CHAPTER XLV.

[A]Bentham aptly terms the comparison of Document with Document, “Circumstantial real Evidence.” — See Best’s “Principles of the Law of Evidence,” and Wills on “Circumstantial Evidence.” See Miss Walford’s Letter (Appendix).

Moreover, there is (3) this fact to be remembered, that in both the Letter and in the said Declaration, the name “God” is written with a small “g,” thus: “god.”

It is true that, of course, not only did this way of writing the name of the Supreme Being then denote no irreverence, but it was commonly so written by Englishmen in the year 1605.

Still, it was certainlynot by them universally so written. For in the fac-simile of “Thomas Winter’s Confession” the word “God” occurs more than once written with a handsomely made capital G,[142]to mention none other cases.

There is to be also remembered (4) the user of the expressions “as yowe tender youer lyf,” and “deuys some exscuse to shift of[143]youer attendance at this parleament for god and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme.”

For these expressions are eminently expressions that would be employed by a man born in Yorkshire in the sixteenth century.

Again; there is to be noted (5) the expressions as “yowe tender youerlyf,” and “god and man hathe concurred.” Inasmuch as I maintain that as “yowe tender youerlyf” was just the kind of expression that would be used by a man who had had an early training in the medical art, as was the case with Edward Oldcorne.

For “Man to preserve is pleasure suiting man, and by no art is favour better sought.” And a deep rooted belief in the powers of Nature and in the sacredness of the life of man are the two brightest jewels in the true physician’s crown.

Once more; (6) the expression “god and man hathe concurred” is pre-eminently the mode of clothing inlanguage one way, wherein a rigid Roman Catholic of that time would mentally contemplate —not, indeed, the interior quality of the mental phenomena known as the Gunpowder Plot, in which “the devil” alone could “concur,” but the simple exterior designment of the same, provided heknewfor certain that it could be considered as a clear transparency only — as a defecated cluster of purely intellectual acts.[A]

[A]It is manifest that if,in intent, Oldcorne by his own Letter had destroyed the Plot, he, of all other people in the world, would havethe prerogativeof regarding the Plot as a clear transparency;while of the Plot as a transparency, he would feel a freedom to write “god and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme.” If the Writer had not the prerogative of regarding the Plot as a clear transparency then these results follow — that he regarded Him (Whose Eyes are too pure even to behold iniquity) asconcurringin the designment of a most hellish crime, nay, of participating in such designment;for he couples God with man. Now the Letter is evidently the work of a Catholic. But no Catholic would regard God as the author of a crime. Therefore the Gunpowder Plot to the Writer of the Letter can have been regarded as no crime. But it was obviously a crime,unless and untilit had been defecated of criminous quality, and so rendered a clear transparency. Now, as the Writer obviously did not regard it as a crime, therefore he must have regarded it as defecated, by some means or another; in other words, as a clear transparency. Andthis, I maintain, proves that the Writer had a special interior knowledge of the Plot “behind the scenes,” that is, deep down within the depths of his conscious being.

Furthermore, in reflecting on these preliminaries to the general discussion of the Evidence tending to prove a consciousness on Edward Oldcorne’s part,subsequentto the penning of the Letter, of being responsible for the commission of the everlastingly meritorious feat, let it be diligently noted that the Letter ends with these words: “the dangere is passed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter and i hope god will give yowe the grace to mak good use of it to whose holy proteccion i contend yowe.” (The italics are mine.)

Now, I opine that what the Writer intendedto hint atwas a suggestion to the recipient of the Letter to destroy the document.Not, however, that as a fact, I think, he really wished it to be destroyed.[144]Because it is highly probable that (apart from other reasons) the Writer must have wished it to be conveyed to the King, else why should he have said, “i hope god will give you the grace to makgooduse of it”?

And why should the King himself in his book have omitted the insertion of this little, but here virtually all-important, adjective?[145]

Besides, the Writer cannot have seriously wished for the destruction of the document. For in that case he would not have made use of such a masterpiece of vague phraseology as “the dangere is passed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter.”[146]But, on the contrary, he would have plainly adjured the receiver of the missive, for the love of God and man, to commit it as soon as read to the devouring flames!

