What was the Gunpowder Plot? Part 17

The archdukes remaining unconvinced, another and very notable argument was brought into play. On February 12th, 1605-6, Salisbury wrote to Edmondes:[380]

"As for the particular depositions against Owen and Baldwin, which the archdukes desire to have a sight of, you may let them know that it is a matter which can make but little to the purpose, considering that his Majesty already upon his royal word hath certified the archdukes of their guilt."

As to Owen's own papers which had been seized, the archduke a.s.sured the English amba.s.sador,[381] "that if there had been anything to have been discovered out of the said papers touching the late treason (as he was well a.s.sured 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 Valladolid[382] 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 Edmondes[383] 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 amba.s.sador.[384] The latter declared that his master was ready to prosecute the accused in his own courts if evidence was furnished him, but in reply King James explained that this was impossible, and that he "was loth to send any papers or accusations over, not knowing how they might be framed or construed there by the formalities of their laws." He added that it was useless now to talk of evidence, "seeing the wretch is already condemned by the public sentence of the whole Parliament, which sentence the archdukes might see if they would." The amba.s.sador 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 circ.u.mstances 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 Edmondes[385] 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 doc.u.ments 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 pa.s.sed affords no information whatever to a.s.sist our judgment of his case. In moving for this attainder, Sir E. c.o.ke appeared at the bar of the House of Commons (April 29th, 1606) to exhibit the evidence on which the charge rested.

His notes of this evidence, which are extant,[386] clearly show that the government possessed no proofs at all beyond surmise and inference.[387]

Three testimonies were cited which were quite inconsistent and mutually destructive: (1) An extract from a confession of Guy Faukes, January 20th, 1605-6, declaring that he had himself initiated Owen in the Plot in May, 1605. (2) An information of one Ralph Ratcliffe, to the effect that Owen and Baldwin were busy with the Plot in April, 1604. (3) T.

Winter's testimony--from his famous confession of November 23rd, or 25th, 1605--that in the spring of 1604 Owen had a.s.sisted him to secure the services of Faukes.

In Salisbury's letter to Edmondes, the first and the last of these alone were cited,[388] probably because it had by this time been perceived that Ratcliffe's evidence flatly contradicted that of Faukes.

Winter's confession has already been discussed, and moreover affords no proof that Owen was acquainted with the purpose for which the services of Faukes were required. There remains the very circ.u.mstantial story of Faukes himself, which belongs to a curious and interesting cla.s.s of doc.u.ments, containing matter of the highest importance, whereof no trace, not even a copy, is to be found amongst the State Papers. These comprise various confessions of Faukes, dated November 19th, 25th, and 30th, 1605, and January 20th, 1605-6, all dealing with information of a sensational nature, concerning which we learn nothing from the eleven depositions of the same conspirator preserved in the Record Office.[389]

For our knowledge of these mysterious doc.u.ments 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 c.o.ke, 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 doc.u.ments.[390]

It must farther be observed that we hear nothing of important matters contained in these confessions till the supposed author and his confederates were all dead, whereas these are such as would certainly have been produced on their trial had this been possible.[391] Some of the evidence thus afforded is, in fact, too good, for the Government's purpose, to be true, for if authentic, it would have secured results which, though much desired, were never obtained. In particular it would have established beyond question the guilt of the Jesuits abroad, and especially of Father Baldwin.[392] It is this Father, however, whose case conclusively proves the utter worthlessness of the evidence. Having been proclaimed and branded by the English government as a convicted traitor, he, five years later, fell into their hands, being delivered up, in 1610, by their ally the Elector Palatine. He was at once thrown into the Tower, where he was frequently and rigorously examined, it is said even on the rack.[393] After a confinement of eight years he was discharged "with honour," his innocence being attested by the respect with which he was treated by men of all parties.[394] In view of this unquestionable acquittal the famous proofs of his criminality, though certified on the royal word of King James himself, forfeit all claim to consideration.

