Chapter XCVII: Appendix: N (1)

EXTRACT FROM YORK CORPORATION HOUSE BOOK——Vol.
xxviii., f. 82.

4 Jany vicesimo
quinto Elizth.

Assembled in the Counsell Chamber upon Ousebridg the day and year abovesaid when and where the Queen’s Maties Comission to my Lord Maior and Aldermen directed was openly redd to these present the teno^{r} wherof hereafter enseweth word by word:——

By the Queene

Right trustie and welbeloved we greet you well wheras the great care and zeale we have had ever since our first coming to the crowne for the planting and establishing of God’s holie Word & trew religon w^{th}in this o^{r} Realme and other our dominions haith ben notoriouslie knowen unto all o^{r} Subjects aswell by sundry lawes & ordinances maid and published for the true serving of god and adminstracon of the Sacraments As by divers Commissions and other directions gyven out from us for that purpose to th’end that therby our Subjects being trayned up in the feare and true knowledge of god might the better learne ther dutie and obedience towards us; and yet neverthelesse sondry lewde and evill affected psons to our present estate by nature o^{r} Subjects borne, but by disloyaltie yelding ther obedience to other forraine potentats have of lait yeares entred into certayne societies in the partyes beyond the Seas, as in the Cyttie of Reimes and other places carreyinge the names of Semynaries & Jesuits where being trayned upp and as it were full fraught with all erronious and detestable doctrine they have and do dailie repare over disguised and in most secreet manner into this o^{r} Realme and especiallie into this o^{r} County of the Cyttie of Yorke where they are in sondry places well entertained and harbored, by meanes whereof they have not onelie malitiously gone about to seduce and pervert the simple sort of our good subjects in matters of religion but also have practised most unnaturailie trayterouslye to wthdraw them frome their naturall dewties and allegiance towards us Sowing even according to the name they have receved abroad the vere sede of all sedicon and conspiracye amongst o^{r} people. And all be it we conceved that ther Rebellious harts and practises being thoroughlie discovered as well by the lait trayterous attempts of some of them in o^{r} Realme of Irland as by the treasonable actions of others w^{th}in this our Realme And ther obstinate and sedicious manner of dyeing when being justlie condempned by our lawes they have suffered death for the same Yow wold most carefullie and diligentlie have loked into the seeking owt and apphending of such wicked psons, being a matter of so great consequence to our service and tending princepallie to the publique quiet of o^{r} wholl State and to the p’ticuler saftie of every of our good subjects: and the rather for that our pleasure on that behalf haith often and sundry wayes ben signified unto yow And for the execucion wherof yow have not wanted sufficient authoritie. Yet notwithstanding, smale care or none at all haith ben had to annswere o^{r} expectacon and trust reposed in yow so as we might juslie be drawen to thinke hardlie of yow if we were not pswaded that yow have rather neglected yo^{r} duties for some other respect than for want of good affection to our service. We have thought good therfor oftsons to renew unto yow the remembrance of yo^{r} duties, and do hereby straightlie charge and command yow and ev’ye of yow to have a greater care & moare continewall circumspection on that behalf and by all the good and discreet meanes yow may to make diligent enquirie and searche w^{th}in yo^{r} severall wardes and devisions for all manner of popish preasts, Jesuits Semynaries and such like psons as yow shall have vehement cause to suspect to be malitious and obstinate mistakers of the religeon by us established and of our present estate and the same to apprehend and send under safe custodie unto our right trustie and welbeloved cosine E. of Huntington President of our Counsell in these partes and in his absence to our Counsell here. And further we will yow to have a speciall regard that such persons as shall ether willinglie absent themselves from the church or shall any way deprave the order of comen praer & of the holie sacraments now established w^{th}in this realme or shall malitiously abuse the ministers of the same or shall by anie other meanes show themselves obstinate & contemptous in matters concerning religeon may be throughlie p’ceded w^{th} according to o^{r} Lawes wherein o^{r} meaning is that yow should especiallie deale with principall persons who (we assure our selves) do by ther evill example drawe and encouradg the Inferior sort to continew in ther blindnes and disobedience and so requiring yow to procede and continew in the execution hereof in such diligent manner as we may have cause to think yow desier thereby to repare the falts of your former negligence and to dischardge yourselves in your duties according to our expectacon and the trust we comitt to yow. We recomend the due accomplishment of all the p’misses unto your discreet and diligent proceding herein. Whereof yow may not fayle as yow tender o^{r} favo^{r}. Geven under o^{r} Signet at o^{r} Cyttie of Yorke the last of December 1582 the 25^{th} yeare of o^{r} reigne.

And by hir Counsell.

(Addressed to) To our right trustie and welbeloved the
Maio^{r} of our Cittie of Yorke and to the Aldermen his
bretheren. (On the back.)

* * * * *

M^{r} Harbart M^{r} Robinson Maister Maltby M^{r} Appleyard M^{r} Trew & M^{r} May, Aldermen, are appoynted by these presents to view the Chambers upon Ousebridge & Monckbarr tomorrow at after none & to see whether of the same be most mete for the pson for Churche persons as will fullie resist to come to Church to the intent the same may be forthwith repared for that purpose.[A]

[Footnote A: Leave was given me to print the aforesaid Order of Queen Elizabeth in Council by the authorities of the York Corporation, on the 3rd day of June, 1901; the Lord Mayor for that year being Alderman the Right Honourable E. W. Purnell; and John Close, Esquire, J.P., Sheriff; J. G. Butcher, Esquire, K.C., and George Denison Faber, Esquire, Representatives in Parliament——the first Parliament of His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward VII.]

_Note as to authenticity of “Thomas Winter’s Confession,”
at Hatfield._

Whilst greatly admiring the erudition and dialectical skill displayed by the Rev. John Gerard, S.J., in his recent Gunpowder Treason Works, mentioned in the Prelude to this Book, I am of opinion that the Confession attributed to the conspirator, Thomas Winter, is authentic. The internal evidence for the genuineness of this document is too strong (_me judice_) to be upset.

It is true that the change in the form of signature is undoubtedly a suspicious circumstance; but such change was probably due to a desire, on the prisoner’s part, _to let “a great gulf be fixed” between “Thos. Wintour,” the free-born gentleman, and “Thomas Winter,” the inchoately attainted traitor_.

