THE LATER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
Having thus, I hope, established that the story of the mine and cellar
is borne out by Fawkes's own account, I proceed to examine into the
objections raised by Father Gerard to the documentary evidence after
November 8, the date of Fawkes's last examination before he was
subjected to torture. In the declaration, signed with his tortured hand
on the 9th, before Coke, Waad and Forsett,[71] and acknowledged before
the Commissioners on the 10th, Fawkes distinctly refers to the
examination of the 8th. "The plot," he says, "was to blow up the King
with all the nobility about him in Parliament, as heretofore he hath
declared, to which end, they proceeded as is set down in the examination
taken (before the Lords of the Council Commissioners) yesternight."
Here, then, is distinct evidence that Fawkes acknowledged that the
examination of the 8th had been taken in presence of the Commissioners,
and thus negatives the theory that that examination was invented or
altered by Salisbury, as these words came on the 10th under the eyes of
the Commissioners themselves.[72]
The fact is, that the declaration of the 9th fits the examination of the
8th as a glove does a hand. On the 8th, before torture, Fawkes described
what had been done, and gave the number of persons concerned in doing
it. On the 9th he is required not to repeat what he had said before, but
to give the missing names. This he now does. It was Thomas Winter who
had fetched him from the Low Countries, having first communicated their
design to a certain Owen.[73] The other three, who made up the original
five, were Percy, Catesby, and John Wright. It was Gerard who had given
them the Sacrament.[74] The other conspirators were Sir Everard Digby,
Robert Keyes, Christopher Wright, Thomas[75] Grant, Francis Tresham,
Robert Winter, and Ambrose Rokewood. The very order in which the names
come perhaps shows that the Government had as yet a very hazy idea of
the details of the conspiracy. The names of those who actually worked in
the mine are scattered at hap-hazard amongst those of the men who merely
countenanced the plot from a distance.
However this may be, the 9th, the day on which Fawkes was put to the
torture, brought news to the Government that the fear of insurrection
need no longer be entertained. It had been known before this that
Fawkes's confederates had met on the 5th at Dunchurch on the pretext of
a hunting match,[76] and had been breaking open houses in Warwickshire
and Worcestershire in order to collect arms. Yet so indefinite was the
knowledge of the Council that, on the 8th, they offered a reward for the
apprehension of Percy alone, without including any of the other
conspirators.[77] On the evening of the 9th[78] they received a letter
from Sir Richard Walsh, the Sheriff of Worcestershire:--
"We think fit," he wrote, "with all speed to certify your Lordships
of the happy success it hath pleased God to give us against the
rebellious assembly in these parts. After such time as they had
taken the horses from Warwick upon Tuesday night last,[79] they
came to Mr. Robert Winter's house to Huddington upon Wednesday
night,[80] where--having entered--[they] armed themselves at all
points in open rebellion. They passed from thence upon Thursday
morning[81] unto Hewell--the Lord Windsor's house--which they
entered and took from thence by force great store of armour,
artillery of the said Lord Windsor's, and passed that night into
the county of Staffordshire unto the house of one Stephen
Littleton, Gentleman, called Holbeche, about two miles distant from
Stourbridge whither we pursued, with the assistance of Sir John
Foliot, Knight, Francis Ketelsby, Esquire, Humphrey Salway,
Gentleman, Edmund Walsh, and Francis Conyers, Gentlemen, with few
other gentlemen and the power and face of the country. We made
against them upon Thursday morning,[81] and freshly pursued them
until the next day,[82] at which time about twelve or one of the
clock in the afternoon, we overtook them at the said Holbeche
House--the greatest part of their retinue and some of the better
sort being dispersed and fled before our coming, whereupon and
after summons and warning first given and proclamation in his
Highness's name to yield and submit themselves--who refusing the
same, we fired some part of the house and assaulted some part of
the rebellious persons left in the said house, in which assault,
one Mr. Robert Catesby is slain, and three others verily thought
wounded to death whose names--as far as we can learn--are Thomas
Percy, Gentleman, John Wright, and Christopher Wright Gentlemen,
and these are apprehended and taken Thomas Winter Gentleman, John
Grant Gentleman, Henry Morgan Gentleman, Ambrose Rokewood
Gentleman, Thomas Ockley carpenter, Edmund Townsend servant to the
said John Grant, Nicholas Pelborrow, servant unto the said Ambrose
Rokewood, Edward Ockley carpenter, Richard Townsend servant to the
said Robert Winter, Richard Day servant to the said Stephen
Littleton, which said prisoners are in safe custody here, and so
shall remain until your Honours good pleasures be further known.
The rest of that rebellious assembly is dispersed, we have caused
to be followed with fresh suite and hope of their speedy
apprehension. We have also thought fit to send unto your
Honours--according unto our duties--such letters as we have found
about the parties apprehended; and so resting in all duty at your
Honours' further command, we take leave, from Stourbridge this
Saturday morning, being the ixth of this instant November 1605.
"Your Honours' most humble to be commanded,
"RICH. WALSH."
Percy and the two Wrights died of their wounds, so that, in addition to
Fawkes, Thomas Winter was the only one of the five original workers in
the mine in the hands of the Government. Of the seven others who had
been named in Fawkes's confession of the 9th, Christopher Wright had
been killed; Rokewood, Robert Winter, and Grant had been apprehended at
Holbeche; Sir Everard Digby, Keyes, and Tresham were subsequently
arrested, as was Bates a servant of Catesby.
That for some days the Government made no effort to get further
information about the mine and the cellar cannot be absolutely proved,
but nothing bearing on the subject has reached us except that, on the
14th, when a copy of Fawkes's deposition of the 8th was forwarded to
Edmondes, the names of the twelve chief conspirators are given, not as
Fawkes gave them on the 9th, in two batches, but in three, Robert Winter
and Christopher Wright being said to have joined after the first five,
whilst Rokewood, Digby, Grant, Tresham, and Keyes are said to have been
'privy to the practice of the powder but wrought not at the mine.'[83]
As Keyes is the only one whose Christian name is not given, this list
must have been copied from one now in the Record Office, in which this
peculiarity is also found, and was probably drawn up on or about the
10th[84] from further information derived from Fawkes when he certified
the confession dragged from him on the preceding day.[84]
What really seems to have been at this time on the minds of the
investigators was the relationship of the Catholic noblemen to the plot.
On the 11th Talbot of Grafton was sent for. On the 15th Lords Montague
and Mordaunt were imprisoned in the Tower. On the 16th Mrs. Vaux and the
wives of ten of the conspirators were committed to various aldermen and
merchants of London.[85] When Fawkes was re-examined on the 16th,[86] by
far the larger part of the answers elicited refer to the hints given, or
supposed to have been given, to Catholic noblemen to absent themselves
from Parliament on the 5th. Then comes a statement about Percy buying a
watch for Fawkes on the night of the 4th and sending it 'to him by Keyes
at ten of the clock at night, because he should know how the time went
away.' The last paragraph alone bears upon the project itself. "He also
saith he did not intend to set fire to the train [until] the King was
come to the House, and then he purposed to do it with a piece of
touchwood and with a match also, _which were about him when he was
apprehended on the 4th day of November at 11 of the clock at night_ that
the powder might more surely take fire a quarter of an hour after."
The words printed in italics are an interlineation in Coke's hand. They
evidently add nothing of the slightest importance to the evidence, and
cannot have been inserted with any design to prejudice the prisoner or
to carry conviction in quarters in which disbelief might be supposed to
exist. Is not the simple explanation sufficient, that when the evidence
was read over to the examinee, he added, either of his own motion or on
further question, this additional information. If this explanation is
accepted here, may it not also be accepted for other interlineations,
such as that relating to the cellar in the first examination?[87]
That the examiners at this stage of the proceedings should not be eager
to ask further questions about the cellar and the mine was the most
natural thing in the world. They knew already quite enough from
Fawkes's earlier examinations to put them in possession of the general
features of the plot, and to them it was of far greater interest to
trace out its ramifications, and to discover whether a guilty knowledge
of it could be brought home either to noblemen or to priests, than to
attain to a descriptive knowledge of its details, which would be dear to
the heart of the newspaper correspondent of the present day. Yet, after
all, even in 1605, the public had to be taken into account. There must
be an open trial, and the more detailed the information that could be
got the more verisimilitude would be given to the story told. It is
probably, in part at least, to these considerations, as well as to some
natural curiosity on the part of the Commissioners themselves, that we
owe the examinations of Fawkes on the 17th and of Winter on the 23rd.
"Amongst all the confessions and 'voluntary declarations' extracted
from the conspirators," writes Father Gerard, "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
Fawkes, 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."
If Father Gerard merely means that the story published by the Government
rested on these two confessions, and that the Government publications
were the source of all knowledge about the plot till the Record Office
was thrown open, in comparatively recent years, he says what is
perfectly true, and, it may be added, quite irrelevant. If he means that
our knowledge at the present day rests on these two documents, he is, as
I hope I have already shown, mistaken. With the first five examinations
of Fawkes in our hands, all the essential points of the conspiracy,
except the names, are revealed to us. The names are given in the
examination under torture, and a day or two later the Government was
able to classify these names, though we are unable to specify the source
from which it drew its information. If both the declarations to which
Father Gerard refers had been absolutely destroyed we should have missed
some picturesque details, which assist us somewhat in understanding what
took place; but we should have been able to set forth the main features
of the plot precisely as we do now.
Nevertheless, as we do gain some additional information from these
documents, let us examine whether there are such symptoms of foul play
as Father Gerard thinks he can descry. Taking first Fawkes's declaration
of November 17, it will be well to follow Father Gerard's argument. He
brings into collocation three documents: first the interrogatories
prepared by Coke after the examination of the 7th, then the examination
of the 8th, which he calls a draft, and then the full declaration of the
17th, which undoubtedly bears the signature of Fawkes himself.
That the three documents are very closely connected is undeniable. Take,
for instance, a paragraph to which Father Gerard not unnaturally draws
attention, in which the repetition of the words 'the same day' proves at
least partial identity of origin between Coke's interrogatories and the
examination founded on them on the 8th.[88]
"Was it not agreed," asks Coke, "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?" "He confesseth," Fawkes is stated to have
said, "that the same day this detestable act should have been performed
the same day should other of their confederacy have surprised the Lady
Elizabeth." Yet before setting down Fawkes's replies as a fabrication of
the Government, let us remember how evidence of this kind is taken and
reported. If we take up the report of a criminal trial in a modern
newspaper we shall find, for the most part, a flowing narrative put into
the mouths of witnesses. John Jones, let us say, is represented as
giving some such evidence as this: "I woke at two o'clock in the
morning, and, looking out of window, saw by the light of the moon John
Smith opening the stable door," &c. Nobody who has attended a law court
imagines John Jones to have used these consecutive words. Questions are
put to him by the examining counsel. When did you wake? Did you see
anyone at the stable door? How came you to be able to see him, and so
forth; and it is by combining these questions with the Yes and No, and
other brief replies made by the witness, that the reporter constructs
his narrative with no appreciable violation of truth. Is it not
reasonable to suppose that the same practice prevailed in 1605? Fawkes,
I suppose, answered to Coke's question, "Yes, others of the confederates
proposed to surprise her," or something of the sort, and the result was
the combination of question and answer which is given above.
What, however, was the relation between the examination of the 8th and
the declaration of the 17th? Father Gerard has printed them side by
side,[89] and it is impossible to deny that the latter is founded on the
former. Some paragraphs of the examination are not represented in the
declaration, but these are paragraphs of no practical importance, and
those that are represented are modified. The modifications admitted,
however, are all consistent with what is a very probable supposition,
that the Government wanted to get Fawkes's previous statements collected
in one paper. He had given his account of the plot on one occasion, the
names of the plotters on another, and had stated on a third that they
were to be classified in three divisions--those who worked first at the
mine, those who worked at it afterwards, and those who did not work at
all. If the Government drew up a form combining the three statements and
omitting immaterial matter, and got Fawkes to sign it, this would fully
account for the form in which we find the declaration. At the present
day, we should object to receive evidence from a man who had been
tortured once and might be tortured again; but as this declaration adds
nothing of any importance to our previous knowledge, it is unnecessary
to recur to first principles on this occasion.[90]
Winter's examination of the 23rd, as treated by Father Gerard, raises a
more difficult question. The document itself is at Hatfield, and there
is a copy of it in the 'Gunpowder Plot Book' in the Public Record
Office. "The 'original' document," writes Father Gerard,[91] "is at
Hatfield, and agrees in general so exactly with the copy as to
demonstrate the identity of their origin. But while, as we have seen,
the 'copy' is dated November 23rd, the 'original' is dated on the 25th."
In a note, we are told '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.' To
return to Father Gerard's text, we find, "On a circumstance so
irregular, light is possibly thrown by a letter from Waad, the
Lieutenant of the Tower, to Cecil[92] on the 20th of the same month.
'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."
Apparently Father Gerard intends us to gather from his statement that
the whole confession of Winter was drawn up by the Government on or
before the 23rd, and that he was driven on the 25th by fears of renewed
torture to put his hand to a tissue of falsehoods contained in a paper
which the Government required him to copy out and sign. The whole of
this edifice, it will be seen, rests on the assertion that Winter first
wrote 23 and then corrected it to 25.
So improbable did this assertion appear to me, that I wrote to Mr.
Gunton, the courteous secretary of the Marquis of Salisbury, requesting
him to examine the handwriting of the date in question. He tells me that
the confession itself is, as Father Gerard states, in Winter's hand, as
is also the date '23 {9 ber} 1605.' Two changes have been made; in the
first place 23 has been altered to 25, and there has been added at the
head of the paper: "The voluntary declaration of Thomas Winter, of
Hoodington, in the County of Worcester, gent. the 25 of November, 1605."
"This heading," Mr. Gunton writes, "is so tucked in at the top, that it
must, I think, have been written after the confession itself." He also
assures me that the 5 of the substituted date and the 5 in the added
heading 'are exactly alike, and both different from the 5' at the end of
the date of the year, as written by Winter. "The heading," Mr. Gunton
writes, "I believe to be in Coke's hand. It is more carefully written
than he usually writes, and more carefully than his attestation at the
end; but as far as my judgment goes, it is decidedly his hand."
The alleged fact that lies at the basis of Father Gerard's argument is
therefore finally disposed of. Why Coke, if Coke it was, changed the
date can be no more than matter for conjecture. Yet an explanation,
conjectural though it be, seems to me to be probable enough. We have
seen that Fawkes's confession under torture bears two dates, the 9th,
when it was taken before Coke and Waad the Lieutenant of the Tower,
together with a magistrate, Edward Forsett; the second, on the 10th,
when it was declared before the Commissioners. Why may not this
confession of Winter's have been subjected to a similar process. Winter,
I suppose, writes it on the 23rd, and it is then witnessed, as Father
Gerard says, by Coke alone. Though no copy with the autograph signatures
of the Commissioners exists it is reasonable to suppose that one was
made, in which a passage about Monteagle--whom the Government did not
wish to connect with the plot except as a discoverer--was omitted, and
that this, still bearing the date of the 23rd, may have been brought
before the Commissioners on the 25th. They would thus receive a
statement from Winter that it was his own, and the signatures of the
Commissioners would then be appended to it, together with those of Coke
and Waad. This then would be the document from which copies would be
taken for the use of individual Commissioners, and we can thus account
for Salisbury's having appended to his own copy now in the Record
Office, "Taken before us, Nottingham, Suffolk, &c." The recognition
before the Commissioners would become the official date, and Coke,
having access to the original, changes the date on which it was written
to that on which it was signed by the Commissioners. This explanation is
merely put forward as a possible one. The important point is that Father
Gerard's argument founded on the alteration of the date is inadmissible,
now that Mr. Gunton has thrown light on the matter.
Winter's confession having been thus vindicated is here inserted, partly
because it gives the story from a different point of view from that of
Fawkes, and partly because it will enable those who read it to see for
themselves whether there is internal evidence of its having been
manipulated by the Government.
_My Most Honourable Lords._
"23 {9 ber} 1605.
"Not out of hope to obtain pardon for speaking--of my temporal part
I may say the fault is greater than can be forgiven--nor affecting
hereby the title of a good subject for I must redeem my country
from as great a danger as I have hazarded the bringing her into,
before I can purchase any such opinion; only at your Honours'
command, I will briefly set down my own accusation, and how far I
have proceeded in this business which I shall the faithfuller do
since I see such courses are not pleasing to Almighty God; and that
all, or the most material parts have been already confessed.
"I remained with my brother in the country for All-hollantide,[93]
in the year of our Lord 1603, the first of the King's reign, about
which time, Mr. Catesby sent thither, entreating me to come to
London, where he and other friends would be glad to see me. I
desired him to excuse me, for I found not myself very well
disposed, and (which had happened never to me before) returned the
messenger without my company. Shortly I received another letter, in
any wise to come. At the second summons I presently came up and
found him with Mr. John Wright at Lambeth, where he brake with me
how necessary it was not to forsake my country (for he knew I had
then a resolution to go over), but to deliver her from the
servitude in which she remained, or at least to assist her with our
uttermost endeavours. I answered that I had often hazarded my life
upon far lighter terms, and now would not refuse any good occasion
wherein I might do service to the Catholic cause; but, for myself,
I knew no mean probable to succeed. He said that he had bethought
him of a way at one instant to deliver us from all our bonds, and
without any foreign help[94] to replant again the Catholic
religion, and withal told me in a word it was to blow up the
Parliament House with gunpowder; for, said he, in that place have
they done us all the mischief, and perchance God hath designed that
place for their punishment. I wondered at the strangeness of the
conceit, and told him that true it was this strake at the root and
would breed a confusion fit to beget new alterations, but if it
should not take effect (as most of this nature miscarried) the
scandal would be so great which the Catholic religion might hereby
sustain, as not only our enemies, but our friends also would with
good reason condemn us. He told me the nature of the disease
required so sharp a remedy, and asked me if I would give my
consent. I told him Yes, in this or what else soever, if he
resolved upon it, I would venture my life; but I proposed many
difficulties, as want of a house, and of one to carry the mine;
noise in the working, and such like. His answer was, let us give an
attempt, and where it faileth, pass no further. But first, quoth
he, because we will leave no peaceable and quiet way untried, you
shall go over and inform the Constable[95] of the state of the
Catholics here in England, intreating him to solicit his Majesty at
his coming hither that the penal laws may be recalled, and we
admitted into the rank of his other subjects. Withal, you may
bring over some confidant gentleman such as you shall understand
best able for this business, and named unto me Mr. Fawkes. Shortly
after I passed the sea and found the Constable at Bergen, near
Dunkirk, where, by the help of Mr. Owen,[96] I delivered my
message, whose answer was that he had strict command from his
master to do all good offices for the Catholics, and for his own
part he thought himself bound in conscience so to do, and that no
good occasion should be omitted, but spake to him nothing of this
matter.
"Returning to Dunkirk with Mr. Owen, we had speach whether he
thought the Constable would faithfully help us or no. He said he
believed nothing less, and that they sought only their own ends,
holding small account of Catholics. I told him, that there were
many gentlemen in England, who would not forsake their country
until they had tried the uttermost, and rather venture their lives
than forsake her in this misery; and to add one more to our number
as a fit man, both for counsel and execution of whatsoever we
should resolve, wished for Mr. Fawkes whom I had heard good
commendations of. He told me the gentleman deserved no less, but
was at Brussels, and that if he came not, as happily he might,
before my departure, he would send him shortly after into England.
I went soon after to Ostend, where Sir William Stanley as then was
not, but came two days after. I remained with him three or four
days, in which time I asked him, if the Catholics in England should
do anything to help themselves, whether he thought the Archduke
would second them. He answered, No; for all those parts were so
desirous of peace with England as they would endure no speach of
other enterprise, neither were it fit, said he, to set any project
afoot now the peace is upon concluding. I told him there was no
such resolution, and so fell to discourse of other matters until I
came to speak of Mr. Fawkes whose company I wished over into
England. I asked of his sufficiency in the wars, and told him we
should need such as he, if occasion required. He gave very good
commendations of him; and as we were thus discoursing and I ready
to depart for Nieuport and taking my leave of Sir William, Mr.
Fawkes came into our company newly returned and saluted us. This is
the gentleman, said Sir William, that you wished for, and so we
embraced again. I told him some good friends of his wished his
company in England; and that if he pleased to come to Dunkirk, we
would have further conference, whither I was then going: so taking
my leave of both, I departed. About two days after came Mr. Fawkes
to Dunkirk, where I told him that we were upon a resolution to do
somewhat in England if the peace with Spain helped us not, but had
as yet resolved upon nothing. Such or the like talk we passed at
Gravelines, where I lay for a wind, and when it served, came both
in one passage to Greenwich, near which place we took a pair of
oars, and so came up to London, and came to Mr. Catesby whom we
found in his lodging. He welcomed us into England, and asked me
what news from the Constable. I told him Good words, but I feared
the deeds would not answer. This was the beginning of Easter
term[97] and about the midst of the same term (whether sent for by
Mr. Catesby, or upon some business of his own) up came Mr. Thomas
Percy. The first word he spake (after he came into our company) was
Shall we always, gentlemen, talk and never do anything? Mr. Catesby
took him aside and had speech about somewhat to be done, so as
first we might all take an oath of secrecy, which we resolved
within two or three days to do, so as there we met behind St.
Clement's, Mr. Catesby, Mr. Percy, Mr. Wright, Mr. Guy Fawkes, and
myself, and having, upon a primer given each other the oath of
secrecy in a chamber where no other body was, we went after into
the next room and heard mass, and received the blessed sacrament
upon the same. Then did Mr. Catesby disclose to Mr. Percy,[98] and
I together with Jack Wright tell to Mr. Fawkes the business for
which they took this oath which they both approved; and then Mr.
Percy sent to take the house, which Mr. Catesby, in my absence, had
learnt did belong to one Ferris, which with some difficulty in the
end he obtained, and became, as Ferris before was, tenant to
Whynniard. Mr. Fawkes underwent the name of Mr. Percy's man,
calling himself Johnson, because his face was the most unknown,[99]
and received the keys of the house, until we heard that the
Parliament was adjourned to the 7 of February. At which time we all
departed several ways into the country, to meet again at the
beginning of Michaelmas term.[100] Before this time also it was
thought convenient to have a house that might answer to Mr.
Percy's, where we might make provision of powder and wood for the
mine which, being there made ready, should in a night be conveyed
by boat to the house by the Parliament because we were loth to foil
that with often going in and out. There was none that we could
devise so fit as Lambeth where Mr. Catesby often lay, and to be
keeper thereof, by Mr. Catesby's choice, we received into the
number Keyes, as a trusty honest man.[101]
"Some fortnight after, towards the beginning of the term, Mr.
Fawkes and I came to Mr. Catesby at Moorcrofts, where we agreed
that now was time to begin and set things in order for the mine, so
as Mr. Fawkes went to London and the next day sent for me to come
over to him. When I came, the cause was for that the Scottish Lords
were appointed to sit in conference on the Union in Mr. Percy's
house. This hindered our beginning until a fortnight before
Christmas, by which time both Mr. Percy and Mr. Wright were come to
London, and we against their coming had provided a good part of the
powder, so as we all five entered with tools fit to begin our work,
having provided ourselves of baked-meats, the less to need sending
abroad. We entered late in the night, and were never seen, save
only Mr. Percy's man, until Christmas-eve, in which time we wrought
under a little entry to the wall of the Parliament House, and
underpropped it as we went with wood.
"Whilst we were together we began to fashion our business, and
discourse what we should do after this deed were done. The first
question was how we might surprise the next heir; the Prince
happily would be at the Parliament with the King his father: how
should we then be able to seize on the Duke?[102] This burden Mr.
Percy undertook; that by his acquaintance he with another gentleman
would enter the chamber without suspicion, and having some dozen
others at several doors to expect his coming, and two or three on
horseback at the Court gate to receive him, he would undertake (the
blow being given, until which he would attend in the Duke's
chamber) to carry him safe away, for he supposed most of the Court
would be absent, and such as were there not suspecting, or
unprovided for any such matter. For the Lady Elizabeth it were easy
to surprise her in the country by drawing friends together at a
hunting near the Lord Harrington's, and Ashby, Mr. Catesby's house,
being not far off was a fit place for preparation.
"The next was for money and horses, which if we could provide in
any reasonable measure (having the heir apparent) and the first
knowledge by four or five days was odds sufficient. Then, what
Lords we should save from the Parliament, which was agreed in
general as many as we could that were Catholics or so disposed.
Next, what foreign princes we should acquaint with this before or
join with after. For this point we agreed that first we would not
enjoin princes to that secrecy nor oblige them by oath so to be
secure of their promise; besides, we know not whether they will
approve the project or dislike it, and if they do allow thereof, to
prepare before might beget suspicion and[103] not to provide until
the business were acted; the same letter that carried news of the
thing done might as well entreat their help and furtherance. Spain
is too slow in his preparations to hope any good from in the first
extremities, and France too near and too dangerous, who with the
shipping of Holland we feared of all the world might make away with
us. But while we were in the middle of these discourses, we heard
that the Parliament should be anew adjourned until after
Michaelmas, upon which tidings we broke off both discourse and
working until after Christmas. About Candlemas we brought over in a
boat the powder which we had provided at Lambeth and layd it in Mr.
Percy's house because we were willing to have all our danger in one
place. We wrought also another fortnight in the mine against the
stone wall, which was very hard to beat through, at which time we
called in Kit Wright, and near to Easter[104] as we wrought the
third time, opportunity was given to hire the cellar, in which we
resolved to lay the powder and leave the mine.
"Now by reason that the charge of maintaining us all so long
together, besides the number of several houses which for several
uses had been hired, and buying of powder, &c., had lain heavy on
Mr. Catesby alone to support, it was necessary for to call in some
others to ease his charge, and to that end desired leave that he
with Mr. Percy and a third whom they should call might acquaint
whom they thought fit and willing to the business, for many, said
he, may be content that I should know who would not therefore that
all the Company should be acquainted with their names. To this we
all agreed.
"After this Mr. Fawkes laid into the cellar (which he had newly
taken) a thousand of billets and five hundred of faggots, and with
that covered the powder, because we might have the house free to
suffer anyone to enter that would. Mr. Catesby wished us to
consider whether it were not now necessary to send Mr. Fawkes over,
both to absent himself for a time as also to acquaint Sir William
Stanley and Mr. Owen with this matter. We agreed that he should;
provided that he gave it them with the same oath that we had taken
before, viz., to keep it secret from all the world. The reason why
we desired Sir William Stanley should be acquainted herewith was to
have him with us so soon as he could, and, for Mr. Owen, he might
hold good correspondency after with foreign princes. So Mr. Fawkes
departed about Easter for Flanders and returned the later end of
August. He told me that when he arrived at Brussels, Sir William
Stanley was not returned from Spain, so as he uttered the matter
only to Owen, who seemed well pleased with the business, but told
him that surely Sir William would not be acquainted with any plot
as having business now afoot in the Court of England, but he
himself would be always ready to tell it him and send him away so
soon as it were done.
"About this time did Mr. Percy and Mr. Catesby meet at the Bath
where they agreed that the company being yet but few, Mr. Catesby
should have the others' authority to call in whom he thought best,
by which authority he called in after Sir Everard Digby, though at
what time I know not, and last of all Mr. Francis Tresham. The
first promised, as I heard Mr. Catesby say, fifteen hundred pounds.
Mr. Percy himself promised all that he could get of the Earl of
Northumberland's rent,[105] and to provide many galloping horses,
his number was ten.[106] Meanwhile Mr. Fawkes and myself alone
bought some new powder, as suspecting the first to be dank, and
conveyed it into the cellar and set it in order as we resolved it
should stand. Then was the Parliament anew prorogued until the 5 of
November; so as we all went down until some ten days before. When
Mr. Catesby came up with Mr. Fawkes to a house by Enfield Chase
called White Webbs, whither I came to them, and Mr. Catesby willed
me to inquire whether the young Prince[107] came to Parliament, I
told him that his Grace thought not to be there. Then must we have
our horses, said Mr. Catesby, beyond the water,[108] and provision
of more company to surprise the Prince and leave the Duke alone.
