Royal Declaration against Popery.)
By the mild and merciful Law of England, a criminally-accused person may equivocate, on the same moral principles as justify strategy in warfare, until his guilt has been brought home to him by sufficient proofs. Such a person equivocates by pleading “not guilty.”
BecauseI believe the ethical doctrine which justifies equivocation, when properly taught, to be true and not false,and becauseI furthermore believe that, in the interests of my Country and of Humanity at large, it is of practical consequence, as well as mentally salutary, that a knowledge of equivocation, its foundation principles, extents, and limitations, should be “understanded” by all those that have the guardianship of the People, whether in the senate, in the field, or at sea,therefore, I have requested one, who has a competent mastery of the subject, to explain the matter to my readers. This has been kindly done in a letter, which will be found in Supplementum VI. For “Melius petere fontes,” the jurist as well as the poet has it. “Better is it to have recourse to the fountain-head.”
The philosophical explanation of the fact that, under the pressure of necessity, certain combatants can and do exhibit in action at the theatre of war the highest strategetical skill, in spite of their knowing nothing of the scientific doctrine of equivocation, springs from the law of reason that, as a rule,doingis the condition precedentto knowing; experience to cognition. See Ferrier’s “Institutes of Metaphysic” (Blackwood), p.15.
This was an obligation, that flowed from the truth expressed by the luminous maxim, “Qui prior est tempore potior est jure.” “He who is first in time is the stronger in point of right.”
The Jesuit could never that trust, that confidence betray. If needs be, he must be “true till death.” For it was not necessary that he should live. But it was necessary that he should live undishonoured.
Again; to all those that are “knowing” enough, the facts of this woeful tragedy “observingly” to “distil out,” the form and substance of this document of the 12th March, 1605-6, under the hand of Edward Oldcorne, alike afford evidence — conclusive evidence — that Father Oldcorne regarded the Gunpowder conspirators as repentant conspirators, through the virtualrepresentativerepentance of one of their own number.
And though it is true that, by the inexorable decree of the Universe, “The Guilty suffer,” each man for himself and not another, temporal punishment, searching, terrible, and keen, yet this is not the whole of the truth governing the perfected ethics of the matter. For “Man learns by suffering.” And guilt is pardoned on repentance, that is, on the observance and on the performance of certain equally decreed conditions.
These conditions are (1) confession, (2) contrition, which implies sorrow and regret, and (3) satisfaction or “damages,” which involves amendment, withdrawal, or reversal. And when all three conditions have been observed and performed, then
“Whoso with repentance is not satisfied,Neither to earth nor heaven is allied.”
“Whoso with repentance is not satisfied,Neither to earth nor heaven is allied.”
Hence, could the great moralist, by acomplexusof intellectual acts, personal and vicarious, justly regard the whole band of plotters as transgressors released fromthe abstract guilt of their double crime. For it is a dictate of reason that the release of one joint debtor operates derivatively to the release,ipso facto, of all the rest.
Now, if Oldcorne possessed a conscious realization that, through therepentance, personal and representative, of the Gunpowder plotters, that Plot was no longer a plot, then, to speak after the manner of men, he must have had that realization as the resultant of two particular kinds, aspects, or sides ofknowledge: ab extra, from without, that is, passive knowledge, or communicated, in thefirststep; andab intra, from within, that is, knowledge active, or self-bestowed, in thesecondstep.
Now, both passive knowledge and active knowledge here would imply, in the final analysis, a communication by some external mental agency, the agency of some living, intelligent being.
It would be implied in the first case, directly; in the second case, indirectly. But, directly or indirectly, the source would be the same.
Now, who can that aforesaid living, intelligent being, which reason demands, have been, if nota repentant plotter himself?
Therefore, by irresistible inference, the Letter is surely, with moral certitude, traced home at last.
Father Edward Oldcorne was racked in the Tower of London, “five times, and once with the utmost severity for several hours,”[172]in order that, haply, information might be extracted from him that would prove him to be possessed of a guilty knowledge of the Plot. But this princely soul had nothing of that kind to tell, so that King James and his Counsellors wreaked their lawless severity in vain.[A]
[A]Torture, for the purpose of drawing evidence from a prisoner, was contrary to the Law of England. Brother Ralph Ashley, the servant of Father Oldcorne, who, I maintain, carried the warning Letters to Father Henry Garnet and Lord Mounteagle, was tortured, but without revealing anything apparently. Brother Nicholas Owen, the great maker of priests’ hiding-places and secret chambers in the castles, manor-houses, and halls of the old English Catholic gentry, was tortured with great severity; but he, too, seems to have revealed nothing. Owen “died in their hands,” but whether he was tortured to death or committed suicide in the Tower is a mystery to this day. One would like to see this mystery bottomed.
