[A]Lathbury’s little book, published by Parker, is a very careful compilation (me judice). It contains an extract from the Act of Parliament ordaining an Annual Thanksgiving for November 5th; also in the second Edition (1840) an excellent fac-simile of Lord Mounteagle’s Letter. In Father Gerard’s “What was the Gunpowder Plot?” (1896), on p. 173, is a fac-simile of the signature of Edward Oldcorne both before and after torture.
[A]Lathbury’s little book, published by Parker, is a very careful compilation (me judice). It contains an extract from the Act of Parliament ordaining an Annual Thanksgiving for November 5th; also in the second Edition (1840) an excellent fac-simile of Lord Mounteagle’s Letter. In Father Gerard’s “What was the Gunpowder Plot?” (1896), on p. 173, is a fac-simile of the signature of Edward Oldcorne both before and after torture.
Now, as somewhat slightly confirming this statement of Lathbury, is the fact that in an old print published soon after the discovery of the Plot, which shows the conspirators Catesby, Thomas Winter, Percy, John Wright, Fawkes, Robert Winter, Bates, and Christopher Wright, Christopher Wright is represented as a tall man, in the high hat of the period, facing Catesby, and evidently engaged in earnest discourse with the arch-conspirator. Christopher Wright to enforce his utterance is holding up the forefinger of his right hand. Catesby’s right hand is raised in front of Christopher Wright, while Catesby’s left hand rests on the hilt of the sword girded on his side.[125]
(Of course the evidence in paragraphs (2) and (5) of the last chapter may have emanated from one and the same source; but the great point is that ithas emanated from somewhere.)
In connection with Christopher Wright’s propinquity to Thomas Ward possibly, and to Thomas Winter possibly likewise, on the Sunday immediately previous to the “fatal Fifth,” the two following items of evidence are of consequence: —
(1) In Jardine’s “Narrative,” p. 98, we are told: “On Sunday, the 3rd of November, the conspirators heard from the same individual who had first informed them of the Letter to Lord Mounteagle, that the Letterhad been shown to the King, who made great account of it, but enjoined the strictest secrecy.”
This individual was Thomas Ward.— (Jardine.)
Now, we have seen already that Stowe’s “Chronicle” records “the next day after the delivery of the Letter” there was a conjunction of the planets — Thomas Winter and Christopher Wright.
This conjunction at or about this period I hold to be a very significant fact, tending to show thateitherthe one or the other must have sought his confederate out, as has been remarked already.
But from the following important Evidence of William Kyddall, servant to Robert Tyrwhitt, Esquire,[A]brother of Mrs. Ambrose Rookwood, and kinsman of Robert Keyes, it is evident that it was physically impossible for Christopher Wright to have met Thomas Winter on Sunday, the 27th of October; inasmuch as Christopher Wright was then at Lapworth, only twenty miles distant from Hindlip Hall.[B]
[A]Robert Tyrwhitt and William Tyrwhitt and one of Thomas Winter’s uncles, David Ingleby, of Ripley (who married Lady Anne Neville, a daughter of Charles fifth Earl of Westmoreland), along with “Jesuits,” were, about the year 1592, great frequenters of Twigmore, in Lincolnshire, twelve miles from Hull by water. John Wright afterwards lived at Twigmore. Father Garnet is known to have been at Twigmore.
[A]Robert Tyrwhitt and William Tyrwhitt and one of Thomas Winter’s uncles, David Ingleby, of Ripley (who married Lady Anne Neville, a daughter of Charles fifth Earl of Westmoreland), along with “Jesuits,” were, about the year 1592, great frequenters of Twigmore, in Lincolnshire, twelve miles from Hull by water. John Wright afterwards lived at Twigmore. Father Garnet is known to have been at Twigmore.
[B]For the information as to the distances between Coughton and Hindlip; and Stratford-on-Avon and Hindlip; also between Lapworth and Hindlip, I am indebted to Charles Avery, Esq., of Headless Cross, near Coughton; the Rev. Father Atherton, O.S.B., of Stratford-on-Avon; and George Davis, Esq., of York.
[B]For the information as to the distances between Coughton and Hindlip; and Stratford-on-Avon and Hindlip; also between Lapworth and Hindlip, I am indebted to Charles Avery, Esq., of Headless Cross, near Coughton; the Rev. Father Atherton, O.S.B., of Stratford-on-Avon; and George Davis, Esq., of York.
Yet this does not disprove the materialfactof the meeting itself, the date or circumstance of time not belonging to the essence of the assertion. (See Appendix.)
Gunpowder Plot Books — Part I., No. 52.
“The examinacon of William Kyddall of Elsam in the Countie of Lincolne srvant to Mr. Robert Turrett of Kettleby[A]in the said Com. taken the viiithdaie of November 1605 before SrRichard Verney Knighte high Sherriff for the Com. of Warr. SrJohn fferrers & Willm Combes EsqrJustices of peace there saith as followeth.
“The examinacon of William Kyddall of Elsam in the Countie of Lincolne srvant to Mr. Robert Turrett of Kettleby[A]in the said Com. taken the viiithdaie of November 1605 before SrRichard Verney Knighte high Sherriff for the Com. of Warr. SrJohn fferrers & Willm Combes EsqrJustices of peace there saith as followeth.
[A]Kettleby is near Brigg, in Lincolnshire. Twigmore, where John Wright had lived, is also near the same town. (Communicated by R. H. Dawson, Esq., of Beverley, a descendant of the Pendrells, of Boscobel.)
[A]Kettleby is near Brigg, in Lincolnshire. Twigmore, where John Wright had lived, is also near the same town. (Communicated by R. H. Dawson, Esq., of Beverley, a descendant of the Pendrells, of Boscobel.)
“That he was intreated of Mr. John Wrighte, who was dwellinge at Twigmore in the Countie of Lincolne, to bringe his daughtrbeinge eight or nine yere old to Lapworth to Nicholas Slyes[B]house where he hath harbored this half yere. He brought the child to Lapworth the xxiiiithof October, and there was Mr. John Wrighte and his wife and Mr. Christopher Wrighte and his wife, soe he continued at Lapworth from Wednesdaie to Monday, from thence he goeth to London wthMr. Christopher Wrighte and came to London on Wednesdaie betwixt two & three a Clocke to St. Giles to the signe of the Maydenhead from whence Mr. Wrighte wente into the Towneand he stayed at the Inn, uppon ffriday one Richard Browne srvant to Mr. Wrighte wente downe into Surrey, and on ffriday at night Browne returned and he & Browne wente uppon Sattersdaie for the Child to a Towne he knoweth not about Croydon Race and broughte it to the Maydenhead at St. Gyles to Mr. Wrighte the ffathrwho seeinge the child too little to be carried sent them backe wthit to the place whence thei fetched it on Sonday Morninge, and thei retorned Sondaie night to the Maydenhead and it was purposed by Mr. Wright to come awaie wththis examinate uppon Mondaie morninge but staied because Mr. Wrightes Clothes were not made till Tuesdaie morninge and then Mr. Wrighte sent this examinateand[A]William Ward nephew to Mr. Wrighte downe to Lapworth in Warwickshirewhither they were now goinge. He saith he lefte Mr. Wright at London and knoweth not the causes why he came not away wththem he saith that Browne lyeth in Westminster neare Whitehall at one Bonkers house. Thei broughte in their Cloakbagge a suit of Cloathes for Mr. John Wright a Petronell and a Rapier & dagger thinkinge to find him at Lapworth.
[B]Probably Nicholas Sly and his house were well known to Shakespeare. John Wright appears to have gone to Lapworth (which belonged to Catesby) about May, 1605. Who Mrs. John Wright was I do not know.
[B]Probably Nicholas Sly and his house were well known to Shakespeare. John Wright appears to have gone to Lapworth (which belonged to Catesby) about May, 1605. Who Mrs. John Wright was I do not know.
[A]William Ward, one of the sons of Marmaduke Ward,it will be remembered, had an uncle who lived at Court. This surely must have been Thomas Ward. And I opine that the boy had been on a visit to this uncle; for at this time his father was at Lapworth, the house of John Wright. It is possible, however, that Christopher Wright and Kyddall may have brought young Ward up to London from Lapworth; but I do not think so, otherwise we should have been told the fact in Kyddall’s evidence, most probably. (The italics are mine.)
[A]William Ward, one of the sons of Marmaduke Ward,it will be remembered, had an uncle who lived at Court. This surely must have been Thomas Ward. And I opine that the boy had been on a visit to this uncle; for at this time his father was at Lapworth, the house of John Wright. It is possible, however, that Christopher Wright and Kyddall may have brought young Ward up to London from Lapworth; but I do not think so, otherwise we should have been told the fact in Kyddall’s evidence, most probably. (The italics are mine.)
“Richard Verney.[B]Jo: fferrers.[C]W. Combes.”[126][D]
[B]Sir Richard Verney, Knt., would be a friend, belike, of Sir Thomas Lucy, Knt., of Charlcote (a Warwickshire Puritan gentleman).
[B]Sir Richard Verney, Knt., would be a friend, belike, of Sir Thomas Lucy, Knt., of Charlcote (a Warwickshire Puritan gentleman).
[C]Of the Ferrers, of Baddlesley Clinton (a very old Catholic family).
[C]Of the Ferrers, of Baddlesley Clinton (a very old Catholic family).
[D]From whom Shakespeare bought land. To John Combes, brother to William, the poet bequeathed his sword by Will.
[D]From whom Shakespeare bought land. To John Combes, brother to William, the poet bequeathed his sword by Will.
(No endorsement).
Mistress Dorothie Robinson, Widdow, of Spur Alley, on the 7th of November, 1605, also deposed as follows: —
Gunpowder Plot Books — Part I., No. 41.
“The examinacon of Dorathie Robinson[127]widdow of Spurr Alley.“Shee sayeth that one Mr. Christopher Wright gent did lye in her house about a Moneth past for xviiiendayes together and no more. And there did come to him one Mr. Winter wchdid continually frequent his Company and about a moneth past the said Winter brought to her house two hampers[A]locked wthtwo padlockes, and caused them to be placed in a little Closet at the end of Mr. Wright’s Chamber. But what was in the said hamps, was privately conveyed away by Winter wthout her knowledge, and the hamps was geven to her use.“Shee sayeth that Mr. Wright could not chuse but know of the conveying of those thinges wchwere in the hamper as well as Mr. Winter.“Shee sayeth that Mr. Winter by report of his man, was a Worcestershire man, and his living Eight score poundes by the yeare at the lest.“The said Mr. Wright hath a brother in London,[B]whose servant came to him in this woman’s house, and thesame morning of his going away, wchwas a Moneth on Tuesday last.“That the said Wright was to seeke his loding againe at this woman’s house; but she tould him her lodgings were otherwayes disposed of. And then he went his wayes. And since that tyme shee never saw him.“She sayeth that shee saw Mr. Winter uppon Sunday last in the afternoone. But where he lodgeth she knoweth not.(The italics are mine.)“I can find no manner of thing in this woman’s house whereby to geve us any incouragemtto proceede any further.“The said Mr. Wright did often goe to the Salutation to one Mr. Jackson’s house; And one Steven the drawer as shee thinketh will tell where hee is.”
“The examinacon of Dorathie Robinson[127]widdow of Spurr Alley.
“Shee sayeth that one Mr. Christopher Wright gent did lye in her house about a Moneth past for xviiiendayes together and no more. And there did come to him one Mr. Winter wchdid continually frequent his Company and about a moneth past the said Winter brought to her house two hampers[A]locked wthtwo padlockes, and caused them to be placed in a little Closet at the end of Mr. Wright’s Chamber. But what was in the said hamps, was privately conveyed away by Winter wthout her knowledge, and the hamps was geven to her use.
“Shee sayeth that Mr. Wright could not chuse but know of the conveying of those thinges wchwere in the hamper as well as Mr. Winter.
“Shee sayeth that Mr. Winter by report of his man, was a Worcestershire man, and his living Eight score poundes by the yeare at the lest.
“The said Mr. Wright hath a brother in London,[B]whose servant came to him in this woman’s house, and thesame morning of his going away, wchwas a Moneth on Tuesday last.
“That the said Wright was to seeke his loding againe at this woman’s house; but she tould him her lodgings were otherwayes disposed of. And then he went his wayes. And since that tyme shee never saw him.
“She sayeth that shee saw Mr. Winter uppon Sunday last in the afternoone. But where he lodgeth she knoweth not.(The italics are mine.)
“I can find no manner of thing in this woman’s house whereby to geve us any incouragemtto proceede any further.
“The said Mr. Wright did often goe to the Salutation to one Mr. Jackson’s house; And one Steven the drawer as shee thinketh will tell where hee is.”
[A]These hampers contained the fresh gunpowder, no doubt, mentioned by Thomas Winter in his “Confession” written in the Tower. This sentence tends to confirm the genuineness of the Confession.
[A]These hampers contained the fresh gunpowder, no doubt, mentioned by Thomas Winter in his “Confession” written in the Tower. This sentence tends to confirm the genuineness of the Confession.
[B]Who was this brother?Isuggestthat by brother is meant brother-in-law, and that as a fact Christopher Wrighthadmarried Margaret Ward, the sister to both Marmaduke and Thomas Ward. If this be correct, then we have demonstrative proof of the servant of Thomas Ward calling upon Christopher Wright (probably with a message from Thomas Ward) the very same morning as, I hold, that Christopher Wright went down into Warwickshire, where he would be within twenty miles of Father Oldcorne. This evidence is important. The wordcame, too, is noticeable, implying, I think, a habit of coming, a frequentative use of the past tense of the verb. Observe also “and the same morning,” implyingcumulativeacts of “coming,” the visit of that day being the last of a series of visits.
[B]Who was this brother?Isuggestthat by brother is meant brother-in-law, and that as a fact Christopher Wrighthadmarried Margaret Ward, the sister to both Marmaduke and Thomas Ward. If this be correct, then we have demonstrative proof of the servant of Thomas Ward calling upon Christopher Wright (probably with a message from Thomas Ward) the very same morning as, I hold, that Christopher Wright went down into Warwickshire, where he would be within twenty miles of Father Oldcorne. This evidence is important. The wordcame, too, is noticeable, implying, I think, a habit of coming, a frequentative use of the past tense of the verb. Observe also “and the same morning,” implyingcumulativeacts of “coming,” the visit of that day being the last of a series of visits.
Mr. Jackson also deposed: —
“He sayeth that he knoweth Mr. Wright very well,But it is about a fortnight past,[128]since he ws at his house, and since that tyme he knoweth not what is become of him.(The italics are mine.)“He sayeth further that he knoweth not any other of his Consorts or Companyons, yf hee did he would reveale it.(Endorsed) “The examinacon of Dorathy Robinson Widdow of Spurr Alley.”
“He sayeth that he knoweth Mr. Wright very well,But it is about a fortnight past,[128]since he ws at his house, and since that tyme he knoweth not what is become of him.(The italics are mine.)
“He sayeth further that he knoweth not any other of his Consorts or Companyons, yf hee did he would reveale it.
(Endorsed) “The examinacon of Dorathy Robinson Widdow of Spurr Alley.”
Furthermore, we have the following Evidence of Mistress Elizabeth More:—
7 Nov: 1605.
State Papers Domestic — Jas. I., Vol. xvi., No. 13.
“The Declaracon of Elizabeth More the wief of Edward More taken the 5th of November 1605.
“She saieth that the gent that lay at her howse wthMr. Rookwood this last night and the night before his name is Mr. Keyes and he took upp the Chamber for the said Mr. Rookwood.
“And she saieth that uppon ffryday night last Mr. Christofir Wright came to this exaite howse wththe said Mr. Rookwood and lay that night in a chamber on the said Mr. Rookwoode Chamber.
(Endorsed) “5th No: 1605.
“The Declaracon of Elizabeth More.”
Mistress More, I find, lived near Temple Bar.[A]
[A]Where was Spur Alley? and how far were Temple Bar and Spur Alley from the town-house in the Strand of the Lord Mounteagle, and therefore of his Lordship’s secretary, Thomas Ward?It will be noted by the judicious reader that the conjectured fact that Christopher Wright’s London lodgings were within a short distance of where, doubtless, his — I suggest —brother-in-law(Ward) was to be found tends to support my theory.
[A]Where was Spur Alley? and how far were Temple Bar and Spur Alley from the town-house in the Strand of the Lord Mounteagle, and therefore of his Lordship’s secretary, Thomas Ward?
It will be noted by the judicious reader that the conjectured fact that Christopher Wright’s London lodgings were within a short distance of where, doubtless, his — I suggest —brother-in-law(Ward) was to be found tends to support my theory.
Before we well-nigh finally take our leave of Christopher Wright, I should like to bring before my readers two pieces of Evidence, from each of which, at any rate, may be drawn the inference that it was one of the conspirators themselves that revealed the tremendous secret.
That Christopher Wright was that revealing conspirator, the manifold considerations which the preceding pages of this Inquiry have established, I trust, will satisfy the intellect of my readers, seeing that those considerations, I respectfully but firmly urge, must be held to have built up a “probability” so high as to amount to that “moral certitude” which is “the very guide” of Man’s terrestrial life, in that it furnishes Man with those sufficient rules which direct his daily action.[129]
But, in bringing the first piece of Evidence to which I allude before the eyes of my readers, I desire, with great respect, to say that I am keenly conscious that I run the risk of incurring the condemnation implied in the words: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
But, since “circumstances alter cases,” I feel warranted (under correction) in adventuring, in this one instance, upon a particular line of argument which I feel is, as an affair of taste,primâ facieunseemly, and, as a matter of feeling, a line of action, in ordinary cases, to be rigorously eschewed.
Yet, seeing that such a course of conduct cannot be held to be morally wrong, my plea is — and I respectfully submit my all-sufficient plea is — that an Inquiry, having for its purpose the elucidation of the hitherto inscrutable mystery as to who revealed, or who were instrumental in revealing, so satanic an enterprise as the Gunpowder Plot, being far, far removed beyond the range of mere logic-chopping, dry-as-dust, non-human investigations, justifies the following, in one instance, of a course of action which unquestionably would clash with mere, decorous taste, and would collide with mere delicate feeling, except, by the case being altered, it were lifted into the realm of the categories of the extraordinary and the special.
Thenthe nature of the actoraction composing that course of conduct would be, in a sense, fundamentally and meritoriously changed. And,therefore, it would be, by a double title, morally justifiable.
Now, when the Gunpowder conspirators were at Huddington, the mansion-house of Robert Winter, on Thursday, the 7th day of November, certainly most of the conspirators, and probably all of them, received the Sacrament of Penance through the ministry of a Jesuit Father, named Nicholas Hart (alias Strangeways and Hammond), who besides being analumnusof Westminster School, and for two years a student of the University of Oxford, had, prior to his becoming a Priest and a Jesuit, “studied law in the Inns of Court and Chancery in London.”[130]
Now, William Handy, the serving-man of Sir Everard Digby (of whom we have already heard), further deposed as follows:[131]
“On Thursday morning, about three of the clock, all the said company, as well servants as others, heard Mass, received the Sacrament, and were confessed, whichMass was said by a priest named Harte, a little man whitely complexioned, and a little beard.”
Now, Ambrose Rookwood, on the 21st day of January, 1605-6, deposed[132]that he confessed to Hammond at Huddington, on Thursday, the 7th of November, that he was sorry he had not revealed the Plot, it seeming so bloody, and that after his confession Hammond absolved him without remark.
The precise words of the ill-fated Rookwood hereon are these: —
Gunpowder Plot Books — No. 177.
“The voluntarie declaration of Ambrose Rokewood esquier. 21 Janu. 1605 [1606]“I doe acknowledge that uppon thursday morninge beeing the 7th of November 1605 my selfe and all the other gentlemen (as I doe remember) did confesse orsinnes to one Mr. Hamonde Preeste, at Mr. Robert Wintour his house, and amonges other my sinnes I did acknowledge my error in concealing theire intended enterprise of pouder agaynste his Matieand the State, having a scruple in conscience, the facte seeminge to mee to bee too bluddye, hee for all in generall gave me absolution without any other circumstances beeing hastned by the multitude that were to come to him.“Ambrose Rookewoode.“Exrp. Edw. CokeW. Ward.”(Endorsed)“... pouderxxthof January 1605.hamondDeclaration of AmbroseRookewoode of his own hand.”
“The voluntarie declaration of Ambrose Rokewood esquier. 21 Janu. 1605 [1606]
“I doe acknowledge that uppon thursday morninge beeing the 7th of November 1605 my selfe and all the other gentlemen (as I doe remember) did confesse orsinnes to one Mr. Hamonde Preeste, at Mr. Robert Wintour his house, and amonges other my sinnes I did acknowledge my error in concealing theire intended enterprise of pouder agaynste his Matieand the State, having a scruple in conscience, the facte seeminge to mee to bee too bluddye, hee for all in generall gave me absolution without any other circumstances beeing hastned by the multitude that were to come to him.
“Ambrose Rookewoode.
“Exrp. Edw. CokeW. Ward.”(Endorsed)
“... pouderxxthof January 1605.hamondDeclaration of AmbroseRookewoode of his own hand.”
Now, regard being had to the fact that this kneeling young Penitent was, with his own lips, avowing the commission indesire and thoughtof “murder most foul as at the best it is”[A](and “we know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him”[B]), by confessing to a fellow-creature a wilful and deliberate transgression against that “steadfast Moral Law which is not of to-day nor yesterday, but which lives for ever”[C](to say nothing of his avowal of the commissionin act and deedof the crime of sacrilege,[D]in taking a secret, unlawful oath contrary to the express prohibitions of a visible and audible Institution which that Priest and that Penitentalike believed was of divine origin), I firmly, though with great and all-becoming deference, drawtheseconclusions, namely, thatone of the plottershadalreadypoured into the bending ear of his breathless priestly hearerglad tidingsto the effect that he (the revealing plotter, whoever he was) had given that one supreme external proof which heaven and earth had then left to him for showing the genuineness of his repentance in regard to his crimes, and the perfectness of his contrition on account of his transgressions, by taking premeditated, active, practical, vigorous steps for the utter frustrating and the complete overthrowing of the prodigious, diabolical Plot.
[A]Shakespeare.
[A]Shakespeare.
[B]St. John the Divine.
[B]St. John the Divine.
[C]Sophocles.
[C]Sophocles.
[D]Of course the Gunpowder Treason Plot was a “sacrilegious crime,” because it sought to compass the death of a king who was “one of the Lord’s anointed,”as well asbecause of the unlawful oath of secrecy, solemnly ratified by the reception of the Sacrament at the hands of some priest in a house behind St. Clement’s Inn, “near the principal street in London called the Strand.” — See “The Confessions of Thomas Winter and Guy Fawkes.” This house was probably the London lodging of Father John Gerard, S.J. Winter and Fawkes said that the conspirators received the Sacrament at the hands of Gerard. But “Gerard was not acquainted with their purpose,” said Fawkes. Gerard denied having given the conspirators the Sacrament. — See Gardiner’s “What Gunpowder Plot was,” p. 44. One vested priest is very much like another, just as one soldier in uniform is very much like another. So Fawkes and Winter may have been mistaken. Besides, they would not be likely to be minutely examining the features of a priest on such an occasion.
[D]Of course the Gunpowder Treason Plot was a “sacrilegious crime,” because it sought to compass the death of a king who was “one of the Lord’s anointed,”as well asbecause of the unlawful oath of secrecy, solemnly ratified by the reception of the Sacrament at the hands of some priest in a house behind St. Clement’s Inn, “near the principal street in London called the Strand.” — See “The Confessions of Thomas Winter and Guy Fawkes.” This house was probably the London lodging of Father John Gerard, S.J. Winter and Fawkes said that the conspirators received the Sacrament at the hands of Gerard. But “Gerard was not acquainted with their purpose,” said Fawkes. Gerard denied having given the conspirators the Sacrament. — See Gardiner’s “What Gunpowder Plot was,” p. 44. One vested priest is very much like another, just as one soldier in uniform is very much like another. So Fawkes and Winter may have been mistaken. Besides, they would not be likely to be minutely examining the features of a priest on such an occasion.
Furthermore; that it wasbecauseof the possession by Hammond of this happy intelligence, early on that Thursday morning, before sunrise, thattherefore, in the Tribunal of Penance, “he absolved” poor, miserable (yet contrite) Ambrose Rookwood “for all in general” — “without any other circumstances.”
That is, I take it, without reproaching or even chiding him — in fact “without remark.”[A]
[A]Father Nicholas Hart (alias Hammond) appears to have been stationed with the Vauxes, of Great Harrowden, usually. Foley (iv., Index) thinks it probable that the Father Singleton, S.J. (alias Clifton), mentioned by Henry Hurlston, Esquire, or Huddlestone, of the Huddlestones, of Suwston Hall, near Cambridge; Faringdon Hall, near Preston, in Lancashire; and Millom, “North of the Sands,” was in reality Father Nicholas Hart (alias Hammond). I do not think so. For, according to the Evidence of Henry Hurlston (Foley’s “Records,” vol. iv., pp. 10, 11), who was at Great Harrowden, on Tuesday, November 5th, at five o’clock in the afternoon, Father Strange, S.J. (a cousin of Mr. Abington, of Hindlip), and this said Father Singleton, “by Thursday morning took their horses and intended to have ridden to Grote.” They were apprehended at Kenilworth. This Father Singleton is a mysterious personage whose “future” I should like to follow up. Was he the same as a certain “Dr. Singleton” who figures in the “Life of Mary Ward” vol. i., p. 443? and was he of the Catholic Singletons, of Singleton, near Blackpool?
