[A]The English papists groaned under the following persecution: — The poor were practically liable to be fined (and therefore sold up “stick and pin”) one shilling every time they absented themselves from their parish church. The richer members of the community were compelled to pay £20 per lunar month. Many of the English nobility, gentry, and yeomanry were ruined by this; indeed the Catholics must have been very rich on the whole to hold out as long as they did. It was the Government authorities (Clerical and Lay) that did the persecuting; individual Protestants often sought to mitigate the miseries of their fellow-countrymen from whom they differed in religion. Being reconciled to the See of Rome was death, and to be a popish priest was by the terrible Statute 27 Eliz. to be “a traitor” and to be liable to be hanged, cut down alive, bowelled, and quartered. To say Mass was to be liable to a fine of 200 marksandimprisonment for life (a mark was 13s. 4d.). To hear Mass was to be liable to a fine of 100 marksandimprisonment for life. To harbour a priest was death and forfeiture of property.
[A]The English papists groaned under the following persecution: — The poor were practically liable to be fined (and therefore sold up “stick and pin”) one shilling every time they absented themselves from their parish church. The richer members of the community were compelled to pay £20 per lunar month. Many of the English nobility, gentry, and yeomanry were ruined by this; indeed the Catholics must have been very rich on the whole to hold out as long as they did. It was the Government authorities (Clerical and Lay) that did the persecuting; individual Protestants often sought to mitigate the miseries of their fellow-countrymen from whom they differed in religion. Being reconciled to the See of Rome was death, and to be a popish priest was by the terrible Statute 27 Eliz. to be “a traitor” and to be liable to be hanged, cut down alive, bowelled, and quartered. To say Mass was to be liable to a fine of 200 marksandimprisonment for life (a mark was 13s. 4d.). To hear Mass was to be liable to a fine of 100 marksandimprisonment for life. To harbour a priest was death and forfeiture of property.
It was, furthermore, incumbent upon Oldcorne to recollect that more harm than good is frequently occasioned in this entangled world by an unseasonable, indiscriminate, “heroic” application of abstract principles (faultless in themselves) to the varied and perplexing circumstances of man’s terrestrial life.
To illustrate my propositions: It is worth while remembering that even so lofty a soul as Mrs. Ambrose Rookwood evidently regarded her husband, primarily, as a sufferer for conscience sake, and only secondarily, if at all, as a repentant sacrilegious traitor and murderer in desire, who was suffering condign punishment and paying the just penalty of his ruthless crimes.
No doubt special allowances have to be made for this poor woman, inasmuch as her husband and children were all the world to her. But still the following recorded statement proves that thetendencywas for even the best of the average English Catholics of that day, of whom Mrs. Rookwood is a fair type and specimen, to centre their sympathies on the wrong-doers rather than on the wronged.
This was natural enough; for man’s disposition is to be led by his unconscious instincts and emotionalsympathies rather than by drawn-out reason and cool argument, as has been mentioned above.
It was the bounden duty of Oldcorne to hold that disposition strictly in check and to keep himself absolutely master of the tendency. But, on this being assured, he was bound likewise to remember that the tendency existed, and that he lived in a world not of angels, nor of machines, but ofmen— of men indeed who were not totally depraved, nor utterly corrupt, yet who were sorely wounded and weakened in intellect, heart, and will.
The crying want of the present day — as of Oldcorne’s day — is not only for men but for men who are statesmen. And no man can be a statesman unless he has a wide and profound knowledge of human nature, and who, while he pities human nature and loves it, never makes the mistake of expecting too much from it. In other words, we require men who are humanists and humorists, as I cannot but think was the character of Edward Oldcorne.
Now, no man in England knew better nor recognised more fully (for he knew the virtually omnipotent transforming power of the precedent conditions of person, time, and circumstance) the truth of the propositions I have just enunciated than did Father Oldcorne. But this notwithstanding, I hold it wasnotthe truth of the foregoing propositionsALONE— indisputable doubtless as he regarded them — that finally controlled the motives that ruled the action — in substance and in form — at the most critical moment of the existence of this acute, disciplined, high-minded Yorkshireman, when by Fate he was called upon to contemplate,after the fateful November the Fifth, the bloody, prodigious Gunpowder Plot, and the mighty feat which Destiny had imposed upon him for helping to spin the same right round on its axis, even though well-nigh at the eleventh hour.[59]
What finally controlled the motives, the positivenotnegative motives, that ruled that beneficent and never-to-be-forgotten action of this Yorkshire Priest and Jesuit in that supreme moment — the Plot having then become, through his instrumentality, as a mere bubble-burst — will be discovered in due course of this Inquiry.
The remark of Mrs. Rookwood to which I have referred is given in Gerard’s “Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot,” p. 219. Thomas Winter, Rookwood, Keyes, and Fawkes were drawn on their hurdles from the Tower to the Yard of the old Palace of Westminster over against the Parliament House.
“As they were drawn upon the Strand, Mr. Rookwood had provided that he should be admonished when he came over against the lodging where his wife lay: and being come unto the place, he opened his eyes (which before he kept shut to attend better to his prayers), and seeing her stand in a window to see him pass by, he raised himself as well as he could up from the hurdle, and said aloud unto her: ‘Pray for me, pray for me,’ She answered him also aloud: ‘I will; and be of good courage and offer thyself wholly to God. I for my part do as freely restore thee to God as he gave thee to me,’”
This was Friday, the 31st day of January, 1605-6.
