A VIEW OF THE HOUSE OF PEERS, 1755.a view of the house of peers, 1755.
This is, however, by no means the only information of which we find traces. Amongst the Cecil papers at Hatfield is a letter dated December 20th, 1605, addressed to the Earl of Salisbury by one Thomas Coe, who claims to have previously forwarded to his Majesty "the primary intelligence of these late dangerous treasons," upon which communication the historian Lodge observes,[207]"It should seem then that the famous letter transmitted to James by Lord Monteagle, for the right construction of which that Prince's penetration hath been so highly extolled by some historians, was not the only previous intelligence communicated to him of the Gunpowder Treason."
Meanwhile the officers of the government, in all parts, appear to have been no less alert than was their wont. On the 9th of January, 1604-5, for instance, Sir Thomas Parry writes from Paris,[208]inclosing a note from an informer at Dieppe, concerning an English Catholic returning from Italy and Spain with letters for Fathers Garnet and Oldcorne, and a cipher of three lines for a lawyer at Douay, and although the messenger has contrived to give him the slip, he is able to send particulars concerning his personal appearance, and the locality in London where he is likely to be found. On the 25th of the same month, Cecil replies to Parry[209]concerning priests and their doings, and makes the valuable admission that their proceedings are always known to him by means of false brethren, though, he adds, these informers always add to their intelligence "sophistications" of their own, a fact which must not be lost sight of in studying thereports of such folk. We hear particularly of informations supplied by the priests Bagshawe and Cecil, by Captain Turner, Charles Paget, and sundry others.
At the beginning of October, 1605, we make the acquaintance of another notable informer. On the first of the month, William Willaston, then engaged on a commission in France in connection with a proposed commercial treaty, writes to Cecil from Paris[210]concerning a Catholic design attributed chiefly to priests and Jesuits, who have assurance that their friends in England, who are many and of good sort, intend "to kindle a fire in many corners of our land, and a rebellion in Ireland," and that these matters be almost grown to a head, "some of their fingers itching to be set to work." Willaston adds, "there is a particular irreconcilable desperate malice against your Honour's person, which is principally the cause I make bold to write unto your Lordship. You have yet the papists in your hands, and are masters; if you let them increase and grow so insolent, assuredly it will come to pass as to the King of Israel, who having overthrown Benhadab ..." and so on.
On October 14th, Willaston again writes from Rouen[211]"about some matters pretended by our Romish Catholics." The party, he says, "who" has given light into this business "is one George Southwaick, well-known to many of your Lordship's followers." This Southwaick, he holds to be "very honest;" he is going to England with sundry priests and others, and upon landing will at once communicate with the authorities and have his comrades arrested. "Southwaickhimself," adds Willaston, "must be taken as well as the others, for he desireth not to be known to have given any information against the rest. If it please your Lordship to take order for his imprisonment apart, that conference privately may be had with him, until such time as shall be thought fit to deliver him, he can give you good directions for many matters, and may stand your honour in stead for such purposes."
There follows a notable suggestion: "If your Lordship would be pleased to set some man to win the Nuncio of the Pope his secretary in Paris, you should receive very direct and sound instructions from him." The writer goes on to speak of an intended rebellion in England, and the kindling of a fire there, and dutifully concludes, "God grant they touch not the person of the King nor of his children."
On the 27th of October, nine days before the "discovery," Southwaick himself, now in England, writes to Cecil,[212]urging that the impending arrest of priests and others should be deferred, and that for better management of "the business, and for the better and more substantial manifestation thereof," he ventures to suggest that "more scope of time would make the service of more worth." Moreover, he gives warning of preparations for trouble in the shires, in connection with "their plot," and finally promises, "your Honour shall not only have knowledge of all such as are any way intercepted in the same, but also knowledge of the end of their whole purpose, and withal be certain of their meeting here in London, where I do not doubt to apprehend forty priests, with many great of name, at mass, in good speed of their great intent."
On the morning of the 5th of November itself, evidently before receiving news that the final blow had been struck, Southwaick writes to Levinus Munck, Cecil's private secretary.[213]He excuses himself for recent silence on the ground that he could not without prejudice to "the business" have communicated with his employers. "The parties," he declares, "have had, ever since I saw you, such obscure meetings, such mutable purposes, such uncertain resolutions, as hath made me ride both day and night, as well in foul weather as fair, omitting no opportunities, lest I should not effect what I have by the weight of my credit and the engagement of my duty and reputation propounded to my honourable Lord." He farther begs that nothing may be done that might disclose his true character to his intended victims, and concludes by declaring that, if he be not much mistaken, he is about "a singular service."
