Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) →Planning: Century -> century |
Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) fixed date format in infobox, as per FAC comment |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Historical Event |
|||
{{Gunpowder plotters|align=right|caption=A contemporary sketch of the conspirators. The Dutch artist, [[Crispijn van de Passe]], probably never met any of the conspirators although it is known that he travelled to England around the time of the plot and may have met primary sources who could have informed his work. The sketch has become well known.|size=320px}} |
|||
|Event_Name = Gunpowder Plot |
|||
The '''Gunpowder Conspiracy''' of 1605 (also known as '''Powder Treason''' or '''The Gunpowder Plot'''), as it was then known,<ref>[[Antonia Fraser]], ''The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605'', London, 2002, Author's Note, pg. xv. ISBN 0-75381-401-3</ref> was a failed [[assassination]] attempt by a group of provincial English [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholics]] against King [[James I of England|James I of England and VI of Scotland]]. The plot intended to kill the king, his family and most of the [[Protestantism|Protestant]] aristocracy quite literally in a single blow, by blowing up the [[Palace of Westminster|Houses of Parliament]] during the [[State Opening of Parliament|State Opening]] on 5 November 1605. The conspirators had also planned to abduct the royal children (not present in Parliament) and lead a popular revolt in the [[English Midlands|Midlands]]. |
|||
|Image_Name = GunpowderPlot.jpg |
|||
|Imagesize = |
|||
|Image_Alt = Three illustrations in a horizontal alignment. The leftmost shows a woman praying, in a room. The rightmost shows a similar scene. The centre image shows a horizon filled with buildings, from across a river. The caption reads "Westminster". At the top of the image, "The Gunpowder Plot" begins a short description of the document's contents. |
|||
|Image_Caption = A contemporary report of the plot |
|||
|Thumb_Time = |
|||
|AKA = |
|||
|Participants = <small>[[Robert Catesby]], [[Thomas Wintour]], [[Robert Wintour]], [[John Wright (Gunpowder Plot)|John Wright]], [[Christopher Wright]], [[Robert Keyes]], [[Thomas Percye (plotter)|Thomas Percy]], [[John Grant (Gunpowder plotter)|John Grant]], [[Ambrose Rookwood]], [[Everard Digby|Sir Everard Digby]], [[Francis Tresham]], [[Thomas Bates]]</small> |
|||
|Location = London, UK |
|||
|Date = {{Start date|1605|11|05|df=y}} |
|||
|Result = Execution |
|||
|URL = |
|||
}} |
|||
The '''Gunpowder Plot ''' of 1605 was a failed [[assassination]] attempt against King [[James I of England|James I of England and VI of Scotland]] and most of the [[Church of England|Protestant]] [[Peerage of England|peers]] by blowing up the [[House of Lords]] during the [[State Opening of Parliament]] on 5 November 1605. The conspirators, a group of provincial English [[Catholic Church|Catholics]], also planned to abduct the royal children and to lead a popular revolt in the [[English Midlands|Midlands]]. |
|||
The plot was hatched in May 1604 by [[Robert Catesby]], who may have embarked on the scheme after hopes of securing greater religious tolerance under [[King James I of England|James I]] had faded, leaving many English Catholics disappointed. Other plotters included [[Thomas Wintour]], [[Robert Wintour]], [[John Wright (Gunpowder Plot)|John Wright]], [[Christopher Wright]], [[Robert Keyes]], [[Thomas Percye (plotter)|Thomas Percy]], [[John Grant (Gunpowder plotter)|John Grant]], [[Ambrose Rookwood]], [[Everard Digby|Sir Everard Digby]], [[Francis Tresham]] and [[Thomas Bates]], Catesby's servant. Destroying the House of Lords and killing those gathered there was intended as the first step in a rebellion, during which it was planned to install James's nine-year-old daughter, [[Elizabeth of Bohemia|Princess Elizabeth]], as a Catholic head of state. The explosives were prepared by [[Guy Fawkes|Guy "Guido" Fawkes]], a man with 10 years' military experience of fighting with the Spanish against the [[Dutch Revolt|Dutch]] in the [[Spanish Netherlands]]. |
|||
==Origins== |
|||
[[Image:JamesIEngland.jpg|thumb|left|Catholic conspirators plotted to kill King [[James I of England|James I of England and VI of Scotland]].]] |
|||
The plot was overseen from May 1604 by [[Robert Catesby]], with the conspirators coming from either wealthy [[Catholic]] or highly influential [[gentry]] families. Catesby may have decided on the plot when hopes of greater tolerance of Roman Catholicism under King [[James I of England|James I]] faded, leaving many Catholics disappointed. However, it is likely that Catesby simply sought a future for Catholicism in England enabled by his drastic scheme: the plot was intended to begin a rebellion, during which James' nine-year-old daughter ([[Elizabeth of Bohemia|Princess Elizabeth]]) could be installed as a Catholic [[head of state]]. |
|||
An anonymous letter, sent to [[William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle]], was instrumental in revealing the existence of the plot; its author has never been reliably established. During a search of the House of Lords early in the morning of 5 November 1605 Fawkes was discovered guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder it was intended that he should detonate later that day, during the State Opening of Parliament. As news of Fawkes's arrest reached the other conspirators, most decided to flee from London. They decided to make a stand against the pursuing authorities at [[Holbeche House]], where during a gun battle with the Sheriff of Worcester and his men, Catesby, the instigator of the plot, was one of those shot dead. At their trial on 27 January 1606, eight of the surviving conspirators were convicted and sentenced to be [[hanged, drawn and quartered|hanged, drawn, and quartered]]. |
|||
Other plotters included [[Thomas Wintour|Thomas Winter]] (also spelled Wintour), [[Robert Wintour|Robert Winter]], [[John Wright (Gunpowder Plot)|John Wright]], [[Christopher Wright]], [[Robert Keyes]], Sir [[Thomas Percye (plotter)|Thomas Percy]] (also spelled Percye), Lord [[John Grant (Gunpowder plotter)|John Grant]], Sir [[Ambrose Rokewood]], Sir Edmund Baynham, Sir [[Everard Digby]], Sir [[Francis Tresham]] and [[Thomas Bates]] (Catesby's servant). The explosives were prepared by [[Guy Fawkes|Guy "Guido" Fawkes]], an explosives expert with considerable military experience, who had been introduced to Catesby by a man named Hugh Owen. The well-known image (top right) of the plotters was created by the Dutch artist Crispijn van de Passe, who may have had access to first-hand descriptions.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/9314/men.html | title = Men | publisher = Geocities | work = Paris, Left Bank}}</ref> |
|||
Details of the assassination attempt were allegedly known by the principal [[Society of Jesus|Jesuit]] of England, Father [[Henry Garnet]]. Although convicted and sentenced to death, doubt has since been cast on how much Garnet really knew. As the existence of the plot was revealed to him through [[Confession#Roman_Catholicism|confession]], Garnet was prevented from informing the authorities by the [[Seal of the Confessional and the Catholic Church|absolute confidentiality]] of the confessional. New anti-Catholic legislation was introduced soon after the plot's discovery, but many important and loyal Catholics retained high office during King James I's reign. The Gunpowder Plot was commemorated for many years by special sermons and other public acts, such as the ringing of church bells, which have evolved into the [[Guy Fawkes Night|Bonfire Night]] of today. |
|||
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 convicted at the time, there is now [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7688786.stm some debate] over how much he really knew. As the details of the plot were known through [[Confession#Roman_Catholicism|confession]], Garnet was bound against revealing them to the authorities. Despite his admonitions and protestations, the plot went ahead; however, Garnet's opposition to it did not save him from being [[hanged, drawn and quartered]] for treason in 1606. |
|||
== |
==Background== |
||
{{Main|English Reformation}} |
|||
===Religion in England=== |
|||
[[File:Darnley stage 3.jpg|right|thumb|upright|alt=A three-quarter portrait of a middle-aged woman wearing a tiara, a large skirt, tight bodice, and puffed-out sleeves. The outfit is decorated with patterns and jewels. Her face is pale, her hair ginger. A jewelled crown is visible behind her.|Catholics suffered persecution under the rule of [[Elizabeth I of England|Elizabeth I]]]] |
|||
Between 1533–1540, the [[Tudor dynasty|Tudor]] King [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]] took control of England's church from [[Rome]], prompting several hundred years of religious turmoil in England. English Catholics struggled to find their way in a society now dominated by the newly separate and increasingly [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Church of England]]. Further pressure was applied to the old religion by Henry's daughter, [[Elizabeth I of England]], who responded to these growing divisions with the [[Elizabethan Religious Settlement]], following which anyone taking public or church office was required to swear allegiance to the monarch as head of the Church and state, with severe penalties if they refused. Elizabeth's Catholic cousin [[Mary I of Scotland|Mary, Queen of Scots]], considered by many Catholics to be the legitimate heir to the English throne, was imprisoned in 1569, and executed for treason in 1587. |
|||
Catholicism became marginalised under Elizabeth's rule. The pope viewed Elizabeth as a [[heresy|heretic]] and [[excommunication|excommunicated]] her from the Catholic Church,<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=1–4}}</ref> and despite the risk of torture or execution, priests continued to practice their faith in England, taking extreme care not to be caught.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=12}}</ref> In the months before Elizabeth's death on 24 March 1603, [[Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury]] had secretly prepared the way for her successor.{{#tag:ref|Salisbury 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".<ref>{{Harvnb|Willson|1963|p=154}}</ref>|group="nb"}} He had entered into a coded negotiation with [[James I of England|James VI of Scotland]], who, as the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, had a strong but unrecognised claim.{{#tag:ref|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.|group="nb"}} |
|||
The [[Palace of Westminster]] in the early 17th century was a barely-planned 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. Unlike the highly security-conscious modern palace, the old palace was accessible to just about anyone, with merchants, lawyers and various other people living and working in the lodgings, shops and taverns within its precincts. Because of this readily-accessible and busy nature of the old palace it would have been relatively easy for the plotters to get close to their target without arousing suspicion. |
|||
===English Catholics=== |
|||
In May 1604, Percy, using his newfound status as a member of the King's Bodyguard,<ref>Percy was a rent collector for his uncle, [[Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland]] and Northumberland had used his influential position to obtain for Percy a post as a "Gentleman Pensioner", a ceremonial royal bodyguard, only a short while before the plot.{{cite book|last=Nicholls|first=Mark|title=Oxford Dictionary of National Biography|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford, England|date=May 2005|chapter=The Gunpowder Plot|url=}}</ref> was able to lease lodgings adjacent to the [[House of Lords]]. The plotters' original idea was to mine their way under the foundations of the Lords chamber to lay the gunpowder there. The main idea was to kill James, but many other important targets were to be present, including the majority of the Protestant nobility and senior bishops of the [[Church of England]]. Guy Fawkes, as "John Johnson", was put in charge of this building, where he posed as Percy's servant, while Catesby's house in Lambeth was used to store the gunpowder with the picks and implements for mining. |
|||
Some exiled Catholics, not satisfied with James's stance on Catholicism, favoured the Catholic [[Philip II of Spain]]'s daughter, [[Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain|Infanta Isabella]], as Elizabeth's successor. Other, more moderate Catholics, looked to James's and Elizabeth's cousin [[Arbella Stuart]], a woman thought to have Catholic sympathies.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=15}}</ref> These murmurs of discontent forced the government to detain various "principal papists" as the Queen's condition worsened.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=xxv–xxvi}}</ref> The [[Privy council|Privy Council]] grew so worried that Stuart was moved closer to London the day before Elizabeth's death, to prevent her kidnap by [[papist]]s.<ref name="Fraserpxxv">{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=xxv}}</ref> Nonetheless, James's easy succession{{#tag:ref|James assumed the English throne without the help of any foreign powers, or the Catholic community.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=18}}</ref>|group="nb"}} was generally celebrated. The Earl of Salisbury's proclamation on 24 March, read aloud in various locations—including one outside the [[Tower of London]] inside which several Catholic priests were detained—by nightfall had resulted in bonfires burning throughout London. Leading papists, rather than causing trouble as anticipated, reacted to the news by offering enthusiastic support for their 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".<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=xxvii–xxix}}</ref> |
|||
[[Image:James I, VI by John de Critz, c.1606..png|thumb|upright|left|alt=A full length portrait of a middle-aged man, wearing a grey doublet with grey tights, and brown fur draped over his shoulders.|Portrait of James by [[John de Critz]], c. 1606]] |
|||
However, when the [[Plague (disease)|Black Plague]] came back to London in the summer of 1604 and proved to be particularly severe, the opening of Parliament was suspended to 1605. By Christmas Eve, the miners had still not reached the buildings of Parliament, and just as they recommenced work early in 1605, they learned that the opening of Parliament had been further postponed to 3 October. The plotters then took the opportunity to row the gunpowder up the [[River Thames|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 created the story that his wife was set to join him in London and thus he would require the extra storage space. |
|||
While still in Scotland, James had spoken approvingly of the Catholics who had been forced to hide their faith under the [[Act of Uniformity 1558|Act of Uniformity]],<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=27}}</ref> but he was no supporter of the Church of Rome. James's hostility toward Catholicism stemmed from the same views he bore towards [[Puritan]]ism—views based much more on political than on religious hatred.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=20}}</ref> During his secret communications with Salisbury, he had written to warn the [[Secretary of State (England)|Secretary of State]] of the "daily increase that I hear of popery in England". James's views, however, were more moderate than those of his predecessor; he 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 [[Penal transportation|transported]] beyond seas."<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=46}}</ref> |
|||
[[Image:Eliz bohemia 2.jpg|thumb|right|[[Elizabeth of Bohemia|Princess Elizabeth]], the eldest daughter of King James, was supposed to inherit the crown and rule as a Catholic Queen Elizabeth II]] |
|||
Fawkes assisted in filling the room with gunpowder, which was concealed beneath a wood store under the House of Lords building, in a cellar leased from John Whynniard. By March 1605, they had filled the undercroft underneath the House of Lords with 36 barrels of gunpowder, concealed under a store of winter fuel.<ref>[http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g08.pdf Houses of Parliament factsheet on event] accessed 6 March 2007</ref> 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. |
|||
At [[Newcastle upon Tyne|Newcastle]], while on his way to [[London]], James pardoned and freed all prisoners—except "papists and wilful murderers". Despite his interest in [[theology]], he 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, much to James's annoyance). 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 knighted [[Baron Gerard|Thomas Gerard]], brother of [[John Gerard (Jesuit)|Father John Gerard]], who had been severely tortured in 1594, and released [[William Weston (Jesuit)|Father William Weston]] from his prison in the Tower of London, on condition that he left the country.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=xxxv—xxxviii}}</ref> |
|||
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; however, the opening of Parliament was again postponed. |
|||
===Early plots=== |
|||
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 was probably he who betrayed the plot in writing to his brother-in-law [[William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle|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". |
|||
Despite the claims of several others to the English throne, the transition of power went smoothly.{{#tag:ref|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.|group="nb"}} James, whose mother [[Mary I of Scotland|Mary Queen of Scots]] was seen by Catholics as a martyr, was an astute politician. The new King received an envoy from the Catholic [[Albert VII, Archduke of Austria|Albert VII]] of the [[Southern Netherlands]].<ref name="Fraserp91"/> This country, which had for the previous 30 years been a battleground between English-supported Protestant rebels and Catholics, had also served as a refuge for English expatriates. For these Catholics, a restoration by force, supported by the [[Philip III of Spain|King of Spain]], was an intriguing possibility. There was however to be no attack; following the failed [[Spanish Armada|invasion of England]] by Spain in 1588, the Papacy had taken a more long-term view on the return of a Catholic monarch to the English throne.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=7}}</ref> With Elizabeth dead, James issued a ceasefire order, and even though the two countries were still technically at war Philip III sent his envoy [[Juan de Tassis y Peralta, 2nd Count of Villamediana|Don Juan de Tassis]] to congratulate James on his accession.<ref name="Fraserp91">{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=91}}</ref><!-- James and Tassis first met 8 November, Fraser p94 --> |
|||
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, providing a future line of succession. His wife, [[Anne of Denmark]], was the daughter of a King. Their eldest child, the nine-year-old [[Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales|Henry]], was considered a handsome and confident boy. Two more young children, [[Elizabeth of Bohemia|Princess Elizabeth]] and [[Charles I of England|Prince Charles]], were adequate proof that James was able to provide enough heirs for the continuance of the Protestant monarchy.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=70–74}}</ref> |
|||
According to the confession made by Fawkes on Tuesday 5 November 1605,<ref name = "timeanddate">{{cite web | url = http://timeanddate.com/calendar/index.html?year=1605&country=9 | title = 1605 in England | publisher = Time & Date}}</ref> 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. |
|||
If this thought was welcomed by James's loyal subjects, for those Catholics who had looked to a ruler who worshipped at their own Church, the idea made them despondent. Any suggestion that the whole new royal family might be supplanted appeared an unlikely idea; the new King's children would soon be given estates of their own, providing employment for keen young suitors, which would make a rebellion more unlikely.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=74}}</ref> However, with the absence of any sign that James would move to end the persecution of the Catholics, as some had hoped, several members of the [[clergy]] (including two anti-Jesuit priests) turned to conspiracy. In what became known as the [[Bye Plot]], the priests [[William Watson (priest)|William Watson]] and [[William Clark (priest)|William Clark]] planned to kidnap James before he was crowned, and hold him in the Tower of London until they forced several concessions from him. Salisbury received news of the plot from several sources. In the same period, [[Henry Brooke, 11th Baron Cobham|Lord Cobham]], [[Thomas Grey, 15th Baron Grey de Wilton|Lord Grey de Wilton]], [[Griffin Markham|Lord Markham]], and [[Walter Raleigh|Walter Ralegh]], hatched what became known as the [[Main Plot]], which involved removing James and his family and supplanting them with Arbella Stuart. Amongst others, they approached [[Henry IV of France]] for funding, but were unsuccessful. All those involved in both plots were arrested in July and tried in the autumn; [[George Brooke (conspirator)|Sir George Brooke]] was executed, but James, keen not to have too bloody a start to his reign, reprieved Cobham, Grey, and Markham, while they were at the scaffold. Ralegh, who had watched while his colleagues sweated, and who was due to be executed a few days later, was also forgiven. Stuart denied any knowledge of the Main Plot. The two priests, condemned by the pope, and "very bloodily handled", were executed.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=32–39}}</ref> |
|||
Guy Fawkes was left in charge of executing the plot, while the other [[Conspiracy (political)|conspirators]] fled to [[Dunchurch]] in [[Warwickshire]] to await news. Once the parliament had been destroyed, the other conspirators had planned to incite a revolt in the Midlands. |
|||
