THE OPINION OF CONTEMPORARIES AND HISTORIANS.
WE have now for so long a period been accustomed to accept the official
story regarding the Gunpowder Plot, that most readers will be surprised
to hear that at the time of its occurrence, and for more than a century
afterwards, there were, to say the least, many intelligent men who took
for granted that in some way or other the actual conspirators were but
the dupes and instruments of more crafty men than themselves, and in
their mad enterprise unwittingly played the game of ministers of State.
From the beginning the government itself anticipated this, as is
evidenced by the careful and elaborate account of the whole
affair drawn up on the 7th of November, 1605--two days after the
"discovery"--seemingly for the benefit of the Privy Council.[99] This
important document, which is in the handwriting of Levinus Munck,
Cecil's secretary, with numerous and significant emendations from the
hand of Cecil himself, speaks, amongst other things, of the need of
circumspection, "considering how apt the world is nowadays to think all
providence and intelligences to be but practices." The result did not
falsify the expectation. Within five weeks we find a letter written from
London to a correspondent abroad,[100] wherein it is said: "Those that
have practical experience of the way in which things are done, hold it
as certain that there has been foul play, and that some of the Council
secretly spun the web to entangle these poor gentlemen, as did Secretary
Walsingham in other cases," and it is clear that the writer has but
recorded an opinion widely prevalent. To this the government again bear
witness, for they found it advisable to issue an official version of the
history, in the _True and Perfect Relation_, and the _Discourse of the
Manner of the Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot_, the appearance of which
was justified expressly on the ground that "there do pass from hand to
hand divers uncertain, untrue, and incoherent reports and relations,"
and that it is very important "for men to understand the birth and
growth of the said abominable and detestable conspiracy." The accounts
published with this object are, by the common consent of historians,
flagrantly untruthful and untrustworthy.[101] We likewise find
Secretary Cecil writing to instruct Sir E. Coke, the Attorney-General,
as to his conduct of the case against the conspirators, in view of the
"lewd" reports current in regard of the manner in which it had been
discovered.[102] The same minister, in the curious political manifesto
which he issued in connection with the affair,[103] again bears witness
to the same effect, when he declares that the papists, after the manner
of Nero, were throwing the blame of their crime upon others.
Clearly, however, it was not to the papists alone that such an
explanation commended itself. The Puritan Osborne[104] speaks of the
manner in which the "discovery" was managed as "a neat device of the
Treasurer's, he being very plentiful in such plots." Goodman, Anglican
Bishop of Gloucester, another contemporary, is even more explicit. After
describing the indignation of the Catholics when they found themselves
deceived in their hopes at the hands of James, he goes on: "The great
statesman had intelligence of all this, and because he would show his
service to the State, he would first contrive and then discover a
treason, and the more odious and hateful the treason were, his service
would be the greater and the more acceptable."[105] Another notable
witness is quoted by the Jesuit Father Martin Grene, in a letter to his
brother Christopher, January 1st, 1665-6:[106] "I have heard strange
things, which, if ever I can make out, will be very pertinent: for
certain, the late Bishop of Armagh, Usher, was divers times heard to
say, that if papists knew what he knew, the blame of the Gunpowder
Treason would not lie on them." In like manner we find it frequently
asserted on the authority of Lord Cobham and others,[107] that King
James himself, when he had time to realize the truth of the matter, was
in the habit of speaking of the Fifth of November as "Cecil's holiday."
Such a belief must have been widely entertained, otherwise it could not
have been handed on, as it was, for generations. It is not too much to
say that historians for almost a century and a half, if they did not
themselves favour the theory of the government's complicity, at least
bore witness how widely that idea prevailed. Thus, to confine ourselves
at present to Protestant writers, Sanderson,[108] acknowledging that the
secretary was accused of having manipulated the transaction, says no
word to indicate that he repudiates such a charge. Welwood[109] is of
opinion that Cecil was aware of the Plot long before the "discovery,"
and that the famous letter to Monteagle was "a contrivance of his own."