If such letters proved nothing more, they would abundantly serve to discredit the idea that a government which conducted its operations in such a fashion could be hoodwinked by such clumsy contrivances as those of the cellar and the mine.
Five days later,[214]Southwaick again writes to Munck, inclosing a note of the priests who have had meetings in Paris, or have been written to in England. The Ambassador (in Paris) will, he says, bear witness that, although unable to particularize, he had given notice two months since that there was a plot brewing. He adds a significant hint, the like of which we havealready seen: "Should I chance to be apprehended, I will rest myself upon my honourable Lord."[215]
Meanwhile the English ambassadors abroad were no less active and vigilant than the informers at home, and while clearly aware that there was some danger on foot, never doubted that the king's government would not be caught napping.
On the 9th of October, Sir Thomas Edmondes wrote to Cecil from Brussels[216]to warn him of suspicious symptoms in the Low Countries; and on the following day Cecil wrote to Edmondes[217]expressing apprehensions of trouble from the Jesuits abroad. On the same day, October 10th, Sir Thomas Parry wrote from Paris to the secretary,[218]of a petition which the Catholics were preparing against the meeting of Parliament, "and some further designs upon refusal;" and in another letter informed Edmondes:[219]"somewhat is at present in hand amongst these desperate hypocrites, which I trust God shall divert, by the vigilant care of his Majesty's faithful servants and friends abroad, and prudence of his council at home."
That such confidence was not misplaced is shown by Cecil's assurance to Sir Thomas Parry,[220]mentioned above, that the proceedings of the priests were never unknown to Government.
Amongst the papers at Hatfield is a curious note,anonymous and undated, giving information of a plot involving murder and treason, which, like the letter to Monteagle, simulates rather too obviously the workmanship of an illiterate person, and artfully insinuates that the design in question is undertaken in the name of religion, and chiefly favoured by the priests.[221]
Another remarkable document is preserved in the same collection. This is a letter written to Sir Everard Digby, June 11th, 1605, and treating of an otter hunt to be undertaken when the hay shall be cut. It has, however, been endorsed by Salisbury, "Letter written to Sir Everard Digby—Powder Treason."[222]Not only is it hard to see how the termsof the document lend themselves to such an interpretation, but the date at which it was written was fully three months prior to Digby's initiation in the conspiracy. The idea is certainly suggested that, far from being passive and indolent, the authorities were sedulously seeking pretexts to entangle as many as possible of those "great of name," concerning whom we have already heard from one of their informers. This much, at any rate, seems clear. Those at the centre of this complex web of espionage, to whom were addressed all these informations and admonitions, cannot have been, as they protested somewhat overmuch, in a state of careless inactivity, depending for security only upon the protection of the Almighty, "who," as the secretary afterwards piously declared, "blessed us in our slumber [and] will not forsake us now that we are awake."[223]
The slumber would at least appear not to have been dreamless. On the one hand, the secretary was evidently much exercised by a threatenedrapprochementbetween his royal master and Pope Clement VIII., who, through a Scotch Catholic gentleman, Sir James Lindsay, had sent a friendly message to King James, which had elicited a courteous and almost cordial reply.[224]The significance of this Cecilstrenuously endeavoured, in a letter to the Duke of Lenox,[225]to explain away, and in February, 1604-5, we find him assuring the Archbishop of York with an earnestness somewhat suspicious,[226]"I love not to procure or yield any toleration; a matter which I well know no creature living durst propound to our religious Sovereign." For himself, he thus declares: "I will be much less than I am, or rather nothing at all, before I shall become an instrument of such a miserable change." Nevertheless, on the 17th of April following, he was fain to acknowledge, in writing to Parry,[227]that the news of Pope Clement's death had much eased him in his mind.
It would, however, appear that the spectre of possible toleration still haunted him, and that he felt it necessary to commit the king to a course of severity. In a minute of September 12th, 1605, addressed to the same ambassador, which has been corrected and amended with an amount of care sufficiently testifying to the importance of the subject,[228]after speaking of "the plots and business of the priests," and the tendency of Englishmen going abroad "in this timeof peace" to become Catholics, he thus continues: "Only this is it wherein my own heart receiveth comfort, that we live under a most religious and understanding Prince, who sticketh not to publish, as well in his own particular, as in the form of his government, how contrary that religion is to his resolution, and how far he will be from ever gracing [it]." He goes on to declare that nothing will so avail to make his Majesty withdraw his countenance from any man as such "falling away."
About the same time as this was written, we are told by a writer, almost a contemporary,[229]that a dependent of Cecil's warned a Catholic gentleman, by name Buck, of a "wicked design" which his master had in hand against the papists.
On the 17th of October, more than a week before the first hint of danger is said to have been breathed, we find the minister writing to Sir Thomas Edmondes, at Brussels,[230]in terms which certainly appear to couple together the growing danger of conversions to Catholicism, of which we have heard above, and the remedy soon to be supplied by the new policy which the discovery of the Plot so effectively established. He speaks of the "insolencies" of the priests and Jesuits, who are doing much injury by infecting with their poison "every youth that cometh amongst them;" ominously adding, "which liberty must, for one cause or another, be retrenched."
There can be no doubt that the issue of the Gunpowder Plot was eminently calculated to work suchan effect; and even more would seem to have been anticipated from it than was actually realized, for the secretary, we are told, promised King James that in consequence of it not a single Jesuit should remain in England.
In the accounts supplied to us as to the manner of the "discovery," we obtain much interesting information from the utterances of the government itself. In studying these we cannot fail to notice an evident effort to reconcile two conflicting interests. On the one hand, that the king and the nation should be properly impressed with a sense of their marvellous deliverance, it was essential to represent the catastrophe as having been imminent, which could not be unless the preparations for it had been altogether unsuspected; and it was likewise desirable to magnify the divine sagacity of the monarch, which had been the instrument of Providence to avert a disaster otherwise inevitable. On the other hand, however, it should not be made to appear that those to whose keeping the public safety was intrusted had shown themselves culpably negligent or incompetent; and it had therefore to be insinuated that, after all, they were not without "sufficient advertisement" of danger, and even of danger specifically connected with the actual conspirators, and directed against the Parliament. But, again, lest such information should appear suspiciously accurate, the actual plotters had to be merged in a larger body of their co-religionists, and their design to be represented in vague and general terms. At the time, no doubt, this was effective enough. Now however that we know, by the light of subsequent investigations, who exactly were engaged,and what was in hand, it is possible to estimate these declarations at their true value.[231]
Except with the aid of such an explanation as this, it seems impossible to understand the endless inconsistencies and contradictions of the official narrative. This we have in four forms, all coming to us on the highest authority, but addressed to different audiences, and hopelessly at variance upon almost every point. One is that given to the world as the "King's Book,"[232]containing, as Mr. Jardine tells us, the version which it was desired that the general public should accept. A second was furnished by Cecil himself to the ambassadors at Madrid and Brussels, and the Lord Deputy in Ireland,[233]and a third to the ambassador at Paris.[234]We have likewise the minute of November 7th, already mentioned as perhaps intended for the information of the Privy Council, which, although it has seemingly served as the basis of the story told in the"King's Book," contradicts that story in various not unimportant particulars.
We shall afterwards have to examine in some detail the divergencies of these several narratives: at present we are concerned only with the intimation which they afford of a previous knowledge of the Plot on the part of the government. In the "King's Book"—which was not only to be disseminated broadcast at home, but to be translated and spread abroad, and, moreover, to be suited to the taste of its supposed author—the preternatural acuteness of the monarch is extolled in terms of most preposterous flattery, and his secretary is represented as altogether incredulous of danger, and unwilling to be convinced even by his royal master's wonderful interpretation of the mysterious warning. Nevertheless, not only is mention parenthetically introduced of the minister's "customable and watchful care of the king and State, boiling within him," of his laying up these things in his heart, "like the Blessed Virgin Mary," and being unable to rest till he had followed the matter farther,—but it is dexterously intimated that, for all his hardness of belief, he was sufficiently well informed before the warning came to hand, and that "this accident did put him in mind of divers advertisements he had received from beyond the seas, wherewith he had acquainted as well the king himself, as divers of his Privy Councillors, concerning some business the Papists were in, both at home and abroad, making combination amongst them for some combination against this Parliament time," their object being to approach the king with a petition for toleration, "which should be delivered in some such order, and so well backed, as the king should beloth to refuse their requests; like the sturdy beggars craving alms with one open hand, but carrying a stone in the other, in case of refusal."
As prepared for the Privy Council, the account, though substantially the same, was somewhat more explicit. The secretary was fully aware, so the Lords were told, "that some practices might be doubted," and he "had, any time these three months, acquainted the King, and some of his Majesty's inward Counsellors, that the priests and laymen abroad and at home were full of the papists of this kingdom, seeking still to lay someplotfor procuring at this Parliament exercise of their religion."
