FOOTNOTES:

My lord out of the love i beare to some of youere frends i have a caer of youer preseruacion therfor i would advyse yowe as yowe tender youer lyf to devys some excuse to shift of youer attendance at this parleament for god and man hath concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme and think not slightlye of this advertisment but retyre youre self into youre contri wheare yowe may expect the event in safti for thowghe theare be no apparence of anni stir yet i saye they shall receyve a terrible blowe this parleament and yet they shall not seie who hurts them this cowncel is not to be contemned because it maye do yowe good and can do yowe no harme for the dangere is passed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter and i hope god will give yowe the grace to mak good use of it to whose holy proteccion i comend yowe(Addressed)to the ryht honorable the lord mouteagle

(Addressed)to the ryht honorable the lord mouteagle

Monteagle, though he saw little or nothing in this strange effusion, resolved at once to communicate with the king's ministers, his Majesty being at the time engaged at Royston in his favourite pastime of the chase, and accordingly proceeding at once to town, heplaced the mysterious document in the hands of the Earl of Salisbury.[262]

As to what thereafter followed and the manner in which from this clue the discovery was actually accomplished, it is impossible to say more than this, that the accounts handed down cannot by any possibility be true, inasmuch as on every single point they are utterly and hopelessly at variance. We can do no more than set down the particulars as supplied to us on the very highest authority.

A.—The account published in the "King's Book."

1. The letter was received ten days before the meeting of Parliament,i.e., on October 26th.

2. The Earl of Salisbury judged it to be the effusion of a lunatic, but thought it well, nevertheless, to communicate it to the king.

3. This was done five days afterwards, November 1st, when, in spite of his minister's incredulity, James insisted that the letter could intend nothing but the blowing up of the Parliament with gunpowder, and that a search must be made, which, however, should be postponed till the last moment.

4. Accordingly, on the afternoon of Monday, November4th, the Lord Chamberlain going on a tour of inspection, visited the "cellar" and found there "great store of billets, faggots, and coals," and moreover, "casting his eye aside, perceived a fellow standing in a corner ... Guido Fawkes the owner of that hand which should have acted that monstrous tragedy." Coming back, the chamberlain reported that the provision of fuel appeared extraordinary, and that as to the man, "he looked like a very tall and desperate fellow."

5. Thereupon the king insisted that a thorough scrutiny must be made, and that "those billets and coals should be searched to the bottom, it being most suspicious that they were laid there only for covering of the powder." For this purpose Sir Thomas Knyvet, a magistrate, was despatched with a suitable retinue.

6. Before his entrance to the house, Knyvet found Faukes "standing without the doors, his boots and clothes on," and straightway apprehended him. Then, going into the cellar, he removed the firewood and at once discovered the barrels.

B.—The Account sent by Salisbury to the Ambassadors abroad, and the Deputy in Ireland, November 9th, 1605.

1. The letter was received abouteightdays before the Parliament.

2. Upon perusal thereof, Salisbury and Suffolk, the chamberlain, "both conceived that it could not be more proper than the time of Parliament, nor by any other way to be attempted than with powder, while the King was sitting in that Assembly." With this interpretationother Lords of the Council agreed; but they thought it well not to impart the matter to the king till three or four days before the session.

3. His Majesty was "hard of belief" that any such thing was intended, but his advisers overruled him and insisted on a search, not however till the last moment.

ARREST OF GUY FAUKES.arrest of guy faukes.

4. About 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Monday, November 4th, the Lord Chamberlain, Suffolk, visited the cellar, and found in it only firewood and not Faukes.

5. The lords however insisting, in spite of the king, that the matter should be probed to the bottom, Knyvet was despatched with orders to "remove all the wood, and so to see the plain ground underneath."

6. Knyvet, about midnight, "going unlooked for into the vault, found that fellow Johnson [i.e., Faukes]newly come out of the vault," and seized him. Then, having removed the wood, he perceived the barrels.

C.—The Account furnished by Salisbury for the information of the King of France, November 6th, 1605. (Original draft, in the P.R.O.)

1. The letter was receivedsome four or five daysbefore the Parliament.

2. This being shown to the king and the lords, "their lordships found not good ... to give much credit to it, nor yet so to contemn it as to do nothing at all."

3. It was accordingly determined, the night before, "to make search about that place and to appoint a watch in the old Palace, to observe what persons might resort thereabouts."

4. Sir T. Knyvet, being appointed to the charge thereof,going by chance, about midnight, into the vault, by another door, found Faukes within. Thereupon he caused some few faggots to be removed, and so discovered some of the barrels, "merely, as it were, by God's direction, having no other cause but a general jealousy."[263]

Never, assuredly, was a true story so hard to tell. Contradictions like these, upon every single point of the narrative, are just such as are wont to betray the author of a fiction when compelled to be circumstantial.

To say nothing of the curious discrepancies as to the date of the warning, it is clearly impossible to determine the locality of Guy's arrest. The account officially published in the "King's Book" says that this took place in the street. The letter to the ambassadors assigns it to the cellar and afterwards to the street; that to Parry, to the cellar only. Faukes himself, in his confession of November 5th, says that he was apprehended neither in the street nor in the cellar, but in his own room in the adjoining house. Chamberlain writes to Carleton, November 7th, that it was in the cellar. Howes, in his continuation of Stowe'sAnnals, describes two arrests of Faukes, one in the street, the other upstairs in his own chamber. This point, though seemingly somewhat trivial, has been invested with much importance. According to the time-honoured story, the baffled desperado roundly declared that had he been withinreach of the powder when his captors appeared, he would have applied a match and involved them in his own destruction. This circumstance is strongly insisted on not only in the "King's Book," but also in his Majesty's speech to Parliament on November 9th, which declared, "and in that also was there a wonderful providence of God, that when the party himself was taken he was but new come out of his house from working, having his fire-work for kindling ready in his pocket, wherewith, as he confesseth, if he been taken immediately before, he was resolved to have blown up himself with his takers." We learn, however, from Cecil's earliest version of the history, that Faukes was apprehended in the very situation most suitable for such a purpose, "in the place itself, as he was busy to prepare his things for execution," while Chamberlain adds that he was actually engaged in "making his trains."

