What was the Gunpowder Plot? The Traditional Story Tested by Original Evidence

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.359 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.360 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.361 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,362 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.363 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."364 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,365 and of which Cecil himself made mention at Garnet's trial.366 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,367 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.368 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.369 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,370 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.371

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,"372 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,"373 in which the undoubted guilt of both Owen and Baldwin was roundly affirmed.374

On December 2nd, 1605, Salisbury wrote to Edmondes:375 "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:376

"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:377 "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.378

The archdukes remaining unconvinced, another and very notable argument was brought into play. On February 12th, 1605-6, Salisbury wrote to Edmondes:379

"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,380 "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 Valladolid381 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 Edmondes382 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.383 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 Edmondes384 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,385 clearly show that the government possessed no proofs at all beyond surmise and inference.386 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,387 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.388 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.389

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.390 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.391 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.392 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.393 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.394 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."395 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.396

"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,397 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,398 we find him testifying that the Earls of Westmoreland and Derby,399 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."400

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.401 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.402

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:403 "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."