THOMAS PERCY.thomas percy.
We have seen something of the extraordinary manner in which Percy transacted the business of hiring the house and "cellar," wholly unlike what we should expect from one whose main object was to escape observation, and that he brought to bear the influence of sundry Protestant gentlemen, amongst them Dudley Carleton himself,[301]in order to obtain the desired lease.We know, moreover, that various unfortunate accidents prevented the history of these negotiations from ever being fully told.
Yet more remarkable is a piece of information supplied by Bishop Goodman, his authority being the eminent lawyer Sir Francis Moore, who, says he, "is beyond all exception."[302]Moore, having occasion during the period when the Plot was in progress to be out on business late at night, and going homeward to the Middle Temple at two in the morning, "several times he met Mr. Percy coming out of the great statesman's house, and wondered what his business should be there." Such wonder was certainly not unnatural, and must be shared by us. That a man who was ostensibly the life and soul of a conspiracy directed against the king's chief minister, even more than against the sovereign himself, should resort for conference with his intended victim at an hour when he was most likely to escape observation, is assuredly not the least extraordinary feature in this strange and tangled tale.
Not less suspicious is another circumstance. Immediately before the fatal Fifth of November, Percy had been away in the north, and he returned to London only on the evening of Saturday, the 2nd. Of this return, Cecil, writing a week later,[303]made a great mystery, as though the traitor's movements had been of a most stealthy and secret character, and declaredthat the fact had been discovered from Faukes only with infinite difficulty, and after many denials. It happens, however, that amongst the State Papers is preserved a pass dated October 25th, issued by the Commissioners of the North, for Thomas Percy, posting to Court upon the king's especial service, and charging all mayors, sheriffs, and postmasters to provide him with three good horses all along the road.[304]It is manifestly absurd to speak of secrecy or stealth in connection with such a journey, or to pretend that the Chief Secretary of State could have any difficulty in tracing the movements of a man who travelled in this fashion; and protestations of ignorance serve only to show that to seem ignorant was thought desirable.
Considerations like these, it will hardly be denied, countenance the notion that Percy was, in King James's own phrase, a tame duck employed to catch wild ones. Against such a supposition, however, a grave objection at once presents itself. Percy was amongst the very first victims of the enterprise, being one of the four who were killed at Holbeche when the conspirators were brought to bay.
This, unquestionably, must at first sight appear to be fatal to the theory of his complicity, and the importance of such a fact should not be extenuated. At the same time, on further scrutiny, the argument which it supplies loses much of its force.
It must, in the first place, be remembered, that according to the belief then current, it was no uncommon thing, as Lord Castlemaine expresses it[305]the game being secured, to hang the spaniel which caughtit, that its master's art might not appear, and, to cite no other instance, we have the example of Dr. Parry, who, as Mr. Brewer acknowledges,[306]was involved in the ruin of those whom he had been engaged to lure to destruction.
There are, moreover, various remarkable circumstances in regard to the case of Percy in particular. It was observed at the time as strange and suspicious that any of the rebels should have been slain at all, for they were almost defenceless, having no fire-arms; they did not succeed in killing a single one of their assailants, and might all have been captured without difficulty. Nevertheless, the attacking party were not only allowed to shoot, but selected just the wrong men as their mark, precisely those who, being chiefly implicated in the beginnings of the Plot, could have afforded the most valuable information,[307]for besides Percy, were shot down Catesby and the two Wrights,[308]all deeplyimplicated from the first. So unaccountable did such a course appear as at once to suggest sinister interpretations—especially as regarded the case of Percy and Catesby, who were always held to be the ringleaders of the band. As Goodman tells us,[309]"Some will not stick to report that the great statesman sending to apprehend these traitors gave special charge and direction for Percy and Catesby, 'Let me never see them alive;' who it may be would have revealed some evil counsel given." A similar suspicion seems to be insinuated by Sir Edward Hoby, writing to Edmondes, the Ambassador at Brussels[310]: "Percy is dead: who it is thought by some particular men could have said more than any other."
More suspicious still appears the fact that the king's government thought it necessary to explain how it had come to pass that Percy was not secured alive, and to protest that they had been anxious above all for his capture, but had been frustrated by the inconsiderate zeal of their subordinates. In the "King's Book" we read as follows: "Although divers of the King's Proclamations were posted down after those Traitors with all speed possible, declaring the odiousness of that bloody attempt, and the necessity to have Percy preserved alive, if it had been possible, ... yet the far distance of the way (which was above an hundred miles), together with the extreme deepness thereof, joined also with the shortness of the day, wasthe cause that the hearty and loving affection of the King's good subjects in those parts prevented the speed of his Proclamations."
Such an explanation cannot be deemed satisfactory. The distance to be covered was about 112 miles, and there were three days to do it, for not till November 8th were the fugitives surrounded. They in their flight had the same difficulties to contend with, as are here enumerated, yet they accomplished their journey in a single day, and they had not, like the king's couriers, fresh horses ready for them at every post.
But we have positive evidence upon this point. Father Greenway, who was at the time in the Midlands, close to the scene of action, incidentally mentions, without any reference to our present question,[311]that while the rebels were in the field, messengers came post haste continually, one after the other, from the capital, all bearing proclamations mentioning Percy by name.
It must also be observed that though the couriers, we are told, could not in three days get from London to Holbeche to hinder Percy's death, they contrived to ride in one from Holbeche to London with news that he was dead.[312]
Another circumstance not easy to explain is, that the man who killed Percy and Catesby,[313]John Streete by name, received for his service the handsome pension of two shillings a day for life, equal at least to a pound of our present money.[314]This is certainly a largereward for having done the very thing that the government most desired to avoid, and for an action, moreover, involving no sort of personal risk, killing two practically unarmed men from behind a tree.[315]If, however, he had silenced a dangerous witness, it is easy to understand the munificence of his recompense.
Against Catesby, likewise, there are serious indictments, and it seems impossible to believe him to have been, as commonly represented, a man, however blinded by fanaticism, yet honest in his bad enterprise, who would not stoop to fraud or untruth. It is abundantly evident that on many occasions he deliberately deceived his associates, and those whom he called his spiritual guides, making promises which he did not mean to keep, and giving assurances which he knew to be false.[316]It will be sufficient to quote one or two examples quite sufficient to stamp him as a man utterly unscrupulous about the means employed to gain his ends.
On the 5th of November, when, after the failure of the enterprise, he arrived at Dunchurch, in Warwickshire, Catesby, in order to induce Sir Everard Digby to commit himself to the hopeless campaign now to be undertaken, assured him,[317]that though the powder was discovered, yet the king and Salisbury were killed; all were in "a pother;" the Catholics were sure to rise in a body, one family alone, the Littletons, would bring in one thousand men the next day; and so on,—allthis being absolutely untrue. That he had previously employed similar means on a large scale to inveigle his friends into his atrocious and senseless scheme, there is much evidence, strongest of all that of Father Garnet;[318]"I doubt not that Mr. Catesby hath feigned many such things for to induce others."
Worst of all, we learn from another intercepted letter of Garnet's, Catesby had for his own purposes circulated an atrocious slander against Garnet himself, although passing as his devoted disciple and friend: "Master Catesby," he wrote,[319]"did me much wrong, and hath confessed that he told them he asked me a question in Q. Elizabeth's time of the powder action,[320]and that I said it was lawful. All which is most untrue. He did it to draw in others."
In view of this, and much else of a similar kind, it is difficult to read Father Gerard'sNarrative, and more particularly Father Greenway's additions thereto, without a growing feeling that if Catesby sought counsel it was with no intention of being guided by it, and that his sole desire was to get hold of something which might serve his own purposes.
We have already seen that a great deal of mystery attaches to Francis Tresham, who is generally supposed to have written the letter to Monteagle, and was clearly suspected by some of having done a great deal more; for the author of thePolitician's Catechismspeaks of him as having access to Cecil's house even at midnight, along with another whose name is not given, these two being therefore supposed to have been the secretary's instruments in all this business. What is certain is, that Tresham did not fly like the rest when the "discovery" had taken place, not only remaining in London, and showing himself openly in the streets, but actually presenting himself to the council, and offering them his services. Moreover, though his name was known to the government, at least on November 7th, as one of the accomplices, it was for several days omitted from their published proclamations, and not till the 12th was he taken into custody. Being confined in the Tower, he was shortly attacked by a painful malady, and on December 23rd he died, as was officially announced, of a "strangury," as Salisbury assures Cornwallis "by a natural sickness, such as he hath been a long time subject to."[321]Throughout his sickness he himself and his friends loudly declared that should he survive it "they feared not the course of justice."[322]Such confidence, as Mr. Jardine remarks, could be grounded only on his possession of knowledge which the authorities would not venture to reveal, and it is not surprising that his death should have been attributed, by the enemies of the government, to poison. It is no doubt an argument againstsuch a supposition that during his illness Tresham was allowed to be attended by his wife and a confidential servant. On the other hand, not only does Bishop Goodman inform us[323]that "Butler, the great physician of Cambridge," declared him to have been poisoned; but the author ofMischeefes Mystery, a violent government partisan, contradicts the notion of a natural death, by asserting that "Tresham murthered himself in the Tower."
It thus appears, once again, that the more its details are scrutinized, the less does the traditional history of the Plot commend itself to our acceptance. It is hard to believe that within the ranks of the conspirators themselves, there was no treachery, no one who, lending himself to work the ruin of his associates, unwittingly wrought his own.
The evidence hitherto considered may fitly conclude with the testimony of a witness living near the time in question, who had evidently been at pains to make inquiries amongst those most likely to give information. This is an anonymous correspondent of Anthony à Wood, whose notes are preserved in Fulman's collection in the library of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. These remarkable notes have been seen by Fulman, who inserted in the margin various questions and objections, to which the writer always supplied precise and definite replies. In the following version this supplementary information is incorporated in the body of his statement, being distinguished by italics. The writer, who explains that his full materials are in the country, speaks thus:[324]
"I should be glad to understand what your friend driveth at about the Fifth of November. It was, without all peradventure, a State Plot. I have collected many pregnant circumstances concerning it.
"'Tis certain that the last Earl of Salisbury[325]confessed to William Lenthal[326]it was his father's contrivance, which Lenthal soon after told one Mr. Webb (John Webb, Esq.), a person of quality, and his kinsman, yet alive.
"Sir Henry Wotton says 'twas usual with Cecil to create plots, that he might have the honour of the discovery, or to such effect.
"The Lord Mounteagle knew there was a letter to be sent to him before it came. (Known by Edmund Church, Esq., his confidant.)
"Sir Everard Digby's sons were both knighted soon after, and Sir Kenelm would often say it was a State design, to disengage the king of his promise to the Pope and the King of Spain, to indulge the Catholics if ever he came to be king here; and somewhat to his purpose was found in the Lord Wimbledon's papers after his death.[327]
"Mr. Vowell, who was executed in the Rump time, did also affirm it so.[328]
"Catesby's man (George Bartlet),[329]on his death-bed,confessed his master went to Salisbury House several nights before the discovery, and was always brought privately in at a back door."
Then, in answer to an objection of Fulman's, is added: "Catesby, 'tis like, did not mean to betray his friends or his own life—he was drawn in and made believe strange things. All good men condemn him and the rest as most desperate wretches; yet most believed the original contrivance of the Plot was not theirs."
Whatever else may be thought of the above statements, they at least serve to contradict Mr. Jardine's assertion,[330]that the notion of Cecil's complicity,—which he terms a strange suggestion, scarce worthy of notice,—was first heard of long after the transaction, and was adopted exclusively by Catholics. Clearly it was not unknown to Protestants who were contemporaries, or personally acquainted with contemporaries, of the event. Yet the document here cited was known to Mr. Jardine, who mentions one of its statements, that relating to Lord Monteagle, but says nothing of its more serious allegations.
It must also be remarked that we find some traces in the evidence which remains of certain mysterious conspirators of great importance, concerning whom no investigation whatever appears to have been made, they being at once permitted to drop into the profoundest obscurity, in a manner quite contrary to the habitual practice of the authorities.
One such instance is afforded by the testimony of a mariner, Henry Paris, of Barking,[331]that Guy Faukes,aliasJohnson, hired a boat of him, "wherein was carried over to Gravelines a man supposed of great import: he went disguised, and would not suffer any one man to go with him but this Vaux, nor to return with him. This Paris did attend for him back at Gravelines six weeks. If cause require there are several proofs of this matter." None of these, however, seem to have been sought.
FOOTNOTES:[292]That of Mr. Pound.[293]Jardine,Criminal Trials, ii. 38, n.[294]E.g., the author of thePolitician's Catechism.[295]"About the time of my Lord Essex his enterprise he became Catholic" (i.e.1601). Father Gerard,Narrative, p. 58.[296]P.R.O.Gunpowder Plot Book, n. 4.[297]Justice Grange, of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, to Salisbury, November 5th, 1605. Justices of Warwickshire, to the same, November 12th.[298]MS., f. 31-32.[299]Tanner MSS.,ut sup., f. 167.[300]P.R.O.Dom. James I., November 7th, 1605.[301]The case of Carleton is not without mystery. At the time of the discovery he was at Paris, as secretary to the English ambassador, but about the middle of the month was ordered home in hot haste and placed "in restraint." On February 28th, 1605-6, he wrote to his friend Chamberlain that he was airing himself on the Chilterns to get rid of the scent of powder, asking his correspondent to consult a patron as to his best means of promotion (Dom. James I.xviii. 125). Far from being injured by any suspicion that he might seem to have incurred, he subsequently rose rapidly in favour, was intrusted with most important diplomatic missions, and was finally created Viscount Dorchester.[302]Court of King James, i. 105.[303]To the ambassadors, November 9th.[304]Dom. James I.xv. 106.[305]Catholique Apology, p. 415.[306]Goodman'sCourt of King James, i. 121, note.[307]See Goodman's remarks on this subject (Court of King James, i. 106). The author of thePolitician's Catechismwrites: "It is very certaine that Percy and Catesby might have been taken alive, when they were killed, but Cecil knew full well that these two unfortunate Gentlemen would have related the story lesse to his owne advantage, than himself caused it to be published: therefore they were dispatched when they might have been made prisoners, having no other weapons, offensive or defensive, but their swords."[308]About the death of the Wrights there are extraordinary contradictions. In the "original" of his famous confession T. Winter says: "The next shot was the elder Wright, stone dead; after him the younger Mr. Wright." InMischeefes Mysterywe read that Percy and Catesby were killed "with a gunne," the two Wrights "with Halberts." The day after the attack, November 9th, Sir Edward Leigh wrote to the Council, that the Wrights were not slain, as reputed, but wounded. Not till the 13th was their death certified by Sir Richard Walsh.[309]Court of King James, i. 106.[310]Nichols,Progresses of King James I., i. 588.[311]MS., f. 70, b.[312]Cecil writing to the ambassadors, November 9th, mentions in a postscript the fate of the rebels.[313]They were slain by two balls from the same musket.[314]Warrant, P.R.O.[315]Father Gerard mentions this circumstance (Narrative, p. 110).[316]This point is well developed in the recentLife of a Conspirator, pp. 120-126.[317]Dom. James I.xvi. 97.[318]Dom. James I., March 4th, 1605-6.[319]Gunpowder Plot Book, 242.[320]The strange story of a powder-plot under Elizabeth is variously told. According to one of the mysterious confessions attributed to Faukes, which have disappeared from the State Papers, Owen told him in Flanders that one Thomas Morgan had proposed to blow up her majesty (Abbot,Antilogia, 137). TheMemorial to Protestantsby Bishop Kennet (1713) says that the man's name was Moody, who wanted the French ambassador to subsidise him. The idea was to place a 20 lb. bag of powder under the queen's bed, and explode it in the middle of the night, but how this was to be managed is not explained.[321]Winwood,Memorials, ii. 189.[322]Wood to Salisbury, December 23rd, 1605.[323]Court of King James, i. 107.[324]Collection, vol. ii. 15.[325]William, second earl (born 1591, died 1668), son of the minister of James I.[326]Speaker of the Long Parliament.[327]Edward Cecil, Viscount Wimbledon, third son of Thomas, first Earl of Exeter (the elder brother of Robert Cecil, first Earl of Salisbury), died 1638.[328]Peter Vowell, a Protestant, executed with Colonel John Gerard for an alleged plot against Cromwell, July 10th, 1654.[329]"George Bartlett, Mr. Catesby's servant," appears amongst the suspected persons whose names were sent up to Cecil by the justices of Warwickshire, November 12th, 1605. (Gunpowder Plot Book, 134.)[330]Criminal Trials, ii. 188.[331]Gunpowder Plot Book, 130.
[292]That of Mr. Pound.
[293]Jardine,Criminal Trials, ii. 38, n.
[294]E.g., the author of thePolitician's Catechism.
[295]"About the time of my Lord Essex his enterprise he became Catholic" (i.e.1601). Father Gerard,Narrative, p. 58.
[296]P.R.O.Gunpowder Plot Book, n. 4.
[297]Justice Grange, of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, to Salisbury, November 5th, 1605. Justices of Warwickshire, to the same, November 12th.
[298]MS., f. 31-32.
[299]Tanner MSS.,ut sup., f. 167.
[300]P.R.O.Dom. James I., November 7th, 1605.
[301]The case of Carleton is not without mystery. At the time of the discovery he was at Paris, as secretary to the English ambassador, but about the middle of the month was ordered home in hot haste and placed "in restraint." On February 28th, 1605-6, he wrote to his friend Chamberlain that he was airing himself on the Chilterns to get rid of the scent of powder, asking his correspondent to consult a patron as to his best means of promotion (Dom. James I.xviii. 125). Far from being injured by any suspicion that he might seem to have incurred, he subsequently rose rapidly in favour, was intrusted with most important diplomatic missions, and was finally created Viscount Dorchester.
[302]Court of King James, i. 105.
[303]To the ambassadors, November 9th.
[304]Dom. James I.xv. 106.
[305]Catholique Apology, p. 415.
[306]Goodman'sCourt of King James, i. 121, note.
[307]See Goodman's remarks on this subject (Court of King James, i. 106). The author of thePolitician's Catechismwrites: "It is very certaine that Percy and Catesby might have been taken alive, when they were killed, but Cecil knew full well that these two unfortunate Gentlemen would have related the story lesse to his owne advantage, than himself caused it to be published: therefore they were dispatched when they might have been made prisoners, having no other weapons, offensive or defensive, but their swords."
[308]About the death of the Wrights there are extraordinary contradictions. In the "original" of his famous confession T. Winter says: "The next shot was the elder Wright, stone dead; after him the younger Mr. Wright." InMischeefes Mysterywe read that Percy and Catesby were killed "with a gunne," the two Wrights "with Halberts." The day after the attack, November 9th, Sir Edward Leigh wrote to the Council, that the Wrights were not slain, as reputed, but wounded. Not till the 13th was their death certified by Sir Richard Walsh.
[309]Court of King James, i. 106.
[310]Nichols,Progresses of King James I., i. 588.
[311]MS., f. 70, b.
[312]Cecil writing to the ambassadors, November 9th, mentions in a postscript the fate of the rebels.
[313]They were slain by two balls from the same musket.
[314]Warrant, P.R.O.
[315]Father Gerard mentions this circumstance (Narrative, p. 110).
[316]This point is well developed in the recentLife of a Conspirator, pp. 120-126.
[317]Dom. James I.xvi. 97.
[318]Dom. James I., March 4th, 1605-6.
[319]Gunpowder Plot Book, 242.
[320]The strange story of a powder-plot under Elizabeth is variously told. According to one of the mysterious confessions attributed to Faukes, which have disappeared from the State Papers, Owen told him in Flanders that one Thomas Morgan had proposed to blow up her majesty (Abbot,Antilogia, 137). TheMemorial to Protestantsby Bishop Kennet (1713) says that the man's name was Moody, who wanted the French ambassador to subsidise him. The idea was to place a 20 lb. bag of powder under the queen's bed, and explode it in the middle of the night, but how this was to be managed is not explained.
[321]Winwood,Memorials, ii. 189.
[322]Wood to Salisbury, December 23rd, 1605.
[323]Court of King James, i. 107.
[324]Collection, vol. ii. 15.
[325]William, second earl (born 1591, died 1668), son of the minister of James I.
[326]Speaker of the Long Parliament.
[327]Edward Cecil, Viscount Wimbledon, third son of Thomas, first Earl of Exeter (the elder brother of Robert Cecil, first Earl of Salisbury), died 1638.
[328]Peter Vowell, a Protestant, executed with Colonel John Gerard for an alleged plot against Cromwell, July 10th, 1654.
[329]"George Bartlett, Mr. Catesby's servant," appears amongst the suspected persons whose names were sent up to Cecil by the justices of Warwickshire, November 12th, 1605. (Gunpowder Plot Book, 134.)
[330]Criminal Trials, ii. 188.
[331]Gunpowder Plot Book, 130.
Wehave hitherto confined our attention to sources of information other than those with which the authors of the official narrative have supplied us, and upon which they based the same. It remains to inquire how far the evidence presented by them can avail to substantiate the traditional history, and to rebut the various arguments against its authenticity which have been adduced.
For brevity and clearness' sake it will be advisable to divide this investigation under several heads.
On the threshold of our inquiry we are met by a most singular and startling fact. As to what passed on the trial of the conspirators, what evidence was produced against them, how it was supported,—nay, even how the tale of their enterprise was told—we have no information upon which any reliance can be placed. One version alone has come down to us of the proceedings upon this occasion—that published "by authority"—and of this we can be sure only that it is utterly untrustworthy. It was issued under the title of theTrue and Perfect Relation, but, as Mr.Jardine has already told us, is certainly not deserving of the character which its title imports. "It is not true, because many occurrences on the trial are wilfully misrepresented; and it is notperfect, because the whole evidence, and many facts and circumstances which must have happened, are omitted, and incidents are inserted which could not by possibility have taken place on the occasion. It is obviously a false and imperfect relation of the proceedings; a tale artfully garbled and misrepresented ... to serve a State purpose, and intended and calculated to mislead the judgment of the world upon the facts of the case."[332]Again the same author remarks,[333]"that every line of the published trial was rigidly weighed and considered, not with reference to its accuracy, but its effect on the minds of those who might read it, is manifest."
