CELLAR UNDER HOUSE OF LORDS.cellar under house of lords.
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 hammering 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.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 lease, but one Skinner, and that Percy "laboured very earnestly" before he succeeded in obtaining it.
VAULT, EAST END OF PAINTED CHAMBER, ERRONEOUSLY STYLED "GUY FAUKES' CELLAR."vault, east end of painted chamber, erroneously styled "guy faukes' cellar."
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-madecavity for their purposes. To it, accordingly, they transferred their powder, the barrels, by subsequent additions, being increased to thirty-six, and the amount to nine or ten thousand pounds.[162]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,[163]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[164]of "the deepcunning [of the conspirators] in throwing open the vault, as if there had been nothing to conceal;" while another writer[165]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."
ARCHES FROM THE "CELLAR" UNDER THE HOUSE OF LORDS.arches from the "cellar" under the house of lords.
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,[166]"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,[167]"was treason more secret, or ruin more apparently inevitable," while theSecretary of State himself declared[168]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 intelligence department. Of a former secretary, Walsingham, Parsons wrote that he "spent infinite upon spyery,"[169]and there can be no doubt that his successor, now in office, had studied his methods to good purpose. "He," according to a panegyrist,[170]"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[171]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.[172]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 particularaffair. 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 altogether incredible.
More especially do difficulties connect themselves with the gunpowder itself. Of this, according to the lowest figure given us, there were over four tons.[173]How, we may ask, could half a dozen men, "notorious Recusants," and bearing, moreover, such a character as we have heard, without attracting any notice, and no question being asked, possess themselves of such a quantity of so dangerous a material?[174]How large was the amount may be estimated from the fact thatit was more than a quarter of what, in 1607, was delivered 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.[175]
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 adjoining the Parliament House, or the "cellar" beneath the same. All this, we are to suppose, without attracting attention or remark.[176]
The conspirators, while making these material preparations, were likewise 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 business. The confederates would have wished to possess themselves of Prince Henry, the king's eldest son;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,[177]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,[178]that Percy undertook to seize and carry off Duke Charles; and again,[179]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;[180]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;"[181]and once more, that they never entered into any consultation or formed any project whatever as to the succession.[182]
Still more serious are the contradictions on another point. We are told, on the one hand, that a proclamation was drawn up for the inauguration of the new sovereign—whoever this was[183]—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,[184]and accordingly that they had no more than a project of a proclamation to be issued in due season. But, again, it is said[185]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 understand, 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 proclamation by an obscure individual like himself was expected 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:[186]"With the advantage 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"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 something of the difficulties 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 confessions and declarations made by the conspirators in general, and these individuals in particular, these two alone describe the mining operations.[187]
CELL IN STAIRCASE TURRET, S.E. CORNER, PAINTED CHAMBER, OFTEN CALLED "GUY FAUKES' CELL."cell in staircase turret, s.e. corner, painted chamber, often called "guy faukes' cell."
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,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, aprima faciecase 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 apprehended, and by themselves, upon examination, confessed." That is to say, the government could not,though provided with information that there was a powder-mine under the Parliament House, have discovered this extraordinary piece of engineering; and moreover, after its abandonment, the traces of the excavation were so artfully hidden as to elude observation 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 November 5th, Faukes is made to say: "He confesseth that about Christmas last [1604], he brought in the nighttime Gunpowderto the cellar under the upper 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 demolished, 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.[188]He does, indeed,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.... In 1799 it 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."[189]
But against such a supposition there are three fatal objections. (1) 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.[190](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.
There are, likewise, various problems in connection with the "cellar," especially as concerns the means of ingress to it, and its consequent privacy or publicity.
(a) Faukes says (November 6th, 1605) that about the middle of Lent of that year Percy caused "a new dore" to be made into it, "that he might have a neerer 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 communication between it and his house. Moreover it is not very easy to understand how a tenant under such conditions 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,[191]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 afterthought 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,[192]while the operations of these latter in breaking through the wallwould 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[193]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 landlord, 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.[194]
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 gunpowder; 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 assemblingof the intended victims. Parliament stood prorogued 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.[195]In his absence Percy kept the key of the cellar, and, according to Faukes,[196]laid in more powder and wood while he himself was absent.
