A narrative of the gunpowder plot

Front matter

A NARRATIVE

OF THE

GUNPOWDER PLOT.

Preface

of the Criminal Trials have been frequent during twenty-one years, and the consequence is that the stereotype plates, having become completely worn out, have been destroyed, and the work is out of print. Under these circumstances it is now proposed to arrange the materials in the form of a continuous narrative of the facts of the Gunpowder Plot, with such enlargements and corrections as subsequent inquiry and research have suggested.

Upon the subject of the Gunpowder Plot original autnorities and contemporary narrations of facts exist in great abundance, although dispersed in various depo¬ sitories, both public and private. The source from which by far the greater part of the following pages has been drawn is the collection of original documents upon this subject at the State-Paper Office, arranged and indexed some years ago by Mr. Lemon. The extent of this collection is a memorial of the diligence with which, at the time, the facts of the conspiracy were investigated. For nearly six months the examina¬ tion of the numerous prisoners and witnesses occupied the attention of the Commissioners appointed to that service by the King, during which time their labours were aided by Chief Justice Popham, Sir Edward Coke, Sir Francis Bacon, and several others of the most acute and experienced lawyers of the day. More than five hundred depositions and examinations

PREFACE.

Vll were taken, a large proportion of which, together with numerous contemporary letters and papers relating to the transaction, are still to be found at the State-Paper Office.

Although it is quite clear from the existence of this mass of documents that the Privy Council of James I. were fully acquainted with all the details of the con¬ spiracy, it was not to be expected that a fair or full statement should be officially published. The object of the government was to turn the transaction to the best political account, and nothing could be further from their intention than to publish truth merely for the information of the people. The practice of those days was to hold the people in leading-strings on political subjects, and so much light only was given respecting occurrences of state as the Privy Council thought con¬ venient and useful for the attainment of their obiects.

Where the whole truth would not produce the intended effect, a part only was published; and where the part would not exactly suit the purpose, no scruple was made of garbling and altering it. And this practice was well illustrated in the official account of the Gun¬ powder Plot published immediately after its occurrence. Before the trials of the conspirators, an anonymous narrative, entitled “ A Discourse of the manner of the Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot,” was printed by the King’s printer, and published by authority of the vm

PREFACE.

Government. This publication, which was industri¬ ously ascribed to the pen of the King, and was called the “ King’s Book,” was not only dispersed profusely in England, but was sent, together with the King’s speech on opening the Parliament, to the ambassadors at foreign courts, translated into several languages, and circulated with the utmost diligence in every part of Europe. A careful comparison of this relation with Bacon’s ac¬ knowledged narratives of the Treasons of Lopez - and of the Earl of Essex, in Queen Elizabeth's time, produces a strong impression that all of them were composed by the same hand. The resemblance is not confined to the similarity of the style and language; the whole scheme of the “ Discourse” is the same as that of the “ Declaration of the Earl of Essex’s Treasons,” viz., to surround fictions by undoubted truths with such apparent simplicity and carelessness, but in fact with such consummate art and depth of design, that the reader is beguiled into an unsuspecting belief of the whole narration. The fidelity of the story is in both cases vouched by the introduction of depositions and documents which give an air of candour and authority, but which might be garbled at the discretion of the writer, without fear of detection, as the originals were in the power of those who employed him. At all events, whether this conjecture be well or ill founded, and whether the ‘ ‘ Discourse of the manner of the

PREFACE.

is

Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot” was written by Bacon or by some other courtier, or by the King him¬ self, there is no doubt that it is a narrative of no historical authority; it is merely the Court version of the transaction, given to the world for the express purpose of leading the public mind in a particular direction. Of several hundreds of examinations which had been taken, two only were published in this narra¬ tive, namely, a Declaration of Guy Fawkes, and a Confession of Thomas Winter. That both of these were carefully settled and prepared for the purpose of publication is not only highly probable from a compari¬ son of them with the other statements of the same individuals, which are still extant; but is demonstrated as a fact by the interlineations and alterations observ¬ able upon the originals.