In his letter to the ambassadors Cecil was able to speak more plainly, for this document was not to meet the eye of James. Accordingly, he not only acknowledges that on seeing the Monteagle letter he at once divined the truth, and understood all about the powder, and moreover reverses the parts played by his Majesty and himself—making the former incredulous in spite of what he himself could urge in support of his opinion—but he goes on to give his previous information a far more definite complexion: "Not but that I had sufficient advertisement that most of these that now are fled [i.e.the conspirators]—being all notorious Recusants—with many others of that kind, had a practice in hand for some stir this Parliament." He, moreover, describes the plotters, in terms already cited, as "gentlemen spent in their fortunes and fit for all alterations."
In view of all this it is quite impossible to believe the account given of themselves by those who were responsible for the public safety, and to suppose thatthey were not only so neglectful of their duty, but so incredibly foolish, and so unlike themselves, as to permit a gross and palpable peril to approach unnoticed. If, on the other hand, as appears to be certain, the information with which they were supplied were copious and minute, erring by excess far more than by defect, if, instead of lethargy and carelessness, we find in their conduct, at every stage of the proceedings, evidence of the extremest vigilance and of constant activity, and if they held it of prime importance to disguise the facts, and were willing to incur the charge of having been asleep at their posts, rather than let it be thought that they knew what they did, it can scarcely be doubted that the history of the Gunpowder Plot given to the world was in its essential features what they wished it to be.[235]
A practical illustration of the methods freely employed by statesmen of the period will serve to throw fuller light upon this portion of our inquiry. In the service of the government was one Thomas Phelippes,[236]by trade a "decipherer," who was employed to "make English" of intercepted letters written in cipher. His services had been largely used in connection with Mary,Queen of Scots, some of whose letters he thus interpreted, having it in his power, as Mr. Tytler remarks, to garble or falsify them at pleasure.[237]Moreover, to serve the purposes of his masters, as he himself acknowledges,[238]he had upon occasion forged one side of a correspondence, in order to induce the person addressed to commit himself in reply.[239]At the time of the Gunpowder Plot, however, Phelippes had himself fallen under suspicion, on account of a correspondence with Hugh Owen, of whom we shall hear elsewhere. Accordingly, an attempt was made to hoist him with his own petard, and another agent, named Barnes, was employed by Cecil to write a letter, as coming from Phelippes (who was then in England) and carry it to Owen in Flanders in order to draw him out. At Dover, however, Barnes was arrested, being mistaken for another man for whom a watch was being kept. Thereupon, his papers being seized and sent to the Earl of Northampton, who appears not to have been in the secret of this matter, Cecil was obliged to arrest Phelippes at once, as though the letter were genuine, instead of waiting, as he had intended, in order to worm out more.
The story of this complex and crooked business is frankly told by Cecil himself in a letter to Edmondes,English ambassador at Brussels, which, after the above abstract, will be sufficiently intelligible.[240]
"As for Barnes, he is now returning again into Flanders, with many vows and promises to continue to do good service. As he was at Dover with my pass, carrying a letter from Philipps to Owen (of Barnes own handwriting, wherewith I was before acquainted), he was suddenly stayed by order from the Lord Warden, upon suspicion that he was one Acton, a traitor of the late conspiracy.... Whereupon, his papers and letters being sent to my Lord of Northampton, I thought fit not to defer any longer the calling of Philipps into question; which till then I had forborne, hoping by Barnes his means to have discovered some further matter than before I could do."
FOOTNOTES:[200]He appears to have been no relation of John and Christopher Wright, the conspirators.[201]Davies was employed in other affairs of a similar nature. SeeDom. James I., xix. 83, I (P.R.O.).[202]Cf. a "setter dog."[203]See the full text of Wright's letter, Appendix G.[204]See the text of the memorial, Appendix G.[205]Copy in the P.R.O.Dom. James I.vii. 86, and xx. 52. The informer's name is given in the latter, viz., Ralph Ratcliffe.[206]It was likewise cited in the interrogatories prepared for the Jesuit Thomas Strange (Brit. Mus.MSS. Add.6178, 74) in November, 1605, and in this case also as treating of the Gunpowder Plot and no other.[207]Illustrations, iii. 301.[208]P.R.O.France, b. 132.[209]Ibid.[210]P.R.O.France, bundle 132.[211]Ibid.f. 273 b.[212]Hatfield MSS. 112, n. 141.[213]P.R.O.Gunpowder Plot Book, 16.[214]November 10th, 1605,Dom. James I.xvi. 44.[215]At a later period (July 20th, 1606) we find that Southwaick ("or Southwell") had lost favour and was warned by Salisbury to leave the country. "I hold him," says the Earl, "to be a very impostor." (To Edmondes, Phillipps MS. f. 165.)[216]Stowe MSS., 168, 39.[217]Ibid.40.[218]Ibid.42.[219]Birch,Historical View, p. 234.[220]P.R.O.France, bundle 132, January 25th, 1604-5.[221]"Who so evar finds this box of letars let him carry hit to the Kings magesty: my mastar litel thinks I knows of this, but yn ridinge wth him that browt the letar to my mastar to a Katholyk gentlemans hows anward of his way ynto lin konsher [Lincolnshire], he told me al his purpos, and what he ment to do; and he beinge a prest absolved me and mad me swar nevar to revel hit to ane man. I confes myself a Katholyk, and do hate the protystans relygon with my hart, and yit I detest to consent ethar to murdar or treson. I have blotyd out sartyn nams in the letars becas I wold not have ethar my mastar or ane of his frends trobyl aboute this; for by his menes I was mad a goud Katholyk, and I wod to God the King war a good Katholyk: that is all the harm I wish him; and let him tak hed what petysons or suplycasons he take of ane man; and I hop this box will be found by som that will giv hit to the King, hit may do him good one day. I men not to com to my mastar any moe, but wil return unto my contry from whens I cam. As for my nam and contry I consel that; and God make the King a goud Katholyk; and let Ser Robart Sesil and my lord Cohef Gustyse lok to them selvse." (Printed in Appendix toThird Report of Historical MSS. Commission, p. 148.)[222]It is signed "G.D.," and was possibly written by a relation of Sir Everard's.[223]To Sir H. Bruncard, March 3rd, 1605-6. P.R.O.Ireland, vol. 218.[224]"Instructions to my trusty servant Sir James Lindsay, for answer to the lettre and Commission brought by him from the Pope unto me." Ao1604. (P.R.O.France, b. 132.)In these notes the king explains that the things of greatest import cannot be written, but have been imparted "by tongue" to the envoy, to be delivered to his holiness. Moreover he thus charges Lindsay: "You shall assure him that I shall never be forgetful of the continual proof I have had of his courtesy and long inclination towards me, and especially by this his so courteous and unexpected message, which I shall be careful to requite thankfully by all civil courtesies that shall be in my power, the particulars whereof I remit likewise to your declaration." Besides this, he protests that he will ever inviolably observe two points: first, never to dissemble what he thinks, especially in matters of conscience; secondly, never to reject reason when he hears it urged on the other side.[225]P.R.O.France, b. 132.[226]Lodge,Illustrations, iii. 262.[227]P.R.O.France, b. 132.[228]Ibid.[229]The Politician's Catechism, 1658.[230]Birch,Historical View, p. 234.[231]"If the Priestes and Catholickes, so many thousands in England would have entertayned it, no man can be so malicious and simple to thinke but there would have been a greater assembly than fourscore [in the Midlands] to take such an action in hand, and the Council could not be so winking eyed, but they would have found forth some one or other culpable, which they could never do, though some of them, most powerable in it, tendered and racked forth their hatred against us to the uttermost limites they could extend."English Protestants' plea, p. 60.[232]Discourse of the manner of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot.Printed in the Collected Works of King James, by Bishop Mountague, by Bishop Barlow, inGunpowder Treason, and in Cobbett'sState Trials, as an appendix to that of the conspirators.[233]I.e., Cornwallis, Edmondes, and Chichester. The despatch to Cornwallis is printed in Winwood'sMemorials, ii. 170.[234]Sir Thoms Parry, P.R.O.France, bundle 132.[235]Mr. Hepworth Dixon observes (Her Majesty's Tower, i. 352, seventh edition) that a man must have been in no common measure ignorant of Cecil and Northampton who could dream that such a design could escape the greatest masters of intrigue alive, and that abundant evidence makes it clear that the Council were informed of the Plot in almost every stage, and that their agents dogged the footsteps of those whom they suspected, taking note of all their proceedings. "It was no part of Cecil's policy," adds Mr. Dixon, "to step in before the dramatic time."[236]Often called Phelipps, or Philipps.[237]History of Scotland, iii. 376, note (ed. Eadie). It was on one of these letters which had been in the hands of Phelippes that Mary was convicted.[238]Dom. James I.xx. 51. April, 1606.[239]In the fragment cited above, Phelippes says that Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Essex largely availed themselves of this device of his, and that "My Lord of Salisbury had himself made some use of it in the Queen's time."[240]February 12th, 1605-6. (Stowe MSS. 168.)