Oldmixon writes[110] "notwithstanding the general joy, ... there were
some who insinuated that the Plot was of the King's own making, or that
he was privy to it from first to last." Carte[111] does not believe that
James knew anything of it, but considers it "not improbable" that Cecil
was better informed. Burnet[112] complains of the impudence of the
papists of his day, who denied the conspiracy, and pretended it was an
artifice of the minister's "to engage some desperate men into a plot,
which he managed so that he could discover it when he pleased."
Fuller[113] bears witness to the general belief, but considers it
inconsistent with the well-known piety of King James. Bishop Kennet, in
his Fifth of November sermon at St. Paul's, in 1715, talks in a similar
strain. So extreme, indeed, does the incredulity and uncertainty appear
to have been, that the Puritan Prynne[114] is inclined to suspect
Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, of having been engaged in the
conspiracy; while one of the furious zealots who followed the lead of
Titus Oates, mournfully testified that there were those in his day who
looked upon the Powder Treason "as upon a romantic story, or a politic
invention, or a State trick," giving no more credence to it than to the
histories of the "Grand Cyrus, or Guy of Warwick, or Amadis de
Gaul,"--or, as we should now say, Jack the Giant Killer.
The general scope and drift of such suspicions are well indicated by
Bevil Higgons, "This impious design," he writes[115] of the Plot, "gave
the greatest blow to the Catholic interest in England, by rendering that
religion so odious to the people. The common opinion concerning the
discovery of the Plot, by a letter to the Lord Mounteagle, has not been
universally allowed to be the real truth of the matter, for some have
affirmed that this design was first hammered in the forge of Cecil, who
intended to have produced this plot in the time of Queen Elizabeth, but
prevented by her death he resumed his project in this reign, with a
design to have so enraged the nation as to have expelled all Roman
Catholics, and confiscated their estates. To this end, by his secret
emissaries, he enticed some hot-headed men of that persuasion, who,
ignorant whence the design first came, heartily engaged in this
execrable Powder Treason.... Though this account should not be true," he
continues, "it is certain that the Court of England had notice of this
Plot from France and Italy long before the pretended discovery; upon
which Cecil ... framed that letter to the Lord Mounteagle, with a design
to make the discovery seem the more miraculous, and at the same time
magnify the judgment of the king, who by his deep penetration was to
have the honour of unravelling so ambiguous and dark a riddle."
It may be added that amongst modern historians who have given special
attention to this period, several, though repudiating the notion that
Cecil originated the Plot, are strongly of opinion that as to the
important episode of the "discovery," the traditional story is a
fabrication. Thus, Mr. Brewer[116] declares it to be quite certain that
Cecil had previous knowledge of the design, and that the "discovery" was
a fraud. Lodge[117] is of the same opinion, and so is the author of the
_Annals of England_.[118] Jardine[119] inclines to the belief that the
government contrived the letter to Monteagle in order to conceal the
means by which their information had in reality been obtained. Mr.
Gardiner, though dismissing the idea as "absurd," acknowledges that his
contemporaries accused Cecil of inventing the whole Plot.[120]
So much for the testimony of Protestants. As for those who had to suffer
in consequence of the affair, there is no need to multiply testimonies.
Lord Castlemaine tells us[121] that "the Catholics of England, who knew
Cecil's ways of acting and their own innocence, suspected him from the
beginning, as hundreds still alive can testify." Father Henry More,
S.J., a contemporary, speaks to the same effect.[122] Father John
Gerard, who was not only a contemporary, but one of those accused of
complicity, intimates[123] his utter disbelief of the official narrative
concerning the discovery, and his conviction that those who had the
scanning of the redoubtable letter were "well able in shorter time and
with fewer doubts to decipher a darker riddle and find out a greater
secret than that matter was." One Floyde, a spy, testified in 1615[124]
to having frequently heard various Jesuits say, that the government were
aware of the Plot several months before they thought fit to "discover"
it.
The Catholic view is expressed with much point and force by an anonymous
writer of the eighteenth century:[125] "I shall touch briefly upon a few
particulars relating to this Plot, for the happy discovery whereof an
anniversary holiday has now been kept for above a hundred years. Is it
out of pure gratitude to God the nation is so particularly devout on
this occasion? If so, it is highly commendable: for we ought to thank
God for all things, and therefore I cannot deny but there is all the
reason in the world to give him solemn thanks, for that the king and
Parliament never were in any danger of being hurt by the Powder Plot....
I am far from denying the Gunpowder Plot. Nay, I believe as firmly that
Catesby, with twelve more popish associates, had a design to blow up K.
James, as I believe that the father of that same king was effectually
blown up by the Earls of Murray, Morton, Bothwell, and others of the
Reformed Church of Scotland. However ... I humbly conceive I may say the
king and Parliament were in no danger of being hurt by it, and my reason
is because they had not less a man than the prime minister of state for
their tutelar angel; a person deeply read in politics; who had inherited
the double spirit of his predecessor Walsingham, knew all his tricks of
legerdemain, and could as seasonably discover plots as contrive them....
This much at least is certain, that the letter written to my Lord
Mounteagle, by which the Plot was discovered, had not a fool, but a very
wise sophister for its author: for it was so craftily worded, that
though it was mysterious enough on the one hand to prevent a full
evidence that it was written on purpose to discover the Plot, yet it was
clear enough on the other to be understood with the help of a little
consideration, as the event soon showed. Indeed, when it was brought to
Secretary Cecil, he, poor gentleman, had not penetration enough to
understand the meaning of it, and said it was certainly written by a
madman. But there, I fear, he wronged himself. For the secretary was no
madman. On the contrary, he had too much wit to explain it himself, and
was too refined a politician to let slip so favourable an occasion of
making his court to the king, who was to have the compliment made him of
being the only Solomon wise enough to unfold this dark mystery. Which
while his Majesty was doing with a great deal of ease, the secretary was
all the while at his elbow admiring and applauding his wonderful
sagacity.... So that, in all probability, the same man was the chief
underhand contriver and discoverer of the Plot; and the greatest part of
the bubbles concerned in it were trapanned into it by one who took sure
care that none but themselves should be hurt by it.... But be that as it
will, there is no doubt but that they who suffer themselves to be drawn
into a plot like fools, deserve to be hanged for it like knaves."
The opinion of Dodd, the historian, has already been indicated, which in
another place he thus emphasizes and explains:[126] "Some persons in
chief power suspecting the king would be very indulgent to Catholics,
several stratagems were made use of to exasperate him against them, and
cherishing the Gunpowder Plot is thought to be a masterpiece in this
way."[127]
It would not be difficult to continue similar citations, but enough has
now been said to show that it is nothing new to charge the chief
minister of James I. with having fostered the conspiracy for his own
purposes, or even to have actually set it a-going. It appears perfectly
clear that from the first there were not a few, and those not Catholics
only, who entertained such a belief, and that the facts of the case are
inadequately represented by historians, who imply, like Mr. Jardine,
that such a theory was first broached long afterwards, and adopted by
Catholics alone.[128]
It is moreover apparent that if in recent times historians have
forgotten that such a view was ever held, or consider it too
preposterous for serious discussion, this is not because fuller
knowledge of the details of the conspiracy have discredited it. The
official version of the story has remained in possession of the field,
and it has gradually been assumed that this must substantially be true.
In consequence, as it seems, writers of history, approaching the subject
with this conviction, have failed to remark many points suggested even
by the documentary evidence at our disposal, and still more emphatically
by the recorded facts, which cannot but throw grave doubt upon almost
every particular of the traditional account, while making it impossible
to believe that, as to what is most essential, the Plot was in reality
what has for so long been supposed. That long before the "discovery" the
Plot must have been, and in fact was, known to the government; that this
knowledge was artfully dissimulated, in order to make political capital
out of it; that for the same purpose the sensational circumstances of
its discovery were deliberately arranged; and that there are grave
reasons for suspecting the beginnings of the desperate enterprise, as
well as its catastrophe, to have been dexterously manipulated for State
purposes;--such are the conclusions, the evidence for which will now be
considered.
FOOTNOTES:
[99] _Gunpowder Plot Book_, 129. Printed in _Archaeologia_, xii. 202*.
[100] R.O. _Roman Transcripts_ (Bliss), No. 86, December 10th, 1605
(Italian).
[101] Mr. Jardine writes (_Criminal Trials_, ii. p. 235), "_The True and
Perfect Relation_ ... is certainly not deserving of the character which
its title imports. It is not _true_, because many occurrences on the
trial are wilfully misrepresented; and it is not _perfect_, because the
whole evidence, and many facts and circumstances which must have
happened, are omitted, and incidents are inserted which could not by
possibility have taken place on the occasion. It is obviously a false
and imperfect relation of the proceedings; a tale artfully garbled and
misrepresented, like many others of the same age, to serve a State
purpose, and intended and calculated to mislead the judgment of the
world upon the facts of the case." Of the _Discourse_ he speaks in
similar terms. (_Ibid._, p. 4.)
[102] R.O. _Dom. James I._ xix. 94. Printed by Jardine, _Criminal
Trials_, ii. 120 (note).
[103] _Answere to certaine Scandalous Papers, scattered abroad under
colour of a Catholic Admonition._ (Published in January, 1605-6.)
[104] _Traditional Memoirs_, 36. Of this writer Lord Castlemaine says,
"He was born before this plot, and was also an inquisitive man, a
frequenter of company, of a noted wit, of an excellent family, and as
Protestant a one as any in the whole nation."
[105] _Court of King James_ (1839), i. 102.
[106] Stonyhurst MSS., _Anglia_, v. 67.
[107] _E.g._, in the _Advocate of Conscience Liberty_ (1673), p. 225.
[108] _History of Mary Queen of Scots and James I._, p. 334. Bishop
Kennet, in his Fifth of November Sermon, 1715, boldly declares that
Sanderson speaks not of Cecil the statesman, but of Cecil "a busy Romish
priest" (and, he might have added, a paid government spy). The assertion
is utterly and obviously false.
[109] _Memoirs_, p. 22.
[110] _History of England, Royal House of Stuart_, p. 27.
[111] _General History of England_, iii. 757.
[112] _History of His Own Times_, i. 11.
[113] _Church History_, Book X. Sec. 39.
[114] _Antipathie of the English Lordly Prelacie, to the regall
Monarchie and Civill Unity_, p. 151.
[115] _A Short View of the English History_, p. 296.
[116] Note to _Fuller's Church History_, x. Sec. 39, and to the _Student's
Hume_.
[117] _Illustrations_, iii. 172.
[118] Parker and Co. This author says of Cecil and his rival Raleigh,
"Both were unprincipled men, but Cecil was probably the worst. He is
suspected not only of having contrived the strange plot in which Raleigh
was involved, but of being privy to the proceedings of Catesby and his
associates, though he suffered them to remain unmolested, in order to
secure the forfeiture of their estates" (p. 338).
[119] _Criminal Trials_, ii. 68.
[120] _History of England_, i. 254, note.
[121] _Catholique Apology_, p. 412.
[122] _Hist. Prov. Angl. S.J._, p. 310.
[123] _Condition of Catholics under James I._, p. 100.
[124] R.O. _Dom. James I._, lxxxi. 70, August 29th, 1615.
[125] _A Plain and Rational Account of the Catholick Faith_, Rouen,
1721, p. 197.
[126] _Certamen utriusque Ecclesiae_, James I.
[127] The author of the _English Protestants' Plea_ (1621) says: "Old
stratagems and tragedies of Queene Elizabeth's time must needs be
renewed and playde againe, to bring not only the Catholikes of England,
but their holy religion into obloquy" (p. 56).
Peter Talbot, Bishop of Dublin, in the _Polititian's Catechisme_ (1658)
writes: "That Cecil was the contriver, or at least the fomenter of [the
Plot,] was testified by one of his own domestick Gentlemen, who
advertised a certain Catholike, by name Master Buck, two months before,
of a wicked designe his Master had against Catholikes" (p. 94).
[128] A writer, signing himself "Architect," in an article describing
the old palace of Westminster (_Gentleman's Magazine_, July, 1800, p.
627), having occasion to mention the Gunpowder Plot, observes: "This
Plot is now pretty well understood not to have been hatched by the
Papists, but by an inveterate foe of the Catholicks of that day, the
famous minister of James.... All well-informed persons at present laugh
at the whole of this business."