Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Adam Styles and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES: Text in italics is enclosed by underscore
characters. Where small capitals were used, text has been presented in
uppercase. Abbreviations use superscript; the caret, ^, is used before
superscript characters. Where multiple superscript characters are used
they are enclosed in curly braces, {}. A small number of macron
diacritical marks are used in the text and appear as an overlined
letter. These marks are indicated by [=a] where a is the overlined
character.
This text makes extensive use of archaic spellings in quoted material
which has not been amended or modernized. Where typographic errors have
been repaired, they are detailed in further transcribers' notes at the
end of the text.
[Illustration: THE POWDER PLOT]
WHAT WAS THE
GUNPOWDER PLOT?
THE TRADITIONAL STORY TESTED BY
ORIGINAL EVIDENCE
BY
JOHN GERARD, S.J.
[Illustration]
LONDON
OSGOOD, McILVAINE & CO.
45, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.
1897
PREFACE.
THE following study of the Gunpowder Plot has grown out of the
accidental circumstance that, having undertaken to read a paper before
the Historical Research Society, at Archbishop's House, Westminster, as
the day on which it was to be read chanced to be the 5th of November,[1]
I was asked to take the famous conspiracy for my subject. It was with
much reluctance that I agreed to do so, believing, as I then did, that
there was absolutely nothing fresh to say upon this topic, that no
incident in our annals had been more thoroughly threshed out, and that
in regard of none, so far, at least, as its broader outlines are
concerned, was the truth more clearly established.
When, however, I turned to the sources whence our knowledge of the
transaction is derived, and in particular to the original documents upon
which it is ultimately based, I was startled to find how grave were the
doubts and difficulties which suggested themselves at every turn, while,
though slowly and gradually, yet with ever gathering force, the
conviction forced itself upon me, that, not merely in its details is the
traditional story unworthy of credit, but that all the evidence points
to a conclusion fundamentally at variance with it. Nothing contributed
so powerfully to this conviction as to find that every fresh line of
reasoning or channel of information which could be discovered inevitably
tended, in one way or another, towards the same result. In the following
pages are presented to the reader the principal arguments which have
wrought this change of view in my own mind.[2]
I cannot pretend to furnish any full or wholly satisfactory answer to
the question which stands upon the title-page. The real history of the
Plot in all its stages we shall, in all probability, never know. If,
however, we cannot satisfy ourselves of the truth, it will be much to
ascertain what is false; to convince ourselves that the account of the
matter officially supplied, and almost universally accepted, is
obviously untrue, and that the balance of probability lies heavily
against those who invented it, as having been the real plotters,
devising and working the scheme for their own ends.
Neither have I any wish to ignore, or to extenuate, the objections which
militate against such a conclusion, objections arising from
considerations of a general character, rather than from any positive
evidence. Why, it may reasonably be asked, if the government of the day
were ready to go so far as is alleged, did they not go further? Why,
being supremely anxious to incriminate the priests, did they not
fabricate unequivocal evidence against them, instead of satisfying
themselves with what appears to us far from conclusive? Why did they
encumber their tale with incidents, which, if they did not really occur,
could serve only to damage it, inasmuch as we, at this distance of
time, can argue that they are impossible and absurd? How is it,
moreover, that the absurdity was not patent to contemporaries, and was
not urged by those who had every reason to mislike and mistrust the
party in power?
Considerations such as these undoubtedly deserve all attention, and must
be fully weighed, but while they avail to establish a certain
presumption in favour of the official story, I cannot but think that the
sum of probabilities tells strongly the other way. It must be remembered
that three centuries ago the intrinsic likelihood or unlikelihood of a
tale did not go for much, and the accounts of plots in particular appear
to have obtained general credence in proportion as they were incredible,
as the case of Squires a few years earlier, and of Titus Oates somewhat
later, sufficiently testify. It is moreover as difficult for us to enter
into the crooked and complex methods of action which commended
themselves to the statesmen of the period, as to appreciate the force of
the cumbrous and abusive harangues which earned for Sir Edward Coke the
character of an incomparable pleader. On the other hand, it appears
certain that they who had so long played the game must have understood
it best, and, whatever else may be said of them, they always contrived
to win. In regard of Father Garnet, for example, we may think the
evidence adduced by the prosecution quite insufficient, but none the
less it in fact availed not only to send him to the gallows, but to
brand him in popular estimation for generations, and even for centuries,
as the arch-traitor to whose machinations the whole enterprise was due.
In the case of some individuals obnoxious to the government, it seems
evident that downright forgery was actually practised.