Moreover, the narrative thus obviously dishonest, was admittedly issued in contradiction of divers others already passing "from hand to hand," which were at variance with itself in points of importance, and which it stigmatized as "uncertain, untrue, and incoherent;" it justified its appearance on the ground that it was supremely important for the public to be rightly informed in such a case:[334]and so successful were the efforts made to secure for it a monopoly, that no single document has come down to us by which its statementsmight be checked. In consequence, to quote Mr. Jardine once more,[335]there is no trial since the time of Henry VIII. in regard of which we are so ignorant as to what actually occurred.[336]
The employment of methods such as these would in any circumstances forfeit all credit on behalf of the story thus presented. In the present instance the presumption raised against it is even stronger than it would commonly be. If the Gunpowder Plot were in reality what was represented, why was it deemed necessary, in Cecil's own phrase, to pervert and disguise its history in order to produce the desired effect? A project so singular and diabolical in its atrocity, prepared for on so large a scale, and so nearly successful, should, it would appear, have needed no fictitious adjuncts to enhance its enormity; and for the conviction of miscreants caught red-handed in such an enterprise no evidence should have been so effectual as that furnished by the facts of the case, which of their nature should have been patent and unquestionable. When we find, on the contrary, a webof falsehood and mystery woven with elaborate care over the whole history of the transaction, it is not unnatural to infer that to have told the simple truth would not have suited the purpose of those who had the telling of the tale; and it is obviously necessary that the evidence whereby their story was supported should be rigorously sifted.
What has been said, though in great measure true of the trial of Father Garnet, at the end of March, is especially applicable to that of the conspirators, two months earlier, for in regard of this we have absolutely no information beyond that officially supplied. The execution of Faukes and his companions following close upon their arraignment,[337]all that had been elicited, or was said to have been elicited, at their trial, became henceforth evidence which could not be contradicted, the prosecution thus having a free hand in dealing with their subsequent victim.[338]In view of this circumstance it has been noted as remarkable that whereas the conspirators had been kept alive and untried for nearly three months, they were thus summarily dealt with at the moment when it was known that the capture of Father Garnet was imminent, and, as a matter of fact, he was taken on the very day on which the first company were executed.[339]It wouldappear that nothing should have seemed more desirable than to confront the Jesuit superior with those whom he was declared to have instigated to their crime, instead of putting them out of the way at the very moment when there was a prospect of doing so.
Amongst all the confessions and "voluntary declarations" extracted from the conspirators, there are two of exceptional importance, as having furnished the basis of the story told by the government, and ever since generally accepted. These are a long declaration made by Thomas Winter, and another by Guy Faukes, which alone were made public, being printed in the "King's Book," and from which are gathered the essential particulars of the story as we are accustomed to hear it.
Of Winter's declaration, which is in the form of a letter to the Lords Commissioners, there is found in the State Paper Office only a copy, bearing date November 23rd, 1605, in the handwriting of Levinus Munck, Cecil's private secretary. This copy has been shown to the King, who in a marginal note objects to a certain "uncleare phrase," which has accordingly been altered in accordance with the royal criticism:and from it has evidently been taken the printed version, which agrees with it in every respect, including the above-mentioned emendation of the phraseology.
FROM WINTER'S CONFESSION, NOVEMBER 23.from winter's confession, november 23.
It must strike the reader as remarkable that, whereas, as has been said, the body of the letter is in the handwriting of the secretary, Munck, the names of the witnesses who attest it[340]are added in that of his master, Cecil himself.
The "original" document, in Winter's own hand, is at Hatfield, and agrees in general so exactly with the copy, as to demonstrate the identity of their origin.[341]But while, as we have seen, the "copy" is dated November 23rd, the "original" is dated on the 25th.[342]On a circumstance so singular, light is possibly thrown by a letter from Waad, the Lieutenant of the Tower,to Cecil, on the 21st of the same month.[343]"Thomas Winter," he wrote, "doth find his hand so strong, as after dinner he will settle himself to write that he hath verbally declared to your Lordship, adding what he shall remember." The inference is certainly suggested that torture had been used until the prisoner's spirit was sufficiently broken to be ready to tell the story required of him, and that the details were furnished by those who demanded it. It must, moreover, be remarked that although Winter's "original" declaration is witnessed only by Sir E. Coke, the Attorney General, it appears in print attested by all those whom Cecil had selected for the purpose two days before the declaration was made.[344]It may be said that the inference drawn above is violent and unfair, and, perhaps, were there no other case to go upon but that of Winter, so grave a charge as it implies should not be made. There remains, however, the companion case of Faukes, which is yet more extraordinary.
His declaration first makes its appearance as "The examination of Guy Fawkes, taken the 8th of November."[345]The document thus described is manifestly a draft, and not a copy of a deposition actually taken. It is unsigned: the list of witnesses is in the same handwriting as the rest, and in no instance is a witness indicated by such a title as he would employ for his signature.[346]Throughout this paper Faukes is made tospeak in the third person, and the names of accomplices to whom he refers are not given.
What, however, is most remarkable is the frank manner in which this document is treated as a draft. Several passages are cancelled and others substituted, sometimes in quite a contrary sense, so that the same deponent cannot possibly have made the statements contained in both versions. Other paragraphs are "ticked off," as the event proves, for omission.
Nine days later, November 17th,[347]Faukes was induced to put his name to the substance of the matter contained in the draft.[348]The document is headed "The declaration[349]of Guy Fawkes, prisoner in the Tower of London." Faukes speaks throughout in the first person, and supplies the names previously omitted.[350]Most noteworthy is the manner in which thisversion is adapted to the emendations of the draft. The passages ticked off have disappeared entirely, amongst them the remarkable statements that "they [the confederates] meant also to have sent for the prisoners in the Tower, of whom particularly they had some consultation,"—that "they had consultation for the taking of the Lady Mary [the infant daughter of King James] into their possession"—and that "provision was made by some of the conspiracy of armour of proof this last summer, for this action." Where an alteration has been made in the draft, great skill is shown in combining what is important in both versions.[351]
As to the means which were employed to compel Faukes to sign the declaration there can be no doubt; his signature bearing evidence that he had been tortured with extreme severity. The witnesses are but two, Coke, the Attorney General, and Waad, the Lieutenant of the Tower. When, however, the document came to be printed, as in the other case, a fuller list was appended, but not exactly that previously indicated, for to Faukes were assigned the same witnesses as to Winter, including the Earls of Worcester and Dunbar over and above his own list.[352]
SIGNATURES OF FAUKES AND OLDCORNE.signatures of faukes and oldcorne.[353]
The printed version exhibits other points of interest. There was in the Archduke's service, in Flanders, anEnglish soldier, Hugh Owen,[354]whom the government were for some reason, excessively desirous to incriminate, and get into their hands. For this purpose, apassage was artfully interpolated in the statement of Faukes, whereof no trace is found in the original. In the "King's Book," the passage in question stands thus, the words italicised being those fraudulently introduced:
"About Easter, the parliament being prorogued till October next, we dispersed ourselves, and I retired into the Low-countries,by advice and direction of the rest; as well to acquaint Owen with the particulars of the plot, as also, lest, by my longer stay, I might have grown suspicious." But of Owen we shall see more in particular. It must not be forgotten that on several other days besides those named above, Faukes made declarations, still extant, viz., November 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 16th, and January 9th and 20th. The most important items of information furnished by that selected for publication were not even hinted at in any of these.
Farther light appears to be thrown on the manner in which this important declaration was prepared by another document found amongst the State Papers. This is an "interrogatory" drawn up by Sir E. Coke on November 8th, the very day of the "draft," expressly for the benefit of Faukes.[355]That the "draft" was composed from this appears to be shown by a curious piece of evidence. We have already noticed the strange phraseology of one of the passages attributed to Faukes: "He confesseth that the same day that this detestable act should have been performed the same day should other of their confederacy have surprised the person of the Lady Elizabeth," etc.Precisely the same repetition occurs in the sixth of Mr. Attorney's suggested questions. "Item, was it not agreed that the same day that the act should have been done, the same day or soon after the person of the Lady Elizabeth should have been surprised," etc.?
Moreover, it is apparent that this interrogatory is not founded on information already obtained, but is, in fact, what is known as a "fishing" document, intended to elicit evidence of some kind. In the first place, some of its suggestions are mutually incompatible. Thus in another place it implies that not Elizabeth but her infant sister Mary was the choice of the queen-makers:—"Who should have been protector of the Lady Mary, who, being born in England, they meant to prefer to the crown. With whom should she have married?" (She was then seven months old.) Again it asks: "What should have become of the Prince?" as though he might after all be the sovereign intended.
Besides this, many points are raised which are evidently purely imaginary, inasmuch as no more was ever heard of them though if substantiated, they would have been supremely important.[356]
The above details will not appear superfluous if the importance of these documents be fully understood. It is upon these narratives, stamped with features so incompatible with their trustworthiness, that we entirely depend for much of prime importance in the history of the conspiracy, in particular for the notable episode of the mine, which they alone relate, and which is not even mentioned, either in the other numerous confessions of Faukes and Winter themselves, or by any of the other confederates. Save for an incidental remark of Keyes, that he helped to work in the mine, we hear nothing else of it; while not only is this confession quite as strange a document as the two others, but, to complicate the matter still more, Keyes is expressly described by Cecil[357]himself as one of those that "wrought not in the mine."
It is hard to understand how so remarkable an operation should have been totally ignored in all the other confessions and declarations, numerous and various as they are; while, on the other hand, shouldthis striking feature of the Plot prove to be a fabrication, what is there of which to be certain?
There is another piece of evidence to which exceptional prominence has been given, the confession of Thomas Bates, Catesby's servant, dated December 4th, 1605. This is the only one of the conspirators' confessions specifically mentioned in the government account of their trial, and it is mentioned twice over—a circumstance not unsuspicious in view of the nature of that account as already described.[358]
It is not necessary at present to enter upon the large question of the attitude of the Jesuits towards the Plot, nor to discuss their guilt or innocence. This is, however, beyond dispute, that the government were above all things anxious to prove them guilty,[359]and no document ever produced was so effective for this purpose as the said confession, for, if it were true, there could be no question as to the guilt of one Jesuit, at least, Father GreenwayaliasTesimond. The substance of Bates' declaration was as follows:
That being introduced and sworn into the conspiracy by his master, Catesby, he was then told that, as a pledge of fidelity, he must receive the sacrament upon his oath, and accordingly he went to confession to Greenway, the Jesuit.
That in his confession he fully informed Greenway of the design, and that Greenway bade him obey his master, because it was for a good cause, and be secret, and mention the matter to no other priest.
That he was absolved by Greenway, and afterwards received Holy Communion.
It will be observed that the second paragraph, here italicized, is of supreme importance. We have evidence that although the conspirators, during the course of their operations, frequented the sacraments, they expressly avoided all mention of their design to their confessors, Catesby having required this of them, assuring them that he had fully satisfied himself that the project, far from being sinful, was meritorious, but that the priests were likely to give trouble.[360]We are even told by some authors that Catesby exacted of his confederates an oath of secrecy in this regard. It is clear that his authority must have had special weight with his own servant, who was, moreover, devotedly attached to his master, as he proved in the crisis of his fate. We might, therefore, naturally be prepared to learn that Bates, though confessing to Greenway, never acquainted him with the Plot; and, that in fact he never did so, there is some interesting evidence.
It cannot escape observation as a suspicious circumstancethat this most important confession, upon which so much stress was laid, exists amongst the State Papers only in a copy.[361]Moreover, this copy has been treated as though it were an original, being officially endorsed, and it has on some occasion been used in Court.[362]If, however, this version were not genuine, but prepared for a purpose, it is clear that it could not have been produced while Bates was alive to contradict it, and there appears to be no doubt that it was not heard of till after his death.