[A]Torture, for the purpose of drawing evidence from a prisoner, was contrary to the Law of England. Brother Ralph Ashley, the servant of Father Oldcorne, who, I maintain, carried the warning Letters to Father Henry Garnet and Lord Mounteagle, was tortured, but without revealing anything apparently. Brother Nicholas Owen, the great maker of priests’ hiding-places and secret chambers in the castles, manor-houses, and halls of the old English Catholic gentry, was tortured with great severity; but he, too, seems to have revealed nothing. Owen “died in their hands,” but whether he was tortured to death or committed suicide in the Tower is a mystery to this day. One would like to see this mystery bottomed.
On the 7th day of April, 1606, at Redhill, one mile from the City of Worcester, on the London Road, “the silver cord was loosed, the golden bowl was broken, the pitcher was crushed at the fountain, the wheel was broken on the cistern.” For on that day, at that spot, the happy spirit of Edward Oldcorne mounted far, far beyond the fading things of time and space.[173]
It may be objected that Father John Gerard’s relation of the last dying speech and confession of the great Jesuit Priest and Martyr is hostile to thehypothesis that Oldcorne penned the great Letter, “Litteræ Felicissimæ.”
Gerard’s reported words are these; but, I contend, we have no absolute proof that they are theipissima verbaof Father Oldcorne, though he may have uttered some of these words, and something resembling them in the case of the others. — See Gerard’s “Narrative” p. 275.
“He declared unto the people that he came thither to die for the Catholic faith and the practice of his function, seeing that they neither had, nor could prove anything against him which, even by their own laws, was sufficient to condemn him, but that he was a Priest of the Society of Jesus, wherein he much rejoiced, and was ready and desirous to give his life for the profession of that faith which he had taught many years in that very country, and which it was necessary for everyone to embrace that would save their souls.[174]Then being asked again about the treason and taking part with the conspirators, he protested there again that he never had the least knowledge of the treason, and took it upon his death that he was as clear as the new-born child from the whole plot or any part thereof. Then commending his soul, with great devotion, humility, and confidence, into the hands of God and to the Blessed Virgin, St. Jerome, St. Winifred, and his good Angel, he was turned off the ladder, and hanging awhile, was cut down and quartered, and so his innocent and thrice-happy soul went to receive the reward of his many and great labours.” (The italics are mine.)
Now, in the first place, it is to be noticed that Father Oldcorne made the special disclaimer of ever having had the least knowledge of the Plot onlyafter being asked again about the treason and taking part with the conspirators.
My respectful submissions to the judgment of my candid readers, therefore, are these: —
First, that we have no exact, that is, no scientific, proof[175]that Father Oldcorne, as a fact, employed theseprecise words.
And, secondly, that, even if he did so employ them, what he meant to convey to his hearers’ mind by the words was, I maintain, that he had no criminal, no traitorous knowledge of the ruthless Gunpowder enterprise; or, in other words,no guilty knowledge, no knowledge that his King and his fellow-subjects had any right, title, claim, or demand, in Reason, Justice, Equity, or Honour, to obtain or to wring from him.
For “Qui prior est tempore potior est jure.” “He who is first in time is the stronger in point of right.”
Again; “There is on earth a yet auguster thing, veiled though it be, than Parliament or King.” And that is the Human Conscience, instructed by Truth and Justice.Herrights are invincible and eternally sacred.
