THE "DISCOVERY."
WHEN the conspirators first undertook their enterprise, Parliament was
appointed to meet on February 7th, 1604-5, but, as has been seen, it was
subsequently prorogued till October 3rd, and then again till Tuesday,
November 5th. On occasion of the October prorogation, the confederates
employed Thomas Winter to attend the ceremony in order to learn from the
demeanour of the assembled Peers whether any suspicion of their design
had suggested this unexpected adjournment. He returned to report that no
symptom could be discerned of alarm or uneasiness, and that the presence
of the volcano underfoot was evidently unsuspected. Thus reassured, his
associates awaited with confidence the advent of the fatal Fifth.
In the interval occurred the event which forms the official link
connecting the secret and the public history of the Plot, namely, the
receipt of the letter of warning by Lord Monteagle. That the document is
of supreme importance in our history cannot be denied, for the
government account clearly stands or falls with the assertion that this
was in reality the means whereby the impending catastrophe was averted.
That it was so, the official story proclaimed from the first with a
vehemence in itself suspicious, and the famous letter was exhibited to
the world with a persistence and solicitude not easy to explain; being
printed in the "King's Book," and in every other account of the affair;
while transcribed copies were sent to the ambassadors at foreign courts
and other public personages.[241] Had a warning really been given, in
such a case, to save the life of a kinsman or friend, the circumstance,
however fortunate, would scarcely have been wonderful, nor can we think
that the document would thus have been multiplied for inspection. If, on
the other hand, it had been carefully contrived for its purpose, it
would not be unnatural for those who knew where the weak point lay, to
wish the world to be convinced that there really had been a letter. It
is, moreover, not easy to understand the importance attributed to
Monteagle's service in connection with it. To have handed to the
authorities such a message, evidently of an alarming nature, though he
himself did not professedly understand it, does not appear to have
entitled him to the extraordinary consideration which he in fact
received. The Attorney General was specially instructed, at the trial,
to extol his lordship's conduct.[242] Wherever, in the confession of the
conspirators, his name was mentioned, it was erased, or pasted over with
paper, or the whole passage was omitted before publication of the
document. All this is easy to understand if he were the instrument
employed for a critical and delicate transaction, depending for success
upon his discretion and reticence. On any other supposition it seems
inexplicable.
[Illustration: MONTEAGLE AND LETTER.
The gallant _Eagle_, soaring vp on high:
Beares in his beake, _Treasons_ discouery.
MOVNT, noble EAGLE, with thy happy prey,
And thy rich _Prize_ to th' _King_ with speed conuay.]
Moreover, Monteagle's services received most substantial acknowledgment
in the form of a grant of L700 a year,[243] equivalent, at least, to
ten times that amount in money of the present day.[244] There still
exists[245] the draft preamble of the grant making this award, which has
been altered and emended with an amount of care which sufficiently
testifies to the importance of the matter. In this it is said of the
letter that by the knowledge thereof "we had the first _and only_ means
to discover that most wicked and barbarous plot"--the words italicised
being added as an interlineation by Cecil himself. Nevertheless, it
appears certain that this is not, and cannot be, the truth; indeed,
historians of all shades equally discountenance the idea. Mr.
Jardine[246] considers it "hardly credible that the letter was really
the means by which the plot was discovered," and inclines to the
belief[247] that the whole story concerning it "was merely a device of
the government ... to conceal the means by which their information had
been derived." Similarly Mr. J.S. Brewer[248] holds it as certain that
this part, at least, of the story is a fiction designed to conceal the
truth. Mr. Gardiner, who is less inclined than others to give up the
received story, thinks that, to say the least of it, it is highly
probable that Monteagle expected the letter before it came.[249]
For a right understanding of the point it is necessary to consider the
character of the man who plays so important a part in this episode. Lord
Monteagle, the eldest son of Lord Morley, ennobled under a title derived
through his mother, was, in Mr. Jardine's opinion,[250] "a person
precisely adapted for an instrument on such an occasion;" and the
description appears even more applicable than was intended. He had been
implicated in all the doings of the turbulent section of the English
Catholics[251] for several years, having taken part in the rising of
Essex, and in the Spanish negotiations, whatever they were, conducted
through the instrumentality of Thomas Winter. With Catesby, and others
of the conspirators, he was on terms of the closest and most intimate
friendship, and Tresham was his brother-in-law. A letter of his to
Catesby is still preserved, which, in the opinion of some, affords
evidence of his having been actually engaged in the Powder Plot
itself;[252] and Mr. Jardine, though dissenting from the view that the
letter proves so much, judges it not at all impossible or improbable
that he was in fact privy to the conspiracy. It is likewise certain that
up to the last moment Monteagle was on familiar terms with the plotters,
to whom, a few days before the final catastrophe, he imparted an
important piece of information.[253]
At the same time it is evident that Monteagle was in high favour at
Court, as is sufficiently evidenced by the fact that he was appointed to
be one of the commissioners for the prorogation of October 3rd, a most
unusual distinction for one in his position, as also by the pains taken
by the government on behalf of his brother, who had shortly before got
himself into trouble in France.[254] A still more remarkable
circumstance has been strangely overlooked by historians.[255] Monteagle
always passed for a Catholic, turbulent indeed and prone to violence,
but attached, even fanatically, to his creed, like his friend Catesby
and the rest. There remains, however, an undated letter of his to the
king,[256] in which he expresses his determination to become a
Protestant; and while in fulsome language extolling his Majesty's zeal
for his spiritual welfare, speaks with bitterness and contempt of the
faith which, nevertheless, he continued to profess to the end of his
life, and that without exciting suspicion of his deceit among the
Catholics. Not only must this shake our confidence in the genuine
nature of any transaction in which such a man played a prominent part,
it must likewise suggest a doubt whether others may not in like manner
have passed themselves off for what they were not, without arousing
suspicion.