A word may be added concerning Father Cresswell, an English Jesuit residing in Spain. He, too, was a.s.sumed to have been deeply implicated in this and other treasons. In November, 1605, Cecil included his name in a list of traitors against whom proofs were to be procured.[395] It was even a.s.serted that at the time of the intended explosion he came over to England "to bear his part with the rest of his Society in a victorial song of thanksgiving."[396] He was, moreover, loudly denounced as the princ.i.p.al agent in the notorious Spanish Treason.

After all this it is somewhat surprising to find Sir Charles Cornwallis, the English Amba.s.sador, while the excitement of the Powder Plot was at its height, testifying in the most cordial terms to his esteem for the said Cresswell. The latter having been called to Rome by his superiors, Cornwallis (December 23rd, N.S. 1605,) addressed to him the following letter.[397]

"Sir, although in matter of religion well you know that there are many discords between us, yet sure in your duty and loyalty to my King and Country I find in you so good a concordance I cannot but much reverence and love you, and wish you all the happiness that a man of your sort upon the earth can desire.

"Much am I (I a.s.sure 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 a.s.sured loving friend,

"CH. CO."

About the same time, in an undated letter to Lord Salisbury,[398]

Cornwallis again expresses his regret on account of the removal of Cresswell from Spain.

vi. _Other Doc.u.ments._

It is impossible to a.n.a.lyze 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. c.o.ke 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 t.i.tular Earl of Westmoreland, the t.i.tular Lord Dacre, the Earl of Northumberland, Sir Walter Raleigh, and others were mixed up in the business.

Nor were such endeavours altogether fruitless, for, supposing the testimony extorted from the prisoners to be worthy of credit, information was obtained altogether changing the character and complexion of the design. This was, however, presently buried in oblivion and treated as of no moment whatever.

Thus in Sir Everard Digby's declaration of Nov. 23rd,[399] we find him testifying that the Earls of Westmoreland and Derby,[400] were to have been sent to raise forces in the north. Faukes, in the famous confession which we have so fully discussed, was made to say "They meant also to have sent for the prisoners in the Tower to have come to them, of whom particularly they had some consultation," and although this important clause was omitted from the finished version finally adopted, it appears in that of Nov. 14th, sent by Cecil to the amba.s.sador at Brussels.

Again, in his examination of November 9th, famous for the ghastly evidence of torture afforded by his signature, we find Faukes declaring, "He confesseth also that there was speech amongst them to draw Sir Walter Rawley to take part with them, being one that might stand them in good stead, _as others in like sort were named_."[401]

With regard to Raleigh it must be remembered that he was in a very special manner obnoxious to Salisbury, who, however, was at great pains to disguise his hostility. On occasion of Sir Walter's trial, in 1603, he vehemently protested that it was a great grief to him to have to p.r.o.nounce against one whom he had hitherto loved.[402] But two years earlier, in his secret correspondence with James, he had not only described Raleigh to the future king as one of the diabolical triplicity hatching c.o.c.katrice eggs, but had solemnly protested that if he feigned friendship for such a wretch, it was only with the purpose of drawing him on to discover his real nature.[403]

2. Even more worthy of notice is the shameless manner in which evidence was falsified. That produced in court consisted entirely of the written depositions of the prisoners themselves, and of those who had been similarly examined. It was, however, carefully manipulated before it was read; all that told in favour of those whose conviction was desired being omitted, and only so much retained as would tell against them. On this subject Mr. Jardine well remarks:[404] "This mode of dealing with the admissions of an accused person is pure and unmixed injustice; it is in truth a forgery of evidence; for when a qualified statement is made, the suppression of the qualification is no less a forgery than if the whole statement had been fabricated."

It will be sufficient to cite one notorious and compendious example.

In regard of the oath of secrecy taken by the conspirators, Faukes (Nov.

9th, 1605) and Thomas Winter (Jan. 9th, 1605-6) related how they administered it to one another, "in a chamber," to quote Winter, "where no other body was," and afterwards proceeded to another chamber where they heard Ma.s.s and received Communion at the hands of Father Gerard.[405] Both witnesses, however, emphatically declared that the Father knew nothing of the oath that had been taken, or of the purpose of the a.s.sociates.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FROM FAUKES' CONFESSION OF NOVEMBER 9, 1605.]

Such testimony in favour of one whom they were anxious above all things to incriminate, the government would not allow to appear. Accordingly, Sir E. c.o.ke, preparing the doc.u.ments to be used in court as evidence, marked off the exculpatory pa.s.sages, with directions that they were not to be read.[406] Having thus suppressed the pa.s.sage which declared that the Jesuit was unaware of the conspirators' purpose, and of their oath, c.o.ke went on to inform the jury, in his speech, "This oath was by Gerard the Jesuit given to Catesby, Percy, Christopher Wright, and Thomas Winter, and by Greenwell [Greenway] the Jesuit to Bates at another time, and so to the rest."[407]

3. Neither must it be forgotten that even apart from these manifest instances of tampering, the confessions themselves, obtained in such circ.u.mstances, are open to much suspicion. In an intercepted letter to Father Baldwin, of whom we have heard, Father Schondonck, another Jesuit, then rector of St. Omers, speaks thus:[408] "I much rejoice that, as I hear, there is no confession produced, by which, either in court or at the place of execution, any of our society is accused of so abominable a crime. This I consider a point of prime importance. _Of secret confessions, or those extorted by violence or torture, less account must be made; for we have many examples whereby the dishonesty of our enemies in such matters has been fully displayed._"

Father John Gerard in his Autobiography[409] relates an experience of his own which ill.u.s.trates the methods employed to procure evidence such as was required. When, in Queen Elizabeth's time, he had himself been taken and thrown into prison, the notorious Topcliffe, the priest-hunter, endeavoured to force him into an acknowledgment of various matters of a treasonable character. Father Gerard undertook to write what he had to say on the subject, and proceeded to set down an explicit denial of what his questioner suggested. What followed he thus relates.[410]

"While I was writing this, the old man waxed wroth. He shook with pa.s.sion, and would fain have s.n.a.t.c.hed the paper from me."

"'If you don't want me to write the truth,' said I, 'I'll not write at all.'"

"'Nay,' quoth he, 'write so and so, and I'll copy out what you have written.'"

"'I shall write what I please,' I answered, 'and not what _you_ please.

Show what I have written to the Council, for I shall add nothing but my name.'"

"_Then I signed so near the writing, that nothing could be put in between._ The hot-tempered man, seeing himself disappointed, broke out into threats and blasphemies: 'I'll get you into my power, and hang you in the air, and show you no mercy: and then I shall see what G.o.d will rescue you out of my hands.'"

It was not by Catholics alone that allegations of this sort were advanced. Sir Anthony Weldon tells us[411] that on the trial of Raleigh and Cobham, the latter protested that he had never made the declaration attributed to him incriminating Raleigh. "That villain Wade,"[412] said he, "did often solicit me, and, not prevailing, got me, by a trick, to write my name on a piece of white paper, which I, thinking nothing, did; so that if any charge came under my hand, it was forged by that villain Wade, by writing something above my hand, without my consent or knowledge."

Moreover, there exists undoubted evidence that the king's chief minister availed himself upon occasion of the services of such as could counterfeit handwriting and forge evidence against suspected persons.

One Arthur Gregory[413] appears to have been thus employed, and he subsequently wrote to Salisbury reminding him of what he had done.[414]

After acknowledging that he owes his life to the secretary who knows how to appreciate "an honest desire in respect of his Majesty's public service," Gregory thus continues:

"Your Lordship hath had a present trial of that which none but myself hath done before, _to write in another man's hand_, and, discovering the secret writing being in blank, to abuse a most cunning villain in his own subtlety, leaving the same at last in blank again, wherein although there be difficulty their answers show they have no suspicion."

This the calendarer of State Papers believes to refer to the case of Father Garnet, and it is certain from Gregory's own letter that at one time he held a post in the Tower. Is it not possible that an explanation may here be found of the strange circ.u.mstance, that perhaps the most important of Father Garnet's examinations[415] bears an endors.e.m.e.nt, "This was forbydden by the King to be given in evidence"?

Gregory's letter, of which we have been speaking, has appended to it an instructive postscript: