What was the Gunpowder Plot? The Traditional Story Tested by Original Evidence by John Gerard (top 10 most read books in the world .TXT) 📕

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 the True and Perfect Relation says 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's History, 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] The Calendar of State Papers assigns 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 the examination of 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.

The declaration of 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 Rob^t Catesby, Tho^s Percy, 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 a project of 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 the Calendar of State Papers he 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. 164 seq.

[366] Narrative, p. 210.

[367] Plut. ciii. F. § 39.

[368] Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, § 625.

[369] Dom. James I. xvi. 116.

[370] In the Calendar 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