Gerard continues, after Father Oldcorne “followed Ralph, his faithful follower and companion of his labours, who showed at his death great devotion and fervour, as maybe guessed by this one action of his; for whilst Father Oldcorne stood upon the ladder and was preparing himself to die, Ralph, standing by the ladder, suddenly stepped forward, and takes hold of the good Father’s feet, embracing and kissing them with great devotion, and said, ‘What a happy man am I, to follow here the steps of my sweet Father!’ And when his own turn came, he also first commended himself by earnest prayers unto God, then told the people that he died for religion and not for treason, whereof he had ‘not had the least knowledge; and as he had heard this good Father, before him, freely forgive his persecutors and pray for the King and Country, so did he also....’ He showed, at his death, great resolution joined with great devotion, and so resigning his soul into the hands of God, was turned off the ladder and changed this life for a better.” — See Gerard’s “Narrative,” pp. 27, 5276.[176]
Furthermore, Father Gerard says, on p. 269 of his “Narrative,” as we have seen already, that “Father Ouldcorne his indictment was so framed that one might see they much desired to have drawn him within the compass of some participation of this late treason; to which effect they first did seem to suppose it as likely that he should send letters up and down to prepare men’s minds for the insurrection.... Also they accused him of a sermon made in Christmas, wherein he should seem to excuse the conspirators, or to extenuate their fact, and, withal that speaking with Humphrey Littleton in private about the same matter, he should advise him not to judge of the cause, or to condemn the gentlemen by the event.”
Although Father Oldcorne was found guilty and sentenced to death, it is not clearly shewn, from Gerard’s Relation, or that of anybody else, what offences wereproved against him. Probably, reliance was mainly placed (1) on the fact of his being a notorious Priest and Jesuit, reconciling as many of the King’s subjects to the See of Rome as possible; (2) on his providing, through the Jesuit, Father Jones, a place of refuge for Robert Winter and Stephen Littleton, two of the fugitives from Justice; and (3) on his aiding and abetting the concealment of his Superior, Father Garnet, a proclaimed traitor, at Hindlip.[A]
[A]The reason why Humphrey Littleton, at his execution, begged pardon of Mr. Abington, as well as of Father Oldcorne (seeantep.214), was that Humphrey Littleton, when in Worcester Gaol, had reported to the Government, in the hope of getting a respite, that the Jesuits, Garnet and Oldcorne, were being concealed at Hindlip.Father Garnet left Coughton for Hindlip, accompanied by the Honourable Anne Vaux, on the 16th December, 1605, and lay concealed there until the last week of January, 1605-6, when Garnet and Oldcorne, together with the lay-brothers, Nicholas Owen and Ralph Ashley, were captured at Hindlip, by Sir Henry Bromley, of Holt Castle, a Worcestershire magistrate, in pursuance of elaborate instructions from Lord Salisbury himself. The captives were all four solemnly conveyed to the Tower of London. Miss Vaux was herself afterwards locked up in the Tower, but finally released. This unconquerable lady seems to have “come to her grave in a full age, like as a shock of corn cometh in in its season.” For, as late as the year 1635, we find her name being reported to the Privy Council of Charles I., for helping certain Jesuits to carry on a school for the education of the sons of the English Catholic nobility and gentry, at her mansion, Stanley Grange, about six miles from Derby.
[A]The reason why Humphrey Littleton, at his execution, begged pardon of Mr. Abington, as well as of Father Oldcorne (seeantep.214), was that Humphrey Littleton, when in Worcester Gaol, had reported to the Government, in the hope of getting a respite, that the Jesuits, Garnet and Oldcorne, were being concealed at Hindlip.
Father Garnet left Coughton for Hindlip, accompanied by the Honourable Anne Vaux, on the 16th December, 1605, and lay concealed there until the last week of January, 1605-6, when Garnet and Oldcorne, together with the lay-brothers, Nicholas Owen and Ralph Ashley, were captured at Hindlip, by Sir Henry Bromley, of Holt Castle, a Worcestershire magistrate, in pursuance of elaborate instructions from Lord Salisbury himself. The captives were all four solemnly conveyed to the Tower of London. Miss Vaux was herself afterwards locked up in the Tower, but finally released. This unconquerable lady seems to have “come to her grave in a full age, like as a shock of corn cometh in in its season.” For, as late as the year 1635, we find her name being reported to the Privy Council of Charles I., for helping certain Jesuits to carry on a school for the education of the sons of the English Catholic nobility and gentry, at her mansion, Stanley Grange, about six miles from Derby.
