Read Ebook: The Identification of the Writer of the Anonymous Letter to Lord Monteagle in 1605 by Monteagle William Parker Baron Morgan George Blacker

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 49 lines and 10056 words, and 1 pages

PAGE

PREFACE v

SECTION

LIST OF FACSIMILES

Stated by Vavasour to have been written by Mrs. Tresham. On March 24, 1605-6, he confessed that he wrote it and signed a note to it to that effect.

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

Tresham has a serving-man named William Vavasour, who attended Sir Thomas Tresham, and who, with his elder brother, George Vavasour , and their sister Muriel 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.

The Attorney-General, at Father Garnet's trial , pronounces 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:

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 Saturday, October 26, 1605, Lord Monteagle "being in his own lodging, ready to go to supper, at seven o'clock at night, one of his footmen 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 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 , 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 principal 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, which was then a single street in the outlying suburb on the great north road; at a house which Monteagle is known 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; 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 god and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme and thinke not slightlye of this aduertisement 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 is passed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter and i hope god will give yowe the grace to make good use of it to whose holy proteccion I commend yowe."

"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. 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, which alone induced his first cousin Catesby to bring him into the plot. As Tresham wrote when in the Tower: "I thank God 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." 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 advertisement by some unknown means." 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:

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, 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 to be disregarded, than to deter a nobleman 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 Coke, 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" "wrote it, though you leave the further judgment indefinite who else it should be."

Salisbury thus, in effect, requires Coke by absolutely disclaiming that any of the conspirators wrote 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. Coke, 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; 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, which was not, therefore, as is popularly supposed, the means by which the plot was discovered, except to the general public.

It seems, however, reasonable to suspect that this set and rather large character may be what principally constitutes the disguise, and that the writer's ordinary hand would be different. The manner in which the lines are forced upwards at the right side, shows that the writer has had difficulty in maintaining the large, set, regular character which would push an unpractised hand in that direction.

Among the more prominent peculiarities, as seen in the facsimile , the writer invariably uses the long "s" as an initial letter in the ten examples that occur, even when the letter is not a capital. Such consistent use was usual in legal but not in private hands, though within a word the long "s" was very common. The "t's" are peculiar; being made with a twist or short line at foot, crossed midway projecting from each side, while a stroke is put on the top as a disguised, or elaborated touch. The "w's" finish with a side loop. Some of the "g's" show flat tops; the cypher portion being commenced from the left side with a stroke along the top. The tails of the "y's" are brought forward. The "hanger" portion of the "h's" invariably drags below the line which, though not unusual, again indicates in the numerous examples that occur the writer's habit; while an unusually broad quill has been used to further the disguise.

After the plot was discovered, Fawkes arrested, and the other conspirators had escaped into the country, Tresham remained in London and even offered his services to the Government. A week later he was taken to the Tower where, being ill, his wife also came, and he was attended by his serving-man, William Vavasour, and his maid, Joan Syer. He was induced "to avoid ill-usage," to say that he thought Father Garnet, against whom the Government desired to obtain evidence, had written a letter in furtherance of what was known as the Spanish Treason, in 1602. Six weeks later, his illness becoming dangerous, he dictated to his man Vavasour a letter to Lord Salisbury, retracting his statement respecting Garnet, as being more than he really knew; declaring upon his salvation that he had not seen him "in sixteen years before," clearly meaning before the Spanish Treason in 1602, which is the entire subject of his letter and the fact; and not, as the Government misunderstood him to mean, before the then time of writing in 1605. This statement, written by Vavasour , was signed by Tresham, who asked his wife to deliver it personally to Lord Salisbury, and within three hours died:

Francis Tresame.

"I do rememb' y^t my m^r did cause my m^ to write a note wherto he did did bid the mayd and me beare witnes y^t he did set his hand unto it, but it was not reade at y^t time but since m^ Tressa' did reede it to me and sayd it was y^t noate y^t my m^r did bid us beare witnesse and she comaunded me to carye a letter to S^r Waulter Cope and to desire him to deliver the noate inclosed to my Lorde of Salsburye and further my m^r did say y^t he cold not write him selfe bycause he was not able but he did sett his hande unto it as before I have sayd and this was done some day before his death.

"23. March 1605 . Taken before us: W. Waad. Willus Lane."

If for any reason Vavasour did not desire his writing to be brought into question, there could be no harm, beyond his falsehood, in naming Mrs. Tresham as the writer of that letter, as neither could possibly be blamed for writing such a statement for his master. The question arises, whether Vavasour would have ventured upon an untrue statement, except through panic, unless feeling sure of Mrs. Tresham's support? As Mrs. Tresham throughout made no attempt to conceal the truth for Vavasour, she may have been unaware of any reason for diverting inquiry from himself respecting letters written for his master. Even if Mrs. Tresham had been willing to connive at his falsehood, she could not have done so; as Salisbury, being convinced that she not only wrote but composed her husband's dying statement and induced him to sign to shield Father Garnet, was so incensed against her that he declined to see her, or even to receive her husband's statement, when she tried to deliver it. She was therefore obliged, in view of possible consequences to herself, to own that Vavasour wrote the statement at her husband's dictation. Vavasour was then examined in the Tower by Chief Justice Popham and by Coke, when he confessed that he wrote the dying statement at his master's dictation, and had denied it through fear, which could only arise from having written some other and less innocent letter for him.

Upon the evidence of the handwriting alone, William Vavasour was the writer of that letter.

FOOTNOTES:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OPINION OF VAVASOUR'S GUILT

Henry Garnet's trial was purposely held at the City Guildhall, instead of Westminster Hall, the usual trial place where the conspirators had been tried, in order to make the occasion as imposing, and his case as exemplary, as possible, on account of his position as Superior of the Jesuits in England. The King was privately present, and there was a most distinguished assembly of ambassadors, nobility, and others.

Before this audience, the Attorney-General, whose opinion determines or considerably influences a prosecution for high treason, states in Court that a person who is not even present nor arraigned is in his opinion "deeply guilty" in the most infamous treason ever attempted, and for which the conspirators had already been executed: so "heinous, horrible and damnable" was it considered, that the authorities had even proposed to devise some specially severe form of torture for the perpetrators to undergo, in addition to the usual terrible penalty for high treason.

Coke's statement in Court has been officially in print for over three hundred years, yet no investigator seems to have noticed it and so have been led to inquire what was done to Vavasour?--by which alone a clue might have been obtained to the writer of the letter. Although Vavasour was publicly stated by the Attorney-General to be "deeply guilty" in a treason of which Salisbury wrote: "I shall esteem my life unworthily given me when I shall be found slack in searching to the bottom of the dregs of this foul poison, or lack resolution to further to my small power the prosecution and execution of ALL those whose hearts and hands can appear foul in this savage practise"--yet he was not even brought to trial, while other serving-men were tried and executed.

It is questionable whether Salisbury, unless agreeing with Coke's opinion of Vavasour's guilt, would have allowed the allusion to appear in the official report of the trial, prepared by himself and sanctioned by the King; as, if innocent of the treason, an intolerable injustice would have been done to Vavasour by the publication, which probably neither the King nor Salisbury would have permitted, in making a senseless attack upon the reputation of an innocent man, who would certainly have protested.

FOOTNOTES:

FRANCIS TRESHAM'S CONFIDENCE WHEN IN THE TOWER

Upon Tresham's death in the Tower , the Lieutenant wrote to Salisbury: "I find his friends were marvellous confident if he had escaped this sickness, and have given out in this place that they feared not the course of justice." As the late Dr. Gardiner observed: "This confidence they could only have derived from himself, and it could only have been founded on one ground."

Had Tresham's committal to the Tower been otherwise than a mere formality, or "a farce," neither his wife nor his servants would under any circumstances have been permitted to attend or even see him whatever the state of his health might have been; and had he survived, nothing serious would have been done to him, any more than was done to his "deeply guilty" servant Vavasour.

Tresham, though dreading, as he said, "the infamous brand of an accuser," was as evidently the Informer to the Government, either directly or indirectly through Monteagle, as his servant Vavasour was the writer of the letter.

FOOTNOTES:

THE VAVASOURS AS DEPENDANTS OF THE TRESHAM FAMILY

The Tresham Papers contain much information respecting the Vavasours as dependants of that family. Sir Thomas Tresham had a bailiff or collector, named Thomas Vavasour, an old and much valued Catholic servant, who had, with perhaps other children, two sons, George and William, and a daughter, Muriel. George, who had been educated, was in June, 1596, sent up by his father with a letter to Sir Thomas, then in town, in order that he might be entered at one of the Inns of Court, as Sir Thomas might advise: "Mr. Francis Tresham has encouraged him in this kind of study and the cost already bestowed must not be lost. He knows he has nothing else to trust to but his learning, nor does he seem so fit for anything else." He was accordingly admitted to the Inner Temple in November of that year, where Lewis Tresham had been admitted the previous November, and to whom there is an allusion of George Vavasour acting as tutor. William Vavasour, the other son, was servant to Sir Thomas, and though not so educated as his brother George, was not a livery-servant or footman, but appears to have held a similar or superior position with Sir Thomas, to that which Bates, who kept his own man, held with Catesby, a kind of secretary-valet of the time. After Sir Thomas's death he served his eldest son Francis Tresham in the same capacity; while the sister Muriel Vavasour, who bore the same Christian name as Lady Tresham, and may have been her god-daughter, became "gentlewoman without livery" at ?5 yearly to Lady Monteagle, who was Lady Tresham's daughter. Both George Vavasour and his brother William were confidentially employed by Francis Tresham as amanuenses, where secrecy was necessary in transcribing religious or political treatises, such as were then circulated amongst Roman Catholics, and, being treasonable, dared not be printed.

On December 1, 1605, the Attorney-General, while investigating the conspiracy, obtained two MS. volumes which had been found in George Vavasour's chambers in the Inner Temple. One, officially described as a "quarto" volume, though an octavo , entitled "A Treatise against Lying," was stated by George Vavasour, on examination to have been lent him by Francis Tresham to copy, and the copy he had made was contained in the folio, the other MS. found. He denied any knowledge of the handwriting in the "quarto" volume, except that he had recopied the last page , in order to replace a torn leaf, bearing in Latin the Imprimatur of George Blackwell, Archpriest of the English Jesuits. William Tresham , on being examined by Coke, said that he thought the "quarto" MS. was in William Vavasour's handwriting, who was formerly his father's servant, and since serving his eldest brother in the Tower. William Tresham may have seen Vavasour so employed at home and would know his writing; while George Vavasour might not wish to bring his brother into question. The folio MS. has disappeared, but the "quarto" copy, as ascribed to William Vavasour, is now with Archbishop Laud's MSS. in the Bodleian Library, and was published in 1851.

George Vavasour's handwriting upon the last leaf of the MS. shows a much more refined and educated hand than his brother's, from which the writing is in every respect different. A small "s" is invariably used in commencing a word with that letter; the "t's " are quite different; the "w" finishes with an inner, not an outer loop; the "g's" have no flat tops; and the "hangers" of the "h's" do not descend below the line. The writing is evidently an educated hand for the time, and cannot readily be imagined as using small "i's" for the first person, such as are used in, and seem to accord so well with, the much less educated handwriting of the warning letter.

FOOTNOTES:

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet