Chapter LXXIII (2)

Fourscore and ten several households where the man or wife or both are recusants, besides children and servants.

SUPPLEMENTUM III.

THOMAS WARD.

It is probable that diligent search among the Cecil and Walsingham papers will shed more light on Thomas Ward (or Warde) than I have been able hitherto to gain.

The probabilities are, as has been already indicated, that Thomas Ward was a younger son of Marmaduke Ward, of Newby, and Susannay, his wife. That Marmaduke Ward’s elder son was Marmaduke Ward (who married Ursula Wright, and afterwards, in all likelihood, Elizabeth Sympson), the father of that extraordinary woman, Mary Ward.

I opine that Thomas Ward attached himself to the Court party of Queen Elizabeth, through the Council of the North, established by Henry VIII. after the defeat of the first Pilgrimage of Grace (1536).

Thomas Ward was just the sort of man (_me judice_) that Queen Elizabeth would affect. Moreover, I find that a Captain John Ward was on the side of the Crown on the occasion of the second Pilgrimage of Grace, commonly called the Rising of the North, or the Earls’ Rebellion (1569).

Therefore, through the influence of a man like Sir Ralph Sadler, who was a distinguished Privy Councillor of the Queen in the northern parts, a Yorkshire gentleman, such as a Ward, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, would have no difficulty in obtaining an _entrée_ at Elizabeth’s Court, who, as is well known, was, from a certain English conservative instinct probably, favourably inclined to those Catholics whose leaning was towards the easy side of things.[A]

[Footnote A: See “_Sir Ralph Sadler’s Papers_,” Ed. by Sir Walter Scott. It is observable that although the Nortons and the Markenfields were for the Earls, yet members of the following Yorkshire Catholic Families (many of them kinsmen of the Wards) were for the Queen, who was not then excommunicated:——The Eures, the Mallories, the Inglebies, the Constables, the Tempests, the Fairfaxes, the Cholmeleys, the Ellerkers, and the Wilstroppes.

For these Families and their alliances see the “_Visitations of Yorkshire_,” by Glover, Ed. by Foster; and by Flower, Ed. by Norcliffe. Also “_Dugdale_” (Surtees).]

Now, if Thomas Ward became a member of Elizabeth’s diplomatic service under Sir Francis Walsingham, the inevitable question arises: Can Thomas Ward (or Warde) have always maintained a conscience void of offence, or did he sometimes stoop to compliances which were unworthy of his principles and name?

At present I cannot say, yet I am constrained to allow that the following two pieces of evidence afford curious reading and suggest many possibilities:——

HATFIELD MSS.——Part VI., p. 96.

Thomas Morgan to Mary Queen of Scots.

1585, Mar. 30./Ap. 9. Informs her of his apprehension at the request of the Earl of Derby. Mr. Ward’s negotiation to procure his being delivered up into England. Requires her support. Lord Paget’s money taken in his (Morgan’s) lodging. Efforts of Charles Paget and Thomas Throgmorton in his behalf.

[It is to be recollected that this said Thomas Morgan was a Catholic of a sort, who had been in the service of Archbishop Young, of York. Hence, a Ward, of Ripon and York, was the very man the subtle Walsingham would employ to negotiate a delicate matter requiring an accurate knowledge of Morgan’s intellectual and moral characteristics; for Ward most likely had known Morgan at York.]

* * * * *

Thirteen years later we find the name “Ward” again in the “_Hatfield MSS._”

HATFIELD MSS.——Part VIII., p. 295.

1598 Aug. 4. Steven Rodwey to secretary Cecil for permission to go to Italy to go over to accompany M^{r} Paget into Italy.

“The disgrace with your Honour I suspect to proceed, either of Lord Cobham’s disfavour at another man’s suit, which I have not deserved; or by the suggestion of _Ward_ M^{r} Paget’s, solicitor, because I refused to carry his[A] letters that was so lately “jested” with high treason, and might father all the faults I am charged with.”

[Footnote A: Whose letters? Paget’s or Ward’s?]

[Who or what Mr. Steven Rodwey was, one can only surmise. Possibly he was a spy, who had been doing more business on his own account than on account of his master. Hence, his disgrace with “his Honour.”

Charles Paget, a younger brother of Lord Paget, and his friend, Thomas Morgan, figure in all histories of Mary Queen of Scots; also in “_Cardinal Allen’s Memorials_,” Ed. by the late Dr. Knox (Nutt), there are some interesting particulars about these two men, Charles Paget and Thomas Morgan. They were hostile to Father Parsons and Parsons’ Spanish faction among the English papists.]

But here, for the present, we must take our leave of Thomas Ward, excepting to say that it is possible that he may be the same as the Thomas Ward (or Warde) who is mentioned several times in the “_Household Books of Lord William Howard_,” as his agent for the Howard-Dacre, Yorkshire, Durham, and Westmoreland estates.[A]——See Note to p. 231 _ante_.

[Footnote A: The Rev. A. S. Brooke, M.A., the Rector of Slingsby, informs me that his parish registers begin only in 1687. The late Captain Ward, R.N., of Slingsby Hall, who lies in Slingsby Churchyard, perhaps may have had some family tradition bearing on the point. It is certainly remarkable that there should have been Wards, Rectors of Slingsby, from the time of James I., and long afterwards. It suggests that Thomas Ward, the agent of Lord William Howard, may have either married again after 1590, and had a family; or else that some of the Wards, of Durham, or others that had conformed to the Established Church received this ecclesiastical preferment at the instance of Thomas Ward. Valentine Kitchingman, Esquire, the grandson of Captain Ward, and owner of Slingsby Hall, has, however, no such tradition. (I am told through the Rector of Slingsby, September, 1901.)]

The Right Honourable Charles James Howard ninth Earl of Carlisle, in the course of two most gracious replies to letters of mine, informs me that, although he has caused search to be made at Naworth and Castle Howard, he has not been able to find any particulars concerning Thomas Ward (or Warde) beyond what are mentioned in the “_Household Books of Lord William Howard_” (Surtees Soc.); and that probably, owing to the fire at Hinderskelfe Castle, after the time of Thomas Ward, letters or papers containing possible reference to him may have been destroyed.

Lastly; I beg to bring before my readers the following document from the Record Office, which makes mention of the name Ward; but whether or not that of Thomas Ward, of Mulwith, in the Parish of Ripon, I cannot say:——

STATE PAPERS DOMESTIC——ELIZ., Vol. ccxxxviii., 126 I.
A. D. 1591.

Obiections against one Fletcher vicar of Clarkenwell for the
permission of these maters followinge

Fyrst at conveniente tymes of receivinge the holye communion at which time he is to give warninge to all his parishioners for his privat comoditye he excepteth sume particuler persones whose names are under written and of them taketh money.

M^{r} Wardes[A] Two daughters.

M^{r} Gerrat his wiffe a watinge mayde called M^{ris} Marye and a man called Anthenie recevinge of him for theire absence divers somes of money and in my knowledge at Easter was Twoo yeares the some of xx^{s} in goulde.

M^{r} Saunders and his Two Sonnes certen unknowne money.

Besides M^{ris} Gerrat being delivered of a doughter aboute Twoe yeares since he did forbeare to cristen yt beinge bribed with a peece of money ye Chillde being Cristned in the house, by a priest and she churched by th’ afforsaide preist being knowne to this Fletcher.

[Footnote A: What Mr. Warde can this have been? Not Thomas Ward (or Warde), of Mulwith, I think. For the presumption is that he had no children, for none are registered at Ripon Minster; and Thomas Ward was more likely to have his children christened by a Protestant minister than was his brother, Marmaduke; for the former evidently associated with Protestants much more than the latter. Moreover, in 1591 any daughters that Thomas Warde had can have been only about nine or ten years of age. His wife died the previous year, 1590. (Still it may have been.)]

* * * * *

Norris and Watson persevantes have been divers times latly in ye closse and Norris hath receved in ye way of borrowinge of sume V^{s} of others more. But Watson by vertue of a comission from my L. of Cant. hath latly serched Gerates house and M^{r} Wardes where he found nothinge at all they being partly privie before of his cominge. But in M^{r} Wardes house theire did latly remayne hidden under ye higest place of ye stares within a nayled boarde divers bookes [not specified] pictures and other folishe serimonyes.

Orders amungst ye papistes for ye releyse aswell of prisoners as
of ye porer sorte at libertye.

Yt is an order amungst ye papistes for ye releyse of prisoners aswell Jesuytes as Laymen that there be a generall colleccion which beginneth at ye L. Mountegue and so by degree to ye meaner sorte for ye maytenance of three prisones in London, viz. the Klinke, the Marshallseas and Newgate which cesseth not tyll ye some of a hundred and ffyftye poundes be gathered quarterly which somme is sente by some trustye messinger to London where yt is comitted to dyvers mens handes apoynted by the cheyfe and from them to ye foresayde prysones.

Yt is further ordered for ye porer sorte of them beinge at libertie to have theire dyett at several houses kepinge certen dayes for theyre repayre to evereye house with certen money allowed to everye one at ye wekes end And yf any recusante dye a piece of money is bequeathed to ye porest sorte to saye dirge for theire sowles for a xii moneth to be payde weklye both to men and women tyll this money be spente And thus they lyve untyll ye lyke comoditye fall agayne.

per me Robartum Weston.
(Endorsed) 20 April. Robert Weston.

[On p. 76 of Text, in Note 1 at foot of page, it is stated that the first Lord Mounteagle’s mother was Lady Eleanor Neville, sister to Richard Neville, the King-maker. But I find that, under “Stanley,” in Flower’s “_Visitation of Yorkshire_,” Ed. by Norcliffe (Harleian Soc.), _the great grandfather_ of Edward Stanley first Lord Mounteagle, namely, Thomas Lord Stanley, is said to have married Eleanor, daughter to Richard Nevell Earl of Salisbury. _Their_ son is given as George Lord Stanley; _his_ son as Thomas Stanley first Earl of Derby; and _his_ son as Edward Stanley first Lord Mounteagle, who married Elizabeth Lady Grey, daughter of Sir Thomas Vaughan, and whose son was Thomas second Lord Mounteagle.

But the “_National Dictionary of Biography_” (under “Stanley Earl of Derby”) says that Eleanor Countess of Derby (_née_ Neville) was the _daughter_ of Warwick, the King-maker. So the “learned” must be left to determine the truth upon the point.

Again; on p. 160 of Text, in Note at foot of page, I have stated that the young Lord Vaux of Harrowden was a descendant of Sir Thomas More.

But I find that that strong-minded lady his mother, Elizabeth Dowager Lady Vaux of Harrowden, was _only distantly connected_ with Sir Thomas More. For she was descended from _Christopher_ Roper, a younger brother of William Roper, who married Margaret More.

Hence, Christopher Roper is the ancestor of the Lords Teynham, of Kent, who, I believe, conformed to the Established Church after “1715,” as did many old English papist families.]

SUPPLEMENTUM IV.

AN ACCOUNT OF A VISIT TO GIVENDALE, NEWBY, AND MULWITH,
ANCIENTLY IN THE CHAPELRY OF SKELTON, IN THE PARISH OF RIPON, IN
THE WEST RIDING OF THE COUNTY OF YORK.

On Sunday, the 22nd day of April, 1901, it fell out that the writer found himself sojourning in the good City of Ripon; a city which a few years ago, calling its friends and neighbours together, kept, amid high festival, the one thousandth anniversary of its own foundation: at Ripon, around the time-honoured towers of whose hallowed Minster abidingly cling memories, strong and gracious, of canonized Saints and beloved Apostles.[A]

[Footnote A: St. Wilfrid, Archbishop of York and Apostle of Sussex (634-709) and his friend St. Willibrord, Archbishop of Utrecht and Apostle of Holland.]

“Hail, smiling morn!” I exclaimed, on seeing at an early hour the bright sunshine stream through my chamber windows. On this day of rest and gladness will I hie me to the sites of the ancient roof-trees of those whose graves, parted by long distances of space and time, are known to-day, for the most part, no longer to Man, but to Nature merely.

Not to you and to me, gentle reader, are those graves to-day known (save with one exception), but to the verdant grass, the crimson-tipped daisy, the golden celandine, who are pre-eminently faithful watchers by the dead. For steadfastly will _they_ remain watching until the daybreak of an endless day.[A]

[Footnote A: This exception is the grave of Mary Ward, the daughter, it will be remembered, of Marmaduke Ward and Ursula Wright, and, consequently, the niece of Christopher Wright and, I maintain, of Thomas Ward, the guide, philosopher, and friend of Lord Mounteagle. Mary Ward died at the old Manor House, Heworth, on the 20th January, 1645-46, and is buried at Osbaldwick, near York, where a stone, bearing a simple but touching inscription, is still to be seen by an increasing number of her admirers, Protestant and Catholic, the former of whom have ever styled her “that good lady, Mary Ward.” The inscription on the gravestone bears out this view of this great-hearted, truly human, English gentlewoman. It runs thus: “To love the poore, persever in the same and live, dy, and rise with them was all the ayme of Mary Ward, who, having lived 60 years and 8 days, dyed the 20 of Jan., 1645.” That gravestone might also fittingly bear a second inscription, consisting of those triumphant words of victory over death: “_Credo_; _Spero_; _Amo_” (“I believe; I hope; I love”). The Rev. F. Umpleby, the Vicar of Osbaldwick, and his churchwardens guard the gravestone of Mary Ward with the most commendable care.]

Having duly paid my orisons to heaven in the ancient manner, and having broken my fast with such fare as my place of sojourning bestowed, I set out upon my quest.

I set forth alone, yet not alone; for mine was the companionship of lively historical ideas. But as soon as I had journeyed about one mile to the south-east of Ripon, I perforce came to a halt. For my footsteps, on a sudden, had been arrested by the ear being struck with that most musical of natural sounds——the sound of living, gurgling, murmuring waters.

I hearkened again, being infinitely pleasured by such natural music. And, mending my pace somewhat, soon found myself at Bridge Hewick, looking down from the parapet of the old grey bridge upon the rushing, boulder-broken, glancing waters of the Ure, which, after gladdening fruitful Wensleydale, flows through Ripon; and after skirting Givendale and Newby, and laving “the green fields of England,” in front of Mulwith, hurries on towards Boroughbridge; thence to Myton, where, by the junction of the Ure and Swale, the Ouse[A] is formed, that majestic flood, which, with broad swelling tide, flows past the towers of York, the far-famed Imperial City, whose only peer in the western world is Rome.

[Footnote A: The winding Nidd, known to St. Wilfrid and dear to St. Robert, pours itself into the Ouse at Nun Monkton, a few miles above York, and not far from historic Marston Moor.]

I say I set out upon my quest for Givendale, Newby, and Mulwith alone, yet not alone; because I had the companionship of lively historical ideas.

Thus much is true. And more: for romantic fancy conjured up visions before my mental gaze during that sunny Rest-Day morning,

“When all the secret of the spring
Moved in the chambers of the blood,”[B]

[Footnote B: Tennyson’s “In Memoriam.”]

as I traversed those fair budding country-lanes, “made vocal by the song” of a thousand warbling birds, and paradisaical

“With violets dim,
But sweeter than the lids of Juno’s eyes
Or Cytherea’s breath; pale primroses
That die unmarried, ere they can behold
Bright Phœbus in his strength.”[C]

[Footnote C: Shakespeare’s “Winter’s Tale.”——Shakespeare may have possibly known, or at least heard of, Father John Gerard, S.J., the life-long friend of Mary Ward, and the first “to English” Lorenzo Scupoli’s “_Spiritual Combat_.” Any educated Buddhist or Mohammedan British subject who wishes to understand the genius of Christianity should carefully study the “_Spiritual Combat_.” It will repay his pains.

Francis Arden, who was in the Tower of London, escaped from that prison along with Gerard during the night of 8th October, 1597. Francis Arden was probably a relative of Edward Arden, who was executed as a traitor on the 23rd December, 1583, in connection with the mysterious Somerville-Arden-Hall conspiracy against the life of Queen Elizabeth. The Shakespeares were justly proud of their connection with the Ardens, a fact which is evidenced by the well-known application of John Shakespeare (the poet’s father) to the College of Heralds for the grant of a coat-of-arms that impaled and quartered the arms of the Ardens, of Wilmcote, his wife’s family. I cannot doubt that the Ardens, of Wilmcote, Warwickshire, were of the same clan as the Ardens, of Park Hall, Warwickshire, to which family Edward Arden belonged, who was executed in 1583. To disallow the relationship of the Ardens, of Wilmcote, with the Ardens, of Park Hall (both in Warwickshire), simply because the former were less liberally endowed with worldly goods in the reign of Elizabeth than the latter, proves to demonstration that such disallowers, merely on such ground, have something yet to learn respecting the England of “Good Queen Bess”——and of every other England too.]

Yea, before my mind’s eye I seemed to behold, ever and anon, riding towards and passing me on horseback, to and fro, from east to west, and from west to east, the shadowy yet tall stately forms of Elizabethan gentlemen, in feathered hat, girded sword, and Ripon spurs; aye, and of Elizabethan gentlewomen likewise, in hooded cloak, white ruff, and pleated gown.

Sometimes the groups, methought, were accompanied by one showing a graver mien and more reverend aspect than the gentlefolk among whom he rode, although apparelled and equipped externally as they. The breviary, crucifix, and large jet rosary-beads which, in my phantasy, lay concealed within the last-named’s breast, would betoken that he was a priest of the ancient faith of the English people, although at that period one of such a vocation was, by law, counted a traitor to his sovereign.

But my day-dreams vanished: from a vivid realization of a near approach to Givendale, which was announced by a new guide-post visible to the eye of flesh. A few paces further of walking, under the boughs of noble interlacing trees, brought me by the gate leading to the dwelling-house to-day known as Givendale——that historic name. The old hall occupied a site most probably a little to the north of the present Givendale, and was surrounded by a moat. Leland, writing in the reign of Henry VIII., describes it as “a fair manor place of stone.” Lovely views does Givendale command of the valley of the Ure,[A] looking westward towards the sister valleys of the Nidd and Wharfe and Aire.

[Footnote A: Givendale, in the time of Sir Simon Ward, who lived in the reign of Edward II., was evidently the Wards’ principal seat near Ripon; for Sir Simon Ward is described as of “Givendale and Esholt.” Esholt is in the Parish of Otley. The arms of the Wards were azure, a cross patonce, or. Sir Simon Ward’s daughter, Beatrice, was married to Walter de Hawkesworth, and, through her, the Hawkesworth estate, in the Parish of Otley, between Wharfedale and Airedale, came into the ancient family of Hawkesworth (see Text _ante_). To-day, the well-known Fawkes family, of Farnley (the friends of the artist, Turner, and of his great interpreter, Ruskin), own Hawkesworth Hall, a fine, ivy-clad, antique mansion looking towards Airedale. Campion was probably harboured here in the spring of 1581, and possibly also by the Hawkesworths, of Mitton, near Clitheroe.]

A kind wayfarer, whom I chanced to meet near Givendale, pointed out to me the way to Skelton, Newby, and Mulwith.

I had to retrace from Givendale my steps for Skelton; but I soon found from a second friendly guide-post that my good friend of a few moments before had directed my eager steps aright.

The faithful following towards the south-east of the high road, running parallel with the woods of Newby on my right, brought me in due course to Skelton, a large limestone village, characteristic of that part of the West Riding of Yorkshire.

I walked down the town street of Skelton and found that the Park-gates of Newby entered from the village.

I passed, on my left, the little chapel of Skelton, standing in its grave-yard, which, rebuilt in 1812, had taken the place of the chapel where once or twice a year, “after long imprisonment,” it is probable that Marmaduke Ward——though not Elizabeth, his wife, nor Mary, nor any of his other children——“against his conscience” went to hear read the Book of Common Prayer, in order to avoid the terrible penalty of having “to pay the statute,” that is, to pay £20 per lunar month by way of fine for “popish recusancy.”[A]

[Footnote A: This would be about £160 in our money. Thirteen of these payments in one year would amount to about £2,080. Father Richard Holtby, S.J., was a friend of the Wards, and the priest who decided Mary Ward’s “vocation” in Baldwin’s Gardens, Holborn, London, after Marmaduke Ward had been released from his brief captivity in Warwickshire. (See “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vol. i., p. 89.) Holtby speaks of Mary as “my daughter Warde.” Now, Father Holtby, of Fryton, near Hovingham, has recorded that “after long imprisonment Mr. Blenkinsopp [of Helbeck, Westmoreland, no doubt], _Mr. Warde_, Mr. Trollope [of Thornley, in the County of Durham, no doubt], and Mrs. Cholmondeley [probably of Brandsby, near Easingwold], and more” were “overthrown,” which clearly means became (temporarily at least) “Schismatic Catholics,” by consenting to attend “the Protestant church.” (See Morris’s “_Troubles_,” third series, p. 76.) This would be in the years 1593-94-95, or previously. Peacock’s “_List_” for 1604, under “Ripon,” gives “Elizabeth wief of Marmaduke Ward,” _but ominously no_ Marmaduke Ward. Therefore, like his relative Sir William Wigmore, Marmaduke Ward, it is almost certain, for a time frequented his parish church (contrary to what he deemed “the highest and best”) perhaps once or twice a year. Poor fellow! he was, however, very strict in not allowing his children to do the like. (See “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vol. i., pp. 30, 31.)]

The Newby Hall of to-day, the seat of R. C. De Grey Vyner, Esquire, is a grand structure, having been designed by Sir Christopher Wren about the year 1705. In the Park is the beautiful Memorial Church, built by the late Lady Mary Vyner, in memory of her son, Frederick George Vyner, who was slain by Greek brigands in the year 1870.[B]

[Footnote B: The late Dr. Stanley delivered, in Westminster Abbey, one of his beautiful and pathetic “Laments,” after the sorrowful tidings reached England that this fine young Englishman, by a deed of violence, had passed into the world of the “Unseen Perfectness.”]

One mile from Newby is Mulwith.[A] It is reached by what evidently has been an avenue in days of yore, connecting the two manor-houses.

[Footnote A: R. C. De Grey Vyner, Esquire (brother-in-law to the Most Honourable the Marquis of Ripon, K.G., of Studley Royal, Lord Lieutenant of the North Riding of Yorkshire), to-day owns Givendale, Newby, and Mulwith. They are within about five miles of Ripon, and can be also reached from Boroughbridge.]

The old hall of Mulwith was most probably a castellated mansion, quadrangular in shape, with a Gothic chapel, gateway, drawbridge, and moat, pretty much like Markenfield Hall, near Ripon, at the present day. There was a fire at Mulwith in the year 1593, we know from the “_Life of Mary Ward_.” And it may be, that the hall was then razed to the ground and never afterwards rebuilt.[B]

[Footnote B: Mary Ward was born at Mulwith, in 1585 (see _ante_, p. 59). Among her devoted scholars, who crossed the seas either with her or to her, were Susanna Rookwood, Helena Catesby, and Elizabeth Keyes, each respectively related, closely related, to the conspirators bearing those names.——See “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vols. i. and ii.]

To-day Mulwith is a pleasant farmstead, built of brick with slated roof. It is a two-storied, six-windowed dwelling, with homestead, gardens, and orchards all adjoining.[C]

[Footnote C: My friend Mr. Renfric Oates, of Maidenhead, Berks., kindly made me, when in Harrogate (in May, 1901), a sketch of Mulwith, which I value highly. Since then a relative of his has bestowed upon me a portrait of Mary Ward herself. So I am fortunate indeed. In the “_Life of Mary Ward_,” by M. Mary Salome (Burns & Oates), the lady who so generously gifted me with a picture I can scarcely prize enough, there is a copy from the first of that remarkable series of paintings known as the Painted Life of Mary Ward, which represents Mary (then a little maiden betwixt two and three years old) toddling across the room, attired, as to her head, in a tiny close-fitting cap. This picture bears the following note in ancient German:——“‘Jesus’ was the first word of the infant, Mary, after which she did not speak for many months.” Another of the famous pictures in the Painted Life is one representing Mary, at the age of thirteen, making her first Communion, at Harewell Hall, Dacre, Nidderdale. (I visited Harewell Hall, which is still owned by the Inglebies, of Ripley, as in the days of Mary Ward, on Wednesday, the 10th April, 1901, being courteously shown round the Hall by Miss Simpson, the tenant. The River Nidd flows at the foot of this ancient, picturesque dwelling.)]

In front of Mulwith still flows, as in the ancient days, the historic waters of the Ure.[A] On almost every side the eye is gladdened with woodland patches embroidering the horizon with that “sylvan scenery which never palls.”[B]

[Footnote A: Near Newby, in February, 1869, Sir Charles Slingsby, Bart., of Scriven, when a-hunting was, with some other gentlemen, drowned in the act of crossing in a boat the River Ure, then swollen high through February floods. The event cast a profound gloom over Yorkshire for many a long day. (The writer was eight years of age when this melancholy catastrophe took place, and well does he remember the grief depicted on the faces of the good citizens of York on the morrow of that sad disaster.)]

[Footnote B: Lord Beaconsfield.]

Hence, at last I was come to my journey’s end. For I had reached Mulwith, or Mulwaith, in the Parish of Ripon, whereof “Thomas Warde” is described, who married M’gery Slater, in the Church of St. Michael-le-Belfrey, York, on the 29th day of May, 1579.

Mrs. John Hardcastle and her son most kindly conducted me round the place once more; for I had visited Mulwith about ten years previously, with my sister, then approaching it from the east.

And on that Sunday evening (April 22nd, 1901), an evening calm and bright, to the sound of sweet church bells, again I satisfied historic feeling by the recollection of the Past; the sense whereof bore down upon me with a force too strong for words, “too deep,” too high, “for tears.”

“_Many waters cannot quench Love; neither can the floods drown it._”

SUPPLEMENTUM V.

AN ACCOUNT OF A VISIT TO GREAT PLOWLAND (ANCIENTLY PLEWLAND), IN
THE PARISH OF WELWICK, HOLDERNESS, IN THE EAST RIDING OF THE
COUNTY OF YORK.

On Monday, the 6th day of May, 1901, the writer had the happiness of accomplishing a purpose he had long had in mind, namely, that of paying a visit to Great Plowland (anciently Plewland), in the Parish of Welwick, Holderness, the birthplace of John and Christopher Wright, and also of their sister, Martha Wright, who was married to Thomas Percy, of Beverley. These three East Riding Yorkshiremen have indeed writ large their names in the Book of Fate. For, as the preceding pages have shown, they were among that woeful band of thirteen who were involved, to their just undoing, in the rash and desperate enterprise, known as the Gunpowder Treason Plot, of the year 1605, the second year of the reign of James I., King of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and progenitor and predecessor of our own Most Gracious King Edward VII. Long may he reign, a crowned and sceptred Imperial Monarch: and in Justice may his house be established for ever![A]

[Footnote A: How full of happy augury for the future of our Empire was the fine speech of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, delivered in the Guildhall, London, the 5th December, 1901, shortly following on the Prince’s and His Princess’s return to Old England’s shores, after their historic sojourning, during the year 1901, in His Majesty’s loyal Dominions beyond the seas.]

The writer arrived at the town of Patrington (the post-town of Plowland) somewhat late in the afternoon. He had not been before; but he well knew that Patrington is famous, far and near, for its stately and exquisitely-beautiful church, so aptly styled “the Queen of Holderness,” the church of Hedon being “the King.”

After viewing the general features of the little town of Patrington, which, maybe, is but slightly changed since its main street was trodden by English men and English women of “the spacious days of Good Queen Bess,” I (to have recourse to the first person singular, if the liberty may be pardoned) went in search of some ancient hostelry such as wherein “Jack Wright, Kit Wright, and Tom Percy,” then in the hey-day of their youthful strength and vigour, quaffed the foaming tankard of the nut-brown ale, or called for their pint of sack, when William Shakespeare[A] was the Sir Henry Irving of his day, and was writing his immortal dramas for all Nations and all Time.

[Footnote A: The common consent of mankind ranks Shakespeare, along with Homer and Dante, as one of the world’s three Poet-Kings.]

Such a house of entertainment “for man and beast” I found in the inn bearing the time-honoured and sportsmanlike sign of the “Dog and Duck”.

On entering the portals of this ancient hostelry the historic imagination enabled me to conjure up the sight of some of the gentlemen who, three hundred years ago, must have formed the company who assembled at the “Dog and Duck;” to discuss, maybe, a threatened Spanish invasion of England’s inviolate shores; “a progress” of the great Tudor Queen; or the action of her Privy Counsellors, Lord Burleigh, Sir Francis Walsingham, the Earl of Leicester, Sir Robert Cecil, Sir Walter Raleigh, and the ill-fated Robert Devereux Earl of Essex; or, belike, to sound the praises of that model of chivalry, Sir Philip Sidney, the General Gordon, Lord Bowen, and Matthew Arnold of his day, and the darling of his countrymen for ever.

If I had to content myself with the historic imagination alone for the sight of John Wright, one of the most expert swordsmen of his time; of Christopher Wright, who was a taller man than his brother, of a closer and more peaceable disposition; and of Thomas Percy, their brother-in-law, who was agent for his cousin, the great head of the House of Percy; and also for the vision of all those high-born, courageous, but self-willed, wayward Yorkshire Elizabethan gentlemen, in their tall hat, graceful cloak,[A] and short sword girded on their side, with their tinkling falcons on their wrist, with their cross-bows and their dogs: if I had to be content with imagination alone for all this, on that Monday, the 6th day of May, 1901, I had the sight and vision in the solid reality of flesh and blood of “mine host” of the “Dog and Duck,” who bade me welcome in right cheery tones; and, in answer to my question, told me he well knew Great Plowland, in the Parish of Welwick (being a native of those parts), and ever since he was a boy he had heard tell that some of the Gunpowder plotters had been at Plowland.[B]

[Footnote A: The cloak was then one of the outward tokens of a gentleman.]

[Footnote B: It is impossible to understand Shakespeare’s characters aright except one has first made a close study of such typical Elizabethan gentlemen as the Gunpowder plotters and their friends, and of the Elizabethan Catholic gentry in general. Hence the wide value of the labours of such men as Simpson, Morris, Pollen, Knox, and Law.]

Soon was the compact made that that very evening, ere darkness came on, “mine host” should drive me to the site of where John Wright and Christopher Wright first beheld the light of the sun. (In view of the fact that the circumstantial evidence to-day available tends to prove that Christopher Wright was the repentant conspirator who revealed the Plot and so saved King James I., his Queen, and Parliament from destruction by exploded gunpowder, it may be easily conceived that I felt great eagerness to gaze on Plowland with as little delay as possible.)

A short drive brought my driver and myself within sight of the tall “rooky” trees, the blossoming orchard, the ancient gabled buildings in the background, and the handsome two-storied red-brick dwelling, all standing, on slightly rising ground, within less than a quarter of a mile from the king’s highway, which to-day are known as Great Plowland, in the Parish of Welwick, Holderness, in the East Riding of the County of York.

This, then, was the fair English landscape whereon the eyes of Christopher Wright had rested in those momentous years, from 1570 to 1580, when “the child is father of the man!” I exclaimed in spirit.

As we were entering through the gates of Plowland I made enquiry as to the name of the owner of this historic spot. I was informed that the gentleman to whom the ancestral seat of the Wrights, of Plowland, belonged resided on his own domain.

On reaching Plowland Hall (now Plowland House), Mr. George Burnham, of Plowland House, came forward, and, with frank, pleasant courtesy, never to be forgotten, assured me that I was at liberty to see the place where the two Gunpowder conspirators, John and Christopher Wright, had lived when boys.

I alighted from my vehicle, and being joined by Miss Burnham, sister to Mr. Burnham, the owner of the estate, we all three examined the evident traces of the moat, the remains of what must have been the old Gothic chapel, and certain ancient buildings and doors in the rear, which were left intact when old Plowland Hall was taken down, shortly after the middle of the nineteenth century, to make way for the present Plowland House.——See Frontispiece to this Book for picture of Plowland House.

[The Burnhams, of Plowland, are the grandchildren of the late Richard Wright, Esq., of Knaith, near Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. One of that gentleman’s descendants is _Robert Wright_ Burnham, the eldest brother to the present owner of Plowland and his sister. The name _Richard_ Wright is found in the Register of Christenings at Ripon Minster, under date 29th March, 1599, as the son of one _John_ Wright, of _Skelton_.]

After taking leave of my kind friends, the “guardians” of Great Plowland, Mr. Robert Medforth, of the “Dog and Duck” hostelry, at Patrington, drove me to Welwick. A short survey of this characteristically East Riding Yorkshire village and its grey old Gothic church in its grave-yard, where John and Christopher Wright were christened, no doubt, brought the historical travels and explorations of Monday, May 6th, 1901, to a delightful and profitable close.

“Farewell, Plowland,” I interiorly exclaimed, when I turned myself in my conveyance, for the last time, to take the one last, lingering look, “Farewell, Plowland, once the home _not only_ of those who ‘knowing the better chose the worse,’ and who, therefore, verified in themselves that law of Retribution, that eternal law of Justice, ‘_the Guilty suffer,’ but also_ once the home of some of the supremely excellent of the earth. Farewell, Plowland, where Mary Ward, that beautiful soul, resided with Ursula Wright, her sainted grandmother, the wife of Robert Wright, the mother of Christopher Wright: where Mary Ward resided, during the five years, 1589 to 1594, before returning to her father’s house at Mulwith, in the Parish of Ripon, on the banks of the sylvan Ure.”

The Estate of Plowland came into the Wright family in the reign of Henry VIII., owing to John Wright, Esquire (a man of Kent), having married Alice Ryther, one of the daughters and co-heiresses of Sir John Ryther, of Ryther, on the banks of the “lordly Wharfe,” between York and Selby.

John Wright’s son, Robert, succeeded as the owner of Plowland (or Plewland). Robert Wright married for his second wife Ursula Rudston, whose family had been lords of Hayton, near Pocklington, from the days of King John. Ursula Wright was akin to the Mallory (or Mallorie) family, of Studley Royal, Ripon, and so a cousin in some degree to most of the grand old Yorkshire gentry, such as the Ingleby family, of Ripley Castle and of Harewell Hall, Dacre, near Brimham Rocks, in Nidderdale, and the Markenfields, of Markenfield Hall, near Ripon, to mention none others beside.[A][B][C][D] (This is shown by the Ripon Registers.)

[Footnote A: The Most Honourable the Marquis of Ripon, K.G., Viceroy of India (1880-85), and the Most Honourable the Marchioness of Ripon, C.I., are akin to John Wright and Christopher Wright, through the Mallories of Studley Royal.]

[Footnote B: The Right Honourable the Lord Grantley, of Markenfield Hall, is akin to the Wrights, through his ancestor, Francis Norton, the eldest son of brave old Richard Norton; the Mallories; the Inglebies; and many others.]

[Footnote C: Sir Henry Day Ingilby, Bart., of Ripley Castle, is likewise akin to the Wrights, the Winters, and indeed to almost all the other ill-fated plotters. I may mention also that Sir Henry is likewise related to the exalted Mary Ward, who (as was the case with her great kinswoman and friend, Lady Grace Babthorpe) lived at “lovely Ripley” in her childhood, with the Inglebies of that day, on more than one occasion, as we find recorded in Mary’s “_Life_.”]

[Footnote D: At Grantley a John Wright resided in the time of Elizabeth. He was probably brother to Robert Wright, the father of John and Christopher Wright. Grantley Hall nestles in a leafy hollow of surpassing beauty. The swift, gentle, little River Skell flows past the Hall on towards St. Mary’s Abbey, Fountains. Grantley Hall is now owned by Sir Christopher Furness, M.P. It was formerly one of the estates of the Lords Grantley.]

Robert Wright (the second Wright who owned Plowland) had been married before his marriage to Ursula Rudston. His first wife’s name was Anne Grimstone. She was a daughter of Thomas Grimstone, Esquire, of Grimstone Garth. Robert Wright and Anne Grimstone had one son who “heired” Plowland. His name was William Wright. He married Ann Thornton, of East Newton, in Rydale, a lady who was related to many old Rydale and Vale of Mowbray families in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The names of William Wright and Ann, his wife (born Thornton), are still recorded on a brass in the north aisle of Welwick Church.[A]

[Footnote A: Mass was said at Ness Hall, near Hovingham, not far from East Newton, during the early part of the nineteenth century. _I think_ that this was owing to the old Catholic family of Crathorne owning Ness Hall at this time. The Crathornes intermarried with the Wrights, of Plowland, in the days of James I. or Charles I., and I suspect that Ness Hall had been brought into the Crathorne family, through the Wrights, from the Thorntons. The Crathornes came from Crathorne, near Stokesley, in Cleveland. The Thorntons conformed to the Established Church.]

William Wright was half-brother to Ursula Ward, the wife of Marmaduke Ward, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, near Ripon, the parents of the great Mary Ward, the friend of popes, emperors, kings, nobles, statesmen, warriors, and indeed of the most distinguished personages of Europe during the reigns of James I. and Charles I. William Wright (or Wryght, as the name is spelt on the brass in Welwick Church) was also half-brother to the two Gunpowder conspirators, John and Christopher Wright, who were slain at Holbeach House, Staffordshire, a few days after the capture of Guy Fawkes by Sir Thomas Knevet, early in the morning of November 5th, 1605.

The late Rev. John Stephens, Rector of Holgate, York, and formerly Vicar of Sunk Island, Holderness, told me, in September, 1900, that Guy Fawkes is said to have slept at Plowland Hall, on Fawkes’ departure for London for the last time, a tradition which is very likely to be authentic. For, as will be remembered, the Wrights, Fawkes, and Tesimond were old school-fellows at St. Peter’s School, in the Horse Fayre, Gillygate, York,[A] which had been re-founded by Philip and Mary, who likewise founded the present Grammar School at Ripon.

[Footnote A: John Wright, Christopher Wright, Guy Fawkes, and Oswald Tesimond must have many a time and oft passed through Bootham Bar, leading towards Clifton, Skelton, and Easingwold, along the great North Road. And besides the King’s Manor to the left of Bootham Bar, Queen Margaret’s Gateway, named after Queen Margaret (grandmother of Mary Queen of Scots), must have been to them all a thrice-familiar object. Queen Margaret, it will be remembered, was wife to King James IV. of Scotland, who fell at Flodden Field in 1513, fighting against the forces of the brother of the Scots’ Queen, King Henry VIII.

In 1516, Henry VIII. invited his widowed sister to London, “and good Queen Katerine sent her own white palfrey” for her poor sister-in-law’s “use.” On this memorable occasion the bereaved daughter of King Henry VII., through whom His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward VII., in part at least, traces his august Title to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, was kindly welcomed by the worthy citizens of the northern capital.——See Dr. Raine’s “_York_” (Longmans), p. 98.

In the month of July, 1900, at the Treasurer’s House, on the north side of the Minster, our Most Gracious Sovereign and His Beloved Consort (then the Prince and Princess of Wales) together with the present Prince and Princess of Wales (then the Duke and Duchess of York), graciously sojourned for a brief season: an event memorable and historic even in the proud annals of the second city of the British Empire.]

SUPPLEMENTUM VI.

St. Mary’s Hall, Stonyhurst,
Blackburn, 5th October, 1901.

... You are quite correct in saying that the doctrine of Equivocation is the justification of stratagems in war, and of a great many other recognised modes of conduct.

But I despair of its ever finding acceptance in the minds of most Englishmen: since they will not take the trouble of understanding it; while, at the same time, they have not the slightest scruple in misrepresenting it. It is, of course (like most principles, whether of art, or of science, or of philosophy), not a truth immediately to be grasped by the average intellect, and, therefore, liable to much misapplication. Even the best-trained thinkers may frequently differ as to its comprehension of this or that particular concrete case.

Given the tendency of human nature, English or foreign, to shield itself from unpleasant consequences at the expense of truth, it is unsafe to supply the public with a general principle, which, precisely on account of its universality, might be made to cover with some show of reason, many an unwarrantable _jeu de mots_. There are many exceedingly useful drugs which it would be unwise to throw into the open market. Hence, I quite recognise the partial validity of the objection to the doctrine in question. But since the doctrine is so often thrust in the public face, it is as well it should appear in its true colours.

This leads me to a point which I think ought to be insisted upon, namely, that those features, which are most objectionable to Englishmen in the scholastic doctrine were devised by their authors with the intention of _limiting_ the realm of Equivocation and of safeguarding the truth more closely.

All rational men are agreed that there are circumstances in which words must be used that are _primâ facie_ contrary to truth——in war, in diplomacy, in the custody of certain professional secrets. In such instances the non-Catholic rule seems to be: Tell a lie, and have done with it. The basis of such a principle is Utilitarian Morality, which estimates Right and Wrong _merely_ by the consequences of an action. The peripatetic philosopher, on the other hand, who maintains the _intrinsic_ moral character of certain actions, and who holds _mordicus_ to the love of truth for its own sake, is not content to rest in a lie, however excusable, but endeavours, for the honour of humanity, to demonstrate that such apparent deviations from truth are not such in reality. For he perceives in them _two_ meanings——whence the name _Equivocation_——one of which may be true, while the other is false. The speaker utters the words in their true meaning, and that the hearer should construe them in the other sense is the latter’s own affair.

“_Not at home_” may mean “_out of the house_” or “_not inclined to receive visitors_.” It is the visitor’s own fault if he attaches the first meaning to the phrase rather than the second, or _vice versâ_.

No sensible man would consider a prisoner to be “lying” in his plea of “_Not Guilty_,” because a certain juryman, in his ignorant simplicity, should carry off the impression of the prisoner’s _absolute_, and not merely of his _legal_, innocence. Yet the plea may mean either both or only the latter.

Similarly, an impertinent ferretter-out of an important secret needs blame none but himself if he conceives the answer “_No_” to intimate anything else than that he should mind his own business.

As to such _facts_ there is, I should say, an overwhelming agreement of opinion. That they differ from what we all recognise as a sheer “_lie_” is pretty evident. It is, therefore, convenient and scientific to label them with some other name, and the Scholastic hit upon the not inapt one of _Equivocation_.

The malice of lying consists, according to Utilitarian Philosophy, in the destruction of that mutual confidence which is so absolutely necessary for the proper maintenance and development of civilized life. But the Scholastic, while fully admitting this ground, looks for a still deeper root, and finds it in the very fact of the discrepancy between the speaker’s internal thought and its outward expression. The difference between the two positions may be more clearly apprehended in the following formula:——The first would define a lie as “_speaking with intent to deceive_;” whereas the second defines it “_speaking contrary to one’s thought_” (_locutio contra mentem_), even where there is no hope (and therefore no intent) of actual deception. The latter is clearly the stricter view, yet very closely allied with, and supplementing, the former. For we may perhaps say with Cardinal de Lugo——and _à la_ Kant——that the malice of the discrepancy mentioned above lies in the self-contradiction which results in the liar, between his inborn desire for the trust of his fellow-men and his conviction that he has rendered himself unworthy of it——that he has, in other words, degraded his nature.

Now, where there do not exist relations of mutual confidence, such malice cannot exist. An enemy, a burglar, a lunatic, an impudent questioner, etc., are, _in their distinguishing character_, beyond the pale of mutual confidence——_i.e._, when acting professionally as enemies, burglars, etc.

In regard to such outlaws from society, some moralists would accordingly maintain that the duty of veracity is non-existent, and that here we may “answer a fool according to his folly.” If a burglar asks where is your plate, you may reply at random “_In the Bank_,” or “_At Timbuctoo_,” or “_I haven’t any_.” If a lunatic declares himself Emperor of China, you may humour him, and give him _any_ information you may imagine about his dominions, etc.

Such is the teaching of, _v.gr._, Professor Paulsen, of Berlin, in his “_System of Ethics_,” in which he is at one with Scholasticism, though, I daresay, we should not follow him in all his applications of the principle. He prefers to call such instances “_necessary lies_,” whereas we should say they were not lies at all, because they would not be rightly considered to imply _speaking_ strictly understood, that is, the communication of one’s mind to another. There is no real speech where there are no relations of mutual confidence. Practically, however, it is so far a question of name rather than of reality, of theory rather than of fact.

The doctrine of _Mental Reservation_ seems to me to differ from that of _Equivocation_ only in this, that Equivocation implies the use of words which have a two-fold meaning in themselves, _apart from_ special circumstances, and are therefore _logical_ equivoques. Thus to the question: “_What do people think of me?_” one might diplomatically reply: “_Oh! they think a great deal!_” which leaves it undetermined whether the thinking be of a favourable or unfavourable character.

But more commonly words, apart from special circumstances, have one definite meaning, _e.gr._, “_Yes_” or “_No_.” When Sir Walter Scott denied, as he himself tells us, the authorship of “_Waverley_” with a plain simple “_No_,” he was guilty of no logical Equivocation: but the circumstance that it was generally known that the author intended to preserve anonymity gave his answer the signification, “_Mind your own business._” This is what I should call a _moral_ equivoque. The Scholastics call it _broad mental reservation_ (_restrictio late mentalis_). The origin of this terminology seems to me to lie in a bit of purism. Some moralists were not content with merely _moral_ equivoques: they appear to insist on the junction with them of _logical_ Equivocation; and so they would have directed the equivocator to _restrict_ (and so double) the meaning of a word in his own mind. Thus to Sir Walter they would have said: “Don’t say ‘_No_’ simply, but add in your own head, ‘_as far as the public is concerned_,’” or something similar.

When this addition could not be conjectured by the hearer, it received the name of _pure mental reservation_ (_restrictio pure_ [or _stricte_] _mentalis_): as when one might say “_John is not here_” (meaning in his mind “not on the exact spot where the speaker stood”), though John was a yard off all the time. Such a position has not found favour in the body of Catholic moralists. They regard it as not only a useless proceeding, but as one which, although intended out of respect for truth, is liable, from its purely subjective character, to easy abuse.

But when objective circumstances (as in the case of Sir Walter) enable the hearer to guess at the double meaning and to suspend his judgment, then we have a case of _broad_ mental reservation: for it is writ large in social convention that, where a momentous secret exists, a negative answer carries with it the limitation (restriction, reservation), “_secrets apart_.”

I trust I have made it sufficiently clear that the doctrine of Equivocation, properly understood, has been devised in the interests of Veracity. That we may find in some writers, whether St. Alphonsus de Liguori or Professor Paulsen, particular applications in which we do not concur, surely does not affect the validity of the principle.

I may add that _all_ Catholic theologians with whom I am acquainted limit its use by requiring many external conditions: _v.gr._, that the secret to be preserved should be of importance; that the questioner should have no right to its knowledge, etc. In one word, that the possible damage to mutual confidence resulting from the hearer’s self-deception should be less than that which would certainly accrue from the revelation of a legitimate secret.

No one feels more keenly than we do that to have resort to Equivocation is an evil rendered tolerable only in presence of a greater evil of the same nature; and I venture to say, from an intimate knowledge of my brother “religious,” that no one is less likely to recur to it, where only his own skin is concerned, than a Jesuit.

Believe me, Yours very sincerely,
George Canning, S.J.[A]

[Footnote A: The above lucid explanation of the much and (_me judice_) stupidly maligned doctrine of Equivocation will place readers of this work, as well as the writer, under an obligation of gratitude to the Rev. George Canning, who is the Professor of Ethics at St. Mary’s Hall, Stonyhurst, so I am informed by the Rev. Bernard Boëdder, S.J., Professor of Natural Theology, at that seat of learning, whom I have had the honour of meeting in York on more than one occasion. “Wisdom builds her house for _all_ weathers.” But England, relying too much on a long course of prosperity in her ruling classes, and in the protected classes immediately beneath her ruling classes, has neglected the Truth and Justice contained in this eminently rational doctrine of Equivocation. The democracy must, and will, however, insist on amiable, self-contenting, self-pleasing delusions being speedily swept away. Reason and self-interest alike will compel and compass this.