Moreover, the name Winter, or Wynter, _was_, at that time, certainly spelt with the “_er_” as well as with the “_our_,” just as the name “Ward” was spelt either with the final “e” or without the same. For instance, in Flower’s “_Visitation of Yorkshire_,” Edited by Norcliffe (Harleian Soc., London), Jane Ingleby is stated to be the “Wyff to George _Wynter_ son and heyr of _Robert Winter_ of Cawdwell in Worceshyre.”

One would like to see from the pen of the Rev. John Gerard a translation of Father Oswald Tesimond’s Italian Narrative, known as “_Greenway’s Manuscript_.” Tesimond, it is almost certain, knew the bulk of the plotters more intimately than did the seventeenth century Father Gerard. Therefore, Tesimond’s Narrative, _pro tanto_, must surpass in value even the work of the Father Gerard of three hundred years ago.

NOTES.

[Footnote 1:——The following quotation is from the “_Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1603-1610_,” p. 254:——“Nov. 13 (1605) Declaration of Fras. Tresham——Catesby revealed the Plot to him on October 14th: he opposed it: urged at least its postponement, and offered him money to leave the kingdom with his companions: thought they were gone, and intended to reveal the Treason; has been guilty of concealment, but, as he had no hand in the Plot, he throws himself on the King’s mercy.”

Now surely it stands to reason that if Tresham had penned the Letter——_Litteræ Felicissimæ_——he would have never addressed his Sovereign thus. He would have triumphantly gloried in the effort of his pen, and “worked” (as the phrase goes) “his beneficent action for all that it was worth.” Tresham was held back _by the omnipotence of the impossible_; anybody can see _that_ who reads his evidence.

Besides Mounteagle, Tresham (who died of a painful disease, strangurion, in the Tower 23rd December, 1605) probably would have had a powerful (if bribed) friend in the Earl of Suffolk. Hence his friends saying that had he lived they feared not the course of Justice. The Earl of Suffolk was a son of Thomas fourth Duke of Norfolk, by his second wife, Margaret Audley, the heiress of Sir Thomas Audley, of Walden, Essex. The Duke was beheaded in 1572 for aspiring to the hand of James the First’s mother, Mary Queen of Scots. It is to James’s credit that he seems to have treated the Howard family, in its various branches, with marked consideration, after ascending the English Throne. Thomas fourth Duke of Norfolk’s first wife was the heiress of the then last Earl of Arundel, Lady Mary Fitzalan. She left one son, Philip, who became the well-known Philip Howard Earl of Arundel and Surrey.]

[Footnote 2:——In 1568 a Commission was appointed which sat at York to hear the causes of the differences which had arisen between the Scottish Queen and her subjects. Thomas fourth Duke of Norfolk presided over this Commission, and the late lamented Bishop Creighton, in his fascinating biography of Queen Elizabeth, thinks that the proposal that Mary Stuart should be married to Norfolk came from the Scottish side at York on this occasion. Whatever may be the true history and character of Mary Queen of Scots, in clearness of mind she excelled her Royal cousin of England, that wonderful child of the Renaissance, poor, pathetic, lonely, yet marvellous, “Bess,” who for 342 years, even from the grave, has ruled one aspect of English ecclesiastical life.[A] Moreover, I am of opinion that the Scots’ Queen showed a singular tolerance of spirit towards the holders of theological opinions the contradictory of her own, whilst at the same time continuing constantly established in her own tenure of what she believed to be the Truth: indeed a tolerance of spirit, combined with a personal steadfastness, reached only by the very choicest spirits of that or any succeeding age.

Tolerance is not a simple but a compound product; and its attainment is especially difficult to women by reason of the essential intensity of their nature. Tolerance is a habit born of a consciousness of intellectual strength and moral power. It is a manifestation of that princely gift and grace which “becomes a monarch better than his crown.” It ought to be the birthright and peculiar characteristic of all that know (and therefore believe) they have a living possession of the Absolute and Everlasting Truth. In the interests of our common Humanity, all who think that their strength is as the “strength of ten,” because their “faith” (whatever may be the case with their “works”) is “pure,” should seek to place on an intellectual foundation, sure and steadfast, the principle, the grand principle, considered in so many of its concrete results, of religious toleration: a principle which England has exhibited in its practical working to the world: but rather as the conclusion of the unconscious logic of events than the conscious logic of the mind of man. Now this latter kind of logic alone, because it is idealistic, can give permanency; the former kind, being primarily materialistic, will inevitably sooner or later go “the way of all flesh;” and we know what _that_ is.

The ideas of Truth and Right imply a oneness or _unity_. Now unity is the opposite of multiplicity, and, _therefore_, the contrary of division and distinction. One must rule men by virtue of the prerogatives of Truth and Right when these are ascertained. The problem at the root of the terrible conflict on the veldt of South Africa since 11th October, 1899, to the present time, 26th October, 1901, involves this question of the unity that is implied in the ideas of Truth and Right. For those ideas are the originating causes, the moving springs, the ultimate justification, and the final vindication of all true and just claims to paramountcy and sovereignty everywhere. But who is to determine which side has Truth and Right, and, therefore, the true and the just claim to paramountcy and sovereignty in South Africa?

Surely the answer is that people who have shown that they can rule Humanity because _first_ they have themselves obeyed princely ideals of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. Nothing short of this can satisfy the universal conscience of mankind.

What have our men of light and leading been about that they have not explained clearly and straight from the shoulder these truths to the world long, long ago? Had they done so, how much innocent blood might have been never spilt! How many bitter tears might have been never shed!]

[Footnote A: See “_Life of Mary Queen of Scots_,” by Samuel Cowan (Sampson, Low, 1901); also “_The Mystery of Mary Stuart_,” by Andrew Lang (Longmans, 1901).]

[Footnote 3:——Lord Mounteagle had been a party to the sending of Thomas Winter and Father Oswald Tesimond into Spain in 1601 to negotiate with King Philip III. of Spain an invasion of England with an army on Elizabeth’s death. In 1601 he seems to have been a prisoner in the house of Mr. Newport, of Bethnal Green. But in 1602 he was with Catesby at White Webbs, by Enfield Chase, near London; so he was then at liberty. On the accession of James I., Mounteagle——along with the Earl of Southampton (Shakespeare’s patron and friend), and Francis and Lewis Tresham——held the Tower of London for the King, who seems to have welcomed Mounteagle at Court from the first. After James’s accession Christopher Wright and Guy Fawkes were sent on a mission to Spain to urge upon the Spanish King to invade the realm. This mission seems to have been a continuation of the mission in 1601 of Winter and Tesimond. Mounteagle, however, took no part or lot in despatching the second mission. (It is important to notice the fact that as far back as 1601 and 1603 Thomas Winter and Tesimond, Christopher Wright and Fawkes, were co-workers in revolutionary designs against the Government of the day.)

Mounteagle’s father, Lord Morley, was living in 1605. He did not die till 1618, when his son and heir succeeded him as eleventh Baron Morley. Mounteagle was called to the House of Lords in the autumn of 1605, under the title of Baron Mounteagle, in right of his mother. “Mounteagle,” says Father Oswald Tesimond, alias Greenway, “was either actually a Catholic in opinion and in the interior of his heart, or was very well-disposed towards the Catholics, being a friend of several of the conspirators and related to some of them.” After the Plot, Mounteagle evidently left the religion of his ancestors, though his wife (_née_ Tresham) continued constant herein, and brought up her children Catholics; but Mounteagle “died a Catholic.”

Jardine thinks that Mounteagle held some ceremonial office at Court, probably in the Household of Queen Anne of Denmark, wife of James I., who was at heart a Roman Catholic, though most probably never received into that Church.——See “_Carmel in England_” (Burns & Oates, 1899), p. 30. We hear of Mounteagle about ten days before the 5th November, 1605, calling at the Palace at Richmond to kiss the Prince’s hands (_i.e._, Henry Prince of Wales). Thomas Winter told Catesby that Mounteagle, at that time, gathered from what he heard at the Royal Household that the Prince would not be present at the opening of Parliament. Somerset House was Queen Anne’s Palace. It would be the centre for all the most brilliant wits, ambassadors, and diplomatists of the day.]

[Footnote 4:——The Earl of Arundel and Lord William Howard were half-brothers. (Lord William Howard was “the Belted Will Howard,” renowned in Border story as the scourge of the lawless moss-trooper. For a description of this remarkable man see Sir Walter Scott’s “Lay of the Last Minstrel.”) The half-brothers were both the sons of that unfortunate nobleman, Thomas fourth Duke of Norfolk, who in 1572 was beheaded for aspiring to the hand of Mary Queen of Scots. Lord Arundel died in the Tower of London in 1595, “a Martyr-in-will for the Ancient Faith.” Though their father was a strong Protestant (being a pupil of John Fox, the author of Fox’s “_Book of Martyrs_”) both his sons, Philip and William, became strong Roman Catholics, as did his daughter, Margaret Lady Sackville. Philip Howard Earl of Arundel, losing his father when only fifteen years old, was, at an early age, drawn within the vortex of the gaieties of the Court of his kinswoman Queen Elizabeth. However, in the year 1581, while still a mere courtier and votary of pleasure, it happened he was present, we are told, at “the disputation in the Tower of London in 1581, concerning divers points of religion betwixt Fr. Edmond Campion of the Society of Jesus and some other Priests of the one part; Charke, Fulk, Whitaker, and some other Protestant Ministers of the other.” We are further told by his biographer, an unknown Jesuit writer of the seventeenth century, “By that he saw and heard there, he easily perceived on which side the Truth and true Religion was, tho’ at that time, nor untill a year or two after, he neither did nor intended to embrace and follow it: and after he did intend it a good while passed before he did execute it. For, as himself signify’d in a letter which he afterwards writ in the time of his imprisonment in the Tower to Fr. Southwell, he resolved to become Catholic long before he could resolve to live as a Catholic, and thereupon he defer’d the former until he had an intent and resolute purpose to perform the latter. The which (being aided by a special grace of God) he made walking one day alone in the Gallery of his Castle at Arundel, where after a long and great conflict within himself, lifting up his eies and hands to Heaven, he firmly resolved to become a member of God’s Church, and to frame his life accordingly.”

Sir Robert Howard, in the reign of Henry VI., married the Lady Margaret Mowbray, daughter of Thomas De Mowbray Duke of Norfolk, and grand-daughter, maternally, of Richard Fitzalan Earl of Arundel (“_Law Times_,” 9th November, 1901). The motto of the Howards Dukes of Norfolk is, “_Virtus sola invicta_”——“Virtue alone unconquered.” The motto of the Howards Earls of Carlisle is, “_Volo sed non valeo_”——“I am willing, but I am not able.”

The Earl of Arundel was “reconciled” by Fr. Wm. Weston, of the Society of Jesus, in 1584. In the next year he was imprisoned, and after an incarceration of ten years died in 1595. Fr. Robert Southwell, the poet, wrote for the Earl’s consolation, when the latter was in the Tower of London, that ravishing work, the “_Epistle of Comfort_.” (The illustrious House of the Norfolk Howards has been indeed highly favoured in being able to call “Friend” and “Father” two such exquisite geniuses as Robert Southwell and Frederic William Faber.) The two half-brothers, Philip and William, married two sisters, the daughters and co-heiresses of Thomas Lord Dacres of the North, “a person of great estate, power, and authority in those parts (as possessing no less than nine baronies) and one of the most ancient for nobility in the whole kingdom.” These ladies were among the most amiable and delightful women of their time. From Philip Howard Earl of Arundel and Surrey and Anne Dacres is descended the present Duke of Norfolk; and from his half-brother Lord William Howard and Elizabeth Dacres the present Earl of Carlisle: both of which Englishmen are indeed worthy of their “noble ancestors,” and fulfil the great Florentine poet’s ideal of “the truly noble,” in that _they_ confer nobility upon their _race_.

For further facts concerning those mentioned in this note——who so appeal to the historic imagination and so touch the historic sympathies——see the “_Lives of Philip Howard Earl of Arundel and Anne Dacres his wife_” (Hurst & Blackett), and the “_Household Books of Lord William Howard_” (Surtees Society).]

[Footnote 5:——Lord Mounteagle would be also akin to Lord Lumley (who had estates at or about Pickering, I believe), through the great House of Neville. Lord Lumley’s portrait, from a painting in the possession of the Right Hon. the Earl of Scarbrough, Lord Lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire, is to be found in Edward Hailstone’s “_Yorkshire Worthies_,” vol. i. Edward Hailstone, Esquire, of Walton Hall, Wakefield, was a rich benefactor to the York Minster Library, and his memory should be ever had in grateful remembrance by all who “love Yorkshire because they know her.”——See Jackson’s “_Guide to Yorkshire_” (Leeds).]

[Footnote 6:——It should be remembered that (i.) the page’s evidence goes to show that the man who delivered the Letter was a “tall man.” (ii.) That the Letter was given in the street to the page who was already in the street when the “tall man” came up to him with the document.

Hoxton is about four miles from Whitehall. I opine that Mounteagle proceeded from Bath to Hoxton, and that the supper had been pre-arranged to take place at Hoxton on the evening of the 26th of October, 1605, by Thomas Ward, the gentleman-servant of Lord Mounteagle, who indeed read the Letter after Mounteagle had broken the seal and just glanced at its contents. Anybody gifted with ordinary common sense can see that this scene must have been all planned beforehand.]

[Footnote 7:——The letters “wghe” are not, at this date (5th October, 1900), clearly discernible.]

[Footnote 8:——See letter dated November, 1605——Sir Edward Hoby to Sir Thomas Edmonds. Add. MSS. in British Museum, No. 4176, where name “Thomas Ward” is given.]

[Footnote 9:——Stowe’s “_Chronicle_,” continued by Howes, p. 880. Ed. 1631.

From the evidence of William Kydall, it was physically impossible for Thomas Winter to confer with Christopher Wright, Wright being nearly 100 miles away from London “the next day after the delivery of the Letter,” for the next day would be Sunday, October the 27th. Wright reached London in the afternoon of Wednesday, the 30th.

See Appendix respecting discrepancy as to date not affecting allegation of fact when the former is not of the essence of the statement, per Lord Chief Justice Scroggs, _temp._ Charles II.]

[Footnote 10:——Fawkes was apprehended at “midnight without the House,” according to “_A Discourse of this late intended Treason_.” Knevet having given notice that he had secured Fawkes, thereupon Suffolk, Salisbury, and the Council went to the King’s chamber at the Palace in Whitehall, and Fawkes was brought into the Royal Presence. This was at about four o’clock in the morning of Tuesday, the 5th of November.

Fawkes showed the calmest behaviour conceivable in the Royal Presence. To those whom he regarded as being of authority he was respectful, yet very firm; but towards those whom he deemed as of no account, he was humorously scornful. The man’s self control was astounding. He told his auditory that “a dangerous disease requires a desperate remedy!” (See “_King’s Book_.”)

Whitehall Palace had been a Royal Palace since the reign of Henry VIII.; it was burned down in the time of William and Mary. It was formerly what St. James’s Palace is now in relation to royal functions.

It was at St. James’s Palace that His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward VII. deigned to receive the respectful address of condolence on the death of His late beloved Imperial Mother, and of loyal assurance of devoted attachment to His Throne and Person from Cardinal Vaughan, together with several Bishops, the Duke of Norfolk, the Marquis of Ripon, the Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and the Lord Herries, including other peers and representatives of the English Roman Catholic laity.

By a singular coincidence the day happened to be the 295th anniversary of the execution of Father Henry Garnet, S.J., in St. Paul’s Churchyard, London (3rd May, 1606): a coincidence of happy augury, let us devoutly hope, that old things are about to pass away, and that all things are about to become new!]

[Footnote 11:——Essex House was between the Strand and the River Thames.

Somerset House was a favourite Palace of Queen Anne of Denmark, the Consort of James I. Here the Spanish Ambassador Extraordinary, Juan Fernandez de Velasco, Duke de Frias, and Constable of Castile, sojourned a fortnight, when in 1604 he came to ratify the treaty of peace between England and Spain.]

[Footnote 12:——By Poulson in his “_History of Holderness_,” Yorks. (1841), vol. ii., pp. 5, 7, in an account of the Wright family, where there is a pedigree showing the names of Christopher Wright and his elder brother John. Poulson may have been recording a local tradition, though he mentions no kind of authority.——See also Foster’s Ed. of Glover’s “_Visitation of Yorkshire_,” Also Norcliffe’s Ed. of Flower’s “_Visitation of Yorkshire_” (Harleian Society).

See Supplementum for account of my visit to Plowland (or Plewland) Hall, in the Parish of Welwick, Holderness, on the 6th of May, 1901.]

[Footnote 13:——See “_Guy Fawkes_,” by Rev. Thomas Lathbury, M.A. (J. W. Parker, 1839), p. 21. Lathbury does not give his authority for this interesting statement respecting this conspirator, Christopher Wright. It is presumed, however, that he had some ground for the statement; for it is antecedently improbable that his “imagination” should have provided so circumstantial an assertion. Then, whence did he derive it?

Query:——Does Greenway’s Narrative make any such statement? Apparently Jardine had a sight of the whole of this invaluable MS., and possibly Lathbury (who appears to have been a clergyman of the Established Church) may have seen it likewise through Canon Tierney, the Editor of “_Dodd’s Church History_.”]

[Footnote 14:——I am afraid that when the Acts of the High Commission Court that sat in the King’s Manor, in York, under the Presidency of Queen Elizabeth’s kinsman, the Earl of Huntingdon, come to be published, we shall find that “the lads and lassies” of Yorkshire and Lancashire especially were very “backward in coming forward” to greet the rising of the Elizabethan ecclesiastical aurora which it was their special privilege to behold.

Mr. Thomas Graves Law knows about these invaluable historical documents, and I hope that he will undertake their editorship. He is just the man for this grand piece of work. To the people of “New England,” as well as of “Old England,” these records of the York Court of High Commission are of extraordinary interest, because they relate to “Puritan Sectaries” as well as to “Popish Recusants,” Scrooby, so well known in the history of the Pilgrim Fathers, being in the Archdiocese of York.]

[Footnote 15:——So that bad as they were, they were not hoary-headed criminals, if we except Percy who seems to have been prematurely “grey.”

The name of Thomas Percy’s mother appears under “Beverley” as “Elizabeth Percye the widowe of Edward Percye deceased,” in Peacock’s “_List of Roman Catholics of Yorkshire in 1604_.”

The Percy Arms are in Welwick Church. (Communicated by Miss Burnham, of Plowland, Welwick.)]

[Footnote 16:——I have seen the statement in a letter of the Earl (who was one of the most scientific men of his age) which he wrote after the discovery of the Plot. The letter is in Collins’ “_Peerage_.” The Earl of Salisbury was Northumberland’s enemy, as Northumberland was looked up to by the popish recusants as a sort of natural leader, though the Earl, on his own avowal, was no papist. Salisbury’s native perspicacity, however, told him that Northumberland, from every point of view, was alike to the Royal House of Stuart and to the noble house of Salisbury dangerous. For had the oppressed papists “thrown off” the yoke of James in course of time, Salisbury’s life would have been not worth the price of a farthing candle; and the philosophic, nonchalant Northumberland would have thought that the papists’ support was well “worth a Mass,” just as did King Harry of Navarre, the father of Queen Henrietta Maria, the wife of Charles I., a few years previously. (An ancient portrait of Queen Henrietta Maria is in the possession of the York Merchant Adventurers, York.) Then again, Salisbury had a personal grudge against the proud Percy. For the latter evidently in his heart scorned and rejected Salisbury, not only as a _novus homo_——a new man——but as belonging to that band of statesmen who had controlled Elizabeth’s policy, and told her not what she ought to do, but what she could do; and whom the great Northern Earl would have been taught from his cradle to spurn at and despise, because they were nothing other than “a low bad lot,” who “were for themselves;” very different indeed from the Earls of Essex, Walter and Robert, and such men as Sir Henry Sidney and his still greater son, Sir Philip Sidney, the darling of the England of his day. Percy indeed once declared that if Percy blood and Cecil blood were both poured into a bowl, the former would refuse to mix with the latter. So, human nature being what it is, no wonder the shrewd and able Salisbury had no love for the “high and mighty” Northumberland, and that _carpe diem_——seize your opportunity——was Salisbury’s motto as soon as he got the chance. (I know of no stronger proof that, during the past 300 years, in spite of back-waters, the world _has_ made true moral progress than the contrast presented by the present Prime Minister and the present First Lord of the Treasury and their ancestors of “Great Eliza’s golden time” and the days of James Stuart.)]

[Footnote 17:——Robert Catesby held his Chastleton estate in possession from his grandmother. He sold it to pay his ransom after the Essex rebellion. (Dr. Jessopp in Article on “Catesby,” “_National Dictionary of Biography_.”)

Had Catesby an estate at Armcote, in Worcestershire, not far from Chipping Norton?]

[Footnote 18:——This Father Gerard of the seventeenth century was the second son of Sir Thomas Gerard, of Byrn, Lancashire. He was an acquaintance of the Wards, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, most probably, for he was the early and life-long friend of Mary Ward.——See the “_Life of Mary Ward_,” by Mary Catherine Elizabeth Chambers (Burns & Oates).]

[Footnote 19:——Sir Thomas Leigh settled considerable property to the uses of the marriage. Jardine says that only Chastleton actually came into Catesby’s possession.]

[Footnote 20:——S. T. Coleridge, speaking of the age of Elizabeth, says that, notwithstanding its marvellous physical and intellectual prosperity, “it was an age when, for a time, the intellect stood superior to the moral sense.” “_Lectures on Shakespeare_,” Collier’s Ed. (1856), p. 34.]

[Footnote 21:——What a lesson to us all, of every creed and philosophy, is the just, yet terrible fate of these personally charming men, “to hug the shore” of plain Natural Ethics, of solid Moral Virtue, which indeed is “fairer than the morning or the evening star.” The establishment of Ethical Societies by such men as the late Sir John Seeley and Professor Henry Sidgwick for the diffusion of true Moral Ideas is a fact pregnant with happy augury for the twentieth century.]

[Footnote 22:——Jardine’s “_Narrative_,” pp. 31, 32.]

[Footnote 23:——Gerard’s “_Narrative_,” p. 56.]

[Footnote 24:——Knaresborough, Knaresbrough or Knaresburgh, is thus pleasantly celebrated in Drayton’s “_Polyolbion_”:——

“From Whernside Hill not far outflows the nimble Nyde,
Through Nytherside, along as sweetly she doth glide
Tow’rds Knaresburgh on her way——
Where that brave forest stands
Entitled by the town[A] who, with upreared hands,
Makes signs to her of joy, and doth with garlands crown
The river passing by.”]

[Footnote A: The allusion is to the ancient Forest of Knaresbrough belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster. (As to the extent and history of the Forest, see Grainge’s “_Forest of Knaresbrough_.”)]

[Footnote 25:——“The Venerable” Francis Ingleby’s portrait is still to be seen at Ripley Castle, an ideal English home, hard-by the winding Nidd.]

[Footnote 26:——For the facts of Francis Ingleby’s life, see Challoner’s “_Missionary Priests_,” edited by Thomas G. Law; and “_Acts of the English Martyrs_” (Burns & Oates), by the Rev. J. H. Pollen, S.J.]

[Footnote 27:——From Father Gerard’s “_Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot_,” p. 59.]

[Footnote 28:——See the admirably written life of Sir Everard Digby, under the title “_The Life of a Conspirator_,” by “One of his descendants” (Kegan Paul & Co., 1895). The learned descendant of Sir Everard Digby, however, evidently knows very much more concerning his gallant ancestor than he knows about Guy Fawkes, who (excepting that “accident of an accident”——fortune) was as honourable a character as the high-minded spouse of Mary Mulsho himself——_honourable, of course, I mean after their kind_.——Jardine’s “_Narrative of Gunpowder Plot_,” p. 67.]

[Footnote 29:——Sir William Catesby and Sir Thomas Tresham were excellent types of the English gentry of their day. Each was “a fine old English gentleman, one of the olden time.” They had both become “reconciled” Roman Catholics——along with so many of the nobility, gentry, and yeomanry in the Midlands——in 1580-81, through the famous missionary journey of the Jesuit, Robert Parsons, probably forming with Edmund Campion two of the most powerful extempore preachers that ever gave utterance to the English tongue.

We may readily picture to ourselves “the coming of age” of the son and heir of each of these gallant knights and stately dames. And we may easily conceive of the bright hopes that either of the gentlewomen (especially the two sisters), in their close-fitting caps, laced ruffs, and gowns falling in pleated folds, must have cherished in their maternal hearts for an honourable career for the child——the treasured child——of their bosom. Alas! through the evil will of man, for the pathetic vanity of human wishes.]

[Footnote 30:——Jardine, in his “_Narrative_,” p. 51, says that John Grant’s ancestors are described in several pedigrees as of Saltmarsh, in Worcestershire, and of Snitterfield, in Warwickshire; that Norbrook adjoined Snitterfield, though it is not now considered locally situate therein. Students of Shakespeare will be interested to learn that in the Parish of Snitterfield, near Grant’s ancestral home, the poet’s mother, Mary Arden——herself connected with the Throckmorton family——owned property. Moreover, through his mother, Shakespeare was distantly connected with several of the plotters. For Catesby and Tresham, as well as Lady Wigmore, of Lucton, Herefordshire, were all first cousins to Lady Mounteagle, who was a daughter of Sir Thomas Tresham. Sir Nicholas Throckmorton (the father of Francis Throckmorton, who was executed in the reign of Elizabeth) having three daughters whom he married to Sir William Catesby, Sir Thomas Tresham, and Sir William Wigmore.——See Jardine’s “_Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot_,” p. 11; also Foley’s “_Records of the Jesuits in England_” (Burns & Oates), vol. iv., p. 290.

Probably Shakespeare knew Grant personally, and not only Grant, but Catesby, Percy, the Winters (Robert and Thomas Winter were likewise akin to the Throckmortons), and Tresham. That the bard of Avon knew Lord Mounteagle, the associate of his friend and patron the Earl of Southampton, is even still more probable.

How is it that Shakespeare never in his writings sought to make political capital (as the sinister phrase goes) out of the Gunpowder Plot? For several reasons: first, his heart (if not his head) was with the ancient faith he had learned in the old Warwickshire home; secondly, his large humanity prompted him to sympathise with all that were oppressed. I hold that in this studied silence, this dignified reserve of Shakespeare, we may discern additional proof of the nobleness of the man, supposing that he knew personally any of the plotters. He would not kick friends that were down, when those friends were even traitors. He could not approve their action——far from it. He might have condemned with justice, and with the world’s applause. But upon himself a self-denying ordinance he laid, tempting as it must have been to him to perform the contrary, especially when we recollect the course then followed by his brother-poet——Jonson. But Shakespeare would not “take sword in hand” with the pretence of restoring “equality” between these wrong-doers and their country. He deemed that the ends of justice——exact, strict Justice——were met in “the hangman’s bloody hands”——“Macbeth,” 1606——and that sufficed for him.

Since writing the above note I find it stated in “_The Religion of Shakespeare_,” by Henry Sebastian Bowden (Burns & Oates, 1899)——chiefly from the writings of that great Elizabethan scholar, the late Richard Simpson——that “among the chief actors in the so-called Gunpowder Plot were Catesby; the two Bates; John Grant, of Norbrook, near Stratford; Thomas Winter, Grant’s brother-in-law; all Shakespeare’s friends and benefactors” (p. 103); so that my conjecture is, belike, warranted that the poet knew Catesby, Winter, and Grant. Moreover, from the same work, it appears that Shakespeare, through the Ardens and Throckmortons, was connected by family marriages, not only with Catesby, the Winters, and Tresham, but distantly with the Earl of Southampton himself, who was a relative of Lord Mounteagle. Hence it is still more probable that Shakespeare knew Mounteagle personally.

Again, Shakespeare probably was present as one of the King’s players in 1604 at Somerset House, on the occasion of the Constable of Castile’s visit.——See Sidney Lee’s “_Life of Shakespeare_” (Smith & Elder), p. 233.——If this were so, then it is well-nigh certain that the poet must have there beheld Mounteagle, who would be one of the Lords then present, most probably in attendance on the Queen Consort. The festivities in honour of the Spanish Ambassador Extraordinary wound up with a magnificent banquet at the Palace of Whitehall, when the Earl of Southampton “danced a correnta” with the Queen. This was August 19th, 1604.——_Cf._ Churton Collins’s “_Ephemera Critica_” (Constable) as to religion of Shakespeare.]

[Footnote 31:——The name is also spelt Tirwhitt. Sir Robert Tyrwhitt, Lady Ursula Babthorpe’s grandfather, had entertained Henry VIII. at the old Hall at Kettleby. A new Hall was built in the time of James I., but this was pulled down about 1691, I believe. The Tyrwhitts, of Kettleby, were allied to such as the Tailboys, Boroughes, Wymbishes, Monsons, Tournays, Thimbelbies, Thorolds, and other Lincolnshire houses. They were rigidly Roman Catholic. The marriage between Sir William Babthorpe and Ursula Tyrwhitt was one of those marriages “that are made in heaven.” The lovely pathos of the lives of this ideal Yorkshire family is indescribable; beginning with Sir William Babthorpe, who harboured Campion in 1581. It was continued through Sir Ralph Babthorpe, who married that “valiant woman” (the only daughter and heiress of William Birnand, the Recorder of York), Grace Birnand by name, of Brimham, Knaresbrough, and York. Lady Grace Babthorpe’s active and contemplative life was one long singing of _Gloria in excelsis_. Sir William Babthorpe and Lady Ursula his wife, like their noble parents, Sir Ralph Babthorpe and Lady Grace, “for conscience sake” became voluntary exiles “and with strangers made their home.” Sir William died a captain in the Spanish Army fighting against France. Lady Ursula, his wife, died of the plague at Bruges. They had many children, some of whom were remarkably gifted. Mary Anna Barbara Babthorpe, the grand-daughter of Sir William Babthorpe, and great-great-grand-daughter of the Sir William Babthorpe who harboured Campion, was the Mother-General of the Nuns of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin, one of whose oldest convents, St. Mary’s, is still situated near Micklegate Bar, York, on land given by Sir Thomas Gascoigne, Bart., of Barnbow Hall, near Aberford, in the time of James II. In Ireland the nuns of this order are styled the Loretto Nuns. The story of the Babthorpes is a veritable English “_Un Récit d’une sœur_.”——See “_Life of Mary Ward_.”——The Wards——like the Inglebies, of Ripley; the Constables, of Everingham;[A] the Dawnays, of Sessay; and the Palmes, of Naburn——were related to this “family of saints.”——See also “The Babthorpes, of Babthorpe” (one of whose ancestors carried the sword before King Edward III. on entering Calais in 1347), in the late Rev. John Morris’s “_Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers_,” first series (Burns & Oates).

For “the Kayes,” of Woodsome, see Canon Hulbert’s “_Annals of Almondbury_” (Longmans).

“The Venerable” Richard Langley, of Owsthorpe and Grimthorpe, near Pocklington, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, who suffered at the York Tyburn on the 1st December, 1586, for harbouring priests, was great-grandson of one of the Kayes, of Woodsome. (Communicated by Mr. Oswald C. B. Brown, Solicitor, of York.)]

[Footnote 32:——“_Greenway’s MS._,” quoted by Jardine, “_Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot_,” p. 151.]

[Footnote 33:——Hawarde, “_Reportes of Star Chamber_.”

See “_The Fawkeses, of York_,” by Robert Davies, sometime Town Clerk of York (Nichols, Westminster, 1850); and the “_Life of Guy Fawkes_,” by William Camidge (Burdekin, York). Davies was a learned York antiquary.

William Harrington, the elder, first cousin to Edward Fawkes (Guy’s father), and Thomas Grimstone, of Grimston, were both “bound over” by the Privy Council, on the 6th of December, 1581, to appear before the Lord President of the North and the Justices of Assize at the next Assizes at York, for harbouring Edmund Campion.——See “_Acts of Privy Council, 1581_” (Eyre & Spottiswoode), p. 282.——What was the upshot I do not know.

Their Indictments are probably still to be found at York Castle. And it is a great desideratum that the old York Castle Indictments should be catalogued, and a catalogue published. I believe such never has been done. Since August, 1900, York Castle has been used as a Military Prison. All the old Indictments that are in existence, whether at York, Worcester, or other Assize towns, would be of interest and value re the Gunpowder Plot _if the affair is to be thoroughly bottomed_.

The York Quarter Sessions’ Indictments appear to be irretrievably lost, which is a great pity, as many of those of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries must have referred to Popish recusants, and those of the seventeenth century probably to Puritan sectaries, and, later, to Quakers as well——the latter being punished under the Popish Acts of Supremacy and Allegiance. Indeed, the barrister, William Prynne (seventeenth century), a Calvinistic English Presbyterian, wrote a book to prove that Quakerism was only a sort of indirect and derivative Popery. The learned gentleman entitled his work: “_The Quakers unmasked and clearly detected to be but the spawn of Romish Frogs, Jesuites, and Franciscan Fryers._” Now, Prynne was not far wrong either, the erudite historical philosopher knows very well, who has studied the genesis of the remarkable system developed by Fox, Barclay, and Penn.

Was there a Grimston near Mount St. John, Feliskirk, near Thirsk? Or was it Grimston Garth, Holderness? or was it North Grimston, between Malton and Driffield, that Thomas Grimstone came from; or Grimston, three miles east of York?

Since writing the preceding note I have come to the conclusion that the Grimston was, most likely, the Grimstone some twelve miles from Mount St. John, in the Parish of Gilling East, near Hovingham and Ampleforth, in the Vale of Mowbray, and near Gilling Castle, once the seat of the Catholic branch of the Fairfaxes, now the seat of George Wilson, Esquire, J.P. This Grimstone would be a spot very suitable for harbouring Campion after he had been at Babthorpe, near Selby; Thixendale, near Leavening, east of Malton; and Fryton, west of Malton, near Hovingham.

(How wonderful to think that the probabilities are in favour of the supposal that these tranquil, sequestered nooks, each with its own fair summer beauty, once rang with the golden eloquence of Edmund Campion, “one of the diamonds of England,” in the days of Shakespeare.)

Guy Fawkes was also connected with another Roman Catholic martyr, “the Venerable” William Knight, yeoman, of South Duffield, Hemingbrough, Selby, East Yorkshire, who suffered death at the York Tyburn in 1596, for “explaining to a man the Catholic faith.”——See Challoner and Foster’s “_Pedigrees of Yorkshire Families_” (“Fawkes, of Farnley”).]

[Footnote A: The Constables, of Everingham, are one of those old English Roman Catholic families who so appealed to the historic imagination and so touched the historic sympathies of the first Earl of Beaconsfield. The present Lord Lieutenant of the East Riding of Yorkshire, Lord Herries, is the owner of this grand old home of the Constables, one of whom was executed for his share in the first Pilgrimage of Grace under Robert Aske, of Aughton on the Derwent, in the time of Henry VIII. (1536). The pilgrims captured York, Pontefract, and Hull, and laid siege to Skipton Castle. Aske was hanged as a traitor from one of the towers of York, either Clifford’s Tower or possibly the tower of All Saints’ Church, The Pavement, York. After the movement had been quelled, Henry VIII. came with dread majesty to York and established the Council of the North. Lady Lumley, the wife of Sir John Lumley, of Lumley Castle, was burned alive at Smithfield.——See Burke’s “_Tudor Portraits_.”]

[Footnote 34:——Father Morris, S.J., in “_The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers_” (York volume), says that Father Tesimond was a Yorkshireman; though in Foley’s “_Records_,” in one place, he is said to have been born in Northumberland, perhaps a translation of the Latin “Northumbria,” intended to represent the name “Yorkshire.” There were, at least, three families of Tesimond in York in the reign of Elizabeth, namely, Robert Tesimond, a butcher, of Christ’s Parish; Anthony Tesimond, a cordyner; and William Tesimond, a saddler, both of St. Michael-le-Belfrey’s Parish. I incline to think that Father Oswald Tesimond was the son of William Tesimond, who lived in the Parish of St. Michael-le-Belfrey, York. Oswald Tesimond was born in 1563; but as the Register books of St. Michael’s Church, unfortunately, begin in 1565, two years afterwards, there are no means of verifying my supposal. William Tesimond was, for a great part of his life, a rigid Catholic, suffering imprisonment for his faith, although eventually he appears to have yielded. Margaret Tesimond, the wife of William Tesimond, also bore a more than lip testimony to the ancient religion by suffering imprisonment for it. Whether William Tesimond died “reconciled” or not, I cannot say. Perhaps further researches will clear the matter up as to this and the exact parentage of Father Tesimond. In the very learned and deeply lamented Dr. James Raine’s admirable book on the City of York (Longmans, 1893), on p. 110, is the following:——“Whilst the Earl of Northumberland’s head was lying in the Tolbooth on Ouse Bridge, William Tessimond cut off some hair from the beard. He wrapped it in paper, and wrote on the outside, ‘This the heire of the good Erle of Northumberland, Lord Perecy.’ For this he got into great trouble.” This must have been about the 22nd August, 1572, as Thomas Percy Earl of Northumberland was beheaded on that day, at three o’clock in the afternoon, in The Pavement, York, for his share in the Rising of the North. The Church Register of St. Margaret’s Church, Walmgate, York, contains an entry of the death of the Earl of Northumberland. The Percy family had property in Walmgate at that time. The Earl is now “the Blessed Thomas Percy,” one of “the York martyrs.” The Lady Mary Percy, of Ghent, a well-known Benedictine Abbess, was his daughter. She would be probably named after her aunt Mary, the wife of Francis Slingsby, of Scriven Hall, near Scotton. There is a fine monument in the Parish Church of Knaresbrough to the memory of Francis Slingsby and Mary Percy, his wife. The Slingsbies were Roman Catholics till many years after the reign of Elizabeth; in fact, Sir Henry Slingsby, who was beheaded during the Commonwealth, was himself a Roman Catholic.

