Supplementum VI.

[A]The Most Honourable the Marquis of Ripon, K.G., Viceroy of India (1880-85), and the Most Honourable the Marchioness of Ripon, C.I., are akin to John Wright and Christopher Wright, through the Mallories of Studley Royal.

[B]The Right Honourable the Lord Grantley, of Markenfield Hall, is akin to the Wrights, through his ancestor, Francis Norton, the eldest son of brave old Richard Norton; the Mallories; the Inglebies; and many others.

[C]Sir Henry Day Ingilby, Bart., of Ripley Castle, is likewise akin to the Wrights, the Winters, and indeed to almost all the other ill-fated plotters. I may mention also that Sir Henry is likewise related to the exalted Mary Ward, who (as was the case with her great kinswoman and friend, Lady Grace Babthorpe) lived at “lovely Ripley” in her childhood, with the Inglebies of that day, on more than one occasion, as we find recorded in Mary’s “Life.”

[D]At Grantley a John Wright resided in the time of Elizabeth. He was probably brother to Robert Wright, the father of John and Christopher Wright. Grantley Hall nestles in a leafy hollow of surpassing beauty. The swift, gentle, little River Skell flows past the Hall on towards St. Mary’s Abbey, Fountains. Grantley Hall is now owned by Sir Christopher Furness, M.P. It was formerly one of the estates of the Lords Grantley.

Robert Wright (the second Wright who owned Plowland) had been married before his marriage to Ursula Rudston. His first wife’s name was Anne Grimstone. She was a daughter of Thomas Grimstone, Esquire, of Grimstone Garth. Robert Wright and Anne Grimstone had one son who “heired” Plowland. His name was William Wright. He married Ann Thornton, of East Newton, in Rydale, a lady who was related to many old Rydale and Vale of Mowbray families in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The names of William Wright and Ann, his wife (born Thornton), are still recorded on a brass in the north aisle of Welwick Church.[A]

[A]Mass was said at Ness Hall, near Hovingham, not far from East Newton, during the early part of the nineteenth century.I thinkthat this was owing to the old Catholic family of Crathorne owning Ness Hall at this time. The Crathornes intermarried with the Wrights, of Plowland, in the days of James I. or Charles I., and I suspect that Ness Hall had been brought into the Crathorne family, through the Wrights, from the Thorntons. The Crathornes came from Crathorne, near Stokesley, in Cleveland. The Thorntons conformed to the Established Church.

William Wright was half-brother to Ursula Ward, the wife of Marmaduke Ward, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, near Ripon, the parents of the great Mary Ward, the friend of popes, emperors, kings, nobles, statesmen, warriors, and indeed of the most distinguished personages of Europe during the reigns of James I. andCharles I. William Wright (or Wryght, as the name is spelt on the brass in Welwick Church) was also half-brother to the two Gunpowder conspirators, John and Christopher Wright, who were slain at Holbeach House, Staffordshire, a few days after the capture of Guy Fawkes by Sir Thomas Knevet, early in the morning of November 5th, 1605.

The late Rev. John Stephens, Rector of Holgate, York, and formerly Vicar of Sunk Island, Holderness, told me, in September, 1900, that Guy Fawkes is said to have slept at Plowland Hall, on Fawkes’ departure for London for the last time, a tradition which is very likely to be authentic. For, as will be remembered, the Wrights, Fawkes, and Tesimond were old school-fellows at St. Peter’s School, in the Horse Fayre, Gillygate, York,[A]which had been re-founded by Philip and Mary, who likewise founded the present Grammar School at Ripon.

[A]John Wright, Christopher Wright, Guy Fawkes, and Oswald Tesimond must have many a time and oft passed through Bootham Bar, leading towards Clifton, Skelton, and Easingwold, along the great North Road. And besides the King’s Manor to the left of Bootham Bar, Queen Margaret’s Gateway, named after Queen Margaret (grandmother of Mary Queen of Scots), must have been to them all a thrice-familiar object. Queen Margaret, it will be remembered, was wife to King James IV. of Scotland, who fell at Flodden Field in 1513, fighting against the forces of the brother of the Scots’ Queen, King Henry VIII.In 1516, Henry VIII. invited his widowed sister to London, “and good Queen Katerine sent her own white palfrey” for her poor sister-in-law’s “use.” On this memorable occasion the bereaved daughter of King Henry VII., through whom His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward VII., in part at least, traces his august Title to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, was kindly welcomed by the worthy citizens of the northern capital. — See Dr. Raine’s “York” (Longmans), p. 98.In the month of July, 1900, at the Treasurer’s House, on the north side of the Minster, our Most Gracious Sovereign and His Beloved Consort (then the Prince and Princess of Wales) together with the present Prince and Princess of Wales (then the Duke and Duchess of York), graciously sojourned for a brief season: an event memorable and historic even in the proud annals of the second city of the British Empire.