The precise facts as to the actual receipt of the famous letter are
involved, like every other particular of this history, in the obscurity
begotten of contradictory evidence. In the published account,[257] it is
stated with great precision that it was received by Monteagle on
Saturday, October 26th, being but ten days before the Parliament. In his
letter to the ambassadors abroad,[258] Cecil dates its receipt "about
eight days before the Parliament should have begun." In the account
furnished for the benefit of the King of France,[259] the same authority
declares that it came to hand "some four or five days before." A doubt
is thus unquestionably suggested as to whether the circumstances of its
coming to Monteagle's hands are those traditionally described: for our
present purpose, however, it will perhaps be sufficient to follow the
story as formally told by authority in the king's own book.
On Saturday, October 26th, ten days before the assembly of Parliament,
Monteagle suddenly, and without previous notice, ordered a supper to be
prepared at his house at Hoxton "where he had not supped or lain of a
twelvemonth and more before that time."[260] While he was at table one
of his pages brought him a letter which had been given to him by a man
in the street, whose features he could not distinguish, with injunctions
to place it in his master's own hands. It is undoubtedly a singular
circumstance, which did not escape notice at the time, that the bearer
of this missive should have thus been able to find Monteagle at a spot
which he was not accustomed to frequent, and the obvious inference was
drawn, that the arrival of the letter was expected. On this point,
indeed, there is somewhat more than inference to go upon, for in
Fulman's MS. collection at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, among some
interesting notes concerning the Plot, of which we shall see more,
occurs the statement that "the Lord Monteagle knew there was a letter to
be sent to him before it came."[261]
Monteagle opened the letter, and, glancing at it, perceived that it bore
neither date nor signature, whereupon he handed it to a gentleman of his
household, named Ward, to read aloud, an apparently unnatural and
imprudent proceeding not easy to explain, but, at least, inconsistent
with the conduct of one receiving an obviously important communication
in such mysterious circumstances. The famous epistle must be given in
its native form.
_My lord out of the love i beare to some of youere frends i have a
caer of youer preseruacion therfor i would advyse yowe as yowe
tender youer lyf to devys some excuse to shift of youer attendance
at this parleament for god and man hath concurred to punishe the
wickednes of this tyme and think not slightlye of this advertisment
but retyre youre self into youre contri wheare yowe may expect the
event in safti for thowghe theare be no apparence of anni stir yet i
saye they shall receyve a terrible blowe this parleament and yet
they shall not seie who hurts them this cowncel is not to be
contemned because it maye do yowe good and can do yowe no harme for
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 comend yowe_
(Addressed) _to the ryht honorable the lord mo[=u]teagle_
Monteagle, though he saw little or nothing in this strange effusion,
resolved at once to communicate with the king's ministers, his Majesty
being at the time engaged at Royston in his favourite pastime of the
chase, and accordingly proceeding at once to town, he placed the
mysterious document in the hands of the Earl of Salisbury.[262]
As to what thereafter followed and the manner in which from this clue
the discovery was actually accomplished, it is impossible to say more
than this, that the accounts handed down cannot by any possibility be
true, inasmuch as on every single point they are utterly and hopelessly
at variance. We can do no more than set down the particulars as supplied
to us on the very highest authority.
A.--_The account published in the "King's Book."_
1. The letter was received ten days before the meeting of Parliament,
_i.e._, on October 26th.
2. The Earl of Salisbury judged it to be the effusion of a lunatic, but
thought it well, nevertheless, to communicate it to the king.
3. This was done five days afterwards, November 1st, when, in spite of
his minister's incredulity, James insisted that the letter could intend
nothing but the blowing up of the Parliament with gunpowder, and that a
search must be made, which, however, should be postponed till the last
moment.
4. Accordingly, on the afternoon of Monday, November 4th, the Lord
Chamberlain going on a tour of inspection, visited the "cellar" and
found there "great store of billets, faggots, and coals," and moreover,
"casting his eye aside, perceived a fellow standing in a corner ...
Guido Fawkes the owner of that hand which should have acted that
monstrous tragedy." Coming back, the chamberlain reported that the
provision of fuel appeared extraordinary, and that as to the man, "he
looked like a very tall and desperate fellow."
5. Thereupon the king insisted that a thorough scrutiny must be made,
and that "those billets and coals should be searched to the bottom, it
being most suspicious that they were laid there only for covering of the
powder." For this purpose Sir Thomas Knyvet, a magistrate, was
despatched with a suitable retinue.
6. Before his entrance to the house, Knyvet found Faukes "standing
without the doors, his boots and clothes on," and straightway
apprehended him. Then, going into the cellar, he removed the firewood
and at once discovered the barrels.
B.--_The Account sent by Salisbury to the Ambassadors abroad, and the
Deputy in Ireland, November 9th, 1605._
1. The letter was received about _eight_ days before the Parliament.
2. Upon perusal thereof, Salisbury and Suffolk, the chamberlain, "both
conceived that it could not be more proper than the time of Parliament,
nor by any other way to be attempted than with powder, while the King
was sitting in that Assembly." With this interpretation other Lords of
the Council agreed; but they thought it well not to impart the matter to
the king till three or four days before the session.
3. His Majesty was "hard of belief" that any such thing was intended,
but his advisers overruled him and insisted on a search, not however
till the last moment.
[Illustration: ARREST OF GUY FAUKES.]
4. About 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Monday, November 4th, the Lord
Chamberlain, Suffolk, visited the cellar, and found in it only firewood
and not Faukes.
