GUY FAWKES'S STORY
First of all, let us restrict ourselves to the story told by Guy Fawkes
himself in the five[15] examinations to which he was subjected
previously to his being put to the torture on November 9, and to the
letters, proclamations, &c., issued by the Government during the four
days commencing with the 5th. From these we learn, not only that
Fawkes's account of the matter gradually developed, but that the
knowledge of the Government also developed; a fact which fits in very
well with the 'traditional story,' but which is hardly to be expected if
the Government account of the affair was cut-and-dried from the first.
Fawkes's first examination took place on the 5th, and was conducted by
Chief Justice Popham and Attorney-General Coke. It is true that only a
copy has reached us, but it is a copy taken for Coke's use, as is shown
by the headings of each paragraph inserted in the margin in his own
hand. It is therefore out of the question that Salisbury, if he had been
so minded, would have been able to falsify it. Each page has the
signature (in copy) of 'Jhon Jhonson,' the name by which Fawkes chose to
be known.
The first part of the examination turns upon Fawkes's movements abroad,
showing that the Government had already acquired information that he had
been beyond sea. Fawkes showed no reluctance to speak of his own
proceedings in the Low Countries, or to give the names of persons he had
met there, and who were beyond the reach of his examiners. As to his
movements after his return to England he was explicit enough so far as
he was himself concerned, and also about Percy, whose servant he
professed himself to be, and whose connection with the hiring of the
house could not be concealed. Fawkes stated that after coming back to
England he 'came to the lodging near the Upper House of Parliament,' and
'that Percy hired the house of Whynniard for 12_l._ rent, about a year
and a half ago'; that his master, before his own going abroad, _i.e._,
before Easter, 1605, 'lay in the house about three or four times.'
Further, he confessed 'that about Christmas last,' _i.e._, Christmas,
1604, 'he brought in the night time gunpowder [to the cellar under the
Upper House of Parliament.]'[16] Afterwards he told how he covered the
powder with faggots, intending to blow up the King and the Lords; and,
being pressed how he knew that the King would be in the House on the
5th, said he knew it only from general report and by the making ready of
the King's barge; but he would have 'blown up the Upper House whensoever
the King was there.' He further acknowledged that there was more than
one person concerned in the conspiracy, and said he himself had promised
not to reveal it, but denied that he had taken the sacrament on his
promise. Where the promise was given he could not remember, except that
it was in England. He refused to accuse his partners, saying that he
himself had provided the powder, and defrayed the cost of his journey
beyond sea, which was only undertaken 'to see the country, and to pass
away the time.' When he went, he locked up the powder and took the key
with him, and 'one Gibbons' wife, who dwells thereby, had the charge of
the residue of the house.'
Such is that part of the story told by Fawkes which concerns us at
present. Of course there are discrepancies enough with other statements
given later on, and Father Gerard makes the most of them. What he does
not observe is that it is in the nature of the case that these
discrepancies should exist. It is obvious that Fawkes, who, as
subsequent experience shows, was no coward, had made up his mind to
shield as far as possible his confederates, and to take the whole of the
blame upon himself. He says, for instance, that Percy had only lain in
the house for three or four days before Easter, 1605; a statement, as
subsequent evidence proved, quite untrue; he pretends not to know,
except from rumour and the preparations of the barge, that the King was
coming to the House of Lords on the 5th, a statement almost certainly
untrue. In order not to criminate others, and especially any priest, he
denies having taken the Sacrament on his promise, which is also untrue.
What is more noticeable is that he makes no mention of the mine, about
which so much was afterwards heard, evidently--so at least I read the
evidence--because he did not wish to bring upon the stage those who had
worked at it. If indeed the passage which I have placed in square
brackets be accepted as evidence, Fawkes did more than keep silence upon
the mine. He must have made a positive assertion, soon afterwards found
to be untrue, that the cellar was hired several months before it really
was.[17] This passage is, however, inserted in a different hand from the
rest of the document. My own belief is that it gives a correct account
of a statement made by the prisoner, but omitted by the clerk who made
the copy for Coke, and inserted by some other person. Nobody that I can
think of had the slightest interest in adding the words, whilst they are
just what Fawkes might be expected to say if he wanted to lead his
examiners off the scent. At all events, even if these words be left out
of account, it must be admitted that Fawkes said nothing about the
existence of a mine.
