In Salisbury's letter to Edmondes, the first and the last of these alone were cited,[388]probably because it had by this time been perceived that Ratcliffe's evidence flatly contradicted that of Faukes.
Winter's confession has already been discussed, and moreover affords no proof that Owen was acquainted with the purpose for which the services of Faukes were required. There remains the very circumstantial story of Faukes himself, which belongs to a curious and interesting class of documents, containing matter of the highest importance, whereof no trace, not even a copy, is to be found amongst the State Papers. These comprise various confessions of Faukes, dated November 19th, 25th, and 30th, 1605, and January 20th, 1605-6, all dealing with information of a sensational nature, concerning which we learn nothing from the eleven depositions of the same conspirator preserved in the Record Office.[389]For our knowledge of thesemysterious documents we have to depend on transcripts of portions of them among the Tanner MSS. in the Bodleian Library, on fragmentary Latin versions in theAntilogiaof Bishop Abbot, and on the extract cited from the last amongst them by Sir Edward Coke, which exactly agrees with that sent by Salisbury to Edmondes, as above mentioned.
It cannot escape notice that although these versions all profess to be taken from the originals under Faukes' hand, they are so utterly different as to preclude the belief that they have been copied from the same documents.[390]
It must farther be observed that we hear nothing of important matters contained in these confessions till the supposed author and his confederates were all dead, whereas these are such as would certainly have beenproduced on their trial had this been possible.[391]Some of the evidence thus afforded is, in fact, too good, for the Government's purpose, to be true, for if authentic, it would have secured results which, though much desired, were never obtained. In particular it would have established beyond question the guilt of the Jesuits abroad, and especially of Father Baldwin.[392]It is this Father, however, whose case conclusively proves the utter worthlessness of the evidence. Having been proclaimed and branded by the English governmentas a convicted traitor, he, five years later, fell into their hands, being delivered up, in 1610, by their ally the Elector Palatine. He was at once thrown into the Tower, where he was frequently and rigorously examined, it is said even on the rack.[393]After a confinement of eight years he was discharged "with honour," his innocence being attested by the respect with which he was treated by men of all parties.[394]In view of this unquestionable acquittal the famous proofs of his criminality, though certified on the royal word of King James himself, forfeit all claim to consideration.
A word may be added concerning Father Cresswell, an English Jesuit residing in Spain. He, too, was assumed to have been deeply implicated in this and other treasons. In November, 1605, Cecil included his name in a list of traitors against whom proofs were to be procured.[395]It was even asserted that at the time of the intended explosion he came over to England "to bear his part with the rest of his Society in a victorial song of thanksgiving."[396]He was, moreover, loudly denounced as the principal agent in the notorious Spanish Treason.
After all this it is somewhat surprising to find Sir Charles Cornwallis, the English Ambassador, while the excitement of the Powder Plot was at its height, testifying in the most cordial terms to his esteem for the said Cresswell. The latter having been called to Rome by his superiors, Cornwallis (December23rd, N.S. 1605,) addressed to him the following letter.[397]
"Sir, although in matter of religion well you know that there are many discords between us, yet sure in your duty and loyalty to my King and Country I find in you so good a concordance I cannot but much reverence and love you, and wish you all the happiness that a man of your sort upon the earth can desire.
"Much am I (I assure you) grieved at your departure, and the more that I was put in so good hope that your journey should have been stayed. The time of the year unpleasant to travel in, your body, as I think, not much accustomed to journeys of so great length, and the great good you did here to your poor countrymen (which now they want) are great motives to make your friends to wish your will in that voyage had been broken.
"If it be not, I shall not believe in words, for many here do greatly desire you for causes spiritual, and some for temporal. In the latter number am I, who, not affecting your spiritualities (for that these in you abound to superfluity), do much reverence and respect your temporal abilities, as wherein I acknowledge much wisdom, temper, and sincerity. So no friends you have shall ever more desire good unto you than myself. And therefore I wish I were able to make so good demonstration as willingly I would that I ever will here and in all places in this world rest
"Your very assured loving friend,
"Ch. Co."
About the same time, in an undated letter to Lord Salisbury,[398]Cornwallis again expresses his regret on account of the removal of Cresswell from Spain.
It is impossible to analyze in detail the evidence supplied by the several conspirators after their capture, or to examine the endless inconsistencies and contradictions with which it abounds. One or two points must, however, be indicated.
1. As we have seen, it is clear that at the beginning an effort was made to invest the Plot with a far wider political significance than was afterwards attempted, and to introduce elements which were soon quietly laid aside. In the interrogatories prepared by Sir E. Coke and Chief Justice Popham, we find it suggested that the death of the Earl of Salisbury was a main feature of the scheme, "absolutely agreed upon" among the conspirators. Also that the titular Earl of Westmoreland, the titular Lord Dacre, the Earl of Northumberland, Sir Walter Raleigh, and others were mixed up in the business.
Nor were such endeavours altogether fruitless, for, supposing the testimony extorted from the prisoners to be worthy of credit, information was obtained altogether changing the character and complexion of the design. This was, however, presently buried in oblivion and treated as of no moment whatever.
Thus in Sir Everard Digby's declaration of Nov. 23rd,[399]we find him testifying that the Earls of Westmorelandand Derby,[400]were to have been sent to raise forces in the north. Faukes, in the famous confession which we have so fully discussed, was made to say "They meant also to have sent for the prisoners in the Tower to have come to them, of whom particularly they had some consultation," and although this important clause was omitted from the finished version finally adopted, it appears in that of Nov. 14th, sent by Cecil to the ambassador at Brussels. Again, in his examination of November 9th, famous for the ghastly evidence of torture afforded by his signature, we find Faukes declaring, "He confesseth also that there was speech amongst them to draw Sir Walter Rawley to take part with them, being one that might stand them in good stead,as others in like sort were named."[401]
With regard to Raleigh it must be remembered that he was in a very special manner obnoxious to Salisbury, who, however, was at great pains to disguise his hostility. On occasion of Sir Walter's trial, in 1603, he vehemently protested that it was a great grief to him to have to pronounce against one whom he had hitherto loved.[402]But two years earlier, in his secret correspondence with James, he had not only describedRaleigh to the future king as one of the diabolical triplicity hatching cockatrice eggs, but had solemnly protested that if he feigned friendship for such a wretch, it was only with the purpose of drawing him on to discover his real nature.[403]
Even more worthy of notice is the shameless manner in which evidence was falsified. That produced in court consisted entirely of the written depositions of the prisoners themselves, and of those who had been similarly examined. It was, however, carefully manipulated before it was read; all that told in favour of those whose conviction was desired being omitted, and only so much retained as would tell against them. On this subject Mr. Jardine well remarks:[404]"This mode of dealing with the admissions of an accused person is pure and unmixed injustice; it is in truth a forgery of evidence; for when a qualified statement is made, the suppression of the qualification is no less a forgery than if the whole statement had been fabricated."
It will be sufficient to cite one notorious and compendiousexample. In regard of the oath of secrecy taken by the conspirators, Faukes (Nov. 9th, 1605) and Thomas Winter (Jan. 9th, 1605-6) related how they administered it to one another, "in a chamber," to quote Winter, "where no other body was," and afterwards proceeded to another chamber where they heard Mass and received Communion at the hands of Father Gerard.[405]Both witnesses, however, emphatically declared that the Father knew nothing of the oath that had been taken, or of the purpose of the associates.
FROM FAUKES' CONFESSION OF NOVEMBER 9, 1605.from faukes' confession of november 9, 1605.
Such testimony in favour of one whom they were anxious above all things to incriminate, the government would not allow to appear. Accordingly, Sir E. Coke, preparing the documents to be used in court as evidence, marked off the exculpatory passages, with directions that they were not to be read.[406]Having thus suppressed the passage which declared that the Jesuit was unaware of the conspirators' purpose, and of their oath, Coke went on to inform the jury, in his speech, "This oath was by Gerard the Jesuit given to Catesby, Percy, Christopher Wright, and Thomas Winter, and by Greenwell [Greenway] the Jesuit to Bates at another time, and so to the rest."[407]
3. Neither must it be forgotten that even apart from these manifest instances of tampering, the confessions themselves, obtained in such circumstances, are open to much suspicion. In an intercepted letter to Father Baldwin, of whom we have heard, Father Schondonck, another Jesuit, then rector of St. Omers, speaks thus:[408]"I much rejoice that, as I hear, there is no confession produced, by which, either in court or at the place of execution, any of our society is accused of so abominable a crime. This I consider a point of prime importance.Of secret confessions, or those extorted by violence or torture, less account must be made; for we have many examples whereby the dishonesty of our enemies in such matters has been fully displayed."
Father John Gerard in his Autobiography[409]relates an experience of his own which illustrates the methods employed to procure evidence such as was required.When, in Queen Elizabeth's time, he had himself been taken and thrown into prison, the notorious Topcliffe, the priest-hunter, endeavoured to force him into an acknowledgment of various matters of a treasonable character. Father Gerard undertook to write what he had to say on the subject, and proceeded to set down an explicit denial of what his questioner suggested. What followed he thus relates.[410]
"While I was writing this, the old man waxed wroth. He shook with passion, and would fain have snatched the paper from me."
"'If you don't want me to write the truth,' said I, 'I'll not write at all.'"
"'Nay,' quoth he, 'write so and so, and I'll copy out what you have written.'"
"'I shall write what I please,' I answered, 'and not whatyouplease. Show what I have written to the Council, for I shall add nothing but my name.'"
"Then I signed so near the writing, that nothing could be put in between.The hot-tempered man, seeing himself disappointed, broke out into threats and blasphemies: 'I'll get you into my power, and hang you in the air, and show you no mercy: and then I shall see what God will rescue you out of my hands.'"
It was not by Catholics alone that allegations of this sort were advanced. Sir Anthony Weldon tells us[411]that on the trial of Raleigh and Cobham, the latter protested that he had never made the declaration attributed to him incriminating Raleigh. "Thatvillain Wade,"[412]said he, "did often solicit me, and, not prevailing, got me, by a trick, to write my name on a piece of white paper, which I, thinking nothing, did; so that if any charge came under my hand, it was forged by that villain Wade, by writing something above my hand, without my consent or knowledge."
Moreover, there exists undoubted evidence that the king's chief minister availed himself upon occasion of the services of such as could counterfeit handwriting and forge evidence against suspected persons. One Arthur Gregory[413]appears to have been thus employed, and he subsequently wrote to Salisbury reminding him of what he had done.[414]After acknowledging that he owes his life to the secretary who knows how to appreciate "an honest desire in respect of his Majesty's public service," Gregory thus continues:
"Your Lordship hath had a present trial of that which none but myself hath done before,to write in another man's hand, and, discovering the secret writing being in blank, to abuse a most cunning villain in his own subtlety, leaving the same at last in blank again, wherein although there be difficulty their answers show they have no suspicion."
This the calendarer of State Papers believes to refer to the case of Father Garnet, and it is certain fromGregory's own letter that at one time he held a post in the Tower. Is it not possible that an explanation may here be found of the strange circumstance, that perhaps the most important of Father Garnet's examinations[415]bears an endorsement, "This was forbydden by the King to be given in evidence"?
Gregory's letter, of which we have been speaking, has appended to it an instructive postscript:
"Mr. Lieutenant expecteth something to be written in the blank leaf of a Latin Bible, which is pasted in already for the purpose. I will attend it, and whatsoever else cometh."[416]
It will not improbably be urged that the government history is confirmed in all essential particulars by authorities to whom no exception can be taken, namely, contemporary Catholic writers, and especially the Jesuits Gerard and Greenway, whose narratives of the conspiracy corroborate every detail concerning which doubts have been insinuated.
This argument is undoubtedly deserving of all consideration, but upon examination appears to lose much of its force. If the narratives in question agree with that furnished by the government, it is because they are based almost entirely upon it, and upon those published confessions of Winter and Faukes with which we are familiar.
On this point Father Gerard is very explicit:[417]"Out of [Mr. Thomas Winter's] examination, with the others that were made in the time of their imprisonment, I must gather and set down all that is to be said or collected of their purposes and proceedings in this heady enterprize. For that, as I have said, they kept it so wholly secret from all men, that until their flight and apprehension it was not known to any that such a matter was in hand, and then there could none have access to them to learn the particulars. But we must be contented with that which some of those that lived to be examined, did therein deliver. Only for that some of their servants that were up in arms with them in the country did afterwards escape, somewhat might be learned by them of their carriage in their last extremities, and some such words as they then uttered, whereby their mind in the whole matter is something the more opened."
Elsewhere he writes, exhibiting more confidence in government documents than we can feel:[418]
"[The prisoners'] examinations did all agree in all material points, and therefore two only were published in print, containing the substance of the rest. And indeed [this is] the sum of that which I have been able to say in this narration touching either their first intentions or the names or number of the conspirators, or concerning the course they took to keep the matter so absolutely secret, or, finally, touching the manner of their beginning and proceeding in the whole matter; for that—as I noted before—it being kept a vowed secret in the heads and hearts of so few, and those alsoafterwards apprehended before they could have means to declare the particulars in any private manner, therefore no more can be known of the matter or manner of this tragedy than is found or gathered out of their examinations."
As for Greenway, it should not be forgotten that for the most part he confined himself to translating Gerard's narrative from English into Italian, though he supplemented it occasionally with items furnished by his own experience as to the character and general conduct of the conspirators on previous occasions, or during their last desperate rally. Of this he was able to speak with more authority, as he not only chanced to be in the immediate neighbourhood, but actually visited them at Huddington House (the seat of Robert Winter) on November 6th, being summoned thither by Catesby through his servant Bates.[419]Greenway, like Gerard, constantly refers to the published confessions of Winter and Faukes as the sources of his information.
It may here be observed that the practical identityof the narratives of these two fathers was unknown to Mr. Jardine, who having seen only that of Father Greenway, and believing it to be an original work, founded upon this erroneous assumption an argument which loses its force when we learn the real author to have been Gerard. Mr. Jardine maintains that the narrator must, from internal evidence, have been an active and zealous member of the conspiracy, "approving, promoting and encouraging it with the utmost enthusiasm."[420]It so happens, however, that the real author, Father Gerard, is just the one of the incriminated Jesuits whose innocence is held by historians certainly not partial to his Order, to be beyond question. Mr. Gardiner considers[421]that there is "strong reason" to believe him not to have been acquainted with the Plot. Dr. Jessopp is still more emphatic, and declares[422]that it is impossible for any candid reader of all the evidence to doubt that Gerard must be exonerated.
What has been said of Gerard and Greenway may serve also for Father Garnet, who in his various examinations and other utterances assumes the truth of the government story, for neither had he materials to go upon except those officially supplied.
It is obvious that the conclusion to be drawn from the above considerations is chiefly negative. That the conspirators embarked on a plot against the state, is, of course unquestionable. What was the precise nature of that plot is by no means clear, and still less what were the exact circumstances of its initiation and its collapse. This only appears to be certain, that things did not happen as they were officially related, while the elaborate care expended on the falsification of the story seems to indicate that the true version would not have served the purposes to which that story was actually put.