Besides those documents which have remained in the State-Paper Office, as their proper place of custody, ever since the time of the first Earl of Salisbury, many papers appear to have been added at a later period. When Sir Edward Coke was discharged by James I. from his judicial station in 1618 , his papers were seized by order of the Privy Council, and deposited in the State-Paper Office; and it appears from an inventory of the articles so deposited, in the hand-writing of Sir Thomas Wilson, who shortly afterwards became Keeper of the State papers, that, among many other documents

X

PREFACE.

of a public and private nature, there was “a black buckram bag containing papers about the Powder Plot. As many of the most valuable documents in the collec¬ tion, consist of Sir Edward Coke’s original Notes, or copies of depositions bearing either his indorsement or some quaint remark or quotation in his hand-writing, it is probable they formed a part of the contents of that “ buckram bag.”

Although partial extracts from the documents in the State-Paper Office relating to the Gunpowder Plot have been published in the course of the numerous contro¬ versies which have taken place respecting this transac¬ tion, they have never been carefully digested and laid before the public in the form of a connected narrative. It appears from some papers among the Tanner Manu¬ scripts in the Bodleian Library that a work of this kind was at one time contemplated by Archbishop Sancroft. The circumstance is not mentioned by any of his biographers, and it is unknown at what period of his life he commenced the undertaking; though it may be conjectured that his attention was directed to the subject by the discussions between the Roman Catholics and Protestants at the time of the Popish Plot. At all events, he did not proceed further than a partial collec¬ tion of materials, and it is quite uncertain whether he intended to write a controversial or a purely historical work. Several documents, the originals of which are

PREFACE.

xi probably not in existence, have been referred to in this volume tlirough the medium of the copies in Sancroft’s hand-writing.

Although the documents upon the subject of the Gunpowder Plot preserved at the State-Paper Office are numerous, the collection is not by any means com¬ plete. Many important papers, which were particu¬ larly mentioned and described by Bishop Andrews, Dr. Abbott, Casaubon and other contemporary writers, and some of which were copied by Archbishop Sancroft from the originals so lately as the close of the 17 th century, are not now to be found. It is remarkable, that precisely those papers which constitute the most important evidence against Garnet and the other Jesuits are missing; so that if the merits of the con¬ troversy respecting their criminal implication in the Plot depended upon-the fair effect of the original docu¬ ments now to be found in the State-Paper Office, impartial readers might probably hesitate to form a decided opinion upon the subject. The missing papers of particular importance are the minutes of an overheard conversation between Garnet and Hall in the Tower, dated the 25th February, 1605—6, an intercepted letter from Garnet addressed to 4 4 the Fathers and Brethren of the Society of Jesus,” dated on Palm Sunday, a few days after his trial, and an intercepted letter to Greenway, dated April 4, 1605—6. That all

Xll

PREFACE.

of these papers were in the State-Paper Office when Dr. Abbott wrote his Antilogia in 1613, is evident from the copious extracts from them published in that work; and a literal copy of the first of them, made by Archbishop Sancroft many years afterwards from the State Papers, is still in existence. The originals of these documents, however, do not appear to be now contained in the proper depository for them; and it is undoubtedly a singular accident that, amongst so large a mass of documents, precisely those should be abstracted upon whose authenticity and effect the point in the controversy between the Koman Catholics and the Pro¬ testants in great measure depended.

Many of the facts in the following narrative are taken from a manuscript relation of Father Green way, brought by Dr. Lingard from Pome, and much relied upon by him in the interesting account of this conspiracy given in his History of England. Greenway’s Narrative consists of a copious relation of all the details of the Plot, from its commencement until the execution of Garnet. It is in the Italian language, but is evi¬ dently a translation from the original English. Though little is known of the history of this manuscript, there is strong internal evidence that it was written by Greenway, probably at the suggestion of the Pope or of the Father-General of the Jesuits, in order to vindicate

l

his own conduct and that of Garnet from the charge of

PREFACE.

