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 passed on the trial of the conspirators, what evidence was produced against them, how it was supported,—nay, even how the tale of their enterprise was told—we have no information upon which any reliance can be placed. One version alone has come down to us of the proceedings upon this occasion—that published “by authority”—and of this we can be sure only that it is utterly untrustworthy. It was issued under the title of the True and Perfect Relation, but, as Mr. Jardine has already told us, is certainly not deserving of the character which its title imports. “It is not true, because many occurrences on the trial are wilfully misrepresented; and it is not perfect, because the whole evidence, and many facts and circumstances which must have happened, are omitted, and incidents are inserted which could not by possibility have taken place on the occasion. It is obviously a false and imperfect relation of the proceedings; a tale artfully garbled and misrepresented... to serve a State purpose, and intended and calculated to mislead the judgment of the world upon the facts of the case.”332 Again the same author remarks,333 “that every line of the published trial was rigidly weighed and considered, not with reference to its accuracy, but its effect on the minds of those who might read it, is manifest.”
Moreover, the narrative thus obviously dishonest, was admittedly issued in contradiction of divers others already passing “from hand to hand,” which were at variance with itself in points of importance, and which it stigmatized as “uncertain, untrue, and incoherent;” it justified its appearance on the ground that it was supremely important for the public to be rightly informed in such a case:334 and so successful were the efforts made to secure for it a monopoly, that no single document has come down to us by which its 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 circumstances forfeit all credit on behalf of the story thus presented. In the present instance the presumption raised against it is even stronger than it would commonly be. If the Gunpowder Plot were in reality what was represented, why was it deemed necessary, in Cecil’s own phrase, to pervert and disguise its history in order to produce the desired effect? A project so singular and diabolical in its atrocity, prepared for on so large a scale, and so nearly successful, should, it would appear, have needed no fictitious adjuncts to enhance its enormity; and for the conviction of miscreants caught red-handed in such an enterprise no evidence should have been so effectual as that furnished by the facts of the case, which of their nature should have been patent and unquestionable. When we find, on the contrary, a 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 circumstance it has been noted as remarkable that whereas the conspirators had been kept alive and untried for nearly three months, they were thus summarily dealt with at the moment when it was known that the capture of Father Garnet was imminent, and, as a matter of fact, he was taken on the very day on which the first company were executed.339 It 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.
It must strike the reader as remarkable that, whereas, as has been said, the body of the letter is in the handwriting of the secretary, Munck, the names of the witnesses who attest it340 are added in that of his master, Cecil himself.
The “original” document, in Winter’s own hand, is at Hatfield, and agrees in general so exactly with the copy, as to demonstrate the identity of their origin.341 But while, as we have seen, the “copy” is dated November 23rd, the “original” is dated on the 25th.342 On a circumstance so singular, light is possibly thrown by a letter from Waad, the Lieutenant of the Tower, to Cecil, on the 21st of the same month.343 “Thomas Winter,” he wrote, “doth find his hand so strong, as after dinner he will settle himself to write that he hath verbally declared to your Lordship, adding what he shall remember.” The inference is certainly suggested that torture had been used until the prisoner’s spirit was sufficiently broken to be ready to tell the story required of him, and that the details were furnished by those who demanded it. It must, moreover, be remarked that although Winter’s “original” declaration is witnessed only by Sir E. Coke, the Attorney General, it appears in print attested by all those whom Cecil had selected for the purpose two days before the declaration was made.344 It may be said that the inference drawn above is violent and unfair, and, perhaps, were there no other case to go upon but that of Winter, so grave a charge as it implies should not be made. There remains, however, the companion case of Faukes, which is yet more extraordinary.
His declaration first makes its appearance as “The examination of Guy Fawkes, taken the 8th of November.”345 The document thus described is manifestly a draft, and not a copy of a deposition actually taken. It is unsigned: the list of witnesses is in the same handwriting as the rest, and in no instance is a witness indicated by such a title as he would employ for his signature.346 Throughout this paper Faukes is made to speak in the third person, and the names of accomplices to whom he refers are not given.