This appears, in the first place, from a manuscript account of the Plot,[363]written between the trial of the conspirators and that of Father Garnet, that is, within two months of the former. The author sets himself expressly to prove that the priests must have been cognizant of the design, for, he argues, Catholics, when they have anything of the kind in hand, always consult their confessors about it, and it cannot be supposed that on this occasion only did they omit to do so. In support of his assertion, he quotes the instances of Parry, Babington, and Squires, but says nothing of Bates. He mentions Greenway as undoubtedly one of the guilty priests, but only because "his Majesty's proclamation so speaks it." Had the confession of Bates, as we have it, been so prominently adduced at the trial, as the official narrative represents, it is quite impossible that such a writer should have been content with these feeble inferences.
Still more explicit is the evidence furnished by another MS. containing a report of Father Garnet's trial.[364]In this the confession of Bates is cited, but precisely without the significant passage of which we have spoken, as follows: "Catesby afterwards discovered the project unto him; shortly after which discovery, Bates went to Mass to Tesimond [Greenway], and there was confessed and had absolution."
Here, again, it is impossible to suppose that the all-important point was the one omitted. It is clear, however, that the mention of a confession made to Greenway wouldprimâ facieafford a presumption that this particular matter had been confessed, thus furnishing a foundation whereon to build; and, knowing as we do how evidence was manipulated, it is quite conceivable that the copy now extant incorporates the improved version thus suggested.
Such an explanation was unmistakably insinuated by Father Garnet, when, on his trial, this evidence was urged against him; for he significantly replied that "Bates was a dead man."[365]Greenway himself afterwards, when beyond danger, denied on his salvation that Bates had ever on any occasion mentioned to him any word concerning the Plot. It is still more singular that Bates himself appears to have known nothing of his own declaration. He had apparently said, in some examination of which no record remains, that he thought Greenway "knew of the business." This statement he afterwards retracted as having beenelicited by a vain hope of pardon, in a letter which is given in full by Father Gerard,[366]and of which Cecil himself made mention at Garnet's trial.[367]But of the far more serious accusation we are considering he said never a word.
There is, however, evidence still more notable. On the same day, December 4th, on which Bates made his declaration, Cecil wrote a most important letter to one Favat,[368]who had been commissioned by King James to urge the necessity of obtaining evidence without delay against the priests. This document is valuable as furnishing explicit testimony that torture was employed with this object. "Most of the prisoners," says the secretary, "have wilfully forsworn that the priests knew anything in particular, and obstinately refuse to be accusers of them, yea, what torture soever they be put to."
He goes on, however, to assure his Majesty that the desired object is now in sight, particularly referring to a confession which can be none other than that of Bates, but likewise cannot be that afterwards given to the world; for it is spoken of as affording promise, but not yet satisfactory in its performance.
"You may tell his Majesty that if he please to read privately what this day we have drawn from a voluntary and penitent examination, the point I am persuaded (but I am no undertaker) shall be so well cleared, if he forbear to speak much of this but few days, as we shall see all fall out to the end whereat his Majesty shooteth."
It seems clear, therefore, that the famous declarationof Bates, like those of Faukes and Winter, tends to discredit the story which in particulars so important rests upon such evidence.
It may be farther observed that if the confession of Bates, as officially preserved, were of any worth, it would have helped to raise other issues of supreme importance. Thus its concluding paragraph runs as follows:
"He confesseth that he heard his master, Thomas Winter, and Guy Fawkes say (presently upon the coming over of Fawkes) that they should have the sum of five-and-twenty thousand pounds out of Spain."
This clearly means that the King of Spain was privy to the design, for a sum equivalent to a quarter of a million of our money could not have been furnished by private persons. The government, however, constantly assured the English ambassadors abroad of the great satisfaction with which they found that no suspicion whatever rested upon any foreign prince.
There are various traces of foul play in regard of this conspirator in particular, which serve to shake our confidence as to the treatment of all. Robert Winter was the eldest brother of Thomas, and held the family property, which was considerable. Whether this motive, as Mr. Jardine suggests, or some other, prompted the step, certain it is that the government in their published history falsified the documents in order to incriminate him more deeply. Faukes, in the confession of Nov. 17th, mentioned Robert Keyesas amongst the first seven of the conspirators who worked in the mine, and Robert Winter as one of the five introduced at a later period. The names of these two were deliberately interchanged in the published version, Robert Winter appearing as a worker in the mine, and Keyes, who was an obscure man of no substance, among the gentlemen of property whose resources were to have supported the subsequent rebellion. Moreover, in the account of the same confession sent to Edmondes by Cecil three days before Faukes signed it (i.e., Nov. 14th), the same transposition occurs, Keyes being explicitly described as one of those "who wrought not in the mine," although, as we have seen, he is one of the three who alone make any mention of it.
Still more singular is another circumstance. About November 28th, Sir Edward Coke, the attorney-general, drew up certain farther notes of questions to be put to various prisoners.[369]Amongst these we read: "Winter to be examined of his brother. For no man else can accuse him." But a fortnight or so before this time the Secretary of State had officially informed the ambassador in the Low Countries that Robert Winter was one of those deepest in the treason, and, to say nothing of other evidence, a proclamation for his apprehension had been issued on November 18th. Yet Coke's interrogatory seems to imply that nothing had yet been established against him, and that he was not known to the general body of the traitors as a fellow-conspirator.
We have seen something of the extreme anxiety evinced by the English government to incriminate a certain Hugh Owen, a Welsh soldier of fortune serving in Flanders under the archduke.[370]With him were joined Father Baldwin, the Jesuit, and Sir William Stanley, who, like Owen, was in the archduke's service. The measures taken in regard of them are exceedingly instructive if we would understand upon what sort of evidence the guilt of obnoxious individuals was proclaimed as incontrovertible.
