THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE.
WE have hitherto confined our attention to sources of information other
than those with which the authors of the official narrative have
supplied us, and upon which they based the same. It remains to inquire
how far the evidence presented by them can avail to substantiate the
traditional history, and to rebut the various arguments against its
authenticity which have been adduced.
For brevity and clearness' sake it will be advisable to divide this
investigation under several heads.
i. _The Trial of the Conspirators._
On the threshold of our inquiry we are met by a most singular and
startling fact. As to what passed on the trial of the conspirators, what
evidence was produced against them, how it was supported,--nay, even how
the tale of their enterprise was told--we have no information upon which
any reliance can be placed. One version alone has come down to us of the
proceedings upon this occasion--that published "by authority"--and of
this we can be sure only that it is utterly untrustworthy. It was issued
under the title of the _True and Perfect Relation_, but, as Mr. Jardine
has already told us, 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 ... to serve a State purpose, and intended and calculated
to mislead the judgment of the world upon the facts of the case."[332]
Again the same author remarks,[333] "that every line of the published
trial was rigidly weighed and considered, not with reference to its
accuracy, but its effect on the minds of those who might read it, is
manifest."
Moreover, the narrative thus obviously dishonest, was admittedly issued
in contradiction of divers others already passing "from hand to hand,"
which were at variance with itself in points of importance, and which it
stigmatized as "uncertain, untrue, and incoherent;" it justified its
appearance on the ground that it was supremely important for the public
to be rightly informed in such a case:[334] and so successful were the
efforts made to secure for it a monopoly, that no single document has
come down to us by which its statements might be checked. In
consequence, to quote Mr. Jardine once more,[335] there is no trial
since the time of Henry VIII. in regard of which we are so ignorant as
to what actually occurred.[336]
The employment of methods such as these would in any circumstances
forfeit all credit on behalf of the story thus presented. In the present
instance the presumption raised against it is even stronger than it
would commonly be. If the Gunpowder Plot were in reality what was
represented, why was it deemed necessary, in Cecil's own phrase, to
pervert and disguise its history in order to produce the desired effect?
A project so singular and diabolical in its atrocity, prepared for on so
large a scale, and so nearly successful, should, it would appear, have
needed no fictitious adjuncts to enhance its enormity; and for the
conviction of miscreants caught red-handed in such an enterprise no
evidence should have been so effectual as that furnished by the facts of
the case, which of their nature should have been patent and
unquestionable. When we find, on the contrary, a web of falsehood and
mystery woven with elaborate care over the whole history of the
transaction, it is not unnatural to infer that to have told the simple
truth would not have suited the purpose of those who had the telling of
the tale; and it is obviously necessary that the evidence whereby their
story was supported should be rigorously sifted.
What has been said, though in great measure true of the trial of Father
Garnet, at the end of March, is especially applicable to that of the
conspirators, two months earlier, for in regard of this we have
absolutely no information beyond that officially supplied. The execution
of Faukes and his companions following close upon their
arraignment,[337] all that had been elicited, or was said to have been
elicited, at their trial, became henceforth evidence which could not be
contradicted, the prosecution thus having a free hand in dealing with
their subsequent victim.[338] In view of this circumstance it has been
noted as remarkable that whereas the conspirators had been kept alive
and untried for nearly three months, they were thus summarily dealt with
at the moment when it was known that the capture of Father Garnet was
imminent, and, as a matter of fact, he was taken on the very day on
which the first company were executed.[339] It would appear that
nothing should have seemed more desirable than to confront the Jesuit
superior with those whom he was declared to have instigated to their
crime, instead of putting them out of the way at the very moment when
there was a prospect of doing so.
ii. _The Fundamental Evidence._
Amongst all the confessions and "voluntary declarations" extracted from
the conspirators, there are two of exceptional importance, as having
furnished the basis of the story told by the government, and ever since
generally accepted. These are a long declaration made by Thomas Winter,
and another by Guy Faukes, which alone were made public, being printed
in the "King's Book," and from which are gathered the essential
particulars of the story as we are accustomed to hear it.
Of Winter's declaration, which is in the form of a letter to the Lords
Commissioners, there is found in the State Paper Office only a copy,
bearing date November 23rd, 1605, in the handwriting of Levinus Munck,
Cecil's private secretary. This copy has been shown to the King, who in
a marginal note objects to a certain "uncleare phrase," which has
accordingly been altered in accordance with the royal criticism: and
from it has evidently been taken the printed version, which agrees with
it in every respect, including the above-mentioned emendation of the
phraseology.
[Illustration: FROM WINTER'S CONFESSION, NOVEMBER 23.]
It must strike the reader as remarkable that, whereas, as has been said,
the body of the letter is in the handwriting of the secretary, Munck,
the names of the witnesses who attest it[340] are added in that of his
master, Cecil himself.
The "original" document, in Winter's own hand, is at Hatfield, and
agrees in general so exactly with the copy, as to demonstrate the
identity of their origin.[341] But while, as we have seen, the "copy" is
dated November 23rd, the "original" is dated on the 25th.[342] On a
circumstance so singular, light is possibly thrown by a letter from
Waad, the Lieutenant of the Tower, to Cecil, on the 21st of the same
month.[343] "Thomas Winter," he wrote, "doth find his hand so strong, as
after dinner he will settle himself to write that he hath verbally
declared to your Lordship, adding what he shall remember." The inference
is certainly suggested that torture had been used until the prisoner's
spirit was sufficiently broken to be ready to tell the story required of
him, and that the details were furnished by those who demanded it. It
must, moreover, be remarked that although Winter's "original"
declaration is witnessed only by Sir E. Coke, the Attorney General, it
appears in print attested by all those whom Cecil had selected for the
purpose two days before the declaration was made.[344] It may be said
that the inference drawn above is violent and unfair, and, perhaps, were
there no other case to go upon but that of Winter, so grave a charge as
it implies should not be made. There remains, however, the companion
case of Faukes, which is yet more extraordinary.
His declaration first makes its appearance as "The examination of Guy
Fawkes, taken the 8th of November."[345] The document thus described is
manifestly a draft, and not a copy of a deposition actually taken. It is
unsigned: the list of witnesses is in the same handwriting as the rest,
and in no instance is a witness indicated by such a title as he would
employ for his signature.[346] Throughout this paper Faukes is made to
speak in the third person, and the names of accomplices to whom he
refers are not given.
What, however, is most remarkable is the frank manner in which this
document is treated as a draft. Several passages are cancelled and
others substituted, sometimes in quite a contrary sense, so that the
same deponent cannot possibly have made the statements contained in both
versions. Other paragraphs are "ticked off," as the event proves, for
omission.
Nine days later, November 17th,[347] Faukes was induced to put his name
to the substance of the matter contained in the draft.[348] The document
is headed "The declaration[349] of Guy Fawkes, prisoner in the Tower of
London." Faukes speaks throughout in the first person, and supplies the
names previously omitted.[350] Most noteworthy is the manner in which
this version is adapted to the emendations of the draft. The passages
ticked off have disappeared entirely, amongst them the remarkable
statements that "they [the confederates] meant also to have sent for the
prisoners in the Tower, of whom particularly they had some
consultation,"--that "they had consultation for the taking of the Lady
Mary [the infant daughter of King James] into their possession"--and
that "provision was made by some of the conspiracy of armour of proof
this last summer, for this action." Where an alteration has been made in
the draft, great skill is shown in combining what is important in both
versions.[351]
As to the means which were employed to compel Faukes to sign the
declaration there can be no doubt; his signature bearing evidence that
he had been tortured with extreme severity. The witnesses are but two,
Coke, the Attorney General, and Waad, the Lieutenant of the Tower. When,
however, the document came to be printed, as in the other case, a fuller
list was appended, but not exactly that previously indicated, for to
Faukes were assigned the same witnesses as to Winter, including the
Earls of Worcester and Dunbar over and above his own list.[352]
[Illustration: SIGNATURES OF FAUKES AND OLDCORNE.[353]]
The printed version exhibits other points of interest. There was in the
Archduke's service, in Flanders, an English soldier, Hugh Owen,[354]
whom the government were for some reason, excessively desirous to
incriminate, and get into their hands. For this purpose, a passage was
artfully interpolated in the statement of Faukes, whereof no trace is
found in the original. In the "King's Book," the passage in question
stands thus, the words italicised being those fraudulently introduced:
"About Easter, the parliament being prorogued till October next, we
dispersed ourselves, and I retired into the Low-countries, _by advice
and direction of the rest; as well to acquaint Owen with the particulars
of the plot, as also_, lest, by my longer stay, I might have grown
suspicious." But of Owen we shall see more in particular. It must not be
forgotten that on several other days besides those named above, Faukes
made declarations, still extant, viz., November 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and
16th, and January 9th and 20th. The most important items of information
furnished by that selected for publication were not even hinted at in
any of these.