[200]He appears to have been no relation of John and Christopher Wright, the conspirators.
[201]Davies was employed in other affairs of a similar nature. SeeDom. James I., xix. 83, I (P.R.O.).
[202]Cf. a "setter dog."
[203]See the full text of Wright's letter, Appendix G.
[204]See the text of the memorial, Appendix G.
[205]Copy in the P.R.O.Dom. James I.vii. 86, and xx. 52. The informer's name is given in the latter, viz., Ralph Ratcliffe.
[206]It was likewise cited in the interrogatories prepared for the Jesuit Thomas Strange (Brit. Mus.MSS. Add.6178, 74) in November, 1605, and in this case also as treating of the Gunpowder Plot and no other.
[207]Illustrations, iii. 301.
[208]P.R.O.France, b. 132.
[209]Ibid.
[210]P.R.O.France, bundle 132.
[211]Ibid.f. 273 b.
[212]Hatfield MSS. 112, n. 141.
[213]P.R.O.Gunpowder Plot Book, 16.
[214]November 10th, 1605,Dom. James I.xvi. 44.
[215]At a later period (July 20th, 1606) we find that Southwaick ("or Southwell") had lost favour and was warned by Salisbury to leave the country. "I hold him," says the Earl, "to be a very impostor." (To Edmondes, Phillipps MS. f. 165.)
[216]Stowe MSS., 168, 39.
[217]Ibid.40.
[218]Ibid.42.
[219]Birch,Historical View, p. 234.
[220]P.R.O.France, bundle 132, January 25th, 1604-5.
[221]"Who so evar finds this box of letars let him carry hit to the Kings magesty: my mastar litel thinks I knows of this, but yn ridinge wth him that browt the letar to my mastar to a Katholyk gentlemans hows anward of his way ynto lin konsher [Lincolnshire], he told me al his purpos, and what he ment to do; and he beinge a prest absolved me and mad me swar nevar to revel hit to ane man. I confes myself a Katholyk, and do hate the protystans relygon with my hart, and yit I detest to consent ethar to murdar or treson. I have blotyd out sartyn nams in the letars becas I wold not have ethar my mastar or ane of his frends trobyl aboute this; for by his menes I was mad a goud Katholyk, and I wod to God the King war a good Katholyk: that is all the harm I wish him; and let him tak hed what petysons or suplycasons he take of ane man; and I hop this box will be found by som that will giv hit to the King, hit may do him good one day. I men not to com to my mastar any moe, but wil return unto my contry from whens I cam. As for my nam and contry I consel that; and God make the King a goud Katholyk; and let Ser Robart Sesil and my lord Cohef Gustyse lok to them selvse." (Printed in Appendix toThird Report of Historical MSS. Commission, p. 148.)
[222]It is signed "G.D.," and was possibly written by a relation of Sir Everard's.
[223]To Sir H. Bruncard, March 3rd, 1605-6. P.R.O.Ireland, vol. 218.
[224]"Instructions to my trusty servant Sir James Lindsay, for answer to the lettre and Commission brought by him from the Pope unto me." Ao1604. (P.R.O.France, b. 132.)
In these notes the king explains that the things of greatest import cannot be written, but have been imparted "by tongue" to the envoy, to be delivered to his holiness. Moreover he thus charges Lindsay: "You shall assure him that I shall never be forgetful of the continual proof I have had of his courtesy and long inclination towards me, and especially by this his so courteous and unexpected message, which I shall be careful to requite thankfully by all civil courtesies that shall be in my power, the particulars whereof I remit likewise to your declaration." Besides this, he protests that he will ever inviolably observe two points: first, never to dissemble what he thinks, especially in matters of conscience; secondly, never to reject reason when he hears it urged on the other side.
[225]P.R.O.France, b. 132.
[226]Lodge,Illustrations, iii. 262.
[227]P.R.O.France, b. 132.
[228]Ibid.
[229]The Politician's Catechism, 1658.
[230]Birch,Historical View, p. 234.