The question of Father Garnet's complicity, though usually considered as
the one point in connection with the Plot requiring to be discussed, is
not treated in the following pages. It is doubtless true that to prove
the conspiracy to have been a trick of State, is not the same thing as
proving that he was not entangled in it; but, at the same time, the
first point, if it can be established, will deprive the other of almost
all its interest. Nevertheless, Father Garnet's case will still require
to be fully treated on its own merits, but this cannot be done within
the limits of such an inquiry as the present. It is not by confining our
attention to one isolated incident in his career, nor by discussing once
again the familiar documents connected therewith, that we can form a
sound and satisfactory judgment about him. For this purpose, full
consideration must be given to what has hitherto been almost entirely
ignored, the nature and character of the man, as exhibited especially
during the eighteen years of his missionary life in England, during most
of which period he acted as the superior of his brother Jesuits. There
exist abundant materials for his biography, in his official and
confidential correspondence, preserved at Stonyhurst and elsewhere, and
not till the information thus supplied shall have been duly utilized
will it be possible to judge whether the part assigned to him by his
enemies in this wild and wicked design can, even conceivably, represent
the truth. It may, I trust, be possible at no distant date to attempt
this work, but it is not possible now, and to introduce this topic into
our present discussion would only confuse the issue which is before us.
Except in one or two instances, I have judged it advisable, for the sake
of clearness, to modernize the spelling of documents quoted in the text.
In the notes they are usually given in their original form.
I have to acknowledge my indebtedness in many particulars to Mr. H.W.
Brewer, who not only contributes valuable sketches to illustrate the
narrative, but has furnished many important notes and suggestions, based
upon his exhaustive knowledge of ancient London. I have to thank the
Marquis of Salisbury for permission to examine MSS. in the Hatfield
collection, and his lordship's librarian, Mr. Gunton, for information
supplied from the same source. Through the courtesy of the Deputy-Keeper
of the Public Records, every facility has been afforded me for
consulting the precious documents contained in the "Gunpowder Plot
Book." The Dean of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has kindly given me
access to an important MS. in the College Library; and I have been
allowed by the Rector of Stonyhurst to retain in my hands Father
Greenway's MS. history of the Plot during the whole period of my work.
The proprietors of the _Daily Graphic_ have allowed me to use two
sketches of the interior of "Guy Faukes' Cellar," and one of his
lantern, originally prepared by Mr. Brewer for that journal.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] 1894.
[2] Some of these have been partially set forth in a series of six
articles appearing in _The Month_, December 1894-May, 1895.
CONTENTS.
CHAP. PAGE
I. THE STATE OF THE QUESTION 1
Disclosure of the Plot--Arrest of Guy Faukes--Flight of his
associates--Their abortive insurrection--Their fate--The crime
charged on Catholics in general--Garnet and other Jesuits proclaimed
as the ringleaders--Capture of Garnet--Efforts to procure evidence
against him--His execution--Previous history of the Plot as
traditionally narrated; Proceedings and plans of the
conspirators--Manner of the discovery.
Reasons for suspecting the truth of this history--Previous plots
originated or manipulated by the government--Suspicious
circumstances respecting the Gunpowder Plot in particular--Essential
points of the inquiry.
II. THE PERSONS CONCERNED 19
Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury--His character variously
estimated--Discreditable incidents of his career--Contemporary
judgments of him--His unpopularity--His political difficulties
largely dissipated in consequence of the Plot.
His hatred of and hostility towards the Catholics--Their numbers and
importance--Their hopes from King James, and their
disappointment--The probability that some would have recourse to
violence--The conspirators known as men likely to seek such a
remedy--Their previous history--Difficulties and contradictions in
regard of their character.
III. THE OPINION OF CONTEMPORARIES AND HISTORIANS 42
The government at once suspected of having contrived or fomented the
Plot--Persistence of these suspicions, to which historians for more
than a century bear witness--No fresh information accounts for their
disappearance.
IV. THE TRADITIONAL STORY 54
The old House of Lords and its surroundings--House hired by the
conspirators--They attempt to dig a mine beneath the Peers'
Chamber--Difficulties and improbabilities of the account--The
"Cellar" hired--Its position and character--The gunpowder bought and
stored--Further problems concerning it--The conspirators'
plans--Contradictions respecting them--Their wild and absurd
character--Impossibility of the supposition that the proceedings
escaped the notice of the government.
V. THE GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT 93
Evidence that the government were fully aware of what was in
progress--Various intelligence supplied to them--Cecil's uneasiness
on account of the spread of Catholicity, and the king's
communication with the pope--His evident determination to force on
James a policy of intolerance--He intimates that a great move is
about to be made, and acknowledges to information concerning the
conspirators and their schemes--His political methods illustrated.
VI. THE "DISCOVERY" 114
Importance of the letter received by Lord Monteagle--Extraordinary
prominence given to it--Monteagle's character--He receives the
letter--Suspicious circumstances connected with its arrival--It is
shown to Cecil--Hopeless contradictions of the official narrative as
to what followed--Impossibility of ascertaining what actually
occurred--The French version of the story--The conduct of the
government at variance with their own professions--Their
inexplicable delay in making the discovery--They take no precautions
against the recurrence of danger--The mystery of the
gunpowder--Incredibility of the official narration.
VII. PERCY, CATESBY, AND TRESHAM 147
Probability that the government had an agent among the
conspirators--Suspicious circumstances regarding Percy--His private
life--His alleged intercourse with Cecil--His death.
Catesby and Tresham likewise accused of secret dealings with
Cecil--Catesby's falsehood towards his associates and Father
Garnet--Tresham's strange conduct after the discovery--His
mysterious death.
Alleged positive evidence against the government.
VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE 163
A monopoly secured for the official narrative, which is admittedly
untruthful--Suspicions suggested by such a course, especially in
such a case--The confessions of Faukes and Winter, on which this
narrative is based, deserve no credit--Nor does the evidence of
Bates against Greenway--Indications of foul play in regard of Robert
Winter--The case of Owen, Baldwin and Cresswell; assertions made
respecting them of which no proof can be produced--Efforts to
implicate Sir Walter Raleigh and others--Falsification of
evidence--The service of forgers employed.
Catholic writers have drawn their accounts from the sources provided
by the government.
IX. THE SEQUEL 209
Cecil well informed as to the real nature of the conspiracy, and
apprehends no danger from it--At once turns it to account by
promoting anti-Catholic legislation--Honour and popularity resulting
to him--Ruin of the Earl of Northumberland--Cecil's manifesto--His
alleged attempt to start a second plot.
The popular history of the Plot, and how it was circulated--Singular
suitability of the Fifth of November for the "Discovery."
Summary of the argument.
APPENDIX A. NOTES ON THE ILLUSTRATIONS 235
APPENDIX B. SIR EVERARD DIGBY'S LETTER TO SALISBURY 245
APPENDIX C. THE QUESTION OF SUCCESSION 249
APPENDIX D. THE SPANISH TREASON 251
APPENDIX E. SITE OF PERCY'S LODGING 251
APPENDIX F. ENROLMENT OF CONSPIRATORS 252
APPENDIX G. HENRY WRIGHT THE INFORMER 254
APPENDIX H. MONTEAGLE'S LETTER TO KING JAMES 256
APPENDIX I. EPITAPH ON PETER HEIWOOD 258
APPENDIX K. THE USE OF TORTURE 259
APPENDIX L. MYTHS AND LEGENDS OF THE PLOT 260
APPENDIX M. MEMORIAL INSCRIPTIONS IN THE TOWER 264
APPENDIX N. GUY FAUKES' PUBLISHED CONFESSION 268
INDEX 279
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PAGE
1. MEDAL COMMEMORATIVE OF THE GUNPOWDER PLOT _Title-page_
2. THE GUNPOWDER PLOT. I. _Frontispiece_
3. " " " II. 90
4. " " " III. 215
5. " " " IV. 227
6. " " " V. 229
7. DISCOVERY OF THE GUNPOWDER PLOT 136
8. MONTEAGLE AND LETTER 115
9. ARREST OF FAUKES 125
10. GUY FAUKES' LANTERN 139
11. GROUP OF CONSPIRATORS 3
12. THOMAS PERCY 149
13. HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT IN 1605 56-7
14. GROUND PLAN OF THE SAME 59
15. HOUSE OF LORDS IN 1807 61
16. INTERIOR OF HOUSE OF LORDS, 1755 97
17. INTERIOR OF "CELLAR" 71
18. ARCHES FROM "CELLAR" 75
19. VAULT UNDER PAINTED CHAMBER 73
20. CELL ADJOINING PAINTED CHAMBER 83
21. FACSIMILE OF PART OF WINTER'S CONFESSION, NOV. 23 168
22. SIGNATURES OF FAUKES AND OLDCORNE 173
23. FACSIMILE OF PART OF FAUKES' CONFESSION OF NOV. 9 199
"Quis haec posteris sic narrare poterit, ut facta non ficta esse
videantur?"
"Ages to come will be in doubt whether it were a fact or a fiction."
_Sir Edw. Coke on the trial of the Conspirators._
WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?
CHAPTER I.
THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.
ON the morning of Tuesday, the 5th of November, 1605, which day was
appointed for the opening of a new Parliamentary session, London rang
with the news that in the course of the night a diabolical plot had been
discovered, by which the king and legislature were to have been
destroyed at a blow. In a chamber beneath the House of Lords had been
found a great quantity of gunpowder, and with it a man, calling himself
John Johnson, who, finding that the game was up, fully acknowledged his
intention to have fired the magazine while the royal speech was being
delivered, according to custom, overhead, and so to have blown King,
Lords, and Commons into the air. At the same time, he doggedly refused
to say who were his accomplices, or whether he had any.
This is the earliest point at which the story of the Gunpowder Plot can
be taken up with any certainty. Of what followed, at least as to the
main outlines, we are sufficiently well informed. Johnson, whose true
name was presently found to be Guy, or Guido, Faukes,[3] proved, it is
true, a most obstinate and unsatisfactory witness, and obstinately
refused to give any evidence which might incriminate others. But the
actions of his confederates quickly supplied the information which he
withheld. It was known that the "cellar" in which the powder was found,
as well as a house adjacent, had been hired in the name of one Thomas
Percy, a Catholic gentleman, perhaps a kinsman, and certainly a
dependent, of the Earl of Northumberland. It was now discovered that he
and others of his acquaintance had fled from London on the previous day,
upon receipt of intelligence that the plot seemed at least to be
suspected. Not many hours later the fugitives were heard of in
Warwickshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire, the native counties of
several amongst them, attempting to rally others to their desperate
fortunes, and to levy war against the crown. For this purpose they
forcibly seized cavalry horses[4] at Warwick, and arms at Whewell
Grange, a seat of Lord Windsor's. These violent proceedings having
raised the country behind them, they were pursued by the sheriffs with
what forces could be got together, and finally brought to bay at
Holbeche, in Staffordshire, the residence of one Stephen Littleton, a
Catholic gentleman.
There proved to have been thirteen men in all who had undoubtedly been
participators in the treason. Of these Faukes, as we have seen, was
already in the hands of justice. Another, Francis Tresham, had not fled
with his associates, but remained quietly, and without attempting
concealment, in London, even going to the council and offering them his
services; after a week he was taken into custody. The eleven who either
betook themselves to the country, or were already there, awaiting the
issue of the enterprise, and prepared to co-operate in the rising which
was to be its sequel, were Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, Robert and
Thomas Winter, John and Christopher Wright, John Grant, Robert Keyes,
Ambrose Rokewood, Sir Everard Digby, and Thomas Bates. All were
Catholics, and all, with the exception of Bates, Catesby's servant, were
"gentlemen of blood and name," some of them, notably Robert Winter,
Rokewood, Digby, and Tresham, being men of ample fortune.
[Illustration: THE CONSPIRATORS, FROM A PRINT PUBLISHED AT AMSTERDAM.]
On Friday, November 8th, three days after the discovery, Sir Richard
Walsh, sheriff of Worcestershire, attacked Holbeche. Catesby, Percy, and
the two Wrights were killed or mortally wounded in the assault. The
others were taken prisoners on the spot or in its neighbourhood, with
the exception of Robert Winter, who, accompanied by their host, Stephen
Littleton, contrived to elude capture for upwards of two months, being
at last apprehended, in January, at Hagley Hall, Worcestershire. All the
prisoners were at once taken up to London, and being there confined,
were frequently and diligently examined by the council, to trace, if
possible, farther ramifications of the conspiracy, and especially to
inculpate the Catholic clergy.[5] Torture, it is evident, was employed
with this object.
Meanwhile, on November 9th, King James addressed to his Parliament a
speech, wherein he declared that the abominable crime which had been
intended was the direct result of Catholic principles, Popery being "the
true mystery of iniquity." In like manner Chichester, the Lord Deputy in
Ireland, was informed by Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, his Majesty's
Secretary of State, that the Plot was an "abominable practice of Rome
and Satan,"[6] while the monarch himself sent word to Sir John Harington
that "these designs were not formed by a few," that "the whole legion of
Catholics were consulted," that "the priests were to pacify their
consciences, and the Pope confirm a general absolution for this glorious
deed."[7]
Then follows an interval during which we know little of the course of
events which were proceeding in the seclusion of the council-room and
torture-chamber; but on December 4th we find Cecil complaining that he
could obtain little or no evidence against the really important persons:
"Most of the prisoners," he writes,[8] "have wilfully forsworn that the
priests knew anything in particular, and obstinately refuse to be
accusers of them, yea, what torture soever they be put to."
On January 15th, 1605-6, a proclamation was issued declaring that the
Jesuit fathers, John Gerard, Henry Garnet, and Oswald Greenway, or
Tesimond, were proved to have been "peculiarly practisers" in the
treason, and offering a reward for their apprehension. On the 21st of
the same month Parliament met, having been prorogued immediately after
the king's speech of November 9th, and four days later an Act was passed
for the perpetual solemnization of the anniversary of the projected
crime, the preamble whereof charged its guilt upon "Many malignant and
devilish papists, jesuits, and seminary priests, much envying the true
and free possession of the Gospel by the nation, under the greatest,
most learned, and most religious monarch who had ever occupied the
throne."[9]
In consequence of this Act, was introduced into the Anglican liturgy the
celebrated Fifth of November service, in the collect of which the king,
royal family, nobility, clergy, and commons are spoken of as having
been "by Popish treachery appointed as sheep to the slaughter, in a most
barbarous and savage manner, beyond the examples of former ages;" while
the day itself was marked in the calendar as the "Papists' Conspiracy."
It will thus be seen that the Powder Plot was by this time officially
stigmatized as the work of the Catholic body in general, and in
particular of their priests; thus acquiring an importance and a
significance which could not be attributed to it were it but the wild
attempt of a few turbulent men. As a natural corollary we find
Parliament busily engaged upon measures to insure the more effectual
execution of the penal laws.[10]
On January 27th the surviving conspirators, Robert and Thomas Winter,
Faukes, Grant, Rokewood, Keyes, Digby, and Bates,[11] were put upon
their trial. In the indictment preferred against them, it was explicitly
stated that the Plot was contrived by Garnet, Gerard, Greenway, and
other Jesuits, to whose traitorous persuasions the prisoners at the bar
had wickedly yielded. All were found guilty, Digby, Robert Winter,
Grant, and Bates being executed at the west end of St. Paul's Church, on
January the 30th, and the rest on the following day in Old Palace Yard.
On the very day upon which the first company suffered, Father Garnet,
whose hiding-place was known, and who had been closely invested for nine
days, was captured, in company with another Jesuit, Father Oldcorne. The
latter, though never charged with knowledge of the plot, was put to
death for having aided and abetted Garnet in his attempt to escape.
Garnet himself, being brought to London, was lodged first in the
Gatehouse and afterwards in the Tower.
As we have seen, he had already been proclaimed as a traitor, and
"particular practiser" in the conspiracy, and had moreover been
officially described as the head and front of the treason. Of the latter
charge, after his capture, nothing was ever heard. Of his participation,
proofs, it appeared, still remained to be discovered, for on the 3rd of
March Cecil still spoke of them as in the future.[12] In order to obtain
the required evidence of his complicity, Garnet was examined
three-and-twenty times before the council, and, in addition, various
artifices were practised which need not now be detailed. On the 28th of
March, 1606, he was brought to trial, and on May 3rd he was hanged at
St. Paul's. The Gunpowder Conspirators were thenceforth described in
government publications as "Garnet, a Jesuit, and his confederates."
Such is, in outline, the course of events which followed the discovery
of November 5th, all circumstances being here omitted which are by
possibility open to dispute.
It will probably be maintained, as our best and most circumspect
historians appear to have assumed, that we are in possession of
information enabling us to construct a similar sketch of what preceded
and led up to these events,--whatever obscurity there may be regarding
the complicity of those whose participation would invest the plot with
the significance which has been attributed to it. If it were indeed but
the individual design of a small knot of men, acting for themselves and
of themselves, then, though they were all Catholics, and were actuated
by a desire to aid the Catholic cause, the crime they intended could not
justly be charged upon the body of their co-religionists. It would be
quite otherwise if Catholics in general were shown to have countenanced
it, or even if such representative men as members of the priesthood were
found to have approved so abominable a project, or even to have
consented to it, or knowingly kept silence regarding it. Of the
complicity of Catholics in general or of their priesthood as a body
there is no proof whatever, nor has it ever been seriously attempted to
establish such a charge. As to the three Jesuits already named, who
alone have been seriously accused, there is no proof, the sufficiency of
which may not be questioned. But as to the fact that they who originated
the Plot were Catholics, that they acted simply with the object of
benefiting their Church, and that the nation most narrowly escaped an
appalling disaster at their hands, can there be any reasonable doubt? Is
not the account of their proceedings, to be read in any work on the
subject, as absolutely certain as anything in our history?
This account is as follows. About a year after the accession of James
I.,[13] when it began to be evident that the hopes of toleration at his
hands, which the Catholics had entertained, were to be disappointed,
Robert Catesby, a man of strong character, and with an extraordinary
power of influencing others, bethought him in his wrath of this means
whereby to take summary vengeance at once upon the monarch and the
legislators, under whose cruelty he himself and his fellows were
groaning. The plan was proposed to John Wright and Thomas Winter, who
approved it. Faukes was brought over from the Low Countries, as a man
likely to be of much service in such an enterprise. Shortly afterwards
Percy joined them,[14] and somewhat later Keyes and Christopher Wright
were added to their number.[15] All the associates were required to take
an oath of secrecy,[16] and to confirm it by receiving Holy
Communion.[17]
These are the seven "gentlemen of blood and name," as Faukes describes
them, who had the main hand in the operations which we have to study. At
a later period six others were associated with them, Robert Winter,
elder brother of Thomas, and Grant, both gentlemen of property, Bates,
Catesby's servant, and finally, Rokewood, Digby, and Tresham, all rich
men, who were brought in chiefly for the sake of their wealth, and were
enlisted when the preparations for the intended explosion had all been
completed, in view of the rising which was to follow.[18]
Commencing operations about the middle of December, 1604, these
confederates first endeavoured to dig a mine under the House of Lords,
and afterwards hired a large room, described as a cellar, situated
beneath the Peers' Chamber, and in this stored a quantity of gunpowder,
which Faukes was to fire by a train, while the King, Lords, and Commons,
were assembled above.
Their enemies being thus destroyed, they did not contemplate a
revolution, but were resolved to get possession of one of the king's
sons, or, failing that, of one of his daughters, whom they would
proclaim as sovereign, constituting themselves the guardians of the new
monarch. They also contrived a "hunting match" on Dunsmoor heath, near
Rugby, which was to be in progress when the news of the catastrophe in
London should arrive; the sportsmen assembled for which would furnish,
it was hoped, the nucleus of an army.
Meanwhile, as we are assured--and this is the crucial point of the whole
story--the government of James I. had no suspicion of what was going on,
and, lulled in false security, were on the verge of destruction, when a
lucky circumstance intervened. On October 26th, ten days before the
meeting of Parliament, a Catholic peer, Lord Monteagle, received an
anonymous letter, couched in vague and incoherent language, warning him
to absent himself from the opening ceremony. This document Monteagle at
once took to the king's prime minister, Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury,
who promptly divined its meaning and the precise danger indicated,
although he allowed King James to fancy that he was himself the first to
interpret it, when it was shown to him five days later.[19] Not for
four other days were active steps taken, that is, till the early morning
of the fatal Fifth. Then took place the discovery of which we have
already heard.
Such is, in brief, the accepted version of the history, and of its
substantial correctness there is commonly assumed to be no room for
reasonable doubt. As Mr. Jardine writes,[20] "The outlines of the
transaction were too notorious to be suppressed or disguised; that a
design had been formed to blow up the Parliament House, with the King,
the Royal Family, the Lords and Commons, and that this design was formed
by Catholic men and for Catholic purposes, could never admit of
controversy or concealment." In like manner, while acknowledging that in
approaching the question of Father Garnet's complicity, or that of other
priests, we find ourselves upon uncertain ground, Mr. Gardiner has no
hesitation in declaring that "the whole story of the plot, as far as it
relates to the lay conspirators, rests upon indisputable evidence."[21]
Nevertheless there appear to be considerations, demanding more attention
than they have hitherto received, which forbid the supposition that, in
regard of what is most vital, this official story can possibly be true;
while the extreme care with which it has obviously been elaborated,
suggests the conclusion that it was intended to disguise facts, to the
concealment of which the government of the day attached supreme
importance.
As has been said, the cardinal point of the tale, as commonly told, is
that the Plot was a secret and dangerous conspiracy, conducted with so
much craft as to have baffled detection, but for a lucky accident; that
the vigilance of the authorities was completely at fault; and that they
found themselves suddenly on the very brink of a terrible catastrophe of
which they had no suspicion.[22] If, on the contrary, it should appear
that they had ample information of what was going on, while feigning
absolute ignorance; that they studiously devised a false account of the
manner in which it came to their knowledge; and that their whole conduct
is quite inconsistent with that sense of imminent danger which they so
loudly professed--the question inevitably suggests itself as to whether
we can rely upon the authenticity of the opening chapters of a history,
the conclusion of which has been so dexterously manipulated.
A French writer has observed[23] that the plots undertaken under
Elizabeth and James I. have this feature in common, that they proved,
one and all, extremely opportune for those against whom they were
directed. To this law the Gunpowder Plot was no exception. Whatever be
the true history of its origin, it certainly placed in the hands of the
king's chief minister a most effective weapon for the enforcement of his
favourite policy, and very materially strengthened his own position.
Without doubt the sensational manner of its "discovery" largely
contributed to its success in this respect; and if this were ingeniously
contrived for such a purpose, may it not be that a like ingenuity had
been employed in providing the material destined to be so artistically
utilized?
There can be no question as to the wide prevalence of the belief that
previous plots had owed their origin to the policy of the statesmen who
finally detected them, a belief witnessed to by Lord Castlemaine,[24]
who declares that "it was a piece of wit in Queen Elizabeth's days to
draw men into such devices," and that "making and fomenting plots was
then in fashion; nor can it be denied that good grounds for such an
opinion were not lacking". The unfortunate man Squires had been executed
on the ridiculous charge that he had come over from Spain in order to
poison the pommel of Queen Elizabeth's saddle. Dr. Parry, we are
informed by Bishop Goodman, whose verdict is endorsed by Mr. Brewer,[25]
was put to death by those who knew him to be guiltless in their regard,
they having themselves employed him in the business for which he
suffered. Concerning Babington's famous plot, it is absolutely certain
that, whatever its origin, it was, almost from the first, fully known to
Walsingham, through whose hands passed the correspondence between the
conspirators, and who assiduously worked the enterprise, in order to
turn it to the destruction of the Queen of Scots. As to Lopez, the
Jewish physician, it is impossible not to concur in the verdict that
his condemnation was at least as much owing to political intrigue as to
the weight of evidence.[26] Concerning this period Mr. Brewer says: "The
Roman Catholics seem to have made just complaints of the subtle and
unworthy artifices of Leicester and Walsingham, by whom they were
entrapped into the guilt of high treason. 'And verily,' as [Camden]
expresses it, there were at this time crafty ways devised to try how men
stood affected; counterfeit letters were sent in the name of the Queen
of Scots and left at papists' houses; spies were sent up and down the
country to note people's dispositions and lay hold of their words; and
reporters of vain and idle stories were credited and encouraged."[27]
Under King James,[28] as Bishop Goodman declares, the priest Watson was
hanged for treason by those who had employed him.[29]
It must farther be observed that the particular Plot which is our
subject was stamped with certain features more than commonly suspicious.
Even on the face of things, as will be seen from the summary already
given, it was steadily utilized from the first for a purpose which it
could not legitimately be made to serve. That the Catholics of England,
as a body, had any connection with it there is not, nor ever appeared to
be, any vestige of a proof; still less that the official superiors of
the Church, including the Pope himself, were concerned in it. Yet the
first act of the government was to lay it at the door of all these, thus
investing it with a character which was, indeed, eminently fitted to
sustain their own policy, but to which it was no-wise entitled. Even in
regard of Father Garnet and his fellow Jesuits, whatever judgment may
now be formed concerning them, it is clear that it was determined to
connect them with the conspiracy long before any evidence at all was
forthcoming to sustain the charge. The actual confederates were, in
fact, treated throughout as in themselves of little or no account, and
as important only in so far as they might consent to incriminate those
whom the authorities wished to be incriminated.
The determined manner in which this object was ever kept in view, the
unscrupulous means constantly employed for its attainment, the vehemence
with which matters were asserted to have been proved, any proof of which
was never even seriously attempted--in a word, the elaborate system of
falsification by which alone the story of the conspiracy was made to
suit the purpose it so effectually served, can inspire us with no
confidence that the foundation upon which such a superstructure was
erected, was itself what it was said to be.
On the other hand, when we examine into the details supplied to us as to
the progress of the affair, we find that much of what the conspirators
are said to have done is well-nigh incredible, while it is utterly
impossible that if they really acted in the manner described, the public
authorities should not have had full knowledge of their proceedings. We
also find not only that the same authorities, while feigning ignorance
of anything of the kind, were perfectly well aware that these very
conspirators had something in hand, but that long before the
"discovery," in fact, at the very time when the conspiracy is said to
have been hatched, their officials were working a Catholic plot, by
means of secret agents, and even making arrangements as to who were to
be implicated therein.
These are, in brief, some of the considerations which point to a
conclusion utterly at variance with the received version of the story,
the conclusion, namely, that, for purposes of State, the government of
the day either found means to instigate the conspirators to undertake
their enterprise, or, at least, being, from an early stage of the
undertaking, fully aware of what was going on, sedulously nursed the
insane scheme till the time came to make capital out of it. That the
conspirators, or the greater number of them, really meant to strike a
great blow is not to be denied, though it may be less easy to assure
ourselves as to its precise character; and their guilt will not be
palliated should it appear that, in projecting an atrocious crime, they
were unwittingly playing the game of plotters more astute than
themselves. At the same time, while fully endorsing the sentiment of a
Catholic writer,[30] that they who suffer themselves to be drawn into a
plot like fools, deserve to be hanged for it like knaves, it is
impossible not to agree with another when he writes:[31] "This account
does not excuse the conspirators, but lays a heavy weight upon the
devils who tempted them beyond their strength."
The view thus set forth will perhaps be considered unworthy of serious
discussion, and it must be fully admitted, that there can be no excuse
for making charges such as it involves, unless solid grounds can be
alleged for so doing. That any such grounds are to be found historians
of good repute utterly deny. Mr. Hallam roundly declares:[32] "To deny
that there was such a plot, or, which is the same thing, to throw the
whole on the contrivance and management of Cecil, as has sometimes been
done, argues great effrontery in those who lead, and great stupidity in
those who follow." Similarly, Mr. Gardiner,[33] while allowing that
contemporaries accused Cecil of inventing the Plot, is content to
dismiss such a charge as "absurd."
Whether it be so or not we have now to inquire.
FOOTNOTES:
[3] So he himself always wrote it.
[4] Also described as "Great Horses," or "Horses for the great Saddle."
[5] "The great object of the Government now was to obtain evidence
against the priests."--GARDINER, _History of England_, i. 267. Ed. 1883.
[6] See his despatch in reply. _Irish State Papers_, vol. 217, 95.
Cornwallis received Cecil's letter on November 22nd.
[7] See Harington's account of the king's message, _Nugae Antiquae_, i.
374.
[8] To Favat. (Copy) Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, fol. 625.
[9] Statutes: Anno 3^o Jacobi, c. 1.
[10] This work was taken in hand by the Commons, when, in spite of the
alarming circumstances of the time, they met on November 5th, and was
carried on at every subsequent sitting. The Lords also met on the 5th,
but transacted no business. _Journals of Parliament._
[11] Tresham had died in the Tower, December 22nd. Although he had not
been tried, his remains were treated as those of a traitor, his head
being cut off and fixed above the gates of Northampton (_Dom. James I._
xvii. 62.)
[12] "That which remaineth is but this, to assure you that ere many
daies you shall hear that Father Garnet ... is layd open for a
principall conspirator even in the particular Treason of the
Powder."--_To Sir Henry Bruncard, P.R.O. Ireland_, vol. 218, March
3rd, 1605-6. Also (Calendar) _Dom. James I._ xix. 10.
[13] In Lent, 1603-4. Easter fell that year on April 8th.
[14] "About the middle of Easter Term."--_Thomas Winter's declaration_,
of November 23rd, 1605.
[15] "Keyes, about a month before Michaelmas."--_Ibid._ About
Christopher Wright there is much confusion, Faukes (November 17th, 1605)
implying that he was introduced before Christmas, and Thomas Winter
(November 23rd, 1605) that it was about a fortnight after the following
Candlemas, _i.e._, about the middle of February.
[16] The form of this oath is thus given in the official account: "You
shall swear by the blessed Trinity, and by the Sacrament you now propose
to receive, never to disclose directly or indirectly, by word or
circumstance, the matter that shall be proposed to you to keep secret,
nor desist from the execution thereof until the rest shall give you
leave." It is a singular circumstance that the form of this oath, which
was repeated in official publications, with an emphasis itself
inexplicable, occurs in only one of the conspirators' confessions, viz.,
the oft-quoted declaration of T. Winter, November 23rd, 1605. This--as
we shall see, a most suspicious document--was one of the two selected
for publication, on which the traditional history of the plot depends.
Curiously enough, however, the oath, with sundry other matters, was
omitted from the published version of the confession.
[Published in the "King's Book:" copy, or draft, for publication, in the
Record Office: original at Hatfield. Copy of original Brit. Mus. Add.
MSS., 6178, 75.]
[17] T. Winter says: "Having upon a primer given each other the oath of
secrecy, in a chamber where no other body was, we went after into the
next room and heard mass, and received the blessed Sacrament upon the
same."--_Declaration_, November 23rd, 1605.
[18] Digby was enlisted "about Michaelmas, 1605;" Rokewood about a month
before the 5th of November. Tresham gives October 14th as the date of
his own initiation. _Examination_, November 13th, 1605.
[19] This is clear from a comparison of Cecil's private letter to
Cornwallis and others (Winwood, _Memorials_, ii. 170), with the official
account published in the _Discourse of the manner of the Discovery of
the Gunpowder Plot_.
[20] _Criminal Trials_, ii. 3.
[21] _History of England_, i. 269 (1883).
[22] "We had all been blowne up at a clapp, if God out of His Mercie and
just Reuenge against so great an Abomination, had not destined it to be
discovered, though very miraculously, even some twelve Houres before the
matter should have been put in execution."--_Cecil to Cornwallis_,
November 9th, 1605. Winwood, _Memorials_, ii. 170.
[23] M. l'Abbe Destombes, _La persecution en Angleterre sous le regne
d'Elizabeth_, p. 176.
[24] _Catholique Apology_, third edition, p. 403.
[25] Goodman's _Court of King James_, i. 121.
[26] Mr. Sidney Lee, _Dictionary of National Biography_, _sub nom._
[27] Goodman's _Court of King James_, i. 121. Ed. J.S. Brewer.
[28] _Court of King James_, p. 64.
[29] Of this affair,--the "Bye" and the "Main,"--Goodman says, "[This] I
did ever think to be an old relic of the treasons in Q. Elizabeth's
time, and that George Brooks was the contriver thereof, who being
brother-in-law to the Secretary, and having great wit, small means, and
a vast expense, did only try men's allegiance, and had an intent to
betray one another, but were all taken napping and so involved in one
net. This in effect appears by Brooks' confession; and certainly K.
James ... had no opinion of that treason, and therefore was pleased to
pardon all save only Brooks and the priests."--_Court of King James_, i.
160.
[30] _A plain and rational account of the Catholick Faith_, etc. Rouen,
1721, p. 200.
[31] Dodd, _Church History of England_, Brussels, 1739, i. 334.
[32] _Constitutional History_, i. 406, note, Seventh Edition. In the
same note the historian, discussing the case of Father Garnet, speaks of
"the damning circumstance that he was taken at Hendlip in concealment
along with the other conspirators." He who wrote thus can have had but a
slight acquaintance with the details of the history. None of the
conspirators, except Robert Winter, who was captured at Hagley Hall,
were taken in concealment, and none at Hendlip, where there is no reason
to suppose they ever were. Father Garnet was discovered there, nearly
three months later, in company with another Jesuit, Father Oldcorne, on
the very day when the conspirators were executed in London, and it was
never alleged that he had ever, upon any occasion, been seen in company
with "the other conspirators."
[33] _History_, i. 255, note.