BOUGHT WITH THB INCOME 
 
 FROM THE , . . , , 
 
 . SAGE ENDOWMENT' FtTNE)- 
 
 1 ■■ - THE GIFT OF; 
 
 1891 
 
 Aim^- ^ f/s^/ML 
 
Cornell University Library 
 DA 392.G35 1897 
 
 What was the Gunpowder Plot? 
 3 1924 028 038 358 
 
mi 
 
.AT 
 
 v^/n 
 
 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER 
 PLOT? 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028038358 
 
rat: POWDER PLOT 
 
WHAT WAS THE 
 
 GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 THE TRADITIONAL STORY TESTED BY 
 ORIGINAL EVIDENCE 
 
 BY 
 JOHN GERARD, S.J. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 OSGOOD, McILVAINE & CO. 
 
 45, Albemarle Street, W. 
 
 1897 
 
 1^ 
 
A- 1 iM^y^x- 
 
 Second Edition: 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following study of the Gunpowder Plot has grown 
 out of the accidental circumstance that, having under- 
 taken to read a paper before the Historical Research 
 Society, at Archbishop's House, Westminster, as the 
 day on which it was to be read chanced to be the Sth of 
 November,' I was asked to take the famous conspiracy 
 for my subject. It was with much reluctance that I 
 agreed to do so, believing, as I then did, that there 
 was absolutely nothing fresh to say upon this topic, 
 that no incident in our annals had been more 
 thoroughly threshed out, and that in regard of none, 
 so far, at' least, as its broader outlines are concerned, 
 was the truth more clearly established. 
 
 When, however, I turned to the sources whence our 
 knowledge of the transaction is derived, and in par- 
 ticular to the original documents upon which it is 
 ultimately based, I was startled to find how grave 
 were the doubts and difficulties which suggested them- 
 selves at every turn, while, though slowly and gradually, 
 yet with ever gathering force, the conviction forced 
 itself upon me, that, not merely in its details is the 
 traditional story unworthy of credit, but that all the 
 evidence, points to a conclusion fundamentally at 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 variance with it. Nothing contributed so powerfully 
 to this conviction as to find that every fresh line of 
 reasoning or channel of information which could be 
 discovered inevitably tended, in one way or another, 
 towards the same result. In the following pages are 
 presented to the reader the principal arguments which 
 have wrought this change of view in my own mind.' 
 
 I cannot pretend to furnish any full or wholly satis- 
 factory answer to the question which stands upon the 
 title-page. The real history of the Plot in all its 
 stages we shall, in all probability, never know. If, 
 however, we cannot satisfy ourselves of the truth, it 
 will be much to ascertain what is false ; to convince 
 ourselves that the account of the matter officially 
 supplied, and almost universally accepted, is obviously 
 untrue, and that the balance of probability lies heavily 
 against those who invented it, as having been the real 
 plotters, devising and working the scheme for their 
 own ends. 
 
 Neither have I any wish to ignore, or to extenuate, 
 the objections which militate against such a conclusion, 
 objections arising from considerations of a general 
 character, rather than from any positive evidence. 
 Why, it may reasonably be asked, if the government 
 of the day were ready to go so far as is alleged, did 
 they not go further ? Why, being supremely anxious 
 to incriminate the priests, did they not fabricate un- 
 equivocal evidence against them, instead of satisfying 
 themselves with what appears to us far from con- 
 clusive ? Why did they encumber their tale with in- 
 cidents, which, if they did not really occur, could serve 
 
 ' Some of these have been partially set forth in a series of six 
 articles appearing in The Month, December 1894 — May, 1895. 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 only to damage it, inasmuch as we, at this distance of 
 time, can argue that they are impossible and absurd? 
 How is it, moreover, that the absurdity was not patent 
 to contemporaries, and was not urged by those who 
 had every reason to mislike and mistrust the party in 
 power ? 
 
 Considerations such as these undoubtedly deserve 
 all attention, and must be fully weighed, but while 
 they avail to establish a certain presumption in favour 
 of the official story, I cannot but think that the sum 
 of probabilities tells strongly the other way. It must 
 be remembered that three centuries ago the intrinsic 
 likelihood or unlikelihood of a tale did not go for 
 much, and the accounts of plots in particular appear 
 to have obtained general credence in proportion as 
 they were incredible, as the case of Squires a few 
 years earlier, and of Titus Oates somewhat later, 
 sufficiently testify. It is moreover as difficult for us 
 to enter into the crooked and complex methods of 
 action which commended themselves to the statesmen 
 of the period, as to appreciate the force of the cum- 
 brous and abusive harangues which earned for Sir 
 Edward Coke the character of an incomparable 
 pleader. On the other hand, it appears certain that 
 they who had so long played the game must have 
 understood it best, and, whatever else may be said of 
 them, they always contrived to win. In regard of 
 Father Garnet, for example, we may think the evidence 
 adduced by the prosecution quite insufficient, but none 
 the less it in fact availed not only to send him to the 
 gallows, but to brand him in popular estimation for 
 ■generations, and even for centuries, as the arch-traitor 
 to whose machinations the whole enterprise was due. 
 
vni PREFACE. 
 
 In the case of some individuals obnoxious to the 
 government, it seems evident that downright forgery 
 was actually practised. 
 
 The question of Father Garnet's complicity, though 
 •usually considered as the one point in connection with 
 the Plot requiring to be discussed, is not treated in the 
 following pages. It is doubtless true that to prove the 
 conspiracy to have been a trick of State, is not the 
 same thing as proving that he was not entangled in it ; 
 but, at the same time, the first point, if it can be 
 established, will deprive the other of almost all its. 
 interest. Nevertheless, Father Garnet's case will still 
 require to be fully treated on its own merits, but this 
 cannot be done within the limits of such an inquiry as 
 the present. It is not by confining our attention to 
 one isolated incident in his career, nor by discussing 
 once again the familiar documents connected there- 
 with, that we can form a sound and satisfactory judg- 
 ment about him. For this purpose, full consideration 
 must be given to what has hitherto been almost 
 entirely ignored, the nature and character of the man, 
 as exhibited especially during the eighteen years of 
 his missionary life in England, during most of which 
 period he acted as the superior of his brother Jesuits. 
 There exist abundant materials for his biography, in 
 his official and confidential correspondence, preserved 
 at Stonyhurst and elsewhere, and not till the informa- 
 tion thus supplied shall have been duly utilized will 
 it be possible to judge whether the part assigned to 
 him by his enemies in this wild and wicked design 
 can, even conceivably, represent the truth. It may, I 
 trust, be possible at no distant date to attempt this 
 work, but it is not ^possible now, and to introduce this 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 topic into our present discussion would only confuse 
 the issue which is before us. 
 
 Except in one or two instances, I have judged it 
 advisable, for the sake of clearness, to modernize the 
 spelling of documents quoted in the text. In the. 
 notes they are usually given in their original form. 
 
 I have to acknowledge my indebtedness in many 
 particulars to Mr. H. W. Brewer, who not only con- 
 tributes valuable sketches to illustrate the narrative, 
 but has furnished many important notes and sugges- 
 tions, based upon his exhaustive knowledge of ancient 
 London. I have to thank the Marquis of Salisbury 
 for permission to examine MSS. in the Hatfield 
 collection, and his lordship's librarian, Mr. Gunton, for 
 information supplied from the same source. Through 
 the courtesy of the Deputy-Keeper of the Public 
 Records, every facility has been afforded me for con- 
 sulting the precious documents contained in the " Gun- 
 powder Plot Book." The Dean of Corpus Christi 
 College, Oxford, has kindly given me access to an 
 important MS. in the College Library ; and I have 
 been allowed by the Rector of Stonyhurst to retain in 
 my hands Father Greenway's MS. history of the Plot 
 during the whole period of my work. The proprietors 
 of the Daily Graphic have allowed me to use two 
 sketches of the interior of " Guy Faukes' Cellar," and 
 one of his lantern, originally prepared by Mr. Brewer 
 for that journal. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 I. The State of the Question .... 
 Disclosure of the Plot — Arrest of Guy Faukes^ 
 Flight of his associates —Their abortive insurrec- 
 tion — Their fate — The crime charged on Catholics 
 in general — Garnet and other Jesuits proclaimed 
 as the ringleaders — Capture of Garnet — Efforts to 
 procure evidence against him — His execution — 
 Previous history of the Plot as traditionally 
 narrated ; Proceedings and plans of the conspira- 
 tors — Manner of the discovery. 
 
 Reasons for suspecting the truth of this history 
 — Previous plots originated or manipulated by the 
 government — Suspicious circumstances respect- 
 ing the Gunpowder Plot in particular — Essential 
 points of the inquiry. 
 
 II. The Persons Concerned 
 
 Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury — His character 
 variously estimated — Discreditable incidents of 
 his career — Contemporary judgments of him — 
 His unpopularity — His political difficulties largely 
 dissipated in consequence of the Plot. 
 
 His hatred of and hostility towards the Catho- 
 lics — Their numbers and importance — Their 
 hopes from King James, and their disappoint- 
 ment — The probability that some would have 
 recourse to violence — The conspirators known as 
 men likely to seek such a remedy — Their previous 
 history— Difficulties and contradictions in regard 
 of their character. 
 
xil CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE. 
 
 III. The Opinion of Contemporaries and His- 
 
 torians 42 
 
 Th€ government at once suspected of having con- 
 trived or fomented the Plot — Persistence of these 
 suspicions, to which historians for more than a 
 century bear witness — No fresh information 
 accounts for their disappearance. 
 
 IV. The Traditional Story 54 
 
 The old House of Lords and its surroundings — 
 House hired by the conspirators — They attempt 
 to dig a mine beneath the Peers' Chamber — Diffi- 
 culties and improbabilities of the account — The 
 " Cellar" hired — Its position and character — The 
 gunpowder bought and stored — Further problems 
 concerning it — The conspirators' plans — Contra- 
 dictions respecting them — Their wild and absurd 
 character — Impossibility of the supposition that 
 the proceedings escaped the notice of the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 V. The Government Intelligence Department . 93, 
 Evidence that the government were fully aware of 
 what was in progress — Various intelligence sup- 
 plied to them — Cecil's uneasiness on account of 
 the spread of Catholicity, and the king's communi- 
 cation with the pope — His evident determination 
 to force on James a policy of intolerance — He 
 intimates that a great move is about to be made, 
 and acknowledges to information concerning the 
 conspirators and their schemes — His political 
 methods illustrated. 
 
 VI. The "Discovery" 114. 
 
 Importance of the letter received by Lord Mont- 
 eagle — Extraordinary prominence given to it — 
 Monteagle's character — He receives the letter — 
 Suspicious circumstances connected with its 
 arrival — It is shown to Cecil — Hopeless contradic- 
 tions of the official narrative as to what followed 
 
CONTENTS. Xlll 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 — Impossibility of ascertaining what actually 
 occurred — The French version of the story — 
 The conduct of the government at variance 
 with their own professions — Their inexplicable 
 delay in making the discovery — They take no 
 precautions against the recurrence of danger — 
 The mystery of the gunpowder — Incredibility 
 of the official narration. 
 
 VII. Percy, Catesby, and Tresham .... 147 
 Probability that the government had an agent 
 among the conspirators — Suspicious circum- 
 stances regarding Percy — His private life — 
 His alleged intercourse with Cecil — His 
 death. 
 
 Catesby and Tresham likewise accused of 
 secret dealings with Cecil — Catesby's falsehood 
 towards his associates and Father Garnet — 
 Tresham's strange conduct after the discovery 
 — His mysterious death. 
 
 Alleged positive evidence against the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 VIII. The Government's Case i6j 
 
 A monopoly secured for the official narrative, 
 which is admittedly untruthful — Suspicions 
 suggested by such a course, especially in such 
 a case — The confessions of Faukes and Winter, 
 on which this narrative is based, deserve no 
 credit— Nor does the evidence of Bates against 
 Greenway — Indications of foul play in regard 
 of Robert Winter— The case of Owen, Baldwin 
 and Cresswell ; assertions made respecting 
 them of which no proof can be produced — 
 Effijrts to implicate Sir Walter Raleigh and 
 others — Falsification of evidence — The service 
 of forgers employed. 
 
 Catholic writers have drawn their accounts, 
 from the sources provided by the government. 
 
xiv CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 IX. The Sequel 209 
 
 Cecil well informed as to the real nature of the con- 
 spiracy, and apprehends no danger from it — At 
 once turns it to account by promoting anti- 
 Catholic legislation — Honour and popularity re- 
 sulting to him — Ruin of the Earl of Northumber- 
 land — Cecil's manifesto — His alleged attempt to 
 start a second plot. 
 
 The popular history of the Plot, and how it was 
 circulated — Singular suitability of the Fifth of 
 November for the " Discovery." 
 
 Summary of the argument. 
 
 Appendix A. Notes on the Illustrations . . 235 
 Appendix B. Sir Everard Digby's letter to Salis- 
 bury 245 
 
 Appendix C. The Question of Succession . . 249 
 
 Appendix D. The Spanish Treason . . . .251 
 
 Appendix E. Site of Percy's Lodging . . . 251 
 
 Appendix F. Enrolment of Conspirators . . 252 
 
 Appendix G. Henry Wright the Informer . . 254 
 
 Appendix H. Monteagle's Letter to King James . 256 
 
 Appendix I. Epitaph on Peter Heiwood . . 258 
 
 Appendix K. The Use of Torture .... 259 
 
 Appendix L. Myths and Legends of the Plot . 260 
 
 Appendix M. Memorial Inscriptions in the Tower 264 
 
 Appendix N. Guy Faukes' Published Confession . 268 
 
 Appendix O. Recusants' Fines 278 
 
 Index 281 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 PACK 
 
 1. Medal Commemorative of the Gunpowder 
 
 Plot Title-page 
 
 2. The Gunpowder Plot. I. . . Frontispiece 
 
 3- 11 » 11 II 9° 
 
 4. 1, ,1 1. Ill 215 
 
 5- 11 11 11 IV 227 
 
 6-11 1, 11 V 229 
 
 7. Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot . . .136 
 
 8. monteagle and letter 1 i 5 
 
 9. Arrest of Faukes 125 
 
 10. Guv Faukes' Lantern 139 
 
 11. Group of Conspirators 3 
 
 12. THOMAS Percy 149 
 
 13. Houses of Parliament in 1605 .... 56-7 
 
 14. Ground Plan of the Same 59 
 
 15. House of Lords in 1807 61 
 
 16. Interior of House of Lords, 1755 ... 97 
 
 17. Interior of "Cellar" 71 
 
 18. Arches from "Cellar" 75 
 
 19. Vault under Painted Chamber .... 73 
 
 20. Cell adjoining Painted Chamber ... 83 
 
 21. Facsimile of part of Winter's Confession, 
 
 Nov. 23 168 
 
 22. Signatures of Faukes and Oldcorne . .173 
 
 23. Facsimile of part of Faukes' Confession of 
 
 Nov. 9 199 
 
 24. Diagram of Fines exacted from Recusants . 279 
 
" Qais haac posteris sic na^are potefit, ut facta non ficta esse 
 videantur ? " 
 
 " Ages to come will be in doubt whether it were a. fact or a 
 fiction." 
 
 Sir Edw, Coke on the (rial of the Conspirators, 
 
WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER - 
 PLOT? 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE STATE OF THE QUESTION. 
 
 On the morning of Tuesday, the 5 th of November, 
 1605, which day was appointed for the opening of a 
 new Parliamentary session, London rang with the 
 news that in the course of the night a diabolical plot 
 had been discovered, by which the king and legis- 
 lature were to have been destroyed at a blow. In a 
 chamber beneath the House of Lords had been found 
 a great quantity of gunpowder, and with it a man, 
 calling himself John Johnson, who, finding that the 
 game was up, fully acknowledged his intention to 
 have fired the magazine while the royal speech was 
 being delivered, according to custom, overhead, and so 
 to have blown King, Lords, and Commons into the air. 
 At the same time, he doggedly refused to say who 
 were his accomplices, or whether he had any. 
 
 This is the earliest point at which the story of the 
 Gunpowder Plot can be taken up with any certainty. 
 Of what followed, at least as to the main outlines, we 
 
 B 
 
2 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 are sufficiently well informed. Johnson, whose true 
 name was presently found to be Guy, or Guido, 
 Faukes,' proved, it is true, a most obstinate and un- 
 satisfactory witness, and obstinately refused to give 
 any evidence which might incriminate others. But 
 the actions of his confederates quickly supplied the 
 information which he withheld. It was known that 
 the " cellar " in which the powder was found, as well 
 as a house adjacent, had been hired in the name of 
 one Thomas Percy, a Catholic gentleman, perhaps a 
 kinsman, and certainly a dependent, of the Earl of 
 Northumberland. It was now discovered that he and 
 •others of his acquaintance had fled from London on 
 the previous day, upon receipt of intelligence that the 
 plot seemed at least to be suspected. Not many hours 
 later the fugitives were heard of in Warwickshire, 
 Worcestershire, and Staffordshire, the native coun- 
 ties of several amongst them, attempting to rally 
 lothers to their desperate fortunes, and to levy war 
 against the crown. For this purpose they forcibly 
 seized cavalry horses ^ at Warwick, and arms at 
 Whewell Grange, a seat of Lord Windsor's. These 
 violent proceedings having raised the country behind 
 them, they were pursued by the sheriffs with what 
 forces could be got together, and finally brought to 
 bay at Holbeche, in Staffordshire, the residence of one 
 Stephen Littleton, a Catholic gentleman. 
 
 There proved to have been thirteen men in all who 
 had undoubtedly been participators in the treason. 
 Of these Faukes, as we have seen, was already in the 
 
 ^ So he himself always wrote it. 
 
 ' Also described as " Great Horses," or " Horses for the great 
 Saddle." 
 
THE RISING IN THE MIDLANDS. 3 
 
 Tiands of justice. Another, Francis Tresham, had not 
 fled with his associates, but remained quietly, and 
 without attempting concealment, in London, even 
 going to the council and offering them his services ; 
 after a week he was taken into custody. The eleven 
 who either betook themselves to the country, or were 
 already there, awaiting the issue of the enterprise, and 
 
 Rcicrr 
 
 Wtnur 
 
 - Cbrisifehei' 7 r 
 
 THE CONSPIRATORS, FROM A PRINT PUBLISHED AT 
 AMSTERDAM. 
 
 prepared to co-operate in the rising which was to be 
 its sequel, were Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, Robert 
 and Thomas Winter, John and Christopher Wright, 
 John Grant, Robert Keyes, Ambrose Rokewood, Sir 
 Everard. Digby,and Thomas Bates. All were Catholics, 
 and all, with the exception of Bates, Catesby's servant, 
 were " gentlemen of blood and name," some of them, 
 notably Robert Winter, Rokewood, Digby, and Tres- 
 ham, being men of ample fortune. 
 
4 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 On Friday, November 8th, three days after the dis- 
 covery. Sir Richard Walsh, sheriff of Worcestershire, 
 attacked Holbeche. Catesby, Percy, and the two 
 Wrights were killed or mortally wounded in the 
 assault. The others were taken prisoners on the spot 
 or in its neighbourhood, with the exception of Robert 
 Winter, who, accompanied by their host, Stephen 
 Littleton, contrived to elude capture for upwards of 
 two months, being at last apprehended, in January, at 
 Hagley Hall, Worcestershire. All the prisoners were 
 at once taken up to London, and being there confined, 
 were frequently and diligently examined by the council, 
 to trace, if possible, farther ramifications of the con- 
 spiracy, and especially to inculpate the Catholic 
 clergy.' Torture, it is evident, was employed with 
 this object. 
 
 Meanwhile, on November 9th, King James addressed 
 to his Parliament a speech, wherein he declared that 
 the abominable crime which had been intended was 
 the direct result of Catholic principles. Popery being^ 
 " the true mystery of iniquity." In like manner 
 Chichester, the Lord Deputy in Ireland, was informed 
 by Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, his Majesty's Secretary of 
 State, that the Plot was an " abominable practice of 
 Rome and Satan," ^ while the monarch himself sent 
 word to Sir John Harington that " these designs were 
 not formed by a few," that "the whole legion of 
 Catholics were consulted," that " the priests were to^ 
 
 ^ " The great object of the Government now was to obtain: 
 evidence against the priests." — Gardiner, History of England^ 
 i. 267. Ed. 1883. 
 
 '^ See his despatch in reply. Irish State Papers, vol. 217, 95.., 
 Cornwallis received Cecil's letter on November 22nd. 
 
GROWTH OF THE STORY. 5 
 
 pacify their consciences, and the Pope confirm a 
 general absolution for this glorious deed." ^ 
 
 Then follows an interval during which we know 
 little of the course of events which were proceeding in 
 the seclusion of the council-room and torture-chamber ; 
 but on December 4th we find Cecil complaining that 
 he could obtain little or no evidence against the really- 
 important persons : " Most of the prisoners," he writes," 
 " have wilfully forsworn that the priests knew anything 
 in particular, and obstinately refuse to be accusers of 
 them, yea, what torture soever they be put to." 
 
 On January 15th, 1605-6, a proclamation was issued 
 declaring that the Jesuit fathers, John Gerard, Henry 
 Garnet, and Oswald Greenway, or Tesimond, were 
 proved to have been " peculiarly practisers " in the 
 treason, and offering a reward for their apprehension. 
 On the 2 1st of the same month Parliament met, having 
 been prorogued immediately after the king's speech of 
 November 9th, and four days later an Act was passed 
 for the perpetual solemnization of the anniversary of 
 the projected- crime, the preamble whereof charged its 
 guilt upon " Many malignant and devilish papists, 
 Jesuits, and seminary priests, much envying the true 
 and free possession of the Gospel by the nation, under 
 the greatest, most learned, and most religious monarch 
 who had ever occupied the throne." ' 
 
 In consequence of this Act, was introduced into the 
 Anglican liturgy the celebrated Fifth of November 
 service, in the collect of which the king, royal family, 
 
 ' See Hai-ington's account of the king's message, Nuga 
 Antiqua, i. 374. 
 
 "^ To Favat. (Copy) Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, fol 625. 
 •'' Statutes : Anno 3° J^cobi, c. i. 
 
6 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 nobility, clergy, and commons are spoken of as having 
 been " by Popish treachery appointed as sheep to the 
 slaughter, in a most barbarous and savage manner, 
 beyond the examples of former ages ; " while the day 
 itself was marked in the calendar as the " Papists' 
 Conspiracy." 
 
 It will thus be seen that the Powder Plot was by this 
 time officially stigmatized as the work of the Catholic ' 
 body in general, and in particular of their priests ; thus 
 acquiring an importance and a significance which could 
 not be attributed to it were it but the wild attempt of 
 a few turbulent men. As a natural corollary we find 
 Parliament busily engaged upon measures to insure 
 the more effectual execution of the penal laws.' 
 
 On January 27th the surviving conspirators, Robert 
 and Thomas Winter, Faukes, Grant, Rokewood, Keyes, 
 Digby, and Bates,^ were put upon their trial. In the 
 indictment preferred against them, it was explicitly 
 stated that the Plot was contrived by Garnet, Gerard, 
 Greenway, and other Jesuits, to whose traitorous per- 
 suasions the prisoners at the bar had wickedly yielded. 
 All were found guilty, Digby, Robert Winter, Grant, 
 and Bates being executed at the west end of St. Paul's 
 Church, on January the 30th, and the rest on the 
 following day in- Old Palace Yard. 
 
 ' This work was taken in hand by the Commons, when, in 
 spite of the alarming circumstances of the time, they met on 
 November 5th, and was carried on at every subsequent sitting. 
 The Lords also met on the 5th, but transacted no business. 
 Journals of Parliament. 
 
 ' Tresham had died in the Tower, December 22nd. Although 
 he had not been tried, his remains were treated as those of a 
 traitor, his head being cut off and fixed above the gates of 
 Northampton {flom. James I. xvii. 62.) 
 
FATHER GARNET. 7 
 
 On the very day upon which the first company 
 suffered, Father Garnet, whose hiding-place was 
 known, and who had been closely invested for nine 
 days, was captured, in company with another Jesuit, 
 Father Oldcorne. The latter, though never charged 
 with knowledge of the plot, was put to death for 
 having aided and abetted Garnet in his attempt to 
 escape. Garnet himself, being brought to London, 
 was lodged first in the Gatehouse and afterwards in 
 the Tower. 
 
 As we have seen, he had already been proclaimed 
 as a traitor, and "particular practiser" in the con- 
 spiracy, and had moreover been officially described as 
 the head and front of the treason. Of the latter 
 charge, after his capture, nothing was ever heard. Of 
 his participation, proofs, it appeared, still remained to 
 be discovered, for on the 3rd of March Cecil still spoke 
 of them as in the future.^ In order to obtain the 
 required evidence of his complicity, Garnet was. 
 examined three-and-twenty times before the council, 
 and, in addition, various artifices were practised which 
 need not now be detailed. On the 28th of March, 
 1606, he was brought to trial, and on May 3rd he was 
 hanged at St. Paul's. The Gunpowder Conspirators 
 were thenceforth described in government publica- 
 tions as " Garnet, a Jesuit, and his confederates." 
 
 Such is, in outline, the course of events which 
 followed the discovery of November 5 th, all circum- 
 
 ' " That which remaineth is but this, to assure you that ere 
 many dales you shall hear that Father Garnet ... is layd open 
 for a principall conspirator even in the particular Treason of the 
 Powder." — To Sir Henry Bruncard, P. R. O. Ireland, vol. 218, 
 March 3rd, 1605-6. Also (Calendar) Dom. James I. .xix. 10. 
 
8 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Stances being here omitted which are by possibility- 
 open to dispute. 
 
 It will probably be maintained, as our best and 
 most circumspect historians appear to have assumed, 
 that we are in possession of information enabling us 
 to construct a similar sketch of what preceded and 
 led up to these events, — whatever obscurity there 
 may be regarding the complicity of those whose 
 participation would invest the plot with the signifi- 
 cance which has been attributed to it. If it were 
 indeed but the individual design of a small knot of 
 men, acting for themselves and of themselves, then, 
 though they were all Catholics, and were actuated by 
 a desire to aid the Catholic cause, the crime they 
 intended could not justly be charged upon the body of 
 their co-religionists. It would be quite otherwise if- 
 Catholics in general were shown to have countenanced 
 it, or even if such representative men as members of 
 the priesthood were found to have approved so 
 abominable a project, or even to have consented to it, 
 or knowingly kept silence regarding it. Of the com- 
 plicity of Catholics in general or of their priesthood as 
 a body there is no proof whatever, nor has it ever been 
 seriously attempted to establish such a charge. As 
 to the three Jesuits already named, who alone have 
 been seriously accused, there is no proof, the suffi- 
 ciency of which may not be questioned. But as to 
 the fact that they who originated the Plot were 
 Catholics, that they acted simply with the object of 
 benefiting their Church, and that the nation most- 
 narrowly escaped an appalling disaster at their hands, 
 can there be any reasonable doubt ? Is not the account 
 of their proceedings, to be read in any work on the 
 
THE TRADITIONAL STORY. 9 
 
 subject, as absolutely certain as anything in our 
 history ? 
 
 This account is as follows. About a year after the 
 
 Recession of James I./ when it began to be evident that 
 ti»? hopes of toleration at his hands, which the 
 Catholics had entertained, were to be disappointed, 
 Robert Catesby, a man of strong character, and with an 
 extraordinary power of influencing others, bethought 
 him in his wrath of this means whereby to take sum- 
 mary vengeance at once upon the monarch and the 
 legislators, under whose cruelty he himself and his 
 fellows were groaning. The plan was proposed to 
 John Wright and Thomas Winter, who approved it. 
 
 ~Faukes was brought over from the Low Countries, 
 as a man likely to be of much service in such an 
 enterprise. Shortly afterwards Percy joined them," 
 and somewhat later Keyes and Christopher Wright 
 were added to their number.' All the asso- 
 ciates were required to take an oath of secrecy,* 
 
 ' In Lent, 1603-4. Easter fell that year on April 8th. 
 
 ' "About the middle of Easter Term." — Thomas Wititer's 
 declaration, of November 23rd, 1605. 
 
 ' " Keyes, about a month before Michaelmas." — Ibid. About 
 Christopher Wright there is much confusion, Faukes (November 
 17th, 1605) implying that he was introduced before Christmas, 
 and Thomas Winter (November 23rd 1605) that it was about a 
 fortnight after the following Candlemas, i.e., about the middle of 
 February. 
 ^*^The form of this oath is thus given in the official account : 
 *' You shall swear by the blessed Trinity, and by the Sacrament 
 j'ou now propose to receive, never to disclose directly or indi- 
 rectly, by word or circumstance, the matter that shall be pro- 
 posed to you to keep secret, nor desist from the execution thereof 
 until the rest shall give you leave." . It is a singular circumstance 
 that the form of this oath, which was repeated in official pub- 
 
lO WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 and to confirm it by receiving Holy Commu- 
 nion.^ 
 
 These are the seven " gentlemen of blood and 
 name," as Faukes describes them, who had the main 
 hand in the operations which we have to study. At a 
 later period six others were associated with them, 
 Robert Winter, elder brother of Thomas, and Grant, 
 both gentlemen of property. Bates, Catesby's servant, 
 and finally, Rokewood, Digby, and Tresham, all rich 
 men, who were brought in chiefly for the sake of their 
 wealth, and were enlisted when the preparations for the 
 intended explosion had all been completed, in view of 
 the rising^ which was to follow.^ 
 
 Commiencing operations about the middle of 
 December, 1604, these confederates first endeavoured 
 to dig a mine under the House of Lords, and after- 
 
 lications, with an emphasis itself inexplicable, occurs in only one 
 of the conspirators' confessions, viz., the oft-quoted declaration of 
 T. Winter, November 23rd, 1605. This — as we shall see, a most 
 suspicious document — was one of the two selected for publication, 
 on which the traditional history of the plot depends. Curiously 
 enough, however, the oath, with sundry other matters, was 
 omitted from the published version of the confession^^ 
 
 [Published in the " King's Book : " copy, or draftj^r publica- 
 tion, in the Record Office : original at Hatfield. Copy of original 
 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 6178, 75.] 
 
 ' T. Winter says : " 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." — Declaration, November 
 23rd, 1605. 
 
 ^ Digby was enlisted "about Michaelmas, 1605 ;" Rokewood- 
 -about a month before the 5th of November. Tresham gives 
 October 14th as the date of his own initiation. Examination^ 
 November 13th, 1605. 
 
THE TRADITIONAL STORY. II 
 
 wards hired a large room, described as a cellar, 
 situated beneath the Peers' Chamber, and in this 
 stored a quantity pf gunpowder, which Faukes was 
 to fire by a train, while the King, Lords, and Commons, 
 wepe assembled above. 
 
 ■^^nTheir enemies being thus destroyed, they did 
 not contemplate a revolution, but were resolved to 
 get possession of one of the king's sons, or, failing 
 that, of one of his daughters, whom they would 
 proclaim as sovereign, constituting themselves, the 
 guardians of the new monarch. They also contrived 
 a " hunting match " on Dunsmoor heath, near Rugby, 
 which was to be in progress when the news of the 
 catastrophe in London should arrive ; the sportsmen 
 assembled for which would furnish, it was hoped, the 
 nucleus of an army.^/^ 
 
 Meanwhile, as we are assured— and this is the 
 crucial point of the whole story-ythe government of 
 James I. had no suspicion of what was going on, and, 
 lulled in false security, were on the verge of destruc- 
 tion, when a lucky circumstance intervened. On 
 October 26th, ten days before the meeting of Parlia- 
 ment, a Catholic peer, Lord Monteagle, received an 
 anonymous letter, couched in vague and incoherent 
 language, warning him to absent himself from the 
 opening ceremony. This document Monteagle at 
 once took to the king's prime minister, Robert Cecil, 
 Earl of Salisbury, who promptly divined its meaning 
 and the precise danger indicated, although he allowed 
 King James to fancy that he was himself the first to 
 interpret it, when it was shown to him five days later.' 
 
 ' This is clear from a comparison of Cecil's private letter 
 to Cornwallis and others (Win wood, Memorials, ii. 170), with 
 
12 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Not for four other days were active steps taken, that 
 is, till the early morning of the fatal Fifth. Then took 
 place the discovery" of which we have already heard. 
 
 Such is, in brief, the accepted version of the history, 
 and of its substantial correctness there is commonly 
 assumed to be no room for reasonable doubt. As 
 Mr. Jardine writes,' " The outlines of the transaction 
 were too notorious to be suppressed or disguised ; 
 that a design had been formed to blow up the 
 Parliament House, with the King, the Royal Family, 
 the Lords and Commons, and that this design was 
 formed by Catholic men and for Catholic purposes, 
 could never admit of controversy or concealment." In 
 like manner, while acknowledging that in approaching 
 the question of Father Garnet's complicity, or that of 
 other priests, we find ourselves upon uncertain ground, 
 Mr. Gardiner has no hesitation in declaring that " the 
 whole story of the plot, as far as it relates to the lay 
 Conspirators, rests upon indisputable evidence." ° 
 
 Nevertheless there appear to be considerations, 
 demanding more attention than they have hitherto 
 received, which forbid the supposition that, in regard 
 of what is most vital, this official story can possibly 
 be true ; while the extreme care with which it has 
 obviously been elaborated, suggests the conclusion 
 that it was intended to disguise facts, to the conceal- 
 ment of which the government of the day attached 
 supreme importance. 
 
 As has been said, the cardinal point of the tale, as 
 
 the official account published in the Discourse of the manner oj 
 the Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. 
 
 ' Criminal Trials, ii. 3. 
 
 ^ History of England, i. 269 (1883). 
 
HISTORIC DOUBTS. I J 
 
 commonly told, is that the Plot was a secret and 
 dangerous conspiracy, conducted with so much craft 
 as to have baffled detection, but for a lucky accident ; 
 that the vigilance of the authorities was completely at 
 fault ; and that they found themselves suddenly on 
 the very brink of a terrible catastrophe of which they 
 had no suspicion/ If, on the contrary, it should appear 
 that they had ample information of what was going 
 on, while feigning absolute ignorance ; that they 
 studiously devised a false account of the manner in 
 which it came to their knowledge ; and that their 
 whole conduct is quite inconsistent with that sense of 
 imminent danger which they so loudly professed — the 
 question inevitably suggests itself as to whether we 
 can rely upon the authenticity of the opening chapters 
 of a history, the conclusion of which has been so 
 dexterously manipulated. 
 
 A French writer has observed ^ that the plots under- 
 taken under Elizabeth and James I. have this feature 
 in common, that they proved, one and all, extremely 
 opportune for those against whom they were directed. 
 To this law the Gunpowder Plot was no exception.. 
 . Whatever be the true history of its origin,^certainly 
 placfidJjLthe hands of the king's chief minister a most 
 effective weapon for the enforcement of his favourite 
 
 ' " We had all been blowne up at a clapp, if God out of His. 
 Mercie and just Reuenge against so great an Abomination, had 
 not destined it to be discovered, though very miraculously, even 
 some twelve Houres before the matter should have been put in 
 execution." — Cecil to Cornwallis, November 9th, 1605. Win- 
 wood, Memorials, ii. 170. 
 
 ' M. I'Abb^ Destombes, La persecution en Angleterre sous le- 
 rlgite d' Elizabeth, p. 176. 
 
14 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 policy, and very materially strengthened his own 
 position.^Without doubt the sensational manner of 
 its "discovery" largely contributed to its success in 
 this respect ; and if this were ingeniously contrived 
 for such a purpose, may it not be that a like ingenuity 
 had been employed in providing the material destined 
 to be so artistically utilized ? 
 
 There can be no question as to the wide prevalence 
 of the belief that previous plots had owed their origin 
 to the policy of the statesmen who finally detected 
 them, a belief witnessed to by Lord Castlemaine,^ who 
 declares that " it was a piece of wit in Queen Eliza- 
 beth's days to draw men into such devices," and that 
 ■" making and fomenting plots was then in fashion ; 
 nor can it be denied that good grounds for such an 
 ■opinion were not lacking. The unfortunate man 
 Squires had been executed on the ridiculous charge 
 that he had come over from Spain in order to poison 
 the pommel of Queen Elizabeth's saddle. Dr. Parry, we 
 are informed by Bishop Goodman, whose verdict is en- 
 dorsed by Mr. Brewer,^ was put to death by those who 
 knew him to be guiltless in their regard, they having 
 themselves employed him in the business for which 
 he suffered. Concerning Babington's famous plot, it 
 is absolutely certain that, whatever its origin, it was, 
 almost from the first, fully known. to Walsingham, 
 through whose hands passed the correspondence be- 
 tween the conspirators, and who assiduously worked 
 the enterprise, in order to turn it to the destruction of 
 the Queen of Scots. As to Lopez, the Jewish 
 physician, it is impossible not to concur in the verdict 
 
 ^ Catholique Apology, third edition, p. 403. 
 " Goodman's Court of King James, i. 121. 
 
PLOTS UNDER ELIZABETH. 1 5 
 
 that his condemnation was at least as much owing to 
 poHtical intrigue as to the weight of evidence.^ Con- 
 cerning this period Mr. Brewer says : " The Roman 
 Catholics seem to have made just complaints of the 
 subtle and unworthy artifices of Leicester and Wal- 
 singham, by whom they were entrapped into the guilt 
 of high treason. ' And verily,' as [Camden] expresses 
 it, there were at this time crafty ways devised to try 
 how men stood affected ; counterfeit letters were sent 
 in the name of the Queen of Scots and left at papists' 
 houses ; spies were sent up and down the country t© 
 note people's dispositions and lay hold of their words ; 
 and reporters of vain and idle stories were credited 
 and encouraged."^ Under King James,^ as Bishop 
 Goodman declares, the priest Watson was hanged for 
 treason by those who had employed him.* 
 
 It must farther be observed that the particular Plot 
 which is our subject was stamped with certain features 
 more than commonly suspicious. Even on the face 
 of things, as will be seen from the summary already 
 given, it was steadily utilized from the first for a pur- 
 
 ' Mr. Sidney Lee, Dictionary of National Biography, sub nom 
 
 ' Goodman's Court of King James, i. 121. Ed. J. S. Brewer. 
 
 " Court of King James, p. 64. 
 
 * Of this affair,— the " Bye " and the " Main,"— Goodman says, 
 *' [This] I did ever think to be an old relic of the treasons in 
 •Q. Elizabeth's time, and that George Brooks was the contriver 
 thereof, who being brother-in-law to the Secretary, and having 
 great wit, small means, and a vast expense, did only try men's 
 allegiance, and had an intent to betray one another, but were all 
 taken napping and so involved in one net. This in effect appears 
 Ijy Brooks' confession ; and certainly K. James . . . had no 
 opinion of that treason, and therefore was pleased to pardon all 
 save only Brooks and the priests." — Court of King James, i. 160. 
 
WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 tpose which it could not legitimately be made to serve. 
 rThat the Catholics of England, as a body, had any 
 connection with it there is not, nor ever appeared to 
 be, any vestige of a proof; still less that the official 
 superiors of theChurch, including thePope himself, were 
 concerned in it. ,_Y£t_ the first act of the government 
 was to lay Jt..at-th€-de&r-ef--alLjJiese, thus investing it 
 with a character which was, indeed, eminently fitted 
 to sustain their own policy, but to which it was no- 
 wise entitled. Even in regard of Father Garnet and 
 his fellow Jesuits, whatever judgment may now be 
 formed concerning them, it is clear that it was deter- 
 mined to connect them with the conspiracy long 
 before any evidence at all was forthcoming to sustain 
 the charge. The actual confederates were, in fact, 
 treated throughout as in themselves of little or no 
 account, and as important only in so far as they might 
 consent to incriminate those whom the authorities 
 wished to be incri minat ed^ ^ 
 
 The detemiined manner in which this object was 
 ever kept in view, the unscrupulous means constantly 
 employed for its attainment, the vehemence with 
 which matters were asserted to have been proved, any 
 proof of which was never even seriously attempted — 
 in a word, the elaborate system of falsification by 
 which alone the story of the conspiracy was made to 
 suit the purpose it so effectually served, can inspire us- 
 with no confidence that the foundation upon which 
 such a superstructure was erected, was itself what it 
 was said to be. 
 
 On the other hand, when we examine into the 
 details supplied to us as to the progress of the affair, 
 we find that much of what the conspirators are said 
 
DIFFICULTIES AND DOUBTS. 1/ 
 
 to have done is well-nigh incredible, while it is utterly- 
 impossible that if they really acted in the manner 
 described, the public authorities should not have had 
 full knowledge of their proceedings. We also find 
 not only that the same authorities, while feigning 
 ignorance of anything of the kind, were perfectly well 
 aware that these very conspirators had something in 
 hand, but that long before the " discovery," in fact, at 
 the very time when the conspiracy is said to have been 
 hatched, their officials were working a Catholic plot, by 
 means of secret agents, and even making arrangements 
 as to who were to be implicated therein. 
 
 These are, in brief, some of the considerations which 
 point to a conclusion utterly at variance with the 
 received version of the story, the conclusion, namely, 
 that, for purposes of State, the government of the day 
 either found means to instigate the conspirators to 
 undertake their enterprise, or, at least, being, from an 
 early stage of the undertaking, fully aware of what 
 was going on, sedulously nursed the insane scheme 
 till the time came to make capital out of it. That the 
 conspirators, or the greater number of them, really 
 meant to strike a great blow is not to be denied, 
 though it may be less easy to assure ourselves as to 
 its precise character ; and their guilt will not be pal- 
 liated should it appear that, in projecting an atrocious 
 crime, they were unwittingly playing the game of 
 plotters more astute than themselves. At the same 
 time, while fully endorsing the sentiment of a Catholic 
 writer,' that they who suffer themselves to be drawn 
 into a plot like fools, deserve to be hanged for it like 
 
 ' A plain and rational account of the Catholick Faith, etc. 
 Rouen, 1721, p. ,200. 
 
 C 
 
l8 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 knaves, it is impossible not to agree with another 
 when he writes : ' " This account does not excuse the 
 conspirators, but lays a heavy weight upon the devils 
 who tempted them beyond their strength." 
 
 The view thus set forth will perhaps be considered 
 unworthy of serious discussion, and it must be fully 
 admitted, that there can be no excuse for making 
 charges such as it involves, unless solid grounds can 
 be alleged for so doing. That any such grounds are 
 to be found historians of good repute utterly deny. 
 Mr. Hallam roundly declares : ' "To deny that there 
 was such a plot, or, which is the same thing, to throw- 
 the whole on the contrivance and management of 
 Cecil, as has sometimes been done, argues great 
 effrontery in those who lead, and great stupidity in 
 those who follow." Similarly, Mr. Gardiner,' while 
 allowing that contemporaries accused Cecil of invent- 
 ing the Plot, is content to dismiss such a charge as 
 " absurd." 
 
 Whether it be so or not we have now to inquire. 
 
 ' Dodd, Church History of England, Brussels, 1739, i- 334- 
 " Constitutional History, i. 406, note, Seventh Edition. In 
 the same note the historian, discussing the case of Father Garnet, 
 speaks of " the damning circumstance that he was taken at 
 Hendlip in concealment along with the other conspirators." He 
 who wrote thus can have had but a slight acquaintance with the 
 details of the history. None of the conspirators, except Robert 
 Winter, who was captured at Hagley Hall, were taken in con- 
 cealment, and none at Hendlip, where there is no reason to 
 suppose they ever were. Father Garnet was discovered there, 
 nearly three months later, in company with another Jesuit, Father 
 Oldcorne, on the very day when the conspirators were executed 
 in London, and it was never alleged that he had ever, upon any 
 occasion, been seen in company with " the other conspirators-." 
 ' History, i. 255, note. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE PERSONS CONCERNED. 
 
 /At the period with which we have to deal the chief 
 minister of James I. was Robert Cecil, Earl of Salis- 
 buryy'me political heir of his father, William Cecil, 
 Lord Burghley,'' and of Walsingham, his predecessor 
 in the office of secretary. It is clear that he had 
 inherited from them ideas of statesmanship of the 
 order then in vogue, and from nature, the kind of 
 ability required to put these successfully in practice. 
 Sir Robert Naunton thus describes him : ' 
 
 " This great minister of state, and the staff of the 
 Queen's declining age, though his little crooked 
 person * could not provide any great supportation, yet 
 
 ' When James came to the throne Cecil was but a knight. 
 He was created Baron Cecil of Essendon, May 13th, 1603 ; 
 Viscount Cranbome, August 20th, 1604 ; Earl of Salisbury, 
 May 4th, 1605. 
 
 " Robert,' as the second son, did not succeed to his father's 
 title, which devolved upon Thomas, the eldest, who was created 
 Earl of Exeter on the same day on which Robert became Earl 
 of Salisbury'. 
 
 ' Fragmenta Regalia, 37. Ed. 1642. 
 
 *■ He was but little above five feet in height, and, in the phrase 
 of the time, a " Crouchback." King James, who was not a man of 
 much delicacy in such matters, was fond of giving him nicknames 
 in consequence. Cecil wrote to Sir Thomas Lake, October 24th, 
 1605 I " I see nothing y' I can doe, can procure me so much 
 
20 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 it carried thereon a head and a headpiece of vast 
 content, and therein, it seems, nature was so diligent 
 to complete one, and the best, part about him, as that 
 to the perfection of his memory and intellectuals, she- 
 took care also of his senses, and to put him in Lynceos 
 oculos, or to pleasure him the more, borrowed of Argus, 
 so to give him a perfective sight. And for the rest of 
 his sensitive virtues, his predecessor had left him a 
 receipt, to smell out what was done in the Conclave ; 
 and his good old father was so well seen in the 
 mathematicks, as that he could tell you throughout 
 Spain, every part, every ship, with their burthens, 
 whither bound, what preparation, what impediments- 
 for diversion of enterprises, counsels, and resolutions."' 
 The writer then proceeds to give a striking instance 
 to show " how docible was this little man." 
 
 Of his character, as estimated by competent judges, 
 his contemporaries, we have very different accounts. 
 Mr. Gardiner, who may fairly be chosen to represent 
 his apologists, speaks thjis :' 
 
 " Although there are circumstances in his life which 
 tell against him, it is difficult to read the whole of the 
 letters and documents which have come down to us. 
 from his pen, without becoming gradually convinced 
 of his honesty of intention. It cannot be denied that 
 he was satisfied with the ordinary morality of his. 
 
 favor, as to be sure one whole day what title I shall have another.. 
 For from Essenden to Cranborne, from Cranborne to Salisbury,, 
 from Salisbury to Beagle, from Beagle to Thom Derry, from 
 Thom Derry to Parret which I hate most, I have been so walked, 
 as I think by y' I come to Theobalds, I shall be called Tare 
 or Sophie." (R. O. Dom. James I. xv. 105.) 
 ' History, i. 92. 
 
ROBERT CECIL. 2r 
 
 time, and that he thought it no shame to keep a State 
 secret or to discover a plot by means of a falsehood. 
 If he grasped at power as one who took pleasure in 
 the exercise of it, he used it for what he regarded as 
 the true interests of his king and country. Nor are 
 we left to his own acts and words as the only means 
 by which we are enabled to form a judgment of his 
 ■character. Of all the statesmen of the day, not one 
 has left a more blameless character than the Earl of 
 Dorset. Dorset took the opportunity of leaving upon 
 record in his will, which would not be read till he had 
 no longer injury or favour to expect in this world, the 
 very high admiration in which his colleague was held 
 by him." 
 
 This, it must be allowed, is a somewhat facile 
 species of argument. Though wills are not formally 
 opened until after the testators' deaths, it is not 
 impossible for their contents to be previously com- 
 municated to others, when there is an object for so 
 doing.' But, however this may be, it can scarcely be 
 said that the weight of evidence tends in this direction. 
 Not to mention the fact that, while enjoying the entire 
 confidence of Queen Elizabeth, Cecil was engaged in 
 a secret correspondence with King James, which she 
 would have regarded as treasonable — and which he so 
 carefully concealed that for a century afterwards and 
 more it was not suspected — there remains the other 
 indubitable fact, that while similarly trusted by James, 
 and while all affairs of State were entirely in his hands, 
 he was in receipt of a secret pension from the King of 
 
 ^ In the same document James I. is spoken of as "the most 
 judycious, learned, and rareste kinge, that ever this worlde pro- 
 duced." (R. O. Dom. James I. xxviii. 29.) 
 
22 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Spain,' the very monarch any communication with 
 whom he treated as treason on the part of others.^ 
 It is certain that the Earl of Essex, when on his trial, 
 asserted that Cecil had declared the Spanish Infanta 
 to be the rightful heir to the crown, and though the 
 secretary vehemently denied the imputation, he 
 equally repudiated the notion that he favoured the 
 King of Scots.'' We know, moreover, that one who 
 as Spanish Ambassador had dealings with him, pro- 
 nounced him to be a venal traitor, who was ready to 
 sell his soul for money,* while another intimated ^ that 
 
 ' Digby to the King, S. P., Spain, Aug .8. Gardiner, History, 
 ii. 216. 
 
 ^ At the trial of Essex, Cecil exclaimed, " I pray God to con- 
 sume me where I stand, if I hate not the Spaniard as much as 
 any man living." (Bruce, Introduction to Secret Correspondence 
 of Sir R. Cecil, xxxiii.) 
 
 Of the Spanish pension Mr. Gardiner, after endeavouring to 
 show that originally Cecil's acceptance of it may have been com- 
 paratively innocent, thus continues {History of England, i. 
 216) : " But it is plain that, even if this is the explanation of his 
 original intentions, such a comparatively innocent connection 
 with Spain soon extended itself to something worse, and that he 
 consented to furnish the ambassadors, from time to time, with 
 information on the policy and intentions of the English Govern- 
 ment. ... Of the persistence with which he exacted payment 
 there can be no doubt whatever. Five years later, whgn the 
 opposition between the two governments became more decided, 
 he asked for an increase of his payments, and demanded that 
 they should be made in large sums as each piece of information, 
 was given." 
 
 At the same time it appears highly probable that he was 
 similarly in the pay of France. Ibid. 
 
 " Queen Elizabeth regarded as treasonable any discussion of 
 the question of the succession. 
 
 ^ Gardiner, i. 215. 
 
 ° Chamberlain to Carleton, July 9th, 1612, R. O. 
 
ROBERT CECIL. 23 
 
 it was in his power to have charged him with " un- 
 warrantable practices." Similarly, we hear from the 
 French minister of the ingrained habit of falsehood 
 which made it impossible for the English secretary to 
 speak the truth even to friends;' and, from the French 
 Ambassador, of the resolution imputed to the same 
 statesman, to remove from his path every rival who 
 seemed likely to jeopardize his tenure of power.^ 
 
 What was the opinion of his own countrymen, 
 appeared with startling emphasis when, in 16 12, the 
 Earl died. On May 22nd we find the Earl of 
 Northampton writing to Rochester that the "little 
 man " is dead, " for which so many rejoice, and so few 
 even seem to be sorry." ' Five days later. Chamber- 
 lain, writing* to his friend Dudley Carleton, to 
 announce the same event, thus expresses himself: 
 " As the case stands it was best that he gave over the 
 world, for they say his friends fell from him apace, 
 and some near about him, and however he had fared 
 
 ' " Tout ce que vous a dit le Comte de Salisbury touchant le 
 mariage d'Espagne est rempli de deguisements et artifices k 
 son accoutum^e. . . . Toutefois, je ne veux pas jurer qu'ils 
 negocient plus sincerement et de meilleur foi avec lesdites Es- 
 pagnols qu'avec nous. lis corromproient par trop leur nature!, 
 s'ils le faisoient, pour des gens qui ne leur scauroient gufere de 
 grd." — Le Ffevre de la Boderie, Ambassade, i. 170. 
 
 ^ (Of the Earl of Northumberland.) " On tient le Comte de 
 Salisbury pour principal auteur de sa persecution, comme celui 
 qui veut ne laisser personne en pied qui puisse lui faire tete." 
 De la Boderie. Ibid. 178. 
 
 ' R. O. Dom. James I. Ixix. 56. 
 
 * Ibid., May 27, 1612. Bishop Goodman, no enemy of Cecil, 
 is inclined to believe that at the time of the secretary's death 
 there was a warrant out for his arrest. Courl of King James, 
 i. 4S. 
 
24 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 with his health, it is verily thought he would never 
 have been himself again in power and credit. I never 
 knew so great a man so soon and so openly censured, 
 for men's tongues walk very liberally and freely, but 
 how truly I cannot judge." On June 25th he again re- 
 ports : " The outrageous speeches against the deceased 
 Lord continue still, and there be fresh libels come out 
 every day, and I doubt his actions will be hardly 
 censured in the next parliament, if the King be not 
 the more gracious to repress them." Moreover, his 
 funeral was attended by few or none of the gentry, 
 and those only were present whose official position 
 compelled them. His own opinion Chamberlain 
 expresses in two epigrams and an anagram, which, 
 although of small literary merit, contrive clearly to 
 express the most undisguised animosity and contempt 
 for the late minister.' 
 
 There is abundant proof that such sentiments were 
 not first entertained when he had passed away, though, 
 naturally, they were less openly expressed when he was 
 alive and practically all powerful. Cecil seems, in fact, 
 to have been throughout his career a lonely man, with 
 
 ' The first of these epigrams, in Latin, concludes thus : 
 
 Sero, Recurve, moreris sad serio ; 
 Sero, jaces (bis mortuus) sed serio : 
 Sero saluti publicse, serio tuae. 
 
 The second is in English : 
 
 Whiles two RR's, both crouchbacks, stood at the helm, 
 
 The one spilt the the blood royall, the other the realm. 
 
 A marginal note explains that these were, " Richard Duke of 
 
 Gloster, and Robert Earl of Salisburie ;" the anagram, of which 
 
 title is "A silie burs." He also styles the late minister a 
 
 monkey {cercopitheais) and hobgoblin (empusa). 
 
ROBERT CECIL. 2$ 
 
 no real friends and many enemies, desperately fighting 
 for his own hand, and for the retention of that power 
 which he prized above all else, aspiring, as a con- 
 temporary satirist puts it, to be " both shepherd and 
 dog."' Since the accession of James he had felt 
 his tenure of office to be insecure. Goodman tells 
 us ' that " it is certain the king did not love him ; " 
 Osborne,'' " that he had forfeited the love of the people 
 by the hate he expressed to their darling Essex, and 
 the desire he had to render justice and prerogative 
 arbitrary." * Sir Anthony Weldon speaks of him ' as 
 
 ' Osborne, Traditional Memoirs, p. 236 (ed. 181 1). 
 
 ^ Court of King James, i. 44. 
 
 ' Traditional Memoirs, 181. 
 
 ^ This feeling was expressed in lampoons quoted by Osborne 
 e.g-. : 
 
 " Here lies Hobinall, our pastor while here, 
 
 That once in a quarter our fleeces did sheare. 
 
 For oblation to Pan his custom was thus, 
 
 He first gave a trifle, then oflisr'd up us : 
 
 And through his false worship such power he did gaine, 
 
 As kept him o' th' mountain, and us on the plaine." 
 
 Again, he is described as 
 
 " Little bossive Robin that was so great. 
 Who seemed as sent from ugly fate, 
 To spoyle the prince, and rob the state, 
 Owning a mind of dismall endes, 
 As trappes for foes, and tricks for friends." 
 
 {Ibid. 236.) 
 Oldmixon {History of Queen Elizabeth, p. 620) says of the 
 Earl of Essex, '"Twas not likely that Cecil, whose Soul was of 
 a narrow Size, and had no Room for enlarged Sentiments of 
 Ambition, Glory, and Public Spirit, should cease to undermine 
 a Hero, in comparison with whom he was both in Body and 
 Mind a Piece of Deformity, if there's nothing beautiful in Craft." 
 * Court and Character of King James, § 10. 
 
26 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 " Sir Robert Cecil, a very wise man, but much hated 
 in England by reason of the fresh bleeding of that 
 universally beloved Earl of Essex, and for that clouded 
 also in the king's favour." De la Boderie, the French 
 Ambassador, tells us ' that the nobility were exceed- 
 ingly jealous of his dignity and power, and ' that he in 
 his turn was jealous of the growing influence of Prince 
 Henry, the heir apparent, who made no secret of his 
 dislike of him. Meanwhile there were rivals who, it 
 seemed not improbable, might supplant him. One of 
 these, Sir Walter Raleigh, had already been rendered 
 harmless on account of his connection with the 
 " Main," the mysterious conspiracy which inaugurated 
 the reign of James. There remained the Earl of 
 Northumberland, and it may be remarked in passing 
 that one of the effects of the Gunpowder Plot was to 
 dispose of him likewise.' Even the apologists of the 
 
 ' Amdassade, i. 58. 
 
 ^ litd. 4c I. 
 
 ' Against Northumberland nothing was proved {viWe de la 
 Boderie, Ambassade, i. 178), except that he had admitted 
 Thomas Percy amongst the royal pensioners without exacting 
 the usual oath. He in vain demanded an open trial, but was 
 prosecuted in the Star Chamber, and there sentenced to a fine 
 of ;£30,ooo (equal to at least ten times that sum in our money), 
 and to be imprisoned for life. 
 
 Mr. Gardiner considers that, in regard both of Raleigh and 
 of Northumberland, Cecil acted with great moderation. It 
 must, however, be remembered that in his secret correspond- 
 ence with King James, before the death of the queen, he had 
 strenuously endeavoured to poison the mind of that monarch 
 against these his rivals. Thus he wrote, December 4th, 1601 
 (as usual through Lord Henry Howard) : " You must remember 
 that I gave you notice of the diabolical triplicity, that is, 
 Cobham, Raleigh, and Northumberland, that met every day 
 
ROBERT CECIL. 2J 
 
 minister do not attempt to deny either the fact that he 
 was accustomed to work by stratagems and disguises, 
 or the obloquy that followed on his death ; ' while 
 by friends and foes alike he was compared to Ulysses 
 of many wiles.' 
 
 But amongst those whom he had to dread, there 
 can be no doubt that the members of the Catholic 
 
 at Durham-house, where Raleigh lies, in consultation, which 
 awaked all the best wits of the town ... to watch what chickens, 
 they could hatch out of these cockatrice eggs that were daily 
 and nightly sitten on." {Secret Correspondence of Sir Robert 
 Cecil with James VI., King of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1766, 
 p. 29.) Coming after this, the speedy ruin of all these men 
 appears highly suspicious. 
 
 ' Sir Walter Cope in his Apology (Gutch, Collectanea Curiosa^ 
 i. No. 10) says: "When living, the world observed with all 
 admiration and applause ; no sooner dead, but it seeketh finally 
 to suppress his excellent parts, and load his memory with all 
 imputations of corruption." 
 
 Among such charges are enumerated " His Falsehood in 
 Friendship. — That he often made his friends fair promises, and 
 underhand laid rubs to hinder their preferment. — The secret 
 passage of things I know not. . . . Great Counsellors have their 
 private and their publique ends . . ." etc. 
 
 ' Lord Castlemaine after mentioning the chief features of the 
 Gunpowder Plot, goes on : " But let it not displease you, if we 
 ask whether Ulysses be no better known ? " (Catholique Apology, 
 
 P- 30-) 
 
 Francis Herring in his Latin poem, Pieias Pontificia (pub- 
 lished 1606), speaking of Monteagle (called " Morleius," from 
 his father's title), who took the celebrated letter to Cecil, writes 
 thus : 
 
 " Morleius Regis de consultoribus unum, 
 (Quem norat veteri nil quicquam cedere Ulyssi, 
 Juditio pollentem acri, ingenioque sagaci) 
 Seligit, atque illi Rem totam ex ordine pandit." 
 
28 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 party appeared to the secretary the most formidable. 
 It was known on all hands, nor did he attempt to dis- 
 guise the fact, that he was the irreconcilable opponent 
 of any remission of the penal laws enacted for the 
 purpose of stamping out the old faith.' The work, 
 however, had as yet been very incompletely done. At 
 the beginning of the reign of King James, the Catholics 
 formed at least a half, probably a majority,^ of the 
 English people. There were amongst them many 
 noblemen, fitted to hold offices of State. .^Moreover, 
 the king, who before his accession had unquestionably 
 
 ' This is so evident that it appears unnecessary to occupy 
 space with proofs in detail. De la Boderie remarks {Ambas- 
 sade, i. 71) on the extraordinary rancour of the minister against 
 Catholics, and especially against Jesuits, and that "he wishes to 
 destroy them everywhere." Of this a remarkable confirmation 
 is afforded by the instructions given to Sir Thomas Parry when 
 he was sent as ambassador, *' Leiger," to Paris, in 1603, at the 
 head of which stood these extraordinary articles : 
 
 1. " To intimate to the French king the jealousy conceived in 
 England upon the revocation of the Jesuits, against former 
 edicts. 
 
 2. " To inform the French king that the English were disgusted 
 at the maintenance allowed to the French king's prelates and 
 clergy, to priests and Jesuits that passed out of his dominions 
 into England, Scotland, and Ireland, to do bad offices." (P.R.O. 
 France, bundle 132, f. 314.) 
 
 ' Jardine, Gunpowder Plot, p. 5. Strype says of the time 
 of Elizabeth : " The faction of the Catholics in England is great, 
 and able, if the kingdom were divided into three parts, to make 
 two of them." {Annals, iii. 313, quoted by Butler, Historical 
 Memoirs, ii. 177.) 
 
 At the execution of Father Oldcorne, 1606, a proof was given 
 of their numbers which is said to have alarmed the king greatly. 
 The Father having from the scaffold invited all Catholics to 
 pray with him, almost all present uncovered. 
 
THE CATHOLICS. 29 
 
 assured the Catholics at least of toleration,^ showed at 
 his first coming a manifest disposition to relieve them 
 from the grievous persecution under which they had 
 groaned so long." He remitted a large part of the 
 fines which had so grievously pressed upon all recu- 
 sants, declaring that he would not make merchandise 
 of conscience, nor set a price upon faith ; ' he invited 
 to his presence leading Catholics from various parts of 
 the country, assuring them, and bidding them assure 
 their co-religionists, of his gracious intentions in their 
 regard ; * titles of honour and lucrative employments 
 were bestowed on some of their number ; ° one professed 
 Catholic, Henry Howard, presently created Earl of 
 Northampton, being enrolled in the Privy Council ; 
 and in the first speech which he addressed to his 
 Parliament James declared that, as to the papists, he 
 had no desire to persecute them, especially those of 
 the laity who would be qaietV The immediate" effecF 
 
 ^ Of this there can be no doubt, in spite of James's subsequent 
 denial. Father Garnet wrote to Parsons (April i6th, 1603): 
 " There hath happened a great alteration by the death of the 
 Queen. Great fears were, but all are turned into greatest 
 security, and a golden time we have of unexpected freedom 
 abroade. . . . The Catholicks have great cause to hope for 
 great respect, in that the nobility all almost labour for it, and 
 have good promise thereof from his Majesty." (Stonyhurst MSS. 
 Anglia, iii. 32.) 
 
 Goodman says : "And certainly they [the Catholics] had very 
 great promises from him." {Court of King James, i. 86.) 
 
 " "The Penal Laws, a code as savage as any that can be 
 conceived since the foundation of the world." — Lord Chief 
 Justice Coleridge. (To Lord Mayor Knill, Nov. 9, 1892.) 
 
 ' Gardiner, i. 100. 
 
 * Jardine, Gunpowder Plot, 18. ° Ibid. 20. 
 
 " Gardiner, i. 166. 
 
20 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 •of this milder policy was to afford evidence of the 
 real strength of the Catholics, many now openly de- 
 claring themselves who had previously conformed to 
 the State church. In the diocese of Chester alone the 
 number of Catholics was increased by a thousand.' 
 
 It is scarcely to be wondered at that men who were 
 familiar with the political methods of the age should 
 see in all this a motive sufficient to explain a great 
 stroke for the destruction of those who appeared to be 
 so formidable, devised by such a minister as was then 
 in power, "the statesman," writes Lord Castlemaine,^ 
 ■" who bore (as everybody knew) a particular hatred to 
 all of our profession, and this increased to hear his 
 Majesty speak a little in his first speech to the two 
 Houses against persecution of papists, whereas there 
 had been nothing within those walls but invectives 
 .and defamations for above forty years together." 
 f^his much is certain, that, whatever its origin, the 
 1/ Gunpowder Plot immensely increased Cecil's influence 
 and power, and, for a time, even his popularity, assuring 
 the success of that anti-Catholic policy with which he - 
 
 was identified. 
 
 tna 
 
 ' Green, History of the English People, iii. 62. Mr. Green 
 .adds : " Rumours of Catholic conversions spread a panic which 
 showed itself in an Act of the Parliament of 1604 confirming the 
 istatutes of Elizabeth ; and to this James gave his assent. He 
 promised, indeed, that the statute should remain inoperative." 
 In May, 1604, the Catholics boasted that they had been joined 
 by 10,000 converts. (Gardiner, Hist. i. 202.) 
 
 '^ACatholique Apology, 404. 
 J Salisbury, in reward of his services on this occasion, 
 received the Garter, May 20th, 1606, and was honoured on the 
 ■occasion with an almost regal triumph. 
 
 Of the proceedings subsequent to the Plot we are told : " In 
 
THE CATHOLICS. 3 I 
 
 Of no less importance is it to understand the posi- 
 tion of the Catholic body, and the character of the 
 particular Catholics who engaged in this enterprise. 
 We have seen with what hopes the advent of King 
 James had been hailed by those who had suffered so 
 much for his mother's sake, and who interpreted in a 
 too sanguine and trustful spirit his own words and 
 deeds. Their dream of enjoying even toleration at his 
 hands was soon rudely dispelled. After giving them 
 the briefest of respites, the monarch, under the in- 
 fluence, as all believed, of his council, and especially of 
 his chief minister,^ suddenly reversed his line of action 
 and persecuted his Catholic subjects more cruelly than 
 had his predecessor, calling up the arrears of fines which 
 they fancied had been altogether remitted, ruining 
 many in the process who had hitherto contrived to pay 
 their way,'' and adding to the sense of injury which such 
 
 passing these laws for the security of the Protestant Religion, 
 the Earl of Salisbury exerted himself with distinguished zeal 
 and vigour, which gained him great love and honour from the 
 kingdom, as appeared in some measure, in the universal attend- 
 ance on him at his installation with the Order of the Garter, on 
 the i20th 0f May, 1606, at Windsor." (Birch, Historical View, 
 p. 256A/ 
 
 ' This belief is so notorious that one instance must suffice as 
 es'idence for it. A paper of informations addressed to Cecil 
 'liimself, April, 1604, declares that the Catholics hoped to see a 
 ^ood day yet, and that " his Majesty would suffer a kinde of 
 Tolleracyon, for his inclynacyon is good, howsoever the Councell 
 set out his speeches." (S. P. O. Dom. James I. vii. 86.) 
 
 ^ Mr. Gardiner {Hist. i. 229, note) says that arrears were 
 never demanded in the case of the fine of ^20 per lunar month 
 for non-attendance at the parish church. Father Gerard, how- 
 ever, a contemporary witness, distinctly states that they were 
 {Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot, ed. Morris, p. 62.) 
 
32 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 a course necessarily provoked by farming out wealthy 
 recusants to needy courtiers, " to make their profit of," 
 in particular to the Scots who had followed their 
 royal master across the border. Soon it was announced 
 that the king would have blood ; all priests were ordered 
 to leave the realm under pain of death, and the searches 
 fpr them became more frequent and violent than ever. 
 In no long time, as Goodman tells us,* " a gentlewoman 
 was hanged only for relieving and harbouring a priest ; 
 a citizen was hanged only for being reconciled to the 
 Church of Rome ; besides the penal laws were such 
 and so executed that they could not subsistj^i' Father 
 Gerard says : " " This being known to Catholics, it is 
 easy to be seen how first their hopes were turned into 
 fears, and then their fears into full knowledge that all 
 the contrary to that they had hoped was intended and 
 prepared for them, and, as one of the victims of these 
 proceedings wrote, " the times of Elizabeth, although 
 most cruel, were the mildest and happiest in com- 
 parison with those of King Jam^es." ^ 
 
 In such circumstances, the CstiK5J«;„,^ody being so 
 numerous as it was, it is not to be wondereli. at that 
 individuals should be found, who, smarting under their 
 injuries, and indignant at the bad faith of which they 
 considered themselves the dupes, looked to viole'si 
 remedies for relief, and might without difficulty be^ 
 worked upon to that effect. Their case seemed far 
 more hopeless than ever. Queen Elizabeth's quarrel 
 with Rome had been in a great degree personal ; and 
 moreover, as she had no direct heir, it was confidently 
 
 ' Court of King James, i. icxs. 
 
 ' Narrative, p. 46. 
 
 ' Stonyhurst MSS., Anglia, iii. 103. 
 
K. JAMES AND THE CATHOLICS. 33 
 
 anticipated that the demise of the crown would intro- 
 duce a new era. KingN James's proceedings, on the 
 other hand, seemed to indicate a deliberate policy 
 which there was no prospect of reversing, especially, 
 as his eldest son, should he prove true to his promise, 
 might be expected to do that zealously, aiid of himself, 
 which his father was held to do under the constraint of 
 others.^ /Ks Sir Everard Digby warned Cecil, in the 
 remarkable letter which he addressed to him on the 
 subject -."^ "If your Lordship and the State think fit to 
 deal severely with the Catholics, within brief space 
 there will be massacres, rebellions, and desperate 
 attempts against the King and the State. For it is a 
 general received reason among Catholics, that there 
 is not that expecting and suffering course now to, 
 be run that was in the Queen's time, who was the last 
 of her line, and last in expectance to run violent 
 courses against Catholics ; for then it was hoped that 
 the King that now is, would have been at least free 
 from persecuting, as his promise was before his coming 
 into this realm, and as divers his promises have been 
 since his coming. All these promises every man sees 
 broken.''2^ 
 
 It must likewise be remembered that if stratagems 
 and " practices " were the recognized weapons of 
 ministers, turbulence and arms were, at this period, the 
 familiar, and indeed the only, resource of those in 
 
 ' Of the Prince of Wales it was prophesied : 
 " The eighth Henry did pull down Monks and their cells. 
 The ninth will pull down Bishops and their bells." 
 ^ Concerning this letter see Appendix B, Digby's Letter to 
 Salisbury. 
 ' R. O. Dom. James I. xvii. 10. 
 D 
 
34 WHAT WAS THE GUNP'qwDER PLOT? 
 
 opposition, nor did any stigma attach to their employ- 
 ment unless taken up on the Irosing side. Not a little 
 of this kind of thing had be^ done on behalf of James 
 himself As is well kno\vn, he succeeded to the throne 
 by a title upon whicji-ife could not have recovered at 
 law an acre of land.' Elizabeth had so absolutely 
 forbidden all discussion of the question of the succes- 
 sion as to leave it in a state of utter confusion.'' There 
 were more than a dozen possible competitors, and 
 amongst these the claim of the King of Scots was 
 technically not the strongest, for though nearest in 
 blood his claims had been barred by a special Act of 
 Parliament, excluding the Scottish line. As Professor 
 Thorold Rogers says, " For a year after his accession 
 James, if Acts of Parliament are to go for anything, 
 was not legally King." ^ 
 
 Nevertheless the cause of James was vigorously 
 taken up in all directions, and promoted by means 
 which might well have been styled treason against the 
 authority of Parliament. Thus, old Sir Thomas 
 Tresham, father of Francis Tresham, the Gunpowder 
 Conspirator, who had been an eminent sufferer for his 
 religion, at considerable personal risk, and against 
 rhuch resistance on the part of the local magistrates 
 and the populace, publicly proclaimed the new king 
 at Northampton, while Francis Tresham himself and 
 his brother Lewis, with Lord Monteagle, their brother- 
 in-law, supported the Earl of Southampton in holding 
 the Tower of London on his behalf In London in- 
 
 ' Hallam, Constitutional Hist. i. 392 (3rd ed.). 
 ^ See Appendix C, The Question of Succession. 
 ^ Agriculture and Prices, v. 5. 
 * Jardine, Gunpowder Plot, p. 1 7. 
 
THE ACCESSION OF JAMES I. 35 
 
 deed everybody took to arms as soon as the queen's 
 illness had been known ; watch and ward were kept in 
 the City ; rich men brought their plate and treasure 
 from the country, and placed them where they would 
 be safest/ and the approaches were guarded. Cecil 
 himself related in open court, in praise of the Lon- 
 doners, how, when he himself, attended by most of the 
 peers and privy councillors of the kingdom, wished to 
 enter the City to proclaim the new sovereign, they 
 found the gates closed against them till they had 
 publicly declared that they were about to proclaim 
 James and no one else.^ 
 
 In times when statesmen could approve such 
 methods of political action, it was inevitable that 
 violent enterprises should have come to be considered 
 the natural resource of those out of power, and it is very 
 clear that there were numerous individuals, of whom 
 no one party had the monopoly, who were ready at 
 any moment to risk everything for the cause they 
 served, and such men, although their proclivities 
 were well known, did not suffer much in public 
 esteem. 
 
 The Gunpowder Conspirators were eminently men 
 of this stamp, and notoriously so. So well was their 
 character known, that when, in 1596, eight years before 
 the commencement of the Plot, Queen Elizabeth had 
 been unwell, the Lords of the Council, as a pre- 
 cautionary measure arrested some . of the principal 
 amongst them, Catesby, the two Wrights, Tresham, 
 and others, as being persons who would certainly give 
 
 1 Gardiner, Hist. i. 84. 
 
 ^ Trial of Father Garnet (Cobbett's State Trials, ii. 243). 
 
36 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 trouble should a chance occur.' Since that time they 
 had not improved their record. All those above- 
 named, as well as Thomas Winter, Christopher Wright, 
 Percy, Grant, and perhaps others, had been engaged 
 in the ill-starred rebellion of Essex, on which occasion 
 Catesby was wounded, and both he and Tresham 
 came remarkably near being hanged.'' They had 
 likewise been variously implicated in all the seditious 
 attempts which had since been made — Catesby and 
 Tresham being named by Sir Edward Coke as being; 
 engaged with Watson in the " Bye." Thomas Winter, 
 Christopher Wright, and Faukes, had, if we may 
 believe the same authority, been sent to Spain on 
 treasonable embassies.' Grant made himself very con- 
 spicuous by frequently resisting the officers of the law 
 
 ' Camden, the historian, to Sir R. Cotton, March 15th, 
 1596. (Birch, Original Letters, 2nd series, iii. p. 179.) Various 
 writers erroneously suppose this transaction to have occurred 
 in March, 1603, on occasion of Elizabeth's last illness. The 
 correct date, 1596, given by Sir Henry Ellis, is supplied by 
 a statement contained in the letter, that this was her Majesty's. 
 " climacterick year," that is, her sixty-third, this number, as. 
 the multiple of the potent factors seven and nine, being held 
 of prime importance in human life. Elizabeth was born ini 
 
 1533- 
 
 From Garnet's examination of March 14th, 1605-6 {Dom.. 
 James I. xix. 44), we learn that Catesby was at large at the 
 time of the queen's demise. 
 
 For Cecil's description of the men, see Winwood's MemorialSy 
 ii. 172. 
 
 ' Catesby purchased his life for a fine of 4,000 marks, and 
 Tresham of 3,000. Mr. Jessopp says that the former sum is. 
 equivalent at least to £^^0,000 at the present day. {Diet. Nat. 
 Biog., Catesby^ 
 
 ' But see Appendix D, The Spanish Treason. 
 
THE CONSPIRATORS. 37 
 
 when they appeared to search his house.^ John Wright 
 and Percy had, at least till a very recent period, been 
 notorious bravoes, who made a point of picking a 
 quarrel with any man who was reported to be a good 
 swordsman, they being both expert with the weapon.'' 
 
 It is evident that men of this stamp were not un- 
 likely to prove restive under such treatment as was 
 meted out to the Catholics, from which moreover, as 
 gentlemen, they themselves suffered in a special de- 
 gree. Lord Castlemaine remarks that loose people 
 may usually be drawn into a plot when statesmen lay 
 gins, and that it was no hard thing for a Secretary of 
 State, should he desire any such thing, to know of 
 turbulent and ambitious spirits to be his unconscious 
 instruments,' and it is obvious that no great perspica- 
 city would have been required to fix upon those who 
 had given such evidence of their disposition as had 
 these men. 
 
 It must, at the same time, be confessed that the 
 character of the plotters is" one of the most perplexing 
 features of the Plot. /The crime contemplated was 
 without parallel in its brutal and senseless atrocity ._ 
 There had, it is true, been powder-plots before, notably 
 that which had effected the destruction of the king's 
 own father. Lord Darnley, a fact undoubtedly calcu- 
 
 ' Father Gerard says of him that "he paid them [the pur- 
 suivants] so well for their labour not with crowns of gold, but 
 with cracked crowns sometimes, and with dry blows instead of 
 drink and other good cheer, that they durst not visit him any 
 more unless they brought store of help with them." {Narrative 
 of the Gunpowder Plot, p. 86.) 
 
 ^ Ibid., p. 57- 
 
 " Catholique Apology, p. 403. 
 
38 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 lated to make much impression upon the timorous 
 mind of Jamesy^But what marked off our Gunpowder 
 Plot from all others, was the wholesale and indis- 
 criminate slaughter in which it must have resulted, and 
 the absence of any possibility that the cause could be 
 benefited which the conspirators had at heart/ It was 
 at once reprobated and denounced by the Catholics of 
 England, and by the friends and near relatives of the 
 conspirators themselves. ^^ It might be supposed that 
 those who undertook such an enterprise were criminals 
 of the deepest dye, and ruffians of a more than usually 
 repulsive type. In spite, however, of the turbulent 
 element in their character of which we have seen 
 something, such a judgment would, in the opinion of 
 historians, be altogether erroneous. Far from their 
 being utterly unredeemed villains, it appears, in fact, 
 that apart from the one monstrous transgression which 
 has made them infamous, they should be distinguished 
 in the annals of crime as the least disreputable gang 
 of conspirators who ever plotted a treason. On this 
 point we have ample evidence from those who are by 
 no means their friends. " Atrocious as their whole 
 undertaking was," writes Mr. Gardiner,'' "great as 
 must have been the moral obliquity of their minds 
 before they could have conceived such a project, there 
 was at least nothing mean or selfish about them. 
 They boldly risked their lives for what they honestly 
 
 ' E.g., by Mr. Talbot of Grafton,father-in-law of Robert Winter, 
 who drove their envoys away with threats and reproaches 
 (Jardine, Gunpowder Plot, p. 112), and by Sir Robert Digby, 
 of Coleshill, cousin to Sir Everard, who assisted in taking 
 prisoners. (R. O. Gunpowder Plot Book, 42.) 
 
 ' History, i. 263. 
 
THE CONSPIRATORS. 39 
 
 believed to be the cause of God and of their country. 
 Theirs was a crime which it would never have entered 
 into the heart of any man to commit who was not 
 raised above the low aims of the ordinary criminal." 
 Similarly Mj:_Jardine, a still less friendly witness, 
 tells us ^ that " several at least of the conspirators 
 were men of mild and amiable manners, averse to 
 tumults and bloodshed, and dwelling quietly amidst 
 the humanities of domestic life," a description which 
 he applies especially to Rokewood and Digby ; while 
 ofAjuy Faukes himself he says ' that, according to the 
 accounts which we hear of him, he is not to be 
 regarded as a mercenary ruffian, ready for hire to do 
 any deed of blood ; but as a zealot, misled by mis- 
 guided fanaticism, who was, however, by no means 
 destitute either of piety or of humanity^ Moreover, 
 as Mr. Jardine farther remarks, /he conspirators as a 
 body were of the class which we should least ex- 
 pect to find engaged in desperate enterprises, being, 
 as Sir E. Coke described them, " gentlemen of good 
 houses, of excellent parts, and of very competent 
 fortunes and estates," none of them, except perhaps 
 Catesby, being in pecuniary difficulties, while several 
 — notably Robert Winter, Rokewood, Digby, Tipsham, 
 and Grant — were men of large possessions..; It has 
 also been observed by a recent biographer of Sir 
 Everard Digby,^ that, for the furtherance of their 
 projects after the explosion, the confederates were 
 able to provide a sum equal at least to ;^75,ooo 
 of our money — a sufficient proof of their worldly 
 position. 
 
 "^.Gunpowder Plot, p. 151. ^ Ibid., p. 38. 
 
 \) Life of a Conspirator, by one of his Descendants, p. 150. 
 
40 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 That men of such a class should so lightly and 
 easily have adopted a scheme so desperate and' 
 atrocious as that of " murdering a kingdom in its 
 representatives," is undoubtedly not the least incom- 
 prehensible feature of this strange story. At the same 
 time it must not be forgotten that there is another, 
 and a very different account of these men, which 
 comes to us on the authority of a Catholic priest 
 living in England at the time,^ who speaks of the con- 
 spirators as follows : 
 
 " They were a few wicked and desperate wretches, 
 whom many Protestants termed Papists, although the 
 priests and the true Catholics knew them not to be 
 such. . . . They were never frequenters .of Catholic 
 Sacraments with any priest, as I could ever learn ; 
 and, as all the Protestant Courts will witness, not one- 
 of them was a convicted or known Catholic or 
 Recusant.'" / 
 
 Similarly Cornwallis, writing from Madrid,' reported 
 that the king and Estate of Spain were " much grieved 
 that they being atheists and devils in their inward 
 parts, should paint their outside with Catholicism." 
 
 In view of evidence so contradictory, it is difficult, 
 if not impossible, to form a confident judgment as to 
 the real character of those whose history we are 
 attempting to trace ; but, leaving aside what is matter 
 
 ' English Protestants Plea and Petition for English Priests 
 and Papists. The author of this book (published 1621) describes 
 himself as a priest who has been for many years on the English 
 mission. His title indicates that he draws his arguments from 
 Protestant sources. 
 
 ^ P. s6. 
 
 ' November 2Sth, 1605, Stowe MSS, 168, 61. 
 
THE CONSPIRATORS. 4 1 
 
 of doubt, the undisputed facts of their previous career 
 appear to show unmistakably that they were just the 
 men who would be ready to look to violence for a 
 remedy of existing evils, and to whom it would not be 
 difficult to suggest its adoption.^ 
 
 ' See Appendix O, Recusants Fines, for particulars of the 
 penal exactions under Elizabeth and James I. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE OPINION OF CONTEMPORARIES AND 
 HISTORIANS. 
 
 We have now for so long a period been accustomed 
 to accept the official story regarding the Gunpowder 
 Plot, that most readers will be surprised to hear that 
 at the time of its occurrence, and for more than a 
 century afterwards, there were, to say the least, 
 many intelligent men who took for granted that in 
 some way or other the actual conspirators were but 
 the dupes and instruments of more crafty men than 
 themselves, and in their mad enterprise unwittingly 
 played the game of ministers of State. 
 
 From the beginning the government itself antici- 
 pated this, as is evidenced by the careful and elaborate 
 account of the whole affair drawn up on the 7th of 
 November, 1605 — two days after the "discovery" — 
 seemingly for the benefit of the Privy Council.' This 
 important document, which is in the handwriting of 
 Levinus Munck, Cecil's secretary, with numerous and 
 significant emendations from the hand of Cecil him- 
 self, speaks, amongst other things, of the need of 
 circumspection, " considering how apt the world is 
 nowadays to think all providence and intelligences to 
 
 ' Gunpowder Plot Book, 129. Printed in Archaologia, xii. 
 202*. 
 
CONTEMPORARY INCREDULITY. 43 
 
 be but practices." The result did not falsify the 
 expectation. Within five weeks we find a letter 
 written from London to a correspondent abroad,' 
 wherein it is said : " Those that have practical expe- 
 rience of the way in which things are done, hold it as 
 certain that there has been foul play, and that some 
 of the Council secretly spun the web to entangle 
 these poor gentlemen, as did Secretary Walsingham 
 in other cases," and it is clear that the writer has but 
 recorded an opinion widely prevalent. To this the 
 government again bear witness, for they found it 
 advisable to issue an official version of the history, in 
 the True and Perfect Relation, and the Discourse 
 of the Manner of the Discovery of the Gunpowder 
 Plot, the appearance of which was justified expressly 
 on the ground that " there do pass from hand to hand 
 divers uncertain, untrue, and incoherent reports and 
 relations," and that it is very important " for men to 
 understand the birth and growth of the said abomin- 
 able and detestable conspiracy." The accounts pub- 
 lished with this object are, by the common consent of 
 historians, flagrantly untruthful and untrustworthy.^ 
 
 ' R. O. Roman Transcripts (Bliss), No. 86, December loth, 
 1605 (Italian). 
 
 ^ Mr. Jardine writes {Criminal Trials, ii. p. 235), " The True 
 and Perfect Relation ... is certainly not deserving of the 
 character which its title imports. It is not true, because many 
 occurrences on the trial are wilfully misrepresented ; and it is 
 not perfect, because the whole evidence, and many facts and- cir- 
 cumstances which must have happened, are omitted, and inci- 
 dents are inserted which could not by possibility have taken 
 place on the occasion. It is obviously a false and imperfect 
 relation of the proceedings ; a tale artfully garbled and mis- 
 represented, like many others of the same age, to serve a State 
 
44 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 We likewise find Secretary Cecil writing to instruct 
 Sir E. Coke, the Attorney-General, as to his conduct 
 of the case against the conspirators, in view of the 
 " lewd " reports current in regard of the manner in 
 which it had been discovered/ The same minister, 
 in the curious political manifesto which he issued in 
 connection with the affair,^ again bears witness to the 
 same effect, when he declares that the papists, after 
 the manner of Nero, were throwing the blame of their 
 crime upon others. 
 
 Clearly, however, it was not to the papists alone 
 that such an explanation commended itself. The 
 Puritan Osborne " speaks of the manner in which the 
 " discovery " was managed as " a neat device of the 
 Treasurer's, he being very plentiful in such plots."- 
 Goodman, Anglican Bishop of Gloucester, another 
 contemporary, is even more explicit. After describing 
 the indignation of the Catholics when they found them- 
 selves deceived in their hopes at the hands of James, 
 he goes on : " The great statesman had intelligence of 
 all this, and because he would show his service to the 
 State, he would first contrive and then discover a 
 
 purpose, and intended and calculated to mislead the judgment 
 of the world upon the facts of the case." Of the Discourse he 
 speaks in similar terms. {Ibid., p. 4.) 
 
 ' R. O. Dom. James I. xix. 94. Printed by Jardine, Criminal 
 Trials, ii. 120 (note). 
 
 ^ Answere to certaine Scandalous Papers, scattered abroad 
 under colour of a Catholic Admonition. (Published in January, 
 1605-6.) 
 
 ' Traditional Memoirs, 36. Of this writer Lord Castlemaine 
 says, " He was born before this plot, and was also an inquisitive 
 man, a frequenter of company, of a noted wit, of an excellent 
 family, and as Protestant a one as any in the whole nation." 
 
THE GOVERNMENT SUSPECTED. 4S 
 
 treason, and the more odious and hateful the treason 
 were, his service would be the greater and the more 
 acceptable." ^ Another notable witness is quoted by the 
 Jesuit Father Martin Grene, in a letter to his brother 
 Christopher, January 1st, 1665-6:'-' "I have heard 
 strange things, which, if ever I can make out, will be 
 very pertinent : for certain, the late Bishop of Armagh,, 
 Usher, was divers times heard to say, that if papists, 
 knew what he knew, the blame of the Gunpowder 
 Treason would not lie on them." In like manner we 
 find it frequently asserted on the authority of Lord 
 Cobham and others,^ that King James himself, when 
 he had time to realize the truth of the matter, was in 
 the habit of speaking of the Fifth of November as. 
 " Cecil's holiday." 
 
 Such a belief must have been widely entertained,, 
 otherwise it could not have been handed on, as it was,, 
 for generations. It is not too much to say that histo- 
 rians for almost a century and a half, if they did 
 not themselves favour the theory of the government's, 
 complicity, at least bore witness how widely that idea 
 prevailed. Thus, to confine ourselves at present to 
 Protestant writers, Sanderson,* acknowledging that 
 the secretary was accused of having manipulated the 
 
 1 Court of King James {\%2f)\\. 103. 
 
 = Stonyhurst MSS., Anglia, v. 67. 
 
 ' E.g., in the Advocate of Conscience Liberty (1673),, 
 p. 225. 
 
 ■' History of Mary Queen of Scots and James /., p. 334., 
 Bishop Kennet, in his Fifth of November^Sermon, 171 5, boldly 
 declares that Sanderson speaks not of Cecil the statesman, but 
 of Cecil "a busy Romish priest" (and, he might have added, a 
 paid government spy). The assertion is utterly and obviously- 
 false. 
 
46 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 transaction, says no word to indicate that herepudiates 
 such a charge. Welwood ^ is of opinion tliat Cecil was 
 aware of the Plot long before the " discovery," and that 
 the famous letter to Monteagle was " a contrivance of 
 his own." Oldmixon writes ' " notwithstanding the 
 general joy, . . . there were some who insinuated that 
 the Plot was of the King's own making, or that he was 
 privy to it from first to last." Carte ' does not believe 
 that James knew anything of it, but considers it " not 
 improbable " that Cecil was better informed. Burnet * 
 complains of the impudence of the papists of his day, 
 who denied the conspiracy, and pretended it was an 
 artifice of the minister's " to engage some desperate 
 ■men into a plot, which he managed so that he could 
 discover it when he pleased." Fuller" bears witness 
 to the general belief, but considers it inconsistent with • 
 the well-known piety of King James. Bishop Kennet, 
 in his Fifth of November sermon at St. Paul's, in 171 5, 
 talks in a similar strain. So extreme, indeed, does 
 the incredulity and uncertainty appear to have been, 
 that the Puritan Prynne ° is inclined to suspect Ban- 
 croft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, of having been 
 •engaged in the conspiracy ; while one of the furious 
 zealots who followed the lead of Titus Oates, mourn- 
 fully testified that there were those in his day who 
 looked upon the Powder Treason " as upon a romantic 
 
 ^ Memoirs, p. 22. 
 
 ' History of England, Royal House of Stuart, p. 27. 
 ' General History of England, iii. 757. 
 * History of His Own Times, i. n. 
 "■ Church History, Book X. § 39. 
 
 ° Antipathie of the English Lordly Prelacie, to the regall 
 Monarchie and Civill Unity, p. 151. 
 
.__^ • THE GOVERNMENT SUSPECTED. 47 
 
 stoiy, or a politic invention, or a State trick," giving no 
 morfe credence to it than to the histories of the " Grand 
 Cyrus, or Guy of Warwick, or Amadis de Gaul," — or, 
 as we should now say. Jack the Giant Killer. 
 
 The general scope and drift of such suspicions are 
 well indicated by Bevil Higgons, " This impious de- 
 sign," he writes ' of the Plot, " gave the greatest blow 
 to the Catholic interest in England, by rendering that 
 religion so odious to the people. The common opinion 
 concerning the discovery of the Plot, by a letter to the 
 Lord Mounteagle, has not been universally allowed to 
 be the real truth of the matter, for some have affirmed 
 that this design was first hammered in the forge of 
 Cecil, who intended to have produced this plot in the 
 time of Queen Elizabeth, but prevented by her death he 
 resumed his project in this reign, with a design to have 
 so enraged the nation as to have expelled all Roman 
 Catholics, and confiscated their estates. To this end, 
 by his secret emissaries, he enticed some hot-headed 
 men of that persuasion, who, ignorant whence the 
 design first came, heartily engaged in this execrable 
 Powder Treason. . . . Though this account should not 
 be true," he continues, " it is certain that the Court of 
 England had notice of this Plot from France and 
 Italy long before the pretended discovery ; upon which 
 Cecil . . . framed that letter to the Lord Mounteagle, 
 with a design to make the discovery seem the more 
 miraculous, and at the same time magnify the judg- 
 ment of the king, who by his deep penetration was to 
 have the honour of unravelling so ambiguous and 
 dark a riddle." 
 
 ' A Short View of the English History, p. 296. 
 
48 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 It may be added that amongst modern historians 
 who have given special attention to this period, several, 
 though repudiating the notion that Cecil originated 
 the Plot, are strongly of opinion that as to the im- 
 portant episode of the "discovery," the traditional 
 story is a fabrication. Thus, Mr. Brewer ^ declares it 
 to be quite certain that Cecil had previous knowledge 
 of the design, and that the " discovery " was a fraud. 
 Lodge ' is of the same opinion, and so is the author 
 of the Annals of England^ Jardine * inclines to the 
 belief that the government contrived the letter to 
 Monteagle in order to conceal the means by which 
 their information had in reality been obtained. Mr. 
 Gardiner, though dismissing the idea as " absurd," 
 acknowledges that his contemporaries accused Cecil 
 of inventing the whole Plot." 
 
 So much fbr the testimony of Protestants. As for 
 those who had to suffer in consequence of the affair, 
 there is no need to multiply testimonies. Lord Castle- 
 maine tells us ° that " the Catholics of England, who 
 knew Cecil's ways of acting and their own innocence, 
 
 ' Note to Fuller's Church History, x. § 39, and to the 
 Stttdents Hume. 
 
 ' Illustrations, iii. 172. 
 
 ' Parker and Co. This author says of Cecil and his rival 
 Raleigh, " Both were unprincipled men, but Cecil was probably the 
 worst. He is suspected not only of having contrived the strange 
 plot in which Raleigh was involved, but of being privy to the 
 proceedings of Catesby and his associates, though he suffered 
 them to remain unmolested, in order to secure the forfeiture of 
 their estates " (p. 338). 
 
 ' Criminal Trials, ii. 68. 
 
 ' History of England, i. 254, note. 
 
 ' Catholique Apology, p. 412. 
 
CATHOLIC SUSPICIONS. 49 
 
 suspected him from the beginning, as hundreds still 
 alive can testify." Father Henry More, S.J., a contem- 
 porary, speaks to the same effect.^ Father John Gerard, 
 who was not only a contemporary, but one of those 
 accused of complicity, intimates ^ his utter disbelief of 
 the official narrative concerning the discovery, and his 
 conviction that those who had the scanning of the re- 
 doubtable letter were "well able in shorter time and with 
 fewer doubts to decipher a darker riddle and find out 
 a greater secret than that matter was." One Floyde, a 
 spy, testified in 161 5' to having frequently heard 
 various Jesuits say, that the government were aware 
 of the Plot several months before they thought fit to" 
 " discover " it. 
 
 The Catholic view is expressed with much point and 
 force by an anonymous writer of the eighteenth cen- 
 tury : * " I shall touch briefly upon a few particulars 
 relating to this Plot, for the happy discovery whereof 
 an anniversary holiday has now been kept for above a 
 hundred years. Is it out of pure gratitude to God the 
 nation is so particularly devout on this occasion ? If so, 
 it is highly commendable : for we ought to thank God 
 for all things, and therefore I cannot deny but there is 
 all the reason in the world to give him solemn thanks, for 
 that the king and Parliament never were in any danger 
 of being hurt by the Powder Plot. ... I am far from 
 denying the Gunpowder Plot. Nay, I believe as firmly 
 that Catesby, with twelve more popish associates, had 
 
 ' Hist. Prov. Angl. S.J., p. 310. 
 ^ Condition of Catholics under James I., p. 100. 
 ' R. O. Dom. James I. Ixxxi. 70, August 29th, 161 5. 
 * A Plain and Rational Account of the Catholick Faith, Rouen, 
 1721, p. 197. 
 
 E 
 
50 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 a design to blow up K. James, as I believe that the 
 father of that same king was effectually blown up by 
 the Earls of Murray, Morton, Bothwell, and others of 
 the Reformed Church of Scotland. However .... I 
 humbly conceive I may say the king and Parliament 
 were in no danger of being hurt by it, and my reason 
 is because they had not less a man than the prime 
 minister of state for their tutelar angel ; a person 
 deeply read in politics ; who had inherited the double 
 spirit of his predecessor Walsingham, knew all his 
 tricks of legerdemain, and could as seasonably dis- 
 cover plots as contrive them. . . j. This much at 
 least is certain, that the letter written to my Lord 
 Mounteagle, by which the Plot was discovered, had not 
 a fool, but a very wise sophister for its author : for it 
 was so craftily worded, that though it was mysterious 
 enough on the one hand to prevent a full evidence 
 that it was written on purpose to discover the Plot, 
 yet it was clear enough on the other to be understood 
 with the help of a little consideration, as the event 
 soon showed. Indeed, when it was brought to Secre- 
 tary Cecil, he, poor gentleman, had not penetration 
 enough to understand the meaning of it, and said it 
 was certainly written by a madman. But there, I 
 fear, he wronged himself For the secretary was no 
 madman. On the contrary, he had too much wit to 
 explain it himself, and was too refined a politician to 
 let slip so favourable an occasion of making his court 
 to the king, who was to have the compliment made 
 him of being the only Solomon wise enough to unfold 
 this dark mystery.^ Which while his Majesty was 
 doing with a great deal of ease, the secretary was all 
 the while at his elbow admiring and applauding his 
 
CATHOLIC SUSPICIONS. 5 1 
 
 wonderful sagacity. ... So that, in all probability, 
 the same man was the chief underhand contriver and 
 discoverer of the Plot ; and the greatest part of the 
 bubbles concerned in it were trapanned into it by one 
 who took sure care that none but themselves should 
 be hurt by it. . . . But be that as it will, there is no 
 doubt but that they who suffer themselves to be 
 drawn into a plot like fools, deserve to be hanged for 
 it like knaves." 
 
 The opinion of Dodd, the historian, has already been 
 indicated, which in another place he thus emphasizes 
 and explains : ^ " Some persons in chief power suspect- 
 ing the king would be very indulgent to Catholics, 
 several stratagems were made use of to exasperate 
 him against them, and cherishing the Gunpowder Plot 
 is thought to be a masterpiece in this way." ^ 
 
 It would not be difficult to continue similar citations, 
 but enough has now been said to show that it is 
 nothing new to charge the chief minister of James I. 
 with having fostered the conspiracy for his own pur- 
 poses, or even to have actually set it a-going. It 
 appears perfectly clear that from the first there were 
 
 ' Certamen utriusque Ecdesice, James I. 
 
 ' The author of the English Protestants Plea (1.62 1) says : 
 '" Old stratagems and tragedies of Queene Elizabeth's time must 
 needs be renewed and playde againe, to bring not only the 
 CathoHkes of England, but their holy religion into obloquy " 
 
 <p. 56)- 
 
 Peter Talbot, Bishop of Dublin, in the Pohtitian's Cate- 
 
 £hisme (1658) writes: "That Cecil was the contriver, or at 
 
 least the fomenter of [the Plot,] was testified by one of his own 
 
 domestick Gentlemen, who advertised a certain Catholike, by 
 
 name Master Buck, two months before, of a wicked designe his 
 
 Master had against Catholikes" (p. 94). 
 
52 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT-? 
 
 not a few, and those not Catholics only, who entertained 
 such a belief, and that the facts of the case are in- 
 adequately represented by historians, who imply, like 
 Mr. Jardine, that such a theory was first broached long 
 afterwards, and adopted by Catholics alone.' 
 
 It is moreover apparent that if in recent times; 
 historians have forgotten that such a view was ever 
 held, or consider it too preposterous for serious dis- 
 cussion, this is not because fuller knowledge of the 
 details of the conspiracy have discredited it,^;?^he 
 official version of the story has remained in possession 
 of the field, and it has gradually been assumed that 
 this must substantially be true. In consequence, as it 
 seems, writers of history, approaching the subject with 
 this conviction, have failed to remark many points 
 suggested even by the documentary evidence at our 
 disposal, and still more emphatically by the recorded 
 facts, which cannot but throw grave doubt upon 
 almost every particular of the traditional^ account, 
 while making it impossible to believe that, as to what 
 is most essential, the Plot was in reality what has for 
 so long been supposed. That long before the "dis- 
 covery " the Plot must have been, and in fact was^ 
 known to the government ; that this knowledge was. 
 artfully dissimulated, in order to make political capital 
 
 ' A writer, signing himself "Architect," in an article de- 
 scribing the old palace of Westminster {Gentleman's Maga- 
 zine, July, 1800, p. 627), having occasion to mention the 
 Gunpowder Plot, observes : " This Plot is now pretty well 
 understood not to have been hatched by the Pajjists, but by ani 
 inveterate foe of the Catholicks of that day, the famous minister 
 of James .... All well-informed persons at present laugh at 
 the whole of this business." 
 
THE VERDICT OF MODERN HISTORIANS. 53 
 
 out of if ; that for the same purpose the sensational 
 circumstances of its discovery were deliberately 
 arranged ; and that there are grave reasons for sus- 
 pecting the beginnings of the desperate enterprise, as 
 well as its catastrophe, to have been dexterously 
 manipulated for State purposes ; — such are the conclu- 
 sions, the evidence for which will now be considered. , 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE TRADITIONAL STORY. 
 
 The history of the Gunpowder Plot prior to its dis- 
 covery, as related with much circumstantiality by the 
 government of the day, has, in all essential particulars, 
 been accepted without demur by the great majority of 
 modern writers. We have already seen that those 
 who lived nearer to the period in question were less 
 easily convinced ; it remains to show that the internal 
 evidence of the story itself is incompatible with its 
 truthfulness. 
 
 The point upon which everything turns is the secret, 
 and therefore dangerous, character of the conspiracy, 
 which, as we are told, completely eluded the vigilance 
 of the authorities, and was on the very verge of success 
 before even a breath of suspicion was aroused, being 
 balked only by a lucky accident occurring at the 
 eleventh hour, in a manner fitly described as mira- 
 culous. 
 
 On the other hand, however, many plain and obvious 
 considerations combine to show that such an account 
 cannot be true. It is not easy to believe that much 
 which is said to have been done by the conspirators 
 ever occurred at all. It is clear that, if such things 
 did occur, they can by no possibility have escaped 
 observation. There is evidence that the government 
 knew of the Plot long before they suddenly "dis- 
 
FUNDAMENTAL POINTS. 55 
 
 covered " it. Finally, the story of the said " discovery," 
 and the manner in which it took place, is plainly not 
 only untrue, but devised to conceal the truth ; while 
 the elaborate care expended upon it sufficien tly indi^ 
 catesTiow important it.wasJieid thatjthe truth should 
 be^oncealed. — — ^- 
 
 There are, moreover, arguments, which appear to 
 deserve consideration, suggesting the conclusion that 
 the Plot was actually set on foot by the secret instiga- 
 tion of those who designed to make it serve their ends, 
 as in fact it did. For our purpose, however, it is not 
 necessary to insist greatly upon these. It will be 
 enough to show that, whatever its origin, the con- 
 spiracy was, and must have been, known to those 
 in power, who, playing with their infatuated dupes, 
 allowed them to go on with their mad scheme, till the 
 moment came to strike with full effect ; thus impress- 
 ing the nation with a profound sense of its marvellous 
 deliverance, and winning its confidence for those to 
 whose vigilance and sagacity alone that deliverance 
 appeared due. 
 
 That we may rightly follow the details of the story 
 told to us, we must in the first place understand the 
 topography of the scene of operations, which, with the 
 aid of the illustrations given, will not be difficult. 
 
 The old House of Lords Swas a chamber occupying 
 
 ' The name "old House of Lords" is somewhat ambiguous, 
 being variously applicable to three different buildings : 
 
 (i.) That here described, which continued to be used till the 
 Irish Union, A.D. 1800. 
 
 (ii.) The "Court of Requests," or "White Hall," used from 
 1800 till the fire of L834. 
 
 (iii.) The " Painted Chamber," which, having been repaired 
 
Index. Parliament Houses in the time of James I. 
 
 A. The House of Lords. 
 
 E. Chamber under the House 
 
 of Lords, called " Guy 
 
 Faukes' Cellar." 
 
 C. The Prince's Chamber. 
 
 D. The Painted Chamber. 
 
 E. The "White Hall" or Court 
 
 of Requests. 
 
 F. The House of Commons 
 
 (formerly St. Stephen's 
 Chapel). 
 
 C. Westminster Hall. 
 
 H. St. Stephen's Cloisters, con- 
 verted into houses for 
 the Tellers of the Ex- 
 chequer. 
 
 I. Garden of the Old Palace 
 (afterwards called "Cotton 
 Garden "). 
 
 J. House built on the site of 
 the Chapel of " Our Lady 
 of the Pew " (called later 
 "Cotton House"). 
 
 K K K. Houses built upon 
 
 z. The Speaker's Garden. 
 
 ruins of the walls of the 
 
 Old Palace. 
 L. Vault under the Painted 
 
 Chamber. 
 M. Yard or Court into which a 
 
 doorway opened from Guy 
 
 Faukes' Cellar. 
 N. Passage leading from the 
 
 same Yard or Court into 
 
 Parliament Place. 
 O. Parliament Place, 
 p. Parliament Stairs (formerly 
 
 called " The Queen's 
 
 Bridge"). 
 Q Q. The River Thames. 
 R. Old Palace Yard. 
 S. Westminster Abbey. 
 t. St. Margaret's Church. 
 U V w. Buildings of the Old 
 
 Palace, called " Heaven " 
 
 (or "Paradise"), "Hell," 
 
 and " Purgatory." 
 X. New Palace Yard, 
 y. Bell Tower of St. Stephen's. 
 
58 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 the first floor of a building which stood about fifty 
 yards from the left bank of the Thames, to which 
 it was parallel, the stream at this point running almost 
 due north. Beneath the Peers' Chamber, on the 
 ground floor, was a large room, which plays an im- 
 portant part in our history. This had originally 
 served as the palace kitchen,^ and though commonly 
 described as a " cellar " or a " vault " was in reality 
 neither, for it stood on the level of the ground outside, 
 and had a flat ceiling, formed by the beams which 
 supported the flooring of the Lords' apartment above.' 
 It ran beneath the said Peers' Chamber from end to 
 end, and measured TJ feet in length, by 24 feet 4 inches 
 in width. ,, 
 
 At either end, the building abutte d uponj inother 
 running transversely to it ; that on the porth being the 
 " Painted Chamber," probably erected oy Edward the. 
 Confessor, and that on the south the " Prince's 
 
 after the said fire, became the place of assjKiftJly for the Lords, 
 as did the Court of Requests for the GotBfmons. 
 
 The original House of Lords was demoHshed in 1823 by Sir 
 John Soane, who On its site erected his Royal Gallery. (See 
 Brayley and Britton, History of the Palace of Westminster^ 
 
 ^ The authority for this is the Earl of Northampton, who at 
 Father Garnet's trial mentioned that it was so stated in ancient 
 records. Remains of a buttery hatch in the south wall confirmed 
 his assertion. 
 
 The foundations of the building were believed to date from 
 the time of Edward the Confessor, and the style of architecture 
 of the superstructure assigned it to the early part of the thir- 
 teenth century, as likewise the " Prince's Chamber." 
 
 ^ Brayley and Britton, History of the Palace of West- 
 minster, p. 421 ; J. T. Smith, Antiquities of Westminster, 
 p. 39 (where illustrations will be found) ; Gentleman's Magazine^ 
 July, 1800, p. 626. 
 
TOPOGRAPHY. 
 
 59 
 
 Chamber," assigned by its architectural features to the 
 reign of Henry III. The former served as a place of 
 conference for Lords and Commons,' the latter as the 
 robing-room of the Lords. The royal throne stood at 
 
 QUY FAUX'S CELLAR 
 
 UNDER THE 
 
 OLD HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Cotton Garden 
 
 lVat/!er & BoHtall St. 
 
 GROUND PLAN OF THE SCENE OF ACTION. 
 
 the south end of the House, near the Prince's 
 Chamber. 
 
 Originally the Parliament Chamber and the 
 " cellar " beneath it were lighted by large windows on 
 both sides ; subsequently, houses raised against it 
 
 ' It was here that the death warrant of Charles I. was signed. 
 
6o WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 blocked these up, and the Lords were supplied with 
 light by dormers constructed in the roof. The walls 
 of their apartment were then hung with tapestry, 
 representing the defeat of the Spanish Armada. 
 Although precise information on the point is not easy 
 to obtain, it would appear that this did not occur till 
 a period later than that with which we are concerned.'^ 
 
 Such was the position to be attacked. As a first 
 step, the conspirators resolved to hire a house in the 
 immediate neighbourhood, to serve them as a base of 
 operations. Thomas Percy was selected to appear 
 as the principal in this part of the business, for, being 
 one of the king's pensioners, he had frequently to be 
 in attendance at Court, and might naturally wish to 
 have a lodging close at hand. The house chosen was 
 one, or rather a part of one,^ standing near the Prince's 
 Chamber, and on the side towards the river.' 
 
 In treating' for the lease of this tenement Percy 
 seems to have conducted himself in a rnanner alto- 
 gether different from what we might have expected^ 
 of one whose object required him, above all, to avoid 
 
 ' An old print (which states that it is taken from " a painted 
 print in the Cottonian library,") representing the two Houses 
 assembled in presence of Queen Elizabeth, has windows on 
 both sides. The same plate, with the figure of the sovereign 
 alone changed, was made to do duty likewise for a Parliament 
 of James I. By Hollar's time (1640-77) the windows had been 
 blocked up and the tapestry hung. 
 
 ^ Cecil wrote to Cornwallis, Edmondes, and others, November 
 9th, 1605, " This Pierceyhad a bout a year and a half a goe hyred 
 a parte of Vyniards house in the old Palace," which appears to be 
 Mr. Hepworth Dixon's sole authority for styhng the tenement 
 " Vinegar House." 
 
 ' See Appendix E, Siie of Percy's house. 
 
PREMISES HIRED. 
 
 6l 
 
 attracting notice. He appears, in fact, to have made 
 the greatest possible ado about the business. The 
 apartments were already let to one Ferrers, who was 
 unwilling to give them up, and Percy eventually suc- 
 ceeded in his purpose after not only " long suit by 
 himself," but also " great intreaty of Mr. Carleton, Mr. 
 
 I 
 
 THE OLD HOUSE OF LORDS, FROM THE EAST OR RIVER 
 SIDE, SHOWING THE GARDEN. 
 
 Epsley, and other gentlemen belonging to the Earl of 
 Northumberland." ' These gentlemen were never said 
 to have been privy to the Conspiracy, and one of them,, 
 the well-known Dudley Carleton, afterwards Viscount 
 Dorchester, was not only at this time secretary to Sir 
 
 ^ Evidence of Mrs. Whynniard, November 7th, 1605. Epsley 
 is evidently the same person as Hoppisley, who was examined, 
 on the 23rd of the same month. 
 
62 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Thomas Parry, the Ambassador in France, but was 
 ■" patronised " by Cecil himself.^ 
 
 Neither does the house appear to have been well 
 suited to serve the purposes for which it was taken. 
 Speed tells us,^ and he is confirmed by Bishop Barlow 
 ■of Lincoln,' that it was let out to tenants only when 
 Parliament was not assembled, and during a session 
 formed part of the premises at the disposal of the 
 Lords, whom it served as a withdrawing room. As the 
 Plot was, of necessity, to take effect during a session,* 
 -when the place would thus be in other hands, it is very 
 hard to understand how it was intended that the final 
 and all important operation should be conducted. 
 
 The bargain for the house was concluded May 24th, 
 1604,° but the proposed operations were delayed till a 
 much later date, by a circumstance which clearly 
 shows the public nature of the premises, and that the 
 lease obtained conferred no exclusive right of occupa- 
 tion. The question of a union with Scotland, for 
 which King James was very anxious, was at the time 
 being agitated, and commissioners having been ap- 
 pointed to discuss it, this very house was placed at 
 their disposal for their meetings. Consequently the 
 
 ' Birch, Historical View, p. 227. 
 ''■ Historie, p. 1231. 
 
 * GunpoTJi-der Treason, Harleian Miscellany, iii. 121. 
 
 * At his first examination, November 5th 1605, Faukes de- 
 ■clared that he had not been sure the king would come to the 
 Parhament House on that day, and that his purpose was to have 
 blown it up whenever his Majesty was there. 
 
 . ' The agreement between Percy and Ferrers is in the Record 
 Office {Gunpowder Plot Book, i.) and is endorsed by Cecil, 
 ■" The bargaine ... for the bloody sellar." Upon this there will 
 be more to remark later. 
 
THE MINE. 65 
 
 summer and autumn passed without any farther steps 
 being taken by the conspirators. 
 
 At last, in December, they were free to take in hand 
 the extraordinary scheme they had matured. This 
 was, starting from a cellar of Percy's house,^ to dig 
 thence an underground mine to the foundations of the 
 Parliament House, and through them ; and then to 
 construct within, beneath the Peers' Chamber itself, a 
 "concavity" large enough to contain the amount of 
 powder requisite for their purpose. On December i ith, 
 1604, they commenced operations,"* and in a fortnight, 
 that is by Christmas, they had tunnelled from their 
 starting-point to the wall they had to breach ; and 
 that this first operation was of no small magnitude, 
 especially for men who had never before handled 
 pick or shovel,' is shown by the fact that what they 
 contrived to do in so short a time was quoted as 
 evidence of the extraordinary zeal they displayed in 
 their nefarious enterprise." Having rested a little, for 
 
 ' Jardine, Gunpowder Plot, p. 42. 
 
 ^ The I Ith of December, O. S., was at that period the shortest 
 day, which circumstance suggested to Sir E. Coke, on the trial 
 ■of the conspirators, one of his characteristic facetiae ; he bade 
 his hearers note " That it was in the entring of the Sun into the 
 Tropick of Capricorn, when they began their Mine ; noting that 
 by Mining they should descend, and by Hanging, ascend." 
 
 " " Gentlemen not accustomed to labour or to be pioneers." 
 — Goodman, Court of King James, p. 103. 
 
 * " The Moles that first underwent these underminings were 
 .all grounded Schollers of the Romish Schoole, and such earnest 
 Labourers in their Vault of Villany, that by Christmas' Eve they 
 had brought the worke under an entry, unto the Wall of the 
 Parliament House, underpropping still as they went the Earth 
 ■with their framed Timber." — Speed, Historic, p. 1232 (pub. 
 1611). 
 
64 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 the Christmas holidays, they began upon the wall, 
 which presented an unexpected obstacle. They 
 found that it was not only " very hard to beat 
 through," but, moreover, nine feet thick, though since, 
 as we shall see, they never penetrated to the other 
 side, it is not clear how they were able to measure it' 
 Up to this point but five persons had engaged in the 
 work, Catesby, Percy, Thomas Winter, John Wright, 
 and Faukes. In consequence however of the difficul- 
 ties now experienced, Keyes was called in to their 
 aid. He had already been initiated in the Plot, and 
 appointed to take charge of the powder, which was 
 being accumulated and stored in a house hired for the 
 purpose across the Thames, at Lambeth. It was 
 therefore necessary to bring over the powder with him, 
 which amounted at this time to twenty barrels, and was 
 placed either in Percy's lodging itself, or in an outhouse 
 belonging to it. About the same time Christopher 
 Wright was also initiated and took his share of the 
 labour.^ 
 
 The gang thus composed laboured upon the wall 
 from the beginning of January, 1604-5, to the middle 
 of March,' by which time they had succeeded in get- 
 
 ' In Barlow's Gunpowder Treason these foundations are stated 
 to have been three ells thick, i.e., eleven and a quarter feet. 
 Harleian Miscellany, iii. 122. 
 
 ^ See Appendix F, The enrolment of the Conspirators, for 
 the discrepancies as to dates. T. Winter (November 23rd, 1605) 
 says that the powder was laid " in Mr. Percy's house ; " Faukes, 
 " in a low Room new builded." 
 
 ' There is, as usual,' hopeless contradiction between the two 
 witnesses upon whom, as will be seen, we wholly depend for 
 this portion of the story. Faukes (November 17th, 1605) makes, 
 the mining operations terminate at Candlemas. T. Winter 
 
THE MINE. 65 
 
 ting only half way through. While the others worked, 
 Faukes stood on sentry to warn them of any danger. 
 
 Meanwhile, it must be asked how proceedings so 
 remarkable could have escaped the notice, not only of 
 the government, but of the entire neighbourhood. 
 This, it must be remembered, was most populous. 
 There were people living in the very building, a part of 
 which sheltered the conspirators. Around, were thickly 
 clustered the dwellings of the keeper of the Wardrobe, 
 auditors and tellers of the Exchequer, and other such 
 officials.^ There were tradespeople and workmen 
 constantly employed close to the spot where the work 
 was going on ; while the public character of the place 
 makes it impossible to suppose that tenants such as 
 Percy and his friends, who were little better than 
 lodgers, could claim the exclusive use of anything 
 beyond the rooms they rented — even when allowed the 
 use of these — or could shut against the neighbours and 
 visitors in general the precincts of so much frequented 
 a spot. 
 