Farther light appears to be thrown on the manner in which this important
declaration was prepared by another document found amongst the State
Papers. This is an "interrogatory" drawn up by Sir E. Coke on November
8th, the very day of the "draft," expressly for the benefit of
Faukes.[355] That the "draft" was composed from this appears to be shown
by a curious piece of evidence. We have already noticed the strange
phraseology of one of the passages attributed to Faukes: "He confesseth
that the same day that this detestable act should have been performed
the same day should other of their confederacy have surprised the person
of the Lady Elizabeth," etc. Precisely the same repetition occurs in
the sixth of Mr. Attorney's suggested questions. "_Item_, was it not
agreed that the same day that the act should have been done, the same
day or soon after the person of the Lady Elizabeth should have been
surprised," etc.?
Moreover, it is apparent that this interrogatory is not founded on
information already obtained, but is, in fact, what is known as a
"fishing" document, intended to elicit evidence of some kind. In the
first place, some of its suggestions are mutually incompatible. Thus in
another place it implies that not Elizabeth but her infant sister Mary
was the choice of the queen-makers:--"Who should have been protector of
the Lady Mary, who, being born in England, they meant to prefer to the
crown. With whom should she have married?" (She was then seven months
old.) Again it asks: "What should have become of the Prince?" as though
he might after all be the sovereign intended.
Besides this, many points are raised which are evidently purely
imaginary, inasmuch as no more was ever heard of them though if
substantiated, they would have been supremely important.[356]
The above details will not appear superfluous if the importance of these
documents be fully understood. It is upon these narratives, stamped with
features so incompatible with their trustworthiness, that we entirely
depend for much of prime importance in the history of the conspiracy, in
particular for the notable episode of the mine, which they alone relate,
and which is not even mentioned, either in the other numerous
confessions of Faukes and Winter themselves, or by any of the other
confederates. Save for an incidental remark of Keyes, that he helped to
work in the mine, we hear nothing else of it; while not only is this
confession quite as strange a document as the two others, but, to
complicate the matter still more, Keyes is expressly described by
Cecil[357] himself as one of those that "wrought not in the mine."
It is hard to understand how so remarkable an operation should have been
totally ignored in all the other confessions and declarations, numerous
and various as they are; while, on the other hand, should this striking
feature of the Plot prove to be a fabrication, what is there of which to
be certain?
iii. _The Confession of Thomas Bates (December 4th, 1605)._
There is another piece of evidence to which exceptional prominence has
been given, the confession of Thomas Bates, Catesby's servant, dated
December 4th, 1605. This is the only one of the conspirators'
confessions specifically mentioned in the government account of their
trial, and it is mentioned twice over--a circumstance not unsuspicious
in view of the nature of that account as already described.[358]
It is not necessary at present to enter upon the large question of the
attitude of the Jesuits towards the Plot, nor to discuss their guilt or
innocence. This is, however, beyond dispute, that the government were
above all things anxious to prove them guilty,[359] and no document ever
produced was so effective for this purpose as the said confession, for,
if it were true, there could be no question as to the guilt of one
Jesuit, at least, Father Greenway _alias_ Tesimond. The substance of
Bates' declaration was as follows:
That being introduced and sworn into the conspiracy by his master,
Catesby, he was then told that, as a pledge of fidelity, he must receive
the sacrament upon his oath, and accordingly he went to confession to
Greenway, the Jesuit.
_That in his confession he fully informed Greenway of the design, and
that Greenway bade him obey his master, because it was for a good cause,
and be secret, and mention the matter to no other priest._
That he was absolved by Greenway, and afterwards received Holy
Communion.
It will be observed that the second paragraph, here italicized, is of
supreme importance. We have evidence that although the conspirators,
during the course of their operations, frequented the sacraments, they
expressly avoided all mention of their design to their confessors,
Catesby having required this of them, assuring them that he had fully
satisfied himself that the project, far from being sinful, was
meritorious, but that the priests were likely to give trouble.[360] We
are even told by some authors that Catesby exacted of his confederates
an oath of secrecy in this regard. It is clear that his authority must
have had special weight with his own servant, who was, moreover,
devotedly attached to his master, as he proved in the crisis of his
fate. We might, therefore, naturally be prepared to learn that Bates,
though confessing to Greenway, never acquainted him with the Plot; and,
that in fact he never did so, there is some interesting evidence.
It cannot escape observation as a suspicious circumstance that this
most important confession, upon which so much stress was laid, exists
amongst the State Papers only in a copy.[361] Moreover, this copy has
been treated as though it were an original, being officially endorsed,
and it has on some occasion been used in Court.[362] If, however, this
version were not genuine, but prepared for a purpose, it is clear that
it could not have been produced while Bates was alive to contradict it,
and there appears to be no doubt that it was not heard of till after his
death.
This appears, in the first place, from a manuscript account of the
Plot,[363] written between the trial of the conspirators and that of
Father Garnet, that is, within two months of the former. The author sets
himself expressly to prove that the priests must have been cognizant of
the design, for, he argues, Catholics, when they have anything of the
kind in hand, always consult their confessors about it, and it cannot be
supposed that on this occasion only did they omit to do so. In support
of his assertion, he quotes the instances of Parry, Babington, and
Squires, but says nothing of Bates. He mentions Greenway as undoubtedly
one of the guilty priests, but only because "his Majesty's proclamation
so speaks it." Had the confession of Bates, as we have it, been so
prominently adduced at the trial, as the official narrative represents,
it is quite impossible that such a writer should have been content with
these feeble inferences.
Still more explicit is the evidence furnished by another MS. containing
a report of Father Garnet's trial.[364] In this the confession of Bates
is cited, but precisely without the significant passage of which we have
spoken, as follows: "Catesby afterwards discovered the project unto him;
shortly after which discovery, Bates went to Mass to Tesimond
[Greenway], and there was confessed and had absolution."
Here, again, it is impossible to suppose that the all-important point
was the one omitted. It is clear, however, that the mention of a
confession made to Greenway would _prima facie_ afford a presumption
that this particular matter had been confessed, thus furnishing a
foundation whereon to build; and, knowing as we do how evidence was
manipulated, it is quite conceivable that the copy now extant
incorporates the improved version thus suggested.
Such an explanation was unmistakably insinuated by Father Garnet, when,
on his trial, this evidence was urged against him; for he significantly
replied that "Bates was a dead man."[365] Greenway himself afterwards,
when beyond danger, denied on his salvation that Bates had ever on any
occasion mentioned to him any word concerning the Plot. It is still more
singular that Bates himself appears to have known nothing of his own
declaration. He had apparently said, in some examination of which no
record remains, that he thought Greenway "knew of the business." This
statement he afterwards retracted as having been elicited by a vain
hope of pardon, in a letter which is given in full by Father
Gerard,[366] and of which Cecil himself made mention at Garnet's
trial.[367] But of the far more serious accusation we are considering he
said never a word.