Far more serious, to say nothing of the episode of the chamberlain's visit, are the divergencies of the several versions as to the very substance of the story. We are told that King James was the first to understand and interpret the letter which had baffled the sagacity of his Privy Council; that the Lords of the Council had fully interpreted it several days before the king saw it; that the said lords would not credit the king's interpretation; that the king would not believe their interpretation; and that neither the one nor the other ever interpreted it at all; that his Majesty insisted on a search being made in spite of the reluctance of his ministers; that they insisted on the search in spite of the reluctance of their royal master; and that no such search was ever proposedby either; that Knyvet was despatched expressly to look for gunpowder, with instructions to rummage the firewood to the bottom, leaving no cover in which a barrel might lie hid; and that having no instructions to do anything of the kind, nor any reason to suspect the existence of any barrels, he discovered them only by a piece of luck, so purely fortuitous as to be clearly providential. On this last point especially the contradictions are absolutely irreconcilable.

It is abundantly evident that those who with elaborate care produced these various versions were not supremely solicitous about the truth of the matter, and varied the tale according to the requirements of circumstances. As Mr. Jardine acknowledges,[264]the great object of the official accounts was to obtain credence for what the government wished to be believed, or, as Father Gerard puts it,[265]these accounts were composed "with desire that men should all conceive this to be the manner how the treason came to light." If from time to time the details were altogether transformed, it was clearly not through any abstract love of historical accuracy, but rather that there were difficulties to meet and doubts to satisfy, which had to be dealt with in order to produce the desired effect.

That, from the beginning, there was whispered disbelief, which it was held all-important to silence, is sufficiently attested by Cecil himself, when, on the very morrow of the discovery, he sent to Parry his first draft of the history. "Thus much," he wrote, "I have thought necessary to impart unto you in haste, to the end that you may deliver as much to theFrench king, for prevention of false bruits, which I know, as the nature of fame is, will beincreased,[266]perverted, and disguised according to the disposition of men."

It does not appear why the appearance of erroneous versions of so striking an event should have been thus confidently anticipated if the facts were undeniably established; while, on the other hand, it is not a little remarkable that the narrative thus expressly designed to establish the truth, should have been forthwith abandoned and contradicted by its author in every single particular.

Important information upon the same point is furnished by Cecil in another letter, written in the following January.[267]He undertakes to explain to his correspondent how it came to pass that a circumstance of supreme importance, of which the government were fully cognizant,[268]was not mentioned in the official account. This he does as follows: "And although in his Majesty's book there is not any mention made of them [the Jesuits], and of manythings else which came to the knowledge of the State, yet is it but a frivolous inference that thereby [they] seek to serve their turn, considering the purpose of his Majesty was not to deliver unto the world all that was confessed concerning this action,but so much only of the manner and form of it, and the means of the discovery, as might make it apparent, both how wickedly it was conceived by those devilish instruments, andhow graciously it pleased God to deal with us in such an extraordinary discovery thereof."

Turning to the details of the story which survive the struggle for existence in the conflict of testimony, if any can be said to do so, there is abundant matter deserving attention, albeit we may at once dismiss the time-honoured legend concerning the sagacity of the British Solomon, and his marvellous interpretation of the riddling phrases which baffled the perspicacity of all besides himself.[269]

More important is Cecil's admission that the presence of the powder under the Parliament House was at least suspected for several days before anything was done to interfere with the proceedings of those who had put it there. The reasons alleged for so extraordinary a course are manifestly absurd. It was resolved, he told the ambassadors, "that, till the night before, nothing should be done to interrupt any purpose of theirs that had any such devilish practice, but rather to suffer them to go on to the end of their day." In like manner he informed the Privy Council[270]that it was determined to make no earlier search, that "suchas had such practice in hand might not be scared before they had let the matter run on to a full ripeness for discovery." It certainly appears that, at least, it would have been well before the eleventh hour to institute observations as to who might be coming and going about the cellar. On the other hand, can it be imagined that any minister in his right senses would have allowed the existence of a danger so appalling to continue so long, and have suffered a desperado like Faukes to have gone on knocking about with his flint and steel and lantern in a powder magazine beneath the House of Parliament? Accidents are proverbially always possible, and in the circumstances described to us there would have been much more than a mere possibility, for the action said to have been taken by the authorities, in sending the chamberlain to "peruse" the vault, seems to have been expressly intended to give the alarm; and had the conspirators been scared it would evidently have been their safest plan to have precipitated the catastrophe, that in the confusion it would cause they might escape. How terrible such a catastrophe would have been is indicated by Father Greenway:[271]"Over and above the grievous loss involved in the destruction of these ancient and noble buildings, of the archives and national records, the king himself might have been in peril, and other royal edifices, though situate at a distance, and undoubtedly many would have perished who had come up to attend the Parliament." Moreover, the loss of life in so thickly populated a spot must have been frightful, and especially amongst the official classes.

Father Greenway expresses his utter disbelief in the incident of the chamberlain's visit:[272]"To speak my own mind," he writes, "I do not see in this portion of the story any sort of probability." He adds another remark of great importance. If the Lord Chamberlain,—and, we may add, Sir T. Knyvet,—could get into the cellar without the assistance of Faukes, to say nothing of the "other door" which makes its appearance in Cecil's first version, there is an end of the secret and hidden nature of the place, and some one else must have had a key. How, then, about the months during which the powder had been lying in it; during much of which time it had been, apparently, left to take care of itself? Did no man ever enter and inspect it before?

But questions far more fundamental inevitably suggest themselves. If, during ten, or even during five days, a minister so astute and vigilant was willing to risk the danger of an explosion, it certainly does not appear that he was much afraid of the powder, or thought there was any harm in it. We have already remarked on the strangeness of the circumstance that the plotters were able so easily to procure it. It may be observed that they appear themselves to havebeen disappointed with its quality, for we are told[273]that late in the summer they added to their store "as suspecting the former to be dank." Still more remarkable, however, was the conduct of the government. Immediately upon the "discovery" they instituted the most minute and searching inquiries as to every other particular connected with the conspirators. We find copious evidence taken about their haunts, their lodgings, and their associates: of the boatmen who conveyed them hither and thither, the porters who carried billets, and the carpenters who worked for them: inquiries were diligently instituted as to where were purchased the iron bars laid on top of the barrels, which appear to have been considered especially dangerous; we hear of sword-hilts engraved for some of the company, of three beaver hats bought by another, and of the sixpence given to the boy who brought them home. But concerning the gunpowder no question appears ever to have been asked, whence it came, or who furnished it. Yet this would appear to be a point at least as important as the rest, and if it was left in absolute obscurity, the inference is undoubtedly suggested that it was not wished to have questions raised. It may be added that no mention is discoverable of the augmentation of the royal stores by so notable a contribution as this would have furnished.