THE POWDER PLOT. II.the powder plot. ii.
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.[197]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,[198]it can hardly be supposed that the landlord[199]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 independently 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.
FOOTNOTES:[129]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 1834.(iii.) The "Painted Chamber," which, having been repaired after the said fire, became the place of assembly for the Lords, as did the Court of Requests for the Commons.The original House of Lords was demolished in 1823 by Sir John Soane, who on its site erected his Royal Gallery. (See Brayley and Britton,History of the Palace of Westminster.)[130]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 thirteenth century, as likewise the "Prince's Chamber."[131]Brayley and Britton,History of the Palace of Westminster, p. 421; J. T. Smith,Antiquities of Westminster, p. 39 (where illustrations will be found);Gentleman's Magazine, July, 1800, p. 626.[132]It was here that the death warrant of Charles I. was signed.[133]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.[134]Cecil wrote to Cornwallis, Edmondes, and others, November 9th, 1605, "This Piercey had 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 styling the tenement "Vinegar House."[135]See Appendix E,Site of Percy's house.[136]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.[137]Birch,Historical View, p. 227.[138]Historie, p. 1231.[139]Gunpowder Treason, Harleian Miscellany, iii. 121.[140]At his first examination, November 5th 1605, Faukes declared that he had not been sure the king would come to the Parliament House on that day, and that his purpose was to have blown it up whenever his Majesty was there.[141]The agreement between Percy and Ferrers is in the Record Office (Gunpowder Plot Book, 1.) and is endorsed by Cecil, "The bargaine ... for the bloody sellar." Upon this there will be more to remark later.[142]Jardine,Gunpowder Plot, p. 42.[143]The 11th 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 facetiæ; 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."[144]"Gentlemen not accustomed to labour or to be pioneers."—Goodman,Court of King James, p. 103.[145]"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,Historie, p. 1232 (pub. 1611).[146]In Barlow'sGunpowder Treasonthese foundations are stated to have been three ells thick,i.e., eleven and a quarter feet.Harleian Miscellany, iii. 122.[147]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."[148]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 (November 23rd) says that they went on to "near Easter" (March 31st). The date of hiring the "cellar," was about Lady Day (March 25th).[149]The buildings of the dissolved College of St. Stephen, comprising those around the House of Lords, were granted by Edward VI. 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.[150]Jardine,Gunpowder Plot, p. 48.[151]November 17th, 1605.[152]November 7th, 1605.[153]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).[154]Faukes, as has been said, makes the work upon the wall terminate at Candlemas. Winter (ut 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.[155]Lord's Journals"Ao1604(5) 2 Jac.—Memorandum quod hodierno die, septimo die Februarii, AoRegis ñri Jacobi,viz.Angliae (etc.) 2ndo, & Scotiae 38o, 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 Ellesmere (Chancellor), Dorset (Treasurer), Nottingham (Admiral), Suffolk (Chamberlain), Northumberland, Cranborne (Cecil), Northampton, etc. It is noted "Lords Montagu, Petre, and Gerard [all three Catholics] were present, though they were none of the Commissioners."[156]Narrative(Stonyhurst MSS.), fol. 44 b.[157]This absurd supposition is obviously implied by Faukes (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'sGunpowder 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'sChurch History, iv. 45, note): "At this moment an accidental noise ... first acquainted them with the existence of the cellar."[158]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.[159]Gunpowder Plot, p. 55. This account is based almost entirely on that of Faukes, November 17th, 1605.[160]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).[161]"These Pioneers through Piercies chamber broughtTh' 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 MysterieThis remarkable poem, published 1617, is a much expanded translation ofPietas Pontificia(in Latin hexameter verse) by Francis Herring, which appeared in 1606.