The Gunpowder Plot and Lord Mounteagle's Letter.

by Henry Hawkes Spink Jr.

PREFACE.

The writer of the following work desires respectfully to put forward a modest contribution to the solution of one of the greatest problems known to History.

The problem referred to arises out of that stupendous and far-reaching movement against the Government of King James I. known as the Gunpowder Treason Plot.

This enterprise of cold-blooded, though grievously provoked, ma.s.sacre was, of a truth, "barbarous and savage beyond the examples of all former ages."

But because the movement had a profoundly--in the Aristotelian sense--political _causa causans_, therefore it is of perennial interest to governors and governed.

The _causa causans_, or originating cause, of the Gunpowder Treason Plot, in its ultimate a.n.a.lysis, will be found to involve that problem of problems for Princes, Statesmen, and Peoples all the world over:--How to allow freedom of human action, and yet faithfully to maintain Absolute Truth concerning the Infinite and the Eternal--or that which is believed to be Absolute Truth.

To the intent that the mind of the reader may ever and anon find relief from the stress and strain occasioned by the dry discussion of Evidence and the severe reasoning from necessary or probable philosophical a.s.sumptions, the writer has designedly interspersed, both in the Text and in the Notes, matter of a Biographical and Topographical nature, especially such as hath relation to the author's honoured native County--Yorkshire--and his beloved native City--York.

The writer has thought out his thesis, and has treated the same without fear or favour--limited and conditioned only by a regard for what he knew or supposed, and therefore believed, to be the truth governing the subject-matter under consideration. n.o.body can say more, not even the most advanced or emanc.i.p.ated thinker living.[A]

[Footnote A: _Cf._, "_The Ethic of Free-thought_," by Professor Karl Pearson. (Adam and Charles Black, 1901.)]

If it be demanded of the author why a member of the lower branch of the legal profession hath essayed the unveiling of a mystery that has baffled the learning and ingenuity of men from the days of King James I.--the British Solomon--down to the days of Dr. Samuel Rawson Gardiner, the renowned historian of the early English Stuarts, the author's answer and plea must be--for it can only be--that by the decrees of Fate, _his_ eyes first saw the light of the sun in a County whose history is an epitome of the history of the English people; and in a City which is an England in miniature.

In conclusion, the writer would be fain to be pardoned in saying that he has not had the advantage of frequenting any British or Foreign University, or other seat of learning--all the education that he can make his humble boast of having been received in Yorkshire Protestant Schools.

The writer's guide, during the past eighteen months, wherein he hath "voyaged through strange seas of thought alone,"[A] has been "the high white star of Truth. THERE he has gazed, and THERE aspired."[B]

_Sat.u.r.day, 26th October, 1901._

[Footnote A: Wordsworth.]

[Footnote B: Matthew Arnold.]

PRELUDE.

In order that the problem of the Gunpowder Plot may be understood, it is necessary for the reader to bear in mind that there were three movements--distinct though connected--against the Government on the part of the oppressed Roman Catholic recusants in the year 1605. The first of these movements was a general wave of insurrectionary feeling, of which there is evidence in Yorkshire as far back as 1596; in Lancashire about 1600; and in Herefordshire, at a later date, much more markedly. Then there was the Gunpowder Plot itself. And, lastly, there was the rebellion that was planned to take place in the Midlands, which, to a very limited extent, did take place, and in the course of which four of the conspirators were slain. That Salisbury's spies and decoys--who were, like Walsingham's, usually not Protestants but "bad Catholics"--had something to do with stirring up the general revolutionary feeling is more than probable; but that either he or they planned, either jointly or severally, the particular enterprise known as the Gunpowder Treason Plot--which was as insane as it was infamous--I do not for a moment believe.

All students of English History, however, are greatly indebted to the Rev.

John Gerard, S.J., for his three recent critical works on this subject; but still that the main outlines of the Plot are as they have come down to us by tradition, to my mind, Dr. Samuel Rawson Gardiner abundantly proves in his book in reply to the Rev. John Gerard.

The names of the works to which I refer are:--"_What was the Gunpowder Plot?_" the Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. (Osgood, McIlvaine & Co.); "_The Gunpowder Plot and Plotters_" (Harper Bros.); "_Thomas Winter's Confession and the Gunpowder Plot_" (Harper Bros.); and "_What Gunpowder Plot was_,"

S. R. Gardiner, D.C.L., LL.D. (Longmans).

The Articles in "_The Dictionary of National Biography_" dealing with the chief actors in this notable tragedy are all worthy of careful perusal.

"_The History of the Jesuits in England, 1580-1773_," by the Rev. Ethelred L. Taunton, with twelve ill.u.s.trations (Methuen & Co., 1901), contains a chapter on the Gunpowder Plot; and the Plot is referred to in Major Hume's recent work, ent.i.tled, "_Treason and Plot_" (Nisbet, 1901).

CHAPTER I.

One of the unsolved problems of English History is the question: "Who wrote the Letter to the Lord Mounteagle?" surely, one of the most momentous doc.u.ments ever penned by the hand of man, which discovered the Gunpowder Treason, and so saved a King of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland--to say nothing of France--his Royal Consort, his Counsellors, and Senators, from a b.l.o.o.d.y, cruel, and untimely death.

In every conspiracy there is a knave or a fool, and sometimes, happily, "a repentant sinner."

