The Gunpowder Plot and Lord Mounteagle's Letter Part 28

At the chambers of Henry Donne, in Thavies Inn, Holborn, London, "the Venerable" William Harrington, of Mount St. John, near Thirsk, was captured. Harrington fled to the College at Rheims to study for the priesthood, in consequence of the impression made upon him by Campion, who was harboured, in the spring of 1581, for ten days at Mount St. John; Campion there wrote his famous "_Decem Rationes_." Harrington was executed at the London Tyburn, for his priesthood, in 1594. He is said to have struggled with the hangman when the latter began to quarter him alive.

Harrington is mentioned in Archbishop Harsnett's "_Popish Impostures_," a book known to Shakespeare. Harrington was a second cousin to Guy Fawkes, through Guy's paternal grandmother, Ellen Harrington, of York.]

"TO WILLIAM LORD MOUNTEAGLE.

"Lo, what my country should have done (have raised An obelisk, or column to thy name; Or if she would but modestly have praised Thy fact, in bra.s.s or marble writ the same).

I, that am glad of thy great chance, here do!

And proud, my work shall out-last common deeds, Durst think it great, and worthy wonder too, But thine: for which I do't, so much exceeds!

My country's parents I have many known; But saver of my country, thee alone."

RECAPITULATION OF PROOFS, ARGUMENT, AND CONCLUSIONS.

(1) The revealing plotter cannot have been Tresham or any one of the other eight who were condemned to death in Westminster Hall; otherwise he would have _pleaded_ such fact.

(2) The revealing plotter must have been amongst those who survived not to tell the tale: that is, either Catesby, Percy, John Wright, or Christopher Wright.

(3) Christopher Wright, a subordinate conspirator introduced late in the conspiracy, was the revealing conspirator.

(4) Father Edward Oldcorne, S.J., was the Penman of the Letter.

(5) Thomas Ward was the diplomatic Go-between common to both.

_All these three were Yorks.h.i.+remen._

(6) Ralph Ashley was the messenger who conveyed the Letter to Lord Mounteagle's page, who was already in the street when the Letter-carrier arrived.

_Perhaps a Yorks.h.i.+reman._

(7) Mounteagle knew a letter was coming. Known to Edmund Church, Esq., his confidant.

(8) Thomas Ward, on Sunday, the 27th October (the day after the delivery), told Thomas Winter, one of the princ.i.p.al plotters, that Salisbury had received the doc.u.ment; and on Sunday, the 3rd November, that Salisbury had shown it to the King.

(9) Christopher Wright, who was at Lapworth when the Letter was delivered, and within twenty miles of Father Oldcorne, saw Thomas Winter some little time subsequent to the delivery of the Letter.

(10) Christopher Wright is said to have been the first who ascertained that the Plot was discovered.

(11) Christopher Wright is said to have counselled flight in different directions.

(12) Christopher Wright announced to Thomas Winter, very early on Tuesday, the 5th of November, the capture of Fawkes that morning.

(13) Father Oldcorne's handwriting to-day resembles that of the Letter; by comparison of doc.u.ments, certainly one of which is in Oldcorne's handwriting.

(14) Oldcorne was accused by the Government of sending "letters up and down to prepare men's minds for the insurrection."

(15) Brother Ashley, his servant, was accused of carrying "letters to and fro about this conspiracy."

(16) Father Henry Garnet, Oldcorne's Superior, mysteriously changed his purpose expressed on the 4th October, of returning to London; and on the 29th October went from Gothurst to Coughton, in Warwicks.h.i.+re. (I think Garnet's main reason for going to Coughton was in order to meet Catesby, and endeavour to induce him to discard Percy's counsel and to seek refuge in flight.)

(17) Father Oldcorne evaded giving a direct answer as to the Plot, when questioned by Littleton, after November 5th.

(18) Hence, the facts _both before and after_ the delivery of the Letter are consistent with, and indeed converge towards, the hypothesis sought by this Inquiry to be proved.

(19) The circ.u.mstance that Christopher Wright displayed a strangely marked disposition to "hang about" the prime conspirator, Thomas Winter, _after_ the sending of the Letter, is a suspicious fact, strongly indicative of a consciousness on Christopher Wright's part of a special responsibility in connection with the revelation of the Plot; as showing anxiety for personal knowledge that the train of revelation lighted by himself had, so to speak, taken fire.

(20) Christopher Wright lived not to tell the tale.

(21) Hence, the hypothesis is a theory established, with moral cert.i.tude, mainly by Circ.u.mstantial Evidence, which latter "mosaics" perfectly.