FOOTNOTES:[332]Criminal Trials, ii. 235. Mr. Jardine is here speaking expressly of the trial of Father Garnet, as reported in the book, but evidently intends his observations to extend to that of the conspirators as well.[333]Ibid.105.[334]True and Perfect Relation, Introduction.[335]Criminal Trials, ii. 113.[336]The contemporary, Hawarde (Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata) gives a report of the trial of the conspirators, under the curious title "Al le arraignemente del Traitors por le grande treason of blowinge up the Parliamente Howse," which, although evidently based upon the official account, differs in two remarkable particulars. In the first place it gives a different list of the commissioners by whom the trial was conducted, omitting Justice Warburton, and including instead, Lord Chief Baron Flemming, Justices Yelverton and Williams, and Baron Saville. Moreover, Hawarde says that the king and queen "were both there in pryvate," an important circumstance, of which theTrue and Perfect Relationsays nothing.[337]Viz., on January 30th and 31st: not January 31st and February 1st, as Mr. Gardiner has it.[338]Father Garnet clearly believed that this advantage was used unscrupulously against him, for when certain evidence attributed to Bates was cited, he replied that "Bates was a dead man," and would testify otherwise if he were alive. (Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 21203.Foley's Records, iv. p. 188.)[339]It is frequently said that the search at Hendlip was undertaken not for Garnet but for Oldcorne, whose presence there was known by the confession of Humphrey Littleton. But this confession was made several days after the search had been begun, and the directions for it given by Cecil to the sheriff, Sir H. Bromley, clearly indicate that he had in view some capture of prime importance. (See Gardiner'sHistory, i. 271, and Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, f. 693.)[340]Viz.: Nottingham, Suffolk, Worcester, Devonshire, Northampton, Salisbury, Marr, Dunbar, Popham, Coke, and Waad.[341]In the "original," however, there are some passages which do not appear in the copy, notably one in which Lord Monteagle is mentioned. It appears, therefore, that the "copy" is not the first version produced, but has been edited from another still earlier.[342]That this is not a slip of the pen is evidenced by the fact that Winter first wrote 23, and then corrected it to 25.[343]Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, 84.[344]The document is headed in the printed version: "Thomas Winter's Confession, taken the Twenty-third of November, 1605, in the Presence of the Counsellors, whose Names are underwritten."[345]Gunpowder Plot Book, 49.[346]The list stands thus: "L. Admyrall—L. Chamberlayn—Erle of Devonshire—Erle of Northampton—Erle of Salisbury—Erle of Marr—L. Cheif Justice—attended by Mr. Attorney Generall."The Lord Admiral was the Earl of Nottingham, better known as Lord Howard of Effingham, the commander-in-chief against the Spanish Armada. There appears to be no foundation for the supposition that he was a Catholic. Northampton (Henry Howard) was a professing Catholic. The chamberlain was the Earl of Suffolk, the Chief Justice, Popham.[347]TheCalendar of State Papersassigns this document, like the other, to the 8th, a mistake not easy to understand, for not only is the date clearly written, but the printed version in the "King's Book" gives it correctly.[348]Gunpowder Plot Book, 101.[349]This was originally written "deposition;" the title is altered in Coke's hand, who also added the words, "taken the 17 of Nov. 1605: acknowledged before the Lords Commissioners."[350]Thus theexaminationof November 8th begins as follows: "He confesseth that a Practise in generall was first broken unto him, agaynst his Majesty, for the Catholique cause, and not invented, or propounded by himself: and this was first propounded unto him, about Easter last was twelvemonth, beyond the seas, in the Low Countreyes, by an English Lay-man, and that English man came over with him in his company, into England, and they tow and three more were the first five, mencioned in the former examination," etc.Thedeclarationof November 17th opens: "I confesse that a practise in general was first broken unto me against his Majesty, for releife of the Catholique cause, and not invented or propounded by myself. And this was first propounded unto me about Easter last was twelvemonth, beyond the Seas, in the Low Countries of the Archdukes obeysance, by Thomas Winter, who came thereupon with me into England, and there wee imparted our purpose to three other Englishmen more, namely RobtCatesby, ThosPercy, and John Wright, who all five consulting together," etc. See both documents in full, Appendix N.[351]Thus, in the confession of November 8th, we read as follows: "He confesseth, that it was resolved amonge them, that the same day that this detestable act should have been performed, the same day [sic] should other of their confederacye have surprised the person of the Lady Elizabeth and presently have proclaimed her queen [to which purpose a Proclamation was drawne, as well to avow and justifye the Action, as to have protested against the Union, and in noe sort to have meddled with Religion therein. And would have protested all soe against all strangers,] and this Proclamation should have been made in the name of the Lady Elizabeth."The portion within brackets is cancelled, and the following substituted: "He confesseth that if their purpose had taken effect, untill they had power enough, they would not have avowed the deed to be theirs; but if their power ... had been sufficient, they thereafter would have taken it upon them."The corresponding portion of the declaration of November 17th runs thus: "It was further resolved amongst us, that the same day that this action should have been performed, some other of our confederates should have surprised the person of the L. Elizabeth, the King's eldest daughter, ... and presently proclaimed her for Queene, having aprojectof a Proclamation ready for the purpose, wherein we made no mention of altering of Religion, nor would have avowed the deed to be ours, untill we should have had power enough to make our partie good, and then we would have avowed both."[352]The printed version of Fauke's declaration is headed: "The true Copy of the Deposition of Guido Fawkes, taken in the Presence of the Counsellors, whose Names are under written."[353]See Appendix K.,The Use of Torture.[354]In theCalendar of State Papershe is continually styled "Father Owen," or "Owen the Jesuit," without warrant in the original documents. That he was a soldier and not a priest there is no doubt.[355]Dom. James I.xvi. 38.[356]E.g.Item.Where you have confessed that it was discoursed between you that the prisoners in the Tower should have had intelligence after the act done, declare the particularity of that discourse, and whether some prisoners in the Tower should not have been called to office or place, or have been employed, etc.Item.Where you have confessed that the L. Elizabeth should have succeeded, and that she should have been brought up as a Catholic, and married to an English Catholic. (1) Who should have had the government of her? (2) Who was nominated to be the fittest to have married her?Item.Was it not resolved amongst you that after the act done you would have taken the Tower, or any other place of strength, and meant you not to have taken the spoil of London, and whom should you have instantly proclaimed?Item.By what priests or Jesuits were you resolved that it was godly and lawful to execute the act?Item.Whether was it not resolved that if it were discovered Catesby and others should have killed the king coming from Royston?Item.Were not Edw. Neville, calling himself Earl of Westmorland, Mr. Dacre, calling himself Lord Dacre, or any of the Nobility, privy to it? How many of the Nobility have you known at Mass? What persons in the Tower were named to be partakers with you?[357]To Edmondes, November 14th, 1605. (Stowe MSS.)[358]Viz., The True and Perfect Relation.The confession of Bates is mentioned but not textually quoted. It is in the "King's Book" that the confessions of Winter and Faukes are given.[359]"The great object of the government now was to obtain evidence against the priests."—Gardiner,History of England, i. 267.[360]See Rokewood's examination, December 2nd, 1605. (Gunpowder Plot Book, 136.) In the confession of Keyes, November 30th, 1605 (Gunpowder Plot Book, 126) we read: "He sayth that the reason that he revealed not the project to his ghostly father was for that Catesby told him that he had good warrant and authoritie that it might safely and with good conscience be done," etc.[361]Gunpowder Plot Book, 145.[362]This is shown by a mark (§) in the margin opposite the important passage, attention being called to this by the same mark, and the name "Greenway" in the endorsement.[363]Brit. Mus., Harleian 360, f. 96.[364]Brit. Mus., Harleian 360, f. 109, etc. The reporter had clearly been present.[365]Brit. Mus., MSS. Add. 21, 203; Plut. ciii. F. Printed by Foley,Records, iv. 164seq.[366]Narrative, p. 210.[367]Plut. ciii. F. § 39.[368]Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, § 625.[369]Dom. James I.xvi. 116.[370]In theCalendar of State Papers, Mrs. Everett Green, as has been said, quite gratuitously and without warrant from the original documents, uniformly describes him as "Father Owen," or "Owen the Jesuit." Mr. Gardiner (Hist.i. 242) has been led into the same error.It is not impossible that Owen had some knowledge of the conspiracy, though the course adopted by his enemies seems to afford strong presumption to the contrary. It must, moreover, be remembered that, as Father Gerard tells us, he and others similarly accused, vehemently protested against the imputation, while in his case in particular we have some evidence to the same effect. Thomas Phelippes, the "Decipherer," of whom we have already heard, was on terms of close intimacy with Owen, and in December, 1605, wrote to him about the Plot in terms which certainly appear to imply a strong conviction that his friend had nothing to do with it."There hath been and yet is still great paynes taken to search to the bottom of the late damnable conspiracy. The Parliamente hit seemes shall not be troubled with any extraordinarie course for their exemplarye punishment, as was supposed upon the Kinges speeche, but onlye with their attaynder, the more is the pitye I saye."—Dom. James I.xvii. 62.[371]Stowe MSS. 168, 54.[372]This version of the deposition is interesting as being a form intermediate between the draft of November 8th and the finished document of November 17th. The passages cancelled in the former are simply omitted without any attempt to complete the sense of the passages in which they occurred. Those "ticked off" are retained.[373]Stowe MSS. 168, 58.[374]I.e., the Archduke Albert, and his consort the Infanta, daughter of Philip II., who, as governors of the Low Countries, were usually so designated.[375]"Nous avons bien voulu aussy par ces presentes, nous mesmes vous asseurer que ce qu'il [Edmondes] vous en a desja declaré, est fondé sur tout verité; et vous dire en oultre, que ces meschantes Creatures d'Owen et Baldouin, gens de mesme farine, ont eu aussi leur part en particulier a ceste malheureuse conspiration de Pouldre."—Phillipps' MS.6297, f. 129.[376]Stowe, 168, 65.[377]Winwood, ii. 183.[378]Dom. James I.xix. 94.[379]3oJac. I.c. 3. On the 21st of June following, Salisbury forwarded to Edmondes a fresh copy of this Act, "because in the former there was a great error committed in the printing." (Phillipps, f. 157.) It would be highly interesting to know what the first version was. In that now extant it is only said regarding Owen, that inasmuch as he obstinately keeps beyond the seas, he cannot be arraigned, nor can evidence and proofs be produced against him. (Statutes at large.)[380]Stowe, 168, 76; Phillipps, f. 141.[381]Edmondes to Salisbury, January 23rd, 1605(6). P.R.O., Flanders, 38.[382]April 19th, 1606,ibid.[383]Edmondes to Salisbury, April 5th, 1606,ibid.[384]Phillipps, f. 150.[385]Phillipps, f. 152.[386]Dom. James I.xx. 52.[387]This is obvious from a marginal note in Coke's own hand, arguing that Owen must be guilty in this instance, as he has been guilty on former occasions, and "Qui semel malus est semper præsumitur esse malus in eodem genere mali."[388]It will be noticed that the confession of Faukes cited against Owen is dated two months after he had first been declared to be proved guilty by Faukes' testimony.[389]These are dated November 5th, 6th [bis], 7th, 8th [the "draft"], 9th, 16th, 17th, January 9th, 20th, 26th.[390]Thus, to confine ourselves to the confession of January 20th, with which we are particularly concerned, we have the following variations:Tanner transcript."At my going over MrCatesby charged me two things more: the one to desire of Baldwin & MrOwen to deal with the Marquis [Spinola] to send over the regiment of which he [Catesby] expected to have been Lieutenant Colonel under Sir Charles [Percy].... He wished me secondly to be earnest with Baldwin to deal with the Marquis to give the said MrCatesby order for a Company of Horse, thinking by that means to have opportunity to buy Horses and Arms without suspition."According toAbbot, Faukes was to give instructions that when the time of Parliament approached, Sir Wm. Stanley was on some pretext to lead the English forces in the archduke's service towards the sea, and with them any others he could manage to influence. He also mentions the conspiracy of Morgan, as spoken of by Coke.In addition to all this, Abbot cites from the same confession the following extraordinary particulars (p. 160): Faukes, when he came to London, with T. Winter, went to Percy's house and found there Catesby and Father Gerard. They talked over matters, and agreed that nothing was to be hoped from foreign aid, nor from a general rising of Catholics, and that the only plan was to strike at the king's person: whereupon Catesby, Percy, John Wright, Winter, and himself, were sworn in by Gerard.[This is in absolute contradiction to Winter's evidence (November 23rd) that Percy was initiated in the middle of the Easter term, the other four having agreed on the scheme at the beginning of the same term; and to that of Faukes himself (November 17th) that he and Winter first resolved on a plot for the benefit of the Catholic cause, and afterwards imparted their idea to Catesby, Wright, and Percy.]Sir E. Coke's Version."After the powder treason was resolved upon by Catesbye, Thomas Winter, the Wrightes, my self, and others, and preparation made by us for the execution of it, by their advise and direction I went into fflanders and had leave given unto me to discover our project in every particular to Hughe Owen and others, but with condicion that they should sweare first to secrecie as we our selves had done. When I arryved in fflanders I found MrOwen at Bruxelles to whom after I had given the oathe of secrecye I discovered the whole busines, howe we had layed 20 whole barrells of powder in the celler under the parliament howse, and howe we ment to give it fire the first day of the parliament when the King, the prince, the duke, the Lords spirituall and temporall, and all the knights, citizens, and burgesses of parliament should be there assembled. And that we meant to take the Ladye Elizabeth and proclaime hir for we thought most like that the prince and duke would be there with the king. MrOwen liked the plott very well, and said that Thomas Morgan had once propounded the very same in quene Elizabeth's time, and willed me that by ani meanes we should not make any mencion of religion at the first, and assured me that so soone as he should have certaine newes that this exploit had taken effect that he would give us what assistance he could and that he would procure that Sir WmStanley should have leave to come with those English men which be there and what other forces he could procure."The confession of Faukes in the Record Office, dated the same, January 20th, is thus summarized in theCalendar of State Papers(Dom. James I.xviii. 28): "Talked with Catesby about noblemen being absent from the meeting of Parliament; he said Lord Mordaunt would not be there, because he did not like to absent himself from the sermons, as the king did not know he was a Catholic; and that Lord Stourton would not come to town till the Friday after the opening."[391]The powder design of Morgan is an instance in point. The Thomas Morgan in question was doubtless the same as the partisan of Mary Queen of Scots.[392]E.g.: "Winter came over to Owen, by him and the Fathers to be informed of a fit and resolute man for the execution of the enterprise. This examinate (being by the Fathers and Owen recommended to be used and trusted in any action for the Catholicks) came into England with Winter."—Faukes, November 19th, 1605 (Tanner MSS.).Abbot, whose whole object is to incriminate the Jesuits, does not mention this remarkable statement.Again we read, November 30th (ibid.): "Father Baldwin told this examinate that about 2,000 horses would be provided by the Catholicks of England to join with the Spanish forces ... and willed this examinate to intimate so much to Father Creswell, which this examinate did."[393]Oliver,Collectanea, sub nom.; Foley,Records, iv. 120, note.[394]Foley,Records, iii. 509;English Protestants' Plea, p. 59.[395]Dom. James I.xvi. 115.[396]England's Warning Peece, by T. S. [Thomas Spencer], P.73.[397]Cotton MSS.Vespasian C., ix. f. 259.[398]Winwood,Memorials, ii. 178.[399]Dom. James I.xvi. 104.[400]William Stanley.[401]The last words are added in another hand.[402]"I am in great dispute with myself to speak in the case of this gentleman. A former dearness between me and him tied so firm a knot of my conceit of his virtues, now broken by discovery of his imperfections, that I protest, did I serve a king that I knew would be displeased with me for speaking, in this case I would speak, whatever came of it; but seeing he is compacted of piety and justice, and one that will not mislike of any man for speaking a truth, I will answer," etc.—State Trials.