 How, then, did they dispose of the mass of soil 
 dug out in making a tunnel through which barrels 
 and hogsheads were to be conveyed ? No man who 
 has had practical experience of the unexpected 
 quantity of earth which comes out of the most 
 
 (November 23rd) says that they went on to " near Easter " 
 (March 31st). The date of hiring the "cellar," was about 
 Lady Day (March 25th). 
 
 ^ The buildings of the dissolved College of St. Stephen, com- 
 prising those around the House of Lords, were granted by 
 Edward VL to Sir Ralph Lane. They reverted to the crown 
 under Elizabeth, and were appropriated as residences for the 
 auditors and tellers of the Exchequer. The locality became so 
 populous that in 1606 it was forbidden to erect more houses. 
 
 F 
 
66 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 insignificant excavation, will be likely to rest satisfied 
 with the explanation officially given, that it was suffi- 
 ciently concealed by being hidden beneath the turf 
 in the little garden adjoining.' What, moreover, was 
 done with the great stones- that came out of the 
 foundations? Of these there must have been on 
 hand at least some sixty cubic feet, probably much 
 more, and they, at any rate, can scarcely have been 
 stowed away beneath the turf 
 
 What, above all, of the noise made during the space 
 of a couple of months, in assaulting a wall " very hard 
 to beat through " ? It is a matter of common observa- 
 tion how sound travels in the ground, and every stroke 
 of the pick upon the stone must have been distinctly 
 heard for more than a hundred yards all around, con- 
 stituting a public nuisance. Meanwhile, not only 
 were there people living close by on every side, but 
 men were constantly at work right over the heads of 
 the diggers, and only a few feet from them : yet 
 we are required to believe that neither these nor any 
 others had any notion that anything unusual was 
 going on. 
 
 Neither is it easy to understand how these amateurs 
 contrived to do so much without a catastrophe. To 
 make a tunnel through soft earth is a very delicate 
 operation, replete with unlooked-for difficulties. To 
 shore up the roof and sides there must, moreover, have 
 been required a large quantity of the " framed timber " 
 of which Speed tells us, and the provision and importa- 
 tion of this must have been almost as hard to keep 
 dark as the exportation of the earth and stones. A 
 
 ' Jardine, Gunpowder Plot, p. 48. 
 
DIFFICULTIES OF THE STORY. 6/ 
 
 Still more critical operation is that of meddling with the 
 foundations of a house — especially of an old and heavy- 
 structure — which a professional craftsman would not 
 venture upon except with extreme care, and the employ- 
 ment of many precautions of which these light-hearted 
 adventurers knew nothing. Yet, recklessly breaking 
 their way out of one building, and to a large extent into 
 another, they appear to have occasioned neither crack 
 nor settlement in either. 
 
 We are by no means at the end of our difficulties. 
 According to the tale told by Faukes,^ all the seven 
 miners " lay in Percy's house," never showing them- 
 selves while the work was in progress. This circum- 
 stance, to say nothing of the storage of powder barrels 
 and timber, seems to imply that the premises were 
 spacious and commodious. We learn, however, on 
 the unimpeachable evidence of Mrs. Whynniard's ser- 
 vant,^ that the house afforded accommodation only 
 for one person at a time, so that when Percy came 
 there to spend the night, Faukes, who passed for his 
 man, had to lodge out. This suggests another ques- 
 tion. Percy's pretext for laying in so much fuel was 
 that he meant to bring up his wife to live there. But 
 how could this be under such conditions ? 
 
 Still more serious is another problem. When the 
 mining operations were commenced, in December, 1604, 
 Parliament was appointed to meet on the 7th of Feb- 
 ruary following, by which time, as is evident, the 
 preparations of the conspirators could not have been 
 completed. While they were working, however, news 
 came that the session was to be postponed till October. 
 
 ' November 17th, 1605. " November 7th, 1605. 
 
68 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 This information the conspirators appear to have re- 
 ceived quite casually before Christmas, for it is said 
 that on the strength of it, they thought they could 
 afford to take a holiday.^ Early in January they 
 were again at work,^ and they continued their opera- 
 tions thenceforth, without any circumstance intervening 
 to interrupt or alarm them, of which we hear anything 
 either from themselves or from subsequent writers. 
 Nevertheless, it is quite certain that the Lords actually 
 met on February 7th — that is while the mining opera- 
 tions were going on — and not only went through the 
 ceremony of prorogation, but transacted some little 
 business besides. Lord Denny being introduced and 
 his writ of summons read.^ It is equally incompre- 
 
 ^ Winter says :" . . . 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" 
 (November 23rd, 1605). 
 
 Lingard writes, " When a fortnight had thus been devoted to 
 uninterrupted labour, Faukes informed his associates that the 
 Parliament was prorogued from the 7th of February to the 3rd. 
 of October. They immediately separated to spend the Christmas 
 holidays at their respective homes." — History, vii. 47 (ed. 1883). 
 
 ^ Faukes, as has been said, makes the work upon the wait 
 terminate at Candlemas. Winter {nt sup.) says that they brought 
 over the powder at Candlemas, that is, after they had been some; 
 time engaged upon the wall, and found the need of the assistance 
 of Keyes. 
 
 ' Lord's Journals "A" 1604(5) 2 Jac— Memorandum quod 
 hodierno die, septimo die Februarii, A" Regis iiri Jacobi, viz.. 
 Angliae (etc.) 2"'"', & Scotiae 38", in quem diem prorogatum, 
 fuerat hoc praesens parliamentum, convenere Proceres tam. 
 Spirituales quam Temporales, quorum nomina subscribuntur." 
 
 Then follow twenty-nine names, including the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, Lords EUesmere [Chancellor), Dorsti {Treasurer) „ 
 
DIFFICULTIES OF THE STORY. 69 
 
 hensible that the miners should have known nothing 
 of so startling an occurrence, or that knowing of it 
 they should never have made the slightest mention 
 thereof. It is even more difficult to explain how the 
 Peers thus assembled, and their attendants, could have 
 failed to remark the mine, then actually open, in 
 premises belonging to themselves, or any suspicious 
 features of earth, stones, timber, or barrels. 
 
 The difficulties presented by the stubborn nature of 
 the foundation-wall proved well-nigh insuperable, but, 
 as is observed by Father Greenway,' one still more grave 
 awaited the diggers had they succeeded in making 
 their way through. The "concavity" to be excavated 
 within, to contain the large number of powder barrels 
 required for th;ir purpose, would have involved en- 
 gineering work of the most hazardous kind, and 
 heavily laden as the floor above proved to be, it must, 
 according to all rules of calculation, have collapsed, 
 when thus undermined. But at this juncture, when 
 the wall had been half pierced, a circumstance occurred, 
 not less extraordinary than others we have considered, 
 to change the whole plan of operations. 
 
 All this time, ridiculous as is the supposition, the 
 conspirators appear to have been ignorant of the 
 existence of the " cellar," and to have fancied that 
 they were working their way immediately beneath the 
 Chamber of the Peers.^ If such a circumstance be 
 
 Nottingham {Admiral), Suffolk {Chamberlain), Northumber- 
 land, Cranborne (Cecil), Northampton, etc. It is noted "Lords 
 Montagu, Petre, and Gerard [all three Catholics] were present, 
 though they were none of the Commissioners." 
 
 ' Narrative (Stonyhurst MSS ), fol. 44 b. 
 
 ° This absurd supposition is obviously implied by Faukes 
 
70 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 incredible, the consequences must be borne by the 
 narrative of which it forms an essential feature. That 
 it is incredible can hardly be questioned. The so- 
 called " cellar," as we have seen, was a large and con- 
 spicuous room above ground. There are reasons for 
 believing that it served habitually as a passage be- 
 tween the different parts of the palace. It appears 
 certain that some of the conspirators, Percy in par- 
 ticular, as being one of his Majesty's pensioners, must 
 have frequently been in the House of Lords itself, and 
 therefore have known where it was ; and clearly men 
 of their position were able to attend there when they 
 chose.' 
 
 The manner in which they came at last to discover 
 the " cellar " is thus related by Mr. Jardine : ' " One 
 morning, while working upon the wall, they suddenly 
 heard a rushing noise in a cellar, nearly above their 
 heads. At first they imagined that they had been 
 discovered ; but Fawkes being despatched to recon- 
 noitre, found that one Bright, to whom the cellar 
 
 (November 17th, 1605), and T. Winter (November 23rd), in the 
 only two accounts furnished by any of the conspirators wherein 
 the episode of the mine is mentioned. In Barlow's Gunpowder 
 Treason {Harleian Miscellany, iii. 123) it is expressly stated 
 that the confederates " came to the knowledge of the vault " 
 only on the occasion now detailed. Tierney says (Dodd's 
 Church History, iv. 45, note): "At this moment an acci- 
 dental noise . . . first acquainted them with the existence of 
 the cellar." 
 
 , ' On the 3rd of October following, Thomas Winter was sent 
 to be present at the ceremony of prorogation, and to watch the 
 demeanour of the assembled peers. 
 
 - Gunpowder Plot, p. 55. This account is based almost 
 entirely on that of Faukes, November 17th, 1605. 
 
THE "CELLAR." 
 
 71 
 
 belonged, was selling off his coals ^ in order to remove, 
 and that the noise proceeded from this cause. Fawkes 
 
 N.W. Corner. 
 
 S.E. Corner. 
 CELLAR UNDER HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 ' In his Italian version of Father Gerard's history, Father 
 Greenway interpolates the following note : " Questi non erano 
 carboni di legno, ma una sorte di pietra negra, la quale come 
 carbone abrugia et fa un fuogo bellissimo et ottimo" (fol. 44 b). 
 
72 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 carefully surveyed the place, which proved to be a 
 large vault, situated immediately below the House of 
 Lords, and extremely convenient for the purpose they 
 had in view. . . . Finding that the cellar would 
 shortly become vacant, the conspirators agreed that it 
 should be hired in Percy's name, under the pretext 
 that he wanted it for his own coals and wood. This 
 was accordingly done, and immediate possession was 
 obtained." ' 
 
 It is obvious that Mr. Bright's men must on this, as 
 presumably upon many previous occasions, have been 
 at work among the coals, while the miners were ham- 
 mering at the foundations beneath them, and yet have 
 been as little aware of what was going on as were the 
 others of the existence of the " cellar." It must, 
 farther, be noted that the hiring of this receptacle 
 was, in fact, by no means so easy a matter as the 
 accounts ordinarily given would lead us to suppose. 
 
 ' " These Pioneers through Piercies chamber brought 
 
 Th' exhausted earth, great baskets full of clay ; 
 
 Thereby t' have made a mighty concave vau't. 
 
 And of the house the ground worke tooke away ; 
 But then at last an obstacle they finde. 
 Which to remove proud Piercy casts in 's mind. 
 
 A thick stone wall their passage then did let ; 
 
 Whereby they cou'd not finish their intent. 
 
 Then forthwith Piercy did a sellar get, 
 
 Under that sacred house for yearly rent : 
 
 Feigning to fill 't with Char coal, Wood, & Beere, 
 From all suspect themselves to cloake & cleere." 
 
 John Vicars, Mischeefes Mysterie. 
 
 This remarkable poem, published 1617, is a much expanded 
 translation of Pietas Pontificia (in Latin hexameter verse) by 
 Francis Herring, which appeared in 1606. 
 
THE " CELLAR." 73 
 
 Faukes, in the narrative on which the whole history of 
 this episode has been based, is made to say that he 
 found that the coals were a-selling, and the cellar was 
 to be let, whereupon Percy went and hired it. Mrs. 
 Whynniard, however, tells us that the cellar was not 
 to let, and that Bright had not the disposal of the 
 
 VAULT, EAST END OF PAINTED CHAMBER, ERRONEOUSLY 
 STYLED "guy FAUKES' CELLAR." 
 
 lease, but one Skinner, and that Percy " laboured very 
 earnestly " before he succeeded in obtaining it. 
 
 But, whatever the circumstances and manner of the 
 transaction, it appears that at Lady-day, 1605, this 
 chamber came into the hands of those who were to 
 make it so famous ; whereupon, we are told, they 
 resolved to abandon the mine, and use this ready- 
 
74 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 made cavity for their purposes. To it, accordingly, 
 they transferred their powder, the barrels, by subse- 
 quent additions, being increased to thirty-six, and the 
 amount to nine or ten thousand pounds.^ The casks 
 were covered with firewood, 500 faggots and 3,000 
 billets being brought in by hired porters and piled up 
 by Faukes, to whose charge, in his assumed character 
 of Percy's servant, the cellar was committed. It is 
 stated in Winter's long declaration on this subject,^ 
 that the barrels were thus completely hidden, " because 
 we might have the house free, to suffer anyone to 
 enter that would," and we find it mentioned by various 
 writers subsequently, that free ingress was actually 
 allowed to the public. Thus we read ' of " the deep 
 
 ^ On this point we are furnished with more than the usual 
 amount of variety as to details. Cecil, writing to the ambassa- 
 dors (Cornwallis, Edmondes, etc.), says there were "two hodgs- 
 heads and some 30 small barrels." The King's Discourse 
 mentions 36 barrels. Barclay (Conspiratio Anglicand) says 
 there were over 9,000 lb. of powder, in 32 barrels, and that 
 one of extra size had been placed under the throne, for treason 
 could not without dread assail Majesty even when unarmed. 
 The indictment of the conspirators named 30 barrels and 4 
 hogsheads. Sir E. Coke always said 36 barrels. Barlow's 
 Gunpowder Treason makes the extraordinary statement, fre- 
 quently reproduced, that " to the 20 Barrels of Powder laid 
 in at first, they added in July 20 more, and at last made up the 
 number Thirty-six." Faukes (November 5th) said that of the 
 powder " some was put in hoggesheads, some in Barrels, and 
 some in firkins." Faukes also says that the powder was con- 
 veyed to the place in hampers. John Chamberlain, writing tO' 
 Dudley Carleton, November 7th, 1605, says it was carried in 
 satchels. Barlow {utsup.) quotes the amount as 9,000 or 10,000 lb. 
 
 ^ November 23rd, 1605. 
 
 ' The Gunpowder Plot, by L., 1805. It seems highly probable 
 that the " cellar " was used as a public passage. 
 
> 
 
 n 
 
 a 
 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 M 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 B 
 
 r 
 > 
 
 d 
 
 S! 
 
 a 
 w 
 
 H 
 
 K 
 H 
 
 K 
 O 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 d 
 
76 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 cunning [of the conspirators] in throwing open the 
 vault, as if there had been nothing to conceal ; " while 
 another writer ^ tells us, " The place was hired by- 
 Percy ; 36 barrels of gunpowder were lodged in it ; 
 the whole covered up with billets and faggots ; the 
 doors of the cellar boldly flung open, and everybody 
 admitted, as though it contained nothing dangerous." 
 On the top of the barrels were likewise placed " great 
 bars of iron and massy stones," in order " to make the 
 breach the greater." 
 
 We may here pause to review the extraordinary 
 story to which we have been listening. A group of 
 men, known for as dangerous characters as any in 
 England, men, in Cecil's own words,'' " spent in their 
 fortunes," " hunger-starved for innovations," " turbulent 
 spirits," and " fit for all alterations," take a house 
 within the precincts of a royal palace, and close to 
 the Upper House of Parliament, dig a mine, hammer 
 away for over two months at the wall, acquire and 
 bring in four tons of gunpowder, storing it in a large 
 and conspicuous chamber immediately beneath that 
 of the Peers, and covering it with an amount of fuel 
 sufficient for a royal establishment — and meanwhile 
 those responsible for the government of the country 
 have not even the faintest suspicion of any possible 
 danger. " Never," it is said," " was treason more 
 secret, or ruin more apparently inevitable," while the 
 
 ' Hugh F. Martyndale, A Familiar Analysis of the Calendar 
 of the Church of En^^land (Novemher 5th). London, Effingham 
 Wilson. 
 
 ^ Letter to Cornwallis and Edmondes, November 9th, 
 1605. 
 
 ' H. F. Martyndale, ut sup. 
 
THE CONDUCT, OF THE GOVERNMENT. "Jf 
 
 Secretary of State himself declared' that such ruin was. 
 averted only by the direct interposition of Heaven,, 
 in a manner nothing short of miraculous. 
 
 It must be remembered that the government thus, 
 credited with childlike and culpable simplicity, was 
 probably the most suspicious and inquisitive that ever- 
 held power in this country, for its tenure whereof it 
 trusted mainly to the elaborate efficiency of its in- 
 telligence department. Of a former secretary, Wal- 
 singham. Parsons wrote that he " spent infinite upon 
 spyery," ^ and there can be no doubt that his suc- 
 cessor, now in office, had studied his methods to good 
 purpose. " He," according to a panegyrist,' " was his. 
 craft's master in foreign intelligence and for domestic 
 affairs," who could tell at any moment what ships 
 there were in every port of Spain, their burdens, their 
 equipment, and their destination. We are told * that 
 he could discover the most secret business transacted 
 in the Papal Court before it was known to the 
 Catholics in England. He could intercept letters 
 written from Paris to Brussels, or from Rome to. 
 Naples.^ What was his activity at home is sufficiently 
 evidenced by the reports furnished by his numerous 
 agents concerning everything done throughout the 
 country, in particular by Recusants ; whereof we 
 shall see more, in connection with this particular 
 
 ' Letter to the Ambassadors, ut sup. 
 
 ^ An Advertisement written to a Secretarie, etc. (1592),. 
 
 P- 13- 
 
 ' Sir R. Naunton, Fragmenta Regalia {Harleian Miscellany,^ 
 
 ii. 1 06). 
 
 * Blount to Parsons (Stonyhurst MSS.), Anglia, vi. 64. 
 ' Such letters are found amongst the State Papers. 
 
78 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 affair. That those so remarkably wide-awake in 
 regard of all else should have been blind and deaf to 
 what was passing at their own doors appears alto- 
 gether incredible. 
 
 More especially do difficulties connect themselves 
 ilvith the gunpowder itself. Of this, according to the 
 /lowest figure given us, there were over four tons.' 
 J How, we may ask, could half a dozen men, " notorious. 
 Recusan ts," a nd bearing, moreover, such a character 
 as we have heard, wjthout Jtttra£ting_any_notice, and 
 no question being asked, possess -themselves, of _such. a 
 ^[uS^nHt)^ of so_^angerous ,a_material ? ^ How large 
 was the amount may be estimated from the fact that 
 
 ' The amount, it would seem, cannot have been less than 
 this. A barrel of gunpowder, containing four firkins, weighed 
 400 lb., and had the casks in the cellar all been barrels, in the 
 strict sense of the word, the amount would therefore have 
 exceeded six tons. Some of these casks, we are told, were 
 small, but some were hogsheads. The twenty barrels first laid 
 in are described as " whole barrels." (Faukes, January 20th, 
 1605-6.) 
 
 ^ An interesting illustration of this point is furnished by a 
 strange piece of evidence furnished by W. Andrew, servant to 
 Sir E. Digby. Sir Everard's office was to organize the rising 
 in the Midlands, after the catastrophe, but he apparently forgot 
 to supply himself with powder till the very eve of the appointed 
 •day. Andrew averred that on the night of November 4th, his 
 master secretly asked him to procure some powder in the 
 neighbouring town, whereupon he asked, " How much ? A 
 jjound, or half a pound ? " Sir Everard said 200 or 300 lb. 
 Deponent purchased one pound. (Tanner MSS. Ixxv. f. 205 b.) 
 
 One Matthew Batty mentioned Lord Monteagle as having 
 bought gunpowder, (/did. v. 40.) 
 
 In the same collection is a copy of some notes by Sir E. Coke 
 (f. 185 b), in which the price of the powder discovered is put 
 ■down as ^200, i.e. some .£2,000 of our money. 
 
THE CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT. 79 
 
 it was more than a quarter of what, in 1607, was 
 dehvered from the royal store, for all purposes, and 
 was equal to what was thought sufficient for Dover 
 Castle, while there was no more in the four fortresses 
 of Arcliffe, Walmer, Deal, and Camber together.^ 
 
 The twenty barrels first procured were first, as we 
 have seen, stored beyond the Thames, at Lambeth, 
 whence they had to be ferried across the river, hauled 
 up the much frequented Parliament Stairs, carried 
 down Parliament Place, as busy a quarter as any in 
 the city of Westminster, and into the building adjoin- 
 ing the Parliament House, or the " cellar" beneath the 
 same. All this, we are to suppose, without attracting 
 attention or remark.^ 
 
 ' Gunpowder was measured by the last = 2,400 lb. (Tom- 
 line's Law Dictionary.) In 1607 there were delivered out of 
 the store 14 lasts and some cwts. In 1608 the amount in 
 various strong places is entered as : " Dover Castle, 4 lasts ; 
 Arcliffe Bullwark, i last ; Walmer, i last, 8 cwt. ; Deal Castle, 
 I last ; Sandown Castle, 2 lasts, etc. ; Sandgate, i last ; Camber; 
 I last." 
 
 ^ The position and character of the " cellar " admit of no 
 doubt, as appears from the testimony of Smith's Antiquities 
 cf Westminster, Brayley and Britten's Ancient Palace of 
 Westminster, and Capon's notes on the same, Vetusta Monu- 
 menta, v. They are, however, inconsistent with some cir- 
 cumstances alleged by the government. Thus, Sir Everard 
 Digby's complicity with "the worst part" of the treason, which 
 on several occasions he denied, is held to be established by a 
 confession of Faukes, which cannot now be found among the 
 State Papers, but which is mentioned in Sir E. Coke's speech 
 upon Digby's arraignment, and is printed in Barlow's Gun- 
 powder Treason, p. 68. In Sir E. Coke's version it runs thus : 
 " Fawkes, then present at the bar, had confessed, that some 
 time before that session, the said Fawkes being with Digby at 
 
8o WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 The conspirators, while making these material 
 preparations, were Hkewise busy in settling their plan 
 of action when the intended blow should have been 
 struck. It was by no means their intention to attempt 
 a revolution. Their quarrel was purely personal with 
 King James, his Council, and his Parliament, and, 
 these being removed, they desired to continue the 
 succession in its legitimate course, and to seat on the 
 throne the nearest heir who might be available for the 
 purpose ; placing the new sovereign, however, under 
 such tutelage as should insure the inauguration of a 
 right course of policy. The details of the scheme 
 were of as lunatic a character as the rest of the busi- 
 ness. The confederates would have wished to possess 
 themselves of Prince Henry, the king's eldest son ; 
 
 his house in the country, about which time there had fallen 
 much wet, Digby taking Fawkes aside after supper, told him 
 he was much afraid that the powder jn the cellar was grown 
 damp, and that some new must be provided, lest that should 
 not take fire." 
 
 Seeing, however, that the powder stood above ground, withia 
 a most substantial building, and could be reached by the rain 
 only if this should first flood the Chamber of the Peers, it does not 
 seem as if the idea of such a danger should have suggested itself. 
 
 Another interesting point in connection with the "cellar" is 
 that the House of Lords having subsequently been removed to- 
 the Court of Requests, and afterwards to the Painted Chamber,, 
 " Guy Faukes' Cellar" on each occasion accompanied the migra- 
 tion. From Leigh's New Picture of London we find that in 
 1824-5, when the Court of Requests was in use, and the old 
 cellar had completely disappeared, Guy's Cellar was still shown j 
 while a plate given in Knight's Old England, and elsewhere, re- 
 presents a vault under the Painted Chamber, not used as the 
 House of Lords till after 1832. Such a cellar seems to have been, 
 considered a necessary appurtenance of the House. 
 
THE CONSPIRATORS' PLANS. 8 1 
 
 but as he would probably accompany his father 
 to the opening of Parliament, and so perish, their 
 desire was to get hold of his brother, the Duke of 
 York, afterwards Charles I., then but five years old. 
 It was, however, possible that he too might go to 
 Parliament, and otherwise it might not improbably be 
 impossible to get possession of him : in which case 
 they were prepared to be satisfied with the Princess 
 Elizabeth,' or even with her infant sister Mary, for 
 whom, as being English born, a special claim might be 
 urged. 
 
 Such was the project in general. When we come to 
 details, we are confronted, as might be anticipated, with 
 statements impossible to reconcile. We are told,^ that 
 Percy undertook to seize and carry off Duke Charles ; 
 and again,' that, despairing of being able to lay hands 
 upon him, they resolved " to serve themselves with 
 the Lady Elizabeth," and that Percy was one of those 
 who made arrangements for seizing her ; * and again, 
 that having learnt that Prince Henry was not to go 
 to the House, they determined to surprise him, " and 
 leave the young Duke alone ; " ° and once more, that 
 they never entered into any consultation or formed 
 any project whatever as to the succession.* 
 
 ^ Afterwards the Electress Palatine. 
 
 ^ Gardiner, Hist. i. 245 ; Lingard, vii. 59 ; T. Winter, 
 November 23rd, 1605. 
 
 ^ Faukes, November 17th, 1605. 
 
 * Harry Morgan, Examination {K. 0.), November 12th, 1605. 
 
 ° T. Winter, November 23rd and 25th, 1605. As the informa- 
 tion about Prince Henry was alleged to have been communicated 
 by Lord Monteagle, the passage has been mutilated in the 
 published version to conceal this circumstance. 
 
 ° Faukes, November sth, 1605. 
 
 G 
 
82 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Still more serious are the contradictions on another 
 point. We are told, on the one hand, that a proclama- 
 tion was drawn up for the inauguration of the new 
 sovereign — whoever this was ' — and, on the other, 
 that the associates were resolved not to avow the 
 explosion to be their work until they should see how 
 the country took it, or till they had gathered a sufficient 
 force,'' and accordingly that they had ho more than a 
 project of a proclamation to be issued in due season. 
 But, again, it is said ' that Catesby on his way out of 
 town, after the event, was to proclaim the new monarch 
 at Charing Cross, though it is equally hard to under- 
 stand, either how he was to know which of the plans 
 had succeeded, and who that monarch was to be, — 
 whether a king or a queen, — or what effect such pro- 
 clamation by an obscure individual -Uke_himself_.H&s 
 expe cted to produce ; or how this, or indeed any 
 item in the programme was compatible with the 
 incognito of the actors in the great tragedy. 
 
 Amid this hopeless tangle one point alone is 
 perfectly clear. Whatever was the scheme, it was 
 absolutely insane, and could by no possibility have 
 succeeded. As Mr. Gardiner says : * " With the ad- 
 vantage of having an infant sovereign in their hands, 
 with a little money and a few horses, these sanguine 
 dreamers fancied that they would have the whole of 
 England at their feet." 
 
 Such is in outline the authorized version of the 
 history concerning what Father John Gerard styles 
 
 ' Sir E. Digby, Barlow's Gunpowder Treason, App. 249. 
 ' Faukes, November 17th, 1605. 
 ' Digby, ut sup. 
 * History, i. 239, 
 
CELL IN STAIRCASE TURRET, S. E. CORNER, PAINTED CHAMBER, 
 OFTEN CALLED "GUY FAUKES' CELL. 
 
A 
 
 84 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 " this preposterous Plot of Powder ; " and preposterous 
 it undoubtedly appears to be in more senses than he 
 intended. It is, in the first place, almost impossible 
 to believe that the important and dramatic episode of 
 the mine ever, in fact, occurred. We have seen some- 
 thing of the diiificultiqs against accepting this part of 
 the story, which the circumstantial evidence suggests. 
 When, on the other hand, we ask upon what testimony 
 it rests, it is a surprise to find that for so prominent 
 and striking an incident we are wholly dependent 
 upon two documents, published by the government, a 
 confession of Thomas Winter and another of Faukes, 
 both of which present features rendering them in the 
 highest degree suspicious. Amongst the many con- 
 fessions and declarations made by the conspirators 
 in general, and these individuals in particular, these 
 two alone describe the mining operations.' 
 
 On the other hand, it is somewhat startling to find 
 no less a person than the Earl of Salisbury himself 
 ignorant or oblivious of so remarkable a circumstance. 
 In Thomas Winter's lodging was found the agreement 
 between Percy and Ferrers for the lease of the house,, 
 
 ' There is also an allusion to the same in the confession of 
 Keyes, November 30th, 1605 ; but this document also is of a. 
 highly suspicious character. Of the seven miners, none but these 
 three were taken alive ; Catesby, Percy, and the two Wrights, 
 being killed in the field. Strangely enough, though Keyes may 
 be cited as a witness on this subject, on which his evidence is of 
 such singular importance, the government, for some purpose of 
 its own, tampered with the confession of Faukes wherein he is. 
 mentioned as one of the excavators, substituting Robert Winter's 
 name for his, and placing Keyes amongst those " that wrought 
 not in the myne." See Jardine's remarks on this point, Criminat 
 Trials, ii. 6. 
 
INCREDIBILITY OF THE STORY. 85 
 
 which was taken, as has been said, in May, 1604. 
 This is still preserved, and has been endorsed by- 
 Cecil, " The bargaine between Percy and Ferrers for 
 the bloody sellar. . . ." But this contract had nothing 
 to do with the " bloody sellar," which was not rented 
 till ten months later. Again, writing November 9th, 
 1605, to Cornwallis and Edmondes, Cecil says : "This 
 Percy had about a year and a half ago hired a part of 
 Vyniard'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 [had] taken this place of purpose to 
 work some mischief in a fit time." When this was 
 written the premises had been for four days in the 
 hands of the government. It is clearly impossible 
 that the remains of the mine, had they existed, should 
 not have been found, and equally so that Cecil should 
 not have alluded to the overwhelming evidence they 
 afforded as to the intention of Percy and his associates 
 to " work some mischief," but should, again, have 
 connected the tenancy of the house only with the 
 ■" cellar." 
 
 It will, moreover, be found by investigators that 
 when exceptional stress is laid on any point by Sir 
 E. Coke, the Attorney General, a prima facie case 
 against the genuine nature of the evidence in regard 
 of that point is thereby established. In his speech on 
 the trial of the conspirators we find him declaring 
 that, " If the cellar had not been hired, the mine work 
 could hardly, or not at all, have been discovered, for 
 the mine was neither found nor suspected until the 
 danger was past, and the capital offenders appre- 
 hended, and by themselves, upon examination, con- 
 fessed." That is to say, the government could noti 
 
86 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 though provided with information that there was a 
 powder-mine under the Parliament House, have dis- 
 covered this extraordinary piece of engineering ; and 
 moreover, after its abandonment, the traces of the 
 excavation were so artfully hidden as to elude obser- 
 vation till the prisoners drew attention to them. Such, 
 assertions cannot possibly be true ; but they might 
 serve to meet the objection that no one had seen the 
 mine. 
 
 We likewise find that in his examination of Novem- 
 ber 5th, Faukes is made to say : " He confesseth that 
 about Christmas last [1604], he brought in the night- 
 time Gunpowder to the cellar under the tipper house of 
 Parliament" that is some three months before the 
 cellar was hired. Moreover, the words italicised have 
 been added as an interlineation, apparently by Cecil 
 himself Evidently when this was done the mine was 
 still undiscovered. 
 
 Yet more remarkable is the fact that it would 
 appear to have remained undiscovered ever afterwards, 
 and that no marks seem to have been left upon 
 the wall which had been so roughly handled. It is 
 certainly impossible to find any record that such 
 traces were observed when the building was de- 
 molished, though they could scarcely have failed to 
 attract attention and interest. On this subject we 
 have the important evidence of Mr. William Capon, 
 who carefully examined every detail connected with 
 the old palace, and evidently had the opportunity of 
 studying the foundations of the House of Lords when, 
 in 1823, that building was removed.' He does, in- 
 
 ' His detailed notes and plans are given in Vetusta Menu- 
 menta, vol. v. 
 
WAS THERE A MINE? 8/ 
 
 deed, mention what he conceives to be the traces of the 
 conspirators' work, of which he gives the following 
 description :•_ 
 
 " Adjoining the south end of the Cellar, or more 
 properly the ancient Kitchen, to the west, was a small 
 room separated only by a stone doorway, with a pointed 
 head, and with very substantial masonry joined to 
 the older walls. ... At the North side [of this] there 
 had been an opening, a doorway of very solid thick 
 stonemasonry, through which was, a way seemingly 
 forced through by great violence. . r<ln 1799 ^t was 
 asserted that this was always understood to have been 
 the place where the conspirators broke into the vault 
 which adjoined that called Guy Vaux's cellar." ' 
 
 But against such a supposition there are three fatal 
 objections, (i) This places the conspirators on the 
 wrong side of the house, for they most certainly worked 
 from the east, or river side, not from the west." (2) It 
 makes the mine above ground instead of below. (3) 
 The conspirators never broke into the cellar at all, but 
 hired it in the ordinary way of business^.^--^ 
 
 Such considerations as the above may well make 
 us sceptical in regard to the mine, and if this element 
 of the story, upon which so much stress has always 
 been laid, prove to be untrustworthy, it must needs 
 follow that grave suspicion will be cast upon the 
 rest. 
 t' There are, likewise, various problems in connec- 
 tion with the " cellar," especially as concerns the 
 means of ingress to it, and its consequent privacy or 
 publicity. 
 
 ^ Page 4. * See Appendix E, Site of Percy's house. 
 
88 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 {a) Faukes says (November 6th, 1605) that about 
 the middle of Lent of thq,t year Percy caused " a new 
 dore " to be made into it, " that he might have a 
 nearer way out of his own house into the cellar." 
 
 This seems to imply that Percy took the cellar for 
 his firewood when there was no convenient communi- 
 cation between it and his house. Moreover it is not 
 very easy to understand how a tenant under such con- 
 ditions as his was allowed at discretion to knock doors 
 through the walls of a royal palace. Neither did the 
 landlady say anything of this door-making, when 
 detailing what she knew about Percy's proceedings. 
 
 {b) In some notes by Sir E. Coke,' it is said : " The 
 powder was first brought into Percy's house, and lay 
 there in a low room new built, and could not have 
 been conveyed into the cellar by the old door but that 
 all the street must have seen it ; and therefore he 
 caused a new door out of his house into the cellar to 
 be made, where before there had been a grate of 
 iron." 
 
 This, it must be confessed, looks very like an after- 
 thought to explain away a difficulty, but failing to do 
 so. When the door is said to have been made, the 
 powder was already on the premises, having been 
 brought there in sight of the whole street and the 
 river. It could hardly, in so small a tenement, 
 escape the observation of the workmen,'' while the 
 operations of these latter in breaking through the wall 
 
 1 Tanner MSS. Ixxv. § 185, b. 
 
 ^ Faukes, November 6th, uses the same expression, " a low 
 room new builded," which seems to imply that this receptacle 
 had been constructed since Percy came into possession of the 
 house. 
 
DIFFICULTIES ABOUT THE "CELLAR." 89 
 
 would have served yet farther to attract the attention 
 of the neighbourhood. 
 
 (c) We are told by Faukes and others, that either 
 he or Percy always kept the key, and that marks were 
 made to indicate whether anyone had entered the 
 place in their absence. 
 
 (d) On the other hand, to say nothing of Winter's 
 declaration that the confederates so arranged as to 
 leave the cellar free for all to enter who would. 
 Lord Salisbury informed Sir Thomas Parry ' that the 
 captors of Faukes entered through "another door," 
 which clearly did not require to be opened by him ; 
 while as to the ordinary door, whichever this was, the 
 " King's Book " itself plainly intimates, in the account 
 of the chamberlain's visit, that Whynniard, the land- 
 lord, was able to open it when he chose. 
 
 The "other door" spoken of by Cecil, a most 
 important feature of the chamber, is nowhere else 
 mentioned.^ 
 
 It appears certain that the conspirators really had a 
 plot in hand, that they fancied themselves to be about 
 to strike a great blow, and that by means of gun- 
 powder ; but what was the precise nature of their 
 plans and preparations it is not so easy to determine. 
 Farther discussion of these particulars must be deferred 
 to a later chapter. Meanwhile, according to the 
 accepted history, when they had stored their powder 
 there was nothing more to do but to await the assem- 
 
 ' November 6th, 1605. More will be seen of the important 
 document containing this information. 
 
 ^ According to Smith's plan {sup. p. 59) there were four 
 entrances to the cellar, none of which can have been Percy's 
 " new dore." 
 
THE POWDER PLOT. II. 
 
THE SUMMER OF l6oS. QI 
 
 bling of the intended victims. Parliament stood pro- 
 rogued till October 3rd, and was afterwards further 
 adjourned till the fateful 5th of November. That they 
 might not excite suspicion, the confederates separated^ 
 most of them retiring to their country seats, and 
 Faukes going over to Flanders.' In his absence Percy 
 kept the key of the cellar, and, according to Faukes,* 
 laid in more powder and wood while he himself was 
 absent. 
 
 It is not easy to understand what became of the 
 cellar during this long interval, and apparently it was 
 left in great measure, with its compromising contents, 
 to take care of itself, for Percy, amongst other places, 
 went with Catesby to Bath to take the waters.^ If the 
 premises were of so public a nature as the testimony of 
 Winter and others would imply, it appears impossible 
 that they should have remained all this time sealed up, 
 or that these astute and crafty plotters should with a 
 light heart have ignored the probability that they 
 would be visited and inspected. As Father Greenway 
 observes,* it can hardly be supposed that the landlord' 
 
 '■ We are told that Faukes was selected to take charge of the 
 house, and perform other duties which would bring him into 
 notice, because being unknown in London he was not likely to 
 excite remark. In his declaration, November 8th, however, he 
 gives as his reason for going abroad, " lest, being a dangerous 
 man, he should be known and suspected." It is obvious that in 
 the meantime the cellar must either have been left in charge of 
 others better known, and therefore more likely to excite sus- 
 picion, or have been left unprotected. 
 
 ° November 17th, 1605. 
 
 ' Thomas Winter, November 23rd, 1605. 
 
 * F. 66. 
 
 * This, as we have heard, was Mr. Whypniard, who unfor- 
 
92 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 had not a duplicate key, while Cecil himself, in his 
 letter to Sir Thomas Parry, plainly indicates that 
 access to the cellar could freely be procured in- 
 dependently of the conspirators. We can only say 
 that the conduct of the confederates in this particular 
 appears to have been quite in keeping with their 
 method of conspiring secretly as we have already 
 seen it, and undoubtedly one more difficulty is thus 
 opposed to the supposition that their enterprise was 
 chiefly dangerous on account of the clandestine and 
 dexterous manner in which it was conducted. 
 
 tunately died very suddenly on the morning of November 5th, 
 on hearing of the " discovery," evidence of great importance 
 as to the hiring of the house and " cellar " being thus lost. 
 "As for the keeper of the parliament house," says Goodman, 
 " who let out the lodgings to Percy, it is said that as soon as 
 ever he heard of the news what Percy intended, he instantly fell 
 into a fright and died ; so that it could not be certainly known 
 who procured him the house, or by whose means." — Court of 
 King James, i. 107. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Having followed the history of the plotters and their 
 doings, to the point when everything was ready for 
 action, we have now to inquire what, in the meantimei 
 those were about for whose destruction such notable 
 preparations were making, and whether in truth they 
 were, as we are assured, wrapped in a sense of false 
 security, and altogether unconscious of the signs and 
 tokens that should have awakened their suspicion and 
 alarm. 
 
 When, by the aid of such evidence as remains to us^ 
 we turn to examine the facts of the case, we discover 
 in them, it must be confessed, no symptoms whatever 
 of supineness or lethargy. It appears, on the contrary,, 
 that throughout the period when the government are 
 supposed to have been living in a fool's paradise, and 
 tranquilly assuming that all was well, they were in 
 reality busily at work through their emissaries and in 
 formers, prying into all the doings of the recusant 
 Catholics, receiving frequent intimation of all that was, 
 undertaken, or even projected, and, apparently, regu 
 lating the main features of a treasonable conspiracy, 
 which can have been no other than the Powder Plot 
 itself, determining, in particular, what individuals, 
 should be implicated therein. 
 
94 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 In April, 1604, at the very time when we hear of the 
 Plot as being hatched, a letter was addressed to Sir 
 Thomas Challoner, an official frequently mixed up 
 with business of this kind, by one Henry Wright,' 
 reporting the proceedings of a subordinate agent, by 
 name Davies, whom he styles a " discoverer," ^ then en- 
 gaged in working a Catholic treason, with the special 
 •object of incriminating priests. Davies has offered to 
 •" set," or mark down,' over threescore of these, but 
 Wright has told him that so many are not required, 
 and that he will satisfy his employers if he implicate 
 twenty, provided they be " most principal Jesuits and 
 -seminary priests," and therewithal has given him 
 thirteen or fourteen names that will serve the required 
 Purpose. Davies replies, " that by God's grace he will 
 absolutely do it ere long." * 
 
 That the treason in question was none other than 
 the Gunpowder Plot there can be no question, unless 
 I indeed we are to say that the authorities were engaged 
 in fabricating a bogus conspiracy for which there was 
 no foundation whatever in fact. It was not the way 
 -of statesmen of the period, when on the track of 
 sedition, to relinquish the pursuit till they had sifted 
 it to the bottom, and at this juncture, especially, every 
 shred of evidence regarding Catholics and their con- 
 duct was threshed out to the uttermost. In con- 
 . sequence, we are able to say with certainty, that 
 
 ' He appears to have been no relation of John and Christopher 
 Wright, the conspirators. 
 
 '' Davies was employed in other affairs of a similar nature. 
 .See Dom.James I., xix. 83, i (P. R. 0.). 
 
 ^ Cf. a " setter dog." 
 
 * See the full text of Wright's letter, Appendix G. 
 
HENRY WRIGHT'S INFORMATION. 95 
 
 besides the enterprise of Catesby and his associates, 
 there was no other conspiracy of any kind on foot. 
 We have, moreover, already seen that the very same 
 point thus by anticipation represented as all im- 
 portant, is that which after the " discovery " every 
 nerve was strained to establish, namely, the com- 
 plicity of the Catholic clergy. If we had no more 
 than this internal evidence, it would abundantly suf- 
 fice to assure us that the conspiracy thus sedulously 
 watched was the same as that miraculously " dis- 
 covered " a year and a half later. 
 
 But we are not left to such inferences alone. In 
 March, 1606, we find Wright applying to the minister 
 for a reward on account of his services " in discovering 
 villainous practices," thus indicating that by this time 
 those which he had been tracking had been brought to 
 light. More explicit still is a memorial presented to 
 the king, at a later date, on his behalf. This is 
 entitled — " Touching Wright and his services per- 
 formed in the damnable plot of the Powder treason!' 
 King James is reminded that Chief Justice Popham 
 and Sir Thomas Challoner had a hand in the dis- 
 covery of the Powder, and this by means of informa- 
 tion supplied by Wright, " for two years space almost " 
 before his Majesty interpreted the famous letter to 
 Lord Monteagle, " like an angel of God." This 
 information Popham and Challoner had from time to 
 time communicated to his Majesty, " whose hand 
 Wright hath in testimony of his services in the 
 matter." ^ 
 
 In the same month of April, 1604, was supplied 
 
 ' See the text of the memorial, Appendix G. 
 
96 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 another piece of information, singularly interesting and 
 important,' in which were detailed the particulars of 
 a design amongst the Catholics at home and abroad. 
 Much, in fact the bulk, of the information given, 
 is seen, in the light of our present knowledge, to be 
 purely fictitious, affording a good example of the 
 " sophistications " which, as Cecil himself complained, 
 his agents were wont to mingle with their intelligence. 
 The design in question was represented as being of the 
 most serious and secret nature, the papists thinking 
 that it " must now be so handled and carried as the 
 great cause may lose no reputation^ r if any suspicion 
 shouldgrow In the'state, or any come in question 
 therefore, the main point might never come to light ; " 
 the said " main point " being of course the complicity 
 of the Catholic clergy. 
 
 What invests this document with singular import- 
 ance is the fact that we hear of it again. In April, 
 1606, it was quoted for the benefit of Parliament by 
 the Attorney General, Sir E. Coke, and explicitly 
 as having reference to the Gunpowder Plot, forming 
 part of the evidence adduced by him to secure the 
 attainder of persons accused of being partakers in that 
 treason.^ It thus affords a proof, on the authority of 
 the government itself, that eighteen months before the 
 conspiracy was " discovered," intelligence regarding it 
 had been received and was being attended to. 
 
 ' Copy in the P. R. O. Dom. James I. vii. 86, and xx. 52. 
 The informer's name is given in the latter, viz., Ralph Ratcliffe. 
 
 * It was likevifise cited in the interrogatories prepared for the 
 Jesuit Thomas Strange (Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, 74) in 
 November, 1605, and in this case also as treating of the Gun- 
 powder Plot and no other. 
 
ni:i.j,„i/,\ 
 
 A VIEW OF THh, HOUSE OF PEERS, 1755. 
 U 
 
98 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 This is, however, by no means the only information 
 of which we find traces. Amongst the Cecil papers 
 at Hatfield is a letter dated December 20th, 1605, 
 addressed to the Earl of Salisbury by one Thomas 
 Coe, who claims to have previously forwarded to 
 his Majesty "the primary intelligence of these late 
 dangerous treasons," upon which communication the 
 historian Lodge observes,' " It should seem then that 
 the famous letter transmitted to James by Lord 
 Monteagle, for the right construction of which that 
 Prince's penetration hath been so highly extolled by 
 some historians, was not the only previous intelligence 
 communicated to him of the Gunpowder Treason." 
 
 Meanwhile the officers of the government, in all 
 parts, appear to have been no less alert than was 
 their wont. On the 9th of January, 1604-5, for instarice. 
 Sir Thomas Parry writes from Paris,^ inclosing a 
 note from an informer at Dieppe, concerning an 
 English Catholic returning from Italy and Spain with 
 letters for Fathers Garnet and Oldcorne, and a cipher 
 of three lines for a lawyer at Douay, and although the 
 messenger has contrived to give him the slip, he is 
 able to send particulars concerning his personal 
 appearance, and the locality in London where he is 
 likely to be found. On the 25th of the same month, 
 Cecil replies to Parry' concerning priests and their 
 doings, and makes the valuable admission that their 
 proceedings are always known to him by means of false 
 brethren, though, he adds, these informers always add 
 to their intelligence " sophistications " of their own, a 
 fact which must not be lost sight of in studying the 
 
 ' Illustrations, iii. 301. 
 
 = P. R. O. France, b. 132. ' Ibid. 
 
VARIOUS INFORMERS. 99 
 
 reports of such folk. We hear particularly of informa- 
 tions supplied by the priests Bagshawe and Cecil, by 
 Captain Turner, Charles Paget, and sundry others. 
 
 At the beginning of October, 1605, we make the 
 acquaintance of another notable informer. On the 
 first of the month, William Willaston, then engaged on 
 a commission in France in connection with a proposed 
 commercial treaty, writes to Cecil from Paris ' concern- 
 ing a Catholic design attributed chiefly to priests and 
 Jesuits, who have assurance that their friends in Eng- 
 land, who are many and of good sort, intend " to kindle 
 a fire in many corners of our land, and a rebellion in 
 Ireland," and that these matters be almost grown to a 
 head, " some of their fingers itching to be set to work." 
 Willaston adds, "there is a particular irreconcilable 
 desperate malice against your Honour's person, which 
 is principally the cause I make bold to write unto your 
 Lordship. You have yet the papists in your hands, 
 and are masters ; if you let them increase and grow so 
 insolent, assuredly it will come to pass as to the King 
 of Israel, who having overthrown Benhadab ..." and 
 so on. 
 
 On October 14th, Willaston again writes from 
 Rouen ^ "about some matters pretended by our Romish 
 Catholics." The party, he says, " who " has given light 
 into this business "is one George Southwaick, well- 
 known to many of your Lordship's followers." This 
 Southwaick, he holds to be " very honest ; " he is going 
 to England with sundry priests and others, and 
 upon landing will at once communicate with the 
 authorities and have his comrades arrested. " South- 
 
 ' P. R. O. France, bundle 132. ^ Ibid. f. 273 b. 
 
lOO WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 waick himself," adds Willaston, "must be taken as 
 well as the others, for he desireth not to be known to 
 have given any information against the rest. If it 
 please your Lordship to take order for his imprison- 
 ment apart, that conference privately may be had with 
 him, until such time as shall be thought fit to deliver 
 him, he can give you good directions for many matters,, 
 and may stand your honour in stead for such purposes." 
 . There follows a notable suggestion : " If your Lord- 
 ship would be pleased to set some man to win the 
 Nuncio of the Pope his secretary in Paris, you should 
 receive very direct and sound instructions from him." 
 The writer goes on to speak of an intended rebellion! 
 in England, and the kindling of a fire there, and duti- 
 fully concludes, " God grant they touch not the person 
 of the King nor of his children." 
 
 On the 27th of October, nine days before the " dis- 
 covery," Southwaick himself, now in England, writes tO' 
 Cecil,' urging that the impending arrest of priests and 
 others should be deferred, and that for better manage- 
 ment of "the business, and for the better and more 
 substantial manifestation thereof," he ventures tO' 
 suggest that " more scope of time would make the: 
 service of more worth." Moreover, he gives warning; 
 of preparations for trouble in the shires, in connection 
 with " their plot," and finally promises, " your Honour 
 shall not only have knowledge of all such as are any 
 way intercepted in the same, but also knowledge of 
 the end of their whole purpose, and withal be certain 
 of their meeting here in London, where I do not doubt 
 to apprehend forty priests, with many great of name,, 
 at mass, in good speed of their great intent." 
 > Hatfield MSS. 112,11. 141. 
 
GEORGE SOUTHWAICK. lOI 
 
 On the morning of the 5th of November itself, 
 evidently before receiving news that the final blow had 
 been struck, Southwaick writes to Levinus Munck, 
 Cecil's private secretary.' He excuses himself for 
 recent silence on the ground that he could not without 
 prejudice to " the business " have communicated with 
 his employers. " The parties," he declares, " have had, 
 ever since I saw you, such obscure meetings, such 
 mutable purposes, such uncertain resolutions, as hath 
 made me ride both day and night, as well in foul 
 weather as fair, omitting no opportunities, lest I should 
 not effect what I have by the weight of my credit and 
 the engagement of my duty and reputation propounded 
 to my honourable Lord." He farther begs that nothing 
 may be done that might disclose his true character to 
 his intended victims, and concludes by declaring that, 
 if he be not much mistaken, he is about "a singular 
 service." 
 
 If such letters proved nothing more, they would 
 abundantly serve to discredit the idea that a govern- 
 ment which conducted its operations in such a fashion 
 •could be hoodwinked by such clumsy contrivances as 
 those of the cellar and the mine. 
 
 Five days later,^ Southwaick again writes to Munck, 
 inclosing a note of the priests who have had meetings 
 in Paris, or have been written to in England. The 
 Ambassador (in Paris) will, he says, bear witness that, 
 although unable to particularize, he had given notice 
 two months since that there was a plot brewing. He 
 adds a significant hint, the like of which we have 
 
 ' P. R. O. Gunpowder Plot Book, 16. 
 
 ^ November loth, 1605, Dom. James I. xvi. 44. 
 
102 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 already seen : " Should I chance to be apprehended, I 
 will rest myself upon my honourable Lord." ' 
 
 Meanwhile the English ambassadors abroad were 
 no less active and vigilant than the informers at homel- 
 and while clearly aware that there was some danger on 
 foot, never doubted that the king's government would 
 not be caught napping. 
 
 On the 9th of October, Sir Thomas Edmondes 
 wrote to Cecil from Brussels ' to warn him of sus- 
 picious symptoms in the Low Countries; and on the 
 following day Cecil wrote to Edmondes ' expressing 
 apprehensions of trouble from the Jesuits abroad. 
 On the same day, October loth, Sir Thomas Parry 
 wrote from Paris to the secretary ,*^f a petition which 
 the Catholics were preparing against the nieeti ng of 
 Parliament, "^nd some iurther designs upon refusal ; " 
 and Tn anotherleltenn1orme3"Edmohdes:° " somewhat 
 is at present in hand amongst these desperate hypo- 
 crites, which I trust God shall divert, by the vigilant 
 care of his Majesty's faithful servants and friends 
 abroad, and prudence of his council at home." 
 
 That such confidence was not misplaced is shown by 
 Cecil's assurance to Sir Thomas Parry," mentioned 
 above, that the proceedings of the priests were never 
 unknown to Government. 
 
 Amongst the papers at Hatfield is a curious note, 
 
 ' At a later period (July 20th, 1606) we find that Southwaick. 
 ("or Southwell") had lost favour and was warned by SaHsbury 
 to leave the country. " I hold him," says the Earl, " to be a. 
 very impostor." {To Edmondes, PhilUpps MS. f. 165.) 
 
 = Stowe MSS., 168, 39. = Ibid. 40. 
 
 * Ibid. 42. " Birch, Histoj-ical View, p. 234- 
 
 " P. R. O. France, bundle 132, January 25th, 1604-5. 
 
VIGILANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT. I03 
 
 anonymous and undated, giving information of a plot 
 involving murder and treason, which, like the letter to 
 Monteagle, simulates rather too obviously the work- 
 manship of an illiterate person, and artfully insinuates 
 that the design in question is undertaken in the name 
 of religion, and chiefly favoured by the priests." 
 
 Another remarkable document is preserved in the 
 same collection. This is a letter written to Sir 
 Everard Digby, June nth, 1605, and treating of 
 an otter hunt to be undertaken when the hay shall be 
 cut. It has, however, been endorsed by Salisbury, 
 " Letter written to Sir Everard Digby — Powder 
 Treason." ^ Not only is it hard to see how the terms 
 
 ^ " Who so evar finds this box of letars let him carry hit to 
 the Kings magesty : my mastar litel thinks I knows of this, but 
 yn ridinge wth him that browt the letar to my mastar to a 
 Katholyk gentlemans hows anward of his way ynto hn konsher 
 [Lincolnshire], he told me al his purpos, and what he ment to 
 do ; and he beinge a prest absolved me and mad me swar nevar 
 to revel hit to ane man. I confes myself a Katholyk, and do 
 hate the protystans relygon with my hart, and yit I detest to 
 consent ethar to murdar or treson. I have blotyd out sartyn 
 nams in the letars becas I wold not have ethar my mastar or 
 ane of his frends trobyl aboute this ; for by his menes I was 
 mad a goud Katholyk, and I wod to God the King war a good 
 Katholyk : that is all the harm I wish him ; and let him tak hed 
 what petysons or suplycasons he take of ane man ; and I hop 
 this box will be found by som that will giv hit to the King, hit 
 may do him good one day. I men not to com to my mastar 
 any moe, but wil return unto my contry from whens I cam. As 
 for my nam and contry I consel that ; and God make the King 
 a goud Katholyk ; and let Ser Robart Sesil and my lord Cohef 
 Gustyse lok to them selvse." (Printed in Appendix to Third 
 Report of Historical MSS. Commissioiu P- 148.) 
 
 ^ It is signed " G. D.," and was possibly written by a relation 
 of Sir Everard's. 
 
I04 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 of the document lend themselves to such an interpreta- 
 tion, but the date at which it was written was fully three 
 months prior to Digby's initiation in the conspiracy. 
 The idea is certainly suggested that, far from being 
 passive and indolent, the authorities were sedulously 
 seeking pretexts to entangle as many as possible of 
 those "great of name," concerning whom we have 
 already heard frorh one of their informers. This 
 much, at any rate, seems clear. Those at the centre 
 of this complex web of espionage, to whom were 
 addressed all these informations and admonitions, can- 
 not have been, as they protested somewhat overmuch, 
 in a state of careless inactivity, depending for security 
 only upon the protection of the Almighty, " who," as 
 the secretary afterwards piously declared, " blessed 
 us in our slumber [and] will not forsake us now that 
 we are awake." ' 
 
 The slumber would at least appear not to have 
 been dreamless. On the one hand, the secretary was 
 evidently much exercised by a threatened rapproche- 
 ment between his royal master and Pope Clement 
 VIII., who, through a Scotch Catholic gentleman, 
 Sir James Lindsay, had sent a friendly message 
 to King James, which had elicited a courteous and 
 almost cordial reply.^ The significance of this Cecil 
 
 ' To Sir H. Bruncard, March 3rd, 1605-6. P. R. O. Ireland, 
 vol. 218. 
 
 '' " Instructions to my trusty servant Sir James Lindsay, for 
 answer to the lettre and Commission brought by him from the 
 Pope unto me." A" 1604. (P. R. O. France, b. 132.) 
 
 In these notes the king explains that the things of greatest 
 import cannot be written, but have been imparted "by tongue" 
 to the envoy, to be delivered to his holiness. Moreover he thus 
 charges Lindsay : "You shall assure him that I shall never be 
 
KING JAMES AND THE POPE. 10$ 
 
 Strenuously endeavoured, in a letter to the Duke of 
 Lenox/ to explain away, and in February, 1604-5, we 
 find him assuring the Archbishop of York with an 
 earnestness somewhat suspicious,^ " I love not to pro- 
 cure or yield any toleration ; a matter which I well 
 know no creature living durst propound to our re- 
 ligious Sovereign." For himself, he thus declares : 
 " I will be much less than I am, or rather nothing 
 at all, before I shall become an instrument of such 
 a miserable change." Nevertheless, on the 17th of 
 April following, he was fain to acknowledge, in writing 
 to Parry,' that the news of Pope Clement's death had 
 much eased him in his mind. 
 
 It would, however, appear that the spectre of pos- 
 sible toleration still haunted him, and that he felt it 
 necessary to commit the king to a course of severity. 
 In a minute of September 12th, 1605, addressed to 
 the same ambassador, which has been corrected and 
 amended with an amount of care sufficiently testi- 
 fying to the importance of the subject,* after speaking 
 of " the plots and business of the priests," and the 
 tendency of Englishmen going abroad " in this time 
 
 forgetful of the continual proof I have had of his courtesy and 
 long inclination towards me, and especially by this his so 
 courteous and unexpected message, which I shall be careful to 
 requite thankfully by all civil courtesies that shall be in my 
 power, the particulars whereof I remit likewise to your declara- 
 tion." Besides this, he protests that he will ever inviolably 
 observe two points : first, never to dissemble what he thinks, 
 especially in matters of conscience ; secondly, never to reject 
 reason when he hears it urged on the other side. 
 
 ' P. R. O. France, b. 132. 
 
 '^ Lodge, Illustrations, iii. 262. 
 
 = P. R. O. France, b. 132. * Ind. 
 
I06 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT ? 
 
 of peace " to become Catholics, he thus continues : 
 " Only this is it wherein my own heart receiveth com- 
 fort, that we live under a most religious and under- 
 standing Prince, who sticketh not to publish, as well 
 in his own particular, as in the form of his govern- 
 ment, how contrary that religion is to his resolution, 
 and how far he will be from ever gracing [it]." He 
 goes on to declare that nothing will so avail to make 
 his Majesty withdraw his countenance from any man as 
 such " falling away." 
 
 About the same time as this was written, we are 
 told by a writer, almost a contemporary,^ that a 
 dependent of Cecil's warned a Catholic gentleman, by 
 name Buck, of a " wicked design " which his master 
 had in hand against the papists. 
 
 On the 17th of October, more than a week before 
 the first hint of danger is said to have been breathed, 
 we find the minister writing to Sir Thomas Edmondes, 
 at Brussels,^ in terms which certainly appear to couple 
 together the - growing danger of conversions to 
 Catholicism, of which we have heard above, and the 
 remedy soon to be supplied by the new policy which 
 the discovery of the Plot so effectively established. 
 He speaks of the " insolencies " of the priests and 
 Jesuits, who are doing much injury by infecting 
 with their poison " every youth that cometh amongst 
 them ; " ominously adding, " which liberty must, for 
 one cause or another, be retrenched." 
 
 There can be no doubt that the issue of the Gun- 
 powder Plot was eminently calculated to work such 
 
 * The Politician's Catechism, 1658. 
 ^ Birch, Historical View, p. 234. 
 
OFFICIAL ADMISSIONS. lO/. 
 
 an effect ; and even more would seem to have been 
 anticipated from it than was actually realized, for the 
 secretary, we are told, promised King James that in 
 consequence of it not a single Jesuit should remain in 
 England. 
 
 In the accounts supplied to us as to the manner of 
 the " discovery," we obtain much interesting informa- 
 tion from the utterances of the government itself. In 
 studying these we cannot fail to notice an evident 
 effort to reconcile two conflicting interests. On the 
 one hand, that the king and the nation should be 
 properly impressed with a sense of their marvellous 
 deliverance, it was essential to represent the cata- 
 strophe as having been imminent, which could not be 
 unless the preparations for it had been altogether un- 
 suspected ; and it was likewi.se desirable to magnify 
 the divine sagacity of the monarch, which had been 
 the instrument of Providence to avert a disaster other- 
 wise inevitable. On the other hand, however, it should 
 not be made to appear that those to whose keeping 
 the public safety was intrusted had shown themselves 
 culpably negligent or incompetent ; and it had there- 
 fore to be insinuated that, after all, they were not 
 without " sufficient advertisement " of danger, and 
 even of danger specifically connected with the actual 
 conspirators, and directed against the Parliament. 
 But, again, lest such information should appear susr 
 piciously accurate, the actual plotters had to be 
 merged in a larger body of their co-religionists, and 
 their design to be represented in vague and general 
 terms. At the time, no doubt, this was effective 
 enough. Now however that we know, by the light of 
 subsequent investigations, who exactly were engaged, 
 
108 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 and what was in hand, it is possible to estimate these 
 declarations at their true value.' 
 
 Except with the aid of such an explanation as this, 
 it seems impossible to understand the endless incon- 
 sistencies and contradictions of the official narrative. 
 This we have in four forms, all coming to us on the 
 highest authority, but addressed to different audiences, 
 and hopelessly at variance upon almost every point. 
 One is that given to the world as the " King's Book," ^ 
 containing, as Mr. Jardine tells us, the version which 
 it was desired that the general public should accept. A 
 second was furnished by Cecil himself to the ambas- 
 sadors at Madrid and Brussels, and the Lord Deputy 
 in Ireland,^ and a third to the ambassador at Paris.* 
 We have likewise the minute of November 7th, 
 already mentioned as perhaps intended for the infor- 
 mation of the Privy Council, which, although it has 
 seemingly served as the basis of the story told in the 
 
 ^ " If the Priestes and Catholickes, so many thousands in 
 England would have entertayned it, no man can be so malicious 
 and simple to thinke but there would have been a greater 
 assembly than fourscore [in the Midlands] to take such an action 
 in hand, and the Council could not be so winking eyed, but they 
 would have found forth some one or other culpable, which they 
 could never do, though some of them, most powerable in it, 
 tendered and racked forth their hatred against us to the utter- 
 most limites they could extend." English Protestants plea, p. 60. 
 
 ^ Discourse of the manner of the discovery of the Gunpowder 
 Plot. Printed in the Collected Works of King James, by Bishop 
 Mountague, by Bishop Barlow, in Gtinpowder Treason, and 
 in Cobbett's State Trials, as an appendix to that of the con- 
 spirators. 
 
 ' I.e., Cornwallis, Edmondes, and Chichester. The despatch 
 to Cornwallis is printed in Winwood's Memorials, ii. 170. 
 
 ' Sir Thoms Parry, P. R. O. France, bundle 132. 
 
OFFICIAL ADMISSIONS. IO9 
 
 " King's Book," contradicts that story in various not 
 unimportant particulars. 
 
 We shall afterwards have to examine in some detail 
 the divergencies of these several narratives : at present 
 we are concerned only with the intimation which they 
 afford of a previous knowledge of the Plot on the part 
 of the government. In the " King's Book " — which was 
 not only to be disseminated broadcast at home, but to 
 be translated and spread abroad, and, moreover, to be 
 suited to the taste of its supposed author — the preter- 
 natural acuteness of the monarch is extolled in terms 
 of most preposterous flattery, and his secretary is 
 represented as altogether incredulous of danger, and 
 unwilling to be convinced even by his royal master's 
 wonderful interpretation of the mysterious warning. 
 Nevertheless, not only is mention parenthetically 
 introduced of the minister's " customable and watchful 
 care of the king and State, boiling within him," of hia 
 laying up these things in his heart, " like the Blessed 
 Virgin Mary," and being unable to rest till he had 
 followed the matter farther, — but it is dexterously 
 intimated that, for all his hardness of belief, he was 
 sufficiently well informed before the warning came to 
 hand, and that " this accident did put him in mind of 
 divers advertisements he had received from beyond 
 the seas, wherewith he had acquainted as well the 
 king himself, as divers of his Privy Councillors, con- 
 cerning some business the Papists were in, both at 
 home and abroad, making combination amongst them 
 for some combination against this Parliament time,"' 
 their object being to approach the king with a petition 
 for toleration, " which should be delivered in some 
 such order, and so well backed, as the king should be 
 
no WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 loth to refuse their requests ; Hke the sturdy beggars 
 craving alms with one open hand, but carrying a stone 
 in the other, in case of refusal." 
 
 As prepared for the Privy Council, the account, 
 though substantially the same, was somewhat more 
 explicit. The secretary was fully aware, so the Lords 
 were told, " that some practices might be doubted," 
 and he " had, any time these three months, acquainted 
 the King, and some of his Majesty's inward Counsel- 
 lors, that the priests and laymen abroad and at home 
 were full of the papists of this kingdom, seeking still 
 to lay some J>/of for procuring at this Parliament exer- 
 cise of their religion." 
 
 In his letter to the ambassadors Cecil was able to 
 speak more plainly, for this document was not to 
 meet the eye of James. Accordingly, he not only 
 acknowledges that on seeing the Monteagle letter he 
 at once divined the truth, and understood all about 
 the powder, and moreover reverses the parts played 
 by his Majesty and himself — making the former in- 
 credulous in spite of what he himself could urge in sup- 
 port of his opinion — but he goes on to give his previous 
 information a far more definite complexion : " Not 
 but that I had sufficient advertisement that most of 
 these that now are fled [i.e. the conspirators] — being 
 all notorious Recusants — with many others of that 
 kind, had a practice in hand for some stir this Parlia- 
 ment." He, moreover, describes the plotters, in terms 
 already cited, as " gentlemen spent in their fortunes 
 and fit for all alterations." 
 
 In view of all this it is quite impossible to believe 
 the account given of themselves by those who were 
 responsible for the public safety, and to suppose that 
 
OFFICIAL ADMISSIONS. Ill 
 
 they were not only so neglectful of their duty, but so 
 incredibly foolish, and so unlike themselves, as to 
 permit a gross and palpable peril to approach un- 
 noticed. If, on the other hand, as appears to be cer- 
 tain, the information with which they were supplied 
 were copious and minute, erring by excess far more 
 than by defect, if, instead of lethargy and carelessness, 
 we find in their conduct, at every stage of the proceed- 
 ings, evidence of the extremest vigilance and of 
 constant activity, and if they held it of prime import- 
 ance to disguise the facts, and were willing to incur 
 the charge of having been asleep at their posts, rather 
 than let it be thought that they knew what they did, 
 it can scarcely be doubted that the history of the 
 Gunpowder Plot given to the world was in its essential 
 features what they wished it to be.^ 
 
 A practical illustration of the methods freely em- 
 ployed by statesmen of the period will serve to throw 
 fuller light upon this portion of our inquiry. In the 
 service of the government was one Thomas Phelippes,'' 
 by trade a " decipherer," who was employed to " make 
 English" of intercepted letters written in cipher. His 
 services had been largely used in connection with Mary, 
 
 ' Mr. Hepworth Dixon observes {Her Majesty's Tower, i. 352, 
 seventh edition) that a man must have been in no common 
 measure ignorant of Cecil and Northampton who could dream 
 that such a design could escape the greatest masters of in- 
 trigue alive, and that abundant evidence makes it clear that the 
 Council were informed of the Plot in almost every stage, and 
 that their agents dogged the footsteps of those whom they 
 suspected, taking note of all their proceedings. " It was no part of 
 Cecil's policy," adds Mr. Dixon, " to step in before the dramatic 
 time." 
 
 ^ Often called Phelipps, or Philipps. 
 
112 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Queen of Scots, some of whose letters he thus inter- 
 preted, having it in his power, as Mr. Tytler remarks, 
 to garble, or falsify them at pleasure/ Moreover, to 
 serve the purposes of his masters, as he himself ac- 
 knowledges,'' he had upon occasion forged one side of 
 a correspondence, in order to induce the person 
 addressed to commit himself in reply.' At the time 
 of the Gunpowder Plot, however, Phelippes had him- 
 self fallen under suspicion, on account of a correspond- 
 ence with Hugh Owen, of whom we shall hear else- 
 where. Accordingly, an attempt was made to hoist 
 him with his own petard, and another agent, named 
 Barnes, was employed by Cecil to write a letter, as 
 coming from Phelippes (who was then in England) 
 and carry it to Owen in Flanders in order to draw him 
 out. At Dover, however, Barnes was arrested, being 
 mistaken for another man for whom a watch was being 
 kept. Thereupon, his papers being seized and sent to 
 the Earl of Northampton, who appears not to have 
 been in the secret of this matter, Cecil was obliged to 
 arrest Phelippes at once, as though the letter were 
 genuine, instead of waiting, as he had intended, in 
 order to worm out more. 
 
 The story of this complex and crooked business is 
 frankly told by Cecil himself in a letter to Edmondes, 
 
 ^ History of Scotland, iii. 376, note (ed. Eadie). It was on 
 one of these letters which had been in the hands of Phelippes 
 that Mary was convicted. 
 
 '^ Dom. James I. xx. 51. April, 1606. 
 
 ' In the fragment cited above, Phelippes says that Queen 
 Elizabeth and the Earl of Essex largely availed themselves of 
 this device of his, and that " My Lord of Salisbury had himself 
 made some use of it in the Queen's time." 
 
TRICKS AND DEVICES. II3 
 
 English ambassador at Brussels, which, after the 
 above abstract, will be sufficiently intelligible.^ 
 
 " As for Barnes, he is now returning again into 
 Flanders, with many vows and promises to continue to 
 do good service. As he was at Dover with my pass, 
 carrying a letter from Philipps to Owen (of Barnes 
 own handwriting, wherewith I was before acquainted), 
 he was suddenly stayed by order from the Lord 
 Warden, upon suspicion that he was one Acton, a 
 traitor of the late conspiracy. . . . Whereupon, his 
 papers and letters being sent to my Lord of North- 
 ampton, I thought fit not to defer any longer the calling 
 of Philipps into question ; which till then I had for- 
 borne, hoping by Barnes his means to have discovered 
 some further matter than before I could do." 
 
 ' February 12th, 1605-6. (Stowe MSS. 168.) 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE "DISCOVERY." 
 
 When the conspirators first undertook their enter- 
 prise, Parliament was appointed to meet on February 
 7th, 1604-5, but, as has been seen, it was subsequently 
 prorogued till October 3rd, and then again till Tues- 
 day, November 5 th. On occasion of the October pro- 
 rogation, the confederates employed Thomas Winter 
 to attend the ceremony in order to learn from the de- 
 meanour of the assembled Peers whether any suspicion 
 of their design had suggested this unexpected ad- 
 journment. He returned to report that no symptom 
 could be discerned of alarm or uneasiness, and that 
 the presence of the volcano underfoot was evidently 
 unsuspected. Thus reassured, his associates awaited 
 with confidence the advent of the fatal Fifth. 
 
 In the interval occurred the event which forms the 
 official link connecting the secret and the, public 
 history of the Plot, namely, the receipt of the letter 
 of warning by Lord Monteagle. That the document 
 is of supreme importance in our history cannot be 
 denied, for the government account clearly stands or 
 falls with the assertion that this was in reality the 
 means whereby the impending catastrophe was averted. 
 That it was so, the official story proclaimed from the 
 first with a vehemence in itself suspicious, and the 
 
THE LETTER TO LORD MONTEAGLE. 
 
 IIS 
 
 famous letter was exhibited to the world with a per- 
 sistence and solicitude not easy to explain ; being 
 printed in the " King's Book," and in every other 
 account of the affair ; while transcribed copies were 
 
 The gallant jEWi-jfoaringvponhigh : 
 Bcaresin his bz^kc^Treafons difcouery. 
 MovMT, noble E AG LE,v\i(hrhy happy prey, 
 And thy rich Pn-e-f toth' AT*"^ with fpeed conuay. 
 
 MONTEAGLE AND LETTER. 
 
 sent to the ambassadors at foreign courts and other 
 public personages.' Had a warning really been given, 
 in such a case, to save the life of a kinsman or friend, 
 
 1 Copies were sent by Cecil to Cornwallis at Madrid, Parry at 
 Paris, Edniondes at Brussels, and Chichester at Dublin. Also 
 by Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton. 
 
n6 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 the circumstance, however fortunate, would scarcely 
 have been wonderful, nor can we think that the docu- 
 ment would thus have been multiplied for inspection. 
 If, on the other hand, it had been carefully contrived 
 for its purpose, it would not be unnatural for those 
 who knew where the weak point lay, to wish the 
 world to be convinced that there really had been 
 a letter. It is, moreover, not easy to understand the 
 importance attributed to Monteagle's service in con- 
 nection with it. To have handed to the authorities 
 such a message, evidently of an alarming nature, 
 though he himself did not professedly understand it> 
 does not appear to have entitled him to the extra- 
 ordinary consideration which he in fact received. 
 The Attorney General was specially instructed, at 
 the trial, to extol his lordship's conduct' Where- 
 ever, in the confession of the conspirators, his name 
 was mentioned, it was erased, or pasted over with 
 paper, or the whole passage was omitted before publi- 
 cation of the document. All this is easy to under- 
 stand if he were the instrument employed for a critical 
 and delicate transaction, depending for success upon 
 his discretion and reticence. On any other supposi- 
 tion it seems inexplicable. 
 
 Moreover, Monteagle's services received most sub- 
 stantial acknowledgment in the form of a grant of 
 
 ' "Lastly, and this you must not omit, you must deliver,, 
 in commendation of my Lord Mounteagle, words to show how 
 sincerely he dealt, and how fortunately it proved that he was the 
 instrument of so great a blessing, . . . because it is so lewdly 
 given out that he was once of this plot of powder, and afterwards, 
 betrayed it all to me."— Cecil to Coke. (Draft in the R. 0.„ 
 printed by Jardine, Criminal Trials, ii. 120.) 
 
LORD MONTEAGLE. 11/ 
 
 £yoo a year/ equivalent, at least, to ten times that 
 amount in money of the ^iresent day.^ There still 
 exists ^ the draft preamble of the grant making this 
 award, which has been altered and emended with an 
 amount of care which sufficiently testifies to the im- 
 portance of the matter. In this it is said of the letter 
 that by the knowledge thereof " we had the first and 
 only means to discover that most wicked and barbarous 
 plot " — the words italicised being added as an inter- 
 lineation by Cecil himself Nevertheless, it appears 
 certain that this is not, and cannot be, the truth ; 
 indeed, historians of all shades equally discountenance 
 the idea. Mr. Jardine * considers it " hardly credible 
 that the letter was really the means by which the plot 
 was discovered," and inclines to the belief that the 
 whole story concerning it " was merely a device of the 
 government ... to conceal the means by which their 
 information had been derived." Similarly Mr. J. S. 
 Brewer " holds it as certain that this part, at least, of 
 the story is a fiction designed to conceal the truth. 
 Mr. Gardiner, who is less inclined than others to give 
 up the received story, thinks that, to say the least of 
 it, it is highly probable that Monteagle expected the 
 letter before it came.'' 
 
 For a right understanding of the point it is neces- 
 
 ^ £yx> as an annuity for life, and ^200 per annum to him and 
 his heirs for ever in fee farm rents. 
 
 ^ See Thorold Rogers, Agriculture and Prices^ v. 631, and 
 Jessopp, One Ge7teration of a Norfolk House, p. 285. 
 
 ' R. O. Dam. fames I. xx. 56. 
 
 * Criminal Trials, ii. 65. * Ibid. 68. 
 
 * Note on Fuller's Church History, x. § 39, and ott The 
 Students Hume. 
 
 ' History, i. 251. 
 
Il8 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 sary to consider the character of the man who plays 
 so important a part in this episode. Lord Monteagle, 
 the eldest son of Lord Morley, ennobled under a 
 title derived through his mother, was, in Mr. Jardine's 
 opinion,' " a person precisely adapted for an instrument 
 on such an occasion ; " and the description appears 
 even more applicable than was intended. He had been 
 implicated in all the doings of the turbulent section of 
 the English Catholics '' for several years, having taken 
 part in the rising of Essex, and in the Spanish 
 negotiations, whatever they were, conducted through 
 the instrumentality of Thomas Winter. With 
 Catesby, and others of the conspirators, he was on 
 terms of the closest and most intimate friendship, and 
 Tresham was his brother-in-law. A letter of his to 
 Catesby is still preserved, which, in the opinion of 
 some, affords evidence of his having been actually 
 engaged in the Powder Plot itself;' and Mr. Jardine, 
 though dissenting from the view that the letter proves 
 so much, judges it not at all impossible or improbable 
 that he was in fact privy to the conspiracy. It is like- 
 wise certain that up to the last moment Monteagle 
 was on familiar terms with the plotters, to whom, a 
 few days before the final catastrophe, he imparted an 
 important piece of information.* 
 
 ' Criminal Trials, ii. 69. 
 
 ^ On March 13th, 1600-1, Monteagle wrote to Cecil from the 
 Tower, " My conscience tells me that I am no way gilty of these 
 Imputations, and that mearely the blindness of Ignorance lead 
 me into these infamous errors." (Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6177). 
 
 * The letter is printed in Archcsologia, xxviii. 422, by Mr. 
 Bruce, who argues from it Monteagle's complicity with the Plot. 
 Mr. Jardine's reply is found ibid. xxix. 80. 
 
 * According to T. Winter's famous declaration, Monteagle, 
 
LORD MONTEAGLE. Up 
 
 At the same time it is evident that Monteagle was 
 in high favour at Court, as is sufficiently evidenced by 
 the fact that he was appointed to be one of the com- 
 missioners for the prorogation of October 3rd, a most 
 unusual distinction for one in his position, as also by 
 the pains taken by the government on behalf of his 
 brother, who had shortly before got himself into trouble 
 in France.^ A still more remarkable circumstance has 
 been strangely overlooked by historians.^ Monteagle 
 always passed for a Catholic, turbulent indeed and 
 prone to violence, but attached, even fanatically, to 
 his creed, like his friend Catesby and the rest. There 
 remains, however, an undated letter of his to the king,^ 
 in which he expresses his determination to become a 
 Protestant ; and while in fulsome language extolling 
 his Majesty's zeal for his spiritual welfare, speaks with 
 bitterness and contempt of the faith which, neverthe- 
 less, he continued to profess to the end of his life, and 
 that without exciting suspicion of his deceit among 
 the Catholics. Not only must this shake our con- 
 within ten days before the meeting of Parhament, told Catesby 
 and the others that the Prince of Wales was not going to attend 
 the opening cei^emony, wherefore they resolved to "leave the Duke 
 alone," and make arrangements -to secure the elder brother. 
 
 The original of Winter's declaration, dated November 25th, 
 which is at Hatfield, contains these and other particulars, which 
 are altogether omitted in a " copy " of the same in the Record 
 Office, dated, remarkably enough, on November the 23rd. It is 
 from the latter that the version in the " King's Book" was printed. 
 
 ^ De Beaumont to Villeroy, September 17th, 1605. 
 
 ^ Mr. Gardiner alludes to it, History, i. 254 (note), but 
 apparently attaches no importance to it. 
 
 ' Brit. Museum, Add. MSS. 19402 fol. 143. See the letter 
 in full. Appendix H. 
 
I20 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 fidence in the genuine nature of any transaction in 
 which such a man played a prominent part, it must 
 Hkewise suggest a doubt whether others may not in 
 like manner have passed themselves off for what they 
 were not, without arousing suspicion. 
 
 The precise facts as to the actual receipt of the 
 famous letter are involved, like every other particular 
 of this history, in the obscurity begotten of contradic- 
 tory evidence. In the published account,' it is stated 
 with great precision that it was received by Monteagle 
 on Saturday, October 26th, being but ten days before 
 the Parliament. In his letter to the ambassadors 
 abroad,^ Cecil dates its receipt "about eight days 
 before the Parliament should have begun." In the 
 account furnished for the benefit of the King of 
 France,^ the same authority declares that it came to 
 hand "some four or five days before." A doubt is 
 thus unquestionably suggested as to whether the cir- 
 cumstances of its coming to Monteagle's hands are 
 those traditionally described : for our present purpose, 
 however, it will perhaps be sufficient to follow the story 
 as formally told by authority in the king's own book. 
 
 On Saturday, October 26th, ten days before the 
 assembly of Parliament, Monteagle suddenly, and 
 without previous notice, ordered a supper to be pre- 
 
 ' Discourse of the Manner of the Disco"jery (the " King's 
 Book." 
 
 ^ Winwood, Metnortals, ii. 170, etc. (November 9th). In 
 the entry book of the Earl of Salisbury's letters (Phillipps' 
 MSS. 6297, f. 39) this is described as " being the same that was 
 sent to all his Majestie's Embassadors and Ministers abroade." 
 To Parry, however, quite a different account was furnished. 
 
 '' Cecil to Sir T. Parry, P. R. O. France, bundle 132 
 (November 6th). 
 
THE LETTER RECEIVED. 121 
 
 pared at his house at Hoxton "where he had not 
 supped or^lain of a twelvemonth and more before that 
 time." i/while he was at table one of his pages 
 brought him a letter which had been given to him by 
 a man in the street, whose features he could not dis- 
 tinguish, with injunctions to place it in his master's 
 own hands. It is undoubtedly a singular circumstance, 
 which did not escape notice at the time, that the 
 bearer of this missive should have thus been able to 
 find Monteagle at a spot which he was not accustomed 
 to frequent, and the obvious inference was drawn, that 
 the arrival of the letter was expected. On this point, 
 indeed, there is somewhat more than inference to go 
 upon, for in Fulman's MS. collection at Corpus 
 Christi College, Oxford, among some interesting notes 
 concerning the Plot, of which we shall see more, occurs 
 the statement that " the Lord Monteagle knew there 
 was a letter to be sent to him before it came." ^ ^ 
 
 ' Gerard, Narrative, p. loi. y''' 
 
 ^ Vol. ii. 15. The partisans of the government at the time 
 
 appear to have solved the difficulty by invoking the direct 
 
 guidance of Heaven : 
 
 " For thus the Lord in 's all-protecting grace. 
 Ten days before the Parliament began, 
 Ordained that- one of that most trayterous race 
 Did meet the Lord Mounteagles Serving-man, 
 Who about Seven a clocke at night was sent 
 Upon some errand, and as thus he went. 
 Crossing the street a fellow to hin\ came, 
 A man to him unknowen, of personage tall, 
 In's hand a Letter, and he gave the same 
 Unto this Serving-man, and therewithall 
 
 Did strictly charge him to take speciall heede 
 To give it into 's Masters hand with speede." 
 Mischeefes Mystery (1617). 
 
122 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Monteagle opened the letter, and, glancing at it, 
 perceived that it bore neither date nor signature, 
 whereUpon he handed it to a gentleman of his house- 
 hold, named Ward, to read aloud, an apparently 
 unnatural and imprudent proceeding not easy to 
 explain, but, at least, inconsistent with the conduct of 
 one receiving an obviously important communication 
 in such mysterious circumstances. The famous epistle 
 must be given in its native form. 
 
 My lord out of the love i beare to some of youere 
 f rends i have a caer of youer preseruacion therfor i 
 would advyse yowe as yowe tender youer lyf to devys 
 some excuse to shift of youer attendance at this parlea- 
 ment for god and man hath concurred to punishe the 
 wickednes of this tyme and think not slightlye of this 
 advertisment but retyre youre self into youre contri 
 zvheare yoive may expect the event in safti for thowghe 
 theare be no apparence of anni stir yet i saye they shall 
 receyve a terrible blowe this parleament and yet they shall 
 not seie who hurts them this cowncel is ?iot to be con- 
 temned because it maye do yowe good and can do yowe 
 no harme for the danger e is passed as soon as yowe have 
 burnt the letter and i hope god tvill give yowe the grace 
 to mak good use of it to whose holy proteccion i comend 
 yowe 
 
 (Addressed) to the ryht honorable th'e lord 
 mouteagle 
 
 Monteagle, though he saw little or nothing in this 
 strange effusion, resolved at once to communicate with 
 the king's ministers, his Majesty being at the time en- 
 gaged at Royston in his favourite pastime of the 
 chase, and accordingly, proceeding at once to town, he 
 
THE LETTER RECEIVED. 1 23 
 
 placed the mysterious document in the hands of the 
 Earl of Salisbury.' 
 
 As to what thereafter followed and the manner in 
 which from this clue the discovery was actually accom- 
 plished, it is impossible to say more than this, that the 
 accounts handed down cannot by any possibility be 
 true, inasmuch as on every single point they are utterly 
 and hopelessly at variance. We can do no more than 
 set down the particulars as supplied to us on the very 
 highest authority. 
 
 A. — The account published in the " King's Book." 
 
 1. The letter was received ten days before the meet- 
 ing of Parliament, i.e., on October 26th. 
 
 2. The Earl of Salisbury judged it to be the effusion 
 of a lunatic, but thought it well, nevertheless, to com- 
 municate it to the king. 
 
 3. This was done five days afterwards, November ist, 
 when, in spite of his minister's incredulity, James in- 
 sisted that the letter could intend nothing but the 
 blowing up of the Parliament with gunpowder, and 
 that a search must be made, which, however, should 
 be postponed till the last moment. 
 
 4. Accordingly, on the afternoon of Monday, No- 
 
 ' Here again evidence was found of the direct guidance of 
 Heaven : 
 
 " And thus with loyall heart away he goes, 
 Thereto resolved whatever should betide, 
 To th' Court he went this matter to disclose, 
 To th' Earle of Salsb'ryes chamber soone he hide, 
 Whither heavens finger doubtless him directed. 
 As the best meanes to have this fact detected." 
 
 Mischeefes Mystery. 
 
124 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 vember 4th, the Lord Chamberlain going on a tour of 
 inspection, visited the " cellar " and found there " great 
 store of billets, faggots, and coals," and moreover, " cast- 
 ing his eye aside, perceived a fellow standing in a corner 
 . . . Guido Fawkes the owner of that hand which should 
 have acted that monstrous tragedy." Coming back, 
 the chamberlain reported that the provision of fuel 
 appeared extraordinary, and that as to the man, " he 
 looked like a very tall and desperate fellow." 
 
 5. Thereupon the king insisted that a thorough 
 scrutiny must be made, and that "those billets and 
 coals should be searched to the bottom, it being 
 most suspicious that they were laid there only for 
 covering of the powder." For this purpose Sir Thomas 
 Knyvet, a magistrate, was despatched with a suitable 
 retinue. 
 
 6. Before his entrance to the house, Knyvet found 
 Faukes " standing without the doors, his boots and 
 clothes on," and straightway apprehended him. Then, 
 going into the cellar, he removed the firewood and at 
 once discovered the barrels. 
 
 'B.— The Account sent by Salisbury to the Ambassadors 
 
 abroad, and the Deputy in Ireland, November 
 
 <^th, 1605. 
 
 1. The letter was received about eight days before 
 the Parliament. 
 
 2. Upon perusal thereof, Salisbury and Suffolk, the 
 chamberlain, " both conceived that it could not be more 
 proper than the time of Parliament, nor by any other 
 way to be attempted than with powder, while the King 
 was sitting in that Assembly." With this interpreta- 
 
VARIANT VERSIONS. 
 
 125 
 
 tion other Lords of the Council agreed ; but they 
 thought it well not to impart the matter to the king 
 till three or four days before the session. 
 
 3. His Majesty was "hard of belief" that any such 
 thing was intended, but his advisers overruled him 
 and insisted on a search, not however till the last 
 moment. 
 
 ARREST OF GUY FAUKES. 
 
 4. About 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Monday, 
 November 4th, the Lord Chamberlain, Suffolk, visited 
 the cellar, and found in it only firewood and not 
 Faukes. 
 
 5. The lords however insisting, in spite of the king, 
 that the matter should be probed to the bottom, 
 Knyvet was despatched with orders to " remove all the 
 wood, and so to see the plain ground underneath'.' 
 
126 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 6. Knyvet, about midnight, " going unlocked for 
 into tiie vault, found that fellow Johnson [i.e., Faukes] 
 newly come out of the vault" and seized him. Then, 
 having removed the wood, he perceived the barrels. 
 
 C. — The Account furnished by Salisbury for the in- 
 formation of the King of France, November 6th, 
 1605. {Original draft, in the P. R. 0.) 
 
 1. The letter was received some four or five days 
 before the Parliament. 
 
 2. This being shown to the king and the lords, 
 *' their lordships found not good . . . to give much 
 ■credit to it, nor yet so to contemn it as to do nothing 
 at all." 
 
 3. It was accordingly determined, the night before, 
 to make search about that place and to appoint a 
 
 watch in the old Palace, to observe what persons 
 might resort thereabouts." 
 
 4. Sir T. Knyvet, being appointed to the charge 
 thereof, going by chance, about midnight, into the vault, 
 by another door, found Faukes within. Thereupon 
 he caused some few faggots to be removed, and so 
 discovered some of the barrels, " merely, as it were, 
 by Gods direction, having no other cause but a 
 general jealousy " ' 
 
 ' ^ In the account forwarded to the ambassadors, there is a 
 curious contradiction. In the general sketch of the discovery 
 with which it opens, it is said that Faukes was captured " in the 
 place itself," with his lantern, " making his preparations." 
 Afterwards, in the detailed narrative of the proceedings, that he 
 was taken outside. The fact is, that the first portion of this 
 
FATAL DISCREPANCIES. 12/ 
 
 Never, assuredly, was a true story so hard to tell. 
 Contradictions like these, upon every single point of 
 the narrative, are just such as are wont to betray 
 the author- of a fiction when compelled to be 
 circumstantial. 
 
 To say nothing of the curious discrepancies as to 
 the date of the warning, it is clearly impossible to 
 determine the locality of Guy's arrest. The account 
 officially published in the " King's Book " says that 
 this took place in the street. The letter to the ambas- 
 sadors assigns it to the cellar and afterwards to the 
 street ; that to Parry, to the cellar only. Faukes 
 himself, in his confession of November 5th, says that 
 he was apprehended neither in the street nor in the 
 cellar, but in his own room in the adjoining house. 
 Chamberlain writes to Carleton, November 7th, that 
 it was in the cellar. Howes, in his continuation of 
 Stowe's Annals, describes two arrests of Faukes, 
 one in the street, the other upstairs in his own 
 chamber. This point, though seemingly somewhat 
 trivial, has been invested with much importance. 
 According to the time-honoured story, the baffled 
 desperado roundly declared that had he been within 
 
 letter is taken bodily from that of November 6th to Parry, 
 ■wherein the arrest of Faukes in the vault was a principal point. 
 Between the 6th and the 9th this part of the story had been 
 altered, but it does not seem to have been noticed that a 
 remnant of the earlier version still existed in the introductory 
 portion. 
 
 It will be remarked that the account of November 6th makes 
 no mention of the visit of the chamberlain to the vault, nor that 
 ■of November 9th to the presence of Faukes at the time of this 
 visit. The minute of November 7th says that Faukes admitted 
 the chamberlain to the vault. 
 
128 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 reach of the powder when his captors appeared, he 
 would have applied a match and involved them in his 
 own destruction. This circumstance is strongly in- 
 sisted on not only in the " King's Book," but also in 
 his Majesty's speech to Parliament on Noveml^er gth, 
 which declared, " and in that also was there a wonder- 
 ful providence of God, that when the party himself 
 was taken he was but new come out of his house from 
 working, having his fire-work for kindling ready in his 
 pocket, wherewith, as he confesseth, if he been taken, 
 immediately before, he was resolved to have blown up 
 himself with his takers." We learn, however, from 
 Cecil's earliest version of the history, that Faukes 
 was apprehended in the very situation most suitable 
 for such a purpose, " in the place itself, as he was busy 
 to prepare his things for execution," while Chamberlain 
 adds that he was actually engaged in " making his 
 trains." 
 
 Far more serious, to say nothing of the episode of 
 the chamberlain's visit, are the divergencies of the 
 several versions as to the very substance of the story. 
 We are told that King James was the first to under- 
 stand and interpret the letter which had baffled the 
 sagacity of his Privy Council ; that the Lords of the 
 Council had fully interpreted it several days before 
 the king saw it ; that the said lords would not credit 
 the king's interpretation ; that the king would not 
 believe their interpretation ; and that neither the one 
 nor the other ever interpreted it at all ; that his 
 Majesty insisted on a search being made in spite of 
 the reluctance of his ministers ; that they, insisted on 
 the search in spite of the reluctance of their royal 
 master ; and that no such .search was ever proposed 
 
CONTRADICTORY VERSIONS. 1 29 
 
 by either ; that Knyvet was despatched expressly to 
 look for gunpowder, with instructions to rummage the 
 firewood to the bottom, leaving no cover in which a 
 barrel might lie hid ; and that having no instructions 
 to do anything of the kind, nor any reason to suspect 
 the existence of any barrels, he discovered them only 
 by a piece of luck, so purely fortuitous as to be clearly 
 providential. On this last point especially the contra- 
 dictions are absolutely irreconcilable. 
 
 It is abundantly evident that those who with 
 elaborate care produced these various versions were 
 not supremely solicitous about the truth of the matter, 
 and varied the tale according to the requirements of 
 circumstances. As Mr. Jardine acknowledges,^ the 
 great object of the official accounts was to obtain 
 credence for what the government wished to be be- 
 lieved, or, as Father Gerard puts it,'' these accounts 
 were composed " with desire that men should all con- 
 ceive this to be the manner how the treason came to 
 light." If from time to time the details were altogether 
 transformed, it was clearly not through any abstract 
 love of historical accuracy, but rather that there were 
 difficulties to meet and doubts to satisfy, which had 
 to be dealt with in order to produce the desired effect. 
 
 That, from the beginning, there was whispered dis- 
 belief, which it was held all-important to silence, is 
 sufficiently attested by Cecil himself, when, on the 
 very morrow of the discovery, he sent to Parry his 
 first draft of the history. " Thus much," he wrote, " I 
 have thought necessary to impart unto you in haste, 
 to the end that you may deliver as much to the 
 
 ' Criminal Trials, ii. 3-5. ^ Narrative, p, 100. 
 
 K 
 
130 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 French king, for prevention of false bruits, which I 
 know, as the nature of fame is, will be increased^ per- 
 verted, and disguised according to the disposition of 
 men." 
 
 It does not appear why the appearance of erroneous 
 versions of so striking an event should have been thus 
 confidently anticipated if the facts were undeniably 
 established ; while, on the other hand, it is not a little 
 remarkable that the narrative thus expressly designed 
 to establish the truth, should have been forthwith 
 abandoned and contradicted by its author in every 
 single particular. 
 
 Important information upon the same point is 
 furnished by Cecil in another letter, written in the 
 following January.^ He undertakes to explain to 
 his correspondent how it came to pass that a cir- 
 cumstance of supreme importance, of which the 
 government were fully cognizant,' was not mentioned 
 in the official account. This he does as follows : 
 " And although in his Majesty's book there is not any 
 mention made of them [the Jesuits], and of many 
 
 ^ This word is cancelled in the original draft. 
 
 ' To Sir T. Edmondes, January 22nd, 1605-6. — Stowe MSS., 
 168, 73, f. 301. 
 
 ' Viz., the complicity of the Jesuits, "not only as being 
 casually acquainted with the Plot," but as having been " prin- 
 cipall comforters, to instruct the consciences of some of these 
 wicked Traytors, in the lawfulnesse of the Act and meritorious- 
 nesse of the same." 
 
 On this it is enough to remark that when Father Garnet, the 
 chief of the said Jesuits, came afterwards to be tried, no attempt 
 whatever was made to prove any such thing. Cecil therefore 
 wrote thus, and made so grave an assertion, without having any 
 evidence in his hands to justify it. 
 
OFFICIAL HISTORY. I3I 
 
 things else which came to the knowledge of the State, 
 yet is it but a frivolous inference that thereby [they] 
 seek to serve their turn, considering the purpose of his 
 Majesty was not to deliver unto the world all that was 
 confessed concerning this action, but so much only of 
 the manner and form of it, and the means of the discovery, 
 as might make it apparent, both how wickedly it was 
 conceived by those devilish instruments, and how 
 graciously it pleased God to deal with us in such an 
 extraordinary discovery thereof!' 
 
 Turning to the details of the story which survive 
 the struggle for existence in the conflict of testimony, 
 if any can be said to do so, there is abundant matter 
 deserving attention, albeit we may at once dismiss the 
 time-honoured legend concerning the sagacity of the 
 British Solomon, and his marvellous interpretation of 
 the riddling phrases which baffled the perspicacity of 
 all besides himself^ 
 
 ' That King James alone solved the enigma was put forth as 
 an article of faith. In the preamble to the Act for the solemniza- 
 tion of the 5th of November, Parliament declared that the 
 treason " would have turned to utter ruin of this whole king- 
 dom, had it not pleased Almighty God, by inspiring the king's 
 most excellent Majesty with a divine Spirit, to discover some 
 dark phrases of a letter ..." In like manner, the monarch 
 iimself, in his speech to the Houses, of November 9th, in- 
 formed them : " I did upon the instant interpret and appre- 
 hend some dark phrases therein, contrary to the ordinary 
 grammar construction of them, and in another sort, than I 
 .am sure any divine or lawyer in any university would have 
 taken them." 
 
 This " dark phrase " was the sentence — " For the danger is 
 past as soon as you have burnt the letter," which the royal sage 
 interpreted to mean "as quickly," and that by these words 
 ■" should be closely understood the suddenty and quickness of 
 
132 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 More important is Cecil's admission that the presence 
 of the powder under the Parliament House was at 
 least suspected for several days before anything was 
 done to interfere with the proceedings of those who had 
 put it there. The reasons alleged for so extraordinary 
 a course are manifestly absurd. It was resolved, he 
 told the ambassadors, " that, till the night before,, 
 nothing should be done to interrupt any purpose of 
 theirs that had any such devilish practice, but rather 
 to suffer them to go on to the end of their day." In 
 like manner he informed the Privy Council ^ that it 
 was determined to make no earlier search, that " such 
 
 the danger, which should be as quickly performed and at an 
 end as that paper should be of blazing up in the fire." 
 
 Of this famous interpretation Mr. Gardiner says that it is 
 " certainly absurd ; " while Mr. Jardine is of opinion that the 
 words in question " must appear to every common understandings 
 mere nonsense." 
 
 When it was proposed in the House of Commons (January 
 31st, 1605-6,) to pass a vote of thanks to Lord Monteagle for his. 
 share in the "discovery," one Mr. Fuller objected that this 
 would be to detract from the honour of his Majesty, for " the- 
 true discoverer was the king." 
 
 The reader will perhaps be reminded of Sir Walter Scott's 
 inimitable picture of the king's satisfaction in this notable 
 achievement. 
 
 " Do I not ken the smell of pouther, think ye ? Who else 
 nosed out the Fifth of November, save our royal selves ? Cecil,, 
 and Suffolk, and all of them, were at fault, like sae mony 
 mongrel tikes, when I puzzled it out ; and trow ye that I cannot 
 smell pouther ? Why, 'sblood, man, Joannes Barclaius thought 
 my ingine was in some manner inspiration, and terms his history 
 of the plot, Series patefacti divinitus parriddii J and Spondanus, 
 in like manner, saith of us, Divinitus evasit." — Fortunes of 
 Nigel, c. xxvii. 
 
 1 Relation . . . , November 7th, 1605 (P. R. 0.). 
 
THE STORY EXAMINED. 1 33 
 
 , as had such practice in hand might not be scared 
 before they had let the matter run on to a full 
 ripeness for discovery." It certainly appears that, at 
 least, it would have been well before the eleventh 
 hour to institute observations as to who might be 
 coming and going about the cellar. On the other 
 hand, can it be imagined that any minister in his right 
 senses would have allowed the existence of a danger 
 so appalling to continue so long, and have suffered a 
 desperado like Faukes to have gone on knocking 
 about with his flint and steel and lantern in a powder 
 magazine beneath the House of Parliament? Acci- 
 dents are proverbially always possible, and in the 
 circumstances described to us there would have been 
 much more than a mere possibility, for the action said 
 to have been taken by the authorities, in sending the 
 chamberlain to " peruse " the vault, seems ' to have 
 been expressly intended to give the alarm ; and had 
 the conspirators been scared it would evidently have 
 been their safest plan to have precipitated the cata- 
 strophe, that in the confusion it would cause they might 
 escape. How terrible such a catastrophe would have 
 been is indicated by Father Greenway : ^ " Over and 
 above the grievous loss involved in the destruction of 
 these ancient and noble buildings, of the archives and 
 national records, the king himself might have been in 
 peril, and other royal edifices, though situate at a dis- 
 tance, and undoubtedly many would have perished who 
 had come up to attend the Parliament." Moreover, 
 the loss of life in so thickly populated a spot must have 
 been frightful, and especiallyamongst the official classes. 
 
 ' Narrative, f. 68 b.— Stonyhurst MSS. 
 
134 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Father Greenway expresses his utter disbelief in 
 the incident of the chamberlain's visit : ' " To speak 
 my own mind," he writes, " I do not see in this portion 
 of the story any sort of probability." He adds another 
 remark of great importance. If the Lord Chamber- 
 lain, — and, we may add, Sir T. Knyvet,— could get into 
 the cellar without the assistance of Faukes, to say 
 nothing of the " other door " which makes its appear- 
 ance in Cecil's first version, there is an end of the secret 
 and hidden nature of the place, and some one else 
 must have had a key. How, then, about the months 
 during which the powder had been lying in it ; during 
 much of which time it had been, apparently, left to 
 take care of itself? Did no man ever enter and 
 inspect it before ? 
 
 But questions far more fundamental inevitably 
 suggest themselves. If, during ten, or even during 
 five days, a minister so astute and vigilant was willing 
 to risk the danger of an explosion, it certainly does 
 not appear that he was much afraid of the powder, or 
 thought there was any harm in it. We have already 
 remarked on the strangeness of the circumstance that 
 the plotters were able so easily to procure it. It 
 may be observed that they appear themselves to have 
 
 ' F. 66. It will be remembered that this episode is not 
 mentioned by Cecil in his version of November 6th. Bishop 
 Goodman's opinion is that this and other points of the story- 
 were contrived for stage effect : " The King must have the 
 honour to interpret that it was by gunpowder ; and the very 
 night before the parliament began it was to be discovered, to^ 
 make the matter the more odious, and the deliverance the more 
 miraculous. No less than the lord chamberlain must search 
 for it and discover it, and Faux with his dark lantern must be 
 apprehended." (Court of King James, •^. 105.) 
 
-V THE STORY EXAMINED. 1 35 
 
 been disappointed with its quality, for we are told ' 
 that late in the summer they added to their store " as 
 suspecting the former to be dank." Still more remark- 
 able, however, was the conduct of the government. 
 Immediately upon the " discovery" they instituted the 
 most minute and searching inquiries as to every other 
 particular connected with the conspirators. We iind 
 copious evidence taken about their haunts, their 
 lodgings, and their associates : of the boatmen who 
 conveyed them hither and thither, the porters who 
 carried billets, and the carpenters who worked for 
 them : inquiries were diligently instituted as to where 
 were purchased the iron bars laid on top of the barrels, 
 which appear to have been considered especially 
 dangerous ; we hear of sword-hilts engraved for some 
 of the company, of three beaver hats bought by 
 another, and of the sixpence given to the boy who 
 brought them home. But concerning the gunpowder 
 no question appears ever to have been asked, whence 
 it came, or who furnished it. Yet this would appear 
 to be a point at least as important as the rest, and 
 if it was left in absolute obscurity, the inference is 
 undoubtedly suggested that it was not wished to 
 have questions raised. It may be added that no 
 mention is discoverable of the augmentation of the 
 royal stores by so notable a contribution as this would 
 have furnished. 
 
 Neither can it escape observation that whereas the 
 powder was discovered only on the morning^ of 
 
 ' T. Winter, November 23rd, 1605. 
 
 ^ There is, of course, abundant contradiction upon this point, 
 as all others, but the balance of evidence appears to point to 
 2 a m. or thereabouts. 
 
136 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 November sth, the peers met as usual in their 
 chamber that very day.' It cannot be supposed 
 either that four tons of powder could have been so 
 soon removed, or that the most valuable persons in the 
 
 ^»*/&/v.v King; James \ ."^if^^Ti y/t^t^A- £Ae ^t^-c^fv^ry <^ /M Gun Riwder Plot. 
 
 DISCOVERY OF GUNPOWDER PLOT, AND COINS OF JAMES I. 
 
 State would have been suffered to expose themselves 
 to the risk of assembling in so perilous asituation.' 
 
 ' The customary hour for the meeting of the Houses was 
 9 a.m , or even eariier. {Journals of Parliament^ 
 
 ''■ The list of those present is given in the Lord^ Journals j it 
 is headed by the Lord Chancellor (EUesmere), and includes the 
 
THE GUNPOWDER. 1 37 
 
 However this may be, from the moment of the 
 " discovery " the discovered gunpowder disappears 
 from history.' 
 
 There is another point which must be noticed. It 
 might naturally be supposed that after so narrow an 
 escape, and in accordance with their loud protestations 
 of alarm at the proximity of a shocking calamity from 
 which they had been so providentially delivered, the 
 official authorities would have carefully guarded against 
 the possibility of the like happening again. Their acts, 
 however, were quite inconsistent with their words, for 
 they did nothing of the kind. For more than seventy 
 years afterwards the famous " cellar " continued to be 
 leased in the same easy-going fashion to any who 
 chose to hire it, and continued to be the receptacle of^ 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, fourteen bishops, and thirty-one 
 peers, of whom Lord Monteagle was one. In 1598, as Mr. 
 Atkinson tells us in his preface to the lately published volume 
 of the Calendar of Irish State Papers, the cellars of the Dublin 
 Law Courts were used as a powder magazine. The English 
 Privy Council, startled to hear of this remarkable arrangement, 
 pointed out that it might probably further diminish the number 
 of loyal subjects in that kingdom, but were quaintly reassured 
 by the Irish Lords Justices, who explained that, in view of the 
 troublous state of the times, the sittings of the courts had been 
 discontinued, and were not likely to be resumed for the present. 
 ' The only allusion to it I have been able to find occurs in 
 the Politician's Catechism (1658), p. 95: "Yet the barells, 
 wherein the powder was, are kept as reliques, and were often 
 shown to the king and his posterity, that they might not enter- 
 tain the least thought of clemency towards the Catholique 
 Religion. There is not an ignorant Minister or Tub-preacher, 
 who doth not (when all other matter fails) remit his auditors 
 to the Gunpowder Treason, and describe those tubs very 
 pathetically, the only reliques thought fit by them to be kept 
 in memory." 
 
138 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 all manner of rubbish and lumber, eminently suited to 
 mask another battery. Not till the days of the menda- 
 cious Titus Oates, and under the influence of the panic 
 he had engendered, did the Peers bethink themselves 
 that a project such as that of Guy Faukes might really 
 be a danger, and command that the " cellar " should 
 be searched.' This was done, in November, 1678, by 
 no less personages than Sir Christopher Wren and Sir 
 Jonas Moore, who reported that the vaults and cellars 
 under and near the House of Lords were in such a 
 condition that there could be no assurance of safety. 
 It was accordingly ordered that they should be cleared 
 of all timber, firewood, coals, and other materials, and 
 that passages should be made through them all, to the 
 end that they might easily be examined. At this time, 
 and not before, was instituted the traditional searching 
 of the cellars on the eve of Parliament.^ 
 
 What then, it will be asked, really did occur ? What 
 was done by the conspirators ? and what by those who 
 discovered them ? 
 
 Truth to tell, it is difficult, or rather impossible, to 
 answer such questions. That there was a plot of some 
 kind cannot, of course, be doubted ; that it was of 
 such a nature as we have been accustomed to believe, 
 can be affirmed only if we are willing to ignore dif- 
 ficulties which are by no means slight. There is, 
 doubtless, a mass of evidence in support of the tradi- 
 tional story upon these points, but while its value has 
 yet to be discussed, there are other considerations, 
 hitherto overlooked, which are in conflict with it. 
 
 Something has been said of the amazing contradic- 
 
 ' Journals of the House of Lords, Novemberistand2nd, 1678. 
 ° Ibid., November 2nd, 1678. 
 
THE STORY EXAMINED. 1 39 
 
 tions which a very slight examination of the official 
 story reveals at every turn, and much more might be 
 added under the same head.' . 
 
 On the other hand it is clear that even as to the 
 material facts there was not at the time that unanimity 
 which might have been expected. We have seen how 
 anxious was the Secretary of State that the French 
 
 "guy faukes' lantern." 
 
 court should at once be rightly informed as to all 
 particulars. We learn, however, from Mr. Dudley 
 
 ^ I have already remarked upon Faukes' statement that he 
 was arrested in quite a different place from any mentioned in 
 the government accounts. It should be added, that as to the 
 person who arrested him, there is a somewhat similar dis- 
 crepancy of evidence. The honour is universally assigned by 
 the official accounts to Sir T. Knyvet, who in the following year 
 was created a peer, which shows that he undoubtedly rendered 
 some valuable service on the occasion. An epitaph, however, 
 in St. Anne's Church, Aldersgate (printed in Maitland's History 
 pf London, p. 1065, 3rd ed.), declares that it was Peter Heiwood, 
 of Heywood, Lancashire, "who apprehended Guy Faux, with 
 his dark Lanthorn ; and for his zealous Prosecution of Papists, 
 as Justice of Peace, was stabbed, in Westminster Hall, by John 
 James, a Dominican Friar, A.D. 1640." No trace of this assassina- 
 tion can be found, nor does the name of John James occur in 
 the Dominican records. It is, however, a curious coincidence 
 that the " Guy Faukes' Lantern," exhibited in the Ashmolean 
 
140 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Garleton, then attached to the embassy at Paris/ that 
 in spite of Cecil's promptitude he was anticipated by 
 a version of the affair sent over from the French 
 embassy in London, giving an utterly different com- 
 plexion to it. According to this, the design had been, 
 " That the council being set, and some lords besides 
 in the chamber, a barrel of gunpowder should be fired 
 underneath them, and the greater part, if not all, blown 
 up." According to this informant, therefore, it was 
 not the Parliament House but the Council Chamber 
 which was to have been assailed, there is no mention 
 of the king, and we have one barrel of powder instead 
 of thirty-six. It is not easy to understand how in such a 
 matter a mistake like this could have been made, for it is 
 the inevitable tendencyof men to begin byexaggerating, 
 and not by minimizing, a sudden and startling peril.^ 
 
 Museum at Oxford, bears the inscription : " Laierna ilia ipsa 
 qud nsus est, et cum quc^ deprehensus Guido Faux in cryptd. 
 subterraned, ubi domo [sic] Parliamenti difflandae operant dabat. 
 Ex dono Robti. Heywood nuper Acadeniiae Procuratoris, Ap. 4°, 
 1641." See the epitaph in full, Appendix I. 
 
 ' To J. Chamberlain, ioth-20th November, 1605. P. R. O. 
 France, b. 132, f. 335 b. 
 
 ^ The Council appears at this time to have met in the Painted 
 Chamber, and, without at all wishing to lay too much stress upon 
 this point, I cannot but remark that the supposition that this 
 was the original scene assigned to the operations of Faukes 
 would solve various difficulties : 
 
 1. Beneath the Painted Chamber was a vaulted cellar, answer- 
 ing to the description we have so frequently heard, whereas 
 under the House of Lords was neither a cellar nor a vault. 
 
 2. This crypt beneath the Painted Chamber has been con- 
 stantly shown as " Guy Faukes' Cellar." 
 
 3. In prints of the period, Faukes is usually represented as 
 going to blow up this chamber, never the House of Lords. 
 
CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE. I4I 
 
 Moreover, even this modest version of the affair was 
 not suffered to pass unchallenged. Three days later 
 Carleton again wrote : ' " The fire which was said to 
 have burnt our king and council, and hath been so hot 
 these two days past in every man's mouth, proves 
 but ignis fatuus, or a flash of some foolish fellow's 
 brain to abuse the world ; for it is now as confidently 
 reported there was no such matter, nor anything near 
 it more than a barrel of powder found near the 
 court." 
 
 It must here be observed that the scepticism thus 
 early manifested appears never to have been exorcised 
 from the minds of French writers, many of whom, of 
 all shades of thought, continue, down to our day, to 
 assume that the real plotters were the king's govern- 
 ment."^ 
 
 Neither can we overlook sundry difficulties, again 
 suggested by the facts of the case, which make it 
 hard to understand how the plans of the plotters 
 can in reality have been as they are represented. 
 
 We have already observed on the nature of the 
 house occupied in Percy's name. If this were, as 
 Speed tells us, and as there is no reason to doubt, at 
 
 ' To Chamberlain, November 13th (O. S.), 1605. P. R. O. 
 
 ^ Thus M. Bouillet, in the latest edition of his Dictiomtaire- 
 d'histoire et giographie, speaks as follows : " Le ministre cupide 
 et orgueilleux, Cecil, semble avoir €%.€ I'ime du complot, et I'avoir 
 d^couvert lui mdme au moment propice, aprfes avoir present^ \ 
 I'esprit faible de Jacques I. les dangers auxquels il etait en but 
 de la part des Catholiques." 
 
 Gazeau and Prampain {Hist. Mod., tome i.) speak of the 
 conspiracy as " cette plaisanterie ;" and say of the conspirators, 
 " Dans une cave, ils avaient ddposd 36 barils contenant (ou soi^- 
 disant tels) de la poudre." 
 
142 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 the service of the Peers during a session, for a with- 
 drawing-room, and if the session was to begin on 
 November 5th, how could Faukes hope not only 
 to remain in possession, but to carry on his strange 
 proceedings unobserved, amid the crowd of lacqueys 
 and officials with whom the opening of Parliament by 
 the Sovereign must needs have flooded the premises ? 
 How was he, unobserved, to get into the fatal " cellar" ? 
 
 This difficulty is emphasized by another. We learn, 
 on the unimpeachable testimony of Mrs. Whynniard, 
 the landlady, that Faukes not only paid the last 
 instalment of rent on Sunday, November, 3rd, but on 
 the following day, the day immediately preceding the 
 intended explosion, had carpenters and other workfolk 
 in the house " for mending and repairing thereof" ^ 
 To say nothing of the wonderful honesty of paying 
 rent under the circumstances, what was the sense of 
 putting a house in repair upon Monday, which on 
 Tuesday was to be blown to atoms ? And how could 
 the practised eyes of such workmen fail to detect some 
 trace of the extraordinary and unskilled operations of 
 which the house is said to have been the theatre? If, 
 indeed, the truth is that on the Tuesday the premises 
 were to be handed over for official use, it is easy 
 to understand why it was thought necessary to set 
 them in order, but on no other supposition does this 
 appear comprehensible. 
 
 Problems, not easy to solve, connect themselves, 
 likewise, with the actual execution of the conspirators' 
 plan. If it would have been hard for Guy Faukes to 
 .get into the " cellar," how was he ever to get out of it 
 
 ' P. R. O. Gunpowder Plot Book, 39 (November 7). 
 
FARTHER DIFFICULTIES. I43 
 
 again ? We are so accustomed to the idea of darkness 
 and obscurity in connection with him and his business, 
 as perhaps to forget that his project was to have been 
 executed in the very middle of the day, about noon or 
 shortly afterwards. The king was to come in state 
 with retinue and guards, and attended by a large con- 
 course of spectators, who, as is usual on such occasions, 
 would throng every nook and corner whence could be 
 obtained a glimpse of the building in which the royal 
 speech was being delivered.' It cannot be doubted, in 
 particular, that the open spaces adjacent to the House 
 itself would be strictly guarded, and the populace not 
 suffered to approach too near the sacred precincts, more 
 especially when, as we have seen, so many suspicions 
 were abroad of danger to his sacred Majesty, and to 
 the Parliament. 
 
 On a sudden a door immediately beneath the spot 
 where the flower of the nation were assembled, would 
 be unlocked and opened, and there would issue there- 
 from a man, " looking like a very tall and desperate 
 fellow," booted and spurred and equipped for travel. 
 He was to have but a quarter of an hour to save him- 
 self from the ruin he had prepared.^ What possible 
 chance was there that he would have been allowed to 
 pass? 
 
 ' In Herring's Pietas Pontificia (1606) the king is described 
 as coming to the House : 
 
 " Magna cum Pompa, stipatorumque Caterva, 
 Palmatisque, Togis, Gemmis, auroque refulgent : 
 Ingens fit Populi concursus, compita cpniplens, 
 Turbis se adglomerant densis, spectantque Triumphum." 
 
 ^ Faukes himself says — examination of November i6th — that 
 the touchwood would have burnt a quarter of an hour. 
 
144 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 As to his further plans, we have the most extrava- 
 gant and contradictory accounts, some obviously- 
 fabulous.' According to the least incredible, a vessel 
 was lying below London Bridge ready at once to pro- 
 ceed to sea and carry him to Flanders ; while a boat, 
 awaiting him at the Parliament stairs, was to convey 
 him to the ship.' If this were so, it is not clear why he 
 equipped himself with his spurs, which, however, are 
 authenticated by as good evidence as any other feature 
 of the story. It would also appear that, here again, the 
 plan proposed was altogether impracticable, for at the 
 time of his projected flight the tide would have been 
 flowing,' and it is well known that to attempt to pass 
 Old London Bridge against it would have been like 
 trying to row up a waterfall. Neither does it seem pro- 
 bable that the vessel would have been able to get out 
 of the Thames for several hours, before which time all 
 egress would doubtless have been stopped. 
 
 Such considerations must at least avail to make us 
 pause before we can unhesitatingly accept the tradi- 
 
 ^ See Appendix K, Myths of the Powder Plot. 
 
 ' In connection with this appears an interesting example of 
 the natural philosophy of the time, it being said that Faukes 
 selected this mode of escape, hoping that water, being a non- ■ 
 conductor, would save him from the effects of the explosion. 
 
 ' I am informed on high authority that on the day in question 
 it was high water at London Bridge between five and six p.m. 
 In his Memorials of the Tower of London (p. 136) Lord de Ros 
 says that the vessel destined to convey him to Flanders was to 
 be in waiting for Faukes at the river side close by, and that in 
 it he was to drop down the river with the ebb tide. It would, 
 of course, have been impossible for any sea-going craft to make 
 its way up to Westminster ; nor would the ebb tide run to 
 order. 
 
CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN. I45 
 
 tional history, even in those broad outlines which 
 appear to be best established. The main point is, 
 however, independent of their truth. Though all be 
 as has been affirmed concerning the " cellar " and its 
 contents, and the plan of operations agreed upon by 
 the traitors, the question remains as to the real nature 
 of the " discovery." We have seen, on the one hand, 
 that the official narrative bristles with contradictions, 
 and, whatever be the truth, with falsehoods. On the 
 other hand, the said narrative was avowedly prepared 
 with the object of obtaining credence for the picturesque 
 but unveracious assertion that the plotters' design was 
 detected " very miraculously, even some twelve hours 
 before the matter should have been put in execu- 
 tion." On the Earl of Salisbury's own admission, 
 it had been divined almost as many days previously, 
 and it was laid open at the last moment only because 
 he deliberately chose to wait till the last moment 
 before doing anything. No doubt a dramatic feature 
 was thus added to the business, and one eminently 
 calculated to impress the public mind : but they who 
 insist so loudly on the miraculousness of an event 
 which they alone have invested with the character of 
 a miracle, must be content to have it believed that 
 they knew still more than in an unguarded moment 
 they acknowledged, and arranged other things con- 
 cerning the Plot than its ultimate disclosure.' 
 
 ' It is frequently said that the testimony of Bishop Goodman, 
 who has been so often cited, is discredited by the fact that he 
 probably died a Catholic, for he was attended on his death-bed 
 by the Franciscan Father, Francis k S. Clara (Christopher 
 Davenport), chaplain to Queen Henrietta Maria, a learned man 
 who indulged in the dream of corporate reunion between England 
 
 L 
 
146 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 and Rome, maintaining that the Anglican articles were in 
 accordance with Catholic doctrine, though absolutely denying 
 the validity of Anglican Orders. 
 
 In his will Goodman professed that as he lived, so he died, 
 most constant in all the articles of the Christian Faith, and in 
 all the doctrine of God's holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, 
 " whereof," he says, " I do acknowledge the Church of Rome to 
 be the Mother Church. And I do verily believe that no other 
 church hath any salvation in it, but only so far as it concurs 
 with the faith of the Church of Rome." On this, Mr. Brewer, 
 his editor, observes that a sound Protestant might profess as 
 much, the question being what meaning is to be given to the 
 terms employed. Moreover, the same writer continues, Good- 
 man cannot have imagined that his life had been a constant 
 profession of Roman doctrine, inasmuch as he advanced steadily 
 from one preferment to another in the Church of England, and 
 strongly maintaining her doctrines formally denounced those of 
 Rome. What is certain, however, is this, that in the very work 
 from which his evidence is quoted he speaks in such a manner 
 as to show that whatever were his religious opinions, he was a 
 firm behever in the Royal Supremacy and a lover of King 
 James, whom he thus describes : " Truly I did never know any 
 man of so great an apprehension, of so great love and affection, 
 — a man so truly just, so free from all cruelty and pride, such a 
 lover of the church, and one that had done so much good for 
 the church." {Court of King James, i. 91.) 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 PERCY, CATESBY, AND TRESHAM. 
 
 On occasion of a notorious trial in the Star Chamber, 
 in the year 1604,' Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, made the significant observation^ that nothing 
 was to be discovered concerning the Catholics " but by 
 putting some Judas amongst them." That amongst the 
 Powder Plot conspirators there was some one who 
 played such a part, who perhaps even acted as a decoy- 
 duck to lure the others to destruction, has always 
 been suspected, but with sundry differences of opinion 
 as to which of the band it was. Francis Tresham has 
 most commonly been supposed at least to have sent 
 the warning letter to Monteagle, which proved fatal to 
 himself and his comrades : some writers have con- 
 jectured that he did a good deal more.' Monteagle 
 himself, as we have seen, has been supposed by others 
 to have been in the Plot and to have betrayed it. It 
 would appear, however, that neither of these has 
 so strong a claim to this equivocal distinction as one 
 whose name has been scarcely mentioned hitherto in 
 such a connection. 
 
 The part played in the conspiracy by Thomas 
 
 ' That of Mr. Pound. 
 
 ^ Jardine, Criminal Trials, ii. 38, n. 
 
 ^ E.g., the author of the Politician's Catechism. 
 
148 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Percy is undoubtedly very singular, and the more so 
 when we learn something of the history and character 
 of the man. Till within some three years previously ' 
 he had been a Protestant, and, moreover, unusually 
 wild and dissolute. After his conversion, he acquired 
 the character of a zealous, if turbulent. Catholic, and 
 is so described, not only by Father Gerard and Father 
 Greenway, but by himself In a letter written so late 
 as November 2nd, 1605,'^ he represents that he has to 
 leave Yorkshire, being threatened by the Archbishop 
 with arrest, "as the chief pillar of papistry in that 
 county." 
 
 It unfortunately appears that all the time this, 
 zealous convert was a bigamist, having one wife living- 
 in the capital and another in the provinces. When his 
 name was published in connection with the Plot, the 
 magistrates of London arrested the one, and those of 
 Warwickshire the other, alike reporting to the secretary 
 what they had done, as may be seen in the State 
 Paper Office.' 
 
 Gravely suspicious as such a fact must appear in 
 connection with one professing exceptional religious 
 fervour, it by no means stands alone. Father Green- 
 way, in describing the character of Percy,* dwells much 
 on his sensitiveness to the suspicion of having played 
 false to his fellow Catholics in his dealings with King 
 
 ^ " About the time of my Lord Essex his enterprise he became: 
 Catholic" {i.e. 1601). Father Gerard, Narrative, p. 58. 
 
 '^ P. R. O. Gunpowder Plot Book, n. 4. 
 
 ' Justice Grange, of St. Giles- in- the-Fields, to Salisbury,, 
 November 5th, 1605. Justices of Warwickshire, to the same,, 
 November 12th. 
 
 * MS., f. 31-32. 
 
Hae<; eft vera 3cpnmaori^aliS editioThoaePerci 
 
 Os {yuliumo' vf£»j ThoTTue itoyw/niac Percy iJi Tfloma^^^f^bitonBil 
 'jnier ^ntanmis nobilets mlijjimi WBTkcMr^iRtSia^iac- 
 
 2#£'J relus fcceatambthcm fuftrjlihojo «c7iiJi^mAru/ugit 
 
 Jsjfj jic^'ina. OrJifMus <hhienr(ilUr:ihrum. y ■ rrwrluuf 
 U)eo yolenU Jcclui "i auiioi'on vuilp 
 
 THOMAS PERCY. 
 
ISO WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 James in Scotland, coupled with protestations of his 
 determination to do something to show that he as well 
 as they had been deceived by that monarch. We 
 find evidence that as a fact some Catholics distrusted 
 him, as in the examination of one Cary, who, being in- 
 terrogated concerning the Powder Plot, protested that 
 " Percy was no Papist but a Puritan." ' There is like- 
 wise in the king's own book a strange and obscure 
 reference to Percy as the possible author of the letter 
 to Monteagle, one of the chief grounds for suspecting- 
 him being "his backwardness in religion." It would 
 moreover appear that he was not a man who always 
 impressed those favourably who had to do with him, 
 for Chamberlain reminds his friend Carleton that the 
 latter had ever considered him "a subtle, flattering, 
 dangerous knave." ^ 
 
 We have seen something of the extraordinary manner 
 in which Percy transacted the business of hiring the 
 house and " cellar," wholly unlike what we should ex- 
 pect from one whose main object was to escape obser- 
 vation, and that he brought to bear the influence of 
 sundry Protestant gentlemen, amongst them Dudley 
 Carleton himself,' in order to obtain the desired lease. 
 
 ' Tanner MSS., ui sup., f. 167. 
 
 ' P. R. O. Dom. James I., November 7th, 1605. 
 
 ° The case of Carleton is not without mystery. At the time 
 of the discovery he was at Paris, as secretary to the English 
 ambassador, but about the middle of the month was ordered 
 home in hot haste and placed " in restraint." On February 
 28th, 1605-6, he wrote to his friend Chamberlain that he was 
 airing himself on the Chilterns to get rid of the scent of powder, 
 asking his correspondent to consult a patron as to his best 
 means of promotion {Dom. fames /. xviii. 125). Far from being 
 injured by any suspicion that he might seem to have incurred. 
 
THOMAS PERCY. IS I 
 
 We know, moreover, that various unfortunate accidents 
 prevented the history of these negotiations from ever 
 being fully told. 
 
 Yet more remarkable is a piece of information sup- 
 plied by Bishop Goodman, his authority being the 
 eminent lawyer Sir Francis Moore, who, says he, " is 
 beyond all exception." ' Moore, having occasion 
 during the period when the Plot was in progress to be 
 out on business late at night, and going homeward to 
 the Middle Temple at two in the morning, "several 
 times he met Mr. Percy coming out of the great 
 statesman's house, and wondered what his business 
 should be there." Such wonder was certainly not un- 
 natural, and must be shared by us. That a man who 
 was ostensibly the life and soul ofa conspiracy directed 
 against the king's chief minister, even more than 
 against the sovereign himself, should resort for con- 
 ference with his intended victim at an hour when he 
 was most likely to escape observation, is assuredly not 
 the least extraordinary feature in this strange and 
 tangled tale. 
 
 Not less suspicious is another circumstance. Imme- 
 diately before the fatal Fifth of November, Percy had 
 been away in the north, and he returned to London 
 only on the evening of Saturday, the 2nd. Of this 
 return, Cecil, writing a week later,'' made a great 
 mystery, as though the traitor's movements had been 
 of a most stealthy and secret character, and declared 
 
 he subsequently rose rapidly in favour, was intrusted with most 
 important diplomatic missions, and was finally created Viscount 
 Dorchester. 
 
 "^ Court of King James, i. 105. 
 
 ^ To the ambassadors, November gth. 
 
152 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 that the fact had been discovered from Faukes only 
 with infinite difficulty, and after many denials. It 
 happens, however, that amongst the State Papers is 
 preserved a pass dated October 25th, issued by the 
 Commissioners of the North, for Thomas Percy, post- 
 ing to Court upon the king's especial service, and 
 charging all mayors, sheriffs, and postmasters to pro- 
 vide him with three good horses all along the road.' 
 It is manifestly absurd to speak of secrecy or stealth 
 in connection with such a journey, or to pretend that 
 the Chief Secretary of State could have any difficulty 
 in tracing the movements of a man who travelled in 
 this fashion ; and protestations of ignorance serve only 
 to show that to seem ignorant was thought desirable. 
 
 Considerations like these, it will hardly be denied, 
 countenance the notion that Percy was, in King 
 James's own phrase, a tame duck employed to catch 
 wild ones. Against such a supposition, however, a 
 grave objection at once presents itself Percy was 
 amongst the very first victims of the enterprise, being 
 one of the four who were killed at Holbeche when 
 the conspirators were brought to bay. 
 
 This, unquestionably, must at first sight appear to 
 be fatal to the theory of his complicity, and the im- 
 portance of such a fact should not be extenuated. At 
 the same time, on further scrutiny, the argument which 
 it supplies loses much of its force. 
 
 It must, in the first place, be remembered, that 
 according to the belief then current, it was no uncom- 
 mon thing, as Lord Castlemaine expresses it^ the 
 game being secured, to hang the spaniel which caught 
 
 ' Dom. James I. xv. 106. ' Catholique Apology, p. 415. 
 
PERCY'S DEATH. I S3 
 
 it, that its master's art might not appear, and, to cite 
 no other instance, we have the example of Dr. Parry, 
 who, as Mr. Brewer acknowledges,' was involved in the 
 ruin of those whom he had been engaged to lure to 
 destruction. 
 
 There are, moreover, various remarkable circum- 
 stances in regard to the case of Percy in particular. 
 It was observed at the time as strange and suspicious 
 that any of the rebels should have been slain at all, for 
 they were almost defenceless, having no fire-arms ; they 
 did not succeed in killing a single one of their assail- 
 ants, and might all have been captured without diffi- 
 culty. Nevertheless, the attacking party were not only 
 allowed to shoot, but selected just the wrong men as 
 their mark, precisely those who, being chiefly implicated 
 in the beginnings of the Plot, could have afforded the 
 most valuable information,'' for besides Percy, were 
 shot down Catesby and the two Wrights,' all deeply 
 
 ' Goodman's Court of King James, i. 121, note. 
 
 ^ See Goodman's remarks on this subject (Court of King 
 James, i. 106). The author of the Politician's Catechism writes : 
 " It is very certaine that Percy and Catesby might have been 
 taken ahve, when they were killed, but Cecil knew full well that 
 these two unfortunate Gentlemen would have related the story 
 lesse to his owne advantage, than himself caused it to be pub- 
 lished : therefore they were dispatched when they might have 
 been made prisoners, having no other weapons, offensive or 
 defensive, but their swords." 
 
 ' About the death of the Wrights there are extraordinary 
 contradictions. In the "original" of his famous confession 
 T. Winter says : " The next shot was the elder Wright, stone 
 dead ; after him the younger Mr. Wright." In Mischeefes 
 Mystery we read that Percy and Catesby were killed " with a 
 gunne," the two Wrights " with Halberts." The day after the 
 attack, November 9th, Sir Edward Leigh wrote to the Council, 
 
154 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 implicated from the first. So unaccountable did such 
 a course appear as at once to suggest sinister inter- 
 pretations — especially as regarded the case of Percy 
 and Catesby, who were always held to be the ring- 
 leaders of the band. As Goodman tells us,' " Some 
 will not stick to report that the great statesman 
 sending to apprehend these traitors gave special 
 charge and direction for Percy and Catesby, ' Let me 
 never see them alive ; ' who it may be would have re- 
 vealed some -evil counsel given." A similar suspicion 
 seems to be insinuated by Sir Edward Hoby, writing 
 to Edmondes, the Ambassador at Brussels ' : " Percy is 
 dead : who it is thought by some particular men could 
 have said more than any other." 
 
 More suspicious still appears the fact that the 
 king's government thought it necessary to explain 
 how it had come to pass that Percy was not secured 
 alive, and to protest that they had been anxious above 
 all for his capture, but had been frustrated by the in- 
 considerate zeal of their subordinates. In the " King's 
 Book " we read as follows : " Although divers of the 
 King's Proclamations were posted down after those 
 Traitors with all speed possible, declaring the odious- 
 ness of that bloody attempt, and the necessity to have 
 Percy preserved alive, if it had been possible, . . . yet 
 the far distance of the way (which was above an 
 hundred miles), together with the extreme deepness 
 thereof, joined also with the shortness of the day, was 
 
 that the Wrights were not slain, as reputed, but wounded. 
 Not till the 13th was their death certified by Sir Richard 
 Walsh. 
 
 ' Court of King James, i. 106. 
 
 ^ Nichols, Progresses of King James I. i. 588. 
 
PERCY'S DEATH. 155 
 
 the cause that the hearty and loving affection of the 
 King's good subjects in those parts prevented the 
 speed of his Proclamations." 
 
 Such an explanation cannot be deemed satisfactory. 
 The distance to be covered was about II2 miles, and 
 there were three days to do it, for not till November 
 8th were the fugitives surrounded. They in their 
 flight had the same difficulties to contend with, as are 
 here enumerated, yet they accomplished their journey 
 in a single day, and they had not, like the king's 
 couriers, fresh liorses ready for them at every post. 
 
 But we have positive evidence upon this point. 
 Father Greenway, who was at the time in the Midlands, 
 close to the scene of action, incidentally mentions, with- 
 out any reference to our present question,' that while 
 the rebels were in the field, messengers came post haste 
 continually, one after the other, from the capital, all 
 bearing proclamations mentioning Percy by name. 
 
 It must also be observed that though the couriers, 
 we are told, could not in three days get from London 
 to Holbeche to hinder Percy's death, they contrived to 
 ride in one from Holbeche to London with news that 
 he was dead." 
 
 Another circumstance not easy to explain is, that 
 the man who killed Percy and Catesby,' John Streete 
 by name, received for his service the handsome pension 
 of two shillings a day for life, equal at least to a pound 
 of our present money.* This is certainly a large 
 
 ' MS., f. 70, b. 
 
 ' Cecil writing to the ambassadors, November 9th, mentions 
 in a postscript the fate of the rebels. 
 
 " They were slain by two balls from the same musket. 
 * Warrant, P. R. O. 
 
1S6 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 reward for having done the very thing that the govern- 
 ment most desired to avoid, and for an action, more- 
 over, involving no sort of personal risk, killing two 
 practically unarmed men from behind a tree.' If, 
 however, he had silenced a dangerous witness, it is easy 
 to understand the munificence of his recompense. 
 
 Against Catesby, likewise, there are serious indict- 
 ments, and it seems impossible to believe him to have 
 been, as commonly represented, a man, however 
 blinded by fanaticism, yet honest in his bad enterprise, 
 who would not stoop to fraud or untruth. It is abun- 
 dantly evident that on many occasions he deliberately 
 deceived his associates, and those whom he called his 
 spiritual guides, making promises which he did not 
 mean to keep, and giving assurances which he knew 
 to be false.^ It will be sufficient to quote one or two 
 examples quite sufficient to stamp him as a man 
 utterly unscrupulous about the means employed to 
 gain his ends. 
 
 On the 5th of November, when, after the failure of 
 the enterprise, he arrived at Dunchurch, in Warwick- 
 shire, Catesby, in order to induce Sir Everard Digby 
 to commit himself to the hopeless campaign now to be" 
 undertaken, assured him,'' that though the powder was 
 discovered, yet the king and Salisbury were killed ; all 
 were in " a pother ; " the Catholics were sure to rise in 
 a body, one family alone, the Littletons, would bring 
 in one thousand men the next day ; and so on, — 
 
 ' Father Gerard mentions this circumstance {Narrative, 
 p. no). 
 
 " This point is well developed in the recent Life of a Con- 
 spirator, pp. 120-126. 
 
 ' Dom. James I. xvi. 97. 
 
CATESBY. 157 
 
 all this being absolutely untrue. That he had pre- 
 viously employed similar means on a large scale to 
 inveigle his friends into his atrocious and senseless 
 scheme, there is much evidence, strongest of all that 
 of Father Garnet ; ' " I doubt not that Mr. Catesby 
 hath feigned many such things for to induce others." 
 
 Worst of all, we learn from another intercepted 
 letter of Garnet's, Catesby had for his own purposes 
 circulated an atrocious slander against Garnet himself, 
 although passing as his devoted disciple and friend : 
 " Master Catesby," he wrote,^ " did me much wrong 
 and hath confessed that he told them he asked me a 
 question in Q. Elizabeth's time of the powder action,' 
 and that I said it was lawful. All which is most un- 
 true. He did it to draw in others." 
 
 In view of this, and much else of a similar kind, it is 
 difficult to read Father Gerard's Narrative, and more 
 particularly Father Greenway's additions thereto, 
 without a growing feeling that if Catesby sought 
 counsel it was with no intention of being guided by it, 
 and that his sole desire was to get hold of something 
 which might serve his own purposes. 
 
 ^ Dom. James /., March 4th, 1605-6. 
 
 " Gunpowder Plot Book, 242. 
 
 ' The strange story of a powder-plot under Elizabeth ia 
 variously told. According to one of the mysterious confessions 
 attributed to Faukes, which have disappeared from the State 
 Papers, Owen told him in Flanders that one Thomas Morgan 
 had proposed to blow up her majesty (Abbot, Antilogia, [37). 
 The Memorial to Protestants by Bishop Kennet (17 13) says 
 that the man's name was Moody, who wanted the French 
 ambassador to subsidise him. The idea was to place a 20 lb. bag 
 of powder under the queen's bed, and explode it in the middle 
 of the night, but how this was to be managed is not explained. 
 
158 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 We have already seen that a great deal of mystery 
 attaches to Francis Tresham, who is generally sup- 
 posed to have written the letter to Monteagle, and 
 was clearly suspected by some of having done a great 
 deal more ; for the author of the Politician's Catechism 
 speaks of him as having access to Cecil's house even at 
 midnight, along with another whose name is not given, 
 these two being therefore supposed to have been the 
 secretary's instruments in all this business. What is 
 certain is, that Tresham did not fly like the rest when 
 the " discovery " had taken place, not only remaining 
 in London, and showing himself openly in the streets, 
 but actually presenting himself to the council, and 
 offering them his services. Moreover, though his 
 name was known to the government, at least on 
 November 7th, as one of the accomplices, it was for 
 several days omitted from their published proclama- 
 tions, and not till the 12th was he taken into custody. 
 Being confined in the Tower, he was shortly attacked 
 by a painful malady, and on December 23rd he died, 
 as was officially announced, of a " strangury," as Salis- 
 bury assures Cornwallis " by a natural sickness, such 
 as he hath been a long time subject to." ^ Throughout 
 liis sickness he himself and his friends loudly declared 
 that should he survive it " they feared not the course 
 of justice." '^ Such confidence, as Mr. Jardine re- 
 marks, could be grounded only on his possession of 
 knowledge which the authorities would not venture to 
 reveal, and it is not surprising that his death should 
 have been attributed, by the enemies of the govern- 
 ment, to poison. It is no doubt an argument against 
 
 ' Winwood, Memorials, ii. 189. 
 
 ° Wood to Salisbury, December 23rd, 1605. 
 
TRESHAM. 159 
 
 such a supposition that during his illness Tresham was 
 allowed to be attended by his wife and a confidential 
 servant. On the other hand, not only does Bishop 
 Goodman inform us ^ that " Butler, the great physician 
 of Cambridge," declared him to have been poisoned ; 
 but the author of Mischeefes Mystery, a violent govern- 
 ment partisan, contradicts the notion of a natural 
 death, by asserting that " Tresham murthered himself 
 in the Tower." 
 
 It thus appears, once again, that the more its details 
 are scrutinized, the less does the traditional history of 
 the Plot commend itself to our acceptance. It is hard 
 to believe that within the ranks of the conspirators 
 themselves, there was no treachery, no one who, lend- 
 ing himself to work the ruin of his associates, un- 
 wittingly wrought his own. 
 
 The evidence hitherto considered may fitly conclude 
 with the testimony of a witness living near the time in 
 question, who had evidently been at pains to make 
 inquiries amongst those most likely to give informa- 
 tion. This is an anonymous correspondent of Anthony 
 a Wood, whose notes are preserved in Fulman's 
 collection in the library of Corpus Christi College, 
 Oxford. These remarkable notes have been seen by 
 Fulman, who inserted in the margin various questions 
 and objections, to which the writer always supplied 
 precise and definite replies. In the following version 
 this supplementary information is incorporated in the 
 body of his statement, being distinguished by italics. 
 The writer, who explains that his full materials are in 
 the country, speaks thus : ^ 
 
 ' Court of King James, i. 107. * Collection, vol. ii. 15. 
 
l6o WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 " I should be glad to understand what your friend 
 driveth at about the Fifth of November. It was, with- 
 out all peradventure, a State Plot. I have collected 
 many pregnant circumstances concerning it. 
 
 " 'Tis certain that the last Earl of Salisbury ' con- 
 fessed to William LenthaP it was his father's con- 
 trivance, which Lenthal soon after told one Mr. Webb 
 {John Webb, Esq.), a person of quality, and his kins- 
 man, yet alive. 
 
 " Sir Henry Wotton says 'twas usual with Cecil to 
 create plots, that he might have the honour of the 
 discovery, or to such effect. 
 
 " The Lord Mounteagle knew there was a letter to 
 be sent to him before it came. {Known by Edmund 
 Church, Esq., his confidant?) 
 
 " Sir Everard Digby's sons were both knighted soon 
 after, and Sir Kenelm would often say it was a State 
 design, to disengage the king of his promise to the 
 Pope and the King of Spain, to indulge the Catholics 
 if ever he came to be king here ; and somewhat to his 
 purpose was found in the Lord Wimbledon's papers 
 after his death.' 
 
 " Mr. Vowell, who was executed in the Rump time, 
 did also affirm it so." 
 
 "Catesby's man {George Bar tlet),' on his death-bed, 
 
 ' William, second earl (born 1591, died 1668), son of the 
 minister of James I. 
 
 ^ Speaker of the Long Parliament. 
 
 ' Edward Cecil, Viscount Wimbledon, third son of Thomas, 
 first Earl of Exeter (the elder brother of Robert Cecil, first Earl 
 of Sahsbury), died 1638. 
 
 * Peter Vowell, a Protestant, executed with Colonel John 
 Gerard for an alleged plot against Cromwell, July loth, 1654. 
 
 ' " George Bartlett, Mr. Catesby's servant," appears amongst 
 
ANTHONY A wood's CORRESPONDENT. l6l 
 
 confessed his master went to Salisbury House several 
 nights before the discovery, and was always brought 
 privately in at a back door." 
 
 Then, in answer to an objection of Fulman's, is 
 added : " Catesby, 'tis like, did not mean to betray 
 his friends or his own life — he was drawn in and made 
 believe strange things. All good men condemn him 
 and the rest as most desperate wretches ; yet most 
 believed the original contrivance of the Plot was not 
 theirs." 
 
 Whatever else may be thought of the above state- 
 ments, they at least serve to contradict Mr. Jardine's 
 assertion,^ that the notion of Cecil's complicity, — which 
 he terms a strange suggestion, scarce worthy of notice, 
 — was first heard of long after the transaction, and was 
 adopted exclusively by Catholics. Clearly it was not 
 unknown to Protestants who were contemporaries, or 
 personally acquainted with contemporaries, of the 
 event. Yet the document here cited was known to 
 Mr. Jardine, who mentions one of its statements, that 
 relating to Lord Monteagle, but says nothing of its 
 more serious allegations. 
 
 It must also be remarked that we find some traces 
 in the evidence which remains of certain mysterious 
 conspirators of great importance, concerning whom 
 no investigation whatever appears to have been made, 
 they being at once permitted to drop into the pro- 
 foundest obscurity, in a manner quite contrary to the 
 habitual practice of the authorities. 
 
 the suspected persons whose names were sent up to Cecil by 
 the justices of Warwickshire, November I2th, 1605. {Gunpowder 
 Plot Book, 134.) 
 
 ^ Criminal Trials, ii. 188. 
 
 M 
 
1 62 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 One such instance is afforded by the testimony of a 
 mariner, Henry Paris, of Barking,' that Guy Faukes, 
 alias Johnson, hired a boat of him, " wherein was 
 carried over to GraveHnes a man supposed of great 
 import : he went disguised, and would not suffer any 
 one man to go with him but this Vaux, nor to return 
 with him. This Paris did attend for him back at 
 Gravelines six weeks. If cause require there are 
 several proofs of this matter." None of these, how- 
 ever, seem to have been sought. 
 
 ' Gunpowder Plot Book, 130. 
 
VfCHAPTEE/VlII. 
 
 THE government's CASE. 
 
 We have hitherto confined our attention to sources of 
 information other than those with which the authors 
 of the official narrative have supplied us, and upon 
 which they based the same. It remains to inquire 
 how far the evidence presented by them can avail 
 to substantiate the traditional history, and to rebut the 
 various arguments against its authenticity which have 
 been adduced. 
 
 For brevity and clearness' sake it will be advisable 
 to divide this investigation under several heads. 
 
 i. The Trial of the Conspirators. 
 
 On the threshold of our inquiry we are met by 
 a most singular and startling fact. As to what passed 
 on the trial of the conspirators, what evidence was 
 produced against them, how it was supported, — nay, 
 even how the tale of their enterprise was told — we 
 have no information upon which any reliance can be 
 placed. One version alone has come down to us of 
 the proceedings upon this occasion — that published 
 ■" by authority " — and of this we can be sure only that 
 it is utterly untrustworthy. It was issued under the 
 title of the True and Perfect Relation, but, as Mr. 
 
164 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Jardine has already told us, is certainly not deserving- 
 of the character which its title imports. " It is not 
 true, because many occurrences on the trial are wilfully 
 misrepresented ; and it is not perfect, because the 
 whole evidence, and many facts and circumstances 
 which must have happened, are omitted, and incidents 
 are inserted which could not by possibility have taken 
 place on the occasion. It is obviously a false and im- 
 perfect relation of the proceedings ; a tale artfully 
 garbled and misrepresented ... to serve a State pur- 
 pose, and intended and calculated to mislead the 
 judgment of the world upon the facts of the case." ^ 
 Again the same author remarks," " that every line 
 of the published trial was rigidly weighed and con- 
 sidered, not with reference to its accuracy, but its 
 effect on the minds of those who might read it, is 
 manifest." 
 
 Moreover, the narrative thus obviously dishonest, 
 was admittedly issued in contradiction of divers others 
 already passing " from hand to hand," which were at 
 variance with itself in points of importance, and which 
 it stigmatized as " uncertain, untrue, and incoherent ; '" 
 it justified its appearance on the ground that it was 
 supremely important for the public to be rightly 
 informed in such a case : ' and so successful were the 
 efforts made to secure for it a monopoly, that no single 
 document has come down to us by which its state- 
 
 ^ O-iminal Trials, ii. 235. Mr. Jardine is here speaking ex- 
 pressly of the trial of Father Garnet, as reported in the book,, 
 but evidently intends his observations to extend to that of the 
 conspirators as well. 
 
 * Ibid. 105. 
 
 ' True and Perfect Relation, Introduction. 
 
THE " TRUE/ AND PERFECT RELATION." 165 
 
 ments might be checked. In consequence, to quote 
 Mr. Jardine once more,' there is no trial since the 
 time of Henry VIII. in regard of which we are so 
 ignorant as to what actually occurred.'' 
 
 The employment of methods such as these would in 
 any circumstances forfeit all credit on behalf of the 
 story thus presented. In the present instance the pre- 
 sumption raised against it is even stronger than it 
 would commonly be. If the Gunpowder Plot were in 
 reality what was represented, why was it deemed 
 necessary, in Cecil's own phrase, to pervert and dis- 
 guise its history in order to produce the desired 
 effect? A project so singular and diabolical in its 
 atrocity, prepared for on so large a scale, and so 
 nearly successful, should, it would appear, have needed 
 no fictitious adjuncts to enhance its enormity ; and 
 for the conviction of miscreants caught red-handed in 
 such an enterprise no evidence should have been 
 so effectual as that furnished by the facts of the case, 
 which of their nature should have been patent and un- 
 questionable. When we find, on the contrary, a web 
 
 ' Criminal Trials, ii. 113. 
 
 ^ The contemporary, Hawarde {Les Refortes del Cases in 
 Ciimera Stellata) gives a report of the trial of the conspirators, 
 under the curious title " Al le arraignemente del Traitors por le 
 grande treason of blowings up the Parliaments Howse," which, 
 although evidently based upon the official account, differs in two 
 remarkable particulars. In the first place it gives a different 
 list of the commissioners by whom the trial was conducted, 
 omitting Justice Warburton, and including instead, Lord Chief 
 Baron Flemming, Justices Yelverton and Williams, and Baron 
 Saville. Moreover, Hawarde says that the king and queen " were 
 both there in pryvate," an important circumstance, of which the 
 True and Perfect Relation says nothing. 
 
l66 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 of falsehood and mystery woven with elaborate care 
 over the whole history of the transaction, it is not un- 
 natural to infer that to have told the simple truth 
 would not have suited the purpose of those who had 
 the telling of the tale ; and it is obviously necessary 
 that the evidence whereby their story was supported 
 should be rigorously sifted. 
 
 What has been said, though in great measure true 
 of the trial of Father Garnet, at the end of March, is 
 especially applicable to that of the conspirators, two 
 months earlier, for in regard of this we have absolutely 
 no information beyond that officially supplied. The 
 execution of Faukes and his companions follow- 
 ing close upon their arraignment,' all that had been 
 elicited, or was said to have been elicited, at their trial, 
 became henceforth evidence which could not be con- 
 tradicted, the prosecution thus having a free hand in 
 dealing with their subsequent victim.^ In view of this 
 circumstance it has been noted as remarkable that 
 whereas the conspirators had been kept alive and un- 
 tried for nearly three months, they were thus sum- 
 marily dealt with at the moment when it was known 
 that the capture of Father Garnet was imminent, and, 
 as a matter of fact, he was taken on the very day on 
 which the first company were executed.^ It would 
 
 ' Viz., on January 30th and 31st : not January 31st and Feb- 
 ruary 1st, as Mr. Gardiner has it. 
 
 ' Father Garnet clearly believed that this advantage was used 
 unscrupulously against him, for when certain evidence attributed 
 to Bates was cited, he replied that " Bates was a dead man," and 
 would testify otherwise if he were alive. (Brit. Mus. MSS. Add, 
 21203. Fohys Records, iv. p. 188.) 
 
 ' It is frequently said that the search at Hendlip was under- 
 taken not for Garnet but for Oldcorne, whose presence there waa 
 
THE GOVERNMENT EVIDENCE. 167 
 
 appear that nothing should have seemed more desir- 
 able than to confront the Jesuit superior with those 
 whom he was declared to have instigated to their 
 crime, instead of putting them out of the way at 
 the very moment when there was a prospect of 
 doing so. 
 
 ii. The Fundamental Evidence. 
 
 Amongst all the confessions and "voluntary de- 
 clarations " extracted from the conspirators, there 
 are two of exceptional importance, as having furnished 
 the basis of the story told by the government, and 
 ever since generally accepted. These are a long de- 
 claration made by Thomas Winter, and another by 
 Guy Faukes, which alone were made public, being 
 printed in the " King's Book," and from which are 
 gathered the essential particulars of the story as we 
 are accustomed to hear it. 
 
 Of Winter's declaration, which is in the form of a 
 letter to the Lords Commissioners, there is found in 
 the State Paper Office only a copy, bearing date 
 November 23rd, 1605, in the handwriting of Levinus 
 Munck, Cecil's private secretary. This copy has been 
 shown to the King, who in a marginal note objects to 
 a certain " uncleare phrase," which has accordingly 
 been altered in accordance with the royal criticism : 
 
 known by the confession of Humphrey Littleton. But this con- 
 fession was made several days after the search had been begun, 
 and the directions for it given by Cecil to the sheriff, Sir H. 
 Bromley, clearly indicate that he had in view some capture of 
 prime importance. (See Gardiner's History, i. 271, and Brit. 
 Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, f. 693.) 
 
1 68 
 
 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 P S« 
 
 and from it has evidently been taken 
 the printed version, which agrees 
 with it in every respect, including the 
 above-mentioned emendation of the 
 phraseology. 
 
 It must strike the reader as re- 
 markable that, whereas, as has been 
 said, the body of the letter is in the 
 handwriting of the secretary, Munck, 
 the names of the witnesses who attest 
 it^ are added in that of his master, 
 Cecil himself 
 
 The " original " document, in Winter's 
 own hand, is at Hatfield, and agrees 
 in general so exactly with the copy, 
 as to demonstrate the identity of their 
 origin." But while, as we have seen, 
 the " copy " is dated November 23rd, 
 the "original" is dated' on the 25th.' 
 On a circumstance so singular, light 
 is possibly thrown by a letter from 
 Waad, the Lieutenant of the Tower, 
 
 "s^. 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 Qi 
 |4 
 
 ' Viz. : Nottingham, Suffolk, Worcester, 
 Devonshire, Northampton, Salisbury, Marr, 
 Dunbar, Popham, Coke, and Waad. 
 
 ^ In the " original," however, there are 
 some passages which do not appear in the 
 copy, notably one in which Lord Monteagle 
 is mentioned. It appears, therefore, that the 
 " copy" is not the first version produced, but 
 has been edited from another still earlier. 
 
 " That this is not a shp of the pen is 
 evidenced by the fact that Winter first wrote 
 23, and then corrected it to 25. 
 
T. winter's confession. 169 
 
 to Cecil, on the 2 1st 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 re- 
 marked that although Winter's " original " declara- 
 tion 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.^ It may be said 
 that the inference drawn above is violent and unfair, 
 and, perhaps, were there fio other case to go upon but 
 that of Winter, so grave a charge as it implies should 
 not be made. There remains, however, the companion 
 case of Faukes, which is yet more extraordinary. 
 
 His declaration first makes its appearance as " The 
 examination of Guy Fawkes, taken the 8th of Novem- 
 ber." ^ The document thus described is manifestly a 
 draft, and not a copy of a deposition actually taken. 
 It is unsigned : the list of witnesses is in the same 
 handwriting as the rest, and in no instance is a witness 
 indicated by such a title as he would employ for his 
 signature.* Throughout this paper Faukes is made to 
 
 1 Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, 84. 
 
 ^ The idocument is headed in the printed version : " Thomas 
 Winter'sConfession, taken theTwenty-third of November, 1605, in 
 the Presence of the Counsellors, whose Names are underwritten." 
 
 ^ Gtmpmuder Plot Book, 49. 
 
 ■' The list stands thus : " L. Admyrall— L. Chamberlayn — 
 
170 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 speak in the third person, and the names of accom- 
 pHces to whom he refers are not given. 
 
 What, however, is most remarkable is the frank 
 manner in which this document is treated as a draft. 
 Several passages are cancelled and others substituted, 
 sometimes in quite a contrary sense, so that the same 
 deponent cannot possibly have made the statements 
 contained in both versions. Other paragraphs are 
 " ticked off," as the event proves, for omission. 
 
 Nine days later, November 17th,' Faukes was in- 
 duced to put his name to the substance of the matter 
 contained in the draft.^ The document is headed 
 " The declaration ^ of Guy Fawkes, prisoner in the 
 Tower of London." Faukes speaks throughout in the 
 first person, and supplies the names previously omit- 
 ted.* Most noteworthy is the manner in which this 
 
 Erie of Devonshire — Erie of Northampton — Erie of Salisbury — 
 Erie of Marr — L. Cheif Justice — attended by Mr. Attorney 
 Generall." 
 
 The Lord Admiral was the Earl of Nottingham, better known 
 as Lord Howard of Effingham, the commander-in-chief against 
 the Spanish Armada. There appears to be no foundation for 
 the supposition that he was a Catholic. Northampton (Henry 
 Howard) was a professing Catholic. The chamberlain was the 
 Earl of Suffolk, the Chief Justice, Popham. 
 
 ' The Calendar of State Papers assigns this document, like 
 the other, to the 8th, a mistake not easy to understand, for not 
 only is the date clearly written, but the printed version in the 
 " King's Book " gives it correctly. 
 
 ^ Gunpowder Plot Book, loi. 
 
 ^ This was originally written "deposition;" the title is altered 
 in Coke's hand, who also added the words, "taken the 17 of 
 Nov. 1605 : acknowledged before the Lords Commissioners." 
 
 * Thus the examination of November 8th begins as follows : 
 " He confesseth that a Practise in generall was first broken unto 
 him, agaynst his Majesty, for the Catholique cause, and not in- 
 
GUY FAUKES' CONFESSION. IJl 
 
 version is adapted to the emendations of the draft. 
 The passages ticked off have disappeared entirely, 
 amongst them the remarkable statements that " thejr 
 [the confederates] meant also to have sent for the 
 prisoners in the Tower, of whom particularly they had 
 some consultation," — that " they had consultation for 
 the taking of the Lady Mary [the infant daughter of 
 King James] into their possession " — and that " pro- 
 vision was made by some of the conspiracy of armour 
 of proof this last summer, for this action." Where an 
 alteration has been made in the draft, great skill is 
 shown in combining what is important in both versions.^ 
 
 vented, or propounded by himself : and this was first pro- 
 pounded unto him, about Easter last was twelvemonth, beyond 
 the seas, in the Low Countreyes, by an English Lay-man, and 
 that English man came over with him in his company, into 
 England, and they tow and three more were the first five, men- 
 cioned in the former examination," etc. 
 
 "XYi^ declaration of November 17th opens : "I confesse that 
 a practise in general was first broken unto me against his 
 Majesty, for releife of the Catholique cause, and not invented or 
 propounded by myself. And this was first propounded unto me 
 about Easter last was twelvemonth, beyond the Seas, in the 
 Low Countries of the Archdukes obeysance, by Thomas Winter, 
 who came thereupon with me into England, and there wee 
 imparted our purpose to three other Englishmen more, namely 
 Rob' Catesby, Tho' Percy, and John Wright, who all five con- 
 sulting together," etc. See both documents in full, Appendix N. 
 
 ' Thus, in the confession of November 8th, we read as follows : 
 " He confesseth, that it was resolved amonge them, that the 
 same day that this detestable act should have been performed, 
 the same day \sic\ should other of their confederacye have sur- 
 prised the person of the Lady Elizabeth and presently have 
 proclaimed her queen [to which purpose a Proclamation was 
 drawne, as well to avow and justifye the Action, as to have pro- 
 tested against the Union, and in noe sort to have meddled with. 
 
172 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 As to the means which were employed to compel 
 Faukes to sign the declaration there can be no doubt ; 
 his signature bearing evidence that he had been tor- 
 tured with extreme severity. The witnesses are but 
 two, Coke, the Attorney General, and Waad, the 
 Lieutenant of the Tower. When, however, the docu- 
 ment came to be printed, as in the other case, a fuller 
 list was appended, but not exactly that previously in- 
 dicated, for to Faukes were assigned the same wit- 
 nesses as to Winter, including the Earls of Worcester 
 and Dunbar over and above his own list.' 
 
 The printed version exhibits other points of interest. 
 There was in the Archduke's service, in Flanders, an 
 
 Religion therein. And would have protested all soe against all 
 strangers,] and this Proclamation should have been made in the 
 name of the Lady Elizabeth." 
 
 The portion within brackets is cancelled, and the following 
 substituted : " He confesseth that if their purpose had 
 taken effect, untill they had power enough, they would not 
 have avowed the deed to be theirs ; but if their power . . . 
 had been sufficient, they thereafter would have taken it upon 
 them." 
 
 The corresponding portion of the declaration of November 
 17th runs thus : "It was further resolved amongst us, that the 
 same day that this action should have been performed, some 
 other of our confederates should have surprised the person of 
 the L. Elizabeth, the King's eldest daughter, . . . and presently 
 proclaimed her for Queene, having a project of a Proclamation 
 ready for the purpose, wherein we made no mention of altering 
 of Religion, nor would have avowed the deed to be ours, untill 
 we should have had power enough to make our partie good, and 
 then we would have avowed both." 
 
 ' The printed version of Fauke's declaration is headed : 
 *' The true Copy of the Deposition of Guido Fawkes, taken in 
 the Presence of the Counsellors, whose Names are under 
 written." 
 
GUY FAUKES' CONFESSION. I /J 
 
 English soldier, Hugh Owen,' whom the government 
 were for some reason, excessively desirous to incri- 
 
 ^iwan;de CfA 
 
 /oryw 
 
 SIGNATURES OF FAUKES AND OLDCORNE.^ 
 
 minate, and get into their hands. For this purpose,' a. 
 
 ■" In the Calendar of State Papers he is continually styled 
 "Father Owen," or "Owen the Jesuit," without warrant in the 
 original documents. That he was a soldier and not 'a priest 
 there is no doubt. 
 
 ^ See Appendix K., The Use of Torture. 
 
 y 
 
174 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 passage was artfully interpolated in the statement of 
 Faulces, whereof no trace is found in the original. In 
 the " King's Book," the passage in question stands 
 thus, the words italicised being those fraudulently- 
 introduced : 
 
 " About Easter, the parliament being prorogued till 
 •October next, we dispersed ourselves, and I retired 
 into the Low-countries, df advice and direction of the 
 rest ; as well to acquaint Owen with the particulars of 
 .the plot, as also, lest, by my longer stay, I might have 
 grown suspicious." But of Owen we shall see more in 
 particular. It must not be forgotten that on several 
 other days besides those named above, Faukes made 
 ■declarations, still extant, viz., November 5 th, 6th, 7th, 
 9th, and 1 6th, and January 9th and 20th. The most 
 important items of information furnished by that 
 selected for publication were not even hinted at in 
 any of these. 
 
 Farther light appears to be thrown on the manner 
 in which this important declaration was prepared by 
 •another document found amongst the State Papers. 
 This is an " interrogatory " drawn up by Sir E. Coke 
 on November 8th, the very day of the " draft," ex- 
 pressly for the benefit of Faukes.^ That the " draft " 
 was composed from this appears to be shown by a 
 curious piece of evidence. We have already noticed 
 the strange phraseology of one of the passages attri- 
 buted to Faukes : " He confesseth that the same 
 day that this detestable act should have been per- 
 formed the same day should other of their confederacy 
 have surprised the person of the Lady Elizabeth," etc. 
 
 ^ Dom. James I. xvi. 38. 
 
GUY FAUKES' CONFESSION. 175 
 
 Precisely the same repetition occurs in the sixth of 
 Mr. Attorney's suggested questions. '■'Item, was it 
 not agreed that the same day that the act should have 
 been done, the same day or soon after the person of 
 the Lady Elizabeth should have been surprised," etc.? 
 
 Moreover, it is apparent that this interrogatory is 
 not founded on information already obtained, but is, in 
 fact, what is known as a " fishing " document, intended 
 to elicit evidence of some kind. In the first place, 
 some of its suggestions are mutually incompatible. 
 Thus in another place it implies that not Elizabeth 
 but her infant sister Mary was the choice of the 
 queen-makers : — " Who should have been protector of 
 the Lady Mary, who, being born in England, they 
 meant to prefer to the crown. With whom should she 
 have married ? " (She was then seven months old.) 
 Again it asks : " What should have become of the 
 Prince ? " as though he might after all be the sovereign 
 intended. 
 
 Besides this, many points are raised which are 
 evidently purely imaginary, inasmuch as no more was 
 ever heard of them though if substantiated, they would 
 have been supremely important.' 
 
 ' E.g. Item. Where you have confessed that it was discoursed 
 between you that the prisoners in the Tower should have had 
 intelligence after the act done, declare the particularity of that 
 discourse, and whether some prisoners in the Tower should not 
 have been called to ofifice or place, or have been employed, etc. 
 
 Item. Where you have confessed that the L. Elizabeth 
 should have succeeded, and that she should have been brought 
 up as a Catholic, and married to an English Catholic, (i) Who 
 should have had the government of her.? (2) Who was 
 nominated to be the fittest to have married her ? 
 
 Item. Was it not resolved amongst you that after the act done 
 
176 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 The above details will not appear superfluous if the 
 importance of these documents be fully understood. 
 It is upon these narratives, stamped with features so 
 incompatible with their trustworthiness, that we en- 
 tirely depend for much of prime importance in the his- 
 tory of the conspiracy, in particular for the notable 
 episode of the mine, which they alone relate, and 
 which is not even mentioned, either in the other 
 numerous confessions of Faukes and Winter them- 
 selves, or by any of the other confederates. Save 
 for an incidental remark of Keyes, that he helped 
 to work in the mine, we hear nothing else of it ; 
 while not only is this confession quite as strange 
 a document as the two others, but, to complicate the 
 matter still more, Keyes is expressly described by 
 Cecil ' himself as one of those that " wrought not in 
 the mine." 
 
 It is hard to understand how so remarkable an 
 operation should have been totally ignored in all the 
 other confessions and declarations, numerous and 
 various as they are ; while, on the other hand, should 
 
 you would have taken the Tower, or any other place of strength, 
 and meant you not to have taken the spoil of London, and whom, 
 should you have instantly proclaimed ? 
 
 Item. By what priests or Jesuits were you resolved that it was 
 godly and lawful to execute the act ? 
 
 Item. Whether was it not resolved that if it were discovered 
 Catesby and others should have killed the king coming from. 
 Royston ? 
 
 Item. Were not Edw. Neville, calling himself Earl of West- 
 morland, Mr. Dacre, calling himself Lord Dacre, or any of the 
 Nobility, privy to it? How many of the Nobility have you 
 known at Mass ? What persons in the Tower were named to be 
 partakers with you ? 
 
 ' To Edmondes, November 14th, 1605. (Stowe MSS.) 
 
BATES AND FATHER GREENWAY. 1 77 
 
 this striking feature of the Plot prove to be a fabri- 
 cation, what is there of which to be certain ? 
 
 iii. The Confession of Thomas Bates {December i\th, 
 1605). 
 
 There is another piece of evidence to which ex- 
 ceptional prominence has been given, the confession 
 of Thomas Bates, Catesby's servant, dated December 
 4th, 1605. This is the only one of the conspirators' 
 confessions specifically mentioned in the government 
 account of their trial, and it is mentioned twice over — 
 a circumstance not unsuspicious in view of the nature 
 of that account as already described.' 
 
 It is not necessary at present to enter upon the 
 large question of the attitude of the Jesuits towards 
 the Plot, nor to discuss their guilt or innocence. 
 This is, however, beyond dispute, that the govern- 
 ment were above all things anxious to prove them 
 guilty,^ and no document ever produced was so effec- 
 tive for this purpose as the said confession, for, if it 
 were true, there could be no question as to the guilt of 
 one Jesuit, at least. Father Greenway alias Tesimond. 
 The substance of Bates' declaration was as follows : 
 
 That being introduced and sworn into the con- 
 spiracy by his master, Catesby, he was then told that, 
 as a pledge of fidelity, he must receive the sacrament 
 upon his oath, and accordingly he went to confession 
 to Greenway, the Jesuit. 
 
 1 Viz., The Titie and Perfect Relation. The confession of 
 Bates is mentioned but not textually quoted. It is in the " King's 
 Book " that the confessions of Winter and Faukes are given. 
 
 2 " The great object of the government now was to obtain evi- 
 dence against the priests."— Gardiner, History of England, i. 267. 
 
 N 
 
1/8 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 That in his confession he fully informed Greenway of 
 the design, and that Greenway bade him obey his 
 master, because it was for a good cause, and be 
 secret, and mention the m.atter to no other priest. 
 
 That he was absolved by Greenway, and afterwards 
 received Holy Communion. 
 
 It will be observed that the second paragraph, here 
 italicized, is of supreme importance. We have evidence 
 that although the conspirators, during the course of 
 their operations, frequented the sacraments, they ex- 
 pressly avoided all mention of their design to their 
 confessors, Catesby having required this of them, 
 assuring them that he had fully satisfied himself that 
 the project, far from being sinful, was meritorious, 
 but that the priests were likely to give trouble.' We 
 are even told by some authors that Catesby exacted 
 of his confederates an oath of secrecy in this regard. 
 It is clear that his authority must have had special 
 weight with his own servant, who was, moreover, 
 devotedly attached to his master, as he proved in the 
 crisis of his fate. We might, therefore, naturally be 
 prepared to learn that Bates, though confessing to ' 
 Greenway, never acquainted him with the Plot ; and, 
 that in fact he never did so, there is some interesting 
 evidence. 
 
 It cannot escape observation as a suspicious circum- 
 
 ' See Rokewood's examination, December 2nd, 1605. {Gun- 
 powder Plot Book, 136.) In the confession of Keyes, November 
 30th, 1605 {Gunpowder Plot Book, 126) we read: "He sayth 
 that the reason that he revealed not the project to his ghostly 
 father was for that Catesby told him that he had good warrant 
 and authoritie that it might safely and with good conscience 
 be done," etc. 
 
BATES AND FATHER GREENWAY. I79 
 
 stance that this most important confession, upon 
 which so much stress was laid, exists amongst the 
 State Papers only in a copy.' Moreover, this copy 
 has been treated as though it were an original, being 
 officially endorsed, and it has on some occasion been 
 used in Court.'' If, however, this version were not 
 genuine, but prepared for a purpose, it is clear that it 
 could not have been produced while Bates was alive 
 to contradict it, and there appears to be no doubt 
 that it was not heard of till after his death. 
 
 This appears, in the first place, from a manuscript 
 account of the Plot,^ written between the trial of the 
 ■conspirators and that of Father Garnet, that is, within 
 two months of the former. The author sets himself 
 expressly to prove that the priests must have been 
 ■cognizant of the design, for, he argues, Catholics, when 
 they have anything of the kind in hand, always con- 
 sult their confessors about it, and it cannot be supposed 
 that on this occasion only did they omit to do so. In 
 support of his assertion, he quotes the instances of 
 Parry, Babington, and Squires, but says nothing of 
 Bates. He mentions Greenway as undoubtedly one of 
 the guilty priests, but only because "his Majesty's 
 proclamation so speaks it." Had the confession of 
 Bates, as we have it, been so prominently adduced at 
 the trial, as the official narrative represents, it is quite 
 impossible that such a writer should have been 
 content with these feeble inferences. 
 
 ' Gunpowder Plot Book, 145. 
 
 ^ This is shown by a mark (§) in the margin opposite the 
 important passage, attention being called to this by the same 
 anark, and the name " Greenway " in the endorsement. 
 
 ' Brit. Mus., Harleian 360, f. 96. 
 
l8o WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Still more explicit is the evidence furnished by 
 another MS. containing a report of Father Garnet's 
 trial.' In this the confession of Bates is cited, but 
 precisely without the significant passage of which we 
 have spoken, as follows : " Catesby afterwards dis- 
 covered the project unto him ; shortly after which 
 discovery. Bates went to Mass to Tesimond [Green- 
 way], and there was confessed and had absolution." 
 
 Here, again, it is impossible to suppose that the all- 
 important point was the one omitted. It is clear, 
 however, that the mention of a confession made to> 
 Greenway would prima facie afford a presumption 
 that this particular matter had been confessed, thus 
 furnishing a foundation whereon to build ; and, know- 
 ing as we do how evidence was manipulated, it is. 
 quite conceivable that the copy now extant incor- 
 porates the improved version thus suggested. 
 
 Such an explanation was unmistakably insinuated 
 by Father Garnet, when, on his trial, this evidence was. 
 urged against him ; for he significantly replied that 
 " Bates was a dead man." ^ Greenway himself after- 
 wards, when beyond danger, denied on his salvation, 
 that Bates had ever on any occasion mentioned to him. 
 any word concerning the Plot. It is still more singular 
 that Bates himself appears to have known nothing of 
 his own declaration. He had apparently said, in some 
 examination of which no record remains, that he 
 thought Greenway " knew of the business." This, 
 statement he afterwards retracted as having been. 
 
 ' Brit. Mus., Harleian 360, f. 109, etc. The reporter had 
 clearly been present. 
 
 2 Brit. Mus., MSS. Add. 21,203; Plut. ciii. F, Printed by 
 Foley, Records, iv. 164 seq. 
 
bates' confession. i8i 
 
 elicited by a vain hope of pardon, in a letter which is 
 given in full by Father Gerard,' and of which Cecil 
 himself made mention at Garnet's trial." But of the 
 far more serious accusation we are considering he 
 said never a word. 
 
 There is, however, evidence still more notable. On 
 the same day, December 4th, on which Bates made 
 his declaration, Cecil wrote a most important letter to 
 one Favat,^ who had been commissioned by King 
 James to urge the necessity of obtaining evidence 
 without delay against the priests. This document is 
 valuable as furnishing explicit testimony that torture 
 was employed with this object. " Most of the 
 prisoners," says the secretary, " have wilfully for- 
 sworn that the priests knew anything in particular, 
 and obstinately refuse to be accusers of them, yea, 
 what torture soever they be put to." 
 
 He goes on, however, to assure his Majesty that the 
 desired object is now in sight, particularly referring to 
 a confession which can be none other than that of 
 Bates, but likewise cannot be that afterwards given to 
 the world ; for it is spoken of as affording promise, 
 but not yet satisfactory in its performance. 
 
 " You may tell his Majesty that if he please to read 
 privately what this day we have drawn from a volun- 
 tary and penitent examination, the point I am per- 
 suaded (but I am no undertaker) shall be so well 
 cleared, if he forbear to speak much of this but few 
 days, as we shall see all fall out to the end whereat his 
 Majesty shooteth." 
 
 It seems clear, therefore, that the famous declara-' 
 
 ' Nar7-ative, p. 210. ^ Plut. ciii. F. § 39 
 
 ' Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, § 625. 
 
l82 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 tion of Bates, like those of Faukes and Winter, tends 
 to discredit the story which in particulars so important 
 rests upon such evidence. 
 
 It may be farther observed that if the confession of 
 Bates, as officially preserved, were of any worth, 
 it would have helped to raise other issues of supreme 
 importance. Thus its concluding paragraph runs as 
 follows : 
 
 " He confesseth that he heard his master, Thomas 
 Winter, and Guy Fawkes say (presently upon the 
 coming over of Fawkes) that they should have the 
 sum of five-and-twenty thousand pounds out of 
 Spain." 
 
 This clearly means that the King of Spam was 
 privy to the design, for a sum equivalent to a quarter 
 of a million of our money could not have been 
 furnished by private persons. The government, how- 
 ever, constantly assured the English ambassadors 
 abroad of the great satisfaction with which they found 
 that no suspicion whatever rested upon any foreign 
 prince. 
 
 iv. Robert Winter. 
 
