No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 June 2012
I have read with much interest the letters of Thomas Winter and Lord Mounteagle, communicated by Mr. Bruce to the Society of Antiquaries in February last; and as I hesitate to adopt the conclusion which that gentleman deduces from the latter of the two letters, I venture to submit a few observations upon the subject to the consideration of the Society.
page 81 note a I have no doubt of the genuineness of this letter, having carefully compared the elaborate signature with Lord Mounteagle's signature to his confession relating to the Essex conspiracy, which is at the State Paper Office.
page 82 note b State Paper Office.
page 82 note c Greenway's MS, p. 60.
page 82 note d Thomas Winter's Confession, 23 November 1605, as published in “The Gunpowder Treason,” p. 57, edit. 1679.
page 82 note e Ibid. p. 52.
page 85 note f Camdeni Epistolæ, p. 349.
page 85 note g Lord Mounteagle was at that time in the Tower, on account of his participation in the insurrection of the Earl of Essex.
page 86 note h Dod, in his Church History, vol. ii. p 380, says that “Gloucester Hall (now Worcester College) was a house very much suspected for their inclination towards the old religion, several of the sojourners there being privately of that communion.”—In Fullman's MSS. at Corpus Christi College, vol. ii. are some notes relating to the conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot, and among them is this memorandum: “Catesby born (at Lapworth, I suppose,) in Warwickshire, about 1573; of Gloucester Hall in Oxford, October 27, 1586. Ætat. 14.”—As to Francis Tresham, see Wood's Ath. Ox. vol. i. p. 754, edit. Bliss, where he is mentioned as being probably of Gloucester Hall.
page 86 note i P. 368.
page 87 note j Examination of Robert Askew, 6 November 1605. State Paper Office.
page 87 note k State Paper Office.
page 87 note l Examination of William Ellis, 21 November 1605. State Paper Office.
page 88 note m These facts I take from a muniment book containing copies of Court Rolls and Deeds belonging to the present possessor of Lypiat.
page 89 note n See the pedigree in Nash's History of Worcestershire, vol. i. p. 452.
page 89 note o In the parish register of Chastleton is the following entry in 1595, “Robert Catesbie, the son of Robert Catesbie, was buried the 11th day of November.” This was probably an infant son of the conspirator. The following note from Thomas Winter to his brother-in-law, John Grant, relates to a somewhat later period, and seems to show that Catesby was then also residing at Chastleton.
“If I may, with my sister's good leave, lett me entreat you, brother, to come over Saterday next to us at Chastelton, I can assur you of kind welcome, and your acquaintance with my cosin Catsby will nothing repent you. I could wish Doll heare, but our liffe is monasticall, without women. Commend me to your mother. And so a Dio!
Di T. S.
“Bring with you my Ragione di Statto. Osservmo
“THO. WINTOUR.”
The book here referred to was apolitical treatise, entitled “Delia Ragione di Stato,” then lately published by Giovanni Botero at Venice, and much read by the Catholics of that day; and the lady mentioned so familiarly was Grant's wife, Dorothea, who was a sister of Winter's.
page 90 note P I have not sufficient knowledge of the domestic family at Lypiat to justify me in seriously advancing the somewhat fanciful conjecture of a very learned and ingenious person, that the “watery nimpes “alluded to in the letter of Lord Mounteagle were the ladies of the house,—the “frogs,” from the well-known and very ancient corruption of Throckmorton into Frogmorton. After all, however, Cowper's playful appellation of his friend may not have been original.
page 90 note q There was a John Throckmorton, who calls Catesby and Tresham his “cosins,” and who, by means of the Howard family, negociated the pardons of both of them for the Essex treason. I have in my possession a curious letter from this person to Sir Thomas Tresham, detailing the course of his negociation with the Government through Lady Katharine Howard for Francis Tresham's discharge on that occasion. If this person was the possessor of Lypiat, his intimacy with the Earls of Suffolk and Nottingham might shelter him from suspicion, or even point to a conjecture that he was employed as a spy. I am not, however, aware of any proof that he was the same person.
page 92 note q Gunpowder Treason, pp. 41, 54.
page 92 note r Ibid. p. 47.
page 92 note s Camdeni Epistolæ, p. 347.
page 92 note t Lodge's Illustrations, vol. iii. p. 120.
page 92 note u The substance of these Breves is stated in two examinations of Garnet, dated on the 14th and 26th of March 1606, and now in the State Paper Office. See also Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 277–8.
page 93 note x The fact of the communication of these Breves to Mounteagle is contained in a remarkable confession of Garnet, which, in common with many other documents affecting Mounteagle, has disappeared from the State Paper Office, but is to be found at Hatfield. It is dated the 27th of March 1606, the day before his trial. I take it from some copies of Hatfield Papers in the Additional MSS. at the British Museum, No. 6178, p. 753.
“Garnet's Confession in his own hand.
“Mr. Tressam saw the Breves about the time that the going into Spaine was treating, that is, about Candlemass in the year before the Queen died. Mr. Percy saw them immediately before his going into Scotland the last time before the death of the Queen. As far as I can remember, Mr. Catesby did shew them to my Lo. Mounteagle at the same time when Mr. Tressam was with him at White Webbs, 27° Martii.
“HENRY GARNETT.”
page 93 note y Preamble to Stat. 3 Jac. I. c. 2. In the original draft of this Statute at the State Paper Office, the consultations for this conspiracy are stated to have taken place in February 44 Eliz. (1602), though in the printed Statute the date given is June in the same year.
page 94 note z Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 69.