The Identification of the Writer of the Anonymous Letter to Lord Monteagle in 1605 Part 2

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.[31] The King was privately present, and there was a most distinguished a.s.sembly of amba.s.sadors, n.o.bility, 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 d.a.m.nable"[32] 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.[33]

c.o.ke, who it will be remembered was the most eminent counsel and the greatest jurist of the time, however desirous he would be of bringing to light everything connected with such a treason upon the occasion, would scarcely, as legally representing the Crown in his capacity of the King's Attorney-General, express so extremely damaging an opinion without sufficient reason. There is something in his mind concerning Vavasour,[34] respecting whom he is not satisfied; and it can only be Vavasour's having written, not the letter to Salisbury--as that could not possibly implicate him, nor render him "deeply guilty" in a treason _which had been discovered and ended six weeks before the letter to Salisbury was written_--but that other and most treasonable letter to Monteagle, for there was nothing else against him in the matter.[35]

c.o.ke evidently knows, or suspects, that Vavasour wrote the warning letter; and he cannot understand why he is not brought to trial.[36] He therefore expresses his opinion of Vavasour's guilt as strongly as possible, and even describes him with what for an Attorney-General in ordinary circ.u.mstances would be a singular redundancy of legal expression, as being "deeply guilty" in the treason.[37] No one would know better than the Attorney-General that in high treason itself the law makes no distinction whatever of degrees of guilt, nor can there even be an accessory: once partic.i.p.ant, whatever the part played may be, all alike are princ.i.p.als.

c.o.ke'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.[38] 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"[39]--yet he was not even brought to trial, while other serving-men were tried and executed.[40]

It is questionable whether Salisbury, unless agreeing with c.o.ke'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;[41] 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.

Without, however, a.s.suming too advanced ideas of justice for the time, it is unlikely that so capable a person as Salisbury appears to have been,[42] could fail to perceive that the publication of the Attorney-General's opinion of Vavasour's guilt must, in the absence of any prosecution, call attention to Vavasour, and thus furnish a clue to the writer of the letter. Salisbury, though generally fair-minded, might not trouble himself about Vavasour's reputation, but he would about his own, which would be affected by his failure, after his strongly expressed determination, in bringing to justice ALL who were concerned in such a treason; and this would still apply, even if c.o.ke's published allusion to Vavasour's guilt was merely counsel's rhetoric. c.o.ke, however, at the moment when making that allusion, was not declaiming upon the treason, but simply stating a fact about Tresham, with the King listening; and in alluding to Vavasour, he expresses what is in his mind--"_whom I think deeply guilty in this treason_": evidently his deliberate opinion, which he would have every opportunity of forming, as, with the exception of Salisbury and the conspirators, he would know more of the workings of the plot than anyone. Salisbury's chief concern, apparently, was at all costs to keep Vavasour silent, which he did; while his anxiety "to leave the further judgment indefinite" respecting the writer of the letter, plainly shows that the matter would not bear inquiry.

The only possible conclusion, therefore, is that Vavasour wrote the anonymous letter to Lord Monteagle, which the ident.i.ty of the handwriting absolutely confirms.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 31: "My Sovereign determined that your trial should be in this honourable a.s.sembly. For who is Garnet that he should be called hither, or we should trouble ourselves in this Court with him? which I protest were sufficient for the greatest Cardinal in Rome, if in this case he should be tried. No, Mr. Garnet, it is not for your cause that you are called hither, but to testify to the world the foulness of your fact, the errors of your religion," etc. Lord Salisbury's Speech at the Trial.

(Gerard). When at the trial, rebuking Garnet for untruthfulness in his previous examination before the Council, Salisbury said: "You stiffly denied it upon your soul, reiterating it with so many detestable execrations, _as our hair stood upright_" (Jardine).]

[Footnote 32: The Act for the Attainder of the Conspirators ("Statutes of the Realm," 3 James I., c. 2). c.o.ke himself characterized the treason at the trial as "beyond all examples, whether in fact or fiction, even of the tragic poets who did beat their wits to represent the most fearful and horrible murders." And in the prayer to be used in the Anniversary Service for the Fifth of November it is described as having been attempted "in a most barbarous and savage manner, beyond the examples of former ages. From this unnatural conspiracy, not our merit, but Thy mercy; not our foresight, but Thy providence, delivered us,"

etc.]

[Footnote 33: In the previous century, in a case where a more severe penalty was desired to be inflicted, the offender was, by Act of Parliament, publicly _boiled alive_ ("Statutes of the Realm," 22 Henry VIII., c. 9).]

[Footnote 34: c.o.ke worked hard for some months in thoroughly preparing the evidence for the trial, so that little would escape him. As he wrote to Salisbury: "If your lords.h.i.+p knew what pains have been taken herein, your lords.h.i.+p would pity the old attorney" (Hatfield MSS.).]

