[A]The arms of Lord Mounteagle were az., between two bars, sa., charged with three bezants, a lion passant, gu., in chief three bucks’ heads caboshed of the second.The title Morley and Mounteagle is now in abeyance — see Burke’s “Extinct Peerages” — since the year 1686, the reign of James II.The last Lord Morley and Mounteagle died without issue. The issue of two aunts of the deceased baron were his representatives. One aunt was Katherine, who married John Savage second Earl of Rivers, and had issue; the other aunt was Elizabeth, who married Edward Cranfield.The present Earl of Morley, Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, though a Parker, is of the Parkers of Devonshire, a different family from the Parkers of Essex.
[A]The arms of Lord Mounteagle were az., between two bars, sa., charged with three bezants, a lion passant, gu., in chief three bucks’ heads caboshed of the second.
The title Morley and Mounteagle is now in abeyance — see Burke’s “Extinct Peerages” — since the year 1686, the reign of James II.
The last Lord Morley and Mounteagle died without issue. The issue of two aunts of the deceased baron were his representatives. One aunt was Katherine, who married John Savage second Earl of Rivers, and had issue; the other aunt was Elizabeth, who married Edward Cranfield.
The present Earl of Morley, Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, though a Parker, is of the Parkers of Devonshire, a different family from the Parkers of Essex.
[86]— The beautiful and pathetic “Lament,” so well known to Scotsmen under the title of “The Flowers of the Forest,” was penned to express “the lamentation, mourning, and woe” that filled the historic land of “mountain and of flood,” on the tidings reaching “brave, bonnie Scotland” of the “woeful fight” of Flodden Field. At the funeral of that gallant soldier and fine Scotsman, the late General Wauchope, of the Regiment known as the Black Watch, the pipers played this plaintive air, “The Flowers of the Forest.” Who does not hope that those funerealstrains may be prophetic that, through the power of far-sighted wisdom, human sympathy, and the healing hand of Time, there may be a reconciliation as real and deep and true betwixt England’s kinsman-foe of to-day and herself as there is betwixt herself and her kinsman-foe of the year 1513 — the year of Flodden Field!See also Professor Aytoun’s “Edinburgh after Flodden,” in his “Lays of the Scottish Cavaliers” (Routledge & Sons); also, of course, Sir Walter Scott’s well-known “Marmion.”
[86]— The beautiful and pathetic “Lament,” so well known to Scotsmen under the title of “The Flowers of the Forest,” was penned to express “the lamentation, mourning, and woe” that filled the historic land of “mountain and of flood,” on the tidings reaching “brave, bonnie Scotland” of the “woeful fight” of Flodden Field. At the funeral of that gallant soldier and fine Scotsman, the late General Wauchope, of the Regiment known as the Black Watch, the pipers played this plaintive air, “The Flowers of the Forest.” Who does not hope that those funerealstrains may be prophetic that, through the power of far-sighted wisdom, human sympathy, and the healing hand of Time, there may be a reconciliation as real and deep and true betwixt England’s kinsman-foe of to-day and herself as there is betwixt herself and her kinsman-foe of the year 1513 — the year of Flodden Field!
See also Professor Aytoun’s “Edinburgh after Flodden,” in his “Lays of the Scottish Cavaliers” (Routledge & Sons); also, of course, Sir Walter Scott’s well-known “Marmion.”
[87]— It should be remembered that Baines says that Nichols, in his “Progresses of James I.,” describes Hornby Castle in Yorkshire, by mistake, for the one in Lancashire.The sunny, balmy, health-giving watering-place of Grange-over-Sands, built at the foot of Yewbarrow, a pine-clad, hazel-loving fell, “by Kent sand-side,” is in the ancient Parish of Cartmel; and, in connection with the family of Lord Mounteagle, the following will be read with interest by those who are privileged to know that golden land of the westering sun, the paradise of the weak of chest.About three miles from the Grange — so called because here was formerly a Grange, or House, for the storing of grain by the Friars, or black Canons, of the Augustinian Priory at Cartmel — is the square Peel Tower known as Wraysholme Tower. In the windows of the old tower were formerly arms and crests of the Harrington and Stanley families. A few miles to the west of Cartmel were Adlingham and Gleaston, ancient possessions of the Harringtons, which likewise became a portion of the Mounteagles’ Hornby Castle estates. All this portion of the north of England abounded in adherents of the ancient faith up to about the time of the Gunpowder Plot. The Duke of Guise had planned that the Spanish Armada should disembark at the large and commodious port of the Pile of Fouldrey, in the Parish of Dalton-in-Furness, “North of the Sands.” This rock of the Pile of Fouldrey, from which the port took its name, was not only near Adlingham and Gleaston, but also near the Manor Furness, the seat of the elder branch of the Prestons, from whom Mounteagle, on his mother’s side, was descended.[A]
[87]— It should be remembered that Baines says that Nichols, in his “Progresses of James I.,” describes Hornby Castle in Yorkshire, by mistake, for the one in Lancashire.
The sunny, balmy, health-giving watering-place of Grange-over-Sands, built at the foot of Yewbarrow, a pine-clad, hazel-loving fell, “by Kent sand-side,” is in the ancient Parish of Cartmel; and, in connection with the family of Lord Mounteagle, the following will be read with interest by those who are privileged to know that golden land of the westering sun, the paradise of the weak of chest.
About three miles from the Grange — so called because here was formerly a Grange, or House, for the storing of grain by the Friars, or black Canons, of the Augustinian Priory at Cartmel — is the square Peel Tower known as Wraysholme Tower. In the windows of the old tower were formerly arms and crests of the Harrington and Stanley families. A few miles to the west of Cartmel were Adlingham and Gleaston, ancient possessions of the Harringtons, which likewise became a portion of the Mounteagles’ Hornby Castle estates. All this portion of the north of England abounded in adherents of the ancient faith up to about the time of the Gunpowder Plot. The Duke of Guise had planned that the Spanish Armada should disembark at the large and commodious port of the Pile of Fouldrey, in the Parish of Dalton-in-Furness, “North of the Sands.” This rock of the Pile of Fouldrey, from which the port took its name, was not only near Adlingham and Gleaston, but also near the Manor Furness, the seat of the elder branch of the Prestons, from whom Mounteagle, on his mother’s side, was descended.[A]
[A]William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle’s great-great-uncle, James Leybourne (or Labourn), of Cunswick and Skelsmergh, in the County of Westmoreland, was hanged, drawn, and quartered by Queen Elizabeth, in the year 1583. — See “The Acts of the English Martyrs,” by the Rev. J. H. Pollen, S.J. (Burns & Oates). — James Leybourne is not reckoned “a Catholic martyr” by Challoner, because he denied that Elizabeth was “his lawful Queen.” There has been a doubt as to where this gentleman suffered “a traitor’s death.” Baines says that he was executed at Lancaster, that his head was exposed on Manchester Church steeple, and that prior to his execution Leybourne was imprisoned in the New Fleet, Manchester. This is probably a correct statement of the case. Burke, however, in his “Tudor Portraits” (Hodges, London), says that Leybourne was executed at Preston. Though a minute point, it would be interesting to know what the truth of the matter is.There is a marble tablet on the north wall of the east end of the fine old Parish Church of Kendal, to the memory of John Leybourne, Esquire, the last of his race, and formerly owners of Cunswick, Skelsmergh, and Witherslack Halls. The tablet bears the arms of the Leybournes, and shows that the last male representative of this ancient Westmoreland family died on the 9th December, 1737, aged sixty-nine years, evidently reconciled to the faith of his ancestors.
[A]William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle’s great-great-uncle, James Leybourne (or Labourn), of Cunswick and Skelsmergh, in the County of Westmoreland, was hanged, drawn, and quartered by Queen Elizabeth, in the year 1583. — See “The Acts of the English Martyrs,” by the Rev. J. H. Pollen, S.J. (Burns & Oates). — James Leybourne is not reckoned “a Catholic martyr” by Challoner, because he denied that Elizabeth was “his lawful Queen.” There has been a doubt as to where this gentleman suffered “a traitor’s death.” Baines says that he was executed at Lancaster, that his head was exposed on Manchester Church steeple, and that prior to his execution Leybourne was imprisoned in the New Fleet, Manchester. This is probably a correct statement of the case. Burke, however, in his “Tudor Portraits” (Hodges, London), says that Leybourne was executed at Preston. Though a minute point, it would be interesting to know what the truth of the matter is.
There is a marble tablet on the north wall of the east end of the fine old Parish Church of Kendal, to the memory of John Leybourne, Esquire, the last of his race, and formerly owners of Cunswick, Skelsmergh, and Witherslack Halls. The tablet bears the arms of the Leybournes, and shows that the last male representative of this ancient Westmoreland family died on the 9th December, 1737, aged sixty-nine years, evidently reconciled to the faith of his ancestors.
