The Identification of the Writer of the Anonymous Letter to Lord Monteagle in 1605.
by William Parker and Francis Tresham and William Vavasour.
PREFACE
One of the great mysteries of English history is the anonymous letter to Lord Monteagle, warning him not to attend the opening of Parliament, appointed for the Fifth of November, 1605, which is popularly supposed to have led to the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. The writer"s ident.i.ty was carefully concealed by the Government at the time; the intention being, as explained by Lord Salisbury, "to leave the further judgment indefinite" regarding it. The official statements are, therefore, as unsatisfactory as might be expected in a matter that, for State reasons, has not been straightforwardly related. The letter, however, remaining and in fair preservation, there was always the possibility of the handwriting being identified; and this, after the lapse of over three hundred years, is now accomplished.
I
HISTORICAL a.n.a.lYSIS
Francis Tresham, of Rushton, in Northamptonshire, has recently (September 11, 1605) succeeded his father, Sir Thomas Tresham (a great sufferer for the Roman Catholic religion), in an inheritance of at least five thousand a year, in present money; after having, as he says, spent most of his time overburdened with debts and wants, and resolves within himself to spend his days quietly. His first cousin, Robert Catesby, being hard-up with funds exhausted in financing the scheme known as the Gunpowder Plot, seeing in Tresham the chance of obtaining a further supply (though previously distrusting him), induces him, in the interests of their religion, to join the conspiracy, of which he thus becomes the thirteenth, and last, sworn conspirator (October 14, 1605).
Catesby is careful to impose the oath of secrecy before fully disclosing the plot; of which Tresham, on hearing, entirely disapproves, and endeavours to dissuade his cousin from, or even to defer it; meanwhile offering him the use of his own purse if he will do so. Finding he cannot prevail with him, he is very urgent that the Lords Monteagle and Stourton, particularly the former, may be warned, each having married Tresham"s sisters; but Catesby can give no definite a.s.surance. Tresham then intends, as he says, to get the conspirators shipped away, and to inform the Government by some unknown, or anonymous, means.
Tresham has a serving-man named William Vavasour, who attended Sir Thomas Tresham, and who, with his elder brother, George Vavasour (whose education Tresham has particularly encouraged), and their sister Muriel (gentlewoman to Lady Monteagle who is the daughter of "Muriel" Lady Tresham) are favoured dependants of the Tresham family, being the children of an old and much valued Catholic servant. Both George and William are confidentially employed by Tresham as amanuenses, in transcribing religious, or treasonable, treatises of the time.
Lord Monteagle unexpectedly orders a supper to be prepared (October 26, 1605) at his house at Hoxton (belonging to his brother-in-law Tresham), and where he has not been for some months. As he is about to go to supper, a letter is handed to him by his footman, to whom it has been given in the street by "an unknown man of a reasonable tall personage,"
who knows that he will find him at so unfrequented a residence.
Monteagle opens the letter, which is anonymous, pretends he cannot understand it, and shows it to his secretary, Thomas Ward, who, he is aware, is familiar with some of the conspirators; whom Ward, the next evening, tells of the receipt of the letter, which Monteagle at once takes to Whitehall, about three miles away, where he finds the Earl of Salisbury (Princ.i.p.al Secretary of State) with other lords of the Council together a.s.sembled, "ready for supper." The Government censor, or suppress, the name of the place where the letter was delivered. The conspirators and the Jesuit priests, who are involved in the plot through the confessional, at once suspect Tresham; and Catesby and Winter directly charge him with having betrayed them, which he denies, while urging them to escape to France, and giving them money for the purpose. Although Tresham is a sworn conspirator, he alone remains behind and at large, after Fawkes"s arrest (November 4-5, 1605), and flight of the others into the country, and offers his services to the Government. A week later he is taken to the Tower, where being ill, his wife and serving-man, William Vavasour, and a maid servant constantly attend him; an indulgence _never under any circ.u.mstances_ permitted to anyone who was really a prisoner and upon a capital charge there.
Becoming worse, he dictates a letter for Vavasour to write to Lord Salisbury, retracting a statement that he has been induced to make respecting Father Garnet, and dies (December 23, 1605). This letter, or dying statement, being misunderstood, is considered to be so incredible that the writing is particularly inquired into. Vavasour thereupon, in the presence of the Lieutenant of the Tower, writes an _untrue_ statement (consequently using a hand quite different from his ordinary writing and, _in itself, identical with the writing of the anonymous letter_), a.s.serting that his master"s dying statement was written by Mrs. Tresham (though in every way proper for Vavasour to have written), which she at once repudiates and says that Vavasour wrote it. He is then examined in the Tower by Chief Justice Popham and Attorney-General c.o.ke, when he confesses that he wrote the dying statement at his master"s dictation; and had denied it "for fear." Fear of what? In case the writing should bring into question some other and less innocent letter written by him for his master.