 There are various traces of foul play in regard of 
 this conspirator in particular, which serve to shake our 
 confidence as to the treatment of all. Robert Winter 
 was the eldest brother of Thomas, and held the family 
 property, which was considerable. Whether this 
 motive, as Mr. Jardine suggests, or some other, 
 prompted the step, certain it is that the government 
 in their published history falsified the documents in 
 order to incriminate him more deeply. Faukes, in 
 the confession of Nov. 17th, mentioned Robert Keyes 
 
ROBERT WINTER. 183 
 
 as amongst the first seven of the conspirators who 
 worked in the mine, and Robert Winter as one of the 
 five introduced at a later period. The names of these 
 two were deHberately interchanged in the pubHshed 
 version, Robert Winter appearing as a worker in the 
 mine, and Keyes, who was an obscure man of no sub- 
 stance, among the gentlemen of property whose re- 
 sources were to have supported the subsequent re- 
 bellion. Moreover, in the account of the same con- 
 fession sent to Edmondes by Cecil three days before 
 Faukes signed it {i.e., Nov. 14th), the same transposi- 
 tion occurs, Keyes being explicitly described as one of 
 those " who wrought not in the mine," although, as we 
 have seen, he is one of the three who alone make any 
 mention of it. 
 
 Still more singular is another circumstance. About 
 November 28th, Sir Edward Coke, the attorney-general, 
 drew up certain farther notes of questions to be put 
 to various prisoners.' Amongst these we read : "Winter 
 to be examined of his brother. For no man else can 
 accuse him." But a fortnight or so before this time 
 the Secretary of State had officially informed the 
 ambassador in the Low Countries that Robert Winter 
 was one of those deepest in the treason, and, to say 
 nothing of other evidence, a proclamation for his 
 apprehension had been issued on November iBth. 
 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. 
 
 ' Dom. James I. x\\. 116. 
 
l84 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 V. Captain Hugh Owen, Father William Baldwin, 
 and others. 
 
 We have seen something of the extreme anxiety- 
 evinced by the English government to incriminate a 
 certain Hugh Owen, a Welsh soldier of fortune serving 
 in Flanders under the archduke.^ With him were 
 joined Father Baldwin, the Jesuit, and Sir William 
 Stanley, who, like Owen, was in the archduke's serr 
 vice. The measures taken in regard of them are ex- 
 ceedingly instructive if we would understand upon 
 what sort of evidence the guilt of obnoxious indi- 
 viduals was proclaimed as incontrovertible. 
 
 ' In the Calendar of State Papers, Mrs. Everett Green, as has 
 been said, quite gratuitously and without warrant from the 
 original documents, uniformly describes him as " Father Owen," 
 or '' Owen the Jesuit." Mr. Gardiner {Hist. i. 242) has been led 
 into the same error. 
 
 It is not impossible that Owen had some knowledge of the 
 conspiracy, though the course adopted by his enemies seems to 
 afford strong presumption to the contrary. It must, moreover, 
 be remembered that, as Father Gerard tells us, he and others 
 similarly accused, vehemently protested against the imputation, 
 while in his case in particular we have some evidence to the 
 same effect. Thomas Phelippes, the " Decipherer," of whom 
 we have already heard, was on terms of close intimacy with 
 Owen, and in December, 1605, wrote to him about the Plot in 
 terms which certainly appear to imply a strong conviction that 
 his friend had nothing to do with it. 
 
 " There hath been and yet is still great paynes taken to search 
 to the bottom of the late danmable conspiracy. The Parliamente 
 hit seemes shall not be troubled with any extraordinarie course 
 for their exempla,rye punishment, as was supposed upon the 
 Kinges speeche, but onlye with their attaynder, the more is the 
 pitye I saye." — Dom. James I. xvii. 62. 
 
THE CASE OF OWEN AND BALDWIN. 1 85 
 
 No time was lost in commencing operations. On 
 November 14th, three days before Faijkes signed the 
 celebrated declaration which we have examined, and 
 in which Owen was not mentioned, the Earl of Salis- 
 bury wrote to Edmondes, ambassador at Brussels/ 
 that Faukes had now directly accused Owen, whose 
 extradition must therefore be demanded. In proof of 
 this assertion he inclosed a copy of the declaration, in 
 which, however, curiously enough, no mention of 
 Owen's name occurs.^ 
 
 Edmondes on his side was equally prompt. He 
 at once laid the matter before the archduke and 
 his ministers, and on November 19th was able to 
 write to Salisbury that Owen and his secretary 
 were apprehended and their papers and ciphers 
 seized, and that, " If there shall fall out matter to 
 charge Owen with partaking in the treason, the arch- 
 duke will not refuse the king to yield him to be 
 answerable to justice," ^ though venturing to hope 
 that he would be able to clear himself of so terrible 
 an accusation. 
 
 On " the last of November " the subject was pursued 
 in an epistle from the King himself to the "Archdukes,"^ 
 
 ' Stowe MSS. 168, 54. 
 
 ^ This version of the deposition is interesting as being a form 
 intermediate between the draft of November 8th and the finished 
 document of November 17th. The passages cancelled in the 
 former are simply omitted without any attempt to complete the 
 sense of the passages in which they occurred. Those " ticked 
 off" are retained. 
 
 ^ Stowe MSS. 168, 58. 
 
 * I.e., the Archduke Albert, and his consort the Infanta, 
 daughter of Philip II., who, as governors of the Low Countries, 
 were usually so designated. 
 
1 86 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 in which the undoubted guilt of both Owen and Bald- 
 win was roundly affirmed.' 
 
 On December 2nd, 1605, Salisbury wrote to Ed- 
 mondes : '^ " I do warrant you to deliver upon the for- 
 feiture of my judgment in your opinion that it shall 
 appear as evident as the sun in the clearest day, that 
 Baldwin by means of Owen, and Owen directly by 
 himself, have been particular conspirators." 
 
 In spite of this, the authorities in Flanders asked for 
 proofs of the guilt of those whom they were asked 
 to give up. Wherefore Edmondes wrote (De- 
 cember 27th) to secure the co-operation of Corn- 
 wallis, his fellow-ambassador, at Madrid. After de- 
 claring that Owen and Baldwin were now found to 
 have been " principal dealers in the late execrable 
 treason," with remarkable naivete he thus continues : ^ 
 
 " I will not conceal from your lordship that they 
 have been here so unrespective as to desire for their 
 better satisfaction to have a, copy of the information 
 against the said persons to be sent over hither ; which 
 I fear will be very displeasing to his Majesty to under- 
 stand." 
 
 In January (1605-6), Salisbury sending, in the King's 
 name, instructions to Sir E. Coke as to the trial of the 
 conspirators, concluded with this admonition : ^ " You 
 must remember to lay Owen as foul in this as you 
 
 ' " Nous avons bien voulu aussy par ces presentes, nous 
 mesmes vous asseurer que ce qu'il [Edmondes] vous en a desja 
 declare, est fondd sur tout verity ; et vous dire en oultre, que 
 ces meschantes Creatures d'Owen et Baldouin, gens de mesme 
 farine, ont eu aussi leur part en particulier a ceste malheureuse 
 conspiration de Pouldre." — Phtllipps' MS. 6297, f. 1 29. 
 
 = Stowe, 168, 65. " Winwood, ii. 183. 
 
 * Dom. Jatnes I. xix. 94. 
 
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE ARCHDUKES. 1 87 
 
 can," which certainly does not suggest that the case 
 against him was overwhelmingly strong. 
 
 After the execution of the traitors, an Act of 
 Attainder passed by Parliament included Owen 
 amongst them.' 
 
 The archdukes remaining unconvinced, another and 
 very notable argument was brought into play. On 
 February 12th, 1605-6, Salisbury wrote to Edmondes:'' 
 
 " As for the particular depositions against Owen 
 and Baldwin, which the archdukes desire to have a 
 sight of, you may let them know that it is a matter 
 which can make but little to the purpose, considering 
 that his Majesty already upon his royal word hath 
 certified the archdukes of their guilt." 
 
 As to Owen's own papers which had been seized, 
 the archduke assured the English ambassador,' " that 
 if there had been anything to have been discovered 
 out of the said papers touching the late treason (as he 
 was well assured of the contrary), he would not have 
 failed to have imparted the same to his Majesty." 
 
 At a later date the Spanish minister De Grenada 
 wrote from Valladolid * that men could not be de- 
 
 1 ■^° Jac. I. c. 3. On the 21st of June following, Salisbury 
 forwarded to Edmondes a fresh copy of this Act, " because in 
 the former there was a great error committed in the printing." 
 (Phillipps, i. 157.) It would be highly interesting to know what 
 the first version was. In that now extant it is only said regarding 
 Owen, that inasmuch as he obstinately keeps beyond the seas, 
 he cannot be arraigned, nor can evidence and proofs be pro- 
 duced against him. {Statutes at large.) 
 
 ^ Stowe, 168, 76 ; Phillipps, f. 141. 
 
 ' Edmondes to Sahsbury, January 23rd, 1605(6). P. R. O., 
 Flanders, 38. 
 
 * April 19th, 1606, ibid. 
 
l88 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 livered up on mere suspicion, which might prove 
 groundless, but that the archduke had received orders 
 to sift the matter to the bottom, in order that justice 
 might be done " very fully." 
 
 About the same time President Richardot informed 
 Edmondes ' that Owen strenuously denied the charges 
 against him, " and that there is the more probability 
 of his innocency for that his papers having been care- 
 fully visited, there doth not appear anything in them 
 to charge him concerning the said matter." 
 
 On April 2 1st Salisbury informed Edmondes of 
 a conference on the subject between the king and 
 the archduke's ambassador.'^ The latter declared 
 that his master was ready to prosecute the accused 
 in his own courts if evidence was furnished him, 
 but in reply King James explained that this was 
 impossible, and that he " was loth to send any papers 
 or accusations over, not knowing how they might 
 be framed or construed there by the formalities 
 of their laws." He added that it was useless now to 
 talk of evidence, " seeing the. wretch is already con- 
 demned by the public sentence of the whole Parlia- 
 ment, which sentence the archdukes might see if they 
 would." The ambassador thereupon asked to have a 
 ■copy, but was curtly told that it would presently be 
 printed, when he could buy one for twelve pence and 
 send it to his masters, but that the king was not dis- 
 posed to make a present of it. 
 
 In these circumstances the archdukes determined to 
 detain Owen ' no longer, and he was presently dis- 
 charged. The news of this proceeding prgduced a 
 
 ' Edmondes to Salisbury, April 5th, 1606, ibid. 
 ' Phillipps, f. 150. 
 
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE ARCHDUKES. 1 89 
 
 -remarkable change in the tone of his accusers. Oa 
 June 1 8th, the secretary wrote to Edmondes' that 
 Owen's enlargement " seemed to give too much credit 
 to his innocency ;" moreover, that " though his Majesty 
 showed no great disposition (for many considerations 
 specified unto you) to send over the papers and accu- 
 sations against him, . . . yet this proceeded not out of 
 any conscience of the invalidity of the proofs, but 
 rather in respect that his process being made here, and 
 the caitiff condemned by the public sentence of the 
 Parliament, it would have come all to one issue, seeing 
 they have proceeded when his Majesty left it to them^ 
 selves to do as they thought fit." 
 
 To reinforce this lucid explanation Salisbury sent 
 six days later what had before been refused, an abs- 
 tract of " confessions against Owen," and a corrected 
 copy of the Act of Attainder. These documents 
 deserve some consideration. 
 
 We have seen how much stress was laid upon the 
 action of Parliament in regard of Owen, although the 
 Act of Attainder which it passed affords no informa-, 
 tion whatever to assist our judgment of his case. In 
 moving for this attainder, Sir E. Coke appeared at the 
 bar of the Jiouse of Commons (April 29th, 1606) to 
 exhibit the evidence on which the charge rested. His. 
 notes of this evidence, which are extant,^ clearly show 
 that the government possessed no proofs at all beyond 
 surmise and inference.^ Three testimonies were cited 
 
 ^ Phillipps, f. 152. ^ Dom. James I. xx. 52. 
 
 ^ This is obvious from a marginal note in Coke's own hand, 
 arguing tffat Owen must be guilty in this instance, as he hag, 
 been guilty on former occasions, and "Qui semel malus est. 
 semper praesumitur esse malus in eodem genere mali." 
 
190 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 ■which were quite inconsistent and mutually destruc- 
 tive : (i) An extract from a confession of Guy Faukes, 
 January 20th, 1605-6, declaring that he had himself 
 initiated Owen in the Plot in May, 1605. (2) An in- 
 formation of one Ralph Ratcliffe, to the effect that 
 Owen and Baldwin were busy with the Plot in April, 
 1604. (3) T. Winter's testimony — from his famous 
 ■confession of November 23rd, or 25th, 1605 — that in 
 the spring of 1604 Owen had assisted him to secure 
 the services of Faukes. 
 
 In Salisbury's letter to Edmondes, the first and the 
 last of these alone were cited,' probably because it had 
 by this time been perceived that Ratcliffe's evidence 
 flatly contradicted that of Faukes. 
 
 Winter's confession has already been discussed, and 
 moreover affords no proof that Owen was acquainted 
 with the purpose for which the services of Faukes were 
 required. There remains the very circumstantial story 
 ■of Faukes himself, which belongs to a curious and 
 interesting class of documents, containing matter of 
 the highest importance, whereof no trace, not even a 
 copy, is to be found amongst the State Papers. These 
 ■comprise various confessions of Faukes, dated No- 
 vember 19th, 25th, and 30th, 160S, and January 20th, 
 1605-6, all dealing with information of a sensational 
 nature, concerning which we learn nothing from the 
 eleven depositions of the same conspirator preserved 
 in the Record Office." For our knowledge of these 
 
 ' It will be noticed that the confession of Faukes cited against 
 ■Owen is dated two months after he had first been declared to 
 be proved guilty by Faukes' testimony. 
 
 = These are dated Novfember 5th, 6th [bis], 7th, 8th [the 
 ■" draft"], 9th, i6th, 17th, January 9th, 20th, 26th. 
 
PROOFS AGAINST OWEN. IQI 
 
 mysterious documents we have to depend on trans- 
 cripts of portions of them among the Tanner MSS. 
 in the Bodleian Library, on fragmentary Latin versions 
 in the Antilogia of Bishop Abbot, and on the extract 
 cited from the last amongst them by Sir Edward Coke, 
 which exactly agrees with that sent by Salisbury to 
 Edmondes, as above mentioned. 
 
 It cannot escape notice that although these versions 
 all profess to be taken from the originals under Faukes' 
 hand, they are so utterly different as to preclude the 
 belief that they have been copied from the same 
 documents.' 
 
 ' Thus, to confine ourselves to the confession of January 20th, 
 •with which we are particularly concerned, we have the following 
 variations : 
 
 Tanner transcript. " At my going over M' Catesby charged 
 me two things more : the one to desire of Baldwin & M' Owen 
 to deal with the Marquis [Spinola] to send over the regiment of 
 ■which he [Catesby] expected to have been Lieutenant Colonel 
 under Sir Charles [Percy]. . . . He wished me secondly to be 
 •earnest with Baldwin to deal with the Marquis to give the said 
 M' Catesby order for a Company of Horse, thinking by that 
 means to have opportunity to buy Horses and Arms without 
 suspition." 
 
 According to Abbot, Faukes was to give instructions that 
 when the time of Parliament approached. Sir Wm. Stanley was 
 on some pretext to lead the Enghsh forces in the archduke's 
 service towards the sea, and with them any others he could 
 manage to influence. He also mentions the. conspiracy of 
 Morgan, as spoken of by Coke. 
 
 In addition to all this, Abbot cites from the same confession 
 the following extraordinary particulars (p. 160) : Faukes, when 
 he came to London, with T. Winter, went to Percy's house and 
 found there Catesby and Father Gerard. They talked over 
 matters, and agreed that nothing was to be hoped from foreign 
 aid, nor from a general rising of Catholics, and that the only 
 
192 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 It must farther be observed that we hear nothing of 
 important matters contained in these confessions till the 
 supposed author and his confederates were all dead, 
 whereas these are such as would certainly have been 
 
 plan was to strike at the king's person : whereupon Catesby, 
 Percy, John Wright, Winter, and himself, were sworn in by 
 Gerard. 
 
 [This is in absolute contradiction to Winter's evidence (No- 
 vember 23rd) that Percy was initiated in the middle of the 
 Easter term, the other four having agreed on the scheme at 
 the beginning of the same term ; and to that of Faukes himself 
 (November 17th) that he and Winter first resolved on a plot 
 for the benefit of the Catholic cause, and afterwards imparted 
 their idea to Catesby, Wright, and Percy.] 
 
 Sir E. Coke's Version. " After the powder treason was resolved 
 upon by Catesbye, Thomas Winter, the Wrightes, my self, and 
 others, and preparation made by us for the execution of it, by their 
 advise and direction I went into fflanders and had leave given 
 unto me to discover our project in every particular to Hughe 
 Owen and others, but with condicion that they should sweare 
 first to secrecie as we our selves had done. When I arryved in 
 fHanders I found M' Owen at Bruxelles to whom after I had 
 given the oathe of secrecye I discovered the whole busines, 
 howe we had layed 20 whole barrells of powder in the celler 
 under the parliament howse, and howe we ment to give it fire 
 the first day of the parliament when the King, the prince, the 
 duke, the Lords spirituall and temporall, and all the knights, 
 citizens, and burgesses of parliament should be there assembled. 
 And that we meant to take the Ladye Elizabeth and proclaime 
 hir for we thought most like that the prince and duke would be 
 there with the king. M'' Owen liked the plott very well, and 
 said that Thomas Morgan had once propounded the very same 
 in quene Elizabeth's time, and willed me that by ani meanes we 
 should not make any mencion of religion at the first, and assured 
 me that so soone as he should have certaine newes that this 
 exploit had taken effect that he would give us what assistance 
 he could and that he would procure that Sir W" Stanley should 
 
FATHER BALDWIN. 193 
 
 produced on their trial had this been possible.' Some 
 of the evidence thus afforded is, in fact, too good, for 
 the Government's purpose, to be true, for if authentic, 
 it would have secured results which, though much 
 desired, were never obtained. In particular it would 
 have established beyond question the guilt of the 
 Jesuits abroad, and especially of Father Baldwin.^ It 
 is this Father, however, whose case conclusively proves 
 the utter worthlessness of the evidence. Having been 
 proclaimed and branded by the English government 
 
 have leave to come with those English men which be there and 
 what other forces he could procure." 
 
 The confession of Faukes in the Record Office, dated the 
 same, Januaiy 20th, is thus summarized in the Calendar of 
 State Papers {Dom. James I. xviii. 28) : " Talked with Catesby 
 about noblemen being absent from the meeting of Parhament ; 
 he said Lord Mordaunt would not be there, because he did not 
 like to absent himself from the sermons, as the king did not 
 know he was a Catholic ; and that Lord Stourton would not 
 come to town till the Friday after the opening." 
 
 ' The powder design of Morgan is an instance in point. The 
 Thomas Morgan in question was doubtless the same as the 
 partisan of Mary Queen of Scots. 
 
 ' E.g. : " Winter came over to Owen; by him and the Fathers 
 to be informed of a fit and resolute man for the execution of the 
 enterprise. This examinate (being by the Fathers and Owen 
 recommended to be used and trusted in any action for the 
 Catholicks) came into England with Winter." — Faukes, No- 
 vember 19th, 1605 (Tanner MSS.). 
 
 Abbot, whose whole object is to incriminate the Jesuits, does 
 not mention this remarkable statement. 
 
 Again we read, November 30th {Md.) : "Father Baldwin told 
 
 his examinate that about 2,000 horses would be provided by 
 
 the Catholicks of England to join with the Spanish forces . . . 
 
 and willed this examinate to intimate so much to Father Creswell, 
 
 which this examinate did." 
 
 O 
 
194 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 as a convicted traitor, he, five years later, fell into 
 their hands, being delivered up, in i6lO, by their ally 
 the Elector Palatine. He was at once thrown into the 
 Tower, where he was frequently and rigorously ex- 
 amined, it is said even on the rack.' After a confine- 
 ment of eight years he was discharged " with honour," 
 his innocence being attested by the respect with 
 which he was treated by men of all parties.^ In view 
 of this unquestionable acquittal the famous proofs of 
 his criminality, though certified on the royal word of 
 King James himself, forfeit all claim to consideration. 
 
 A word may be added concerning Father Cress- 
 well, an English Jesuit residing in Spain. He, too, 
 was assumed to have been deeply implicated in this 
 and other treasons. In November, 1605, Cecil included 
 his name in a list of traitors against whom proofs were to 
 be procured.^ It was even asserted that at the time of 
 the intended explosion he came over to England " to 
 bear his part with the rest of his Society in a victorial 
 song of thanksgiving." * He was, moreover, loudly 
 denounced as the principal agent in the notorious 
 Spanish Treason. 
 
 After all this it is somewhat surprising to find Sir 
 Charles Cornwallis, the English Ambassador, while 
 the excitement of the Powder Plot was at its height, 
 testifying in the most cordial terms to his esteem for 
 the said Cresswell. The latter having been called 
 to Rome by his superiors, Cornwallis (December 
 
 ' Oliver, Collectanea, sub nom. ; Foley, Records, iv. 120, note, 
 ^ Foley, Records, iii. 509 ; English Protestants Plea, p. 59. 
 " Dom. James I. xvi. 115. 
 
 * Englands Warning Peece, by T. S. [Thomas Spencer], 
 p. 73- 
 
FATHER CRESSWELL. I9S 
 
 23rd, N. S. 1605,) addressed to him the following 
 letter.' 
 
 " Sir, although in matter of religion well you know 
 that there are many discords between us, yet sure in 
 your duty and loyalty to my King and Country I find 
 in you so good a concordance I cannot but much 
 reverence and love you, and wish you all the happi- 
 ness that a man of your sort upon the earth can 
 desire. 
 
 " Much am I (I assure you) grieved at your de- 
 parture, and the more that I was put in so good hope 
 that your journey should have been stayed. The time 
 of the year unpleasant to travel in, your body, as I 
 think, not much accustomed to journeys of so great 
 length, and the great good you did here to your poor 
 countrymen (which now they want) are great motives 
 to make your friends to wish your will in that voyage 
 had been broken. 
 
 " If it be not, I shall not believe in words, for many 
 liere do greatly desire you for causes spiritual, and 
 some for temporal. In the latter number am I, who, 
 not affecting your spiritualitieis (for that these in you 
 .abound to superfluity), do much reverence and respect 
 your temporal abilities, as wherein I acknowledge 
 much wisdom, temper, and sincerity. £0 no friends 
 you have shall ever more desire good unto you than 
 myself And therefore I wish I were able to make so 
 good demonstration as willingly I would that I ever 
 will here and in all places in this world rest 
 
 " Your very assured loving friend, 
 
 Ch. Co." 
 
 ' Cotton MSS. Vespasian C, ix. f. 259. 
 
196 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 About the same time, in an undated letter to Lord 
 Salisb.ury/ Cornwallis again expresses his regret on 
 account of the removal of Cresswell from Spain. 
 
 vi. Other Documents. 
 
 It is impossible to analyze in detail the evidence 
 supplied by the several conspirators after their capture, 
 or to examine the endless inconsistencies and contra- 
 dictions with which it abounds. One or two points 
 must, however, be indicated. 
 
 I. As we have seen, it is clear that at the beginning- 
 an effort was made to invest the Plot with a far wider 
 political significance than was afterwards attempted, 
 and to introduce elements which were soon quietly 
 laid aside. In the interrogatories prepared by Sir E. 
 Coke and Chief Justice Popham, we find it suggested 
 that the death of the Earl of Salisbury was a main 
 feature of the scheme, "absolutely agreed upon" 
 among the conspirators. Also that the titular Earl of 
 Westmoreland, the titular Lord Dacre, the Earl of 
 Northumberland, Sir Walter Raleigh, and others were 
 mixed up in the business. 
 
 Nor were such endeavours altogether fruitless, for,, 
 supposing the testimony extorted from the prisoners 
 to be worthy of credit, information was obtained 
 altogether changing the character and complexion of 
 the design. This was, however, presently buried in 
 oblivion and treated as of no moment whatever. 
 
 Thus in Sir Everard Digby's declaration of Nov. 
 23rd,^ we find him testifying that the Earls of West- 
 
 ' Win wood. Memorials, ii. 178. 
 ' Dom. James I. xvi. lo^. 
 
SIR WALTER RALEIGH. I97 
 
 moreland and Derby/ were to have been sent to raise 
 forces in the north. Faukes, in the famous confession 
 which we have so fully discussed, was made to say 
 " They meant also to have sent for the prisoners in the 
 Tower to have come to them, of whom particularly 
 they had some consultation," and although this im- 
 portant clause was omitted from the finished version 
 finally adopted, it appears in that of Nov. 14th, sent 
 by Cecil to the ambassador at Brussels. Again, in his 
 examination of November 9th, famous for the ghastly 
 evidence of torture afforded by his signature, we find 
 Faukes declaring, " He confesseth also that there was 
 speech amongst them to draw Sir Walter Rawley to 
 take part with them, being one that might stand 
 them in good stead, as others in like sort were 
 named!' ^ 
 
 With regard to Raleigh it must be remembered 
 that he was in a very special manner obnoxious to 
 Salisbury, who, however, was at great pains to disguise 
 his hostility. On occasion of Sir Walter's trial, in 
 1603, he vehemently protested that it was a great grief 
 to him to have to pronounce against one whom he had 
 hitherto loved.^ But two years earlier, in his secret 
 correspondence with James, he had not only described 
 
 ' William Stanley. 
 
 ■^ The last words are added in another hand. 
 
 ' " I am in great dispute with myself to speak in the case of 
 this gentleman. A former dearness between me and him tied 
 so firm a knot of my conceit of his virtues, now broken by dis- 
 covery of his imperfections, that I protest, did I serve a king 
 that I knew would be displeased with me for speaking, in this 
 case I would speak, whatever came of it ; but seeing he is com- 
 pacted of piety and justice, and one that will not mislike of any 
 man for speaking a truth, I will answer," etc. — State Triats. 
 
198 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Raleigh to the future king as one of the diabolical 
 triplicity hatching cockatrice eggs, but had solemnly 
 protested that if he feigned friendship for such a 
 wretch, it was only with the purpose of drawing him 
 on to discover his real nature.' 
 
 2. Even more worthy of notice is the shameless 
 manner in which evidence was falsified. That pro- 
 duced in court consisted entirely of the written deposi- 
 tions of the prisoners themselves, and of those who had 
 been similarly examined. It was, however, carefully 
 manipulated before it was read ; all that told in favour 
 of those whose conviction was desired being omitted, 
 and only so much retained as would tell against them. 
 On this subject Mr. Jardine well remarks : ° " This 
 mode of dealing with the admissions of an accused 
 person is pure and unmixed injustice ; it is in truth a. 
 forgery of evidence ; for when a qualified statement is 
 made, the suppression of the qualification is no less a 
 forgery than if the whole statement had been 
 fabricated." 
 
 It will be sufficient to cite one notorious and com- 
 
 ' " For this do I profess in the presence of Him that knoweth 
 and searcheth all men's harts, that if I did not some tyme cast 
 a stone into the mouth of these gaping crabbs, when they are 
 in their prodigall humour of discourses, they wold not stick to 
 confess dayly how contrary it is to their nature to be under your 
 soverainty ; though they confess (Ralegh especially) that {rebus^ 
 sic stantibus) naturall pollicy forceth them to keep on foot such 
 a trade against the great day of mart. In all which light and 
 soddain humours of his, though I do no way check him, because 
 he shall not think I reject his freedome or his affection . . . yet 
 under pretext of extraordinary care of.his well doing, I have: 
 seemed to dissuade him from ingaging himself so farr," etc. — 
 Hatfield MSS., cxxxv. f. 65. 
 
 ^ Criminal Trials, ii. 358. 
 

 
 
 ^^:^ 
 
 
 ^^: 
 
 
 
 
 i^M 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 Is 
 o 
 
 O 
 U 
 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 Pi 
 
 f 
 
200 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 pendious example. In regard of the oath of secrecy 
 taken by the conspirators, Faukes (Nov. 9th, 1605) 
 and Thomas Winter (Jan. 9th, 1605-6) related how 
 they administered it to one another, " in a chamber," 
 to quote Winter, "where no other body was," and 
 afterwards proceeded to another chamber where they 
 heard Mass and received Communion at the hands of 
 Father Gerard.' Both witnesses, however, emphatic- 
 ally declared that the Father knew nothing of the 
 oath that had been taken, or of the purpose of the 
 associates. 
 
 Such testimony in favour of one whom they were 
 anxious above all things to incriminate, the govern- 
 ment would not allow to appear. Accordingly, Sir E. 
 Coke, preparing the documents to be used in court as 
 evidence, marked off the exculpatory passages, with 
 directions that they were not to be read.'' Having thus 
 suppressed the passage which declared that the Jesuit 
 was unaware of the conspirators' purpose, and of their 
 oatjti. Coke went on to inform the jury, in his speech, 
 " This oath was by Gerard the Jesuit given to Catesby, 
 Percy, Christopher Wright, and Thomas Winter, and 
 by Greenwell [Greenway] the Jesuit to Bates at another 
 time, and so to the rest." ^ 
 
 ' Father Gerard {Narrative, p. 201) denies in the most 
 emphatic terms that he was the priest who said mass on this 
 occasion. The point is fully discussed by the late Father 
 Morris, S. J., in his Life of Father Gerard, pp. 437-438. 
 
 ^ The accompanying facsimile of this portion of Faukes' con- 
 fession exhibits the marks made by Coke, and his added direc- 
 tion in the margin, hucusque (" thus far ")• In the original his 
 additions are in red ink. 
 
 Mt is singular that he should not mention Faukes himself as 
 
FALSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE. 20I 
 
 3. Neither must it be forgotten that even apart from 
 these manifest instances of tampering, the confessions 
 themselves, obtained in such circumstances, are open 
 to much suspicion. In an intercepted letter to Father 
 Baldwin, of whom we have heard. Father Schondonck, 
 another Jesuit, then rector of St. Omers, speaks thus : ^ 
 " I much rejoice that, as I hear, there is no confession 
 produced, by which, either in court or at the place of 
 execution, any of our society is accused of so abomin- 
 able a crime. This I consider a point of prime im- 
 portance. Of secret confessions, or those extorted by 
 violence or torture, less account must be made ; for we 
 have many examples whereby the dishonesty of our 
 enemies in such matters has been fully displayed!' 
 
 Father John Gerard in his Autobiography ° relates 
 an experience of his own which illustrates the methods 
 employed to procure evidence such as was required. 
 
 one of those who received the oath from Gerard. There is no 
 mention in any document of Greenway as giving the oath to 
 Bates, or anyone else. 
 
 The facsimile of Faukes' signature, appended to his con- 
 fession of November 9th, though affording unmistakable evi- 
 dence of torture, gives no idea of the original, wherein the letters 
 are so faintly traced as to be scarcely visible. It is evident that 
 the writer had been so severely racked as to have no strength 
 left in his hands to press the pen upon the paper. He must have 
 fainted when he had written his Christian name, two dashes 
 alone representing the other. 
 
 This signature, with other of the more sensational documents 
 connected with the Plot, is exhibited in the newly established 
 museum at the Record Office. 
 
 ' Dom. James I. xviii. 97, February 27th, i6o6, N. S. (Latin). 
 
 ''■ Narratio de rebus a se in Anglia gestis (Stonyhurst MSS.). 
 Published in Father G. R. Kingdon's translation under the title 
 of During the Persecution. 
 
202 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 When, in Queen Elizabeth's time, he had himself been 
 taken and thrown into prison, the notorious Topcliffe, 
 the priest-hunter, endeavoured to force him into an 
 acknowledgment of various matters of a treasonable 
 character. Father Gerard undertook to write what he 
 had to say on the subject, and proceeded to set down 
 an explicit denial of what his questioner suggested. 
 What followed he thus relates.' 
 
 " While I was writing this, the old man waxed 
 wroth. He shook with passion, and would fain have 
 snatched the paper from me. 
 
 " ' If you don't want me to write the truth,' said I, 
 ' I'll not write at all' 
 
 " ' Nay,' quoth he, ' write so and so, and I'll copy out 
 what you have written.' 
 
 " ' I shall write what / please,' I answered, ' and not 
 what you please. Show what I have written to the 
 Council, for I shall add nothing but my name.' 
 
 j" Then I signed so near the writing, that nothing 
 could be put in between. The hot-tempered man, 
 seeing himself disappointed, broke out into threats 
 and blasphemies : ' I'll get you into my power, and 
 hang you in the air, and show you no mercy : and 
 then I shall see what God will rescue you out of my 
 hands.' " 
 
 It was not by Catholics alone that allegations of 
 this sort were advanced. Sir Anthony Weldon tells 
 us ^ that on the trial of Raleigh and Cobham, the latter 
 protested that he had never made the declaration 
 attributed to him incriminating Raleigh. " That 
 
 ' During the Persecution, p. 83. 
 
 ' Court and Character of King James, p. 350 (ed. 181 1). 
 
OFFICIAL STRATAGEMS. 203 
 
 villain Wade," ' said he, " did often solicit me, and, 
 not prevailing, got me, by a trick, to write my name 
 on a piece of white paper, which I, thinking nothing, 
 did ; so that if any charge came under my hand, it 
 was forged by that villain Wade, by writing something 
 above my hand, without my consent or knowledge." 
 
 Moreover, there exists undoubted evidence that 
 the king's chief minister availed himself upon occasion 
 of the services of such as could counterfeit handwriting 
 and forge evidence against suspected persons. One 
 Arthur Gregory ° appears to have been thus employed, 
 and he subsequently wrote to Salisbury reminding him 
 of what he had done.' After acknowledging that he 
 owes his life to the secretary who knows how to 
 appreciate " an honest desire in respect of his Majesty's 
 public service," Gregory thus continues : 
 
 " Your Lordship hath had a present trial of that 
 which none but myself hath done before, to write in 
 another man's hand, and, discovering the secret writing 
 being in blank, to abuse a most cunning villain in his 
 own subtlety, leaving the same at last in blank again, 
 wherein although there be difficulty their answers show 
 they have no suspicion." 
 
 This the calendarer of State Papers believes to refer 
 to the case of Father Garnet, and it is certain from 
 
 ^ Sir William Waad, Lieutenant of the Tower, to whose 
 charge the Powder Plot conspirators were committed, was after- 
 wards dismissed from his ofifice on a charge of embezzling the 
 jewels of the Lady Arabella Stuart. 
 
 ^ Presumably the same Arthur Gregory who at an earlier 
 period had counterfeited the seals of Mary Queen of Scots' 
 correspondence. 
 
 ' Dom. James I. xxiv. 38. 
 
204 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Gregory's own letter that at one time he held a post 
 in the Tower. Is it not possible that an explanation 
 may here be found of the strange circumstance, that 
 perhaps the most important of Father Garnet's exami- 
 nations ' bears an endorsement, " This was forbydden 
 by the King to be given in evidence " ? 
 
 Gregory's letter, of which we have been speaking, 
 has appended to it an instructive postscript : 
 
 " Mr. Lieutenant expecteth something to be written 
 in the blank leaf of a Latin Bible, which is pasted in 
 already for the purpose. I will attend it, and whatso- 
 ever else cometh." ^ 
 
 vii. Catholic Testimony. 
 
 It will not improbably be urged that the govern- 
 ment history is confirmed in all essential particulars by 
 authorities to whom no exception can be taken, 
 namely, contemporary Catholic writers, and especially 
 the Jesuits Gerard and Greenway, whose narratives of 
 tjne conspiracy corroborate every detail concerning 
 which doubts have been insinuated. 
 
 This argument is undoubtedly deserving of all con- 
 sideration, but upon examination appears to lose much 
 of its force. If the narratives in question agree with 
 that furnished by the government, it is because they 
 are based almost entirely upon it, and upon those 
 published confessions of Winter and Faukes with 
 which we are familiar. 
 
 ' March 3rd, 1605-6 (Hatfield MSS.). 
 
 '^ Eudaemon Joannes cites the renegade Alabaster as testifying 
 to having seen a letter seemingly of his own to Garnet, which 
 he had never written. {^Answer to Casaubon, p. 159.) 
 
FATHER GERARD'S EVIDENCE. 20$ 
 
 On this point Father Gerard is very explicit : ' 
 " Out of [Mr. Thomas Winter's] examination, with the 
 others that were made in the time of their imprison- 
 ment, I must gather and set down all that is to be said 
 or collected of their purposes and proceedings in this 
 heady enterprize. For that, as I have said, they kept 
 it so wholly secret from all men, that until their flight 
 and apprehension it was not known to any that such a 
 matter was in hand, and then there could none have 
 access to them to learn the particulars. But we 
 must be contented with that which some of those that 
 lived to be examined, did therein deliver. Only for 
 that some of their servants that were up in arms with 
 them in the country did afterwards escape, somewhat 
 might be learned by them of their carriage in their 
 last extremities, and some such words as they then 
 uttered, whereby their mind in the whole matter is 
 something the more opened." 
 
 Elsewhere he writes, exhibiting more confidence in 
 government documents than we can feel : ^ 
 
 " [The prisoners'] examinations did all agree in all 
 material points, and therefore two only were published 
 in print, containing the substance of the rest. And 
 indeed [this is] the sum of that which I have been 
 able to say in this narration touching either their first 
 intentions or the names or number of the conspirators,, 
 or concerning the course they took to keep the matter 
 so absolutely secret, or, finally, touching the manner 
 of their beginning and proceeding in the whole matter ; 
 for that — as I noted before — it being kept a vowed 
 secret in the heads and hearts of so few, and those also. 
 
 ' Narrative, p. 54. * Ibid. p. 113. 
 
2o6 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 afterwards apprehended before they could have means 
 to declare the particulars in any private manner, there- 
 fore no more can be known of the matter or manner of 
 this tragedy than is found or gathered out of their 
 examinations." 
 
 As for Greenway, it should not be forgotten that for 
 the most part he confined himself to translating Gerard's 
 narrative from English into Italian, though he supple- 
 mented it occasionally with items furnished by his own 
 experience as to the character and general conduct of 
 the conspirators on previous occasions, or during their 
 last desperate rally. Of this he was able to speak with 
 more authority, as he not only chanced to be in the 
 immediate neighbourhood, but actually visited them at 
 Huddington House (the seat of Robert Winter) on 
 November 6th, being summoned thither by Catesby 
 through his servant Bates.' Greenway, like Gerard, 
 
 fnstantly refers to the published confessions of 
 inter and Faukes as the sources of his information. 
 It may here be observed that the practical identity 
 
 ^ Though we have not now to consider the question of Father 
 "Greenway's connection with the conspirators, it may not be. out 
 of place to cite his own account of this visit {Narrative, Stony- 
 hurst MSS., f. 86 b) : 
 
 " Father Oswald [Greenway] went to assist these gentlemen 
 with the Sacraments of the Church, understanding their danger 
 .and their need, and this with evident danger to his own person 
 .and life : and all those gentlemen could have borne witness that 
 he publicly told them how he grieved not so much because of 
 their wretched and shameful plight, and the extremity of their 
 peril, as that by their headlong course they had given the 
 heretics occasion to slander the whole body of Catholics in the 
 kingdom, and that he flatly refused to stay in their company, 
 lest the heretics should be able to calumniate himself and the 
 •other Fathers of the Society. 
 
FATHER GREENWAY. 20/ 
 
 of the narratives of these two fathers was unknown to 
 Mr. Jardine, who having seen only that of Father 
 Greenway, and beHeving it to be an original work, 
 founded upon this erroneous assumption an argument 
 which loses its force when we learn the real author to 
 have been Gerard. Mr. Jardine maintains that the nar- 
 rator must, from internal evidence, have been an active 
 and zealous member of the conspiracy, " approving, 
 promoting and encouraging it with the utmost enthu- 
 siasm." ' It so happens, however, that the real author, 
 Father Gerard, is just the one of the incriminated 
 Jesuits whose innocence is held by historians certainly 
 not partial to his Order, to be beyond question. Mr. 
 Gardiner considers ^ that there is " strong reason " to 
 believe him not to have been acquainted with the 
 Plot. Dr. Jessopp is still more emphatic, and declares ' 
 
 ' hi this, as in some other respects, Mr. Jardine shows him- 
 self rather an advocate than an impartial historian. He holds 
 that the complicity of the writer of the Narrative with the 
 plotters is proved by the intimate knowledge he displays con- 
 cerning them, " their general conduct — their superstitious fears 
 — their dreams — 'their thick coming fancies' — in the progress 
 of the work of destruction." {Criminal Trials, ii, xi.) 
 
 There is here an evident allusion to the silly story of the 
 *'bell in the wall" (related by Greenway and not by Gerard), to 
 which Mr. Jardine gives extraordinary prominence. He does 
 not, however, inform us that Greenway relates this {Narrative, 
 f. 58 b) and some similar matters, on the authority of " an 
 acquaintance to whom Catesby told it shortly before his death," 
 and that he leaves it to the judgment of his readers. 
 
 Greenway's frequent and earnest protestations of innocence 
 Mr. Jardine summarily dismisses with the observation that they 
 are "entitled to no credit whatever" (p. xii). 
 
 ' History, i. 243. 
 
 ' Dictionary of National Biogra-bhy (Digby, Sir E.). 
 
208 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 that it is impossible for any candid reader of all the 
 evidence to doubt that Gerard must be exonerated. 
 
 What has been said of Gerard and Greenway may 
 serve also for Father Garnet, who in his various ex- 
 aminations and other utterances assumes the truth of 
 the government story, for neither had he materials to 
 go upon except those officially supplied. 
 
 It is obvious that the conclusion to be drawn from 
 the above considerations is chiefly negative. That the 
 conspirators embarked on a plot against the state, is, 
 of course unquestionable. What was the precise 
 nature of that plot is by no means clear, and still less 
 what were the exact circumstances of its initiation and 
 its collapse. This only appears to be certain, that 
 things did not happen as they were officially related, 
 while the elaborate care expended on the falsification 
 of the story seems to indicate that the true version 
 wbuld not have served the purposes to which that story- 
 was actually put. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE SEQUEL. 
 
 As we have already seen, the Gunpowder Plot formed 
 no exception to the general law observable in con- 
 spiracies of its period, proving extremely advan- 
 tageous to those against whom it was principally 
 directed. No single individual was injured by it 
 except those concerned in it, or accused of being so 
 concerned. On the other hand, it marked an epoch in 
 public policy, and irrevocably committed the king and 
 the nation to a line of action towards Catholics, which 
 up to that time they had hoped, and their enemies had 
 feared, would not be permanently pursued. 
 
 "The political consequences of this transaction," 
 says Mr. Jardine,^ "are extremely important and in- 
 teresting. It fixed the timid and wavering mind of 
 the king in his adherence to the Protestant party, in 
 opposition to the Roman Catholics ; and the universal 
 horror, which was naturally excited not only in Eng- 
 land but throughout Europe by so barbarous an 
 attempt, was artfully converted into an engine for the 
 suppression of the Roman Catholic Church : so that 
 the ministers of James I., having procured the reluctant 
 acquiescence of the king, and the cordial assent of 
 public opinion, were enabled to continue in full force 
 
 ' Criminal Trials, ii. i, 
 P 
 
210 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 the severe laws previously passed against Papists, and 
 to enact others of no less rigour and injustice." 
 
 Such was the effect in fact produced, and the calm 
 deliberation displayed in dealing with the crisis ap- 
 pears to indicate that no misgivings were entertained 
 as to the chance of anything but advantage resulting 
 from it. We have already seen with what strange 
 equanimity the presence of the powder beneath the 
 Parliament House was treated. Not less serene was 
 the attitude of the minister chiefly responsible for the 
 safety of the State in face of the grave dangers still 
 declared to be threatening, even after the " discovery." 
 Preparations, it was officially announced, had been 
 made for an extensive rising of the Catholics, and this 
 had still to be reckoned with. As the king himself 
 informed Sir John Harington, the design was not 
 formed by a few, the " whole legion of Catholics " were 
 implicated : the priests had been active in preaching the 
 holJy war, and the Pope himself had employed his 
 authority on behalf of the cause.' 
 
 Moreover, the conspirators, except Faukes, escaped 
 from London, and hurried to the intended scene of 
 action, where, though no man voluntarily joined them, 
 they were able at first to collect a certain force of 
 their own retainers and domestics, and began to 
 traverse the shires in which their influence was 
 greatest, committing acts of plunder and violence, 
 and calling on all men to join them for God and the 
 country. For a couple of days the local magistrates 
 did not feel strong enough to cope with them, and 
 forwarded to the capital reports capable, it might be 
 
 ' Nugce Antigua, i. 374. 
 
SALISBURY'S ATTITUDE. 211 
 
 supposed, of alarming those who were bewildered by 
 so totally unexpected an assault, for which the evidence 
 in hand showed preparations of no ordinary magnitude 
 to have been made. The numbers of the insurgents, 
 it was said, were constantly increasing ; only a feeble 
 force could be brought against them ; they were 
 seizing horses and ammunition, and all this in " a 
 very Catholic country." 
 
 In his famous speech to Parliament, delivered on 
 November 9th, the king dwelt feelingly on the danger 
 of the land, left exposed to the traitors, in the absence 
 of the members of the legislature, its natural guardians. 
 " These rebels," he declared,' "that now wander through 
 the country could never have gotten so fit a time of 
 safety in their passage, or whatsoever unlawful actions, 
 as now ; when the country, by the aforesaid occasions, 
 is, in a manner, left desolate and waste unto them." ^ 
 
 Meanwhile, however, the secretary remained im- 
 perturbably tranquil as before, and so well aware of 
 the true state of the case that he could afford to make 
 merry over the madcap adventurers. On the same 
 9th of November he wrote to the ambassadors : " It is 
 also thought fit that some martial men should pre- 
 sently repair down to those countries where the Robin 
 Hoods are assembled, to encourage the good and to 
 terrify the bad. In which service the Earl of Devon- 
 
 ^ Harleian Miscellany, iv. 249. 
 
 ' This terrible state of things was alleged as a principal 
 reason for the prorogation of the ParHament for two months 
 and a half. As a matter of fact, the rebels had been overthro\ra 
 and captured the day before that on which the king's speech 
 was delivered, and news of that event was received that same 
 evening. 
 
212 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 shire is used, a commission going forth for him as 
 general : although I am easily persuaded that this 
 Faggot will be burnt to ashes before he shall be 
 twenty miles on his way." 
 
 His prescience was not at fault, for before despatch- 
 ing the letter the minister was able to announce the: 
 utter collapse of the foolish and unsupported enter- 
 prise. 
 
 No time was lost in turning the defeated conspiracy 
 to practical account. On the very 5th of November ^ 
 itself the Commons proceeded, before all other busi- 
 ness, to the first reading of a bill for the better execu- 
 tion of penal statutes against Recusants. On the follow- 
 ing day this was read a second time. The house next 
 met on the 9th, to hear the king's speech, and was then 
 prorogued to January 21st following. On that day, the 
 foremost article on the programme was the first reading 
 of \a bill (whether the same or another) for the better 
 execution of penal statutes ; another was likewise pro- 
 pqsed for prevention of the danger of papistical prac- 
 tices ; and a committee was appointed "to consider of 
 some course for the timely and severe proceeding 
 against Jesuits, Seminaries, and other popish agents, 
 and practisers, and for the prevention and suppression 
 of their plots and practices." " On the 22nd there was. 
 a motion directed against the seminaries beyond the 
 seas, and the bill for better execution of penal statutes 
 was read a second time. On the 23rd the bill for a 
 public thanksgiving was read twice, being finally 
 
 ' Cojnmons' Journals. 
 
 ° In the preamble of the Act so passed we read : "Forasmuch, 
 as it is found by daily experience, that many his Majesty's sub- 
 jects that adhere in their hearts to the popish religion, by the; 
 
ANTI-CATHOLIC LEGISLATION. 21 3 
 
 passed on the 25th. Its preamble runs thus : " Foras- 
 much as ... no nation of the earth hath been blessed 
 ■with greater benefits than this kingdom now enjoyeth, 
 having the true and free profession of the gospel under 
 our most gracious sovereign lord King James, the 
 most great, learned, and religious king that ever 
 reigned therein . . . the which many malignant and 
 ■devilish papists, Jesuits, and seminary priests, much 
 envying and fearing, conspired most horribly . . ." and 
 so forth. 
 
 Thus did the Commons set to work, and the other 
 House, though they declined to sanction all that was 
 proposed in the way of exceptional severity towards 
 the actual conspirators, were no wise lacking in zeal 
 against the Catholic body. 
 
 The course of legislation that ensued is thus de- 
 scribed by Birch : ' 
 
 " The discovery of the Plot occasioned the Parlia- 
 ment to enjoin the oath of allegiance to the king, and 
 to enact several laws against Popery, and especially 
 against the Jesuits and Priests who, as the Earl of 
 Salisbury observed,^ sought to bring all things into 
 
 infection drawn from thence, and by the wicked and devilish 
 counsel of Jesuits, seminaries, and other like persons dangerous 
 to the church and state, are so perverted in the point of their 
 loyalties and due allegiance unto the King's majesty, and the 
 Crown of England, as they are ready to entertain and execute 
 any treasonable conspiracies and practices, as evidently appears 
 by that more than barbarous and horrible attempt to have 
 blown up with gunpowder the King, Queen . . ." etc., etc. 
 
 ' Negotiations, p. 256. 
 
 ''■ " Our parliament is prorogued till the 1 8th of next November. 
 Many things have been considerable in it, but especially the zeal 
 of both Houses for the preservation of God's true religion, by 
 
214 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDE^PLOT ? 
 
 confusion. ... In passing these laws for the security of 
 the Protestant religion, the Earl of Salisbury exerted 
 himself with distinguished zeal and vigour, which 
 gained him great love and honour from the kingdom, 
 as appeared, in some measure, in the unusual attend- 
 ance upon him at his installation into the Order of 
 the Garter, on the 20th of May, 1606,' at Windsor." 
 
 It is, indeed, abundantly clear that beyond all others 
 this statesman benefited by the Plot, in consequence 
 of which he obtained, at least for a time, a high degree 
 of both power and popularity. His installation at 
 Windsor, above mentioned, was an almost regal 
 triumph. Baker notes ' that he was attended on the 
 occasion "beyond ordinary promotion." Howes writes^ 
 that he "set forward from his house in the Strand, being 
 almost as honourably accompanied, and with as great a 
 train of lords, knights, gentlemen, and officers of the 
 Court, with others besides his peculiar servants, very 
 ricnly attired and bravely mounted, as was the King 
 when he rid in state through London." 
 
 / Neither were there wanting to the secretary other 
 advantages which, if less showy, were not less substan- 
 
 establishing many good laws against Popery and those fire- 
 brands, Jesuits, and Priests, that seek to bring all things into 
 confusion. His Majesty resolveth once more by proclamation 
 to banish them all ; and afterwards, if they shall not obey, then 
 the laws shall go upon them without any more forbearance." 
 — Cecil to Win wood, June 7th, 1606 (Winwood, Memorials, \u 
 219). 
 
 ' In the Dictionary of National Biography, and Doyle's. 
 Official Baronage, this installation is erroneously assigned to. 
 1605. 
 
 ^ Chronicle, p. 408. 
 
 ' Continuation of Stowe's Annals, p. 883. 
 
ADVANTAGES REAPED BY CECIL. 21 5 
 
 tial. It will be remembered how, in his secret corre- 
 spondence with the King of Scots before the death of 
 Elizabeth, Cecil had constantly endeavoured to turn 
 
 THE POWDER PLOT. III. 
 
 the mind of his future sovereign against the Earl of 
 Northumberland, whom he declared to be associated 
 with Raleigh and Cobham in a " diabolical triplicity," 
 and to be " a sworn enemy of King James." ' These 
 
 ' Letter iii. 
 
2l6 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 efforts had not been altogether successful, and though 
 Cobham and Raleigh had been effectually disposed 
 of in connection with the conspiracy known as the 
 " Main," Northumberland was still powerful, and was 
 thought by many to be Cecil's most formidable rival. 
 As one result of the Gunpowder Plot, he now dis- 
 appeared for ever from public life. 
 
 When we remember the terms in which the secre- 
 tary had previously described him, as well as the 
 result about to ensue, it is not a little startling to 
 remark with what emphasis it was protested, in season 
 and out, that a ruling principle of the government's 
 action was to do nothing which might even seem to 
 cast a slur upon the earl's character, while at the same 
 time the very point is artfully insinuated which was to 
 be turned against him.' Thus in the " King's Book," in 
 explanation of the curious roundabout courses adopted 
 in Connection with the " discovery," we are told that a 
 far-fetched excuse was devised for the search deter- 
 mined upon, lest it might " lay an ill-favoured imputa- 
 tion upon the Earl of Northumberland, one of his 
 Mi'ajesty's greatest subjects and counsellors ; this 
 Thomas Percy being his kinsman and most confident 
 familiar." So again Cecil wrote to the ambassadors : 
 " It hath been thought meet in policy of State (all cir- 
 cumstances considered) to commit the Earl of North- 
 
 ^ At Northumberland's trial Lord Salisbury thus expressed him- 
 self : " I have taken paines in my nowne heart to clear my lord's 
 offences, which now have leade me from the contemplation of 
 his virtues ; for I knowe him vertuous, wyse, valiaunte, and of 
 use and ornamente to the state. . . . The cause of this combus- 
 tion was the papistes seekinge to restore their religion. Non 
 libens dico, sed res ipsa loquitur." — Hawarde, Les Repories, etc. 
 
THE EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND. 21/ 
 
 umberland to the Archbishop of Canterbury, there to be 
 honourably used, until things be more quiet. Whereof 
 if you shall hear any judgment made, as if his Majesty 
 or his council could harbour a thought of such a savage 
 practice to be lodged in such a nobleman's breast, you 
 shall do well to suppress it as a malicious discourse 
 and invention, this being only done to satisfy the 
 world that nothing be undone which belongs to policy 
 of State, when the whole monarchy was proscribed to 
 dissolution ; and being no more than himself discreetly 
 approved when he received the sentence of the council 
 for his restraint." 
 
 Yet what was the issue ? A series of charges were 
 brought against Northumberland, all of which broke 
 down except that of having, as Captain of the Royal 
 Pensioners, admitted Percy amongst them without 
 exacting the usual oath. He in vain demanded an 
 open trial, and was brought before the Star Chamber, 
 by which, after he had been assailed by Coke in 
 the same violent strain previously employed against 
 Raleigh, he was sentenced to forfeit all offices which 
 he held under the Crown, to be imprisoned during 
 the king's pleasure, and to pay a fine of ;£'30,ooo, 
 equal to at least ten times that sum at the present 
 day. 
 
 As if this were not enough, fresh proceedings were 
 taken against him six years later, when he was again 
 subjected to examination, and again, says Lingard,' 
 foiled the ingenuity or malice of his persecutor. 
 
 ' History, vii. 84, note. On this subject Mr. Sawyer, the 
 editor of Winwood (1715), has the following remark : " We meet 
 with some account of his [Northumberland's] offence, though 
 couched in such tender terms, that 'tis a little difficult to con- 
 
2l8 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 It seems, therefore, by no means extraordinary that 
 men, as we have heard from the French ambassador, 
 should have commonly attributed the earl's ruin to the 
 resolution of his great rival to remove from his own 
 path every obstacle likely to be dangerous, or that 
 Cecil should himself bear witness,' in 1611, to the 
 " bruites " touching Northumberland which were afloat, 
 and should be anxious, as " knowing how various a 
 discourse a subject of this nature doth beget," to 
 " prevent any erroneous impression by a brief narrative 
 of the true motive and progress of the business." 
 
 As to Northumberland's own sentiments, he, we are 
 told by Osborne," declared that the blood of Percy 
 would refuse to mix with that of Cecil if they were 
 poured together in the same basin. 
 
 It is, moreover, evident not only that the great 
 statesman, to use Bishop Goodman's term, actually 
 p)^ofited largely by the powder business, but that from 
 th|e first he saw in it a means for materially strengthen- 
 inlg his position ; an opportunity which he lost no 
 time in turning to account by making it appear that 
 fn such a crisis he was absolutely necessary to the 
 State. This is shown by the remarkable manifesto 
 /which he promptly issued, a document which appears 
 to have been almost forgotten, though well deserving 
 attention. 
 
 A characteristic feature of the traitorous proceedings 
 of the period was the inveterate habit of conspirators to 
 drop compromising documents in the street, or to throw 
 
 ceive it deserved so heavy a punishment as a fine of £^0,000 
 and perpetual imprisonment." {Memorials, iii. 287, note.) 
 
 ' To Winwood, Memorials, iii. 287. 
 
 " Traditional Memoirs,^. 2\^. 
 
CECIL'S MANIFESTO. 219 
 
 them into yards and windows. In the court of Salis- 
 bury House was found, in November, 1605, a threaten- 
 ing letter, more than usually extraordinary. It pur- 
 ported to come from five Catholics, who began by 
 unreservedly condemning the Gunpowder Plot as 
 a work abhorred by their co-religionists as much as by 
 any Protestants. Since, however, his lordship, beyond 
 all others, seemed disposed to take advantage of so 
 foul a scandal, in order to root out all memory of the 
 Catholic religion, they proceeded to warn him that 
 they had themselves vowed his death, and in such 
 fashion that their success was certain. None of the 
 accomplices knew who the others were, but it was 
 settled who should first make the attempt, and who, in 
 order, afterwards. Moreover, death had no terrors for 
 any of them, two being stricken with mortal sickness, 
 which must soon be fatal ; while the other three were 
 in such mental affliction as not to care what became of 
 them. 
 
 As a reply to this strange effusion Cecil published a 
 tract,^ obviously intended as a companion to the famous 
 " King's Book," in which with elaborate modesty he 
 owned to the impeachment of being more zealous than 
 others in the good cause, and protested his resolution, 
 at whatever peril to himself, to continue his services to 
 
 ' An Answere to certaine Scandalous Papers, scattered abroad 
 under colour of a Catholicke Admonition. " Qui facit vivere, 
 docet orare." Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer 
 to the King's most Eccellent Majestic. Anno 1606. 
 
 This was published in January, 1605-6, on the 28th of which 
 month Sir W. Browne, writing from Flushing, mentions that 
 " my lord of Salisbury hath lately published a little booke as a 
 kynd of answer to som secrett threatning libelling letters cast 
 into his chamber." (Stowe MSS., 168, 74, f. 308.) 
 
220 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 his king and country. The sum and substance of -this 
 curious apology is as follows. 
 