[88]— The exact relationship of Marmaduke Ward and Thomas Warde to Sir Christopher Ward has been not yet traced out. Sir Christopher Ward was the last of the Wards in the direct line. He died in the year 1521, but left no male heir. His eldest daughter, Anne, married Francis Neville, of Thornton Bridge, in the Parish of Brafferton, near Boroughbridge; his second daughter, Johanna, married Edward Musgrave, of Westmoreland; and his third daughter, Margaret, married John Lawrence, of Barley Court (probably near St. Dennis’ Church), York. A grand-daughter married a Francis Neville, of Holt, in Leicestershire. — But see the “Plumpton Correspondence” (Camden Soc.).I find that, along with Thomas Hallat, one Edmund Ward was Wakeman (or Mayor) of Ripon, in 1524. He is described as “Gentleman.” He may have been the grandfather, or even possibly the father, of Marmaduke and Thomas Ward. — Concerning the Ward family down to Sir Christopher Ward, see Slater’s “Guiseley,” Yorks. (Hamilton Adams), and the “Life of Mary Ward,” vol. i., p. 102. — There is still to be found the name Edmund Ward at Thornton Bridge (June, 1901); possibly of the same family as the Wards of the sixteenth century; for Christian names run in families for generations.It is, however, possible that the name of the father of Marmaduke and Thomas Ward may have been Marmaduke. For I find an entry in the Ripon Registers, under date the 16th December, 1594, of the burial of “Susannay wife of Marmaduke Wayrde of Newby.” (At least, so I read the entry.) When this Marmaduke died I do not know. Nor, indeed, have I been able to ascertain when Marmaduke, the father of Mary Ward, died. It is probable that Marmaduke Ward, the younger, sold the Newby estate prior to 1614. At what date the Mulwith and Givendale estates were sold, I cannot say. Possibly R. C. De Grey Vyner, Esquire, of Newby Hall, their present owner, may know. In vol. iii. of the “Memorials of Ripon” (Surtees Soc.) occur the names ofEdmund Ward and Ralph Ward, both as paying dues for lands in Skelton (p. 333). Also the “Fabric Roll for 1542” (in the same work) has the name Marmaduke Ward. This would be the husband of Susannay, who died in 1594, probably. So that, most likely, Marmaduke and Susannay Ward were the parents of Marmaduke Ward and Thomas Ward, if the latter were brothers, as it is practically certain they were.I am inclined, on the whole, to think that Edmund Ward cannot have been the father to Marmaduke and Thomas Ward, though he may have been their grandfather. There is a curious reference to, most probably, this Edmund Ward, in the “Plumpton Correspondence,” pp. 185, 186 (Camden Soc.); but it sheds no light on this question of the parentage of any of the Wards. From Slater’s “History of Guiseley” it is evident that a branch of the Wards settled at Scotton, near Knaresbrough.Miss Pullein, of Rotherfield Manor, Sussex, a relative of the Pulleins, of Scotton, tells me that in the “Subsidy Roll for 1379” the names occur: — “Johannes Warde et ux ej. ijs. Tho. Warde et ux ej. vjd Johannes fil. Thomae Warde iiij d.” So that the names John and Thomas were evidently hereditary in the various branches of the Wardes, of Givendale and Esholt. (18th April, 1901.)
[88]— The exact relationship of Marmaduke Ward and Thomas Warde to Sir Christopher Ward has been not yet traced out. Sir Christopher Ward was the last of the Wards in the direct line. He died in the year 1521, but left no male heir. His eldest daughter, Anne, married Francis Neville, of Thornton Bridge, in the Parish of Brafferton, near Boroughbridge; his second daughter, Johanna, married Edward Musgrave, of Westmoreland; and his third daughter, Margaret, married John Lawrence, of Barley Court (probably near St. Dennis’ Church), York. A grand-daughter married a Francis Neville, of Holt, in Leicestershire. — But see the “Plumpton Correspondence” (Camden Soc.).
I find that, along with Thomas Hallat, one Edmund Ward was Wakeman (or Mayor) of Ripon, in 1524. He is described as “Gentleman.” He may have been the grandfather, or even possibly the father, of Marmaduke and Thomas Ward. — Concerning the Ward family down to Sir Christopher Ward, see Slater’s “Guiseley,” Yorks. (Hamilton Adams), and the “Life of Mary Ward,” vol. i., p. 102. — There is still to be found the name Edmund Ward at Thornton Bridge (June, 1901); possibly of the same family as the Wards of the sixteenth century; for Christian names run in families for generations.
It is, however, possible that the name of the father of Marmaduke and Thomas Ward may have been Marmaduke. For I find an entry in the Ripon Registers, under date the 16th December, 1594, of the burial of “Susannay wife of Marmaduke Wayrde of Newby.” (At least, so I read the entry.) When this Marmaduke died I do not know. Nor, indeed, have I been able to ascertain when Marmaduke, the father of Mary Ward, died. It is probable that Marmaduke Ward, the younger, sold the Newby estate prior to 1614. At what date the Mulwith and Givendale estates were sold, I cannot say. Possibly R. C. De Grey Vyner, Esquire, of Newby Hall, their present owner, may know. In vol. iii. of the “Memorials of Ripon” (Surtees Soc.) occur the names ofEdmund Ward and Ralph Ward, both as paying dues for lands in Skelton (p. 333). Also the “Fabric Roll for 1542” (in the same work) has the name Marmaduke Ward. This would be the husband of Susannay, who died in 1594, probably. So that, most likely, Marmaduke and Susannay Ward were the parents of Marmaduke Ward and Thomas Ward, if the latter were brothers, as it is practically certain they were.
I am inclined, on the whole, to think that Edmund Ward cannot have been the father to Marmaduke and Thomas Ward, though he may have been their grandfather. There is a curious reference to, most probably, this Edmund Ward, in the “Plumpton Correspondence,” pp. 185, 186 (Camden Soc.); but it sheds no light on this question of the parentage of any of the Wards. From Slater’s “History of Guiseley” it is evident that a branch of the Wards settled at Scotton, near Knaresbrough.
Miss Pullein, of Rotherfield Manor, Sussex, a relative of the Pulleins, of Scotton, tells me that in the “Subsidy Roll for 1379” the names occur: — “Johannes Warde et ux ej. ijs. Tho. Warde et ux ej. vjd Johannes fil. Thomae Warde iiij d.” So that the names John and Thomas were evidently hereditary in the various branches of the Wardes, of Givendale and Esholt. (18th April, 1901.)
[89]— From the “Authorised Discourse,” or “King’s Book,” we learn that the King returned from Royston on Thursday, the 31st day of October; that on Friday, All Hallows Day, Salisbury showed James the Letter in the “gallerie” of the palace at Whitehall. On the following day, Saturday, the 2nd of November, Salisbury and the Earl of Suffolk, the Lord Chamberlain, saw the King in the same “gallerie,” when it was arranged that the Chamberlain should view all the Parliament Houses both above and below. This “viewing” or “perusing” of the vault or cellar under the House of Lords took place on the following Monday afternoon by Suffolk and Mounteagle, when they saw Fawkes, who styled himself “John Johnson,” servant to Thomas Percy, who had hired the house adjoining the Parliament House and the aforesaid cellar also.Now, Mounteagle, almost certainly, must have known that there would be this second conference with the King, on this Saturday, and from what Mounteagle (ex hypothesi) had said to Tresham about “the mine,” Tresham would have concluded that what Mounteagle knew, Salisbury would be soon made to know, and, through Salisbury’s speeches, the King. My opinion is that Mounteaglesawandspoketo Treshambetweenthe conference of the King, Suffolk, and Salisbury (Mounteagle being made acquainted with, by either Suffolk or Salisbury, if he werenot actually an auditor of, all that had passed),andthe meeting with Winter in Lincoln’s Inn Walks, on the night of that same Saturday, November the 2nd.
[89]— From the “Authorised Discourse,” or “King’s Book,” we learn that the King returned from Royston on Thursday, the 31st day of October; that on Friday, All Hallows Day, Salisbury showed James the Letter in the “gallerie” of the palace at Whitehall. On the following day, Saturday, the 2nd of November, Salisbury and the Earl of Suffolk, the Lord Chamberlain, saw the King in the same “gallerie,” when it was arranged that the Chamberlain should view all the Parliament Houses both above and below. This “viewing” or “perusing” of the vault or cellar under the House of Lords took place on the following Monday afternoon by Suffolk and Mounteagle, when they saw Fawkes, who styled himself “John Johnson,” servant to Thomas Percy, who had hired the house adjoining the Parliament House and the aforesaid cellar also.
Now, Mounteagle, almost certainly, must have known that there would be this second conference with the King, on this Saturday, and from what Mounteagle (ex hypothesi) had said to Tresham about “the mine,” Tresham would have concluded that what Mounteagle knew, Salisbury would be soon made to know, and, through Salisbury’s speeches, the King. My opinion is that Mounteaglesawandspoketo Treshambetweenthe conference of the King, Suffolk, and Salisbury (Mounteagle being made acquainted with, by either Suffolk or Salisbury, if he werenot actually an auditor of, all that had passed),andthe meeting with Winter in Lincoln’s Inn Walks, on the night of that same Saturday, November the 2nd.
[90]— See “Winter’s Confession,” Gardiner, pp. 67 and 68.This meeting on the Saturday was behind St. Clement’s. At this meeting Christopher Wright was present. Query — What did he say? And in whose Declaration or Confession is it contained? If in one of Fawkes’, then which? Possibly it may have been at this meeting that Christopher Wright recommended the conspirators to take flight in different directions. It is observable that, so far as I am aware, Christopher Wright and John Wright do not appear to have expressed a wish that any particular nobleman should be warned, except Arundel. Whereas Fawkes wished Montague; Percy, Northumberland; Keyes, Mordaunt; Tresham was “exceeding earnest” for Stourton and Mounteagle; whilst all wished Lord Arundel to be advertised. Arundel was created Earl of Norfolk by Charles I. in 1644.(Since writing the above, I have ascertained that there is no report in any of Guy Fawkes’ Confessions of this statement of Christopher Wright, nor in his written “Confessions” does Fawkes refer to his own mother.)
[90]— See “Winter’s Confession,” Gardiner, pp. 67 and 68.
This meeting on the Saturday was behind St. Clement’s. At this meeting Christopher Wright was present. Query — What did he say? And in whose Declaration or Confession is it contained? If in one of Fawkes’, then which? Possibly it may have been at this meeting that Christopher Wright recommended the conspirators to take flight in different directions. It is observable that, so far as I am aware, Christopher Wright and John Wright do not appear to have expressed a wish that any particular nobleman should be warned, except Arundel. Whereas Fawkes wished Montague; Percy, Northumberland; Keyes, Mordaunt; Tresham was “exceeding earnest” for Stourton and Mounteagle; whilst all wished Lord Arundel to be advertised. Arundel was created Earl of Norfolk by Charles I. in 1644.
(Since writing the above, I have ascertained that there is no report in any of Guy Fawkes’ Confessions of this statement of Christopher Wright, nor in his written “Confessions” does Fawkes refer to his own mother.)
[91]— “Labile tempus” — the motto inscribed over the entrance of the fine old Elizabethan mansion-house situate at Heslington, near York, the seat of the Lord Deramore, formerly belonging to a member of the great Lancashire family of Hesketh, of Mains Hall, Poulton-in-the-Fylde, and Rufford. Edmund Neville, one of the suitors of Mary Ward, was brought up with the Heskeths, of Rufford. In 1581 the Mains Hall branch of the Heskeths harboured Campion.
[91]— “Labile tempus” — the motto inscribed over the entrance of the fine old Elizabethan mansion-house situate at Heslington, near York, the seat of the Lord Deramore, formerly belonging to a member of the great Lancashire family of Hesketh, of Mains Hall, Poulton-in-the-Fylde, and Rufford. Edmund Neville, one of the suitors of Mary Ward, was brought up with the Heskeths, of Rufford. In 1581 the Mains Hall branch of the Heskeths harboured Campion.
[92]— As a fact, the Government did not know of the mine, according to Dr. Gardiner, even on Thursday, the 7th of November, but certainly they did know, says Gardiner, by Saturday, the 9th. — See Gardiner’s “Gunpowder Plot,” p. 31. — Probably the entrance to the mine was sealed up. No useful purpose would be served by either Mounteagle or Ward telling the Government about the mine, which then was an “extinct volcano.”
[92]— As a fact, the Government did not know of the mine, according to Dr. Gardiner, even on Thursday, the 7th of November, but certainly they did know, says Gardiner, by Saturday, the 9th. — See Gardiner’s “Gunpowder Plot,” p. 31. — Probably the entrance to the mine was sealed up. No useful purpose would be served by either Mounteagle or Ward telling the Government about the mine, which then was an “extinct volcano.”
[93]— The exact words of Lingard are these: — “Winter sought a second interview with Tresham at his house in Lincoln’s Inn Walks, andreturned to Catesby with the following answer: That the existence of the mine had been communicated to the Ministers. This Tresham said he knew: but by whom the discovery had been made he knew not.”Lingard does not give his authority, but probably he got the material for this important passage from “Greenway’s(vereTesimond’s)MS.” It is an historical desideratum that this MS. should be published. Mounteagle, conceivably, may have falsely told Tresham that the Government already knew of the mine, in order to alarm him the more effectually; but, most probably, it was an inference that Tresham himself erroneously drew from Mounteagle’s words, whatever may have been their precise nature. Mounteagle possibly said something about “the mine,” and that the Parliament Houses would be with minuteness searched far and near. This would be quite sufficient to inflame the already heated imagination of Tresham, and he would readily enough leap forth to the conclusion that the “mine” must be for certain known to the Government.One can almost feel the heart-beats of the distraught Tresham as one reads the relation of his second interview with Winter. Then from the pulsations ofonehuman heart, O, Earth’s governors and ye governed, learnall. For the study of true History is big with mighty lessons and “he that hath ears let him hear.” Let him hear that Truth and Right, although each is, in its essential nature, a simple unity, andthereforeimperially exclusive in its claims, andthereforeintolerant of plurality, of multiplicity, of diversity, yet that each of these high attributes of the eternal and the ideal is the mistress not only of man’s god-like intellect, but also of his heart and will. Andthesetwo faculties are likewise of divine original and have severally a voice which perpetually bids man, poor wounded man, “be pitiful, be courteous” to his fellows. For human life at best is “hard,” is “brief,” and “piercing are its sorrows.”
[93]— The exact words of Lingard are these: — “Winter sought a second interview with Tresham at his house in Lincoln’s Inn Walks, andreturned to Catesby with the following answer: That the existence of the mine had been communicated to the Ministers. This Tresham said he knew: but by whom the discovery had been made he knew not.”
Lingard does not give his authority, but probably he got the material for this important passage from “Greenway’s(vereTesimond’s)MS.” It is an historical desideratum that this MS. should be published. Mounteagle, conceivably, may have falsely told Tresham that the Government already knew of the mine, in order to alarm him the more effectually; but, most probably, it was an inference that Tresham himself erroneously drew from Mounteagle’s words, whatever may have been their precise nature. Mounteagle possibly said something about “the mine,” and that the Parliament Houses would be with minuteness searched far and near. This would be quite sufficient to inflame the already heated imagination of Tresham, and he would readily enough leap forth to the conclusion that the “mine” must be for certain known to the Government.
One can almost feel the heart-beats of the distraught Tresham as one reads the relation of his second interview with Winter. Then from the pulsations ofonehuman heart, O, Earth’s governors and ye governed, learnall. For the study of true History is big with mighty lessons and “he that hath ears let him hear.” Let him hear that Truth and Right, although each is, in its essential nature, a simple unity, andthereforeimperially exclusive in its claims, andthereforeintolerant of plurality, of multiplicity, of diversity, yet that each of these high attributes of the eternal and the ideal is the mistress not only of man’s god-like intellect, but also of his heart and will. Andthesetwo faculties are likewise of divine original and have severally a voice which perpetually bids man, poor wounded man, “be pitiful, be courteous” to his fellows. For human life at best is “hard,” is “brief,” and “piercing are its sorrows.”
[94]— The meeting between Catesby, Winter, and Tresham, at Barnet, on the road to White Webbs, was on Friday, the 1st of November, the day the Letter was shown to the King.
[94]— The meeting between Catesby, Winter, and Tresham, at Barnet, on the road to White Webbs, was on Friday, the 1st of November, the day the Letter was shown to the King.
[95]— Or, Mounteagle may have thought that, as it would be meritorious in Percy supposing he had sent the Letter, he (Mounteagle) would expressly, in the hearing of Suffolk, give Percy the benefit of the doubt; since it might stand his old friend in good stead hereafter if Percy were involved in the meshes of the law for the part that, I hold, MounteaglebyChristopher WrightthroughThomas Warde thenknewfor a fact, Percy, and indeed all his confederates, had taken in the nefarious enterprise. Such atrain of thought may have flashed through Mounteagle’s brain well-nigh instantaneously; for what is quicker than thought? I suspect, moreover, that Mounteagle conjectured that the Letter was from one of Warde’s and his own connections: for Percy, as well as the Wrights, would be a connection of Mounteagle, through the Stanleys, Percies, Gascoignes, Nortons, Nevilles, and Wardes, who were all more or less allied by marriages entered into within the last few generations. Percy would be about Thomas Warde’s own age (forty-six).I do not, however, think that Mounteagle knew for certain who was the revealing conspirator; and his lordship would not want to know either. Besides, I hold that Warde would be too good a diplomatist and too faithful a servant to suffer his master to know, even if he had wanted. “Say ‘little’ is a bonnie word,” would be a portion of the diplomatic wisdom that Warde would carry with him up to the great metropolis from his “native heather” of Yorkshire.
[95]— Or, Mounteagle may have thought that, as it would be meritorious in Percy supposing he had sent the Letter, he (Mounteagle) would expressly, in the hearing of Suffolk, give Percy the benefit of the doubt; since it might stand his old friend in good stead hereafter if Percy were involved in the meshes of the law for the part that, I hold, MounteaglebyChristopher WrightthroughThomas Warde thenknewfor a fact, Percy, and indeed all his confederates, had taken in the nefarious enterprise. Such atrain of thought may have flashed through Mounteagle’s brain well-nigh instantaneously; for what is quicker than thought? I suspect, moreover, that Mounteagle conjectured that the Letter was from one of Warde’s and his own connections: for Percy, as well as the Wrights, would be a connection of Mounteagle, through the Stanleys, Percies, Gascoignes, Nortons, Nevilles, and Wardes, who were all more or less allied by marriages entered into within the last few generations. Percy would be about Thomas Warde’s own age (forty-six).
I do not, however, think that Mounteagle knew for certain who was the revealing conspirator; and his lordship would not want to know either. Besides, I hold that Warde would be too good a diplomatist and too faithful a servant to suffer his master to know, even if he had wanted. “Say ‘little’ is a bonnie word,” would be a portion of the diplomatic wisdom that Warde would carry with him up to the great metropolis from his “native heather” of Yorkshire.
[96]— Ben Jonson was “reconciled” to the Church of Rome either in 1593 or 1594. After, and probably on account of, the Plot he left the Church, whose “exacting claims” he had “on trust” accepted. Possibly it was under the influence of Jonson’s example that Mounteagle wrote the letter to the King, given in the Rev. John Gerard’s “What was the Gunpowder Plot?” p. 256. Mounteagle, however, died in the Church of Rome, and the Article in the “National Dictionary of Biography” says that he had a daughter a nun. Belike, she was a member of the Institute of “The English Virgins,” for the name “Parker” is mentioned in Chambers’ “Life of Mary Ward.”[A]There has been recently (1900) published a smaller “Life of Mary Ward,” by M. Mary Salome (Burns & Oates), with a Preface by Bishop Hedley, O.S.B., which should be read by those not desirous of possessing the more costly work by Mary Catharine Elizabeth Chambers, in 2 vols. (Burns & Oates), with a Preface by the late Henry James Coleridge, S.J. (brother to the late Lord Coleridge). May I expressthe hope that these two learned authoresses will cause the Ward Papers, at Nymphenburg, near Munich, in Germany (that are extant), to be carefully examined afresh to see if they contain anything about Thomas Warde, Mary’s uncle, and anything further about her connection, through the Throckmortons and Nevilles, the Lord Mounteagle? By so doing, they will cause to be obliged to them all serious students of the Gunpowder Plot, which is of perennial interest and value to human beings, whether governors or governed, by reason of the intellectual, moral, and political lessons that with the truest eloquence — the eloquence of Fact — it teaches mankind for all time.
[96]— Ben Jonson was “reconciled” to the Church of Rome either in 1593 or 1594. After, and probably on account of, the Plot he left the Church, whose “exacting claims” he had “on trust” accepted. Possibly it was under the influence of Jonson’s example that Mounteagle wrote the letter to the King, given in the Rev. John Gerard’s “What was the Gunpowder Plot?” p. 256. Mounteagle, however, died in the Church of Rome, and the Article in the “National Dictionary of Biography” says that he had a daughter a nun. Belike, she was a member of the Institute of “The English Virgins,” for the name “Parker” is mentioned in Chambers’ “Life of Mary Ward.”[A]There has been recently (1900) published a smaller “Life of Mary Ward,” by M. Mary Salome (Burns & Oates), with a Preface by Bishop Hedley, O.S.B., which should be read by those not desirous of possessing the more costly work by Mary Catharine Elizabeth Chambers, in 2 vols. (Burns & Oates), with a Preface by the late Henry James Coleridge, S.J. (brother to the late Lord Coleridge). May I expressthe hope that these two learned authoresses will cause the Ward Papers, at Nymphenburg, near Munich, in Germany (that are extant), to be carefully examined afresh to see if they contain anything about Thomas Warde, Mary’s uncle, and anything further about her connection, through the Throckmortons and Nevilles, the Lord Mounteagle? By so doing, they will cause to be obliged to them all serious students of the Gunpowder Plot, which is of perennial interest and value to human beings, whether governors or governed, by reason of the intellectual, moral, and political lessons that with the truest eloquence — the eloquence of Fact — it teaches mankind for all time.
[A]Whilst it is possible that the “Parker” mentioned in the “Life of Mary Ward” was one of Lord Mounteagle’s daughters, I find, from a statement in Foley’s “Records,” vol. v. (by a contemporary hand, I think), that “Lord Morley and Mounteagle,” as he is styled, had a daughter who was “crooked,” and who was an Augustinian nun. Her name was Sister Frances Parker. Her father is said to have given his consent to this daughter becoming a nun “after much ado.” Lady Morley and Mounteagle, a strict papist, brought up the children Roman Catholics. — See Foley’s “Records,” vol. v., p. 973. — The same writer is of opinion that Mounteagle was not a Roman Catholic. Evidently he was a very lax one, and between the Plot and the time of his death he probably conformed to the Establishment.
[A]Whilst it is possible that the “Parker” mentioned in the “Life of Mary Ward” was one of Lord Mounteagle’s daughters, I find, from a statement in Foley’s “Records,” vol. v. (by a contemporary hand, I think), that “Lord Morley and Mounteagle,” as he is styled, had a daughter who was “crooked,” and who was an Augustinian nun. Her name was Sister Frances Parker. Her father is said to have given his consent to this daughter becoming a nun “after much ado.” Lady Morley and Mounteagle, a strict papist, brought up the children Roman Catholics. — See Foley’s “Records,” vol. v., p. 973. — The same writer is of opinion that Mounteagle was not a Roman Catholic. Evidently he was a very lax one, and between the Plot and the time of his death he probably conformed to the Establishment.
[97]— Born Lord Thomas Howard, brother to Lord William Howard, of Naworth, near Carlisle. — For an interesting account of the Tudor Howards, see Burke’s “Tudor Portraits” (Hodges); also Lodge’s “Portraits,” and “Memorials of the House of Howard.”
[97]— Born Lord Thomas Howard, brother to Lord William Howard, of Naworth, near Carlisle. — For an interesting account of the Tudor Howards, see Burke’s “Tudor Portraits” (Hodges); also Lodge’s “Portraits,” and “Memorials of the House of Howard.”
[98]— Did Mounteagle likewise behold Fawkes? If so, his self-command apparently was extraordinary; for, almost certainly, Mounteagle must have met Fawkes at White Webbs, if not at the Lord Montague’s and elsewhere. Fawkes was so strict and regular in his habits and deportment that he was thought to be a priest or a Jesuit (I suppose, a Jesuit lay-brother). That Tesimond should think that part of the “King’s Book” fabulous which describes this “perusing of the vault” and finding of Fawkes, is just what I should expect Tesimond, erroneously, would think; inasmuch as this particular Jesuit would naturally enough consider it to be simply incredible that Mounteagle should not have displayed some outward token, however slight, of recognising Fawkes, who would be sure to carry with him his characteristic air of calm and high distinction, even amid “the wood and coale” of his “master” Thomas Percy. But Tesimond did not know what a perfect tutoring Mounteagle had received from his mentor to qualify him to play so well his part in life at this supreme juncture. Thomas Ward was evidently a consummate diplomatist. If he had been trained under Walsingham he would certainly “know a thing or two.”
[98]— Did Mounteagle likewise behold Fawkes? If so, his self-command apparently was extraordinary; for, almost certainly, Mounteagle must have met Fawkes at White Webbs, if not at the Lord Montague’s and elsewhere. Fawkes was so strict and regular in his habits and deportment that he was thought to be a priest or a Jesuit (I suppose, a Jesuit lay-brother). That Tesimond should think that part of the “King’s Book” fabulous which describes this “perusing of the vault” and finding of Fawkes, is just what I should expect Tesimond, erroneously, would think; inasmuch as this particular Jesuit would naturally enough consider it to be simply incredible that Mounteagle should not have displayed some outward token, however slight, of recognising Fawkes, who would be sure to carry with him his characteristic air of calm and high distinction, even amid “the wood and coale” of his “master” Thomas Percy. But Tesimond did not know what a perfect tutoring Mounteagle had received from his mentor to qualify him to play so well his part in life at this supreme juncture. Thomas Ward was evidently a consummate diplomatist. If he had been trained under Walsingham he would certainly “know a thing or two.”