In 1516, Henry VIII. invited his widowed sister to London, “and good Queen Katerine sent her own white palfrey” for her poor sister-in-law’s “use.” On this memorable occasion the bereaved daughter of King Henry VII., through whom His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward VII., in part at least, traces his august Title to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, was kindly welcomed by the worthy citizens of the northern capital. — See Dr. Raine’s “York” (Longmans), p. 98.

In the month of July, 1900, at the Treasurer’s House, on the north side of the Minster, our Most Gracious Sovereign and His Beloved Consort (then the Prince and Princess of Wales) together with the present Prince and Princess of Wales (then the Duke and Duchess of York), graciously sojourned for a brief season: an event memorable and historic even in the proud annals of the second city of the British Empire.

St. Mary’s Hall, Stonyhurst,Blackburn, 5th October, 1901.

... You are quite correct in saying that the doctrine of Equivocation is the justification of stratagems in war, and of a great many other recognised modes of conduct.

But I despair of its ever finding acceptance in the minds of most Englishmen: since they will not take the trouble of understanding it; while, at the same time, they have not the slightest scruple in misrepresenting it. It is, of course (like most principles, whether of art, or of science, or of philosophy), not a truth immediately to be grasped by the average intellect, and, therefore, liable to much misapplication. Even the best-trained thinkers may frequently differ as to its comprehension of this or that particular concrete case.

Given the tendency of human nature, English or foreign, to shield itself from unpleasant consequences at the expense of truth, it is unsafe to supply the public with a general principle, which, precisely on account of its universality, might be made to cover with some show of reason, many an unwarrantablejeu de mots. There are many exceedingly useful drugs which it would be unwise to throw into the open market. Hence, I quite recognise the partial validity of the objection to the doctrine in question. But since the doctrine is so often thrust in the public face, it is as well it should appear in its true colours.

This leads me to a point which I think ought to be insisted upon, namely, that those features, which aremost objectionable to Englishmen in the scholastic doctrine were devised by their authors with the intention oflimitingthe realm of Equivocation and of safeguarding the truth more closely.

All rational men are agreed that there are circumstances in which words must be used that areprimâ faciecontrary to truth — in war, in diplomacy, in the custody of certain professional secrets. In such instances the non-Catholic rule seems to be: Tell a lie, and have done with it. The basis of such a principle is Utilitarian Morality, which estimates Right and Wrongmerelyby the consequences of an action. The peripatetic philosopher, on the other hand, who maintains theintrinsicmoral character of certain actions, and who holdsmordicusto the love of truth for its own sake, is not content to rest in a lie, however excusable, but endeavours, for the honour of humanity, to demonstrate that such apparent deviations from truth are not such in reality. For he perceives in themtwomeanings — whence the nameEquivocation— one of which may be true, while the other is false. The speaker utters the words in their true meaning, and that the hearer should construe them in the other sense is the latter’s own affair.

“Not at home” may mean “out of the house” or “not inclined to receive visitors.” It is the visitor’s own fault if he attaches the first meaning to the phrase rather than the second, orvice versâ.

No sensible man would consider a prisoner to be “lying” in his plea of “Not Guilty,” because a certain juryman, in his ignorant simplicity, should carry off the impression of the prisoner’sabsolute, and not merely of hislegal, innocence. Yet the plea may mean either both or only the latter.

Similarly, an impertinent ferretter-out of an importantsecret needs blame none but himself if he conceives the answer “No” to intimate anything else than that he should mind his own business.

As to suchfactsthere is, I should say, an overwhelming agreement of opinion. That they differ from what we all recognise as a sheer “lie” is pretty evident. It is, therefore, convenient and scientific to label them with some other name, and the Scholastic hit upon the not inapt one ofEquivocation.