Lastly should be noted the commendatory words wherewith the document closes. These words (or those akin to them), though in use among Protestants as well as Catholics in the year 1605, were specially employed by Catholics, and particularly by Jesuits or persons who were “Jesuitized” or “Jesuitically affected.”[147]

Having dealt with thepreliminaryEvidence, we now come to the discussion of themainEvidence which tends to show thatsubsequentto the penning of the Letter Father Edward Oldcorne, Priest and Jesuit, performed acts or spoke words which clearly betokena consciousnesson his part of being the responsible person who penned the document.

That this may be done the more thoroughly, it will be necessary to ask my readers to engage with me in a metaphysical discussion.

But, before attempting such a discussion, which indeed is the crux of this historical and philosophical work, we will retrace our steps somewhat, in the order of time, to the end that we may, amongst other things, haply refresh and recreate the mind a little preparatory to entering upon our severer labours.

Now, on Wednesday, November the 6th, Father Oswald Tesimond went from Coughton, near Redditch, in Warwickshire, the house of Thomas Throckmorton, Esquire, to Huddington, in Worcestershire, the seat of Robert Winter, who had married Miss Gertrude Talbot, of Grafton. The Talbots, like the Throckmortons, were a people who happily managed to reconcile rigid adherence to the ancient Faith with stanch loyalty to their lawful Sovereign.[A]

[A]I believe that the grand old Catholic family of Throckmorton still own Coughton Hall, which is twelve miles from Hindlip.

Tesimond, leaving behind him his Superior Garnet at Coughton, went, it is said, to assist the unhappy traitors with the Sacraments of their Church. But, I imagine, he found most of his hoped-for penitents, at least externally, in anything except a penitential frame of mind.

This was the last occasion when Tesimond’s eyes gazed upon his old York school-fellows of happier, bygone days — the brothers John and Christopher Wright.[148]

Now, to Father Tesimond, as well as to Father Oldcorne, Hindlip Hall[A]and Huddington[B](in Worcestershire), Coughton,[C]Lapworth,[D]Clopton,[E]and Norbrook[F](in Warwickshire), must have been thoroughly well known; for at Hindlip Hall for eight years Tesimond likewise had been formerly domesticated.

Where resided either temporarily or permanently: —

[A]Thomas Abington.

[B]Robert Winter and Thomas Winter.

[C]Thomas Throckmorton.

[D]John Wright and Christopher Wright.

[E]Ambrose Rookwood.

[F]John Grant.

Dr. Gardiner’s “History of James I.” (Longmans) contains a map showing the relative positions of these places.

On Wednesday, the 6th November, Fathers Garnet and Tesimond were at Coughton. Catesby, along with Percy, John Wright, Christopher Wright, Sir Everard Digby, Ambrose Rookwood, and others, was at Huddington. Catesby and Digby had sent a letter to Garnet.

Bates was the messenger, and was come from Norbrook, the house of John Grant, where the plotters rested in their wild, north-westward flight from Ashby St. Legers. For to Ashby the fugitives had posted headlong from London town on Tuesday, the “fatal Fifth.”

Catesby and Digby urged Garnet to make for Wales.[A]

[A]Catesby had great influence over Tesimond, and it was Tesimond whom Catesby first informed of the Gunpowder Plot, in the Tribunal of Penance. Tesimond had a sharp and nimble, but probably not very powerful, mind. Catesby gave Tesimond permission to consult Father Henry Garnet as to the ethics of the Plot. Moreover, Catesby gave the Jesuits permission to disclose the particular knowledge of the Plot they had received, provided they thought it right to do so. This is how we come to know what passed between Catesby and Tesimond, and then between Tesimond and Garnet. Tesimond had received from Catesby about the 24th July, 1605, in the Confessional, a particular knowledge of the Plot, in the sense that he was told there was projected an explosion by gunpowder, with the object of destroying the King and Parliament; but all particulars respecting final plans he did not know till a fortnight before the 11th of October, I think.

After half-an-hour’s earnest discourse together, Father Garnet gave leave to Tesimond to proceed to Huddington to administer to the wretched fugitives the rites — the last rites — of the Church they had so disgraced and wronged. Garnet remained at Coughton. Tesimond tarried at Huddington about two hours.

Tesimond arrived at Hindlip from Huddington in a state of the greatest excitement possible. He showed himself on reaching Hindlip to be a choleric man, while Father Oldcorne — who seems to have kept perfectly calm and cool throughout the whole of the momentous conference — Tesimond himself denounced, if he did not reproach, as being phlegmatic.

Tesimond, evidently, had been commissioned by Catesby,[B]at Huddington, to incite Mr. Abington, his household, and retainers, including (I take it, if possible) Oldcorne himself, to join the insurgents at Huddington,Holbeach, Wales, and wherever else they might unfurl the banner of “the holy war,” or, in other words, the armed rebellion against King James, his Privy Council, and Government.

[B]Tesimond, in my opinion, was completely over-mastered by the more potent will of his penitent (?) Catesby.Cf., The case of Hugh Latimer and Thomas Bilney; Bilney made a Protestant of Latimer, who was Bilney’s confessor. These afford striking examples of the power of psycho-electrical will force.

Tesimond’s mission, however, to Hindlip, proving fruitless, he thereupon rode towards Lancashire, in the hope of rousing Lancashire Catholics to arms, as one man, in behalf of those altars and homes they loved more than life.

Now, in this calm and dignified demeanour of Oldcorne, at Hindlip, which evidently so annoyed, nay, exasperated — because it arrested and thwarted — his younger brother Jesuit (both of whom, almost certainly, had known each other in York from boyhood), the discerning reader, I submit, ought in reason to drawthisconclusion, namely, that Edward Oldcorne was tranquil and imperturbable because, in regard to the whole of the unhappy business, that so possessed and engrossed the being of Oswald Tesimond, Edward Oldcorne’s was amens conscia recti— a mind conscious of rectitude — aye, a mind conscious of superabounding merit and virtue.

So important evidentially do I think the diverse demeanour[149]of Tesimond and Oldcorne on this occasion, that I will transcribe from Jardine’s “Criminal Trials”[150]Oldcorne’s testimony of what took place at Hindlip Hall at this interview: —[151]

“Oldcorne confesseth that upon Wednesday, being the 6th of November, about two of the clock in the afternoon, there came Tesimond (Greenway) from Huddington, from Mr. Robert Winter’s to Hindlip, and told Mr. Abington and him ‘that he brought them the worst news that ever they heard,’ and said ‘that they were all undone.’ And they demanding the cause, he said that there were certain gentlemen that meant to have blown up the Parliament House, and that their plot wasdiscovered a day or two before; and now they were gathered together some forty horse at Mr. Winter’s house, naming Catesby, Percy, Digby, and others; and told them, ‘their throats would be cut unless they presently went to join with them.’ And Mr. Abington said, ‘Alas! I am sorry.’ And this examinate and he answered him that they would never join with him in that matter, and charged all his house to that purpose not to go with them. He confesseth that upon the former speeches made by this examinate and Mr. Abington to Tesimond, alias Greenway, the Jesuit,Tesimond said in some heat ‘thus we may see a difference between a flemmatike [phlegmatic] and a choleric person!’, and said he would go to others, and specially into Lancashire, for the same purpose as he came to Hindlip to Mr. Abington.”[152][153](The italics are mine.)

Father Henry Garnet, the chief of the English Jesuits, left London at the end of August, 1605,[154]and proceeded towards Gothurst (now Gayhurst), in the Parish of Tyringham, three miles from Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire.[A]

[A]The seat of Walter Carlile, Esquire, as has been already mentioned. I have to thank this gentleman for his courteousness in informing me that Gayhurst (formerly Gothurst) is three miles from Newport Pagnell. An excellent picture, together with descriptive account, of Gayhurst, is given in the “Life of Sir Everard Digby,” by one of that knight’s descendants. Gothurst contained a remarkable hiding-place, which was probably constructed by Nicholas Owen, the lay-brother of Father Garnet. According to Father Gerard, the friend of Digby, Gothurst was ten miles from Great Harrowden, the seat of the young Lord Vaux.

Now, who was Henry Garnet, whom the Attorney-General, Sir Edward Coke, described in Westminster Hall as “a man — grave, discreet, wise, learned, and of excellent ornament, both of nature and art;” but around whose name so fierce a controversy had raged for well-nigh 300 years? He was born in 1555, and brought up a Protestant of the Established Church; his father being Mr. Briant Garnet, the head master of the Free School, at Nottingham; his mother’s name was Alice Jay. Henry Garnet was a scholar of Winchester School, and the intention was to send him to New College, Oxford. However, he resolved to become reconciled to the Pope’s religion, and in 1575 joined the Jesuit Novitiate in Rome,where the great Cardinal Bellarmine was one of his tutors.

Now, to the end that the claims of Truth and Justice, strict, severe, and impartial, may be met in relation to this celebrated English Jesuit, it will be necessary to repeat that as far back as about the beginning of Trinity Term (i.e., the 9th June, 1605), Catesby, in Thames Street, London —outside the Confessional— had propounded to Garnet a question,which ought to have put the Jesuit expressly upon inquiry. For that question was, in case it were lawful to kill a person or persons, whether it were necessary to regard the innocents which were present, lest they also should perish withal.

And this the rather, when Catesby on that very occasion “made solemn protestation that he would never be known to have asked me [i.e., Garnet] any such question as long as he lived.” — See “Hatfield MS.,” printed in “Historical Review,” for July, 1888, and largely quoted in the Rev. J. Gerard’s articles on Garnet, in “Month” for June and July, 1901.

On the 24th of July, 1605, Garnet had sent a remarkable letter to Rome, addressed to Father Aquaviva, the General of the Jesuits. — See “Father Gerard’s Narrative,” pp. 76, 77, in “Condition of Catholics under James I.,” edited by Rev. John Morris, S.J. (Longmans, 1872).

In this letter, which of course was in Latin, Garnet says — amongst other things betokening an apprehension of a general insurrectionary feeling among Catholics up and down the country in consequence of the terrible persecution which had re-commenced as soon as James I. had safely concluded his much-desired peace with Spain — “the danger is lest secretly some Treason or violence be shown to the King, and so all Catholics may be compelled to take arms.”

Garnet then proceeds: “Wherefore, in my judgment, two things are necessary, first, that His Holiness should prescribe what in any case is to be done; and then, that he should forbid any force of arms by the Catholics under Censures, and by Brief, publicly promulgated; an occasion for which can be taken from the disturbance lately raised in Wales, which has at length come to nothing.It remains that as all things are daily becoming worse, we should beseech His Holiness soon to give a necessary remedy for these great dangers, and we ask his blessing and that of your Paternity.” (The italics are mine.)

Now, by the word “censures” here, I presume, Garnet meant excommunication, that is, a cutting off from the visible fellowship of Catholics and (what would frighten every Catholic, whether his faith worked by love or fear, that is, whether it were a rational form of religion or a mere abject superstition) a deprivation of the Sacraments of his exacting Church, which are, according to Rome’s tenets, the special means devised by the Founder of Christianity whereby Man is united to “the Unseen Perfectness.”

When Garnet penned this letter to the General of the Jesuits in Rome, he had,outside the Confessional, a general knowledge of the Gunpowder project from Robert Catesby.

Thus much is clear.

That is to say, Garnet had a great suspicion, tantamount to a general knowledge, that Catesby had in his head some bloody and desperate enterprise of massacre, the object whereof was to destroy at one fell blow James I. and his Protestant Government. — See Gerard’s “Narrative,” p. 78.

Garnet most probably in the Confessional even did not at first know all particulars.

That is to say, he did not know that it was intended to put thirty-six barrels of gunpowder in a cellar under the House of Lords — consignments of explosives which it was further intended were to be ignited, when Parliament met, by Guy Fawkes, booted and spurred, by means of a slow-burning match, which would give him one quarter-of-an-hour’s grace to effect his escape to a ship in the Thames bound for Flanders: and that the young Princess Elizabeth was to be seized at the house of the Lord Harrington, in Warwickshire, and proclaimed Queenafterher parents and two brothers, Henry Prince of Wales and Charles Duke of York, had been torn and rent into ten thousand fragments.

But this able, learned, sweet-tempered, yet weak-willed, unimaginative, irresolute manknew enough outside the Confessional— which is the point we have to deal with here — to render himself liable to have been sent to the galleys by the Pope, if His Holiness could have laid hold of him, when, notwithstanding this atrocious knowledge, he actually refused to give ear to the arch-conspirator, even although Catesby, on Father Gerard’s own admission, “offered sometimes to tell him [Garnet] that they [Catesby and his friends] would not endure to be so long so much abused, but would take some course to right themselves, if others would not respect them or could not relieve them.” — Gerard’s “Narrative,” p. 78.

Truly “Evil is wrought by want of thought as well as by want of heart.”

The fact that Garnet knew violence was likely to be shown to his lawful Sovereign, coupled with the fact that Garnetmight have learned all the particulars about that purposed violencehad he not, through a negligence which can be only characterized as grossly criminal, passively omitted, if indeed he had not actively declined, to obtain those particulars from the lips of the arch-conspirator himself — such facts make the caseup to the 24th of July, 1605, absolutelyfatal against Garnet. And such facts can lead the unbiased mind of the philosophical historian (who does not care a pin about all the ecclesiastical spite, on either one side or the other, that ever was or ever shall be), can lead to one inevitable conclusion only: that Henry Garnet was justly condemned to death by an earthly tribunal for misprision, that is, for concealment, of High Treasonagainst the Sovereign power of his Country. Although, being a priest, he ought to have been ecclesiastically “degraded” first, according to the provisions of the Canon law, and then handedover to the secular arm for condign punishment, according to the law of the outraged State.

For, “Id certum est quod certum reddi potest,” that is, certain knowledge which can be reduced to a certainty.

Again, the damning evidence against Garnet is clenched by a letter that he sent to Rome, dated 28th August, wherein, amongst other things, he said: “And for anything we can see, Catholics are quiet, and likely to continue their old patience, and to trust to the King or his son for to remedy all in time.” — Gerard’s “Narrative,” pp. 78, 79.

Now Garnet[A]was a man of most acute mind and very clear-sighted; but he was intellectually unimaginative as well as morally weak-willed. And such a man is never a far-sighted man.

[A]Garnet was a profound mathematician and accomplished linguist, amongst other acquirements.

But as Garnet’s moral character was almost certainly good on the whole, the conclusion that Justice suggests in reference to this letter of the 28th August especially is that, through intense grief and anguish of mind, Garnet had lost his head, and was not wholly responsible for either his words or actions.[B]