 Having resolved to recall his thoughts from the 
 earthly theatre to higher things, which statesmen are 
 supposed overmuch to neglect, he had felt he could 
 choose no better theme for his meditations than the 
 " King's Book," wherein so many lively images of God's 
 great favour and providence are represented, every line 
 discovering where Apelles' hand hath been ; so that all 
 may see there needs now no Elisha to tell the King of 
 Israel what the Aramites do in their privatest councils. 
 
 While in this most serious and silent meditation, 
 divided between rapture at God's infinite mercy and 
 justice, and thought of his own happiness to live under 
 a king pleasing to God for his zealous endeavours to 
 cleanse the vessels of his kingdom from the dregs and 
 lees of the Romish grape, — and while his heart was 
 not a little cheered to observe any note of his own 
 nalme in the royal register, for one that had been 
 of any little use in this so fortunate discovery, — as the 
 poor day labourer who taketh contentment when he 
 p^sseth that glorious architecture, to the building 
 whereof he can remember to have carried some few 
 sticks and stones, — while thus blissfully engaged, he 
 lis grieved to find himself singled out from the honour- 
 able body of the council, — why, he knows not, for 
 with it he would be content to be identified — ^as the 
 author of the policy which is being adopted ; and, 
 conscious that in his humble person the Body of 
 Authority is assailed, he thinks it well, for once, to 
 make a reply. 
 
 Having recited the threatening letter in full, he pre- 
 sently continues : 
 
CECIL'S MANIFESTO. 221 
 
 " Though I participate not in the follies of that fly 
 who thought herself to raise the dust because she sat. 
 on the chariot-wheel, yet I am so far from disavowing 
 my honest ambition of my master's favour, as I am 
 desirous that the world should hold me, not so much 
 his creature, by the undeserved honours I hold from 
 his grace and power, as my desire to be the shadow of 
 his mind, and to frame my judgment, knowledge, and 
 affections according to his. Towards whose Royal 
 Person I shall glory more to be always found an 
 honest and humble subject, than I should to command 
 absolutely in any other calling." 
 
 Of those who threaten him he says very little,, 
 assuming, however, as self-evident, that they are set 
 on by some priest, who, after the manner of his tribe^ 
 doth " carry the unlearned Catholics, like hawka 
 hooded, into those dangerous positions." 
 
 But, as for himself, let the world understand that he 
 is not the man to neglect his duty on account of the. 
 personal danger it entails. " Far I hope it shall be 
 from me, who know so well in whose Holy Book my 
 days are numbered, once to entertain a thought to. 
 purchase a span of time, at so dear a rate, as for the 
 fear of any mortal power, in my poor talent, Aiit Deo^ 
 aut P atria, aut Patri patrice deesse." 
 
 ' On this subject Cornwallis wrote to Salisbury (Winwood, ii^ 
 193) : " Many reports are here spread of the Combination against 
 your Lordship, and that five English Romanists would resolve 
 your death. It seems that since they cannot be allowed Sacri-- 
 ficium incruentum, they will now altogether put in use their- 
 sacrifices of blood. But I hope and suppose that their hearts 
 and their hands want much of the vigour that rests in their 
 w ills and their pens. Your Lordship doth take especial courage^ 
 
222 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 In spite of the singular ability of this manifesto, the 
 art of the writer is undoubtedly somewhat too con- 
 spicuous to permit us to accept it as the kind of docu- 
 ment which would be produced by one who felt him- 
 self confronted by a serious peril. An interesting and 
 most pertinent commentary is supplied by a contem- 
 porary Jesuit, Giles Schondonck, Rector of St. Omers 
 College, in a letter to Father Baldwin, the same of 
 whom we have already heard in connection with the 
 Plot' 
 
 Schondonck has, he says, read and re-read Cecil's 
 book, which Baldwin had lent him. If his opinion be 
 required, he finds in it many flowers of wit and 
 •eloquence, and it is a composition well adapted for its . 
 object ; but the original letter which has evoked this 
 brilliant rejoinder is a manifest fraud, not emanating 
 from any Catholic, but devised by the enemies of the 
 Church for her injury. The writers plainly contradict 
 themselves. They begin by denouncing the Powder 
 Plot as impious and abominable, and they do so most 
 righteously, and they declare its authors to have been 
 turbulent spirits and not religious, in which also they 
 are right. But they go on to approve the design of 
 murdering Cecil. What sense is there in this ? If the 
 ■one design be impious and detestable, with what 
 
 in this, that they single you out as the chief and principal watch 
 Tower of your Country and Commonwealth, and turn the strength 
 of their malice to you whom they hold the discoverer of all their 
 unnatural and destructive inventions against their prince and 
 country," etc. 
 
 ' P. R. O. Dom. James I. xviii. 97, February 27th, N.S., 1606. 
 The original, which is in Latin, has been utterly misunderstood 
 by the Calendarer of State Papers. 
 
FATHER BLOUNT'S INFORMATION. 223 
 
 colour or conscience can the other be approved? 
 There is no difference of principle, though in the one 
 case many were to be murdered, in the other but 
 a single man. No one having in him any spark of 
 religion could defend either project, much less approve 
 it. Moreover, much that is set down is simply 
 ridiculous. Men in the last extremity of sickness, or 
 broken down by sorrow, are not of the stuff whereof 
 those are made by whom desperate deeds are done. 
 
 From another Jesuit we obtain instructive informa- 
 tion which at least serves to show what was the 
 opinion of Catholics as to the way in which things 
 were being managed. This is conveyed in a letter 
 addressed December ist, 1606, to the famous Father 
 Parsons by Father Richard Blount, Father Garnet's 
 successor as superior of the English mission.^ It 
 must be remembered that this was not meant for the 
 public eye, and in fact was never published. It cannot 
 have been intended to obtain credence for a particular 
 version of history, and it was written to him who, of all 
 men, was behind the scenes so far as the English 
 Jesuits were concerned. Much of it is in cipher which, 
 fortunately, has been interpreted for us by the recipient. 
 
 Blount begins with a piece of intelligence which is 
 startling enough. Amongst the lords of the council 
 none was a more zealous enemy of Popery than the 
 chamberlain, the Earl of Suffolk,^ who was more than 
 •once on the commission for expelling priests and 
 Jesuits, and had in particular been so energetic in the 
 matter of the Powder Plot that Salisbury modestly 
 
 ' Stonyhurst MSS., Anglia, iii. 72. 
 ' Thomas Howard, cr. 1603. 
 
224 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 confessed that in regard of the "discovery" he had 
 himself been "much less forward." ' Now, however, we 
 are told, only a twelvemonth later, that this nobleman 
 and his wife are ready for a sufficient fee to procure 
 " some kind of peace " for the Catholics. The needful 
 sum may probably be raised through the Spanish 
 Ambassador, but the issue is doubtful " because Salis- 
 bury will resist."— " Yet such is the want of money 
 with the chamberlain at this time — whose expenses are 
 infinite — that either Salisbury must supply, or else he 
 must needs break with him." ^ 
 
 After some particulars concerning the jealousy 
 against the Scots, and the matter of the union (which 
 " sticketh much in the Parliament's teeth ") Blount 
 goes on to relate how Cecil has been attempting to 
 float a second Powder Plot — the scene being this time 
 the king's court itself He has had another letter 
 brought in, to set it going, and had seemingly calcu- 
 lated on capturing the writer himself and some of his 
 brethren in connection with it. In this, however, he 
 has been foiled, and the matter appears to have been 
 dropped. In Blount's own words : ^ 
 
 ' To the ambassadors. 
 
 ^ Father Blount's account is undoubtedly in keeping with 
 what we know of the Earl, and especially of his Countess, whO' 
 was a sister of Sir Thomas Knyvet, the captor of Guy Faukes. 
 Suffolk, in 1614, became Lord High Treasurer, but four years 
 afterwards grave irregularities were discovered in his office ; he 
 was accused of embezzlement and extortion, in which work his 
 wife was proved to have been even more active than himself. 
 They were sentenced to restore all money wrongfully extorted, 
 to a fine of ^30,000, and to imprisonment during pleasure. 
 
 ^ In this letter all proper names are in cipher, as well as 
 various other words. 
 
LASTING EFFECTS OF THE PLOT. 22$ 
 
 " Now these last days we expected some new 
 stratagem, because Salisbury pretended a letter to be 
 brought to his lordship found by chance in St. 
 Clement's Churchyard, written in ciphers, wherein 
 were many persons named, and a question asked, 
 whether there were any concavity under the stage in 
 the court. But belike the device failed, and so we 
 hear no words of it. About this time this house was 
 ransacked, where by chance Blount Came late the night 
 before, finding four more, Talbot, N. Smith, Wright, 
 Arnold ; being all besieged from morning to night. 
 If things had fallen out as was expected, then that 
 letter would have haply been spoken of, whereas now it 
 is very secret, and only served to pick a thanks of 
 King James, with whom Salisbury keepeth his credit 
 by such tricks, as upon whose vigilancy his majesty's 
 life dependeth." 
 
 One other feature of the after history demands con- 
 sideration. As Fuller tells us,' "a learned author, 
 making mention of this treason, breaketh forth into the 
 following rapture : 
 
 ' Excidat ilia dies aevo, ne postera credant 
 Saecula ; nos certe taceamus, et obruta multa 
 Nocte tegi propriae patiamur crimina gentis.' 
 
 ' Oh, let that day be quite dashed out of time, 
 And not believ'd by the next generation ; 
 
 In night of silence we'll conceal the crime, 
 Thereby to save the credit of the nation.' " 
 
 " A wish," he adds, " which in my opinion, hath more of 
 poetry than of piety therein, and from which I must be 
 
 ' Church History, x. 40. 
 Q 
 
226 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 forced to dissent." Assuredly if it were judged that 
 silence and oblivion should be the lot of the conspiracy, 
 no stranger means were ever adopted to secure the 
 desired object. A public thanksgiving was appointed 
 to be held every year, on the anniversary of the " dis- 
 covery ; " a special service for that day was inserted in 
 the Anglican liturgy, and Gunpowder Plot Sermons 
 kept the memory of the Treason green in the mind 
 not of one but of many generations. 
 
 Moreover, the country was flooded with literature on 
 the subject, in prose and rhyme, and the example of 
 Milton "is sufficient to show how favourite a topic it 
 was with youthful poets essaying to try their wings.' 
 
 In regard of the history, one line was consistently 
 adopted. The Church of England in its calendar 
 marked November 5 th, as the Papists' Conspiracy, and 
 in the collect appointed for the day the king and 
 estates of the realm were described as being " by 
 Popish treachery appointed as sheep to the slaughter, 
 in a most barbarous and savage manner, beyond the 
 examples of former ages." Similarly, preachers and 
 writers alike concurred in saying little or nothing 
 about the actual conspirators, but much about the 
 iniquity of Rome ; the official character of the Plot, 
 and its sanction, even its first suggestion, by the highest 
 authorities of the Church, being the chief feature of 
 
 ' We have four Latin epigrams of Milton's, In prodiiionem 
 Bombardicam, which, though pointless, are bitterly anti-Catholic. 
 A longer poem, of 226 lines. In quintum Novembris, is still more 
 virulent. 
 
 It is somewhat remarkable that the universal Shakespeare 
 should make no allusion to the Plot, beyond the doubtful 
 reference to equivocation in Macbeth (ii. 3). He was at the 
 time of its occurrence in the full flow of his dramatic activity. 
 
POPULAR VERSION OF THE PLOT. 22/ 
 
 the tale hammered year after year into the ears of the 
 EngHsh people. The details of history supplied are 
 frequently pure and unmixed fables.' 
 
 THE POWDER PLOT. IV. 
 
 Nor was the pencil less active than the pen in popu- 
 larizing the same belief Great was the ingenuity spent 
 in devising and producing pictures which should im- 
 
 ' See Appendix L, Myths and Legends of the Powder Plot. 
 
228 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 press on the minds of the most iUiterate a holy horror of 
 the Church which had doomed the nation to destruc- 
 tion. One of the most elaborate of these was headed 
 by an inscription which admirably summarizes the 
 moral of the tale. 
 
 The Powder Treason. — Propounded by Satan : 
 Approved by Antichrist [i.e. the Pope] : Enterprised 
 by Papists : Practized by Traitors : Revealed by an 
 Eagle [Monteagle] : Expounded by an Oracle [King 
 James] : Founded in Hell: Confounded in Heaven. 
 
 Accordingly we find representations of Lucifer, the 
 Pope, the King of Spain, the General of the Jesuits, 
 and other such worthies, conspiring in the background 
 while the redoubtable Guy walks arm in arm with 
 a demon to fire the mine, the latter grasping a papal 
 Bull (unknown to the Bullarium), expedited to pro- 
 mote the project : or again, Faukes and Catesby stand 
 secretly conspiring in the middle of the street, while 
 Father Garnet, in full Jesuit habit (or what is meant, 
 for such) exhorts them to go on : or a priest gives the- 
 conspirators " the sacrament of secrecy ; " or represen- 
 tative Romish dignitaries blow threats and curses 
 against England and her Parliament House, — or 
 the Jesuits are buried in Hell in recompense of their 
 perfidy. 
 
 It cannot, however, escape remark that while the- 
 limners have been conscientiously careful in respect of 
 these details, they have one and all discarded accuracy 
 in regard of another matter in which we might 
 naturally have expected it. In no single instance is. 
 Guy Faukes represented as about to blow up the right 
 house. Sometimes it is the House of Commons that, 
 he is going to destroy, more frequently the Painted 
 

 THE POWDER PLOT. V. 
 
230 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Chamber, often a nondescript building corresponding 
 to nothing in particular, — but in no single instance is 
 it the House of Lords. 
 
 The most extraordinary instance of so strange a 
 vagary is afforded by a plate produced immediately 
 after the occurrence it commemorates, in the year 1605 
 itself' In this, Faukes with his inseparable lantern, 
 but without the usual spurs, is seen advancing to the 
 door of the " cellar," which stands conspicuous above 
 ground. Aloft is seen the crescent moon, represented 
 in exactly the right phase for the date of the discovery.^ 
 The accuracy exhibited as to this singular detail 
 makes it more than ever extraordinary that the build- 
 ing to which he directs his steps is unquestionably St. 
 Stephen's Chapel — The House of Commons. 
 
 One point of the history, in itself apparently insigni- 
 ficant, was at the time invested with such extravagant 
 importance, as to suggest a question in its regard, 
 namely the day itself whereon the marvellous deliver- 
 ance took place. A curious combination of circum- 
 stances alone assigned it to the notorious Fifth of 
 November. Parliament, as we have seen, was origin- 
 ally appointed to meet on the 3rd of October, but was 
 suddenly adjourned for about a month, and so little 
 reason did there seem to be for the prorogation ' as to 
 
 ■ Brit. Mus. Print Room, Grace Collection, portf. xv. 28. This, 
 is reproduced, as our frontispiece. 
 
 " There was a new moon at 11.30 p.m. on October 31st. 
 
 ' The reasons assigned in the proclamation for this proroga- 
 tion are plainly insufficient ; viz., " That the holding of it [the 
 Parliament] so soone is not convenient, as well for that the 
 ordinary course of our subjects resorting to the citie for their 
 usuall affaires at the Terme is not for the most part till All- 
 
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH OF NOVEMBER. 23 1 
 
 fill the conspirators with alarm lest some suspicion of 
 their design had prompted it ; wherefore they sent 
 Thomas Winter to attend the prorogation ceremony, 
 and observe the demeanour of those who took part in 
 it. Afterwards, though the discovery might have 
 easily been made any time during the preceding week, 
 nothing practical was done till the fateful day itself 
 had actually begun, when, as the acute Lingard has 
 not failed to observe, a remarkable change at once 
 came over the conduct of the authorities, who dis- 
 carding the aimless and dilatory manner of proceeding 
 which had hitherto characterized them, went straight 
 to the point with a promptitude and directness leaving 
 nothing to be desired. 
 
 Whatever were their motive in all this, the action of 
 the government undoubtedly brought it about that the 
 great blow should be struck on a day which not a 
 little enhanced the evidence for the providential 
 character of the whole affair. Tuesday was King 
 James' lucky day, more especially when it happened 
 to be the 5th of the month, for on Tuesday, August 
 the sth, 1600, he had escaped the mysterious treason 
 of the Gowries. 
 
 This coincidence evidently created a profound im- 
 pression. "Curious folks observe," wrote Chamber- 
 lain to Carleton,' "that this deliverance happened on 
 the fifth of November, answerable to the fifth of August, 
 both Tuesdays ; and this plot to be executed by John- 
 son [the assumed name of Faukes], and that at Johns- 
 town [i.e., Perth]." On the 27th of November, Lake 
 
 hallowtide or thereabouts." Why, then, had the meeting been 
 fixed for so unsuitable a date ? 
 
 1 November 7th, 1605. {Dom. James I.) 
 
232 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 suggested to the Archbishop of Canterbury,' that as a 
 perpetual memorial of this so providential circumstance, 
 the anniversary sermon should always be delivered 
 upon a Tuesday. Two days later, the Archbishop 
 wrote to his suffragans,^ reminding them how on a 
 Tuesday his majesty had escaped the Gowries, and 
 now, on another Tuesday, a peril still more terrible, 
 which must have ruined the whole nation, had not the 
 Holy Ghost illumined the king's heart with a divine 
 spirit. In remembrance of which singular instance of 
 God's governance, there was to be an annual cele- 
 bration.' 
 
 Most important of all. King James himself much 
 appreciated the significance of this token of divine 
 protection, and not only impressed this upon his 
 Parliament, but proroguing it forthwith till after 
 Christmas, selected the same propitious day of the week 
 for its next meeting, as a safeguard against possible 
 danger. " Since it has pleased God," said his majesty,* 
 " to grant me two such notable deliveries upon one 
 day of the week, which was Tuesday, and likewise 
 one day of the month, which was the fifth, thereby to 
 teach me that as it was the same devil that still perse- 
 cuted me, so it was one and the same God that still 
 mightily delivered me, I thought it therefore not 
 
 ' Tanner MSS. Ixxv. 44. 
 
 ' Ibid. 
 
 ^ On his arrival in England, as Osborne tells us {Memoirs, 
 p. 276), King James "brought a new holiday into the Church of 
 England, wherein God had pubUck thanks given him for his 
 majestie's deliverance out of the hands of Earle Goury ; " but the- 
 introduction was not a success, Englishmen and Scots alike 
 ridiculing it. Gunpowder Plot Day was more fortunate. 
 
 ' Harleian Miscellany, iv. 251. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 ^ 
 
 amiss, that the twenty-first day which fell to be upon 
 Tuesday, should be the day of meeting of this next 
 session of parliament, hoping and assuring myself, 
 that the same God, who hath now granted me and you 
 all so notable and gracious a delivery, shall prosper all 
 our affairs at that next session, and bring them to an 
 happy conclusion." 
 
 Whatever may be thought of this particular element 
 of its history, it is perfectly clear that the fashion 
 in which the Plot was habitually set before the English 
 people, and which contributed more than anything 
 else to work the effect actually produced, was charac- 
 terized from the first by an utter disregard of truth on 
 the part of those whose purposes it so opportunely 
 served, and with such lasting results. 
 
234 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT ? 
 
 A Summary. 
 
 The evidence available to us appears to establish 
 principally two points, — that the true history of the 
 Gunpowder Plot is now known to no man, and that 
 the history commonly received is certainly untrue. 
 
 It is quite impossible to believe that the government 
 were not aware of the Plot long before they announced 
 its discovery. 
 
 It is difficult to believe that the proceedings of the 
 conspirators were actually such as they are related to 
 have been. 
 
 It is unquestionable that the government con- 
 sistently falsified the story and the evidence as pre- 
 sented to the world, and that the points upon which 
 they most insisted prove upon examination to be the 
 most doubtful. 
 
 There are grave reasons for the conclusion that the 
 whole transaction was dexterously contrived for the 
 purpose which in fact it opportunely served, by those 
 who alone reaped benefit from it, and who showed 
 themselves so unscrupulous in the manner of reaping. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 NOTES ON THE ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 Frontispiece. The Powder Plot. I. 
 
 From the Grace Collection, British Museum, Portf. xv. 
 20. Thus described in the catalogue of the collection : 
 
 " A small etching of the House of Lords. Guy 
 Fawkes in the foreground. W. E. exc. 1605." 
 
 This plate is of exceptional interest as having been 
 executed within five months of the discovery of the 
 Plot, i.e., previously to March 25th, 1606, the first day 
 of the year. Old Style. 
 
 Guy Faukes is represented as approaching the 
 House of Commons (St. Stephen's Chapel), not the 
 House of Lords, as the catalogue says. 
 
 Title-Page. 
 
 Obverse, or reverse, of a medal struck, by order of 
 the Dutch senate, to commemorate the double event 
 of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot and the 
 expulsion of the Jesuits from Holland. Drawn from 
 a copy of the medal in pewter, by Paul Wood- 
 roffe. The design here exhibited is thus described in 
 Hawkins and Frank's Medallic Illustrations : 
 
 " The name of Jehovah, in Hebrew, radiate, within 
 a crown of thorns. 
 
236 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 " Legend, chronogrammatic, 
 
 NON DorMItastI antIstes IaCobI" 
 
 [which gives the date 1605] 
 
 On its other face the medal bears a snake gliding 
 amid roses and lilies [symbolizing Jesuit intrigues in 
 England and France], with the legend Detectus qui 
 latuit. S.C. [Senatus Consulto]." 
 
 This is reproduced on the cover. 
 
 Group of Conspirators (p. 3). 
 
 From a print published at Amsterdam. 
 
 Eight conspirators are represented, five being 
 omitted, viz., Grant, Keyes, Digby, Rokewood, and 
 Tresham. 
 
 Bates, as a servant, wears no hat. 
 
 The Houses of Parliament in the time of James I. 
 (pp. 56-7). 
 
 Restored from the best authorities, and drawn for 
 the author by H. W. Brewer. 
 
 Ground Plan of House of Lords and adjacent Buildings 
 
 (P- 59)- 
 
 Extracted from the "Foundation plan of the Ancient 
 
 Palace of Westminster; measured, drawn and engraved 
 
 by J. T. Smith" (^Antiquities of Westminster, p. 125). 
 
 The House of Lords in 1807 (p. 61). 
 
 From J. T. Smith's Antiquities of Westminster. 
 This sketch, made from the east, or river, side, was 
 taken during the demolition of the buildings erected 
 
APPENDIX A. 237- 
 
 against the sides of the Parliament House. These 
 were put up previously to the time when Hollar made 
 his drawing of the interior (temp. Charles H.), which 
 shows the walls hung with tapestry, the windows, 
 having been blocked up. 
 
 According to a writer in the Gentleman s Magazine- 
 (No. 70, July, 1800), who signs himself " Architect," in 
 a print of the time of James I. the tapestry is not 
 seen, and the House " appears to have preserved much 
 of its original work." The only print answering to 
 this description which I have been able to find 
 exhibits the windows, but is of no value for historical 
 purposes, as it is a reproduction of one of the time of 
 Queen Elizabeth, the figure of the sovereign alone 
 being changed. This engraving is said to be " taken 
 from a painted print in the Cottonian Library," of 
 which I can find no trace. [B. Mus., K. 24. 19. b.] 
 
 To the left of our illustration is seen the gable of 
 the Prince's Chamber. The door to the right of this 
 opened into the cellar, and by it, according to. 
 tradition, Faukes was to have made his exit. 
 
 In front of this is seen part of the garden attached 
 to Percy's lodging. 
 
 Interior of" Guy Faukes' Cellar" (p. 71). 
 
 Two views of the interior of the " cellar," drawn by 
 H. W. Brewer, from elevations in J. T. Smith's An- 
 tiquities of Westminster, p. 39. 
 
 The remains of a buttery-hatch, at the southern 
 end, testify to the ancient use of the chamber as the 
 palace kitchen ; of which the Earl of Northampton, 
 made mention at Father Garnet's trial. 
 
238 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 The very ancient doorway in the eastern wall, seen 
 on the left of the picture, was of Saxon workmanship, 
 and, like the foundations beneath, probably dated from 
 the time of Edward the Confessor, who first erected 
 this portion of the palace, most of which had been 
 rebuilt about the time of Henry III. By this door- 
 way, according to some accounts, Faukes intended to 
 escape after firing the train, though- others assign this 
 distinction to one near the other end. 
 
 These two illustrations were originally prepared for 
 the Daily Graphic of November 5th, 1894, and it is 
 by the courtesy of the proprietors of that journal that 
 they are here reproduced. 
 
 Vault under the East End of the Painted Chamber 
 (P- 73)- - 
 
 From Brayley and Britton's Palace of Westminster, 
 p. 247. 
 
 This has been constantly depicted and described as 
 " Guy Faukes' Cellar." 
 
 Arches from Guy Faukes' Cellar (p. 75). 
 
 Drawn for the author by H. W. Brewer. 
 
 Sir John Soane, who in 1823 took down the old 
 House of Lords, removed the arches from the " cellar " 
 beneath it, to his own house in Lincoln's Inn Fields, now 
 the Soane Museum, where they are still to be seen in 
 a small court adjoining the building. They do not, 
 however, appear to have been set up precisely in their 
 original form, being dwarfed by the omission of some 
 stones, presumably that they might occupy less space. 
 In our illustration they are represented exactly as they 
 
APPENDIX A. 239 
 
 now stand, with the modern building behind them. 
 Some incongruous relics of other stonework which 
 have been introduced amongst them have, however, 
 been omitted. 
 
 The architecture of these arches, and of the adjacent 
 Prince's Chamber, assigns them to the best period of 
 thirteenth century Gothic. 
 
 Cell at S.E. corner of Painted Chamber (p. 83). 
 
 Often styled " Guy Faukes' Cell." 
 From Brayley and Britton, op. cit., p. 360. 
 There appears to be no reason for associating this 
 with Faukes. 
 
 The Powder Plot. II. (p. 90). 
 
 " Invented by Samuel Ward, Preacher, of Ipswich. 
 Imprinted at Amsterdam, 1621." [British Museum, 
 Political and Personal Satires, i. 41.] 
 
 This is the portion to the right of a composition 
 representing on the left the Spanish Armada, and 
 in the centre a council table at which are gathered the 
 Devil, the Pope, the King of Spain, the General of 
 the Jesuits, and others. An eye above is fixed on 
 the cellar. Faukes in this case is going to blow up the 
 Painted Chamber. 
 
 Interior of the old House of Lords {Scene on occasion 
 of the King's Speech, 1755) (p. 97). 
 
 This plate represents the House in the reign of 
 •George II. In the century and a half since the time 
 of the Powder Plot it is probable that the windows 
 
240 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 in the side walls had been blocked up, and the 
 tapestry hung. The latter represented the defeat of the 
 Armada. 
 
 [From Maitland's London (1756), ii. 1340.] 
 
 Lord Monteagle and the Letter (p. 115). 
 
 From Mischeefes Mystery. 
 
 King James enthroned, with crown and sceptre, 
 upon a dais, at the foot of which stands the Earl 
 of Salisbury. An eagle bears a letter in its beak, to 
 receive which the king and his minister extend their 
 left hands. 
 
 The English poem, by John Vicars, embellished 
 with this woodcut, was published in 1617, being a 
 much expanded version of one in Latin hexameters, 
 entitled Pietas Pontificia, by Francis Herring, which 
 appeared in 1606. 
 
 Arrest of Guy Faukes (p. 125J. 
 
 From Mischeefes Mystery. 
 
 Guy Faukes booted and spurred, and with his 
 lantern, prepares to open a door at the extremity 
 of the Painted Chamber. Sir Thomas Knyvet with 
 his retinue approaches unseen. The stars and the 
 beams from the lantern show that it is the middle of 
 the night. 
 
 Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot {^. 136). 
 
 From a print in the Guildhall Library. 
 Catesby, Faukes, and Garnet (the latter in what is 
 apparently meant for the Jesuit habit) stand in the 
 
APPENDIX A. 241 
 
 middle of the street conspiring secretly. Through 
 the open door of the " cellar " the powder barrels 
 are seen. 
 
 This illustration (without the coins) stands at the 
 head of Book XVIII. of M. Rapin de Thoyras' History 
 of England, translated by N. Tindal. 
 
 " Guy Faiikes' Lantern " (p. 1 39). 
 
 Drawn by H. W. Brewer. 
 
 This object, the authenticity of which is not un- 
 questionable, is exhibited in the Ashmolean Museum, 
 Oxford. It bears the inscription, " Laterna ilia ipsa 
 qua usus est, et cum qua deprehensus Guido Faux in 
 crypta subterranea ubi domo Parliamenti difflandse 
 operam dabat. Ex dono Robti Heywood nuper 
 Academiae Procuratoris, Ap. 4°, 1641." 
 
 It will be remembered that the honour of having 
 arrested Faukes has been claimed for one of the name 
 of Heywood. 
 
 The history of the famous lantern has not escaped 
 the variations which we are accustomed to meet with 
 on other points. Faukes is generally said to have 
 been found with it in his hands, and it has conse- 
 quently become an inseparable adjunct in pictures of 
 him. On the other hand, we are told, " In a corner, 
 behind the door, was a dark lantern containing a light " 
 (Brayley and Britton, Palace of Westminster, p. 377). 
 
 Thomas Percy (p. 149). 
 
 From Grainger. 
 
 Around the portrait are four small engravings repre- 
 senting : 
 
 R 
 
242 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 1. The arrest of Guy Faukes, who is here called 
 " Thomas Ichrup." 
 
 2. The presentation of Thomas Ichrup to the King 
 of Jerusalem {i.e., the British Solomon). 
 
 3. The assault and bombardment of the " citadel " to 
 which Percy has fled. 
 
 4. Percy killed by an arrow. 
 
 Thomas Winter's Confession (p. 168). 
 
 A portion of the copy of Winter's confession, in the 
 handwriting of Levinus Munck, Lord Salisbury's 
 private secretary, and dated November 23rd. In the 
 margin is a note in the handwriting of King James, 
 objecting to a certain "uncleare phrase," which has 
 been altered in accordance with the royal wish. In 
 the printed version it appears in the amended form. 
 
 Signatures exemplifying the Effects of Torture (p. 173). 
 
 Three signatures of Faukes (November 9th, 1605), 
 and three of Father Edward Oldcorne (March 6th, 
 1605-6), at different stages of the same examination. 
 
 Guy Faukes' Confession of November ^th, 1605 (p. 199). 
 
 A portion of this confession, in which Faukes speaks 
 of the oath taken by the conspirators and of their 
 reception of the sacrament at the hands of Father 
 John Gerard, adding, however, that " Gerard was not 
 acquainted with their purpose." The last clause has 
 been marked for omission by Sir Edward Coke 
 y/ho has written in the margin hucusq. (" thus far "). 
 
 The letter B in the margin is also inserted by Coke, 
 
APPENDIX A. 243 
 
 who habitually indicated by such letters which por- 
 tions of the depositions were to be read in court and 
 which omitted, all being always suppressed which told 
 in any way in favour of the accused. 
 
 The document is written by a clerk, and signed by 
 Faukes at the foot of each page. 
 
 The Powder Plot. III. (p. 215). 
 
 This is taken from a large plate [British Museum, 
 Political and Personal Satires, i. 6j\ of which only the 
 lower portion is here reproduced. At the top is the 
 inscription : 
 
 The Powder Treason, Propounded by Sathan, 
 Approved by Anti-Christ, Enterprised by Papists, 
 Practized by Traitors, Reveled by an Eagle, Ex- 
 pounded by an Oracle. — Founded in Hell, Confounded 
 in Heaven. 
 
 Beneath are many emblematical devices. 
 
 In the portion here exhibited. King James is seen 
 on his throne with Lords and Commons before him. 
 Under the floor is a diminutive figure of Faukes with 
 an ample store of barrels. At the bottom, in the left 
 hand corner, some of the conspirators receive the 
 sacrament from Father Gerard : on the right they are 
 executed. On a lunette are the thirteen conspirators, 
 with the arch-traitor Garnet in the centre, the band 
 being described as " The Pope's Saltpeeter Saints." 
 Within the lunette are the Jesuits in Hell. 
 
 The Powder Plot IV. (p. 227). 
 
 This is the portion on the left of a composite 
 picture [British Museum, Political and Personal 
 
244 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Satires, 63], on the right being represented the cata- 
 strophe known as the " Blackfriars Downfall." On 
 Sunday, October 26th, 1623, many Catholics having 
 assembled in an upper room of the French ambas- 
 sador's house, in Blackfriars, to hear a sermon from the. 
 Jesuit, Father Drury, the floor collapsed, and many, 
 including the preacher, were killed. As October 
 26th, O.S., corresponded to November sth, N.S., it 
 was ingeniously discovered that the accident was 
 meant to signalize Gunpowder Plot day, though this 
 fell on November 5th, O.S., or November ijth, 
 N.S. 
 
 In our illustration the Parliament House is repre- 
 sented by a nondescript edifice, the wall of which is 
 partially removed, showing King James and some of 
 the Peers. An oven-like vault beneath represents the- 
 " cellar," well stored with barrels, which Faukes is pre- 
 paring to light with a torch fanned by a crowned 
 fiend with a pair of bellows. A company of halberdiers 
 approaches under the guidance of an angel. In the 
 background is a royal funeral procession. 
 
 A' Latin inscription is attached which runs thus : 
 
 "Anno 1623, Quinto Novembris, eo scripto die quo Anglise- 
 Parliamentum, a" 1605, proditione et insidiis Jesuitarum, pulvera 
 nitreo inflammari et in pethera spargi debuit, Jesuitarum con- 
 ventus Londini, ... ad missam et conciones audiendas congre- 
 gatus, fatali providentia, adium ruina prascipitalus et dissipatui 
 est, oppressis centum et plus totidem vulneratis. 
 
 Loiolides sanctos efflare volebat ad astra ; 
 
 Astra repercutiunt fulmine Loiolidem. 
 Loiolides, sine te penetrabit astra fidelis : 
 
 Tu fato ad Stygias prascipitaris aquas." 
 
APPENDIX B. 24s 
 
 The Powder Plot. V. (p. 229). 
 
 This is an edition of Samuel Ward's print described 
 above, improved and embellished by a "Trans- 
 mariner" in 1689. [British Museum, Political and 
 Personal Satires, i. 43.] 
 
 The tent in which the council table stands is orna- 
 mented at the four corners with figures of a wolf, 
 a parrot, an owl, and a dragon : a cockatrice is on the 
 table ; on the top lie a gun, a sword, and a brace of 
 pistols. A demon, bearing behind him a Papal Bull, 
 accompanies Faukes, beneath whose lantern, as a play- 
 on his name, is written Fax. At the door of the 
 cellar are scorpions and a serpent. On the top of the 
 barrels within are seen the " yron barres," placed there 
 to make the breach the greater. 
 
 APPENDIX B. (p. 33). 
 
 Sir Everard Digby's letter to Salisbury. 
 
 It seems to have been always assumed that this cele- 
 brated letter, which is undated, was written after the 
 failure of the Gunpowder Plot, and the consequent 
 arrest of Sir Everard, and doubtless to some extent 
 internal evidence supports this view, as the writer 
 speaks of himself as deserving punishment, and of 
 " our offence." It is, moreover, clear that the letter, 
 which is undated, cannot have been written before 
 May 4th, 1605, the date of Cecil's earldom. On the 
 other hand, the whole tone of the document appears 
 utterly inconsistent with the supposition that it was 
 
246 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 written by one branded with the stigma of such a 
 crime as the Powder Plot. Some of the expressions 
 used, especially in the opening sentence, appear, like- 
 wise, incompatible with such a supposition, and the 
 letter bears the usual form of address for those sent in 
 ordinary course of post, " To the Right Hon. the Earl 
 of Salisburie give these " ; it has moreover been 
 sealed with a crest or coat-of-arms ; all of which is 
 quite unlike a document prepared by a prisoner for 
 those who had him under lock and key. It is note- 
 worthy, too, that at the trial, according to the testi- 
 mony of the official account itself, on the very subject 
 of the treatment of Catholics, Salisbury acknowledged 
 " that Sir E. Digby was his ally." 
 
 It seems probable, therefore, that the letter was 
 written before Digby had been entangled by Catesby 
 in the conspiracy {i.e., between May and September, 
 1605). If so, what was the "offence" of which he 
 speaks ? The answer to this question would throw an 
 interesting light on this perplexed history. The follow- 
 ing is Sir Everard's letter : 
 
 " Right Honourable, I have better reflected on your 
 late speeches than at the present I could do, both for 
 the small stay which I made, and for my indisposition 
 that day, not being very well, and though perhaps your 
 Lordship may judge me peremptory in meddling, and 
 idle in propounding, yet the desire I have to establish 
 the King in safety will not suffer me to be silent. 
 
 " One part of your Lordship's speech (as I re- 
 member) was that the King could not get so much 
 from the Pope (even then when his Majesty had done 
 nothing against Catholics) as a promise that he would 
 
APPENDIX B. 247 
 
 not excommunicate him, so long, as that mild course 
 was continued, wherefore it gave occasion to suspect, 
 that if Catholics were suffered to increase, the Pope 
 might afterwards proceed to excommunication, if the 
 King would not change his religion. But to take away 
 that doubt, I do assure myself that his Holiness may 
 be drawn to manifest so contrary. a disposition of ex- 
 communicating the King, that he will proceed with the 
 same course against all such as shall go about to dis- 
 turb the King's quiet and happy reign ; and the 
 willingness of Catholics, especially of priests and 
 Jesuits, is such as I dare undertake to procure any . 
 priest in England (though it were the Superior of the 
 Jesuits) to go himself to Rome to negotiate this busi- 
 ness, and that both he and all other religious men (till 
 the Pope's pleasure be known) shall take any spiritual 
 course to stop the effect that may proceed from any 
 discontented or despairing Catholic. 
 
 " And I doubt not but his return would bring both 
 assurance that such course should not be taken with 
 the King, and that it should be performed against any 
 that should seek to disturb him for religion. If this 
 were done, there could then be no cause to fear any 
 Catholic, and this may be done only with those pro- 
 ceedings (which as I understood your lordship) should 
 be used. If your Lordship apprehend it to be worth 
 the doing, I shall be glad to be the instrument, for no 
 hope to put off from myself any punishment, but only 
 that I wish safety to the King and ease to Catholics. 
 If your Lordship and the State think it fit to deal 
 severely with Catholics, within brief there will be 
 massacres, rebellions, and desperate attempts against 
 the King and State. For it is a general received reason 
 
248 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 amongst Catholics, that there is not that expecting 
 and suffering course now to be run that was in the 
 Queen's time, who was the last of her line, and last in 
 expectance to run violent courses against Catholics ; 
 for then it was hoped that the King that now is would 
 have been at least free from persecuting, as his pro- 
 mise was before his coming into this realm, and as 
 divers his promises have been since his coming, saying 
 that he would take no soul money nor blood. Also, 
 as it appeared, was the whole body of the Council's 
 pleasure, when they sent for divers of the better sort 
 of Catholics (as Sir Thos. Tressam and others) and 
 told them it was the King's pleasure to forgive the 
 payment of Catholics, so long as they should carry 
 themselves dutifully and well. All these promises 
 every man sees broken, and to thrust them further in 
 despair, most Catholics take note of a vehement book 
 written by Mr. Attorney, whose drift (as I have heard) 
 is to prove that the only being a Catholic is to be a 
 traitor, which book coming forth, after the breach of 
 so many promises, and before the ending of such a 
 violent parliament, can work no less effect in men's 
 minds than a belief that every Catholic will be brought 
 within that compass before the King and State have 
 done with them. And I know, as the priest himself 
 told me, that if he had not hindered there had some- 
 what been attempted, before our offence, to give ease 
 to Catholics. But being so safely prevented, and so 
 necessary to avoid, I doubt not but your Lordship and 
 the rest of the Lords will think of a more mild and 
 undoubted safe course, in which I will undertake the 
 performance of what I have promised and as much as 
 can be expected, and when I have done, I shall be as 
 
APPENDIX C. 249 
 
 willing to die as I am ready to offer my service, and 
 expect not nor desire favour for it, either before the 
 doing it, nor in the doing it, nor after it is done, but 
 refer myself to the resolved course for me. So, leaving 
 to trouble your Lordship any further, I humbly take 
 my leave. Your Lordship's poor bedesman, Ev. 
 DiGBY." 
 
 Addressed " To the Right Honourable the Earl of 
 Salisburie give ihese." 
 
 Sealed. 
 [P. R. O. Dom. James I. xvii. 10.] 
 
 APPENDIX C. (p. 34). 
 
 The Question of Succession. 
 
 Father Parsons' well-known book on this subject, 
 written under the pseudonym of Doleman, was de- 
 nounced by Sir Edward Coke as containing in- 
 numerable treasons and falsehoods. In fact, as may 
 be seen in the work itself, it is an exhaustive and 
 careful statement of the descent of each of the possible 
 claimants, and of other considerations which must 
 enter into the settlement. Sir Francis Inglefield wrote 
 that it was necessary to take some step of this kind, to 
 set men thinking on so important a question which 
 would soon have to be decided, for that the anti- 
 Catholic party had made it treason to discuss it during 
 the queen's life, with intent to foist a successor of their 
 
2SO WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 own selection on the nation, when the moment should 
 arrive, trusting to the ignorance universally prevalent 
 as to the rights of the matter ; but that such lack of 
 information could not help the people to a sound de- 
 cision. [Stonyhurst MSS., Anglia, iii. 32.] 
 
 The Spanish sympathies of Parsons and his party 
 were afterwards made much of as evidence of their 
 traitorous disposition. On this subject it must be 
 noted (i) the Infanta of Spain was amongst those 
 whose claim was urged on genealogical grounds ; (2) 
 the project was to marry her to an English nobleman. 
 As Parsons tells us, when she married and was endowed 
 with another estate, English Catholics ceased to think 
 of her. \Ibid. ii. 444.] (3) Father Garnet notes that, 
 "since the old king of Spain died [1598], there hath 
 been no pretence ... for the Infanta, or the King [of 
 Spain], or any of that family, but for any that should 
 maintain Catholic religion, and principally for His 
 Majesty " [James I.]. [/(J/^. iii. n. 41.] 
 
 A remark of Parsons' on this point, which at the 
 time was considered almost blasphemous, will seem 
 now almost a truism, viz., that the title of particular 
 succession in kingdoms is founded only upon the 
 positive laws of several countries, since neither king- 
 doms nor monarchies are of the essence of human 
 society, and therefore every nation has a right to 
 establish its own kings in what manner it likes, and 
 upon what conditions. Wherefore, as each of the 
 other great parties in England (whom he designates 
 as Protestants and Puritans) will look chiefly to its 
 own political interests, and exact from the monarch of 
 its choice pledges to secure them, it behoves Catholics, 
 being so large a part of the nation, to take their proper 
 
APPENDIX E. 251 
 
 share in the settlement, and therefore to study betimes 
 the arguments on which the claims of the competitors 
 are severally based. 
 
 APPENDIX D. (p. 36). 
 
 The Spanish Treason. 
 
 The history of the alleged treasonable negotiations 
 with Spain, conducted by various persons whose 
 names were afterwards connected with the Gunpowder 
 Plot, appears open to the gravest doubt and suspicion. 
 It would be out of place to discuss the question here, 
 but two articles on the subject, by the present writer, 
 will be found in the Month for May and June, 1896. 
 
 APPENDIX E. (p. 60). 
 
 Site of Percy's lodging [see View, p. 56, and Plan, p. 59]. 
 
 That the lodging hired by Percy stood near the south- 
 east corner of the old House of Lords (i.e. nearer to 
 the river than that building, and adjacent to, if not 
 adjoining, the Prince's Chamber) is shown by the 
 following arguments. 
 
 I. John Shepherd, servant to Whynniard, gave 
 evidence as to having on a certain occasion seen from 
 the river " a boat lye cloase to the pale of Sir Thomas 
 Parreys garden, and men going to and from the water 
 
252 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 through the back door that leadeth into Mr. Percy his 
 lodging." \Gunpowder Plot Book, 40, part 2.] 
 
 2. Faukes, in his examination of November 5th, 
 1605, speaks of " the windowe in his chamber neere the 
 parliament house towards the water side." 
 
 3. It is said that when digging their mine the con- 
 spirators were troubled by the influx of water from the 
 river, which would be impossible if they were working 
 at the opposite side of the Parliament House. 
 
 [It has always been understood that Percy's house 
 stood at the south end of the House of Lords, but 
 Smith {Antiquities of Westminster, p. 39) places it to the 
 south-west instead of the south-east, saying that it stood 
 on the site of what was afterwards the Ordnance Office.] 
 
 APPENDIX F. (p. 64). 
 
 Enrolment of Conspirators. 
 
 The evidence on this point is most contradictory. 
 
 I. The Indictment, on the trial of the conspirators, 
 mentions the following dates. 
 
 May 20th, 1604. [Besides Garnet, Greenway, 
 Gerard, "and other Jesuits,"] there met together T. 
 Winter, Faukes, Keyes, Bates, Catesby, Percy, the 
 two Wrights, and Tresh am, by whom the Plot was 
 approved and undertaken. 
 
 March "ijist, 1605, R. Winter, Grant, and Rokewood 
 were enlisted. 
 
 [No mention is made of Digby, who was separately 
 arraigned, nor in his arraignment is any date speci-' 
 fied.] 
 
APPENDIX F. 253 
 
 2. According to Faukes' confession of November 
 17th, 160S, Percy, Catesby, T. Winter. J. Wright, and 
 himself were the first associates. Soon afterwards 
 C. Wright was added. After Christmas, Keyes was 
 initiated and received the oath. At a later period, 
 Digby, Rokewood, Tresham, Grant, and R. Winter 
 were brought in. Bates is not mentioned. 
 
 [In this document the names of Keyes and R. 
 Winter have been interchanged, in Cecil's writing, and 
 thus it was printed : the latter being made to appear 
 as an earlier confederate.] 
 
 3. According to T. Winter's declaration of November 
 23rd, 1605, Catesby, J. Wright, and himself were the 
 first associates, Percy and Faukes being presently 
 added. Keyes was enlisted before Michaelmas, C. 
 Wright after Christmas, Digby at a later period, and 
 Tresham " last of all." No others are mentioned. 
 
 4. Keyes— November 30th, 1605 — says that he was. 
 inducted a little before Midsummer, 1604. 
 
 5. R. Winter and Grant (January 17th, 1605-6) 
 fix January, 1604-5, for their introduction to the 
 conspiracy, and Bates (December 4th, 1605) gives, 
 the preceding December for his. Neither date agrees 
 with that of the indictment in support of which these: 
 confessions were cited. 
 
 6. There is, of course, no evidence of any kind to. 
 show that Father Garnet and the " other Jesuits " ever 
 had any conference with the conspirators, nor was such 
 a charge urged on his trial. 
 
 7. Sir Everard Digby's case is exceptionallypuzzling.. 
 All the evidence represents him as having been initiated 
 late in September, or early in October, 1605. Among 
 the Hatfield MSS., however, there is a letter addressed. 
 
254 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 to Sir Everard, by one G. D., and dated June nth, 
 1605, which treats ostensibly of a hunt for " the otter 
 that infesteth your brooks," to be undertaken when 
 the hay has been cut, but has been endorsed by 
 Cecil himself, " Letter written to Sir Everard Digby — 
 Powder Treason ;" the minister thus attributing to him 
 a knowledge of the Plot, more than three months be- 
 fore it was ever alleged that he heard of it. 
 
 APPENDIX G. (p. 94). 
 
 Henry Wright the Informer. 
 
 I. Letter to Sir T. Challoner, April, 1604. \Gun- 
 Jiowder Plot Book, n. 236.] 
 
 Good Sir Thomas, I am as eager for setting of the 
 lodgings as you can be, and in truth whereas we de- 
 sired but twenty, the discoverer had set and (if we 
 accept it) can set above three score, but I told him that 
 the State would take it for good service if he set twenty 
 of the most principal Jesuits and seminary priests, and 
 therewithal I gave him thirteen or fourteen names 
 picked out of his own notes, among the which five 
 of them were sworn to the secresy. He saith abso- 
 lutely that by God's grace he will do it ere long, but he 
 stayeth some few days purposely for the coming to 
 town of Tesmond [Greenway] and Kempe, two prin- 
 cipals ; their lodgings are prepared, and they will 
 be here, as he saith for certain, within these two days. 
 For the treason, Davies neither hath nor will unfold 
 
APPENDIX G. 255 
 
 himself for the discovery of it till he hath his pardon 
 for it under seal, as I told you, which is now in great 
 forwardness, and ready to be sealed so that you shall 
 know all. . . . Your worship's most devoted. 
 
 Hen. Wright. 
 
 [A pardon to Joseph Davies for all treasons and 
 other offences appears on the Pardon Roll, April 25 th, 
 1604, thus supplying the approximate date of the 
 above letter.] 
 
 2. Application to the King. [Gunpozvder Plot Book, 
 n. 237.] 
 
 If it may please your Majesty, can you remember 
 that the Lord Chief Justice Popham and Sir Thomas 
 Challoner, Kt., had a hand in the discovery of the prac- 
 tices of the Jesuits in the powder, and did from time 
 reveal the same to your Majesty, for two years' space 
 almost before the said treason burst forth by an 
 obscure letter to the Lord Mounteagle, which your 
 Majesty, like an angel of God, interpreted, touching 
 the blow, then intended to have been given by powder. 
 The man that informed Sir Thomas Challoner and the 
 Lord Popham of the said Jesuitical practices, their 
 meetings and traitorous designs in that matter, whereof 
 from time to time they informed your Majesty, was one 
 Wright, who hath your Majesty's hand for his so doing, 
 and never received any reward for his pains and charges 
 laid out concerning the same. This Wright, if occa- 
 sion serve, can do more service." 
 
 {Addressed, " Mr. Secretary Conway." 
 Headed, " Touching Wright and his services per- 
 formed in the damnable plot of the Powder treason."] 
 
256 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 APPENDIX H. (p. 119). 
 
 Lord Monteagle to King James. (British Museum 
 MSS. Add. 19402, f. 146.) 
 
 " Most gracious Soveraine. — Your maiestyes tender 
 and fatherly love over me, In admonishinge me hear- 
 tofore, to seake resolution In matter of religion, geves 
 me both occasion, and Incouragement, as humbly to 
 thanke your maiestye for this care of my soules good, 
 so to crave leave of gevinge into your maiestyes hand 
 this accompt, that your wisdome, seinge the course and 
 end of my proceadinges, might rest assured that by the 
 healp of god, I will [live and] dye. In that religion 
 which I have nowe resolved to profes. 
 
 " It may please your maiestye therfore to knowe, 
 that as I was breed upp In the Romish religion and 
 walked in that, because I knew no better, so have I not 
 sodainely or lightly made the chaunge, which nowe I 
 desire to be seane In, for I speake, Sir, as before him 
 that shall Judg my soule, I have by praier, for god his 
 gidance, and with voues to him, to walk in that light 
 he should shew me, and by longe carefull and diligent 
 readinge, and conference with lerned men, on both 
 sides,,and impartiall examination of ther profes and 
 argumentes, come to discerne the Ignorance I was 
 formerly wrapped In, as I nowe wonder that ether my 
 self, or any other of common understandinge, showld 
 bee so blynded, as to Imbrace that gods trewth, \stc\ 
 which I nowe perseyue to be grounded uppon so weake 
 foundations. And as I never could digest all poyntes 
 therin, wherof not few seamed to bee made for gaine 
 
APPENDIX H. 257 
 
 and ambition, of the papacye, so nowe I fynde that the 
 hole frame and bodye of that religion (wherin they 
 oppose us) difereth from the platforme, which god him 
 self hath recorded In the holy scriptures, and hath In 
 length of tyme, by the Ignorance and deceiptfulness of 
 men, bene peaced together, and is now maintayned by 
 factious obstinacye, and certain coulerable pretences, 
 such as the wittes and learninge of men, are able to cast 
 uppon any humaine errors, which they list to uphowld. 
 Nether have I left any thinge I doubted of untried or 
 unresolued, becawse I did Intend and desire to so take 
 up the trewth of god, once discouered to me, as neuer 
 to suffer yt to bee questioned any more In my owne 
 consienc. And In all this, Sir, I protest to your- 
 maiestye, before almightye god, I have simply and 
 only propounded to my self the trew seruise of god,, 
 and saluation of my owne soule. Not gaine, not honor,, 
 no not that which I doe most highly valew, your 
 maiestyes fauour, or better opinion of me. Nether on 
 the other side am I affraide of those censures of men 
 whether of the partye I have abandoned, or of others 
 which I shall Incur by this alteration, howldinge yt 
 contentment Innough to my self. That god hath in 
 mercye enlightened my mynde to see his sacred trewth, 
 with desire to serue [the paper here is mutilated] . 
 And rest, your maie[styes] most loyall and obedient 
 servant W. Mownteagle." 
 
 Addressed, " To the Kinge his most excellent 
 Maiestye." 
 
 From the absence of any allusion to the Powder 
 Plot and its " discovery," it appears certain that this 
 letter must have been written previously to it. 
 
 s 
 
2S8 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 On August 1st, 1609, Sir Wm. Waad wrote to 
 Salisbury that the disorders of Lord Monteagle's house 
 were an offence to the country. At this period he 
 appears to have been suspected of conceahng Catholic 
 students from St. Omers. {Calendar of State Papers^ 
 
 APPENDIX I. (p. 140). 
 
 Epitaph ill St. Anne's, Aldersgate. [Maitland, London 
 (1756), p. 1065.] 
 
 " Peter Heiwood, younger son of Peter Heiwood, one 
 of the Counsellors oi Jamaica, . . . Great Grandson to 
 Peter Heiwood of Heywood in the County Palestine 
 of Lancaster ; who apprehended Guy Faux with his 
 dark Lan thorn ; and for his zealous prosecution of 
 Papists, as Justice of Peace, was stabbed in West- 
 minster-Hall by John James, a Dominican Friar, An. 
 Dom. 1640. Obiit Novem. 2. 1701. 
 
 Reader, if not a Papist bred 
 Upon such Ashes gently tread." 
 
 It is to be presumed that the person who died 
 in 1 70 1 is not the same who was stabbed in 1640, 
 or who discovered Guy Faukes in 1605. 
 
 The Dominican records contain no trace of any 
 member of the Order named John James, nor does so 
 remarkable an event as the stabbing of a Justice of 
 Peace in Westminster Hall appear to be. chronicled 
 elsewhere. 
 
APPENDIX K. 259 
 
 Peter Heywood, J .P. for Westminster, was active as 
 a magistrate as late as December 1 5th, 1641. {Calendar 
 of State Papers^ 
 
 APPENDIX K. (p. 173). 
 
 The Use of Torture. 
 
 There can be no doubt that torture was freely em- 
 ployed to extract evidence from the conspirators and 
 others who fell into the hands of the government. 
 
 The Earl of Salisbury, in his letter to Favat, of 
 December 4th, 1605, clearly intimates that this was 
 the case, when he complains " most of the prisoners 
 have wilfully forsworn that the priests knew anything 
 in particular, and obstinately refuse to be accusers of 
 them, ji/^«, what torture soever they be put to." 
 
 About the middle of November, Lord Dunfermline 
 wrote to Salisbury {Dom. fames I. xvi. 81] recommend- 
 ing that the prisoners should be confined apart and in 
 darkness, that they should be examined by torchlight, 
 and that the tortures should be slow and at intervals, 
 as being thus most effectual. 
 
 There is every reason to believe that the Jesuit 
 lay-brother, Nicholas Owen, alias Littlejohn, actually 
 ■died upon the rack. [ Vide Father Gerard's Narrative 
 of the Gunpowder Plot, p. 189.] 
 
 Finally we have the king's instructions as to Faukes 
 {Gunpowder Plot Book, No. 17]. " The gentler tor- 
 tours are to be first usid unto him, et sic per gradus ad 
 
26o WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 ima tenditur^ and so God speede your goode worke."* 
 Guy's signature of November 9th is sufficient evidence 
 that it was none of the "gentler tortours" which he 
 had endured. 
 
 In the violently Protestant account of the execution 
 of the traitors/ we read : " Last of all came the great 
 Devil of all Faukes, who should have put fire to the 
 powder. His body being weak with torture and sick- 
 ness, he was scarce able to go up the ladder, but with 
 much ado, by the help of the hangman, went high 
 enough to brake his neck with the fall." 
 
 APPENDIX L. (p. 227). 
 
 Myths and Legends of the Powder Plot. 
 
 Around the Gunpowder Plot has gathered a mass 
 of fabulous embellishment too curious to be passed 
 
 ' " And so by degrees to the uttermost." 
 
 "^ These instructions furnish an interesting specimen of the 
 king's broad Scotch, e.g., " Quhat Gentlewomans Letter it was. 
 y' was founde upon him, and quhairfor doth she give him an 
 other Name in it y° he giues to himself. If he was ever a 
 papiste ; and if so, quho brocht him up in it. If otherwayes, 
 hou was he convertid, quhair, quhan, and by quhom." 
 
 The following passage is very characteristic of the writer : 
 
 " Nou last, ye remember of the crewellie villanouse pasquille 
 y' rayled upon me for y" name of Brittanie. If I remember richt 
 it spake something of harvest and prophecyed my destructio. 
 about y' tyme. Ye may think of y', for it is lyke to be by y'=" 
 Laboure of such a desperate fellow as y' is." 
 
 ' The Arraignment and execution of the late traitors, etc.„ 
 1606. 
 
APPENDIX L. 261 
 
 over in silence. This has chiefly attached itself to 
 Guy Faukes, who, on account of the desperate part 
 allotted to him has impressed the public mind far 
 more than any of his associates, and has come to 
 be erroneously regarded as the moving spirit of the 
 enterprise. 
 
 One of the best authenticated facts regarding him 
 is that when apprehended he was booted and spurred 
 for a journey, though it is usually said that he was to 
 have travelled by water. 
 
