what was the gunpowder plot

8/2/2019 What Was the Gunpowder Plot

1/318


2/318

BOUGHT WITH THB INCOMEFROM THE , . . , ,. SAGE ENDOWMENT' FtTNE)-1 - THE GIFT OF;

1891

Aim^- ^ f/s^/ML


3/318

Cornell University LibraryDA 392.G35 1897What was the Gunpowder Plot?

3 1924 028 038 358


4/318

mi


5/318

.AT

v^/n

WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDERPLOT?


6/318


7/318

The original of tliis book is intine Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions inthe United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028038358


8/318

rat: POWDER PLOT


9/318


10/318


11/318

WHAT WAS THEGUNPOWDER PLOT?

THE TRADITIONAL STORY TESTED BYORIGINAL EVIDENCE

BYJOHN GERARD, S.J.

LONDONOSGOOD, McILVAINE & CO.

45, Albemarle Street, W.1897

1^


12/318

A- 1 iM^y^x-

Second Edition:


13/318

PREFACE.The following study of the Gunpowder Plot has grownout of the accidental circumstance that, having under-taken to read a paper before the Historical ResearchSociety, at Archbishop's House, Westminster, as theday on which it was to be read chanced to be the Sth ofNovember,' I was asked to take the famous conspiracyfor my subject. It was with much reluctance that Iagreed to do so, believing, as I then did, that therewas absolutely nothing fresh to say upon this topic,that no incident in our annals had been morethoroughly 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 isultimately based, I was startled to find how gravewere the doubts and difficulties which suggested them-selves at every turn, while, though slowly and gradually,yet with ever gathering force, the conviction forceditself upon me, that, not merely in its details is thetraditional story unworthy of credit, but that all theevidence, points to a conclusion fundamentally at


14/318

VI PREFACE.variance with it. Nothing contributed so powerfullyto this conviction as to find that every fresh line ofreasoning or channel of information which could bediscovered inevitably tended, in one way or another,towards the same result. In the following pages arepresented to the reader the principal arguments whichhave 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 thetitle-page. The real history of the Plot in all itsstages we shall, in all probability, never know. If,however, we cannot satisfy ourselves of the truth, itwill be much to ascertain what is false ; to convinceourselves that the account of the matter officiallysupplied, and almost universally accepted, is obviouslyuntrue, and that the balance of probability lies heavilyagainst those who invented it, as having been the realplotters, devising and working the scheme for theirown 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 generalcharacter, rather than from any positive evidence.Why, it may reasonably be asked, if the governmentof the day were ready to go so far as is alleged, didthey not go further ? Why, being supremely anxiousto incriminate the priests, did they not fabricate un-equivocal evidence against them, instead of satisfyingthemselves 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 sixarticles appearing in The Month, December 1894May, 1895.


15/318

PREFACE. Vllonly to damage it, inasmuch as we, at this distance oftime, can argue that they are impossible and absurd?How is it, moreover, that the absurdity was not patentto contemporaries, and was not urged by those whohad every reason to mislike and mistrust the party inpower ?

Considerations such as these undoubtedly deserveall attention, and must be fully weighed, but whilethey avail to establish a certain presumption in favourof the official story, I cannot but think that the sumof probabilities tells strongly the other way. It mustbe remembered that three centuries ago the intrinsiclikelihood or unlikelihood of a tale did not go formuch, and the accounts of plots in particular appearto have obtained general credence in proportion asthey were incredible, as the case of Squires a fewyears earlier, and of Titus Oates somewhat later,sufficiently testify. It is moreover as difficult for usto enter into the crooked and complex methods ofaction which commended themselves to the statesmenof the period, as to appreciate the force of the cum-brous and abusive harangues which earned for SirEdward Coke the character of an incomparablepleader. On the other hand, it appears certain thatthey who had so long played the game must haveunderstood it best, and, whatever else may be said ofthem, they always contrived to win. In regard ofFather Garnet, for example, we may think the evidenceadduced by the prosecution quite insufficient, but nonethe less it in fact availed not only to send him to thegallows, but to brand him in popular estimation forgenerations, and even for centuries, as the arch-traitorto whose machinations the whole enterprise was due.


16/318

vni PREFACE.In the case of some individuals obnoxious to thegovernment, it seems evident that downright forgerywas actually practised.The question of Father Garnet's complicity, though

usually considered as the one point in connection withthe Plot requiring to be discussed, is not treated in thefollowing pages. It is doubtless true that to prove theconspiracy to have been a trick of State, is not thesame thing as proving that he was not entangled in itbut, at the same time, the first point, if it can beestablished, will deprive the other of almost all its.interest. Nevertheless, Father Garnet's case will stillrequire to be fully treated on its own merits, but thiscannot be done within the limits of such an inquiry asthe present. It is not by confining our attention toone isolated incident in his career, nor by discussingonce again the familiar documents connected there-with, that we can form a sound and satisfactory judg-ment about him. For this purpose, full considerationmust be given to what has hitherto been almostentirely ignored, the nature and character of the man,as exhibited especially during the eighteen years ofhis missionary life in England, during most of whichperiod he acted as the superior of his brother Jesuits.There exist abundant materials for his biography, inhis official and confidential correspondence, preservedat Stonyhurst and elsewhere, and not till the informa-tion thus supplied shall have been duly utilized willit be possible to judge whether the part assigned tohim by his enemies in this wild and wicked designcan, even conceivably, represent the truth. It may, Itrust, be possible at no distant date to attempt thiswork, but it is not ^possible now, and to introduce this


17/318

PREFACE. IXtopic into our present discussion would only confusethe issue which is before us.Except in one or two instances, I have judged it

advisable, for the sake of clearness, to modernize thespelling of documents quoted in the text. In the.notes they are usually given in their original form.

I have to acknowledge my indebtedness in manyparticulars 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 ancientLondon. I have to thank the Marquis of Salisburyfor permission to examine MSS. in the Hatfieldcollection, and his lordship's librarian, Mr. Gunton, forinformation supplied from the same source. Throughthe courtesy of the Deputy-Keeper of the PublicRecords, every facility has been afforded me for con-sulting the precious documents contained in the " Gun-powder Plot Book." The Dean of Corpus ChristiCollege, Oxford, has kindly given me access to animportant MS. in the College Library ; and I havebeen allowed by the Rector of Stonyhurst to retain inmy hands Father Greenway's MS. history of the Plotduring the whole period of my work. The proprietorsof the Daily Graphic have allowed me to use twosketches of the interior of " Guy Faukes' Cellar," andone of his lantern, originally prepared by Mr. Brewerfor that journal.


18/318


19/318

CONTENTS.CHAP.

I. The State of the Question ....Disclosure of the PlotArrest of Guy Faukes^Flight of his associates Their abortive insurrec-tionTheir fateThe crime charged on Catholicsin generalGarnet and other Jesuits proclaimedas the ringleadersCapture of GarnetEfforts toprocure evidence against himHis executionPrevious history of the Plot as traditionallynarrated ; Proceedings and plans of the conspira-torsManner of the discovery.Reasons for suspecting the truth of this history Previous plots originated or manipulated by the

governmentSuspicious circumstances respect-ing the Gunpowder Plot in particularEssentialpoints of the inquiry.

II. The Persons ConcernedRobert Cecil, Earl of SalisburyHis character

variously estimatedDiscreditable incidents ofhis careerContemporary judgments of himHis unpopularityHis political difficulties largelydissipated in consequence of the Plot.

His hatred of and hostility towards the Catho-licsTheir numbers and importance Theirhopes from King James, and their disappoint-mentThe probability that some would haverecourse to violenceThe conspirators known asmen likely to seek such a remedyTheir previoushistory Difficulties and contradictions in regardof their character.