Upon Tresham"s death in the Tower, the Lieutenant writes to Salisbury (December 23, 1605) of the "marvellous" confidence shown by Tresham and his friends that had he survived, they feared not the course of justice.
Later, having left no male issue, his inheritance pa.s.ses to his brother, who is described as of Rushton, when created a baronet on the inst.i.tution of that Order by James the First, the very king whom the plotters intended to destroy; and although a baronetcy at that time was merely a monetary distinction or transaction, _some_ discrimination was no doubt made in the bestowal or disposal of that dignity, which probably would not have been conferred upon Catesby"s son, who was then living, even if he had been able to afford it after the forfeiture of his family inheritance.
The Attorney-General, at Father Garnet"s trial (March 28, 1606), p.r.o.nounces Vavasour as being, in his opinion, "deeply guilty" in the treason; yet he is not even brought to trial, while other serving-men are tried and executed; although Lord Salisbury expressly declares that he will esteem his life unworthily given him, when he shall be found slack in bringing to prosecution and execution ALL who are in any way concerned in the treason; and his exertions in the matter are accounted to be so successful, that he is rewarded with the Order of the Garter.
Francis Tresham"s inheritance remains in the family; and his serving-man, the "deeply guilty" William Vavasour, goes free.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: _These facsimiles are issued separately in order to facilitate comparison._]
II
THE OFFICIAL STORY OF THE LETTER
The authentic, or rather the official, story of the delivery of the letter, as published by the Government at the time, states that on Sat.u.r.day, October 26, 1605, Lord Monteagle "being in his own lodging, ready to go to supper, at seven o"clock[2] at night, one of his footmen (whom he had sent on an errand over the street) was met by an unknown man, of a reasonable tall personage, who delivered him a letter, charging him to put it in my lord his master"s hands; which my lord no sooner received, but that having broken it open, and perceiving the same to be of an unknown and somewhat unlegible hand, and without either date or subscription, called one of his men[3] to help him to read it. But no sooner did he conceive the strange contents thereof, although he was somewhat perplexed what construction to make of it (as whether of a matter of consequence, as indeed it was, or whether some foolish devised pasquil, by some of his enemies to scare him from his attendance at the Parliament), yet did he, as a most dutiful and loyal subject, conclude not to conceal it, whatever might come of it, whereupon notwithstanding the lateness and darkness of the night in that season of the year, he presently repaired to his Majesty"s palace at Whitehall, and there delivered the same to the Earl of Salisbury, his Majesty"s princ.i.p.al Secretary."
Neither the official version nor any State paper mentions the place where the letter was delivered, which in such a mysterious matter would be the first inquiry. "Own lodging" at that time signified a person"s house. Hoxton is generally stated to have been the place of delivery,[4]
which was then a single street in the outlying suburb on the great north road; at a house which Monteagle is known[5] to have occupied, belonging to his brother-in-law, Francis Tresham; and this ownership may have been Salisbury"s reason for not naming it, which so curious an omission seems to imply. The letter is as follows:
"My Lord out of the loue i beare[6]; to some of youere frends i haue a caer of youer preseruacion therfor i would aduyse yowe as yowe tender youer lyf to deuyse some excuse to shift of youer attendance at this parleament for G.o.d and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme and thinke not slightlye of this aduertis.e.m.e.nt but retyre youre self into youre contri wheare yowe maye expect the euent in safti for thowghe theare be no apparance of anni stir yet i saye they shall receyue a terrible blowe this parleament and yet they shall not sei who hurts them this cowncel is not to be contemned because it maye do yowe good and can do yowe no harme for the dangere[7] is pa.s.sed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter and i hope G.o.d will give yowe the grace to make good use of it to whose holy proteccion I commend yowe."
(Addressed) "To the ryght honorable the lord Monteagle."
It was the opinion of the other conspirators, as well as of the Jesuit priests who became involved in the plot through the confessional, that the warning letter originated with Francis Tresham, whose sister was Lady Monteagle, and another sister had married Lord Stourton; and Tresham had been most earnest with Catesby that those two lords, particularly Monteagle, should be warned. In each instance, Catesby was careful to impose the oath and engage the faith of the conspirator, before disclosing the plot; and Tresham, the thirteenth and last, sworn conspirator, on hearing the particulars, entirely disapproved of the conspiracy, from which he tried to dissuade Catesby, offering him the use of his own purse if he would even defer it.[8] Tresham could indeed have desired nothing less than to become involved in such a matter. His father had recently died, and he had succeeded to a considerable property,[9] which alone induced his first cousin Catesby to bring him into the plot. As Tresham wrote when in the Tower:[10] "I thank G.o.d I am owner of such a fortune as is able to afford me what I desire, the comfort whereof is so much the sweeter unto me, as I have spent most of my time overburthened with debts and wants, and had resolved within myself to spend my days quietly."[11] He acknowledged that his intentions with regard to the other conspirators were "to ship them away that they might have no means left them to contrive any more ... then to have taken a course to have given the State advertis.e.m.e.nt by some unknown means."[11] He was consequently the only conspirator who remained behind and at large after Fawkes was taken and the others had fled. There can be no reasonable doubt that Tresham, though not the writer, was the sender of the letter; and upon this hypothesis all investigators must go, as there is none other at all likely.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 2: Salisbury, in his letter to Sir Charles Cornwallis, Amba.s.sador at Madrid (November 9), gives the hour as six o"clock.]
[Footnote 3: This was his secretary, Thomas Ward, who was known to Monteagle as a friend of some of the conspirators (as Monteagle himself was), and one of whom, Ward, the next morning told of the receipt of the letter. "As a plan concocted by Monteagle and Tresham to stop the plot, and at the same time to secure the escape of their guilty friends, the little comedy at Hoxton was admirably concocted" ("What Gunpowder Plot was," by S.R. Gardiner, D.C.L., 1897, p. 124).]
[Footnote 4: Father John Gerard (1564-1637) gives particulars of the delivery of the letter at Hoxton in his contemporary "Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot," published in 1872.]
[Footnote 5: "Calendar of Tresham Papers," p. 132.]
[Footnote 6: The word "yowe" (you), here cancelled in the original, indicates the writer"s first thoughts, and, no doubt, his real meaning.]
[Footnote 7: Various attempts have been made to explain the nature of the danger alluded to, which the King and Salisbury at the time, and others since, have understood as in allusion to the danger of the plot.
Jardine describes it as "mere nonsense" ("Gunpowder Plot," 1835, p. 73).
But the meaning clearly is the danger of the letter being discovered.
The counsel may do him good, and can do him no harm, except through the danger of keeping the letter, which being burnt, the danger is past.
There is no allusion intended to the danger of the plot, as that, unlike the danger of the discovery of the letter, could not be affected by burning the letter.]
[Footnote 8: Tresham"s statement made when in the Tower ("State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvi. 63).]
[Footnote 9: The rental of the Rushton Hall estate alone, as given in the "Return of Owners of Lands" in 1873, is 5,044 yearly. The Tresham family also owned property at Hoxton and elsewhere.]
[Footnote 10: He died in the Tower six weeks after writing that letter, aged thirty-seven.]
[Footnote 11: "State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvi., 63.]
III
IDENTIFICATION OF THE HANDWRITING
The style of handwriting of the letter, as seen in the facsimile, is not in this writer"s opinion, from a familiarity of thirty years with old scripts, apart from the disguise, the hand that an educated person would write at the time, but is essentially a commonplace and, no doubt intentionally, rather slovenly style of handwriting. The use of small "i"s" for the first person seems, in view of modern usage, to suggest an illiterate writer; but educated writers, even the King,[12] then occasionally lapsed into using them. In the letter, however, they are consistently and may have been purposely used, to avert suspicion from being the work of an educated person; though an illiterate appearance would rather cause such a letter (if genuine) to be disregarded, than to deter a n.o.bleman from attending the opening of Parliament, for which leave or licence was required.
The handwriting has been variously ascribed, but the direction of this inquiry is indicated by the incautious admission made by Sir Edward c.o.ke, the Attorney-General at the trial, respecting the real manner in which the plot was discovered. Salisbury"s careful instructions to the Attorney-General for the trial are with the State papers, in which he says: "Next, you must in any case, when you speak of the letter which was the first ground of discovery, absolutely disclaim that any of these" (the conspirators) "wrote it, though you leave the further judgment indefinite who else it should be."[13]
Salisbury thus, in effect, requires c.o.ke by absolutely disclaiming that any of the conspirators wrote (he does not say "sent") the letter to Monteagle, and by which alone the treason was discovered, to declare in Court, as upon the authority of the Government, that therefore none of the conspirators divulged the plot; which, in any case, could be true only so far as the disclosure to the Government was concerned. c.o.ke, however, for some reason--perhaps because he was not fully in Salisbury"s confidence respecting the letter--describes the real manner of the discovery, according to his own knowledge. Towards the close of his speech for the prosecution, he said: "The last consideration is concerning the admirable discovery of this treason, which was by one of themselves who had taken the oath and sacrament, as hath been said against his own will;[14] the means by a dark and doubtful letter to my Lord Monteagle." This, together with Salisbury"s statement that none of the conspirators wrote the letter, shows that the divulging of the plot preceded the sending of the letter,[15] which was not, therefore, as is popularly supposed, the means by which the plot was discovered, except to the general public.
Hitherto those who have attempted this identification have invariably sought amongst such as are likely to have written the letter for a handwriting _resembling the disguised writing_, which seems a strange method of investigation, as surely the object of a disguised hand[16]
would be to make the general appearance as unlike the writer"s ordinary hand as possible? The writing being in a set and rather large character, such is the style they have sought for and found, but in a much more refined hand and without arriving at any satisfactory result.