What was the Gunpowder Plot? Part 15

[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 amba.s.sador, 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 amba.s.sadors, November 9th.

[304] _Dom. James I._ xv. 106.

[305] _Catholique Apology_, p. 415.

[306] Goodman's _Court of King James_, i. 121, note.

[307] See Goodman's remarks on this subject (_Court of King James_, i.

106). The author of the _Politician's Catechism_ writes: "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." In _Mischeefes Mystery_ we 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 amba.s.sadors, November 9th, mentions in a postscript the fate of the rebels.

[313] They were slain by two b.a.l.l.s from the same musket.

[314] Warrant, P.R.O.

[315] Father Gerard mentions this circ.u.mstance (_Narrative_, p. 110).

[316] This point is well developed in the recent _Life 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). The _Memorial to Protestants_ by Bishop Kennet (1713) says that the man's name was Moody, who wanted the French amba.s.sador 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 Warwicks.h.i.+re, November 12th, 1605. (_Gunpowder Plot Book_, 134.)

[330] _Criminal Trials_, ii. 188.

[331] _Gunpowder Plot Book_, 130.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE.

WE have 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.

i. _The Trial of the Conspirators._

On the threshold of our inquiry we are met by a most singular and startling fact. As to what pa.s.sed 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 t.i.tle of the _True and Perfect Relation_, but, as Mr. Jardine has already told us, is certainly not deserving of the character which its t.i.tle imports. "It is not true, because many occurrences on the trial are wilfully misrepresented; and it is not _perfect_, because the whole evidence, and many facts and circ.u.mstances 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 pa.s.sing "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 doc.u.ment has come down to us by which its statements might 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 circ.u.mstances 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 fict.i.tious 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 web of 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 circ.u.mstance 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 would appear 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.

ii. _The Fundamental Evidence._

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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FROM WINTER'S CONFESSION, NOVEMBER 23.]