CHAPTER XXII.

[A]It is a remarkable fact that Sir Thomas Heneage (whose name frequently occurs in the correspondence of Sir Francis Walsingham with the Earl of Leicester when in the Low Countries), married for his first wife Anne Poyntz, the eldest daughter of Sir Nicholas Poyntz and the Honourable Margaret Stanley, the daughter of Edward Stanley Earl of Derby. — See “Visitation of Essex, 1612” (Harleian Soc.) under “Poyntz.” — Sir Thomas Heneage is described as Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Sir Thomas Heneage married for his second wife the Dowager Countess of Southampton, the mother of Shakespeare’s friend and patron. Now this Earl of Southampton, like the Earl of Rutland, was an intimate friend of Lord Mounteagle.

Besides, as we have also seen, this was not William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle’s only relationship withEngland’s “North Countrie,” — that birthplace and home of so much that is most original and energetic in the English race. For this happily-circumstanced young peer was related doubly to the great Lancashire house of Derby, being, indeed, the heir and successor to the honours and estates of the Stanleys Lords Mounteagle, of Hornby Castle, near “time-honoured Lancaster.”

In fact, through his mother Elizabeth (Stanley) Lady Morley, William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle was the owner of Hornby Castle, situated in the Vale of the Lune, one of the grandest portions of North-east Lancashire.

Again, through his grandmother Anne (Leybourne) Lady Mounteagle, Lord Mounteagle was descended from two other families belonging to the ancient and wealthy Catholic gentry of the North, some of whom the Wards, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, in the Parish of Ripon, in the County of York, must have known personally, and certainly all of whom they must have greatly honoured.

I refer to the Prestons, of Levens and Preston Patrick, in the County of Westmoreland, and of Furness and Holker, in Lancashire, “North of the Sands,” and to the Leybournes (or Labourns), of Cunswick, Skelsmergh, and Witherslack,[A]in the County of Westmoreland, and of Nateby-in-the-Fylde, in the west of the County of Lancaster.[85]

[A]The modern Witherslack Hall, in Westmoreland, is the property of the present Earl of Derby. It is situated in a lovely neighbourhood which instinctively recalls the words of the poet:“Daffodils,That come before the swallow dares, and take,The winds of March with beauty.” —Winter’s Tale.Witherslack is reached from Arnside, Silverdale, or Grange-over-Sands.The old Witherslack Hall of the Leybournes is now a farm-house.

[A]The modern Witherslack Hall, in Westmoreland, is the property of the present Earl of Derby. It is situated in a lovely neighbourhood which instinctively recalls the words of the poet:

“Daffodils,That come before the swallow dares, and take,The winds of March with beauty.” —Winter’s Tale.

Witherslack is reached from Arnside, Silverdale, or Grange-over-Sands.

The old Witherslack Hall of the Leybournes is now a farm-house.

Lastly, it should be remembered, in endeavouring to trace out by inevitable inference the nature of the tie or ties, manifestly very strong, that bound Mounteagle to Marmaduke Ward (and therefore to Thomas Ward), that the ancestors of both Mounteagle and the Wards had, in the year 1513, fought together at the great battle of Flodden Field, in Northumberland, in which the Scots were led by King James IV. of Scotland, who married Margaret Tudor, the daughter of King Henry VII. of England, and whom naught would content, like many a valiant Scot before and since, save “a soldier’s death or glory.”

In the memorable fight, the fifth son of Thomas Stanley first Earl of Derby, namely, Sir Edward Stanley (whose mother was a Neville),[A]turned the fortunes of theday in favour of the English by attacking with his archers the rear of the Scottish centre — which centre, led by King James himself in person, was assaulting, with some success, the English forces, whose vanguard was led by Lord Thomas Howard, in 1514 created the Earl of Surrey.

[A]The first Lord Mounteagle’s mother was Lady Eleanor Neville, the sister of Richard Neville, so well known to history as “the King Maker.” The Wards were related to the Nevilles in more than one way. — See “Life of Mary Ward,” vol. i., the earlier chapters.In Staindrop Parish Church, three miles from Winston, Darlington, are still to be seen the monuments of the great Ralph Neville and his two wives. This was the first Neville who bore the title Earl of Westmoreland. There are also the monuments of Henry Neville fifth Earl of Westmoreland, and two out of his three wives. His son Charles was the last Neville who bore this title. — See Wordsworth’s “White Doe of Rylstone.” I visited Raby Castle, Durham, with its famous Hall and Minstrels’ Gallery, on the 1st of July, 1901. Raby Castle is owned now by Henry De Vere Vane ninth Lord Barnard, who also owns Barnard Castle, overlooking the Tees, celebrated by Sir Walter Scott in “Rokeby.”