[403]"For this do I profess in the presence of Him that knoweth and searcheth all men's harts, that if I did not some tyme cast a stone into the mouth of these gaping crabbs, when they are in their prodigall humour of discourses, they wold not stick to confess dayly how contrary it is to their nature to be under your soverainty; though they confess (Ralegh especially) that (rebus sic stantibus) naturall pollicy forceth them to keep on foot such a trade against the great day of mart. In all which light and soddain humours of his, though I do no way check him, because he shall not think I reject his freedome or his affection ... yet under pretext of extraordinary care of his well doing, I have seemed to dissuade him from ingaging himself so farr," etc.—Hatfield MSS., cxxxv. f. 65.[404]Criminal Trials, ii. 358.[405]Father Gerard (Narrative, p. 201) denies in the most emphatic terms that he was the priest who said mass on this occasion. The point is fully discussed by the late Father Morris, S. J., in his Life of Father Gerard, pp. 437-438.[406]The accompanying facsimile of this portion of Faukes' confession exhibits the marks made by Coke, and his added direction in the margin,hucusque("thus far"). In the original his additions are in red ink.[407]It is singular that he should not mention Faukes himself as one of those who received the oath from Gerard. There is no mention in any document of Greenway as giving the oath to Bates, or anyone else.The facsimile of Faukes' signature, appended to his confession of November 9th, though affording unmistakable evidence of torture, gives no idea of the original, wherein the letters are so faintly traced as to be scarcely visible. It is evident that the writer had been so severely racked as to have no strength left in his hands to press the pen upon the paper. He must have fainted when he had written his Christian name, two dashes alone representing the other.This signature, with other of the more sensational documents connected with the Plot, is exhibited in the newly established museum at the Record Office.[408]Dom. James I.xviii. 97, February 27th, 1606, N. S. (Latin).[409]Narratio de rebus a se in Anglia gestis(Stonyhurst MSS.). Published in Father G. R. Kingdon's translation under the title ofDuring the Persecution.[410]During the Persecution, p. 83.[411]Court and Character of King James, p. 350 (ed. 1811).[412]Sir William Waad, Lieutenant of the Tower, to whose charge the Powder Plot conspirators were committed, was afterwards dismissed from his office on a charge of embezzling the jewels of the Lady Arabella Stuart.[413]Presumably the same Arthur Gregory who at an earlier period had counterfeited the seals of Mary Queen of Scots' correspondence.[414]Dom. James I.xxiv. 38.[415]March 3rd, 1605-6 (Hatfield MSS.).[416]Eudaemon Joannes cites the renegade Alabaster as testifying to having seen a letter seemingly of his own to Garnet, which he had never written. (Answer to Casaubon, p. 159.)[417]Narrative, p. 54.[418]Ibid.p. 113.[419]Though we have not now to consider the question of Father Greenway's connection with the conspirators, it may not be out of place to cite his own account of this visit (Narrative, Stonyhurst MSS., f. 86 b):"Father Oswald [Greenway] went to assist these gentlemen with the Sacraments of the Church, understanding their danger and their need, and this with evident danger to his own person and life: and all those gentlemen could have borne witness that he publicly told them how he grieved not so much because of their wretched and shameful plight, and the extremity of their peril, as that by their headlong course they had given the heretics occasion to slander the whole body of Catholics in the kingdom, and that he flatly refused to stay in their company, lest the heretics should be able to calumniate himself and the other Fathers of the Society."[420]In this, as in some other respects, Mr. Jardine shows himself rather an advocate than an impartial historian. He holds that the complicity of the writer of theNarrativewith the plotters is proved by the intimate knowledge he displays concerning them, "their general conduct—their superstitious fears—their dreams—'their thick coming fancies'—in the progress of the work of destruction." (Criminal Trials, ii. xi.)There is here an evident allusion to the silly story of the "bell in the wall" (related by Greenway and not by Gerard), to which Mr. Jardine gives extraordinary prominence. He does not, however, inform us that Greenway relates this (Narrative, f. 58 b) and some similar matters, on the authority of "an acquaintance to whom Catesby told it shortly before his death," and that he leaves it to the judgment of his readers.Greenway's frequent and earnest protestations of innocence Mr. Jardine summarily dismisses with the observation that they are "entitled to no credit whatever" (p. xii).[421]History, i. 243.[422]Dictionary of National Biography(Digby, Sir E.).
[332]Criminal Trials, ii. 235. Mr. Jardine is here speaking expressly of the trial of Father Garnet, as reported in the book, but evidently intends his observations to extend to that of the conspirators as well.
[333]Ibid.105.
[334]True and Perfect Relation, Introduction.
[335]Criminal Trials, ii. 113.
[336]The contemporary, Hawarde (Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata) gives a report of the trial of the conspirators, under the curious title "Al le arraignemente del Traitors por le grande treason of blowinge up the Parliamente Howse," which, although evidently based upon the official account, differs in two remarkable particulars. In the first place it gives a different list of the commissioners by whom the trial was conducted, omitting Justice Warburton, and including instead, Lord Chief Baron Flemming, Justices Yelverton and Williams, and Baron Saville. Moreover, Hawarde says that the king and queen "were both there in pryvate," an important circumstance, of which theTrue and Perfect Relationsays nothing.
[337]Viz., on January 30th and 31st: not January 31st and February 1st, as Mr. Gardiner has it.
[338]Father Garnet clearly believed that this advantage was used unscrupulously against him, for when certain evidence attributed to Bates was cited, he replied that "Bates was a dead man," and would testify otherwise if he were alive. (Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 21203.Foley's Records, iv. p. 188.)
[339]It is frequently said that the search at Hendlip was undertaken not for Garnet but for Oldcorne, whose presence there was known by the confession of Humphrey Littleton. But this confession was made several days after the search had been begun, and the directions for it given by Cecil to the sheriff, Sir H. Bromley, clearly indicate that he had in view some capture of prime importance. (See Gardiner'sHistory, i. 271, and Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, f. 693.)
[340]Viz.: Nottingham, Suffolk, Worcester, Devonshire, Northampton, Salisbury, Marr, Dunbar, Popham, Coke, and Waad.
[341]In the "original," however, there are some passages which do not appear in the copy, notably one in which Lord Monteagle is mentioned. It appears, therefore, that the "copy" is not the first version produced, but has been edited from another still earlier.
[342]That this is not a slip of the pen is evidenced by the fact that Winter first wrote 23, and then corrected it to 25.
[343]Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, 84.
[344]The document is headed in the printed version: "Thomas Winter's Confession, taken the Twenty-third of November, 1605, in the Presence of the Counsellors, whose Names are underwritten."
[345]Gunpowder Plot Book, 49.
[346]The list stands thus: "L. Admyrall—L. Chamberlayn—Erle of Devonshire—Erle of Northampton—Erle of Salisbury—Erle of Marr—L. Cheif Justice—attended by Mr. Attorney Generall."
The Lord Admiral was the Earl of Nottingham, better known as Lord Howard of Effingham, the commander-in-chief against the Spanish Armada. There appears to be no foundation for the supposition that he was a Catholic. Northampton (Henry Howard) was a professing Catholic. The chamberlain was the Earl of Suffolk, the Chief Justice, Popham.
[347]TheCalendar of State Papersassigns this document, like the other, to the 8th, a mistake not easy to understand, for not only is the date clearly written, but the printed version in the "King's Book" gives it correctly.
[348]Gunpowder Plot Book, 101.
[349]This was originally written "deposition;" the title is altered in Coke's hand, who also added the words, "taken the 17 of Nov. 1605: acknowledged before the Lords Commissioners."
[350]Thus theexaminationof November 8th begins as follows: "He confesseth that a Practise in generall was first broken unto him, agaynst his Majesty, for the Catholique cause, and not invented, or propounded by himself: and this was first propounded unto him, about Easter last was twelvemonth, beyond the seas, in the Low Countreyes, by an English Lay-man, and that English man came over with him in his company, into England, and they tow and three more were the first five, mencioned in the former examination," etc.