20/318

xil CONTENTS.CHAP. PAGE.III. The Opinion of Contemporaries and His-

torians 42Th government at once suspected of having con-trived or fomented the PlotPersistence of thesesuspicions, to which historians for more than acentury bear witness No fresh informationaccounts for their disappearance.

IV. The Traditional Story 54The old House of Lords and its surroundingsHouse hired by the conspiratorsThey attemptto dig a mine beneath the Peers' ChamberDiffi-culties and improbabilities of the accountThe" Cellar" hired Its position and characterThegunpowder bought and storedFurther problemsconcerning itThe conspirators' plansContra-dictions respecting themTheir wild and absurdcharacterImpossibility of the supposition thatthe proceedings escaped the notice of the govern-ment.

V. The Government Intelligence Department . 93,Evidence that the government were fully aware ofwhat was in progressVarious intelligence sup-plied to themCecil's uneasiness on account ofthe spread of Catholicity, and the king's communi-cation with the popeHis evident determinationto force on James a policy of intoleranceHeintimates that a great move is about to be made,and acknowledges to information concerning theconspirators and their schemesHis politicalmethods illustrated.

VI. The "Discovery" 114.Importance of the letter received by Lord Mont-

eagleExtraordinary prominence given to itMonteagle's characterHe receives the letterSuspicious circumstances connected with itsarrival It is shown to CecilHopeless contradic-tions of the official narrative as to what followed


21/318

CONTENTS. XlllPAGE.Impossibility of ascertaining what actually

occurredThe French version of the storyThe conduct of the government at variancewith their own professionsTheir inexplicabledelay in making the discoveryThey take noprecautions against the recurrence of dangerThe mystery of the gunpowder Incredibilityof the official narration.

VII. Percy, Catesby, and Tresham .... 147Probability that the government had an agentamong the conspiratorsSuspicious circum-stances regarding PercyHis private lifeHis alleged intercourse with Cecil Hisdeath.

Catesby and Tresham likewise accused ofsecret dealings with CecilCatesby's falsehoodtowards his associates and Father GarnetTresham's strange conduct after the discoveryHis mysterious death.

Alleged positive evidence against the govern-ment.

VIII. The Government's Case i6jA monopoly secured for the official narrative,which is admittedly untruthful Suspicions

suggested by such a course, especially in sucha caseThe confessions of Faukes and Winter,on which this narrative is based, deserve nocreditNor does the evidence of Bates againstGreenwayIndications of foul play in regardof Robert WinterThe case of Owen, Baldwinand Cresswell ; assertions made respectingthem of which no proof can be producedEffijrts to implicate Sir Walter Raleigh andothersFalsification of evidenceThe serviceof forgers employed.

Catholic writers have drawn their accounts,from the sources provided by the government.


22/318

xiv CONTENTS.CHAP. PAGEIX. The Sequel 209

Cecil well informed as to the real nature of the con-spiracy, and apprehends no danger from itAtonce turns it to account by promoting anti-Catholic legislationHonour and popularity re-sulting to himRuin of the Earl of Northumber-landCecil's manifestoHis alleged attempt tostart a second plot.The popular history of the Plot, and how it was

circulatedSingular suitability of the Fifth ofNovember for the " Discovery."Summary of the argument.

Appendix A. Notes on the Illustrations . . 235Appendix B. Sir Everard Digby's letter to Salis-

bury 245Appendix C. The Question of Succession . . 249Appendix D. The Spanish Treason . . . .251Appendix E. Site of Percy's Lodging . . . 251Appendix F. Enrolment of Conspirators . . 252Appendix G. Henry Wright the Informer . . 254Appendix H. Monteagle's Letter to King James . 256Appendix I. Epitaph on Peter Heiwood . . 258Appendix K. The Use of Torture .... 259Appendix L. Myths and Legends of the Plot . 260Appendix M. Memorial Inscriptions in the Tower 264Appendix N. Guy Faukes' Published Confession . 268Appendix O. Recusants' Fines 278Index 281


23/318

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.PACK

1. Medal Commemorative of the GunpowderPlot Title-page2. The Gunpowder Plot. I. . . Frontispiece3- 11 11 II 94. 1, ,1 1. Ill 2155- 11 11 11 IV 2276-11 1, 11 V 2297. Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot . . .1368. monteagle and letter 1 i 59. Arrest of Faukes 125

10. Guv Faukes' Lantern 13911. Group of Conspirators 312. THOMAS Percy 14913. Houses of Parliament in 1605 .... 56-714. Ground Plan of the Same 5915. House of Lords in 1807 6116. Interior of House of Lords, 1755 ... 9717. Interior of "Cellar" 7118. Arches from "Cellar" 7519. Vault under Painted Chamber .... 7320. Cell adjoining Painted Chamber ... 8321. Facsimile of part of Winter's Confession,

Nov. 23 16822. Signatures of Faukes and Oldcorne . .17323. Facsimile of part of Faukes' Confession of

Nov. 9 19924. Diagram of Fines exacted from Recusants . 279


24/318

" Qais haac posteris sic na^are potefit, ut facta non ficta essevideantur ?

"" Ages to come will be in doubt whether it were a. fact or a

fiction."Sir Edw, Coke on the (rial of the Conspirators,


25/318

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 anew Parliamentary session, London rang with thenews that in the course of the night a diabolical plothad been discovered, by which the king and legis-lature were to have been destroyed at a blow. In achamber beneath the House of Lords had been founda great quantity of gunpowder, and with it a man,calling himself John Johnson, who, finding that thegame was up, fully acknowledged his intention tohave fired the magazine while the royal speech wasbeing delivered, according to custom, overhead, and soto have blown King, Lords, and Commons into the air.At the same time, he doggedly refused to say whowere his accomplices, or whether he had any.

This is the earliest point at which the story of theGunpowder Plot can be taken up with any certainty.Of what followed, at least as to the main outlines, we

B


26/318

2 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?are sufficiently well informed. Johnson, whose truename was presently found to be Guy, or Guido,Faukes,' proved, it is true, a most obstinate and un-satisfactory witness, and obstinately refused to giveany evidence which might incriminate others. Butthe actions of his confederates quickly supplied theinformation which he withheld. It was known thatthe " cellar " in which the powder was found, as wellas a house adjacent, had been hired in the name ofone Thomas Percy, a Catholic gentleman, perhaps akinsman, and certainly a dependent, of the Earl ofNorthumberland. It was now discovered that he andothers of his acquaintance had fled from London onthe previous day, upon receipt of intelligence that theplot seemed at least to be suspected. Not many hourslater the fugitives were heard of in Warwickshire,Worcestershire, and Staffordshire, the native coun-ties of several amongst them, attempting to rallylothers to their desperate fortunes, and to levy waragainst the crown. For this purpose they forciblyseized cavalry horses ^ at Warwick, and arms atWhewell Grange, a seat of Lord Windsor's. Theseviolent proceedings having raised the country behindthem, they were pursued by the sheriffs with whatforces could be got together, and finally brought tobay at Holbeche, in Staffordshire, the residence of oneStephen Littleton, a Catholic gentleman.

There proved to have been thirteen men in all whohad 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."


27/318

THE RISING IN THE MIDLANDS. 3Tiands of justice. Another, Francis Tresham, had notfled with his associates, but remained quietly, andwithout attempting concealment, in London, evengoing to the council and offering them his servicesafter a week he was taken into custody. The elevenwho either betook themselves to the country, or werealready there, awaiting the issue of the enterprise, andRcicrrWtnur

- Cbrisifehei' 7 r

THE CONSPIRATORS, FROM A PRINT PUBLISHED ATAMSTERDAM.prepared to co-operate in the rising which was to beits sequel, were Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, Robertand Thomas Winter, John and Christopher Wright,John Grant, Robert Keyes, Ambrose Rokewood, SirEverard. 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.