(22) Finally, the crowning proof of the theory sought by this Book to be established is found in these nine words of the _post scriptum_ of 21st October, 1605, to letter dated 4th October, 1605, under the hand of Father Garnet to Father Parsons, in Rome[A]: "This letter being returned unto me again, FOR REASON OF A FRIEND'S STAY IN THE WAY, I blotted out some words purposing to write the same by the next opportunity, as I will do apart:"--The word "stay" here being used to signify "check." _Cf._, Shakespeare's "King John," II., 2: and see Glossary to Globe Edition (Macmillan).

[Footnote A: This letter, I understand, is still extant, and is in the archives of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster. I wonder whether by any of the rigorous tests of modern science these "blotted out" words can be discerned. Probably they have some reference to the Plot. The late Rev.

John Morris, S.J., thought they had not. But on this point I am obliged to differ, _in toto_, from that painstaking editor of much invaluable Elizabethan Catholic literature. See the learned Jesuit's remarks on this letter of the 4th October, 1605, in "_The Condition of Catholics under James I._" (Longmans), p. 228.

Father Morris contends that for Father Garnet to have inserted a reference to the Gunpowder Plot "between two such subjects as the choice of Lay-brothers and his own want of money," would have been for Garnet to have exhibited a disposition "to be the most erratic of letter-writers."

But, surely, Father Morris's argument is feeble in the extreme when regard is had to the fact that poor Henry Garnet's mind, _from the 25th July, 1605, when he first heard from Tesimond, by way of confession, the general particulars of the Plot, down to the 4th of October, 1605_, was a very weltering chaos of grief, distress, and perplexity. And, therefore, the most natural thing in the world was for him to exhibit a trifle of eccentricity in the style of his epistolary correspondence, in such trying circ.u.mstances, even with so acute and caustic a critic as Father Parsons.

I have said that about the 25th July, 1605 (St. James'-tide), Garnet had, by way of confession, the _general particulars_ of the Plot, because I think that Garnet obtained from Tesimond final details of the Plot at Great Harrowden a fortnight before Michaelmas (11th October); in fact, after the return from St. Winefrid's Well, in Flints.h.i.+re, Wales.

It is, however, probable that about the 21st of October, at Gothurst, Tesimond may have made a further communication to Garnet, possibly in consequence of Garnet's sending for Tesimond _after_ he (Garnet) had received "_the friend's stay in the way_." For the old tradition was that Garnet _first_ had particulars from Tesimond, by way of confession, about the 21st October. (See the earlier editions of Lingard's "_History_.") But, of course, this was an error by _three months_, Garnet first receiving at least general particulars from Tesimond about the 25th of July. (At some future date I may, perhaps, write an essay on "_Garnet after the 21st October, 1605_," but at present I have not s.p.a.ce to pursue this matter further.)]

SUPPLEMENTA.

SUPPLEMENTUM I.

GUY FAWKES.

The forefathers of Guy Fawkes almost certainly sprang from Nidderdale, in the West Riding of Yorks.h.i.+re. See Foster's "_Yorks.h.i.+re Families_," under Hawkesworth, of Hawkesworth, and Fawkes, of Farnley.

Guy's grandfather was William Fawkes, of York, who married a York lady, Ellen Harrington.[A]

[Footnote A: Ellen Harrington's father was Lord Mayor of York, in the reign of Henry VIII., in the year 1536.]

William Fawkes became Registrar of the Exchequer Court of the Archbishop of York, and died between the years 1558-1565.

William Fawkes had two sons and two daughters--Thomas Fawkes, a merchant-stapler, and Edward Fawkes, a Notary or Proctor of the Ecclesiastical Court, and afterwards an Advocate of the Consistory Court of the Archbishop of York. (Certainly it is a strange and bitter irony that an ancestry like this should have brought forth such a moral monster as poor Guy Fawkes afterwards became. But our guiding motto must be: "Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.")

Edward Fawkes married a lady whose Christian name was Edith, but her surname is unknown. She was the mother of four children--two sons and two daughters. Only one of her sons grew to man's estate, and this was the hapless Guy.

(Only four children are known of with certainty; but Guy _possibly may_ have had another brother, who was a student at the Inns of Court, in November, 1605.)

Now, the exact house where Edith Fawkes gave birth to her ill-fated boy is at present not known with cert.i.tude. There are four traditions respecting the place. Two traditions say the house was on the south side of High Petergate, York; one tradition that it was on the north side, adjoining the alley called Minster Gates; the fourth tradition that it was at Bishopthorpe. Personally, I am in favour of the Minster Gates' tradition.