  Having then thus established the point that if Christopher Wright and his conjectured Penman of the Letter wished to put themselves into communication with the King’s Government, Christopher Wright himself had family connections in Mounteagle and Ward, who were pre-eminently well qualified— from their Janus-like respective aspects— for the performance of such a task, let us proceed with our Inquiry. For there is Evidence to lead to the following conclusions:— (1) That the revealing conspirator (whoever he was) had arranged beforehand that Mounteagle should be at Hoxton on the memorable Saturday evening, the 26th day of October, 1605, at about the hour of seven of the clock. Moreover, my strong opinion is that this arrangement was made through the suggestion of Thomas Ward, the diplomatic intermediary, with the express consent of Mounteagle himself. The suggestion, I think, may have been made by Thomas Ward at Bath, See a curious letter dated 12th October, but without date of the year, from Mounteagle to Catesby (“ArchÆologia,” vol. xxviii., p. 420), discovered by the late Mr. Bruce. There is a copy of this “ArchÆologia” in the British Museum, which I saw in October, 1900. (2) That Thomas Ward’s was the guiding mind, the dominant force, or, to vary the metaphor, the central pivot upon which the successful accomplishment of the entire revelation turned, inasmuch as, I submit, that Ward must have received from the conscience-stricken conspirator a complete disclosure of the whole guilty secret, with full power, moreover, to make known to Mounteagle so much of the particulars concerning the enterprise as in the exercise of his (Ward’s) uncontrolled diplomatic discretion it might be profitable to be made known to Mounteagle, in order that the supreme end in view might be attained, namely, the entire spinning round on its axis of the prodigious, diabolical Plot. (3) That Thomas Ward (or Warde) was the diplomatic go-between, the trusty mentor, and the zealous prompter of his master throughout the whole of the very difficult, delicate, and momentous part that Destiny, at this awful crisis in England’s history, called upon this young nobleman to play. If Ward (or Warde) were born about the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, in the year 1605 he would be well-nigh in the prime of life, namely, forty-six years of age; whereas Mounteagle, we know, was just about thirty. Hence was Warde, by his superior age and experience of men and things, well fitted to play “the guide, philosopher, and friend” to Mounteagle in the matter. “Yet hath Sir Proteus ... Made use and fair advantage of his days: His years but young, but his experience old: His head unmellowed, but his judgment ripe; And, in a word (for far behind his worth Come all the praises that I now bestow) He is complete in feature and in mind, With all good grace, to grace a gentleman.” It sheds some very faint corroborative light on the supposal that Thomas Ward was the “Mr. Warde” mentioned by Sir Francis Walsingham in the “Earl of Leicester’s Correspondence” (Cam. Soc), that Sir Thomas Heneage, a trusted diplomatist of Queen Elizabeth in the Low Countries, married Anne Poyntz, the daughter of Sir Nicholas Poyntz and Margaret Stanley, a daughter of Edward Stanley Earl of Derby, especially when it is recollected that the Poyntz and the Wards, of Mulwith, were related.— See “Life of Mary Ward” (Burns & Oates, 2 vols.) Also a “Mr. Wade” mentioned, by Walsingham to Leicester in a letter dated 3rd April, 1587, may have been really “Warde.”— See Wright’s “Elizabethan Letters,” vol. ii., p. 335. Again, “The Calendar of State Papers,” Domestic Series, 1581-90, gives, page 93, a Thomas Warde, as an examiner for the Privy Council, taking down evidence in the cause of Robert Hungate and wife v. John Hoare and John Shawe, in the year 1583. |
|