28/318

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 twoWrights were killed or mortally wounded in theassault. The others were taken prisoners on the spotor in its neighbourhood, with the exception of RobertWinter, who, accompanied by their host, StephenLittleton, contrived to elude capture for upwards oftwo months, being at last apprehended, in January, atHagley Hall, Worcestershire. All the prisoners wereat 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 Catholicclergy.' Torture, it is evident, was employed withthis object.

Meanwhile, on November 9th, King James addressedto his Parliament a speech, wherein he declared thatthe abominable crime which had been intended wasthe direct result of Catholic principles. Popery being^" the true mystery of iniquity." In like mannerChichester, the Lord Deputy in Ireland, was informedby Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, his Majesty's Secretary ofState, that the Plot was an " abominable practice ofRome and Satan," ^ while the monarch himself sentword to Sir John Harington that " these designs werenot formed by a few," that "the whole legion ofCatholics were consulted," that " the priests were to^

^ " The great object of the Government now was to obtain:evidence against the priests." Gardiner, History ofEngland^i. 267. Ed. 1883.

'^ See his despatch in reply. Irish State Papers, vol. 217, 95..,Cornwallis received Cecil's letter on November 22nd.


29/318

GROWTH OF THE STORY. 5pacify their consciences, and the Pope confirm ageneral absolution for this glorious deed." ^Then follows an interval during which we knowlittle of the course of events which were proceeding inthe seclusion of the council-room and torture-chamber ;but on December 4th we find Cecil complaining thathe could obtain little or no evidence against the really-important persons : " Most of the prisoners," he writes,"" have wilfully forsworn that the priests knew anythingin particular, and obstinately refuse to be accusers ofthem, yea, what torture soever they be put to."On January 15th, 1605-6, a proclamation was issueddeclaring that the Jesuit fathers, John Gerard, HenryGarnet, and Oswald Greenway, or Tesimond, wereproved to have been " peculiarly practisers " in thetreason, and offering a reward for their apprehension.On the 2 1st of the same month Parliament met, havingbeen prorogued immediately after the king's speech ofNovember 9th, and four days later an Act was passedfor the perpetual solemnization of the anniversary ofthe projected- crime, the preamble whereof charged itsguilt upon " Many malignant and devilish papists,Jesuits, and seminary priests, much envying the trueand free possession of the Gospel by the nation, underthe greatest, most learned, and most religious monarchwho had ever occupied the throne."

In consequence of this Act, was introduced into theAnglican liturgy the celebrated Fifth of Novemberservice, in the collect of which the king, royal family,

' See Hai-ington's account of the king's message, NugaAntiqua, i. 374.

"^ To Favat. (Copy) Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, fol 625.'' Statutes : Anno 3 J^cobi, c. i.


30/318

6 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?nobility, clergy, and commons are spoken of as havingbeen " by Popish treachery appointed as sheep to theslaughter, in a most barbarous and savage manner,beyond the examples of former ages ; " while the dayitself was marked in the calendar as the " Papists'Conspiracy."

It will thus be seen that the Powder Plot was by thistime officially stigmatized as the work of the Catholicbody in general, and in particular of their priests ; thusacquiring an importance and a significance which couldnot be attributed to it were it but the wild attempt ofa few turbulent men. As a natural corollary we findParliament busily engaged upon measures to insurethe more effectual execution of the penal laws.'On January 27th the surviving conspirators, Robertand Thomas Winter, Faukes, Grant, Rokewood, Keyes,Digby, and Bates,^ were put upon their trial. In theindictment preferred against them, it was explicitlystated 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'sChurch, on January the 30th, and the rest on thefollowing day in- Old Palace Yard.

' This work was taken in hand by the Commons, when, inspite of the alarming circumstances of the time, they met onNovember 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. Althoughhe had not been tried, his remains were treated as those of atraitor, his head being cut off and fixed above the gates ofNorthampton {flom. James I. xvii. 62.)


31/318

FATHER GARNET. 7On the very day upon which the first company

suffered, Father Garnet, whose hiding-place wasknown, and who had been closely invested for ninedays, was captured, in company with another Jesuit,Father Oldcorne. The latter, though never chargedwith knowledge of the plot, was put to death forhaving aided and abetted Garnet in his attempt toescape. Garnet himself, being brought to London,was lodged first in the Gatehouse and afterwards inthe 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 asthe head and front of the treason. Of the lattercharge, after his capture, nothing was ever heard. Ofhis participation, proofs, it appeared, still remained tobe discovered, for on the 3rd of March Cecil still spokeof them as in the future.^ In order to obtain therequired evidence of his complicity, Garnet was.examined three-and-twenty times before the council,and, in addition, various artifices were practised whichneed not now be detailed. On the 28th of March,1606, he was brought to trial, and on May 3rd he washanged at St. Paul's. The Gunpowder Conspiratorswere 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 openfor a principall conspirator even in the particular Treason of thePowder." To Sir Henry Bruncard, P. R. O. Ireland, vol. 218,March 3rd, 1605-6. Also (Calendar) Dom. James I. .xix. 10.


32/318

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 andmost circumspect historians appear to have assumed,that we are in possession of information enabling usto construct a similar sketch of what preceded andled up to these events,whatever obscurity theremay be regarding the complicity of those whoseparticipation would invest the plot with the signifi-cance which has been attributed to it. If it wereindeed but the individual design of a small knot ofmen, acting for themselves and of themselves, then,though they were all Catholics, and were actuated bya desire to aid the Catholic cause, the crime theyintended could not justly be charged upon the body oftheir co-religionists. It would be quite otherwise if-Catholics in general were shown to have countenancedit, or even if such representative men as members ofthe priesthood were found to have approved soabominable 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 asa body there is no proof whatever, nor has it ever beenseriously attempted to establish such a charge. Asto the three Jesuits already named, who alone havebeen seriously accused, there is no proof, the suffi-ciency of which may not be questioned. But as tothe fact that they who originated the Plot wereCatholics, that they acted simply with the object ofbenefiting their Church, and that the nation most-narrowly escaped an appalling disaster at their hands,can there be any reasonable doubt ? Is not the accountof their proceedings, to be read in any work on the


33/318

THE TRADITIONAL STORY. 9subject, as absolutely certain as anything in ourhistory ?

This account is as follows. About a year after theRecession of James I./ when it began to be evident thatti? hopes of toleration at his hands, which theCatholics had entertained, were to be disappointed,Robert Catesby, a man of strong character, and with anextraordinary power of influencing others, bethoughthim in his wrath of this means whereby to take sum-mary vengeance at once upon the monarch and thelegislators, under whose cruelty he himself and hisfellows were groaning. The plan was proposed toJohn 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 anenterprise. Shortly afterwards Percy joined them,"and somewhat later Keyes and Christopher Wrightwere 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. AboutChristopher Wright there is much confusion, Faukes (November17th, 1605) implying that he was introduced before Christmas,and Thomas Winter (November 23rd 1605) that it was about afortnight after the following Candlemas, i.e., about the middle ofFebruary.^*^The form of this oath is thus given in the official account*' You shall swear by the blessed Trinity, and by the Sacramentj'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 thereofuntil the rest shall give you leave." . It is a singular circumstancethat the form of this oath, which was repeated in official pub-


34/318

lO WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?and to confirm it by receiving Holy Commu-nion.^These are the seven " gentlemen of blood andname," as Faukes describes them, who had the mainhand in the operations which we have to study. At alater 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 richmen, who were brought in chiefly for the sake of theirwealth, and were enlisted when the preparations for theintended explosion had all been completed, in view ofthe rising^ which was to follow.^

Commiencing operations about the middle ofDecember, 1604, these confederates first endeavouredto dig a mine under the House of Lords, and after-lications, with an emphasis itself inexplicable, occurs in only oneof the conspirators' confessions, viz., the oft-quoted declaration ofT. Winter, November 23rd, 1605. Thisas we shall see, a mostsuspicious documentwas one ofthe two selected for publication,on which the traditional history of the plot depends. Curiouslyenough, however, the oath, with sundry other matters, wasomitted 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 originalBrit. Mus. Add. MSS., 6178, 75.]

