What Gunpowder Plot Was Part 3

"Fawkes," writes Father Gerard,[120] "in the confession of November 17, mentioned Robert Keyes as amongst the first seven of the conspirators who worked at the mine, and Robert Winter as one of the five introduced at a later period. The names of these two were deliberately interchanged in the published version, Robert Winter appearing as a worker in the mine, and Keyes, who was an obscure man, of no substance, among the gentlemen of property whose resources were to have supported the subsequent rebellion.

Moreover, in the account of the same confession sent to Edmondes by Cecil three days before Fawkes signed it--_i.e._, November 14--the same transposition occurs, Keyes being explicitly described as one of those 'who wrought not at the mine,' although, as we have seen, he is one of the three who alone make any mention of it.

"Still more irregular is another circ.u.mstance. About November 28, Sir Edward c.o.ke, the Attorney-General, drew up certain further notes of questions to be put to various prisoners. Amongst these we read: 'Winter[121] to be examined of his brother, for no man else can accuse him.' But a fortnight or so before this time the Secretary of State had officially informed the amba.s.sador in the Low Countries that Robert Winter was one of those deepest in the treason, and, to say nothing of other evidence, a proclamation for his apprehension had been issued on November 18th. Yet c.o.ke's interrogatory seems to imply that nothing had yet been established against him, and that he was not known to the general body of the traitors as a fellow-conspirator."

If this tangled skein is to be unravelled, the first thing to be done is to place the facts in their chronological order, upon which many if not all the difficulties will disappear, premising that, as a matter of fact, Keyes did work at the mine, and Robert Winter did not.

In his examination of November 7, in which no names appear, and nothing is said about a mine, Fawkes spoke of five original conspirators, and of five or six subsequently joining them, and being generally acquainted with the plot.[122] On the 8th,[123] when the mine was first mentioned, he divided the seven actual diggers into two cla.s.ses: first, the five who worked from the beginning, and, secondly, two who were afterwards added to that number, saying nothing of the conspirators who took no part in the mining operations. On the 9th, under torture, he gave the names of the first five apart, and then lumped all the other conspirators together, so that both Keyes and Robert Winter appear in the same cla.s.s. On the 17th he gave, as the names of two, who, as he now said, subsequently worked at the mine, Christopher Wright and Robert Winter, but the surname of the latter is deleted with pen-strokes, and that of Keyes subst.i.tuted above it; whilst, in the list of the persons made privy to the plot but not engaged in digging, we have the name of Keyes, afterwards deleted, and that of Wynter subst.i.tuted for it.[124]

The only question is, when was the double subst.i.tution effected?

As far as the action of the Government is known, we have the list referred to at pp. 47, 48, and probably written on or about the 10th.[125] In this the additional workers are first said to have been John Grant and Christopher Wright. The former name is, however, scratched out, and that of 'Robyn Winter' subst.i.tuted for it, and from this list is taken the one forwarded to Edmondes on the 14th.[126] Even if we could discover any conceivable motive for the Government wis.h.i.+ng to accuse Keyes rather than Winter, it would not help us to explain why the name of Winter was subst.i.tuted for that of Grant at one time, and the name of Keyes subst.i.tuted for that of Winter at another.

On the other hand, Fawkes, if he had any knowledge of what was going on, had at least a probable motive for putting Winter rather than Keyes in the worse category. Keyes had been seized, whilst Winter was still at large, and Fawkes may have thought that as Winter might make his escape beyond sea, it was better to load him with the burden which really belonged to Keyes. If this solution be accepted as a possible one, it is easy to understand how the Government fixed on Winter as one of the actual diggers. On the 18th, the day after his name had been given by Fawkes, a proclamation is issued for his apprehension as one 'known to be a princ.i.p.al.'[127] It is not for ten days that any sign is given of a belief that Keyes was the right man. Then, on the 28th, c.o.ke suggests that Thomas Winter may be examined about his brother, 'for no man else can accuse him,' a suggestion which would be absurd if Fawkes's statement had still held good. On the 30th Keyes himself acknowledges that he bought some of the powder and a.s.sisted in carrying it to Ferrers' house, and that he also helped to work at the mine.

I am inclined therefore to a.s.sign the alteration of the name which Fawkes gave in his examination of the 17th to some day shortly before the 28th, and to think that the sending of the 'King's Book'[128] to press took place on some day between the 23rd, the date of Thomas Winter's examination, and the 28th. If so, the retention of the name of Robert Winter amongst the diggers, and that of Keyes amongst those made privy afterwards, needs no further explanation.[129] Cromwell once adjured the Presbyterians of Edinburgh to believe it possible that they might be mistaken. If Father Gerard would only believe it possible that Salisbury may have been mistaken, he would hardly be so keen to mark conscious deception, where deception is not necessarily to be found.

After all, the Government left the names of Winter and Keyes perfectly legible under the pen-strokes drawn across them, and the change they made was at least the erasure of a false statement and the subst.i.tution of a true one.

CHAPTER IV.

STRUCTURAL DIFFICULTIES.

From a study of the doc.u.mentary evidence, I pa.s.s to an examination of those structural conditions which Father Gerard p.r.o.nounces to be fatal to the 'traditional' story. The first step is obviously to ascertain the exact position of Whynniard's house, part of which was rented by Percy.

The investigator is, however, considerably a.s.sisted by Father Gerard, who has successfully exploded the old belief that this building lay to the southwest of the House of Lords. His argument, which appears to me to be conclusive, runs as follows:--

"That the lodging hired by Percy stood near the southeast corner of the old House of Lords (_i.e._ nearer to the river than that building, and adjacent to, if not adjoining the Prince's Chamber) is shown by the following arguments:--

"1. John Shepherd, servant to Whynniard, gave evidence as to having on a certain occasion seen from the river 'a boat lie close to the pale of Sir Thomas Parry's garden, and men going to and from the water through the back door that leadeth into Mr. Percy, his lodging.--[_Gunpowder Plot Book_, 40, part 2.]

"2. Fawkes, in his examination of November 5, 1605, speaks of the window in his chamber near the Parliament House towards the water-side.

"3. It is said that when digging their mine the conspirators were troubled by the influx of water from the river, which would be impossible if they were working at the opposite side of the Parliament House."[130]

I think, however, that a still closer identification is possible. On page 80 will be seen a frontage towards the river, marked 'very old walls, remaining in 1795 & 1800,' of which the line corresponds fairly with that of the house in the view given as the frontispiece to this volume.

On part of the site behind it is written 'Very Old House,' and the remainder is said to have been occupied by a garden for many years. It may, however, be gathered from the view that this piece of ground was covered by part of the house in 1799, and I imagine that the 'many years' must have commenced in 1807, when the house was demolished (see view at p. 89). If any doubt remains as to the locality of the front it will be removed by Capon's pencilled note on the door to the left,[131]

stating that it led to Parliament Place.[132]

The house marked separately to the right in the plan, as Mrs. Robe's house, 1799, is evidently identical with the more modern building in the frontispiece, and therefore does not concern us.

With this comparatively modern plan should be compared the three which follow in succession (pp. 81, 82, 83), respectively dated 1685, 1739, and 1761. They are taken from the Crace Collection of plans in the Print Room of the British Museum, Portfolio xi. Nos. 30, 45, 46.

The first of these three plans differs from the later ones in two important particulars. In the first place, the shaded part indicating buildings is divided by dark lines, and, in the second place, this shaded part covers more ground. I suppose there can be little doubt that the dark lines indicate party walls, and we are thus enabled to understand how it is that, whilst in writing to Parry[133] Salisbury speaks of Percy as having taken a part of Whynniard's house, Percy is spoken of in all the remaining evidence that has reached us as taking a house. Salisbury, no doubt, was thinking of the whole tenement held by Whynniard as a house, whilst others gave that name to such a part of it as could be separately held by a single tenant. The other difference between the plans is less easy to explain. Neither of the later ones show that excrescence towards the river-bank, ab.u.t.ting on its northern side on Cotton Garden, which is so noted a feature in the plan of 1685.

At one time I was inclined to think that we had here the 'low room new builded,' that in which Percy at first stored his powder; but this would be to make the house rented by him far larger than it is likely to have been. A more probable explanation is given by the plan itself. It will be seen that the shading includes the internal courtyard, perceptible in the two later plans, and it does not therefore necessarily indicate the presence of buildings. May not the shaded part reaching to the river mean no more than that in 1685 there was some yard or garden specially attached to the House?

