III Identification of the Handwriting
The style of handwriting of the letter, as seen in the facsimile, is not in this writer’s opinion, from a familiarity of thirty years with old scripts, apart from the disguise, the hand that an educated person would write at the time, but is essentially a commonplace and, no doubt intentionally, rather slovenly style of handwriting. The use of small “i’s” for the first person seems, in view of modern usage, to suggest an illiterate writer; but educated writers, even the King,12 then occasionally lapsed into using them. In the letter, however, they are consistently and may have been purposely used, to avert suspicion from being the work of an educated person; though an illiterate appearance would rather cause such a letter (if genuine) to be disregarded, than to deter a nobleman from attending the opening of Parliament, for which leave or licence was required.
The handwriting has been variously ascribed, but the direction of this inquiry is indicated by the incautious admission made by Sir Edward Coke, the Attorney-General at the trial, respecting the real manner in which the plot was discovered. Salisbury’s careful instructions to the Attorney-General for the trial are with the State papers, in which he says: “Next, you must in any case, when you speak of the letter which was the first ground of discovery, absolutely disclaim that any of these” (the conspirators) “wrote it, though you leave the further judgment indefinite who else it should be.”13
Salisbury thus, in effect, requires Coke by absolutely disclaiming that any of the conspirators wrote (he does not say “sent”) the letter to Monteagle, and by which alone the treason was discovered, to declare in Court, as upon the authority of the Government, that therefore none of the conspirators divulged the plot; which, in any case, could be true only so far as the disclosure to the Government was concerned. Coke, however, for some reason—perhaps because he was not fully in Salisbury’s confidence respecting the letter—describes the real manner of the discovery, according to his own knowledge. Towards the close of his speech for the prosecution, he said: “The last consideration is concerning the admirable discovery of this treason, which was by one of themselves who had taken the oath and sacrament, as hath been said against his own will;14 the means by a dark and doubtful letter to my Lord Monteagle.” This, together with Salisbury’s statement that none of the conspirators wrote the letter, shows that the divulging of the plot preceded the sending of the letter,15 which was not, therefore, as is popularly supposed, the means by which the plot was discovered, except to the general public.
Hitherto those who have attempted this identification have invariably sought amongst such as are likely to have written the letter for a handwriting resembling the disguised writing, which seems a strange method of investigation, as surely the object of a disguised hand16 would be to make the general appearance as unlike the writer’s ordinary hand as possible? The writing being in a set and rather large character, such is the style they have sought for and found, but in a much more refined hand and without arriving at any satisfactory result.
It seems, however, reasonable to suspect that this set and rather large character may be what principally constitutes the disguise, and that the writer’s ordinary hand would be different. The manner in which the lines are forced upwards at the right side, shows that the writer has had difficulty in maintaining the large, set, regular character which would push an unpractised hand in that direction.
Among the more prominent peculiarities, as seen in the facsimile (No. 1), the writer invariably uses the long “s” as an initial letter in the ten examples that occur, even when the letter is not a capital. Such consistent use was usual in legal but not in private hands, though within a word the long “s” was very common. The “t’s” are peculiar; being made with a twist or short line at foot, crossed midway projecting from each side, while a stroke is put on the top as a disguised, or elaborated touch. The “w’s” finish with a side loop. Some of the “g’s” show flat tops; the cypher portion being commenced from the left side with a stroke along the top. The tails of the “y’s” are brought forward. The “hanger” portion of the “h’s” invariably drags below the line which, though not unusual, again indicates in the numerous examples that occur the writer’s habit; while an unusually broad quill has been used to further the disguise.17
After the plot was discovered, Fawkes arrested, and the other conspirators had escaped into the country, Tresham remained in London and even offered his services to the Government. A week later he was taken to the Tower where, being ill, his wife also came, and he was attended by his serving-man, William Vavasour, and his maid, Joan Syer. He was induced “to avoid ill-usage,” to say that he thought Father Garnet, against whom the Government desired to obtain evidence, had written a letter in furtherance of what was known as the Spanish Treason, in 1602. Six weeks later, his illness becoming dangerous, he dictated to his man Vavasour a letter to Lord Salisbury, retracting his statement respecting Garnet, as being more than he really knew; declaring upon his salvation that he had not seen him “in sixteen years before,” clearly meaning before the Spanish Treason in 1602, which is the entire subject of his letter and the fact; and not, as the Government misunderstood him to mean, before the then time of writing in 1605. This statement, written by Vavasour (Fascimile No. 3), was signed by Tresham, who asked his wife to deliver it personally to Lord Salisbury, and within three hours died:18
“I being sent for before yor Lordships in the Towr, you told me yt (that) it was Confessed by Mr Winter, yt he went upon some imploymts in ye Queens time into Spayne & yt yor L. did nominate to me out of his Confession all the partyes names yt were acquainted therewth namely 4 besides himselfe19 & yet sayd yt ther were some left for me to name. I desired yor L. yt I might not answere therunto bycause it was a matter yt was done in the Queens time and since I had my pardon.
“Yor Lordships wold not accept of yt answere, but sayd yt I should be made to speake therunto. And I might thanke my self If I had beene worse used than I had beene since my Coming to the howse19 I told yor Lordsp (to avoyde ill usage)19 yt I thought Mr. Walley20 was p’cured to write his letter for the furthering of this Jeorney. Now my LL. having bethoughte myselfe of this businesse (being to weake to use my owne hand in writing this) wch I do deliver here upon my salvacon to be trew as near as I can call to mynde, desiring yt my form’r Confession may be called in & yt this may stand for truthe. It was more than I knew yt Mr. Walley20 was used herein, & to give your Lords’p p’ofe besids my oathe, I had not seene him in sixteene yere before, nor never had messuadge21 nor letter from him & to this purpose I desired Mr. Leiftenant to lett me see my Confession who told me I should not unlesse I wold inlarge it wch he did p’ceive I had no meaning to doe.
(Signed) Francis Tresame.
“24 m’ch 1605 [-6].
This noate was of my owne
hand writing
By me Willia’ Vavasore.”
Tresham’s statement being misunderstood to mean that he had not seen Garnet for sixteen years,22 while the Government knew from Tresham himself23 that he had recently been in Garnet’s company, was considered such awful perjury to commit when dying as to be incredible. Coke wrote to Salisbury: “It is true that no man may judge in this case, for inter pontem et fontem he might find grace; but it is the most fearful example that I ever knew of to be made so evident as now this is.” Salisbury at the trial said: “Mr. Tresham in his lifetime accused you, Garnet, before the lords, yet now upon his salvation, he under his hand did excuse you, being at the very point of death, saying he had not seen you in sixteen years, which matter, I assure you, before you were taken shook me very much. But, thanks be to God, since the coming of the King, I have known so much of your doctrine and practices, that hereafter they shall not much trouble me.” The writing of Tresham’s dying statement was, therefore, particularly, inquired into, and Vavasour had to make a written statement respecting his knowledge of it; evidently for comparison of the handwriting. This appears to have so alarmed him that in his statement (Fascimile No. 4), written in the presence of Sir William Waad, Lieutenant of the Tower, he asserted that the dying statement was written by Mrs. Tresham, at her husband’s dictation:
“I do rememb’ yt my mr did cause my mres to write a note wherto he did did (sic) bid the mayd and me beare witnes yt he did set his hand unto it, but it was not reade at yt time but since mres Tressa’ did reede it to me and sayd it was yt noate yt my mr did bid us beare witnesse and she comaunded me to carye a letter to Sr Waulter Cope and to desire him to deliver the noate inclosed to my Lorde of Salsburye and further my mr did say yt he cold not write him selfe bycause he was not able but he did sett his hande unto it as before I have sayd and this was done some day before his death.
“(Signed) By me William Vavasor.
“23. March 1605 [-6].
Taken before us:
(Signed) W. Waad.
Willus Lane.”
If for any reason Vavasour did not desire his writing to be brought into question, there could be no harm, beyond his falsehood, in naming Mrs. Tresham as the writer of that letter, as neither could possibly be blamed for writing such a statement for his master. The question arises, whether Vavasour would have ventured upon an untrue statement, except through panic, unless feeling sure of Mrs. Tresham’s support? As Mrs. Tresham throughout made no attempt to conceal the truth for Vavasour, she may have been unaware of any reason for diverting inquiry from himself respecting letters written for his master. Even if Mrs. Tresham had been willing to connive at his falsehood, she could not have done so; as Salisbury, being convinced that she not only wrote but composed her husband’s dying statement and induced him to sign to shield Father Garnet, was so incensed against her that he declined to see her,24 or even to receive her husband’s statement, when she tried to deliver it. She was therefore obliged, in view of possible consequences to herself, to own25 that Vavasour wrote the statement at her husband’s dictation. Vavasour was then examined in the Tower by Chief Justice Popham and by Coke, when he confessed26 that he wrote the dying statement at his master’s dictation, and had denied it through fear, which could only arise from having written some other and less innocent letter for him.
Vavasour, when writing his untrue statement, would avoid using his ordinary handwriting, as already appearing in the letter in question (No. 3), which he had ascribed to Mrs. Tresham. He, therefore, disguises his writing, so far as having to write off-hand and under the observation of the Lieutenant of the Tower and an attendant Justice, with the consciousness that he is writing what is false, and while having to be careful not to reproduce his former disguised hand, as seen in the anonymous letter, permits him; and the hand thus produced betrays him as the writer of that letter, with which the writing is, in itself, identical. The long “s” is invariably used for a word commencing with that letter, even when not a capital; there are the same peculiar “t’s,” though in a less disguised or elaborated form than those of the anonymous letter, but there they clearly are; the “w’s” have no side loops, but in Vavasour’s note at foot of No. 3 a conspicuous example is seen; there are no “g’s”;27 the “y’s” are particularly noticeable, being in two varieties: Vavasour’s ordinary “y,” of which the tail is tucked back; in the other, the tail is brought forward; and no one can fail to see that the latter are by the same hand as those in the letter; the “hangers” of the “h’s” invariably drag below the line; and generally, the writing may throughout be detected as by the same hand that wrote the anonymous letter.
The best specimen of Vavasour’s handwriting, although not so useful as No. 4 for identification purposes, is in the MS. entitled “A Treatise against Lying,” etc., identified by William Tresham as having been transcribed by Vavasour for Francis Tresham, which is now in the Bodleian Library (Facsimile No. 2). To anyone familiar with the handwriting of the period, Vavasour’s writing is the usual law-writer’s or copyist’s hand, such as appears in conveyances and deeds of the time,28 and is not the style of hand that an educated person would then write. Each initial “s” is of the long form; each “w” has a side loop; the “g’s” are flat-topped; and the “h’s” come below the line, etc. Tresham’s dying statement (No. 3) appears to be in a similar but smaller29 and less carefully written hand. Vavasour wrote a neat, small hand, which, when disguising, the probability is that he would attempt an opposite style. If it were not for the testimony of the Lieutenant of the Tower, that the untrue statement (No. 4) was actually written in his presence by Vavasour, the writing would not, from the general appearance, readily be recognized as by the same hand that wrote Tresham’s dying statement (No. 3), and so acknowledged by Vavasour. This shows that he was naturally clever in disguising his hand, hence his employment by Tresham in writing the anonymous letter to Lord Monteagle.
Upon the evidence of the handwriting alone, William Vavasour was the writer of that letter.30
Footnotes
12 In the “Correspondence of James I. with Sir Robert Cecil” (published by the Camden Society in 1861), both the King and the Earl of Northumberland occasionally use them (pp. 64, 70, etc.). The latter also uses them in his general correspondence.
13 “State Papers, Domestic,” James I., xix. 94.
14 Tresham was throughout the only unwilling conspirator, but he did not take the oath sacramentally, only seven or eight of the thirteen conspirators did so.
15 “No wise man could think my lord (Monteagle) to be so weak as to take any alarm to absent himself from Parliament upon such a loose advertisement” (Letter from Salisbury to Cornwallis, November 9).
16 Salisbury, in his letter to Cornwallis, particularly describes the writing as being “in a hand disguised,” and he, like Monteagle, would know not only the writer, but how the letter came to be written.
17 In an expert examination of handwriting, the angle at which the pen is held, as indicated by the long strokes, and the spacing between the lines which a writer naturally uses, have also to be considered—being the basis of handwriting, the first movements that are made in learning to write, and become each writer’s characteristics in those respects. In each specimen of William Vavasour’s handwriting, including the anonymous letter, the long strokes are generally at the same angle, and the spacing between the lines (except in No. 3) is throughout generally similar, while his brother George’s hand is in each respect quite different.
18 “He died this night, about two of the clock after midnight, with very great pain; for though his spirits were much spent and his body dead, a-lay above two hours in departing” (Lieutenant of the Tower to Salisbury, December 23, 1605, “State Papers, Domestic,” James I., xvii. 56). Tresham’s death, being so opportune for Monteagle, if not for Salisbury, has been attributed to poisoning; but Stowe’s “Annals” (1615, p. 880) states it to have been occasioned by strangury, though giving the date of his death incorrectly as November 22. Ten years later a subsequent Lieutenant of the Tower was executed for poisoning a State prisoner.
19 The portion printed in italics was underlined by Coke for omission when the statement was read at the trial. The “4 besides himself,” having reference to Monteagle, was therefore suppressed; the other suppressions in the statement were made for obvious and unfair reasons.
20 “Walley” was one of Father Garnet’s aliases.
21 This is very suggestive of a law-writer’s spelling of “message” (messuage and tenement).
22 When Garnet returned from Rome in 1585, as Superior of the Jesuits in England, he made the Treshams’ acquaintance, being a prominent Roman Catholic family, when Francis was eighteen. Garnet was not their confessor, and the acquaintance had dropped for at least sixteen years before the Spanish Treason in 1602. Garnet’s statement, made (March 23, 1605-6) after Tresham’s death, is: “I knew him about 18 years ago, but since discontinued my acquaintance until the time between his trouble in my lord of Essex’s tumult and the Queen’s death” (1602-3). Garnet would have neither motive nor inclination to shield Tresham, whose betrayal of the plot had brought Garnet to the Tower. He might otherwise have discerned Tresham’s real meaning in his statement of “sixteen years before,” which the contemporary Jesuit Father Gerard correctly interprets as before 1602 in his narrative of the plot. It was not Garnet’s complicity in the Spanish Treason in the previous reign (for which he had his pardon) that the Government cared about, and that so shook Salisbury, but simply Tresham’s dying statement being misunderstood to mean that he had not seen Garnet for the past sixteen years, which is all that the present writer is concerned with.
23 “State Papers, Domestic,” James I., xvi. 62.
24 So he said at the trial: “She came to see me, but I spared either to speak with her or hear her.” But Mrs. Tresham in her examination said that, “in respect of her sorrow and heaviness,” she “was enforced to send it”; and in her note enclosing the dying statement to Sir Walter Cope for delivery, she wrote: “My sorrows are such that I am altogether unfit to come abroad; wherefore I would entreat you to deliver it yourself unto my lord, that I may have my husband’s desire fulfilled therein” (“State Papers, Domestic,” James I., ccxvi. 211).
25 Examination of Mrs. Tresham (ibid., ccxvi. 209).
26 Examination of William Vavasour (ibid., ccxvi. 207).
27 Vavasour, in his authentic and ordinary writing, used flat-topped “g’s,” as seen in the anonymous letter, as well as in No. 2, ascribed to him.
28 The deed of Robert Catesby’s marriage settlement with Katherine, eldest daughter of Sir Thomas Leigh, of Stoneleigh (1592), in the possession of T.W. Whitmore-Jones; Esq., of Chastleton House, Oxon, is in a similar legal hand, with precisely the same peculiarities of “s,” “g,” “w,” “h,” etc. A law-writer’s hand to-day is in a “copper-plate” style, which, although most suitable for the purpose, is not the kind of hand that an educated person would write whose business was not copying, and there was then a similar distinction between them.
29 Apparently owing to restrictions of space and paper.
30 The original letter is framed and exhibited upon a pedestal in the Museum of the Public Record Office. The facsimile has, therefore, had to be made from a negative taken of the letter as seen through glass, while the other facsimiles have the advantage of being made from negatives taken of documents unglazed.