[99]— It is to be remembered that, for the first time, the powder was found by Knevet and his men about midnight of Monday, the 4th of November. Previous to, possibly, late in the day of the 4th of November, I do not think that Salisbury and Suffolk knew any more about the existence of this powder than “the man in the moon.” Such ignorance on their part redounded to their great discredit, and would be, doubtless,duly noted by the small and timid, yet sharp, mind of James. But the Country’s confidence in the Government had to be maintained at all costs; hence the comical, side-glance, slantingdicular, ninny-pinny way in which the “King’s Book,” for the most part, is drawn up. A re-publication of the “King’s Book,” and of “The Fawkeses, of York,” by R. Davies, sometime Town Clerk of York (Nichols, 1850), are desiderata to the historical student of the Gunpowder Plot.I readily allow that it is difficult to believe that neither Salisbury, nor Suffolk, nor anybody (not even a bird-like-eyed Dame Quickly of busy-bodying propensities residing in the neighbourhood) knew of this powder, which had been (at least some of it) in Percy’s house and an outhouse adjoining the Parliament House. Still, even if they did know (whether statesmen or housewife) of theGunpowder, it does not follow, either in fact or in logic, that they knew of theGunpowder Plot. For they might reasonably enough conclude that the ammunition was to carry out “the practice for some stir” which Salisbury admits that he knew the recusants had in hand at that Parliament. — See “Winwood’s Memorials,” Ed. 1725, vol. ii., p. 72. — Moreover, for such a purpose, in the natural order of things, I take it, the powder would be brought in first, then the shot, muskets, armour, swords, daggers, pikes, crossbows, arrows, and other ordnance. (The barrels, empty or nearly so, would be carried in first.)Sir Thomas Knevet, of Norfolk, was created Baron Knevett, of Escrick, near York, in 1607. He died without male issue. He went to the Parliament House on the night of November 4th, 1605, as a Justice of the Peace for Westminster. — See Nichols’ “Progresses of James I.,” vol. i., p. 582. — Escrick is now the seat of the Lord Wenlock.
[99]— It is to be remembered that, for the first time, the powder was found by Knevet and his men about midnight of Monday, the 4th of November. Previous to, possibly, late in the day of the 4th of November, I do not think that Salisbury and Suffolk knew any more about the existence of this powder than “the man in the moon.” Such ignorance on their part redounded to their great discredit, and would be, doubtless,duly noted by the small and timid, yet sharp, mind of James. But the Country’s confidence in the Government had to be maintained at all costs; hence the comical, side-glance, slantingdicular, ninny-pinny way in which the “King’s Book,” for the most part, is drawn up. A re-publication of the “King’s Book,” and of “The Fawkeses, of York,” by R. Davies, sometime Town Clerk of York (Nichols, 1850), are desiderata to the historical student of the Gunpowder Plot.
I readily allow that it is difficult to believe that neither Salisbury, nor Suffolk, nor anybody (not even a bird-like-eyed Dame Quickly of busy-bodying propensities residing in the neighbourhood) knew of this powder, which had been (at least some of it) in Percy’s house and an outhouse adjoining the Parliament House. Still, even if they did know (whether statesmen or housewife) of theGunpowder, it does not follow, either in fact or in logic, that they knew of theGunpowder Plot. For they might reasonably enough conclude that the ammunition was to carry out “the practice for some stir” which Salisbury admits that he knew the recusants had in hand at that Parliament. — See “Winwood’s Memorials,” Ed. 1725, vol. ii., p. 72. — Moreover, for such a purpose, in the natural order of things, I take it, the powder would be brought in first, then the shot, muskets, armour, swords, daggers, pikes, crossbows, arrows, and other ordnance. (The barrels, empty or nearly so, would be carried in first.)
Sir Thomas Knevet, of Norfolk, was created Baron Knevett, of Escrick, near York, in 1607. He died without male issue. He went to the Parliament House on the night of November 4th, 1605, as a Justice of the Peace for Westminster. — See Nichols’ “Progresses of James I.,” vol. i., p. 582. — Escrick is now the seat of the Lord Wenlock.
[100]— “Hatfield MS.,” 110, 30. Quoted in “the Rev. J. H. Pollen’s S.J., thoughtful and learned booklet, entitled “Father Garnet and the Gunpowder Plot” (Catholic Truth Society’s publication, London).
[100]— “Hatfield MS.,” 110, 30. Quoted in “the Rev. J. H. Pollen’s S.J., thoughtful and learned booklet, entitled “Father Garnet and the Gunpowder Plot” (Catholic Truth Society’s publication, London).
[101]— See Jardine’s Letter to Sir Henry Ellis, K.H., F.R.S., Feb., 1841, in “Archæologia,” vol. xxix., p. 100. This letter should be carefully read by every serious student of the Plot.
[101]— See Jardine’s Letter to Sir Henry Ellis, K.H., F.R.S., Feb., 1841, in “Archæologia,” vol. xxix., p. 100. This letter should be carefully read by every serious student of the Plot.
[102]— Sir William Stanley, of Hooton (in that strip of Cheshire between the Mersey and the Dee), was not seen by Fawkes between Easter and the end of August, 1605, when Fawkes went over to Flanders for the last time in his career so adventurous and so pathetic. SirWilliam knew nothing of the Gunpowder Plot. It was said that he surrendered Deventer in pursuance of the counsel of Captain Roland Yorke, who to the Spaniards had himself surrendered Zutphen Sconce. These surrenders to the Spaniards on the part of two English gentlemen were strange pieces of business, and one would like the whole question to be thoroughly and severely searched into again. As to Roland Yorke, see Camden’s “Queen Elizabeth.”Captain Roland Yorke, like his patron Sir William Stanley, was an able soldier. He held a position of command in the Battle of Zutphen, in which the Bayard of English chivalry, Sir Philip Sidney, received his death wound. — See the “Earl of Leicester’s Correspondence” (Camden Soc.). — Sidney’s widow (the daughter of Sir Francis Walsingham) afterwards married Robert second Earl of Essex. She became a Roman Catholic, like her kinsman, the gifted and engaging Father Walsingham, S.J. Frances Walsingham, the only child of Sir Francis Walsingham, became a Catholic, I think, through her third marriage with Richard De Burgh fourth Earl of Clanricarde, afterwards Earl of St. Albans. He was also known as Richard of Kinsale and Lord Dunkellin. He was an intimate friend of the Earl of Essex and of Father Gerard, S.J., the friend of Mary Ward.It would be interesting if Major Hume, or some other authority on the reign of Queen Elizabeth, could ascertain whether or not there was aThomas Wardein the diplomatic service during the “Eighties” of her reign. Certainly there was a Thomas Warde in the service of the Government then. I am almost sure that the “Mr. Warde” mentioned by Walsingham, in his letter to the Earl of Leicester, must have been this Thomas Warde, and one and the same man with Thomas Warde, of Mulwaith (or Mulwith). It is to be remembered, too, that the Gunpowder conspirator, Thomas Winter, had served in the Queen’s forces against the Spanish King for a time. The names Rowland Yorke, Thomas Vavasour, Sir Thomas Heneage, and Thomas Winter are very suggestive of the circle in which a Warde, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, would move. Besides, there was a family connection between the Parkers, Poyntzes, and Heneages. — See “Visitation of Essex, 1612” (Harleian Soc.), under “Poyntz.”Moreover, it must be continually borne in mind that Father Tesimond (alias Greenway), in his hitherto unprinted MS., declares that Mounteagle was related to some of the plotters. “Greenway’s MS.,” according to Jardine’s “Narrative,” p. 92, also says that Thomas Ward was an intimate friend of several of the conspirators, andsuspectedtohave been an accomplice in the treason. That would imply that Ward was suspected to have had at least aknowledgeof the treason.
[102]— Sir William Stanley, of Hooton (in that strip of Cheshire between the Mersey and the Dee), was not seen by Fawkes between Easter and the end of August, 1605, when Fawkes went over to Flanders for the last time in his career so adventurous and so pathetic. SirWilliam knew nothing of the Gunpowder Plot. It was said that he surrendered Deventer in pursuance of the counsel of Captain Roland Yorke, who to the Spaniards had himself surrendered Zutphen Sconce. These surrenders to the Spaniards on the part of two English gentlemen were strange pieces of business, and one would like the whole question to be thoroughly and severely searched into again. As to Roland Yorke, see Camden’s “Queen Elizabeth.”
Captain Roland Yorke, like his patron Sir William Stanley, was an able soldier. He held a position of command in the Battle of Zutphen, in which the Bayard of English chivalry, Sir Philip Sidney, received his death wound. — See the “Earl of Leicester’s Correspondence” (Camden Soc.). — Sidney’s widow (the daughter of Sir Francis Walsingham) afterwards married Robert second Earl of Essex. She became a Roman Catholic, like her kinsman, the gifted and engaging Father Walsingham, S.J. Frances Walsingham, the only child of Sir Francis Walsingham, became a Catholic, I think, through her third marriage with Richard De Burgh fourth Earl of Clanricarde, afterwards Earl of St. Albans. He was also known as Richard of Kinsale and Lord Dunkellin. He was an intimate friend of the Earl of Essex and of Father Gerard, S.J., the friend of Mary Ward.
It would be interesting if Major Hume, or some other authority on the reign of Queen Elizabeth, could ascertain whether or not there was aThomas Wardein the diplomatic service during the “Eighties” of her reign. Certainly there was a Thomas Warde in the service of the Government then. I am almost sure that the “Mr. Warde” mentioned by Walsingham, in his letter to the Earl of Leicester, must have been this Thomas Warde, and one and the same man with Thomas Warde, of Mulwaith (or Mulwith). It is to be remembered, too, that the Gunpowder conspirator, Thomas Winter, had served in the Queen’s forces against the Spanish King for a time. The names Rowland Yorke, Thomas Vavasour, Sir Thomas Heneage, and Thomas Winter are very suggestive of the circle in which a Warde, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, would move. Besides, there was a family connection between the Parkers, Poyntzes, and Heneages. — See “Visitation of Essex, 1612” (Harleian Soc.), under “Poyntz.”
Moreover, it must be continually borne in mind that Father Tesimond (alias Greenway), in his hitherto unprinted MS., declares that Mounteagle was related to some of the plotters. “Greenway’s MS.,” according to Jardine’s “Narrative,” p. 92, also says that Thomas Ward was an intimate friend of several of the conspirators, andsuspectedtohave been an accomplice in the treason. That would imply that Ward was suspected to have had at least aknowledgeof the treason.
[103]— Mary Ward, the daughter of Marmaduke Ward and Ursula Wright, lived with her grandmother, Mrs. Ursula Wright (néeRudston, of Hayton, in the East Riding of Yorkshire), between the years 1589-94 at Plowland (or Plewland) Hall, Holderness, Yorkshire; and between the years 1597-1600 at Harewell Hall, in the township of Dacre, Nidderdale, with her kinswoman, Mrs. Katerine Ardington (néeIngleby). Mrs. Ardington, as well as Mrs. Ursula Wright, had suffered imprisonment for her profession of the ancient faith. We have a relation by Mary Ward herself of her grandmother’s incarceration, which is as follows: — Mrs. Wright “had in her younger years suffered imprisonment for the space of fourteen years together, in which time she several times made profession of her faith before the President of York (the Earl of Huntingdon) and other officers. She was once, for her speeches to the said Huntingdon, tending to the exaltation of the Catholic religion and contempt of heresy, thrust into a common prison or dungeon, amongst thieves, where she stayed not long because, being much spoken of, it came to the hearing of her kindred, who procured her speedy removal to the Castle prison where she was before.” — See Chambers’ “Life of Mary Ward,” vol. i., p. 13.This common prison or dungeon would be, it is all but certain, the Kidcote, the common prison for the City of York and that portion of Yorkshire between the Rivers Wharfe and Ouse known as the Ainsty of the City of York. This dungeon was, according to Gent’s “History of York,” under the York City Council Chamber on Old Ouse Bridge, to the westward of St. William’s Chapel. — See also J. B. Milburn’s “A Martyr of Old York” (Burns & Oates). — The Old Ouse Bridge was pulled down in 1810. — See Allen’s “History of Yorkshire” — After the Kidcote was demolished, the York City prison called the Gaol, likewise now demolished (1901), was built on Bishophill, near the Old Bailie Hill. The prison for the County of Yorkshire was the Castle built by William the Conqueror, the tower of which, called Clifford’s Tower, on an artificial mound, is still standing. There was, moreover, in York, a third prison into which the unhappy popish recusants, as appears from Morris’s “Troubles” were sometimes consigned. This was the Bishop’s prison, commonly called Peter Prison. The writer is told by Mr. William Camidge, a York antiquary of note, that Peter Prison stood at the corner of Precentor’s Court, Petergate, near to the west front of the Minster. Mr. Camidge remembers Peter Prison being used as a Citylock-up prison about the year 1836, soon after which year it was pulled down. The late Mr. Richard Haughton, of York, showed the writer, about Easter, 1899, a sketch of this interesting old prison, a sketch which Mr. Haughton had himself made. The building was a plain square erection, the door of which was reached by a flight of stone steps.Again, we are told — “Life of Mary Ward,” vol. i., p. 17 — that one day Mary came to her grandmother, “who was singing some hymns,” and the child asked the old lady whether she would not send “something again to the prisoners,” a question, we are told, which “pleased” Mrs. Wright “very much.”Lastly, the gifted daughter of Marmaduke Ward, and the niece of Thomas Ward, bears this striking testimony concerning one aspect of her aged relative’s gracious life, that “so great a prayer was she” that during the whole five years that the child lived with her grandmother, the most of which time she lodged in the same chamber, she “did not remember in that whole five years she ever saw her grandmother sleep, nor did she ever awake when she perceived her not at prayer” (p. 15).
[103]— Mary Ward, the daughter of Marmaduke Ward and Ursula Wright, lived with her grandmother, Mrs. Ursula Wright (néeRudston, of Hayton, in the East Riding of Yorkshire), between the years 1589-94 at Plowland (or Plewland) Hall, Holderness, Yorkshire; and between the years 1597-1600 at Harewell Hall, in the township of Dacre, Nidderdale, with her kinswoman, Mrs. Katerine Ardington (néeIngleby). Mrs. Ardington, as well as Mrs. Ursula Wright, had suffered imprisonment for her profession of the ancient faith. We have a relation by Mary Ward herself of her grandmother’s incarceration, which is as follows: — Mrs. Wright “had in her younger years suffered imprisonment for the space of fourteen years together, in which time she several times made profession of her faith before the President of York (the Earl of Huntingdon) and other officers. She was once, for her speeches to the said Huntingdon, tending to the exaltation of the Catholic religion and contempt of heresy, thrust into a common prison or dungeon, amongst thieves, where she stayed not long because, being much spoken of, it came to the hearing of her kindred, who procured her speedy removal to the Castle prison where she was before.” — See Chambers’ “Life of Mary Ward,” vol. i., p. 13.
This common prison or dungeon would be, it is all but certain, the Kidcote, the common prison for the City of York and that portion of Yorkshire between the Rivers Wharfe and Ouse known as the Ainsty of the City of York. This dungeon was, according to Gent’s “History of York,” under the York City Council Chamber on Old Ouse Bridge, to the westward of St. William’s Chapel. — See also J. B. Milburn’s “A Martyr of Old York” (Burns & Oates). — The Old Ouse Bridge was pulled down in 1810. — See Allen’s “History of Yorkshire” — After the Kidcote was demolished, the York City prison called the Gaol, likewise now demolished (1901), was built on Bishophill, near the Old Bailie Hill. The prison for the County of Yorkshire was the Castle built by William the Conqueror, the tower of which, called Clifford’s Tower, on an artificial mound, is still standing. There was, moreover, in York, a third prison into which the unhappy popish recusants, as appears from Morris’s “Troubles” were sometimes consigned. This was the Bishop’s prison, commonly called Peter Prison. The writer is told by Mr. William Camidge, a York antiquary of note, that Peter Prison stood at the corner of Precentor’s Court, Petergate, near to the west front of the Minster. Mr. Camidge remembers Peter Prison being used as a Citylock-up prison about the year 1836, soon after which year it was pulled down. The late Mr. Richard Haughton, of York, showed the writer, about Easter, 1899, a sketch of this interesting old prison, a sketch which Mr. Haughton had himself made. The building was a plain square erection, the door of which was reached by a flight of stone steps.
Again, we are told — “Life of Mary Ward,” vol. i., p. 17 — that one day Mary came to her grandmother, “who was singing some hymns,” and the child asked the old lady whether she would not send “something again to the prisoners,” a question, we are told, which “pleased” Mrs. Wright “very much.”
Lastly, the gifted daughter of Marmaduke Ward, and the niece of Thomas Ward, bears this striking testimony concerning one aspect of her aged relative’s gracious life, that “so great a prayer was she” that during the whole five years that the child lived with her grandmother, the most of which time she lodged in the same chamber, she “did not remember in that whole five years she ever saw her grandmother sleep, nor did she ever awake when she perceived her not at prayer” (p. 15).
[104]— Maybe Christopher Wright, from his earliest school-days, had with reverence looked up to Edward Oldcorne, for the latter was the senior of the former by no less than ten years, so that when Oldcorne was a clever youth of fifteen years Christopher would be a little fellow of five, “with his satchel and shining morning-face,” though we may be permitted to hope that little Kit Wright did not “creep like snail unwillingly to school.” For it was at a school second to none in England that the future ill-fated Yorkshireman learned to con his “hic, hæc, hoc.” It was a school originally founded by Egbert, Archbishop of York, in the eighth century, and which, as the Cathedral Grammar School, had been rendered famous by Alcuin himself, the tutor of Charlemagne. It was a school re-founded and re-endowed in the Horse Fayre, now Union Terrace, on the left-hand side going down Gillygate, outside Bootham Bar, by King Philip and Queen Mary, especially for the training of priests for the northern parts. — See in Leach’s “Endowed Schools of Yorkshire” for an account concerning St. Peter’s School, Clifton, York, but no register of scholars of this ancient seat of learning now exists prior to the year 1828. (Title deeds and writings lent by Mrs. Martha Lancaster, of York, have enabled me to identify the site of the old school.)It is, I take it, furthermore possible that Edward Oldcorne may have taught Christopher Wright; and if the relation of pedagogue and scholar ever subsisted between them, a bond of mutual regard would be created which the lapse of long years would not weaken. For an account of thekind of education given in a Grammar School in “the spacious days of Good Queen Bess,” see Dr. Elzé’s “Life of Shakespeare” (Bell & Sons), also H. W. Mabie’s very recent and able American “Life of Shakespeare” (Macmillan).
