TRIAL OF THE CONSPIRATORS.
The conspirators, who had been lodged in prison, were frequently
examined respecting the plot in which they had been engaged. Fawkes,
Thomas Winter, Tresham, and Sir Everard Digby, confessed that they were
guilty of the treason charged against them; and several of the
particulars, which I have detailed in the preceding chapters, were
revealed in these confessions. Catesby and Percy were slain at Holbeach,
or some other information respecting the origin of the plot might have
been obtained. It is probable, too, that Percy might have been able to
give some account of the mysterious letter. For though the conspirators
did not suspect him as the writer, yet it is evident that such was the
impression on the mind of Lord Monteagle. To this day the subject is
involved in mystery. Several conjectures have been formed, but the
matter has never been cleared up; and it is likely to continue to be
involved in mystery, until that great day when all secrets shall be
unravelled, and all difficulties removed.
Tresham, as before observed, died in prison, and was thus spared the
ignominy of a public execution. The other conspirators, Robert Winter,
Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Robert Keys,
and Thomas Bates, were arraigned and placed at the bar on the 27th of
January, 1605-6. The names of Garnet, Tesmond, and Gerrard, all jesuits,
were also specified in the indictment, though none of them were taken.
Garnet was subsequently apprehended; but the other two jesuits evaded
the pursuit of the officers of justice altogether. The jesuits are
specially charged in the indictment with persuading the other
conspirators to act, on the ground that the king was a heretic, and that
all heretics were accursed and excommunicated; and that, consequently,
it was lawful, nay even meritorious, to kill the king, for the
advancement of the see of Rome. The seven individuals before mentioned
are then charged with consenting, and with contriving the plot, in
conjunction with the jesuits. It appears to have been arranged by the
conspirators, not to mention at first anything concerning a change of
religion in the event of the success of the plot: and further, it was
agreed not to avow the treason, until they should have acquired
sufficient power to secure the completion of their plans. When the usual
questions were asked they all pleaded Not Guilty.
The indictment was opened by Sir Edward Philips, one of the king’s
sergeants-at-law. This gentleman stated the case to the jury in a speech
partly political and partly theological. Treason was the subject, but,
said he, “of such horror, and monstrous nature, that before now, the
tongue of man never delivered, the ear of man never heard, the heart of
man never conceited, nor the malice of hellish or earthly devil ever
practised.” In the course of his speech he further stated, that the
object of the traitors was “to deprive the king of his crown; to murder
the king, the queen, and the prince; to stir up rebellion and sedition
in the kingdom; to bring a miserable destruction upon the subjects; to
change, alter, and subvert the religion here established; to ruinate the
state of the commonwealth, and to bring in strangers to invade it.” That
such were their objects there can be no doubt.
Sir Edward Coke, the attorney-general, followed in a long speech, in
which he stated, and then animadverted on, all their proceedings, from
the commencement of the plot until its discovery. “Surely,” said Sir
Edward, “of these things we may truly say, _Nunquam ante dies nostros
talia acciderunt_, neither hath the eye of man seen, nor the ear of man
heard, the like things to these.”
The particulars recorded in the preceding chapters were many of them
taken from the confessions of some of the conspirators; and the speech
of the attorney-general was founded, in a great measure, on the same
confessions. Many things, indeed, could not have been made known in any
other way. Several days had been occupied in examining the parties in
prison; so that the law officers of the crown came to the trial amply
prepared with materials. In tracing the progress of the treason, Sir
Edward remarked, “It had three roots, all planted and watered by jesuits
and English Roman Catholics: the first root in _England_, in _December_
and _March_; the second in _Flanders_, in _June_; the third in _Spain_,
in _July_. In England it had two branches; one in _December_ was twelve
months before the death of the late queen of blessed memory; another in
_March_, wherein she died.” He then specifies some of the acts in which
Garnet and others were concerned, previous to the accession of James,
and which have already been detailed in a preceding chapter.
Some important particulars are stated in the speech of Sir Edward Coke,
respecting the conduct of the government towards the papists, after
James’s accession. During the reign of Elizabeth, severe measures were
never adopted against _recusants_, as Roman Catholics were then usually
designated in acts of parliament, until their own conduct, or at all
events, the conduct of some members of the church of Rome, rendered it
absolutely necessary. The laws, respecting which so much has been said
by Roman Catholic writers, were enacted in self-defence. Had there been
no treasons no such laws would have been devised; but when the members
of the church of Rome planned, and endeavoured to execute, treasons, and
of such a nature that the existing laws did not meet them, it became
necessary to devise such methods as should not permit the traitors to
escape. The origin, therefore, of the penal laws against the Romanists,
in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, is to be found in their own treasonable
practices; and the same remark will apply also to the reign of King
James. Indeed, James was disposed to act with all possible leniency.
Cruelty was foreign to his nature. Had the Romanists remained quiet,
none would have been punished during his reign for their religious
principles. Nay, so leniently did James act, even after the discovery of
the gunpowder treason, that the puritans hesitated not to charge him
with leaning towards popery.
The question relative to the penal laws is clearly and forcibly stated
by Sir Edward Coke: “Concerning those laws, which they so calumniate as
unjust, it shall in a few words plainly appear, that they were of the
greatest, both of moderation and equity, that ever were any: for from
the year I Eliz. unto XI. all papists came to our church and service
without scruple. I myself have seen _Cornewallis_, _Beddingfield_, and
others at church. So that then, for the space of ten years, they made no
conscience nor doubt to communicate with us in prayer; but when once the
bull of Pope _Pius Quintus_ was come and published, wherein the queen
was accursed and deposed, and her subjects discharged of their obedience
and oath, yea, cursed if they did obey her: then did they all forthwith
refrain from church, then would they have no more society with us in
prayer. So that recusancy in them is not for religion, but in an
acknowledgment of the pope’s power, and a plain manifestation what their
judgment is concerning the right of the prince in respect of regal power
and place.” This is the true state of the case respecting the laws
against recusants. Sir Edward Coke specifies various treasons during the
queen’s reign, and then adds: “_Anno_ XXIII. _Eliz._ after so many years
sufferance, there were laws made against recusants and seditious books.”
He then alludes to the coming over of the _seminary priests_, who were
Englishmen, educated and ordained on the Continent, and who came over
into this country for the express purpose of stirring up rebellion, and
to bring over the queen’s subjects to the see of Rome. “Then,” says he,
“XXVII. _Eliz._ a law was made, that it should be treason for any, (not
to be a priest and an Englishman, born the queen’s natural subject,) but
for any being so born her subject, and made a Romish priest, to come
into her dominions, to infect any her loyal subjects with their
treasonable practices; yet so, that it concerned only such as were made
priests since her majesty came to the crown, and not before.”
“Concerning the execution of these laws,” he adds, “it is to be observed
likewise, that whereas in the quinquencey of Queen Mary, there were
cruelly put to death about three hundred persons for religion: in all
her majesty’s time, by the space of forty-four years and upwards, there
were for treasonable practices executed in all not _thirty priests_, nor
above five receivers and harbourers of them; _and for religion not any
one_.” He proceeds: “Now, against the usurped power of the see of
_Rome_, we have of former times about _thirteen_ several acts of
parliament, so that the crown and king of _England_ is no ways to be
drawn under the government of any foreign power whatsoever.” This is an
important point. It was no new thing in England to enact laws against
the papal jurisdiction. The words of King James himself are very strong:
“I do constantly maintain, that no man, either in my time, or in the
late queen’s, ever died here for his conscience. For let him be never so
devout a papist, nay, though he profess the same never so constantly,
his life is in no danger by the law, if he break not out into some
outward act expressly against the words of the law, or plot not some
unlawful or dangerous practice or attempt; priests and popish churchmen
only excepted, that receive orders beyond the seas; who for the manifold
treasonable practices that they have kindled and plotted in this
country, are discharged to come home again under pain of treason, after
their receiving of the said orders abroad; and yet without some other
guilt in them than bare homecoming, have none of them been ever put to
death[20].” The laws regarded not their religious opinions, but their
practices. Will any papist assert that the priests and others did not
endeavour to compass the death of Elizabeth, and to exclude King James
from the throne?
[Footnote 20: King James’s Works, fol. 336.]
It is remarked by Sir Edward Coke, in the address to the jury, that
during the year and four months since James’s accession, no penalty had
been inflicted on any recusant. The conspirators could not, therefore,
allege that they were driven to such a desperate course, by the harsh
treatment which they had received. The plea of religion was, however,
urged by these men: and that plea was especially grounded on the laws
which had been enacted in the late reign against recusants. They
appeared to exult in the fact, that the place in which the unjust laws,
as they termed them, had been framed, would be the scene of vengeance.
When the attorney-general had finished his address to the jury, the
confessions of the conspirators were read, and acknowledged by the
parties. It was proved on the trial that Hammond, a jesuit, after the
discovery of the treason, actually gave the conspirators absolution on
Thursday, November the 7th. This act is conclusive as to the part taken
by the jesuits in the plot.
A verdict of _guilty_ was returned against the whole number who were
arraigned at the bar. They were asked in the usual form why sentence of
death should not be pronounced. Thomas Winter merely desired that his
brother might be spared, because he was implicated in the treason by his
persuasion. Fawkes objected to certain parts of the indictment, of which
he said he was ignorant; when he was told that they were inserted as a
matter of form. Bates supplicated for mercy, and did not deny his guilt.
Robert Winter pursued the same course. Grant, after remaining silent
some time, confessed that he was guilty of a conspiracy intended, but
never executed. Rookwood at first attempted to justify himself, but at
last acknowledged his offence, admitting that he justly deserved to
undergo the penalty of the law; still he supplicated for mercy on the
ground that he was neither the author of the plot nor an actor in it,
but merely drawn into it by his affection for Catesby.
At this stage of the business a circumstance was mentioned to the court
which had transpired in the prison. On Friday before the trial commenced
Robert Winter and Fawkes were permitted to converse together in their
cells. The former said that he and Catesby had sons, and that boys would
be men, and he hoped that they would avenge the cause. They also
expressed their sorrow that no one had set forth a defence or
justification of the plot.
Sentence was not immediately pronounced; but Sir Everard Digby, who had
been some time in custody, was arraigned at the bar on a separate
indictment. He was charged with being privy to the plot,—with having
taken the oath of secresy,—and also with open rebellion in the country
with the rest of the conspirators, subsequent to the discovery. He had
previously made a confession of his guilt, and, therefore, did not
attempt to defend himself before the court. As he was preparing to
address the court, he was informed that he must first plead either
_guilty_ or _not guilty_. He immediately confessed that he was guilty of
the treason charged against him in the indictment. Sir Everard Digby
evidently would not have been implicated in this conspiracy, but for his
zeal in behalf of the church of Rome. So strong was his attachment to
the papal creed, that he appears to have imagined that he should do God
service by concurring with others in the destruction of heretics.
Having pleaded guilty to the charge of treason, he addressed the court
respecting the motives that had induced him to enter upon such a course.
He declared that neither ambition nor discontent induced him to unite
with the other conspirators, but affection for Catesby the leader. He
also confessed that he was influenced in his decision by religious
considerations. Perceiving, as he said, that religion was in danger, he
had resolved to hazard his property, and even his life, to preserve it,
and to restore Romanism in this country. It appears that the Romanists
were apprehensive of more severe laws being enacted under King James
than those which had been carried by the late queen. There was no ground
for such an apprehension, since King James was really anxious to treat
his Roman Catholic subjects with great lenity. Sir Everard also
requested that his wife and children might not suffer on his account.
His last request was that he might be put to death by being beheaded,
and not as an ordinary traitor.
The attorney-general replied to his address in a strain not unusual in
that age, but which would not be adopted in the present day against the
greatest criminal. Alluding to his very natural plea for his wife and
children, Coke reminded him, in an insulting and sneering tone, of his
attempt to kill the king and queen with the nobility of the country,
asking where his piety and affection were when this scheme was devised?
When Coke charged him with justifying the fact he denied the charge,
confessing that he deserved to suffer, but that he was a petitioner for
his majesty’s mercy. The attorney-general replied, that, having
abandoned every principle of religion and honour, he could not expect to
receive any favour from his majesty.
The earl of Northampton also addressed the prisoner, and in a strain
somewhat milder than Coke. It would shock the feelings of the present
age were the judge on the bench to revile the criminal at the bar,
however notorious his guilt; but at that time such a practice was
common. The earl of Northampton told him, that he had only himself and
his evil councillors to thank. He also reminded him of his favour with
Queen Elizabeth; and that King James was not ill disposed either towards
him or the members of his church generally.
Judgment was now demanded by the king’s sergeant on the seven prisoners
mentioned in the first indictment, on the verdict of the jury; and on
Sir Everard Digby, on his own confession.
The lord chief-justice proceeded to pronounce judgment. He first took a
review of the laws which had been enacted in the reign of Elizabeth
against recusants, priests, and the receivers of priests, specifying the
causes which gave rise to those enactments, and demonstrating that they
were necessary, mild, equal, moderate, and capable of being justified to
the whole world. Sentence was then pronounced in the usual form.
Sir Everard Digby bowing to the lords who were seated on the bench,
said, “If I may but hear any of your lordships say you forgive me, I
shall go more cheerfully to the gallows.” The lords instantly replied,
“God forgive you, and we do.”
On Thursday, January 30, 1605-6, Sir Everard Digby, Robert Winter, John
Grant, and Thomas Bates, were executed at the west end of St. Paul’s
church; and on Friday, January 31st, the sentence of the law was carried
into effect on Thomas Winter, Ambrose Rookwood, Robert Keys, and Guy
Fawkes, in Old Palace-yard, Westminster, and at no great distance from
the House of Lords, the scene of their recent treason.
Most of these wretched men evinced much penitence, both in prison and on
the scaffold. It is remarkable that Fawkes, the most desperate of the
whole number, appeared to be the most penitent at the time of his
execution. They all declared their adherence to the church of Rome,
dying, as they had lived, in her communion. They requested that the
officers in attendance would communicate this their dying declaration to
the world.
After the execution, their bodies, being quartered, were hung up in
various parts of the city, as was the custom at that time with those who
were put to death for treason. The heads of Catesby and Percy were fixed
upon the House of Lords, where they remained some years after, when
Osborne wrote his _Memoirs of King James_; unless, as he intimates, they
had been removed, and others substituted in their room. It was reported
when he wrote, that the heads then fixed on the House of Lords were not
those of the two conspirators, but the heads of two other individuals
procured, probably, from some church-yard, by the friends of Catesby and
Percy, and fixed upon the poles for the purpose of preventing the
discovery of the theft[21].
[Footnote 21: OSBORNE’S _Works_, p. 434.]
James acted with great lenity towards the families of the conspirators.
By the statute respecting treason the property of the convicted traitor
is forfeited to the crown; but in the cases of these individuals the
children or heirs of those who were in possession of property were
permitted to enjoy it. There was nothing vindictive in James’s
character; and he would have spared even these conspirators, if it had
been possible.
Such was the fate of men who appear to have been guiltless of any other
crime, and who would not have been implicated in this horrible treason,
but for the influence of those principles which the church of Rome
instilled into the minds of her deluded followers.