[162]On this point we are furnished with more than the usual amount of variety as to details. Cecil, writing to the ambassadors (Cornwallis, Edmondes, etc.), says there were "two hodgsheads and some 30 small barrels." The King'sDiscoursementions 36 barrels. Barclay (Conspiratio Anglicana) 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'sGunpowder Treasonmakes the extraordinary statement, frequently 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 conveyed to the place in hampers. John Chamberlain, writing to Dudley Carleton, November 7th, 1605, says it was carried in satchels. Barlow (ut sup.) quotes the amount as 9,000 or 10,000 lb.[163]November 23rd, 1605.[164]The Gunpowder Plot, by L., 1805. It seems highly probable that the "cellar" was used as a public passage.[165]Hugh F. Martyndale,A Familiar Analysis of the Calendar of the Church of England(November 5th). London, Effingham Wilson.[166]Letter to Cornwallis and Edmondes, November 9th, 1605.[167]H.F. Martyndale,ut sup.[168]Letter to the Ambassadors,ut sup.[169]An Advertisement written to a Secretarie, etc. (1592), p. 13.[170]Sir R. Naunton,Fragmenta Regalia (Harleian Miscellany, ii. 106).[171]Blount to Parsons (Stonyhurst MSS.),Anglia, vi. 64.[172]Such letters are found amongst the State Papers.[173]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.)[174]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 pound, or half a pound?" Sir Everard said 200 or 300 lb. Deponent purchased one pound. (Tanner MSS. lxxv. f. 205 b.)One Matthew Batty mentioned Lord Monteagle as having bought gunpowder. (Ibid.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.[175]Gunpowder was measured by thelast= 2,400 lb. (Tomline'sLaw 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, 1 last;Walmer, 1 last, 8 cwt.;Deal Castle, 1 last;Sandown Castle, 2 lasts, etc.;Sandgate, 1 last;Camber, 1 last."[176]The position and character of the "cellar" admit of no doubt, as appears from the testimony of Smith'sAntiquities of Westminster, Brayley and Britton'sAncient Palace of Westminster, and Capon's notes on the same,Vetusta Monumenta, v. They are, however, inconsistent with some circumstances 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'sGunpowder 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 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 in 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, within 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 migration. From Leigh'sNew Picture of Londonwe 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; while a plate given in Knight'sOld England, and elsewhere, represents 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.[177]Afterwards the Electress Palatine.[178]Gardiner,Hist.i. 245; Lingard, vii. 59; T. Winter, November 23rd, 1605.[179]Faukes, November 17th, 1605.[180]Harry Morgan,Examination(R.O.), November 12th, 1605.[181]T. Winter, November 23rd and 25th, 1605. As the information 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.[182]Faukes, November 5th, 1605.[183]Sir E. Digby, Barlow'sGunpowder Treason, App. 249.[184]Faukes, November 17th, 1605.[185]Digby,ut sup.[186]History, i. 239.[187]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,Criminal Trials, ii. 6.[188]His detailed notes and plans are given inVetusta Monumenta, vol. v.[189]Page 4.[190]See Appendix E,Site of Percy's house.[191]Tanner MSS. lxxv. § 185, b.[192]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.[193]November 6th, 1605. More will be seen of the important document containing this information.[194]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."[195]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 suspicion, or have been left unprotected.[196]November 17th, 1605.[197]Thomas Winter, November 23rd, 1605.[198]F. 66.[199]This, as we have heard, was Mr. Whynniard, who unfortunately 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.
[129]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 1834.
(iii.) The "Painted Chamber," which, having been repaired after the said fire, became the place of assembly for the Lords, as did the Court of Requests for the Commons.
The original House of Lords was demolished in 1823 by Sir John Soane, who on its site erected his Royal Gallery. (See Brayley and Britton,History of the Palace of Westminster.)
[130]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 thirteenth century, as likewise the "Prince's Chamber."
