Parrot of Doom (talk | contribs) change cellar to undercroft and remove old text about fawkes planting the gunpowder |
Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) →The undercroft: very few will understand the "also on 25 March" |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
[[File:Gunpowder plot parliament cellar.jpg|left|thumb|300px|The undercroft beneath the House of Lords, as illustrated in 1799]] |
[[File:Gunpowder plot parliament cellar.jpg|left|thumb|300px|The undercroft beneath the House of Lords, as illustrated in 1799]] |
||
The plotters purchased the lease to an undercroft which belonged to John Whynniard. The [[Palace of Westminster]] in the early 17th century was a warren of buildings clustered around the medieval chambers, chapels, and halls of the former royal palace that housed both Parliament and the various law courts. The old palace was easily accessible; merchants, lawyers, and others, lived and worked in the lodgings, shops, and taverns within its precincts. The undercroft was along a right-angle to the House of Lords, alongside a passageway called Parliament Place, which itself led to Parliament Stairs and the River Thames. Undercrofts were common enough features at this time, used to house a variety of materials including food and firewood. Whynniard's undercroft, on the ground floor, was directly beneath the first-floor House of Lords, and may once have been part of the palace's medieval kitchen. Unused and filthy, it was considered an ideal repository for the gunpowder the plotters would store there.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=144–145}}</ref> |
|||
According to Fawkes, 20 barrels of gunpowder were brought in at first, followed by sixteen more on 20 July. The supply of gunpowder was theoretically controlled by the government, but it was easyily obtained from illicit sources.<ref name="Fraserpp146147">{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=146–147}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|Gunpowder could be purchased on the black market from soldiers, militia, merchant vessels, and powdermills.<ref name="Fraserpp146147"/>|group="nb"}} |
According to Fawkes, 20 barrels of gunpowder were brought in at first, followed by sixteen more on 20 July. The supply of gunpowder was theoretically controlled by the government, but it was easyily obtained from illicit sources.<ref name="Fraserpp146147">{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=146–147}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|Gunpowder could be purchased on the black market from soldiers, militia, merchant vessels, and powdermills.<ref name="Fraserpp146147"/>|group="nb"}} |
Revision as of 21:15, 14 November 2009
The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, was a failed assassination attempt by a group of provincial English Catholics against King James I of England and VI of Scotland. The plot intended to kill the King and most of the Protestant aristocracy by blowing up the Houses of Parliament during the State Opening on 5 November 1605. The conspirators also planned to abduct the royal children, and lead a popular revolt in the Midlands.
The plot was hatched in May 1604 by Robert Catesby, who may have embarked on the scheme after hopes of securing greater tolerance of Catholicism under James I had faded, leaving many Catholics disappointed. However, it is likely that Catesby simply sought a future for Catholicism in England; the plot was intended as the first step in a rebellion, during which James' nine-year-old daughter (Princess Elizabeth the first) would be installed as a Catholic head of state.
Other plotters included Thomas Wintour, Robert Wintour, John Wright, Christopher Wright, Robert Keyes, Thomas Percy (also spelled Percye), John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby, Francis Tresham and Thomas Bates (Catesby's servant). The explosives were prepared by Guy "Guido" Fawkes, a man with 10 years' military experience of fighting with the Spanish against the Dutch in the Spanish Netherlands.
The details of the plot were reputedly well-known to the principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet, as he had learned of the plot from Oswald Tesimond, a fellow Jesuit who, with the permission of his penitent Robert Catesby, had discussed the plot with him. Although he was convicted, there has since been some debate over how much Garnet really knew. As the details of the plot were known through confession, Garnet was prevented from revealing them to the authorities.
Background
James VI
Queen Elizabeth I of England had long forbidden any discussion of who should assume the English throne when she died,[1] but in the months before her death on 24 March 1603, Robert Cecil had secretly prepared the way for her successor.[nb 1] He had entered into a coded negotiation with James VI of Scotland, who had a strong but unrecognised claim.[nb 2] Cecil coached the impatient James to humour Elizabeth, and his tone delighted her; in historian J. E. Neale's view she may not have declared her wishes openly, but she made them known with "unmistakable if veiled phrases".[3][4]
English Catholics
The day before Elizabeth's death, the Privy Council was so concerned about the succession that they moved Arbella Stuart, Elizabeth's cousin and a woman thought to have Catholic sympathies, closer to London to prevent her kidnap by papists.[4] Other "principal papists" had also been detained as the Queen's condition grew worse.[5] Their fears were unfounded however; the succession was the cause of much celebration. Robert Cecil's proclamation on 24 March, read aloud in various locations—including outside the Tower of London (where several Catholic priests were detained)—by nightfall resulted in bonfires burning through London. Leading papists, rather than causing trouble as anticipated, reacted to the news by offering enthusiastic support for the new monarch. Jesuit priests, whose presence in England was punishable by death, also demonstrated their support for James, who was widely believed to embody "the natural order of things".[6]
While still in Scotland, James had spoken approvingly of the Catholics who had been forced to hide their faith under the Act of Uniformity,[7] but he was no supporter of the Catholic Church. During his secret communications with Robert Cecil, James had written to warn the Secretary of State of the "daily increase that I hear of popery in England". James believed that exile was a better solution than capital punishment: "I would be glad to have both their heads and their bodies separated from this whole island and transported beyond seas."[8]
At Newcastle however, while en route to London, James pardoned all prisoners to be freed—except "Papists and wilful murderers". Despite his interest in theology, James also had a Catholic priest imprisoned. The priest, disguised, had petitioned James to remove all penal laws against his co-religionists, but had included a biblical reference in his petition. The Catholic community, whose priests had for years been forced into hiding, regarded such things as after-effects of the previous regime, and had cause to celebrate when the new King used his mother's fate to identify himself with her supporters. He created a Knight of Sir Thomas Gerard, brother of Father John Gerard (who had been severely tortured in 1594), and released Father William Weston from his prison in the Tower of London (on condition he left the country).[9]
Despite the ebullience of the crowd that greeted Weston on his release however, within only a few years many English Catholics would die at the hands of the state, following what would become known to history as the Gunpowder Plot.[10]
Early plots
Despite the claims of several others to the English throne, the transition of power went smoothly.[nb 3] James, whose mother Mary Queen of Scots was seen by Catholics as a martyr, was an astute politician; the English Catholics believed they had a ruler who would convert to Catholicism. The new King also received an envoy from the Catholic Albert VII of the Southern Netherlands.[11] This country, which had for the last 30 years been a battleground between English-supported Protestant rebels and Catholics, had also served as a refuge for those Catholics who had arrived there from England. For these expatriates, a restoration by force, supported by the King of Spain, was a intriguing possibility. There was however to be no attack; following the failed invasion of England by Spain, the Papacy had taken a more long-term view on the subject.[12] With Elizabeth dead, James issued a ceasefire, and even though the two countries were still technically at war Philip III sent his envoy Don Juan de Tassis to congratulate James on his accession.[11]
For decades the English had lived under a monarch who steadfastly refused to provide, or name, an heir. James however arrived with an entire family, guaranteeing an endless line of succession. His wife, Anne of Denmark, was the daughter of a King. Their eldest child, the nine-year-old Henry, was considered a handsome and confident boy. Two more young children, Princess Elizabeth and Prince Charles, were adequate proof that James was able to provide enough heirs for the continuance of the Protestant monarchy.[13]
If this thought was welcomed by James' loyal subjects, for those Catholics who had looked to a ruler who worshipped at their own Church, the idea made them nothing if not despondent. Any thought that the entire royal family might be supplanted appeared an unlikely idea; the new King's children would soon be given estates of their own, making rebellion seem unlikely.[14] However, with the absence of any sign that James would move to end the persecution of Catholics, as some had hoped he would, several members of the clergy (including two priests) turned to conspiracy. They planned to kidnap James, and hold him in the Tower of London until he repealed some of the anti-Catholic legislation that existed. In the same period, Lord Cobham, Lord Grey de Wilton, and Walter Raleigh, hatched what would become known as the Main Plot. The plot involved removing James and his family, supplanting them with Lady Arbella Stuart. Lady Stuart however proved to be an unwilling participant. The Bye Plot was revealed by the Jesuit priests John Gerald and Henry Garnet. All those involved in both plots were arrested in July and tried in the Autumn; Cobham and Raleigh were reprieved, as were some others. The two priests were executed.[15]
The Catholic community responded to news of these plots with shock; the Archpriest George Blackwell instructed his priests to have no part in any such schemes. That the Bye Plot had been revealed by Catholics was instrumental in saving the Catholics from further persecution, and James was grateful enough to allow pardons for those recusants who sued for them, as well as postponing payment of their fines for a year.[15]
Early reign
In January 1604 King James attended an ecclesiastical conference at Hampton Court, where he presided over a number of discussions on the Presisianist elements of the Protestant Church. The King was hostile to the Puritans, who, he believed, had manipulated his mother. The first Parliament of his reign was called on 31 January 1604, followed six weeks later by the opening ceremony. On 19 February however he denounced the Catholic Church.[why?] Three days later he ordered all Jesuits and priests to leave the country, and he reimposed fines for recusancy. James changed his focus from assuaging the worries of the English Catholics, to establishing an Anglo-Scottish union.[16] The King had also made a point of appointing Scottish nobles, such as George Home, to his court, something which proved unpopular with Parliament, as well as people like Guy Fawkes, and former English spy Hugh Owen. Some Members of Parliament made it clear that in their view, the "effluxion of people from the Northern parts" were unwelcome, and compared them to "plants which are transported from barren ground into a more fertile one". The King's plan to unite the two countries failed, but more discontent was created when the King allowed the fines for recusancy to be collected by his Scottish nobles.[17]
On 19 March 1604 the King gave a speech in which he spoke of his desire to secure peace, but only by "profession of the true religion". He also spoke of a Christian union and reiterated his desire to avoid religious persecution. For the Papists however, the King's speech made it clear that they were not to "increase their number and strength in this Kingdom", that "they might be in hope to erect their Religion again". To Father John Gerard, these words were almost certainly responsible for the heightened levels of persecution the Catholics now suffered, and for the priest Oswald Tesimond they were a rebuttal of the early claims that the King had made, upon which the Papists had built their hopes.[18]
A week after James' speech, Lord Sheffield informed him of over 900 recusants brought before the Assizes in Normanby, and on 24 April a Bill was introduced which threatened to outlaw all English Catholics. According to Lord Chief Justice John Popham, it was also at about this time that the Gunpowder Plot was first hatched.[19]
Plot
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Gunpow1.jpg/300px-Gunpow1.jpg)
Robert Catesby (1573–1605), a man of "ancient, historic and distinguished lineage", was the inspiration behind the plot. Catesby was most likely born at Lapworth in Warwickshire. His father, William Catesby, had been imprisoned for his faith.[20] Robert was converted to Catholicism by Jesuits in about 1580, and was described by contemporaries as "a good-looking man, about six feet tall, athletic and a good swordsman". Catesby, along with several other of the conspirators, had taken part in the Earl of Essex's rebellion in 1601, during which he was wounded and captured. He escaped with his life by paying a fine of £3,000 (about £840,000 as of 2024), to afford which he had been forced to sell his estate in Chastleton.[21][22] In 1603 Catesby helped to organise a mission to the King of Spain, urging the monarch to launch an invasion attempt on England, which they assured the King would be well supported, particularly by the English Catholics. Thomas Wintour (1571–1606) was chosen as the emissary for the mission to Spain, but the Spanish king, although sympathetic to the plight of Catholics in England, was intent on making peace with James I.[23] Wintour had also attempted to convince the Spanish envoy Don Juan de Tassis that "3,000 Catholics" were ready and waiting to support of Philip III.[24] Concern was also voiced by the pope that using violence to achieve a restoration of Catholic power in England would result in the destruction of those that remained.[25]
According to contemporary accounts,[nb 4] in February 1604 Catesby invited Thomas Wintour to his house in Lambeth, where they discussed Catesby's plan to re-establish Catholicism in England by blowing up the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament.[21] Wintour had been trained as a lawyer, but fought with the English army against the Spanish in the Netherlands, reaching the rank of captain. He also fought against the Turks in France, and spoke Spanish, French, and Latin. His uncle, Francis Ingleby, had been executed for being a Catholic priest in 1586, and Wintour later converted to Catholicism.[26] Also present at the meeting was John Wright, a devout Catholic said to be one of the best swordsman of his day, and who had taken part with Catesby in the Earl of Essex's rebellion three years earlier. Wright's mother was Ursula Wright (daughter of Martha Wright, who had been married to Henry Percy), who had been imprisoned for her beliefs.[27] Despite his reservations over the possible repercussions should the attempt fail, Wintour agreed to join in the conspiracy, perhaps persuaded by Catesby's rhetoric: "Let us give the attempt and where it faileth, pass no further."[21]
Wintour was sent to meet the Constable of Castile to enquire about Spanish support. While in the Netherlands he met William Stanley and Hugh Owen, who introduced him to Guy Fawkes (1570–1606). Born in York, Fawkes was a devout Catholic who had attended St Peter's School with John Wright, and his brother, Christopher. From 1590 he served in the Southern Netherlands under the command of Stanley, and in 1603 was recommended for a captaincy.[28] Accompanied by Christopher Wright, Fawkes had also been a member of the 1603 delegation to the Spanish court pleading for an invasion of England. Although Catesby already knew of Fawkes, Wintour did not, but the two men returned to England late in April 1604 and told Catesby that Spanish support was unlikely. Thomas Percy, John Wright's brother-in-law, was introduced to the plot several weeks later.[29][30]
Initial planning
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Eliz_bohemia_2.jpg/170px-Eliz_bohemia_2.jpg)
The conspirators' principle aim was to kill King James, but many other important targets would also be present at the State Opening, including the monarch's nearest relatives and members of the Privy Council. The senior judges of the English legal system, most of the Protestant nobility, and the bishops of the Church of England, would all have attended in their capacity as members of the House of Lords, along with the members of the House of Commons of England.[31] Another important objective was the kidnapping of the King's daughter, and third in the line of succession, Princess Elizabeth. Housed at Coombe Abbey near Coventry, the Princess lived only ten miles north of Warwick—convenient for the plotters, who lived mostly in the Midlands. Once the King and his Parliament were dead, the plotters would install Elizabeth on the English throne as a titular Queen. The fate of Princes Henry and Charles would be improvised; their role in state ceremonies was, as yet, uncertain. The plotters planned to use the Earl of Northumberland as Elizabeth's Protector, but most likely never informed him of this.[32]
The first meeting between the five conspirators took place on 20 May 1604, probably at the Duck and Drake just off the Strand, Thomas Wintour's usual residence when staying in London. Catesby, Thomas Wintour, and John Wright were in attendance, joined by Guy Fawkes and Thomas Percy.[33] Alone in a private room, the five plotters swore an oath of secrecy on a prayer book. By coincidence, and ignorant of the plot, Father John Gerard (a friend of Catesby's) was celebrating Mass in another room, and the five men subsequently took the Sacrament of Holy Communion.[34]
Percy had found employment with the Earl of Northumberland, and by 1596 was the his agent for the family's northern estates. About 1600–1601 he served with his patron in the Low Countries. At some point during the Earl's command in the Low Countries, Percy became the Earl's agent in his communications with James.[35] Percy was reputedly a "serious" character who had converted to the Catholic faith. His early years were, according to a Catholic source, marked by a tendency to rely on "his sword and personal courage".[36][37] The Earl—although not a Catholic himself—planned to build a strong relationship with James in order to better the prospects of English Catholics, and to reduce the family disgrace caused when he separated from his wife Martha Wright, a favourite of Elizabeth. Thomas Percy's meetings with James seemed to go well. Percy returned with promises of support for the Catholics, and the Earl believed that James would go as far as allowing Mass in private houses, so as not to cause public offence. Percy however, keen to improve his standing, went further—claiming that the future King would guarantee the safety of English Catholics.[38]
Further recruitment
Following their oath, the plotters left London and returned to their homes. The adjournment of Parliament gave them, they thought, until February 1605 to finalise their plans. On 9 June Percy was appointed a Gentleman Pensioner—one of 50 bodyguards—by his patron, the Earl of Northumberland. This role gave Percy reason to seek a base in London, and a small property in Westminster was chosen. Parliament continued to push through anti-Catholic legislation until it was adjourned on 7 July, and King James continued his policies against the Catholics.[39] Guy Fawkes, using the alias of "John Johnson", was put in charge of the building, posing as Percy's servant.[40]
