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: 16 September 2015
The details of the Gunpowder Plot of November 1605 are well known. This article deals with one of the consequences of the failure of that Plot, the search at Hindlip, Worcestershire, in January 1606, and the sequel to that, as related by the man whose house at Hindlip was searched. It is now generally accepted that Fr. Henry Garnet, the Jesuit Superior, was aware of the Plot from information acquired in confession. The Jesuit Fr. Oswald Tesimond seems certainly to have been privy to the Plot. The authorities, determined to implicate the Jesuits, issued a proclamation against three Jesuits—Garnet, Tesimond and Fr. John Gerard (who was not privy to the Plot)—on 15 January 1605–6. Garnet was in hiding at Hindlip House, a house near Worcester belonging to Thomas Habington, from early December. The house had a large number of secret hiding places. It was searched in January 1606 by a local magistrate, Sir Henry Bromley of Holt, and Garnet, Fr. Edward Oldcorne alias Hall, S. J., and the Jesuit lay brothers Nicholas Owen (who had probably built most of the hides in the house) and Ralph Ashley were discovered. Three of them were later executed; Owen died in the Tower as the result of the torture to which he had been subjected.
I am most grateful to Clive Beardsmore and Michael Hodgetts for help with this article.
1 Of the many modern works on the Gunpowder Plot I have found Paul Durst, Intended Treason: What really happened in the Gunwpoder Plot (1970), and Antonia Fraser, The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605 (1996) particularly useful.
2 For the search at Hindlip the main sources are BL, Harleian MS 360, ff. 100r-101v, and John Gerard’s account, printed in Morris, John, The Condition of Catholics under James I: Father Gerard’s Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot (2nd edn., 1872)Google Scholar. Gerard’s account of what happened at Hindlip is unreliable, particularly as regards dates, and the reason for, and length of, the search, and is generally at variance with Harleian MS 360 and also with Habington’s Account. The majority, however, of modern accounts of the search at Hindlip follow Gerard.
3 HMC, 1st Report, Appendix 1.53b.
4 On Thomas Habington see DNB; Wood, Anthony, Athenae Oxonienses (ed. Bliss, 1817) 3. 222–5Google Scholar; Humphreys, John, ‘The Habingtons of Hindlip and the Gunpowder Plot’ in Studies in Worcestershire History (1938), pp. 67–86 Google Scholar; and Amphlett’s, John Introduction to Habington’s Survey of Worcestershire (Worcs. Hist. Soc, 1895–99)Google Scholar.
5 The Hindlip House built by Habington’s father John, Queen Elizabeth’s Cofferer, was pulled down early in the nineteenth century. The present Hall, which replaced it, is the headquarters of the West Mercia Police Authority.
6 Nash, T. R., Collections for the History of Worcestershire (1781-2) 1. p. 585 Google Scholar.
7 Ibidem. Supplement (1799), p. 70.
8 On Habington’s ‘Survey’ and its subsequent fate see Amphlett, op. cit. in note 4; for his supposed confinement within Worcestershire see Gilbert, C. D., ‘Thomas Habington after the Gunpowder Plot’ in Midland Catholic History 2 (1992), pp. 37–41 Google Scholar.
9 ‘he being concerned in it’ is highly misleading. There is no reason to think that Habington had any knowledge of the Plot (though it cannot be proved that he did not); when Fr. Oswald Tesimond came on the evening of 6 November from Huddington Court to Hindlip to urge Habington, his chaplain Edward Oldcorne, and members of the Habington household to join the conspirators, Habington refused and forbade members of his household so to do. See Gunpowder Plot Book (GPB), no. 197 (examination of Oldcorne). The claim that Habington wrote the account for inclusion in his ‘Survey’ is implausible, if only on account of its length.
10 Habington’s date of 4 December (St. Barbara’s day) agrees with that eventually given by Garnet, Nicholas Owen and Oldcorne under interrogation (SP 14/216). Garnet came to Hindlip from Coughton Court, Warwickshire.
