What Gunpowder Plot Was

My Most Honourable Lords

“23 9 ber 1605.

“Not out of hope to obtain pardon for speaking – of my temporal part I may say the fault is greater than can be forgiven – nor affecting hereby the title of a good subject for I must redeem my country from as great a danger as I have hazarded the bringing her into, before I can purchase any such opinion; only at your Honours’ command, I will briefly set down my own accusation, and how far I have proceeded in this business which I shall the faithfuller do since I see such courses are not pleasing to Almighty God; and that all, or the most material parts have been already confessed.

“I remained with my brother in the country for All-hollantide,[92 - All Saints Day.] in the year of our Lord 1603, the first of the King’s reign, about which time, Mr. Catesby sent thither, entreating me to come to London, where he and other friends would be glad to see me. I desired him to excuse me, for I found not myself very well disposed, and (which had happened never to me before) returned the messenger without my company. Shortly I received another letter, in any wise to come. At the second summons I presently came up and found him with Mr. John Wright at Lambeth, where he brake with me how necessary it was not to forsake my country (for he knew I had then a resolution to go over), but to deliver her from the servitude in which she remained, or at least to assist her with our uttermost endeavours. I answered that I had often hazarded my life upon far lighter terms, and now would not refuse any good occasion wherein I might do service to the Catholic cause; but, for myself, I knew no mean probable to succeed. He said that he had bethought him of a way at one instant to deliver us from all our bonds, and without any foreign help[93 - Compare this with Fawkes’s declaration at his second examination (G. P. B. 16, A.) “Being demanded when this good act had been done which must have brought this realm in peril to be subdued by some foreign prince, of what foreign prince he and his compliees could have wished to have been governed, one more than another, he doth protest upon his soul that neither he nor any other with whom he had conferred would have spared the last drop of their blood to have resisted any foreign prince whatsoever.” Are we seriously asked to believe that Salisbury placed this crown of sturdy patriotism on the brows of those whom he wished to paint as the most atrocious villains?] to replant again the Catholic religion, and withal told me in a word it was to blow up the Parliament House with gunpowder; for, said he, in that place have they done us all the mischief, and perchance God hath designed that place for their punishment. I wondered at the strangeness of the conceit, and told him that true it was this strake at the root and would breed a confusion fit to beget new alterations, but if it should not take effect (as most of this nature miscarried) the scandal would be so great which the Catholic religion might hereby sustain, as not only our enemies, but our friends also would with good reason condemn us. He told me the nature of the disease required so sharp a remedy, and asked me if I would give my consent. I told him Yes, in this or what else soever, if he resolved upon it, I would venture my life; but I proposed many difficulties, as want of a house, and of one to carry the mine; noise in the working, and such like. His answer was, let us give an attempt, and where it faileth, pass no further. But first, quoth he, because we will leave no peaceable and quiet way untried, you shall go over and inform the Constable[94 - Juan de Velasco, Duke of Frias, Constable of Castile, arrived at Brussels about the middle of January 1604 to conduct a negotiation for peace with England. There he remained, delegating his powers to others. This date of the Constable’s arrival is important, as showing that Winter’s conversation with Catesby cannot have taken place earlier than the second half of January.] of the state of the Catholics here in England, intreating him to solicit his Majesty at his coming hither that the penal laws may be recalled, and we admitted into the rank of his other subjects. Withal, you may bring over some confidant gentleman such as you shall understand best able for this business, and named unto me Mr. Fawkes. Shortly after I passed the sea and found the Constable at Bergen, near Dunkirk, where, by the help of Mr. Owen,[95 - Hugh Owen was, as Father Gerard says (p. 173, note 1), ‘A soldier and not a priest, though in the Calendar of State Papers he is continually styled “Father Owen,” or “Owen the Jesuit.”’ He is however mistaken in saying that Mrs. Everett Green inserted the title without warrant in the original documents. A paper of intelligence received on April 29, 1604, begins, “Father Owen, Father Baldwin and Colonel Jaques, three men that rule the Archduke at their pleasure,” &c.] I delivered my message, whose answer was that he had strict command from his master to do all good offices for the Catholics, and for his own part he thought himself bound in conscience so to do, and that no good occasion should be omitted, but spake to him nothing of this matter.