[B]After Father Tesimond had told Garnet (with Catesby’s leave) of the Plot, thereby bringing the matter as a natural secret indirectly under the seal of the Confessional, Garnet could not sleep at nights. Now, sleeplessness, combined with carking care and keen distress of heart, would inevitably tend to unbalance even the very strongest of human minds, at least, temporarily. Tesimond told Garnetgenerallyof Catesby’s diabolical plan “a little before” St. James’-tide (i.e., the 25th of July, 1605), at Fremland, in Essex, but by way of confession. The Government, however, it seems to me, from the report of the trial in Jardine’s “Criminal Trials” and from Lingard, condemned Garnetnotbecause he did not reveal particularknowledgehe had receivedin the Confessional from Tesimond, but because he did not revealgeneral knowledgehe hadfrom Catesby outside the Confessional. This, in fairness to James I., Salisbury, and the King’s Council, should be faithfully borne in mind. Moreover, according to one school of Catholic moralists, ineither casethe Government ought to have been communicated withifGarnet could have done so without risk of divulging Tesimond’s name. Indeed, Garnet himself took this view — the view which most princes and statesmen will prefer, I should fancy. Garnet, however, had not the machinery ready to his hand to carryboth viewsinto practical effect.Therefore Garnet, to my mind, was eminently justified in not divulging the particular knowledge he had from Tesimond by way of confession. For according to the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, the Christian Aristotle, a natural secret may be indirectlyprotected by the seal of the Confessional if the priestpromisesso to protect it. I conclude, however, that (1) according to the dictates of right reason the promise may beeither implied or expressed, and (2) that in the case of overwhelming necessity the promise may be broken, as in the case of High Treason,if the priestcan avoid,with absolute certitude, exposing the name of the depositor of the wicked secret. It was because Garnet could not avoid exposing Tesimond’s namepracticallythat he was justified in not acting upon his ownabstractprinciples in relation to the knowledge he had from Tesimond by way of confession.

At the beginning of the month of September, 1605, Father Garnet was at Gothurst,[A]three miles from Newport Pagnell, in the County of Buckinghamshire,and about the 5th of September from this still standing stately English home there proceeded the nucleus of a pilgrim-band bent for the famous well of St. Winifred, the British Saint, situated at Holywell, in North Wales.

[A]Gothurst (now Gayhurst) is twelve miles from Northampton and from ten to fifteen miles from Great Harrowden. Weston Underwood and Olney, immortalized by William Cowper, are not far from both places. The poet would be distantly related to young Lord Vaux of Harrowden, through the Donnes, who, like Lord Vaux, through the Ropers, were descended from Sir Thomas More. To Walter Carlile, Esquire, who now resides at Gayhurst, which was the ancient name of the Estate (Gothurst, however, being its name in Sir Everard Digby’s day), I am indebted for the information as to the distance of Gayhurst from Northampton. Cowper was, it will be recollected, the intimate friend of the Throckmortons of his day.

Sir Everard Digby, the Master of Gothurst, was not of the company, as he was engaged in negotiating a match between the young Lord Vaux of Harrowden, then a youth of about fourteen years of age, with one of the daughters of the Lord Chamberlain, the Earl of Suffolk. But Lady Digby formed one of the band, as did the uncle of Lord Vaux, Edward Brookesby, Esquire, of Arundell House, Shouldby, Leicestershire, and his wife the Honourable Eleanor Brookesby, together with her sister the Honourable Anne Vaux.

At least two Jesuits formed part of the cavalcade, Father Henry Garnet and Father John Percy, the chaplain to Sir Everard Digby.

Father John Gerard, who had “reconciled to the Church,” as the phrase went, both Sir Everard and Lady Digby and was their intimate and honoured friend, as well as the friend of the Dowager Lady Vaux of Harrowden and her family, did not join the pilgrimage.

Father Gerard was most probably in Yorkshire at this time. For there is interesting evidence tending to prove that about the 25th of August, 1605, this Lancashire Jesuit was being harboured as the guest of Sir John and Lady Yorke, at Gowthwaite (or Goulthwaite) Hall, near Pateley Bridge, in Nidderdale.[A]

[A]See “The Condition of Catholics under James I.” Edited by John Morris, S.J. (Longmans, 1872), p. 257.

The following abstracts from the Evidence of two of Sir Everard Digby’s serving-men, who accompaniedtheir devout, charming young mistress on this now famous pilgrimage, will give the best account of what took place on this occasion.[A]They are as follow: —

[A]St. Winifred’s Well is at Holywell, Flintshire, Wales, and is sacred to St. Winifred of Wales, an early British Virgin and Martyr. Her “Life” will be found in Butler’s “Lives of the Saints,” under date November 3rd, her Feast Day. The waters of the Well are of healing quality, very copious and icy cold. There is an elegant mediæval stone Chapel built over the Well. (I visited this ancient shrine of a British Maiden — who still rules human hearts — in September, 1897, on my return from Ebbsfleet, where the thirteenth Centenary Commemorations had been held in honour of the spiritual grandsire and sire of the English race, the Italian Pope Gregory the Great and the Italian Benedictine Monk Augustine.)