Though Fawkes kept silence as to the mine, he did not keep silence on
the desperate character of the work on which he had been engaged. "And,"
runs the record, "he confesseth that when the King had come to the
Parliament House this present day, and the Upper House had been sitting,
he meant to have fired the match and have fled for his own safety before
the powder had taken fire, and confesseth that if he had not been
apprehended this last night, he had blown up the Upper House, when the
King, Lords, Bishops, and others had been there, and saith that he spake
for [and provided][18] those bars and crows of iron, some in one place,
some in another, in London, lest it should be suspected, and saith that
he had some of them in or about Gracious Street."[19]
After this it will little avail Father Gerard to produce arguments in
support of the proposition that the story of the plot was contrived by
the Government as long as this burning record is allowed to stand.
Fawkes here clearly takes the whole terrible design, with the exception
of the incident of the mine, on his own shoulders. He may have lied to
save his friends; he certainly would not lie to save Salisbury.
So far, however, there is no proof that Salisbury was not long ago
cognisant of the plot through one of the active conspirators. Yet, in
that case, it might be supposed that the accounts that he gave of his
discoveries would be less dependent than they were on the partial
revelations which came in day by day. There is, however, no hint of
superior knowledge in the draft of a letter intended to be sent by
Salisbury to Sir Thomas Parry, the English ambassador in Paris, and
dated on November 6, the day after that on which Fawkes's first
examination was taken:
Sir Thomas Parry, it hath pleased Almighty God, out of his singular
goodness, to bring to light the most cruel and detestable practice
against the person of his Majesty and the whole estate of this
realm, that ever was conceived by the heart of man at any time or
in any place whatsoever, by which practice there was intended not
only the extirpation of the King's Majesty and his issue royal, but
the whole subversion and downfal of this estate, the plot being to
take away at an instant the King, Queen, Prince, Council, Nobility,
Clergy, Judges, and the principal gentlemen of this realm, as they
should have been yesterday altogether assembled at the Parliament
House, in Westminster, the 5th of November, being Tuesday. The
means how to have compassed so great an act, was not to be
performed by strength of men or outward violence, for that might
have be espied and prevented in time; but by a secret conveying of
a great quantity of gunpowder into a vault under the Upper House of
Parliament, and so to have blown up all at a clap, if God out of
his mercy and his just revenge against so great an abomination had
not destined it to be discovered, though very miraculously even
some twelve hours before the matter should have been put into
execution. The person that was the principal undertaker of it, is
one Johnson, a Yorkshire man, and servant to one Thomas Percy, a
gentleman pensioner to his Majesty, and a near kinsman and a
special confidant to the Earl of Northumberland. This Percy had
about a year and a half ago hired a part of Whynniard's house in
the old palace, from whence he had access into this vault to lay
his wood and coal, and as it seemeth now, taken this place of
purpose to work some mischief in a fit time. He is a Papist by
profession, and so is this his man Johnson, a desperate fellow,
whom of late years he took into his service.
Into this vault Johnson had, at sundry times, very privately
conveyed a great quantity of powder, and therewith filled two
hogsheads and some thirty-two small barrels; all which he had
cunningly covered with great store of billets and faggots, and on
Tuesday[20] at midnight, as he was busy to prepare the things for
execution was apprehended in the place itself with a false lantern,
booted and spurred.[21]
There is not much knowledge here beyond what Salisbury had learnt from
Fawkes's own statement with all its deceptions. Nor, if there had been
any such knowledge, was it in any way revealed by the actions of the
Government on the 5th or on the morning of the 6th. On the 5th a
proclamation was issued for the apprehension of Percy alone.[22] On the
same day Archbishop Bancroft forwarded to Salisbury a story, afterward
known to be untrue, that Percy had been seen riding towards Croydon;
whilst Popham sent another untrue story that he had been seen riding
towards Gravesend.[23] A letter from Waad, the Lieutenant of the Tower,
of the same date, revealed the truth that Percy had escaped northwards.