There is, however, evidence still more notable. On the same day,
December 4th, on which Bates made his declaration, Cecil wrote a most
important letter to one Favat,[368] who had been commissioned by King
James to urge the necessity of obtaining evidence without delay against
the priests. This document is valuable as furnishing explicit testimony
that torture was employed with this object. "Most of the prisoners,"
says the secretary, "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."
He goes on, however, to assure his Majesty that the desired object is
now in sight, particularly referring to a confession which can be none
other than that of Bates, but likewise cannot be that afterwards given
to the world; for it is spoken of as affording promise, but not yet
satisfactory in its performance.
"You may tell his Majesty that if he please to read privately what this
day we have drawn from a voluntary and penitent examination, the point I
am persuaded (but I am no undertaker) shall be so well cleared, if he
forbear to speak much of this but few days, as we shall see all fall out
to the end whereat his Majesty shooteth."
It seems clear, therefore, that the famous declaration of Bates, like
those of Faukes and Winter, tends to discredit the story which in
particulars so important rests upon such evidence.
It may be farther observed that if the confession of Bates, as
officially preserved, were of any worth, it would have helped to raise
other issues of supreme importance. Thus its concluding paragraph runs
as follows:
"He confesseth that he heard his master, Thomas Winter, and Guy Fawkes
say (presently upon the coming over of Fawkes) that they should have the
sum of five-and-twenty thousand pounds out of Spain."
This clearly means that the King of Spain was privy to the design, for a
sum equivalent to a quarter of a million of our money could not have
been furnished by private persons. The government, however, constantly
assured the English ambassadors abroad of the great satisfaction with
which they found that no suspicion whatever rested upon any foreign
prince.
iv. _Robert Winter._
There are various traces of foul play in regard of this conspirator in
particular, which serve to shake our confidence as to the treatment of
all. Robert Winter was the eldest brother of Thomas, and held the family
property, which was considerable. Whether this motive, as Mr. Jardine
suggests, or some other, prompted the step, certain it is that the
government in their published history falsified the documents in order
to incriminate him more deeply. Faukes, in the confession of Nov. 17th,
mentioned Robert Keyes as amongst the first seven of the conspirators
who worked in the mine, and Robert Winter as one of the five introduced
at a later period. The names of these two were deliberately interchanged
in the published version, Robert Winter appearing as a worker in the
mine, and Keyes, who was an obscure man of no substance, among the
gentlemen of property whose resources were to have supported the
subsequent rebellion. Moreover, in the account of the same confession
sent to Edmondes by Cecil three days before Faukes signed it (_i.e._,
Nov. 14th), the same transposition occurs, Keyes being explicitly
described as one of those "who wrought not in the mine," although, as we
have seen, he is one of the three who alone make any mention of it.
Still more singular is another circumstance. About November 28th, Sir
Edward Coke, the attorney-general, drew up certain farther notes of
questions to be put to various prisoners.[369] Amongst these we read:
"Winter to be examined of his brother. For no man else can accuse him."
But a fortnight or so before this time the Secretary of State had
officially informed the ambassador in the Low Countries that Robert
Winter was one of those deepest in the treason, and, to say nothing of
other evidence, a proclamation for his apprehension had been issued on
November 18th. Yet Coke's interrogatory seems to imply that nothing had
yet been established against him, and that he was not known to the
general body of the traitors as a fellow-conspirator.
v. _Captain Hugh Owen, Father William Baldwin, and others._
We have seen something of the extreme anxiety evinced by the English
government to incriminate a certain Hugh Owen, a Welsh soldier of
fortune serving in Flanders under the archduke.[370] With him were
joined Father Baldwin, the Jesuit, and Sir William Stanley, who, like
Owen, was in the archduke's service. The measures taken in regard of
them are exceedingly instructive if we would understand upon what sort
of evidence the guilt of obnoxious individuals was proclaimed as
incontrovertible.
No time was lost in commencing operations. On November 14th, three days
before Faukes signed the celebrated declaration which we have examined,
and in which Owen was not mentioned, the Earl of Salisbury wrote to
Edmondes, ambassador at Brussels,[371] that Faukes had now directly
accused Owen, whose extradition must therefore be demanded. In proof of
this assertion he inclosed a copy of the declaration, in which, however,
curiously enough, no mention of Owen's name occurs.[372]
Edmondes on his side was equally prompt. He at once laid the matter
before the archduke and his ministers, and on November 19th was able to
write to Salisbury that Owen and his secretary were apprehended and
their papers and ciphers seized, and that, "If there shall fall out
matter to charge Owen with partaking in the treason, the archduke will
not refuse the king to yield him to be answerable to justice,"[373]
though venturing to hope that he would be able to clear himself of so
terrible an accusation.
On "the last of November" the subject was pursued in an epistle from the
King himself to the "Archdukes,"[374] in which the undoubted guilt of
both Owen and Baldwin was roundly affirmed.[375]
On December 2nd, 1605, Salisbury wrote to Edmondes:[376] "I do warrant
you to deliver upon the forfeiture of my judgment in your opinion that
it shall appear as evident as the sun in the clearest day, that Baldwin
by means of Owen, and Owen directly by himself, have been particular
conspirators."
In spite of this, the authorities in Flanders asked for proofs of the
guilt of those whom they were asked to give up. Wherefore Edmondes wrote
(December 27th) to secure the co-operation of Cornwallis, his
fellow-ambassador, at Madrid. After declaring that Owen and Baldwin were
now found to have been "principal dealers in the late execrable
treason," with remarkable _naivete_ he thus continues:[377]
"I will not conceal from your lordship that they have been here so
unrespective as to desire for their better satisfaction to have a copy
of the information against the said persons to be sent over hither;
which I fear will be very displeasing to his Majesty to understand."
In January (1605-6), Salisbury sending, in the King's name, instructions
to Sir E. Coke as to the trial of the conspirators, concluded with this
admonition:[378] "You must remember to lay Owen as foul in this as you
can," which certainly does not suggest that the case against him was
overwhelmingly strong.
After the execution of the traitors, an Act of Attainder passed by
Parliament included Owen amongst them.[379]
The archdukes remaining unconvinced, another and very notable argument
was brought into play. On February 12th, 1605-6, Salisbury wrote to
Edmondes:[380]
"As for the particular depositions against Owen and Baldwin, which the
archdukes desire to have a sight of, you may let them know that it is a
matter which can make but little to the purpose, considering that his
Majesty already upon his royal word hath certified the archdukes of
their guilt."
As to Owen's own papers which had been seized, the archduke assured the
English ambassador,[381] "that if there had been anything to have been
discovered out of the said papers touching the late treason (as he was
well assured of the contrary), he would not have failed to have imparted
the same to his Majesty."
At a later date the Spanish minister De Grenada wrote from
Valladolid[382] that men could not be delivered up on mere suspicion,
which might prove groundless, but that the archduke had received orders
to sift the matter to the bottom, in order that justice might be done
"very fully."
About the same time President Richardot informed Edmondes[383] that Owen
strenuously denied the charges against him, "and that there is the more
probability of his innocency for that his papers having been carefully
visited, there doth not appear anything in them to charge him concerning
the said matter."
On April 21st Salisbury informed Edmondes of a conference on the subject
between the king and the archduke's ambassador.[384] The latter declared
that his master was ready to prosecute the accused in his own courts if
evidence was furnished him, but in reply King James explained that this
was impossible, and that he "was loth to send any papers or accusations
over, not knowing how they might be framed or construed there by the
formalities of their laws." He added that it was useless now to talk of
evidence, "seeing the wretch is already condemned by the public sentence
of the whole Parliament, which sentence the archdukes might see if they
would." The ambassador thereupon asked to have a copy, but was curtly
told that it would presently be printed, when he could buy one for
twelve pence and send it to his masters, but that the king was not
disposed to make a present of it.