Gunpowder Plot Books — No. 153.

[Abstract.] ii. Dec. 1605 [In Cal. 11 Dec. 1605.] “Th’examination of James Garvey servtto SrEverard Digby

* * * * *

“Saieth about Bartholmew tide last his ladie roade to St. Wenefred’s Well from Gotehurst: first daie to Deyntrie:[A]2 to Grantz:[B]3 to Winters:[C]4 to Mr. Lacon’s:[D]5 to Shrewsberie: 6 to holte:[E]7 to the well: they staied at the well but one night: and retorned thefirst day 2 to holt 2 to Mr. Banester’s at Wen[F]2 to Mr. Lacon’s againe and so retorned to Gotehurst.[A]Daventry, Northamptonshire.[B]John Grant’s, at Norbrook, Snitterfield, Warwickshire.[C]Huddington Hall, near Droitwich, Worcestershire.[D]Most probably at Kinlet Hall, about five miles from Cleobury Mortimer, Shropshire.[E]Holt, in Denbighshire.[F]Wem, Shropshire.“Saieth ther were in that jorney the ladie Digby, Mrs. Vaux,[B]Mr. Brookysby and his wief Mr. Darcy[C]one Thomas Digby[D]a tall gentleman: one fisher[E]a little man: Srfrauncis Lacon and his daughter and two or 3 gentlemen more went with them from Mr. Lacon’s to the well, &c., &c.[B]Miss Anne Vaux.[C]An alias of Father Garnet; Farmer was another of Garnet’s aliases.[D]An uncle of Sir Everard, belike.[E]An alias of Father Percy, afterwards famous for his historic controversy with Archbishop Laud.(Endorsed) “11 Dec. 1605.“The Examnof James Garvie srvtto SrEverard Digby.”

[A]Daventry, Northamptonshire.

[B]John Grant’s, at Norbrook, Snitterfield, Warwickshire.

[C]Huddington Hall, near Droitwich, Worcestershire.

[D]Most probably at Kinlet Hall, about five miles from Cleobury Mortimer, Shropshire.

[E]Holt, in Denbighshire.

[F]Wem, Shropshire.

“Saieth ther were in that jorney the ladie Digby, Mrs. Vaux,[B]Mr. Brookysby and his wief Mr. Darcy[C]one Thomas Digby[D]a tall gentleman: one fisher[E]a little man: Srfrauncis Lacon and his daughter and two or 3 gentlemen more went with them from Mr. Lacon’s to the well, &c., &c.

[B]Miss Anne Vaux.

[C]An alias of Father Garnet; Farmer was another of Garnet’s aliases.

[D]An uncle of Sir Everard, belike.

[E]An alias of Father Percy, afterwards famous for his historic controversy with Archbishop Laud.

(Endorsed) “11 Dec. 1605.

“The Examnof James Garvie srvtto SrEverard Digby.”

Gunpowder Plot Books— No. 121.

[Abstract.]“Th’examination of William Handy servaunte to SrEverard Digby taken the xxvijthof November 1605