Thedeclarationof November 17th opens: "I confesse that a practise in general was first broken unto me against his Majesty, for releife of the Catholique cause, and not invented or propounded by myself. And this was first propounded unto me about Easter last was twelvemonth, beyond the Seas, in the Low Countries of the Archdukes obeysance, by Thomas Winter, who came thereupon with me into England, and there wee imparted our purpose to three other Englishmen more, namely RobtCatesby, ThosPercy, and John Wright, who all five consulting together," etc. See both documents in full, Appendix N.
[351]Thus, in the confession of November 8th, we read as follows: "He confesseth, that it was resolved amonge them, that the same day that this detestable act should have been performed, the same day [sic] should other of their confederacye have surprised the person of the Lady Elizabeth and presently have proclaimed her queen [to which purpose a Proclamation was drawne, as well to avow and justifye the Action, as to have protested against the Union, and in noe sort to have meddled with Religion therein. And would have protested all soe against all strangers,] and this Proclamation should have been made in the name of the Lady Elizabeth."
The portion within brackets is cancelled, and the following substituted: "He confesseth that if their purpose had taken effect, untill they had power enough, they would not have avowed the deed to be theirs; but if their power ... had been sufficient, they thereafter would have taken it upon them."
The corresponding portion of the declaration of November 17th runs thus: "It was further resolved amongst us, that the same day that this action should have been performed, some other of our confederates should have surprised the person of the L. Elizabeth, the King's eldest daughter, ... and presently proclaimed her for Queene, having aprojectof a Proclamation ready for the purpose, wherein we made no mention of altering of Religion, nor would have avowed the deed to be ours, untill we should have had power enough to make our partie good, and then we would have avowed both."
[352]The printed version of Fauke's declaration is headed: "The true Copy of the Deposition of Guido Fawkes, taken in the Presence of the Counsellors, whose Names are under written."
[353]See Appendix K.,The Use of Torture.
[354]In theCalendar of State Papershe is continually styled "Father Owen," or "Owen the Jesuit," without warrant in the original documents. That he was a soldier and not a priest there is no doubt.
[355]Dom. James I.xvi. 38.
[356]E.g.Item.Where you have confessed that it was discoursed between you that the prisoners in the Tower should have had intelligence after the act done, declare the particularity of that discourse, and whether some prisoners in the Tower should not have been called to office or place, or have been employed, etc.
Item.Where you have confessed that the L. Elizabeth should have succeeded, and that she should have been brought up as a Catholic, and married to an English Catholic. (1) Who should have had the government of her? (2) Who was nominated to be the fittest to have married her?
Item.Was it not resolved amongst you that after the act done you would have taken the Tower, or any other place of strength, and meant you not to have taken the spoil of London, and whom should you have instantly proclaimed?
Item.By what priests or Jesuits were you resolved that it was godly and lawful to execute the act?
Item.Whether was it not resolved that if it were discovered Catesby and others should have killed the king coming from Royston?
Item.Were not Edw. Neville, calling himself Earl of Westmorland, Mr. Dacre, calling himself Lord Dacre, or any of the Nobility, privy to it? How many of the Nobility have you known at Mass? What persons in the Tower were named to be partakers with you?
[357]To Edmondes, November 14th, 1605. (Stowe MSS.)
[358]Viz., The True and Perfect Relation.The confession of Bates is mentioned but not textually quoted. It is in the "King's Book" that the confessions of Winter and Faukes are given.
[359]"The great object of the government now was to obtain evidence against the priests."—Gardiner,History of England, i. 267.
[360]See Rokewood's examination, December 2nd, 1605. (Gunpowder Plot Book, 136.) In the confession of Keyes, November 30th, 1605 (Gunpowder Plot Book, 126) we read: "He sayth that the reason that he revealed not the project to his ghostly father was for that Catesby told him that he had good warrant and authoritie that it might safely and with good conscience be done," etc.
[361]Gunpowder Plot Book, 145.
[362]This is shown by a mark (§) in the margin opposite the important passage, attention being called to this by the same mark, and the name "Greenway" in the endorsement.
[363]Brit. Mus., Harleian 360, f. 96.
[364]Brit. Mus., Harleian 360, f. 109, etc. The reporter had clearly been present.
[365]Brit. Mus., MSS. Add. 21, 203; Plut. ciii. F. Printed by Foley,Records, iv. 164seq.
[366]Narrative, p. 210.
[367]Plut. ciii. F. § 39.
[368]Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, § 625.
[369]Dom. James I.xvi. 116.
[370]In theCalendar of State Papers, Mrs. Everett Green, as has been said, quite gratuitously and without warrant from the original documents, uniformly describes him as "Father Owen," or "Owen the Jesuit." Mr. Gardiner (Hist.i. 242) has been led into the same error.
It is not impossible that Owen had some knowledge of the conspiracy, though the course adopted by his enemies seems to afford strong presumption to the contrary. It must, moreover, be remembered that, as Father Gerard tells us, he and others similarly accused, vehemently protested against the imputation, while in his case in particular we have some evidence to the same effect. Thomas Phelippes, the "Decipherer," of whom we have already heard, was on terms of close intimacy with Owen, and in December, 1605, wrote to him about the Plot in terms which certainly appear to imply a strong conviction that his friend had nothing to do with it.
"There hath been and yet is still great paynes taken to search to the bottom of the late damnable conspiracy. The Parliamente hit seemes shall not be troubled with any extraordinarie course for their exemplarye punishment, as was supposed upon the Kinges speeche, but onlye with their attaynder, the more is the pitye I saye."—Dom. James I.xvii. 62.
[371]Stowe MSS. 168, 54.
[372]This version of the deposition is interesting as being a form intermediate between the draft of November 8th and the finished document of November 17th. The passages cancelled in the former are simply omitted without any attempt to complete the sense of the passages in which they occurred. Those "ticked off" are retained.
[373]Stowe MSS. 168, 58.
[374]I.e., the Archduke Albert, and his consort the Infanta, daughter of Philip II., who, as governors of the Low Countries, were usually so designated.
[375]"Nous avons bien voulu aussy par ces presentes, nous mesmes vous asseurer que ce qu'il [Edmondes] vous en a desja declaré, est fondé sur tout verité; et vous dire en oultre, que ces meschantes Creatures d'Owen et Baldouin, gens de mesme farine, ont eu aussi leur part en particulier a ceste malheureuse conspiration de Pouldre."—Phillipps' MS.6297, f. 129.
[376]Stowe, 168, 65.
[377]Winwood, ii. 183.
[378]Dom. James I.xix. 94.
[379]3oJac. I.c. 3. On the 21st of June following, Salisbury forwarded to Edmondes a fresh copy of this Act, "because in the former there was a great error committed in the printing." (Phillipps, f. 157.) It would be highly interesting to know what the first version was. In that now extant it is only said regarding Owen, that inasmuch as he obstinately keeps beyond the seas, he cannot be arraigned, nor can evidence and proofs be produced against him. (Statutes at large.)
[380]Stowe, 168, 76; Phillipps, f. 141.
[381]Edmondes to Salisbury, January 23rd, 1605(6). P.R.O., Flanders, 38.
[382]April 19th, 1606,ibid.
[383]Edmondes to Salisbury, April 5th, 1606,ibid.
[384]Phillipps, f. 150.
[385]Phillipps, f. 152.
[386]Dom. James I.xx. 52.
[387]This is obvious from a marginal note in Coke's own hand, arguing that Owen must be guilty in this instance, as he has been guilty on former occasions, and "Qui semel malus est semper præsumitur esse malus in eodem genere mali."
[388]It will be noticed that the confession of Faukes cited against Owen is dated two months after he had first been declared to be proved guilty by Faukes' testimony.
[389]These are dated November 5th, 6th [bis], 7th, 8th [the "draft"], 9th, 16th, 17th, January 9th, 20th, 26th.