5. The lords however insisting, in spite of the king, that the matter
should be probed to the bottom, Knyvet was despatched with orders to
"_remove all the wood, and so to see the plain ground underneath_."
6. Knyvet, about midnight, "going unlooked for into the vault, found
that fellow Johnson [_i.e._, Faukes] _newly come out of the vault_," and
seized him. Then, having removed the wood, he perceived the barrels.
C.--_The Account furnished by Salisbury for the information of the King
of France, November 6th, 1605. (Original draft, in the P.R.O.)_
1. The letter was received _some four or five days_ before the
Parliament.
2. This being shown to the king and the lords, "their lordships found
not good ... to give much credit to it, nor yet so to contemn it as to
do nothing at all."
3. It was accordingly determined, the night before, "to make search
about that place and to appoint a watch in the old Palace, to observe
what persons might resort thereabouts."
4. Sir T. Knyvet, being appointed to the charge thereof, _going by
chance, about midnight, into the vault, by another door, found Faukes
within_. Thereupon he caused some few faggots to be removed, and so
discovered some of the barrels, "_merely, as it were, by God's
direction, having no other cause but a general jealousy_."[263]
Never, assuredly, was a true story so hard to tell. Contradictions like
these, upon every single point of the narrative, are just such as are
wont to betray the author of a fiction when compelled to be
circumstantial.
To say nothing of the curious discrepancies as to the date of the
warning, it is clearly impossible to determine the locality of Guy's
arrest. The account officially published in the "King's Book" says that
this took place in the street. The letter to the ambassadors assigns it
to the cellar and afterwards to the street; that to Parry, to the cellar
only. Faukes himself, in his confession of November 5th, says that he
was apprehended neither in the street nor in the cellar, but in his own
room in the adjoining house. Chamberlain writes to Carleton, November
7th, that it was in the cellar. Howes, in his continuation of Stowe's
_Annals_, describes two arrests of Faukes, one in the street, the other
upstairs in his own chamber. This point, though seemingly somewhat
trivial, has been invested with much importance. According to the
time-honoured story, the baffled desperado roundly declared that had he
been within reach of the powder when his captors appeared, he would
have applied a match and involved them in his own destruction. This
circumstance is strongly insisted on not only in the "King's Book," but
also in his Majesty's speech to Parliament on November 9th, which
declared, "and in that also was there a wonderful providence of God,
that when the party himself was taken he was but new come out of his
house from working, having his fire-work for kindling ready in his
pocket, wherewith, as he confesseth, if he been taken immediately
before, he was resolved to have blown up himself with his takers." We
learn, however, from Cecil's earliest version of the history, that
Faukes was apprehended in the very situation most suitable for such a
purpose, "in the place itself, as he was busy to prepare his things for
execution," while Chamberlain adds that he was actually engaged in
"making his trains."
Far more serious, to say nothing of the episode of the chamberlain's
visit, are the divergencies of the several versions as to the very
substance of the story. We are told that King James was the first to
understand and interpret the letter which had baffled the sagacity of
his Privy Council; that the Lords of the Council had fully interpreted
it several days before the king saw it; that the said lords would not
credit the king's interpretation; that the king would not believe their
interpretation; and that neither the one nor the other ever interpreted
it at all; that his Majesty insisted on a search being made in spite of
the reluctance of his ministers; that they insisted on the search in
spite of the reluctance of their royal master; and that no such search
was ever proposed by either; that Knyvet was despatched expressly to
look for gunpowder, with instructions to rummage the firewood to the
bottom, leaving no cover in which a barrel might lie hid; and that
having no instructions to do anything of the kind, nor any reason to
suspect the existence of any barrels, he discovered them only by a piece
of luck, so purely fortuitous as to be clearly providential. On this
last point especially the contradictions are absolutely irreconcilable.
It is abundantly evident that those who with elaborate care produced
these various versions were not supremely solicitous about the truth of
the matter, and varied the tale according to the requirements of
circumstances. As Mr. Jardine acknowledges,[264] the great object of the
official accounts was to obtain credence for what the government wished
to be believed, or, as Father Gerard puts it,[265] these accounts were
composed "with desire that men should all conceive this to be the manner
how the treason came to light." If from time to time the details were
altogether transformed, it was clearly not through any abstract love of
historical accuracy, but rather that there were difficulties to meet and
doubts to satisfy, which had to be dealt with in order to produce the
desired effect.
That, from the beginning, there was whispered disbelief, which it was
held all-important to silence, is sufficiently attested by Cecil
himself, when, on the very morrow of the discovery, he sent to Parry his
first draft of the history. "Thus much," he wrote, "I have thought
necessary to impart unto you in haste, to the end that you may deliver
as much to the French king, for prevention of false bruits, which I
know, as the nature of fame is, will be _increased_,[266] perverted, and
disguised according to the disposition of men."
It does not appear why the appearance of erroneous versions of so
striking an event should have been thus confidently anticipated if the
facts were undeniably established; while, on the other hand, it is not a
little remarkable that the narrative thus expressly designed to
establish the truth, should have been forthwith abandoned and
contradicted by its author in every single particular.
Important information upon the same point is furnished by Cecil in
another letter, written in the following January.[267] He undertakes to
explain to his correspondent how it came to pass that a circumstance of
supreme importance, of which the government were fully cognizant,[268]
was not mentioned in the official account. This he does as follows: "And
although in his Majesty's book there is not any mention made of them
[the Jesuits], and of many things else which came to the knowledge of
the State, yet is it but a frivolous inference that thereby [they] seek
to serve their turn, considering the purpose of his Majesty was not to
deliver unto the world all that was confessed concerning this action,
_but so much only of the manner and form of it, and the means of the
discovery_, as might make it apparent, both how wickedly it was
conceived by those devilish instruments, and _how graciously it pleased
God to deal with us in such an extraordinary discovery thereof_."