Two days after, being Sunday[109] at night, in came one to my
chamber and told me that a letter had been given to my Lord
Monteagle to this effect, that he wished his lordship's absence
from the Parliament because a blow would there be given, which
letter he presently carried to my Lord of Salisbury. On the morrow
I went to White Webbs and told it to Mr. Catesby, assuring him
withal that the matter was disclosed and wishing him in any wise to
forsake his country. He told me he would see further as yet and
resolved to send Mr. Fawkes to try the uttermost, protesting if the
part belonged to myself he would try the same adventure. On
Wednesday Mr. Fawkes went and returned at night, of which we were
very glad. Thursday[110] I came to London, and Friday[111] Mr.
Catesby, Mr. Tresham and I met at Barnet, where we questioned how
this letter should be sent to my Lord Monteagle, but could not
conceive, for Mr. Tresham forsware it, whom we only suspected. On
Saturday night[112] I met Mr. Tresham again in Lincoln's Inn Walks,
where he told such speeches that my Lord of Salisbury should use to
the King, as I gave it lost the second time, and repeated the same
to Mr. Catesby, who hereupon was resolved to be gone, but stayed to
have Mr. Percy come up whose consent herein we wanted. On Sunday
night[113] came Mr. Percy, and no 'Nay,' but would abide the
uttermost trial.
"This suspicion of all hands put us into such confusion as Mr.
Catesby resolved to go down into the country the Monday[114] that
Mr. Percy went to Sion and Mr. Percy resolved to follow the same
night or early the next morning. About five o'clock being
Tuesday[115] came the younger Wright to my chamber and told me that
a nobleman called the Lord Monteagle, saying "Rise and come along
to Essex House, for I am going to call up my Lord of
Northumberland," saying withal 'the matter is discovered.' "Go back
Mr. Wright," quoth I, "and learn what you can at Essex Gate."
Shortly he returned and said, "Surely all is lost, for Leyton is
got on horseback at Essex door, and as he parted, he asked if their
Lordship's would have any more with him, and being answered "No,"
is rode as fast up Fleet Street as he can ride." "Go you then,"
quoth I, "to Mr. Percy, for sure it is for him they seek, and bid
him begone: I will stay and see the uttermost." Then I went to the
Court gates, and found them straitly guarded so as nobody could
enter. From thence I went down towards the Parliament House, and in
the middle of King's Street found the guard standing that would not
let me pass, and as I returned, I heard one say, "There is a
treason discovered in which the King and the Lords shall have been
blown up," so then I was fully satisfied that all was known, and
went to the stable where my gelding stood, and rode into the
country. Mr. Catesby had appointed our meeting at Dunchurch, but I
could not overtake them until I came to my brother's which was
Wednesday night.[116] On Thursday[117] we took the armour at my
Lord Windsor's, and went that night to one Stephen Littleton's
house, where the next day, being Friday,[118] as I was early abroad
to discover, my man came to me and said that a heavy mischance had
severed all the company, for that Mr. Catesby, Mr. Rokewood and Mr.
Grant were burnt with gunpowder, upon which sight the rest
dispersed. Mr. Littleton wished me to fly and so would he. I told
him I would first see the body of my friend and bury him,
whatsoever befel me. When I came I found Mr. Catesby reasonable
well, Mr. Percy, both the Wrights, Mr. Rokewood and Mr. Grant. I
asked them what they resolved to do. They answered "We mean here to
die." I said again I would take such part as they did. About eleven
of the clock came the company to beset the house, and as I walked
into the court was shot into the shoulder, which lost me the use of
my arm. The next shot was the elder Wright struck dead; after him
the younger Mr. Wright, and fourthly Ambrose Rokewood. Then, said
Mr. Catesby to me (standing before the door they were to enter),
"Stand by, Mr. Tom, and we will die together." "Sir," quoth I, "I
have lost the use of my right arm and I fear that will cause me to
be taken." So as we stood close together Mr. Catesby, Mr. Percy and
myself, they two were shot (as far as I could guess, with one
bullet), and then the company entered upon me, hurt me in the belly
with a pike and gave me other wounds, until one came behind and
caught hold of both my arms, and so I remain, Your &c."
"[Taken before us
"Nottingham, Suffolk, Northampton, Salisbury, Mar, Dunbar, Popham.
EDW. COKE,
W. WAAD.]"[119]
I have printed this interesting statement in full, because it is the
only way in which I can convey to my readers the sense of spontaneity
which pervades it from beginning to end. To me, at least, it seems
incredible that it was either written to order, or copied from a paper
drawn up by some agent of the Government. Nor is it to be forgotten that
if there was one thing the Government was anxious to secure, it was
evidence against the priests, and that no such evidence can be extracted
from this confession. What is, perhaps, still more to the point is, that
no candid person can, I imagine, rise from the perusal of these
sentences without having his estimate of the character of the
conspirators raised. There is no conscious assumption of high qualities,
but each touch as it comes strengthens the belief that the men concerned
in the plot were patient and loyal, brave beyond the limits of ordinary
bravery, and utterly without selfish aims. Could this result have been
attained by a confession written to order or dictated by Salisbury or
his agents, to whom the plotters were murderous villains of the basest
kind?
