The Gunpowder Plot and Lord Mounteagle's Letter, Being a Proof, with Moral Certitude, of the Authorship of the Document / Together with Some Account of the Whole Thirteen Gunpowder Conspirators, Including Guy Fawkes

CHAPTER XLIV.

We come now to the last portion of this Inquiry— to the last portion, indeed, but not to the least.

For we have now to consider what Evidence there is tending to prove that subsequent to the penning of the Letter by Father Edward Oldcorne, he was conscious of having performed the meritorious deed that, I maintain, the Evidence, deductions, and suggestions therefrom all converge to one supreme end to establish, namely, that it is morally (not mathematically) certain that his hand, and his hand alone, actually penned that immortal Letter, whose praises shall be celebrated till the end of time.

Before considering this Evidence let me, however, remind my readers that there is (1) not only a general similarity in the handwriting of the Letter and Father Oldcorne’s undoubted handiwork— the Declaration of the 12th day of March, 1605-6— a general similarity in point of the size of the letters and of that indescribable something called style,[141] but (2) a particular similarity in the formation of the letters in the case of these following, namely, the small c/s, l/s, i/s, b/s, w/s, r/s, long s/s (as initials), short s/s (as terminals), while the m/s and n/s are not inconsistent.[A]

[A] Bentham aptly terms the comparison of Document with Document, “Circumstantial real Evidence.”— See Best’s “Principles of the Law of Evidence,” and Wills on “Circumstantial Evidence.” See Miss Walford’s Letter (Appendix).

Moreover, there is (3) this fact to be remembered, that in both the Letter and in the said Declaration, the name “God” is written with a small “g,” thus: “god.”

It is true that, of course, not only did this way of writing the name of the Supreme Being then denote no irreverence, but it was commonly so written by Englishmen in the year 1605.

Still, it was certainly not by them universally so written. For in the fac-simile of “Thomas Winter’s Confession” the word “God” occurs more than once written with a handsomely made capital G,[142] to mention none other cases.

There is to be also remembered (4) the user of the expressions “as yowe tender youer lyf,” and “deuys some exscuse to shift of[143] youer attendance at this parleament for god and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme.”

For these expressions are eminently expressions that would be employed by a man born in Yorkshire in the sixteenth century.

Again; there is to be noted (5) the expressions as “yowe tender youer lyf,” and “god and man hathe concurred.” Inasmuch as I maintain that as “yowe tender youer lyf” was just the kind of expression that would be used by a man who had had an early training in the medical art, as was the case with Edward Oldcorne.

For “Man to preserve is pleasure suiting man, and by no art is favour better sought.” And a deep rooted belief in the powers of Nature and in the sacredness of the life of man are the two brightest jewels in the true physician’s crown.

Once more; (6) the expression “god and man hathe concurred” is pre-eminently the mode of clothing in language one way, wherein a rigid Roman Catholic of that time would mentally contemplate— not, indeed, the interior quality of the mental phenomena known as the Gunpowder Plot, in which “the devil” alone could “concur,” but the simple exterior designment of the same, provided he knew for certain that it could be considered as a clear transparency only— as a defecated cluster of purely intellectual acts.[A]

[A] It is manifest that if, in intent, Oldcorne by his own Letter had destroyed the Plot, he, of all other people in the world, would have the prerogative of regarding the Plot as a clear transparency; while of the Plot as a transparency, he would feel a freedom to write “god and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme.” If the Writer had not the prerogative of regarding the Plot as a clear transparency then these results follow— that he regarded Him (Whose Eyes are too pure even to behold iniquity) as concurring in the designment of a most hellish crime, nay, of participating in such designment; for he couples God with man. Now the Letter is evidently the work of a Catholic. But no Catholic would regard God as the author of a crime. Therefore the Gunpowder Plot to the Writer of the Letter can have been regarded as no crime. But it was obviously a crime, unless and until it had been defecated of criminous quality, and so rendered a clear transparency. Now, as the Writer obviously did not regard it as a crime, therefore he must have regarded it as defecated, by some means or another; in other words, as a clear transparency. And this, I maintain, proves that the Writer had a special interior knowledge of the Plot “behind the scenes,” that is, deep down within the depths of his conscious being.

Furthermore, in reflecting on these preliminaries to the general discussion of the Evidence tending to prove a consciousness on Edward Oldcorne’s part, subsequent to the penning of the Letter, of being responsible for the commission of the everlastingly meritorious feat, let it be diligently noted that the Letter ends with these words: “the dangere is passed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter and i hope god will give yowe the grace to mak good use of it to whose holy proteccion i contend yowe.” (The italics are mine.)

Now, I opine that what the Writer intended to hint at was a suggestion to the recipient of the Letter to destroy the document. Not, however, that as a fact, I think, he really wished it to be destroyed.[144] Because it is highly probable that (apart from other reasons) the Writer must have wished it to be conveyed to the King, else why should he have said, “i hope god will give you the grace to mak good use of it”?

And why should the King himself in his book have omitted the insertion of this little, but here virtually all-important, adjective?[145]

Besides, the Writer cannot have seriously wished for the destruction of the document. For in that case he would not have made use of such a masterpiece of vague phraseology as “the dangere is passed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter.”[146] But, on the contrary, he would have plainly adjured the receiver of the missive, for the love of God and man, to commit it as soon as read to the devouring flames!

Lastly should be noted the commendatory words wherewith the document closes. These words (or those akin to them), though in use among Protestants as well as Catholics in the year 1605, were specially employed by Catholics, and particularly by Jesuits or persons who were “Jesuitized” or “Jesuitically affected.”[147]

Clyx.com