Edward Oldcorne might have, perchance, saved his life had he told his lawful Sovereign that he had been (Deo juvante) a joint efficient cause of that Sovereign’s temporal salvation and the temporal salvation of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, Commons of England, Ambassadors, and Heaven only knows whom, and how many else beside. For King James, with all his faults, was averse from shedding the blood even of popish Priests and Jesuits. But Oldcorne did not do so. And I hold that he had two all-sufficient reasons for not so acting.
First, he may have thought there was a serious danger of his entangling Thomas Ward, in some way or another, as an accessory, at least, after the fact, in the meshes of the Law of that unscrupulous time: the time, be it remembered, of the Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission.
And, secondly, although this great Priest and Jesuit,by virtue and as a result of the releasing act of his Penitent, Christopher Wright, had come,practically, toreceive a knowledge of the tremendous secret as a Friend and as a Man, and not as a Priest, yet,becausethat Man and that Friendwas a Priest; andbecauseit was impossible for that Priest in practice, and in the eyes of men, to bisect himself, and make clear and manifest the different sides and aspects in which he had — subsequent to the Penitent’s release from the seal of theConfessional,sigillum confessionis— thought and acted in relation to the revealing plotter,thereforedid Oldcorne, I opine, deliberately — because, according to his own principles, he was predominantly “a Priest,” and that “for ever” —thereforedid he deliberately choose the more excellent way, aye! in the chamber of torture and upon the scaffold of death, the way of perfect self-sacrifice for the good of others.
For, by a Yorkshire Catholic mother, dwelling in a grey northern city — and who in January, 1598, is described as “old and lame”[A]— Edward Oldcorne had been taught long years ago “to adjust his compass at the Cross.”[177][178]
[A]Foley’s “Records,” vol. iv., p. 204.
[A]Foley’s “Records,” vol. iv., p. 204.
Brother Ralph Ashley, too, possibly might have saved his life, had he disclosed that, whatever other letter or letters he had carried to and fro, he had carried that great Letter, that Letter of Letters, which had proved the sheet-anchor, the lever, of his Country’s temporal salvation through the temporal salvation of its hereditary and elected rulers.
But Brother Ralph Ashley knew he had a duty to perform of strict fidelity to his master, a duty which, though unknown to man, would not escape the Eye of Him to advance Whose greater glory this humble Jesuit lay-brother was solemnly pledged.
Father Gerard says, as we have already seen, in his “Narrative,” that Ralph Ashley “was divers times put upon the torture but he revealed nothing.” Gerard furthermore says that Ralph Ashley “was indicted and condemned upon supposition that he had carried letters to and fro about this conspiracy.” “But,” says Gerard, “they neither did nor could allege any instance or proof against him.” — See “Narrative,” p. 271.
A few final words as to Thomas Ward (or Warde), who was, I hold, no less than Edward Oldcorne and his Penitent, the joint arbiter of destinies and the controller of fates.
Indeed, as previously stated in an earlier portion of this Inquiry, my own opinion is that Christopher Wright probably unlocked his burthened heart to his connection, Thomas Ward, of whose constancy in friendship he would be, by long years of experience, well assured, at a time anterior to that at which he unbosomed himself to the holy Jesuit Priest, that skilled, wise, loving minister of a mind diseased.
While Ward, on his part, readily and willingly, though at the imminent risk of being himself charged as a knowing accomplice and accessory to the Plot, undertook the diplomatic engineering of the whole movement, whereby the Plot was so effectually and speedily spun round on its axis, even if well-nigh at the eleventh hour.
In bidding farewell, a long farewell, to Thomas Ward, the following extracts from a letter of Sir Edward Hoby[179]to Sir Thomas Edmunds, Ambassador at Brussels, are important, although some of the passages have already appeared in the earlier part of this Inquiry: —
“Such as are apt to interpret all things to the worst, will not believe other but that Lord Mounteagle might in a policy cause this letter to be sent, fearingthe discovery already of the letter; the rather that one Thomas Ward, a principal man about him, is suspected to be accessory to the treason. Others otherwise ... some say that Fawkes (alias Johnson) was servant to one Thomas Percy; others that he is a Jesuit and had a shirt of hair next his skin.“Early on the Monday [vereTuesday] morning, the Earl of Worcester was sent to Essex House to signify the matter to the Earl of Northumberland, whom he found asleep in his bed, and hath done since his best endeavour for his apprehension ... Some say that Northumberland received the like letter that Mounteagle did, and concealed it ...“Tyrwhyt is come to London; Tresham sheweth himself;and Ward walketh up and down.”[180](The italics are mine.)