' T. Winter says : " Having upon a primer given each otherthe oath of secrecy, in a chamber where no other body was, wewent after into the next room and heard mass, and received theblessed Sacrament upon the same." Declaration, November23rd, 1605.

^ Digby was enlisted "about Michaelmas, 1605 ;" Rokewood--about a month before the 5th of November. Tresham givesOctober 14th as the date of his own initiation. Examination^November 13th, 1605.


35/318

THE TRADITIONAL STORY. IIwards hired a large room, described as a cellar,situated beneath the Peers' Chamber, and in thisstored a quantity pf gunpowder, which Faukes wasto fire by a train, while the King, Lords, and Commons,wepe assembled above.^^nTheir enemies being thus destroyed, they didnot contemplate a revolution, but were resolved toget possession of one of the king's sons, or, failingthat, of one of his daughters, whom they wouldproclaim as sovereign, constituting themselves, theguardians of the new monarch. They also contriveda " hunting match " on Dunsmoor heath, near Rugby,which was to be in progress when the news of thecatastrophe in London should arrive ; the sportsmenassembled for which would furnish, it was hoped, thenucleus of an army.^/^Meanwhile, as we are assuredand this is thecrucial point of the whole story-ythe government ofJames 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. OnOctober 26th, ten days before the meeting of Parlia-ment, a Catholic peer, Lord Monteagle, received ananonymous letter, couched in vague and incoherentlanguage, warning him to absent himself from theopening ceremony. This document Monteagle atonce took to the king's prime minister, Robert Cecil,Earl of Salisbury, who promptly divined its meaningand the precise danger indicated, although he allowedKing James to fancy that he was himself the first tointerpret it, when it was shown to him five days later.'

' This is clear from a comparison of Cecil's private letterto Cornwallis and others (Winwood, Memorials, ii. 170), with


36/318

12 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?Not for four other days were active steps taken, thatis, till the early morning of the fatal Fifth. Then tookplace 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 commonlyassumed to be no room for reasonable doubt. AsMr. Jardine writes,' " The outlines of the transactionwere too notorious to be suppressed or disguisedthat a design had been formed to blow up theParliament House, with the King, the Royal Family,the Lords and Commons, and that this design wasformed by Catholic men and for Catholic purposes,could never admit of controversy or concealment." Inlike manner, while acknowledging that in approachingthe question of Father Garnet's complicity, or that ofother priests, we find ourselves upon uncertain ground,Mr. Gardiner has no hesitation in declaring that " thewhole story of the plot, as far as it relates to the layConspirators, rests upon indisputable evidence."

Nevertheless there appear to be considerations,demanding more attention than they have hithertoreceived, which forbid the supposition that, in regardof what is most vital, this official story can possiblybe true ; while the extreme care with which it hasobviously been elaborated, suggests the conclusionthat it was intended to disguise facts, to the conceal-ment of which the government of the day attachedsupreme importance.As has been said, the cardinal point of the tale, as

the official account published in the Discourse of the manner ojthe Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot.

' Criminal Trials, ii. 3.^ History ofEngland, i. 269 (1883).


37/318

HISTORIC DOUBTS. Icommonly told, is that the Plot was a secret anddangerous conspiracy, conducted with so much craftas to have baffled detection, but for a lucky accidentthat the vigilance of the authorities was completely atfault ; and that they found themselves suddenly onthe very brink of a terrible catastrophe of which theyhad no suspicion/ If, on the contrary, it should appearthat they had ample information of what was goingon, while feigning absolute ignorance ; that theystudiously devised a false account of the manner inwhich it came to their knowledge ; and that theirwhole conduct is quite inconsistent with that sense ofimminent danger which they so loudly professedthequestion inevitably suggests itself as to whether wecan rely upon the authenticity of the opening chaptersof a history, the conclusion of which has been sodexterously manipulated.A French writer has observed ^ that the plots under-taken under Elizabeth and James I. have this featurein common, that they proved, one and all, extremelyopportune for those against whom they were directed.To this law the Gunpowder Plot was no exception..

. Whatever be the true history of its origin,^certainlyplacfidJjLthe hands of the king's chief minister a mosteffective 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, hadnot destined it to be discovered, though very miraculously, evensome twelve Houres before the matter should have been put inexecution." 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.


38/318

14 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?policy, and very materially strengthened his ownposition.^Without doubt the sensational manner ofits "discovery" largely contributed to its success inthis respect ; and if this were ingeniously contrivedfor such a purpose, may it not be that a like ingenuityhad been employed in providing the material destinedto be so artistically utilized ?

There can be no question as to the wide prevalenceof the belief that previous plots had owed their originto the policy of the statesmen who finally detectedthem, a belief witnessed to by Lord Castlemaine,^ whodeclares 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 fashionnor can it be denied that good grounds for such anopinion were not lacking. The unfortunate manSquires had been executed on the ridiculous chargethat he had come over from Spain in order to poisonthe pommel of Queen Elizabeth's saddle. Dr. Parry, weare informed by Bishop Goodman, whose verdict is en-dorsed by Mr. Brewer,^ was put to death by those whoknew him to be guiltless in their regard, they havingthemselves employed him in the business for whichhe suffered. Concerning Babington's famous plot, itis 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 workedthe enterprise, in order to turn it to the destruction ofthe Queen of Scots. As to Lopez, the Jewishphysician, it is impossible not to concur in the verdict

^ Catholique Apology, third edition, p. 403." Goodman's Court ofKingJames, i. 121.


39/318

PLOTS UNDER ELIZABETH. 1that his condemnation was at least as much owing topoHtical intrigue as to the weight of evidence.^ Con-cerning this period Mr. Brewer says : " The RomanCatholics seem to have made just complaints of thesubtle and unworthy artifices of Leicester and Wal-singham, by whom they were entrapped into the guiltof high treason. ' And verily,' as [Camden] expressesit, there were at this time crafty ways devised to tryhow men stood affected ; counterfeit letters were sentin the name of the Queen of Scots and left at papists'houses ; spies were sent up and down the country tnote people's dispositions and lay hold of their words ;and reporters of vain and idle stories were creditedand encouraged."^ Under King James,^ as BishopGoodman declares, the priest Watson was hanged fortreason by those who had employed him.*

It must farther be observed that the particular Plotwhich is our subject was stamped with certain featuresmore than commonly suspicious. Even on the faceof things, as will be seen from the summary alreadygiven, it was steadily utilized from the first for a pur-

' Mr. Sidney Lee, Dictionary ofNational Biography, sub nom' Goodman's Court ofKingJames, i. 121. Ed. J. S. Brewer." Court of KingJames, 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 inQ. Elizabeth's time, and that George Brooks was the contriverthereof, who being brother-in-law to the Secretary, and havinggreat wit, small means, and a vast expense, did only try men'sallegiance, and had an intent to betray one another, but were alltaken napping and so involved in one net. This in effect appearsIjy Brooks' confession ; and certainly K. James . . . had noopinion of that treason, and therefore was pleased to pardon allsave only Brooks and the priests." Court ofKing James, i. 160.