In Staindrop Parish Church, three miles from Winston, Darlington, are still to be seen the monuments of the great Ralph Neville and his two wives. This was the first Neville who bore the title Earl of Westmoreland. There are also the monuments of Henry Neville fifth Earl of Westmoreland, and two out of his three wives. His son Charles was the last Neville who bore this title. — See Wordsworth’s “White Doe of Rylstone.” I visited Raby Castle, Durham, with its famous Hall and Minstrels’ Gallery, on the 1st of July, 1901. Raby Castle is owned now by Henry De Vere Vane ninth Lord Barnard, who also owns Barnard Castle, overlooking the Tees, celebrated by Sir Walter Scott in “Rokeby.”

This Earl of Surrey was afterwards the second Duke of Norfolk, of the Howard line of the Dukes of Norfolk, and great great grandfather of Philip Howard Earl of Arundel, who died in the Tower of London in 1595.

The Mowbrays had been the holders of the coveted title Duke of Norfolk[A]from the year 1396 down to 1475, when John de Mowbray Earl of Warren and Surrey, the fourth of the Mowbray Dukes of Norfolk, died leaving no son but only a daughter, Anne, in her own right Baroness Mowbray and Segrave, and also in her own right Countess of Norfolk. This lady was contracted in marriage to Richard, afterwards created Duke of Norfolk, a son of King Edward IV., but they had no issue.

[A]The first Earl of Norfolk was Thomas of Brotherton, a brother of King Edward II. The date of this ancient Earldom was 1312. It fell into abeyance on the death of Richard Duke of Norfolk and his wife Anne Lady Mowbray.Thomas Howard Earl of Arundel and Surrey (the half-cousin of Lord Mounteagle) was created Earl of Norfolk by a patent of King Charles I. (formerly Duke of York) in 1644. At the present date (25th June, 1901) the House of Lords has under consideration a claim by Lord Mowbray Segrave and Stourton that he be declared senior co-heir to the Earldom of Norfolk created in 1312. (A case of great historic interest.)

Thomas Howard Earl of Arundel and Surrey (the half-cousin of Lord Mounteagle) was created Earl of Norfolk by a patent of King Charles I. (formerly Duke of York) in 1644. At the present date (25th June, 1901) the House of Lords has under consideration a claim by Lord Mowbray Segrave and Stourton that he be declared senior co-heir to the Earldom of Norfolk created in 1312. (A case of great historic interest.)

The second of the Howard Dukes of Norfolk, the hero of Flodden Field, was the father of Thomas third Duke of Norfolk, commonly called the “old Duke of Norfolk.”

He was that Duke of Norfolk, under Henry VIII., who opposed the insurgent Yorkshire and Lancashire “Pilgrims of Grace” (1536) led by the gallant Robert Aske,[A]of Aughton, on the banks of the Yorkshire Derwent, when in the event Aske was hanged from one of the towers of the ancient City of York — probably Clifford’s Tower — and many of his followers tasted of Tudor vengeance.

[A]Representatives of the family of Robert Aske are still to be found at Bubwith, near Aughton, and, I believe, at Hull. Aughton is reached from the station called High Field on the Selby and Market Weighton line. Aughton Parish Church is a fine mediæval structure. Hard-by is Castle Hill, the site of the ancient castle of the Askes, showing also evident traces of two large moats which had surrounded the fortified buildings on the hill which constituted the Aughton Hall of days gone by.

“The old Duke of Norfolk” was the father of that illustrious scion of the house of Howard who, under the name Earl of Surrey, has left a deathless memory alike as warrior, statesman, and poet.

The Earl of Surrey’s son was Thomas Howard fourth Duke of Norfolk, who is the common ancestor of the present Duke of Norfolk and the present Earl of Carlisle.

The fourth Duke of Norfolk’s head fell on the scaffold, by reason of the Duke’s aspiring to the Royal hand of Mary Queen of Scots.[B]

[B]Slingsby Castle, 28 miles north-east of York (now dismantled), is associated with the Mowbrays Dukes of Norfolk, they giving the Vale near the Howardian Hills and Rydale the title, Vale of Mowbray. While Sheriff Hutton Castle, 10 miles north-east of York (rebuilt by the first Earl of Westmoreland), is associated with the Howards Dukes of Norfolk; for the “old Duke” lived there for 10 years during the reign of Henry VIII. (The occupier of part of Sheriff Hutton Castle now (1901) is Joseph Suggitt, Esq., J.P.)

The then Lord Dacres of the North, “who dwelt on the Border” at Naworth Castle,[A]near Carlisle, was likewise a sharer in the renowned laurels of Flodden Field.