The malice of lying consists, according to Utilitarian Philosophy, in the destruction of that mutual confidence which is so absolutely necessary for the proper maintenance and development of civilized life. But the Scholastic, while fully admitting this ground, looks for a still deeper root, and finds it in the very fact of the discrepancy between the speaker’s internal thought and its outward expression. The difference between the two positions may be more clearly apprehended in the following formula: — The first would define a lie as “speaking with intent to deceive;” whereas the second defines it “speaking contrary to one’s thought” (locutio contra mentem), even where there is no hope (and therefore no intent) of actual deception. The latter is clearly the stricter view, yet very closely allied with, and supplementing, the former. For we may perhaps say with Cardinal de Lugo — andà laKant — that the malice of the discrepancy mentioned above lies in the self-contradiction which results in the liar, between his inborn desire for the trust of his fellow-men and his conviction that he has rendered himself unworthy of it — that he has, in other words, degraded his nature.

Now, where there do not exist relations of mutual confidence, such malice cannot exist. An enemy, a burglar, a lunatic, an impudent questioner, etc., are,intheir distinguishing character, beyond the pale of mutual confidence —i.e., when acting professionally as enemies, burglars, etc.

In regard to such outlaws from society, some moralists would accordingly maintain that the duty of veracity is non-existent, and that here we may “answer a fool according to his folly.” If a burglar asks where is your plate, you may reply at random “In the Bank,” or “At Timbuctoo,” or “I haven’t any.” If a lunatic declares himself Emperor of China, you may humour him, and give himanyinformation you may imagine about his dominions, etc.

Such is the teaching of,v.gr., Professor Paulsen, of Berlin, in his “System of Ethics,” in which he is at one with Scholasticism, though, I daresay, we should not follow him in all his applications of the principle. He prefers to call such instances “necessary lies,” whereas we should say they were not lies at all, because they would not be rightly considered to implyspeakingstrictly understood, that is, the communication of one’s mind to another. There is no real speech where there are no relations of mutual confidence. Practically, however, it is so far a question of name rather than of reality, of theory rather than of fact.

The doctrine ofMental Reservationseems to me to differ from that ofEquivocationonly in this, that Equivocation implies the use of words which have a two-fold meaning in themselves,apart fromspecial circumstances, and are thereforelogicalequivoques. Thus to the question: “What do people think of me?” one might diplomatically reply: “Oh! they think a great deal!” which leaves it undetermined whether the thinking be of a favourable or unfavourable character.

But more commonly words, apart from special circumstances, have one definite meaning,e.gr., “Yes” or“No.” When Sir Walter Scott denied, as he himself tells us, the authorship of “Waverley” with a plain simple “No,” he was guilty of no logical Equivocation: but the circumstance that it was generally known that the author intended to preserve anonymity gave his answer the signification, “Mind your own business.” This is what I should call amoralequivoque. The Scholastics call itbroad mental reservation(restrictio late mentalis). The origin of this terminology seems to me to lie in a bit of purism. Some moralists were not content with merelymoralequivoques: they appear to insist on the junction with them oflogicalEquivocation; and so they would have directed the equivocator torestrict(and so double) the meaning of a word in his own mind. Thus to Sir Walter they would have said: “Don’t say ‘No’ simply, but add in your own head, ‘as far as the public is concerned,’” or something similar.

When this addition could not be conjectured by the hearer, it received the name ofpure mental reservation(restrictio pure[orstricte]mentalis): as when one might say “John is not here” (meaning in his mind “not on the exact spot where the speaker stood”), though John was a yard off all the time. Such a position has not found favour in the body of Catholic moralists. They regard it as not only a useless proceeding, but as one which, although intended out of respect for truth, is liable, from its purely subjective character, to easy abuse.

But when objective circumstances (as in the case of Sir Walter) enable the hearer to guess at the double meaning and to suspend his judgment, then we have a case ofbroadmental reservation: for it is writ large in social convention that, where a momentous secret exists, a negative answer carries with it the limitation (restriction, reservation), “secrets apart.”

I trust I have made it sufficiently clear that the doctrine of Equivocation, properly understood, has been devised in the interests of Veracity. That we may find in some writers, whether St. Alphonsus de Liguori or Professor Paulsen, particular applications in which we do not concur, surely does not affect the validity of the principle.

I may add thatallCatholic theologians with whom I am acquainted limit its use by requiring many external conditions:v.gr., that the secret to be preserved should be of importance; that the questioner should have no right to its knowledge, etc. In one word, that the possible damage to mutual confidence resulting from the hearer’s self-deception should be less than that which would certainly accrue from the revelation of a legitimate secret.

No one feels more keenly than we do that to have resort to Equivocation is an evil rendered tolerable only in presence of a greater evil of the same nature; and I venture to say, from an intimate knowledge of my brother “religious,” that no one is less likely to recur to it, where only his own skin is concerned, than a Jesuit.

Believe me, Yours very sincerely,George Canning, S.J.[A]

[A]The above lucid explanation of the much and (me judice) stupidly maligned doctrine of Equivocation will place readers of this work, as well as the writer, under an obligation of gratitude to the Rev. George Canning, who is the Professor of Ethics at St. Mary’s Hall, Stonyhurst, so I am informed by the Rev. Bernard Boëdder, S.J., Professor of Natural Theology, at that seat of learning, whom I have had the honour of meeting in York on more than one occasion. “Wisdom builds her house forallweathers.” But England, relying too much on a long course of prosperity in her ruling classes, and in the protected classes immediately beneath her ruling classes, has neglected the Truth and Justice contained in this eminently rational doctrine of Equivocation. The democracy must, and will, however, insist on amiable, self-contenting, self-pleasing delusions being speedily swept away. Reason and self-interest alike will compel and compass this.The question of Equivocation is not a question of ProtestantversusCatholic, but of Wise NoddleversusFoolish Noddle. This is a distinct gain.

The question of Equivocation is not a question of ProtestantversusCatholic, but of Wise NoddleversusFoolish Noddle. This is a distinct gain.

Circumstantial Evidence Defined and Described.

Circumstantial Evidence is indirect, as distinct from direct evidence. It is likewise mediate, as distinct from immediate.

Direct evidence is testimony that is a statement of what the witness himself has seen, heard, or perceived by the evidence of any one of his own five senses,[A]which testimony is directly given by a witness, to lead to the facts in issue, that is, the facts required to be proved in order to make out or to constitute the criminal case, or the civil cause of action, sought to be established, according to some rule of Law.

[A]By sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch.

Indirect or mediate evidence isinferredfrom a relatively minor fact or relatively minor facts already directly proved.

Thisinferenceis drawn by a valid process of reasoning from a relatively minor fact or minor facts already directly deposed to by a witness, who may be a party interested in the case or cause, or a stranger-witness, either friendly or hostile.

Hence, Circumstantial Evidence isspeciallyinferential and cumulative in its nature. It denotes the resultant of a method of knowledge, which has carried the Inquirer forward by successive stages of advancement.

It implies theinferringof the unknown from the known; but from a known which has been itself transmuted from the unknown, at some point of time anterior to the making of the successive stage of advancement in the knowledge of the facts sought to be proved, and vindicated by some rule of Law.

The following interesting account of Evidence generally is from the pen of Mr. Frank Pick, of Burton Lodge, York, a student of the Law: —

Evidence is the collective term used to denote the facts whereby some proposition, statement, or conclusion is sought to be established or confirmed.

While, as thus defined, the term Evidence primarily denotes the actualknownfacts themselves which form the basis or point of departure, it connotes also a method or process in the development of those known facts to a resultant fact or opinion: and the resultant fact or opinion so obtained. The former is often styledTestimony.

This will be illustrated in Circumstantial Evidence, and in what is commonly styled “Expert Evidence,” though better, “Evidence of Opinion,” where a person from a consideration of certain facts not necessarily expressed (being likewise one specially competent to form an opinion where such certain facts are involved) gives an opinion which may be used as, and for similar purposes with, evidence as above defined.

The value of evidence,i.e., the completeness and efficiency with which it serves these ends, varies with, and the weight accorded to it in judgment is determined from, a review of the character or quality of the source whence these facts proceed; and the nature or proximity of the relation which they bear to the proposition, statement, or conclusion to be supported.

As regards the character or quality of its source, evidence is distinguished into primary and secondary.

Primary Evidence is the witness or testimony of personal experience, whether shown in the spoken or written word or by conduct. Or it may be described as, on its positive side, the avowal or confession of fact of a person present knowingly, at the manifestation, in consciousness of the phenomenon to which the fact corresponds: on its negative side, as the denial or negation of fact similarly conditioned.

Secondary Evidence comprises all the manifold degrees of nearness or remoteness to primary evidence.

As all degrees are here included, it is sometimes said that there are no degrees of secondary evidence. This must not be misunderstood to mean that all secondary evidence is entitled to be received as of the same degree of credibility. For a further, and in some respects parallel, distinction to that lastly taken, arises as the speech is or is not deliberate, the writing authenticated, the conduct reasoned. And in every case partiality, bias, and prejudice are grounds not to be neglected in the ascertainment of accuracy and trustworthiness.

So far as regards the nature or proximity of the relation, evidence is either direct and immediate, or indirect and mediate, called circumstantial; as concerned rather with the surrounding circumstances leading to the proof of the presumed truth of a fact than with the fact itself.

Direct Evidence comprises those facts from which, if proved, the truth of the proposition, statement, or conclusion necessarily follows.

Circumstantial Evidence comprises those facts from which again may be inferred facts, whence the truth of the proposition, statement, or conclusion must necessarily follow.

This inferential method is especially involved in Circumstantial Evidence. In all evidence there is a presumption open more or less to rebuttal, and evidence on this account is qualified as,e.g.,primâ facie, conclusive. In Direct Evidence there is the presumption of the truth of the proposition, statement, or conclusion from the proven facts. In Circumstantial Evidence there is first an inference of directly connected facts, otherwise unknown or unevidenced from remotely connected facts, known or given in evidence; then there is further a presumption of the truth of the proposition, statement, or conclusion from these mediately established facts.

Discrepancy as to Date when not Material to Issue,no Disproof of Truth of the rest of the Assertion.

The above doctrine of the law of Evidence applies, of course, to whatever may be the nature or purpose of the Inquiry, whether conducted in a Court of Law, in the library of the historical scholar, or elsewhere.

The principle was soundly stated at the trial of “the Venerable” Martyrs, Fathers Whitbread, Harcourt, Fenwick, Gavan, and Turner, at the Old Bailey, by Sir William Scroggs, Knt., the Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, on the occasion of the Popish Plot Trials, in the year 1679.

“If it should be amistake only in point of time, it destroys not the evidence,unless you think it necessary to the substance of the thing.

“If you charge one in the month of August to have done such a fact, if he deny that he was in that place at that time, and proves it by witnesses, it may go to invalidate the credibility of the man’s testimony,but it does not invalidate the truth of the thing itself, which may be true in substance, though the circumstance of time differ; and the question is,whether the thing be true?” Quoted in Morris’s “Troubles: The Southcote Family,” first series, p. 378 (Burns & Oates). (The italics are mine.)

British Museum — Add. MS. 5847, Fo. 322.List of such as were apprehended for the Gun-PowderPlot.

The names of such as were taken in Warwicke andWorcestershire, & brought to London.

[A]Sir Henry Huddleston, as he afterwards became, the son and heir to Sir Edmund Huddleston, of Sawston Hall, Cambridge, not Edward as in Text. Sir Henry Huddleston married the Honourable Dorothy Dormer. He was reconciled to the Church of Rome by Father Gerard, S.J.

[B]This was Father Thomas Strange, S.J., a cousin to Thomas Abington, of Hindlip.

[C]This was Father Singleton.

The Earle of North: is in the Custody still of theLord Archbishop of Canterbury.

This was HenryPercy Earl of Northumberland, W.C.

Gentlewomen

See Mr. Dod’s “History of Catholick Church,” vol. ii., p. 331, W.C.

[N.B. — This MS. consists of extracts from the Collections of the Rev. Mr. Rand, Rector of Leverington and Newton, in the Isle of Ely.]

Gunpowder Plot Books — Part I., No. 12.[Frequenters of Clopton (or Clapton), Stratford-on-Avon.]

(Endorsed) Clopton.

[A]Clopton Hall, Stratford-on-Avon, was likewise styled Clapton Hall. Lady Carew, afterwards the Countess of Totnes, was (with her sister, Anne Clapton, the wife of Cuthbert Clapton, Esquire, of Sledwick, County Durham) the co-heiress of the Claptons (or Cloptons), of Warwickshire. Lady Carew was a Protestant, but her sister and brother-in-law were Catholics. A son of the Catholic Cloptons (or Claptons) was made the “heir” of the Countess of Totnes. — See Foley’s “Records,” vol. vi., pp. 326, 327.