In these circumstances the archdukes determined to detain Owen no
longer, and he was presently discharged. The news of this proceeding
produced a remarkable change in the tone of his accusers. On June 18th,
the secretary wrote to Edmondes[385] that Owen's enlargement "seemed to
give too much credit to his innocency;" moreover, that "though his
Majesty showed no great disposition (for many considerations specified
unto you) to send over the papers and accusations against him, ... yet
this proceeded not out of any conscience of the invalidity of the
proofs, but rather in respect that his process being made here, and the
caitiff condemned by the public sentence of the Parliament, it would
have come all to one issue, seeing they have proceeded when his Majesty
left it to themselves to do as they thought fit."
To reinforce this lucid explanation Salisbury sent six days later what
had before been refused, an abstract of "confessions against Owen," and
a corrected copy of the Act of Attainder. These documents deserve some
consideration.
We have seen how much stress was laid upon the action of Parliament in
regard of Owen, although the Act of Attainder which it passed affords no
information whatever to assist our judgment of his case. In moving for
this attainder, Sir E. Coke appeared at the bar of the House of Commons
(April 29th, 1606) to exhibit the evidence on which the charge rested.
His notes of this evidence, which are extant,[386] clearly show that the
government possessed no proofs at all beyond surmise and inference.[387]
Three testimonies were cited which were quite inconsistent and mutually
destructive: (1) An extract from a confession of Guy Faukes, January
20th, 1605-6, declaring that he had himself initiated Owen in the Plot
in May, 1605. (2) An information of one Ralph Ratcliffe, to the effect
that Owen and Baldwin were busy with the Plot in April, 1604. (3) T.
Winter's testimony--from his famous confession of November 23rd, or
25th, 1605--that in the spring of 1604 Owen had assisted him to secure
the services of Faukes.
In Salisbury's letter to Edmondes, the first and the last of these alone
were cited,[388] probably because it had by this time been perceived
that Ratcliffe's evidence flatly contradicted that of Faukes.
Winter's confession has already been discussed, and moreover affords no
proof that Owen was acquainted with the purpose for which the services
of Faukes were required. There remains the very circumstantial story of
Faukes himself, which belongs to a curious and interesting class of
documents, containing matter of the highest importance, whereof no
trace, not even a copy, is to be found amongst the State Papers. These
comprise various confessions of Faukes, dated November 19th, 25th, and
30th, 1605, and January 20th, 1605-6, all dealing with information of a
sensational nature, concerning which we learn nothing from the eleven
depositions of the same conspirator preserved in the Record Office.[389]
For our knowledge of these mysterious documents we have to depend on
transcripts of portions of them among the Tanner MSS. in the Bodleian
Library, on fragmentary Latin versions in the _Antilogia_ of Bishop
Abbot, and on the extract cited from the last amongst them by Sir Edward
Coke, which exactly agrees with that sent by Salisbury to Edmondes, as
above mentioned.
It cannot escape notice that although these versions all profess to be
taken from the originals under Faukes' hand, they are so utterly
different as to preclude the belief that they have been copied from the
same documents.[390]
It must farther be observed that we hear nothing of important matters
contained in these confessions till the supposed author and his
confederates were all dead, whereas these are such as would certainly
have been produced on their trial had this been possible.[391] Some of
the evidence thus afforded is, in fact, too good, for the Government's
purpose, to be true, for if authentic, it would have secured results
which, though much desired, were never obtained. In particular it would
have established beyond question the guilt of the Jesuits abroad, and
especially of Father Baldwin.[392] It is this Father, however, whose
case conclusively proves the utter worthlessness of the evidence. Having
been proclaimed and branded by the English government as a convicted
traitor, he, five years later, fell into their hands, being delivered
up, in 1610, by their ally the Elector Palatine. He was at once thrown
into the Tower, where he was frequently and rigorously examined, it is
said even on the rack.[393] After a confinement of eight years he was
discharged "with honour," his innocence being attested by the respect
with which he was treated by men of all parties.[394] In view of this
unquestionable acquittal the famous proofs of his criminality, though
certified on the royal word of King James himself, forfeit all claim to
consideration.
A word may be added concerning Father Cresswell, an English Jesuit
residing in Spain. He, too, was assumed to have been deeply implicated
in this and other treasons. In November, 1605, Cecil included his name
in a list of traitors against whom proofs were to be procured.[395] It
was even asserted that at the time of the intended explosion he came
over to England "to bear his part with the rest of his Society in a
victorial song of thanksgiving."[396] He was, moreover, loudly denounced
as the principal agent in the notorious Spanish Treason.
After all this it is somewhat surprising to find Sir Charles Cornwallis,
the English Ambassador, while the excitement of the Powder Plot was at
its height, testifying in the most cordial terms to his esteem for the
said Cresswell. The latter having been called to Rome by his superiors,
Cornwallis (December 23rd, N.S. 1605,) addressed to him the following
letter.[397]
"Sir, although in matter of religion well you know that there are
many discords between us, yet sure in your duty and loyalty to my
King and Country I find in you so good a concordance I cannot but
much reverence and love you, and wish you all the happiness that a
man of your sort upon the earth can desire.
"Much am I (I assure you) grieved at your departure, and the more
that I was put in so good hope that your journey should have been
stayed. The time of the year unpleasant to travel in, your body, as
I think, not much accustomed to journeys of so great length, and the
great good you did here to your poor countrymen (which now they
want) are great motives to make your friends to wish your will in
that voyage had been broken.
"If it be not, I shall not believe in words, for many here do
greatly desire you for causes spiritual, and some for temporal. In
the latter number am I, who, not affecting your spiritualities (for
that these in you abound to superfluity), do much reverence and
respect your temporal abilities, as wherein I acknowledge much
wisdom, temper, and sincerity. So no friends you have shall ever
more desire good unto you than myself. And therefore I wish I were
able to make so good demonstration as willingly I would that I ever
will here and in all places in this world rest
"Your very assured loving friend,
"CH. CO."
About the same time, in an undated letter to Lord Salisbury,[398]
Cornwallis again expresses his regret on account of the removal of
Cresswell from Spain.
vi. _Other Documents._
It is impossible to analyze in detail the evidence supplied by the
several conspirators after their capture, or to examine the endless
inconsistencies and contradictions with which it abounds. One or two
points must, however, be indicated.
1. As we have seen, it is clear that at the beginning an effort was made
to invest the Plot with a far wider political significance than was
afterwards attempted, and to introduce elements which were soon quietly
laid aside. In the interrogatories prepared by Sir E. Coke and Chief
Justice Popham, we find it suggested that the death of the Earl of
Salisbury was a main feature of the scheme, "absolutely agreed upon"
among the conspirators. Also that the titular Earl of Westmoreland, the
titular Lord Dacre, the Earl of Northumberland, Sir Walter Raleigh, and
others were mixed up in the business.
Nor were such endeavours altogether fruitless, for, supposing the
testimony extorted from the prisoners to be worthy of credit,
information was obtained altogether changing the character and
complexion of the design. This was, however, presently buried in
oblivion and treated as of no moment whatever.
Thus in Sir Everard Digby's declaration of Nov. 23rd,[399] we find him
testifying that the Earls of Westmoreland and Derby,[400] were to have
been sent to raise forces in the north. Faukes, in the famous confession
which we have so fully discussed, was made to say "They meant also to
have sent for the prisoners in the Tower to have come to them, of whom
particularly they had some consultation," and although this important
clause was omitted from the finished version finally adopted, it appears
in that of Nov. 14th, sent by Cecil to the ambassador at Brussels.
Again, in his examination of November 9th, famous for the ghastly
evidence of torture afforded by his signature, we find Faukes declaring,
"He confesseth also that there was speech amongst them to draw Sir
Walter Rawley to take part with them, being one that might stand them in
good stead, _as others in like sort were named_."[401]
With regard to Raleigh it must be remembered that he was in a very
special manner obnoxious to Salisbury, who, however, was at great pains
to disguise his hostility. On occasion of Sir Walter's trial, in 1603,
he vehemently protested that it was a great grief to him to have to
pronounce against one whom he had hitherto loved.[402] But two years
earlier, in his secret correspondence with James, he had not only
described Raleigh to the future king as one of the diabolical
triplicity hatching cockatrice eggs, but had solemnly protested that if
he feigned friendship for such a wretch, it was only with the purpose of
drawing him on to discover his real nature.[403]
2. Even more worthy of notice is the shameless manner in which evidence
was falsified. That produced in court consisted entirely of the written
depositions of the prisoners themselves, and of those who had been
similarly examined. It was, however, carefully manipulated before it was
read; all that told in favour of those whose conviction was desired
being omitted, and only so much retained as would tell against them. On
this subject Mr. Jardine well remarks:[404] "This mode of dealing with
the admissions of an accused person is pure and unmixed injustice; it is
in truth a forgery of evidence; for when a qualified statement is made,
the suppression of the qualification is no less a forgery than if the
whole statement had been fabricated."
It will be sufficient to cite one notorious and compendious example.
In regard of the oath of secrecy taken by the conspirators, Faukes (Nov.
9th, 1605) and Thomas Winter (Jan. 9th, 1605-6) related how they
administered it to one another, "in a chamber," to quote Winter, "where
no other body was," and afterwards proceeded to another chamber where
they heard Mass and received Communion at the hands of Father
Gerard.[405] Both witnesses, however, emphatically declared that the
Father knew nothing of the oath that had been taken, or of the purpose
of the associates.
[Illustration: FROM FAUKES' CONFESSION OF NOVEMBER 9, 1605.]
Such testimony in favour of one whom they were anxious above all things
to incriminate, the government would not allow to appear. Accordingly,
Sir E. Coke, preparing the documents to be used in court as evidence,
marked off the exculpatory passages, with directions that they were not
to be read.[406] Having thus suppressed the passage which declared that
the Jesuit was unaware of the conspirators' purpose, and of their oath,
Coke went on to inform the jury, in his speech, "This oath was by Gerard
the Jesuit given to Catesby, Percy, Christopher Wright, and Thomas
Winter, and by Greenwell [Greenway] the Jesuit to Bates at another time,
and so to the rest."[407]
3. Neither must it be forgotten that even apart from these manifest
instances of tampering, the confessions themselves, obtained in such
circumstances, are open to much suspicion. In an intercepted letter to
Father Baldwin, of whom we have heard, Father Schondonck, another
Jesuit, then rector of St. Omers, speaks thus:[408] "I much rejoice
that, as I hear, there is no confession produced, by which, either in
court or at the place of execution, any of our society is accused of so
abominable a crime. This I consider a point of prime importance. _Of
secret confessions, or those extorted by violence or torture, less
account must be made; for we have many examples whereby the dishonesty
of our enemies in such matters has been fully displayed._"
Father John Gerard in his Autobiography[409] relates an experience of
his own which illustrates the methods employed to procure evidence such
as was required. When, in Queen Elizabeth's time, he had himself been
taken and thrown into prison, the notorious Topcliffe, the
priest-hunter, endeavoured to force him into an acknowledgment of
various matters of a treasonable character. Father Gerard undertook to
write what he had to say on the subject, and proceeded to set down an
explicit denial of what his questioner suggested. What followed he thus
relates.[410]
"While I was writing this, the old man waxed wroth. He shook with
passion, and would fain have snatched the paper from me."
"'If you don't want me to write the truth,' said I, 'I'll not write at
all.'"
"'Nay,' quoth he, 'write so and so, and I'll copy out what you have
written.'"
"'I shall write what I please,' I answered, 'and not what _you_ please.
Show what I have written to the Council, for I shall add nothing but my
name.'"
"_Then I signed so near the writing, that nothing could be put in
between._ The hot-tempered man, seeing himself disappointed, broke out
into threats and blasphemies: 'I'll get you into my power, and hang you
in the air, and show you no mercy: and then I shall see what God will
rescue you out of my hands.'"
It was not by Catholics alone that allegations of this sort were
advanced. Sir Anthony Weldon tells us[411] that on the trial of Raleigh
and Cobham, the latter protested that he had never made the declaration
attributed to him incriminating Raleigh. "That villain Wade,"[412] said
he, "did often solicit me, and, not prevailing, got me, by a trick, to
write my name on a piece of white paper, which I, thinking nothing, did;
so that if any charge came under my hand, it was forged by that villain
Wade, by writing something above my hand, without my consent or
knowledge."
Moreover, there exists undoubted evidence that the king's chief minister
availed himself upon occasion of the services of such as could
counterfeit handwriting and forge evidence against suspected persons.
One Arthur Gregory[413] appears to have been thus employed, and he
subsequently wrote to Salisbury reminding him of what he had done.[414]
After acknowledging that he owes his life to the secretary who knows how
to appreciate "an honest desire in respect of his Majesty's public
service," Gregory thus continues:
"Your Lordship hath had a present trial of that which none but myself
hath done before, _to write in another man's hand_, and, discovering the
secret writing being in blank, to abuse a most cunning villain in his
own subtlety, leaving the same at last in blank again, wherein although
there be difficulty their answers show they have no suspicion."
This the calendarer of State Papers believes to refer to the case of
Father Garnet, and it is certain from Gregory's own letter that at one
time he held a post in the Tower. Is it not possible that an explanation
may here be found of the strange circumstance, that perhaps the most
important of Father Garnet's examinations[415] bears an endorsement,
"This was forbydden by the King to be given in evidence"?
Gregory's letter, of which we have been speaking, has appended to it an
instructive postscript:
"Mr. Lieutenant expecteth something to be written in the blank leaf of a
Latin Bible, which is pasted in already for the purpose. I will attend
it, and whatsoever else cometh."[416]
vii. _Catholic Testimony._
It will not improbably be urged that the government history is confirmed
in all essential particulars by authorities to whom no exception can be
taken, namely, contemporary Catholic writers, and especially the Jesuits
Gerard and Greenway, whose narratives of the conspiracy corroborate
every detail concerning which doubts have been insinuated.
This argument is undoubtedly deserving of all consideration, but upon
examination appears to lose much of its force. If the narratives in
question agree with that furnished by the government, it is because they
are based almost entirely upon it, and upon those published confessions
of Winter and Faukes with which we are familiar.
On this point Father Gerard is very explicit:[417] "Out of [Mr. Thomas
Winter's] examination, with the others that were made in the time of
their imprisonment, I must gather and set down all that is to be said or
collected of their purposes and proceedings in this heady enterprize.
For that, as I have said, they kept it so wholly secret from all men,
that until their flight and apprehension it was not known to any that
such a matter was in hand, and then there could none have access to them
to learn the particulars. But we must be contented with that which some
of those that lived to be examined, did therein deliver. Only for that
some of their servants that were up in arms with them in the country did
afterwards escape, somewhat might be learned by them of their carriage
in their last extremities, and some such words as they then uttered,
whereby their mind in the whole matter is something the more opened."
Elsewhere he writes, exhibiting more confidence in government documents
than we can feel:[418]
"[The prisoners'] examinations did all agree in all material points, and
therefore two only were published in print, containing the substance of
the rest. And indeed [this is] the sum of that which I have been able to
say in this narration touching either their first intentions or the
names or number of the conspirators, or concerning the course they took
to keep the matter so absolutely secret, or, finally, touching the
manner of their beginning and proceeding in the whole matter; for
that--as I noted before--it being kept a vowed secret in the heads and
hearts of so few, and those also afterwards apprehended before they
could have means to declare the particulars in any private manner,
therefore no more can be known of the matter or manner of this tragedy
than is found or gathered out of their examinations."