* * * * *

[Par. 4] — “Saith that he haith bin at many masses since Easter last sometimes at the howse of the said Digby sometimes at the howse of the L: Vaux sometimes at the howse of Mr. Throgmorton at the howse of Mr. Graunt at the house of Mr. Winter and at the house of Mr. Lacon in Shropshire and at Shrosbury in an Inn and at a Castle in the Holte in Denbeghe or Flintshire, and at St. Wynyfride’s Well in an Inn, from whencethe gentlewomen went barefoote to the said well and in their retourne from the said well at one Farmer’s howse about 7 miles from Shrosbury, and from thence to Mr. Lacon’s where they had masse whereat SrFrauncis Lacon was from thence to Mr. Robert Winter’s and from thence to Mr. Graunte’s from thence to Deyntree and from thence to SrEverard Digby at all which places they had masse.[A][A]The reason why the Examiner who took down the Evidence was particular to inquire about Masses was that for a priest to say (or offer) Mass was to be liable to a penalty of 200 marks (a mark being 13s. 4d.)andimprisonment for life; while for a lay person to hear (or assist at offering) Mass was to be liable to a penalty of 100 marks and imprisonment for life. To harbour a priest was felony and the penalty was hanging, but without the cutting down alive, drawing and quartering. This last was the portion of the priests who, by remaining in England 40 days, were heldipso factoguilty of High Treason without proof of the exercise of priestly functions. This last penalty, of course, rendered unnecessary the having recourse to the penalty of 200 marks fineandimprisonment for life, since the greater included the less.

[A]The reason why the Examiner who took down the Evidence was particular to inquire about Masses was that for a priest to say (or offer) Mass was to be liable to a penalty of 200 marks (a mark being 13s. 4d.)andimprisonment for life; while for a lay person to hear (or assist at offering) Mass was to be liable to a penalty of 100 marks and imprisonment for life. To harbour a priest was felony and the penalty was hanging, but without the cutting down alive, drawing and quartering. This last was the portion of the priests who, by remaining in England 40 days, were heldipso factoguilty of High Treason without proof of the exercise of priestly functions. This last penalty, of course, rendered unnecessary the having recourse to the penalty of 200 marks fineandimprisonment for life, since the greater included the less.

* * * * *

(Endorsed) “27 Nov. 1605.“Th’examination of Wm. Handy servtto SrEverard Digby.”

(Endorsed) “27 Nov. 1605.

“Th’examination of Wm. Handy servtto SrEverard Digby.”

The pilgrim-band numbered about thirty souls, and included Ambrose Rookwood and his wife in addition to those before mentioned. Ambrose Rookwood appears to have been sworn in as a conspirator by Catesby and others in London about ten weeks before the 2nd day of December, 1605, so that I conclude this must have been very soon after his return from Flintshire.

Sir Everard Digby was also made a confederate by Catesby alone about this time, and in the “Life” of that well-favoured but misguided knight there is an admirably-written account of the unhappy enrolment of the ill-fated young father of the famous cavalier and diplomatist, Sir Kenelm Digby.

It would seem that Father Garnet proceeded to Gothurst with the pilgrims on their return. But he must have shortly afterwards retraced his steps to Great Harrowden.

For a fortnight before Michaelmas (11th October, old style) the chief of the English Jesuits was being harboured at Great Harrowden, the house of the Dowager Lady Vaux and the young Lord Vaux.

Great Harrowden Hall appears to have been rebuilt by the guardians of the youthful baron a little before the year 1605. For in “The Condition of Catholics under James I.,” being largely the life of Father John Gerard, there is (p. 147) the following statement: “Our hostess set about fitting up her own present residencefor that same purpose, and built us separate quarters close to the old Chapel.... Here she built a little wing of three stories for Father Percy and me. The place was exceedingly convenient, and so free from observation that from our rooms we could step out into the private garden, and thence through spacious walks into the fields, where we could mount our horses and ride whither we would.” On p. 175 Father Gerard says: “Our vestments and altar furniture were both plentiful and costly ... some were embroidered with gold and pearls and figured by well-skilled hands. We had six massive silver candlesticks on the altar, besides those at the sides for the Elevation; the cruets were of silver also, as were the basin for the lavabo, the bell, and the thurible. There were, moreover, lamps hanging from silver chains, and a silver crucifix on the altar. For greater Festivals, however, I had a crucifix of gold, a foot in height.”

The Hall at Great Harrowden contained hiding-places for the priests, probably contrived by Brother Nicholas Owen, the servant of Father Garnet.

The priests that resided at Great Harrowden were at that time mainly Jesuits. And besides Father Gerard himself, Fathers Strange, Nicholas Hart, and Roger Lee were there oftentimes to be found.[A]

Back to Index Next