[A]The Howards Dukes of Norfolk give their name to the Howardian Hills, through Lord William Howard, who married the Honourable Anne Dacres, of Naworth Castle and Hinderskelfe Castle, now Castle Howard. Historic Naworth and that veritable palace of art, Castle Howard, belong to that cultivated nobleman, Charles James Howard ninth Earl of Carlisle, whose gifted wife, Rosalind Countess of Carlisle (néeStanley of Alderley), is akin to the famous William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle, of the days of James I.

This before-mentioned Sir Edward Stanley, the fifth son of Thomas Stanley first Earl of Derby, was created by Henry VIII. Baron Mounteagle, and he was the great-great-grandfather of William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle, who married Elizabeth Tresham.

The story of the battle of Flodden Field[86]and its famous English archers must have been familiar to Mounteagle from his earliest years. And he, doubtless, would have learned from maternal lips that, in consequence of his ancestor’s prowess in that historic fight, his mother’s family received from Henry VIII. the famous title whereby he himself had the good fortune to be known to his King and his fellow-subjects.

I find from Baines’ “History of Lancashire,” vol. iv., ed. 1836, that Hornby Castle, in the Vale of the Lune, in the Parish of Melling, did not pass out of the family of the Lords Morley and Mounteagle until the reign of Charles II. (1663), when it was sold to the Earl of Cardigan: that James I. confirmed to William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle certain ancient rights and privileges, such as court view of frankpledge, etc.: and that James stayed at the Castle in the year 1617, on his return from Scotland to London through Lancashire.Baines also says that Sir Edward Stanley first Lord Mounteagle (who married Anne Harrington, daughter of Sir John Harrington) successfully petitioned Henry VII. for the Hornby Estates, in consequence of the attainder of James Harrington, apparently his wife’s uncle.

The first Lord Mounteagle left Hornby Castle to his son Thomas second Lord Mounteagle.

William third Lord Mounteagle, the son and heir of Thomas the second Lord Mounteagle, died in 1584, and is buried in the Parish Church of St. Peter, Melling.

Lady Mary Brandon,[A]the eldest daughter of the Duke of Suffolk, was the first wife of Thomas second Lord Mounteagle, whose second wife was Ellen Leybourne (néePreston), the mother of Anne, the wife of William third Lord Mounteagle, who died in 1584.

[A]Lady Mary Brandon was the daughter of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk, who was married four times, one of his wives being a sister of Henry VIII. The Duke of Suffolk was grandfather of Lady Jane Dudley, commonly called Lady Jane Grey, one of the finest moral characters Protestantism has produced. — See Spelman’s “History of Sacrilege” (Masters, ed. 1853), p. 228.

Ellen Preston’s father was Sir Thomas Preston; her mother was a Thornborough, of Hampsfield Hall, Hampsfell, in the Parish of Cartmel, North Lancashire. The Thornboroughs (or Thornburghs) had held some of the following manors from the time of Edward III.: — Hampsfield Hall, Whitwell, Winfell, Fellside, Skelsmergh, Patton, Dallam Tower, Methop, Ulva, and Wilson House, all either in North Lancashire or Westmoreland.

In the parish church of Windermere, at Bowness, near Lake Windermere, there is a window containing, besides royal arms (possibly those of Henry V.), thearms of Harrington, Leybourne, Fleming de Rydal, Strickland, Middleton, and Redmayne, most of which houses of gentry of “the North Countrie” were more or less allied to the fourth Lord Mounteagle.

Sir Edward Stanley first Lord Mounteagle was in possession of Hornby Castle and its broad acres at the date of Flodden Field, 1513.[A]This is interestingly evidenced by the two following stanzas from the old “Ballad of Flodden Field”: —

[A]In the battle of Flodden Field, which caused such lamentation, mourning, and woe in Edinburgh, several citizens of York behaved themselves valiantly under Sir John Mounville. Among English lords in this fight were the Lords Howard (Edmund Howard), Stanley, Ogle, Clifford, Lumley, Latimer, Scroope (of Bolton), and Dacres; among knights were Gascoyne, Pickering, Stapleton, Tilney, and Markenfield; and among gentlemen were Dawney, Tempest, Dawbey, and Heron. — See Gent’s “Ripon,” p. 143.It is said that the gallant Northumbrian Heron knew all the “sleights of war.”

It is said that the gallant Northumbrian Heron knew all the “sleights of war.”

“Most lively lads in Lonsdale bred,With weapons of unwieldly weight;All such as Tatham Fells had bred,Went under Stanley’s streamers bright.From Silverdale to Kent Sand Side,[87]Whose soil is sown with cockle shells;From Cartmel eke and Connyside,With fellows fierce from Furness Fells.”

