FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[31]"My Sovereign determined that your trial should be in this honourable assembly. For who is Garnet that he should be called hither, or we should trouble ourselves in this Court with him? which I protest were sufficient for the greatest Cardinal in Rome, if in this case he should be tried. No, Mr. Garnet, it is not for your cause that you are called hither, but to testify to the world the foulness of your fact, the errors of your religion," etc. Lord Salisbury's Speech at the Trial. (Gerard). When at the trial, rebuking Garnet for untruthfulness in his previous examination before the Council, Salisbury said: "You stiffly denied it upon your soul, reiterating it with so many detestable execrations,as our hair stood upright" (Jardine).[32]The Act for the Attainder of the Conspirators ("Statutes of the Realm," 3 James I., c. 2). Coke himself characterized the treason at the trial as "beyond all examples, whether in fact or fiction, even of the tragic poets who did beat their wits to represent the most fearful and horrible murders." And in the prayer to be used in the Anniversary Service for the Fifth of November it is described as having been attempted "in a most barbarous and savage manner, beyond the examples of former ages. From this unnatural conspiracy, not our merit, but Thy mercy; not our foresight, but Thy providence, delivered us," etc.[33]In the previous century, in a case where a more severe penalty was desired to be inflicted, the offender was, by Act of Parliament, publiclyboiled alive("Statutes of the Realm," 22 Henry VIII., c. 9).[34]Coke worked hard for some months in thoroughly preparing the evidence for the trial, so that little would escape him. As he wrote to Salisbury: "If your lordship knew what pains have been taken herein, your lordship would pity the old attorney" (Hatfield MSS.).[35]Vavasour's falsehood respecting Mrs. Tresham had nothing to do with the treason. Coke seems to mention Vavasour's guilt as if antecedent to the writing of the letter to Salisbury.[36]This work is merely the identification of the writer of the anonymous letter only, and makes no attempt to answer the much more difficult question of what the arrangement was between Salisbury and Monteagle, or between Monteagle and Tresham, respecting the sending of the letter; but with regard to Coke, it is unlikely, from what is known of their intercourse and their frequent differences in court, that he would be admitted to any particular confidence with Salisbury in the matter.[37]Vavasour's concealment of guilty knowledge as the writer of the warning letter would probably be only misprision of treason, unless Coke knew or suspected that he was directly concerned in the treason.[38]The present writer does not owe the identification to that clue, which was not met with until after Vavasour had been identified as the writer of the letter.[39]Letter to the Earl of Dunfermline, Lord Chancellor of Scotland. December 1, 1605 ("State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvii. 2). Salisbury was created K.G. with almost regal pomp for his services in the matter. "Tuesday the 20th of May (1606), at Windsor, were installed Knights of the Garter, Robert, Earl of Salisbury, who set forward from his house in the Strand, being almost as honourably accompanied and with as great train of lords, knights, gentlemen, and officers of the Court, with others besides his peculiar servants very richly attired, and bravely mounted, as was the King when he rid in state through London" (Stowe's "Annals," 1615, p. 883).[40]Bates, Catesby's serving-man, at London; others in the country.[41]Although known as the "King's book," the report of the trial was evidently compiled by Salisbury and corrected by the King.[42]Salisbury's statesmanship is evinced by the advice he wrote to James (I.) when King of Scotland, and impatiently awaiting Queen Elizabeth's demise: "Your best approach towards your greatest end, is by your Majesty's clear and temperate courses, to secure the heart of the highest, to whose sex and quality nothing is so improper as either needless expostulations, or over much curiosity in her own actions. The first showing unquietness in yourself; the second challenging some untimely interest in hers; both which, as they are best forborne when there is no cause, so be it far from me (if there shall be cause), to persuade you to receive wrongs and be silent" ("Secret Correspondence," Camden Society, 1860, p. 7).