What, however, is most remarkable is the frank manner in which this document is treated as a draft. Several passages are cancelled and others substituted, sometimes in quite a contrary sense, so that the same deponent cannot possibly have made the statements contained in both versions. Other paragraphs are “ticked off,” as the event proves, for omission.
Nine days later, November 17th,347 Faukes was induced to put his name to the substance of the matter contained in the draft.348 The document is headed “The declaration349 of Guy Fawkes, prisoner in the Tower of London.” Faukes speaks throughout in the first person, and supplies the names previously omitted.350 Most noteworthy is the manner in which this version is adapted to the emendations of the draft. The passages ticked off have disappeared entirely, amongst them the remarkable statements that “they [the confederates] meant also to have sent for the prisoners in the Tower, of whom particularly they had some consultation,”—that “they had consultation for the taking of the Lady Mary [the infant daughter of King James] into their possession”—and that “provision was made by some of the conspiracy of armour of proof this last summer, for this action.” Where an alteration has been made in the draft, great skill is shown in combining what is important in both versions.351
As to the means which were employed to compel Faukes to sign the declaration there can be no doubt; his signature bearing evidence that he had been tortured with extreme severity. The witnesses are but two, Coke, the Attorney General, and Waad, the Lieutenant of the Tower. When, however, the document came to be printed, as in the other case, a fuller list was appended, but not exactly that previously indicated, for to Faukes were assigned the same witnesses as to Winter, including the Earls of Worcester and Dunbar over and above his own list.352
The printed version exhibits other points of interest. There was in the Archduke’s service, in Flanders, an English soldier, Hugh Owen,354 whom the government were for some reason, excessively desirous to incriminate, and get into their hands. For this purpose, a passage was artfully interpolated in the statement of Faukes, whereof no trace is found in the original. In the “King’s Book,” the passage in question stands thus, the words italicised being those fraudulently introduced:
“About Easter, the parliament being prorogued till October next, we dispersed ourselves, and I retired into the Low-countries, by advice and direction of the rest; as well to acquaint Owen with the particulars of the plot, as also, lest, by my longer stay, I might have grown suspicious.” But of Owen we shall see more in particular. It must not be forgotten that on several other days besides those named above, Faukes made declarations, still extant, viz., November 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 16th, and January 9th and 20th. The most important items of information furnished by that selected for publication were not even hinted at in any of these.
Farther light appears to be thrown on the manner in which this important declaration was prepared by another document found amongst the State Papers. This is an “interrogatory” drawn up by Sir E. Coke on November 8th, the very day of the “draft,” expressly for the benefit of Faukes.355 That the “draft” was composed from this appears to be shown by a curious piece of evidence. We have already noticed the strange phraseology of one of the passages attributed to Faukes: “He confesseth that the same day that this detestable act should have been performed the same day should other of their confederacy have surprised the person of the Lady Elizabeth,” etc. Precisely the same repetition occurs in the sixth of Mr. Attorney’s suggested questions. “Item, was it not agreed that the same day that the act should have been done, the same day or soon after the person of the Lady Elizabeth should have been surprised,” etc.?
Moreover, it is apparent that this interrogatory is not founded on information already obtained, but is, in fact, what is known as a “fishing” document, intended to elicit evidence of some kind. In the first place, some of its suggestions are mutually incompatible. Thus in another place it implies that not Elizabeth but her infant sister Mary was the choice of the queen-makers:—“Who should have been protector of the Lady Mary, who, being born in England, they meant to prefer to the crown. With whom should she have married?” (She was then seven months old.) Again it asks: “What should have become of the Prince?” as though he might after all be the sovereign intended.
Besides this, many points are raised which are evidently purely imaginary, inasmuch as no more was ever heard of them though if substantiated, they would have been supremely important.356
The above details will not appear superfluous if the importance of these documents be fully understood. It is upon these narratives, stamped with features so incompatible with their trustworthiness, that we entirely depend for much of prime importance in the history of the conspiracy, in particular for the notable episode of the mine, which they alone relate, and which is not even mentioned, either in the other numerous confessions of Faukes and Winter themselves, or by any of the other confederates. Save for an incidental remark of Keyes, that he helped to work in the mine, we hear nothing else of it; while not only is this confession quite as strange a document as the two others, but, to complicate the matter still more, Keyes is expressly described by Cecil357 himself as one of those that “wrought not in the mine.”
It is hard to understand how so remarkable an operation should have been totally ignored in all the other confessions and declarations, numerous and various as they are; while, on the other hand, should this striking feature of the Plot prove to be a fabrication, what is there of which to be certain?
Iii. the Confession of Thomas Bates (December 4th, 1605)
There is another piece of evidence to which exceptional prominence has been given, the confession of Thomas Bates, Catesby’s servant, dated December 4th, 1605. This is the only one of the conspirators’ confessions specifically mentioned in the government account of their trial, and it is mentioned twice over—a circumstance not unsuspicious in view of the nature of that account as already described.358
It is not necessary at present to enter upon the large question of the attitude of the Jesuits towards the Plot, nor to discuss their guilt or innocence. This is, however, beyond dispute, that the government were above all things anxious to prove them guilty,359 and no document ever produced was so effective for this purpose as the said confession, for, if it were true, there could be no question as to the guilt of one Jesuit, at least, Father Greenway alias Tesimond. The substance of Bates’ declaration was as follows:
That being introduced and sworn into the conspiracy by his master, Catesby, he was then told that, as a pledge of fidelity, he must receive the sacrament upon his oath, and accordingly he went to confession to Greenway, the Jesuit.
That in his confession he fully informed Greenway of the design, and that Greenway bade him obey his master, because it was for a good cause, and be secret, and mention the matter to no other priest.
That he was absolved by Greenway, and afterwards received Holy Communion.
It will be observed that the second paragraph, here italicized, is of supreme importance. We have evidence that although the conspirators, during the course of their operations, frequented the sacraments, they expressly avoided all mention of their design to their confessors, Catesby having required this of them, assuring them that he had fully satisfied himself that the project, far from being sinful, was meritorious, but that the priests were likely to give trouble.360 We are even told by some authors that Catesby exacted of his confederates an oath of secrecy in this regard. It is clear that his authority must have had special weight with his own servant, who was, moreover, devotedly attached to his master, as he proved in the crisis of his fate. We might, therefore, naturally be prepared to learn that Bates, though confessing to Greenway, never acquainted him with the Plot; and, that in fact he never did so, there is some interesting evidence.
It cannot escape observation as a suspicious circumstance that this most important confession, upon which so much stress was laid, exists amongst the State Papers only in a copy.361 Moreover, this copy has been treated as though it were an original, being officially endorsed, and it has on some occasion been used in Court.362 If, however, this version were not genuine, but prepared for a purpose, it is clear that it could not have been produced while Bates was alive to contradict it, and there appears to be no doubt that it was not heard of till after his death.
This appears, in the first place, from a manuscript account of the Plot,363 written between the trial of the conspirators and that of Father Garnet, that is, within two months of the former. The author sets himself expressly to prove that the priests must have been cognizant of the design, for, he argues, Catholics, when they have anything of the kind in hand, always consult their confessors about it, and it cannot be supposed that on this occasion only did they omit to do so. In support of his assertion, he quotes the instances of Parry, Babington, and Squires, but says nothing of Bates. He mentions Greenway as undoubtedly one of the guilty priests, but only because “his Majesty’s proclamation so speaks it.” Had the confession of Bates, as we have it, been so prominently adduced at the trial, as the official narrative represents, it is quite impossible that such a writer should have been content with these feeble inferences.
Still more explicit is the evidence furnished by another MS. containing a report of Father Garnet’s trial.364 In this the confession of Bates is cited, but precisely without the significant passage of which we have spoken, as follows: “Catesby afterwards discovered the project unto him; shortly after which discovery, Bates went to Mass to Tesimond [Greenway], and there was confessed and had absolution.”
Here, again, it is impossible to suppose that the all-important point was the one omitted. It is clear, however, that the mention of a confession made to Greenway would primâ facie afford a presumption that this particular matter had been confessed, thus furnishing a foundation whereon to build; and, knowing as we do how evidence was manipulated, it is quite conceivable that the copy now extant incorporates the improved version thus suggested.
Such an explanation was unmistakably insinuated by Father Garnet, when, on his trial, this evidence was urged against him; for he significantly replied that “Bates was a dead man.”365 Greenway himself afterwards, when beyond danger, denied on his salvation that Bates had ever on any occasion mentioned to him any word concerning the Plot. It is still more singular that Bates himself appears to have known nothing of his own declaration. He had apparently said, in some examination of which no record remains, that he thought Greenway “knew of the business.” This statement he afterwards retracted as having been elicited by a vain hope of pardon, in a letter which is given in full by Father Gerard,366 and of which Cecil himself made mention at Garnet’s trial.367 But of the far more serious accusation we are considering he said never a word.
There is, however, evidence still more notable. On the same day, December 4th, on which Bates made his declaration, Cecil wrote a most important letter to one Favat,368 who had been commissioned by King James to urge the necessity of obtaining evidence without delay against the priests. This document is valuable as furnishing explicit testimony that torture was employed with this object. “Most of the prisoners,” says the secretary, “have wilfully forsworn that the priests knew anything in particular, and obstinately refuse to be accusers of them, yea, what torture soever they be put to.”
He goes on, however, to assure his Majesty that the desired object is now in sight, particularly referring to a confession which can be none other than that of Bates, but likewise cannot be that afterwards given to the world; for it is spoken of as affording promise, but not yet satisfactory in its performance.
“You may tell his Majesty that if he please to read privately what this day we have drawn from a voluntary and penitent examination, the point I am persuaded (but I am no undertaker) shall be so well cleared, if he forbear to speak much of this but few days, as we shall see all fall out to the end whereat his Majesty shooteth.”
It seems clear, therefore, that the famous declaration of Bates, like those of Faukes and Winter, tends to discredit the story which in particulars so important rests upon such evidence.
It may be farther observed that if the confession of Bates, as officially preserved, were of any worth, it would have helped to raise other issues of supreme importance. Thus its concluding paragraph runs as follows:
“He confesseth that he heard his master, Thomas Winter, and Guy Fawkes say (presently upon the coming over of Fawkes) that they should have the sum of five-and-twenty thousand pounds out of Spain.”
This clearly means that the King of Spain was privy to the design, for a sum equivalent to a quarter of a million of our money could not have been furnished by private persons. The government, however, constantly assured the English ambassadors abroad of the great satisfaction with which they found that no suspicion whatever rested upon any foreign prince.
Iv. Robert Winter
There are various traces of foul play in regard of this conspirator in particular, which serve to shake our confidence as to the treatment of all. Robert Winter was the eldest brother of Thomas, and held the family property, which was considerable. Whether this motive, as Mr. Jardine suggests, or some other, prompted the step, certain it is that the government in their published history falsified the documents in order to incriminate him more deeply. Faukes, in the confession of Nov. 17th, mentioned Robert Keyes as amongst the first seven of the conspirators who worked in the mine, and Robert Winter as one of the five introduced at a later period. The names of these two were deliberately interchanged in the published version, Robert Winter appearing as a worker in the mine, and Keyes, who was an obscure man of no substance, among the gentlemen of property whose resources were to have supported the subsequent rebellion. Moreover, in the account of the same confession sent to Edmondes by Cecil three days before Faukes signed it (i.e., Nov. 14th), the same transposition occurs, Keyes being explicitly described as one of those “who wrought not in the mine,” although, as we have seen, he is one of the three who alone make any mention of it.
Still more singular is another circumstance. About November 28th, Sir Edward Coke, the attorney-general, drew up certain farther notes of questions to be put to various prisoners.369 Amongst these we read: “Winter to be examined of his brother. For no man else can accuse him.” But a fortnight or so before this time the Secretary of State had officially informed the ambassador in the Low Countries that Robert Winter was one of those deepest in the treason, and, to say nothing of other evidence, a proclamation for his apprehension had been issued on November 18th. Yet Coke’s interrogatory seems to imply that nothing had yet been established against him, and that he was not known to the general body of the traitors as a fellow-conspirator.
V. Captain Hugh Owen, Father William Baldwin, and Others
We have seen something of the extreme anxiety evinced by the English government to incriminate a certain Hugh Owen, a Welsh soldier of fortune serving in Flanders under the archduke.370 With him were joined Father Baldwin, the Jesuit, and Sir William Stanley, who, like Owen, was in the archduke’s service. The measures taken in regard of them are exceedingly instructive if we would understand upon what sort of evidence the guilt of obnoxious individuals was proclaimed as incontrovertible.
No time was lost in commencing operations. On November 14th, three days before Faukes signed the celebrated declaration which we have examined, and in which Owen was not mentioned, the Earl of Salisbury wrote to Edmondes, ambassador at Brussels,371 that Faukes had now directly accused Owen, whose extradition must therefore be demanded. In proof of this assertion he inclosed a copy of the declaration, in which, however, curiously enough, no mention of Owen’s name occurs.372
Edmondes on his side was equally prompt. He at once laid the matter before the archduke and his ministers, and on November 19th was able to write to Salisbury that Owen and his secretary were apprehended and their papers and ciphers seized, and that, “If there shall fall out matter to charge Owen with partaking in the treason, the archduke will not refuse the king to yield him to be answerable to justice,”373 though venturing to hope that he would be able to clear himself of so terrible an accusation.
On “the last of November” the subject was pursued in an epistle from the King himself to the “Archdukes,”374 in which the undoubted guilt of both Owen and Baldwin was roundly affirmed.375
On December 2nd, 1605, Salisbury wrote to Edmondes:376 “I do warrant you to deliver upon the forfeiture of my judgment in your opinion that it shall appear as evident as the sun in the clearest day, that Baldwin by means of Owen, and Owen directly by himself, have been particular conspirators.”
In spite of this, the authorities in Flanders asked for proofs of the guilt of those whom they were asked to give up. Wherefore Edmondes wrote (December 27th) to secure the co-operation of Cornwallis, his fellow-ambassador, at Madrid. After declaring that Owen and Baldwin were now found to have been “principal dealers in the late execrable treason,” with remarkable naïveté he thus continues:377
“I will not conceal from your lordship that they have been here so unrespective as to desire for their better satisfaction to have a copy of the information against the said persons to be sent over hither; which I fear will be very displeasing to his Majesty to understand.”
In January (1605-6), Salisbury sending, in the King’s name, instructions to Sir E. Coke as to the trial of the conspirators, concluded with this admonition:378 “You must remember to lay Owen as foul in this as you can,” which certainly does not suggest that the case against him was overwhelmingly strong.
After the execution of the traitors, an Act of Attainder passed by Parliament included Owen amongst them.379
The archdukes remaining unconvinced, another and very notable argument was brought into play. On February 12th, 1605-6, Salisbury wrote to Edmondes:380
“As for the particular depositions against Owen and Baldwin, which the archdukes desire to have a sight of, you may let them know that it is a matter which can make but little to the purpose, considering that his Majesty already upon his royal word hath certified the archdukes of their guilt.”
As to Owen’s own papers which had been seized, the archduke assured the English ambassador,381 “that if there had been anything to have been discovered out of the said papers touching the late treason (as he was well assured of the contrary), he would not have failed to have imparted the same to his Majesty.”