[A]Father Nicholas Hart (alias Hammond) appears to have been stationed with the Vauxes, of Great Harrowden, usually. Foley (iv., Index) thinks it probable that the Father Singleton, S.J. (alias Clifton), mentioned by Henry Hurlston, Esquire, or Huddlestone, of the Huddlestones, of Suwston Hall, near Cambridge; Faringdon Hall, near Preston, in Lancashire; and Millom, “North of the Sands,” was in reality Father Nicholas Hart (alias Hammond). I do not think so. For, according to the Evidence of Henry Hurlston (Foley’s “Records,” vol. iv., pp. 10, 11), who was at Great Harrowden, on Tuesday, November 5th, at five o’clock in the afternoon, Father Strange, S.J. (a cousin of Mr. Abington, of Hindlip), and this said Father Singleton, “by Thursday morning took their horses and intended to have ridden to Grote.” They were apprehended at Kenilworth. This Father Singleton is a mysterious personage whose “future” I should like to follow up. Was he the same as a certain “Dr. Singleton” who figures in the “Life of Mary Ward” vol. i., p. 443? and was he of the Catholic Singletons, of Singleton, near Blackpool?
The other piece of Evidence that I wish to bring before my readers which tends to show that it wasone of the conspirators themselves that revealed the Plotis this: —
Jardine gives in his “Criminal Trials”[133]a certain Letter of Instructions to Sir Edward Coke,[134]the Attorney-General who conducted the prosecution of the surviving Gunpowder conspirators at Westminster Hall[135]before a Special Commission for High Treason, on the 27th day of January, 1605-6.
This very remarkable document is in the handwriting of Robert Cecil first Earl of Salisbury.
It is as follows: —
“These things I am commanded to renew unto your memory. First, that you be sure to make it appear to the world that there was an employment of some persons to Spain for a practice of invasion, as soon as the Queen’s breath was out of her body. The reason is this for which the King doth urge it. He saith some men there are that will give out, and do, that only despair of the King’s courses on the Catholics and his severity, draw all these to such works of discontentment: where by you it will appear, that before his Majesty’s face was ever seen, or that he had done anything in government, the King of Spain was moved, though he refused it, saying, ‘he rather expected to have peace,’ etc.“Next, you must in any case, when you speak of the Letter which was the first ground of discovery, absolutely disclaim that any of these wrote it, though you leave the further judgment indefinite who else it should be.(The italics are mine.)“Lastly, and you must not omit, you must deliver, in commendation of my Lord Mounteagle, words to show how sincerely he dealt, and how fortunately it proved that he was the instrument of so great a blessing as this was. To be short, sir, you can remember how well the King in his Book did censure[A]his lordship’s part in it, from which sense you are not to vary, butobiter(as you know best how), to give some good echo of that particular action in that day of public trial of these men; because it is so lewdly given out that he was once of this plot of powder, and afterwards betrayed it all to me.“This is butex abundanti, that I do trouble you; but as they come to my head or knowledge, or that I am directed, I am not scrupulous to send to you.“You must remember to lay Owen as foul in this as you can.”
“These things I am commanded to renew unto your memory. First, that you be sure to make it appear to the world that there was an employment of some persons to Spain for a practice of invasion, as soon as the Queen’s breath was out of her body. The reason is this for which the King doth urge it. He saith some men there are that will give out, and do, that only despair of the King’s courses on the Catholics and his severity, draw all these to such works of discontentment: where by you it will appear, that before his Majesty’s face was ever seen, or that he had done anything in government, the King of Spain was moved, though he refused it, saying, ‘he rather expected to have peace,’ etc.
“Next, you must in any case, when you speak of the Letter which was the first ground of discovery, absolutely disclaim that any of these wrote it, though you leave the further judgment indefinite who else it should be.(The italics are mine.)
“Lastly, and you must not omit, you must deliver, in commendation of my Lord Mounteagle, words to show how sincerely he dealt, and how fortunately it proved that he was the instrument of so great a blessing as this was. To be short, sir, you can remember how well the King in his Book did censure[A]his lordship’s part in it, from which sense you are not to vary, butobiter(as you know best how), to give some good echo of that particular action in that day of public trial of these men; because it is so lewdly given out that he was once of this plot of powder, and afterwards betrayed it all to me.
“This is butex abundanti, that I do trouble you; but as they come to my head or knowledge, or that I am directed, I am not scrupulous to send to you.
“You must remember to lay Owen as foul in this as you can.”
[A]The word “censure” here means, formed an opinion of his lordship’s part. From Lat.censeo, I think.
[A]The word “censure” here means, formed an opinion of his lordship’s part. From Lat.censeo, I think.
