Admitted to her husband"s prison, she played the trick that saved Lord Ogilvy from the dungeon of the Covenanters, that saved Argyle, Nithsdale, and James Mr Macgregor. Perez walked out of gaol in the dress of his wife. We may suppose that the guards were bribed: there is _always_ collusion in these cases. One of the murderers had horses round the corner, and Perez, who cannot have been badly injured by the rack, rode thirty leagues, and crossed the frontier of Aragon.
We have not to follow his later adventures. The refusal of the Aragonese to give him up to Castile, their rescue of him from the Inquisition, cost them their const.i.tution, and about seventy of them were burned as heretics. But Perez got clear away. He visited France, where Henry IV. befriended him; he visited England, where Bacon was his host. In 1594 (?) he published his _Relaciones_ and told the world the story of Philip"s conscience. That story must not be relied on, of course, and the autograph letters of Philip as to the murder of Escovedo are lost. But the copies of them at the Hague are regarded as authentic, and the convincing pa.s.sages are underlined in red ink.
Supposing it possible that Philip after all secured the whole of the autograph correspondence, and that Perez only succeeded in preserving the copies now at the Hague, we should understand why Perez would not confess the King"s crime: he had only copies of his proofs to show; and copies were valueless as evidence. But it is certain that Perez really had the letters.
"b.l.o.o.d.y Perez," as Bacon"s mother called him, died at Paris in November 1611, outliving the wretched master whom he had served so faithfully. Queen Elizabeth tried to induce Amyas Paulet to murder Mary Stuart. Paulet, as a man of honour, refused; he knew, too, that Elizabeth would abandon him to the vengeance of the Scots. Perez ought to have known that Philip would desert him: his folly was rewarded by prison, torture, and confiscation, which were not more than the man deserved, who betrayed and murdered the servant of Don John of Austria.
NOTE.--This essay was written when I was unaware that Major Martin Hume had treated the problem in _Transactions of the Royal Historical Society_, 1894, pp. 71-107, and in _Espanoles e Ingleses_ (1903). The latter work doubtless represents Major Hume"s final views. He has found among the Additional MSS. of the British Museum (28,269) a quant.i.ty of the contemporary letters of Perez, which supplement the copies, at the Hague, of other letters destroyed after the death of Perez. From these MSS. and other original sources unknown to Mr. Froude, and to Monsieur Mignet (see the second edition of his _Antonio Perez_; Paris, 1846), Major Hume"s theory is that, for _political_ reasons, Philip gave orders that Escovedo should be a.s.sa.s.sinated. This was in late October or early November, 1577. The order was not then carried out; the reason of the delay I do not clearly understand. The months pa.s.sed, and Escovedo"s death ceased, in altered circ.u.mstances, to be politically desirable, but he became a serious nuisance to Perez and his mistress, the Princess d"Eboli. Philip had never countermanded the murder, but Perez, according to Major Hume, falsely alleges that the King was still bent on the murder, and that other statesmen were consulted and approved of it, _shortly before the actual deed_.[4] Perez gives this impression by a crafty manipulation of dates in his narrative. When he had Escovedo slain, he was fighting for his own hand; but Philip, who had never countermanded the murder, was indifferent, till, in 1582, when he was with Alva in Portugal. The King now learned that Perez had behaved abominably, had poisoned his mind against his brother Don Juan, had communicated State secrets to the Princess d"Eboli, and had killed Escovedo, not in obedience to the royal order, but using that order as the shield of his private vengeance. Hence Philip"s severities to Perez; hence his final command that Perez should disclose the royal motives for the destruction of Escovedo. They would be found to have become obsolete at the date when the crime was committed, and on Perez would fall the blame.
[Footnote 4: See p. 38, _supra_.]
Such is Major Hume"s theory, if I correctly apprehend it.
The hypothesis leaves the moral character of Philip as black as ever: he ordered an a.s.sa.s.sination which he never even countermanded. His confessor might applaud him, but he knew that the doctors of the Inquisition, like the common sentiment of mankind, rejected the theory that kings had the right to condemn and execute, by the dagger, men who had been put to no public trial.
III
_THE CAMPDEN MYSTERY_
I
The ordinary historical mystery is at least so far clear that one or other of two solutions must be right, if we only knew which. Perkin Warbeck was the rightful King, or he was an impostor. Giacopo Stuardo at Naples (1669) was the eldest son of Charles II., or he was a humbug. The Man in the Iron Mask was _certainly_ either Mattioli or Eustache Dauger. James VI. conspired against Gowrie, or Gowrie conspired against James VI., and so on. There is reason and human nature at the back of these puzzles. But at the back of the Campden mystery there is not a glimmer of reason or of sane human nature, except on one hypothesis, which I shall offer. The occurrences are, to all appearance, motiveless as the events in a feverish dream. "The whole Matter is dark and mysterious; which we must therefore leave unto Him who alone knoweth all Things, in His due Time, to reveal and to bring to Light."
So says the author of "A True and Perfect Account of the Examination, Confession, Trial, and Execution of _Joan Perry_, and her two Sons, _John_ and _Richard Perry_, for the Supposed Murder of _Will Harrison_, Gent., Being One of the most remarkable Occurrences which hath happened in the Memory of Man. Sent in a Letter (by _Sir Thomas Overbury_, of _Burton_, in the County of _Gloucester_, Knt., and one of his Majesty"s Justices of the Peace) to _Thomas Shirly_, Doctor of Physick, in London. Also Mr. _Harrison"s_ Own account," &c. (London.
Printed for John Atkinson, near the Chapter House, in _St. Paul"s Church-Yard_. No date, but apparently of 1676.)
Such is the vast and breathless t.i.tle of a pamphlet which, by undeserved good luck, I have just purchased. The writer, Sir Thomas Overbury, "the nephew and heir," says Mr. John Paget, "of the unhappy victim of the infamous Countess of Somerset" (who had the elder Overbury poisoned in the Tower), was the Justice of the Peace who acted as _Juge d"Instruction_ in the case of Harrison"s disappearance.[5]
[Footnote 5: Paget, _Paradoxes and Puzzles_, p. 342. Blackwoods, 1874.]
To come to the story. In 1660, William Harrison, Gent., was steward or "factor" to the Viscountess Campden, in Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, a single-streeted town among the Cotswold hills. The lady did not live in Campden House, whose owner burned it in the Great Rebellion, to spite the rebels; as Castle Tirrim was burned by its Jacobite lord in the "15. Harrison inhabited a portion of the building which had escaped destruction. He had been for fifty years a servant of the Hickeses and Campdens, his age was seventy (which deepens the mystery), he was married, and had offspring, including Edward, his eldest son.
On a market day, in 1659, Mr. Harrison"s house was broken into, at high noon, while he and his whole family were "at the Lecture," in church, a Puritan form of edification. A ladder had been placed against the wall, the bars of a window on the second story had been wrenched away with a ploughshare (which was left in the room), and 140_l._ of Lady Campden"s money were stolen. The robber was never discovered--a curious fact in a small and lonely village. The times, however, were disturbed, and a wandering Cavalier or Roundhead soldier may have "cracked the crib." Not many weeks later, Harrison"s servant, Perry, was heard crying for help in the garden. He showed a "sheep-pick," with a hacked handle, and declared that he had been set upon by two men in white, with naked swords, and had defended himself with his rustic tool. It is curious that Mr. John Paget, a writer of great acuteness, and for many years police magistrate at Hammersmith, says nothing of the robbery of 1659, and of Perry"s crazy conduct in the garden.[6] Perry"s behaviour there, and his hysterical invention of the two armed men in white, give the key to his character. The two men in white were never traced of course, but, later, we meet three men not less flagitious, and even more mysterious. They appear to have been three "men in buckram."
[Footnote 6: See his _Paradoxes and Puzzles_, pp. 337-370, and, for good reading, see the book _pa.s.sim_.]
At all events, in quiet Campden, adventures obviously occurred to the unadventurous. They culminated in the following year, on August 16, 1660. Harrison left his house in the morning (?) and walked the two miles to Charringworth to collect his lady"s rents. The autumn day closed in, and between eight and nine o"clock old Mrs. Harrison sent the servant, John Perry, to meet his master on the way home. Lights were also left burning in Harrison"s window. That night neither master nor man returned, and it is odd that the younger Harrison, Edward, did not seek for his father till very early next morning: he had the convenience, for nocturnal search, of a moon which rose late. In the morning, Edward went out and met Perry, returning alone: he had not found his master. The pair walked to Ebrington, a village half way between Campden and Charringworth, and learned that Harrison had called, on the previous evening, as he moved home through Ebrington, at the house of one Daniel. The hour is not given, but Harrison certainly disappeared when just beyond Ebrington, within less than a mile from Campden. Edward and Perry next heard that a poor woman had picked up on the highway, beyond Ebrington, near some whins or furze, a hat, band, and comb, which were Harrison"s; they were found within about half a mile of his own house. The band was b.l.o.o.d.y, the hat and comb were hacked and cut. Please observe the precise words of Sir Thomas Overbury, the justice who took the preliminary examinations: "The Hat and Comb being hacked and cut, and the Band b.l.o.o.d.y, but nothing more could there be found." Therefore the hat and comb were not on Harrison"s head when they were hacked and cut: otherwise they must have been blood-stained; the band worn about the throat was b.l.o.o.d.y, but there was no trace of blood on the road. This pa.s.sage contains the key to the puzzle.