No time was lost in commencing operations. On November 14th, three days before Faukes signed the celebrated declaration which we have examined, and in which Owen was not mentioned, the Earl of Salisbury wrote to Edmondes, ambassador at Brussels,[371]that Faukes had now directly accused Owen, whose extradition must therefore be demanded. In proof of this assertion he inclosed a copy of the declaration, in which, however, curiously enough, no mention of Owen's name occurs.[372]
Edmondes on his side was equally prompt. He at once laid the matter before the archduke and his ministers, and on November 19th was able to write to Salisbury that Owen and his secretary were apprehended and their papers and ciphers seized, and that, "If there shall fall out matter to charge Owen with partaking in the treason, the archduke will not refuse the king to yield him to be answerable to justice,"[373]though venturing to hope that he would be able to clear himself of so terrible an accusation.
On "the last of November" the subject was pursued in an epistle from the King himself to the "Archdukes,"[374]in which the undoubted guilt of both Owen and Baldwin was roundly affirmed.[375]
On December 2nd, 1605, Salisbury wrote to Edmondes:[376]"I do warrant you to deliver upon the forfeiture of my judgment in your opinion that it shall appear as evident as the sun in the clearest day, that Baldwin by means of Owen, and Owen directly by himself, have been particular conspirators."
In spite of this, the authorities in Flanders asked for proofs of the guilt of those whom they were asked to give up. Wherefore Edmondes wrote (December 27th) to secure the co-operation of Cornwallis, his fellow-ambassador, at Madrid. After declaring that Owen and Baldwin were now found to have been "principal dealers in the late execrable treason," with remarkablenaïvetéhe thus continues:[377]
"I will not conceal from your lordship that they have been here so unrespective as to desire for their better satisfaction to have a copy of the information against the said persons to be sent over hither; which I fear will be very displeasing to his Majesty to understand."
In January (1605-6), Salisbury sending, in the King's name, instructions to Sir E. Coke as to the trial of the conspirators, concluded with this admonition:[378]"You must remember to lay Owen as foul in this as youcan," which certainly does not suggest that the case against him was overwhelmingly strong.
After the execution of the traitors, an Act of Attainder passed by Parliament included Owen amongst them.[379]
The archdukes remaining unconvinced, another and very notable argument was brought into play. On February 12th, 1605-6, Salisbury wrote to Edmondes:[380]
"As for the particular depositions against Owen and Baldwin, which the archdukes desire to have a sight of, you may let them know that it is a matter which can make but little to the purpose, considering that his Majesty already upon his royal word hath certified the archdukes of their guilt."
As to Owen's own papers which had been seized, the archduke assured the English ambassador,[381]"that if there had been anything to have been discovered out of the said papers touching the late treason (as he was well assured of the contrary), he would not have failed to have imparted the same to his Majesty."
At a later date the Spanish minister De Grenada wrote from Valladolid[382]that men could not be deliveredup on mere suspicion, which might prove groundless, but that the archduke had received orders to sift the matter to the bottom, in order that justice might be done "very fully."
About the same time President Richardot informed Edmondes[383]that Owen strenuously denied the charges against him, "and that there is the more probability of his innocency for that his papers having been carefully visited, there doth not appear anything in them to charge him concerning the said matter."
On April 21st Salisbury informed Edmondes of a conference on the subject between the king and the archduke's ambassador.[384]The latter declared that his master was ready to prosecute the accused in his own courts if evidence was furnished him, but in reply King James explained that this was impossible, and that he "was loth to send any papers or accusations over, not knowing how they might be framed or construed there by the formalities of their laws." He added that it was useless now to talk of evidence, "seeing the wretch is already condemned by the public sentence of the whole Parliament, which sentence the archdukes might see if they would." The ambassador thereupon asked to have a copy, but was curtly told that it would presently be printed, when he could buy one for twelve pence and send it to his masters, but that the king was not disposed to make a present of it.
In these circumstances the archdukes determined to detain Owen no longer, and he was presently discharged. The news of this proceeding produced aremarkable change in the tone of his accusers. On June 18th, the secretary wrote to Edmondes[385]that Owen's enlargement "seemed to give too much credit to his innocency;" moreover, that "though his Majesty showed no great disposition (for many considerations specified unto you) to send over the papers and accusations against him, ... yet this proceeded not out of any conscience of the invalidity of the proofs, but rather in respect that his process being made here, and the caitiff condemned by the public sentence of the Parliament, it would have come all to one issue, seeing they have proceeded when his Majesty left it to themselves to do as they thought fit."
To reinforce this lucid explanation Salisbury sent six days later what had before been refused, an abstract of "confessions against Owen," and a corrected copy of the Act of Attainder. These documents deserve some consideration.
We have seen how much stress was laid upon the action of Parliament in regard of Owen, although the Act of Attainder which it passed affords no information whatever to assist our judgment of his case. In moving for this attainder, Sir E. Coke appeared at the bar of the House of Commons (April 29th, 1606) to exhibit the evidence on which the charge rested. His notes of this evidence, which are extant,[386]clearly show that the government possessed no proofs at all beyond surmise and inference.[387]Three testimonies were citedwhich were quite inconsistent and mutually destructive: (1) An extract from a confession of Guy Faukes, January 20th, 1605-6, declaring that he had himself initiated Owen in the Plot in May, 1605. (2) An information of one Ralph Ratcliffe, to the effect that Owen and Baldwin were busy with the Plot in April, 1604. (3) T. Winter's testimony—from his famous confession of November 23rd, or 25th, 1605—that in the spring of 1604 Owen had assisted him to secure the services of Faukes.