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/John_rocque_house_of_lords_gunpowder_plot_cropped.jpg/250px-John_rocque_house_of_lords_gunpowder_plot_cropped.jpg)
The conspirators returned to London in October 1604, and Robert Keyes was admitted to the group. His responsibility was to take charge of Catesby's house in Lambeth, where the gunpowder and other supplies were to be stored. Keyes was not a particularly wealthy man. Tall with a red beard, he was seen as trustworthy and, like Fawkes, capable of looking after himself. His family had notable Catholic connections, and Keyes was particularly worried about the safety of Lord Mordaunt, his wife's employer, while at Parliament. In December[nb 5] Catesby brought his servant, Thomas Bates, into the plot. Bates was born at Lapworth, and was a loyal family retainer who was known to be devoted to his employer.[41]
The undercroft
On 24 December it was announced that the re-opening of Parliament would be delayed. Concern over the plague meant that rather than sitting in February 1605, as the plotters had originally planned for, Parliament's would not sit again until 3 October.[42] The contemporaneous account of the prosecution would later claim that during this delay, the conspirators had been engaged in digging a tunnel beneath Parliament. This story was likely a government fabrication; no trace of the tunnel was found by the prosecution, and, no trace has ever been found. Logistically such a feat would have proven extremely difficult, especially as none of the conspirators had any experience in mining, and Guy Fawkes did not admit the existence of such a scheme until his fifth interrogation.[42]
The plotters reconvened at the start of the new year on Lady Day, with another three admitted to their ranks; Robert Wintour, John Grant, and Christopher Wright. The additions of Wintour and Wright were obvious choices. Christopher Wright (1568–1605), John's brother, had also been taken part in the Earl of Essex's uprising. A devout Catholic, he had moved his family to Twigmore Hall in Lincolnshire, then known as something of a haven for priests.[43] John Grant was married to Wintour's sister, Dorothy, and was Lord of the Manor of Norbrook near Stratford-upon-Avon. Reputed to be an intelligent, thoughtful man, he also sheltered Catholics at his home at Snitterfield.[44]
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Gunpowder_plot_parliament_cellar.jpg/300px-Gunpowder_plot_parliament_cellar.jpg)
The plotters purchased the lease to an undercroft which belonged to John Whynniard. The Palace of Westminster in the early 17th century was a warren of buildings clustered around the medieval chambers, chapels, and halls of the former royal palace that housed both Parliament and the various law courts. The old palace was easily accessible; merchants, lawyers, and others, lived and worked in the lodgings, shops, and taverns within its precincts. The undercroft was along a right-angle to the House of Lords, alongside a passageway called Parliament Place, which itself led to Parliament Stairs and the River Thames. Undercrofts were common enough features at this time, used to house a variety of materials including food and firewood. Whynniard's undercroft, on the ground floor, was directly beneath the first-floor House of Lords, and may once have been part of the palace's medieval kitchen. Unused and filthy, it was considered an ideal repository for the gunpowder the plotters would store there.[45]
According to Fawkes, 20 barrels of gunpowder were brought in at first, followed by sixteen more on 20 July. The supply of gunpowder was theoretically controlled by the government, but it was easyily obtained from illicit sources.[46][nb 6]
Francis Tresham
Francis Tresham was the son of the Catholic Thomas Tresham, who in 1602 had made a protestation of his loyalty to King James. Francis was also a cousin to Robert Catesby, and the two had been raised together.[20] Francis was the heir to his father's large fortune, which had been depleted by the fines given to those who refused to attend church as required by the Act of Uniformity, as well as his expensive tastes. At an early age Francis had attacked a man and his pregnant daughter (both owed money to his father), for which he was imprisoned. Along with his cousin, Robert Catesby, he was involved in Earl of Essex's uprising, for which his father had to purchase both their freedoms.[47]
Execution of the plot
The plotters then took the opportunity to row the gunpowder up the Thames from Catesby's house in Lambeth, to conceal it in their new rented house: they had learned (by chance) that a coal merchant named Ellen Bright had vacated a ground-floor undercroft directly beneath the House of Lords chamber. Presented with this golden opportunity, Percy immediately took pains to secure the lease. To deflect any suspicions, he invented the story that his wife was set to join him in London and thus he would require the extra storage space.
Had all 36 barrels been successfully ignited, the explosion could easily have reduced many of the buildings in the Old Palace of Westminster complex to rubble, and would have blown out windows in the surrounding area of about a 1 kilometre radius.
The conspirators left London in May, and went to their homes or to different areas of the country, because being seen together would arouse suspicion. They arranged to meet again in September, but the opening of Parliament was once again postponed.
The weakest parts of the plot were the arrangements for the subsequent rebellion which would have swept the country and installed a Catholic monarch. Due to the requirements for money and arms, Sir Francis Tresham was eventually admitted to the plot, and it may have been him who who betrayed the plot in writing to his brother-in-law Lord Monteagle. An anonymous letter revealed some of the details of the plot; it read: "I advise you to devise some excuse not to attend this parliament, for they shall receive a terrible blow, and yet shall not see who hurts them".
According to the confession made by Fawkes on Tuesday 5 November 1605,[48] he had left Dover around Easter 1605, bound for Calais. He then travelled to Saint-Omer and on to Brussels, where he met with Hugh Owen and Sir William Stanley before making a pilgrimage to Brabant. He returned to England at the end of August or early September, again by way of Calais.
Guy Fawkes was left in charge of executing the plot, while the other conspirators fled to Dunchurch in Warwickshire to await news. Once Parliament had been destroyed, the other conspirators planned to incite a revolt in the Midlands.