Now it is well known that the contrivers of the Gunpowder Treason themselves suspected Francis Tresham--a subordinate conspirator and brother-in-law to Lord Mounteagle--and many historians have rashly jumped to the conclusion that, therefore, Tresham must have been the author.

But, when charged at Barnet by Catesby and Thomas Winter, two of his infuriated fellow-plotters, with having sent the Letter, Tresham so stoutly and energetically denied the charge that his denial saved him from the point of their poniards.

Moreover, the suspected man when a prisoner in the Tower of London, and even when in the act of throwing himself on the King's mercy, never gave the faintest hint that the Letter was attributable to him. But, on the contrary, actually stated first that he had _intended_ to reveal the treason, and secondly that he _had been guilty_ of concealment.

Now, as a rule, "all that a man hath will he give for his life." Therefore it is impossible, in the face of this direct testimony of Tresham, to maintain that to him the discovery of the Plot is due: and the force of the argument grounded on Tresham's being the brother-in-law to Mounteagle, and that the accused man showed an evident desire that the Plot should be postponed, if not altogether abandoned, melts away like snow before the sun.[1][2][A]

[Footnote A: See Notes at End of Text, indicated by figures in [ ].]

To whatever decision the Historical Inquirer into this. .h.i.therto inscrutable mystery is destined to come after reviewing and weighing the Evidence now available--which to-day is more abundant from a variety of accidental circ.u.mstances, than when Lingard and Mackintosh, and even Gardiner and Green, wrote their histories--it is manifest that the Inquirer's decision in the matter cannot be as certain as a mathematical conclusion. But, it may be morally certain, because of the many degrees of probability that the information now ready to our hand will inevitably give that are favourable to the conclusion which the following pages will seek, by the evidence of facts, to sustain. And, as the ancient historian tersely says: "_Ubi res adsunt, quid opus est verbis?_"--"Where facts are at hand, what need is there for words?"

The Evidence to be relied on is mainly the evidence known as Circ.u.mstantial,[B] and consists of two cla.s.ses of acts. One of these cla.s.ses leads up to the performance of the transaction--namely, in the one case, the dictating of the Letter by the primary Author; in the other case, the penning of the Doc.u.ment by the secondary Scribe. Whilst the other cla.s.s of acts tends to demonstrate that the Author of the Letter and the Penman respectively were conscious, _subsequent_ to the commission of the transaction--in the former case, of having incurred the responsibility of being the originating Cause of the Doc.u.ment; in the latter case, of being the Agent for its physical production.

[Footnote B: As to the nature of Circ.u.mstantial Evidence--see Appendix.]

Before we begin to collect our Evidence, and, _a fortiori_, before we begin to consider the inferences from the same, we ought to bear in mind certain fixities of thought, or, in other words, certain self-evident fundamentals which are grounded in logic and daily experience. These fixities of thought or self-evident fundamentals will be points from which the reason of the Historical Inquirer can take swing. And not only so; but--like the cords of the rocket life-saving apparatus of the eager mariner--they will be lines of attachment and rules of thought, whereby first to secure to ourselves the available Evidence; and secondly, to prove to the intellect the truth of a theory which, if allowed, shall redound, in respect of courage and integrity, to the praise and honour of Man.

CHAPTER II.

Now, to my mind, it is a proposition so plain as not to require arguing, that there must have been at least _two_ persons engaged in the two-fold transaction of dictating the Letter and of being the penman of the same.

For although it is, of course, physically possible that the work may have been accomplished by one and the same person, yet that there was a division of labour in the two-fold transaction is infinitely the more likely supposal: because of the terrible risk to the revealing conspirator of his handwriting being detected by the Government authorities, and, through them, by his co-partners in guilt, should he have rashly adventured to be his own scribe; and this though he feigned his penmanship never so cunningly.

Now if such were the case, it follows that there must have been some second person--some entirely trustworthy friend--in the conspirator's confidence. Nay, if the exigencies of the nature and posture of affairs demanded it, a third person, or even a fourth, might have been also taken into confidence. But only if absolutely necessary. For the risk of detection would be proportioned to the number of persons in the secret:--it being a rule of common prudence in such cases that confidences must not be unnecessarily multiplied.

Therefore it follows that, supposing there was a second person in the confidence of the "discovering" or revealing conspirator to pen the Letter; and supposing there was a third person in the confidence of that conspirator, with or without the knowledge and consent of the second person, to act as a go-between, an "_interpres_," between the conspirator and Lord Mounteagle, these two persons must have been very trustworthy persons indeed.

Now a man trusts his fellow-man in proportion as he has had knowledge of him either directly or indirectly; directly by personal contact, indirectly through the recommendation of some competent authority.

_Experientia docet._ Experience teaches. A man has knowledge of his fellow-man as the resultant of the experience gained from relationship of some kind or another. And relationship is created by kinship, friendship, or business--intending the word "business" to embrace activity resulting from thought, word, and deed extending to the widest range of human interests conceivable. Relationship creates bonds, ties, obligations between the several persons united by it.

Hence, the practical conclusion is to be drawn that if "the discovering"

or disclosing Gunpowder conspirator, with a view to revealing the intended ma.s.sacre, had recourse to one or more confidants, they must have been one or more person or persons who were united to him by kinship, friendship, or business, in the sense predicated, possibly in all three, and that they must have been persons bound to him by bonds, which if "light as air were strong as iron."