[390]Thus, to confine ourselves to the confession of January 20th, with which we are particularly concerned, we have the following variations:
Tanner transcript."At my going over MrCatesby charged me two things more: the one to desire of Baldwin & MrOwen to deal with the Marquis [Spinola] to send over the regiment of which he [Catesby] expected to have been Lieutenant Colonel under Sir Charles [Percy].... He wished me secondly to be earnest with Baldwin to deal with the Marquis to give the said MrCatesby order for a Company of Horse, thinking by that means to have opportunity to buy Horses and Arms without suspition."
According toAbbot, Faukes was to give instructions that when the time of Parliament approached, Sir Wm. Stanley was on some pretext to lead the English forces in the archduke's service towards the sea, and with them any others he could manage to influence. He also mentions the conspiracy of Morgan, as spoken of by Coke.
In addition to all this, Abbot cites from the same confession the following extraordinary particulars (p. 160): Faukes, when he came to London, with T. Winter, went to Percy's house and found there Catesby and Father Gerard. They talked over matters, and agreed that nothing was to be hoped from foreign aid, nor from a general rising of Catholics, and that the only plan was to strike at the king's person: whereupon Catesby, Percy, John Wright, Winter, and himself, were sworn in by Gerard.
[This is in absolute contradiction to Winter's evidence (November 23rd) that Percy was initiated in the middle of the Easter term, the other four having agreed on the scheme at the beginning of the same term; and to that of Faukes himself (November 17th) that he and Winter first resolved on a plot for the benefit of the Catholic cause, and afterwards imparted their idea to Catesby, Wright, and Percy.]
Sir E. Coke's Version."After the powder treason was resolved upon by Catesbye, Thomas Winter, the Wrightes, my self, and others, and preparation made by us for the execution of it, by their advise and direction I went into fflanders and had leave given unto me to discover our project in every particular to Hughe Owen and others, but with condicion that they should sweare first to secrecie as we our selves had done. When I arryved in fflanders I found MrOwen at Bruxelles to whom after I had given the oathe of secrecye I discovered the whole busines, howe we had layed 20 whole barrells of powder in the celler under the parliament howse, and howe we ment to give it fire the first day of the parliament when the King, the prince, the duke, the Lords spirituall and temporall, and all the knights, citizens, and burgesses of parliament should be there assembled. And that we meant to take the Ladye Elizabeth and proclaime hir for we thought most like that the prince and duke would be there with the king. MrOwen liked the plott very well, and said that Thomas Morgan had once propounded the very same in quene Elizabeth's time, and willed me that by ani meanes we should not make any mencion of religion at the first, and assured me that so soone as he should have certaine newes that this exploit had taken effect that he would give us what assistance he could and that he would procure that Sir WmStanley should have leave to come with those English men which be there and what other forces he could procure."
The confession of Faukes in the Record Office, dated the same, January 20th, is thus summarized in theCalendar of State Papers(Dom. James I.xviii. 28): "Talked with Catesby about noblemen being absent from the meeting of Parliament; he said Lord Mordaunt would not be there, because he did not like to absent himself from the sermons, as the king did not know he was a Catholic; and that Lord Stourton would not come to town till the Friday after the opening."
[391]The powder design of Morgan is an instance in point. The Thomas Morgan in question was doubtless the same as the partisan of Mary Queen of Scots.
[392]E.g.: "Winter came over to Owen, by him and the Fathers to be informed of a fit and resolute man for the execution of the enterprise. This examinate (being by the Fathers and Owen recommended to be used and trusted in any action for the Catholicks) came into England with Winter."—Faukes, November 19th, 1605 (Tanner MSS.).
Abbot, whose whole object is to incriminate the Jesuits, does not mention this remarkable statement.
Again we read, November 30th (ibid.): "Father Baldwin told this examinate that about 2,000 horses would be provided by the Catholicks of England to join with the Spanish forces ... and willed this examinate to intimate so much to Father Creswell, which this examinate did."
[393]Oliver,Collectanea, sub nom.; Foley,Records, iv. 120, note.
[394]Foley,Records, iii. 509;English Protestants' Plea, p. 59.
[395]Dom. James I.xvi. 115.
[396]England's Warning Peece, by T. S. [Thomas Spencer], P.73.
[397]Cotton MSS.Vespasian C., ix. f. 259.
[398]Winwood,Memorials, ii. 178.
[399]Dom. James I.xvi. 104.
[400]William Stanley.
[401]The last words are added in another hand.
[402]"I am in great dispute with myself to speak in the case of this gentleman. A former dearness between me and him tied so firm a knot of my conceit of his virtues, now broken by discovery of his imperfections, that I protest, did I serve a king that I knew would be displeased with me for speaking, in this case I would speak, whatever came of it; but seeing he is compacted of piety and justice, and one that will not mislike of any man for speaking a truth, I will answer," etc.—State Trials.
[403]"For this do I profess in the presence of Him that knoweth and searcheth all men's harts, that if I did not some tyme cast a stone into the mouth of these gaping crabbs, when they are in their prodigall humour of discourses, they wold not stick to confess dayly how contrary it is to their nature to be under your soverainty; though they confess (Ralegh especially) that (rebus sic stantibus) naturall pollicy forceth them to keep on foot such a trade against the great day of mart. In all which light and soddain humours of his, though I do no way check him, because he shall not think I reject his freedome or his affection ... yet under pretext of extraordinary care of his well doing, I have seemed to dissuade him from ingaging himself so farr," etc.—Hatfield MSS., cxxxv. f. 65.
[404]Criminal Trials, ii. 358.
[405]Father Gerard (Narrative, p. 201) denies in the most emphatic terms that he was the priest who said mass on this occasion. The point is fully discussed by the late Father Morris, S. J., in his Life of Father Gerard, pp. 437-438.
[406]The accompanying facsimile of this portion of Faukes' confession exhibits the marks made by Coke, and his added direction in the margin,hucusque("thus far"). In the original his additions are in red ink.
[407]It is singular that he should not mention Faukes himself as one of those who received the oath from Gerard. There is no mention in any document of Greenway as giving the oath to Bates, or anyone else.
The facsimile of Faukes' signature, appended to his confession of November 9th, though affording unmistakable evidence of torture, gives no idea of the original, wherein the letters are so faintly traced as to be scarcely visible. It is evident that the writer had been so severely racked as to have no strength left in his hands to press the pen upon the paper. He must have fainted when he had written his Christian name, two dashes alone representing the other.
This signature, with other of the more sensational documents connected with the Plot, is exhibited in the newly established museum at the Record Office.
[408]Dom. James I.xviii. 97, February 27th, 1606, N. S. (Latin).
[409]Narratio de rebus a se in Anglia gestis(Stonyhurst MSS.). Published in Father G. R. Kingdon's translation under the title ofDuring the Persecution.
[410]During the Persecution, p. 83.
[411]Court and Character of King James, p. 350 (ed. 1811).
[412]Sir William Waad, Lieutenant of the Tower, to whose charge the Powder Plot conspirators were committed, was afterwards dismissed from his office on a charge of embezzling the jewels of the Lady Arabella Stuart.
[413]Presumably the same Arthur Gregory who at an earlier period had counterfeited the seals of Mary Queen of Scots' correspondence.
[414]Dom. James I.xxiv. 38.
[415]March 3rd, 1605-6 (Hatfield MSS.).
[416]Eudaemon Joannes cites the renegade Alabaster as testifying to having seen a letter seemingly of his own to Garnet, which he had never written. (Answer to Casaubon, p. 159.)
[417]Narrative, p. 54.
[418]Ibid.p. 113.