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 them from further persecution, and James was grateful enough to allow pardons for those [[Recusancy|recusants]] who sued for them, as well as postponing payment of their fines for a year.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=76–78}}</ref> |
|||
==Discovery== |
|||
During the preparation, several of the conspirators had been concerned about fellow Catholics who would be present on the appointed day, and therefore killed. On Friday, 26 October [[William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle|Lord Monteagle]] received a letter while at his house in [[Hoxton]], thought to be from his brother-in-law, conspirator Francis Tresham: |
|||
===Early reign of James I=== |
|||
<blockquote>''"My lord out of the love i bare to some of youre frends i have a care of your preseruasion therefore i would advise you as you tender your life to devise some excuse to shift of your attendance at this parliament for god and man hath concurred to punish the wickedness of this time and think not slightly of this advertisement but retire youre self into youre control where you may expect the event in saftey 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 councel is not to be condemned because it may do you good and can do you no harm for the danger is passed as soon as you have burnt the letter and i hope god will give you the grace to make good use of it to whose holy protection i commend you."''</blockquote> |
|||
Despite this early benign attitude towards religion, in January 1604 King James attended an ecclesiastical conference at [[Hampton Court]], where he presided over a number of discussions on the [[Puritan|Presisianist]] elements of the [[Church of England]]. The King was hostile to the Puritans, believing them to have manipulated his mother. The first Parliament of his reign was summoned on 31 January 1604, to be followed six weeks later by the opening ceremony. On 19 February however, James denounced the Church. He had recently discovered that the Pope had given one of James's spies, Sir Anthony Standen, a [[rosary]] to pass to his wife, Queen Anne. Three days later he ordered all Jesuits and all other Catholic priests to leave the country, and he reimposed fines for recusancy.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=41–42}}</ref> James changed his focus from assuaging the anxieties of the English Catholics to establishing an Anglo-Scottish union.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=100–103}}</ref> The King had also made a point of appointing Scottish nobles, such as [[George Home, 1st Earl of Dunbar|George Home]], to his court, something which proved unpopular with the [[Parliament of England]], as well as people like Guy Fawkes and former English spy [[Hugh Owen (spy)|Hugh Owen]]. Some Members of Parliament made it clear that in their view, the "effluxion of people from the Northern parts" was 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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=103–106}}</ref> |
|||
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 [[John Gerard (Jesuit)|Father John Gerard]], these words were almost certainly responsible for the heightened levels of persecution the members of his faith 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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=106–107}}</ref> |
|||
Below is the same message, with modernised spelling and punctuation: |
|||
<blockquote>''"My lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care for your preservation. Therefore I would advise you, as you tender your life, to devise some excuse to shift of your attendance at this Parliament, for God and man has 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, the Parliament, and yet they shall not see who hurts them. This counsel is not to be condemned, because it may do you good and can do you no harm, for the danger is past as soon as you have burnt the letter: and I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you."''</blockquote> |
|||
A week after James's speech, [[Duke of Buckingham and Normanby|Lord Sheffield]] informed him of over 900 hundred recusants brought before the [[Assizes]] in Normanby, and on 24 April a [[Bill (proposed law)|Bill]] was introduced in Parliament which threatened to outlaw all English followers of the Catholic Church. According to [[Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales|Lord Chief Justice]] [[John Popham (Lord Chief Justice)|Sir John Popham]], it was also at about this time that the Gunpowder Plot was hatched.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=108}}</ref> |
|||
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 (United Kingdom)|Secretary of State]].<ref>Willson, p 224.</ref> The other 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. |
|||
==Plot== |
|||
The tip-off led Cecil to order a search of the vaults beneath the House of Lords, including the undercroft, during the night of 4 November. The fact that the lease was held by Percy, a known Catholic dissenter, added further to the authorities' suspicions. At midnight on 5 November, [[Thomas Knyvet, 1st Baron Knyvet|Thomas Knyvet]] (a [[Justice of the Peace]]) and a party of armed men discovered Fawkes guarding a pile of [[Wood fuel|wood]], not far from about twenty barrels of gunpowder, posing as "Mr. John Johnson". A watch, slow matches and touchpaper were found in his possession, and Fawkes was arrested. Far from denying his intentions during the arrest, Fawkes stated that it had been his purpose to destroy the King and the Parliament.<ref>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.</ref> 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. |
|||
[[File:Gunpow1.jpg|right|thumb|300px|alt=A monochrome sketch of eight men, in 17th-century dress. All have beards, and all appear to be engaged in discussion|A contemporary sketch of eight of the thirteen conspirators, by [[Crispijn van de Passe]]. Missing are Digby, Keyes, Rookwood, Grant, and Tresham.]] |
|||
[[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]], the only surviving son of Sir William and Lady Catesby, née Anne Throckmorton, a daughter of Sir Robert [[Throckmorton Baronets|Throckmorton]]. He may have studied at [[English College, Douai|Douai]] before marrying the Protestant Catherine Leigh. The marriage produced a son, Robert, who was betrothed at the age of eight to a daughter of [[Thomas Percy (plotter)|Thomas Percy]]. Catherine died after the birth of their second son, and Catesby's father died in 1598. Robert was described by contemporaries as "a good-looking man, about six feet tall, athletic and a good swordsman". Along with several other of the conspirators, he took part in the [[Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex|Earl of Essex]]'s rebellion in 1601, during which he was wounded and captured. Queen Elizabeth allowed him to escape with his life by fining him 4,000 [[Mark_(money)#England_and_Scotland|marks]] (about £{{formatnum:{{Inflation|UK|3000|1601|r=-4}}|0}} as of {{CURRENTYEAR}}). To afford this, he was forced to sell his estate in [[Chastleton]], for which he enlisted the help of his friend Thomas Percy.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=47}}</ref><ref name=NorthcotePP44-46 />{{Inflation-fn|UK}} The sale of his estate, and the death of his wife and father are factors which, author Alan Haynes suggests, may have played an important part in Catesby's decision to pursue a more active political life.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=48–49}}</ref> In 1603 Catesby helped to organise a mission to the new King of Spain, [[Philip III of Spain|Philip III]], 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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Northcote Parkinson|1976|pp=45–46}}</ref> Wintour had also attempted to convince the Spanish envoy Don Juan de Tassis that "3,000 Catholics" were ready and waiting to support such an invasion.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=93}}</ref> Concern was voiced by [[Pope Clement VIII]] that using violence to achieve a restoration of Catholic power in England would result in the destruction of those that remained.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=90}}</ref> |
|||
According to contemporary accounts,{{#tag:ref|Some of the information in these accounts would have been given under pain or threat of torture, and may also have been subject to government interference, and should therefore be viewed with caution.|group="nb"}} 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.<ref name=NorthcotePP44-46 /> Wintour was known as a reasonable scholar, able to speak several languages, and he had fought with the English army in the Netherlands.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=50}}</ref> His uncle, [[Francis Ingleby]], had been executed for being a Catholic priest in 1586, and Wintour later converted to Catholicism.<ref name=FraserPP59-61 /> Also present at the meeting was [[John Wright (swordsman)|John Wright]], a devout Catholic said to be one of the best swordsmen of his day, and a man 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 religious beliefs.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=58}}</ref> 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."<ref name=NorthcotePP44-46>{{Harvnb|Northcote Parkinson|1976|pp=44–46}}</ref> |
|||
He was taken to the [[Tower of London]] and interrogated there under [[torture]]. Torture was forbidden, except by the express instruction of the monarch or the [[Privy Council of the United Kingdom|Privy Council]]. In a letter of 6 November, [[James I of England|King James I]] stated: |
|||
<blockquote>''"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."''</blockquote> |
|||
Wintour travelled to Flanders to enquire about Spanish support. While there he sought out [[Guy Fawkes]] (1570–1606). Born in York, Fawkes was a devout Catholic who had attended [[St Peter's School, York|St Peter's School]] with John Wright, and his brother, Christopher. In the 1590s he served in the [[Southern Netherlands]] under the command of [[William Stanley (Elizabethan)|William Stanley]], and in 1603 was recommended for a captaincy.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=84–89}}</ref> Accompanied by Christopher Wright, Fawkes had also been a member of the 1603 delegation to the Spanish court pleading for an invasion of England. At [[Ostend]], Wintour told Fawkes that "some good frends of his wished his company in Ingland", and at another meeting in [[Dunkirk]] he said that certain gentlemen "were uppon a resolution to doe some whatt in Ingland if the pece with Spain healped us nott" the two men returned to England late in April 1604 and told Catesby that Spanish support was unlikely. Thomas Percy, Catesby's friend and John Wright's brother-in-law, was introduced to the plot several weeks later.<ref name="ODNB Thomas Wintour"/><ref name=NorthcotePP46-47>{{Harvnb|Northcote Parkinson|1976|pp=46–47}}</ref> |
|||
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.<ref>Croft, p 64.</ref> 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,<ref>James said it did not follow "that all professing that Romish religion were guilty of the same". Quoted by Stewart, p 225.</ref> and he reminded the assembly to rejoice at his survival, since kings were divinely appointed and he owed his escape to a miracle.<ref>Willson, p 226.</ref> |
|||
===Initial planning=== |
|||
==Trial and executions== |
|||
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 aristocracy, 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|House of Commons]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Northcote Parkinson|1976|p=46}}</ref> 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, most of whom lived in the [[English Midlands|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 [[Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland|Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland]], as Elizabeth's Protector, but most likely never informed him of this.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=140–142}}</ref> |
|||
<!-- Picture removed. No reposting. --> |
|||
On hearing of the failure of the plot, the conspirators fled towards [[Huddington Court]] near [[Worcester]], a family home of [[Thomas Wintour|Thomas]] and [[Robert Wintour]]. Heavy rain, however, slowed their travels. Many of them were caught by Richard Walsh, the Sheriff of Worcestershire, when they arrived in [[Stourbridge]]. |
|||
[[Image:Eliz bohemia 2.jpg|thumb|left|upright|alt=A full length portrait of a young girl wearing a large pale dress, with tight jewelled bodice, and long sleeves. She has brown hair, and wears a tiara. In her left hand she holds a fan. Behind her, a small river runs underneath a bridge, in a small glade filled with trees.|The conspirators planned to install the King's daughter [[Elizabeth of Bohemia|Princess Elizabeth]] on the throne as a Catholic Queen]] |
|||
The remaining men attempted a revolt in the [[English Midlands|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 Hall|Hagley Park]]. |
|||
The first meeting between the five conspirators took place on 20 May 1604, probably at the Duck and Drake just off the [[Strand, London|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 (plotter)|Thomas Percy]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Northcote Parkinson|1976|p=48}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=120}}</ref><!-- p121, this coincidence would later be used against the Jesuits --> |
|||
[[Image:The execution of Guy Fawkes' (Guy Fawkes) by Claes (Nicolaes) Jansz Visscher.jpg|thumb|left|Seventeenth century print of the members of the Gunpowder plot being hanged, drawn and quartered.]] |
|||
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. |
|||
Percy had found employment with his kinsman the Earl of Northumberland, and by 1596 was his agent for the family's northern estates. About 1600–1601 he served with his patron in the [[Low Countries]]. At some point during Northumberland's command in the Low Countries, Percy became the his agent in his communications with James.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=47–48}}</ref> 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".<ref name="Fraserp49">{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=49}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=50}}</ref> Northumberland—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,<!-- At the same time James was making similar noises to the Puritans p51 --> and Northumberland 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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=50–52}}</ref> |
|||
The trial ranked highly as a public spectacle, and there are records of up to 10 shillings being paid for entry. It is even reputed that the King and Queen attended in secret. Four of the plotters were executed in St. Paul's Churchyard on 30 January. On 31 January, Fawkes, Winter 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]]. |
|||
===Further recruitment=== |
|||
Fawkes, though weakened by torture, cheated the executioners: when he was to be hanged until almost dead, he jumped from the gallows, so his neck broke and he died, thus avoiding the gruesome latter part of this form of execution. A co-conspirator, Robert Keyes, attempted the same trick, but unfortunately for him the rope broke, so he was disemboweled while fully conscious. |
|||
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 [[Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms|Gentleman Pensioner]]—one of a [[cavalry|mounted troop]] of fifty bodyguards to the king—by his patron, the Earl of Northumberland. This role gave Percy reason to seek a base in London, and a small property near the Prince's Chamber—in the possession of Henry Ferrers, a tenant of John Whynniard—was chosen. Percy arranged for the use of the house on 24 May 1604, through Northumberland's agents, [[Dudley Carleton]] and [[John Hippesley]]. Fawkes, using the pseudonym "John Johnson", took charge of the building, posing as Percy's servant.<ref>{{Harvnb|Northcote Parkinson|1976|p=52}}</ref> The building was occupied by Scottish commissioners appointed by the King to consider his plans for the unification of England and Scotland, so the plotters hired Catesby's lodgings in Lambeth, on the opposite bank of the Thames, from which their stored gunpowder and other supplies could be conveniently rowed across each night.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=54–55}}</ref> Meanwhile, King James continued his policies against the Catholics, and Parliament pushed through anti-Catholic legislation, until it was adjourned on 7 July.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=122–124}}</ref> |
|||
[[File:John rocque house of lords gunpowder plot cropped.jpg|right|thumb|250px|alt=A monochrome plan-view image showing the relative positions of buildings around Westminster Hall. Text delineates the names of certain buildings and streets, as well as the nearby River Thames.|The House of Lords is highlighted in red on this 1746 map of London. The [[Palace of Westminster]] now occupies the area.]] |
|||
[[Henry Garnet]] was executed on 3 May 1606 at [[St Paul's Cathedral|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 sentence was too severe. [[Antonia Fraser]] writes: |
|||
[[File:Capon map of parliament.jpg|right|thumb|250px|alt=A monochrome plan-view diagram of several buildings|William Capon's map of Parliament clearly labels the undercroft used to store the gunpowder]] |
|||
<blockquote>"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".<ref>[[Antonia Fraser]], ''Faith and Treason: The Story of the Gunpowder Plot'', Anchor, 1997. ISBN 0-385-47190-4</ref></blockquote> |
|||
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 [[Henry Mordaunt, 4th Baron Mordaunt|Lord Mordaunt]], his wife's employer, while at Parliament. In December{{#tag:ref|According to his confession.|group="nb"}} Catesby brought his servant, [[Thomas Bates]], into the plot. Bates was born at [[Lapworth]], and was a loyal family [[Domestic worker|retainer]] who was known to be devoted to his employer.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=130–132}}</ref> |
|||
On 24 December it was announced that the re-opening of Parliament would be delayed. Concern over the [[Plague (disease)|plague]] meant that rather than sitting in February, as the plotters had originally planned for, Parliament would not sit again until 3 October 1605. The contemporaneous account of the prosecution claimed that during this delay the conspirators were digging a tunnel beneath Parliament. This story may have been a government fabrication; no evidence for the existence of a tunnel was presented by the prosecution, and no trace of one has ever been found. The account of a tunnel comes directly from Thomas Wintour's confession,<ref name="ODNB Thomas Wintour"/> and Guy Fawkes did not admit the existence of such a scheme until his fifth interrogation. Logistically, digging a tunnel would have proved extremely difficult, especially as none of the conspirators had any experience of mining.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=133–134}}</ref> If the story is true however, by 6 December the Scottish commissioners had finished their work, and the conspirators were busy tunnelling from their rented house to the House of Lords. They ceased their efforts when, during tunnelling, they heard a noise from above. The noise turned out to be the then-tenant's widow, who was clearing out the undercroft directly beneath the House of Lords—the same room where the plotters eventually stored the gunpowder.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=55–59}}</ref> |
|||
Due to the Gunpowder Plot many Catholics found themselves persecuted or imprisoned in the [[Tower of London]] including : |
|||
By the time the plotters reconvened at the start of the [[Old Style and New Style dates|old style]] new year on [[Lady Day]], 25 March, three more had been admitted to their ranks;<!-- admitted in January, Haynes p57 --> [[Robert Wintour]], [[John Grant (Gunpowder plotter)|John Grant]], and [[Christopher Wright]]. The additions of Wintour and Wright were obvious choices. Along with a small fortune, Robert Wintour inherited [[Huddington Court]] (a known refuge for priests) near [[Worcester]], and was reputedly a generous and well-liked man. A devout Catholic, he married [[Gertrude Talbot]], who was from a family of recusants.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=59–61}}</ref> Christopher Wright (1568–1605), John's brother, had also taken part in the [[Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex|Earl of Essex]]'s revolt. A devout Catholic, he had moved his family to [[Twigmore]] in [[Lincolnshire]], then known as something of a haven for priests.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=56–57}}</ref><ref>{{Citation | last = Nelthorpe | first = Sutton | title = Twigmore and the Gunpowder Plot | publisher = ''Lincolnshire |
|||
*[[Anthony-Maria Browne, 2nd Viscount Montagu]] due to Guy Fawkes being one of his servants and Robert Catesby had warned him not to attend Parliament. |
|||
Magazine'' | edition = n (1934-36) | page = 229}}</ref> 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]], and was another who had been involved in the Essex revolt of 1601.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=136–137}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=57}}</ref> |
|||
===Undercroft=== |
|||
*Lady Agnes Wenman of Thame Park for being a catholic and a relative of Dowager Lady Elizabeth Vaux |
|||
The plotters purchased the lease to an [[undercroft]] belonging 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 royal 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 features at the 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> |
|||
[[File:House of lords and princes chamber.jpg|left|thumb|300px|alt=A monochrome illustration of several short buildings clustered in a small space. A yard in the foreground is filled with detritus.|An early 19th-century illustration of the east end of the Prince's Chamber <small>(extreme left)</small> and the east wall of the House of Lords <small>(centre)</small>]] |
|||
*Dowager Lady Elizabeth Vaux for being a supporter of Fr. [[Henry Garnet]]. |
|||