On hearing of the discovery of these objects all the people rushed to hunt for Harrison"s corpse, which they did not find.
An old man like Harrison was not likely to stay at Charringworth very late, but it seems that whatever occurred on the highway happened after twilight.
Suspicion fell on John Perry, who was haled before the narrator, Sir Thomas Overbury, J.P. Perry said that after starting for Charringworth to seek his master on the previous evening, about 8.45 P.M., he met by the way William Reed of Campden, and explained to him that as he was timid in the dark he would go back and take Edward Harrison"s horse and return. Perry did as he had said, and Reed left him "at Mr.
Harrison"s Court gate." Perry dallied there till one Pierce came past, and with Pierce (he did not say why) "he went a bow"s shot into the fields," and so back once more to Harrison"s gate. He now lay for an hour in a hen house, he rose at midnight, and again--the moon having now risen and dispelled his fears--he started for Charringworth. He lost his way in a mist, slept by the road-side, proceeded in the dawn to Charringworth, and found that Harrison had been there on the previous day. Then he came back and met Edward Harrison on his way to seek his father at Charringworth.
Perry"s story is like a tale told by an idiot, but Reed, Pierce, and two men at Charringworth corroborated as far as their knowledge went.
Certainly Perry had been in company with Reed and Pierce, say between nine and ten on the previous night. Now, if evil had befallen Harrison it must have been before ten at night; he would not stay so late, if sober, at Charringworth. Was he usually sober? The cool way in which his wife and son took his absence suggests that he was a late-wandering old boy. They may have expected Perry to find him in his cups and tuck him up comfortably at Charringworth or at Ebrington.
Till August 24 Perry was detained in prison, or, odd to say, at the inn! He told various tales; a tinker or a servant had murdered his master and hidden him in a bean-rick, where, on search being made, _non est inventus_. Harrison, and the rents he had collected, were vanished in the azure. Perry now declared that he would tell all to Overbury, and to no other man. To him Perry averred that his mother and brother, Joan and Richard Perry, had murdered Harrison! It was his brother who, by John Perry"s advice and connivance, had robbed the house in the previous year, while John "had a Halibi," being at church. The brother, said John, buried the money in the garden. It was sought for, but was not found. His story of the "two men in white,"
who had previously attacked him in the garden, was a lie, he said. I may add that it was not the lie of a sane man. Perry was conspicuously crazy.
He went on with his fables. His mother and brother, he declared, had often asked him to tell them when his master went to collect rents. He had done so after Harrison started for Charringworth on the morning of August 16. John Perry next gave an account of his expedition with his brother in the evening of the fatal day, an account which was incompatible with his previous tale of his doings and with the authentic evidence of Reed and Pierce. Their honest version destroyed Perry"s new falsehood. He declared that Richard Perry and he had dogged Harrison, as he came home at night, into Lady Campden"s grounds; Harrison had used a key to the private gate. Richard followed him into the grounds; John Perry, after a brief stroll, joined him there and found his mother (how did she come thither?) and Richard standing over the prostrate Harrison, whom Richard incontinently strangled. They seized Harrison"s money and meant to put his body "in the great sink by Wallington"s Mill." John Perry left them, and knew not whether the body was actually thrown into the sink. In fact, _non est inventus_ in the sink, any more than in the bean-rick. John next introduced his meeting with Pierce, but quite forgot that he had also met Reed, and did not account for that part of his first story, which Reed and Pierce had both corroborated. The hat, comb, and band John said that he himself had carried away from Harrison"s body, had cut them with his knife, and thrown them into the highway. Whence the blood on the band came he neglected to say.
On the strength of this impossible farrago of insane falsehoods, Joan and Richard Perry were arrested and brought before Overbury. Not only the "sink" but the Campden fish-pools and the ruinous parts of the house were vainly searched in quest of Harrison"s body. On August 25 the three Perrys were examined by Overbury, and Richard and the mother denied all that John laid to their charge. John persisted in his story, and Richard admitted that he and John had spoken together on the morning of the day when Harrison vanished, "but nothing pa.s.sed between them to that purpose."