The Half Moon Hotel, in Blake Street, York, perhaps derives its name from the well-known device of the Percy family.]

[Footnote 35:——Quoted from Father Gerard’s “_Narrative_,” p. 278.]

[Footnote 36:——So that the Plot was first hatched about Easter, 1604.——See Dr. S. R. Gardiner’s “_What Gunpowder Plot was_,” as to the decisive causes of the Plot.——Jardine, in his “_Narrative_” (pp. 45 and 46), thinks that the Star-Chambering of that aged but charming Roman Catholic gentleman, Thomas Pounde, Esquire, of Belmont, Hampshire, contributed to the causes of the Plot. This is very probable. Pounde was first cousin to the father of the Earl of Southampton, the patron and friend of Shakespeare. Pounde was a devoted friend of Campion, and himself a Jesuit lay-brother. He spent a large part of his life in prison. He was attired in prison as became his rank and fortune, and was, besides being a “mystical” Catholic, a most accomplished Elizabethan gentleman.——See “_Jesuits in Conflict_” (Burns & Oates).]

[Footnote 37:——_I.e._, according to Winter, about two months after.]

[Footnote 38:——See pp. 269 and 271 of the Rev. John Gerard’s, S.J., work, “_What was the Gunpowder Plot?_” (Osgood, McIlvaine, & Co., 1897).]

[Footnote 39:——_I.e._, a Prayer Book. Sir Everard Digby appears to have been sworn in by Robert Catesby on the cross formed by the hilt of a poniard.——See “_Life of Sir Everard Digby_.”]

[Footnote 40:——It is also said that Catesby “peremptorily demanded of his associates a promise that they would not mention the project, even in Confession, lest their ghostly fathers should discountenance and hinder it.”——See “_The Month_,” No. 369, pp. 353, 4.——This would be to make assurance double sure. But, happily, the “best laid schemes o’ men gang aft agley.” “For there is on earth a yet auguster thing, veiled though it be, than Parliament or King”——the human conscience, which is “prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathenas” (John Henry Newman). Also, “Conscience is the knowledge with oneself of the better and the worse” (James Martineau).]

[Footnote 41:——See Jardine’s “_Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot_,” p. 41.]

[Footnote 42:——The Most Hon. the Marquess of Ripon, K.G., Lord Lieutenant of the North Riding of Yorkshire, and the Marchioness of Ripon, C.I., of Studley Royal, near Ripon, are descended from this leile-hearted and chivalrous Yorkshire race, in whom so many idealistic, stately souls, of a long buried Past, claim kindred.

Of what manner of men these Mallories were, the puissant owners of Studley Royal, is evident from what we are told concerning that Sir William Mallory, “who was so zealous and constant a Catholic, that when heresy first came into England, and Catholic service commanded to be put down on such a day, he came to the church, and stood there at the door with his sword drawn to defend, that none should come in to abolish religion, saying that he would defend it with his life, and continued for some days keeping out the officers so long as he could possibly do it.”——From the “Babthorpes, of Babthorpe,” Morris’s “_Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers_,” first series, p. 227.——The Church referred to must have been the old Chapel at Aldfield, near Studley Royal. Aldfield was one of the Chapelries of the ancient Parish of Ripon. The old Chapel at Aldfield is now represented by the noble new Church which is seen in the distance, at the end of the long avenue, by all who have the rare happiness of visiting Studley Royal and the tall grey ruins of the Cistercian Abbey of St. Mary, Fountains, laved by the musical little River Skell. (Studley Church is twin-sister to Skelton Church, the Vyner Memorial in the Park of Newby. Skelton was likewise one of the old Ripon Chapelries.) This phrase “to abolish religion,” I opine, refers to the time of Edward VI., when the Mass was first put down, and a communion substituted therefor.——See Tennyson’s “_Mary Tudor_.”——There is a curious old traditional prophecy extant in Yorkshire, as well as other parts of England, that as the Mass was abolished in the reign of the Sixth Edward, so it will be restored in the reign of the Seventh!]

[Footnote 43:——The promoters of the Rising of the North wished:——

(1) To restore to her kingdom Mary Queen of Scots, who simply fascinated Francis Norton, and every other imaginative, romantic, Yorkshire heart that she came in contact with.

(2) To depose Elizabeth, whom they regarded as morally no true claimant for the throne, until dispensed from her illegitimacy by the Pope.

(3) To place Mary Stuart on the throne of England.

(4) Above all, to restore “the ancient faith,” which they did in Durham, Staindrop, Darlington, Richmond, Ripon, and some of the churches in Cleveland, for a very brief season.

It is to be remembered that the Rising of the North in 1569 was not joined in by _all_ the Catholics of Yorkshire, nor by any of the Catholics of Lancashire. This latter fact, together with the influence of Cardinal Allen, of Rossall, partly accounts for the circumstance that Lancashire (especially the neighbourhood of “Wigan and Ashton-on-Makerfield, and, above all, the Fylde, that region between Lancaster and Preston, whence “the great Allen” sprang) is “the Rome of England” to this day. It is said that the Parish Church of Bispham (near which the well-known sea-side resort, Blackpool, is situated) was the parish church where last the parochial Latin Mass was said publicly in Lancashire, the priest being Jerome Allen, uncle to the Cardinal. In the white-washed yeoman dwellings of the Fylde have been reared many of the sturdiest and most solidly pious of the post-Reformation English Catholic Priests. William Allen’s plain, honest, finely-touched spirit seems to have brooded over this fruitful, western, wind-swept land which is well worthy of exploration by all philosophic historians that visit Blackpool.