[104]— Maybe Christopher Wright, from his earliest school-days, had with reverence looked up to Edward Oldcorne, for the latter was the senior of the former by no less than ten years, so that when Oldcorne was a clever youth of fifteen years Christopher would be a little fellow of five, “with his satchel and shining morning-face,” though we may be permitted to hope that little Kit Wright did not “creep like snail unwillingly to school.” For it was at a school second to none in England that the future ill-fated Yorkshireman learned to con his “hic, hæc, hoc.” It was a school originally founded by Egbert, Archbishop of York, in the eighth century, and which, as the Cathedral Grammar School, had been rendered famous by Alcuin himself, the tutor of Charlemagne. It was a school re-founded and re-endowed in the Horse Fayre, now Union Terrace, on the left-hand side going down Gillygate, outside Bootham Bar, by King Philip and Queen Mary, especially for the training of priests for the northern parts. — See in Leach’s “Endowed Schools of Yorkshire” for an account concerning St. Peter’s School, Clifton, York, but no register of scholars of this ancient seat of learning now exists prior to the year 1828. (Title deeds and writings lent by Mrs. Martha Lancaster, of York, have enabled me to identify the site of the old school.)
It is, I take it, furthermore possible that Edward Oldcorne may have taught Christopher Wright; and if the relation of pedagogue and scholar ever subsisted between them, a bond of mutual regard would be created which the lapse of long years would not weaken. For an account of thekind of education given in a Grammar School in “the spacious days of Good Queen Bess,” see Dr. Elzé’s “Life of Shakespeare” (Bell & Sons), also H. W. Mabie’s very recent and able American “Life of Shakespeare” (Macmillan).
[105]— “Surgam, et ibo ad patrem meum, et dicam ei: Pater, peccavi in cælum et coram te!” “I will arise.”
[105]— “Surgam, et ibo ad patrem meum, et dicam ei: Pater, peccavi in cælum et coram te!” “I will arise.”
[106]— Possibly the Earl of Northumberland. He was (it will be remembered) the son of Henry the eighth Earl, and nephew to “the Blessed” Thomas Percy the seventh Earl, and likewise nephew to Mary Slingsby, of Scriven, Knaresbrough. Sir Kenelin Digby, the eldest son of Sir Everard Digby, married the beautiful Venetia Stanley, who was descended from “the Blessed” Thomas Percy. The helmet and gauntlets of this nobleman were kept at the handsome old Church of St. Crux, in The Pavement, York, which was pulled down a few years ago. Thomas Longueville, Esquire, of Llanforda Hall, Oswestry, Salop, through the Lady Venetia Digby, is descended from “the Blessed” Thomas Percy, as are several other families, including the Peacocks, of Bottesford Manor, Lincolnshire, I believe. Mr. Longueville is the learned author of the “Lives” of his ancestors, Sir Everard and Sir Kenelm Digby.
[106]— Possibly the Earl of Northumberland. He was (it will be remembered) the son of Henry the eighth Earl, and nephew to “the Blessed” Thomas Percy the seventh Earl, and likewise nephew to Mary Slingsby, of Scriven, Knaresbrough. Sir Kenelin Digby, the eldest son of Sir Everard Digby, married the beautiful Venetia Stanley, who was descended from “the Blessed” Thomas Percy. The helmet and gauntlets of this nobleman were kept at the handsome old Church of St. Crux, in The Pavement, York, which was pulled down a few years ago. Thomas Longueville, Esquire, of Llanforda Hall, Oswestry, Salop, through the Lady Venetia Digby, is descended from “the Blessed” Thomas Percy, as are several other families, including the Peacocks, of Bottesford Manor, Lincolnshire, I believe. Mr. Longueville is the learned author of the “Lives” of his ancestors, Sir Everard and Sir Kenelm Digby.
[107]— We know that on the 5th day of October, two days after the prorogation of Parliament, Christopher Wright quitted his lodging, in Spur Alley, where he had been for eighteen days prior to the 5th October. — See “Evidence of Dorathie Robinson,” p. 128ante.
[107]— We know that on the 5th day of October, two days after the prorogation of Parliament, Christopher Wright quitted his lodging, in Spur Alley, where he had been for eighteen days prior to the 5th October. — See “Evidence of Dorathie Robinson,” p. 128ante.
[108]— John Wright was acknowledged to be one of the most expert swordsmen of his time. He was commonly known as “Jack Wright,” and his brother as “Kit Wright.” Father Garnet says, in a voluntary statement that he made in the Tower — Foley’s “Records,” vol. iv., p. 157 — “‘These are not God’s knights, but the devil’s knights.’ And related how Jack Wright had sent a challenge by Thomas Winter to a gentleman.” The duel, however, did not come off, though Winter measured swords. Winter appears to have fulfilled the happy office of peace-maker on the occasion. (What “strange mixtures” these English and Yorkshire papist gentlemen were, to be sure!)
[108]— John Wright was acknowledged to be one of the most expert swordsmen of his time. He was commonly known as “Jack Wright,” and his brother as “Kit Wright.” Father Garnet says, in a voluntary statement that he made in the Tower — Foley’s “Records,” vol. iv., p. 157 — “‘These are not God’s knights, but the devil’s knights.’ And related how Jack Wright had sent a challenge by Thomas Winter to a gentleman.” The duel, however, did not come off, though Winter measured swords. Winter appears to have fulfilled the happy office of peace-maker on the occasion. (What “strange mixtures” these English and Yorkshire papist gentlemen were, to be sure!)
[109]— See Article in “National Dictionary of Biography” on “John Wright” (citing Camden in “Birch Original Letters”) second series, vol. iii., p. 179.
[109]— See Article in “National Dictionary of Biography” on “John Wright” (citing Camden in “Birch Original Letters”) second series, vol. iii., p. 179.
[110]— Afterwards the great Viscount Verulam, commonly known as Lord Bacon. Bacon’s particular friend and familiar was Sir Toby Matthews, the eldest son of Dr. Tobias Matthews, in 1606 created Archbishop of York. Sir Toby translated Bacon’s “Essays” into Italian. — See Spedding’s “Life of Bacon,” and Alban Butler’s “Life of Matthews.” — Sir Toby Matthews (in the February of 1605-6, just after the Plot) was converted to popery by Father Robert Parsons, who was then at the English College, Rome; and Matthews’ was, without doubt, the most remarkable and interesting of all the conversions effected by that strong-minded and most able Jesuit. Parsons’ intellect was one of marvellous range, reach, versatility, and power. He was a spiritual or mystical man in his way, too; but his spirituality or mysticism not seldom failed to control his action in daily life. It was shut up, as it were, in a watertight compartment. This (me judice) sums up, approximately, the truth about Parsons. Of all the men in Europe, Parsons was the man Burleigh, Walsingham, and Salisbury most feared. He died in 1610. A really impartial Life of Parsons, if possible, by a learned lawyer and politician, is a desideratum. In some of his political ideas this Jesuit was a progressive born prematurely — “a man before his time.” For he believed thoroughly in the sovereignty of the People, and in the desirableness of universal education. In this latter respect he resembled “that good lady, Mary Ward,” the daughter of Marmaduke Ward, and niece of Thomas Ward (ex hypothesi). Campion, the Jesuit, who died a martyr in 1581, was much the more amiable and attractive character. But Campion was no politician. Oldcorne, I maintain, was the greatest of all the three, because of his extraordinary mental equipoise and balance.“The History of the Jesuits in England, 1580-1773,” by the Rev. Ethelred L. Taunton, with twelve illustrations (Methuen & Co., 1901), in some sort supplies a Life of Robert Parsons. But evidently the Jesuit Society is an enigma to Father Taunton, as to so many papists. A man must be a jurist and a statesman to understand the Jesuits. For their aim (me judice), their noble aim, ever has been to make the “Kingdoms of the world the Kingdoms of God and of His Christ.”If a delusion, surely a delusion merely, not a crime, the most puissant spirit among us must allow.James Robert Hope-Scott, Q.C., thought that the Jesuits were the backbone of the Church of his adoption. And Dr. Christopher Wordsworth (no mean judge) thought that Hope-Scott might have become a more popular Prime Minister than even W. E. Gladstone, had he chosen a political career. Wordsworth was Hope-Scott’s tutor at Oxford. — SeeDr. Christopher Wordsworth’s “Autobiography.” — He was Bishop of St. Andrews, N.B., and as a classical scholar almost without a peer.