As the three were being brought back from Overbury"s house to Campden an unfortunate thing happened. John was going foremost when Richard, a good way behind, dropped "a ball of inkle from his pocket." One of his guards picked it up, and Richard said that it "was only his wife"s hair-lace." At one end, however, was a slip-knot. The finder took it to John, who, being a good way in front, had not seen his brother drop it. On being shown the string John shook his head, and said that "to his sorrow he knew it, for that was the string his brother strangled his master with." To this circ.u.mstance John swore at the ensuing trial.
The a.s.sizes were held in September, and the Perrys were indicted both for the robbery in 1659 and the murder in 1660. They pleaded "Guilty"
to the first charge, as some one in court whispered to them to do, for the crime was covered by the Act of Pardon and Oblivion pa.s.sed by Charles II. at his happy Restoration. If they were innocent of the robbery, as probably they were, they acted foolishly in pleading guilty. We hear of no evidence against them for the robbery, except John"s confession, which was evidence perhaps against John, but was none against _them_. They thus damaged their case, for if they were really guilty of the robbery from Harrison"s house, they were the most likely people in the neighbourhood to have robbed him again and murdered him. Very probably they tied the rope round their own necks by taking advantage of the good King"s indemnity. They later withdrew their confession, and probably were innocent of the theft in 1659.
[Transcriber"s Note: original has 1559.]
On the charge of murder they were not tried in September. Sir Christopher Turner would not proceed "because the body of Harrison was not found." There was no _corpus delicti_, no evidence that Harrison was really dead. Meanwhile John Perry, as if to demonstrate his lunacy, declared that his mother and brother had tried to poison him in prison! At the Spring a.s.sizes in 1661, Sir B. Hyde, less legal than Sir Christopher Turner, did try the Perrys on the charge of murder.
How he could do this does not appear, for the account of the trial is not in the Record House, and I am unable at present to trace it. In the _Arminian Magazine_, John Wesley publishes a story of a man who was hanged for murdering another man, whom he afterwards met in one of the Spanish colonies of South America. I shall not here interrupt the tale of the Perrys by explaining how a hanged man met a murdered man, but the anecdote proves that to inflict capital punishment for murder without proof that murder has been committed is not only an illegal but an injudicious proceeding. Probably it was a.s.sumed that Harrison, if alive, would have given signs of life in the course of nine or ten months.
At the trial in spring all three Perrys pleaded "not guilty." John"s confession being proved against him, "he told them he was then mad and knew not what he said." There must have been _some_ evidence against Richard. He declared that his brother had accused others besides him.
Being asked to prove this, he answered "that most of those that had given evidence against him knew it," but named none. So evidence had been given (perhaps to the effect that Richard had been flush of money), but by whom, and to what effect, we do not know.
The Perrys were probably not of the best repute. The mother, Joan, was supposed to be a witch. This charge was seldom brought against popular well-living people. How intense was the fear of witches, at that date, we know from the stories and accounts of trials in Glanvil"s _Sadducismus Triumphatus_. The neighbours probably held that Joan Perry would, as a witch, be "nane the waur o" a hanging." She was put to death first, under the belief that any hypnotic or other unholy influence of hers, which prevented her sons from confessing, would be destroyed by her death. We are not aware that post-hypnotic suggestion is removed by the death of the suggester; the experiment has not been tried. The experiment failed in Joan"s case. Poor Richard, who was hanged next, could not induce the "dogged and surly" John to clear his character by a dying declaration. Such declarations were then held irrefragable evidence, at least in Scotland, except when (as in the case of George Sprot, hanged for the Gowrie conspiracy) it did not suit the Presbyterians to believe the dying man. When John was being turned off, he said that "he knew nothing of his master"s death, nor what was become of him, but they might hereafter (possibly) hear." Did John know something? It would not surprise me if he had an inkling of the real state of the case.
II
They _did_ hear; but what they heard, and what I have now to tell, was perfectly incredible. When "some" years (two apparently) had pa.s.sed, Will Harrison, Gent., like the three silly ewes in the folk-rhyme, "came hirpling hame." Where had the old man been? He explained in a letter to Sir Thomas Overbury, but his tale is as hard to believe as that of John Perry.