[131]Brayley and Britton,History of the Palace of Westminster, p. 421; J. T. Smith,Antiquities of Westminster, p. 39 (where illustrations will be found);Gentleman's Magazine, July, 1800, p. 626.
[132]It was here that the death warrant of Charles I. was signed.
[133]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.
[134]Cecil wrote to Cornwallis, Edmondes, and others, November 9th, 1605, "This Piercey had 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 styling the tenement "Vinegar House."
[135]See Appendix E,Site of Percy's house.
[136]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.
[137]Birch,Historical View, p. 227.
[138]Historie, p. 1231.
[139]Gunpowder Treason, Harleian Miscellany, iii. 121.
[140]At his first examination, November 5th 1605, Faukes declared that he had not been sure the king would come to the Parliament House on that day, and that his purpose was to have blown it up whenever his Majesty was there.
[141]The agreement between Percy and Ferrers is in the Record Office (Gunpowder Plot Book, 1.) and is endorsed by Cecil, "The bargaine ... for the bloody sellar." Upon this there will be more to remark later.
[142]Jardine,Gunpowder Plot, p. 42.
[143]The 11th 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 facetiæ; 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."
[144]"Gentlemen not accustomed to labour or to be pioneers."—Goodman,Court of King James, p. 103.
[145]"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,Historie, p. 1232 (pub. 1611).
[146]In Barlow'sGunpowder Treasonthese foundations are stated to have been three ells thick,i.e., eleven and a quarter feet.Harleian Miscellany, iii. 122.
[147]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."
[148]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 (November 23rd) says that they went on to "near Easter" (March 31st). The date of hiring the "cellar," was about Lady Day (March 25th).
[149]The buildings of the dissolved College of St. Stephen, comprising those around the House of Lords, were granted by Edward VI. 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.
[150]Jardine,Gunpowder Plot, p. 48.
[151]November 17th, 1605.
[152]November 7th, 1605.
[153]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).
[154]Faukes, as has been said, makes the work upon the wall terminate at Candlemas. Winter (ut 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.
[155]Lord's Journals"Ao1604(5) 2 Jac.—Memorandum quod hodierno die, septimo die Februarii, AoRegis ñri Jacobi,viz.Angliae (etc.) 2ndo, & Scotiae 38o, 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 Ellesmere (Chancellor), Dorset (Treasurer), Nottingham (Admiral), Suffolk (Chamberlain), Northumberland, Cranborne (Cecil), Northampton, etc. It is noted "Lords Montagu, Petre, and Gerard [all three Catholics] were present, though they were none of the Commissioners."
[156]Narrative(Stonyhurst MSS.), fol. 44 b.
[157]This absurd supposition is obviously implied by Faukes (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'sGunpowder 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'sChurch History, iv. 45, note): "At this moment an accidental noise ... first acquainted them with the existence of the cellar."
[158]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.
[159]Gunpowder Plot, p. 55. This account is based almost entirely on that of Faukes, November 17th, 1605.
[160]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).
[161]
"These Pioneers through Piercies chamber broughtTh' 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."
"These Pioneers through Piercies chamber broughtTh' 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 ofPietas Pontificia(in Latin hexameter verse) by Francis Herring, which appeared in 1606.
[162]On this point we are furnished with more than the usual amount of variety as to details. Cecil, writing to the ambassadors (Cornwallis, Edmondes, etc.), says there were "two hodgsheads and some 30 small barrels." The King'sDiscoursementions 36 barrels. Barclay (Conspiratio Anglicana) 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'sGunpowder Treasonmakes the extraordinary statement, frequently 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 conveyed to the place in hampers. John Chamberlain, writing to Dudley Carleton, November 7th, 1605, says it was carried in satchels. Barlow (ut sup.) quotes the amount as 9,000 or 10,000 lb.
[163]November 23rd, 1605.
[164]The Gunpowder Plot, by L., 1805. It seems highly probable that the "cellar" was used as a public passage.
[165]Hugh F. Martyndale,A Familiar Analysis of the Calendar of the Church of England(November 5th). London, Effingham Wilson.