As for Greenway, it should not be forgotten that for the most part he
confined himself to translating Gerard's narrative from English into
Italian, though he supplemented it occasionally with items furnished by
his own experience as to the character and general conduct of the
conspirators on previous occasions, or during their last desperate
rally. Of this he was able to speak with more authority, as he not only
chanced to be in the immediate neighbourhood, but actually visited them
at Huddington House (the seat of Robert Winter) on November 6th, being
summoned thither by Catesby through his servant Bates.[419] Greenway,
like Gerard, constantly refers to the published confessions of Winter
and Faukes as the sources of his information.
It may here be observed that the practical identity of the narratives
of these two fathers was unknown to Mr. Jardine, who having seen only
that of Father Greenway, and believing it to be an original work,
founded upon this erroneous assumption an argument which loses its force
when we learn the real author to have been Gerard. Mr. Jardine maintains
that the narrator must, from internal evidence, have been an active and
zealous member of the conspiracy, "approving, promoting and encouraging
it with the utmost enthusiasm."[420] It so happens, however, that the
real author, Father Gerard, is just the one of the incriminated Jesuits
whose innocence is held by historians certainly not partial to his
Order, to be beyond question. Mr. Gardiner considers[421] that there is
"strong reason" to believe him not to have been acquainted with the
Plot. Dr. Jessopp is still more emphatic, and declares[422] that it is
impossible for any candid reader of all the evidence to doubt that
Gerard must be exonerated.
What has been said of Gerard and Greenway may serve also for Father
Garnet, who in his various examinations and other utterances assumes the
truth of the government story, for neither had he materials to go upon
except those officially supplied.
* * * * *
It is obvious that the conclusion to be drawn from the above
considerations is chiefly negative. That the conspirators embarked on a
plot against the state, is, of course unquestionable. What was the
precise nature of that plot is by no means clear, and still less what
were the exact circumstances of its initiation and its collapse. This
only appears to be certain, that things did not happen as they were
officially related, while the elaborate care expended on the
falsification of the story seems to indicate that the true version would
not have served the purposes to which that story was actually put.
FOOTNOTES:
[332] _Criminal Trials_, ii. 235. Mr. Jardine is here speaking expressly
of the trial of Father Garnet, as reported in the book, but evidently
intends his observations to extend to that of the conspirators as well.
[333] _Ibid._ 105.
[334] _True and Perfect Relation_, Introduction.
[335] _Criminal Trials_, ii. 113.
[336] The contemporary, Hawarde (_Les Reportes del Cases in Camera
Stellata_) gives a report of the trial of the conspirators, under the
curious title "_Al le arraignemente del Traitors por le grande treason
of blowinge up the Parliamente Howse_," which, although evidently based
upon the official account, differs in two remarkable particulars. In the
first place it gives a different list of the commissioners by whom the
trial was conducted, omitting Justice Warburton, and including instead,
Lord Chief Baron Flemming, Justices Yelverton and Williams, and Baron
Saville. Moreover, Hawarde says that the king and queen "were both there
in pryvate," an important circumstance, of which the _True and Perfect
Relation_ says nothing.
[337] Viz., on January 30th and 31st: not January 31st and February 1st,
as Mr. Gardiner has it.
[338] Father Garnet clearly believed that this advantage was used
unscrupulously against him, for when certain evidence attributed to
Bates was cited, he replied that "Bates was a dead man," and would
testify otherwise if he were alive. (Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 21203.
_Foley's Records_, iv. p. 188.)
[339] It is frequently said that the search at Hendlip was undertaken
not for Garnet but for Oldcorne, whose presence there was known by the
confession of Humphrey Littleton. But this confession was made several
days after the search had been begun, and the directions for it given by
Cecil to the sheriff, Sir H. Bromley, clearly indicate that he had in
view some capture of prime importance. (See Gardiner's _History_, i.
271, and Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, f. 693.)
[340] Viz.: Nottingham, Suffolk, Worcester, Devonshire, Northampton,
Salisbury, Marr, Dunbar, Popham, Coke, and Waad.
[341] In the "original," however, there are some passages which do not
appear in the copy, notably one in which Lord Monteagle is mentioned. It
appears, therefore, that the "copy" is not the first version produced,
but has been edited from another still earlier.
[342] That this is not a slip of the pen is evidenced by the fact that
Winter first wrote 23, and then corrected it to 25.
[343] Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, 84.
[344] The document is headed in the printed version: "Thomas Winter's
Confession, taken the Twenty-third of November, 1605, in the Presence of
the Counsellors, whose Names are underwritten."
[345] _Gunpowder Plot Book_, 49.
[346] The list stands thus: "L. Admyrall--L. Chamberlayn--Erle of
Devonshire--Erle of Northampton--Erle of Salisbury--Erle of Marr--L.
Cheif Justice--attended by Mr. Attorney Generall."
The Lord Admiral was the Earl of Nottingham, better known as Lord Howard
of Effingham, the commander-in-chief against the Spanish Armada. There
appears to be no foundation for the supposition that he was a Catholic.
Northampton (Henry Howard) was a professing Catholic. The chamberlain
was the Earl of Suffolk, the Chief Justice, Popham.
[347] The _Calendar of State Papers_ assigns this document, like the
other, to the 8th, a mistake not easy to understand, for not only is the
date clearly written, but the printed version in the "King's Book" gives
it correctly.
[348] _Gunpowder Plot Book_, 101.
[349] This was originally written "deposition;" the title is altered in
Coke's hand, who also added the words, "taken the 17 of Nov. 1605:
acknowledged before the Lords Commissioners."
[350] Thus the _examination_ of November 8th begins as follows: "He
confesseth that a Practise in generall was first broken unto him,
agaynst his Majesty, for the Catholique cause, and not invented, or
propounded by himself: and this was first propounded unto him, about
Easter last was twelvemonth, beyond the seas, in the Low Countreyes, by
an English Lay-man, and that English man came over with him in his
company, into England, and they tow and three more were the first five,
mencioned in the former examination," etc.
The _declaration_ of November 17th opens: "I confesse that a practise in
general was first broken unto me against his Majesty, for releife of the
Catholique cause, and not invented or propounded by myself. And this was
first propounded unto me about Easter last was twelvemonth, beyond the
Seas, in the Low Countries of the Archdukes obeysance, by Thomas Winter,
who came thereupon with me into England, and there wee imparted our
purpose to three other Englishmen more, namely Rob^t Catesby, Tho^s
Percy, and John Wright, who all five consulting together," etc. See both
documents in full, Appendix N.
[351] Thus, in the confession of November 8th, we read as follows: "He
confesseth, that it was resolved amonge them, that the same day that
this detestable act should have been performed, the same day [_sic_]
should other of their confederacye have surprised the person of the Lady
Elizabeth and presently have proclaimed her queen [to which purpose a
Proclamation was drawne, as well to avow and justifye the Action, as to
have protested against the Union, and in noe sort to have meddled with
Religion therein. And would have protested all soe against all
strangers,] and this Proclamation should have been made in the name of
the Lady Elizabeth."
The portion within brackets is cancelled, and the following substituted:
"He confesseth that if their purpose had taken effect, untill they had
power enough, they would not have avowed the deed to be theirs; but if
their power ... had been sufficient, they thereafter would have taken it
upon them."
The corresponding portion of the declaration of November 17th runs thus:
"It was further resolved amongst us, that the same day that this action
should have been performed, some other of our confederates should have
surprised the person of the L. Elizabeth, the King's eldest daughter,
... and presently proclaimed her for Queene, having a _project_ of a
Proclamation ready for the purpose, wherein we made no mention of
altering of Religion, nor would have avowed the deed to be ours, untill
we should have had power enough to make our partie good, and then we
would have avowed both."
[352] The printed version of Fauke's declaration is headed: "The true
Copy of the Deposition of Guido Fawkes, taken in the Presence of the
Counsellors, whose Names are under written."
[353] See Appendix K., _The Use of Torture_.
[354] In the _Calendar of State Papers_ he is continually styled "Father
Owen," or "Owen the Jesuit," without warrant in the original documents.
That he was a soldier and not a priest there is no doubt.
[355] _Dom. James I._ xvi. 38.
[356] E.g. _Item._ Where you have confessed that it was discoursed
between you that the prisoners in the Tower should have had intelligence
after the act done, declare the particularity of that discourse, and
whether some prisoners in the Tower should not have been called to
office or place, or have been employed, etc.
_Item._ Where you have confessed that the L. Elizabeth should have
succeeded, and that she should have been brought up as a Catholic, and
married to an English Catholic. (1) Who should have had the government
of her? (2) Who was nominated to be the fittest to have married her?
_Item._ Was it not resolved amongst you that after the act done you
would have taken the Tower, or any other place of strength, and meant
you not to have taken the spoil of London, and whom should you have
instantly proclaimed?
_Item._ By what priests or Jesuits were you resolved that it was godly
and lawful to execute the act?
_Item._ Whether was it not resolved that if it were discovered Catesby
and others should have killed the king coming from Royston?
_Item._ Were not Edw. Neville, calling himself Earl of Westmorland, Mr.
Dacre, calling himself Lord Dacre, or any of the Nobility, privy to it?
How many of the Nobility have you known at Mass? What persons in the
Tower were named to be partakers with you?
[357] To Edmondes, November 14th, 1605. (Stowe MSS.)
[358] _Viz., The True and Perfect Relation._ The confession of Bates is
mentioned but not textually quoted. It is in the "King's Book" that the
confessions of Winter and Faukes are given.
[359] "The great object of the government now was to obtain evidence
against the priests."--Gardiner, _History of England_, i. 267.
[360] See Rokewood's examination, December 2nd, 1605. (_Gunpowder Plot
Book_, 136.) In the confession of Keyes, November 30th, 1605 (_Gunpowder
Plot Book_, 126) we read: "He sayth that the reason that he revealed not
the project to his ghostly father was for that Catesby told him that he
had good warrant and authoritie that it might safely and with good
conscience be done," etc.
[361] _Gunpowder Plot Book_, 145.
[362] This is shown by a mark (Sec.) in the margin opposite the important
passage, attention being called to this by the same mark, and the name
"Greenway" in the endorsement.
[363] Brit. Mus., Harleian 360, f. 96.
[364] Brit. Mus., Harleian 360, f. 109, etc. The reporter had clearly
been present.
[365] Brit. Mus., MSS. Add. 21, 203; Plut. ciii. F. Printed by Foley,
_Records_, iv. 164 _seq._
[366] _Narrative_, p. 210.
[367] Plut. ciii. F. Sec. 39.
[368] Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, Sec. 625.
[369] _Dom. James I._ xvi. 116.
[370] In the _Calendar of State Papers_, Mrs. Everett Green, as has been
said, quite gratuitously and without warrant from the original
documents, uniformly describes him as "Father Owen," or "Owen the
Jesuit." Mr. Gardiner (_Hist._ i. 242) has been led into the same error.
It is not impossible that Owen had some knowledge of the conspiracy,
though the course adopted by his enemies seems to afford strong
presumption to the contrary. It must, moreover, be remembered that, as
Father Gerard tells us, he and others similarly accused, vehemently
protested against the imputation, while in his case in particular we
have some evidence to the same effect. Thomas Phelippes, the
"Decipherer," of whom we have already heard, was on terms of close
intimacy with Owen, and in December, 1605, wrote to him about the Plot
in terms which certainly appear to imply a strong conviction that his
friend had nothing to do with it.
"There hath been and yet is still great paynes taken to search to the
bottom of the late damnable conspiracy. The Parliamente hit seemes shall
not be troubled with any extraordinarie course for their exemplarye
punishment, as was supposed upon the Kinges speeche, but onlye with
their attaynder, the more is the pitye I saye."--_Dom. James I._ xvii.
62.
[371] Stowe MSS. 168, 54.
[372] This version of the deposition is interesting as being a form
intermediate between the draft of November 8th and the finished document
of November 17th. The passages cancelled in the former are simply
omitted without any attempt to complete the sense of the passages in
which they occurred. Those "ticked off" are retained.
[373] Stowe MSS. 168, 58.
[374] _I.e._, the Archduke Albert, and his consort the Infanta, daughter
of Philip II., who, as governors of the Low Countries, were usually so
designated.
[375] "Nous avons bien voulu aussy par ces presentes, nous mesmes vous
asseurer que ce qu'il [Edmondes] vous en a desja declare, est fonde sur
tout verite; et vous dire en oultre, que ces meschantes Creatures d'Owen
et Baldouin, gens de mesme farine, ont eu aussi leur part en particulier
a ceste malheureuse conspiration de Pouldre."--_Phillipps' MS._ 6297, f.
129.
[376] Stowe, 168, 65.
[377] Winwood, ii. 183.
[378] _Dom. James I._ xix. 94.
[379] 3^o _Jac. I._ c. 3. On the 21st of June following, Salisbury
forwarded to Edmondes a fresh copy of this Act, "because in the former
there was a great error committed in the printing." (Phillipps, f. 157.)
It would be highly interesting to know what the first version was. In
that now extant it is only said regarding Owen, that inasmuch as he
obstinately keeps beyond the seas, he cannot be arraigned, nor can
evidence and proofs be produced against him. (_Statutes at large._)
[380] Stowe, 168, 76; Phillipps, f. 141.
[381] Edmondes to Salisbury, January 23rd, 1605(6). P.R.O., Flanders,
38.
[382] April 19th, 1606, _ibid._
[383] Edmondes to Salisbury, April 5th, 1606, _ibid._
[384] Phillipps, f. 150.
[385] Phillipps, f. 152.
[386] _Dom. James I._ xx. 52.
[387] This is obvious from a marginal note in Coke's own hand, arguing
that Owen must be guilty in this instance, as he has been guilty on
former occasions, and "Qui semel malus est semper praesumitur esse malus
in eodem genere mali."
[388] It will be noticed that the confession of Faukes cited against
Owen is dated two months after he had first been declared to be proved
guilty by Faukes' testimony.
[389] These are dated November 5th, 6th [bis], 7th, 8th [the "draft"],
9th, 16th, 17th, January 9th, 20th, 26th.
[390] Thus, to confine ourselves to the confession of January 20th, with
which we are particularly concerned, we have the following variations:
_Tanner transcript._ "At my going over M^r Catesby charged me two things
more: the one to desire of Baldwin & M^r Owen to deal with the Marquis
[Spinola] to send over the regiment of which he [Catesby] expected to
have been Lieutenant Colonel under Sir Charles [Percy].... He wished me
secondly to be earnest with Baldwin to deal with the Marquis to give the
said M^r Catesby order for a Company of Horse, thinking by that means to
have opportunity to buy Horses and Arms without suspition."
According to _Abbot_, Faukes was to give instructions that when the time
of Parliament approached, Sir Wm. Stanley was on some pretext to lead
the English forces in the archduke's service towards the sea, and with
them any others he could manage to influence. He also mentions the
conspiracy of Morgan, as spoken of by Coke.
In addition to all this, Abbot cites from the same confession the
following extraordinary particulars (p. 160): Faukes, when he came to
London, with T. Winter, went to Percy's house and found there Catesby
and Father Gerard. They talked over matters, and agreed that nothing was
to be hoped from foreign aid, nor from a general rising of Catholics,
and that the only plan was to strike at the king's person: whereupon
Catesby, Percy, John Wright, Winter, and himself, were sworn in by
Gerard.
[This is in absolute contradiction to Winter's evidence (November 23rd)
that Percy was initiated in the middle of the Easter term, the other
four having agreed on the scheme at the beginning of the same term; and
to that of Faukes himself (November 17th) that he and Winter first
resolved on a plot for the benefit of the Catholic cause, and afterwards
imparted their idea to Catesby, Wright, and Percy.]
_Sir E. Coke's Version._ "After the powder treason was resolved upon by
Catesbye, Thomas Winter, the Wrightes, my self, and others, and
preparation made by us for the execution of it, by their advise and
direction I went into fflanders and had leave given unto me to discover
our project in every particular to Hughe Owen and others, but with
condicion that they should sweare first to secrecie as we our selves had
done. When I arryved in fflanders I found M^r Owen at Bruxelles to whom
after I had given the oathe of secrecye I discovered the whole busines,
howe we had layed 20 whole barrells of powder in the celler under the
parliament howse, and howe we ment to give it fire the first day of the
parliament when the King, the prince, the duke, the Lords spirituall and
temporall, and all the knights, citizens, and burgesses of parliament
should be there assembled. And that we meant to take the Ladye Elizabeth
and proclaime hir for we thought most like that the prince and duke
would be there with the king. M^r Owen liked the plott very well, and
said that Thomas Morgan had once propounded the very same in quene
Elizabeth's time, and willed me that by ani meanes we should not make
any mencion of religion at the first, and assured me that so soone as he
should have certaine newes that this exploit had taken effect that he
would give us what assistance he could and that he would procure that
Sir W^m Stanley should have leave to come with those English men which
be there and what other forces he could procure."
The confession of Faukes in the Record Office, dated the same, January
20th, is thus summarized in the _Calendar of State Papers_ (_Dom. James
I._ xviii. 28): "Talked with Catesby about noblemen being absent from
the meeting of Parliament; he said Lord Mordaunt would not be there,
because he did not like to absent himself from the sermons, as the king
did not know he was a Catholic; and that Lord Stourton would not come to
town till the Friday after the opening."
[391] The powder design of Morgan is an instance in point. The Thomas
Morgan in question was doubtless the same as the partisan of Mary Queen
of Scots.
[392] _E.g._: "Winter came over to Owen, by him and the Fathers to be
informed of a fit and resolute man for the execution of the enterprise.
This examinate (being by the Fathers and Owen recommended to be used and
trusted in any action for the Catholicks) came into England with
Winter."--Faukes, November 19th, 1605 (Tanner MSS.).
Abbot, whose whole object is to incriminate the Jesuits, does not
mention this remarkable statement.
Again we read, November 30th (_ibid._): "Father Baldwin told this
examinate that about 2,000 horses would be provided by the Catholicks of
England to join with the Spanish forces ... and willed this examinate to
intimate so much to Father Creswell, which this examinate did."
[393] Oliver, _Collectanea_, sub nom.; Foley, _Records_, iv. 120, note.
[394] Foley, _Records_, iii. 509; _English Protestants' Plea_, p. 59.
[395] _Dom. James I._ xvi. 115.
[396] _England's Warning Peece_, by T. S. [Thomas Spencer], P.73.
[397] Cotton MSS. _Vespasian C._, ix. f. 259.
[398] Winwood, _Memorials_, ii. 178.
[399] _Dom. James I._ xvi. 104.
[400] William Stanley.
[401] The last words are added in another hand.
[402] "I am in great dispute with myself to speak in the case of this
gentleman. A former dearness between me and him tied so firm a knot of
my conceit of his virtues, now broken by discovery of his imperfections,
that I protest, did I serve a king that I knew would be displeased with
me for speaking, in this case I would speak, whatever came of it; but
seeing he is compacted of piety and justice, and one that will not
mislike of any man for speaking a truth, I will answer," etc.--_State
Trials._
[403] "For this do I profess in the presence of Him that knoweth and
searcheth all men's harts, that if I did not some tyme cast a stone into
the mouth of these gaping crabbs, when they are in their prodigall
humour of discourses, they wold not stick to confess dayly how contrary
it is to their nature to be under your soverainty; though they confess
(Ralegh especially) that (_rebus sic stantibus_) naturall pollicy
forceth them to keep on foot such a trade against the great day of mart.
In all which light and soddain humours of his, though I do no way check
him, because he shall not think I reject his freedome or his affection
... yet under pretext of extraordinary care of his well doing, I have
seemed to dissuade him from ingaging himself so farr," etc.--_Hatfield
MSS._, cxxxv. f. 65.
[404] _Criminal Trials_, ii. 358.
[405] Father Gerard (_Narrative_, p. 201) denies in the most emphatic
terms that he was the priest who said mass on this occasion. The point
is fully discussed by the late Father Morris, S. J., in his Life of
Father Gerard, pp. 437-438.
[406] The accompanying facsimile of this portion of Faukes' confession
exhibits the marks made by Coke, and his added direction in the margin,
_hucusque_ ("thus far"). In the original his additions are in red ink.
[407] It is singular that he should not mention Faukes himself as one of
those who received the oath from Gerard. There is no mention in any
document of Greenway as giving the oath to Bates, or anyone else.
The facsimile of Faukes' signature, appended to his confession of
November 9th, though affording unmistakable evidence of torture, gives
no idea of the original, wherein the letters are so faintly traced as to
be scarcely visible. It is evident that the writer had been so severely
racked as to have no strength left in his hands to press the pen upon
the paper. He must have fainted when he had written his Christian name,
two dashes alone representing the other.
This signature, with other of the more sensational documents connected
with the Plot, is exhibited in the newly established museum at the
Record Office.
[408] _Dom. James I._ xviii. 97, February 27th, 1606, N. S. (Latin).
[409] _Narratio de rebus a se in Anglia gestis_ (Stonyhurst MSS.).
Published in Father G. R. Kingdon's translation under the title of
_During the Persecution_.
[410] _During the Persecution_, p. 83.
[411] _Court and Character of King James_, p. 350 (ed. 1811).
[412] Sir William Waad, Lieutenant of the Tower, to whose charge the
Powder Plot conspirators were committed, was afterwards dismissed from
his office on a charge of embezzling the jewels of the Lady Arabella
Stuart.
[413] Presumably the same Arthur Gregory who at an earlier period had
counterfeited the seals of Mary Queen of Scots' correspondence.
[414] _Dom. James I._ xxiv. 38.
[415] March 3rd, 1605-6 (Hatfield MSS.).
[416] Eudaemon Joannes cites the renegade Alabaster as testifying to
having seen a letter seemingly of his own to Garnet, which he had never
written. (_Answer to Casaubon_, p. 159.)
[417] _Narrative_, p. 54.
[418] _Ibid._ p. 113.
[419] Though we have not now to consider the question of Father
Greenway's connection with the conspirators, it may not be out of place
to cite his own account of this visit (_Narrative_, Stonyhurst MSS., f.
86 b):
"Father Oswald [Greenway] went to assist these gentlemen with the
Sacraments of the Church, understanding their danger and their need, and
this with evident danger to his own person and life: and all those
gentlemen could have borne witness that he publicly told them how he
grieved not so much because of their wretched and shameful plight, and
the extremity of their peril, as that by their headlong course they had
given the heretics occasion to slander the whole body of Catholics in
the kingdom, and that he flatly refused to stay in their company, lest
the heretics should be able to calumniate himself and the other Fathers
of the Society."
[420] In this, as in some other respects, Mr. Jardine shows himself
rather an advocate than an impartial historian. He holds that the
complicity of the writer of the _Narrative_ with the plotters is proved
by the intimate knowledge he displays concerning them, "their general
conduct--their superstitious fears--their dreams--'their thick coming
fancies'--in the progress of the work of destruction." (_Criminal
Trials_, ii. xi.)
There is here an evident allusion to the silly story of the "bell in the
wall" (related by Greenway and not by Gerard), to which Mr. Jardine
gives extraordinary prominence. He does not, however, inform us that
Greenway relates this (_Narrative_, f. 58 b) and some similar matters,
on the authority of "an acquaintance to whom Catesby told it shortly
before his death," and that he leaves it to the judgment of his readers.
Greenway's frequent and earnest protestations of innocence Mr. Jardine
summarily dismisses with the observation that they are "entitled to no
credit whatever" (p. xii).
[421] _History_, i. 243.
[422] _Dictionary of National Biography_ (Digby, Sir E.).