[[File:Gunpowder plot parliament cellar.jpg|left|thumb|300px|alt=A monochrome illustration of a stone and brick-walled room. An open doorway is to the right. The left wall contains equally spaced arches. The right wall is dominated by a large brick arch. Three arches form the third wall, in the distance. The floor and ceiling is interrupted by regularly spaced hexagonal wooden posts. The ceiling is spaced by wooden beams.|The undercroft beneath the House of Lords, as illustrated in 1799. At about the same time it was described as 77 feet long, 24 feet and 4 inches wide, and 10 feet high.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=59}}</ref>]] |
|||
In the second week of June Catesby met in London the principal [[Jesuit]] in England, Father [[Henry Garnet]], and asked him about the morality of entering into an undertaking which might involve the destruction of the innocent, together with the guilty. Garnet answered that such actions could often be excused, but according to his own account later admonished Catesby during a second meeting in July in Essex, showing him a letter from the pope which forbade rebellion. Soon after, the Jesuit priest [[Oswald Tesimond]] told Garnet he had taken Catesby's confession,{{#tag:ref|Haynes (2005) writes that Tesminond took Thomas Bates' confession.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=62}}</ref>|group="nb"}} whereupon he had learnt of the plot. Garnet and Catesby met for a third time on 24 July 1605, at the house of the wealthy Jesuit [[Anne Vaux]] in [[Enfield Chase]].{{#tag:ref|Anne Vaux was related to Catesby, and to most of the other plotters. Her home was often used to hide priests.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=65–66}}</ref>|group="nb"}} Garnet had decided that Tesimond's tale had been given under the seal of the confessional, and that canon law forbade him to repeat what he had heard.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=62–65}}</ref> Without acknowledging that he was aware of the precise nature of the plot, he attempted to dissuade Catesby from his course, to no avail.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=65–67}}</ref> Garnet wrote to a colleague in Rome, [[Claudio Acquaviva]], expressing his concerns about open rebellion in England. He also told Acquaviva that "there is a risk that some private endeavour may commit treason or use force against the King", and urged the pope to issue a public brief against the use of force.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=158}}</ref> |
|||
According to Fawkes, 20 barrels of gunpowder were brought in at first, followed by 16 more on 20 July. The supply of gunpowder was theoretically controlled by the government, but it was easily 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"}} On 28 July however, the ever-present threat of the plague again delayed the opening of Parliament, this time until Tuesday 5 November. Fawkes left the country for a short time. The King, meanwhile, spent much of the summer away from the city, hunting. He stayed wherever was convenient, including on occasion at the houses of prominent Catholics. Garnet, convinced that the threat of an uprising had receded, travelled the country on a [[pilgrimage]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=159–162}}</ref> |
|||
*[[Edward Vaux, 4th Baron Vaux of Harrowden]] for being a Catholic, son of the above. |
|||
<!-- Fawkes was back in the country by August,<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=170}}</ref> --> |
|||
*[[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. |
|||
The final three conspirators were recruited in late 1605. At [[Michaelmas]], Catesby added the staunch Catholic [[Ambrose Rookwood]] to the plot, and persuaded him to rent [[Clopton House]] near Stratford-upon-Avon. Rookwood was a young man with recusant connections, whose stable of horses at [[Coldham]] in [[Cambridgeshire]] proved an important factor in his enlistment. His parents, [[Robert Rookwood]] and [[Dorothea Drury]] were wealthy landowners, and had educated their son at a Jesuit school near [[Calais]]. On 14 October Catesby invited [[Francis Tresham]] into the conspiracy.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=171–173}}</ref> Tresham was the son of the Catholic [[Thomas Tresham II|Thomas Tresham]], and a cousin to Robert Catesby—the two had been raised together.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=110}}</ref> He was also the heir to his father's large fortune, which had been depleted by recusant fines, expensive tastes, and also by Francis and Catesby's involvement in the Essex revolt.{{#tag:ref|Thomas Tresham had paid Francis's fine in full and part of Catesby's fine.|group="nb"}} Francis had also been imprisoned at an early age, when he attacked a man and his pregnant daughter who owed money to his father.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=79–80, p. 110}}</ref> |
|||
Catesby and Tresham met at the home of Tresham's brother-in-law and cousin, [[Edward Stourton, 10th Baron Stourton|Lord Stourton]]. In his confession, Tresham claimed that he had asked Catesby if the plot would damn their souls, to which Catesby had replied it would not, and that the plight of England's Catholics required that it be done. Catesby also apparently asked for £2,000, and the use of [[Rushton Hall]] in [[Northamptonshire]]. Tresham declined both offers (although he did give £100 to Thomas Wintour), and told his interrogators that he had moved his family from Rushton to London in advance of the plot; hardly the actions of a guilty man, he claimed.<!-- guilty of concealment but not an active participant --><ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=173–175}}</ref> |
|||
*Henry Mordaunt, 4th Baron Mordaunt for getting a letter telling him to be absent from Parliament. |
|||
[[Everard Digby]] was a young man who was generally well-liked, and lived at [[Gayhurst House, Buckinghamshire|Gayhurst House]] in [[Buckinghamshire]]. He had been knighted by the King in April 1603, and was converted to Catholicism by Gerard. Digby and his wife, [[Mary Mulshaw]], had accompanied the priest on his pilgrimage, and the two men were reportedly close friends. Digby was an accomplished equestrian, and was asked by Catesby to rent [[Coughton Court]] near [[Alcester]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=159–162, pp. 168–169}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=175–176}}</ref> Digby also promised £1,500 after Percy failed to pay the rent due for the properties he had taken in Westminster.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=80}}</ref> |
|||
*[[Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland]] for being the cousin of Sir [[Thomas Percy (plotter)]] |
|||
===Monteagle letter=== |
|||
*Sir Alan Percy brother of the above and Lieutenant of the Gentleman Pensioners under Northumberland's captaincy, who were also the King's Bodyguard. |
|||
[[File:Monteagle letter.jpeg|right|thumb|300px|alt=A damaged and aged piece of paper, or parchment, with multiple lines of handwritten English text.|An anonymous letter, sent to [[William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle]], was instrumental in revealing the existence of the plot. Its author has never been reliably established. Francis Tresham has long been a suspect. Monteagle himself has been considered responsible,<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=182–185}}</ref> as has Salisbury.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=85–86}}</ref>]] |
|||
The last few details of the plot were finalised in October, in a series of taverns across London and [[Daventry]].{{#tag:ref|The playwright [[Ben Jonson]] was present at one of these parties, and following the discovery of the plot was forced to work hard at distancing himself from the conspirators.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=179}}</ref>|group="nb"}} Fawkes would be left to light the fuse and then escape across the Thames, while simultaneously a revolt in the Midlands would help to ensure the capture of Princess Elizabeth. Fawkes would leave for the continent, to explain events in England to the European Catholic powers.<ref name="Fraser 1999 178–179">{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=178–179}}</ref> |
|||
The wives of those involved, and Anne Vaux (a friend of Garnet who often shielded priests at her home) became increasingly concerned by what they suspected was about to happen.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=78–79}}</ref> Several of the conspirators expressed worries about the safety of fellow Catholics who would be present in Parliament on the day of the planned explosion.<ref>{{Harvnb|Northcote Parkinson|1976|pp=62–63}}</ref> Percy was concerned for his patron, Northumberland, and the young [[Thomas Howard, 21st Earl of Arundel|Earl of Arundel]]'s name was brought up; Catesby suggested that a minor wound might keep him from the chamber on that day. The Lords Vaux, Montague, [[William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle|Monteagle]], and Stourton were also mentioned. Keyes suggested warning Lord Mordaunt, to derision from Catesby.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=82}}</ref> |
|||
*[[Dudley Carleton, 1st Viscount Dorchester]] for being the secretary of the Earl of Northumberland. |
|||
On Saturday 26 October, Monteagle (Tresham's brother-in-law) received an anonymous letter while at his house in [[Hoxton]]. Having broken the seal, he handed the letter to a servant who read it aloud: |
|||
==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. |
|||
{{quote|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 hath concurred to punish the wickedness of this time. And think not slightly of this advertisement, but retire yourself into your country [county] 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 condemned because it may do you good and can do you no harm; for the danger is passed as soon as you have burnt the letter. And I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you.<ref name="Fraser 1999 178–179"/>}} |
|||
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:<ref>Frank L. Huntley, "Macbeth and the Background of Jesuitical Equivocation", ''PMLA'', Vol. 79, No. 4. (Sep, 1964), pp. 390–400.</ref> |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
Faith, here's an equivocator, that could<br/> |
|||
Swear in both the scales against either scale;<br/> |
|||
Who committed treason enough for God's sake,<br/> |
|||
Yet could not equivocate to heaven<br/> |
|||
- Macbeth, Act 2 Scene 3</blockquote> |
|||
Unsure of the intent behind the letter, he promptly rode to [[Whitehall]] and handed it to Salisbury.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|1999|p=89}}</ref> Salisbury informed the [[Edward Somerset, 4th Earl of Worcester|Earl of Worcester]], considered to have recusant sympathies, and the suspected papist [[Henry Howard, 1st Earl of Northampton]], but kept news of the plot from the King, who was busy hunting in Cambridgeshire and not expected back for several days. Monteagle's servant, Thomas Ward, had family connections with the Wright brothers, and sent a message to Catesby about the betrayal. Catesby, who had been due to go hunting with the King, suspected that Tresham was responsible for the letter, and with Thomas Wintour confronted the recently recruited conspirator. Tresham managed to convince the pair that he had not written the letter, but urged them to abandon the plot.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=180–182}}</ref> Salisbury was already aware of certain stirrings before he received the letter, but did not yet know the exact nature of the plot, or who exactly was involved. He therefore elected to wait, to see how events unfolded.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=187–189}}</ref> |
|||
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.<ref>David Cressy, ''Bonfires and bells: national memory and the Protestant calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England'' (1989).</ref> Through various permutations, this has evolved into the Bonfire Night of today. |
|||
Professor Ronald Hutton<ref name="hutton">{{cite web | title=What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded? | author=Ronald Hutton | url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml | publisher=[[BBC]] | date=2001-04-01 | accessdate=2008-11-07}}</ref> 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",<ref name="hutton" /> rather than follow the path of parliamentary and civil reform which it did. However, it is difficult to tell what would have emerged out of the resulting chaos, or to know which of the factions would have ultimately come to the fore. |
|||
== |
===Discovery=== |
||
The letter was shown to the King on Friday 1 November. James felt that the intent behind the letter was to exceed in violence the explosion which killed his father, [[Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley|Lord Darnley]], at [[Kirk o' Field]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=90}}</ref> Keen not to seem too intriguing, Salisbury feigned ignorance.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=193–194}}</ref> The following day members of the Privy Council visited the King at the [[Palace of Whitehall]] and informed him that, based on the information that Salisbury had given them a week earlier, on Monday the [[Lord Chamberlain]] [[Thomas Knyvet, 1st Baron Knyvet|Lord Suffolk]] would undertake a search of the Houses of Parliament, "both above and below". On Sunday 3 November Percy, Catesby and Wintour had a final meeting, where Percy told his colleages that they should "abide the uttermost triall", and reminded them of their ship waiting at anchor on the Thames.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=92}}</ref> By 4 November Digby was ensconced with a "hunting party" at [[Dunchurch]], ready to abduct Princess Elizabeth.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=196–197}}</ref> The same day, Percy visited the Earl of Northumberland—who was innocent of the conspiracy—to see if he could discern what rumours were abound regarding the letter to Monteagle. Percy returned to London and assured Wintour, John Wright, and Robert Keyes that they had nothing to be concerned about, and returned to his lodgings on Gray's Inn Road. That same evening Catesby, John Wright, and Bates set off for the midlands. Fawkes visited Keyes, and left with a watch, to time the fuse, and an hour later Rookwood received several engraved swords from a local [[Cutlery|cutler]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=199–201}}</ref> |
|||
{{mainarticle|Guy Fawkes Night}} |
|||
[[Image:Bonfire4.jpg|thumb|Bonfires are lit every 5th of November to commemorate the plot.]] |
|||
The fifth of November is variously called Fireworks Night, Bonfire Night or [[Guy Fawkes Night]]. |
|||
An [[Act of Parliament]] (3 James I, cap 1) was passed to appoint 5 November in each year as a day of thanksgiving for "the joyful day of deliverance", and it remained in force until 1859. On 5 November 1605, it is said that the populace of London celebrated the defeat of the plot with fires and street festivities. Similar celebrations must have taken place on the anniversary and, over the years, it became a tradition — in many places, a holiday was observed (although it is not celebrated in [[Northern Ireland]]). |
|||
[[File:Fawkes arrest2.jpg|thumb|right|alt=In a stone-walled room, several armed men physically restrain another man, who is leaning forward in the direction of a large pile of wood and barrels.|Guy Fawkes was discovered in the undercroft beneath the House of Lords shortly after midnight on 5 November 1605]] |
|||
It remains the custom in Britain, on and/or around 5 November, to let off [[fireworks]]. Traditionally, in the weeks running up to the 5th, people (especially children) make "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. 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. |
|||
Although two accounts of the number of searches and their timing exist, according to the King's version, the first search of the buildings in and around Parliament was made on Monday 4 November—as the plotters were busy making their final preparations—by Suffolk, Monteagle, and John Whynniard. They found a large pile of firewood in the undercroft beneath the House of Lords, accompanied by what they presumed to be a serving man (Fawkes), who told them that the firewood belonged to his master, Thomas Percy. They left to report their findings, at which time Fawkes also left the building. The King insisted that a more thorough search be undertaken. Late that night, the search party, headed by [[Thomas Knyvet, 1st Baron Knyvet|Thomas Knyvet]], returned to the undercroft. There they came across Fawkes once more, who was dressed in a cloak and hat, and wearing boots and spurs. Fawkes, when arrested, gave his name as John Johnson—servant to Thomas Percy. He was carrying a lantern now held in the [[Ashmolean Museum]], [[Oxford]],<ref>{{Citation | title = Guy Fawkes's Lantern | url = http://ashweb2.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/ash/objectofmonth/2002-11/theobject.htm | publisher = ashweb2.ashmus.ox.ac.uk | accessdate = 2009-11-20}}</ref> and a search of his person revealed a watch, matches, and touchwood.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=201–203}}</ref> The barrels of gunpowder were discovered hidden under piles of [[faggot (wood)|faggot]]s and coal.<ref>{{Harvnb|Northcote Parkinson|1976|p=73}}</ref> Fawkes was taken to the King early on the morning of 5 November.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=94–95}}</ref> |
|||
===Flight=== |
|||
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. In some areas, particularly in Sussex, there are extensive processions, large bonfires and firework displays organised by local [[Sussex Bonfire Societies|bonfire societies]]; the most extensive of which takes place in [[Lewes]]. |
|||
As news of "John Johnson's" arrest spread among the plotters still in London, most fled northwest, along [[Watling Street]]. Christopher Wright and Thomas Percy left together. Rookwood left soon after, and managed to cover 30 miles in two hours on one horse. He overtook Keyes, who had set off earlier, then Wright and Percy at [[Little Brickhill]], before catching Catesby, John Wright, and Bates on the same road. They met with Christopher Wright, and continued northwest to [[Dunchurch]], using horses provided by Digby.<ref name=rookwood>Declaration of [[Ambrose Rookwood|Ambrose Rookewood]], 2 December 1605 ([[The National Archives|TNA]]: [[Public Record Office|PRO]] SP 14/216/136), cited in Mark Nicholls, 'Catesby, Robert', in ''[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]]'' ([[Oxford University Press|OUP]], 2004)</ref> Keyes went to Mordaunt's house at [[Drayton, Northamptonshire|Drayton]]. Meanwhile, Thomas Wintour stayed in London, and even went to Westminster to see what was happening. When he realised the plot had been uncovered, he took his horse and made for his sister's house at [[Norbrook]], before continuing to [[Huddington Court]].{{#tag:ref|[[Robert Wintour|Robert]] inherited [[Huddington Court]] near [[Worcester]], along with a small fortune. The building became a refuge for priests, and secret Masses were often celebrated there.<ref name=FraserPP59-61>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=59–61}}</ref>|group="nb"}} |
|||
{{Quote box | quote=On the 5th of November we began our Parliament, to which the King should have come in person, but refrained through a practise but that morning discovered. The plot was to have blown up the King at such time as he should have been set on his Royal Throne, accompanied with all his Children, Nobility and Commoners and assisted with all Bishops, Judges and Doctors; at one instant and blast to have ruin'd the whole State and Kingdom of England. And for the effecting of this, there was placed under the Parliament House, where the king should sit, some 30 barrels of powder, with good store of wood, faggots, pieces and bars of iron.|source = Sir Edward Hoby ([[Gentleman of the Bedchamber]])<ref>{{Harvnb|Nichols|1828|p=584}}</ref>|align=left|width=33%}} |
|||
The Houses of Parliament are still searched by the [[Yeomen of the Guard]] before the State Opening, which, since 1928, has been held in the last three months of the calendar year. Ostensibly to ensure no latter-day Guy Fawkes is concealed in the cellars, this is retained as a picturesque custom rather than a serious anti-terrorist precaution. It is said that for superstitious reasons, no State Opening will be held on 5 November; but this is not always adhered to (for instance, the State Opening was held on 5 November in 1957). |
|||
The group of six conspirators stopped at [[Ashby St Ledgers]] at about 6 pm, and met with Robert Wintour, who was quickly updated on their situation. They then continued on to Dunchurch, and met with Digby. Catesby managed to convince the young knight that despite the failure of the plot, an armed struggle was still a real possibility. He announced to Digby's "hunting party" that the King and Salisbury were both dead. Hence, the fugitives now moved west to Warwick.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=203–206}}</ref> |
|||
[[Image:GuyFawkes2005.jpeg|thumb|right|120px|400th anniversary of the plot, commemorated on a 2005 [[British two pound coin]].]] |
|||
A commemorative [[British two pound coin#Special Issues|British two pound coin]] was issued in 2005 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the plot.<ref>[http://www.royalmint.gov.uk/Corporate/BritishCoinage/CoinDesign/TwoPoundCoin.aspx United Kingdom £2 Coin], Royal Mint</ref> |
|||
In London, news of the plot was spreading, and the authorities set extra guards on the [[London Wall|city gates]], closed the ports, and protected the house of the Spanish Ambassador, which was surrounded by an angry mob. An arrest warrant was issued against Thomas Percy, and his patron, the Earl of Northumberland, was placed under house arrest.<ref name="Fraserp226">{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=226}}</ref> In "John Johnson's" initial interrogation he revealed nothing other than the name of his mother, and that he was from Yorkshire. A letter to Guy Fawkes was discovered on his person, but he claimed that name was one of his aliases. Far from denying his intentions, Fawkes stated that it had been his purpose to destroy the King and Parliament.{{#tag:ref|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".<ref>{{Harvnb|Stewart|2003|p=219}}</ref>|group="nb"}} Nevertheless, he maintained his composure and insisted that he had acted alone. His unwillingness to yield so impressed James that the King described him as possessing "a Roman resolution".<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=207–209}}</ref> |