Turning to the details of the story which survive the struggle for
existence in the conflict of testimony, if any can be said to do so,
there is abundant matter deserving attention, albeit we may at once
dismiss the time-honoured legend concerning the sagacity of the British
Solomon, and his marvellous interpretation of the riddling phrases which
baffled the perspicacity of all besides himself.[269]
More important is Cecil's admission that the presence of the powder
under the Parliament House was at least suspected for several days
before anything was done to interfere with the proceedings of those who
had put it there. The reasons alleged for so extraordinary a course are
manifestly absurd. It was resolved, he told the ambassadors, "that, till
the night before, nothing should be done to interrupt any purpose of
theirs that had any such devilish practice, but rather to suffer them to
go on to the end of their day." In like manner he informed the Privy
Council[270] that it was determined to make no earlier search, that
"such as had such practice in hand might not be scared before they had
let the matter run on to a full ripeness for discovery." It certainly
appears that, at least, it would have been well before the eleventh hour
to institute observations as to who might be coming and going about the
cellar. On the other hand, can it be imagined that any minister in his
right senses would have allowed the existence of a danger so appalling
to continue so long, and have suffered a desperado like Faukes to have
gone on knocking about with his flint and steel and lantern in a powder
magazine beneath the House of Parliament? Accidents are proverbially
always possible, and in the circumstances described to us there would
have been much more than a mere possibility, for the action said to have
been taken by the authorities, in sending the chamberlain to "peruse"
the vault, seems to have been expressly intended to give the alarm; and
had the conspirators been scared it would evidently have been their
safest plan to have precipitated the catastrophe, that in the confusion
it would cause they might escape. How terrible such a catastrophe would
have been is indicated by Father Greenway:[271] "Over and above the
grievous loss involved in the destruction of these ancient and noble
buildings, of the archives and national records, the king himself might
have been in peril, and other royal edifices, though situate at a
distance, and undoubtedly many would have perished who had come up to
attend the Parliament." Moreover, the loss of life in so thickly
populated a spot must have been frightful, and especially amongst the
official classes.
Father Greenway expresses his utter disbelief in the incident of the
chamberlain's visit:[272] "To speak my own mind," he writes, "I do not
see in this portion of the story any sort of probability." He adds
another remark of great importance. If the Lord Chamberlain,--and, we
may add, Sir T. Knyvet,--could get into the cellar without the
assistance of Faukes, to say nothing of the "other door" which makes its
appearance in Cecil's first version, there is an end of the secret and
hidden nature of the place, and some one else must have had a key. How,
then, about the months during which the powder had been lying in it;
during much of which time it had been, apparently, left to take care of
itself? Did no man ever enter and inspect it before?
But questions far more fundamental inevitably suggest themselves. If,
during ten, or even during five days, a minister so astute and vigilant
was willing to risk the danger of an explosion, it certainly does not
appear that he was much afraid of the powder, or thought there was any
harm in it. We have already remarked on the strangeness of the
circumstance that the plotters were able so easily to procure it. It may
be observed that they appear themselves to have been disappointed with
its quality, for we are told[273] that late in the summer they added to
their store "as suspecting the former to be dank." Still more
remarkable, however, was the conduct of the government. Immediately upon
the "discovery" they instituted the most minute and searching inquiries
as to every other particular connected with the conspirators. We find
copious evidence taken about their haunts, their lodgings, and their
associates: of the boatmen who conveyed them hither and thither, the
porters who carried billets, and the carpenters who worked for them:
inquiries were diligently instituted as to where were purchased the iron
bars laid on top of the barrels, which appear to have been considered
especially dangerous; we hear of sword-hilts engraved for some of the
company, of three beaver hats bought by another, and of the sixpence
given to the boy who brought them home. But concerning the gunpowder no
question appears ever to have been asked, whence it came, or who
furnished it. Yet this would appear to be a point at least as important
as the rest, and if it was left in absolute obscurity, the inference is
undoubtedly suggested that it was not wished to have questions raised.
It may be added that no mention is discoverable of the augmentation of
the royal stores by so notable a contribution as this would have
furnished.
Neither can it escape observation that whereas the powder was discovered
only on the morning[274] of November 5th, the peers met as usual in
their chamber that very day.[275] It cannot be supposed either that four
tons of powder could have been so soon removed, or that the most
valuable persons in the State would have been suffered to expose
themselves to the risk of assembling in so perilous a situation.[276]
However this may be, from the moment of the "discovery" the discovered
gunpowder disappears from history.[277]
[Illustration: DISCOVERY OF GUNPOWDER PLOT, AND COINS OF JAMES I.
_Coins_ in King James I. Reign; _with the Discovery of the_ Gun Powder
Plot.]
There is another point which must be noticed. It might naturally be
supposed that after so narrow an escape, and in accordance with their
loud protestations of alarm at the proximity of a shocking calamity from
which they had been so providentially delivered, the official
authorities would have carefully guarded against the possibility of the
like happening again. Their acts, however, were quite inconsistent with
their words, for they did nothing of the kind. For more than seventy
years afterwards the famous "cellar" continued to be leased in the same
easy-going fashion to any who chose to hire it, and continued to be the
receptacle of all manner of rubbish and lumber, eminently suited to
mask another battery. Not till the days of the mendacious Titus Oates,
and under the influence of the panic he had engendered, did the Peers
bethink themselves that a project such as that of Guy Faukes might
really be a danger, and command that the "cellar" should be
searched.[278] This was done, in November, 1678, by no less personages
than Sir Christopher Wren and Sir Jonas Moore, who reported that the
vaults and cellars under and near the House of Lords were in such a
condition that there could be no assurance of safety. It was accordingly
ordered that they should be cleared of all timber, firewood, coals, and
other materials, and that passages should be made through them all, to
the end that they might easily be examined. At this time, and not
before, was instituted the traditional searching of the cellars on the
eve of Parliament.[279]
What then, it will be asked, really did occur? What was done by the
conspirators? and what by those who discovered them?