There is nothing to show that Winter's evidence was procured by torture.
Father Gerard, indeed, quotes a letter from Waad, written on the 21st,
in which he says that 'Thomas Winter 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.' Considering
that he had a ball through his shoulder a fortnight before, the
suggestion of torture is hardly needed to find a cause for his having
for some time been unable to use his hand.
Before turning to another branch of the investigation, it will be
advisable to clear up one difficulty which is not quite so easy to
solve.
"Fawkes," writes Father Gerard,[120] "in the confession of November
17, mentioned Robert Keyes as amongst the first seven of the
conspirators who worked at 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 Fawkes signed it--_i.e._, November 14--the
same transposition occurs, Keyes being explicitly described as one
of those 'who wrought not at the mine,' although, as we have seen,
he is one of the three who alone make any mention of it.
"Still more irregular is another circumstance. About November 28,
Sir Edward Coke, the Attorney-General, drew up certain further
notes of questions to be put to various prisoners. Amongst these we
read: 'Winter[121] 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."
If this tangled skein is to be unravelled, the first thing to be done is
to place the facts in their chronological order, upon which many if not
all the difficulties will disappear, premising that, as a matter of
fact, Keyes did work at the mine, and Robert Winter did not.
In his examination of November 7, in which no names appear, and nothing
is said about a mine, Fawkes spoke of five original conspirators, and of
five or six subsequently joining them, and being generally acquainted
with the plot.[122] On the 8th,[123] when the mine was first mentioned,
he divided the seven actual diggers into two classes: first, the five
who worked from the beginning, and, secondly, two who were afterwards
added to that number, saying nothing of the conspirators who took no
part in the mining operations. On the 9th, under torture, he gave the
names of the first five apart, and then lumped all the other
conspirators together, so that both Keyes and Robert Winter appear in
the same class. On the 17th he gave, as the names of two, who, as he now
said, subsequently worked at the mine, Christopher Wright and Robert
Winter, but the surname of the latter is deleted with pen-strokes, and
that of Keyes substituted above it; whilst, in the list of the persons
made privy to the plot but not engaged in digging, we have the name of
Keyes, afterwards deleted, and that of Wynter substituted for it.[124]
The only question is, when was the double substitution effected?
As far as the action of the Government is known, we have the list
referred to at pp. 47, 48, and probably written on or about the
10th.[125] In this the additional workers are first said to have been
John Grant and Christopher Wright. The former name is, however,
scratched out, and that of 'Robyn Winter' substituted for it, and from
this list is taken the one forwarded to Edmondes on the 14th.[126] Even
if we could discover any conceivable motive for the Government wishing
to accuse Keyes rather than Winter, it would not help us to explain why
the name of Winter was substituted for that of Grant at one time, and
the name of Keyes substituted for that of Winter at another.
On the other hand, Fawkes, if he had any knowledge of what was going on,
had at least a probable motive for putting Winter rather than Keyes in
the worse category. Keyes had been seized, whilst Winter was still at
large, and Fawkes may have thought that as Winter might make his escape
beyond sea, it was better to load him with the burden which really
belonged to Keyes. If this solution be accepted as a possible one, it
is easy to understand how the Government fixed on Winter as one of the
actual diggers. On the 18th, the day after his name had been given by
Fawkes, a proclamation is issued for his apprehension as one 'known to
be a principal.'[127] It is not for ten days that any sign is given of a
belief that Keyes was the right man. Then, on the 28th, Coke suggests
that Thomas Winter may be examined about his brother, 'for no man else
can accuse him,' a suggestion which would be absurd if Fawkes's
statement had still held good. On the 30th Keyes himself acknowledges
that he bought some of the powder and assisted in carrying it to
Ferrers' house, and that he also helped to work at the mine.
I am inclined therefore to assign the alteration of the name which
Fawkes gave in his examination of the 17th to some day shortly before
the 28th, and to think that the sending of the 'King's Book'[128] to
press took place on some day between the 23rd, the date of Thomas
Winter's examination, and the 28th. If so, the retention of the name of
Robert Winter amongst the diggers, and that of Keyes amongst those made
privy afterwards, needs no further explanation.[129] Cromwell once
adjured the Presbyterians of Edinburgh to believe it possible that they
might be mistaken. If Father Gerard would only believe it possible that
Salisbury may have been mistaken, he would hardly be so keen to mark
conscious deception, where deception is not necessarily to be found.
After all, the Government left the names of Winter and Keyes perfectly
legible under the pen-strokes drawn across them, and the change they
made was at least the erasure of a false statement and the substitution
of a true one.