On the previous day in St. Paul’s Churchyard had been likewise hanged, cut down alive, drawn, and quartered, Sir Everard Digby, Robert Winter, John Grant, and Thomas Bates.
Catesby, John Wright, and Christopher Wright had been slain at Holbeach on the 8th of November previously.
Thomas Percy died of wounds there received the next day.
Father Tesimond had proceeded to Huddington, doubtless mainly in the hope, let us trust, of stirring up in the hearts of these desperate creatures sorrow — that great natural sacrament — for their awful crimes that, not in vain, had cried to Heaven for vengeance! For truly the guilty suffer and the blood-guilty man shall not live out half his days.
Now there is a sentence in the Letter whose wording is peculiar, but which, I submit, is pre-eminently a wording likely to be used by two natives of Yorkshire.
I mean the sentence, “I would aduyse yowe as yowetenderyour lyf to deuys some excuse toshift offyouer attendance at this parleament,” meaning thereby, “I would advise you as youhave a carefor your life to devise some excuse toput off[60]your attendance at this parliament.”
Once more, a comparison of the Letter sent to Lord Mounteagle with a Declaration not only signed by Father Oldcorne but entirely in his handwriting, dated the 12th of March, 1605-6,[61]reveals this remarkable fact that there is, first, a general similarity between the penmanship of both documents; and, secondly, there is a particular similarity in the case of the following letters: — the small c/s, l/s, i/s, b/s, w/s, r/s, long s/s (as initials), and short s/s (as terminals); also the m/s and n/s are not inconsistent with being written by one and the same hand. The handwriting in the Letter is, for the most part, not in round hand, but in roman character. The letters do not all lean at the same angle to the horizontal. Evidently the writer had endeavoured “painfully” to disguise his handwriting, but conscientious carefulness and a disciplined will emphatically characterise both documents.[62]See Appendix.
Now Thomas Ward, the gentleman-servant of Lord Mounteagle, was, I maintain, the intermediary — the diplomatic intermediary — through whom ChristopherWright (ex hypothesi) acted in communication with Mounteagle. And this, with the express knowledge and consent of Father Edward Oldcorne, who was, almost certainly, well acquainted with Thomas Ward.[63]
In short, the revelation was a curvilinear triangular movement.
Mounteagle, we are told, knew there was a Letter to be sent to him before it came.[64]
Lingard says the conspirators suspected that Tresham had sent the Letter, and that there was a “secret understanding between him and Lord Mounteagle,[A]or at least the gentleman who was employed to read the Letter at the table.” (The italics are mine.)
[A]It is to be recollected that the conspirators themselves suspected that there was a secret understanding, at least between the gentleman-servant of Mounteagle and Tresham, whom they thought was the revealing conspirator. — See Greenway’s MS., quoted by Lingard.
[A]It is to be recollected that the conspirators themselves suspected that there was a secret understanding, at least between the gentleman-servant of Mounteagle and Tresham, whom they thought was the revealing conspirator. — See Greenway’s MS., quoted by Lingard.
In a letter dated 19th November, 1605, of a certain Sir Edward Hoby to Sir Thomas Edmondes, the King’s Ambassador at Brussels, after giving an account of the discovery of the Plot, Hoby says: — “Such as are apt to interpret all things to the worst will not believe other but that Mounteagle might in a policy cause this letter to be sent, fearing the discovery already of the letter, the rather that one Thomas Ward, a principal man about him, is suspected to be accessory to the conspiracy.”
Now there is evidence which creates a moral certainty that Christopher Wright and a certain Thomas Ward (or Warde, for the name was spelt either way at that time) were closely allied by virtue of at least one marriage (if not indeed more than one) subsisting between certain (virtually undoubted) relatives of theirs then living.
Christopher Wright’s sister, Ursula, was (as has been already mentioned) the wife of one Marmaduke Ward (or Warde), of Mulwith, in the Parish of Ripon, in the County of York.
A lady of high family named Winefrid Wigmore, the daughter of Sir William Wigmore, of Lucton, in the County of Herefordshire, says, in her “Life of Mary Ward,” the gifted daughter of Marmaduke Ward and Ursula, his wife: “Mary Ward was the eldest daughter of Mr. Marmaduke Ward, of Givendale, in the County of York. Mulwith and Newby were Manor-houses of his.”[65]
Now in the Parish Register, which was published in the year 1899, belonging to the Church of St. Michael-le-Belfrey, in the City of York, is to be found the following remarkable entry: “Weddinges 1579. — Thomas Warde of Mulwaith in the p’ishe of Rippon, and M’rgery Slater, S’vant to Mr. Cotterell, maried xxixth day of May.”[66]
But for only eleven years (lacking nine days) were Thomas Warde and Margery his wife destined to be united in the bonds of wedlock. For the Register of Ripon Minster records “the burial,” under date “May the 20th, 1590, of Marjory wife of Thomas Warde of Mulwaith.”[67]
They do not seem to have been blessed with offspring. At any rate there are no names of any children of these two spouses entered in the Register of Christenings still kept at Ripon Minster. Although, of course, there may have been such baptized at home[A]“secretly,” or even at some other church than at the chapel of the Skelton Chapelry, or than in Ripon Minster, the mother church of the great Parish of Ripon.