xm having encouraged the Plot. His description of the persons, characters, and family connexions of the prin¬ cipal conspirators, with most of whom he was familiarly acquainted; his account of their general conduct — their superstitious fears—their dreams—“ their thickcoming fancies ”—in the progress of the work of de¬ struction, are extremely interesting. His speculations, too, respecting the letter to Lord Mounteagle and the treachery of Tresham, are well worthy of attention as containing most probably the opinions of the conspirators themselves. Nor is there any reason in matters of this kind to doubt his veracity. Some allowance must be made however for the partial colours in which he depicts the characters of the conspirators. That they were not coarse and brutal ruffians, as described in the popular representations of them, is beyond all doubt; but according to Greenway’s statement, the men who con¬ trived this monstrous and cruel treason were the gentlest, the most benevolent, and the most pious of the human race; and if we are to believe him, “ the seven gentlemen of name and blood,” as Fawkes truly calls them, who worked in the mine, together with those who afterwards joined them, composed as amiable a company, with respect to virtues and accomplishments, as could have been desired. So also in the relation of facts which bear upon the main object of his work, namely, the ex¬ culpation of Father Garnet and himself from the heavy

XIV

PREFACE.

imputation cast upon them, his Narrative is entitled to no credit whatever; his statements in this part of his story, to which he sometimes adds the most solemn asseverations of their truth, being often directly contra¬ dicted by the express and repeated admissions of Garnet and the principal confederates. Whatever doubts may be entertained respecting Garnet, it is clear from the statements of several of the conspirators, and from the admissions of Garnet himself, that Greenway was a full accomplice in the Plot. He was not only privy to the design from its first formation, but was a zealous and active confederate, approving, promoting, and encouraging it with the utmost enthusiasm. The statements of such a person, writing probably at the command of his superiors, for the express purpose of justifying himself and the other English Jesuits, must of course be received with caution in all particulars re¬ lating to their connexion with the plot. Collaterally, however, Greenway’s narrative seems to show that the Gunpowder Plot was neither encouraged nor approved at Rome; for when he is called upon by his religious superiors to vindicate himself from the charge imposed upon him at the trials of the conspirators, he does not venture to admit his share in the transaction, but writes a laboured exculpation of himself, and condemns the Plot in unequivocal terms, calling it a “rash, desperate, and wicked” conspiracy, and ascribing its

PREFACE.

xv prevention to a special interposition of Providence. He succeeded in deceiving those in authority at Rome by his hypocrisy and falsehood; for he was afterwards appointed Penitentiary to the Pope, and is said to have enjoyed during the remainder of his life the full favour and confidence of Paul Y.

Much information respecting the family connexions of the conspirators, and the domestic history of the Catholics shortly before the period of the Gunpowder Plot, has been derived from a mass of papers, discovered a few years ago in a singular manner at Rushton, in Northamptonshire. In the early part of the year 1828, on the removal of a lintel over an ancient doorway in the old mansion of the Treshams at Rushton, a hand¬ somely-bound breviary fell out among the workmen. On further search, an opening was discovered in a thick stone wall, of about five feet long and fourteen or fifteen inches wide, almost filled with bundles of manu¬ scripts, and containing about twenty religious books in excellent preservation. The contents of the manu¬ scripts were various; consisting of historical notes by Sir Thomas Tresham, rolled up with building bills, deeds, and farming contracts, of no general interest or importance, and also of a portion of the domestic corre¬ spondence of the Tresham family between the years 1590 and 1605. The paper of the latest date is a memorandum, without a signature, of certain bonds,

XVI therein stated to have been delivered up to Mrs. Tresham on the 28th of November, 1605, by the vriter of the memorandum. In all probability, there¬ fore, this was the period when these books and papers were finally enclosed. Sir Thomas Tresham died in September, 1605, and his estates upon that event de¬ scended to Francis Tresham, Ins eldest son, who was a conspirator in the Gunpowder Plot. Upon his appre¬ hension, which took place on the 12 th of November, it is natural to suppose that his papers at Rushton would be destroyed or concealed by his friends. From the almost total absence of letters of a political tendency amongst the papers thus discovered, it is probable that all such were destroyed. Although there is nothing among these papers specifically relating to the Gunpowder Plot, they contain valuable information upon the condi¬ tion and domestic history of the Roman Catholics at that period, their expectations from James I., and their grievous disappointment on his accession; and at any rate they throw light upon the causes which led to the conspiracy.

NARRATIVE

OP

THE GUNPOWDER P L 0 T.

Chapter I

Interest and historical importance of the occurrence—Its political consequences—Party misrepresentation of the facts—State of the English Roman Catholics at the commencement of the reign of James I.— Penal laws against recusants—Instances of the op¬ pressive enforcement of these laws—Sir Thomas Tresham— Thomas Throckmorton—Edward Rook wood—Condition of the Roman Catholic clergy—Hopes of the Roman Catholics from James I.—Encouraged by the King both before and after his accession—His relaxation of the penal laws—Sudden change of policy in this respect—The penal laws of Elizabeth again enforced —New restrictive laws proposed — Indignation of the Roman Catholics — Their negotiations with the King of Spain.

The conspiracy termed the Gunpowder Plot must for various reasons be considered as one of the most re¬ markable occurrences in English history. The atrocity of the design, the extent of the mischief intended, and the mysterious manner in which the scheme is repre¬ sented to have been detected upon the eve of its

B

Interest and historical im¬ portance of the occur¬ rence.

2 POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLOT.

execution, would alone be sufficient to give a sur¬ passing interest to the story ; while the popular observ¬ ance of the anniversary periodically awakens the remembrance of Guy Fawkes and his associates, and perpetuates the memory of the transaction by rendering its leading features familiar even to our children.

But the subject of' the Gunpowder Plot well deserves the serious consideration of those who read history with higher objects than mere entertainment. The political consequences of this transaction were impor¬ tant and permanent. It fixed the timid and wavering mind of the King in his adherence to the Protestant party, in opposition to the Roman Catholics; and the universal horror, which was naturally excited not only in England but throughout Europe by so barbarous an attempt, was artfully converted into an engine for the suppression of the Roman Catholic Church ; so that the ministers of James I., having procured the reluctant acquiescence of the King, and the cordial assent of public opinion, were enabled to continue in full force the severe laws previously passed against Papists, and to enact others of no less rigour and injustice. Even after the lapse of more than two centuries, the excite¬ ment of the public mind on this subject, stimulated as it has been from time to time by the occurrence of other plots real and pretended, has not wholly subsided ; and in our own times, during the frequent discussions respecting the propriety of relieving Roman Catholics from civil disabilities, the Gunpowder Plot was re¬ peatedly referred to as a practical proof that the

PARTY MISREPRESENTATION.

doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion were incon¬ sistent with the safety of a Protestant Government. The soundness of this argument, when applied to the altered state of things in the nineteenth century, has been often controverted; but it loses every shadow of validity if the conspiracy was not justly chargeable upon the general body of the English Roman Catholics, and was not in fact encouraged or approved by them, either before or after its discovery. This is a question of fact eminently deserving of critical investigation ; but until lately the circumstances of the transaction have been so much perverted by the rancorous party spirit displayed by writers on both sides, that the question has hitherto never undergone a dispassionate examination. In these days of toleration, when a liberal and enlight¬ ened policy has caused the repeal of all persecuting laws against Roman Catholics, and the question of emancipation is no longer the watchword of political party, this obstacle to the discovery of truth has been removed, and writers of either form of religion can now direct their historical reasoning and researches to better objects than mere sectarian accusation and re¬ crimination.

This comparative freedom from party prejudice is, however, of very recent date. In consequence of the political jealousy between Roman Catholics and Protes¬ tants which has prevailed in this country ever since the Reformation, almost every point of English history supposed to have the remotest bearing upon the re¬ spective merits of the two systems of religion has been

B 2

STATE OF ROMAN CATHOLICS.

State of

English

tholics.

A rr

obscured and misrepresented. This has been par¬ ticularly the case with the Gunpowder Treason. The outlines of the transaction were indeed too notorious to be suppressed or disguised. That a design had been

formed to blow up the Parliament House, with the » ■

King, the Royal Family, the Lords and Commons, and that this design was formed by Roman Catholic men and for Roman Catholic purposes, could never admit of controversy or concealment; but the details of the conspiracy,—the causes which led to it,—the motives and objects of the conspirators,—the extent to which the knowledge of it prevailed amongst Papists in England and abroad, and the degree of encouragement it received from the Roman Catholic clergy, have been, ever since the date of its occurrence to the present time, subjects of doubt and dispute.

In order to form a fair judgment of the causes which produced the Gunpowder Treason, and of the motives of those who were engaged in it, it is necessary to consider generally the state of the English Roman Catholics at that precise period, and to take a summary view of the penal restrictions and liabilities to which, at the commencement of the reign of James I., the adherents to the Church of Rome were subject, the The laws passed against recusants in the latter years of the reign of Elizabeth were extremely severe ; and whatever opinion may be entertained respecting the object with which they were passed, or their necessity for the protection of the Protestant establish¬ ment from the practices of disaffected and turbulent

PENAL LAWS AGAINST THEM. 5

fanatics, at that time excited and encouraged by the mischievous interference of the Pope, it is obvious that their effect was to withdraw from a large pro¬ portion—probably a majority—of the inhabitants of England the common rights and liberties of English¬ men, and to place all persons, who adhered from conscience and principle to the ancient religion, though loyal to the existing Government, in a state of' unmerited persecution and suffering. By these laws, Roman Catholics were not only forbidden to use the rites and ceremonies of their own faith, but were required to attend upon the services of a Church which, if conscientious and consistent, they were bound to abhor as heretical and damnable. If they refused or forbore to come to a- Protestant church on the sabbath, they were liable to a penalty of 201, for every lunar month during which they absented themselves.* The public exercise of the social rites of their own Church was virtually interdicted, for it was enacted j* “that every priest saying mass was punishable by a forfeiture of two hundred marks, and every person hearing it, by a forfeiture of one hundred marks, and both were to be imprisoned a year, and the priest until his fine was paid.” The ministers of their religion, without whose presence they were precluded from the exercise of the sacraments and other rites, were in effect proscribed and banished; for by a statute passed in 1585 (27 Eliz. c. 2), it was enacted “ that all Jesuits, seminary and other priests ordained since the beginning of the '* 23 Eliz., c. 1, s. 5. f 23 Eliz., c. 1, s. 4.

6 POWER OF THE CROWN OVER ROMAN CATHOLICS.

Queen’s reign, should depart out of the realm within forty days after the end of that session of Parliament; and that all such priests or other religious persons ordained since the said time should not come into England, or remain there, under the pain of suffering death as in case of treason.” It was also enacted by the same statute, “ that all persons receiving or assist¬ ing such priests should be guilty of a capital felony.” When a person professing the Popish religion was convicted in a court of law of absenting himself from the established church, he was termed a “ Popish recusant convictsuch a person was liable by the 35 Eliz. c. 1, to be committed to prison without bail until he conformed and made submission; and if he did not within three months after conviction submit and repair to the established church, he must abjure the realm* and if he refused to swear, or did not depart upon his abjuration, or if he returned without licence, he was guilty of felony, and might suffer death as a felon, without benefit of clergy.

No doubt these rigorous laws were not at all times enforced to their utmost extent; but they placed the

* Abjuration of the realm for felony at the common law was the taking of an oath, with many religious solemnities, to depart from England for ever, and not to return without the King’s license. The party after taking the oath was bound to repair immediately, with the cross in his hand, to some seaport, and at once to embark. If he delayed, or returned without license, he was hanged sine strepitu judicii, unless he claimed the benefit of clergy. The punish¬ ment of abjuration imposed by the statute of Elizabeth upon Catholics was far more severe than abjuration for felony at common law; in the latter case the felon had the benefit of clergy, in the former it was expressly taken away.

LAWS AGAINST RECUSANTS OPPRESSIVELY APPLIED. 7

whole body of the Roman Catholics at the mercy of the Protestant Government, who were enabled to crush or spare them at their discretion or caprice. For them there was no liberty, personal or religious, but such as the Privy Council thought proper to allow; and with reference to their religion, the law gave them no rights and afforded them no protection. The fact that large amounts were paid into the Exchequer for recusants’ fines during the latter years of Elizabeth’s reign is well known ; but the oppressive use which was made of these laws in enforcing contributions to assist the revenue of the Crown on particular emergencies has not been noticed by historians. Thus, when in 1600 it was necessary to raise regiments of cavalry for the war in Ireland, letters were sent to wealthy recusants throughout England, reminding them of the advantage they derived from the Queen’s clemency in not enforcing against them the penalties for recusancy imposed by the various statutes above mentioned, and advising them to contribute for the Queen’s use by or before a certain day the sums set severally against their names. If the sums were not paid by the day specified, other letters issued, threatening, in clear terms, that compulsory means would be found in the enforcement of the statutory penalties unless the payments were made without further delay. # When

* Several letters of this kind will be foimd in the Council Registers for 1600 ; and among those to whom they are directed are Thomas Abington of Hendlip, who was arraigned and convicted as an accessary to the Gunpowder Treason, and Lady Catesby, the mother of Robert Catesby the arch-conspirator.

INSTANCES OF ENFORCING LAWS we remember that the victims of the laws above enume¬ rated considered themselves to be the majority of the gross population of the country; that the chief suffer¬ ers were the principal nobility and gentry of the land, whose ancestors had served the kings of England before the Reformation in the highest offices of state, and whose honours and possessions were the proofs of royal favour and distinction conferred on their pre¬ decessors ; when we consider, moreover, that these persons were thus impoverished and disgraced for their adherence to that ancient religion to whose rites and ceremonies they were attached by early and hereditary associations, and whose power and influence they were bound by the strongest obligations to maintain and de¬ fend against what was to them an abominable heresy, we shall be at no loss to comprehend the bitter feelings of discontent which prevailed amongst the English Roman Catholics under Elizabeth, and which produced a constant succession of plots and rebellions more or less important and alarming during the last twenty years of her reign.

Although it must be admitted that the laws in existence against recusants at this period were not constantly enforced against them, it must not, on the other hand, be supposed that they were merely sus¬ pended, in terrorem , over the heads of those against whom they were directed, for the purpose of restrain¬ ing the seditious attempts of the disaffected. There is no doubt that they were often practically applied with great severity; and there were few Roman

AGAINST RECUSANTS.

Catholic families who had not in some degree ex¬ perienced their rigour. Of this many instances might be adduced. The family history of some of the prin¬ cipal actors in the Gunpowder Plot, exhibits in a strong point of view the temper of the times, and the actual condition of the Roman Catholic gentry.

Sir Thomas Tresham, the father of Francis Tresham, sir Thomas one of the most conspicuous characters in the Gun¬ powder Treason, belonged to a family who from very early times had possessed a princely estate in North¬ amptonshire. On the restoration of the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, by Queen Mary, his grandfather had been made Lord Prior of that order. Sir Thomas Tresham himself was originally a Protestant, and was knighted by Elizabeth, at Kenil¬ worth, in 1577 : three years afterwards, when the first missionary priests came into England, he was converted by Campion and Parsons and reconciled to the Church of Rome.* From the time of his conversion until his death, in 1605, he was constantly the subject of prose¬ cution. Shortly after Campion’s apprehension, in 1580, he was arrested and sent to the Fleet on suspicion ol having harboured the missionaries: on his refusal to swear before the Council that Campion had not been at his house he was prosecuted in the Star-Chamber, together with Lord Vaux, Sir William Catesby, the father of Robert Catesby the conspirator in the Gun¬ powder Plot, and several other Roman Catholics, and sentenced by the Court to pay a very heavy fine, and

* More’s Historia Societatis Jesu, p. 74.

3 3 to INSTANCES OF ENFORCING LAWS

to be imprisoned in the Fleet until he swore as required by the Council. Under this sentence Sir Thomas Tresham languished in close imprisonment for several years. He was afterwards repeatedly imprisoned on the ground of his religion, in the Fleet and at Banbury Castle, for long periods of time, and also at Ely, which he terms, in some of his letters, his 4 ‘familiar prison.”* He was discharged from his imprisonment at Ely on the 3rd of December, 1597, having been required to find security for his appearance, if called upon, and for his good behaviour.f It appears also from the receipts at the Exchequer, that for more than twenty years he constantly paid 260 l. per annum into the Treasury, being the statutory penalty of 20 1. per lunar month for recusancy. { In a letter of his, dated the 7th of October, 1604, he says that “he had undergone full twenty-four years' term of. restless adversity and deep disgrace, only for testimony of his conscience.” The resolute devotion of the old man to his religion appears from a letter to Lord Henry Howard, in July 1603, in which he says, that “ he has now completed his triple apprenticeship of one and twenty years in direst’ adversity, and that he should be content to serve a like long apprenticeship to prevent the foregoing of his beloved, beautiful, and graceful Rachel; for it seemed to him but a few days for the love he had to her,”§