40/318

WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?tpose which it could not legitimately be made to serve.rThat the Catholics of England, as a body, had anyconnection with it there is not, nor ever appeared tobe, any vestige of a proof; still less that the officialsuperiors oftheChurch, including thePope himself,wereconcerned in it. ,_Yt_ the first act of the governmentwas to layJt..at-th-de&r-ef--alLjJiese, thus investing itwith a character which was, indeed, eminently fittedto sustain their own policy, but to which it was no-wise entitled. Even in regard of Father Garnet andhis fellow Jesuits, whatever judgment may now beformed concerning them, it is clear that it was deter-mined to connect them with the conspiracy longbefore any evidence at all was forthcoming to sustainthe charge. The actual confederates were, in fact,treated throughout as in themselves of little or noaccount, and as important only in so far as they mightconsent to incriminate those whom the authoritieswished to be incriminated^ ^The detemiined manner in which this object wasever kept in view, the unscrupulous means constantlyemployed for its attainment, the vehemence withwhich matters were asserted to have been proved, anyproof of which was never even seriously attemptedin a word, the elaborate system of falsification bywhich alone the story of the conspiracy was made tosuit the purpose it so effectually served, can inspire us-with no confidence that the foundation upon whichsuch a superstructure was erected, was itself what itwas said to be.On the other hand, when we examine into thedetails supplied to us as to the progress of the affair,we find that much of what the conspirators are said


41/318

DIFFICULTIES AND DOUBTS. 1/to have done is well-nigh incredible, while it is utterly-impossible that if they really acted in the mannerdescribed, the public authorities should not have hadfull knowledge of their proceedings. We also findnot only that the same authorities, while feigningignorance of anything of the kind, were perfectly wellaware that these very conspirators had something inhand, but that long before the " discovery," in fact, atthe very time when the conspiracy is said to have beenhatched, their officials were working a Catholic plot, bymeans of secret agents, and even making arrangementsas to who were to be implicated therein.

These are, in brief, some of the considerations whichpoint to a conclusion utterly at variance with thereceived version of the story, the conclusion, namely,that, for purposes of State, the government of the dayeither found means to instigate the conspirators toundertake their enterprise, or, at least, being, from anearly stage of the undertaking, fully aware of whatwas going on, sedulously nursed the insane schemetill the time came to make capital out of it. That theconspirators, or the greater number of them, reallymeant to strike a great blow is not to be denied,though it may be less easy to assure ourselves as toits precise character ; and their guilt will not be pal-liated should it appear that, in projecting an atrociouscrime, they were unwittingly playing the game ofplotters more astute than themselves. At the sametime, while fully endorsing the sentiment of a Catholicwriter,' that they who suffer themselves to be drawninto 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


42/318

l8 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?knaves, it is impossible not to agree with anotherwhen he writes : ' " This account does not excuse theconspirators, but lays a heavy weight upon the devilswho tempted them beyond their strength."The view thus set forth will perhaps be considered

unworthy of serious discussion, and it must be fullyadmitted, that there can be no excuse for makingcharges such as it involves, unless solid grounds canbe alleged for so doing. That any such grounds areto be found historians of good repute utterly deny.Mr. Hallam roundly declares : ' "To deny that therewas such a plot, or, which is the same thing, to throw-the whole on the contrivance and management ofCecil, as has sometimes been done, argues greateffrontery in those who lead, and great stupidity inthose who follow." Similarly, Mr. Gardiner,' whileallowing 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 atHendlip in concealment along with the other conspirators." Hewho wrote thus can have had but a slight acquaintance with thedetails of the history. None of the conspirators, except RobertWinter, who was captured at Hagley Hall, were taken in con-cealment, and none at Hendlip, where there is no reason tosuppose they ever were. Father Garnet was discovered there,nearly three months later, in company with another Jesuit, FatherOldcorne, on the very day when the conspirators were executedin London, and it was never alleged that he had ever, upon anyoccasion, been seen in company with " the other conspirators-."

' History, i. 255, note.


43/318

CHAPTER II.THE PERSONS CONCERNED.

/At the period with which we have to deal the chiefminister of James I. was Robert Cecil, Earl of Salis-buryy'me political heir of his father, William Cecil,Lord Burghley,'' and of Walsingham, his predecessorin the office of secretary. It is clear that he hadinherited from them ideas of statesmanship of theorder then in vogue, and from nature, the kind ofability required to put these successfully in practice.Sir Robert Naunton thus describes him :

" This great minister of state, and the staff of theQueen's declining age, though his little crookedperson * 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'stitle, which devolved upon Thomas, the eldest, who was createdEarl of Exeter on the same day on which Robert became Earlof Salisbury'.

' Fragmenta Regalia, 37. Ed. 1642.* He was but little above five feet in height, and, in the phraseof the time, a " Crouchback." King James, who was not a man ofmuch delicacy in such matters, was fond ofgiving him nicknamesin consequence. Cecil wrote to Sir Thomas Lake, October 24th,1605 I " I see nothing y' I can doe, can procure me so much


44/318

20 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?it carried thereon a head and a headpiece of vastcontent, and therein, it seems, nature was so diligentto complete one, and the best, part about him, as thatto the perfection of his memory and intellectuals, she-took care also of his senses, and to put him in Lynceosoculos, or to pleasure him the more, borrowed of Argus,so to give him a perfective sight. And for the rest ofhis sensitive virtues, his predecessor had left him areceipt, to smell out what was done in the Conclave ;and his good old father was so well seen in themathematicks, as that he could tell you throughoutSpain, 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 instanceto 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 representhis apologists, speaks thjis :'

" Although there are circumstances in his life whichtell against him, it is difficult to read the whole of theletters and documents which have come down to us.from his pen, without becoming gradually convincedof his honesty of intention. It cannot be denied thathe 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, fromThom 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 Tareor Sophie." (R. O. Dom. James I. xv. 105.)

' History, i. 92.


45/318

ROBERT CECIL. 2rtime, and that he thought it no shame to keep a Statesecret or to discover a plot by means of a falsehood.If he grasped at power as one who took pleasure inthe exercise of it, he used it for what he regarded asthe true interests of his king and country. Nor arewe left to his own acts and words as the only meansby which we are enabled to form a judgment of hischaracter. Of all the statesmen of the day, not onehas left a more blameless character than the Earl ofDorset. Dorset took the opportunity of leaving uponrecord in his will, which would not be read till he hadno longer injury or favour to expect in this world, thevery high admiration in which his colleague was heldby him."

This, it must be allowed, is a somewhat facilespecies of argument. Though wills are not formallyopened until after the testators' deaths, it is notimpossible for their contents to be previously com-municated to others, when there is an object for sodoing.' But, however this may be, it can scarcely besaid that the weight of evidence tends in this direction.Not to mention the fact that, while enjoying the entireconfidence of Queen Elizabeth, Cecil was engaged ina secret correspondence with King James, which shewould have regarded as treasonableand which he socarefully concealed that for a century afterwards andmore it was not suspectedthere remains the otherindubitable 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 mostjudycious, learned, and rareste kinge, that ever this worlde pro-duced." (R. O. Dom. James I. xxviii. 29.)


46/318

22 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?Spain,' the very monarch any communication withwhom 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 Infantato be the rightful heir to the crown, and though thesecretary vehemently denied the imputation, heequally repudiated the notion that he favoured theKing of Scots.'' We know, moreover, that one whoas Spanish Ambassador had dealings with him, pro-nounced him to be a venal traitor, who was ready tosell 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 asany man living." (Bruce, Introduction to Secret Correspondenceof Sir R. Cecil, xxxiii.)Of the Spanish pension Mr. Gardiner, after endeavouring toshow 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 hisoriginal intentions, such a comparatively innocent connectionwith Spain soon extended itself to something worse, and that heconsented to furnish the ambassadors, from time to time, withinformation on the policy and intentions of the English Govern-ment. ... Of the persistence with which he exacted paymentthere can be no doubt whatever. Five years later, whgn theopposition between the two governments became more decided,he asked for an increase of his payments, and demanded thatthey 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.