[A]But see Supplementum III.postea, and the evidence there given; evidence which is also interesting as showing how, at any rate sometimes, “the oracle was worked,” with reference to that curious historical problem, the apparent baptism of the children of papists by the minister of the parish church. In Ireland, I have been told, at one time the authorities of the then establishment accepted the mere “allegation” that certain rites had been complied with by the popish clergy.Dr. Elzé is grossly wrong in arguing thatbecauseShakespeare’s name is found in the Register of Christenings in the parish church of Stratford-on-Avon,thereforeShakespeare’s father was a Protestant. Such a conclusion founded on such proof is simply ludicrous. — See Elzé’s “Life of Shakespeare” (Bell & Sons), p. 457. One really is disposed to distrust many of theconclusionsof “German learning” when Elzé argues like this. To my mind, much of “the critical” work (so called in a certain department) may be hereafter found to be full of flaws from building on toonarrow a foundationof evidence. How little man can know of the Past which affords him evidence to hang even a dog on with absolute, as distinct from moral, certitude! (I wish especially not to be thought to imply any disrespect towards the great German people, whose love for him who is for all nations and all time fills me with the profoundest admiration. But Truth is no respecter of persons when it detects errors, or the probabilities of errors, on the part of such as should be “masters of those that know.”)For even the Rigmaydens, of Woodacre Hall, Garstang (harbourers of Campion in 1581), in the most Catholic part of Lancashire,apparentlyhad at least some of their children baptised at the parish church. — See Colonel Fishwick’s “Parish of Garstang” (Chetham Soc.)
[A]But see Supplementum III.postea, and the evidence there given; evidence which is also interesting as showing how, at any rate sometimes, “the oracle was worked,” with reference to that curious historical problem, the apparent baptism of the children of papists by the minister of the parish church. In Ireland, I have been told, at one time the authorities of the then establishment accepted the mere “allegation” that certain rites had been complied with by the popish clergy.
Dr. Elzé is grossly wrong in arguing thatbecauseShakespeare’s name is found in the Register of Christenings in the parish church of Stratford-on-Avon,thereforeShakespeare’s father was a Protestant. Such a conclusion founded on such proof is simply ludicrous. — See Elzé’s “Life of Shakespeare” (Bell & Sons), p. 457. One really is disposed to distrust many of theconclusionsof “German learning” when Elzé argues like this. To my mind, much of “the critical” work (so called in a certain department) may be hereafter found to be full of flaws from building on toonarrow a foundationof evidence. How little man can know of the Past which affords him evidence to hang even a dog on with absolute, as distinct from moral, certitude! (I wish especially not to be thought to imply any disrespect towards the great German people, whose love for him who is for all nations and all time fills me with the profoundest admiration. But Truth is no respecter of persons when it detects errors, or the probabilities of errors, on the part of such as should be “masters of those that know.”)
For even the Rigmaydens, of Woodacre Hall, Garstang (harbourers of Campion in 1581), in the most Catholic part of Lancashire,apparentlyhad at least some of their children baptised at the parish church. — See Colonel Fishwick’s “Parish of Garstang” (Chetham Soc.)
Now we know that Marmaduke Warde was of Mulwaith (or Mulwith) in the year 1585. For the “Life” of his daughter Mary expressly states that she was born at Mulwith in that year. And ifaThomas Warde was of Mulwaith (or Mulwith) only six years prior to 1585, and again of Mulwith in 1590, when he lost his wife, the inevitable inference is that the said Marmaduke Warde and the said Thomas Warde belonged to one and the same family, and that, in all probability, they were akin to each other as brothers.[68]
Again, the Register of Ripon Minster records on the 6th day of October, 1589, the baptism of Edward,[A]the son of a certain Christopher Wright, of Bondgate, Ripon.
[A]If this Edward Wright is the same as a certain Prebendary Edward Wright, of Ripon Minster, who received his nomination from King James I. on the 26th of March, 1613, then at least one cousin of Mary Ward must have conformed to the Established Church. — See “Memorials of Ripon,” in 3 vols. (Surtees Society.)He would be about 23 years of age when the royal favour was thus vouchsafed to him.An Edward Wright was Mayor of Ripon in the year 1635. — Gent’s “Ripon.” — Probably the son of Prebendary Edward Wright.Another cousin of Mary Warde, I find, had likewise conformed — a Dr. Warde, the Master of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. He belonged, I think, to the Wardes, of Durham, descended from a brother of Sir Christopher Ward.
[A]If this Edward Wright is the same as a certain Prebendary Edward Wright, of Ripon Minster, who received his nomination from King James I. on the 26th of March, 1613, then at least one cousin of Mary Ward must have conformed to the Established Church. — See “Memorials of Ripon,” in 3 vols. (Surtees Society.)
He would be about 23 years of age when the royal favour was thus vouchsafed to him.
An Edward Wright was Mayor of Ripon in the year 1635. — Gent’s “Ripon.” — Probably the son of Prebendary Edward Wright.
Another cousin of Mary Warde, I find, had likewise conformed — a Dr. Warde, the Master of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. He belonged, I think, to the Wardes, of Durham, descended from a brother of Sir Christopher Ward.
On the 23rd day of July, 1594, of Eliza, daughter of Christopher Wright, of Newbie.[69]
The baptism on the 12th day of July, 1596, of Francis, son of Christopher Wright, of Newbie.
And furthermore, on the 3rd day of February, 1601, the baptism of Marmaduke, the son of Christopher Wright, of Skelton.
Now, when we recollect thataMarmaduke Warde was certainly brother-in-law toaChristopher Wright; and when we recollect that we have proof thataThomas Warde andaMarmaduke Warde were, respectively, of Mulwaith (or Mulwith) in the Parish of Ripon, and thataChristopher Wright was of Bondgate, Newbie, and Skelton, all likewise in the Parish of Ripon; and when we further recollect that these three gentlemen were of these several places in the closing decades of the years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, only one conclusion is forced upon the mind of even the most sceptical, namely, that the said three gentlemen must have known, and been known to, one another personally, without the shadow of any reasonable doubt.
And again; that between those years, 1589 and 1590 inclusive, the saidThomas Wardeand the saidChristopher Wrighthad known each other intimately, by meeting within the bounds of the Parish of Ripon, — nay even within the chapelry of Skelton — is surely one of the likeliest things in the world.
Furthermore, it is possible that the Thomas Warde, of Mulwaith (or Mulwith), was in the diplomatic service of Queen Elizabeth in the Netherlands, along with Queen Elizabeth’s well-known diplomatist and Treasurer of the Chamber, Sir Thomas Heneage, the step-father of Lord Southampton, Lord Mounteagle’s friend, as well as Shakespeare’s patron.
For I find that the great Sir Francis Walsingham, in a letter dated from “the Court,” the 24th of March,1585 — six yearsafterthe marriage of Thomas Warde, of Mulwaith, to Marjory Slater, and five yearsbeforeher lamented death — that the great Sir Francis Walsingham, in a letter to the Earl of Leicester, “Lord Lieutenant-General of Her Majesty’s Forces in the Low Countries,” speaks ofa“Mr. Warde.”[A]
[A]See the “Leicester Correspondence” (Camden Soc.), p. 187.
[A]See the “Leicester Correspondence” (Camden Soc.), p. 187.
Now we know for certain from Winwood’s Memorials[B]that a Mr. Walter Hawkesworth, of the Hawkesworths of Hawkesworth Hall, in the Parish of Otley, in the County of York, was in the diplomatic service of King James I., and that, according to Foster’s “Pedigrees of Yorkshire Families” he was poisoned at Madrid when on an embassy there.
[B]See also Sir Ralph Sadler’s Papers. Edited by Sir Walter Scott.
[B]See also Sir Ralph Sadler’s Papers. Edited by Sir Walter Scott.
Hence, is it quite within the bounds of possibility that his remote kinsman, Thomas Warde, of Mulwith, may have been in the diplomatic service of Queen Elizabeth. The Hawkesworths and the Wardes had, in days long gone by, twice formed alliances by marriage, so that the families were distantly akin. Indeed it was from Sir Simon Warde, of Esholt, in the Parish of Otley, and of Givendale, in the Parish of Ripon, that the Hawkesworths of Hawkesworth had by marriage alliance gained the Hawkesworth Estate. — See Foster’s “Pedigrees of Yorkshire Families.”
But is there any evidence that links Thomas Ward (or Warde), of Mulwaith (or Mulwith), and the Ward (or Warde) family in general, of Givendale, Newby and Mulwith, with the Lord Mounteagle?[C]
[C]It will be seen as this narrative further unfolds itself that it is almost certain that Thomas Warde (or Ward) was in the service of the Government as a Catholic diplomat under Walsingham. And, moreover, it will appear probable that the servant Warde (or Ward) “had as much, off” as the master Walsingham.
[C]It will be seen as this narrative further unfolds itself that it is almost certain that Thomas Warde (or Ward) was in the service of the Government as a Catholic diplomat under Walsingham. And, moreover, it will appear probable that the servant Warde (or Ward) “had as much, off” as the master Walsingham.
And, first of all, is there any evidence to show that Marmaduke Ward ever had a brother in London, who lived at Court?
There is.
For in Foley’s “Records”[70]we are told that Father George Ward, alias Ingleby, was a son of Marmaduke Ward, Esquire, of Newby, near Ripon, by his wife Ursula Wright.[A]And in a note at the foot of the self-same page, it is stated that William Ward entered the EnglishCollege at Rome in the name William Ingleby vere Ward, 4th October, 1614, at the age of twenty-three; that the family was of distinction in the county,and his uncle lived at Court. (The italics are mine.)
[A]I am, however, inclined to think that Ursula Ward died early in the year 1588, after the birth of her son, probably George, and that the Elizabeth Ward, who is mentioned in Peacock’s “List of Roman Catholics in Yorkshire in 1604” as the wife of a Marmaduke Ward, of the Parish of Ripon, was the mother of Elizabeth Ward, Teresa (or Ann) Ward, William Ward, and Thomas Ward. Indeed, the mother of all Mary Warde’s father’s children, except Mary herself, Barbara, John, and George.I think, moreover, that Elizabeth Ward was a Sympson, probably of Great Edston, near Kirbymoorside, Rydale, in the North Riding of the County of York. The Sympsons, of Edston, had a daughter Elizabeth at this time. — See Foster’s Ed. of “Glover’s Visitation.”In the Ripon Minster Registers there is certainly the entry under date 15th May, 1588, of a wedding between a “Marmaduke Warde and Elizabeth Sympson.” Now Mary Warde, the eldest child of Ursula Warde, was born the 23rd day of January, 1585-86, and Barbara in the year 1586; so that if Ursula Warde died in the year 1588 (at the early part) after giving birth to George Warde, Marmaduke Warde might be conceivably married again in May, 1588. Sir Thomas More’s case would afford a precedent for so early a second marriage. The marriage of Marmaduke Warde and Elizabeth Sympson may have taken place at Ripon from the house of friends, in the presence of some semi-popish conforming Vicar. Winefrid Wigmore styles George Ward Mary’s “owne brother,” implying that there was at least one half-brother. — See “Life of Mary Ward” vol. i., p. 427. John Ward, the elder brother, died from wounds received in a duel. He must have taken after his uncle John Wright, who was one of the most expert swordsmen of his time, and never happy but when sending a challenge to some swordsman or another who specially boasted himself of skill in the use of that ancient weapon.
[A]I am, however, inclined to think that Ursula Ward died early in the year 1588, after the birth of her son, probably George, and that the Elizabeth Ward, who is mentioned in Peacock’s “List of Roman Catholics in Yorkshire in 1604” as the wife of a Marmaduke Ward, of the Parish of Ripon, was the mother of Elizabeth Ward, Teresa (or Ann) Ward, William Ward, and Thomas Ward. Indeed, the mother of all Mary Warde’s father’s children, except Mary herself, Barbara, John, and George.
I think, moreover, that Elizabeth Ward was a Sympson, probably of Great Edston, near Kirbymoorside, Rydale, in the North Riding of the County of York. The Sympsons, of Edston, had a daughter Elizabeth at this time. — See Foster’s Ed. of “Glover’s Visitation.”
In the Ripon Minster Registers there is certainly the entry under date 15th May, 1588, of a wedding between a “Marmaduke Warde and Elizabeth Sympson.” Now Mary Warde, the eldest child of Ursula Warde, was born the 23rd day of January, 1585-86, and Barbara in the year 1586; so that if Ursula Warde died in the year 1588 (at the early part) after giving birth to George Warde, Marmaduke Warde might be conceivably married again in May, 1588. Sir Thomas More’s case would afford a precedent for so early a second marriage. The marriage of Marmaduke Warde and Elizabeth Sympson may have taken place at Ripon from the house of friends, in the presence of some semi-popish conforming Vicar. Winefrid Wigmore styles George Ward Mary’s “owne brother,” implying that there was at least one half-brother. — See “Life of Mary Ward” vol. i., p. 427. John Ward, the elder brother, died from wounds received in a duel. He must have taken after his uncle John Wright, who was one of the most expert swordsmen of his time, and never happy but when sending a challenge to some swordsman or another who specially boasted himself of skill in the use of that ancient weapon.
Moreover, there is evidence tending to prove, with absolute certitude, that the “Ward” or “Warde” family, of Givendale, Newby, and Mulwith were connected with the family of Mounteagle, both on his mother’s side through the Mounteagles, and on his father’s side through the Barons Morley.[71]
Also is there evidence tending to prove, with moral certitude, that either through the Stanleys or the Morleys, or some other family or families, the Wards (or Wardes) were connected by marriage and actually related to Lord Mounteagle by blood.
The proof is this: — In the “Life of Mary Ward,”[72]by Mary Catherine Elizabeth Chambers, it is stated that Mary Ward was in some way related to the before-mentioned lady of high family, Winefrid Wigmore, of Lucton, Herefordshire, who was an accomplished woman, speaking five languages fluently.
Now it is known that Winefrid Wigmore’s father, Sir William Wigmore, had married Anne Throckmorton, one of the daughters of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton. Now Lady Wigmore, through the Throckmortons and the Treshams, “was connected with the families of Lord Mounteagle, Morley, Berkeley, and Vaux.”[73]
Hence it follows that, through the Wigmores,[A]the Throckmortons, and the Treshams, there was a connection of some kind or another between Mary Ward’s familyand the families of Mounteagle, Morley, Berkeley, and Vaux.[74]
[A]Since the text was written, I have found out that Winefrid Wigmore, through her mother, was a cousin once removed to Elizabeth, Lady Mounteagle (néeTresham). — See Notes 30 and 76postea.
[A]Since the text was written, I have found out that Winefrid Wigmore, through her mother, was a cousin once removed to Elizabeth, Lady Mounteagle (néeTresham). — See Notes 30 and 76postea.
Again, Mary Ward was related to Mary Poyntz (pronounced Poynes), a lady whose ancient family had come over with William the Conqueror.[75]Mary Poyntz, herself a lovely woman, was the daughter of Edward Poyntz, Esquire, of Iron Acton and Tobington Park, in the County of Gloucester.[76]
Sir Nicholas Poyntz, who was living in 1580, the father of Edward Poyntz, had married Margaret Stanley, the daughter of Edward Earl of Derby. This lady was the mother of Edward Poyntz, the father of Mary Poyntz, the relative of Mary Ward.