[110]— Afterwards the great Viscount Verulam, commonly known as Lord Bacon. Bacon’s particular friend and familiar was Sir Toby Matthews, the eldest son of Dr. Tobias Matthews, in 1606 created Archbishop of York. Sir Toby translated Bacon’s “Essays” into Italian. — See Spedding’s “Life of Bacon,” and Alban Butler’s “Life of Matthews.” — Sir Toby Matthews (in the February of 1605-6, just after the Plot) was converted to popery by Father Robert Parsons, who was then at the English College, Rome; and Matthews’ was, without doubt, the most remarkable and interesting of all the conversions effected by that strong-minded and most able Jesuit. Parsons’ intellect was one of marvellous range, reach, versatility, and power. He was a spiritual or mystical man in his way, too; but his spirituality or mysticism not seldom failed to control his action in daily life. It was shut up, as it were, in a watertight compartment. This (me judice) sums up, approximately, the truth about Parsons. Of all the men in Europe, Parsons was the man Burleigh, Walsingham, and Salisbury most feared. He died in 1610. A really impartial Life of Parsons, if possible, by a learned lawyer and politician, is a desideratum. In some of his political ideas this Jesuit was a progressive born prematurely — “a man before his time.” For he believed thoroughly in the sovereignty of the People, and in the desirableness of universal education. In this latter respect he resembled “that good lady, Mary Ward,” the daughter of Marmaduke Ward, and niece of Thomas Ward (ex hypothesi). Campion, the Jesuit, who died a martyr in 1581, was much the more amiable and attractive character. But Campion was no politician. Oldcorne, I maintain, was the greatest of all the three, because of his extraordinary mental equipoise and balance.
“The History of the Jesuits in England, 1580-1773,” by the Rev. Ethelred L. Taunton, with twelve illustrations (Methuen & Co., 1901), in some sort supplies a Life of Robert Parsons. But evidently the Jesuit Society is an enigma to Father Taunton, as to so many papists. A man must be a jurist and a statesman to understand the Jesuits. For their aim (me judice), their noble aim, ever has been to make the “Kingdoms of the world the Kingdoms of God and of His Christ.”
If a delusion, surely a delusion merely, not a crime, the most puissant spirit among us must allow.
James Robert Hope-Scott, Q.C., thought that the Jesuits were the backbone of the Church of his adoption. And Dr. Christopher Wordsworth (no mean judge) thought that Hope-Scott might have become a more popular Prime Minister than even W. E. Gladstone, had he chosen a political career. Wordsworth was Hope-Scott’s tutor at Oxford. — SeeDr. Christopher Wordsworth’s “Autobiography.” — He was Bishop of St. Andrews, N.B., and as a classical scholar almost without a peer.
[111]— See Jardine’s “Criminal Trials,” vol. ii., p. 166.
[111]— See Jardine’s “Criminal Trials,” vol. ii., p. 166.
[112]— “Narrative” p. 57. As appears from the Lives of Mary Ward, Father Gerard had known Mary Ward when a child in Yorkshire. Hence he probably knew her uncles, John and Christopher Wright, and also Thomas Percy.Mary Ward was one of the greatest women-educationists and, in a sense, women’s rights advocates England has ever seen. She ought to figure in the Supplement to the “National Dictionary of Biography.” The following word-portrait of Mary Warde we owe to the skilful hand of her kinswoman, the gifted Winefrid Wigmore, a cousin once removed to Lady Mounteagle. It is as Mary Ward, that wonderful Yorkshire-woman, appeared in the year which witnessed the death of Shakespeare (1616). Perhaps the poet knew her; if so, no wonder he knew how to describe queenly souls. “She was rather tall (was Mary), but her figure was symmetrical. Her complexion was delicately beautiful, her countenance and aspect most agreeable, mingled with I know not what which was attractive.... Her presence and conversation were most winning, her manners courteous. It was a general saying ‘She became whatsoever she wore or did.’ Her voice in speaking was very grateful, and in song melodious. In her demeanour and carriage, an angelic modesty was united to a refined ease and dignity of manner, that made even princes[A]find great satisfaction, yea, profit, in conversing with her. Yet, these were withal without the least affectation, and were accompanied with such meekness and humility as gave confidence to the poorest and most miserable. There was nothing she did seem to have more horror of than there should be anything in herself or hers that might put a bar to the free access of any who should be in need of ought in their power to bestow.”No wonder that — with a brother to the right of him like Marmaduke Ward, and with a niece to the left o£ him like Mary Ward, “that great soul,” who in after years, “in a plenitude of vision planned high deeds asimmortal as the sun”[B]— Thomas Warde, the husband for eleven brief years (lacking nine days) of Margery Warde (born Slater), was instrumental, under Heaven, in giving effect to the all but too late repentance of the penitent, Christopher Wright!
[112]— “Narrative” p. 57. As appears from the Lives of Mary Ward, Father Gerard had known Mary Ward when a child in Yorkshire. Hence he probably knew her uncles, John and Christopher Wright, and also Thomas Percy.
Mary Ward was one of the greatest women-educationists and, in a sense, women’s rights advocates England has ever seen. She ought to figure in the Supplement to the “National Dictionary of Biography.” The following word-portrait of Mary Warde we owe to the skilful hand of her kinswoman, the gifted Winefrid Wigmore, a cousin once removed to Lady Mounteagle. It is as Mary Ward, that wonderful Yorkshire-woman, appeared in the year which witnessed the death of Shakespeare (1616). Perhaps the poet knew her; if so, no wonder he knew how to describe queenly souls. “She was rather tall (was Mary), but her figure was symmetrical. Her complexion was delicately beautiful, her countenance and aspect most agreeable, mingled with I know not what which was attractive.... Her presence and conversation were most winning, her manners courteous. It was a general saying ‘She became whatsoever she wore or did.’ Her voice in speaking was very grateful, and in song melodious. In her demeanour and carriage, an angelic modesty was united to a refined ease and dignity of manner, that made even princes[A]find great satisfaction, yea, profit, in conversing with her. Yet, these were withal without the least affectation, and were accompanied with such meekness and humility as gave confidence to the poorest and most miserable. There was nothing she did seem to have more horror of than there should be anything in herself or hers that might put a bar to the free access of any who should be in need of ought in their power to bestow.”
No wonder that — with a brother to the right of him like Marmaduke Ward, and with a niece to the left o£ him like Mary Ward, “that great soul,” who in after years, “in a plenitude of vision planned high deeds asimmortal as the sun”[B]— Thomas Warde, the husband for eleven brief years (lacking nine days) of Margery Warde (born Slater), was instrumental, under Heaven, in giving effect to the all but too late repentance of the penitent, Christopher Wright!
[A]Mary Ward was the friend or acquaintance of some of the greatest men and women in Europe. She was a friend of Queen Henrietta Maria, the wife of Charles I. and daughter of Henry Bourbon, better known as “King Harry of Navarre.” — See Macaulay’s poem, “Ivry.”
[A]Mary Ward was the friend or acquaintance of some of the greatest men and women in Europe. She was a friend of Queen Henrietta Maria, the wife of Charles I. and daughter of Henry Bourbon, better known as “King Harry of Navarre.” — See Macaulay’s poem, “Ivry.”
[B]Line borrowed from Lord Bowen. — See his magnificent poem, entitled, “Shadowland,” p. 214 of his “Life,” by Sir Henry Stewart Cunningham, K.C.I.E. (Murray).
[B]Line borrowed from Lord Bowen. — See his magnificent poem, entitled, “Shadowland,” p. 214 of his “Life,” by Sir Henry Stewart Cunningham, K.C.I.E. (Murray).
[113]— The second Edition is dated 1681. The Pamphlet was by a Dr. Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester. — See “National Dictionary of Biography.”
[113]— The second Edition is dated 1681. The Pamphlet was by a Dr. Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester. — See “National Dictionary of Biography.”
[114]— The report would be at least second-hand, and it might be much more. For example, if Mr. Abington saw his wife write the Letter and told the worthy person what he (Abington) had by the evidence of his own eyes ascertained, then the worthy person would have the evidence at first-hand. Any person to whom the worthy person conveyed the intelligence would have it at second-hand, and so on. But if Mr. Abington had not seen his wife write the Letter, but had only been told by his wife that she had writ the Letter, then, although Abington would be a witness at first-handas to the bare fact of such a report having been made, he would be only a witness at second-handas to the truth of the report; for Mrs. Abington, in herself reporting, might have spoken falsely either wilfully or through mental defect.
[114]— The report would be at least second-hand, and it might be much more. For example, if Mr. Abington saw his wife write the Letter and told the worthy person what he (Abington) had by the evidence of his own eyes ascertained, then the worthy person would have the evidence at first-hand. Any person to whom the worthy person conveyed the intelligence would have it at second-hand, and so on. But if Mr. Abington had not seen his wife write the Letter, but had only been told by his wife that she had writ the Letter, then, although Abington would be a witness at first-handas to the bare fact of such a report having been made, he would be only a witness at second-handas to the truth of the report; for Mrs. Abington, in herself reporting, might have spoken falsely either wilfully or through mental defect.
[115]— Vol. i., p. 585.
[115]— Vol. i., p. 585.
[116]— Jardine’s “Narrative,” p. 83.
[116]— Jardine’s “Narrative,” p. 83.
[117]— Jardine’s “Narrative” p. 84.
[117]— Jardine’s “Narrative” p. 84.