Now, strangely enough, in the day of public trial of these men, the learned Attorney-General forgot in one particular the aforesaid clear and express Injunctions of his Majesty’s principal Secretary of State.
For, if he be correctly reported, Sir Edward Coke then said: —[136]
“The last consideration is concerning the admirable discovery of this treason,which was by one of themselves,who had taken the oath and sacrament, as hath been said, against his own will; the means was by a dark and doubtful letter sent to my Lord Mounteagle.”[A](The italics are mine.)
[A]“Truth will out!”
[A]“Truth will out!”
Now, regard being had (1) to what Salisbury bade Cokenot say; and (2) to what Coke as a matter of factdid say, I infer, first, that itwasone of the conspirators who revealed the Plot; because of just scruples that his conscience had, well-nigh at the eleventh hour, awakened in his breast: that, secondly, not only so, but that the Government, through Salisbury, Suffolk, Coke, and probably Bacon, strongly suspected as much: that, thirdly, this was the explanation not only of theircomparativelymild treatment of the Gunpowder conspirators themselves,[137]but also, I hold, of the subsequentcomparativelymild treatment of the recusants generally throughout the country.[138]
For had the Government stripped all English Papists of their lands and goods and driven them into the sea, Humanity scarcely could have complained of injustice or harshness, regard being had to the devilish wholesale cruelty of the Gunpowder Plot.
Contrariwise, the entire action of the Government resembles the action of a man in whose hand the stick has broken whilst he is in the act of administering upon a wrong-doer richly deserved chastisement.
For, indisputably, the Government abstained from following after, and from reaping the full measure of, their victory (to have recourse to a more dignified figure of speech)either on grounds of principle, policy — or both.
Moreover, none of the estates of the plotters wereforfeited. And this, regard being had to the fact that the plotters were “moral monsters,” and to the well-known impecuniosity of the tricky James and his northern satellites, is itself a circumstance pregnant with the greatest possible suspicion that there was some great mystery in the background. — See Lathbury’s “Guy Fawkes,” pp. 76, 77, first Edition.
For, even if deeds of marriage settlement intervened to protect the plotters’ estates, an Act of Parliament surely could have swept them away like the veriest cobwebs. For Sir Edward Coke himself might have told the King and Privy Council that “an Act of Parliament could do anything, short of turning a man into a woman,” if the King and Council had needed enlightening on the point.
Again: the primary instinct of self-preservation alone would have assuredly impelled the bravest of the brave amongst the nine malefactors, including Tresham, who were incarcerated in the Tower of London, either to seek to save his life when awaiting his trial in Westminster Hall, or, at any rate, when expecting the scaffold, the ripping knife, the embowelling fork, and the quartering block, in St. Paul’s Churchyard or in the old Palace Yard, Westminster, to seek to save his life,by divulging the mighty secret respecting his responsibility for the Letter of Letters, had anyone of them in point of fact penned the document. For “skin for skin all that a man hath will he give for his life.”
Hence, from the silence of one and all of the survivors — a silence as unbroken as that of the grave — we can, it stands to reason, draw but this one conclusion, namely, that the nine surviving Gunpowder conspirators were stayed and restrained by the omnipotence of the impossible from declaring thatanyone of themhad saved his King and Parliament.
Hence, by consequence,the revealing conspirator must be found amongst that small band of four who survived not to tell the tale.
Therefore is our Inquiry reduced to within a narrow compass, a fact which simplifies our task unspeakably.
If it be objected that “a point of honour” may have stayed and restrained one of the nine conspiratorsfrom “discovering” or revealing his share in the laudable deed, it is demonstrable that it would be afalse, not atrue, sense of duty that prompted such an unrighteous step.
For the revealing plotter, whoever he was, had duties to his kinsfolk as well as to himself, and, indeed, to his Country, to Humanity at large, and also to his Church, whichought, in justice, to have actuated — and it is reasonable to believe would have assuredly actuated — a disclosure of the truth respecting the facts of the revelation.
But I hold that the nine conspirators told nothing as to the origin of this Letter of Letters,because they had none of them, anything to tell.
Moreover, I suggest that what Archbishop Usher[139][A]meant when he is reported to have divers times said, “that if Papists knew what he knew, the blame of the Gunpowder Treason would not lie on them,”[140][B]was this: —
[A]Protestant Archbishop of Armagh.
[A]Protestant Archbishop of Armagh.
[B]Such a secret as the answer to the problem “Who revealed the Gunpowder Plot?” was a positive burden for Humanity, whereof it should have been, in justice, relieved. For it tends to demonstrate the existence of a realm of actualities having relations to man, but the workings of the causes, processes, and consequences of which realm are invisible to mortal sight; in other words, of the contact and intersection of two circles or spheres, whereof one is bounded by the finite, the other by the infinite. Now, in the case of strong-minded and intelligent Catholics, the weight ofthisfact would have almost inevitably impelled to an avowal of the fact of revelation had not the omnipotence of the impossible stayed and restrained. Hence, the absence of avowal demonstrates, with moral certitude, the absence of ability to avow. And this latter, with moral certitude, proves my point, namely, that one of the four slain divulged the Plot.