11 On Richard Blount see DNB. From c. 1599 he lived quietly at the house of an unknown woman in London. See Hodgetts, Michael, Secret Hiding Places (1989), p. 106 Google Scholar. Previously Fr. Blount had been in hiding at Scotney Castle, Kent. Habington’s use of the past tense ‘wished’ is puzzling. Perhaps this question was put to him during his examinations in the Tower. Anne Vaux was the devoted friend of Garnet who had been his housekeeper at White Webbs, the Jesuit house near London. She was certainly at Hindlip on 20 January 1605–6, and thereafter, possibly not under her own name.
12 What Habington says here about his visit to Shropshire should be compared with his examination, taken on 26 February 1605–6 (P.R.O., GPB no. 191). The two versions tally for the most part, except as to the reason why he went to Shropshire. There is no mention in GPB no. 191 of Mr. Collins, nor is it known who this person was. William Gatacre of Gatacre in Claverley (d. 1615) was a prominent Shropshire recusant, and belonged to a staunchly Catholic family. Worcs. Recusant 1 (1963), p. 21 has a reference to his grandfather (?) with whom the ‘massing priest’, John Felton occasionally stayed. Gatacre is about ten miles from Pepperhill, the Shropshire residence of the influential recusant John Talbot of Grafton. Mr. Appletree was Talbot’s steward there.
13 William Colles of Hallow Park is a known Worcestershire recusant. See Recusant Roll, J593–4 (Catholic Record Society, 57 (1965)), p. 194 Google Scholar. Hallow is only a short distance from Hindlip (the Habingtons lived at Hallow Park in Elizabeth’s reign). Given the warning that the priests and lay brothers were given, it is surprising that they were, to an extent, caught unawares, and that the one hide (used by Garnet and Oldcorne) had not been cleared of ‘books and furniture’, and the other (used by Owen and Ashley) not been stocked with food; and that there were various suspicious items (including the letter) which Bromley was allowed to find.
14 ‘Mr. Lister’ is the Jesuit Thomas Lister alias Butler, on whom see Hodgetts, Michael in Recusant History 12 (1974), pp. 193–4Google Scholar. He was priest to Habington’s sister Dorothy, who may have left Hindlip at the same time as Lister.
15 Richard Fullwood was one of the men (including Hugh Sheldon, Ralph Ashley and Nicholas Owen) employed by the Jesuits in various responsible capacities. He was Garnet’s main financial agent, and even after the capture of Garnet the authorities offered large rewards for his apprehension.
16 ‘Mr Taylor’ probably lived in the Franche area of Kidderminster parish. He certainly belonged to what was one of the few Catholic families of Kidderminster. See Worcs. Recusant 47 (1986), pp. 34 Google Scholar: the agent Richard Bub reported in 1607 that he had known for five years a priest called Taylor who lived with ‘Mr. Taylor, a Londoner who . . . came hither to dwell, with whom the said Taylor the preist liveth as a servingman.’ Sir Henry Bromley’s letter to Salisbury of 15 January makes it clear that he had decided on the ‘search of three or four houses at one instant’ (HMC, Salisbury Papers xviii, p. 19). One of these was presumably Mr. Taylor’s house in Kidderminster.
17 Habington’s account agrees with Bromley’s letters to Salisbury and the Harleian MS in indicating an eight-day search before the priests were found, not the eleven-day or twelve-day search suggested by Gerard. The search of the house continued till 30 January, when Bromley abandoned it. The magistrate who had charge of Habington was John Fleet alias Wallesgrove of Hallow. Bromley praised him in his letter to Salisbury of 30 January, stating also that he deserved to be ‘protected from the insolency of Habington and others.’ See also Fleet’s letter to Salisbury of 30 January (SP 14/18/52.1). On this man see Studies in Worcestershire Local History (1999), pp. 5–6.
18 Habington’s Account gives no clue as to where the hide was which contained Garnet and Oldcorne (on the hides see Michael Hodgetts in Recusant History 12 (1973–4), pp. 184–97). It does, however, fail to support those, such as John Humphreys (see note 4), who have claimed that the priests gave themselves up and were not discovered. Garnet’s letter to Anne Vaux of 4 March, which has been held to suggest this, seems to have been misunderstood. See Anstruther, G., Vaux of Harrowden: a Recusant Family (1953), pp. 356–7Google Scholar, and PRO, SP 14/19/11, which refers to ‘the fellow that found us ... we bade them be quiet and we would come forth.’
19 It has not hitherto been certain that Habington was taken to the Fleet; he certainly wrote two letters from the Fleet, to the Lords of the Council and to Lord Salisbury (SP 14/19/91 and GPB, no. 238).
20 The two ‘most Skilfull men’ were Edward Forsett (Fawcett) and John Locherson. Garnet’s perfidious keeper was called Carey.
21 Habington’s servant was William Glandish. On 24 March (GPB, no. 208) Attorney-General Coke wrote to Lord Salisbury that ‘. . . Glandish, Mr. Habington’s man, hath confessed the whole truth and what plot was laid to have excused his master and now it appeareth what a great pretender Mr. Habington is; his examination also we have taken this morning . . . the . . . plot to excuse him was not before this time known.’ Neither the examination of Glandish nor that of Habington has survived.
22 Ralph Ashley (Thomas Habington used the form ‘Astley’) alias George Chambers was a Jesuit lay brother who acted as a servant to Fr. Edward Oldcorne. In earlier days, when he worked as a cook, he was associated with Fr. Tesimond. He and Owen were in a separate hide at Hindlip, but came out on Thursday 23 March, ‘for hunger and cold’, according to Bromley (SP 14/18/38).
23 This is a reference to Habington’s examination of 24 March. The Lord Chief Justice was Sir John Popham.
24 Habington’s Account does not mention the fact that he and the others were transferred to Newgate on 26 March, preparatory to being conveyed to Worcester. See The Letters of John Chamberlain (ed. McClure, N. E., 1939), i. 218 Google Scholar. In Worcester he was lodged in the Castle gaol. On the Castle see Beardsmore, Clive in Transactions of the Worcs. Arch. Soc. vii (1980), pp. 55 Google Scholarf.
25 It is now generally accepted that Garnet was tortured on at least one occasion. See the discussion in Antonia Fraser, The Gunpowder Plot, pp. 250–2, and in Caraman, Philip, Henry Garnet, 1555–1606, and the Gunpowder Plot (1964), pp. 371–5Google Scholar. Manacling was a recognised form of torture, whereby the prisoner could be left dangling for several hours in iron gauntlets which could be tightened (Fraser, p. 178).
26 Yelverton belonged to the family of the Yelvertons of Grimston in Norfolk, some of whom were Catholics. Gerard, however, calls the judge a leading Calvinist. See The Autobiography of an Elizabethan (ed. Caraman, P., 1951), pp. 15fGoogle Scholar. The attempt by Yelverton to bargain with Habington was previously unknown.
27 For William Parker, Lord Monteagle, see DNB, and H. H. Spink, The Gunpowder Plot and Lord Mounteagle’s Letter (1902). Gerard (‘Narrative’, p. 267) says that Habington owed his reprieve to Monteagle, but Habington’s own Account provides the first, as it were, hard evidence. Monteagle was the brother of Mary, Habington’s wife. Mary Habington has been claimed as the authoress of the famous letter to Lord Monteagle. See, however, Fraser, pp. 153—4.
28 Philip Caraman, Henry Garnet, 1555–1606, and the Gunpowder Plot states (p. 335) that Habington returned on 20 January ‘after several weeks’ absence,’ and (p. 336) that he ‘had no reason to know that Garnet, or even Oldcorne, was in hiding.’ Even Antonia Fraser (p. 214) writes: ‘As it happened, Thomas Habington was absent from Hindlip on business when Bromley arrived.’ In fact Habington must have had a rough idea of when the search was likely to occur and timed his Shropshire visit accordingly.