Discovery
During the preparation, several of the conspirators had been concerned about the safety of fellow Catholics who would be present in Parliament on the day of the planned explosion.[49] On the evening of Friday, 26 October Lord Monteagle received an anonymous letter while at his house in Hoxton:
My Lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation. Therefore I would advise you, as you tender your life, to devise some excuse, to shift your attendance at this parliament; for God and man have concurred to punish the wickedness of this time And think not slightly of this advertisement but retire yourself into your country where you may expect the event in safety, for though there be no appearance of any stir, yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament and yet they shall not see who hurts them. This counsel is not to be contemned, because it may do you good, and can do you no harm, for the danger is past as soon as you have burned the letter: and I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you.[50]
Monteagle had the note read out loud, possibly to warn the plotters that the secret was out, and promptly handed it over to Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury, the Secretary of State.[51] The conspirators learned of the letter the following day, but resolved to go ahead with their plan, especially after Fawkes inspected the undercroft and found that nothing had been touched.
Having been shown the letter, the King ordered Sir Thomas Knyvet to conduct a search of the undercroft underneath Parliament, which he did in the early hours of 5 November. Shortly after midnight, Fawkes was found leaving the undercroft the conspirators had rented and was arrested, giving his name as John Johnson. Inside, the barrels of gunpowder were discovered hidden under piles of firewood and coal.[52] Far from denying his intentions during the arrest, Fawkes stated that it had been his purpose to destroy the King and the Parliament.[53] Nevertheless, Fawkes maintained his false identity and continued to insist that he was acting alone. Later in the morning, before noon, he was again interrogated. He was questioned on the nature of his accomplices, the involvement of Thomas Percy, what letters he had received from overseas and whether or not he had spoken with Hugh Owen.
A letter written by Gentleman of the Bedchamber, Sir Edward Hoby gave details of all those that would have been caught in the explosion:
On the 5th of November we began a Parliament, to which the King should have cometh in person, but refrained through a practice but that morning discovered. The plot was to have blown up the King at such time as he should have been sat in his royal throne, Nobility and Commons and with all Bishops, Judges and Doctors at one instant, and the blast to have ruined the whole estate and kingdom of England.[54]
Fawkes was taken to the Tower of London and interrogated there under torture. Torture was forbidden, except by the express instruction of the monarch or a body such as the Privy Council or the Star Chamber.[55] In a letter of 6 November, King James I stated:
The gentler tortours [tortures] are to be first used unto him, et sic per gradus ad maiora tenditur [and thus by steps extended to greater ones], and so God speed your good work.
The discovery of the Gunpowder Plot aroused a wave of national relief at the delivery of the king and his sons, and inspired in the ensuing parliament a mood of loyalty and goodwill, which Salisbury astutely exploited to extract higher subsidies for the king than any (bar one) granted in Elizabeth's reign.[56] In his speech to both Houses on 9 November, James expounded on two emerging preoccupations of his monarchy: the Divine Right of Kings and the Catholic question. He insisted that the plot had been the work of only a few Catholics, not of the English Catholics as a whole,[57] and he reminded the assembly to rejoice at his survival, since kings were divinely appointed and he owed his escape to a miracle.[58]
Trial and executions
On hearing of the failure of the plot, the conspirators fled towards Huddington Court. Heavy rain, however, slowed their travels. Many of them were caught by Richard Walsh, the Sheriff of Worcestershire, when they arrived in Stourbridge.[citation needed] Robert inherited Huddington Court near Worcester, along with a small fortune. Huddington Court became a refuge for priests, and secret Masses were often celebrated there.[26]
The remaining men attempted a revolt in the Midlands. This failed, coming to a dramatic end at Holbeche House in Staffordshire, where there was a shoot-out resulting in the deaths of Catesby and Percy and capture of several other principal conspirators. Jesuits and others were then rounded up in other locations in Britain, with some being killed by torture during interrogation. Robert Wintour managed to remain on the run for two months before he was captured at Hagley Park.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/The_execution_of_Guy_Fawkes%27_%28Guy_Fawkes%29_by_Claes_%28Nicolaes%29_Jansz_Visscher.jpg/250px-The_execution_of_Guy_Fawkes%27_%28Guy_Fawkes%29_by_Claes_%28Nicolaes%29_Jansz_Visscher.jpg)
The conspirators were tried on 27 January 1606 in Westminster Hall. All of the plotters pleaded "Not Guilty" except for Sir Everard Digby, who attempted to defend himself on the grounds that the King had reneged on his promises of greater tolerance of Catholicism. Sir Edward Coke, the attorney general, prosecuted, and the Earl of Northampton made a speech refuting the charges laid by Sir Everard Digby. The trial lasted one day (English criminal trials generally did not exceed a single day's duration) and the verdict was never in doubt.
The trial ranked highly as a public spectacle, and there are records of up to 10 shillings being paid for entry. Four of the plotters were executed in St. Paul's Churchyard on 30 January. On 31 January, Fawkes, Wintour and a number of others implicated in the conspiracy were taken to Old Palace Yard in Westminster, in front of the scene of the intended crime, where they were to be hanged, drawn and quartered.
Fawkes, although weakened by torture, cheated the executioners: when he was to be hanged until almost dead, he jumped from the gallows, breaking his neck and killing himself, thus avoiding the gruesome latter part of his execution.[59]
Henry Garnet was executed on 3 May 1606 at St Paul's. His crime was of being the confessor of several members of the Gunpowder Plot, and as noted, he had opposed the plot. Many spectators thought that his punishment was too severe. Antonia Fraser writes:
With a loud cry of "hold, hold" they stopped the hangman cutting down the body while Garnet was still alive. Others pulled the priest's legs ... which was traditionally done to ensure a speedy death.[60]
Following the plot's discovery, many Catholics found themselves persecuted or imprisoned in the Tower of London, including:
- Anthony-Maria Browne, 2nd Viscount Montagu, due to Guy Fawkes being one of his servants and Robert Catesby having warned him not to attend Parliament.
- Lady Agnes Wenman of Thame Park as a Catholic and relative of the Dowager Lady Elizabeth Vaux.
- Dowager Lady Elizabeth Vaux for being a supporter of Fr. Henry Garnet.
- Edward Vaux, 4th Baron Vaux of Harrowden for being a Catholic, son of the above.
- Edward Stourton, 10th Baron Stourton for being a cousin of Sir Francis Tresham who was a Gunpowder Plotter, and for getting a letter telling him to be absent from Parliament.
- Henry Mordaunt, 4th Baron Mordaunt for getting a letter telling him to be absent from Parliament.
- Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland for being the cousin of Sir Thomas Percy (plotter)
- Sir Alan Percy brother of the above and Lieutenant of the Gentleman Pensioners under Northumberland's captaincy, who were also the King's Bodyguard.
- Dudley Carleton, 1st Viscount Dorchester for being the secretary of the Earl of Northumberland.
Historical impact
Greater freedom for Catholics to worship as they chose seemed unlikely in 1604, but after the plot in 1605, changing the law to afford Catholics leniency became unthinkable; Catholic Emancipation took another 200 years. Nevertheless, many important and loyal Catholics retained high office in the kingdom during King James' reign.
Interest in the demonic was heightened by the Gunpowder Plot. The king himself had become engaged in the great debate about other-worldly powers in writing his Daemonology in 1597, before he became King of England as well as Scotland. The apparent devilish nature of the gunpowder plot also partly inspired William Shakespeare's Macbeth. Demonic inversions (such as the line fair is foul and foul is fair) are frequently seen in the play. Another possible reference made in Macbeth was to equivocation, as Henry Garnett’s A Treatise of Equivocation was found on one of the plotters, and a resultant fear was that Jesuits could evade the truth through equivocation:[61]
Faith, here's an equivocator, that could
Swear in both the scales against either scale;
Who committed treason enough for God's sake,
Yet could not equivocate to heaven
– Macbeth, Act 2 Scene 3
The Gunpowder Plot was commemorated for years after the plot by special sermons and other public acts, such as the ringing of church bells. It added to an increasingly full calendar of Protestant celebrations which contributed to the national and religious life of seventeenth-century England.[62] Through various permutations, this has evolved into the Bonfire Night of today.
Professor Ronald Hutton[63] has considered the possible events which could have followed the successful implementation of the Gunpowder Plot, with the resultant destruction of Parliament and death of the king. He concluded that the violence of the act would have instead resulted in a more severe backlash against suspected Catholics. Without the involvement of some form of foreign aid, success would have been unlikely, as most Englishmen were loyal to the institution of the monarchy, despite differing religious convictions. England could very well have become a more "Puritan absolute monarchy", as "existed in Sweden, Denmark, Saxony, and Prussia in the seventeenth century",[63] rather than follow the path of parliamentary and civil reform that it did.
Commemoration
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Bonfire4.jpg/220px-Bonfire4.jpg)
When Parliament met in January 1606 for the first time after the plot they passed an Act of Parliament called the "Thanksgiving Act" which made services and sermons commemorating the Plot a regular annual feature on 5 November.[64] The act remained in force until 1859.[65] On 5 November 1605, it is said that the populace of London celebrated the defeat of the plot with fires and street festivities. The tradition of marking the day with the ringing of church bells and bonfires started soon after the Plot and fireworks were also included in some of the earliest celebrations.[64] In Britain the fifth of November is variously called Bonfire Night, Fireworks Night or Guy Fawkes Night.[65]
It remains the custom in Britain, on or around 5 November, to let off fireworks. Traditionally, in the weeks running up to the 5th, children made "guys"—effigies supposedly of Fawkes—usually formed from old clothes stuffed with newspaper, and equipped with a grotesque mask, to be burnt on the 5 November bonfire. These effigies would be exhibited in the street, to collect money for fireworks, although this practice is becoming less common.[66] The word guy came thus in the 19th century to mean an oddly dressed person, and hence in the 20th and 21st centuries to mean any male person.[65]
Institutions and towns may hold firework displays and bonfire parties, and the same is done on a smaller scale in back gardens throughout the country.[65] In some areas, particularly in Sussex, there are extensive processions, large bonfires and firework displays organised by local bonfire societies; the most extensive of which takes place in Lewes.[67]
The Houses of Parliament are still searched by the Yeomen of the Guard before the State Opening of Parliament, however, this is retained as a picturesque custom rather than a serious anti-terrorist precaution.[65]
A commemorative British two pound coin was issued in 2005 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the plot.[68]
The undercroft in which Fawkes watched over his gunpowder was demolished in 1822. The area was further damaged in the 1834 fire and destroyed in the subsequent rebuilding of the Palace of Westminster. The lantern which Guy Fawkes carried in 1605 is in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. A key supposedly taken from him is in Speaker's House, Palace of Westminster. These two artifacts were exhibited in a major exhibition held in Westminster Hall from July to November 2005.