[419]Though we have not now to consider the question of Father Greenway's connection with the conspirators, it may not be out of place to cite his own account of this visit (Narrative, Stonyhurst MSS., f. 86 b):
"Father Oswald [Greenway] went to assist these gentlemen with the Sacraments of the Church, understanding their danger and their need, and this with evident danger to his own person and life: and all those gentlemen could have borne witness that he publicly told them how he grieved not so much because of their wretched and shameful plight, and the extremity of their peril, as that by their headlong course they had given the heretics occasion to slander the whole body of Catholics in the kingdom, and that he flatly refused to stay in their company, lest the heretics should be able to calumniate himself and the other Fathers of the Society."
[420]In this, as in some other respects, Mr. Jardine shows himself rather an advocate than an impartial historian. He holds that the complicity of the writer of theNarrativewith the plotters is proved by the intimate knowledge he displays concerning them, "their general conduct—their superstitious fears—their dreams—'their thick coming fancies'—in the progress of the work of destruction." (Criminal Trials, ii. xi.)
There is here an evident allusion to the silly story of the "bell in the wall" (related by Greenway and not by Gerard), to which Mr. Jardine gives extraordinary prominence. He does not, however, inform us that Greenway relates this (Narrative, f. 58 b) and some similar matters, on the authority of "an acquaintance to whom Catesby told it shortly before his death," and that he leaves it to the judgment of his readers.
Greenway's frequent and earnest protestations of innocence Mr. Jardine summarily dismisses with the observation that they are "entitled to no credit whatever" (p. xii).
[421]History, i. 243.
[422]Dictionary of National Biography(Digby, Sir E.).
Aswe have already seen, the Gunpowder Plot formed no exception to the general law observable in conspiracies of its period, proving extremely advantageous to those against whom it was principally directed. No single individual was injured by it except those concerned in it, or accused of being so concerned. On the other hand, it marked an epoch in public policy, and irrevocably committed the king and the nation to a line of action towards Catholics, which up to that time they had hoped, and their enemies had feared, would not be permanently pursued.
"The political consequences of this transaction," says Mr. Jardine,[423]"are extremely important and interesting. It fixed the timid and wavering mind of the king in his adherence to the Protestant party, in opposition to the Roman Catholics; and the universal horror, which was naturally excited not only in England but throughout Europe by so barbarous an attempt, was artfully converted into an engine for the suppression of the Roman Catholic Church: so that the ministers of James I., having procured the reluctant acquiescence of the king, and the cordial assent of public opinion, were enabled to continue in full forcethe severe laws previously passed against Papists, and to enact others of no less rigour and injustice."
Such was the effect in fact produced, and the calm deliberation displayed in dealing with the crisis appears to indicate that no misgivings were entertained as to the chance of anything but advantage resulting from it. We have already seen with what strange equanimity the presence of the powder beneath the Parliament House was treated. Not less serene was the attitude of the minister chiefly responsible for the safety of the State in face of the grave dangers still declared to be threatening, even after the "discovery." Preparations, it was officially announced, had been made for an extensive rising of the Catholics, and this had still to be reckoned with. As the king himself informed Sir John Harington, the design was not formed by a few, the "whole legion of Catholics" were implicated: the priests had been active in preaching the holy war, and the Pope himself had employed his authority on behalf of the cause.[424]
Moreover, the conspirators, except Faukes, escaped from London, and hurried to the intended scene of action, where, though no man voluntarily joined them, they were able at first to collect a certain force of their own retainers and domestics, and began to traverse the shires in which their influence was greatest, committing acts of plunder and violence, and calling on all men to join them for God and the country. For a couple of days the local magistrates did not feel strong enough to cope with them, and forwarded to the capital reports capable, it might besupposed, of alarming those who were bewildered by so totally unexpected an assault, for which the evidence in hand showed preparations of no ordinary magnitude to have been made. The numbers of the insurgents, it was said, were constantly increasing; only a feeble force could be brought against them; they were seizing horses and ammunition, and all this in "a very Catholic country."
In his famous speech to Parliament, delivered on November 9th, the king dwelt feelingly on the danger of the land, left exposed to the traitors, in the absence of the members of the legislature, its natural guardians. "These rebels," he declared,[425]"that now wander through the country could never have gotten so fit a time of safety in their passage, or whatsoever unlawful actions, as now; when the country, by the aforesaid occasions, is, in a manner, left desolate and waste unto them."[426]
Meanwhile, however, the secretary remained imperturbably tranquil as before, and so well aware of the true state of the case that he could afford to make merry over the madcap adventurers. On the same 9th of November he wrote to the ambassadors: "It is also thought fit that some martial men should presently repair down to those countries where the Robin Hoods are assembled, to encourage the good and to terrify the bad. In which service the Earl of Devonshireis used, a commission going forth for him as general: although I am easily persuaded that this Faggot will be burnt to ashes before he shall be twenty miles on his way."
His prescience was not at fault, for before despatching the letter the minister was able to announce the utter collapse of the foolish and unsupported enterprise.
No time was lost in turning the defeated conspiracy to practical account. On the very 5th of November[427]itself the Commons proceeded, before all other business, to the first reading of a bill for the better execution of penal statutes against Recusants. On the following day this was read a second time. The house next met on the 9th, to hear the king's speech, and was then prorogued to January 21st following. On that day, the foremost article on the programme was the first reading of a bill (whether the same or another) for the better execution of penal statutes; another was likewise proposed for prevention of the danger of papistical practices; and a committee was appointed "to consider of some course for the timely and severe proceeding against Jesuits, Seminaries, and other popish agents and practisers, and for the prevention and suppression of their plots and practices."[428]On the 22nd there was a motion directed against the seminaries beyond the seas, and the bill for better execution of penal statutes was read a second time. On the 23rd the bill for a public thanksgiving was read twice, being finallypassed on the 25th. Its preamble runs thus: "Forasmuch as ... no nation of the earth hath been blessed with greater benefits than this kingdom now enjoyeth, having the true and free profession of the gospel under our most gracious sovereign lord King James, the most great, learned, and religious king that ever reigned therein ... the which many malignant and devilish papists, Jesuits, and seminary priests, much envying and fearing, conspired most horribly ..." and so forth.
Thus did the Commons set to work, and the other House, though they declined to sanction all that was proposed in the way of exceptional severity towards the actual conspirators, were no wise lacking in zeal against the Catholic body.
The course of legislation that ensued is thus described by Birch:[429]
"The discovery of the Plot occasioned the Parliament to enjoin the oath of allegiance to the king, and to enact several laws against Popery, and especially against the Jesuits and Priests who, as the Earl of Salisbury observed,[430]sought to bring all things intoconfusion.... In passing these laws for the security of the Protestant religion, the Earl of Salisbury exerted himself with distinguished zeal and vigour, which gained him great love and honour from the kingdom, as appeared, in some measure, in the unusual attendance upon him at his installation into the Order of the Garter, on the 20th of May, 1606,[431]at Windsor."
It is, indeed, abundantly clear that beyond all others this statesman benefited by the Plot, in consequence of which he obtained, at least for a time, a high degree of both power and popularity. His installation at Windsor, above mentioned, was an almost regal triumph. Baker notes[432]that he was attended on the occasion "beyond ordinary promotion." Howes writes[433]that he "set forward from his house in the Strand, being almost as honourably accompanied, and with as great a train of lords, knights, gentlemen, and officers of the Court, with others besides his peculiar servants, very richly attired and bravely mounted, as was the King when he rid in state through London."
Neither were there wanting to the secretary other advantages which, if less showy, were not less substantial.It will be remembered how, in his secret correspondence with the King of Scots before the death of Elizabeth, Cecil had constantly endeavoured to turn the mind of his future sovereign against the Earl of Northumberland, whom he declared to be associated with Raleigh and Cobham in a "diabolical triplicity," and to be "a sworn enemy of King James."[434]Theseefforts had not been altogether successful, and though Cobham and Raleigh had been effectually disposed of in connection with the conspiracy known as the "Main," Northumberland was still powerful, and was thought by many to be Cecil's most formidable rival. As one result of the Gunpowder Plot, he now disappeared for ever from public life.