47/318

ROBERT CECIL. 23it was in his power to have charged him with " un-warrantable practices." Similarly, we hear from theFrench minister of the ingrained habit of falsehoodwhich made it impossible for the English secretary tospeak the truth even to friends;' and, from the FrenchAmbassador, of the resolution imputed to the samestatesman, to remove from his path every rival whoseemed likely to jeopardize his tenure of power.^What was the opinion of his own countrymen,appeared with startling emphasis when, in 16 12, theEarl died. On May 22nd we find the Earl ofNorthampton writing to Rochester that the "littleman " is dead, " for which so many rejoice, and so feweven seem to be sorry." ' Five days later. Chamber-lain, writing* to his friend Dudley Carleton, toannounce the same event, thus expresses himself:" As the case stands it was best that he gave over theworld, 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 lemariage d'Espagne est rempli de deguisements et artifices kson accoutum^e. . . . Toutefois, je ne veux pas jurer qu'ilsnegocient 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 degrd."Le Ffevre de la Boderie, Ambassade, i. 170.

^ (Of the Earl of Northumberland.) " On tient le Comte deSalisbury pour principal auteur de sa persecution, comme celuiqui 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 deaththere was a warrant out for his arrest. Courl of King James,i. 4S.


48/318

24 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?with his health, it is verily thought he would neverhave been himself again in power and credit. I neverknew so great a man so soon and so openly censured,for men's tongues walk very liberally and freely, buthow truly I cannot judge." On June 25th he again re-ports : " The outrageous speeches against the deceasedLord continue still, and there be fresh libels come outevery day, and I doubt his actions will be hardlycensured in the next parliament, if the King be notthe more gracious to repress them." Moreover, hisfuneral was attended by few or none of the gentry,and those only were present whose official positioncompelled them. His own opinion Chamberlainexpresses in two epigrams and an anagram, which,although of small literary merit, contrive clearly toexpress the most undisguised animosity and contemptfor the late minister.'

There is abundant proof that such sentiments werenot first entertained when he had passed away, though,naturally, they were less openly expressed when he wasalive 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 EnglishWhiles 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 whichtitle is "A silie burs." He also styles the late minister amonkey {cercopitheais) and hobgoblin (empusa).


49/318

ROBERT CECIL. 2$no real friends and many enemies, desperately fightingfor his own hand, and for the retention of that powerwhich he prized above all else, aspiring, as a con-temporary satirist puts it, to be " both shepherd anddog."' Since the accession of James he had felthis tenure of office to be insecure. Goodman tellsus ' that " it is certain the king did not love him ;Osborne,'' " that he had forfeited the love of the peopleby the hate he expressed to their darling Essex, andthe desire he had to render justice and prerogativearbitrary." * Sir Anthony Weldon speaks of him ' as

' Osborne, Traditional Memoirs, p. 236 (ed. 181 1).^ Court ofKingJames, 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 ofa narrow Size, and had no Room for enlarged Sentiments ofAmbition, Glory, and Public Spirit, should cease to underminea Hero, in comparison with whom he was both in Body andMind a Piece of Deformity, if there's nothing beautiful in Craft."

* Court and Character ofKingJames, 10.


50/318

26 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?" Sir Robert Cecil, a very wise man, but much hatedin England by reason of the fresh bleeding of thatuniversally beloved Earl of Essex, and for that cloudedalso in the king's favour." De la Boderie, the FrenchAmbassador, tells us ' that the nobility were exceed-ingly jealous of his dignity and power, and ' that he inhis turn was jealous of the growing influence of PrinceHenry, the heir apparent, who made no secret of hisdislike of him. Meanwhile there were rivals who, itseemed not improbable, might supplant him. One ofthese, Sir Walter Raleigh, had already been renderedharmless on account of his connection with the" Main," the mysterious conspiracy which inauguratedthe reign of James. There remained the Earl ofNorthumberland, and it may be remarked in passingthat one of the effects of the Gunpowder Plot was todispose 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 admittedThomas Percy amongst the royal pensioners without exactingthe usual oath. He in vain demanded an open trial, but wasprosecuted in the Star Chamber, and there sentenced to a fineof ;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 andof Northumberland, Cecil acted with great moderation. Itmust, however, be remembered that in his secret correspond-ence with King James, before the death of the queen, he hadstrenuously endeavoured to poison the mind of that monarchagainst these his rivals. Thus he wrote, December 4th, 1601(as usual through Lord Henry Howard) : " You must rememberthat I gave you notice of the diabolical triplicity, that is,Cobham, Raleigh, and Northumberland, that met every day


51/318

ROBERT CECIL. 2Jminister do not attempt to deny either the fact that hewas accustomed to work by stratagems and disguises,or the obloquy that followed on his death ; ' whileby friends and foes alike he was compared to Ulyssesof many wiles.'

But amongst those whom he had to dread, therecan be no doubt that the members of the Catholicat Durham-house, where Raleigh lies, in consultation, whichawaked all the best wits of the town ... to watch what chickens,they could hatch out of these cockatrice eggs that were dailyand nightly sitten on." {Secret Correspondence of Sir RobertCecil with James VI., King of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1766,p. 29.) Coming after this, the speedy ruin of all these menappears highly suspicious.

' Sir Walter Cope in his Apology (Gutch, Collectanea Curiosa^i. No. 10) says: "When living, the world observed with alladmiration and applause ; no sooner dead, but it seeketh finallyto suppress his excellent parts, and load his memory with allimputations of corruption."Among such charges are enumerated " His Falsehood inFriendship.That he often made his friends fair promises, andunderhand laid rubs to hinder their preferment.The secretpassage of things I know not. . . . Great Counsellors have theirprivate and their publique ends . . ." etc.

' Lord Castlemaine after mentioning the chief features of theGunpowder Plot, goes on : " But let it not displease you, if weask 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," fromhis father's title), who took the celebrated letter to Cecil, writesthus :

" 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."


52/318

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 opponentof any remission of the penal laws enacted for thepurpose of stamping out the old faith.' The work,however, had as yet been very incompletely done. Atthe beginning of the reign of King James, the Catholicsformed at least a half, probably a majority,^ of theEnglish people. There were amongst them manynoblemen, fitted to hold offices of State. .^Moreover,the king, who before his accession had unquestionably

' This is so evident that it appears unnecessary to occupyspace with proofs in detail. De la Boderie remarks {Ambas-sade, i. 71) on the extraordinary rancour of the minister againstCatholics, and especially against Jesuits, and that "he wishes todestroy them everywhere." Of this a remarkable confirmationis afforded by the instructions given to Sir Thomas Parry whenhe was sent as ambassador, *' Leiger," to Paris, in 1603, at thehead of which stood these extraordinary articles :

1. " To intimate to the French king the jealousy conceived inEngland upon the revocation of the Jesuits, against formeredicts.

2. " To inform the French king that the English were disgustedat the maintenance allowed to the French king's prelates andclergy, to priests and Jesuits that passed out of his dominionsinto 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 timeof Elizabeth : " The faction of the Catholics in England is great,and able, if the kingdom were divided into three parts, to maketwo of them." {Annals, iii. 313, quoted by Butler, HistoricalMemoirs, 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 topray with him, almost all present uncovered.


53/318

THE CATHOLICS. 29assured the Catholics at least of toleration,^ showed athis first coming a manifest disposition to relieve themfrom the grievous persecution under which they hadgroaned so long." He remitted a large part of thefines which had so grievously pressed upon all recu-sants, declaring that he would not make merchandiseof conscience, nor set a price upon faith ; ' he invitedto his presence leading Catholics from various parts ofthe country, assuring them, and bidding them assuretheir co-religionists, of his gracious intentions in theirregard ; * titles of honour and lucrative employmentswere bestowed on some oftheir number ; one professedCatholic, Henry Howard, presently created Earl ofNorthampton, being enrolled in the Privy Counciland in the first speech which he addressed to hisParliament James declared that, as to the papists, hehad no desire to persecute them, especially those ofthe laity who would be qaietV The immediate"effecF

^ Of this there can be no doubt, in spite of James's subsequentdenial. Father Garnet wrote to Parsons (April i6th, 1603):" There hath happened a great alteration by the death of theQueen. Great fears were, but all are turned into greatestsecurity, and a golden time we have of unexpected freedomabroade. . . . The Catholicks have great cause to hope forgreat respect, in that the nobility all almost labour for it, andhave good promise thereof from his Majesty." (Stonyhurst MSS.Anglia, iii. 32.)Goodman says : "And certainly they [the Catholics] had verygreat promises from him." {Court ofKingJames, i. 86.)