[B]Such a secret as the answer to the problem “Who revealed the Gunpowder Plot?” was a positive burden for Humanity, whereof it should have been, in justice, relieved. For it tends to demonstrate the existence of a realm of actualities having relations to man, but the workings of the causes, processes, and consequences of which realm are invisible to mortal sight; in other words, of the contact and intersection of two circles or spheres, whereof one is bounded by the finite, the other by the infinite. Now, in the case of strong-minded and intelligent Catholics, the weight ofthisfact would have almost inevitably impelled to an avowal of the fact of revelation had not the omnipotence of the impossible stayed and restrained. Hence, the absence of avowal demonstrates, with moral certitude, the absence of ability to avow. And this latter, with moral certitude, proves my point, namely, that one of the four slain divulged the Plot.
That it was “the Papist Doctrine” of the non-binding force of a secret, unlawful oath that (Deo juvante) had been primarily the joint-efficient cause of the spinningright round on its axis of the hell-begotten Gunpowder Plot.
It is plain that King James’s Government[A]were mysteriously stayed and restrained in their legislative and administrative action after the discovery of the diabolically atrocious Gunpowder Treason Plot.
[A]It is the duty of every Government to see that it is true, just, and strong. Governments should confine their efforts to the calm and faithful attainment of these three ideals. Then they win respect and confidence, even from those who fear them but do not love. James and the first Earl of Salisbury, and that type of princes and statesmen, oscillate betwixt the two extremes, injustice and hysterical generosity, which is a sure sign of a lack of consciousness of absolute truth, justice, and strength.
[A]It is the duty of every Government to see that it is true, just, and strong. Governments should confine their efforts to the calm and faithful attainment of these three ideals. Then they win respect and confidence, even from those who fear them but do not love. James and the first Earl of Salisbury, and that type of princes and statesmen, oscillate betwixt the two extremes, injustice and hysterical generosity, which is a sure sign of a lack of consciousness of absolute truth, justice, and strength.
And illogical and inconstant as many English rulers too often have been throughout England’s long and, by good fortune, glorious History, this extraordinary illogicalness and inconstancy of the Government of King James I. betokens to him that can read betwixt the lines, and who “knows what things belong to what things” — betokens Evidence of what?
Unhesitatingly I answer:Of that Government’s not daring, for very decency’s sake, to proceed to extremities.
Now, by reason of the primal instincts of human nature, this consciousness would be sure to be generated by, and would be certain to operate upon, any and every civilized, even though heathen, government with staying and restraining force.
Now, the Government of James I. was a civilized government, and it was not a heathen government. Moreover, it certainly was a Government composed of human beings, who, after all, were the persecuted Papists’ fellow-creatures.
Therefore, I suggest that this manifest hesitancy to proceed to extremities sprang from, and indeed itselfdemonstrates, this fact, namely, that the then British Government realized thatit was an essentially Popish Doctrine of Morals which had been the primary motive power for securing their temporal salvation. That doctrine being, indeed, none other than the hated and dreaded “Popish Doctrine” of the “non-binding force” upon the Popish Conscience of a secret, morally unlawful oath which thereby, ipso facto, “the Papal Church” prohibited and condemned.
Hence, that was, I once more suggest, what Archbishop Usher referred to, in his oracular words, which have become historic, but which have been hitherto deemed to constitute an insoluble riddle.
For certainly behind those oracular words lay some great State mystery.
The same fact possibly accounts for the traditional tale that the second Earl of Salisbury confessed that the Plot was “his father’s contrivance.” — See Gerard’s “What was the Gunpowder Plot?” p. 160.
For the Plotwas“his father’s contrivance,” considered as to its broad ultimateeffectson the course of English History, in that the Plot was made a seasonable handle of for the destruction of English Popery. And a valuable and successful handle it proved too, as mankind knows very well to-day. Though “what’s bred in the bone” is apt, in this world, “to come out in the flesh.” Therefore, the British statesman or philosopher needs not be unduly alarmed if and when, from time to time, he discerns about him incipient signs, among certain members of the English race, of that “staggering back to Popery,” whereof Ralph Waldo Emerson once sagely spoke.
“’Tis a strange world, my masters! And the whirligig of Time brings round strange revenges!”
We come now to the last portion of this Inquiry — to the last portion, indeed, but not to the least.
For we have now to consider what Evidence there is tending to prove thatsubsequentto the penning of the Letter by Father Edward Oldcorne, he wasconsciousof having performed the meritorious deed that, I maintain, the Evidence, deductions, and suggestions therefrom all converge to one supreme end to establish, namely, that it is morally (not mathematically) certain that his hand, and his hand alone, actually penned that immortal Letter, whose praises shall be celebrated till the end of time.
Before considering this Evidence let me, however, remind my readers that there is (1)not only a general similarityin the handwriting of the Letter and Father Oldcorne’s undoubted handiwork — the Declaration of the 12th day of March, 1605-6 —a general similarityin point of the size of the letters and of that indescribable something called style,[141]but (2) a particular similarityin the formation of the letters in the case of these following, namely, the small c/s, l/s, i/s, b/s, w/s, r/s, long s/s (as initials), short s/s (as terminals), while the m/s and n/s are not inconsistent.[A]