Of course, Percy's house was searched for papers, but those discovered
were of singularly little interest, and bore no relation to the
plot.[24] An examination of a servant of Ambrose Rokewood, a Catholic
gentleman afterwards known to have been involved in the plot, and of the
landlady of the house in London in which Rokewood had been lodging,
brought out the names of persons who had been in his company, some of
whom were afterwards found to be amongst the conspirators; but there was
nothing in these examinations to connect them with the plot, and there
is no reason to suppose that they were prompted by anything more than a
notion that it would generally be worth while to trace the movements of
a noted Catholic gentleman. On the same day a letter from Chief Justice
Popham shows that inquiries were being directed into the movements of
other Catholics, and amongst them Christopher Wright, Keyes, and Winter;
but the tone of the letter shows that Popham was merely acting upon
general suspicion, and had no special information on which to work.[25]
Up to the morning of November 6th, the action of Government was that of
men feeling in the dark, so far as anything not revealed by Fawkes was
concerned.
Commissioners were now appointed to conduct the investigation further.
They were--Nottingham, Suffolk, Devonshire, Worcester, Northampton,
Salisbury, Mar, and Popham, with Attorney-General Coke in
attendance.[26] This was hardly a body of men who would knowingly cover
an intrigue of Salisbury's:--Worcester is always understood to have been
professedly a Catholic, Northampton was certainly one, though he
attended the King's service, whilst Suffolk was friendly towards the
Catholics;[27] and Nottingham, if he is no longer to be counted amongst
them,[28] was at least not long afterwards a member of the party which
favoured an alliance with Spain, and therefore a policy of toleration
towards the Catholics. It is not the least of the objections to the view
which Father Gerard has taken, that it would have been impossible for
Salisbury to falsify examinations of prisoners without the connivance of
these men.
Before five of these Commissioners--Nottingham, Suffolk, Devonshire,
Northampton, and Salisbury--Fawkes was examined a second time on the
forenoon of the 6th. In some way the Government had found out that Percy
had had a new door made in the wall leading to the cellar, and they now
drew from Fawkes an untrue statement that it was put in about the middle
of Lent, that is to say, early in March 1605.[29] They had also
discovered a pair of brewer's slings, by which barrels were usually
carried between two men, and they pressed Fawkes hard to say who was his
partner in removing the barrels of gunpowder. He began by denying that
he had had a partner at all, but finally answered that 'he cannot
discover the party, but'--_i.e._ lest--'he shall bring him in question.'
He also said that he had forgotten where he slept on Wednesday, Thursday
or Friday in the week before his arrest.[30]
Upon this James himself intervened, submitting to the Commissioners a
series of questions with the object of drawing out of the prisoner a
true account of himself, and of his relations to Percy. A letter had
been found on Fawkes when he was taken, directed not to Johnson, but to
Fawkes, and this amongst other things had raised the King's suspicions.
In his third examination, on the afternoon of the 6th, in the presence
of Northampton, Devonshire, Nottingham, and Salisbury, Fawkes gave a
good deal of information, more or less true, about himself; and, whilst
still maintaining that his real name was Johnson, said that the letter,
which was written by a Mrs. Bostock in Flanders, was addressed to him by
another name 'because he called himself Fawkes,' that is to say, because
he had acquired the name of Fawkes as an alias.
'If he will not otherwise confess,' the King had ended by saying, 'the
gentler tortures are to be first used unto him, _et sic per gradus ad
ima tenditur_.' To us living in the nineteenth century these words are
simply horrible. As a Scotchman, however, James had long been familiar
with the use of torture as an ordinary means of legal investigation,
whilst even in England, though unknown to the law, that is to say, to
the practice of the ordinary courts of justice, it had for some
generations been used not infrequently by order of the Council to
extract evidence from a recalcitrant witness, though, according to
Bacon, not for the purpose of driving him to incriminate himself.
Surely, if the use of torture was admissible at all, this was a case for
its employment. The prisoner had informed the Government that he had
been at the bottom of a plot of the most sanguinary kind, and had
acknowledged by implication that there were fellow-conspirators whom he
refused to name. If, indeed, Father Gerard's view of the case, that the
Government, or at least Salisbury, had for some time known all about the
conspiracy, nothing--not even the Gunpowder Plot itself--could be more
atrocious than the infliction of torments on a fellow-creature to make
him reveal a secret already in their possession. If, however, the
evidence I have adduced be worth anything, this was by no means the
case. What it shows is, that on the afternoon of the 6th all that the
members of the Government were aware of was that an unknown number of
conspirators were at large--they knew not where--and might at that very
moment be appealing--they knew not with what effect--to Catholic
landowners and their tenants, who were, without doubt, exasperated by
the recent enforcement of the penal laws. We may, if we please, condemn
the conduct of the Government which had brought the danger of a general
Catholic rising within sight. We cannot deny that, at that particular
moment, they had real cause of alarm. At all events, no immediate steps
were taken to put this part of the King's orders in execution. Some
little information, indeed, was coming in from other witnesses. In his
first examination, on November 5, Fawkes had stated that in his absence
he locked up the powder, and 'one Gibbons' wife who dwells thereby had
the charge of the residue of the house.' An examination of her husband
on the 5th, however, only elicited that he, being a porter, had with two
others carried 3,000 billets into the vault.[31] On the 6th Ellen, the
wife of Andrew Bright, stated that Percy's servant had, about the
beginning of March, asked her to let the vault to his master, and that
she had consented to abandon her tenancy of it if Mrs. Whynniard, from
whom she held it, would consent. Mrs. Whynniard's consent having been
obtained, Mrs. Bright, or rather Mrs. Skinner--she being a widow
remarried subsequently to Andrew Bright[32]--received 2_l._ for giving
up the premises. The important point in this evidence is that the date
of March 1605, given as that on which Percy entered into possession of
the cellar, showed that Fawkes's statement that he had brought powder
into the cellar at Christmas 1604 could not possibly be true. On the
7th, Mrs. Whynniard confirmed Mrs. Bright's statement, and also stated
that, a year earlier, in March 1604, 'Mr. Percy began to labour very
earnestly with this examinate and her husband to have the lodging by the
Parliament House, which one Mr. Henry Ferris, of Warwickshire, had long
held before, and having obtained the said Mr. Ferris's good will to part
from it after long suit by himself and great entreaty of Mr. Carleton,
Mr. Epsley,[33] and other gentlemen belonging to the Earl of
Northumberland, affirming him to be a very honest gentleman, and that
they could not have a better tenant, her husband and she were contented
to let him have the said lodging at the same rent Mr. Ferris paid for
it.'[34] Mrs. Whynniard had plainly never heard of the mine; and that
the Government was in equal ignorance is shown by the endorsement on the
agreement of Ferris, or rather Ferrers, to make over his tenancy to
Percy. 'The bargain between Ferris and Percy for the bloody cellar,
found in Winter's lodging.' Winter's name had been under consideration
for some little time, and doubtless the discovery of this paper was made
on, or more probably before, the 7th. The Government, having as yet
nothing but Fawkes's evidence to go upon, connected the hiring of the
house with the hiring of the cellar, and at least showed no signs of
suspecting anything more.
On the same day, the 7th, something was definitely heard of the
proceedings of the other plotters, who had either gathered at Dunchurch
for the hunting-match, or had fled from London to join them, and a
proclamation was issued for the arrest of Percy, Catesby, Rokewood,
Thomas Winter, Edward[35] Grant, John and Christopher Wright, and
Catesby's servant, Robert Ashfield. They were charged with assembling in
troops in the counties of Warwick and Worcester, breaking into stables
and seizing horses.[36] Fawkes, too, was on that day subjected to a
fourth examination.[37] Not very much that was new was extracted from
him. He acknowledged that his real name was Guy Fawkes, that--which he
had denied before--he had received the Sacrament not to discover any of
the conspirators, and also that there had been at first five persons
privy to the plot, and afterwards five or six more 'were generally
acquainted that an action was to be performed for the Catholic cause,
and saith that he doth not know that they were acquainted with the whole
conspiracy.' Being asked whether Catesby, the two Wrights, Winter, or
Tresham were privy, he refused to accuse any one.
The increase of the information received by the Government left its
trace on Salisbury's correspondence. Whether the letter to Parry, from
which a quotation has already been given, was sent away on the 6th, is
unknown; but it was copied and completed, with sundry alterations, for
Cornwallis and Edmondes, the ambassadors at Madrid and Brussels, and
signed by Salisbury on the 7th, though it was kept back and sent off
with two postscripts on the 9th, and it is likely enough that the letter
to Parry was treated in the same way. One of the alterations concerns
Fawkes's admission that he had taken the Sacrament as well as an oath to
keep the secret. What is of greater significance is, that there is
absolutely no mention of a mine in the letter. If it had really been
written on the 9th, this silence would have gone far to justify Father
Gerard's suspicions, as the existence of the mine was certainly known to
the Government at that date. On the 7th the Government knew nothing of
it.[38]
That Fawkes had already been threatened with torture is known,[39] and
it may easily be imagined that the threats had been redoubled after this
last unsatisfactory acknowledgment. On the morning of the 8th, however,
Waad, who was employed to worm out his secrets, reported that little was
to be expected. "I find this fellow," he wrote, "who this day is in a
most stubborn and perverse humour, as dogged as if he were possessed.
Yesternight I had persuaded him to set down a clear narration of all his
wicked plots from the first entering to the same, to the end they
pretended, with the discourses and projects that were thought upon
amongst them, which he undertook [to do] and craved time this night to
bethink him the better; but this morning he hath changed his mind and is
[so] sullen and obstinate as there is no dealing with him."[40]
The sight of the examiners, together with the sight of the rack,[41]
changed Fawkes's mind to some extent. He was resolved that nothing but
actual torture should wring from him the names of his fellow plotters,
who so far as was known in London were still at large.[42] He prepared
himself, however, to reveal the secrets of the plot so far as was
consistent with the concealment of the names of those concerned in it.
His fifth examination on the 8th, the last before the one taken under
torture on the 9th, gives to the inquirer into the reality of the plot
all that he wants to know.
"He confesseth," so the tale begins, "that a practice was first
broken unto him against his Majesty for the Catholic 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 Countries, by an English layman,[43] and that Englishman came
over with him in his company, into England, and they two and three
more[44] were the first five mentioned in the former examination.
And they five resolving to do somewhat for the Catholic cause (a
vow being first taken by all of them for secrecy), one of the other
three[45] propounded to perform it with powder, and resolved that
the place should be (where this action should be performed and
justice done) in or near the place of the sitting of the
Parliament, wherein Religion had been unjustly suppressed. This
being resolved, the manner of it was as followeth:--
"First they hired the house at Westminster, of one Ferres, and
having his house they sought then[46] to make a mine under the
Upper House of Parliament, and they began to make the mine in or
about the 11 of December, and they five first entered into the
works, and soone after took an other[47] to[48] them, having first
sworn him and taken the sacrament for secrecy; and when they came
to the wall (that was about three yards thick) and found it a
matter of great difficulty, they took to them an other in like
manner, with oath and sacrament as aforesaid;[49] all which seven
were gentlemen of name and blood, and not any[50] was employed in
or about this action (no, not so much as in digging and mining)
that was not a gentleman. And having wrought to the wall before
Christmas, they ceased until after the holidays, and the day before
Christmas (having a mass of earth that came out of the mine), they
carried it into the garden of the said house, and after Christmas
they wrought the wall till Candlemas, and wrought the wall half
through; and saith that all the time while the other[51] wrought,
he stood as sentinel, to descry any man that came near, and when
any man came near to the place upon warning given by him, they
ceased until they had notice to proceed from him, and sayeth that
they seven all lay in the house, and had shot and powder, and they
all resolved to die in that place, before they yielded or were
taken.
"And, as they were working, they heard a rushing in the cellar,
which grew by one[52] Bright's selling of his coals,[53] whereupon
this examinant, fearing they had been discovered, went into the
cellar, and viewed the cellar[54] and perceiving the commodity
thereof for their purpose, and understanding how it would be
letten,[55] his master, Mr. Percy, hired the cellar for a year for
4_l._ rent; and confesseth that after Christmas twenty barrels of
powder were brought by themselves to a house, which they had on the
Bankside in hampers, and from that house removed[56] the powder to
the said house near the Upper House of Parliament; and presently,
upon hiring the cellar they themselves removed the powder into the
cellar, and covered the same with fagots which they had before laid
into the cellar.