Truth to tell, it is difficult, or rather impossible, to answer such
questions. That there was a plot of some kind cannot, of course, be
doubted; that it was of such a nature as we have been accustomed to
believe, can be affirmed only if we are willing to ignore difficulties
which are by no means slight. There is, doubtless, a mass of evidence in
support of the traditional story upon these points, but while its value
has yet to be discussed, there are other considerations, hitherto
overlooked, which are in conflict with it.
Something has been said of the amazing contradictions which a very
slight examination of the official story reveals at every turn, and much
more might be added under the same head.[280]
[Illustration: "GUY FAUKES' LANTERN."]
On the other hand it is clear that even as to the material facts there
was not at the time that unanimity which might have been expected. We
have seen how anxious was the Secretary of State that the French court
should at once be rightly informed as to all particulars. We learn,
however, from Mr. Dudley Carleton, then attached to the embassy at
Paris,[281] that in spite of Cecil's promptitude he was anticipated by a
version of the affair sent over from the French embassy in London,
giving an utterly different complexion to it. According to this, the
design had been, "That the council being set, and some lords besides in
the chamber, a barrel of gunpowder should be fired underneath them, and
the greater part, if not all, blown up." According to this informant,
therefore, it was not the Parliament House but the Council Chamber which
was to have been assailed, there is no mention of the king, and we have
one barrel of powder instead of thirty-six. It is not easy to understand
how in such a matter a mistake like this could have been made, for it is
the inevitable tendency of men to begin by exaggerating, and not by
minimizing, a sudden and startling peril.[282]
Moreover, even this modest version of the affair was not suffered to
pass unchallenged. Three days later Carleton again wrote:[283] "The fire
which was said to have burnt our king and council, and hath been so hot
these two days past in every man's mouth, proves but _ignis fatuus_, or
a flash of some foolish fellow's brain to abuse the world; for it is now
as confidently reported there was no such matter, nor anything near it
more than a barrel of powder found near the court."
It must here be observed that the scepticism thus early manifested
appears never to have been exorcised from the minds of French writers,
many of whom, of all shades of thought, continue, down to our day, to
assume that the real plotters were the king's government.[284]
Neither can we overlook sundry difficulties, again suggested by the
facts of the case, which make it hard to understand how the plans of the
plotters can in reality have been as they are represented.
We have already observed on the nature of the house occupied in Percy's
name. If this were, as Speed tells us, and as there is no reason to
doubt, at the service of the Peers during a session, for a
withdrawing-room, and if the session was to begin on November 5th, how
could Faukes hope not only to remain in possession, but to carry on his
strange proceedings unobserved, amid the crowd of lacqueys and officials
with whom the opening of Parliament by the Sovereign must needs have
flooded the premises? How was he, unobserved, to get into the fatal
"cellar"?
This difficulty is emphasized by another. We learn, on the unimpeachable
testimony of Mrs. Whynniard, the landlady, that Faukes not only paid the
last instalment of rent on Sunday, November 3rd, but on the following
day, the day immediately preceding the intended explosion, had
carpenters and other workfolk in the house "for mending and repairing
thereof."[285] To say nothing of the wonderful honesty of paying rent
under the circumstances, what was the sense of putting a house in repair
upon Monday, which on Tuesday was to be blown to atoms? And how could
the practised eyes of such workmen fail to detect some trace of the
extraordinary and unskilled operations of which the house is said to
have been the theatre? If, indeed, the truth is that on the Tuesday the
premises were to be handed over for official use, it is easy to
understand why it was thought necessary to set them in order, but on no
other supposition does this appear comprehensible.
Problems, not easy to solve, connect themselves, likewise, with the
actual execution of the conspirators' plan. If it would have been hard
for Guy Faukes to get into the "cellar," how was he ever to get out of
it again? We are so accustomed to the idea of darkness and obscurity in
connection with him and his business, as perhaps to forget that his
project was to have been executed in the very middle of the day, about
noon or shortly afterwards. The king was to come in state with retinue
and guards, and attended by a large concourse of spectators, who, as is
usual on such occasions, would throng every nook and corner whence could
be obtained a glimpse of the building in which the royal speech was
being delivered.[286] It cannot be doubted, in particular, that the open
spaces adjacent to the House itself would be strictly guarded, and the
populace not suffered to approach too near the sacred precincts, more
especially when, as we have seen, so many suspicions were abroad of
danger to his sacred Majesty, and to the Parliament.
On a sudden a door immediately beneath the spot where the flower of the
nation were assembled, would be unlocked and opened, and there would
issue there-from a man, "looking like a very tall and desperate fellow,"
booted and spurred and equipped for travel. He was to have but a quarter
of an hour to save himself from the ruin he had prepared.[287] What
possible chance was there that he would have been allowed to pass?
As to his further plans, we have the most extravagant and contradictory
accounts, some obviously fabulous.[288] According to the least
incredible, a vessel was lying below London Bridge ready at once to
proceed to sea and carry him to Flanders; while a boat, awaiting him at
the Parliament stairs, was to convey him to the ship.[289] If this were
so, it is not clear why he equipped himself with his spurs, which,
however, are authenticated by as good evidence as any other feature of
the story. It would also appear that, here again, the plan proposed was
altogether impracticable, for at the time of his projected flight the
tide would have been flowing,[290] and it is well known that to attempt
to pass Old London Bridge against it would have been like trying to row
up a waterfall. Neither does it seem probable that the vessel would have
been able to get out of the Thames for several hours, before which time
all egress would doubtless have been stopped.
Such considerations must at least avail to make us pause before we can
unhesitatingly accept the traditional history, even in those broad
outlines which appear to be best established. The main point is,
however, independent of their truth. Though all be as has been affirmed
concerning the "cellar" and its contents, and the plan of operations
agreed upon by the traitors, the question remains as to the real nature
of the "discovery." We have seen, on the one hand, that the official
narrative bristles with contradictions, and, whatever be the truth, with
falsehoods. On the other hand, the said narrative was avowedly prepared
with the object of obtaining credence for the picturesque but
unveracious assertion that the plotters' design was detected "very
miraculously, even some twelve hours before the matter should have been
put in execution." On the Earl of Salisbury's own admission, it had been
divined almost as many days previously, and it was laid open at the last
moment only because he deliberately chose to wait till the last moment
before doing anything. No doubt a dramatic feature was thus added to the
business, and one eminently calculated to impress the public mind: but
they who insist so loudly on the miraculousness of an event which they
alone have invested with the character of a miracle, must be content to
have it believed that they knew still more than in an unguarded moment
they acknowledged, and arranged other things concerning the Plot than
its ultimate disclosure.[291]
FOOTNOTES:
[241] Copies were sent by Cecil to Cornwallis at Madrid, Parry at Paris,
Edmondes at Brussels, and Chichester at Dublin. Also by Chamberlain to
Dudley Carleton.
[242] "Lastly, and this you must not omit, you must deliver, in
commendation of my Lord Mounteagle, words to show how sincerely he
dealt, and how fortunately it proved that he was the instrument of so
great a blessing, ... because it is so lewdly given out that he was once
of this plot of powder, and afterwards betrayed it all to me."--Cecil to
Coke. (Draft in the R.O., printed by Jardine, _Criminal Trials_, ii.
120.)
[243] L500 as an annuity for life, and L200 per annum to him and his
heirs for ever in fee farm rents.
[244] See Thorold Rogers, _Agriculture and Prices_, v. 631, and Jessopp,
_One Generation of a Norfolk House_, p. 285.
[245] R.O. _Dom. James I._ xx. 56.
[246] _Criminal Trials_, ii. 65.
[247] _Ibid._ 68.
[248] Note on Fuller's _Church History_, x. Sec. 39, and _on The Student's
Hume_.
[249] _History_, i. 251.
[250] _Criminal Trials_, ii. 69.
[251] On March 13th, 1600-1, Monteagle wrote to Cecil from the Tower,
"My conscience tells me that I am no way gilty of these Imputations, and
that mearely the blindness of Ignorance lead me into these infamous
errors." (Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6177).
[252] The letter is printed in _Archaeologia_, xxviii. 422, by Mr. Bruce,
who argues from it Monteagle's complicity with the Plot. Mr. Jardine's
reply is found _ibid._ xxix. 80.
[253] According to T. Winter's famous declaration, Monteagle, within ten
days before the meeting of Parliament, told Catesby and the others that
the Prince of Wales was not going to attend the opening ceremony,
wherefore they resolved to "leave the Duke alone," and make arrangements
to secure the elder brother.
The original of Winter's declaration, dated November 25th, which is at
Hatfield, contains these and other particulars, which are altogether
omitted in a "copy" of the same in the Record Office, dated, remarkably
enough, on November the 23rd. It is from the latter that the version in
the "King's Book" was printed.
[254] De Beaumont to Villeroy, September 17th, 1605.
[255] Mr. Gardiner alludes to it, _History_, i. 254 (note), but
apparently attaches no importance to it.
[256] Brit. Museum, Add. MSS. 19402 fol. 143. See the letter in full,
Appendix H.
[257] _Discourse of the Manner of the Discovery_ (the "King's Book").
[258] Winwood, _Memorials_, ii. 170, etc. (November 9th). In the entry
book of the Earl of Salisbury's letters (Phillipps' MSS. 6297, f. 39)
this is described as "being the same that was sent to all his Majestie's
Embassadors and Ministers abroade." To Parry, however, quite a different
account was furnished.
[259] Cecil to Sir T. Parry, P.R.O. _France_, bundle 132 (November
6th).
[260] Gerard, _Narrative_, p. 101.
[261] Vol. ii. 15. The partisans of the government at the time appear to
have solved the difficulty by invoking the direct guidance of Heaven:
"For thus the Lord in's all-protecting grace,
Ten days before the Parliament began,
Ordained that one of that most trayterous race
Did meet the Lord Mounteagles Serving-man,
Who about Seven a clocke at night was sent
Upon some errand, and as thus he went,
Crossing the street a fellow to him came,
A man to him unknowen, of personage tall,
In's hand a Letter, and he gave the same
Unto this Serving-man, and therewithall
Did strictly charge him to take speciall heede
To give it into's Masters hand with speede."
_Mischeefes Mystery_ (1617).
[262] Here again evidence was found of the direct guidance of Heaven:
"And thus with loyall heart away he goes,
Thereto resolved whatever should betide,
To th' Court he went this matter to disclose,
To th' Earle of Salsb'ryes chamber soone he hide,
Whither heavens finger doubtless him directed,
As the best meanes to have this fact detected."
_Mischeefes Mystery._
[263] In the account forwarded to the ambassadors, there is a curious
contradiction. In the general sketch of the discovery with which it
opens, it is said that Faukes was captured "in the place itself," with
his lantern, "making his preparations." Afterwards, in the detailed
narrative of the proceedings, that he was taken outside. The fact is,
that the first portion of this letter is taken bodily from that of
November 6th to Parry, wherein the arrest of Faukes in the vault was a
principal point. Between the 6th and the 9th this part of the story had
been altered, but it does not seem to have been noticed that a remnant
of the earlier version still existed in the introductory portion.
It will be remarked that the account of November 6th makes no mention of
the visit of the chamberlain to the vault, nor that of November 9th to
the presence of Faukes at the time of this visit. The minute of November
7th says that Faukes admitted the chamberlain to the vault.
[264] _Criminal Trials_, ii. 3-5.
[265] _Narrative_, p. 100.
[266] This word is cancelled in the original draft.
[267] To Sir T. Edmondes, January 22nd, 1605-6.--Stowe MSS., 168, 73, f.
301.
[268] _Viz._, the complicity of the Jesuits, "not only as being casually
acquainted with the Plot," but as having been "principall comforters, to
instruct the consciences of some of these wicked Traytors, in the
lawfulnesse of the Act and meritoriousnesse of the same."
On this it is enough to remark that when Father Garnet, the chief of the
said Jesuits, came afterwards to be tried, no attempt whatever was made
to prove any such thing. Cecil therefore wrote thus, and made so grave
an assertion, without having any evidence in his hands to justify it.
[269] That King James alone solved the enigma was put forth as an
article of faith. In the preamble to the Act for the solemnization of
the 5th of November, Parliament declared that the treason "would have
turned to utter ruin of this whole kingdom, had it not pleased Almighty
God, by inspiring the king's most excellent Majesty with a divine
Spirit, to discover some dark phrases of a letter...." In like manner,
the monarch himself, in his speech to the Houses, of November 9th,
informed them: "I did upon the instant interpret and apprehend some dark
phrases therein, contrary to the ordinary grammar construction of them,
and in another sort, than I am sure any divine or lawyer in any
university would have taken them."
This "dark phrase" was the sentence--"For the danger is past as soon as
you have burnt the letter," which the royal sage interpreted to mean "as
quickly," and that by these words "should be closely understood the
suddenty and quickness of the danger, which should be as quickly
performed and at an end as that paper should be of blazing up in the
fire."
Of this famous interpretation Mr. Gardiner says that it is "certainly
absurd;" while Mr. Jardine is of opinion that the words in question
"must appear to every common understanding mere nonsense."
When it was proposed in the House of Commons (January 31st, 1605-6,) to
pass a vote of thanks to Lord Monteagle for his share in the
"discovery," one Mr. Fuller objected that this would be to detract from
the honour of his Majesty, for "the true discoverer was the king."
The reader will perhaps be reminded of Sir Walter Scott's inimitable
picture of the king's satisfaction in this notable achievement.
"Do I not ken the smell of pouther, think ye? Who else nosed out the
Fifth of November, save our royal selves? Cecil, and Suffolk, and all of
them, were at fault, like sae mony mongrel tikes, when I puzzled it out;
and trow ye that I cannot smell pouther? Why, 'sblood, man, Joannes
Barclaius thought my ingine was in some manner inspiration, and terms
his history of the plot, _Series patefacti divinitus parricidii_; and
Spondanus, in like manner, saith of us, _Divinitus evasit_."--_Fortunes of
Nigel_, c. xxvii.
[270] _Relation_ ..., November 7th, 1605 (P.R.O.).
[271] _Narrative_, f. 68 b.--Stonyhurst MSS.
[272] F. 66. It will be remembered that this episode is not mentioned by
Cecil in his version of November 6th. Bishop Goodman's opinion is that
this and other points of the story were contrived for stage effect: "The
King must have the honour to interpret that it was by gunpowder; and the
very night before the parliament began it was to be discovered, to make
the matter the more odious, and the deliverance the more miraculous. No
less than the lord chamberlain must search for it and discover it, and
Faux with his dark lantern must be apprehended." (_Court of King James_,
p. 105.)
[273] T. Winter, November 23rd, 1605.
[274] There is, of course, abundant contradiction upon this point, as
all others, but the balance of evidence appears to point to 2 a.m. or
thereabouts.
[275] The customary hour for the meeting of the Houses was 9 a.m., or
even earlier. (_Journals of Parliament._)
[276] The list of those present is given in the _Lords' Journals_; it is
headed by the Lord Chancellor (Ellesmere), and includes the Archbishop
of Canterbury, fourteen bishops, and thirty-one peers, of whom Lord
Monteagle was one. In 1598, as Mr. Atkinson tells us in his preface to
the lately published volume of the _Calendar of Irish State Papers_, the
cellars of the Dublin Law Courts were used as a powder magazine. The
English Privy Council, startled to hear of this remarkable arrangement,
pointed out that it might probably further diminish the number of loyal
subjects in that kingdom, but were quaintly reassured by the Irish Lords
Justices, who explained that, in view of the troublous state of the
times, the sittings of the courts had been discontinued, and were not
likely to be resumed for the present.
[277] The only allusion to it I have been able to find occurs in the
_Politician's Catechism_ (1658), p. 95: "Yet the barells, wherein the
powder was, are kept as reliques, and were often shown to the king and
his posterity, that they might not entertain the least thought of
clemency towards the Catholique Religion. There is not an ignorant
Minister or Tub-preacher, who doth not (when all other matter fails)
remit his auditors to the Gunpowder Treason, and describe those tubs
very pathetically, the only reliques thought fit by them to be kept in
memory."
[278] _Journals of the House of Lords_, November 1st and 2nd, 1678.
[279] _Ibid._, November 2nd, 1678.
[280] I have already remarked upon Faukes' statement that he was
arrested in quite a different place from any mentioned in the government
accounts. It should be added, that as to the person who arrested him,
there is a somewhat similar discrepancy of evidence. The honour is
universally assigned by the official accounts to Sir T. Knyvet, who in
the following year was created a peer, which shows that he undoubtedly
rendered some valuable service on the occasion. An epitaph, however, in
St. Anne's Church, Aldersgate (printed in Maitland's _History of
London_, p. 1065, 3rd ed.), declares that it was Peter Heiwood, of
Heywood, Lancashire, "who apprehended Guy Faux, with his dark Lanthorn;
and for his zealous Prosecution of Papists, as Justice of Peace, was
stabbed, in Westminster Hall, by John James, a Dominican Friar, A.D.
1640." No trace of this assassination can be found, nor does the name of
John James occur in the Dominican records. It is, however, a curious
coincidence that the "Guy Faukes' Lantern," exhibited in the Ashmolean
Museum at Oxford, bears the inscription: "_Laterna ilia ipsa qua usus
est, et cum qua deprehensus Guido Faux in crypta subterranea, ubi domo_
[sic] _Parliamenti difflandae operam dabat. Ex dono Robti. Heywood nuper
Academiae Procuratoris, Ap. 4^o, 1641._" See the epitaph in full,
Appendix I.
[281] To J. Chamberlain, 10th-20th November, 1605. P.R.O. _France_, b.
132, f. 335 b.
[282] The Council appears at this time to have met in the Painted
Chamber, and, without at all wishing to lay too much stress upon this
point, I cannot but remark that the supposition that this was the
original scene assigned to the operations of Faukes would solve various
difficulties:
1. Beneath the Painted Chamber was a vaulted cellar, answering to the
description we have so frequently heard, whereas under the House of
Lords was neither a cellar nor a vault.
2. This crypt beneath the Painted Chamber has been constantly shown as
"Guy Faukes' Cellar."
3. In prints of the period, Faukes is usually represented as going to
blow up this chamber, never the House of Lords.
[283] To Chamberlain, November 13th (O.S.), 1605. P.R.O.
[284] Thus M. Bouillet, in the latest edition of his _Dictionnaire
d'histoire et geographie_, speaks as follows: "Le ministre cupide et
orgueilleux, Cecil, semble avoir ete l'ame du complot, et l'avoir
decouvert lui meme au moment propice, apres avoir presente a l'esprit
faible de Jacques I. les dangers auxquels il etait en but de la part des
Catholiques."
Gazeau and Prampain (_Hist. Mod._, tome i.) speak of the conspiracy as
"cette plaisanterie;" and say of the conspirators, "Dans une cave, ils
avaient depose 36 barils contenant (ou soi-disant tels) de la poudre."
[285] P.R.O. _Gunpowder Plot Book_, 39 (November 7).
[286] In Herring's _Pietas Pontificia_ (1606) the king is described as
coming to the House:
"Magna cum Pompa, stipatorumque Caterva,
Palmatisque, Togis, Gemmis, auroque refulgent:
Ingens fit Populi concursus, compita complens,
Turbis se adglomerant densis, spectantque Triumphum."
[287] Faukes himself says--examination of November 16th--that the
touchwood would have burnt a quarter of an hour.
[288] See Appendix K, _Myths of the Powder Plot_.
[289] In connection with this appears an interesting example of the
natural philosophy of the time, it being said that Faukes selected this
mode of escape, hoping that water, being a non-conductor, would save him
from the effects of the explosion.
[290] I am informed on high authority that on the day in question it was
high water at London Bridge between five and six p.m. In his _Memorials
of the Tower of London_ (p. 136) Lord de Ros says that the vessel
destined to convey him to Flanders was to be in waiting for Faukes at
the river side close by, and that in it he was to drop down the river
with the ebb tide. It would, of course, have been impossible for any
sea-going craft to make its way up to Westminster; nor would the ebb
tide run to order.
[291] It is frequently said that the testimony of Bishop Goodman, who
has been so often cited, is discredited by the fact that he probably
died a Catholic, for he was attended on his death-bed by the Dominican
Father, Francis a S. Clara (Christopher Davenport), chaplain to Queen
Henrietta Maria, a learned man who indulged in the dream of corporate
reunion between England and Rome, maintaining that the Anglican articles
were in accordance with Catholic doctrine.
In his will Goodman professed that as he lived, so he died, most
constant in all the articles of the Christian Faith, and in all the
doctrine of God's holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, "whereof," he
says, "I do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Mother Church. And
I do verily believe that no other church hath any salvation in it, but
only so far as it concurs with the faith of the Church of Rome." On
this, Mr. Brewer, his editor, observes that a sound Protestant might
profess as much, the question being what meaning is to be given to the
terms employed. Moreover, the same writer continues, Goodman cannot have
imagined that his life had been a constant profession of Roman doctrine,
inasmuch as he advanced steadily from one preferment to another in the
Church of England, and strongly maintaining her doctrines formally
denounced those of Rome. What is certain, however, is this, that in the
very work from which his evidence is quoted he speaks in such a manner
as to show that whatever were his religious opinions, he was a firm
believer in the Royal Supremacy and a lover of King James, whom he thus
describes: "Truly I did never know any man of so great an apprehension,
of so great love and affection,--a man so truly just, so free from all
cruelty and pride, such a lover of the church, and one that had done so
much good for the church." (_Court of King James_, i. 91.)