Neither can it escape observation that whereas the powder was discovered only on the morning[274]ofNovember 5th, the peers met as usual in their chamber that very day.[275]It cannot be supposed either that four tons of powder could have been so soon removed, or that the most valuable persons in the State would have been suffered to expose themselves to the risk of assembling in so perilous a situation.[276]

However this may be, from the moment of the "discovery" the discovered gunpowder disappears from history.[277]

DISCOVERY OF GUNPOWDER PLOT, AND COINS OF JAMES I.discovery of gunpowder plot, and coins of James i.

There is another point which must be noticed. It might naturally be supposed that after so narrow an escape, and in accordance with their loud protestations of alarm at the proximity of a shocking calamity from which they had been so providentially delivered, the official authorities would have carefully guarded against the possibility of the like happening again. Their acts, however, were quite inconsistent with their words, for they did nothing of the kind. For more than seventy years afterwards the famous "cellar" continued to be leased in the same easy-going fashion to any who chose to hire it, and continued to be the receptacle ofall manner of rubbish and lumber, eminently suited to mask another battery. Not till the days of the mendacious Titus Oates, and under the influence of the panic he had engendered, did the Peers bethink themselves that a project such as that of Guy Faukes might really be a danger, and command that the "cellar" should be searched.[278]This was done, in November, 1678, by no less personages than Sir Christopher Wren and Sir Jonas Moore, who reported that the vaults and cellars under and near the House of Lords were in such a condition that there could be no assurance of safety. It was accordingly ordered that they should be cleared of all timber, firewood, coals, and other materials, and that passages should be made through them all, to the end that they might easily be examined. At this time, and not before, was instituted the traditional searching of the cellars on the eve of Parliament.[279]

What then, it will be asked, really did occur? What was done by the conspirators? and what by those who discovered them?

Truth to tell, it is difficult, or rather impossible, to answer such questions. That there was a plot of some kind cannot, of course, be doubted; that it was of such a nature as we have been accustomed to believe, can be affirmed only if we are willing to ignore difficulties which are by no means slight. There is, doubtless, a mass of evidence in support of the traditional story upon these points, but while its value has yet to be discussed, there are other considerations, hitherto overlooked, which are in conflict with it.

Something has been said of the amazing contradictionswhich a very slight examination of the official story reveals at every turn, and much more might be added under the same head.[280]

"GUY FAUKES' LANTERN.""guy faukes' lantern."

On the other hand it is clear that even as to the material facts there was not at the time that unanimity which might have been expected. We have seen how anxious was the Secretary of State that the French court should at once be rightly informed as to all particulars. We learn, however, from Mr. DudleyCarleton, then attached to the embassy at Paris,[281]that in spite of Cecil's promptitude he was anticipated by a version of the affair sent over from the French embassy in London, giving an utterly different complexion to it. According to this, the design had been, "That the council being set, and some lords besides in the chamber, a barrel of gunpowder should be fired underneath them, and the greater part, if not all, blown up." According to this informant, therefore, it was not the Parliament House but the Council Chamber which was to have been assailed, there is no mention of the king, and we have one barrel of powder instead of thirty-six. It is not easy to understand how in such a matter a mistake like this could have been made, for it is the inevitable tendency of men to begin by exaggerating, and not by minimizing, a sudden and startling peril.[282]

Moreover, even this modest version of the affair was not suffered to pass unchallenged. Three days later Carleton again wrote:[283]"The fire which was said to have burnt our king and council, and hath been so hot these two days past in every man's mouth, proves butignis fatuus, or a flash of some foolish fellow's brain to abuse the world; for it is now as confidently reported there was no such matter, nor anything near it more than a barrel of powder found near the court."

It must here be observed that the scepticism thus early manifested appears never to have been exorcised from the minds of French writers, many of whom, of all shades of thought, continue, down to our day, to assume that the real plotters were the king's government.[284]

Neither can we overlook sundry difficulties, again suggested by the facts of the case, which make it hard to understand how the plans of the plotters can in reality have been as they are represented.

We have already observed on the nature of the house occupied in Percy's name. If this were, as Speed tells us, and as there is no reason to doubt, atthe service of the Peers during a session, for a withdrawing-room, and if the session was to begin on November 5th, how could Faukes hope not only to remain in possession, but to carry on his strange proceedings unobserved, amid the crowd of lacqueys and officials with whom the opening of Parliament by the Sovereign must needs have flooded the premises? How was he, unobserved, to get into the fatal "cellar"?

This difficulty is emphasized by another. We learn, on the unimpeachable testimony of Mrs. Whynniard, the landlady, that Faukes not only paid the last instalment of rent on Sunday, November 3rd, but on the following day, the day immediately preceding the intended explosion, had carpenters and other workfolk in the house "for mending and repairing thereof."[285]To say nothing of the wonderful honesty of paying rent under the circumstances, what was the sense of putting a house in repair upon Monday, which on Tuesday was to be blown to atoms? And how could the practised eyes of such workmen fail to detect some trace of the extraordinary and unskilled operations of which the house is said to have been the theatre? If, indeed, the truth is that on the Tuesday the premises were to be handed over for official use, it is easy to understand why it was thought necessary to set them in order, but on no other supposition does this appear comprehensible.

Problems, not easy to solve, connect themselves, likewise, with the actual execution of the conspirators' plan. If it would have been hard for Guy Faukes to get into the "cellar," how was he ever to get out of itagain? We are so accustomed to the idea of darkness and obscurity in connection with him and his business, as perhaps to forget that his project was to have been executed in the very middle of the day, about noon or shortly afterwards. The king was to come in state with retinue and guards, and attended by a large concourse of spectators, who, as is usual on such occasions, would throng every nook and corner whence could be obtained a glimpse of the building in which the royal speech was being delivered.[286]It cannot be doubted, in particular, that the open spaces adjacent to the House itself would be strictly guarded, and the populace not suffered to approach too near the sacred precincts, more especially when, as we have seen, so many suspicions were abroad of danger to his sacred Majesty, and to the Parliament.

On a sudden a door immediately beneath the spot where the flower of the nation were assembled, would be unlocked and opened, and there would issue there-from a man, "looking like a very tall and desperate fellow," booted and spurred and equipped for travel. He was to have but a quarter of an hour to save himself from the ruin he had prepared.[287]What possible chance was there that he would have been allowed to pass?

As to his further plans, we have the most extravagant and contradictory accounts, some obviously fabulous.[288]According to the least incredible, a vessel was lying below London Bridge ready at once to proceed to sea and carry him to Flanders; while a boat, awaiting him at the Parliament stairs, was to convey him to the ship.[289]If this were so, it is not clear why he equipped himself with his spurs, which, however, are authenticated by as good evidence as any other feature of the story. It would also appear that, here again, the plan proposed was altogether impracticable, for at the time of his projected flight the tide would have been flowing,[290]and it is well known that to attempt to pass Old London Bridge against it would have been like trying to row up a waterfall. Neither does it seem probable that the vessel would have been able to get out of the Thames for several hours, before which time all egress would doubtless have been stopped.

Such considerations must at least avail to make us pause before we can unhesitatingly accept the traditionalhistory, even in those broad outlines which appear to be best established. The main point is, however, independent of their truth. Though all be as has been affirmed concerning the "cellar" and its contents, and the plan of operations agreed upon by the traitors, the question remains as to the real nature of the "discovery." We have seen, on the one hand, that the official narrative bristles with contradictions, and, whatever be the truth, with falsehoods. On the other hand, the said narrative was avowedly prepared with the object of obtaining credence for the picturesque but unveracious assertion that the plotters' design was detected "very miraculously, even some twelve hours before the matter should have been put in execution." On the Earl of Salisbury's own admission, it had been divined almost as many days previously, and it was laid open at the last moment only because he deliberately chose to wait till the last moment before doing anything. No doubt a dramatic feature was thus added to the business, and one eminently calculated to impress the public mind: but they who insist so loudly on the miraculousness of an event which they alone have invested with the character of a miracle, must be content to have it believed that they knew still more than in an unguarded moment they acknowledged, and arranged other things concerning the Plot than its ultimate disclosure.[291]

FOOTNOTES:[241]Copies were sent by Cecil to Cornwallis at Madrid, Parry at Paris, Edmondes at Brussels, and Chichester at Dublin. Also by Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton.[242]"Lastly, and this you must not omit, you must deliver, in commendation of my Lord Mounteagle, words to show how sincerely he dealt, and how fortunately it proved that he was the instrument of so great a blessing, ... because it is so lewdly given out that he was once of this plot of powder, and afterwards betrayed it all to me."—Cecil to Coke. (Draft in the R.O., printed by Jardine,Criminal Trials, ii. 120.)[243]£500 as an annuity for life, and £200 per annum to him and his heirs for ever in fee farm rents.[244]See Thorold Rogers,Agriculture and Prices, v. 631, and Jessopp,One Generation of a Norfolk House, p. 285.[245]R.O.Dom. James I.xx. 56.[246]Criminal Trials, ii. 65.[247]Ibid.68.[248]Note on Fuller'sChurch History, x. § 39, andon The Student's Hume.[249]History, i. 251.[250]Criminal Trials, ii. 69.[251]On March 13th, 1600-1, Monteagle wrote to Cecil from the Tower, "My conscience tells me that I am no way gilty of these Imputations, and that mearely the blindness of Ignorance lead me into these infamous errors." (Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6177).[252]The letter is printed inArchæologia, xxviii. 422, by Mr. Bruce, who argues from it Monteagle's complicity with the Plot. Mr. Jardine's reply is foundibid.xxix. 80.[253]According to T. Winter's famous declaration, Monteagle, within ten days before the meeting of Parliament, told Catesby and the others that the Prince of Wales was not going to attend the opening ceremony, wherefore they resolved to "leave the Duke alone," and make arrangements to secure the elder brother.The original of Winter's declaration, dated November 25th, which is at Hatfield, contains these and other particulars, which are altogether omitted in a "copy" of the same in the Record Office, dated, remarkably enough, on November the 23rd. It is from the latter that the version in the "King's Book" was printed.[254]De Beaumont to Villeroy, September 17th, 1605.[255]Mr. Gardiner alludes to it,History, i. 254 (note), but apparently attaches no importance to it.[256]Brit. Museum, Add. MSS. 19402 fol. 143. See the letter in full, Appendix H.[257]Discourse of the Manner of the Discovery(the "King's Book").[258]Winwood,Memorials, ii. 170, etc. (November 9th). In the entry book of the Earl of Salisbury's letters (Phillipps' MSS. 6297, f. 39) this is described as "being the same that was sent to all his Majestie's Embassadors and Ministers abroade." To Parry, however, quite a different account was furnished.[259]Cecil to Sir T. Parry, P.R.O.France, bundle 132 (November 6th).[260]Gerard,Narrative, p. 101.[261]Vol. ii. 15. The partisans of the government at the time appear to have solved the difficulty by invoking the direct guidance of Heaven:"For thus the Lord in's all-protecting grace,Ten days before the Parliament began,Ordained that one of that most trayterous raceDid meet the Lord Mounteagles Serving-man,Who about Seven a clocke at night was sentUpon some errand, and as thus he went,Crossing the street a fellow to him came,A man to him unknowen, of personage tall,In's hand a Letter, and he gave the sameUnto this Serving-man, and therewithallDid strictly charge him to take speciall heedeTo give it into's Masters hand with speede."Mischeefes Mystery(1617).[262]Here again evidence was found of the direct guidance of Heaven:"And thus with loyall heart away he goes,Thereto resolved whatever should betide,To th' Court he went this matter to disclose,To th' Earle of Salsb'ryes chamber soone he hide,Whither heavens finger doubtless him directed,As the best meanes to have this fact detected."Mischeefes Mystery.[263]In the account forwarded to the ambassadors, there is a curious contradiction. In the general sketch of the discovery with which it opens, it is said that Faukes was captured "in the place itself," with his lantern, "making his preparations." Afterwards, in the detailed narrative of the proceedings, that he was taken outside. The fact is, that the first portion of this letter is taken bodily from that of November 6th to Parry, wherein the arrest of Faukes in the vault was a principal point. Between the 6th and the 9th this part of the story had been altered, but it does not seem to have been noticed that a remnant of the earlier version still existed in the introductory portion.It will be remarked that the account of November 6th makes no mention of the visit of the chamberlain to the vault, nor that of November 9th to the presence of Faukes at the time of this visit. The minute of November 7th says that Faukes admitted the chamberlain to the vault.[264]Criminal Trials, ii. 3-5.[265]Narrative, p. 100.[266]This word is cancelled in the original draft.[267]To Sir T. Edmondes, January 22nd, 1605-6.—Stowe MSS., 168, 73, f. 301.[268]Viz., the complicity of the Jesuits, "not only as being casually acquainted with the Plot," but as having been "principall comforters, to instruct the consciences of some of these wicked Traytors, in the lawfulnesse of the Act and meritoriousnesse of the same."On this it is enough to remark that when Father Garnet, the chief of the said Jesuits, came afterwards to be tried, no attempt whatever was made to prove any such thing. Cecil therefore wrote thus, and made so grave an assertion, without having any evidence in his hands to justify it.[269]That King James alone solved the enigma was put forth as an article of faith. In the preamble to the Act for the solemnization of the 5th of November, Parliament declared that the treason "would have turned to utter ruin of this whole kingdom, had it not pleased Almighty God, by inspiring the king's most excellent Majesty with a divine Spirit, to discover some dark phrases of a letter...." In like manner, the monarch himself, in his speech to the Houses, of November 9th, informed them: "I did upon the instant interpret and apprehend some dark phrases therein, contrary to the ordinary grammar construction of them, and in another sort, than I am sure any divine or lawyer in any university would have taken them."This "dark phrase" was the sentence—"For the danger is past as soon as you have burnt the letter," which the royal sage interpreted to mean "as quickly," and that by these words "should be closely understood the suddenty and quickness of the danger, which should be as quickly performed and at an end as that paper should be of blazing up in the fire."Of this famous interpretation Mr. Gardiner says that it is "certainly absurd;" while Mr. Jardine is of opinion that the words in question "must appear to every common understanding mere nonsense."When it was proposed in the House of Commons (January 31st, 1605-6,) to pass a vote of thanks to Lord Monteagle for his share in the "discovery," one Mr. Fuller objected that this would be to detract from the honour of his Majesty, for "the true discoverer was the king."The reader will perhaps be reminded of Sir Walter Scott's inimitable picture of the king's satisfaction in this notable achievement."Do I not ken the smell of pouther, think ye? Who else nosed out the Fifth of November, save our royal selves? Cecil, and Suffolk, and all of them, were at fault, like sae mony mongrel tikes, when I puzzled it out; and trow ye that I cannot smell pouther? Why, 'sblood, man, Joannes Barclaius thought my ingine was in some manner inspiration, and terms his history of the plot,Series patefacti divinitus parricidii; and Spondanus, in like manner, saith of us,Divinitus evasit."—Fortunes of Nigel, c. xxvii.[270]Relation..., November 7th, 1605 (P.R.O.).[271]Narrative, f. 68 b.—Stonyhurst MSS.[272]F. 66. It will be remembered that this episode is not mentioned by Cecil in his version of November 6th. Bishop Goodman's opinion is that this and other points of the story were contrived for stage effect: "The King must have the honour to interpret that it was by gunpowder; and the very night before the parliament began it was to be discovered, to make the matter the more odious, and the deliverance the more miraculous. No less than the lord chamberlain must search for it and discover it, and Faux with his dark lantern must be apprehended." (Court of King James, p. 105.)[273]T. Winter, November 23rd, 1605.[274]There is, of course, abundant contradiction upon this point, as all others, but the balance of evidence appears to point to 2 a.m. or thereabouts.[275]The customary hour for the meeting of the Houses was 9 a.m., or even earlier. (Journals of Parliament.)[276]The list of those present is given in theLords' Journals; it is headed by the Lord Chancellor (Ellesmere), and includes the Archbishop of Canterbury, fourteen bishops, and thirty-one peers, of whom Lord Monteagle was one. In 1598, as Mr. Atkinson tells us in his preface to the lately published volume of theCalendar of Irish State Papers, the cellars of the Dublin Law Courts were used as a powder magazine. The English Privy Council, startled to hear of this remarkable arrangement, pointed out that it might probably further diminish the number of loyal subjects in that kingdom, but were quaintly reassured by the Irish Lords Justices, who explained that, in view of the troublous state of the times, the sittings of the courts had been discontinued, and were not likely to be resumed for the present.[277]The only allusion to it I have been able to find occurs in thePolitician's Catechism(1658), p. 95: "Yet the barells, wherein the powder was, are kept as reliques, and were often shown to the king and his posterity, that they might not entertain the least thought of clemency towards the Catholique Religion. There is not an ignorant Minister or Tub-preacher, who doth not (when all other matter fails) remit his auditors to the Gunpowder Treason, and describe those tubs very pathetically, the only reliques thought fit by them to be kept in memory."[278]Journals of the House of Lords, November 1st and 2nd, 1678.[279]Ibid., November 2nd, 1678.[280]I have already remarked upon Faukes' statement that he was arrested in quite a different place from any mentioned in the government accounts. It should be added, that as to the person who arrested him, there is a somewhat similar discrepancy of evidence. The honour is universally assigned by the official accounts to Sir T. Knyvet, who in the following year was created a peer, which shows that he undoubtedly rendered some valuable service on the occasion. An epitaph, however, in St. Anne's Church, Aldersgate (printed in Maitland'sHistory of London, p. 1065, 3rd ed.), declares that it was Peter Heiwood, of Heywood, Lancashire, "who apprehended Guy Faux, with his dark Lanthorn; and for his zealous Prosecution of Papists, as Justice of Peace, was stabbed, in Westminster Hall, by John James, a Dominican Friar,A.D.1640." No trace of this assassination can be found, nor does the name of John James occur in the Dominican records. It is, however, a curious coincidence that the "Guy Faukes' Lantern," exhibited in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, bears the inscription: "Laterna ilia ipsa quâ usus est, et cum qua deprehensus Guido Faux in cryptâ subterraneâ, ubi domo[sic]Parliamenti difflandae operam dabat. Ex dono Robti. Heywood nuper Academiae Procuratoris, Ap. 4o, 1641." See the epitaph in full, Appendix I.[281]To J. Chamberlain, 10th-20th November, 1605. P.R.O.France, b. 132, f. 335 b.[282]The Council appears at this time to have met in the Painted Chamber, and, without at all wishing to lay too much stress upon this point, I cannot but remark that the supposition that this was the original scene assigned to the operations of Faukes would solve various difficulties:Beneath the Painted Chamber was a vaulted cellar, answering to the description we have so frequently heard, whereas under the House of Lords was neither a cellar nor a vault.This crypt beneath the Painted Chamber has been constantly shown as "Guy Faukes' Cellar."In prints of the period, Faukes is usually represented as going to blow up this chamber, never the House of Lords.[283]To Chamberlain, November 13th (O.S.), 1605. P.R.O.[284]Thus M. Bouillet, in the latest edition of hisDictionnaire d'histoire et géographie, speaks as follows: "Le ministre cupide et orgueilleux, Cécil, semble avoir été l'âme du complot, et l'avoir découvert lui même au moment propice, après avoir présenté à l'esprit faible de Jacques I. les dangers auxquels il était en but de la part des Catholiques."Gazeau and Prampain (Hist. Mod., tome i.) speak of the conspiracy as "cette plaisanterie;" and say of the conspirators, "Dans une cave, ils avaient déposé 36 barils contenant (ou soi-disant tels) de la poudre."[285]P.R.O.Gunpowder Plot Book, 39 (November 7).[286]In Herring'sPietas Pontificia(1606) the king is described as coming to the House:"Magna cum Pompa, stipatorumque Caterva,Palmatisque, Togis, Gemmis, auroque refulgent:Ingens fit Populi concursus, compita complens,Turbis se adglomerant densis, spectantque Triumphum."[287]Faukes himself says—examination of November 16th—that the touchwood would have burnt a quarter of an hour.[288]See Appendix K,Myths of the Powder Plot.[289]In connection with this appears an interesting example of the natural philosophy of the time, it being said that Faukes selected this mode of escape, hoping that water, being a non-conductor, would save him from the effects of the explosion.[290]I am informed on high authority that on the day in question it was high water at London Bridge between five and six p.m. In hisMemorials of the Tower of London(p. 136) Lord de Ros says that the vessel destined to convey him to Flanders was to be in waiting for Faukes at the river side close by, and that in it he was to drop down the river with the ebb tide. It would, of course, have been impossible for any sea-going craft to make its way up to Westminster; nor would the ebb tide run to order.[291]It is frequently said that the testimony of Bishop Goodman, who has been so often cited, is discredited by the fact that he probably died a Catholic, for he was attended on his death-bed by the Dominican Father, Francis à S. Clara (Christopher Davenport), chaplain to Queen Henrietta Maria, a learned man who indulged in the dream of corporate reunion between England and Rome, maintaining that the Anglican articles were in accordance with Catholic doctrine.In his will Goodman professed that as he lived, so he died, most constant in all the articles of the Christian Faith, and in all the doctrine of God's holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, "whereof," he says, "I do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Mother Church. And I do verily believe that no other church hath any salvation in it, but only so far as it concurs with the faith of the Church of Rome." On this, Mr. Brewer, his editor, observes that a sound Protestant might profess as much, the question being what meaning is to be given to the terms employed. Moreover, the same writer continues, Goodman cannot have imagined that his life had been a constant profession of Roman doctrine, inasmuch as he advanced steadily from one preferment to another in the Church of England, and strongly maintaining her doctrines formally denounced those of Rome. What is certain, however, is this, that in the very work from which his evidence is quoted he speaks in such a manner as to show that whatever were his religious opinions, he was a firm believer in the Royal Supremacy and a lover of King James, whom he thus describes: "Truly I did never know any man of so great an apprehension, of so great love and affection,—a man so truly just, so free from all cruelty and pride, such a lover of the church, and one that had done so much good for the church." (Court of King James, i. 91.)

[241]Copies were sent by Cecil to Cornwallis at Madrid, Parry at Paris, Edmondes at Brussels, and Chichester at Dublin. Also by Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton.

[242]"Lastly, and this you must not omit, you must deliver, in commendation of my Lord Mounteagle, words to show how sincerely he dealt, and how fortunately it proved that he was the instrument of so great a blessing, ... because it is so lewdly given out that he was once of this plot of powder, and afterwards betrayed it all to me."—Cecil to Coke. (Draft in the R.O., printed by Jardine,Criminal Trials, ii. 120.)

[243]£500 as an annuity for life, and £200 per annum to him and his heirs for ever in fee farm rents.

[244]See Thorold Rogers,Agriculture and Prices, v. 631, and Jessopp,One Generation of a Norfolk House, p. 285.

[245]R.O.Dom. James I.xx. 56.

[246]Criminal Trials, ii. 65.

[247]Ibid.68.

[248]Note on Fuller'sChurch History, x. § 39, andon The Student's Hume.

[249]History, i. 251.

[250]Criminal Trials, ii. 69.

[251]On March 13th, 1600-1, Monteagle wrote to Cecil from the Tower, "My conscience tells me that I am no way gilty of these Imputations, and that mearely the blindness of Ignorance lead me into these infamous errors." (Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6177).

[252]The letter is printed inArchæologia, xxviii. 422, by Mr. Bruce, who argues from it Monteagle's complicity with the Plot. Mr. Jardine's reply is foundibid.xxix. 80.

[253]According to T. Winter's famous declaration, Monteagle, within ten days before the meeting of Parliament, told Catesby and the others that the Prince of Wales was not going to attend the opening ceremony, wherefore they resolved to "leave the Duke alone," and make arrangements to secure the elder brother.

The original of Winter's declaration, dated November 25th, which is at Hatfield, contains these and other particulars, which are altogether omitted in a "copy" of the same in the Record Office, dated, remarkably enough, on November the 23rd. It is from the latter that the version in the "King's Book" was printed.

[254]De Beaumont to Villeroy, September 17th, 1605.

[255]Mr. Gardiner alludes to it,History, i. 254 (note), but apparently attaches no importance to it.

[256]Brit. Museum, Add. MSS. 19402 fol. 143. See the letter in full, Appendix H.

[257]Discourse of the Manner of the Discovery(the "King's Book").

[258]Winwood,Memorials, ii. 170, etc. (November 9th). In the entry book of the Earl of Salisbury's letters (Phillipps' MSS. 6297, f. 39) this is described as "being the same that was sent to all his Majestie's Embassadors and Ministers abroade." To Parry, however, quite a different account was furnished.

[259]Cecil to Sir T. Parry, P.R.O.France, bundle 132 (November 6th).

[260]Gerard,Narrative, p. 101.

[261]Vol. ii. 15. The partisans of the government at the time appear to have solved the difficulty by invoking the direct guidance of Heaven:

"For thus the Lord in's all-protecting grace,Ten days before the Parliament began,Ordained that one of that most trayterous raceDid meet the Lord Mounteagles Serving-man,Who about Seven a clocke at night was sentUpon some errand, and as thus he went,Crossing the street a fellow to him came,A man to him unknowen, of personage tall,In's hand a Letter, and he gave the sameUnto this Serving-man, and therewithallDid strictly charge him to take speciall heedeTo give it into's Masters hand with speede."

Mischeefes Mystery(1617).

[262]Here again evidence was found of the direct guidance of Heaven:

"And thus with loyall heart away he goes,Thereto resolved whatever should betide,To th' Court he went this matter to disclose,To th' Earle of Salsb'ryes chamber soone he hide,Whither heavens finger doubtless him directed,As the best meanes to have this fact detected."

Mischeefes Mystery.

[263]In the account forwarded to the ambassadors, there is a curious contradiction. In the general sketch of the discovery with which it opens, it is said that Faukes was captured "in the place itself," with his lantern, "making his preparations." Afterwards, in the detailed narrative of the proceedings, that he was taken outside. The fact is, that the first portion of this letter is taken bodily from that of November 6th to Parry, wherein the arrest of Faukes in the vault was a principal point. Between the 6th and the 9th this part of the story had been altered, but it does not seem to have been noticed that a remnant of the earlier version still existed in the introductory portion.

It will be remarked that the account of November 6th makes no mention of the visit of the chamberlain to the vault, nor that of November 9th to the presence of Faukes at the time of this visit. The minute of November 7th says that Faukes admitted the chamberlain to the vault.

[264]Criminal Trials, ii. 3-5.

[265]Narrative, p. 100.

[266]This word is cancelled in the original draft.

[267]To Sir T. Edmondes, January 22nd, 1605-6.—Stowe MSS., 168, 73, f. 301.

[268]Viz., the complicity of the Jesuits, "not only as being casually acquainted with the Plot," but as having been "principall comforters, to instruct the consciences of some of these wicked Traytors, in the lawfulnesse of the Act and meritoriousnesse of the same."

On this it is enough to remark that when Father Garnet, the chief of the said Jesuits, came afterwards to be tried, no attempt whatever was made to prove any such thing. Cecil therefore wrote thus, and made so grave an assertion, without having any evidence in his hands to justify it.

[269]That King James alone solved the enigma was put forth as an article of faith. In the preamble to the Act for the solemnization of the 5th of November, Parliament declared that the treason "would have turned to utter ruin of this whole kingdom, had it not pleased Almighty God, by inspiring the king's most excellent Majesty with a divine Spirit, to discover some dark phrases of a letter...." In like manner, the monarch himself, in his speech to the Houses, of November 9th, informed them: "I did upon the instant interpret and apprehend some dark phrases therein, contrary to the ordinary grammar construction of them, and in another sort, than I am sure any divine or lawyer in any university would have taken them."

This "dark phrase" was the sentence—"For the danger is past as soon as you have burnt the letter," which the royal sage interpreted to mean "as quickly," and that by these words "should be closely understood the suddenty and quickness of the danger, which should be as quickly performed and at an end as that paper should be of blazing up in the fire."

Of this famous interpretation Mr. Gardiner says that it is "certainly absurd;" while Mr. Jardine is of opinion that the words in question "must appear to every common understanding mere nonsense."

When it was proposed in the House of Commons (January 31st, 1605-6,) to pass a vote of thanks to Lord Monteagle for his share in the "discovery," one Mr. Fuller objected that this would be to detract from the honour of his Majesty, for "the true discoverer was the king."

The reader will perhaps be reminded of Sir Walter Scott's inimitable picture of the king's satisfaction in this notable achievement.

"Do I not ken the smell of pouther, think ye? Who else nosed out the Fifth of November, save our royal selves? Cecil, and Suffolk, and all of them, were at fault, like sae mony mongrel tikes, when I puzzled it out; and trow ye that I cannot smell pouther? Why, 'sblood, man, Joannes Barclaius thought my ingine was in some manner inspiration, and terms his history of the plot,Series patefacti divinitus parricidii; and Spondanus, in like manner, saith of us,Divinitus evasit."—Fortunes of Nigel, c. xxvii.

[270]Relation..., November 7th, 1605 (P.R.O.).

[271]Narrative, f. 68 b.—Stonyhurst MSS.

[272]F. 66. It will be remembered that this episode is not mentioned by Cecil in his version of November 6th. Bishop Goodman's opinion is that this and other points of the story were contrived for stage effect: "The King must have the honour to interpret that it was by gunpowder; and the very night before the parliament began it was to be discovered, to make the matter the more odious, and the deliverance the more miraculous. No less than the lord chamberlain must search for it and discover it, and Faux with his dark lantern must be apprehended." (Court of King James, p. 105.)

[273]T. Winter, November 23rd, 1605.

[274]There is, of course, abundant contradiction upon this point, as all others, but the balance of evidence appears to point to 2 a.m. or thereabouts.

[275]The customary hour for the meeting of the Houses was 9 a.m., or even earlier. (Journals of Parliament.)

[276]The list of those present is given in theLords' Journals; it is headed by the Lord Chancellor (Ellesmere), and includes the Archbishop of Canterbury, fourteen bishops, and thirty-one peers, of whom Lord Monteagle was one. In 1598, as Mr. Atkinson tells us in his preface to the lately published volume of theCalendar of Irish State Papers, the cellars of the Dublin Law Courts were used as a powder magazine. The English Privy Council, startled to hear of this remarkable arrangement, pointed out that it might probably further diminish the number of loyal subjects in that kingdom, but were quaintly reassured by the Irish Lords Justices, who explained that, in view of the troublous state of the times, the sittings of the courts had been discontinued, and were not likely to be resumed for the present.

[277]The only allusion to it I have been able to find occurs in thePolitician's Catechism(1658), p. 95: "Yet the barells, wherein the powder was, are kept as reliques, and were often shown to the king and his posterity, that they might not entertain the least thought of clemency towards the Catholique Religion. There is not an ignorant Minister or Tub-preacher, who doth not (when all other matter fails) remit his auditors to the Gunpowder Treason, and describe those tubs very pathetically, the only reliques thought fit by them to be kept in memory."

[278]Journals of the House of Lords, November 1st and 2nd, 1678.

[279]Ibid., November 2nd, 1678.

[280]I have already remarked upon Faukes' statement that he was arrested in quite a different place from any mentioned in the government accounts. It should be added, that as to the person who arrested him, there is a somewhat similar discrepancy of evidence. The honour is universally assigned by the official accounts to Sir T. Knyvet, who in the following year was created a peer, which shows that he undoubtedly rendered some valuable service on the occasion. An epitaph, however, in St. Anne's Church, Aldersgate (printed in Maitland'sHistory of London, p. 1065, 3rd ed.), declares that it was Peter Heiwood, of Heywood, Lancashire, "who apprehended Guy Faux, with his dark Lanthorn; and for his zealous Prosecution of Papists, as Justice of Peace, was stabbed, in Westminster Hall, by John James, a Dominican Friar,A.D.1640." No trace of this assassination can be found, nor does the name of John James occur in the Dominican records. It is, however, a curious coincidence that the "Guy Faukes' Lantern," exhibited in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, bears the inscription: "Laterna ilia ipsa quâ usus est, et cum qua deprehensus Guido Faux in cryptâ subterraneâ, ubi domo[sic]Parliamenti difflandae operam dabat. Ex dono Robti. Heywood nuper Academiae Procuratoris, Ap. 4o, 1641." See the epitaph in full, Appendix I.