" "The Penal Laws, a code as savage as any that can beconceived since the foundation of the world."Lord ChiefJustice Coleridge. (To Lord Mayor Knill, Nov. 9, 1892.)

' Gardiner, i. 100.* Jardine, Gunpowder Plot, 18. Ibid. 20." Gardiner, i. 166.


54/318

20 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?of this milder policy was to afford evidence of thereal strength of the Catholics, many now openly de-claring themselves who had previously conformed tothe State church. In the diocese of Chester alone thenumber of Catholics was increased by a thousand.'

It is scarcely to be wondered at that men who werefamiliar with the political methods of the age shouldsee in all this a motive sufficient to explain a greatstroke for the destruction of those who appeared to beso formidable, devised by such a minister as was thenin power, "the statesman," writes Lord Castlemaine,^" who bore (as everybody knew) a particular hatred toall of our profession, and this increased to hear hisMajesty speak a little in his first speech to the twoHouses against persecution of papists, whereas therehad 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 influenceand power, and, for a time, even his popularity, assuringthe 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 whichshowed itself in an Act of the Parliament of 1604 confirming theistatutes of Elizabeth ; and to this James gave his assent. Hepromised, indeed, that the statute should remain inoperative."In May, 1604, the Catholics boasted that they had been joinedby 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 theoccasion with an almost regal triumph.

Of the proceedings subsequent to the Plot we are told : " In


55/318

THE CATHOLICS. 3 IOf no less importance is it to understand the posi-

tion of the Catholic body, and the character of theparticular Catholics who engaged in this enterprise.We have seen with what hopes the advent of KingJames had been hailed by those who had suffered somuch for his mother's sake, and who interpreted in atoo sanguine and trustful spirit his own words anddeeds. Their dream of enjoying even toleration at hishands was soon rudely dispelled. After giving themthe briefest of respites, the monarch, under the in-fluence, as all believed, of his council, and especially ofhis chief minister,^ suddenly reversed his line of actionand persecuted his Catholic subjects more cruelly thanhad his predecessor, calling up the arrears of fines whichthey fancied had been altogether remitted, ruiningmany in the process who had hitherto contrived to paytheir way,'' and adding to the sense of injury which suchpassing these laws for the security of the Protestant Religion,the Earl of Salisbury exerted himself with distinguished zealand vigour, which gained him great love and honour from thekingdom, as appeared in some measure, in the universal attend-ance on him at his installation with the Order of the Garter, onthe i20th 0f May, 1606, at Windsor." (Birch, Historical View,p. 256A/

' This belief is so notorious that one instance must suffice ases'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 ofTolleracyon, for his inclynacyon is good, howsoever the Councellset out his speeches." (S. P. O. Dom. James I. vii. 86.)

^ Mr. Gardiner {Hist. i. 229, note) says that arrears werenever demanded in the case of the fine of ^20 per lunar monthfor 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.)


56/318

32 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?a course necessarily provoked by farming out wealthyrecusants to needy courtiers, " to make their profit of,"in particular to the Scots who had followed theirroyal master across the border. Soon it was announcedthat the king would have blood ; all priests were orderedto leave the realm under pain of death, and the searchesfpr them became more frequent and violent than ever.In no long time, as Goodman tells us,* " a gentlewomanwas hanged only for relieving and harbouring a priesta citizen was hanged only for being reconciled to theChurch of Rome ; besides the penal laws were suchand so executed that they could not subsistjî' FatherGerard says : " " This being known to Catholics, it iseasy to be seen how first their hopes were turned intofears, and then their fears into full knowledge that allthe contrary to that they had hoped was intended andprepared for them, and, as one of the victims of theseproceedings wrote, " the times of Elizabeth, althoughmost cruel, were the mildest and happiest in com-parison with those of King Jamês." ^

In such circumstances, the CstiK5J;,ôdy being sonumerous as it was, it is not to be wondereli. at thatindividuals should be found, who, smarting under theirinjuries, and indignant at the bad faith of which theyconsidered themselves the dupes, looked to viole'siremedies for relief, and might without difficulty be^worked upon to that effect. Their case seemed farmore hopeless than ever. Queen Elizabeth's quarrelwith Rome had been in a great degree personal ; andmoreover, as she had no direct heir, it was confidently

' Court of KingJames, i. icxs.' Narrative, p. 46.' Stonyhurst MSS., Anglia, iii. 103.


57/318

K. JAMES AND THE CATHOLICS. 33anticipated that the demise of the crown would intro-duce a new era. KingN James's proceedings, on theother hand, seemed to indicate a deliberate policywhich 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 ofothers.^ /Ks Sir Everard Digby warned Cecil, in theremarkable letter which he addressed to him on thesubject -."^ "If your Lordship and the State think fit todeal severely with the Catholics, within brief spacethere will be massacres, rebellions, and desperateattempts against the King and the State. For it is ageneral received reason among Catholics, that thereis not that expecting and suffering course now to,be run that was in the Queen's time, who was the lastof her line, and last in expectance to run violentcourses against Catholics ; for then it was hoped thatthe King that now is, would have been at least freefrom persecuting, as his promise was before his cominginto this realm, and as divers his promises have beensince his coming. All these promises every man seesbroken.''2^

It must likewise be remembered that if stratagemsand " practices " were the recognized weapons ofministers, turbulence and arms were, at this period, thefamiliar, 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


58/318

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 littleof this kind of thing had be^ done on behalf of Jameshimself As is well kno\vn, he succeeded to the throneby a title upon whicji-ife could not have recovered atlaw an acre of land.' Elizabeth had so absolutelyforbidden all discussion of the question of the succes-sion as to leave it in a state of utter confusion.'' Therewere more than a dozen possible competitors, andamongst these the claim of the King of Scots wastechnically not the strongest, for though nearest inblood his claims had been barred by a special Act ofParliament, excluding the Scottish line. As ProfessorThorold Rogers says, " For a year after his accessionJames, if Acts of Parliament are to go for anything,was not legally King." ^

Nevertheless the cause of James was vigorouslytaken up in all directions, and promoted by meanswhich might well have been styled treason against theauthority of Parliament. Thus, old Sir ThomasTresham, father of Francis Tresham, the GunpowderConspirator, who had been an eminent sufferer for hisreligion, at considerable personal risk, and againstrhuch resistance on the part of the local magistratesand the populace, publicly proclaimed the new kingat Northampton, while Francis Tresham himself andhis brother Lewis, with Lord Monteagle, their brother-in-law, supported the Earl of Southampton in holdingthe 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.


59/318

THE ACCESSION OF JAMES I. 35deed everybody took to arms as soon as the queen'sillness had been known ; watch and ward were kept inthe City ; rich men brought their plate and treasurefrom the country, and placed them where they wouldbe safest/ and the approaches were guarded. Cecilhimself related in open court, in praise of the Lon-doners, how, when he himself, attended by most of thepeers and privy councillors of the kingdom, wished toenter the City to proclaim the new sovereign, theyfound the gates closed against them till they hadpublicly declared that they were about to proclaimJames and no one else.^

In times when statesmen could approve suchmethods of political action, it was inevitable thatviolent enterprises should have come to be consideredthe natural resource of those out of power, and it is veryclear that there were numerous individuals, of whomno one party had the monopoly, who were ready atany moment to risk everything for the cause theyserved, and such men, although their proclivitieswere well known, did not suffer much in publicesteem.The Gunpowder Conspirators were eminently men

of this stamp, and notoriously so. So well was theircharacter known, that when, in 1596, eight years beforethe commencement of the Plot, Queen Elizabeth hadbeen unwell, the Lords of the Council, as a pre-cautionary measure arrested some . of the principalamongst 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).