“Such as are apt to interpret all things to the worst, will not believe other but that Lord Mounteagle might in a policy cause this letter to be sent, fearingthe discovery already of the letter; the rather that one Thomas Ward, a principal man about him, is suspected to be accessory to the treason. Others otherwise ... some say that Fawkes (alias Johnson) was servant to one Thomas Percy; others that he is a Jesuit and had a shirt of hair next his skin.
“Early on the Monday [vereTuesday] morning, the Earl of Worcester was sent to Essex House to signify the matter to the Earl of Northumberland, whom he found asleep in his bed, and hath done since his best endeavour for his apprehension ... Some say that Northumberland received the like letter that Mounteagle did, and concealed it ...
“Tyrwhyt is come to London; Tresham sheweth himself;and Ward walketh up and down.”[180](The italics are mine.)
Surely, the twain facts that Thomas Ward “walked up and down,” and that his brother, Marmaduke, was also at large, with the latter’s eldest daughter, Mary, lodging in Baldwin’s Gardens, Holborn (although we have seen the Master of Newby apprehended in Warwickshire, in the very heart and centre of the conspirators),tend to demonstrate that the King, his Privy Council, and Government were very much obligated to the gentleman-servant and, almost certainly, distant kinsman of William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle, and that they knew it.[A]
[A]Is it possible that some time after the Plot, Thomas Ward retired into his native Yorkshire, and became the officer or agent for Lord William Howard’s and his wife’s Hinderskelfe and other Yorkshire, Durham, and Westmoreland estates? I think it is possible; for I find the name “Thomas Warde” from time to time in the “Household Books of Lord William Howard” (Surtees Soc). See Supplementum III. I am inclined to think that the reason Father Richard Holtby, the distinguished Yorkshire Jesuit, who wassocius, or secretary, to Father Henry Garnet, and subsequently Superior of the Jesuits in England, was never laid hold of by the Government, was that Holtby had two powerful friends at Court in Lord William Howard, of Naworth and Hinderskelfe Castles, and in Thomas Warde (or Ward). Father Holtby was born at Fryton Hall, in the Parish of Hovingham, between Hovingham and Malton. Now, Fryton is less than a mile from Slingsby, where I suspect Thomas Warde (or Ward) finally settled down, and both are only a few miles distant from Hinderskelfe Castle, now Castle Howard. Fryton Old Hall is at present, I believe, occupied by Mr. Leaf, and is the property of Charles James Howard ninth Earl of Carlisle, the descendant of Lord William Howard. The late Captain Ward, R.N., of Slingsby Hall, I surmise, was a descendant, lineal or collateral, of Thomas Ward, of the days of Queen Elizabeth and King James I.
[A]Is it possible that some time after the Plot, Thomas Ward retired into his native Yorkshire, and became the officer or agent for Lord William Howard’s and his wife’s Hinderskelfe and other Yorkshire, Durham, and Westmoreland estates? I think it is possible; for I find the name “Thomas Warde” from time to time in the “Household Books of Lord William Howard” (Surtees Soc). See Supplementum III. I am inclined to think that the reason Father Richard Holtby, the distinguished Yorkshire Jesuit, who wassocius, or secretary, to Father Henry Garnet, and subsequently Superior of the Jesuits in England, was never laid hold of by the Government, was that Holtby had two powerful friends at Court in Lord William Howard, of Naworth and Hinderskelfe Castles, and in Thomas Warde (or Ward). Father Holtby was born at Fryton Hall, in the Parish of Hovingham, between Hovingham and Malton. Now, Fryton is less than a mile from Slingsby, where I suspect Thomas Warde (or Ward) finally settled down, and both are only a few miles distant from Hinderskelfe Castle, now Castle Howard. Fryton Old Hall is at present, I believe, occupied by Mr. Leaf, and is the property of Charles James Howard ninth Earl of Carlisle, the descendant of Lord William Howard. The late Captain Ward, R.N., of Slingsby Hall, I surmise, was a descendant, lineal or collateral, of Thomas Ward, of the days of Queen Elizabeth and King James I.