|||
The cellar in which Fawkes watched over his gunpowder was demolished in 1822. The area was further damaged in the [[Burning of Parliament|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. |
|||
===Investigation=== |
|||
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.<ref>{{cite book |
|||
[[Image:A Torture Rack.jpg|thumb|right|upright|alt=A rectangular metal frame with two wooden planks crossing its width. Spaced equally along the frame are three large wooden rollers. Attached to the rollers at each end are ropes, designed to act as restraints. The entire contraption is covered with a sheet of clear plastic, upon which is sketched the outline of a man, his wrists and ankles 'through' the rope restraints. The centre roller has a large wooden lever—turning this lever would pull the other two rollers in opposite directions.|A torture rack in the Tower of London]] |
|||
|last=Forbes |
|||
On 6 November, the Lord Chief Justice, [[John Popham (Lord Chief Justice)|Sir John Popham]] (a man with a deep-seated hatred of Catholics) questioned Rookwood's servants. By the evening he had learnt the names of several of those involved in the conspiracy: Catesby, Rookwood, Keyes, Wynter [sic], John and Christopher Wright, and Grant. "Johnson" meanwhile persisted with his story, and along with the gunpowder he was found with,{{#tag:ref|The gunpowder was moved to the [[Tower of London]], where it was described as 'decayed'.<ref name="Fraserp226"/>|group="nb"}} was moved to the [[Tower of London]], where the King had decided that "Johnson" would be tortured.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=211–212}}</ref> The use of torture was forbidden, except by royal prerogative or a body such as the [[Privy Council of the United Kingdom|Privy Council]] or [[Star Chamber]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Scott|1940|p=87}}</ref> In a letter of 6 November James wrote: "The gentler tortours [tortures] are to be first used unto him, ''et sic per gradus ad ima tenditur'' [and thus by steps extended to greater ones], and so God speed your good work."<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=215}}</ref> "Johnson" may have been placed in manacles and hung from the wall, but he was almost certainly subjected to the horrors of the [[Rack (torture)|rack]]. By 7 November his resolve had been broken, and he confessed late that day, and again over the following two days.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=216–217}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Scott|1940|p=89}}</ref> |
|||
|first=Esther |
|||
|authorlink= |
|||
|coauthors= |
|||
|editor= |
|||
|others= |
|||
|title=Paul Revere and the World He Lived In |
|||
|origdate=1942 |
|||
|origyear= |
|||
|origmonth= |
|||
|url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-r6sNI9dUfYC |
|||
|format= |
|||
|accessdate= |
|||
|accessyear= |
|||
|accessmonth= |
|||
|edition= |
|||
|series= |
|||
|volume= |
|||
|date=1999 |
|||
|year= |
|||
|month= |
|||
|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Books |
|||
|location= |
|||
|language= |
|||
|isbn=9780618001941 |
|||
|oclc= |
|||
|doi= |
|||
|id= |
|||
|page=94 |
|||
|pages=536 pages |
|||
|chapter= |
|||
|chapterurl= |
|||
|quote= |
|||
|ref= |
|||
}}</ref> |
|||
===Last stand=== |
|||
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. |
|||
On 6 November, with Fawkes maintaining his silence, the fugitives raided [[Warwick Castle]] for supplies and continued to Norbrook to collect weapons. From there they continued their journey to Huddington. Bates left the group and travelled to [[Coughton Court]] to deliver a letter from Catesby, to Father Garnet and the other priests, informing them of what had transpired, and asking for their help in raising an army. Garnet replied by begging Catesby and his followers to stop their "wicked actions", before himself fleeing. Several priests set out for Warwick, worried about the fate of their colleagues. They were caught, and then imprisoned in London. Catesby and the others arrived at Huddington early in the afternoon, and were met by Thomas Wintour. They received practically no support or sympathy from those they met, including family members, who were terrified at the prospect of being associated with treason. They continued on to [[Holbeche House]] on the border of [[Staffordshire]], the home of [[Stephen Littleton]], a member of their ever-decreasing band of followers. Tired and desperate, they spread out some of the now-soaked gunpowder in front of the fire, to dry out. Although gunpowder does not explode (unless physically contained), a spark from the fire landed on the powder and the resultant flames engulfed Catesby, Rookwood, Grant, and a man named Morgan (a member of the hunting party).<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=218–222}}</ref> |
|||
Thomas Wintour and Littleton, on their way from Huddington to Holbeche House, were told by a messenger that Catesby had died. At that point, Littleton left, but Thomas arrived at the house to find Catesby alive, albeit scorched. John Grant was not so lucky, and had been blinded by the fire. Digby, Robert Wintour, John Wintour, and Thomas Bates, had all left. Of the plotters, only the singed figures of Catesby and Grant, and the Wright brothers and Percy, remained. The fugitives resolved to stay in the house and wait for the arrival of the King's men. Richard Walsh ([[High Sheriff of Worcestershire|Sheriff of Worcester]]) and his company of 200 men besieged Holbeche House on the morning of 8 November. Thomas Wintour was hit in the shoulder, while crossing the courtyard. John Wright was shot, followed by his brother, and then Rookwood. Catesby and Percy were reportedly killed by the same shot. The attackers rushed the property, and stripped the dead or dying defenders of their clothing. Grant, Morgan, Rookwood, and Wintour were arrested.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=222–225}}</ref> |
|||
==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.<ref>Peter Marshall, ''Reformation England 1480–1642'', London, 2003, pp. 187–8.</ref> |
|||
==Reaction== |
|||
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.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gerard|first=John|title=What was the Gunpowder Plot? : the traditional story tested by original evidence|publisher=Osgood, McIlvaine & Co|location=London|date=1897}}</ref> This prompted a refutation later that year by [[Samuel Rawson Gardiner|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.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gardiner|first=Samuel|authorlink=Samuel Rawson Gardiner|title=What Gunpowder Plot was |publisher=Longmans, Green and Co|location=London|date=1897}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book|last=Edwards|first=Francis|title=Guy Fawkes: the real story of the gunpowder plot?|publisher=Hart-Davis|location=London|date=1969|isbn=0246639679}}</ref> There has been little support by historians for the conspiracy theory since this time, other than to acknowledge that Cecil may have known about the plot some days before it was uncovered. However, with many Internet websites suggesting Cecil's full involvement and postulating a profusion of theories, the idea lives on. It is unlikely that either side will ever produce the evidence needed to convince the other of the veracity of their respective arguments. |
|||
Bates and Keyes were captured shortly after Holbeche House was taken. Digby, who had intended to give himself up, was caught by a small group of pursuers. Tresham was arrested on 12 November, and taken to the Tower three days later. Montague, Mordaunt, and Stourton (Tresham's brother-in-law) were also imprisoned in the Tower. The Earl of Northumberland joined them on 27 November.<ref name="Fraserpp235236">{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=235–236}}</ref> Meanwhile the government used the plot to accelerate its persecution of Catholics. The home of Anne Vaux at [[Enfield Chase]] was searched, revealing the presence of trap doors and hidden passages. A terrified servant then revealed that Garnet, who had often stayed at the house, had recently given a Mass at the house. Father [[John Gerard (Jesuit)|John Gerard]] was secreted at the home of [[Elizabeth Vaux]], in Harrowden. Elizabeth was taken to London for interrogation. There she was resolute; she had never been aware that Gerard was a priest, she had presumed he was a "Catholic gentleman", and she did not know of his whereabouts.<!-- Elizabeth Vaux eventually got bail --> The homes of the conspirators were searched, and looted. The home of Mary Digby was ransacked, and she was made destitute.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=237–241}}</ref> Some time before the end of November, Garnet moved to [[Hindlip Hall]] near [[Worcester]], the home of the Habingtons, where he wrote a letter to the Privy Council protesting his innocence.<ref name="ODNB Garnett">{{Citation | last = McCoog | first = Thomas M. | title = Garnett, Henry (1555–1606) | publisher = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press | date = 2004-09 | url = http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10389 | accessdate = 2009-11-16 | doi = 10.1093/ref:odnb/10389}}</ref> |
|||
[[File:Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury by John De Critz the Elder (2).jpg|thumb|right|upright|alt=A three-quarter portrait of a white man, dressed entirely in black with a white lace ruff. He has brown hair, a short beard, and a neutral expression. His left hand cradles a necklace he is wearing. His right hand rests on the corner of a desk, upon which are notes, a bell, and a cloth carrying a crest. Latin text on the painting reads "Sero, Sed, Serio".|Robert Cecil, <br> 1st Earl of Salisbury. <br> Painting by [[John de Critz]] the Elder, 1602.]] |
|||
==Modern plot analysis== |
|||
The foiling of the Gunpowder Plot initiated 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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Croft|2003|p=64}}</ref> [[Walter Raleigh|Walter Ralegh]], languishing in the Tower due to his involvement in the Main Plot, and whose wife was a first cousin of Lady Catesby, declared he had no knowledge of the conspiracy.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=228}}</ref> The Bishop of Rochester gave a sermon at St. Paul's Cross, in which he condemned the plot.<ref name="Fraserpp232233"/> 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,{{#tag:ref|James said that it did not follow "that all professing that Romish religion were guilty of the same"|<ref>{{Harvnb|Stewart|2003|p=225}}</ref>|group="nb"}} and he reminded the assembly to rejoice at his survival, since kings were divinely appointed and he owed his escape to a miracle.<ref>{{Harvnb|Willson|1963|p=226}}</ref> Salisbury wrote to his English ambassadors abroad, informing them of what had occurred, and also reminding them that the King bore no ill will to his Catholic neighbours. The foreign powers largely distanced themselves from the plotters, calling them atheists and Protestant heretics.<ref name="Fraserpp232233">{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=232–233}}</ref> |
|||
According to the historian [[Antonia Fraser|Lady Antonia Fraser]], the gunpowder was taken to the [[Tower of London]] [[Magazine (artillery)|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. |
|||
===Interrogations=== |
|||
''[[The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend]]'', an [[ITV]] [[television programme|programme]] presented by [[Richard Hammond]] and broadcast on 1 November 2005, re-enacted the plot by blowing up an exact 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.<ref name=Times>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article584830.ece ''Gunpowder plotters get their wish, 400 years on'' Adam Sherwin] ''[[The Times]]'' accessed 18 January 2008</ref> |
|||
Sir [[Edward Coke]] (pronounced "Cook") was in charge of the interrogations. Over a period of about ten weeks, in the Lieutenant's Lodgings at the Tower of London (now known as the Queen's House) he questioned those who had been implicated in the plot. For the first round of interrogations, no real proof exists that these people were tortured, although on several occasions Salisbury certainly suggested that they should be. Coke later revealed that the threat of torture was in most cases enough to solicit a confession from those caught up in the aftermath of the plot.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=241–244}}</ref> |
|||
Only two confessions were ever printed in full; Fawkes's confession of 8 November, and Wintour's confession of 23 November. Fawkes's signature demonstrates the effect his torture had upon him. As someone who had been involved in the conspiracy from the start (unlike Fawkes, who had joined at a later date), Wintour's knowledge was extremely valuable to the Privy Council. The handwriting on his testimony is almost certainly that of the man himself, but his signature was however, markedly different. Wintour had previously only ever signed his name as such, but his confession is signed "Winter", and since Wintour had been shot in the shoulder, the steady hand used to write the signature may indicate some measure of government interference—or it may indicate that writing a shorter version of his name was less painful.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|1999|p=106}}</ref> Wintour's testimony makes no mention of his brother, Robert. Both were published in the so-called ''King's Book'', a hastily authored official account of the conspiracy published in late November 1605.<ref name="ODNB Thomas Wintour">{{Citation | last = Nicholls | first = Mark | title = Winter, Thomas (c.1571–1606) | publisher = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press | date = 2004-09 | url = http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/29767 | doi = 10.1093/ref:odnb/29767 | accessdate = 2009-11-16}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=242–245}}</ref> |
|||
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 large distance away 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 the gunpowder had gone off, everyone in the House of Lords and its environs would have been killed instantly.<ref name=Times/> |
|||
[[File:Guy Fawkes confession.png|left|thumb|alt=A small irregular section of parchment upon which several lines of handwritten text are visible. Several elaborate signatures bookend the text, at the bottom.|Part of a confession by Guy Fawkes. His weak signature, after days of torture, is faintly visible under the word 'good' <small>(lower right)</small>.]] |
|||
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, at such a 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, with the compression overcoming any deterioration in 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.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/31/nfawkes31.xml ''Guy Fawkes had twice the gunpowder needed'' Fiona Govan] ''[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]]'' accessed 18 January 2008</ref> |
|||
Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, was in a difficult position. His midday dinner with Percy on 4 November was damning evidence against him,<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=93}}</ref> and with the death of Thomas Percy, there was nobody left who could either implicate him, or clear him. The Privy Council suspected that Northumberland was to be the protector of Princess Elizabeth, had the plot succeeded, but could find no evidence upon which to convict him. Northumberland remained in the Tower and on 27 June 1606 was finally charged with contempt. He was stripped of all public offices, fined £30,000 (about £{{formatprice|{{Inflation|UK|30000|1606|r=-5}}|0}} as of {{CURRENTYEAR}}), and kept in the Tower until June 1621.<ref>{{Citation | last = Nicholls | first = Mark | title = Percy, Henry, ninth earl of Northumberland (1564–1632) | publisher = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press | date = 2004-09 | url = http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21939 | accessdate = 2009-11-16 | doi = 10.1093/ref:odnb/21939}}</ref> |
|||
Several other people not involved in the conspiracy, but known or related to the conspirators, were also questioned. Northumberland's brothers, Sir Allen and Sir Josceline, were arrested. [[Anthony-Maria Browne, 2nd Viscount Montagu]] had employed Fawkes at an early age, and had also met Catesby on 29 October, and was therefore of interest; he was released several months later.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=125–126}}</ref> <!-- [[Edward Vaux, 4th Baron Vaux of Harrowden]] for being a Catholic, son of the above.{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}} -->[[Agnes Wenman]] was from a Catholic family, and related to Elizabeth Vaux.{{#tag:ref|Vaux had written a letter to Wenman regarding the marriage of her son Edward Vaux. The letter contained certain phrases which were open to interpretation, and was intercepted by Richard Wenman, who thought it suspicious.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=151–152}}</ref>|group="nb"}} She was examined twice but the charges were eventually dropped.<ref>{{Citation | last = Griffiths | first = Jane | title = Wenman , Agnes, Lady Wenman (d. 1617) | publisher = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press | year = 2004 | url = http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/29044 | accessdate = 2009-11-16 | doi = 10.1093/ref:odnb/29044}}</ref> Percy's secretary and later the controller of Northumberland's household, [[Dudley Carleton, 1st Viscount Dorchester|Dudley Carleton]], had leased the vault where the gunpowder was stored, and consequently he was imprisoned in the Tower. Salisbury believed his story, and authorised his release.<ref>{{Citation | last = Reeve | first = L. J. | title = Carleton, Dudley, Viscount Dorchester (1574–1632) | publisher = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press | date = 2004-09 | url = http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4670 | accessdate = 2009-11-16 | doi = 10.1093/ref:odnb/4670}}</ref> |
|||
A sample of the gunpowder may have survived: in March 2002, workers investigating archives of [[John Evelyn]] at the [[British Library]] found a box containing various samples of gunpowder and several notes suggesting a relation to the Gunpowder Plot: |
|||
#"Gunpowder 1605 in a paper inscribed by John Evelyn. Powder with which that villain Faux (sic) would have blown up the parliament.", |
|||
===Jesuits=== |
|||
#"Gunpowder. Large package is supposed to be Guy Fawkes' gunpowder". |
|||
[[File:Hindlip hall.jpg|thumb|right|alt=A monochrome illustration of a large medieval building, with many windows, turrets, and chimneys. Sculpted bushes surround the house, which is surrounded by fields and trees.|[[Hindlip Hall]] in [[Worcestershire]]. The building was destroyed in a fire, in 1820.]] |
|||
#"But there was none left! WEH 1952 |
|||
Thomas Bates confessed on 4 December, and provided much of the information that Salisbury needed to link the Catholic clergy to the plot. He had been present at most of the meetings, and while being interrogated he implicated Father Tesimond in the plot. On 13 January 1606 he described how he had visited Garnet and Tesimond on 7 November to inform Garnet of the plot's failure. Bates also told his interrogators of his ride with Tesimond to Huddington, before the priest left him to head for the Habingtons at Hindlip Hall, and of a meeting between Garnet, Gerard, and Tesimond in October 1605. Tresham's health began to deteriorate early in December 1605. He was visited regularly by his wife, a nurse, and his servant William Vavasour, who documented his strangury. Before he died Tresham had also told of Garnet's involvement with the 1603 mission to Spain, but in his last hours he retracted some of these statements. Nowhere in his confession did he mention the Monteagle letter. He died early on the morning of 23 December, and was buried in the Tower. Nevertheless he was attainted along with the other plotters, his head was set on a pike either at Northampton or London Bridge, and his estates confiscated.<!-- Fraser says his estate went to his brother p253 --><ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=249}}</ref><ref>{{Citation | last = Nicholls | first = Mark | title = "Tresham, Francis (1567?–1605) | publisher = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press | date = 2004-09 | url = http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27708 | accessdate = 2009-11-16 | doi = 10.1093/ref:odnb/27708}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=104}}</ref> |
|||
On 15 January a proclamation named Father Garnet, Father Gerard, and Father Greenway (Tesimond) as wanted men. Tesimond and Gerard<ref name="ODNB Gerard">{{Citation | last = McCoog | first = Thomas M. | title = Gerard, John (1564–1637) | publisher = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press | year = 2004 | url = http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10556 | accessdate = 2009-11-20 | doi = 10.1093/ref:odnb/10556}}</ref> managed to escape the country and live out their days in freedom; Garnet was not so lucky. Several days earlier, on 9 January, Robert Wintour and Stephen Littleton were captured. Their hiding place at at [[Hagley]], the home of Humphrey Littleton (brother of MP John Littleton, imprisoned for treason in 1601 for his part in the Essex revolt)<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=79}}</ref> was betrayed by a cook, who grew suspicious at the amount of food sent up for his master's consumption. Humphrey denied the presence of the two fugitives, but another servant led the authorities to their hiding place.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=255–256}}</ref> On 20 January the local Justice and his retainers arrived at Thomas Habington's home, Hindlip Hall, with the official proclamation for the arrest of the Jesuits. Despite Thomas Habington's protestations, the men spent the next four days searching the house. On 24 January, starving, two priests left their hiding places and were discovered. Humphrey Littleton, who had escaped from the authorities at Hagley, got as far as [[Prestwood]] in [[Staffordshire]] before he was captured. He was imprisoned, and then condemned to death at [[Worcester]]. On hearing this, his resolve collapsed and on 26 January he told the authorities where exactly they could find Father Garnet, in exchange for his life. Worn down by hiding for so long, Garnet, however, with another priest, appeared of his own accord the next day.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=256–257, p. 260, p. 261}}</ref> |