[31]"My Sovereign determined that your trial should be in this honourable assembly. For who is Garnet that he should be called hither, or we should trouble ourselves in this Court with him? which I protest were sufficient for the greatest Cardinal in Rome, if in this case he should be tried. No, Mr. Garnet, it is not for your cause that you are called hither, but to testify to the world the foulness of your fact, the errors of your religion," etc. Lord Salisbury's Speech at the Trial. (Gerard). When at the trial, rebuking Garnet for untruthfulness in his previous examination before the Council, Salisbury said: "You stiffly denied it upon your soul, reiterating it with so many detestable execrations,as our hair stood upright" (Jardine).

[32]The Act for the Attainder of the Conspirators ("Statutes of the Realm," 3 James I., c. 2). Coke himself characterized the treason at the trial as "beyond all examples, whether in fact or fiction, even of the tragic poets who did beat their wits to represent the most fearful and horrible murders." And in the prayer to be used in the Anniversary Service for the Fifth of November it is described as having been attempted "in a most barbarous and savage manner, beyond the examples of former ages. From this unnatural conspiracy, not our merit, but Thy mercy; not our foresight, but Thy providence, delivered us," etc.

[33]In the previous century, in a case where a more severe penalty was desired to be inflicted, the offender was, by Act of Parliament, publiclyboiled alive("Statutes of the Realm," 22 Henry VIII., c. 9).

[34]Coke worked hard for some months in thoroughly preparing the evidence for the trial, so that little would escape him. As he wrote to Salisbury: "If your lordship knew what pains have been taken herein, your lordship would pity the old attorney" (Hatfield MSS.).

[35]Vavasour's falsehood respecting Mrs. Tresham had nothing to do with the treason. Coke seems to mention Vavasour's guilt as if antecedent to the writing of the letter to Salisbury.

[36]This work is merely the identification of the writer of the anonymous letter only, and makes no attempt to answer the much more difficult question of what the arrangement was between Salisbury and Monteagle, or between Monteagle and Tresham, respecting the sending of the letter; but with regard to Coke, it is unlikely, from what is known of their intercourse and their frequent differences in court, that he would be admitted to any particular confidence with Salisbury in the matter.

[37]Vavasour's concealment of guilty knowledge as the writer of the warning letter would probably be only misprision of treason, unless Coke knew or suspected that he was directly concerned in the treason.

[38]The present writer does not owe the identification to that clue, which was not met with until after Vavasour had been identified as the writer of the letter.

[39]Letter to the Earl of Dunfermline, Lord Chancellor of Scotland. December 1, 1605 ("State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvii. 2). Salisbury was created K.G. with almost regal pomp for his services in the matter. "Tuesday the 20th of May (1606), at Windsor, were installed Knights of the Garter, Robert, Earl of Salisbury, who set forward from his house in the Strand, being almost as honourably accompanied and with as great train of lords, knights, gentlemen, and officers of the Court, with others besides his peculiar servants very richly attired, and bravely mounted, as was the King when he rid in state through London" (Stowe's "Annals," 1615, p. 883).

[40]Bates, Catesby's serving-man, at London; others in the country.

[41]Although known as the "King's book," the report of the trial was evidently compiled by Salisbury and corrected by the King.

[42]Salisbury's statesmanship is evinced by the advice he wrote to James (I.) when King of Scotland, and impatiently awaiting Queen Elizabeth's demise: "Your best approach towards your greatest end, is by your Majesty's clear and temperate courses, to secure the heart of the highest, to whose sex and quality nothing is so improper as either needless expostulations, or over much curiosity in her own actions. The first showing unquietness in yourself; the second challenging some untimely interest in hers; both which, as they are best forborne when there is no cause, so be it far from me (if there shall be cause), to persuade you to receive wrongs and be silent" ("Secret Correspondence," Camden Society, 1860, p. 7).

Upon Tresham's death in the Tower (December 23, 1605), the Lieutenant wrote to Salisbury: "I find his friends were marvellous confident if he had escaped this sickness, and have given out in this place that they feared not the course of justice."[43]As the late Dr. Gardiner observed: "This confidence they could only have derived from himself, and it could only have been founded on one ground."