“Returning to Dunkirk with Mr. Owen, we had speach whether he thought the Constable would faithfully help us or no. He said he believed nothing less, and that they sought only their own ends, holding small account of Catholics. I told him, that there were many gentlemen in England, who would not forsake their country until they had tried the uttermost, and rather venture their lives than forsake her in this misery; and to add one more to our number as a fit man, both for counsel and execution of whatsoever we should resolve, wished for Mr. Fawkes whom I had heard good commendations of. He told me the gentleman deserved no less, but was at Brussels, and that if he came not, as happily he might, before my departure, he would send him shortly after into England. I went soon after to Ostend, where Sir William Stanley as then was not, but came two days after. I remained with him three or four days, in which time I asked him, if the Catholics in England should do anything to help themselves, whether he thought the Archduke would second them. He answered, No; for all those parts were so desirous of peace with England as they would endure no speach of other enterprise, neither were it fit, said he, to set any project afoot now the peace is upon concluding. I told him there was no such resolution, and so fell to discourse of other matters until I came to speak of Mr. Fawkes whose company I wished over into England. I asked of his sufficiency in the wars, and told him we should need such as he, if occasion required. He gave very good commendations of him; and as we were thus discoursing and I ready to depart for Nieuport and taking my leave of Sir William, Mr. Fawkes came into our company newly returned and saluted us. This is the gentleman, said Sir William, that you wished for, and so we embraced again. I told him some good friends of his wished his company in England; and that if he pleased to come to Dunkirk, we would have further conference, whither I was then going: so taking my leave of both, I departed. About two days after came Mr. Fawkes to Dunkirk, where I told him that we were upon a resolution to do somewhat in England if the peace with Spain helped us not, but had as yet resolved upon nothing. Such or the like talk we passed at Gravelines, where I lay for a wind, and when it served, came both in one passage to Greenwich, near which place we took a pair of oars, and so came up to London, and came to Mr. Catesby whom we found in his lodging. He welcomed us into England, and asked me what news from the Constable. I told him Good words, but I feared the deeds would not answer. This was the beginning of Easter term[96 - In 1604 Easter term began on April 25, and ended May 21.] and about the midst of the same term (whether sent for by Mr. Catesby, or upon some business of his own) up came Mr. Thomas Percy. The first word he spake (after he came into our company) was Shall we always, gentlemen, talk and never do anything? Mr. Catesby took him aside and had speech about somewhat to be done, so as first we might all take an oath of secrecy, which we resolved within two or three days to do, so as there we met behind St. Clement’s, Mr. Catesby, Mr. Percy, Mr. Wright, Mr. Guy Fawkes, and myself, and having, upon a primer given each other the oath of secrecy in a chamber where no other body was, we went after into the next room and heard mass, and received the blessed sacrament upon the same. Then did Mr. Catesby disclose to Mr. Percy,[97 - This distinctly implies that Percy did not know the secret before, and I therefore wish to retract my former argument – which is certainly not conclusive – in favour of an earlier knowledge by Percy. Hist. of Engl. 1603-1642, i. 235, note 1.] and I together with Jack Wright tell to Mr. Fawkes the business for which they took this oath which they both approved; and then Mr. Percy sent to take the house, which Mr. Catesby, in my absence, had learnt did belong to one Ferris, which with some difficulty in the end he obtained, and became, as Ferris before was, tenant to Whynniard. Mr. Fawkes underwent the name of Mr. Percy’s man, calling himself Johnson, because his face was the most unknown,[98 - “In his declaration, November 8th, however,” writes Father Gerard (p. 91, note 1), “he gives as a reason for going abroad, ‘lest, being a dangerous man, he should be known and suspected.’” I see no discrepancy between the two statements. Having been long abroad, Fawkes’s face would not be known to the ordinary Londoner as that of a Recusant, and he was therefore better qualified to act as a watchman than others who were so known. On the other hand, when there was no need for anybody to watch at all, somebody who had known him in Flanders might notify the Government of his appearance in England, and thereby raise suspicions against him. Besides, there were other reasons for his going over which Fawkes did not think fit to bring to the notice of the Government.] and received the keys of the house, until we heard that the Parliament was adjourned to the 7 of February. At which time we all departed several ways into the country, to meet again at the beginning of Michaelmas term.[99 - Began October 9, ended November 28.] Before this time also it was thought convenient to have a house that might answer to Mr. Percy’s, where we might make provision of powder and wood for the mine which, being there made ready, should in a night be conveyed by boat to the house by the Parliament because we were loth to foil that with often going in and out. There was none that we could devise so fit as Lambeth where Mr. Catesby often lay, and to be keeper thereof, by Mr. Catesby’s choice, we received into the number Keyes, as a trusty honest man.[100 - Marginal note: “This was about a month before Michaelmas.”]

“Some fortnight after, towards the beginning of the term, Mr. Fawkes and I came to Mr. Catesby at Moorcrofts, where we agreed that now was time to begin and set things in order for the mine, so as Mr. Fawkes went to London and the next day sent for me to come over to him. When I came, the cause was for that the Scottish Lords were appointed to sit in conference on the Union in Mr. Percy’s house. This hindered our beginning until a fortnight before Christmas, by which time both Mr. Percy and Mr. Wright were come to London, and we against their coming had provided a good part of the powder, so as we all five entered with tools fit to begin our work, having provided ourselves of baked-meats, the less to need sending abroad. We entered late in the night, and were never seen, save only Mr. Percy’s man, until Christmas-eve, in which time we wrought under a little entry to the wall of the Parliament House, and underpropped it as we went with wood.

“Whilst we were together we began to fashion our business, and discourse what we should do after this deed were done. The first question was how we might surprise the next heir; the Prince happily would be at the Parliament with the King his father: how should we then be able to seize on the Duke?[101 - The Duke of York, afterwards Charles I.] This burden Mr. Percy undertook; that by his acquaintance he with another gentleman would enter the chamber without suspicion, and having some dozen others at several doors to expect his coming, and two or three on horseback at the Court gate to receive him, he would undertake (the blow being given, until which he would attend in the Duke’s chamber) to carry him safe away, for he supposed most of the Court would be absent, and such as were there not suspecting, or unprovided for any such matter. For the Lady Elizabeth it were easy to surprise her in the country by drawing friends together at a hunting near the Lord Harrington’s, and Ashby, Mr. Catesby’s house, being not far off was a fit place for preparation.

“The next was for money and horses, which if we could provide in any reasonable measure (having the heir apparent) and the first knowledge by four or five days was odds sufficient. Then, what Lords we should save from the Parliament, which was agreed in general as many as we could that were Catholics or so disposed. Next, what foreign princes we should acquaint with this before or join with after. For this point we agreed that first we would not enjoin princes to that secrecy nor oblige them by oath so to be secure of their promise; besides, we know not whether they will approve the project or dislike it, and if they do allow thereof, to prepare before might beget suspicion and[102 - Some such words as ‘we resolved’ are probably omitted here.] not to provide until the business were acted; the same letter that carried news of the thing done might as well entreat their help and furtherance. Spain is too slow in his preparations to hope any good from in the first extremities, and France too near and too dangerous, who with the shipping of Holland we feared of all the world might make away with us. But while we were in the middle of these discourses, we heard that the Parliament should be anew adjourned until after Michaelmas, upon which tidings we broke off both discourse and working until after Christmas. About Candlemas we brought over in a boat the powder which we had provided at Lambeth and layd it in Mr. Percy’s house because we were willing to have all our danger in one place. We wrought also another fortnight in the mine against the stone wall, which was very hard to beat through, at which time we called in Kit Wright, and near to Easter[103 - In MS. ‘taken it before.’] as we wrought the third time, opportunity was given to hire the cellar, in which we resolved to lay the powder and leave the mine.

“Now by reason that the charge of maintaining us all so long together, besides the number of several houses which for several uses had been hired, and buying of powder, &c., had lain heavy on Mr. Catesby alone to support, it was necessary for to call in some others to ease his charge, and to that end desired leave that he with Mr. Percy and a third whom they should call might acquaint whom they thought fit and willing to the business, for many, said he, may be content that I should know who would not therefore that all the Company should be acquainted with their names. To this we all agreed.

“After this Mr. Fawkes laid into the cellar (which he had newly taken) a thousand of billets and five hundred of faggots, and with that covered the powder, because we might have the house free to suffer anyone to enter that would. Mr. Catesby wished us to consider whether it were not now necessary to send Mr. Fawkes over, both to absent himself for a time as also to acquaint Sir William Stanley and Mr. Owen with this matter. We agreed that he should; provided that he gave it them with the same oath that we had taken before, viz., to keep it secret from all the world. The reason why we desired Sir William Stanley should be acquainted herewith was to have him with us so soon as he could, and, for Mr. Owen, he might hold good correspondency after with foreign princes. So Mr. Fawkes departed about Easter for Flanders and returned the later end of August. He told me that when he arrived at Brussels, Sir William Stanley was not returned from Spain, so as he uttered the matter only to Owen, who seemed well pleased with the business, but told him that surely Sir William would not be acquainted with any plot as having business now afoot in the Court of England, but he himself would be always ready to tell it him and send him away so soon as it were done.

“About this time did Mr. Percy and Mr. Catesby meet at the Bath where they agreed that the company being yet but few, Mr. Catesby should have the others’ authority to call in whom he thought best, by which authority he called in after Sir Everard Digby, though at what time I know not, and last of all Mr. Francis Tresham. The first promised, as I heard Mr. Catesby say, fifteen hundred pounds. Mr. Percy himself promised all that he could get of the Earl of Northumberland’s rent,[104 - Interlined in the King’s hand ‘which was about four thousand pounds.’] and to provide many galloping horses, his number was ten.[105 - Altered in the King’s hand to ‘to the number of ten,’ with a marginal note ‘unclear phrase,’ in the same hand.] Meanwhile Mr. Fawkes and myself alone bought some new powder, as suspecting the first to be dank, and conveyed it into the cellar and set it in order as we resolved it should stand. Then was the Parliament anew prorogued until the 5 of November; so as we all went down until some ten days before. When Mr. Catesby came up with Mr. Fawkes to a house by Enfield Chase called White Webbs, whither I came to them, and Mr. Catesby willed me to inquire whether the young Prince[106 - Prince Henry.] came to Parliament, I told him that his Grace thought not to be there. Then must we have our horses, said Mr. Catesby, beyond the water,[107 - Perhaps the Prince was with his mother at Greenwich.] and provision of more company to surprise the Prince and leave the Duke alone. Two days after, being Sunday[108 - Oct. 27.] at night, in came one to my chamber and told me that a letter had been given to my Lord Monteagle to this effect, that he wished his lordship’s absence from the Parliament because a blow would there be given, which letter he presently carried to my Lord of Salisbury. On the morrow I went to White Webbs and told it to Mr. Catesby, assuring him withal that the matter was disclosed and wishing him in any wise to forsake his country. He told me he would see further as yet and resolved to send Mr. Fawkes to try the uttermost, protesting if the part belonged to myself he would try the same adventure. On Wednesday Mr. Fawkes went and returned at night, of which we were very glad. Thursday[109 - Oct. 31.] I came to London, and Friday[110 - Nov. 1.] Mr. Catesby, Mr. Tresham and I met at Barnet, where we questioned how this letter should be sent to my Lord Monteagle, but could not conceive, for Mr. Tresham forsware it, whom we only suspected. On Saturday night[111 - Nov. 2.] I met Mr. Tresham again in Lincoln’s Inn Walks, where he told such speeches that my Lord of Salisbury should use to the King, as I gave it lost the second time, and repeated the same to Mr. Catesby, who hereupon was resolved to be gone, but stayed to have Mr. Percy come up whose consent herein we wanted. On Sunday night[112 - Nov. 3.] came Mr. Percy, and no ‘Nay,’ but would abide the uttermost trial.

“This suspicion of all hands put us into such confusion as Mr. Catesby resolved to go down into the country the Monday[113 - Nov. 4.] that Mr. Percy went to Sion and Mr. Percy resolved to follow the same night or early the next morning. About five o’clock being Tuesday[114 - 5 A.M. on Nov. 5.] came the younger Wright to my chamber and told me that a nobleman called the Lord Monteagle, saying “Rise and come along to Essex House, for I am going to call up my Lord of Northumberland,” saying withal ‘the matter is discovered.’ “Go back Mr. Wright,” quoth I, “and learn what you can at Essex Gate.” Shortly he returned and said, “Surely all is lost, for Leyton is got on horseback at Essex door, and as he parted, he asked if their Lordship’s would have any more with him, and being answered “No,” is rode as fast up Fleet Street as he can ride.” “Go you then,” quoth I, “to Mr. Percy, for sure it is for him they seek, and bid him begone: I will stay and see the uttermost.” Then I went to the Court gates, and found them straitly guarded so as nobody could enter. From thence I went down towards the Parliament House, and in the middle of King’s Street found the guard standing that would not let me pass, and as I returned, I heard one say, “There is a treason discovered in which the King and the Lords shall have been blown up,” so then I was fully satisfied that all was known, and went to the stable where my gelding stood, and rode into the country. Mr. Catesby had appointed our meeting at Dunchurch, but I could not overtake them until I came to my brother’s which was Wednesday night.[115 - Nov. 6.] On Thursday[116 - Nov. 7.] we took the armour at my Lord Windsor’s, and went that night to one Stephen Littleton’s house, where the next day, being Friday,[117 - Nov. 8.] as I was early abroad to discover, my man came to me and said that a heavy mischance had severed all the company, for that Mr. Catesby, Mr. Rokewood and Mr. Grant were burnt with gunpowder, upon which sight the rest dispersed. Mr. Littleton wished me to fly and so would he. I told him I would first see the body of my friend and bury him, whatsoever befel me. When I came I found Mr. Catesby reasonable well, Mr. Percy, both the Wrights, Mr. Rokewood and Mr. Grant. I asked them what they resolved to do. They answered “We mean here to die.” I said again I would take such part as they did. About eleven of the clock came the company to beset the house, and as I walked into the court was shot into the shoulder, which lost me the use of my arm. The next shot was the elder Wright struck dead; after him the younger Mr. Wright, and fourthly Ambrose Rokewood. Then, said Mr. Catesby to me (standing before the door they were to enter), “Stand by, Mr. Tom, and we will die together.” “Sir,” quoth I, “I have lost the use of my right arm and I fear that will cause me to be taken.” So as we stood close together Mr. Catesby, Mr. Percy and myself, they two were shot (as far as I could guess, with one bullet), and then the company entered upon me, hurt me in the belly with a pike and gave me other wounds, until one came behind and caught hold of both my arms, and so I remain, Your &c.”

“[Taken before us

“Nottingham, Suffolk, Northampton, Salisbury, Mar, Dunbar, Popham.

    Edw. Coke,
    W. Waad.]”[118 - The attestation in brackets is in Salisbury’s hand.]

I have printed this interesting statement in full, because it is the only way in which I can convey to my readers the sense of spontaneity which pervades it from beginning to end. To me, at least, it seems incredible that it was either written to order, or copied from a paper drawn up by some agent of the Government. Nor is it to be forgotten that if there was one thing the Government was anxious to secure, it was evidence against the priests, and that no such evidence can be extracted from this confession. What is, perhaps, still more to the point is, that no candid person can, I imagine, rise from the perusal of these sentences without having his estimate of the character of the conspirators raised. There is no conscious assumption of high qualities, but each touch as it comes strengthens the belief that the men concerned in the plot were patient and loyal, brave beyond the limits of ordinary bravery, and utterly without selfish aims. Could this result have been attained by a confession written to order or dictated by Salisbury or his agents, to whom the plotters were murderous villains of the basest kind?

There is nothing to show that Winter’s evidence was procured by torture. Father Gerard, indeed, quotes a letter from Waad, written on the 21st, in which he says that ‘Thomas Winter 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.’ Considering that he had a ball through his shoulder a fortnight before, the suggestion of torture is hardly needed to find a cause for his having for some time been unable to use his hand.

Before turning to another branch of the investigation, it will be advisable to clear up one difficulty which is not quite so easy to solve.

“Fawkes,” writes Father Gerard,[119 - Gerard, p. 182.] “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 circumstance. About November 28, Sir Edward Coke, the Attorney-General, drew up certain further notes of questions to be put to various prisoners. Amongst these we read: ‘Winter[120 - I.e., Thomas 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.”

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.[121 - Mrs. Everett Green’s abstract of this, to the effect that Fawkes said that the conspiracy ‘was confined to five persons at first, then to two, and afterwards five more were added,’ has no foundation in the document she had before her.] On the 8th,[122 - G. P. B. No. 49.] when the mine was first mentioned, he divided the seven actual diggers into two classes: 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 class. 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 substituted 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 substituted for it.[123 - G. P. B. No. 37.] The only question is, when was the double substitution 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.[124 - G. P. B. No. 133.] 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’ substituted for it, and from this list is taken the one forwarded to Edmondes on the 14th.[125 - The name ‘Key’ or ‘Keyes’ occurs in both of them without his Christian name.] Even if we could discover any conceivable motive for the Government wishing to accuse Keyes rather than Winter, it would not help us to explain why the name of Winter was substituted for that of Grant at one time, and the name of Keyes substituted 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 principal.’[126 - Proclamation Book, R.O.] It is not for ten days that any sign is given of a belief that Keyes was the right man. Then, on the 28th, Coke 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 assisted in carrying it to Ferrers’ house, and that he also helped to work at the mine.

I am inclined therefore to assign 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’[127 - G. P. B. No. 129.] 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.[128 - ‘The Discourse of the Powder Treason,’ published in Bishop Montague’s Works of James I., p. 233, only forms part of the original so-called ‘King’s Book,’ which was published anonymously in 1605 (i. e., before March 25, 1606) under the title of His Majesty’s Speech in this last Session of Parliament … together with a Discourse of the Manner of the Discovery of this late Intended Treason, joined with the Examination of Some of the Prisoners. – Brit. Mus., Press Mark E. 1940, No. 10. In the Preface directed by the Printer to the Reader, the Printer states that he was about to commit the Speech to the press when there came into his hands ‘a discourse of this late intended most abominable treason,’ which he has added. The King’s speech was delivered on November 9, and, if it was to be published, it is not likely to have been long kept back. The discourse consists of four parts – 1. An account of the discovery of the plot, and arrest of Fawkes. 2. Fawkes’s declaration of the 17th. 3. Winter’s confession of the 23rd. 4. An account of the flight and capture of the conspirators. The whole composition shows signs of an early date. Part 1 knows nothing of any names except those of Percy and Johnson alias Fawkes, and was probably, therefore, drawn up before the confession of the 9th. At the end it slips off from a statement that Fawkes, having been ‘twice or thrice examined when the rack having been only offered and showed unto him, the mask of his Roman fortitude did visibly begin to wear and slide off his face, and then did he begin to confess part of the truth,’ into ‘and thereafter to open up the whole matter as doth appear by his depositions immediately following.’ Then comes the declaration of November 17, with Winter amongst the diggers and Keyes amongst those afterwards made privy. Between Parts 2 and 3 we have the following statement: “And in regard that before this discovery could be ready to go to the press, Thomas Winter, being apprehended and brought to the Tower, made a confession in substance agreeing with this former of Fawkes’s, only larger in some circumstances. I have thought good to insert the same likewise in this place, for the further clearing of the matter and greater benefit of the reader.” May we not gather from this that the ‘discourse’ was finally made up for the press on or very soon after the 23rd? Winter, it may be noted, does not mention the name either of his brother or of Keyes.] 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 substitution of a true one.

CHAPTER IV.

STRUCTURAL DIFFICULTIES

From a study of the documentary evidence, I pass to an examination of those structural conditions which Father Gerard pronounces 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 assisted 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.”[129 - Gerard, App. E., p. 251.]

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,[130 - This note is on too small a scale to be reproduced in the frontispiece.] stating that it led to Parliament Place.[131 - This name is given at a later time to the ‘Passage leading to the Parliament Stairs’ of Capon’s plan, and I have, for convenience sake, referred to it throughout by that name.]

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[132 - See p. 22.] 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, abutting 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?

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 assembled, 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.”[133 - Gerard, p. 62.]

This objection is put still more strongly in a subsequent passage: —

“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 unobserved 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, unobserved, to get into the fatal ‘cellar’?”[134 - Gerard, pp. 141, 142.]

It is easy enough to brush away Father Gerard’s alleged confirmation by Bishop Barlow,[135 - I suppose Thomas Barlow is meant. William Barlow, who was Bishop of Lincoln in the reign of James I., did not write about the plot.] 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 assembled Lords, and out of Parliament was at the disposal of the keeper of the place and wardrobe thereunto belonging.”[136 - Speed’s History, ed. 1611, p. 891.]

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.[137 - March 24th, 1604.]

“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 assignment 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.