|||
===Trials=== |
|||
[[File:Edward coke.jpg|right|thumb|upright|alt=A three-quarter portrait of a white man, dressed entirely in black with a white lace ruff. He has brown hair, a short beard and moustache, and a neutral expression. Latin text surrounds the image.|[[Edward Coke]] conducted the interrogations of those thought to be involved with the conspiracy.]] |
|||
By coincidence, on the same day as Garnet was found, the surviving conspirators were [[arraignment|arraigned]] in [[Westminster Hall]]. Seven of the prisoners were brought to [[Star Chamber]] by barge, from the Tower. Bates, who was considered lower class, was brought from the gatehouse of Westminster. Some of the prisoners were reportedly despondent, but others were nonchalant, even smoking tobacco. They were displayed on a purpose-built scaffold. Among the many people watching the trial, was the King and his family, hidden from view. The Lords Commissioners present were the Earls of [[Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk|Suffolk]], Worcester, Northampton, [[William Cavendish, 1st Earl of Devonshire|Devonshire]], and Salisbury. Sir John Popham was [[Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales|Lord Chief Justice]], Sir Thomas Fleming was [[Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer]], and two Justices, Sir Thomas Walmsley and Sir Peter Warburton, sat as [[List of Justices of the Court of Common Pleas|Justices of the Common Pleas]]. The list of traitors' names was read aloud, beginning with the names of the priests: Garnet, Tesimond, and Gerard.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=263–265}}</ref><ref name="Haynespp110111">{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=110–111}}</ref> |
|||
The first to speak was the [[Speaker of the British House of Commons|Speaker]] of the [[House of Commons of England|House of Commons]] (later [[Master of the Rolls]]), [[Edward Phelips|Sir Edward Philips]], who described the intent behind the plot in lurid detail.<ref name="Haynespp110111"/> He was followed by the [[Attorney General for England and Wales|Attorney-General]] [[Edward Coke|Sir Edward Coke]], who began with a long speech—the content of which was heavily influenced by Salisbury—that included a denial that the King had ever made any promises to the Catholics. Monteagle's part in the discovery of the plot was welcomed, and denouncements of the 1603 mission to Spain featured strongly. Fawkes's protestations that Gerard knew nothing of the plot were deliberately left out of Coke's speech. The foreign powers, when mentioned, were accorded due respect, but the priests were accursed, their behaviour analysed and criticised wherever possible. There was little doubt, according to Coke, that the plot had been invented by the Jesuits. Garnet's meeting with Catesby, at which the former was said to have absolved the latter of any blame in the plot, was proof enough that the Jesuits were central to the conspiracy. Coke spoke with feeling of the probable fate of the Queen and the rest of the King's family, and of the innocents who would have been caught up in the explosion.<ref name="Fraserpp266269">{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=266–269}}</ref> |
|||
{{Quote box | quote = I never yet knew a treason without a Romish priest; but in this there are very many Jesuits, who are known to have dealt and passed through the whole action.| source=[[Sir Edward Coke]]<ref name="Haynespp110111"/>|width=33%|align=right}} |
|||
Each of the condemned, said Coke, would be drawn backwards to his death, by a horse, his head near the ground. He was to be "put to death halfway between heaven and earth as unworthy of both". His genitals would be cut off and burnt before his eyes, and his bowels and heart then removed. Then he would be decapitated, and the dismembered parts of his body displayed so that they might become "prey for the fowls of the air".<ref name="Fraserpp266269"/> [[Confession (law)|Confessions]] and declarations from the prisoners were then read aloud, and finally the prisoners were allowed to speak. Rookwood claimed that he had been drawn into the plot by Catesby, "whom he loved above any worldy man". Thomas Wintour begged to be hanged for himself and his brother, so that he might be spared. Fawkes explained his not guilty plea as ignorance of certain aspects of the indictment. Keyes appeared to accept his fate, Bates and Robert Wintour begged for mercy, and Grant explained his involvement as "a conspiracy intended but never effected."<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=270–271}}</ref> Only Digby, tried on a separate indictment,<ref name="Haynespp110111"/> pleaded guilty, insisting that the King had reneged upon promises of toleration for Catholics, and that affection for Catesby and love of the Catholic cause mitigated his actions. He sought [[Decapitation|death by the axe]] and begged mercy from the King for his young family.<ref name="ODNB Everard Digby">{{Citation | last = Nicholls | first = Mark | title = Digby, Sir Everard (c.1578–1606) | publisher = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press | date = 2004-09 | url = http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/7626 | doi = 10.1093/ref:odnb/7626 | accessdate = 2009-11-16}}</ref> His defence was in vain; his arguments were rebuked by Coke and Northumberland, and along with his seven co-conspirators, he was found guilty by the [[jury]] of [[High treason in the United Kingdom|high treason]]. Digby shouted "If I may but hear any of your lordships say, you forgive me, I shall go more cheerfully to the gallows." The response was short: "God forgive you, and we do."<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|p=273}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=113}}</ref> |
|||
[[File:Henry Garnet (1555-1606).jpg|thumb|left|upright|alt=A half-length monochrome portrait of a middle-aged man wearing a dark gown and a white collar. He has a short beard and his hair is thin. The top right corner of the image is illustrated by a piece of straw.|The [[Jesuit]] priest, [[Henry Garnet]]]] |
|||
Garnet may have been questioned on as many as 23 occasions. His response to the threat of the rack was "Minute ista pueris (Threats are only for boys)", and he denied having encouraged Catholics to pray for the success of the "Catholic Cause". His interrogators resorted to the forgery of correspondence between Garnet and other Catholics, but to no avail. His jailers then allowed him to talk with another priest in a neighbouring cell, with eavesdroppers recording every word. Eventually the weight of evidence forced Garnet to admit the extent of his knowledge of the conspirators, and the plot.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=116–119}}</ref> Garnet was charged with complicity in early March. His trial began in the [[Guildhall, London|Guildhall]] on 28 March, and lasted from 8 am until 7 pm.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=120}}</ref> According to Coke, Garnet was the instigator of the plot: "[Garnet] hath many gifts and endowments of nature, by art learned, a good linguist and, by profession, a Jesuit and a [[Superior (hierarchy)|Superior]] as indeed he is Superior to all his predecessors in devilish treason, a Doctor of Dissimulation, Deposing of Princes, Disposing of Kingdoms, Daunting and deterring of subjects, and Destruction." Garnet refuted all the charges against him, and explained the Catholic position on such matters, but he was nevertheless found guilty and sentenced to death.<ref name="ODNB Garnett"/>{{-}} |
|||
===Executions=== |
|||
[[Image:The execution of Guy Fawkes' (Guy Fawkes) by Claes (Nicolaes) Jansz Visscher.jpg|thumb|300px|right|alt=A monochrome illustration of a busy urban scene. Medieval buildings surround an open space, in which several men are being dragged by horses. One man hangs from a scaffold. A corpse is being hacked into pieces. Another man is feeding a large cauldron with a dismembered leg. Thousands of people line the streets and look from windows. Children and dogs run freely. Soldiers keep them back.|Print of the members of the Gunpowder Plot being hanged, drawn, and quartered]] |
|||
Although Catesby and Percy escaped the executioner, their bodies were exhumed and decapitated, and their heads exhibited on spikes outside the House of Lords.<ref name="Fraserpp235236"/> On a cold 30 January, Everard Digby, Robert Wintour, John Grant, and Thomas Bates, were tied to hurdles and then dragged through the streets, which were lined with people, to St Paul's Churchyard. Digby, the first to mount the scaffold, asked the audience for forgiveness, and refused the attentions of a Protestant clergyman. He was stripped of his clothing, and wearing only a shirt, climbed the ladder to place his head through the noose. He was quickly cut down, and still fully concious was castrated, disembowelled, and then quartered, along with the three other prisoners.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=115–116}}</ref> The following day, Thomas Wintour, Ambrose Rookwood, Robert Keyes, and Guy Fawkes were hanged, drawn, and quartered, opposite the building they had planned to blow up, in the [[Old Palace Yard]] at Westminster.<ref>{{Citation | last = Nicholls | first = Mark | title = Rookwood, Ambrose (c.1578–1606) | publisher = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press | date = 2004-09 | url = http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/24066 | accessdate = 2009-11-16 | doi = 10.1093/ref:odnb/24066}}</ref> Keyes did not wait for the hangman's command, and jumped from the gallows; however he survived the drop and was led to the quartering block. Fawkes, although weakened by torture, was luckier and managed to cheat 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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Northcote Parkinson|1976|pp=91–92}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1999|pp=279–283}}</ref> |
|||
Steven Littleton was executed at Stafford. His cousin Humphrey, despite his cooperation with the authorities, met his end at [[Red Hill, Worcester|Red Hill]] near Worcester.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=129}}</ref> Henry Garnet's execution took place on 3 May 1606, but unlike the conspirators, he was not drawn and quartered. On the King's express instructions, Garnet was left hanging from the gallows until he was dead.<ref>{{Harvnb|Northcote Parkinson|1976|pp=114–115}}</ref> |
|||
==Aftermath== |
|||
Greater freedom for Roman Catholics to worship as they chose seemed unlikely in 1604, but the discovery of such a wide-ranging conspiracy, the capture of those involved, and the subsequent trials could only force Parliament in one direction—greater intolerance of Catholics. New anti-Catholic legislation was soon considered; in the summer of 1606, laws against recusancy were strengthened.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=131}}</ref> The [[Popish Recusants Act 1605|Popish Recusants Act]] returned England to the Elizabethan system of fines and restrictions, and included a sacramental test, and a new Oath of Allegiance.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=131}}</ref> [[Catholic Emancipation]] took another 200 years, but many important and loyal Catholics retained high office during King James I's reign.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=140}}</ref> |
|||
The [[playwright]] [[William Shakespeare]] had already used the family history of Northumberland's family in his ''[[Henry IV, Part 1|Henry IV]]'' series of plays, and the events of the Gunpowder Plot seem to have featured alongside the earlier [[John Ruthven, 3rd Earl of Gowrie|Gowrie conspiracy]] in ''[[Macbeth]]'', written some time between 1603 and 1607.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=148–154}}</ref> Interest in the [[Demonology|demonic]] was heightened by the Gunpowder Plot. The King 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. Inversions seen in such lines as "fair is foul and foul is fair" are used frequently, and another possible reference to the plot relates to the use of [[equivocation]]; Garnett’s ''A Treatise of Equivocation'' was found on one of the plotters.<ref>{{Citation | last = Huntley | first = Frank L. | title = Macbeth and the Background of Jesuitical Equivocation | publisher = PMLA | volume = 79 | number = 4 | date = 1964-09 | pages = 390–400}}</ref> |
|||
{{Quote box|quote = Faith, here's an equivocator, that could<br/>Swear in both the scales against either scale;<br/>Who committed treason enough for God's sake,<br/>Yet could not equivocate to heaven<br/> | source = ''[[Macbeth]]'', Act 2 Scene 3 | align = left}} |
|||
The Gunpowder Plot was commemorated for years by special sermons and other public acts, such as the ringing of church bells. It added to an increasingly full calendar of Protestant celebrations that contributed to the national and religious life of 17th-century England,<ref>{{Citation | last = Cressy | first = David | title = Bonfires and bells: national memory and the Protestant calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England | year = 1989}}</ref> and has evolved into the [[Guy Fawkes Night|Bonfire Night]] of today. In ''What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?'' historian [[Ronald Hutton|Ronald Hutton]] considered the events which might have followed a successful implementation of the plot, and the destruction of the House of Lords and all those within it. He concluded that a severe backlash against suspected Catholics would have followed, and that without foreign assistance success a successful rebellion would have been unlikely; despite differing religious convictions, most Englishmen were loyal to the institution of the monarchy. England might have become a more "Puritan absolute monarchy", as "existed in Sweden, Denmark, [[Saxony]], and [[Prussia]] in the seventeenth century", rather than following the path of parliamentary and civil reform that it did.<ref name="hutton">{{Citation | last = Hutton | first = Ronald | title=What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded? | url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml | publisher=bbc.co.uk | date=2001-04-01 | accessdate=2008-11-07}}</ref> |
|||
===Accusations of state conspiracy=== |
|||
Many at the time felt that Salisbury had been involved in the plot to gain favour with the King and enact more stridently anti-Catholic legislation. Such theories alleged that Salisbury 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's 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 a period of relative leniency for Catholics, and few were subject to prosecution.<ref>{{Citation | last = Marshall | first = Peter | title = Reformation England 1480–1642 | location = London | year = 2003 | pages = 187–188}}</ref> |
|||
This did not dissuade some from continuing to claim Salisbury's involvement in the plot. In 1897 Father John Gerard of [[Stonyhurst College]], namesake of a Jesuit priest who had performed Mass for some of the plotters, wrote an account called ''What was the Gunpowder Plot?'', alleging Salisbury's culpability.<ref>{{Citation|last=Gerard|first=John|title=What was the Gunpowder Plot? : the traditional story tested by original evidence|publisher=Osgood, McIlvaine & Co|location=London|year=1897}}</ref> This prompted a refutation later that year by [[Samuel Rawson Gardiner|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.<ref>{{Citation|last=Gardiner|first=Samuel|authorlink=Samuel Rawson Gardiner|title=What Gunpowder Plot was |publisher=Longmans, Green and Co|location=London|year=1897}}</ref> Gardiner portrayed Salisbury as guilty of nothing more than opportunism. Subsequent attempts to prove Salisbury'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.<ref>{{Citation|last=Edwards|first=Francis|title=Guy Fawkes: the real story of the gunpowder plot?|publisher=Hart-Davis|location=London|year=1969|isbn=0246639679}}</ref> |
|||
===Bonfire night=== |
|||
{{Main|Guy Fawkes Night}} |
|||
[[Image:Bonfire4.jpg|thumb|alt=A night-time photograph of a blazing fire is silhouetted by dark figures.|Bonfires are lit in Britain every 5th of November to commemorate the plot.]] |
|||
In January 1606, during the first sitting of Parliament since the plot, a "Thanksgiving Act" was passed, making services and sermons commemorating the event an annual feature of English life;<ref name="parliament">{{Citation|url=http://www.gunpowderplot.parliament.uk/adults_plot_ac.htm|title=Aftermath: Commemoration |date=2005–2006|publisher=gunpowderplot.parliament.uk |accessdate=2009-10-06}}</ref> the act remained in force until 1859.<ref name="factsheet">{{Citation | url = http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g08.pdf | title = Houses of Parliament factsheet on event | publisher = parliament.uk | date = 2006-09 | format = PDF | accessdate = 2007-03-06}}</ref> The tradition of marking the day with the ringing of church bells and bonfires started soon after the plot's discovery, and fireworks were included in some of the earliest celebrations.<ref name="parliament" /> In Britain, the 5th of November is variously called Bonfire Night, Fireworks Night, or [[Guy Fawkes Night]].<ref name="factsheet"/> The Houses of Parliament are still searched by the [[Yeomen of the Guard]] before the [[State Opening of Parliament]], although the ritual is now retained as a picturesque custom rather than as a serious anti-terrorism precaution.<ref name="factsheet"/> |
|||
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 were exhibited in the street, to collect money for fireworks, although this practice has become less common.<ref name="icons">{{Citation|url=http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/bonfire-night/features/a-penny-for-the-guy-in-progress|title=Bonfire Night: A penny for the Guy|publisher = icons.org.uk|accessdate=2009-10-06}}</ref> 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.<ref name="factsheet"/> |
|||
November the 5th firework displays and bonfire parties are common throughout Britain, in major public displays and in private gardens.<ref name="factsheet"/> In some areas, particularly in Sussex, there are extensive processions, large bonfires and firework displays organised by local [[Sussex Bonfire Societies|bonfire societies]], the most elaborate of which take place in [[Lewes]]. |
|||
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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Forbes|1999|p=94}}</ref> |
|||
===Reconstructing the explosion=== |
|||
In the 2005 [[ITV]] programme ''[[The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend]]'', a full-size replica of the House of Lords was built and destroyed with barrels of gunpowder. The experiment was conducted on the Advantica Spadeadam test site, and demonstrated that the explosion, if the gunpowder was in good order, would have killed all those in the building.<ref name=Times>{{Citation | url = http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article584830.ece | title = Gunpowder plotters get their wish, 400 years on | last = Sherwin | first = Adam | publisher = timesonline.co.uk | date = 2005-10-31 | accessdate = 2008-01-18}}</ref> The power of the explosion was such that the {{convert|7|ft|adj=on}} deep 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 explosion; 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 {{convert|330|ft}} of the blast could have survived, and all of the stained glass windows in [[Westminster Abbey]] would have been shattered, as would all of the windows in the vicinity of the Palace. The explosion would have been seen from miles away, and heard from further away 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.<ref name=Times/> |
|||
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 its containment 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.<ref>{{Citation | url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1501865/Guy-Fawkes-had-twice-the-gunpowder-needed.html | title = Guy Fawkes had twice the gunpowder needed | first = Fiona | last = Govan | publisher = telegraph.co.uk | date = 2005-10-31 | accessdate = 2008-01-18}}</ref> |
|||
Some of the gunpowder guarded by Fawkes 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, written in the 19th century, confirmed this provenance, but in 1952 the document acquired a new comment: "but there was none left".<ref>{{Citation|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1886016.stm|title=Guy Fawkes' gunpowder 'found'|date=2002-03-21|publisher = news.bbc.co.uk|accessdate=2009-11-03}}</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
*[[Popish Plot]] |
*[[Popish Plot]] |
||
*[[Nicholas Owen (martyr)]] |
|||
==References== |
|||
;Notes |
|||
{{reflist|group="nb"|colwidth=30em}} |
|||
;Footnotes |
|||
==Notes== |
|||
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}} |
|||
{{Refimprove|date=December 2008}} |
|||
{{reflist|2}} |
|||
==Pop culture references== |
|||
The comic book series ''[[V for Vendetta]]'' (as well as the 2005 [[V for Vendetta (film)|film of the same name]]) is about a modern day rebel in England who successfully recreates the gunpowder plot to overthrow an Orwellian totalitarian regime. |
|||
;Bibliography |
|||
{{refbegin}} |
|||
*Croft, Pauline (2003). ''King James''. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-61395-3. |
|||
*{{citation | last = Croft |first=Pauline |year=2003 |title=King James |publisher=Macmillan |isbn=0-333-61395-3}} |
|||
*Stewart, Alan (2003). ''The Cradle King: A Life of James VI & 1''. London: Chatto and Windus. ISBN 0-7011-6984-2. |
|||
*{{citation | last = Forbes |first=Esther |title=Paul Revere and the Times He Lived In | year = 1999|publisher=Houghton Mifflin |origyear=1942}} |
|||
*Alan Sutton ''The Gunpowder Plot: Faith in Rebellion'' (Hayes and Sutton 1994) |
|||
*{{citation | last = Fraser | first = Antonia | authorlink = Antonia Fraser | title = The Gunpowder Plot | publisher = Phoenix | year = 1999 | isbn = 0753814013}} |
|||
*Alan Wharam ''Treason: Famous English Treason Trials'' (Alan Sutton Publishing 1995) |
|||
*{{citation | last = Haynes |first=Alan |title=The Gunpowder Plot: Faith in Rebellion |publisher=Hayes and Sutton |year=2005 | origyear = 1994 | isbn = 0750942150}} |
|||
*Willson, David Harris ([1956] 1963 ed). ''King James VI & I''. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd. ISBN 0-224-60572-0. |
|||
*{{citation | last = Neale | first = J. E. | authorlink = J. E. Neale | title = Queen Elizabeth I: A Biography | publisher = London: Jonathan Cape | origyear = 1934 | year = 1954}} |
|||
*Esther Forbes, ''Paul Revere and the Times He Lived In'' pg. 89-94 (Houghton Mifflin,1942) |
|||
*{{citation | last = Nichols | first = John | title = The Progresses, Processions, and Magnificent Festivities of King James the First, His Royal Consort, Family, and Court | publisher = J. B. Nichols | year = 1828 | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=IGANAAAAIAAJ}} |
|||
*{{citation | last = Northcote Parkinson |first=C. | authorlink = C. Northcote Parkinson | title=Gunpowder Treason and Plot |year=1976 |publisher=Weidenfeld and Nicolson |isbn=0-297-77224-4}} |
|||
*{{citation | last = Scott | first=George Ryley | title = History of Torture Throughout the Ages | year = 1940 | isbn = 0766140636 | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tj7vbMmuvhYC}} |
|||
*{{citation | last = Stewart |first=Alan |year=2003 |title=The Cradle King: A Life of James VI & 1 |publisher=Chatto and Windus |isbn=0-7011-6984-2}} |
|||
*{{citation | last = Willson |first=David Harris |origyear=1956 |year=1963 |title=King James VI & I |publisher=Jonathan Cape |isbn=0224605720}} |
|||
{{refend}} |
|||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
{{Wikisource|Gunpowder Plot Sermon}} |
|||
*[http://www.gunpowderplot.parliament.uk The History of the Gunpowder Plot (Produced by The Parliamentary Archives)] |
|||
*[http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/ukandireland/a/gunpowderindex.htm The Gunpowder Plot of 1605] |
|||
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07081b.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'': The Gunpowder Plot] |
|||
*[http://www.show.me.uk/gunpowderplot The Gunpowder Plot (Website exploring the history of the plot for younger users)] |
*[http://www.show.me.uk/gunpowderplot The Gunpowder Plot (Website exploring the history of the plot for younger users)] |
||
*[http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g08.pdf The Gunpowder Plot (House of Commons Information Sheet)] |
*[http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g08.pdf The Gunpowder Plot (House of Commons Information Sheet)] |
||
*[http://www.gunpowder-plot.org The Gunpowder Plot Society] |
|||
*[http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14934-1850999,00.html iTV "Gunpowder Plot" Program] |
|||
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?] |
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?] |
||
*[http://www.bonfirenight.net/gunpowder.php A summary of the Gunpowder Plot events] |
|||
*[http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5567/publications.html Publications about the Gunpowder Plot] |
|||
*[http://www.exmsft.com/~davidco/History/fawkes1.htm A contemporary account of the executions of the plotters] |
*[http://www.exmsft.com/~davidco/History/fawkes1.htm A contemporary account of the executions of the plotters] |
||
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/launch_gms_gunpowder_plot.shtml The Gunpowder Plot Game] [[BBC]] |
|||
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1605605,00.html Interactive Guide: Gunpowder Plot] [[Guardian Unlimited]] |
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1605605,00.html Interactive Guide: Gunpowder Plot] [[Guardian Unlimited]] |
||
*[http://www. |
*[http://www.mikeslee.co.uk/photos01.htm Website of a crew member of ITV's ''Exploding the Legend'' programme, with a photograph of the explosion] |
||
{{Gunpowder Plot}} |
{{Gunpowder Plot}} |
||
Line 221: | Line 258: | ||
[[fr:Conspiration des poudres]] |
[[fr:Conspiration des poudres]] |
||
[[gl:Conspiración da pólvora]] |
[[gl:Conspiración da pólvora]] |
||
[[ko:화약 음모 사건]] |
|||
[[hr:Izdaja prahom]] |
[[hr:Izdaja prahom]] |
||
[[id:Plot Bubuk Mesiu]] |
[[id:Plot Bubuk Mesiu]] |
Revision as of 20:25, 21 November 2009
![]() A contemporary report of the plot | |
Date | 5 November 1605 |
---|---|
Location | London, UK |
Participants | Robert Catesby, Thomas Wintour, Robert Wintour, John Wright, Christopher Wright, Robert Keyes, Thomas Percy, John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby, Francis Tresham, Thomas Bates |
Outcome | Execution |
The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was a failed assassination attempt against King James I of England and VI of Scotland and most of the Protestant peers by blowing up the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament on 5 November 1605. The conspirators, a group of provincial English Catholics, also planned to abduct the royal children and to 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 religious tolerance under James I had faded, leaving many English Catholics disappointed. Other plotters included Thomas Wintour, Robert Wintour, John Wright, Christopher Wright, Robert Keyes, Thomas Percy, John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby, Francis Tresham and Thomas Bates, Catesby's servant. Destroying the House of Lords and killing those gathered there was intended as the first step in a rebellion, during which it was planned to install James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, as a Catholic head of state. 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.
An anonymous letter, sent to William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle, was instrumental in revealing the existence of the plot; its author has never been reliably established. During a search of the House of Lords early in the morning of 5 November 1605 Fawkes was discovered guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder it was intended that he should detonate later that day, during the State Opening of Parliament. As news of Fawkes's arrest reached the other conspirators, most decided to flee from London. They decided to make a stand against the pursuing authorities at Holbeche House, where during a gun battle with the Sheriff of Worcester and his men, Catesby, the instigator of the plot, was one of those shot dead. At their trial on 27 January 1606, eight of the surviving conspirators were convicted and sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.
Details of the assassination attempt were allegedly known by the principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet. Although convicted and sentenced to death, doubt has since been cast on how much Garnet really knew. As the existence of the plot was revealed to him through confession, Garnet was prevented from informing the authorities by the absolute confidentiality of the confessional. New anti-Catholic legislation was introduced soon after the plot's discovery, but many important and loyal Catholics retained high office during King James I's reign. The Gunpowder Plot was commemorated for many years by special sermons and other public acts, such as the ringing of church bells, which have evolved into the Bonfire Night of today.
Background
Religion in England
![A three-quarter portrait of a middle-aged woman wearing a tiara, a large skirt, tight bodice, and puffed-out sleeves. The outfit is decorated with patterns and jewels. Her face is pale, her hair ginger. A jewelled crown is visible behind her.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Darnley_stage_3.jpg/170px-Darnley_stage_3.jpg)
Between 1533–1540, the Tudor King Henry VIII took control of England's church from Rome, prompting several hundred years of religious turmoil in England. English Catholics struggled to find their way in a society now dominated by the newly separate and increasingly Protestant Church of England. Further pressure was applied to the old religion by Henry's daughter, Elizabeth I of England, who responded to these growing divisions with the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, following which anyone taking public or church office was required to swear allegiance to the monarch as head of the Church and state, with severe penalties if they refused. Elizabeth's Catholic cousin Mary, Queen of Scots, considered by many Catholics to be the legitimate heir to the English throne, was imprisoned in 1569, and executed for treason in 1587.
Catholicism became marginalised under Elizabeth's rule. The pope viewed Elizabeth as a heretic and excommunicated her from the Catholic Church,[1] and despite the risk of torture or execution, priests continued to practice their faith in England, taking extreme care not to be caught.[2] In the months before Elizabeth's death on 24 March 1603, Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury had secretly prepared the way for her successor.[nb 1] He had entered into a coded negotiation with James VI of Scotland, who, as the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, had a strong but unrecognised claim.[nb 2]
English Catholics
Some exiled Catholics, not satisfied with James's stance on Catholicism, favoured the Catholic Philip II of Spain's daughter, Infanta Isabella, as Elizabeth's successor. Other, more moderate Catholics, looked to James's and Elizabeth's cousin Arbella Stuart, a woman thought to have Catholic sympathies.[4] These murmurs of discontent forced the government to detain various "principal papists" as the Queen's condition worsened.[5] The Privy Council grew so worried that Stuart was moved closer to London the day before Elizabeth's death, to prevent her kidnap by papists.[6] Nonetheless, James's easy succession[nb 3] was generally celebrated. The Earl of Salisbury's proclamation on 24 March, read aloud in various locations—including one outside the Tower of London inside which several Catholic priests were detained—by nightfall had resulted in bonfires burning throughout London. Leading papists, rather than causing trouble as anticipated, reacted to the news by offering enthusiastic support for their 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".[8]
![A full length portrait of a middle-aged man, wearing a grey doublet with grey tights, and brown fur draped over his shoulders.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/James_I%2C_VI_by_John_de_Critz%2C_c.1606.png/170px-James_I%2C_VI_by_John_de_Critz%2C_c.1606.png)
While still in Scotland, James had spoken approvingly of the Catholics who had been forced to hide their faith under the Act of Uniformity,[9] but he was no supporter of the Church of Rome. James's hostility toward Catholicism stemmed from the same views he bore towards Puritanism—views based much more on political than on religious hatred.[10] During his secret communications with Salisbury, he had written to warn the Secretary of State of the "daily increase that I hear of popery in England". James's views, however, were more moderate than those of his predecessor; he 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."[11]
At Newcastle, while on his way to London, James pardoned and freed all prisoners—except "papists and wilful murderers". Despite his interest in theology, he 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, much to James's annoyance). 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 knighted 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 that he left the country.[12]
Early plots
Despite the claims of several others to the English throne, the transition of power went smoothly.[nb 4] James, whose mother Mary Queen of Scots was seen by Catholics as a martyr, was an astute politician. The new King received an envoy from the Catholic Albert VII of the Southern Netherlands.[13] This country, which had for the previous 30 years been a battleground between English-supported Protestant rebels and Catholics, had also served as a refuge for English expatriates. For these Catholics, a restoration by force, supported by the King of Spain, was an intriguing possibility. There was however to be no attack; following the failed invasion of England by Spain in 1588, the Papacy had taken a more long-term view on the return of a Catholic monarch to the English throne.[14] With Elizabeth dead, James issued a ceasefire order, 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.[13]
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, providing a future 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.[15]
If this thought was welcomed by James's loyal subjects, for those Catholics who had looked to a ruler who worshipped at their own Church, the idea made them despondent. Any suggestion that the whole new royal family might be supplanted appeared an unlikely idea; the new King's children would soon be given estates of their own, providing employment for keen young suitors, which would make a rebellion more unlikely.[16] However, with the absence of any sign that James would move to end the persecution of the Catholics, as some had hoped, several members of the clergy (including two anti-Jesuit priests) turned to conspiracy. In what became known as the Bye Plot, the priests William Watson and William Clark planned to kidnap James before he was crowned, and hold him in the Tower of London until they forced several concessions from him. Salisbury received news of the plot from several sources. In the same period, Lord Cobham, Lord Grey de Wilton, Lord Markham, and Walter Ralegh, hatched what became known as the Main Plot, which involved removing James and his family and supplanting them with Arbella Stuart. Amongst others, they approached Henry IV of France for funding, but were unsuccessful. All those involved in both plots were arrested in July and tried in the autumn; Sir George Brooke was executed, but James, keen not to have too bloody a start to his reign, reprieved Cobham, Grey, and Markham, while they were at the scaffold. Ralegh, who had watched while his colleagues sweated, and who was due to be executed a few days later, was also forgiven. Stuart denied any knowledge of the Main Plot. The two priests, condemned by the pope, and "very bloodily handled", were executed.[17]
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 them 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.[18]
Early reign of James I
Despite this early benign attitude towards religion, 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 Church of England. The King was hostile to the Puritans, believing them to have manipulated his mother. The first Parliament of his reign was summoned on 31 January 1604, to be followed six weeks later by the opening ceremony. On 19 February however, James denounced the Church. He had recently discovered that the Pope had given one of James's spies, Sir Anthony Standen, a rosary to pass to his wife, Queen Anne. Three days later he ordered all Jesuits and all other Catholic priests to leave the country, and he reimposed fines for recusancy.[19] James changed his focus from assuaging the anxieties of the English Catholics to establishing an Anglo-Scottish union.[20] The King had also made a point of appointing Scottish nobles, such as George Home, to his court, something which proved unpopular with the Parliament of England, 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" was 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.[21]
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 members of his faith 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.[22]
A week after James's speech, Lord Sheffield informed him of over 900 hundred recusants brought before the Assizes in Normanby, and on 24 April a Bill was introduced in Parliament which threatened to outlaw all English followers of the Catholic Church. According to Lord Chief Justice Sir John Popham, it was also at about this time that the Gunpowder Plot was hatched.[23]
Plot
![A monochrome sketch of eight men, in 17th-century dress. All have beards, and all appear to be engaged in discussion](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, the only surviving son of Sir William and Lady Catesby, née Anne Throckmorton, a daughter of Sir Robert Throckmorton. He may have studied at Douai before marrying the Protestant Catherine Leigh. The marriage produced a son, Robert, who was betrothed at the age of eight to a daughter of Thomas Percy. Catherine died after the birth of their second son, and Catesby's father died in 1598. Robert was described by contemporaries as "a good-looking man, about six feet tall, athletic and a good swordsman". Along with several other of the conspirators, he took part in the Earl of Essex's rebellion in 1601, during which he was wounded and captured. Queen Elizabeth allowed him to escape with his life by fining him 4,000 marks (about £840,000 as of 2024). To afford this, he was forced to sell his estate in Chastleton, for which he enlisted the help of his friend Thomas Percy.[24][25][26] The sale of his estate, and the death of his wife and father are factors which, author Alan Haynes suggests, may have played an important part in Catesby's decision to pursue a more active political life.[27] In 1603 Catesby helped to organise a mission to the new King of Spain, Philip III, 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.[28] Wintour had also attempted to convince the Spanish envoy Don Juan de Tassis that "3,000 Catholics" were ready and waiting to support such an invasion.[29] Concern was voiced by Pope Clement VIII that using violence to achieve a restoration of Catholic power in England would result in the destruction of those that remained.[30]
According to contemporary accounts,[nb 5] 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.[25] Wintour was known as a reasonable scholar, able to speak several languages, and he had fought with the English army in the Netherlands.[31] His uncle, Francis Ingleby, had been executed for being a Catholic priest in 1586, and Wintour later converted to Catholicism.[32] Also present at the meeting was John Wright, a devout Catholic said to be one of the best swordsmen of his day, and a man 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 religious beliefs.[33] 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."[25]
Wintour travelled to Flanders to enquire about Spanish support. While there he sought out 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. In the 1590s he served in the Southern Netherlands under the command of William Stanley, and in 1603 was recommended for a captaincy.[34] Accompanied by Christopher Wright, Fawkes had also been a member of the 1603 delegation to the Spanish court pleading for an invasion of England. At Ostend, Wintour told Fawkes that "some good frends of his wished his company in Ingland", and at another meeting in Dunkirk he said that certain gentlemen "were uppon a resolution to doe some whatt in Ingland if the pece with Spain healped us nott" the two men returned to England late in April 1604 and told Catesby that Spanish support was unlikely. Thomas Percy, Catesby's friend and John Wright's brother-in-law, was introduced to the plot several weeks later.[35][36]
Initial planning
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 aristocracy, 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.[37] 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, most of whom lived 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 Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, as Elizabeth's Protector, but most likely never informed him of this.[38]
![A full length portrait of a young girl wearing a large pale dress, with tight jewelled bodice, and long sleeves. She has brown hair, and wears a tiara. In her left hand she holds a fan. Behind her, a small river runs underneath a bridge, in a small glade filled with trees.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Eliz_bohemia_2.jpg/170px-Eliz_bohemia_2.jpg)
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.[39] 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.[40]
Percy had found employment with his kinsman the Earl of Northumberland, and by 1596 was his agent for the family's northern estates. About 1600–1601 he served with his patron in the Low Countries. At some point during Northumberland's command in the Low Countries, Percy became the his agent in his communications with James.[41] 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".[42][43] Northumberland—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 Northumberland 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.[44]
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 a mounted troop of fifty bodyguards to the king—by his patron, the Earl of Northumberland. This role gave Percy reason to seek a base in London, and a small property near the Prince's Chamber—in the possession of Henry Ferrers, a tenant of John Whynniard—was chosen. Percy arranged for the use of the house on 24 May 1604, through Northumberland's agents, Dudley Carleton and John Hippesley. Fawkes, using the pseudonym "John Johnson", took charge of the building, posing as Percy's servant.[45] The building was occupied by Scottish commissioners appointed by the King to consider his plans for the unification of England and Scotland, so the plotters hired Catesby's lodgings in Lambeth, on the opposite bank of the Thames, from which their stored gunpowder and other supplies could be conveniently rowed across each night.[46] Meanwhile, King James continued his policies against the Catholics, and Parliament pushed through anti-Catholic legislation, until it was adjourned on 7 July.[47]
![A monochrome plan-view image showing the relative positions of buildings around Westminster Hall. Text delineates the names of certain buildings and streets, as well as the nearby River Thames.](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)