Had Tresham's committal to the Tower been otherwise than a mere formality, or "a farce," neither his wife nor his servants would under any circumstances have been permitted to attend or even see him whatever the state of his health might have been; and had he survived, nothing serious would have been done to him,[44]any more than was done to his "deeply guilty" servant Vavasour.

Tresham, though dreading, as he said, "the infamous brand of an accuser,"[45]was as evidently the Informer to the Government, either directly or indirectly through Monteagle, as his servant Vavasour was the writer of the letter.

FOOTNOTES:[43]"State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvii. 58.[44]He left no male issue, and was succeeded in the family property by his next brother Lewis, who was created a baronet June 29, 1611, one of the second batch of baronets made on the institution of that Order the previous May 22 by James I.[45]"State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvi. 63.

[43]"State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvii. 58.

[44]He left no male issue, and was succeeded in the family property by his next brother Lewis, who was created a baronet June 29, 1611, one of the second batch of baronets made on the institution of that Order the previous May 22 by James I.

[45]"State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvi. 63.

The Tresham Papers[46]contain much information respecting the Vavasours as dependants of that family. Sir Thomas Tresham had a bailiff or collector, named Thomas Vavasour, an old and much valued Catholic servant,[47]who had, with perhaps other children, two sons, George and William, and a daughter, Muriel. George, who had been educated, was in June, 1596, sent up by his father with a letter to Sir Thomas, then in town, in order that he might be entered at one of the Inns of Court, as Sir Thomas might advise: "Mr. Francis Tresham has encouraged him in this kind of study and the cost already bestowed must not be lost. He knows he has nothing else to trust to but his learning, nor does he seem so fit for anything else."[48]He was accordingly admitted to the Inner Temple in November of that year,[49]where LewisTresham (Sir Thomas's second son) had been admitted the previous November, and to whom there is an allusion of George Vavasour acting as tutor.[50]William Vavasour, the other son, was servant to Sir Thomas, and though not so educated as his brother George, was not a livery-servant or footman,[51]but appears to have held a similar or superior position with Sir Thomas, to that which Bates, who kept his own man,[52]held with Catesby, a kind of secretary-valet of the time.[53]After Sir Thomas's death he served his eldest son Francis Tresham in the same capacity; while the sister Muriel Vavasour, who bore the same (then uncommon) Christian name as Lady Tresham, and may have been her god-daughter, became "gentlewoman without livery" at £5 yearly[54]to Lady Monteagle, who was Lady Tresham's daughter. Both George Vavasour and his brother William were confidentially employed by Francis Tresham as amanuenses, where secrecy was necessary in transcribing religious or political treatises, such as were then circulated amongst Roman Catholics, and, being treasonable, dared not be printed.

On December 1, 1605, the Attorney-General, while investigating the conspiracy, obtained two MS. volumes which had been found in George Vavasour's chambers in the Inner Temple. One, officially described as a "quarto" volume, though an octavo (8¼ x 5¾), entitled "A Treatise against Lying,"[55]was stated by George Vavasour, on examination[56]to have been lent him by Francis Tresham to copy,[57]and the copy he had made was contained in the folio, the other MS. found. He denied any knowledge of the handwriting in the "quarto" volume, except that he had recopied the last page (61), in order to replace a torn leaf, bearing in Latin the Imprimatur of George Blackwell, Archpriest of the English Jesuits. William Tresham (Francis Tresham's youngest brother), on being examined by Coke, said that he thought the "quarto" MS. was in William Vavasour's handwriting, who was formerly his father's servant, and since serving his eldest brother in the Tower.[58]William Tresham may have seen Vavasour so employed at home and would know his writing; while George Vavasour might not wish to bring his brother into question. The folio MS. has disappeared, but the "quarto" copy, as ascribed to William Vavasour, is now withArchbishop Laud's MSS. (No. 655) in the Bodleian Library, and was published in 1851.