[281]To J. Chamberlain, 10th-20th November, 1605. P.R.O.France, b. 132, f. 335 b.

[282]The Council appears at this time to have met in the Painted Chamber, and, without at all wishing to lay too much stress upon this point, I cannot but remark that the supposition that this was the original scene assigned to the operations of Faukes would solve various difficulties:

[283]To Chamberlain, November 13th (O.S.), 1605. P.R.O.

[284]Thus M. Bouillet, in the latest edition of hisDictionnaire d'histoire et géographie, speaks as follows: "Le ministre cupide et orgueilleux, Cécil, semble avoir été l'âme du complot, et l'avoir découvert lui même au moment propice, après avoir présenté à l'esprit faible de Jacques I. les dangers auxquels il était en but de la part des Catholiques."

Gazeau and Prampain (Hist. Mod., tome i.) speak of the conspiracy as "cette plaisanterie;" and say of the conspirators, "Dans une cave, ils avaient déposé 36 barils contenant (ou soi-disant tels) de la poudre."

[285]P.R.O.Gunpowder Plot Book, 39 (November 7).

[286]In Herring'sPietas Pontificia(1606) the king is described as coming to the House:

"Magna cum Pompa, stipatorumque Caterva,Palmatisque, Togis, Gemmis, auroque refulgent:Ingens fit Populi concursus, compita complens,Turbis se adglomerant densis, spectantque Triumphum."

[287]Faukes himself says—examination of November 16th—that the touchwood would have burnt a quarter of an hour.

[288]See Appendix K,Myths of the Powder Plot.

[289]In connection with this appears an interesting example of the natural philosophy of the time, it being said that Faukes selected this mode of escape, hoping that water, being a non-conductor, would save him from the effects of the explosion.

[290]I am informed on high authority that on the day in question it was high water at London Bridge between five and six p.m. In hisMemorials of the Tower of London(p. 136) Lord de Ros says that the vessel destined to convey him to Flanders was to be in waiting for Faukes at the river side close by, and that in it he was to drop down the river with the ebb tide. It would, of course, have been impossible for any sea-going craft to make its way up to Westminster; nor would the ebb tide run to order.

[291]It is frequently said that the testimony of Bishop Goodman, who has been so often cited, is discredited by the fact that he probably died a Catholic, for he was attended on his death-bed by the Dominican Father, Francis à S. Clara (Christopher Davenport), chaplain to Queen Henrietta Maria, a learned man who indulged in the dream of corporate reunion between England and Rome, maintaining that the Anglican articles were in accordance with Catholic doctrine.

In his will Goodman professed that as he lived, so he died, most constant in all the articles of the Christian Faith, and in all the doctrine of God's holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, "whereof," he says, "I do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Mother Church. And I do verily believe that no other church hath any salvation in it, but only so far as it concurs with the faith of the Church of Rome." On this, Mr. Brewer, his editor, observes that a sound Protestant might profess as much, the question being what meaning is to be given to the terms employed. Moreover, the same writer continues, Goodman cannot have imagined that his life had been a constant profession of Roman doctrine, inasmuch as he advanced steadily from one preferment to another in the Church of England, and strongly maintaining her doctrines formally denounced those of Rome. What is certain, however, is this, that in the very work from which his evidence is quoted he speaks in such a manner as to show that whatever were his religious opinions, he was a firm believer in the Royal Supremacy and a lover of King James, whom he thus describes: "Truly I did never know any man of so great an apprehension, of so great love and affection,—a man so truly just, so free from all cruelty and pride, such a lover of the church, and one that had done so much good for the church." (Court of King James, i. 91.)

Onoccasion of a notorious trial in the Star Chamber, in the year 1604,[292]Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, made the significant observation[293]that nothing was to be discovered concerning the Catholics "but by putting some Judas amongst them." That amongst the Powder Plot conspirators there was some one who played such a part, who perhaps even acted as a decoy-duck to lure the others to destruction, has always been suspected, but with sundry differences of opinion as to which of the band it was. Francis Tresham has most commonly been supposed at least to have sent the warning letter to Monteagle, which proved fatal to himself and his comrades: some writers have conjectured that he did a good deal more.[294]Monteagle himself, as we have seen, has been supposed by others to have been in the Plot and to have betrayed it. It would appear, however, that neither of these has so strong a claim to this equivocal distinction as one whose name has been scarcely mentioned hitherto in such a connection.

The part played in the conspiracy by ThomasPercy is undoubtedly very singular, and the more so when we learn something of the history and character of the man. Till within some three years previously[295]he had been a Protestant, and, moreover, unusually wild and dissolute. After his conversion, he acquired the character of a zealous, if turbulent, Catholic, and is so described, not only by Father Gerard and Father Greenway, but by himself. In a letter written so late as November 2nd, 1605,[296]he represents that he has to leave Yorkshire, being threatened by the Archbishop with arrest, "as the chief pillar of papistry in that county."

It unfortunately appears that all the time this zealous convert was a bigamist, having one wife living in the capital and another in the provinces. When his name was published in connection with the Plot, the magistrates of London arrested the one, and those of Warwickshire the other, alike reporting to the secretary what they had done, as may be seen in the State Paper Office.[297]

Gravely suspicious as such a fact must appear in connection with one professing exceptional religious fervour, it by no means stands alone. Father Greenway, in describing the character of Percy,[298]dwells much on his sensitiveness to the suspicion of having played false to his fellow Catholics in his dealings with KingJames in Scotland, coupled with protestations of his determination to do something to show that he as well as they had been deceived by that monarch. We find evidence that as a fact some Catholics distrusted him, as in the examination of one Cary, who, being interrogated concerning the Powder Plot, protested that "Percy was no Papist but a Puritan."[299]There is likewise in the king's own book a strange and obscure reference to Percy as the possible author of the letter to Monteagle, one of the chief grounds for suspecting him being "his backwardness in religion." It would moreover appear that he was not a man who always impressed those favourably who had to do with him, for Chamberlain reminds his friend Carleton that the latter had ever considered him "a subtle, flattering, dangerous knave."[300]

Back to Index Next