[166]Letter to Cornwallis and Edmondes, November 9th, 1605.
[167]H.F. Martyndale,ut sup.
[168]Letter to the Ambassadors,ut sup.
[169]An Advertisement written to a Secretarie, etc. (1592), p. 13.
[170]Sir R. Naunton,Fragmenta Regalia (Harleian Miscellany, ii. 106).
[171]Blount to Parsons (Stonyhurst MSS.),Anglia, vi. 64.
[172]Such letters are found amongst the State Papers.
[173]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.)
[174]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 pound, or half a pound?" Sir Everard said 200 or 300 lb. Deponent purchased one pound. (Tanner MSS. lxxv. f. 205 b.)
One Matthew Batty mentioned Lord Monteagle as having bought gunpowder. (Ibid.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.
[175]Gunpowder was measured by thelast= 2,400 lb. (Tomline'sLaw 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, 1 last;Walmer, 1 last, 8 cwt.;Deal Castle, 1 last;Sandown Castle, 2 lasts, etc.;Sandgate, 1 last;Camber, 1 last."
[176]The position and character of the "cellar" admit of no doubt, as appears from the testimony of Smith'sAntiquities of Westminster, Brayley and Britton'sAncient Palace of Westminster, and Capon's notes on the same,Vetusta Monumenta, v. They are, however, inconsistent with some circumstances 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'sGunpowder 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 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 in 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, within 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 migration. From Leigh'sNew Picture of Londonwe 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; while a plate given in Knight'sOld England, and elsewhere, represents 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.
[177]Afterwards the Electress Palatine.
[178]Gardiner,Hist.i. 245; Lingard, vii. 59; T. Winter, November 23rd, 1605.
[179]Faukes, November 17th, 1605.
[180]Harry Morgan,Examination(R.O.), November 12th, 1605.
[181]T. Winter, November 23rd and 25th, 1605. As the information 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.
[182]Faukes, November 5th, 1605.
[183]Sir E. Digby, Barlow'sGunpowder Treason, App. 249.
[184]Faukes, November 17th, 1605.
[185]Digby,ut sup.
[186]History, i. 239.
[187]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,Criminal Trials, ii. 6.
[188]His detailed notes and plans are given inVetusta Monumenta, vol. v.
[189]Page 4.
[190]See Appendix E,Site of Percy's house.
[191]Tanner MSS. lxxv. § 185, b.
[192]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.
[193]November 6th, 1605. More will be seen of the important document containing this information.
[194]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."
[195]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 suspicion, or have been left unprotected.
[196]November 17th, 1605.
[197]Thomas Winter, November 23rd, 1605.
[198]F. 66.
[199]This, as we have heard, was Mr. Whynniard, who unfortunately 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.
Havingfollowed 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 meantime, 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 informers, prying into all the doings of the recusant Catholics, receiving frequent intimation of all that was undertaken, or even projected, and, apparently, regulating 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.
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,[200]reporting the proceedings of a subordinate agent, by name Davies, whom he styles a "discoverer,"[201]then engaged in working a Catholic treason, with the special object of incriminating priests. Davies has offered to "set," or mark down,[202]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."[203]
That the treason in question was none other than the Gunpowder Plot there can be no question, unless 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 conduct was threshed out to the uttermost. In consequence, we are able to say with certainty, thatbesides 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 important, is that which after the "discovery" every nerve was strained to establish, namely, the complicity of the Catholic clergy. If we had no more than this internal evidence, it would abundantly suffice to assure us that the conspiracy thus sedulously watched was the same as that miraculously "discovered" 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 performedin the damnable plot of the Powder treason." King James is reminded that Chief Justice Popham and Sir Thomas Challoner had a hand in the discovery of the Powder, and this by means of information 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."[204]
In the same month of April, 1604, was suppliedanother piece of information, singularly interesting and important,[205]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, or if any suspicion should grow 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 importance 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.[206]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.