Now I find (from Burke’s “Extinct Peerages”) that Henry Parker Lord Morley, the grandfather of William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle, had married Elizabeth Stanley, daughter of Edward Earl of Derby.
Hence the Poyntz and the Mounteagles were cousins. Again, the Wards were in some way or other related to the Poyntz family. Hence it follows that through the Poyntz the Wards were related in some sort with Lord Mounteagle, by means of the Stanleys, Mounteagle’s father’s ancestors and mother’s ancestors.[77]
For it is obvious that families connected with or related to the same family are connected with or related to each other.
Again, there was certainly a further marriage connection and a probably blood relationship between the Morleys, Mounteagles, and Wards through the great House of Neville.
(We may be sure that a young nobleman like the fourth Lord Mounteagle would be glad to recognise the Wards of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale as “Cousins” if such were the fact, and to treat them in every respect as being on an equality with him.)
Therefore the combined Evidence so far gives us this conclusion: —
That a Christopher Wright was the brother-in-law of Marmaduke Ward, of Mulwith, in the Parish of Ripon.
That Marmaduke Ward was of the same place — Mulwith (or Mulwaith) — as a person named Thomas Warde, who was married in a church in York in the year 1579, and whose wife died in the year 1590, and whose burial is recorded to this day at Ripon Minster.
ThataChristopher Wright, most probably the brother-in-law of Marmaduke Ward, and thus most probably the connection of Thomas Warde, was residing at Newby, near Mulwith,[78]in the Parish of Ripon, between the years 1594 and 1596 inclusive, and in the neighbourhood of the City of Ripon, and within the boundary of its parish, from the year 1589 to 1601.
That Marmaduke Ward’s son, William, had an uncle who lived at Court.[A]
That the Wardes were connected with, and related to Lord Mounteagle by common family ties.[79]
[A]The fact that a Christopher Wright who lived at Newbie in 1596, and at Skelton (Newbie itself is in the Parish of Skelton) in 1601, when he called one of his children “Marmaduke,” raises a strong presumption, I maintain, that this Christopher Wright was the brother-in-law of Marmaduke Ward.At this time there was also a Francis Wright at Newbie, and a John Wright at Grantley. They may have been the children of John and Christopher Wright,the unclesof John and Christopher Wright, the Gunpowder plotters. And, of course, it ispossiblethat the Christopher Wright who lived in Bondgate, Newbie, and Skelton between the years 1589 and 1601may have been a cousin or other kinsmanof Christopher Wright the plotter, or even of different families altogether. But in the Register of Welwick Church are the following entries of Burials: “13 October 1654 ffrauncis Wright Esquire and 2 May 1664 ffrauncis Wright Esquire” (communicated by the Rev. D. V. Stoddart, M.A., Vicar of Welwick), entries which tend to prove that the Newby Wrights and the Plowland Wrights were one and the same persons, and, therefore, of one and the same clan.There seem, from the “Memorials of Ripon,” vol. iii. (Surtees Soc.), to have been “Wrights” in Ripon and the neighbourhood for many generations, certainly long before the reign of Henry VIII., when the grandfather of the plotters is said to have come from Kent into Yorkshire. — See Foster’s “Glover’s Visitation of Yorkshire.” Possibly the Wrights of Kent originally sprang from Yorkshire.“A Christopher Wright” lived at South Kilvington, near Thirsk, in the nineteenth century. — See the tablet to his memory in the church of that parish.
[A]The fact that a Christopher Wright who lived at Newbie in 1596, and at Skelton (Newbie itself is in the Parish of Skelton) in 1601, when he called one of his children “Marmaduke,” raises a strong presumption, I maintain, that this Christopher Wright was the brother-in-law of Marmaduke Ward.
At this time there was also a Francis Wright at Newbie, and a John Wright at Grantley. They may have been the children of John and Christopher Wright,the unclesof John and Christopher Wright, the Gunpowder plotters. And, of course, it ispossiblethat the Christopher Wright who lived in Bondgate, Newbie, and Skelton between the years 1589 and 1601may have been a cousin or other kinsmanof Christopher Wright the plotter, or even of different families altogether. But in the Register of Welwick Church are the following entries of Burials: “13 October 1654 ffrauncis Wright Esquire and 2 May 1664 ffrauncis Wright Esquire” (communicated by the Rev. D. V. Stoddart, M.A., Vicar of Welwick), entries which tend to prove that the Newby Wrights and the Plowland Wrights were one and the same persons, and, therefore, of one and the same clan.
There seem, from the “Memorials of Ripon,” vol. iii. (Surtees Soc.), to have been “Wrights” in Ripon and the neighbourhood for many generations, certainly long before the reign of Henry VIII., when the grandfather of the plotters is said to have come from Kent into Yorkshire. — See Foster’s “Glover’s Visitation of Yorkshire.” Possibly the Wrights of Kent originally sprang from Yorkshire.
“A Christopher Wright” lived at South Kilvington, near Thirsk, in the nineteenth century. — See the tablet to his memory in the church of that parish.
Hence, from the foregoing evidence, the conclusions are inevitable, first, that Thomas Warde, of Mulwith, who married Marjory (or Margery) Slater[A]in 1579, was almost certainly a connection and relative of Lord Mounteagle, in whose household Warde held an honoured and honourable position; or, as doubtless we should say nowadays, was the young peer’s private secretary: and, secondly, that, through the said Thomas Warde, Christopher Wright likewise was almost certainly by affinity connected with, if not related by blood to, the same highly-favoured English nobleman.
[A]This marriage of Thomas Warde, of Mulwaith, to Marjory (or Margery) Slater, “servant to Mr. Cotterill,” of the Parish of St. Wilfrid, York, forcibly reminds one of the romance which Lord Tennyson has immortalized in his charming little poem, “The Lord of Burleigh.” Moreover, it is worthy of remark that there was a family connection between the family of Cecil and a family of Ward, most probably the Wards of Mulwith, or those akin to them. — See Hatfield’s “Hist. MSS.” (Eyre & Spottiswoode), pt. viii., p. 553, where it says, “Pedigree connection of the Cecil and Ward families, partly in Lord Burleigh’s hand,” pt. i., 204-289.
[A]This marriage of Thomas Warde, of Mulwaith, to Marjory (or Margery) Slater, “servant to Mr. Cotterill,” of the Parish of St. Wilfrid, York, forcibly reminds one of the romance which Lord Tennyson has immortalized in his charming little poem, “The Lord of Burleigh.” Moreover, it is worthy of remark that there was a family connection between the family of Cecil and a family of Ward, most probably the Wards of Mulwith, or those akin to them. — See Hatfield’s “Hist. MSS.” (Eyre & Spottiswoode), pt. viii., p. 553, where it says, “Pedigree connection of the Cecil and Ward families, partly in Lord Burleigh’s hand,” pt. i., 204-289.
But again, seeing that we know that a certain Thomas Ward lived at Court, by reason of his being a member of the household of Lord Mounteagle, who had been admitted to Court ever since the accession to the throne of James the First, by this point also I know not how to escape from these several probable conclusions: that the Thomas Warde (or Ward), the gentleman-servant of Lord Mounteagle, was the brother of Marmaduke Warde (or Ward); that, by consequence, he was the connection of Christopher Wright; and that by remoter consequence, Christopher Wright himself was a connection of Lord Mounteagle likewise.
Now, granting the family connection between Thomas Warde and Wright, there is no antecedent improbability, but the contrary, in the supposal that Christopher Wright, if and when stricken with remorse at the thought of his sworn part and lot in the iniquitous Gunpowder Plot, had recourse to this Thomas Warde, who was his connection, for trustworthy and effectual help in saving from a sudden and cruel death, haply himself and his confederates, but certainly his Sovereign and the Senators of his Fatherland, along with Heaven alone knows whom else beside!
Furthermore, if there were any antecedent improbability in such a supposal as that Christopher Wright should have recourse to this particular Yorkshireman, Thomas Warde, in the hour of his need, it shouldbe had in continual remembrance — as a self-evident proposition from the constitution of human nature — that the person or persons to whom a Yorkshireman like Christopher Wright (supposing him to have been the revealing plotter) almost certainly would have recourse would be, if possible, some tried and constant native of his own County, whose intellect, he would think, there was some guarantee for being shrewd and practical, his heart not devoid of fellow-feeling with a “brother in adversity,” and his will at once indomitable and energetic.[80]One who indeed laughs at alleged impossibilities and who cries: “It shall be done!”
Lastly, there is proof, indirect indeed but very telling, that Thomas Warde must have been closely akin to Marmaduke Warde, and that both must have been related to Lord Mounteagle.
This proof is contained in the following “Examination of Marmaduke Warde, Gentleman, in the County of Yorke, taken at Beauchamp Court before Sir Fulke Grevyll, Knight, and Bartholmewe Hales, Esqre., on Wednesday, the 6th day of November, the day following the arrest of Fawkes and the flight of the others of the conspirators from London towards Dunchurch, in Warwickshire: —
“Gunpowder Plot Books — Part I., No. 47.[81]“The examinacion of Marmaduke Warde, gent. of Newbie in the countie of yorke taken before Sr.ffowlk Grevyll[A]Knight and Bartholmewe Hales esqr.“This extbeinge demaunded when he came into this Countreye saith a fortnight since & hath since continued at Mr Jo: Writes at Lapworth, where Mr Write discontynuinge the space of on weeke past hissister in lawe Mrs Write intreated him (beeinge accompanyed wthon Marke Brittaine her man) to goe to Mr Winter wtha horse to Huddenton where as theye past by Alcester about an hower after the troope past this extwas apprehended but the saide Brittaine beeinge well horst escapt hee further saith hee knewe not of the companies passinge ytway vntill they came to Alcester nor of theire purpose any thinge at all.”
“Gunpowder Plot Books — Part I., No. 47.[81]
“The examinacion of Marmaduke Warde, gent. of Newbie in the countie of yorke taken before Sr.ffowlk Grevyll[A]Knight and Bartholmewe Hales esqr.
“This extbeinge demaunded when he came into this Countreye saith a fortnight since & hath since continued at Mr Jo: Writes at Lapworth, where Mr Write discontynuinge the space of on weeke past hissister in lawe Mrs Write intreated him (beeinge accompanyed wthon Marke Brittaine her man) to goe to Mr Winter wtha horse to Huddenton where as theye past by Alcester about an hower after the troope past this extwas apprehended but the saide Brittaine beeinge well horst escapt hee further saith hee knewe not of the companies passinge ytway vntill they came to Alcester nor of theire purpose any thinge at all.”
[A]This was the celebrated Sir Fulk Greville, the friend and biographer of Sir Philip Sidney. Greville was afterwards created Lord Brooke. His tomb, with a famous inscription, is in the church of St. Mary, Warwick.
[A]This was the celebrated Sir Fulk Greville, the friend and biographer of Sir Philip Sidney. Greville was afterwards created Lord Brooke. His tomb, with a famous inscription, is in the church of St. Mary, Warwick.
Now, from the “Life of Mary Ward,” vol. i., p. 91, it is evident, first, that Marmaduke Warde got into no trouble of any kind, notwithstanding that for a fortnight he had been actually dwelling under the roof-tree of one of the principal conspirators, and when apprehended was even in the act of taking a horse from Lapworth to Huddington, the mansion of Robert Winter, one Gunpowder traitor and armed rebel, who was also the brother of another Gunpowder traitor and armed rebel — the latter, indeed, being among the very chiefest of the traitors and rebels.
It is evident, secondly, that on reaching London town the Master of Newbie, in the County of York, lodged in Baldwin’s Gardens, Holborn, apparently as a matter of course.
Moreover, the marvel of the whole thing is enhanced by the fact, first, that Marmaduke Ward’s name is bracketed along with Richard Yorke (a follower of Robert Winter) and Robert Key (doubtless Robert Keyes), the Gunpowder traitor, who was arrested in Warwickshire by himself and not in the company of the others (it is supposed he had been to Turvey, in Bedfordshire, to see his wife and children at Lord Mordaunt’s, and was making his way towards Holbeach); and by the fact,secondly, that the said Marmaduke Ward, Richard Yorke, and Robert Key are specially described as “suspected persons usually resorting to Mr. Winter, Mr. Grant, and Mr. Rookwood’s.”[A]
[A]See add. MS. 5874, fo. 322, British Museum. See also Appendix for the list of suspected persons usually resorting to Mr. Winter’s, Mr. Grant’s, and Mr. Rookwood’s.Mr. Winter’s house would be Huddington, in Worcestershire; Mr. Grant’s, Norbrook, in Warwickshire; Mr. Rookwood’s would be Clopton Hall (or House), Stratford-on-Avon. Mabie’s “Life of Shakespeare” (Macmillan, 1901), p. 393, contains a picture of the dining-hall at Clopton.
[A]See add. MS. 5874, fo. 322, British Museum. See also Appendix for the list of suspected persons usually resorting to Mr. Winter’s, Mr. Grant’s, and Mr. Rookwood’s.
Mr. Winter’s house would be Huddington, in Worcestershire; Mr. Grant’s, Norbrook, in Warwickshire; Mr. Rookwood’s would be Clopton Hall (or House), Stratford-on-Avon. Mabie’s “Life of Shakespeare” (Macmillan, 1901), p. 393, contains a picture of the dining-hall at Clopton.
Now the inferences that I draw from these two truly astounding circumstances are these following: — That Marmaduke Warde must have had literally “a friend at Court,” or his lodging when he reached the great Metropolis, as a matter of course, would have been not — emphaticallynot— Baldwin’s Gardens, Holborn, but, of a surety, the Tower of London.
That this “friend” must have been very closely allied to him in some way or another.
And that this “friend” must have been a very powerful friend indeed, especially when one remembers the punishment that was inflicted after the Plot had become a mere bubble-burst by the Court of Star Chamber upon Marmaduke Warde’s own connection (through the Gascoignes), Henry Earl of Northumberland,[82]and upon the Lords Montague, Mordaunt, and Stourton, the latter of whom had married a daughter of good Sir Thomas Tresham; and the prosecution of Marmaduke Warde’s other connection, Sir John Yorke, of Gowthwaite Hall, in Nidderdale, as late as the year 1612, on a charge of complicity in the Plot.[83]
Now, from all these three inferences, surely the further inference is inevitable, that the probabilities areso high as to amount to moral certitude, that Thomas Warde and Marmaduke Warde were each allied, in blood, to William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle.
And “probability” that amounts to moral certitude is, as every-day experience, as well as philosophy, tells us, “the very guide of life.”
Therefore the historical Inquirer henceforward is warranted in reason in pursuing his inquiries into this matter on the following assumption, at the very least, namely, that Christopher Wright, Marmaduke Warde, Thomas Warde, and Lord Mounteagle had common family ties subsisting between them in the year 1605.
And, consequently, upon such an assumption the Inquirer may justifiably build his hypothesis respecting the revelation of the Gunpowder Treason Plot.[84]
But, it may be asked, is there any Evidence, however remote, to show how it is possible that Mounteagle may have been brought into personal contact with his morally certain kinsman, Thomas Warde (or Ward)?
There is.
For it is to be remembered that although Mounteagle seems to have spent most of his time in London and Essex, his grandmother, Elizabeth Lady Morley, the wife of Henry Parker Lord Morley, was, as we have seen, of the then well-nigh princely house of the Stanleys Earls of Derby, she being, in fact, a daughter of Edward Stanley Earl of Derby, as was Margaret Lady Poyntz, the wife of Sir Nicholas Poyntz,[A]of Iron Acton, in the County of Gloucester, the father of Edward Poyntz, Esquire, the relative of the Wardes of Yorkshire.