View larger imageFACSIMILE No. 2.A page of the MS. intitled "A Treatise against Lying, &c.", formerly belonging to Francis Tresham, of which the handwriting was attributed by his brother, William Tresham, to William Vavasour. Now in the Bodleian Library. (Laud MSS. 655, folio 44.)

View larger imageFACSIMILE No. 3.William Vavasour's handwriting in the letter to the Earl of Salisbury, dictated and signed by Francis Tresham, when dying in the Tower. December 22, 1605. (State Papers, Domestic. James I. ccxvi. 211.)Stated by Vavasour to have been written by Mrs. Tresham. On March 24, 1605-6, he confessed that he wrote it, and signed a note to it to that effect.

View larger imageFACSIMILE No. 4.William Vavasour's handwriting in his untrue statement written in the presence of the Lieutenant of the Tower, that No. 3 was written by Mrs. Tresham. Dated March 23, 1605-6. (State Papers, Domestic. James I. ccxvi. 207.)***To avoid detection of his falsehood, he writes a hand quite different from his ordinary writing in Nos. 2 and 3, thus producing a hand which is in itself identical with his former disguised writing as seen in the anonymous letter (No. 1).

View larger imageFACSIMILE No. 5.George Vavasour's handwriting on the last leaf, which he renewed for Francis Tresham, of the MS. intitled "A Treatise against Lying, &c." (Laud MSS. 655, folio 61.)

George Vavasour's handwriting upon the last leaf of the MS. (Facsimile No. 5) shows a much more refined and educated hand than his brother's, from which the writing is in every respect different. A small "s" is invariably used in commencing a word with that letter; the "t's " are quite different; the "w" finishes with an inner, not an outer loop; the "g's" have no flat tops; and the "hangers" of the "h's" do not descend below the line. The writing is evidently an educated hand for the time, and cannot readily be imagined as using small "i's" for the first person, such as are used in, and seem to accord so well with, the much less educated handwriting of the warning letter.

WILLIAM VAVASOUR, the Tresham family serving-man, is thus not only conclusively proved to have written the anonymous letter to Lord Monteagle, but most probably was also the "unknown man of a reasonable tall personage" who is so quaintly described in the Government story as having delivered the letter.

FOOTNOTES:[46]Calendared by the Historical MSS. Commission. "Report on MSS. in various Collections, vol. iii., 1904. The MSS. of T.B. Clarke-Thornhill, Esq., of Rushton Hall, by Mrs. R.C. Lomas." These important family papers were preserved and discovered in a curious manner. In 1828, when making alterations at Rushton Hall, on removing a partition wall, they were found with some theological books in a large bundle wrapped in a sheet, which had been built into a recess in the wall. As the papers, commencing in 1576, with a few of earlier date, end in November, 1605, they were probably thus hidden away on Tresham's arrest.[47]"Calendar," p. 59.[48]Ibid., p. 89.[49]"Students admitted to the Inner Temple, 1547-1660" (1877).[50]"Calendar of Tresham Papers," p. 90.[51]His name does not appear in the list of Sir Thomas's ten livery servants as retained while the establishment was at Hoxton before Monteagle's tenancy, of which the accounts are with the Tresham Papers. Under the stable charges is the keep of a horse for Thomas Vavasour, the father (ibid., pp. 47, 50).[52]"Examination of Christopher Story, Thomas Bates's man" ("State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvi. 28, 1).[53]It will be remembered that Salisbury in the official story describes Ward, who was Monteagle's secretary, as "one of his men."[54]Each of the other female attendants and servants, even "Mawdlyn the Frenchwoman" at £10 yearly, have a livery ("Calendar of Tresham Papers," p. 50).[55]The manuscript was originally entitled "A Treatise upon Equivocation," which was altered by Father Garnet into "A treatise against Lying & fraudule't dissimulatio'. Newly overseen by ye Authour & published for the defence of Innocency, & for the Instructio' of Ignora'ts." It purports to show when equivocation may "lawfully" be used, and may have been compiled by Garnet, as the title-page and the annotations throughout are in his handwriting. The folio manuscript by George Vavasour was evidently a fair copy of the revised "quarto," and Tresham's reason for having it made.[56]"Examination of George Vavasour, of the Inner Temple, Gent., December 9, 1605" ("State Papers, Domestic," James I., ccxvi. 151).[57]He also confessed having transcribed the treatise "De Officio Principis Christiani" (Further examination, December 13, 1605,ibid., ccxvi. 155). Coke alluded to these manuscripts at the trial as "certain heretical, damnable and treasonable books discovered." He said: "There is in Tresham's book, 'De Officio Principis,' an easier and more expedite way than all these to fetch the crown off the head of any king christened whatsoever, which is this that: 'Princeps indulgendo hæreticis, amittit regnum.'—If any prince shall but tolerate or favour heretics, he loseth his kingdom." This shows the confidential nature of the Vavasours' employment as amanuenses by Tresham in such matters.[58]Examination of William Tresham, December 9, 1605 ("State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvii. 23).

[46]Calendared by the Historical MSS. Commission. "Report on MSS. in various Collections, vol. iii., 1904. The MSS. of T.B. Clarke-Thornhill, Esq., of Rushton Hall, by Mrs. R.C. Lomas." These important family papers were preserved and discovered in a curious manner. In 1828, when making alterations at Rushton Hall, on removing a partition wall, they were found with some theological books in a large bundle wrapped in a sheet, which had been built into a recess in the wall. As the papers, commencing in 1576, with a few of earlier date, end in November, 1605, they were probably thus hidden away on Tresham's arrest.

[47]"Calendar," p. 59.

[48]Ibid., p. 89.

[49]"Students admitted to the Inner Temple, 1547-1660" (1877).

[50]"Calendar of Tresham Papers," p. 90.

[51]His name does not appear in the list of Sir Thomas's ten livery servants as retained while the establishment was at Hoxton before Monteagle's tenancy, of which the accounts are with the Tresham Papers. Under the stable charges is the keep of a horse for Thomas Vavasour, the father (ibid., pp. 47, 50).

[52]"Examination of Christopher Story, Thomas Bates's man" ("State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvi. 28, 1).

[53]It will be remembered that Salisbury in the official story describes Ward, who was Monteagle's secretary, as "one of his men."

[54]Each of the other female attendants and servants, even "Mawdlyn the Frenchwoman" at £10 yearly, have a livery ("Calendar of Tresham Papers," p. 50).

[55]The manuscript was originally entitled "A Treatise upon Equivocation," which was altered by Father Garnet into "A treatise against Lying & fraudule't dissimulatio'. Newly overseen by ye Authour & published for the defence of Innocency, & for the Instructio' of Ignora'ts." It purports to show when equivocation may "lawfully" be used, and may have been compiled by Garnet, as the title-page and the annotations throughout are in his handwriting. The folio manuscript by George Vavasour was evidently a fair copy of the revised "quarto," and Tresham's reason for having it made.

[56]"Examination of George Vavasour, of the Inner Temple, Gent., December 9, 1605" ("State Papers, Domestic," James I., ccxvi. 151).

[57]He also confessed having transcribed the treatise "De Officio Principis Christiani" (Further examination, December 13, 1605,ibid., ccxvi. 155). Coke alluded to these manuscripts at the trial as "certain heretical, damnable and treasonable books discovered." He said: "There is in Tresham's book, 'De Officio Principis,' an easier and more expedite way than all these to fetch the crown off the head of any king christened whatsoever, which is this that: 'Princeps indulgendo hæreticis, amittit regnum.'—If any prince shall but tolerate or favour heretics, he loseth his kingdom." This shows the confidential nature of the Vavasours' employment as amanuenses by Tresham in such matters.

[58]Examination of William Tresham, December 9, 1605 ("State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvii. 23).

THE END

PRINTED BY BILLING AND SONS, LIMITED, GUILDFORD, ENGLAND

Back to Index Next