At a later date the Spanish minister De Grenada wrote from Valladolid382 that men could not be delivered up on mere suspicion, which might prove groundless, but that the archduke had received orders to sift the matter to the bottom, in order that justice might be done “very fully.”
About the same time President Richardot informed Edmondes383 that Owen strenuously denied the charges against him, “and that there is the more probability of his innocency for that his papers having been carefully visited, there doth not appear anything in them to charge him concerning the said matter.”
On April 21st Salisbury informed Edmondes of a conference on the subject between the king and the archduke’s ambassador.384 The latter declared that his master was ready to prosecute the accused in his own courts if evidence was furnished him, but in reply King James explained that this was impossible, and that he “was loth to send any papers or accusations over, not knowing how they might be framed or construed there by the formalities of their laws.” He added that it was useless now to talk of evidence, “seeing the wretch is already condemned by the public sentence of the whole Parliament, which sentence the archdukes might see if they would.” The ambassador thereupon asked to have a copy, but was curtly told that it would presently be printed, when he could buy one for twelve pence and send it to his masters, but that the king was not disposed to make a present of it.
In these circumstances the archdukes determined to detain Owen no longer, and he was presently discharged. The news of this proceeding produced a remarkable change in the tone of his accusers. On June 18th, the secretary wrote to Edmondes385 that Owen’s enlargement “seemed to give too much credit to his innocency;” moreover, that “though his Majesty showed no great disposition (for many considerations specified unto you) to send over the papers and accusations against him,... yet this proceeded not out of any conscience of the invalidity of the proofs, but rather in respect that his process being made here, and the caitiff condemned by the public sentence of the Parliament, it would have come all to one issue, seeing they have proceeded when his Majesty left it to themselves to do as they thought fit.”
To reinforce this lucid explanation Salisbury sent six days later what had before been refused, an abstract of “confessions against Owen,” and a corrected copy of the Act of Attainder. These documents deserve some consideration.
We have seen how much stress was laid upon the action of Parliament in regard of Owen, although the Act of Attainder which it passed affords no information whatever to assist our judgment of his case. In moving for this attainder, Sir E. Coke appeared at the bar of the House of Commons (April 29th, 1606) to exhibit the evidence on which the charge rested. His notes of this evidence, which are extant,386 clearly show that the government possessed no proofs at all beyond surmise and inference.387 Three testimonies were cited which were quite inconsistent and mutually destructive: (1) An extract from a confession of Guy Faukes, January 20th, 1605-6, declaring that he had himself initiated Owen in the Plot in May, 1605. (2) An information of one Ralph Ratcliffe, to the effect that Owen and Baldwin were busy with the Plot in April, 1604. (3) T. Winter’s testimony—from his famous confession of November 23rd, or 25th, 1605—that in the spring of 1604 Owen had assisted him to secure the services of Faukes.
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 these mysterious documents we have to depend on transcripts of portions of them among the Tanner MSS. in the Bodleian Library, on fragmentary Latin versions in the Antilogia of 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 been produced 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 government as 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 (December 23rd, 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.
Vi. Other Documents
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 Westmoreland and 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 described Raleigh 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 compendious example. 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.
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 Autobiography409 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 what you please. 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 us411 that on the trial of Raleigh and Cobham, the latter protested that he had never made the declaration attributed to him incriminating Raleigh. “That villain 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 Gregory413 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 from Gregory’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 examinations415 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
Vii. Catholic Testimony
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 also afterwards 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 identity of 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 considers421 that there is “strong reason” to believe him not to have been acquainted with the Plot. Dr. Jessopp is still more emphatic, and declares422 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 Robt Catesby, Thos 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 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 3o Jac. 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 Mr Catesby charged me two things more: the one to desire of Baldwin & Mr Owen 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 Mr Catesby order for a Company of Horse, thinking by that means to have opportunity to buy Horses and Arms without suspition.”
According to Abbot, 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 Mr Owen 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. Mr Owen 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 Wm Stanley 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 the Calendar 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 of During 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 the Narrative with 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.).