According to Esther Forbes (a biographer), the Guy Fawkes Day celebration in the pre-revolutionary American Colonies was a very popular holiday. In Boston, the revelry took on anti-authoritarian overtones, and often became so dangerous that many would not venture out of their homes.[69]
In November 1930, taking advantage of the bonfires used on the holiday, Alfred Arthur Rouse murdered an unknown man and planted his body as a substitute for Rouse's in his Morris Minor (1928) automobile (which was then set alight). The scheme did not work out, and Rouse was arrested, tried and executed for the crime.
Accusations of state conspiracy
Many at the time felt that Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury had been involved in the plot to gain favour with the king and enact more stridently anti-Catholic legislation. Such theories alleged that Cecil had either actually invented the plot or allowed it to continue when his agents had already infiltrated it, for the purposes of propaganda. These rumours were the start of a long-lasting conspiracy theory about the plot. Yet while there was no "golden time" of "toleration" of Catholics which Father Garnet had hoped for at the start of James' reign, the legislative backlash had nothing to do with the plot: it had already happened by 1605, as recusancy fines were re-imposed and some priests expelled. There was no purge of Catholics from power and influence in the kingdom after the Gunpowder Plot, despite Puritan complaints. The reign of James I was, in fact, a time of relative leniency for Catholics, few being subject to prosecution.[70]
This did not dissuade some from continuing to claim Cecil's involvement in the plot. In 1897 Father John Gerard of Stonyhurst College, namesake of a Jesuit priest who had performed Mass to some of the plotters, wrote an account called What was the Gunpowder Plot?, alleging Cecil's culpability.[71] This prompted a refutation later that year by Samuel Gardiner, who argued that Gerard had gone too far in trying to "wipe away the reproach" which the plot had exacted on generations of English Catholics.[72] Gardiner portrayed Cecil as guilty of nothing more than opportunism. Subsequent attempts to prove Cecil's responsibility, such as Francis Edwards's 1969 work Guy Fawkes: the real story of the gunpowder plot?, have similarly foundered on the lack of positive proof of any government involvement in setting up the plot.[73] There has been little support by historians for the conspiracy theory since this time[citation needed], other than to acknowledge that Cecil may have known about the plot some days before it was uncovered.
Support for this theory has subsequently been provided by catholic MP Gregory Pope.[citation needed]
Modern plot analysis
According to the historian Lady Antonia Fraser, the gunpowder was taken to the Tower of London magazine. It would have been reissued or sold for recycling if in good condition. Ordnance records for the Tower state that 18 hundredweight (equivalent to about 816 kg) of it was "decayed", which could imply that it was rendered harmless due to having separated into its component chemical parts, as happens with gunpowder when left to sit for too long – if Fawkes had ignited the gunpowder during the opening, it would only have resulted in a weak splutter. Alternatively, "decayed" may refer to the powder being damp and sticking together, making it unfit for use in firearms – in which case the explosive capabilities of the barrels would not have been significantly affected.
The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend, an ITV programme presented by Richard Hammond and broadcast on 1 November 2005, re-enacted the plot by blowing up a full size-replica of the 17th-century House of Lords filled with test dummies, using the exact amount of gunpowder in the underground of the building. The dramatic experiment, conducted on the Advantica Spadeadam test site, proved unambiguously that the explosion would have killed all those attending the State Opening of Parliament in the Lords chamber.[74]
The power of the explosion, which surprised even gunpowder experts, was such that seven-foot deep solid concrete walls (made deliberately to replicate how archives suggest the walls in the old House of Lords were constructed) were reduced to rubble. Measuring devices placed in the chamber to calculate the force of the blast were themselves destroyed by the blast, while the skull of the dummy representing King James, which had been placed on a throne inside the chamber surrounded by courtiers, peers and bishops, was found a considerable distance from the site. According to the findings of the programme, no-one within 100 metres of the blast could have survived, while all the stained glass windows in Westminster Abbey would have been shattered, as would all windows within a large distance of the Palace. The power of the explosion would have been seen from miles away, and heard from further still. Even if only half of the gunpowder had gone off, everyone in the House of Lords and its environs would have been killed instantly.[74]
The programme also disproved claims that some deterioration in the quality of the gunpowder would have prevented the explosion. A portion of deliberately deteriorated gunpowder, of such low quality as to make it unusable in firearms, when placed in a heap and ignited, still managed to create a large explosion. The impact of even deteriorated gunpowder would have been magnified by the impact of its compression in wooden barrels, compensating for the quality of the contents. The compression would have created a cannon effect, with the powder first blowing up from the top of the barrel before, a millisecond later, blowing out. In addition, mathematical calculations showed that Fawkes, who was skilled in the use of gunpowder, had used double the amount of gunpowder needed.[75]
A sample of the gunpowder may have survived: in March 2002 workers cataloguing archives of diarist John Evelyn at the British Library found a box containing a number of gunpowder samples, including a compressed bar with a note in Evelyn's handwriting stating that it had belonged to Guy Fawkes. A further note, from the 19th century, confirmed this, but in 1952 the document acquired a new comment: "but there was none left".[76]
See also
References
- Notes
- ^ Cecil wrote to James, "The subject itself is so perilous to touch amongst us as it setteth a mark upon his head forever that hatcheth such a bird".[2]
- ^ James VI of Scotland was a great-great-grandson of Henry VII of England, and thus Elizabeth's first cousin twice removed since Henry VII was Elizabeth's paternal grandfather.
- ^ The heir presumptive under the terms of Henry VIII's Will, i.e., either Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp, or Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven, depending on whether one recognised the legitimacy of the first-mentioned's birth; and the Lady Arbella Stuart on grounds similar to James's own.