Gunpowder Plot Books— Part I., No. 25.

The Examination of Richard Browne taken the 5thofNovembr1605.

This Examinat sayith that xpofer Wright cam to StGilis in the ffeild to the Maydenhead there vpon Weddnesday laste & sent Wilt Kiddle (that cam vp wthim as his man) to Westm the same night for this Examinat to come & speek wthhim, which this Examinat did com thither vpon Thursday morning, when Wrights request was to him to fetch his child which he had at nurss some 13 myles off. And Kiddle & this Examinat went vpon ffriday brought the child vpon Satterday to St. Giles & carryed it away agen vpon Sonday which night this Examinat returned back to Westm and lay there at his owne lodging, the next morning being monday this Examinat went to StGyles to speak wtMrWright only vpon Kiddle’s intreaty & not fynding MrWright there he retorned towards London & mett MrWright in StClemtffeilds, at which tyme Wright sent this Examinat to Srffrancis Manners wtha message concerninge a kinsman of MrWrights that serveth MrManners after which tyme this Examinat did not see the sayd Wright.

This Examinat sayeth that he saw the sayd Wright onely 4 tymes since Wright last coming to London, viz., vpon Thursday morning when he came first vnto him upon Satterday night when he brought his child, vpon Sonday morning when he carryed the child away, andvpon monday at noone when he mett of the back syd of StClemts

mark×Richard Browne

(Endorsed) Examination of Richard Browne6 Nov. 1605 Concerning Wright.

Gunpowder Plot Books— Part I., No. 15.

The Examynacon of Willum Grantham servaunt to Josephe Hewett taken before SrJohn Popham Knighte L: Cheife Justyce of England the 5 of November 1605.

He sayeth that yesterdaye aboute three of the Clocke in the afternoone one mrwryght was at this Ex masters howse And there boughte three beaver hatts and payde xj£[A]for them This Ex went wththe sayde wryght and caryed the hatts to wrighte lodgyng at the Mayden heade in StGyles where mrwryght & this Ex went into the howse And then wryght went to the Stable and dyd aske yf his man were come the hosteler sayde that he came longe synce, then wryght dyd aske for his horse whether he were readye or no and the hosteler sayde he was Then the sayde wryght went into his Chamber and wryghte man dyd will this Ex to go in And the sayde wryghte man went downe the Stayres And this Ex went into MrWryghte Chamber and delyvered the hatts to him And wryght dyd looke uppon the hatts and gave this Ex vjdfor his paynes and then he depted.

[A]Unmistakably £11 (E.M.W.).

William Grantham.

(Endorsed) 5 November 1605. William Grantham Ex.

State Papers Domestic — Jas. I., Vol. xvi., No. 11.

The Examon of Robert Rookes taken the 5thof November 1605.

He saieth that his Master MrAmbrose Rookewood whoe dwelleth at Coldhame Halle in Suff came from thence uppon Wensday last and noe more wthhim but this exaite and Thomas Symons another of his servaunte.

He saieth his Master hath layen en sithence Thursday last at one Mores howse wthout Temple Barre and thear lay wthhim the last night and the night before a talle gent having a reddish beard.[A]

[A]This was Keyes. — See “Elizabeth More’s Evidence.”

He saieth his Masters horsses stood in drewery Lane at the grey hound.

He saieth his Master & the other gent went forth this morning about 8 of the clock and his Master stayed not forth above an hower before he came in againe and then going in & out some time about x of the clock went alone to his horsse to ryde away in to Suff. and willed this exaite and his fellowe to come after him to morowe.

He saieth his Mrsas he hath hard lyeth in warwick shere whear he knoweth not for he hath not benn wthhis Mrthat nowe is aboue a senight.

(Endorsed) 5oNo. 1605.The Ex of Robte Rokes MrRookwoode boy.

State Papers Domestic — Jas. I., Vol. xvi., No. 16.

The declarn of John Cradock cutler the vjthofNovember 1605.

He sayeth that MrRockwood whos father marryed MrTirwhyte mother about the Begynyng of the last Som vacac dyd bespeke the puttyng of a Spanyshe Blade off hys into a Sword hilte and appoynted the hylth to have the Story of the passyon of Christ Richly Ingraved, and now wthn these Syxe dayes cawsed that hylth being enamlled and Rychly sett forth to be taken of and the handle to be new wrought of clere gold and the former hylth wthhys story to be putt on agayne and delyvered yt unto mrRockewood upon Monday last at xj of the Clocke at nyght at his Chamber at mrMores and mrWynter a pp Gentylman of about xxx yeares or vpward who lyeth at the Syng of the Docke an Drake beyond putrycke in the Strand and ys a great Companyon wthmrCatesby mrTyrwhyt and mrRockwood hadd a Sword wththe lyke Story and was delyvered hym on Sunday last at nyght but not so Rychly sett forth as the form for wchhe payed in all xij£xspt about a quarter of a yeare past at the bespeken thereof and the Rest on Sonday last and this term an other Gentylman of that Cupany being a Blacke man of about xl yeares old bespake a lyke Sword for the story & shuld pay vijtifor yt gave hym xsin Ernest he ys yet out of Towne and theSword remayneth wththys Exam Christopher Wryght was often wththys MrRockwood at thys Exam shoppe and he hadd the said Wryghte jugmet for the worcke and Syse of the Blade.

Jo Cradock

Ex pJ. Popham(Endorsed) Cradocke.

Gunpowder Plot Books— Part I., No. 10.

I have sent vnto yorL. herin Inclosed the Copye off the declarac off Mr Tatnall, off two that passed the fylde thys mornyg wherof some Suspycyon may be gathered off confederacy he observed them so as he hopeth he may mete wththem and therfore I have gevin hym a warrant to attach them a lyke note yorL shall receave herin off an expectacn that MrsVaux hadd off some thyng to be done and I know yt by such a means as I assured my selff the matter is trewe and both Gerrard and Walley the Jesuyte make that the chefest place of their accesse and therfore lyke she may knowe Some what both MrWenman hym selff & the lady Tasbard do knowe of this wherfore howe farre forth thys shalbe fytt to be dealt in I humbly leave to yorL consyderacn Chrystoffer Wright and MrAmbrose Rokewood were both together yesternyght at x of the Clocke and vpon ffryday last at nyght they were together at MrRokwoode lodgyng and this forenoon Rokwood Rode away into Suffolke about xj of the clocke alone leavyng both hys men behynd hym one Keyes a Gentylma that lay these two last nyghte wthmrRokewood and gave hym hys lodgyng went away also about eight off the clocke for wchKeyes I have layed weyet This Rokwood ys of Coldham hall in Suffoke one of the most dangerous houses in Suffolke he marryed mrTyrwhytte Syster & she ys now in Warwykshere Chrystoffer Wright as I thyncke lay this last nyght in St. Gyles and yf he be gone yt ys Lyke he ys gone into Warwykesher where I hyer John WryghtBrother unto Chrystoffer ys marryed ther were thre hatts bought yesterday in the afternoone by Chrystoffer Wryght the ar for his Brother and two others for two Gentylwomen they cost xj£and after that about ix of the Clocke at nyght Chrystoffer Wryght cam again to that haverdasshers and Boughte two hatts more for two Servante unto a Gentylman that was wthhym he thyncks that Gentylman was called Wynter but I dowbt that mans name ys mystaken Ther cam a yong Gentylman wththis wryght wthin these fewe dayes that gave to Cutler here by xix£xvsfor a Sword whom I am in some hoep to dyscover by the Sword and other cyrcumstance and even so I humbly take my leave of yorL at Serienty Inn the vthof november 1605.

yorL very humblyJo Popham.[A]

[A]The Lord Chief Justice of England.

(P.S.) I have this mornyg the vithnoveber dyscovered where Wynter [is] wththe matter which I have delyverd to mrAttrney wherof happely yorL may make good vse I wyll see yf I can mete wthmrWynter Walley the jesuyt and Strang as I am Informed are now at ffrance Brownes pcke about Surrey as I take yt and Sundry letters lately sent over are yet Remaynyng at fortescues house by the Wadropp but yt wylbe hard to fynd any thyng in that house.

(Endorsed) 5 NovembrL Ch. Justice(Addressed) To the Ryghthonorable and myvery good L theEarle of Sarysbury.(Declaration enclosed — short.)

Back to Index Next