"After, about Easter, he went into the Low Countries (as he before
hath declared in his former examination) and that the true purpose
of his going over was, lest, being a dangerous man, he should be
known and suspected, and in the mean time he left the key of the
cellar with Mr. Percy, who, in his absence caused more billets to
be laid into the cellar, as in his former examination he confessed,
and returned about the end of August, or the beginning of
September, and went again to the said house, near to the said
cellar, and received the key of the cellar again of one of the
five,[57] and then they brought in five or six barrels of powder
more into the cellar, which also they covered with billets, saving
four little barrels covered with fagots, and then this examinant
went into the country about the end of September.
"It appeareth the powder was in the cellar placed as it was found
the 5 of November, when the Lords came to prorogue the Parliament,
and sayeth that he returned again to the said house near the cellar
on Wednesday the 30 of October.
"_He confesseth he was at the Earl of Montgomery's marriage, but,
as he sayeth, with no intention of evil having a sword about him,
and was very near to his Majesty and the Lords there present._[58]
"Forasmuch as they knew not well how they should come by the person
of the Duke Charles, being near London, where they had no forces
(if he had not been also blown up) he confesseth that it was
resolved among them 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, and
presently have proclaimed her Queen, _to which purpose a
proclamation was drawn, as well to avow and justify the action, as
to have protested against the Union, and in no sort to have meddled
with religion therein, and would have protested also against all
strangers_, and this proclamation should have been made in the name
of the Lady Elizabeth.
"Being demanded why they did not surprise the King's person, and
draw him to the effecting of their purpose sayeth that so many must
have been acquainted with such an action as it[59] would not have
been kept secret.
"He confesseth that if their purpose had taken effect, until they
had had power enough, they would not have avowed the deed to be
theirs; but if their power (for their defence and safety) had been
sufficient, they themselves would then[60] have taken it upon them.
They meant also to have sent for the prisoners in the Tower to have
come to them, of whom particularly they had some consultation.
"He confesseth that the place of rendezvous was in Warwickshire,
and that armour was sent thither, but[61] the particular
thereof[62] he knows not.
"He confesseth that they had consultation for the taking of the
Lady Mary into their possession, but knew not how to come by her.
"And confesseth that provision was made by some of the conspiracy
of some armour of proof this last summer for this action.
"He confesseth that the powder was bought by the common purse of
the confederates.
"L. Admiral [Earl of Nottingham] }
L. Chamberlain [Earl of Suffolk] }
Earl of Devonshire } Attended by Mr.
Earl of Northampton } Attorney-General
Earl of Salisbury } [Coke]."
Earl of Mar }
Lord Chief Justice [Popham][63] }
Father Gerard, who has printed this examination in his Appendix,[64]
styles it a draft, placing on the opposite pages the published
confession of Guy Fawkes on November 17. That later confession, indeed,
though embodying many passages of the earlier one, contains so many new
statements, that it is a misapplication of words to speak of the one as
the draft of the other. A probable explanation of the similarity is that
when Fawkes was re-examined on the 17th, his former confession was
produced, and he was required to supplement it with fresh information.
In one sense, indeed, the paper from which the examination of the 8th
has been printed both by Father Gerard and myself, may be styled a
draft, not of the examination of the 17th, but of a copy forwarded to
Edmondes on the 14th.[65] The two passages crossed out and printed
above[66] in italics have been omitted in the copy intended for the
ambassadors. All other differences, except those of punctuation, have
been given in my notes, and it will be seen that they are merely the
changes of a copyist from whom absolute verbal accuracy was not
required. Father Gerard, indeed, says that in the original of the
so-called draft five paragraphs were 'ticked off for omission.' He may
be right, but in Winter's declaration of November 23, every paragraph is
marked in the same way, and, at all events, not one of the five
paragraphs is omitted in the copy sent to Edmondes.