“Most lively lads in Lonsdale bred,With weapons of unwieldly weight;All such as Tatham Fells had bred,Went under Stanley’s streamers bright.

From Silverdale to Kent Sand Side,[87]Whose soil is sown with cockle shells;From Cartmel eke and Connyside,With fellows fierce from Furness Fells.”

Now, the fourth Lord Mounteagle would, almost certainly, know that among the many valiant knights that fought with his forbear, Sir Edward Stanley, was Sir Christopher Ward, who led the Yorkshire levies to the victorious field, and who came of the great family of Ward (or Warde), long famous in the annals of the West Hiding of Yorkshire about Guiseley, Esholt, and Ripon.

For, as the grand old “Ballad of Flodden Field” again tells us, the English arms were reinforced

“With many a gentleman and squire,From Rippon, Ripley, and Rydale,With them marched forth all Massamshire,With Nosterfield and Netherdale.”

The honourable fact just mentioned concerning the valiant Yorkshire knight, Sir Christopher Ward, together with the fact of the relationship, whatever was its precise degree, between the families of Mounteagle and Ward, through the Nevilles and, almost certainly, other ancient houses besides, would tend to cement the bond of union betwixt William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle and his private secretary or gentleman-servant, who — as we have proved by evidence and inevitable inferences therefrom — it is all but absolutely certain must have been Thomas Warde,[A]of Mulwith, the brother of Marmaduke Ward, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale.[88]

[A]Sir Edward Hoby is the only contemporary, so far as I know, that has written in English the name of Lord Mounteagle’s gentleman-servant as such who read the Letter on the 26th of October, 1605.Now, Hoby writes Ward without the final “e.” If this be borne faithfully in mind there is no objection to my writing the name either “Ward” or “Warde” indifferently.To write Thomas Warde as well as Thomas Ward helps the mind, I think, to realize the force of the evidence and arguments of this Inquiry; hence my so doing. But, of course, I wish to make it clear that it isinferenceonly,not direct proof, that supplies the missing link in identifying Thomas Ward.

[A]Sir Edward Hoby is the only contemporary, so far as I know, that has written in English the name of Lord Mounteagle’s gentleman-servant as such who read the Letter on the 26th of October, 1605.

Now, Hoby writes Ward without the final “e.” If this be borne faithfully in mind there is no objection to my writing the name either “Ward” or “Warde” indifferently.

To write Thomas Warde as well as Thomas Ward helps the mind, I think, to realize the force of the evidence and arguments of this Inquiry; hence my so doing. But, of course, I wish to make it clear that it isinferenceonly,not direct proof, that supplies the missing link in identifying Thomas Ward.

With the consequence that both Lord Mounteagle and his older — almost certainly diplomatist-trained — Elizabethan kinsman would share the lofty traditions, memories and ways of looking at things common to both, which would characterize an historic race that hadbeen of high “consideration” long before the sister Kingdom of “bonnie Scotland” gave to her ancient foe a King from her romantic and fascinating but ill-fated Stuart line.

Having then thus established the point that if Christopher Wright and his conjectured Penman of the Letter wished to put themselves into communication with the King’s Government, Christopher Wright himself had family connections in Mounteagle and Ward, who were pre-eminently well qualified — from their Janus-like respective aspects — for the performance of such a task, let us proceed with our Inquiry.

For there is Evidence to lead to the following conclusions: —

(1) That the revealing conspirator (whoever he was) had arranged beforehand that Mounteagle should be at Hoxton on the memorable Saturday evening, the 26th day of October, 1605, at about the hour of seven of the clock.

Moreover, my strong opinion is that this arrangement was made through the suggestion of Thomas Ward, the diplomatic intermediary, with the express consent of Mounteagle himself.

The suggestion, I think, may have been made by Thomas Ward at Bath,[A]a town which Ward possiblytook on his leaving Lapworth, in Warwickshire, whither, I surmise, he repaired some time between the 11th of October and the 26th of that month.

[A]It is possible that Mounteagle and Catesby may have been together at Bath between the 12th of October, 1695, and the 26th October.See a curious letter dated 12th October, but without date of the year, from Mounteagle to Catesby (“Archæologia,” vol. xxviii., p. 420), discovered by the late Mr. Bruce.There is a copy of this “Archæologia” in the British Museum, which I saw in October, 1900.

[A]It is possible that Mounteagle and Catesby may have been together at Bath between the 12th of October, 1695, and the 26th October.

See a curious letter dated 12th October, but without date of the year, from Mounteagle to Catesby (“Archæologia,” vol. xxviii., p. 420), discovered by the late Mr. Bruce.

There is a copy of this “Archæologia” in the British Museum, which I saw in October, 1900.

(2) That Thomas Ward’s was the guiding mind, the dominant force, or, to vary the metaphor, the central pivot upon which the successful accomplishment of the entire revelation turned, inasmuch as, I submit, that Ward must have received from the conscience-stricken conspirator a complete disclosure of the whole guilty secret, with full power, moreover, to make known to Mounteagle so much of the particulars concerning the enterprise as in the exercise of his (Ward’s) uncontrolled diplomatic discretion it might beprofitableto be made known to Mounteagle, in order that the supreme end in view might be attained, namely, the entire spinning round on its axis of the prodigious, diabolical Plot.

(3) That Thomas Ward (or Warde) was the diplomatic go-between, the trusty mentor, and the zealous prompter of his master throughout the whole of the very difficult, delicate, and momentous part that Destiny, at this awful crisis in England’s history, called upon this young nobleman to play.

If Ward (or Warde) were born about the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, in the year 1605 he would be well-nigh in the prime of life, namely, forty-six years of age; whereas Mounteagle, we know, was just about thirty. Hence was Warde, by his superior age and experience of men and things, well fitted to play “the guide, philosopher, and friend” to Mounteagle in the matter.[A]

[A]If Thomas Warde were sent to the Low Countries, as I think it almost certain he was sent, although I cannot prove it, belike he may have been one of those Elizabethan gentlemen Shakespeare had in mind when he wrote in the “Two Gentlemen of Verona”:“Yet hath Sir Proteus ...Made use and fair advantage of his days:His years but young, but his experience old:His head unmellowed, but his judgment ripe;And, in a word (for far behind his worthCome all the praises that I now bestow)He is complete in feature and in mind,With all good grace, to grace a gentleman.”It sheds some very faint corroborative light on the supposal that Thomas Ward was the “Mr. Warde” mentioned by Sir Francis Walsingham in the “Earl of Leicester’s Correspondence” (Cam. Soc), that Sir Thomas Heneage, a trusted diplomatist of Queen Elizabeth in the Low Countries, married Anne Poyntz, the daughter of Sir Nicholas Poyntz and Margaret Stanley, a daughter of Edward Stanley Earl of Derby, especially when it is recollected that the Poyntz and the Wards, of Mulwith, were related. — See “Life of Mary Ward” (Burns & Oates, 2 vols.)Also a “Mr. Wade” mentioned, by Walsingham to Leicester in a letter dated 3rd April, 1587, may have been really “Warde.” — See Wright’s “Elizabethan Letters,” vol. ii., p. 335.Again, “The Calendar of State Papers,” Domestic Series, 1581-90, gives, page 93, a Thomas Warde, as an examiner for the Privy Council, taking down evidence in the cause of Robert Hungate and wifev.John Hoare and John Shawe, in the year 1583.

“Yet hath Sir Proteus ...Made use and fair advantage of his days:His years but young, but his experience old:His head unmellowed, but his judgment ripe;And, in a word (for far behind his worthCome all the praises that I now bestow)He is complete in feature and in mind,With all good grace, to grace a gentleman.”

It sheds some very faint corroborative light on the supposal that Thomas Ward was the “Mr. Warde” mentioned by Sir Francis Walsingham in the “Earl of Leicester’s Correspondence” (Cam. Soc), that Sir Thomas Heneage, a trusted diplomatist of Queen Elizabeth in the Low Countries, married Anne Poyntz, the daughter of Sir Nicholas Poyntz and Margaret Stanley, a daughter of Edward Stanley Earl of Derby, especially when it is recollected that the Poyntz and the Wards, of Mulwith, were related. — See “Life of Mary Ward” (Burns & Oates, 2 vols.)

Also a “Mr. Wade” mentioned, by Walsingham to Leicester in a letter dated 3rd April, 1587, may have been really “Warde.” — See Wright’s “Elizabethan Letters,” vol. ii., p. 335.

Again, “The Calendar of State Papers,” Domestic Series, 1581-90, gives, page 93, a Thomas Warde, as an examiner for the Privy Council, taking down evidence in the cause of Robert Hungate and wifev.John Hoare and John Shawe, in the year 1583.

Now what is the Evidence to support the preceding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)?

As to paragraph (1), the Evidence is direct.

There was a tradition extant thatMounteagle expected the Letter, told to a gentleman named Edmund Church his confidant. — See Gardiner’s “Gunpowder Plot,” p. 10.

Moreover, the fact that the footman was in the street at about seven of the clock when the missive was given to himis strongly suggestive of the fact that he had been anxiously sent thither by some one, so that he might be ready at hand to receive the document immediately on its arrival.

As to paragraphs (2) and (3), the Evidence is indirect and inferential.

It is this: — Thomas Ward was manifestly on excellent terms with Mounteagle on the one hand and with the conspirators on the other.

For it is evident that no sooner had Mounteagle arrived back from his errand of mercy on that dark night of Saturday, the 26th day of October, 1605, than he divulged to his servant almost all, if not quite all, that had passed at Whitehall during his never-to-be-forgotten interview with Salisbury, the King’s principal Secretary of State.[A]

[A]The days of the week and the dates of the month run parallel for the years 1605 and 1901. Thus both the 26ths of October are on a Saturday.What was the condition of the moon on that memorable Saturday night?

That Lord Mounteagle had imparted to Thomas Ward almost all, if not quite all, that had passed between Lord Salisbury and himself on the delivery to the latter of the peerless document to my mind is clear from the factthat the faithful Ward, the very next day (Sunday) repaired to Thomas Winter, one of the principal conspirators,and told Winter that the Letter was in the hands of Salisbury! — “Winter’s Confession.”

Assuming that Thomas Ward was a Ward of Mulwith, he would be a family connection of Thomas Winter as well as of Christopher Wright through Ursula Ward and Inglebies, of Ripley, in Nidderdale.

Now, what is proved by this very significant fact ofThomas Ward’sso unerringly darting off toThomas Winter, one of the prime movers in this conspiracy of wholesale slaughter, when he (Ward) had all the adult male inhabitants of London and Westminster to make his selection from?

Plainly this: that the revealing conspirator (whoever he was)must have “primed” Thomas Ward by previously telling Thomas Ward that Thomas Winter was one of the chiefest of those involved in the conspiracy.

Again; as Winter had been formerly in Mounteagle’s service (a circumstance doubtless well known to the revealing conspirator),that revealing conspiratorwould naturally, nay inevitably,bid Wardput himselfnot only into speedy communication with Mounteagle, in order to reach Salisbury, the principal servant of the King,but, this done, also into speedy communication with Thomas Winter, one of the chief promoters of the baleful enterprise, in order that by dint ofWinter’spowerful influence the general body of the latter’s co-conspirators might be warned, and not merely warned, but haply prevailed upon to take to their heels in instant flight.

Thus the great end aimed at by the curvilinear triangular movement — wherein (ex hypothesi) the Penman, Father Oldcorne, as well as the go-between, Thomas Ward, and the revealing Christopher Wright, was a party and responsible actor — would be, with clear-eyed, sure-footed, absolute certitude, secured and accomplished — nothing being left to the perilous contingencies of purblind, stumbling, limited chance.

Now, I maintain that there is Evidence, from a very unexpected quarter, that Thomas Ward had received from the revealing plotter a complete disclosure of every one of the material facts and particulars of the Plot, including the existence of the mine, the hiring of the cellar, the storing therein of the gunpowder, and even the names of the conspirators. And that, moreover, Thomas Ward had received the fullest power “to discover” to his master, Lord Mounteagle, all that had been told to him (Ward) by the revealing plotter,if, in the exercise of his (Ward’s) uncontrolled diplomatic discretion, he deemed it necessary in order to effect,primarily, the temporal salvation of the King and his Parliament, and, this done, in order to effect,secondarily, the escape of the conspirators themselves.

The Evidence to which I refer is deducible from the testimony of none other than Francis Tresham, Evidence which he gave to Thomas Winter in Lincoln’s Inn Walks on Saturday night, the 2nd day of November, just one week after the delivery of the Letter to Lord Mounteagle, and just one day after the Letter had been shown by Salisbury to the King.[89]

Thomas Winter, in his “Confession,” writes thus: “On Saturday night I met Mr. Tresham again in Lincoln’s Inn Walks, where he told such speeches that my Lord of Salisbury should use to the King, as I gave it lost the second time, and repeated the same to Mr.Catesby, who hereupon was resolved to be gone, but stayed to have Mr. Percy come up whose consent herein we wanted. On Sunday night came Mr. Percy and no ‘nay,’ but would abide the uttermost trial.”[90]

To what purport can these “speeches” have been, I should like to know, which so mightily wrought on the nerves of even the doughty Thomas Winter that they were potent enough to break down and sweep away the barriers formed by the strong affection which he naturally must have harboured for the pet scheme and the darling project that had cost himself and his companions the expenditure of so much “slippery time,”[91]so much sweat of the brow, and so much treasure of the pocket? Yea, indeed, to what purport can these “speeches” have been?

In the King’s Book, after describing Salisbury’s first visit to James in “the privie gallerie” of Whitehall Palace, it is stated that it was arranged that there should be another meeting on the following day, Saturday, the 2nd of November.

The precise words of the Royal Work are these: “It was agreed that he [i.e., Salisbury] should the next day repair to his Highness; which he did in the same privie gallerie, and renewed the memory thereof, the Lord Chamberlaine [i.e., Suffolk] being then present with the King. At what time it was determined that the said Lord Chamberlaine should, according to his custom and office, view all the Parliament Houses.”

This pre-arranged meeting with the King on the Saturday was duly held just one week after the delivery of the Letter, Salisbury and Suffolk the Lord Chamberlaine being present thereat; and I suggest that, most probably, Mounteagle himself was, if not then actually within ear-shot, yet not afar off.

Now it is evident from Lingard’s “History” that Tresham had told Winter that the Government had already intelligence of the existence of “the mine.”[92]

Tresham also told Winter that he (Tresham) knew not how the Government had obtained this knowledge (vol. ix., p. 72).

The inevitable inference, therefore, that reason demands should be drawn from these statements of Treshamis that Mounteagle must haveeithersent for his brother-in-law,orgone himself to see him, and that Mounteagle then must have told the terrified Tresham that he (Mounteagle) knew for a fact that a mine had been digged,[A]and that the same information probably that very day (Saturday) would be imparted to the King’s Government likewise.[93]

[A]I hold that the probabilities are that Christopher Wright told Thomas Ward of the existence of the mine: that Thomas Ward told Mounteagle: that Mounteagle told Tresham: and that Tresham told Winter.Thus would be the concatenation complete, naturally and easily, with no link missing.

Thus would be the concatenation complete, naturally and easily, with no link missing.

This explanation, moreover, stands unspeakably more to reason than the one which woodenly says that Tresham himself revealed the dread secret respecting the mine to Mounteagle, and that then, out of his own mouth, the unhappy man hazarded self-condemnation in the presence of the astute Winter only one day after his (Tresham’s) life had been in the gravest possible jeopardy at Barnet, near White Webbs, from the poniards of the infuriated CatesbyandWinter.[94]

Again, on Monday, the 4th instant, Mounteagle offered to accompany his distant connection, the Earl of Suffolk, to make the search in the cellar.

Whyneard, keeper of the King’s wardrobe, declared to the two noble searchers that Thomas Percy had hired the house and part of the cellar or vault under the same, and that “the wood and coale” therein were “the said gentleman’s own provision.”

Mounteagle, on hearing Percy named, let drop — probably in an unguarded moment — words to the effect that perhaps Thomas Percy had sent the Letter.

Now, guarded or unguarded, to my mind, the fact that Mounteagle, in any shape or form, mentioned Percy’s name on that momentous occasion tends to show that Mounteagle knew all the material facts and particulars of the Plot, including even the names of the conspirators.[95]

But Mounteagle, I hold, was resolved to do his duty to his King and his country on the one hand, and to his friends — his reprobate, insane, but (he full well knew) grievously provoked friends — on the other.

He was determined, spurred on, I suggest, by Thomas Ward, to save the King and Parliament from bloody destruction by gunpowder on the one hand, and to save his own kith and kin and boon companions on the other: of whose guilt, or otherwise, he did not constitute himself the judge, still less the executioner.

To this end the young peer watched and measured the relative value and effect of every move on the part of the Government like a vigilant commander, bent, indeed, on securing what he deemed to be the rights and interests of the wronged and the wrong-doers alike.

And, most probably, being driven into a corner at the last and compelled so to do by the imperious exigencies of hisprimary and supreme duty, namely, the saving of the King and Parliament from being rent and torn to pieces in a most hellish fashion, truly “barbarous and savage beyond the examples of former ages,” Mounteagle actually himself told Salisbury to inform Sir Thomas Knevet and his band of armed men to keep a sharp lookout for a certain tall, soldierly figure, “booted and spurred,” in the neighbourhood of the cellar, before the clock struck the hour of midnight of Monday, November the 4th. If this were so, it accounts for the efforts of Knevet, Doubleday, and others being so speedily crowned with success.

Fawkes was probablytaken into custodyin the court adjoining Percy’s house and the House of Lords’ cellar, and a few moments afterwardssecuredby being bound with such things in the nature of cords as Knevet and his men had with them. — See Gardiner’s “Gunpowder Plot,” pp. 132-136.

The dark lantern, now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, was left burning in the cellar by Fawkes.

Let me now make two quotations.

One is from the King’s Book, giving an account of the procedure followed by the Earl of Suffolk the Lord Chamberlain, and the Lord Mounteagle, the champion, protector, and hero of the England of his day, in whose honour the “rare” Ben Jonson[96]himself composed the epigram transcribed at the end of this Inquiry.

The other quotation, collected from the relation of a certain interview between Catesby, Tresham, Mounteagle, and Father Garnet, is one which plainly shows that Mounteagle was closely associated with Catesby, not merely as a passive listener but as an active sympathiser, as late as the month of July, 1605, in general treasonable internal projects, which indeed only just fell short of particular treasonable external acts.

But this, of course, does not prove any complicity of Mounteagle in the particular designment known as the Gunpowder Treason Plot, of which diabolical scheme, I have no reasonable doubt, the happy, debonair, pleasure-loving, but withal shrewd and generous, young nobleman was perfectly innocent.

These two quotations show, first, how zealously and faithfully Mounteagle of the Janus-face, looking both before and after — as henceforward we must regard him — kept his hand on the pulse of the Government at the most critical hour of his country’s annals, with a view to doing what both he and his mentor deemed to bejustice in the rightful claims and demands, though diverse and conflicting, of each group of “clients.”

And, secondly, how wisely and prudently Christopher Wright and his counsellor or counsellors had acted in determining upon this favoured child of Fortune as their “vessel of election” for conveying that precious Instrument, which for all time is destined to be known as Lord Mounteagle’s Letter, to the Earl of Salisbury and, through him, to King James, his Privy Council and Government, on that Saturday night, the 26th day of October, 1605.

The King’s Book says: “At what time hee [i.e., the Earl of Suffolk,[97]the Lord Chamberlain] went to the Parliament House accompanied with my Lord Mounteagle, being in zeale to the King’s service, earnest and curious to see the event of that accident whereof he had the fortune to be the first discoverer: where having viewed all the lower roumes he found in the vault under the upper House great store and provision of Billets, Faggots, and Coales; and enquiring of Whyneard, keeper of the Wardrobe, to what use hee had put those lower roumes and cellars; he told them that Thomas Percy had hired both the house and part of the cellar or vault under the same, and that the wood and coale therein was the sayde gentleman’s owne provision. Whereupon the Lord Chamberlaine casting his eye aside perceived a fellow standing in a corner there, calling himself the said Percyes man and keeper of that house for him, but indeed was Guido Fawkes the owner of that hand which should have acted that monstrous tragedie.”[98]

The Discourse then goes on to say that the Lord Chamberlain reported to the King in the “privie gallerie,” in the presence of the Lord Treasurer, “the Lord Admirall,” “the Earles of Worcester, Northampton, and Salisbury,” what he had seen and observed, “noting Mounteagle hadtold him, that he no sooner heard Thomas Percy[A]named to be possessour of that house, but considering both his backwardnes in Religion and the old dearenesse in friendship between himself and the say’d Percy, hee did greatly suspect the matter, and that the Letter should come from him. The sayde Lord Chamberlaine also tolde, that he did not wonder a little at the extraordinarie great provision of wood and coale in that house, where Thomas Percy had so seldome occasion to remaine; as likewise it gaue him in his minde that his man looked like a very tall and desperate fellow.”[99]

[A]I think that Lord Mounteagle or Thomas Ward (or both) must have given some member of the Privy Council a hint that a Christopher Wright was a probable conspirator, for it is noticeable that on the 5th of November several persons testified as to Christopher Wright’s recent whereabouts. Ward probably hoped that Wright’s name would be joined with Percy’s in the Proclamation, and so haply warn the conspirators the better that the avenger of blood was behind.Or, the Government may have procured Christopher Wright’s name from some paper or papers found in Thomas Percy’s London house, on the 5th of November, the day of Fawkes’ capture.At that time the Privy Council undertook all preliminary inquiries in regard to the crime of High Treason. It is different now; at first the case may be brought before an ordinary magistrate.

At that time the Privy Council undertook all preliminary inquiries in regard to the crime of High Treason. It is different now; at first the case may be brought before an ordinary magistrate.

Shortly after Midsummer (i.e., July), 1605, Father Garnet was at the Jesuit house at Fremland, in Essex. Catesby came there with Lord Mounteagle and Tresham.

At this meeting, in answer to a question, “Were Catholics able to make their part good by arms against the King?” — Mounteagle replied, “If ever they were, they are able now;” and then that young nobleman added this reason for his opinion, “The King is so odious to all sorts.”

At this interview Tresham said, “We must expect [i.e., wait for] the end of Parliament, and see what laws are made against Catholics, and then seek for help of foreign princes.”

“No,” said Garnet, “assure yourself they will do nothing.”

“What!” said my Lord Mounteagle, “will not the Spaniard help us? It is a shame!”[A]

Back to Index Next