[231]"If the Priestes and Catholickes, so many thousands in England would have entertayned it, no man can be so malicious and simple to thinke but there would have been a greater assembly than fourscore [in the Midlands] to take such an action in hand, and the Council could not be so winking eyed, but they would have found forth some one or other culpable, which they could never do, though some of them, most powerable in it, tendered and racked forth their hatred against us to the uttermost limites they could extend."English Protestants' plea, p. 60.
[232]Discourse of the manner of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot.Printed in the Collected Works of King James, by Bishop Mountague, by Bishop Barlow, inGunpowder Treason, and in Cobbett'sState Trials, as an appendix to that of the conspirators.
[233]I.e., Cornwallis, Edmondes, and Chichester. The despatch to Cornwallis is printed in Winwood'sMemorials, ii. 170.
[234]Sir Thoms Parry, P.R.O.France, bundle 132.
[235]Mr. Hepworth Dixon observes (Her Majesty's Tower, i. 352, seventh edition) that a man must have been in no common measure ignorant of Cecil and Northampton who could dream that such a design could escape the greatest masters of intrigue alive, and that abundant evidence makes it clear that the Council were informed of the Plot in almost every stage, and that their agents dogged the footsteps of those whom they suspected, taking note of all their proceedings. "It was no part of Cecil's policy," adds Mr. Dixon, "to step in before the dramatic time."
[236]Often called Phelipps, or Philipps.
[237]History of Scotland, iii. 376, note (ed. Eadie). It was on one of these letters which had been in the hands of Phelippes that Mary was convicted.
[238]Dom. James I.xx. 51. April, 1606.
[239]In the fragment cited above, Phelippes says that Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Essex largely availed themselves of this device of his, and that "My Lord of Salisbury had himself made some use of it in the Queen's time."
[240]February 12th, 1605-6. (Stowe MSS. 168.)
Whenthe conspirators first undertook their enterprise, Parliament was appointed to meet on February 7th, 1604-5, but, as has been seen, it was subsequently prorogued till October 3rd, and then again till Tuesday, November 5th. On occasion of the October prorogation, the confederates employed Thomas Winter to attend the ceremony in order to learn from the demeanour of the assembled Peers whether any suspicion of their design had suggested this unexpected adjournment. He returned to report that no symptom could be discerned of alarm or uneasiness, and that the presence of the volcano underfoot was evidently unsuspected. Thus reassured, his associates awaited with confidence the advent of the fatal Fifth.
In the interval occurred the event which forms the official link connecting the secret and the public history of the Plot, namely, the receipt of the letter of warning by Lord Monteagle. That the document is of supreme importance in our history cannot be denied, for the government account clearly stands or falls with the assertion that this was in reality the means whereby the impending catastrophe was averted. That it was so, the official story proclaimed from the first with a vehemence in itself suspicious, and thefamous letter was exhibited to the world with a persistence and solicitude not easy to explain; being printed in the "King's Book," and in every other account of the affair; while transcribed copies were sent to the ambassadors at foreign courts and other public personages.[241]Had a warning really been given, in such a case, to save the life of a kinsman or friend,the circumstance, however fortunate, would scarcely have been wonderful, nor can we think that the document would thus have been multiplied for inspection. If, on the other hand, it had been carefully contrived for its purpose, it would not be unnatural for those who knew where the weak point lay, to wish the world to be convinced that there really had been a letter. It is, moreover, not easy to understand the importance attributed to Monteagle's service in connection with it. To have handed to the authorities such a message, evidently of an alarming nature, though he himself did not professedly understand it, does not appear to have entitled him to the extraordinary consideration which he in fact received. The Attorney General was specially instructed, at the trial, to extol his lordship's conduct.[242]Wherever, in the confession of the conspirators, his name was mentioned, it was erased, or pasted over with paper, or the whole passage was omitted before publication of the document. All this is easy to understand if he were the instrument employed for a critical and delicate transaction, depending for success upon his discretion and reticence. On any other supposition it seems inexplicable.
MONTEAGLE AND LETTER.monteagle and letter.
Moreover, Monteagle's services received most substantial acknowledgment in the form of a grant of£700 a year,[243]equivalent, at least, to ten times that amount in money of the present day.[244]There still exists[245]the draft preamble of the grant making this award, which has been altered and emended with an amount of care which sufficiently testifies to the importance of the matter. In this it is said of the letter that by the knowledge thereof "we had the firstand onlymeans to discover that most wicked and barbarous plot"—the words italicised being added as an interlineation by Cecil himself. Nevertheless, it appears certain that this is not, and cannot be, the truth; indeed, historians of all shades equally discountenance the idea. Mr. Jardine[246]considers it "hardly credible that the letter was really the means by which the plot was discovered," and inclines to the belief[247]that the whole story concerning it "was merely a device of the government ... to conceal the means by which their information had been derived." Similarly Mr. J.S. Brewer[248]holds it as certain that this part, at least, of the story is a fiction designed to conceal the truth. Mr. Gardiner, who is less inclined than others to give up the received story, thinks that, to say the least of it, it is highly probable that Monteagle expected the letter before it came.[249]
For a right understanding of the point it is necessaryto consider the character of the man who plays so important a part in this episode. Lord Monteagle, the eldest son of Lord Morley, ennobled under a title derived through his mother, was, in Mr. Jardine's opinion,[250]"a person precisely adapted for an instrument on such an occasion;" and the description appears even more applicable than was intended. He had been implicated in all the doings of the turbulent section of the English Catholics[251]for several years, having taken part in the rising of Essex, and in the Spanish negotiations, whatever they were, conducted through the instrumentality of Thomas Winter. With Catesby, and others of the conspirators, he was on terms of the closest and most intimate friendship, and Tresham was his brother-in-law. A letter of his to Catesby is still preserved, which, in the opinion of some, affords evidence of his having been actually engaged in the Powder Plot itself;[252]and Mr. Jardine, though dissenting from the view that the letter proves so much, judges it not at all impossible or improbable that he was in fact privy to the conspiracy. It is likewise certain that up to the last moment Monteagle was on familiar terms with the plotters, to whom, a few days before the final catastrophe, he imparted an important piece of information.[253]
At the same time it is evident that Monteagle was in high favour at Court, as is sufficiently evidenced by the fact that he was appointed to be one of the commissioners for the prorogation of October 3rd, a most unusual distinction for one in his position, as also by the pains taken by the government on behalf of his brother, who had shortly before got himself into trouble in France.[254]A still more remarkable circumstance has been strangely overlooked by historians.[255]Monteagle always passed for a Catholic, turbulent indeed and prone to violence, but attached, even fanatically, to his creed, like his friend Catesby and the rest. There remains, however, an undated letter of his to the king,[256]in which he expresses his determination to become a Protestant; and while in fulsome language extolling his Majesty's zeal for his spiritual welfare, speaks with bitterness and contempt of the faith which, nevertheless, he continued to profess to the end of his life, and that without exciting suspicion of his deceit among the Catholics. Not only must this shake our confidencein the genuine nature of any transaction in which such a man played a prominent part, it must likewise suggest a doubt whether others may not in like manner have passed themselves off for what they were not, without arousing suspicion.
The precise facts as to the actual receipt of the famous letter are involved, like every other particular of this history, in the obscurity begotten of contradictory evidence. In the published account,[257]it is stated with great precision that it was received by Monteagle on Saturday, October 26th, being but ten days before the Parliament. In his letter to the ambassadors abroad,[258]Cecil dates its receipt "about eight days before the Parliament should have begun." In the account furnished for the benefit of the King of France,[259]the same authority declares that it came to hand "some four or five days before." A doubt is thus unquestionably suggested as to whether the circumstances of its coming to Monteagle's hands are those traditionally described: for our present purpose, however, it will perhaps be sufficient to follow the story as formally told by authority in the king's own book.
On Saturday, October 26th, ten days before the assembly of Parliament, Monteagle suddenly, and without previous notice, ordered a supper to be preparedat his house at Hoxton "where he had not supped or lain of a twelvemonth and more before that time."[260]While he was at table one of his pages brought him a letter which had been given to him by a man in the street, whose features he could not distinguish, with injunctions to place it in his master's own hands. It is undoubtedly a singular circumstance, which did not escape notice at the time, that the bearer of this missive should have thus been able to find Monteagle at a spot which he was not accustomed to frequent, and the obvious inference was drawn, that the arrival of the letter was expected. On this point, indeed, there is somewhat more than inference to go upon, for in Fulman's MS. collection at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, among some interesting notes concerning the Plot, of which we shall see more, occurs the statement that "the Lord Monteagle knew there was a letter to be sent to him before it came."[261]
Monteagle opened the letter, and, glancing at it, perceived that it bore neither date nor signature, whereupon he handed it to a gentleman of his household, named Ward, to read aloud, an apparently unnatural and imprudent proceeding not easy to explain, but, at least, inconsistent with the conduct of one receiving an obviously important communication in such mysterious circumstances. The famous epistle must be given in its native form.