[Ill.u.s.tration: PART OF A PLAN OF THE ANCIENT PALACE OF WESTMINSTER, BY THE LATE MR. WILLIAM CAPON, MEASURED AND DRAWN BETWEEN 1793 AND 1823.--_Vetusta Monumenta_, vol. v. The houses at the edge of the river were not in existence in 1605, the ground on which they were built having been reclaimed since that date.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FROM A PLAN OF PART OF WESTMINSTER, 1685.

A. Probable position of the chamber attached to the House of Lords. B.

Probable position of the house leased to Percy. These references are not in the original plan.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FROM A PLAN OF PART OF WESTMINSTER, WITH INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS OF THE HOUSES OF LORDS AND COMMONS, BY W. KENT, 1739.

A red line showing the ground set apart by Kent for building is omitted.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FROM A PLAN OF WESTMINSTER HALL AND THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT AS IT APPEARED IN 1761

Part of this lettering is in pencil in the original plan.]

Before giving reasons for selecting any one part of Whynniard's block as that rented from him by Percy, it is necessary to face a difficulty raised by Father Gerard:--

"Neither," he writes, "does the house appear to have been well suited for the purposes for which it was taken. Speed tells us, and he is confirmed by Bishop Barlow, of Lincoln, that it was let out to tenants only when Parliament was not a.s.sembled, and during a session formed part of the premises at the disposal of the Lords, whom it served as a withdrawing room. As this plot was of necessity to take effect during a session, when the place would be in other hands, it is very hard to understand how it was intended that the final and all-important operation should be conducted."[134]

This objection is put still more strongly in a subsequent pa.s.sage:--

"We have already observed on the nature of the house occupied in Percy's name. If this were, as Speed tells us, and as there is no reason to doubt, at the service of the Peers during a session for a withdrawing-room, and if the session was to begin on November 5, how could Fawkes hope not only to remain in possession, but to carry on his strange proceedings un.o.bserved amid the crowd of lacqueys and officials with whom the opening of the Parliament by the Sovereign must needs have flooded the premises. How was he, un.o.bserved, to get into the fatal 'cellar'?"[135]

It is easy enough to brush away Father Gerard's alleged confirmation by Bishop Barlow,[136] who, writing as he did in the reign of Charles II., carries no weight on such a point. Besides, he did not write a book on the Gunpowder Plot at all. He merely republished, in 1679, an old official narrative of the trial, with an unimportant preface of his own. What Father Gerard quotes here and elsewhere is, however, not even taken from this republication, but from an anonymous pamphlet published in 1678, and reprinted in _The Harleian Miscellany_, iii. 121, which is avowedly a cento made up from earlier writers, and in which the words referred to are doubtless copied directly from Speed.

Speed's own testimony, however, cannot be so lightly dismissed, especially as it is found in the first edition of his _History_, published in 1611, and therefore only six years after the event:--

"No place," he says, "was held fitter than a certain edifice adjoining the wall of the Parliament House, which served for withdrawing rooms for the a.s.sembled Lords, and out of Parliament was at the disposal of the keeper of the place and wardrobe thereunto belonging."[137]

This is quite specific, and unless Speed's evidence can be in any way modified, fully justifies Father Gerard in his contention. Let us, however, turn to the agreement for the house in question:--

"Memorandum that it is concluded between Thomas Percy of London Esquire and Henry Ferrers of Bordesley Clinton in the County of Warwick Gentleman the xxiiii day of March in the second year of our Sovereign Lord King James.[138]

"That the said Henry hath granted to the said Thomas to enjoy his house in Westminster belonging to the Parliament House, the said Thomas getting the consent of Mr. Whynniard, and satisfying me, the said Henry, for my charges bestowed thereupon, as shall be thought fit by two indifferent men chosen between us.

"And that he shall also have the other house that Gideon Gibbons dwelleth in, with an a.s.signment of a lease from Mr. Whynniard thereof, satisfying me as aforesaid, and using the now tenant well.

"And the said Thomas hath lent unto me the said Henry twenty pounds, to be allowed upon reckoning or to be repaid again at the will of the said Thomas.

"HENRY FERRERS.

"Sealed and delivered in the presence of

Jo: White and Christopher Symons.[139]"

It is therefore beyond question, on the evidence of this agreement, that Speed was right in connecting with Parliament a house rented by Percy.

It is, however, also beyond question, on the evidence of the same agreement, that he also took a second house, of which Whynniard was to give him a lease. The inference that Percy would have been turned out of this second house when Parliament met seems, therefore, to be untenable.