60/318

36 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?trouble should a chance occur.' Since that time theyhad not improved their record. All those above-named, as well as Thomas Winter, Christopher Wright,Percy, Grant, and perhaps others, had been engagedin the ill-starred rebellion of Essex, on which occasionCatesby was wounded, and both he and Treshamcame remarkably near being hanged.'' They hadlikewise been variously implicated in all the seditiousattempts which had since been madeCatesby andTresham being named by Sir Edward Coke as being;engaged with Watson in the " Bye." Thomas Winter,Christopher Wright, and Faukes, had, if we maybelieve the same authority, been sent to Spain ontreasonable embassies.' Grant made himselfvery 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.) Variouswriters erroneously suppose this transaction to have occurredin March, 1603, on occasion of Elizabeth's last illness. Thecorrect date, 1596, given by Sir Henry Ellis, is supplied bya 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 heldof prime importance in human life. Elizabeth was born ini1533-From Garnet's examination of March 14th, 1605-6 {Dom..James I. xix. 44), we learn that Catesby was at large at thetime 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, andTresham 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.


61/318

THE CONSPIRATORS. 37when they appeared to search his house.^ John Wrightand Percy had, at least till a very recent period, beennotorious bravoes, who made a point of picking aquarrel with any man who was reported to be a goodswordsman, 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 wasmeted out to the Catholics, from which moreover, asgentlemen, they themselves suffered in a special de-gree. Lord Castlemaine remarks that loose peoplemay usually be drawn into a plot when statesmen laygins, and that it was no hard thing for a Secretary ofState, should he desire any such thing, to know ofturbulent and ambitious spirits to be his unconsciousinstruments,' and it is obvious that no great perspica-city would have been required to fix upon those whohad given such evidence of their disposition as hadthese men.

It must, at the same time, be confessed that thecharacter of the plotters is" one of the most perplexingfeatures of the Plot. /The crime contemplated waswithout parallel in its brutal and senseless atrocity ._There had, it is true, been powder-plots before, notablythat which had effected the destruction of the king'sown 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, butwith cracked crowns sometimes, and with dry blows instead ofdrink and other good cheer, that they durst not visit him anymore unless they brought store of help with them." {Narrativeof the Gunpowder Plot, p. 86.)

^ Ibid., p. 57-" Catholique Apology, p. 403.


62/318

38 WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT?lated to make much impression upon the timorousmind of Jamesy^But what marked off our GunpowderPlot from all others, was the wholesale and indis-criminate slaughter in which it must have resulted, andthe absence of any possibility that the cause could bebenefited which the conspirators had at heart/ It wasat once reprobated and denounced by the Catholics ofEngland, and by the friends and near relatives of theconspirators themselves.

^^It might be supposed thatthose who undertook such an enterprise were criminals

of the deepest dye, and ruffians of a more than usuallyrepulsive type. In spite, however, of the turbulentelement in their character of which we have seensomething, such a judgment would, in the opinion ofhistorians, be altogether erroneous. Far from theirbeing utterly unredeemed villains, it appears, in fact,that apart from the one monstrous transgression whichhas made them infamous, they should be distinguishedin the annals of crime as the least disreputable gangof conspirators who ever plotted a treason. On thispoint we have ample evidence from those who are byno means their friends. " Atrocious as their wholeundertaking was," writes Mr. Gardiner,'' "great asmust have been the moral obliquity of their mindsbefore they could have conceived such a project, therewas at least nothing mean or selfish about them.They boldly risked their lives for what they honestly

' E.g., by Mr. Talbot ofGrafton,father-in-law ofRobertWinter,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 takingprisoners. (R. O. Gunpowder Plot Book, 42.)

' History, i. 263.


63/318

THE CONSPIRATORS. 39believed to be the cause of God and of their country.Theirs was a crime which it would never have enteredinto the heart of any man to commit who was notraised above the low aims of the ordinary criminal."Similarly Mj:_Jardine, a still less friendly witness,tells us ^ that " several at least of the conspiratorswere men of mild and amiable manners, averse totumults and bloodshed, and dwelling quietly amidstthe humanities of domestic life," a description whichhe applies especially to Rokewood and Digby ; whileofAjuy Faukes himself he says ' that, according to theaccounts which we hear of him, he is not to beregarded as a mercenary ruffian, ready for hire to doany deed of blood ; but as a zealot, misled by mis-guided fanaticism, who was, however, by no meansdestitute either of piety or of humanity^ Moreover,as Mr. Jardine farther remarks, /he conspirators as abody 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 goodhouses, of excellent parts, and of very competentfortunes and estates," none of them, except perhapsCatesby, being in pecuniary difficulties, while severalnotably Robert Winter, Rokewood, Digby, Tipsham,and Grantwere men of large possessions..; It hasalso been observed by a recent biographer of SirEverard Digby,^ that, for the furtherance of theirprojects after the explosion, the confederates wereable to provide a sum equal at least to ;^75,oooof our moneya sufficient proof of their worldlyposition."^.Gunpowder Plot, p. 151. ^ Ibid., p. 38.\)Life ofa Conspirator, by one of his Descendants, p. 150.


64/318

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 itsrepresentatives," is undoubtedly not the least incom-prehensible feature of this strange story. At the sametime it must not be forgotten that there is another,and a very different account of these men, whichcomes to us on the authority of a Catholic priestliving 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 thepriests and the true Catholics knew them not to besuch. . . . They were never frequenters .of CatholicSacraments 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 orRecusant.'" /Similarly Cornwallis, writing from Madrid,' reportedthat the king and Estate of Spain were " much grievedthat they being atheists and devils in their inwardparts, should paint their outside with Catholicism."

In view of evidence so contradictory, it is difficult,if not impossible, to form a confident judgment as tothe real character of those whose history we areattempting to trace ; but, leaving aside what is matter

' English Protestants Plea and Petition for English Priestsand Papists. The author of this book (published 1621) describeshimself as a priest who has been for many years on the Englishmission. His title indicates that he draws his arguments fromProtestant sources.

^ P. s6.' November 2Sth, 1605, Stowe MSS, 168, 61.


65/318

THE CONSPIRATORS. 4of doubt, the undisputed facts of their previous careerappear to show unmistakably that they were just themen who would be ready to look to violence for aremedy of existing evils, and to whom it would not bedifficult to suggest its adoption.^

' See Appendix O, Recusants Fines, for particulars of thepenal exactions under Elizabeth and James I.


66/318

CHAPTER III.THE OPINION OF CONTEMPORARIES AND

HISTORIANS.We have now for so long a period been accustomedto accept the official story regarding the GunpowderPlot, that most readers will be surprised to hear thatat the time of its occurrence, and for more than acentury afterwards, there were, to say the least,many intelligent men who took for granted that insome way or other the actual conspirators were butthe dupes and instruments of more crafty men thanthemselves, and in their mad enterprise unwittinglyplayed the game of ministers of State.From the beginning the government itself antici-

pated this, as is evidenced by the careful and elaborateaccount of the whole affair drawn up on the 7th ofNovember, 1605two days after the "discovery"seemingly for the benefit of the Privy Council.' Thisimportant document, which is in the handwriting ofLevinus Munck, Cecil's secretary, with numerous andsignificant emendations from the hand of Cecil him-self, speaks, amongst other things, of the need ofcircumspection, " considering how apt the world isnowadays to think all providence and intelligences to

' Gunpowder Plot Book, 129. Printed in Archaologia, xii.202*.


67/318

CONTEMPORARY INCREDULITY. 43be but practices." The result did not falsify theexpectation. Within five weeks we find a letterwritten 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 ascertain that there has been foul play, and that someof the Council secretly spun the web to entanglethese poor gentlemen, as did Secretary Walsinghamin

what was the gunpowder plot

Documents