From a grateful King and Country, Lord Mounteagle received, as we have already learned, a payment of £700 a year, equal to nearly £7,000 a year in our money.[A]
[A]Lord Mounteagle’s reward was £300 per annum for life, and £200 per annum to him and his heirs for ever in fee farm rents. Salisbury declared that Mounteagle’s Letter was “the first and only means” the Government had to discover that “most wicked and barbarous Plot.” Personally, I am bound to say I believe him. The title Lord Morley and Mounteagle is now in abeyance (see Burke’s “Extinct Peerages”); but let us hope that we may see it revived. An heir must be in existence, one would imagine; for the peerages Morley and Mounteagle would be granted by the Crown for ever, I presume. There is at the present date a Lord Monteagle, whose title is of a more recent creation.
[A]Lord Mounteagle’s reward was £300 per annum for life, and £200 per annum to him and his heirs for ever in fee farm rents. Salisbury declared that Mounteagle’s Letter was “the first and only means” the Government had to discover that “most wicked and barbarous Plot.” Personally, I am bound to say I believe him. The title Lord Morley and Mounteagle is now in abeyance (see Burke’s “Extinct Peerages”); but let us hope that we may see it revived. An heir must be in existence, one would imagine; for the peerages Morley and Mounteagle would be granted by the Crown for ever, I presume. There is at the present date a Lord Monteagle, whose title is of a more recent creation.
But Ben Jonson, the rare Ben Jonson, the friend of Shakespeare, of Donne,[B]and other wits of the oncefar-famed Mermaid Tavern, Bread Street, London, deemed the temporal saviour of his Country to be still insufficiently requited. So the Poet, invoking his Muse, penned, in the young peer’s honour, the following stately epigram: —
[B]John Donne the celebrated metaphysical poet, afterwards Dean of St. Paul’s, and author of the once well-known “Pseudo-Martyr,” which Donne wrote at the request of King James himself. For one of Donne’s ancestorsand descendants, seeantep.160.Henry Donne (or Dunne), a barrister, was brother to John Donne. He was, I believe, implicated in the Babington conspiracy along with Edward Abington, brother to Thomas Abington, and about ten other young papist gentlemen, some of very high birth, great wealth, and brilliant prospects. At the chambers of Henry Donne, in Thavies Inn, Holborn, London, “the Venerable” William Harrington, of Mount St. John, near Thirsk, was captured. Harrington fled to the College at Rheims to study for the priesthood, in consequence of the impression made upon him by Campion, who was harboured, in the spring of 1581, for ten days at Mount St. John; Campion there wrote his famous “Decem Rationes.” Harrington was executed at the London Tyburn, for his priesthood, in 1594. He is said to have struggled with the hangman when the latter began to quarter him alive. Harrington is mentioned in Archbishop Harsnett’s “Popish Impostures,” a book known to Shakespeare. Harrington was a second cousin to Guy Fawkes, through Guy’s paternal grandmother, Ellen Harrington, of York.
[B]John Donne the celebrated metaphysical poet, afterwards Dean of St. Paul’s, and author of the once well-known “Pseudo-Martyr,” which Donne wrote at the request of King James himself. For one of Donne’s ancestorsand descendants, seeantep.160.
Henry Donne (or Dunne), a barrister, was brother to John Donne. He was, I believe, implicated in the Babington conspiracy along with Edward Abington, brother to Thomas Abington, and about ten other young papist gentlemen, some of very high birth, great wealth, and brilliant prospects. At the chambers of Henry Donne, in Thavies Inn, Holborn, London, “the Venerable” William Harrington, of Mount St. John, near Thirsk, was captured. Harrington fled to the College at Rheims to study for the priesthood, in consequence of the impression made upon him by Campion, who was harboured, in the spring of 1581, for ten days at Mount St. John; Campion there wrote his famous “Decem Rationes.” Harrington was executed at the London Tyburn, for his priesthood, in 1594. He is said to have struggled with the hangman when the latter began to quarter him alive. Harrington is mentioned in Archbishop Harsnett’s “Popish Impostures,” a book known to Shakespeare. Harrington was a second cousin to Guy Fawkes, through Guy’s paternal grandmother, Ellen Harrington, of York.
“To William Lord Mounteagle.
“Lo, what my country should have done (have raisedAn obelisk, or column to thy name;Or if she would but modestly have praisedThy fact, in brass or marble writ the same).I, that am glad of thy great chance, here do!And proud, my work shall out-last common deeds,Durst think it great, and worthy wonder too,But thine: for which I do’t, so much exceeds!My country’s parents I have many known;But saver of my country, thee alone.”
“Lo, what my country should have done (have raisedAn obelisk, or column to thy name;Or if she would but modestly have praisedThy fact, in brass or marble writ the same).I, that am glad of thy great chance, here do!And proud, my work shall out-last common deeds,Durst think it great, and worthy wonder too,But thine: for which I do’t, so much exceeds!My country’s parents I have many known;But saver of my country, thee alone.”
(1) The revealing plotter cannot have been Tresham or any one of the other eight who were condemned to death in Westminster Hall; otherwise he would havepleadedsuch fact.
(2) The revealing plotter must have been amongst those who survived not to tell the tale: that is, either Catesby, Percy, John Wright, or Christopher Wright.
(3) Christopher Wright, a subordinate conspirator introduced late in the conspiracy, was the revealing conspirator.
(4) Father Edward Oldcorne, S.J., was the Penman of the Letter.
(5) Thomas Ward was the diplomatic Go-between common to both.
All these three were Yorkshiremen.
(6) Ralph Ashley was the messenger who conveyed the Letter to Lord Mounteagle’s page, who was already in the street when the Letter-carrier arrived.
Perhaps a Yorkshireman.
(7) Mounteagle knew a letter was coming. Known to Edmund Church, Esq., his confidant.
(8) Thomas Ward, on Sunday, the 27th October (the day after the delivery), told Thomas Winter, one of the principal plotters, that Salisbury had received the document; and on Sunday, the 3rd November, that Salisbury had shown it to the King.
(9) Christopher Wright, who was at Lapworth when the Letter was delivered, and within twenty miles of Father Oldcorne, saw Thomas Winter some little time subsequent to the delivery of the Letter.
(10) Christopher Wright is said to have been the first who ascertained that the Plot was discovered.
(11) Christopher Wright is said to have counselled flight in different directions.
(12) Christopher Wright announced to Thomas Winter, very early on Tuesday, the 5th of November, the capture of Fawkes that morning.
(13) Father Oldcorne’s handwriting to-day resembles that of the Letter; by comparison of documents, certainly one of which is in Oldcorne’s handwriting.
(14) Oldcorne was accused by the Government of sending “letters up and down to prepare men’s minds for the insurrection.”
(15) Brother Ashley, his servant, was accused of carrying “letters to and fro about this conspiracy.”
(16) Father Henry Garnet, Oldcorne’s Superior, mysteriously changed his purpose expressed on the 4th October, of returning to London; and on the 29th October went from Gothurst to Coughton, in Warwickshire. (I think Garnet’s main reason for going to Coughton was in order to meet Catesby, and endeavour to induce him to discard Percy’s counsel and to seek refuge in flight.)
(17) Father Oldcorne evaded giving a direct answer as to the Plot, when questioned by Littleton, after November 5th.
(18) Hence, the factsboth before and afterthe delivery of the Letter are consistent with, and indeed converge towards, the hypothesis sought by this Inquiry to be proved.
(19) The circumstance that Christopher Wright displayed a strangely marked disposition to “hang about” the prime conspirator, Thomas Winter,afterthe sending of the Letter, is a suspicious fact, strongly indicative of a consciousness on Christopher Wright’s part of a special responsibility in connection with the revelation of the Plot; as showing anxiety for personal knowledge that the train of revelation lighted by himself had, so to speak, taken fire.
(20) Christopher Wright lived not to tell the tale.
(21) Hence, the hypothesis is a theory established, with moral certitude, mainly by Circumstantial Evidence, which latter “mosaics” perfectly.
(22) Finally, the crowning proof of the theory sought by this Book to be established is found in these nine words of thepost scriptumof 21st October, 1605, to letter dated 4th October, 1605, under the hand of Father Garnet to Father Parsons, in Rome[A]: “This letter being returned unto me again,FOR REASON OF AFRIEND’S STAY IN THE WAY, I blotted out some words purposing to write the same by the next opportunity, as I will do apart:” — The word “stay” here being used to signify “check.”Cf., Shakespeare’s “King John,” II., 2: and see Glossary to Globe Edition (Macmillan).