- ^ Some of the information in these accounts would have been given under pain of torture, and would also have been subject to government interference, and should therefore be viewed with caution.
- ^ According to his confession.
- ^ Gunpowder could be purchased on the black market from soldiers, militia, merchant vessels, and powdermills.[46]
- Footnotes
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. xxii
- ^ Willson 1963, p. 154
- ^ Neale 1954, p. 385
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, p. xxv
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. xxv–xxvi
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. xxvii–xxix
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 27
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 46
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. xxxv–xxxviii
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. xxxviii
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, p. 91
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 7
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 70–74
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 74
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, pp. 76–78
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 100–103
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 103–106
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 106–107
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 108
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, p. 110
- ^ a b c Northcote-Parkinson 1976, pp. 44–46
- ^ UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved May 7, 2024.
- ^ Northcote-Parkinson 1976, pp. 45–46
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 93
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 90
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, pp. 59–61
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 58
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 84–89
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 117–120
- ^ Northcote-Parkinson 1976, pp. 46–47
- ^ Northcote-Parkinson 1976, p. 46
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 140–142
- ^ Northcote-Parkinson 1976, p. 48
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 120
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 47–48
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 49
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 50
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 50–52
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 122–124
- ^ Northcote-Parkinson 1976, p. 52
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 130–132
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, pp. 133–134
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 56–57
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 136–137
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 144–145
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, pp. 146–147
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 79–80, p. 110
- ^ "1605 in England". Time & Date.
- ^ Northcote Parkinson 1976, pp. 62–63
- ^ Modern English version from Gardiner, Samuel (1863). History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War: 1603–1642. Vol. 1 (1894 ed.). London: Longmans, Green. pp. 248–249. OCLC 297245363.
- ^ Willson, p 224.
- ^ Northcote Parkinson 1976, p. 73
- ^ As King James put it, Fawkes intended the destruction "not only ... of my person, nor of my wife and posterity also, but of the whole body of the State in general". Stewart, p 219.
- ^ Alexander, p118.
- ^ Scott, George Ryley (1940), "XI", History of Torture Throughout the Ages, p. 87, ISBN 0766140636, retrieved 10 October 2009
- ^ Croft, p 64.
- ^ James said it did not follow "that all professing that Romish religion were guilty of the same". Quoted by Stewart, p 225.
- ^ Willson, p 226.
- ^ Northcote Parkinson 1976, pp. 91–92
- ^ Antonia Fraser, Faith and Treason: The Story of the Gunpowder Plot, Anchor, 1997. ISBN 0-385-47190-4
- ^ Frank L. Huntley, "Macbeth and the Background of Jesuitical Equivocation", PMLA, Vol. 79, No. 4. (Sep, 1964), pp. 390–400.
- ^ David Cressy, Bonfires and bells: national memory and the Protestant calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England (1989).
- ^ a b Ronald Hutton (2001-04-01). "What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?". BBC. Retrieved 2008-11-07.
- ^ a b Anon (2005/6). "Aftermath: Commemoration". The Gunpowder Plot:: Parliament and Treason 1605. Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords. Retrieved 6th October 2009.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
and|date=
(help) - ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference
factsheet
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Anon. "Bonfire Night: A penny for the Guy". Icons: A portrait of England. Culture24. Retrieved 6th October 2009.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help) - ^ Anon. "Bonfire Societies". Fireworks: News, views, sales and information about fireworks in the UK. Retrieved 6th october 2009.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help) - ^ United Kingdom £2 Coin, Royal Mint
- ^ Forbes, Esther (1999) [1942]. Paul Revere and the World He Lived In. Houghton Mifflin Books. p. 94. ISBN 9780618001941.
- ^ Peter Marshall, Reformation England 1480–1642, London, 2003, pp. 187–8.
- ^ Gerard, John (1897). What was the Gunpowder Plot? : the traditional story tested by original evidence. London: Osgood, McIlvaine & Co.
- ^ Gardiner, Samuel (1897). What Gunpowder Plot was. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
- ^ Edwards, Francis (1969). Guy Fawkes: the real story of the gunpowder plot?. London: Hart-Davis. ISBN 0246639679.
- ^ a b Gunpowder plotters get their wish, 400 years on Adam Sherwin The Times accessed 18 January 2008
- ^ Guy Fawkes had twice the gunpowder needed Fiona Govan The Telegraph accessed 18 January 2008
- ^ "Guy Fawkes' gunpowder 'found'". BBC News. BBC. 21 March 2002. Retrieved 3 November 2009.
- Bibliography
- Croft, Pauline (2003), King James, Macmillan, ISBN 0-333-61395-3
- Forbes, Esther (1942), Paul Revere and the Times He Lived In, Houghton Mifflin, pp. 89–94
- Fraser, Antonia (1999), The Gunpowder Plot, Phoenix, ISBN 0753814013
- Neale, J. E. (1954) [1934], Queen Elizabeth I: A Biography, London: Jonathan Cape
- Northcote-Parkinson, C. (1976), Gunpowder Treason and Plot, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-77224-4
- Stewart, Alan (2003), The Cradle King: A Life of James VI & 1, Chatto and Windus, ISBN 0-7011-6984-2
- Haynes, Alan (1994), The Gunpowder Plot: Faith in Rebellion, Hayes and Sutton
- Wharam, Alan (1995), Treason: Famous English Treason Trials, Alan Sutton Publishing
- Willson, David Harris (1963) [1956], King James VI & I, Jonathan Cape, ISBN 0224605720
- Alexander, Mark (2002), A companion to the Folklore Myths and Customs of Britain, Stroud: Sutton Publishing, ISBN 0-750-92359-8