In any other sense to call this paper a draft is to beg the whole
question. What we want to know is whether it was a copy of the rough
notes of the examination, signed by Fawkes himself, or a pure invention
either of Salisbury or of the seven Commissioners and the
Attorney-General. Curiously enough, one of the crossed out passages
supplies evidence that the document is a genuine one. The first, indeed,
proves nothing either way, and was, perhaps, left out merely because it
was thought unwise to allow it to be known that the King had been so
carelessly guarded that Percy had been admitted to his presence with a
sword by his side. The second contains an intimation that the
conspirators did not intend to rely only on a Catholic rising. They
expected to have on their side Protestants who disliked the union with
Scotland, and who were ready to protest 'against all strangers,' that is
to say, against all Scots. We can readily understand that Privy
Councillors, knowing as they did the line taken by the King in the
matter of the union, would be unwilling to spread information of there
being in England a Protestant party opposed to the union, not only of
sufficient importance to be worth gaining, but so exasperated that even
these gunpowder plotters could think it possible to win them to their
side. Nor is this all. If it is difficult to conceive that the
Commissioners could have allowed such a paragraph to go abroad, it is at
least equally difficult to think of their inventing it. We may be sure
that if Fawkes had not made the statement, no one of the examiners would
ever have committed it to paper at all, and if the document is genuine
in this respect, why is it not to be held genuine from beginning to end?
Father Gerard, indeed, objects to this view of the case that the
document '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. Throughout this paper Fawkes is
made to speak in the third person, and the names of accomplices to whom
he refers are not given.'[67] All this is quite true, and unless I am
much mistaken, are evidences for the genuineness of the document, not
for its fabrication. If Salisbury had wished to palm off an invention of
his own as a copy of a true confession by Fawkes, he surely would not
have stuck at so small a thing as an alleged copy of the prisoner's
signature, nor is it to be supposed that the original signatures of the
Commissioners would appear in what, in my contention, is a copy of a
lost original. As for the titles Lord Admiral and Lord Chamberlain being
used instead of their signatures, it was in accordance with official
usage. A letter, written on January 21, 1604-5, by the Council to the
Judges, bears nineteen names at the foot in the place where signatures
are ordinarily found. The first six names are given thus:--'L.
Chancellor, L. Treasurer, L. Admirall, L. Chamberlaine, E. of
Northumberland, E. of Worcester.'[68] Fawkes is made to speak in the
third person in all the four preceding examinations, three of which bear
his autograph signature. That the names of accomplices are not given is
exactly what one might expect from a man of his courage. All through the
five examinations he refused to break his oath not to reveal a name,
except in the case of Percy in which concealment was impossible. It
required the horrible torture of the 9th to wring a single name from
him.
Moreover, Father Gerard further urges what he intends to be damaging to
the view taken by me, that a set of questions formed by Coke upon the
examination of the 7th, apparently for use on the 8th, 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.'[69]
Exactly so! If Coke had to fish, casting his net as widely as Father
Gerard correctly shows him to have done, it is plain that the Government
had no direct knowledge to guide its inquiries. Father Gerard's charge
therefore resolves itself into this: that Salisbury not only deceived
the public at large, but his brother-commissioners as well. Has he
seriously thought out all that is involved in this theory? Salisbury,
according to hypothesis, gets an altered copy of a confession drawn up,
or else a confession purely invented by himself. The clerk who makes it
is, of course, aware of what is being done, and also the second
clerk,[70] who wrote out the further copy sent to Edmondes. Edmondes, at
least, received the second copy, and there can be little doubt that
other ambassadors received it also. How could Salisbury count on the
life-long silence of all these? Salisbury, as the event proved, was not
exactly loved by his colleagues, and if his brother-commissioners--every
one of them men of no slight influence at Court--had discovered that
their names had been taken in vain, it would not have been left to the
rumour of the streets to spread the news that Salisbury had been the
inventor of the plot. Nay, more than this. Father Gerard distinctly sets
down the story of the mine as an impossible one, and therefore one
which must have been fabricated by Salisbury for his own purposes. The
allegation that there had been a mine was not subsequently kept in the
dark. It was proclaimed on the house-tops in every account of the plot
published to the world. And all the while, it seems, six out of these
seven Commissioners, to say nothing of the Attorney-General, knew that
it was all a lie--that Fawkes, when they examined him on the 8th, had
really said nothing about it, and yet, neither in public, nor, so far as
we know, in private--either in Salisbury's lifetime or after his
death--did they breathe a word of the wrong that had been done to them
as well as to the conspirators!