He states that he left his house in the afternoon (not the morning) of Thursday, August 16, 1660. He went to Charringworth to collect rents, but Lady Campden"s tenants were all out harvesting. August seems an odd month for rent-collecting when one thinks of it. They came home late, which delayed Harrison "till the close of the evening." He only received 23 _l._, which John Perry said, at his first examination in 1660, had been paid by one Edward Plaisterer, and Plaisterer corroborated. Harrison then walked homeward, in the dusk probably, and, near Ebrington, where the road was narrow, and bordered by whins, "there met me one horseman who said "_Art thou there?_"" Afraid of being ridden over, Harrison struck the horse on the nose, and the rider, with a sword, struck at him and stabbed him in the side. (It was at this point of the road, where the whins grew, that the cut hat and b.l.o.o.d.y band were found, but a thrust in the side would not make a neck-band b.l.o.o.d.y.) Two other hors.e.m.e.n here came up, one of them wounded Harrison in the thigh. They did not now take his 23_l._, but placed him behind one of them on horseback, handcuffed him, and threw a great cloak over him.
Now, is it likely that highwaymen would carry handcuffs which closed, says Harrison, with a spring and a snap? The story is pure fiction, and bad at that. Suppose that kidnapping, not robbery, was the motive (which would account for the handcuffs), what had any mortal to gain by kidnapping, for the purpose of selling him into slavery, a "gent."
of seventy years of age?
In the night they took Harrison"s money and "tumbled me down a stone-pit." In an hour they dragged him out again, and he naturally asked what they wanted with him, as they had his money already. One of these miscreants wounded Harrison again, and--stuffed his pockets full of "a great quant.i.ty of money." If they had a great quant.i.ty of money, what did they want with 23_l._? We hear of no other robberies in the neighbourhood, of which misdeeds the money might have been the profits. And why must Harrison carry the money? (It has been suggested that, to win popular favour, they represented themselves as smugglers, and Harrison, with the money, as their gallant purser, wounded in some heroic adventure.)
They next rode till late on August 17, and then put Harrison down, bleeding and "sorely bruised with the carriage of the money," at a lonely house. Here they gave their victim broth and brandy. On Sat.u.r.day they rode all day to a house, where they slept, and on Sunday they brought Harrison to Deal, and laid him down on the ground. This was about three in the afternoon. Had they wanted to make for the sea, they would naturally have gone to the _west_ coast. While one fellow watched Harrison, two met a man, and "I heard them mention seven pounds." The man to whom seven pounds were mentioned (Wrenshaw was his name, as Harrison afterwards heard--where?) said that he thought Harrison would die before he could be put on board a ship. _Que diable allait-il faire dans cette galere?_ Harrison was, however, put on board a casual vessel, and remained in the ship for six weeks.
Where was the land to which the ship would go?
Far, far ahead is all the sailors know!
Harrison does not say into what "foam of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn" the ship went wandering for six mortal weeks. Like Lord Bateman:
He sailed East, and he sailed West, Until he came to famed Turkee, Where he was taken and put in prison, Till of his life he was wear--ee!
"Then the Master of the ship came and told me, and _the rest who were in the same condition_, that he discovered three Turkish ships." "The rest who were in the same condition"! We are to understand that a whole cargo of Harrisons was kidnapped and consigned captive to a vessel launched on ocean, on the off chance that the captain might meet three Turkish rovers who would snap them up. At this rate of carrying on, there must have been disappearances as strange as Harrison"s, from dozens of English parishes, in August 1660. Had a crew of kidnappers been taking captives for purposes of private fiscal policy, they would have shipped them to the Virginian plantations, where Turkish galleys did not venture, and they would not have kidnapped men of seventy. Moreover, kidnappers would not damage their captives by stabbing them in the side and thigh, when no resistance was made, as was done to Harrison.
"The rest who were in the same condition" were "dumped down" near Smyrna, where the valuable Harrison was sold to "a grave physician."
"This Turk he" was eighty-seven years of age, and "preferred Crowland in Lincolnshire before all other places in England." No inquiries are known to have been made about a Turkish medical man who once practised at Crowland in Lincolnshire, though, if he ever did, he was likely to be remembered in the district. This Turk he employed Harrison in the still room, and as a hand in the cotton fields, where he once knocked his slave down with his fist--pretty well for a Turk of eighty-seven!
He also gave Harrison (whom he usually employed in the chemical department of his business) "a silver bowl, double gilt, to drink in, and named him Boll"--his way of p.r.o.nouncing bowl--no doubt he had acquired a Lincolnshire accent.