The Gunpowder Plot and Lord Mounteagle's Letter Part 17

It is plain that King James's Government[A] were mysteriously stayed and restrained in their legislative and administrative action after the discovery of the diabolically atrocious Gunpowder Treason Plot.

[Footnote A: It is the duty of every Government to see that it is true, just, and strong. Governments should confine their efforts to the calm and faithful attainment of these three ideals. Then they win respect and confidence, even from those who fear them but do not love. James and the first Earl of Salisbury, and that type of princes and statesmen, oscillate betwixt the two extremes, injustice and hysterical generosity, which is a sure sign of a lack of consciousness of absolute truth, justice, and strength.]

And illogical and inconstant as many English rulers too often have been throughout England's long and, by good fortune, glorious History, this extraordinary illogicalness and inconstancy of the Government of King James I. betokens to him that can read betwixt the lines, and who "knows what things belong to what things"--betokens Evidence of what?

Unhesitatingly I answer: _Of that Government's not daring, for very decency's sake, to proceed to extremities._

Now, by reason of the primal instincts of human nature, this consciousness would be sure to be generated by, and would be certain to operate upon, any and every civilized, even though heathen, government with staying and restraining force.

Now, the Government of James I. was a civilized government, and it was not a heathen government. Moreover, it certainly was a Government composed of human beings, who, after all, were the persecuted Papists'

fellow-creatures.

Therefore, I suggest that this manifest hesitancy to proceed to extremities sprang from, and indeed itself demonstrates, this fact, namely, that the then British Government realized that _it was an essentially Popish Doctrine of Morals which had been the primary motive power for securing their temporal salvation. That doctrine being, indeed, none other than the hated and dreaded "Popish Doctrine" of the "non-binding force" upon the Popish Conscience of a secret, morally unlawful oath which thereby, ipso facto, "the Papal Church" prohibited and condemned._

Hence, that was, I once more suggest, what Archbishop Usher referred to, in his oracular words, which have become historic, but which have been hitherto deemed to const.i.tute an insoluble riddle.

For certainly behind those oracular words lay some great State mystery.

The same fact possibly accounts for the traditional tale that the second Earl of Salisbury confessed that the Plot was "his father's contrivance."--See Gerard's "_What was the Gunpowder Plot?_" p. 160.

For the Plot _was_ "his father's contrivance," considered as to its broad ultimate _effects_ on the course of English History, in that the Plot was made a seasonable handle of for the destruction of English Popery. And a valuable and successful handle it proved too, as mankind knows very well to-day. Though "what's bred in the bone" is apt, in this world, "to come out in the flesh." Therefore, the British statesman or philosopher needs not be unduly alarmed if and when, from time to time, he discerns about him incipient signs, among certain members of the English race, of that "staggering back to Popery," whereof Ralph Waldo Emerson once sagely spoke.

"_'Tis a strange world, my masters! And the whirligig of Time brings round strange revenges!_"

CHAPTER XLIV.

We come now to the last portion of this Inquiry--to the last portion, indeed, but not to the least.

For we have now to consider what Evidence there is tending to prove that _subsequent_ to the penning of the Letter by Father Edward Oldcorne, he was _conscious_ of having performed the meritorious deed that, I maintain, the Evidence, deductions, and suggestions therefrom all converge to one supreme end to establish, namely, that it is morally (not mathematically) certain that his hand, and his hand alone, actually penned that immortal Letter, whose praises shall be celebrated till the end of time.

Before considering this Evidence let me, however, remind my readers that there is (1) _not only a general similarity_ in the handwriting of the Letter and Father Oldcorne's undoubted handiwork--the Declaration of the 12th day of March, 1605-6--_a general similarity_ in point of the size of the letters and of that indescribable something called style,[141] _but (2) a particular similarity_ in the formation of the letters in the case of these following, namely, the small c/s, l/s, i/s, b/s, w/s, r/s, long s/s (as initials), short s/s (as terminals), while the m/s and n/s are not inconsistent.[A]

[Footnote A: Bentham aptly terms the comparison of Doc.u.ment with Doc.u.ment, "Circ.u.mstantial real Evidence."--See Best's "_Principles of the Law of Evidence_," and Wills on "_Circ.u.mstantial Evidence_." See Miss Walford's Letter (Appendix).]

Moreover, there is (3) this fact to be remembered, that in both the Letter and in the said Declaration, the name "G.o.d" is written with a small "g,"

thus: "G.o.d."

It is true that, of course, not only did this way of writing the name of the Supreme Being then denote no irreverence, but it was commonly so written by Englishmen in the year 1605.

Still, it was certainly _not by them universally so written_. For in the fac-simile of "_Thomas Winter's Confession_" the word "G.o.d" occurs more than once written with a handsomely made capital G,[142] to mention none other cases.

There is to be also remembered (4) the user of the expressions "as yowe tender youer lyf," and "deuys some exscuse to s.h.i.+ft of[143] youer attendance at this parleament for G.o.d and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme."

For these expressions are eminently expressions that would be employed by a man born in Yorks.h.i.+re in the sixteenth century.

Again; there is to be noted (5) the expressions as "yowe tender youer _lyf_," and "G.o.d and man hathe concurred." Inasmuch as I maintain that as "yowe tender youer _lyf_" was just the kind of expression that would be used by a man who had had an early training in the medical art, as was the case with Edward Oldcorne.

For "Man to preserve is pleasure suiting man, and by no art is favour better sought." And a deep rooted belief in the powers of Nature and in the sacredness of the life of man are the two brightest jewels in the true physician's crown.

Once more; (6) the expression "G.o.d and man hathe concurred" is pre-eminently the mode of clothing in language one way, wherein a rigid Roman Catholic of that time would mentally contemplate--_not_, indeed, the interior quality of the mental phenomena known as the Gunpowder Plot, in which "the devil" alone could "concur," but the simple exterior designment of the same, provided he _knew_ for certain that it could be considered as a clear transparency only--as a defecated cl.u.s.ter of purely intellectual acts.[A]

[Footnote A: It is manifest that if, _in intent_, Oldcorne by his own Letter had destroyed the Plot, he, of all other people in the world, would have _the prerogative_ of regarding the Plot as a clear transparency; _while of the Plot as a transparency_, he would feel a freedom to write "G.o.d and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme." If the Writer had not the prerogative of regarding the Plot as a clear transparency then these results follow--that he regarded Him (Whose Eyes are too pure even to behold iniquity) as _concurring_ in the designment of a most h.e.l.lish crime, nay, of partic.i.p.ating in such designment; _for he couples G.o.d with man_. Now the Letter is evidently the work of a Catholic.

But no Catholic would regard G.o.d as the author of a crime. Therefore the Gunpowder Plot to the Writer of the Letter can have been regarded as no crime. But it was obviously a crime, _unless and until_ it had been defecated of criminous quality, and so rendered a clear transparency. Now, as the Writer obviously did not regard it as a crime, therefore he must have regarded it as defecated, by some means or another; in other words, as a clear transparency. And _this_, I maintain, proves that the Writer had a special interior knowledge of the Plot "behind the scenes," that is, deep down within the depths of his conscious being.]

Furthermore, in reflecting on these preliminaries to the general discussion of the Evidence tending to prove a consciousness on Edward Oldcorne's part, _subsequent_ to the penning of the Letter, of being responsible for the commission of the everlastingly meritorious feat, let it be diligently noted that the Letter ends with these words: "_the dangere is pa.s.sed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter and i hope G.o.d will give yowe the grace to mak good use of it to whose holy proteccion i contend yowe._" (The italics are mine.)

Now, I opine that what the Writer intended _to hint at_ was a suggestion to the recipient of the Letter to destroy the doc.u.ment. _Not_, however, that as a fact, I think, he really wished it to be destroyed.[144] Because it is highly probable that (apart from other reasons) the Writer must have wished it to be conveyed to the King, else why should he have said, "i hope G.o.d will give you the grace to mak _good_ use of it"?

And why should the King himself in his book have omitted the insertion of this little, but here virtually all-important, adjective?[145]

Besides, the Writer cannot have seriously wished for the destruction of the doc.u.ment. For in that case he would not have made use of such a masterpiece of vague phraseology as "the dangere is pa.s.sed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter."[146] But, on the contrary, he would have plainly adjured the receiver of the missive, for the love of G.o.d and man, to commit it as soon as read to the devouring flames!

Lastly should be noted the commendatory words wherewith the doc.u.ment closes. These words (or those akin to them), though in use among Protestants as well as Catholics in the year 1605, were specially employed by Catholics, and particularly by Jesuits or persons who were "Jesuitized"

or "Jesuitically affected."[147]

CHAPTER XLV.

Having dealt with the _preliminary_ Evidence, we now come to the discussion of the _main_ Evidence which tends to show that _subsequent_ to the penning of the Letter Father Edward Oldcorne, Priest and Jesuit, performed acts or spoke words which clearly betoken _a consciousness_ on his part of being the responsible person who penned the doc.u.ment.

That this may be done the more thoroughly, it will be necessary to ask my readers to engage with me in a metaphysical discussion.

But, before attempting such a discussion, which indeed is the crux of this historical and philosophical work, we will retrace our steps somewhat, in the order of time, to the end that we may, amongst other things, haply refresh and recreate the mind a little preparatory to entering upon our severer labours.

Now, on Wednesday, November the 6th, Father Oswald Tesimond went from Coughton, near Redditch, in Warwicks.h.i.+re, the house of Thomas Throckmorton, Esquire, to Huddington, in Worcesters.h.i.+re, the seat of Robert Winter, who had married Miss Gertrude Talbot, of Grafton. The Talbots, like the Throckmortons, were a people who happily managed to reconcile rigid adherence to the ancient Faith with stanch loyalty to their lawful Sovereign.[A]

[Footnote A: I believe that the grand old Catholic family of Throckmorton still own Coughton Hall, which is twelve miles from Hindlip.]

Tesimond, leaving behind him his Superior Garnet at Coughton, went, it is said, to a.s.sist the unhappy traitors with the Sacraments of their Church.

But, I imagine, he found most of his hoped-for penitents, at least externally, in anything except a penitential frame of mind.

This was the last occasion when Tesimond's eyes gazed upon his old York school-fellows of happier, bygone days--the brothers John and Christopher Wright.[148]

Now, to Father Tesimond, as well as to Father Oldcorne, Hindlip Hall[A]

and Huddington[B] (in Worcesters.h.i.+re), Coughton,[C] Lapworth,[D]

Clopton,[E] and Norbrook[F] (in Warwicks.h.i.+re), must have been thoroughly well known; for at Hindlip Hall for eight years Tesimond likewise had been formerly domesticated.

Where resided either temporarily or permanently:--

[Footnote A: Thomas Abington.]

[Footnote B: Robert Winter and Thomas Winter.]