 There is, however, a strange story, told with much 
 circumstantiality, which gives an elaborate but incom- 
 prehensible account of a tragic underplot in connection 
 with him. This is related at considerable length in a 
 Latin hexameter poem, Venatio Catholica, published 
 in 1609, in the History of the Popish Sham Plots, and 
 elsewhere. According to this tangled tale the other 
 conspirators wished both to get rid of Faukes, when 
 he had served their purpose, and to throw the suspicion 
 of their deed upon their enemies, the Puritans. To 
 this end they devised a notable scheme. A certain 
 Puritan, named Pickering, a courtier, but a godly man, 
 foremost amongst his party, had a fine horse (" Buce- 
 phalum egregium "). This, Robert Keyes, his brother- 
 in-law, purchased or hired, and placed at the service of 
 Faukes for his escape. The steed was to await him 
 at a certain spot, but in a wood hard by assassins were 
 to lurk, who, when Guy appeared, should murder him, 
 and having secured the money with which he was 
 furnished, should leave his mangled corpse beside the 
 /Bucephalus, known as Mr. Pickering's. Thus Faukes 
 would be able to tell no tales, and — though it does not 
 appear why — suspicion would be sure to fall on the 
 
262 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Puritan, and he would be proclaimed as the author of 
 
 the recent catastrophe. 
 
 " Hoc astu se posse rati convertere in hostes 
 Flagitii infamiam, causamque capessere vulgo 
 Qua Puritanos invisos reddere possent, 
 Ut tantas authores, tarn immanis proditionis. 
 Cognito equo, et facta (pro more) indagine caedis, 
 Aulicus hie sceleris tanquam fabricator atrocis 
 Proclamandus erat, Falso (ne vera referre 
 Et socios sceleris funesti prodere possit) 
 Sublato." 
 
 Many curious circumstances have likewise been im- 
 ported into the history, and many places connected 
 with it which appear to have no claim whatever to 
 such a distinction. 
 
 Thus we hear {England's Warning Peece) that the 
 Jesuit Cresswell came over from Spain for the occasion 
 " to bear his part with the rest of his society in a 
 victorial song of thanksgiving." Also that on Novem- 
 ber 5 th, a large body of confederates assembled at 
 Hampstead to see the House of Parliament go up in 
 the air. 
 
 In the Gentleman's Magazine, February, 1783, is a 
 remarkable description of a summer house, in a garden 
 at Newton Hall, near Kettering, Northamptonshire, in 
 which the plotters used to meet and conspire, the 
 place then belonging to the Treshams ; " and for 
 greater security, they placed a conspirator at each 
 window, Guy Faukes, the arch villain, standing in the 
 doorway, to prevent anybody overhearing them." 
 
 According to a wide-spread belief Guy Faukes was 
 a Spaniard.' He has also been called a Londoner, and 
 
 ' See, for instance, London and the Kingdom (mainly from 
 the Guildhall Archives), by Reginald R. Sharpe, ii. 13. 
 
APPENDIX L. 263 
 
 his name being altered to Vaux, has been said to have 
 a family connection with Vauxhall. He was in fact a 
 Yorkshireman of good family, though belonging to a 
 younger branch of no great estate. His father, Edward 
 Faukes, was a notary at York, where he held the office 
 of registrar and advocate of the cathedral church. Guy 
 himself was an educated man, more than commonly 
 well read. He is always described in the process as 
 " Guido Faukes, Gentleman." 
 
 Another most extraordinary example of an obvious 
 myth, which was nevertheless treated as sober history, 
 is furnished by the absurd statement that the astute 
 and wily Jesuits not only contrived the Plot, but pub- 
 lished its details to the world long before its attempted 
 execution, in order to vindicate to themselves the credit 
 of so glorious, a design. Thus Bishop Kennet, in a 
 fifth of November sermon, preached at St. Paul's 
 before the Lord Mayor, in 171 5, tells us : ' 
 
 " It was a general surmise at least among the 
 whole Order of Jesuits in foreign parts : or else one of 
 them could hardly have stated the case so exactly 
 some four or five years before it broke out. Father 
 Del- Rio, in a treatise printed An. 1600, put the case, 
 as- if he had already looked into the Mine and Cellars, 
 and had surveyed the barrels of powder in them, and 
 had heard the whole confessions of Faux and Catesby." 
 
 This "general surmise" does not appear to have 
 been confined to the Jesuits themselves. Another 
 ingenious writer, nearly a century earlier,^ tells a 
 wonderful story concerning the sermon of a Dominican, 
 
 ' P. 9. 
 
 ^ Lewis Owen, Umnasking of all popish Monks, etc. (1628), 
 
 p. 49- 
 
264 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 preached in the same year, 1600, wherein it was re- 
 lated how there was a special hell, beneath the other, 
 for Jesuits, so thick and fast did they arrive as to need 
 extra accommodation. The preacher avowed that 
 he had, in his vision of the place, given warning to the 
 demon in charge of it, " to search them with speed, for 
 fear that they had conveyed hither some gunpowder 
 with them, for they are very skilfull in Mine-workes, 
 and in blowing up of whole States and Parliament- 
 houses, and if they can blow you all up, then the 
 Spanyards will come and take your kingdom from 
 you." 
 
 Another notable specimen of the way in which 
 reason and probability were cast to the winds is 
 afforded by two letters written from Naples in 1610, 
 one to King James and the other to Salisbury, by Sir 
 Edwin Rich,' who announced that Father Greenway 
 — who of all the Jesuits was said to be most clearly 
 convicted as a traitor — intended to send to the king a 
 present of an embroidered satin doublet and hose, 
 which, being craftily poisoned, would be death to him 
 if he put them on. 
 
 APPENDIX M. 
 
 Sir William Waad's Memorial Inscriptions. 
 
 In a room of the Queen's House in the Tower, in 
 which the conspirators are supposed to have been 
 examined by the Lords of the Council, Sir William 
 
 ' Dom. James I. Ivii. 92-93, October 5th. 
 
APPENDIX M. 265 
 
 Waad has left a series of inscriptions as memorials 
 of the events in which he played so large a part. Of 
 these the most noteworthy are the following : 
 
 I. 
 
 Jacobus Magnus, Magnae Biitanniae 
 
 rex, pietate, justitia, prudentia, doctrina, fortitudine, 
 
 dementia, ceterisq. virtutibus regiis clariss'^ Christianae 
 
 fidei, salutis publicse, pacis universalis propugnator, fautor 
 
 auctor acerrimus, augustiss', auspicatiss'. 
 
 Anna Regina Frederici 2. Danorum Regis invictiss' filia sereniss', 
 
 Henricus princeps, naturse ornamentis, doctrinas prassidiis, gratias 
 
 Muneribus, instructiss', nobis et natus et a deo datus, 
 
 Carolus dux Eboracensis divina ad omnem virtutem indole,' 
 
 Elizabetha utriusq. soror Germana, utroque parente dignissima 
 
 Hos velut pupillam oculi tenellam 
 
 providus muni, procul impiorum 
 
 impetu alarum tuarum intrepidos 
 
 conde sub umbra. 
 
 [This is evidently intended for a Sapphic stanza, but 
 the last two words of v. 3 have been transposed, 
 destroying the metre.] 
 
 II. 
 
 Robertus Cecil, Comes Sarisburiensis, summus et regis 
 
 Secretarius, et AnglicE thesaurarius, clariss' patris 
 
 et de repub. meritissimi filius, in paterna munera 
 
 successor longe dignissimus ; 
 
 Henricus, comes Northamptoniae, quinq. portuum praefectus et 
 
 privati sigilli custos, disertorum litteratissimus, litterato- 
 
 rum disertissimus ; 
 
 Carolus comes Nottingamias, magnus Angliae admirallus 
 
 victoriosus ; 
 
 Thomas Suffolcias comes, regis camerarius splendidissimus, 
 
 tres viri nobilissimi ex antiqua Howardorum familia, ducumq. 
 
 Norfolciae prosapia ; 
 
 ' At the time of the Plot Charles was not quite five years old. 
 
266 
 
 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Edwardus Somersetus, comes Wigorniae, equis regiis praefectus 
 
 ornatissimus ; 
 
 Carolus Blunt, comes Devonise, Hybernice prorex et pacificator, 
 
 J Cannes Areskinus, ' illustris Marrise comes, prsecipuarum in Scotia 
 
 arcium praefectus ; 
 
 Georgius Humius, Dunbari comes, Scotise thesaurarius 
 
 prudentiss' 
 
 omnes illustriss' ordinis garteri milites ; 
 
 Joannes Popham, miles, justiciarius Angliae capitalis, 
 
 et justitias consultissimus : 
 
 Hi omnes illustrissimi viri, quorum nomina ad sempiternam 
 eorum memoriam posteritati consecrandam proxime supra ad 
 lineam posita sunt, ut regi a consiliis, ita ab eo delegati qusesi- 
 tores, reis singulis incredibili diligentia ac cura saepius appel- 
 latis, nee minore solertia et dexteritate pertentatis eorum animis, 
 eos suis ipsorum inter se coUatis responsionibus convictos, ad 
 voluntariam confessionem adegerunt : et latentem nefarie con- 
 jurationis seriem, remq. omnem ut hactenus gesta et porro per 
 eos gerenda esset, summa fide erutam, seterna cum laude sua, in 
 lucem produxerunt, adeo ut divina singulari providentia effectum 
 sit, ut tarn prsesens, tamq. foeda tempestas, a regia majestate, 
 liberisq. regiis, et omni regno depulsa, in ipsos autores eorumq. 
 socios redundarit. 
 
 III. 
 
 Conjuratorum Nomina, ad perpetuam ipsorum infamiam et 
 tantae diritatis detestationem sempiternam. 
 
 Monachi r Henry Garnet 
 salutare John Gerrard 
 
 Jesu J. Oswald Tesond 
 
 nome I Hamo 
 ementiti \. Baldwi 
 
 Thomas Winter 
 Robert Winter 
 John Winter 
 Guy Fawkes 
 Thomas Bates 
 Everard Digby, K. 
 Am' Rookewood 
 John Graunt 
 Robert Keyes 
 Henry Morga 
 
 ' Erskine. 
 
 Thomas Percy 
 Robert Catesby 
 John Wright 
 Christopher Wright 
 Francis Tresham 
 Thomas Abbington 
 Edmond Baineham, K. 
 William Stanley, K. 
 Hughe Owen. 
 
APPENDIX M. 267 
 
 IV. 
 
 Besides the above there is a prolix description of 
 the Plot, devised against the best of sovereigns, "a 
 Jesuitis Romanensibus, perfidise Catholicae et impie- 
 tatis viperinae autoribus et assertoribus, aliisq. ejusdem 
 amentiae scelerisq. patratpribus et sociis suscepts, et in 
 ipso pestis derepente inferendae articulo (salutis anno 
 1605, mensis Novembris die quinto), tarn praeter spem. 
 quam supra fidem mirifice et divinitus detectae." 
 
 There is, moreover, a sentence in Hebrew, with 
 Waad's cipher beneath, and a number of what seem 
 to be meant for verses. The following lines are 
 evidently the I^ieutenant's description of his own 
 office : 
 
 " Custodis Custos sum, Career Carceris, arcis 
 Arx, atque Argu' Argus'; sum speculas specula:; 
 
 Sum vinclum in vinclis ; compes cum compede, clavu 
 Firmo hsercns, teneo tentus, habens habeor. 
 
 Dum regi regnoq. salus stet firma quieta, 
 
 Splendida sim Compes Compedis usque licet." 
 
 This is considerably more metrical and intelligible 
 than some of the rest. 
 
 In 161 3 Waad was dismissed from his post, one of 
 the charges against him being that he had embezzled 
 the jewels of Arabella Stuart.' 
 
 In Theobald's Memoirs of Sir Walter Raleigh 
 (p. 16), Waad is described as "the Lieutenant of the 
 Tower, and Cecil's great Creature." 
 
 ' Dotn. James I. Ixxii. 129. 
 
268 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 APPENDIX N. 
 The Published Confession of Guv Faukes. A, 
 
 The draft, November %th, 1605 (G. P. B. 49). 
 
 *,* Passages between square brackets have been cancelled. 
 Those marked * have been ticked off for omission. 
 
 The Confession of Guy Fawkes, taken the 8 of 
 November, 1605. 
 
 He confesseth that a Practise in generall was first 
 broken unto him, agaynst his Majesty, for the Catho- 
 lique cause, and not invented or propounded by him- 
 self, and this was first propounded unto him about 
 Easter last was twelvemonth, beyond the seas in the 
 Low countreyes, by an English Lay-man, and that 
 English man came over with him in his company into 
 England, and they tow and three more weare the first 
 five mencioned in the former examination. And they 
 five resolving to do some thinge for the Catholick cause, 
 — a vowe being first taken by all of them for secrecye, 
 — one of the other three propounded to perform it 
 with Powder, and resolved that the place should be, — 
 where this action should be performed and justice 
 done, — in or neere the place of the sitting of the 
 Parliament, wherein Religion had been uniustly sup- 
 pressed. This beeinge resolved the manner [of it] 
 was as followeth. 
 
APPENDIX N, 269 
 
 The Published Confession of Guy Faukes. B. 
 
 As signed by Faukes, November lytk, 1605 
 (G. P. B. loi). 
 
 *!ii* Square brackets indicate an erasure. Italics an 
 addition or substitution. 
 
 The [deposition] declaration of Guy Fawkes 
 prisonner in the Tower of London taken the iT of 
 Nov. 1605, acknowledged before the Lords Com- 
 missioners} 
 
 A. I confesse that a practise in generall was first 
 broken unto me against his Majestie, for re leife .of th& 
 Catholique cause, and not invented or propounded by 
 my self 
 
 And this was first propounded unto me about 
 Easter last was twelvemonth, beyond the Seas, in 
 the Low countries of the Archdukes obeysance by 
 Thomas Wynter, who came thereupon with me into 
 England, and there wee imparted our purpose to 
 three other Englishmen more, namely Rob' Catesby,, 
 Tho' Percy, and John Wright, who all five consulting 
 together of the meanes how to execute the same, and 
 taking a vowe among our selves for secresie Catesby 
 propounded to have it performed by Gunpowder, and 
 by making a myne under the upper house of Parlia- 
 ment, which place wee made choice of the rather,. 
 
 ' Alterations and additions (in italics) made by Sir Edward. 
 Coke. 
 
2.-JO WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT ? 
 \_A. The draft.'] 
 
 First they hyred the Howse at Westminster of one 
 Ferris/ and havinge the howse they sought to make a 
 myne under the upper howse of Parhament, and they 
 begann to make the myne in or about the xi of 
 December, and they five first entered into the worke, 
 and soone after toke an other unto them, havinge first 
 sworne him and taken the Sacrament, for secrecye. 
 And when they came to the wall, — that was about 
 three yards thicke, — and found it a matter of great 
 •difficultie, they tooke to them an other in like manner, 
 with oath and Sacrament as afore sayd. All which 
 seaven, were gentlemen of name and bloode, and not 
 any man was employed in or about that action, — noe 
 not so much as in digginge and myning that was not 
 a gentleman. And having wrought to the wall before 
 Christmas, they reasted untill after the holydayes, and 
 the day before Christmas, — having a masse of earth 
 that came out of the myne, — they carryed it into the 
 •Garden of the said Howse, and after Christmas they 
 wrought on the wall till Candlemas, and wrought the 
 wall half through, and sayeth that all the tyme while 
 the others wrought he stood as Sentynell to descrie 
 any man that came neere, and when any man came 
 neere to the place, uppon warninge given by him they 
 rested untill they had notyce to proceed from hym, 
 and sayeth that they seaven all lay in the Howse, and 
 had shott and powder, and they all resolved to dye in 
 that place before they yeilded or weare taken. 
 ' This name has seemingly been tampered with. 
 
APPENDIX N. 271 
 
 [B. The Confession as signed?[ 
 because Religion having been uniustly suppressed 
 there, it was fittest that Justice and punishment should 
 be executed there. 
 
 B. This being resolved amongst us, Thomas Percy- 
 hired a howse at Westminster for that purpose, neare 
 adjoyning the Pari' howse, and there wee beganne to 
 make a myne about the xi of December 1604. The 
 fyve that entered into the woorck were Thomas Percye, 
 Robert Catesby, Thomas Wynter, John Wright, and 
 my self, and soon after we tooke another unto us, 
 Christopher Wright, having sworn him also, and taken 
 the Sacrament for secrecie. 
 
 C. When wee came to the verie foundation of the 
 Wall of the house, which was about 3 yeards thick, 
 and found it a matter of great difficultie, we took to 
 us another gentleman Robert [Wynter] Keys ^ in like 
 manner with our oathe and Sacrament as aforesaid. 
 
 D. \t was about Christmas when wee brought our 
 myne unto the Wall, and about Candlemas we had 
 wrought the Wall half through. And whilst they were 
 ,a working, I stood as sentinell, to descrie any man 
 that came neare, whereof I gave them warning, and 
 so they ceased untill I gave them notice agayne to 
 proceede. All wee seaven lay in the house, and had 
 shott and powder, being resolved to dye in that place 
 before we should yeild or be taken. 
 
 ' Changed by Cecil ; but on November 14th, writing to 
 Edmondes, he included Keyes amongst those that "wrought 
 not in the myne," and R. Winter amongst those who did. 
 
2/2 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 [A. Thedraft?^ 
 
 And as they weare workinge, they heard a riishinge 
 in the cellar which grew by one^ Brights selling of his 
 coles whereuppon this Examinant, fearinge they had 
 been discovered, went into the cellar and viewed the 
 cellar, and perceivinge the commoditye thereof for their 
 purposs, and understandinge how it would be letten 
 his maister, M'' Percy, hyred the Cellar for a yeare, 
 for 4 pounds rent. And confesseth that after Christmas 
 2o'^barrellsof Powder weare brought by themselves to 
 a Howse which they had on the Banksyde in Hampers, 
 and from that Howse removed the powder to the sayd 
 Howse, neere the upper Howse of Parliament. And 
 presently upon hyringe the cellar, they themselfs removed 
 the powder into the cellar, and couvered the same 
 with faggots which they had before layd into the sellar. 
 
 After, about Easter, he went into the Low Coun- 
 tryes, — as he before hath declared in his former examina- 
 tion, — and that the trew purpos of his goinge over was 
 least beinge a dangerous man he should be known and 
 suspected, and in the meane tyme he left the key [of 
 the cellar] with M" Percye, whoe in his absence caused 
 more Billetts to be layd into the Cellar, as in his former 
 examination he confessed, and retourned about the end 
 of August or the beginninge of September, and went 
 agayne to the sayd howse, nere to the sayd cellar, and 
 received the key of the cellar agayne of one of the five. 
 And then they brought in five or six barrells of powder 
 more into the cellar, which all soe they couvered with 
 billetts, saving fower little barrells covered with ffag.- 
 gots, and then this examinant went into the Country 
 about the end of September. 
 
 ' Interlined. 
 
APPENDIX N. 273 
 
 [B. The Confession as signed?)^ 
 E. As they were working upon the wall, they 
 heard a rushing in a cellar of removing of coles ; 
 whereupon wee feared wee had been discovered, and 
 they sent me to go to the cellar, who fynding that 
 the coles were a selling, and that the Cellar was to 
 be lett, viewing the commoditye thereof for our pur- 
 pose, Percy went and hired the same for yearly Rent. 
 Wee had before this provyded and brought into the 
 house 20 barrells of Powder, which wee removed into 
 the Cellar, and covered the same with billets and fagots, 
 which we provided for that purpose. 
 
 F. About Easter, the Parliament being proroged tyll 
 October next, wee dispersed our selfs and I retired 
 into the Low countryes, by advice and direction of the 
 rest, as well to acquaint Owen with the particulars of 
 the plot, as also ' lest by my longer staye I might have 
 grown suspicious, and so have come in question. 
 
 In the meane tyme Percy, having the key of the 
 Cellar, layd in more powder and wood into it. 
 
 I returned about the beginning of September next 
 and then receyving the key againe of Percy, we brought 
 in more powder and billets to cover the same againe. 
 
 ' The words italicised are added in the published version. 
 
274 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT ? 
 
 [A. T/ie draft.] 
 
 * It appeareth the powder was in the cellar, placed 
 as it was found the 5 of November, when the Lords 
 came to proroge the Parliament, and sayeth that he 
 returned agayne to the sayd Howse neare the cellar on 
 Wednesday the 30 of October. 
 
 [He confesseth he was at the Erie of Montgomeryes 
 marriage, but as he sayeth with noe intention of evill, 
 havinge a sword about him, and was very neere to his 
 Majesty and the Lords there present.] 
 
 Forasmuch as they knew not well how they should 
 come by the person of the Duke Charles, beeinge neere 
 London, where they had no forces, — if he had not been 
 all soe blowne upp, — He confesseth that it was re- 
 solved amonge them, that the same day that this detest- 
 able act should have been performed, the same day 
 should other of their confederacye have surprised the 
 person of the Lady Elizabeth, and presently have pro- 
 claimed her queen [to which purpose a Proclamation 
 was drawne, as well to avowe and justify the Action, as 
 to have protested against the Union, and in no sort to 
 have meddeled with Religion therein. And would have 
 protested all soe agaynst all strangers] and this pro- 
 clamation should have been made in the name of the 
 Lady Elizabeth. 
 
 * Beinge demanded why they did not surprise the 
 Kinges person and drawhimtothe effectinge of theirpur- 
 pose, sayeth that soe many must have been acquaynted 
 with such anactionas it couldnothave been kept secrett. 
 
 He confesseth that if their purpose had taken effect 
 untill they had power enough they would not have 
 avowed the deed to be theirs ; but if their power, — for 
 their defence and safetye, — had been sufficient they 
 themselfes would have taken it upon them. 
 
APPENDIX N. 275 
 
 [B. The Confession as signed^ 
 And so [I] went for a tyme into the country, till the 
 30 of October. 
 
 G. \t was farther resolved amongst us that the same 
 day that this action should have been performed some 
 other of our confederates should have surprised the 
 person of the Lady Elizabeth the Kings eldest daughter, 
 who was kept in Warwickshire at the Lo. Harringtons 
 house, and presently have proclaimed her for Queene, 
 having a project of a Proclamation ready for the pur- 
 pose, wherein we made no mention of alterin'g of 
 Religion, 
 
 nor would have avowed the deed to be ours 
 
 untill we should have had power enough to make 
 our partie good, and then we would have avowed 
 both. _ „ 
 
2/6 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT ? 
 
 [A. Thedraft?^ 
 
 * They meant all soe to have sent for the Prisoners 
 in the Tower to have come to them, of whom particu- 
 larly they had some consultation. 
 
 * He confesseth that the place of Rendez-vous was 
 in Warwickshire, and that armour was sent thither, 
 but the particular thereof he knowes not. 
 
 He confesseth that they had consultation for the 
 takinge of the Lady Marye into their possession, but 
 knew not how to come by her. 
 
 And confesseth that provision was made by some of 
 the conspiracye of some armour of proofe this last 
 Summer for this Action. 
 
 * He confesseth that the powder was bought of the 
 common Purse of the Confederates. 
 
 L. Admyrall ^ 
 
 L. Chamberlayne 
 Erie of Devonshire 
 Erie of Northampton 
 Erie of Salisbury 
 Erie of Marr 
 L. cheif Justice 
 [Endorsed] Examination of Guy Fauks, Nov' 
 1605. 
 
 attended by M' 
 Attorney generall. 
 
APPENDIX N. 277 
 
 [B. The Confession as signed^ 
 H. Concerning Duke Charles, the Kings second 
 son, we hadd sundrie consultations how to sease on his 
 person, but because wee found no meanes how to com- 
 passe it, — the Duke being kept near London, — where 
 we had not forces enough, wee resolved to serve our- 
 selves with the Lady Elizabeth. 
 
 /. The names of other principall persons that were 
 made privie afterwards to this horrible conspiracie. 
 
 \^Signed\ GuiDO Faukes. 
 Everard Digby, Knight 
 Ambrose Ruckwood 
 Francis Tresham 
 John Grant 
 
 Robert [Keys] Wynter 
 [Witnessed] Edw. Coke W. Waad. 
 [Endorsed] Fawkes his [deposition] declaration ly 
 Nov. 1605} " 
 
 ^ Words in italics added by Coke. 
 
2/8 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 APPENDIX O. (p. 41). 
 
 Recusants^ Fines. 
 
 The accompanying diagram exhibits the amount of 
 " Money answered and paid into the Receipt to fines 
 and leases, rents of Recusants," during the twelve 
 years 1598-1609, there being two collections yearly, at 
 Easter and Michaelmas. 
 
 The information upon which it is based is supplied 
 by a paper in the Landsdune MSS., cliii., f 190. 
 
 It will be observed that immediately upon the ac- 
 cession of James I. the receipts dropped almost to the 
 vanishing point, and that in the term immediately 
 preceding the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot they 
 suddenly rose to a figure largely in excess of that 
 reached during the last years of Elizabeth, the rise 
 being coincident with Salisbury's solicitude to remove 
 the idea that the King was disposed towards a policy 
 of toleration.^ It is likewise evident, from various 
 documents in the same MS. volume, that the King's 
 advisers were extremely displeased to see His 
 Majesty's revenue impoverished by the cessation of 
 so important a contribution as the fines levied on 
 recusants had supplied. 
 
 ' Sup., p. 105. 
 
APPENDIX O. 
 
 279 
 
 ELIZABETH. 
 
 JAMES I. 
 
 ;£40o 
 200 
 
 5,000 
 800 
 600 
 400 
 200 
 
 4,000 
 800 
 600 
 400 
 200 
 
 3,000 
 800 
 600 
 400 
 200 
 
 2,000 
 800 
 600 
 400 
 200 
 
 1,000 
 800 
 600 
 400 
 
 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 
 i ij i ij i ij i ij i ij i ij i ij i ij i ij i ij i ij i ij 
 
 000>-t^O'-"MO "^ VO *^ C 
 
 00 u-»m^"^'^Ooo\o fO"^ 
 
 0^vo^nO^O^•-'^000 QvOOOvO 
 
 iH co"^Moo w ■<;^c^oo COM fo 
 
 s^ 
 
 ■"d-coooooooooo ■^'-t r^vO "-• 00 N 
 
 r^ 0\ ON 00 00 "^ M "^ M 
 CON ■^ CO LnrOOO C> 00^ 
 
 i = Easter. 
 
 : Michaelmas. 
 
28o WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT ? 
 
 In considering the statistics here presented, it must 
 be remembered that the sums specified represent at 
 least ten times the same amount in money of the 
 present day, probably a good deal more. 
 
 Moreover, these figures show only a part of the 
 burden imposed upon recusants, indicating merely the 
 sums paid into the Crown Office. " It must be borne 
 in mind," says Dom Gasquet,' " that the receipts of 
 the exchequer were but a trifle compared to the losses 
 sustained by Catholics by the methods employed to 
 collect the fines, and the consequent waste and wanton 
 destruction of their goods, and the vast sums which 
 found their way into the hands of courtiers, parasites, 
 and favourites to whom recusants were given to farm 
 and pursuivants and informers who made Catholics 
 pay for their forbearance." 
 
 Incomplete, however, though they are, these returns 
 serve sufficiently to indicate the course of the policy 
 pursued at various times. 
 
 ^ Hampshire Recusants, p. 33. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abbot, Robert, Bishop of Salisbury, 
 his version of the missing confes- 
 sions of Faukes, 192 seq. 
 
 Acton, Robert, 113. 
 
 Alabaster, Thomas, a priest in 
 government employ, 204 note. 
 
 Andrew, William, servant to Sir E. 
 Digby, evidence of, 78 note. 
 
 Annals of England, cited, 48. 
 
 Answere to Scandalous papers 
 (Cecil's manifesto), 44, 219 seq. 
 
 Babington's Plot, 14. 
 
 Baldwin, Father William, S. J. ; 
 allegations against him, 185, 187 
 seq. ; which are not substantiated, 
 195 ; correspondence with Father 
 Schondonck, 201, 222. 
 
 Bancroft, Richard, Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, 46, 147. 
 
 Barlow, Thomas, Bishop of Lincoln, 
 62, 70 note. 
 
 Barnes, a government agent, 112. 
 
 Bartlett, George, servant to Catesby, 
 his evidence reported, 160. 
 
 Bates, Thomas, servant to Catesby, 
 his introduction to the Conspiracy, 
 3, 178 ; his alleged evidence 
 against Greenway, 178-183 ; trial 
 and execution, 6. See also Con- 
 spirators. 
 
 Batty, Matthew, evidence regarding 
 Monteagle, 78 note. 
 
 " Blackfriars Downfall," the, 242. 
 
 Blount, Father Richard, S.J., on 
 government intelligence, 77 ! 01 
 Suffolk's proposal of toleration, 
 224; on Cecil's "new stratagem," 
 224, 225. 
 
 Brayley and Britton (Palace of 
 Westminster), 79 note. 
 
 Brewer, Rev. John Sherren, on the 
 fate of Parry, the conspirator, 
 14; on government devices, 15; 
 on Cecil's knowledge of the Plot, 
 48 ; on the Monteagle letter, 117. 
 
 Bromley, Sir Henry, Sheriff of 
 Worcestershire, 167 note. 
 
 Buck, Mr., alleged warning given 
 to, 51 note, 106. 
 
 Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop of Salis- 
 bury, 46. 
 
 "Bye," the, 15 note. 
 
 Camden, Williamj the historian, 36 
 note. 
 
 Capon, William, on the old Palace 
 of Westminster, 79, 86 ; on traces 
 of the mine, 87. 
 
 Carleton, Dudley, afterwards Vis- 
 count Dorchester, patronized by 
 Cecil, 62 ; assists Percy to hire 
 
282 
 
 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 the house at Westminster, 6i ; re- 
 ports the French version of the 
 Plot, 140 ; and its contradiction, 
 141 ; his mysterious connection 
 with the Conspiracy, 150 note; 
 his opinion of Percy, 150. 
 
 Castlemaine, Earl of (Roger Palmer), 
 on State plots, 14, 48 ; on 
 Osborne's qualifications as an his- 
 torian, 44 nole ; on the fate of 
 decoy ducks, 152. 
 
 Carte, Thomas ( General History of 
 England), 46. 
 
 Carey, -, evidence regarding 
 
 Percy, 150. 
 
 Catesby, Robert, a ringleader in 
 the Conspiracy, 9, 64 ; his cha- 
 racter and antecedents, 35 seq. ; 
 persuades his associates not to 
 reveal their project to priests, 
 179 ; undertakes to proclaim the 
 new sovereign, 83 ; his death, 4, 
 152 seq. ; suspicions concerning 
 him, 156, 160. See also Con- 
 spirators. 
 
 Catholics, their numbers, 28 ; their 
 condition under Elizabeth, 29 ; 
 their hopes from James, 31, 33, 
 247, 248 ; his promises to them, 
 29 ; they welcome his accession, 
 ibid, 34 ; temporary relief at his 
 hands, ihid ; their consequent 
 increase, 28, 30 ; renewal of 
 persecution against them, 31-2, 
 276-8 ; Cecil's hostility, 28, 30, 
 47, 48, 51, 105 ; atterhpt to charge 
 them with the Plot, 4-6, 107, 108 ; 
 legislation against them on ac- 
 count of it, 212 seq. ; its lasting 
 effects in their regard, 209, 225. 
 
 Cecil, Robert, first Earl of Salis- 
 bury, his character, 19 seq. ; 
 
 dignities conferred by James T., 
 19 note; and nicknames, 19 
 note; his unpopularity, 21 seq. ; 
 difficulties and dangers of his 
 position, 26 seq. ; in the pay of 
 Spain, 21 ; and probably of 
 France, 22 note; his secret cor- 
 respondence with King James, 
 21 ; his intrigues against North- 
 umberland and Raleigh, 26, 198, 
 216; hostility to the Catholics, 
 27) 95) 105 ; anxiety on account 
 of the king's attitude, 28 ; and 
 dealings with Pope Clement VI II. , 
 104 ; endeavours to commit 
 James to a policy of intolerance, 
 105 ; his political methods, 44, 
 III; employs the services of 
 forgers, 112 note, 203 ; his know- 
 ledge of the Plot, g/\.seq. ; alleged 
 secret dealings with Percy, 15 ; 
 Tresham, 158 ; and Catesby, 160 ; 
 contradicts himself concerning the 
 " discovery," 123 seq. ; his inex- 
 plicable delay in making it, 132 ; 
 and conduct afterwards, 137; 
 was not taken by surprise, 210 ; 
 at once turns the Plot to his ad- 
 vantage, 213 ; his determination 
 to incriminate priests, 4 seq., 
 130 ; advantages reaped by him, 
 30, 213 seq. ; his Manifesto, 218 
 seq. ; suspected of having origin- 
 ated or manipulated the Con- 
 spiracy, 43 seq. ; alleged attempt 
 to float a second Plot, 225. 
 
 Cecil, Thomas, first Earl of Exeter, 
 19 note, 160 note. 
 
 Cecil, William, second Earl of Salis- 
 bury, his testimony reported, 160. 
 
 Cecil, William, a priest in govern- 
 ment employ, 45 note. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 283 
 
 " Cellar," the, its situation and 
 character, 58, 79 nole ; hired by 
 the conspirators, 69 seq. ; prob- 
 lems concerning it, 87 seq. ; its 
 after history, 137 ; accompanies 
 the migrations of the House of 
 Lords, 80 note. 
 
 Challoner, Sir Thomas, information 
 addressed to, 94, 95. 
 
 Chamberlain, John, M. P., on Cecil's 
 death and character, 23, 24 ; ac- 
 count of the "discovery," 128; 
 on the King's lucky day, 231 ; on 
 Percy's character, 150. 
 
 Charles, Duke of York, afterwards 
 Charles I. ; plans of the con- 
 spirators regarding him, 81 seq. 
 
 Chichester, Sir Arthur, Deputy in 
 Ireland, 4, 108, 124. 
 
 Coal, Father Green way's descrip- 
 tion of, 71 noie. 
 
 Cobham, eighth Lord (Henry 
 Brooke), his charge of forgery 
 against Waad, 202. 
 
 Cobham, ninth Lord (William 
 Brooke), his evidence reported, 
 
 45- 
 
 Coke, Sir Edward, Attorney-Gene- 
 ral, his falsification of evidence, 
 200 ; Cecil's instructions to him, 
 116 note; his assertions, 85, 88; 
 interrogatories prepared by him, 
 176; his humour, 63 note ; proofs 
 against Owen, 190 ; witnesses 
 Thomas Winter's declaration, 
 1 69 ; and that of Faukes, 1 72 ; 
 his treatment of Raleigh and 
 Northumberland, 217. 
 
 Coleridge, Lord Chief Justice, on 
 the English penal laws, 29 note. 
 
 Conspirators, the, list of, 2, 3 ; 
 their character and antecedents, 
 
 35-41 ; their enrolment, 9, 64, 
 252 ; their plans and proceedings, 
 9-1 1, 60 seq. ; mining operations, 
 10, 63 ; incredibility of the story, 
 65 seq., 76 seq., 141 ; they hire 
 the " cellar," 69 seq. ; purchase 
 and store gunpowder, 78 ; difficul- 
 ties concerning it, 78, 132, 134- 
 137; further designs, II, 80-82 ; 
 alarmed by the prorogation, 1 14, 
 230 ; flight and attempted re- 
 bellion, 2 ; their fate, 4-6. 
 
 Cope, Sir Walter, on the character 
 of Cecil, 27 note. 
 
 Cornwallis, Sir Charles, English 
 Ambassador in Spain, on the 
 character of the conspirators, 40 ; 
 letter to Father Gresswell, 195 ; 
 on the Catholic design to murder 
 Cecil, 221 note. 
 
 Cresswell, Father Joseph, S.J., 
 allegations concerning him, 195 ; 
 Cornwallis' letter to him, tiid. 
 
 Dacre, Francis, titular Lord, efforts 
 to connect him with the Plot, 
 
 177- 
 
 Darnley, Henry, Lord, father of 
 James I., the victim of a gun- 
 powder plot, 37, 50. 
 
 Davenport, Father Christopher, 
 O.P. (Francis a S. Clara), 145 
 note. 
 
 Davies, Joseph, a government "dis- 
 coverer," 94. 
 
 De Beaumont, M., French Ambas- 
 sador, 119 note. 
 
 De la Boderie, M., French Ambas- 
 sador, on Cecil's insecurity, 26 ; 
 on the ruin of Northumberland, 
 
 23- 
 
 Del-Rio, Father Martin, S.J., said 
 
284 
 
 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 to have described the Plot a.d. 
 1600, 263. 
 
 Derby, Ear] of (William Stanley), 
 attempt to incriminate him, 198. 
 
 De Ros, Lord, on Faukes' plan of 
 escape, 144 note. 
 
 Devonshire, Earl of(CharlesBlount), 
 168 note, 170 note, 211, 266. 
 
 Digby, Sir Everard, joins the Con- 
 spiracy, 10, 253 ; difficulties and 
 contradictions regarding him, 79 
 Tiote, 253 ; his letter to Salisbury, 
 33, 245 ; part assigned to him, 78 
 note ; his fate, 6. See also Con- 
 spirators. 
 
 Digby, Sir John, English Ambassa- 
 dor in Spain, 22 note. 
 
 Digby, Sir Kenelm, his evidence 
 reported, 160. 
 
 Digby, Sir Robert, 38 note. 
 
 Dixon, Hepvforth [Her Majesty's 
 Tower), on government intelli- 
 gence, III note, 
 
 Dodd, Rev. Charles, on the origin 
 of the Plot, 18, 51. 
 
 Dorset, Earl of (Thomas Sackville), 
 his esteem for Cecil, 21. 
 
 Dunbar, Earl of (George Hume), 
 168 note, 172, 266. 
 
 Dunfermline, Earl of (Alexander 
 Seaton), on the effective use of 
 torture, 259. 
 
 Dunsmoor Heath, projected hunting 
 match on, 1 1 . 
 
 Edmondes, Sir Thomas, English 
 Ambassador at Brussels, account 
 of the "discovery" sent to him, 
 108, 124; version of Faukes' 
 confession sent to him, 186 ; 
 proofs against Owen sent to him, 
 190, 191 ; his negotiations with 
 
 the archdukes, 186 seq. ; letters 
 of, 102, 187, 188, 189 ; letters to, 
 85, ic6, 113, IS4, 186, 187, 188, 
 189, 190. 
 
 Elizabeth, Princess, daughter of 
 James I. , designs of the conspira- 
 tors regarding her, 81. 
 
 England's Warning Peece, 195, 
 262. 
 
 English Protestants^ Plea, 40, 51, 
 108 note, 19s note. 
 
 Eudaemon-Joannes, Father Andrew, 
 S.J., 204. 
 
 Faukes, Guy or Guido, alias John 
 Johnson, his position and char- 
 acter, 39, 262 ; his Spanish mis- 
 sion, 36 ; introduced to the Con- 
 spiracy, 9, 64 ; passes as Percy's 
 servant, 71, 77; keeps guard while 
 the others work, 66 ; discovers 
 the "cellar," 70; has charge of 
 the premises, 77, 89, 142 ; visits 
 Flanders, 91, 162 ; appointed to 
 fire the powder, I ; plans for his 
 escape, 144; arrest, 123-128; pub- 
 lished confessioh, 169 seq., 268 
 seq. ; evidence falsified, 2GO; miss- 
 ing depositions, 191 ; tortured, 
 172, 200, 260; trial and execu- 
 tion, 6, 260 ; fables respecting 
 him, 261. See also Conspirators. 
 
 Favat, Mr., Cecil's letter to, 5, 
 182. 
 
 Ferrers, Henry, sub-lets the house 
 at Westminster to Percy, 61. 
 
 Fifth of November, a propitious 
 day for the "discovery," 231; 
 the day solemnized, 5. 
 
 Floyde, Griffith, a government spy, 
 49- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 28s 
 
 French historians on the Plot, 141 
 
 note. 
 French official accounts of the Plot, 
 
 140, 141. 
 Fuller, Mr., M.P., 132 note. 
 Fuller, Thomas {Church History of 
 
 Britain), 46, 225. 
 Fulman MSS., 169. 
 
 Gardiner, Professor Samuel Raw- 
 son, his favourable estimate of 
 1 Cecil's character, 20 ; on the 
 Spanish pension, 22 note; repu- 
 diates imputations against the 
 government, 18; on the conspira- 
 tors' plans, 82 ; on the Monteagle 
 letter, 117; on the king's inter- 
 pretation, IT,2 note ; on the desire 
 to incriminate priests, 4 note. 
 
 Garnet, Father Henry, S.J., pro- 
 claimed as a principal conspirator, 
 5 ; his capture, 7, 166 ; lack of 
 evidence, 7 ; trial and execution, 
 ibid. ; his account of the con- 
 spirators' proceedings, 208 ; his 
 evidence against Catesby, 157; 
 on the accession of James, 29 note. 
 
 Gentleman's Magazine, 52 note, 262. 
 
 Gerard, Col. John, 160 note. 
 
 Gerard, Father John, S.J., pro- 
 claimed as a principal conspirator, 
 5 ; exonerated by historians, 237 ; 
 his history of the Plot, 205 ; his 
 experiences in the Tower, 202 ; 
 on the persecution of Catholics, 
 32 ; opinion of the " discovery," 
 49 ; and of the official narrative, 
 129 ; on the death of Percy and 
 Catesby, 156 note. 
 
 Goodman, Godfrey, Bishop of Glou- 
 cester, on the origin of the Con- 
 spiracy, 44 ; on the king's pro- 
 
 mises to Catholics, 29 note ; on 
 the persecution of Catholics, 32 5 
 on the "discovery," 134 note ; on 
 the death of Whynniard, 92 note } 
 on Percy's intercourse with Cecil, 
 151 ; on the death of Percy and 
 Catesby, 154; his religious views, 
 145 note. 
 
 Gowrie Conspiracy, the, 231, 232 
 
 " Great Horses," 2 note. 
 
 Grange, Justice E. , 148 note. 
 
 Grant, John, 37. See also Conspira 
 tors. 
 
 Green, Mrs. Everett, wrongly de 
 scribes Owen as a Jesuit, 185; 
 note. 
 
 Green, John Richard [Histoiy ofth» 
 English People), 30. 
 
 Green way, alias Tesimond, Father 
 Oswald, S.J., proclaimed as a 
 principal conspirator, 5 ; Bates' 
 alleged evidence against him, 178* 
 183 ; his history of the Plot, 206 ; 
 opinion of the official narrative,. 
 1 34 J on the effects of an explo- 
 sion, 133 ; on government des^ 
 patches concerning Percy, 155 ; 
 his visit to the rebels at Hudding- 
 ton, 206 note ; fables respecting 
 him, 264. 
 
 Gregory, Arthur, a forger employed 
 by government, 203. 
 
 Grene, Father Martin, S.J., notes 
 on the Plot, 45. 
 
 Gunpowder, amount procured by 
 the conspirators, 78 ; difficulties, 
 concerning it, 132 seq. 
 
 Hagley Hall, R. Winter and S.. 
 
 Littleton captured there, 4. 
 Hallam, Heniy ( Constitutiona 
 
 History), repudiates imputations. 
 
286 
 
 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 against the government, l8 ; on 
 Father Garnet's capture, ibid., 
 note ; on King James's title to the 
 crown, 34. 
 
 Haringlon, Sir John, 4. 
 
 Hawarde, John (Les Repoiies del 
 Cases in Camera Stellata), 165 
 tiote. 
 
 Heiwood, or Heywood, Peter, 139 
 note, 258. 
 
 Hendlip House (Thomas Abbing- 
 lon's), the scene of Father Gar- 
 net's capture, 18 note, 166 note. 
 
 Henry, Prince of Wales, anticipa- 
 tions concerning him, 33 ; the 
 conspirators' plans in his regard, 
 80, 81, 176. 
 
 Herring, Francis (Pietas Pontijicia), 
 27 note, 143 note. 
 
 Iliggons, Bevil (English History), 
 
 47- 
 
 Hoby, Sir Edward, on the death of 
 Percy, 154. 
 
 Holbeche House (Stephen Little- 
 ton's), the conspirators there slain 
 or captured, z, 4. 
 
 House of Lords, its situation and 
 subsequent migrations, 55 seq. ; 
 never represented in pictures of 
 the Plot, 228. 
 
 House, Percy's, at Westminster, 
 its position, 60, 251 ; circum- 
 stances of the bargain for it, 60; 
 difficulties concerning it, 62, 64, 
 67, 88. 
 
 Howes, Edmund (continuation of 
 Stowe's Chronicle), 127. 
 
 Huddington House (Robert Win- 
 ter's), 206 note. 
 
 Jchrup, Thomas, name given to 
 Faukes, 149, 244. 
 
 Inglefield, Sir Francis, 249. 
 
 James L, King of Great Britain, 
 his claim to the succession, 34 ; 
 circumstances of his accession, 
 34, 35 ; hopes of the Catholics, 28 ; 
 who support his cause, 34 ; his 
 policy at first favourable to them, 
 29; soon reversed, 3 1 ; his dealings 
 vifith Pope Clement VHL, 104; 
 his supposed interpretation of the 
 letter, 128, 131 ; Tuesday his 
 lucky day, 230; his speech to 
 Parliament, 211 ; accuses Catho- 
 lics in general and the Pope, 4 ; 
 suspected of previous knowledge 
 of the Plot, 46 ; anxiety for evi- 
 dence against priests, 182 ; letter 
 to the Archdukes, 187 note ; al- 
 leged subsequent opinion of the 
 Plot, 45 ; instructions for the tor- 
 ture of Faukes, 259;. his Scotch 
 dialect, 260 note ; gives his royal 
 word against Owen and Baldwin, 
 187 ; his policy permanently af- 
 fected, 209. 
 
 James, John, a supposed Dominican, 
 139 note, 258. 
 
 Jardine, David, on the character ot 
 the official narrative, 129, 163 ; 
 on the falsification of evidence, 
 199 ; on the Monteagle letter, 
 117; on the king's interpreta- 
 tion, 132 note; on the established 
 facts of the case, 12 ; not perfectly 
 impartial, 161, 207 ; on the re- 
 sults of the Plot, 213. 
 
 Jessopp, Augustus, D. D., on the 
 value of money, 36 note, 117 
 note; on Father Gerard's inno- 
 cence, 207. 
 
 Jesuits, efforts to incriminate, 177 
 
INDEX. 
 
 287 
 
 note; Cecil on their " insolen- 
 cies," 106. 
 
 Kemiet, White, Bishop of Peter- 
 borough, 45 note, 46, 263. 
 
 Keyes, Robert, contradictions re- 
 specting him, 84 note, 183. See 
 also Conspirators. 
 
 ' ' King's Book, " the, its character, 
 108 ; Cecil's description of it, 
 219, 220. 
 
 Knyvet, or Knevet, Sir Thomas, 
 leads the party which captures 
 Faukes, 124 seq. ; receives a peer- 
 age, 139 note ; the Countess of 
 Suffolk his sister, 224 note. 
 
 Lake, Sir Thomas, 19, 232. 
 
 Lenthal, William, Speaker of the 
 Long Parliament, his evidence re- 
 ported, 160. 
 
 Lindsay, Sir James, conveys mes- 
 sages between King James and 
 Pope Clement VIII. , 104. 
 
 Lingard, John, D.D., 68 note, 231. 
 
 Littleton, Humphrey, 167 note. 
 
 Littleton, Stephen, 2, 4, 156. 
 
 Lodge, Edmund, F.S.A. {Illustra- 
 tions of British History), 98. 
 
 Lopez' Plot, 14. 
 
 *' Main," the, 15 note, 26, 216. 
 Mar, Earl of (John Erskine), 168 
 
 note, 172, 266. 
 Mary, Princess, daughter of James 
 
 I., 81, 176. 
 Milton, poems on the Plot, 226. 
 Mine, the, story told respecting it, 
 
 63 seq. ; difficulties respecting it, 
 
 84 seq. 
 Mischeefis Mystery, 72, 11 J, 121, 
 
 123, I'iinote, 159. 
 
 Money, value of, 36 note, 117 note ; 
 amount raised by conspirators, 
 
 39- 
 
 Monteagle, Lord (William Parker), 
 his character and antecedents, 
 1 18 ; relations with the king and 
 court, 34, 119 ; letter to the king, 
 119, 256; connection with the 
 conspirators, 118; communicates 
 the warning letter to Cecil, 120- 
 123, 160 ; attends parliamenton the 
 day of the "discovery," \yjnote; 
 devices of the government on his 
 behalf, 116; rewards conferred, 
 116 ; subsequent conduct, 258. 
 
 Moore, Sir Francis, his evidence 
 reported, 151. 
 
 Moore, Sir Jonas, 138. 
 
 More, Father Henry, S.J., 49. 
 
 Morgan, Harry, 81 note. 
 
 Morgan, Thomas, 157 note, 193 
 note. 
 
 Naunton, Sir Robert, on Cecil's 
 character, 19. 
 
 Northampton, Earl of (Henry 
 Howard), a nominal Catholic pro- 
 moted by King James, 29; Cecil's 
 agent in his secret correspondence, 
 26 note ; on Cecil's death, 23 ; on 
 the history of the "cellar," 58 
 note; not admitted to all Cecil's 
 secrets, 112. 
 
 Northumberland, Earl of (Henry 
 Percy), a rival of Cecil's, 26 ; who 
 secretly traduces him, 26 n^>te, 
 215, 216 ; the Plot turned to his 
 ruin, 26, 107, 216-218 ; which is 
 attributed to Cecil, 26 note, 218, 
 his sentiments in return, 218. 
 
 Nottingham, Earl of, Lord Admiral 
 (Charles Howard), 170 note, 265. 
 
288 
 
 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 Oates, Titus, 46, 138. 
 
 Oath taken by the conspirators, 9. 
 
 Oldcorne, alias Hall, Father Ed- 
 ward, S.J., captured along with 
 Garnet, 7 ; never accused of com- 
 plicity ib. ; Catholic demonstra- 
 tion at his execution, 28 note; 
 tortured, 173. 
 
 Oldmixon {Royal House of Stuart), 
 25 note, 46. 
 
 Osborne, Francis, on Cecil's un- 
 popularity, 25 ; on the " dis- 
 covery, " 44 ; on the 5th of 
 August celebration, 232 note ; on 
 Northumberland and Cecil, 218 ; 
 his qualifications as an historian, 
 44. 
 
 Owen, Captain Hugh, falsely de- 
 scribed as a Jesuit, 173 note, 185 
 note; particularly obnoxious to 
 the government, 173, 185; evi- 
 dence fabricated against him, 174 ; 
 Cecil's instruction respecting him, 
 116 note ; efforts made to secure 
 him, 185 seq.; his intercourse with 
 Phelippes, 112, 185 note. 
 
 Owen, Lewis, 263. 
 
 Paris, Henry, 162. 
 
 Parliament, its successive adjourn- 
 ments, 67, 70 note, 91, 114, 230 ; 
 meets on the day of the "dis- 
 covery," 136 ; activity against 
 Catholics, 5, 212 seq. 
 
 Parry, Sir Thomas, English Am- 
 bassador at Paris, instructions 
 given to, 28 note ; intelligence 
 supplied by, 98, loi, !02; ac- 
 count of the discovery furnished 
 to, 126 seq. 
 
 Parry, Dr. William, his Plot, 14, 
 153- 
 
 Parsons, Father Robert, S.J., letters 
 to, 29 note, 77, 223 ; his views as 
 to the succession, 249 ; on Wal- 
 singham's "spyery," 77. 
 
 Percy, Sir Charles, 1^2 note. 
 
 Percy, Thomas, one of the first and 
 principal conspirators, 9, 64 ; his 
 antecedents, 36, 37, 148 ; house 
 hired by him, 60; and "cellar," 
 75 ; strange conduct in both trans- 
 actions, 88 ; conduct afterwards, 
 88, 91 ; undertakes to seize Duke 
 Charles or Princess Elizabeth, 
 82; his death, 4, 152 seq. ; pro- 
 fession of religious zeal, 148; 
 bigamy, ibid; Catholics suspicious 
 
 . of him, 150 ; alleged secret deal- 
 ings with Cecil, 151 ; the case 
 against him, 148- 1 56. See ah<f 
 Conspirators. 
 
 Phelippes, Thomas, the "de- 
 cipherer," employed by the 
 government, in; their devices 
 against him, 1 12 ; correspondence 
 with Hugh Owen, 185 note. 
 
 Pickering, Mr., and his horse, 261. 
 
 Plain and Rational Account of the 
 Catholick Faith, 49. 
 
 Plots under Elizabeth and James I., 
 
 I4i IS. '53. 157 «"''«. 193 «"'«/ 
 their common feature, 13. 
 
 Polititian's Catechism, 51 note, 106, 
 137 note. 
 
 Pope Clement VIH., interchanges 
 communications with James I., 
 104. 
 
 Pope Paul v., represented as an 
 accomplice in the Plot, S, 239. 
 
 Popham, Sir John, Lord Chief Jus- 
 tice, 170 note, 197, 266. 
 
 Raleigh, Sir Walter, Cecil's enmity 
 
INDEX. 
 
 289 
 
 towards him, 26 note, 48 note, 
 198 ; his ruin, 26, 216 ; attempt 
 to implicate him in the Powder 
 Plot, 197, 198. 
 Ratcliffe, Ralph, a government spy, 
 
 95. 96, igi- 
 Rich, Sir Edwin, 264. 
 Richardot, President, 189. 
 Rogers, Professor Thorold, on the 
 
 value of money, 117 note; on 
 
 James's title to the throne, 34. 
 Rokewood, Ambrose, 179 note. See 
 
 also Conspirators. 
 
 Salisbury, first Earl of. See Cecil, 
 Robert. 
 
 Salisbury, second Earl of. See Cecil, 
 Will&m. 
 
 Sanderson, Sir William, 46. 
 
 Schondonck, Father Giles, S. J., 
 Rector of St. Omers, on the inno- 
 cence of the Jesuits, 201 ; on 
 Cecil's manifesto, 222. 
 
 Scott, Sir Walter, 132 note. 
 
 Shakespeare, never alludes to the 
 Plot, 226 note. 
 
 Sharpe, Dr. R. R., 262 note. 
 
 Shepherd, John, evidence of, 251. 
 
 Smith, John Thomas (Antiquities of 
 Westminster), 58 note, 79 note, 
 89 note. 
 
 Soane, Sir John, 238. 
 
 Southwaick, or Southwell, a govern- 
 ment spy, 99-102. 
 
 Speed, John (Historie), 62, 63 note. 
 
 Squires, Edward, his plot, 14. 
 
 Stanley, Sir William, 185, i<)2 note. 
 
 Strange, Father Thomas, S. ]., 96 
 note. 
 
 Streete, John, pensioned .for killing 
 Percy and Catesby, 155. 
 
 Strype, John {Annals), 28 note. 
 
 Suffolk, Earl of. Lord Chamberlain 
 (Thomas Howard), his venality, 
 224. 
 
 Talbot, John, of Grafton, 38 note. 
 
 Talbot, Peter, Archbishop ofDublin. 
 See Polititian's Catechistn. 
 
 Theobald, Lewis, 267. 
 
 Topcliffe, Richard, priest-hunter, 
 202. 
 
 Torture, use of, 4, 5. 172, 173, 201 
 note, 259, 260. 
 
 Tresham, Francis, enlisted in the 
 enterprise, I0,'252 seq. ; his pre- 
 vious record, 35, 36 ; his action 
 on behalf of King James, 34 ; 
 suspected of writing the warning 
 letter, 147, 158; and of collusion 
 with Cecil, ibid. ; his conduct 
 after the "discovery,"''3, 158; 
 his death in the Tower, 6 note, 
 158. See also Conspirators. 
 
 Tresham, Sir Thomas, proclaims 
 King James, 34 ; summoned to 
 Court, 248. 
 
 True and Perfect Relation, character 
 of the narrative, 43, 163. 
 
 Tytler, Patrick Fraser, 112. 
 
 Usher, James, Archbishop of Ar- 
 magh, his evidence reported, 45. 
 
 Venatio Catholica, 261. 
 Vetusta Monumenta, 79, 86. 
 Villeroy, M., on Cecil's duplicity, 
 
 " Vinegar House," 60 note. 
 Vowell, Peter, evidence reported, 
 160. 
 
 Waad, Sir William, lieutenant of 
 the Tower, charged by Cobham 
 
290 
 
 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? 
 
 with forgery of evidence, 202 ; 
 dismissed from his post, 203 note, 
 267 ; his inscriptions in the Tower, 
 264,267 ; letters to Cecil, 168,258. 
 
 Walsh, Sir Richard, sheriff of Wor- 
 cestershire, 4, 154 note. 
 
 Ward, Samuel, preacher and artist, 
 
 239- 
 Webb, John, evidence reported, 
 
 160. 
 Weldon, Sir Anthony, on Cecil's 
 
 unpopularity, 25. 
 Wei wood, James (Memoirs), 46. 
 Westmoreland, titular Earl of (Henry 
 
 Neville), attempt toimplicate him, 
 
 197. 
 Whynniard, Mr., landlord of Percy's 
 
 house, 61 note, 89 ; his sudden 
 
 death, 92 note. 
 Whynniard, Mrs., evidence of, 61, 
 
 67, 72, 88, 142. 
 Willaston, William, intelligence 
 
 supplied by, 99. 
 Wimbledon, Viscount (Edward 
 
 Cecil), his evidence reported, 160. 
 Windsor, Lord, his house plundered 
 
 by the conspirators, 2. 
 Winter, Robert, introduced to the 
 
 conspiracy, 10 ; captured at Hag- 
 ley, 4 ; evidences of foul play in his 
 
 regard, 183, 184; trial and execu- 
 tion, 6. See also Conspirators. 
 
 Winter, Thomas, one of the first 
 conspirators, 9, 64 ; character, 
 35; Spanish mission, 36, 118; 
 brings Faukes from Flanders,'9 ; 
 attends the prorogation, Oct. 3rd, 
 74 note, 230 ; captured at Hol- 
 beche, 4 ; his published confes- 
 sion, \6t seq. ; probably tortured, 
 169; trial and execution, 6. See 
 also Conspirators. 
 
 Wood, Anthony Ji, notes addressed 
 to, 159. 
 
 Worcester, Earl of (Edward Somer- 
 set), 168 note, 266. 
 
 Wotton, Sir Henry, 160. 
 
 Wren, Sir Christopher, 138. 
 
 Wright, Christopher, his introduc- 
 tion to the Conspiracy, 9, 64 ; 
 character, 35, 37 ; previous em- 
 ployment in Spain, 36 ; killed at 
 Holbeche, 4, 152. See also Con- 
 spirators. 
 
 Wright, Henry, his informations, 
 
 94, 95. 254- 
 Wright, John, one of the first con- 
 spirators, 9, 64 ; character, 35, 
 37; killed at Holbeche, 4, 152. 
 See also Conspiratbrs. 
 
 CHISWICK PRESS :— CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO. 
 TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.