[Footnote 35: Vavasour's falsehood respecting Mrs. Tresham had nothing to do with the treason. c.o.ke seems to mention Vavasour's guilt as if antecedent to the writing of the letter to Salisbury.]

[Footnote 36: This work is merely the identification of the writer of the anonymous letter only, and makes no attempt to answer the much more difficult question of what the arrangement was between Salisbury and Monteagle, or between Monteagle and Tresham, respecting the sending of the letter; but with regard to c.o.ke, it is unlikely, from what is known of their intercourse and their frequent differences in court, that he would be admitted to any particular confidence with Salisbury in the matter.]

[Footnote 37: Vavasour's concealment of guilty knowledge as the writer of the warning letter would probably be only misprision of treason, unless c.o.ke knew or suspected that he was directly concerned in the treason.]

[Footnote 38: The present writer does not owe the identification to that clue, which was not met with until after Vavasour had been identified as the writer of the letter.]

[Footnote 39: Letter to the Earl of Dunfermline, Lord Chancellor of Scotland. December 1, 1605 ("State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvii.

2). Salisbury was created K.G. with almost regal pomp for his services in the matter. "Tuesday the 20th of May (1606), at Windsor, were installed Knights of the Garter, Robert, Earl of Salisbury, who set forward from his house in the Strand, being almost as honourably accompanied and with as great train of lords, knights, gentlemen, and officers of the Court, with others besides his peculiar servants very richly attired, and bravely mounted, as was the King when he rid in state through London" (Stowe's "Annals," 1615, p. 883).]

[Footnote 40: Bates, Catesby's serving-man, at London; others in the country.]

[Footnote 41: Although known as the "King's book," the report of the trial was evidently compiled by Salisbury and corrected by the King.]

[Footnote 42: Salisbury's statesmans.h.i.+p is evinced by the advice he wrote to James (I.) when King of Scotland, and impatiently awaiting Queen Elizabeth's demise: "Your best approach towards your greatest end, is by your Majesty's clear and temperate courses, to secure the heart of the highest, to whose s.e.x and quality nothing is so improper as either needless expostulations, or over much curiosity in her own actions. The first showing unquietness in yourself; the second challenging some untimely interest in hers; both which, as they are best forborne when there is no cause, so be it far from me (if there shall be cause), to persuade you to receive wrongs and be silent" ("Secret Correspondence,"

Camden Society, 1860, p. 7).]

V

FRANCIS TRESHAM'S CONFIDENCE WHEN IN THE TOWER

Upon Tresham's death in the Tower (December 23, 1605), 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."[43] 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 circ.u.mstances 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,[44] any more than was done to his "deeply guilty" servant Vavasour.

Tresham, though dreading, as he said, "the infamous brand of an accuser,"[45] 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:

[Footnote 43: "State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvii. 58.]

[Footnote 44: He left no male issue, and was succeeded in the family property by his next brother Lewis, who was created a baronet June 29, 1611, one of the second batch of baronets made on the inst.i.tution of that Order the previous May 22 by James I.]

[Footnote 45: "State Papers, Domestic," James I., xvi. 63.]

VI

THE VAVASOURS AS DEPENDANTS OF THE TRESHAM FAMILY

The Tresham Papers[46] 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,[47] 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."[48] He was accordingly admitted to the Inner Temple in November of that year,[49] where Lewis Tresham (Sir Thomas's second son) had been admitted the previous November, and to whom there is an allusion of George Vavasour acting as tutor.[50] 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,[51] but appears to have held a similar or superior position with Sir Thomas, to that which Bates, who kept his own man,[52] held with Catesby, a kind of secretary-valet of the time.[53] 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 (then uncommon) Christian name as Lady Tresham, and may have been her G.o.d-daughter, became "gentlewoman without livery" at 5 yearly[54] 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 (8-1/4 x 5-3/4), ent.i.tled "A Treatise against Lying,"[55] was stated by George Vavasour, on examination[56] to have been lent him by Francis Tresham to copy,[57]

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 (61), in order to replace a torn leaf, bearing in Latin the Imprimatur of George Blackwell, Archpriest of the English Jesuits. William Tresham (Francis Tresham's youngest brother), on being examined by c.o.ke, 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.[58] 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. (No. 655) in the Bodleian Library, and was published in 1851.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FACSIMILE No. 1.

The anonymous letter as delivered to Lord Monteagle, October 26, 1605, warning him not to attend the opening of Parliament appointed for the Fifth of November. (From the original letter in the Museum of the Public Record Office.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FACSIMILE No. 2.

A page of the MS. int.i.tled "A Treatise against Lying, &c.", formerly belonging to Francis Tresham, of which the handwriting was attributed by his brother, William Tresham, to William Vavasour. Now in the Bodleian Library. (Laud MSS. 655, folio 44.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FACSIMILE No. 3.

William Vavasour's handwriting in the letter to the Earl of Salisbury, dictated and signed by Francis Tresham, when dying in the Tower.

December 22, 1605. (State Papers, Domestic. James I. ccxvi. 211.)

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.]