![A monochrome plan-view diagram of several buildings](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Capon_map_of_parliament.jpg/250px-Capon_map_of_parliament.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 6] 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.[48]
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, as the plotters had originally planned for, Parliament would not sit again until 3 October 1605. The contemporaneous account of the prosecution claimed that during this delay the conspirators were digging a tunnel beneath Parliament. This story may have been a government fabrication; no evidence for the existence of a tunnel was presented by the prosecution, and no trace of one has ever been found. The account of a tunnel comes directly from Thomas Wintour's confession,[35] and Guy Fawkes did not admit the existence of such a scheme until his fifth interrogation. Logistically, digging a tunnel would have proved extremely difficult, especially as none of the conspirators had any experience of mining.[49] If the story is true however, by 6 December the Scottish commissioners had finished their work, and the conspirators were busy tunnelling from their rented house to the House of Lords. They ceased their efforts when, during tunnelling, they heard a noise from above. The noise turned out to be the then-tenant's widow, who was clearing out the undercroft directly beneath the House of Lords—the same room where the plotters eventually stored the gunpowder.[50]
By the time the plotters reconvened at the start of the old style new year on Lady Day, 25 March, three more had been admitted to their ranks; Robert Wintour, John Grant, and Christopher Wright. The additions of Wintour and Wright were obvious choices. Along with a small fortune, Robert Wintour inherited Huddington Court (a known refuge for priests) near Worcester, and was reputedly a generous and well-liked man. A devout Catholic, he married Gertrude Talbot, who was from a family of recusants.[51] Christopher Wright (1568–1605), John's brother, had also taken part in the Earl of Essex's revolt. A devout Catholic, he had moved his family to Twigmore in Lincolnshire, then known as something of a haven for priests.[52][53] 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, and was another who had been involved in the Essex revolt of 1601.[54][55]
Undercroft
The plotters purchased the lease to an undercroft belonging 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 royal 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 features at the 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.[56]
![A monochrome illustration of several short buildings clustered in a small space. A yard in the foreground is filled with detritus.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/House_of_lords_and_princes_chamber.jpg/300px-House_of_lords_and_princes_chamber.jpg)
![A monochrome illustration of a stone and brick-walled room. An open doorway is to the right. The left wall contains equally spaced arches. The right wall is dominated by a large brick arch. Three arches form the third wall, in the distance. The floor and ceiling is interrupted by regularly spaced hexagonal wooden posts. The ceiling is spaced by wooden beams.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Gunpowder_plot_parliament_cellar.jpg/300px-Gunpowder_plot_parliament_cellar.jpg)
In the second week of June Catesby met in London the principal Jesuit in England, Father Henry Garnet, and asked him about the morality of entering into an undertaking which might involve the destruction of the innocent, together with the guilty. Garnet answered that such actions could often be excused, but according to his own account later admonished Catesby during a second meeting in July in Essex, showing him a letter from the pope which forbade rebellion. Soon after, the Jesuit priest Oswald Tesimond told Garnet he had taken Catesby's confession,[nb 7] whereupon he had learnt of the plot. Garnet and Catesby met for a third time on 24 July 1605, at the house of the wealthy Jesuit Anne Vaux in Enfield Chase.[nb 8] Garnet had decided that Tesimond's tale had been given under the seal of the confessional, and that canon law forbade him to repeat what he had heard.[60] Without acknowledging that he was aware of the precise nature of the plot, he attempted to dissuade Catesby from his course, to no avail.[61] Garnet wrote to a colleague in Rome, Claudio Acquaviva, expressing his concerns about open rebellion in England. He also told Acquaviva that "there is a risk that some private endeavour may commit treason or use force against the King", and urged the pope to issue a public brief against the use of force.[62]
According to Fawkes, 20 barrels of gunpowder were brought in at first, followed by 16 more on 20 July. The supply of gunpowder was theoretically controlled by the government, but it was easily obtained from illicit sources.[63][nb 9] On 28 July however, the ever-present threat of the plague again delayed the opening of Parliament, this time until Tuesday 5 November. Fawkes left the country for a short time. The King, meanwhile, spent much of the summer away from the city, hunting. He stayed wherever was convenient, including on occasion at the houses of prominent Catholics. Garnet, convinced that the threat of an uprising had receded, travelled the country on a pilgrimage.[64]
The final three conspirators were recruited in late 1605. At Michaelmas, Catesby added the staunch Catholic Ambrose Rookwood to the plot, and persuaded him to rent Clopton House near Stratford-upon-Avon. Rookwood was a young man with recusant connections, whose stable of horses at Coldham in Cambridgeshire proved an important factor in his enlistment. His parents, Robert Rookwood and Dorothea Drury were wealthy landowners, and had educated their son at a Jesuit school near Calais. On 14 October Catesby invited Francis Tresham into the conspiracy.[65] Tresham was the son of the Catholic Thomas Tresham, and a cousin to Robert Catesby—the two had been raised together.[66] He was also the heir to his father's large fortune, which had been depleted by recusant fines, expensive tastes, and also by Francis and Catesby's involvement in the Essex revolt.[nb 10] Francis had also been imprisoned at an early age, when he attacked a man and his pregnant daughter who owed money to his father.[67]
Catesby and Tresham met at the home of Tresham's brother-in-law and cousin, Lord Stourton. In his confession, Tresham claimed that he had asked Catesby if the plot would damn their souls, to which Catesby had replied it would not, and that the plight of England's Catholics required that it be done. Catesby also apparently asked for £2,000, and the use of Rushton Hall in Northamptonshire. Tresham declined both offers (although he did give £100 to Thomas Wintour), and told his interrogators that he had moved his family from Rushton to London in advance of the plot; hardly the actions of a guilty man, he claimed.[68]
Everard Digby was a young man who was generally well-liked, and lived at Gayhurst House in Buckinghamshire. He had been knighted by the King in April 1603, and was converted to Catholicism by Gerard. Digby and his wife, Mary Mulshaw, had accompanied the priest on his pilgrimage, and the two men were reportedly close friends. Digby was an accomplished equestrian, and was asked by Catesby to rent Coughton Court near Alcester.[69][70] Digby also promised £1,500 after Percy failed to pay the rent due for the properties he had taken in Westminster.[71]
Monteagle letter
![A damaged and aged piece of paper, or parchment, with multiple lines of handwritten English text.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Monteagle_letter.jpeg/300px-Monteagle_letter.jpeg)
The last few details of the plot were finalised in October, in a series of taverns across London and Daventry.[nb 11] Fawkes would be left to light the fuse and then escape across the Thames, while simultaneously a revolt in the Midlands would help to ensure the capture of Princess Elizabeth. Fawkes would leave for the continent, to explain events in England to the European Catholic powers.[75]
The wives of those involved, and Anne Vaux (a friend of Garnet who often shielded priests at her home) became increasingly concerned by what they suspected was about to happen.[76] Several of the conspirators expressed worries about the safety of fellow Catholics who would be present in Parliament on the day of the planned explosion.[77] Percy was concerned for his patron, Northumberland, and the young Earl of Arundel's name was brought up; Catesby suggested that a minor wound might keep him from the chamber on that day. The Lords Vaux, Montague, Monteagle, and Stourton were also mentioned. Keyes suggested warning Lord Mordaunt, to derision from Catesby.[78]
On Saturday 26 October, Monteagle (Tresham's brother-in-law) received an anonymous letter while at his house in Hoxton. Having broken the seal, he handed the letter to a servant who read it aloud:
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 hath concurred to punish the wickedness of this time. And think not slightly of this advertisement, but retire yourself into your country [county] 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 condemned because it may do you good and can do you no harm; for the danger is passed as soon as you have burnt the letter. And I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you.[75]
Unsure of the intent behind the letter, he promptly rode to Whitehall and handed it to Salisbury.[79] Salisbury informed the Earl of Worcester, considered to have recusant sympathies, and the suspected papist Henry Howard, 1st Earl of Northampton, but kept news of the plot from the King, who was busy hunting in Cambridgeshire and not expected back for several days. Monteagle's servant, Thomas Ward, had family connections with the Wright brothers, and sent a message to Catesby about the betrayal. Catesby, who had been due to go hunting with the King, suspected that Tresham was responsible for the letter, and with Thomas Wintour confronted the recently recruited conspirator. Tresham managed to convince the pair that he had not written the letter, but urged them to abandon the plot.[80] Salisbury was already aware of certain stirrings before he received the letter, but did not yet know the exact nature of the plot, or who exactly was involved. He therefore elected to wait, to see how events unfolded.[81]
Discovery
The letter was shown to the King on Friday 1 November. James felt that the intent behind the letter was to exceed in violence the explosion which killed his father, Lord Darnley, at Kirk o' Field.[82] Keen not to seem too intriguing, Salisbury feigned ignorance.[83] The following day members of the Privy Council visited the King at the Palace of Whitehall and informed him that, based on the information that Salisbury had given them a week earlier, on Monday the Lord Chamberlain Lord Suffolk would undertake a search of the Houses of Parliament, "both above and below". On Sunday 3 November Percy, Catesby and Wintour had a final meeting, where Percy told his colleages that they should "abide the uttermost triall", and reminded them of their ship waiting at anchor on the Thames.[84] By 4 November Digby was ensconced with a "hunting party" at Dunchurch, ready to abduct Princess Elizabeth.[85] The same day, Percy visited the Earl of Northumberland—who was innocent of the conspiracy—to see if he could discern what rumours were abound regarding the letter to Monteagle. Percy returned to London and assured Wintour, John Wright, and Robert Keyes that they had nothing to be concerned about, and returned to his lodgings on Gray's Inn Road. That same evening Catesby, John Wright, and Bates set off for the midlands. Fawkes visited Keyes, and left with a watch, to time the fuse, and an hour later Rookwood received several engraved swords from a local cutler.[86]
![In a stone-walled room, several armed men physically restrain another man, who is leaning forward in the direction of a large pile of wood and barrels.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Fawkes_arrest2.jpg/220px-Fawkes_arrest2.jpg)
Although two accounts of the number of searches and their timing exist, according to the King's version, the first search of the buildings in and around Parliament was made on Monday 4 November—as the plotters were busy making their final preparations—by Suffolk, Monteagle, and John Whynniard. They found a large pile of firewood in the undercroft beneath the House of Lords, accompanied by what they presumed to be a serving man (Fawkes), who told them that the firewood belonged to his master, Thomas Percy. They left to report their findings, at which time Fawkes also left the building. The King insisted that a more thorough search be undertaken. Late that night, the search party, headed by Thomas Knyvet, returned to the undercroft. There they came across Fawkes once more, who was dressed in a cloak and hat, and wearing boots and spurs. Fawkes, when arrested, gave his name as John Johnson—servant to Thomas Percy. He was carrying a lantern now held in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford,[87] and a search of his person revealed a watch, matches, and touchwood.[88] The barrels of gunpowder were discovered hidden under piles of faggots and coal.[89] Fawkes was taken to the King early on the morning of 5 November.[90]
Flight
As news of "John Johnson's" arrest spread among the plotters still in London, most fled northwest, along Watling Street. Christopher Wright and Thomas Percy left together. Rookwood left soon after, and managed to cover 30 miles in two hours on one horse. He overtook Keyes, who had set off earlier, then Wright and Percy at Little Brickhill, before catching Catesby, John Wright, and Bates on the same road. They met with Christopher Wright, and continued northwest to Dunchurch, using horses provided by Digby.[91] Keyes went to Mordaunt's house at Drayton. Meanwhile, Thomas Wintour stayed in London, and even went to Westminster to see what was happening. When he realised the plot had been uncovered, he took his horse and made for his sister's house at Norbrook, before continuing to Huddington Court.[nb 12]
On the 5th of November we began our Parliament, to which the King should have come in person, but refrained through a practise but that morning discovered. The plot was to have blown up the King at such time as he should have been set on his Royal Throne, accompanied with all his Children, Nobility and Commoners and assisted with all Bishops, Judges and Doctors; at one instant and blast to have ruin'd the whole State and Kingdom of England. And for the effecting of this, there was placed under the Parliament House, where the king should sit, some 30 barrels of powder, with good store of wood, faggots, pieces and bars of iron.
Sir Edward Hoby (Gentleman of the Bedchamber)[92]
The group of six conspirators stopped at Ashby St Ledgers at about 6 pm, and met with Robert Wintour, who was quickly updated on their situation. They then continued on to Dunchurch, and met with Digby. Catesby managed to convince the young knight that despite the failure of the plot, an armed struggle was still a real possibility. He announced to Digby's "hunting party" that the King and Salisbury were both dead. Hence, the fugitives now moved west to Warwick.[93]
In London, news of the plot was spreading, and the authorities set extra guards on the city gates, closed the ports, and protected the house of the Spanish Ambassador, which was surrounded by an angry mob. An arrest warrant was issued against Thomas Percy, and his patron, the Earl of Northumberland, was placed under house arrest.[94] In "John Johnson's" initial interrogation he revealed nothing other than the name of his mother, and that he was from Yorkshire. A letter to Guy Fawkes was discovered on his person, but he claimed that name was one of his aliases. Far from denying his intentions, Fawkes stated that it had been his purpose to destroy the King and Parliament.[nb 13] Nevertheless, he maintained his composure and insisted that he had acted alone. His unwillingness to yield so impressed James that the King described him as possessing "a Roman resolution".[96]
Investigation
![A rectangular metal frame with two wooden planks crossing its width. Spaced equally along the frame are three large wooden rollers. Attached to the rollers at each end are ropes, designed to act as restraints. The entire contraption is covered with a sheet of clear plastic, upon which is sketched the outline of a man, his wrists and ankles 'through' the rope restraints. The centre roller has a large wooden lever—turning this lever would pull the other two rollers in opposite directions.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/A_Torture_Rack.jpg/170px-A_Torture_Rack.jpg)
On 6 November, the Lord Chief Justice, Sir John Popham (a man with a deep-seated hatred of Catholics) questioned Rookwood's servants. By the evening he had learnt the names of several of those involved in the conspiracy: Catesby, Rookwood, Keyes, Wynter [sic], John and Christopher Wright, and Grant. "Johnson" meanwhile persisted with his story, and along with the gunpowder he was found with,[nb 14] was moved to the Tower of London, where the King had decided that "Johnson" would be tortured.[97] The use of torture was forbidden, except by royal prerogative or a body such as the Privy Council or Star Chamber.[98] In a letter of 6 November James wrote: "The gentler tortours [tortures] are to be first used unto him, et sic per gradus ad ima tenditur [and thus by steps extended to greater ones], and so God speed your good work."[99] "Johnson" may have been placed in manacles and hung from the wall, but he was almost certainly subjected to the horrors of the rack. By 7 November his resolve had been broken, and he confessed late that day, and again over the following two days.[100][101]
Last stand
On 6 November, with Fawkes maintaining his silence, the fugitives raided Warwick Castle for supplies and continued to Norbrook to collect weapons. From there they continued their journey to Huddington. Bates left the group and travelled to Coughton Court to deliver a letter from Catesby, to Father Garnet and the other priests, informing them of what had transpired, and asking for their help in raising an army. Garnet replied by begging Catesby and his followers to stop their "wicked actions", before himself fleeing. Several priests set out for Warwick, worried about the fate of their colleagues. They were caught, and then imprisoned in London. Catesby and the others arrived at Huddington early in the afternoon, and were met by Thomas Wintour. They received practically no support or sympathy from those they met, including family members, who were terrified at the prospect of being associated with treason. They continued on to Holbeche House on the border of Staffordshire, the home of Stephen Littleton, a member of their ever-decreasing band of followers. Tired and desperate, they spread out some of the now-soaked gunpowder in front of the fire, to dry out. Although gunpowder does not explode (unless physically contained), a spark from the fire landed on the powder and the resultant flames engulfed Catesby, Rookwood, Grant, and a man named Morgan (a member of the hunting party).[102]
Thomas Wintour and Littleton, on their way from Huddington to Holbeche House, were told by a messenger that Catesby had died. At that point, Littleton left, but Thomas arrived at the house to find Catesby alive, albeit scorched. John Grant was not so lucky, and had been blinded by the fire. Digby, Robert Wintour, John Wintour, and Thomas Bates, had all left. Of the plotters, only the singed figures of Catesby and Grant, and the Wright brothers and Percy, remained. The fugitives resolved to stay in the house and wait for the arrival of the King's men. Richard Walsh (Sheriff of Worcester) and his company of 200 men besieged Holbeche House on the morning of 8 November. Thomas Wintour was hit in the shoulder, while crossing the courtyard. John Wright was shot, followed by his brother, and then Rookwood. Catesby and Percy were reportedly killed by the same shot. The attackers rushed the property, and stripped the dead or dying defenders of their clothing. Grant, Morgan, Rookwood, and Wintour were arrested.[103]
Reaction
Bates and Keyes were captured shortly after Holbeche House was taken. Digby, who had intended to give himself up, was caught by a small group of pursuers. Tresham was arrested on 12 November, and taken to the Tower three days later. Montague, Mordaunt, and Stourton (Tresham's brother-in-law) were also imprisoned in the Tower. The Earl of Northumberland joined them on 27 November.[104] Meanwhile the government used the plot to accelerate its persecution of Catholics. The home of Anne Vaux at Enfield Chase was searched, revealing the presence of trap doors and hidden passages. A terrified servant then revealed that Garnet, who had often stayed at the house, had recently given a Mass at the house. Father John Gerard was secreted at the home of Elizabeth Vaux, in Harrowden. Elizabeth was taken to London for interrogation. There she was resolute; she had never been aware that Gerard was a priest, she had presumed he was a "Catholic gentleman", and she did not know of his whereabouts. The homes of the conspirators were searched, and looted. The home of Mary Digby was ransacked, and she was made destitute.[105] Some time before the end of November, Garnet moved to Hindlip Hall near Worcester, the home of the Habingtons, where he wrote a letter to the Privy Council protesting his innocence.[106]
![A three-quarter portrait of a white man, dressed entirely in black with a white lace ruff. He has brown hair, a short beard, and a neutral expression. His left hand cradles a necklace he is wearing. His right hand rests on the corner of a desk, upon which are notes, a bell, and a cloth carrying a crest. Latin text on the painting reads "Sero, Sed, Serio".](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Robert_Cecil%2C_1st_Earl_of_Salisbury_by_John_De_Critz_the_Elder_%282%29.jpg/170px-Robert_Cecil%2C_1st_Earl_of_Salisbury_by_John_De_Critz_the_Elder_%282%29.jpg)
1st Earl of Salisbury.
Painting by John de Critz the Elder, 1602.
The foiling of the Gunpowder Plot initiated 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.[107] Walter Ralegh, languishing in the Tower due to his involvement in the Main Plot, and whose wife was a first cousin of Lady Catesby, declared he had no knowledge of the conspiracy.[108] The Bishop of Rochester gave a sermon at St. Paul's Cross, in which he condemned the plot.[109] 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,[nb 15] and he reminded the assembly to rejoice at his survival, since kings were divinely appointed and he owed his escape to a miracle.[110] Salisbury wrote to his English ambassadors abroad, informing them of what had occurred, and also reminding them that the King bore no ill will to his Catholic neighbours. The foreign powers largely distanced themselves from the plotters, calling them atheists and Protestant heretics.[109]
Interrogations
Sir Edward Coke (pronounced "Cook") was in charge of the interrogations. Over a period of about ten weeks, in the Lieutenant's Lodgings at the Tower of London (now known as the Queen's House) he questioned those who had been implicated in the plot. For the first round of interrogations, no real proof exists that these people were tortured, although on several occasions Salisbury certainly suggested that they should be. Coke later revealed that the threat of torture was in most cases enough to solicit a confession from those caught up in the aftermath of the plot.[111]
Only two confessions were ever printed in full; Fawkes's confession of 8 November, and Wintour's confession of 23 November. Fawkes's signature demonstrates the effect his torture had upon him. As someone who had been involved in the conspiracy from the start (unlike Fawkes, who had joined at a later date), Wintour's knowledge was extremely valuable to the Privy Council. The handwriting on his testimony is almost certainly that of the man himself, but his signature was however, markedly different. Wintour had previously only ever signed his name as such, but his confession is signed "Winter", and since Wintour had been shot in the shoulder, the steady hand used to write the signature may indicate some measure of government interference—or it may indicate that writing a shorter version of his name was less painful.[112] Wintour's testimony makes no mention of his brother, Robert. Both were published in the so-called King's Book, a hastily authored official account of the conspiracy published in late November 1605.[35][113]
![A small irregular section of parchment upon which several lines of handwritten text are visible. Several elaborate signatures bookend the text, at the bottom.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Guy_Fawkes_confession.png/220px-Guy_Fawkes_confession.png)
Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, was in a difficult position. His midday dinner with Percy on 4 November was damning evidence against him,[114] and with the death of Thomas Percy, there was nobody left who could either implicate him, or clear him. The Privy Council suspected that Northumberland was to be the protector of Princess Elizabeth, had the plot succeeded, but could find no evidence upon which to convict him. Northumberland remained in the Tower and on 27 June 1606 was finally charged with contempt. He was stripped of all public offices, fined £30,000 (about £8.3 million as of 2024), and kept in the Tower until June 1621.[115]
Several other people not involved in the conspiracy, but known or related to the conspirators, were also questioned. Northumberland's brothers, Sir Allen and Sir Josceline, were arrested. Anthony-Maria Browne, 2nd Viscount Montagu had employed Fawkes at an early age, and had also met Catesby on 29 October, and was therefore of interest; he was released several months later.[116] Agnes Wenman was from a Catholic family, and related to Elizabeth Vaux.[nb 16] She was examined twice but the charges were eventually dropped.[118] Percy's secretary and later the controller of Northumberland's household, Dudley Carleton, had leased the vault where the gunpowder was stored, and consequently he was imprisoned in the Tower. Salisbury believed his story, and authorised his release.[119]
Jesuits
![A monochrome illustration of a large medieval building, with many windows, turrets, and chimneys. Sculpted bushes surround the house, which is surrounded by fields and trees.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Hindlip_hall.jpg/220px-Hindlip_hall.jpg)
Thomas Bates confessed on 4 December, and provided much of the information that Salisbury needed to link the Catholic clergy to the plot. He had been present at most of the meetings, and while being interrogated he implicated Father Tesimond in the plot. On 13 January 1606 he described how he had visited Garnet and Tesimond on 7 November to inform Garnet of the plot's failure. Bates also told his interrogators of his ride with Tesimond to Huddington, before the priest left him to head for the Habingtons at Hindlip Hall, and of a meeting between Garnet, Gerard, and Tesimond in October 1605. Tresham's health began to deteriorate early in December 1605. He was visited regularly by his wife, a nurse, and his servant William Vavasour, who documented his strangury. Before he died Tresham had also told of Garnet's involvement with the 1603 mission to Spain, but in his last hours he retracted some of these statements. Nowhere in his confession did he mention the Monteagle letter. He died early on the morning of 23 December, and was buried in the Tower. Nevertheless he was attainted along with the other plotters, his head was set on a pike either at Northampton or London Bridge, and his estates confiscated.[120][121][122]
On 15 January a proclamation named Father Garnet, Father Gerard, and Father Greenway (Tesimond) as wanted men. Tesimond and Gerard[123] managed to escape the country and live out their days in freedom; Garnet was not so lucky. Several days earlier, on 9 January, Robert Wintour and Stephen Littleton were captured. Their hiding place at at Hagley, the home of Humphrey Littleton (brother of MP John Littleton, imprisoned for treason in 1601 for his part in the Essex revolt)[124] was betrayed by a cook, who grew suspicious at the amount of food sent up for his master's consumption. Humphrey denied the presence of the two fugitives, but another servant led the authorities to their hiding place.[125] On 20 January the local Justice and his retainers arrived at Thomas Habington's home, Hindlip Hall, with the official proclamation for the arrest of the Jesuits. Despite Thomas Habington's protestations, the men spent the next four days searching the house. On 24 January, starving, two priests left their hiding places and were discovered. Humphrey Littleton, who had escaped from the authorities at Hagley, got as far as Prestwood in Staffordshire before he was captured. He was imprisoned, and then condemned to death at Worcester. On hearing this, his resolve collapsed and on 26 January he told the authorities where exactly they could find Father Garnet, in exchange for his life. Worn down by hiding for so long, Garnet, however, with another priest, appeared of his own accord the next day.[126]
Trials
![A three-quarter portrait of a white man, dressed entirely in black with a white lace ruff. He has brown hair, a short beard and moustache, and a neutral expression. Latin text surrounds the image.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Edward_coke.jpg/170px-Edward_coke.jpg)
By coincidence, on the same day as Garnet was found, the surviving conspirators were arraigned in Westminster Hall. Seven of the prisoners were brought to Star Chamber by barge, from the Tower. Bates, who was considered lower class, was brought from the gatehouse of Westminster. Some of the prisoners were reportedly despondent, but others were nonchalant, even smoking tobacco. They were displayed on a purpose-built scaffold. Among the many people watching the trial, was the King and his family, hidden from view. The Lords Commissioners present were the Earls of Suffolk, Worcester, Northampton, Devonshire, and Salisbury. Sir John Popham was Lord Chief Justice, Sir Thomas Fleming was Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and two Justices, Sir Thomas Walmsley and Sir Peter Warburton, sat as Justices of the Common Pleas. The list of traitors' names was read aloud, beginning with the names of the priests: Garnet, Tesimond, and Gerard.[127][128]
The first to speak was the Speaker of the House of Commons (later Master of the Rolls), Sir Edward Philips, who described the intent behind the plot in lurid detail.[128] He was followed by the Attorney-General Sir Edward Coke, who began with a long speech—the content of which was heavily influenced by Salisbury—that included a denial that the King had ever made any promises to the Catholics. Monteagle's part in the discovery of the plot was welcomed, and denouncements of the 1603 mission to Spain featured strongly. Fawkes's protestations that Gerard knew nothing of the plot were deliberately left out of Coke's speech. The foreign powers, when mentioned, were accorded due respect, but the priests were accursed, their behaviour analysed and criticised wherever possible. There was little doubt, according to Coke, that the plot had been invented by the Jesuits. Garnet's meeting with Catesby, at which the former was said to have absolved the latter of any blame in the plot, was proof enough that the Jesuits were central to the conspiracy. Coke spoke with feeling of the probable fate of the Queen and the rest of the King's family, and of the innocents who would have been caught up in the explosion.[129]
I never yet knew a treason without a Romish priest; but in this there are very many Jesuits, who are known to have dealt and passed through the whole action.
Each of the condemned, said Coke, would be drawn backwards to his death, by a horse, his head near the ground. He was to be "put to death halfway between heaven and earth as unworthy of both". His genitals would be cut off and burnt before his eyes, and his bowels and heart then removed. Then he would be decapitated, and the dismembered parts of his body displayed so that they might become "prey for the fowls of the air".[129] Confessions and declarations from the prisoners were then read aloud, and finally the prisoners were allowed to speak. Rookwood claimed that he had been drawn into the plot by Catesby, "whom he loved above any worldy man". Thomas Wintour begged to be hanged for himself and his brother, so that he might be spared. Fawkes explained his not guilty plea as ignorance of certain aspects of the indictment. Keyes appeared to accept his fate, Bates and Robert Wintour begged for mercy, and Grant explained his involvement as "a conspiracy intended but never effected."[130] Only Digby, tried on a separate indictment,[128] pleaded guilty, insisting that the King had reneged upon promises of toleration for Catholics, and that affection for Catesby and love of the Catholic cause mitigated his actions. He sought death by the axe and begged mercy from the King for his young family.[131] His defence was in vain; his arguments were rebuked by Coke and Northumberland, and along with his seven co-conspirators, he was found guilty by the jury of high treason. Digby shouted "If I may but hear any of your lordships say, you forgive me, I shall go more cheerfully to the gallows." The response was short: "God forgive you, and we do."[132][133]
Garnet may have been questioned on as many as 23 occasions. His response to the threat of the rack was "Minute ista pueris (Threats are only for boys)", and he denied having encouraged Catholics to pray for the success of the "Catholic Cause". His interrogators resorted to the forgery of correspondence between Garnet and other Catholics, but to no avail. His jailers then allowed him to talk with another priest in a neighbouring cell, with eavesdroppers recording every word. Eventually the weight of evidence forced Garnet to admit the extent of his knowledge of the conspirators, and the plot.[134] Garnet was charged with complicity in early March. His trial began in the Guildhall on 28 March, and lasted from 8 am until 7 pm.[135] According to Coke, Garnet was the instigator of the plot: "[Garnet] hath many gifts and endowments of nature, by art learned, a good linguist and, by profession, a Jesuit and a Superior as indeed he is Superior to all his predecessors in devilish treason, a Doctor of Dissimulation, Deposing of Princes, Disposing of Kingdoms, Daunting and deterring of subjects, and Destruction." Garnet refuted all the charges against him, and explained the Catholic position on such matters, but he was nevertheless found guilty and sentenced to death.[106]
Executions
![A monochrome illustration of a busy urban scene. Medieval buildings surround an open space, in which several men are being dragged by horses. One man hangs from a scaffold. A corpse is being hacked into pieces. Another man is feeding a large cauldron with a dismembered leg. Thousands of people line the streets and look from windows. Children and dogs run freely. Soldiers keep them back.](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/300px-The_execution_of_Guy_Fawkes%27_%28Guy_Fawkes%29_by_Claes_%28Nicolaes%29_Jansz_Visscher.jpg)
Although Catesby and Percy escaped the executioner, their bodies were exhumed and decapitated, and their heads exhibited on spikes outside the House of Lords.[104] On a cold 30 January, Everard Digby, Robert Wintour, John Grant, and Thomas Bates, were tied to hurdles and then dragged through the streets, which were lined with people, to St Paul's Churchyard. Digby, the first to mount the scaffold, asked the audience for forgiveness, and refused the attentions of a Protestant clergyman. He was stripped of his clothing, and wearing only a shirt, climbed the ladder to place his head through the noose. He was quickly cut down, and still fully concious was castrated, disembowelled, and then quartered, along with the three other prisoners.[136] The following day, Thomas Wintour, Ambrose Rookwood, Robert Keyes, and Guy Fawkes were hanged, drawn, and quartered, opposite the building they had planned to blow up, in the Old Palace Yard at Westminster.[137] Keyes did not wait for the hangman's command, and jumped from the gallows; however he survived the drop and was led to the quartering block. Fawkes, although weakened by torture, was luckier and managed to cheat 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.[138][139]
Steven Littleton was executed at Stafford. His cousin Humphrey, despite his cooperation with the authorities, met his end at Red Hill near Worcester.[140] Henry Garnet's execution took place on 3 May 1606, but unlike the conspirators, he was not drawn and quartered. On the King's express instructions, Garnet was left hanging from the gallows until he was dead.[141]
Aftermath
Greater freedom for Roman Catholics to worship as they chose seemed unlikely in 1604, but the discovery of such a wide-ranging conspiracy, the capture of those involved, and the subsequent trials could only force Parliament in one direction—greater intolerance of Catholics. New anti-Catholic legislation was soon considered; in the summer of 1606, laws against recusancy were strengthened.[142] The Popish Recusants Act returned England to the Elizabethan system of fines and restrictions, and included a sacramental test, and a new Oath of Allegiance.[143] Catholic Emancipation took another 200 years, but many important and loyal Catholics retained high office during King James I's reign.[144]
The playwright William Shakespeare had already used the family history of Northumberland's family in his Henry IV series of plays, and the events of the Gunpowder Plot seem to have featured alongside the earlier Gowrie conspiracy in Macbeth, written some time between 1603 and 1607.[145] Interest in the demonic was heightened by the Gunpowder Plot. The King 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. Inversions seen in such lines as "fair is foul and foul is fair" are used frequently, and another possible reference to the plot relates to the use of equivocation; Garnett’s A Treatise of Equivocation was found on one of the plotters.[146]
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 by special sermons and other public acts, such as the ringing of church bells. It added to an increasingly full calendar of Protestant celebrations that contributed to the national and religious life of 17th-century England,[147] and has evolved into the Bonfire Night of today. In What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded? historian Ronald Hutton considered the events which might have followed a successful implementation of the plot, and the destruction of the House of Lords and all those within it. He concluded that a severe backlash against suspected Catholics would have followed, and that without foreign assistance success a successful rebellion would have been unlikely; despite differing religious convictions, most Englishmen were loyal to the institution of the monarchy. England might have become a more "Puritan absolute monarchy", as "existed in Sweden, Denmark, Saxony, and Prussia in the seventeenth century", rather than following the path of parliamentary and civil reform that it did.[148]
Accusations of state conspiracy
Many at the time felt that Salisbury had been involved in the plot to gain favour with the King and enact more stridently anti-Catholic legislation. Such theories alleged that Salisbury 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's 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 a period of relative leniency for Catholics, and few were subject to prosecution.[149]
This did not dissuade some from continuing to claim Salisbury's involvement in the plot. In 1897 Father John Gerard of Stonyhurst College, namesake of a Jesuit priest who had performed Mass for some of the plotters, wrote an account called What was the Gunpowder Plot?, alleging Salisbury's culpability.[150] 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.[151] Gardiner portrayed Salisbury as guilty of nothing more than opportunism. Subsequent attempts to prove Salisbury'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.[152]
Bonfire night
![A night-time photograph of a blazing fire is silhouetted by dark figures.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Bonfire4.jpg/220px-Bonfire4.jpg)
In January 1606, during the first sitting of Parliament since the plot, a "Thanksgiving Act" was passed, making services and sermons commemorating the event an annual feature of English life;[153] the act remained in force until 1859.[154] The tradition of marking the day with the ringing of church bells and bonfires started soon after the plot's discovery, and fireworks were included in some of the earliest celebrations.[153] In Britain, the 5th of November is variously called Bonfire Night, Fireworks Night, or Guy Fawkes Night.[154] The Houses of Parliament are still searched by the Yeomen of the Guard before the State Opening of Parliament, although the ritual is now retained as a picturesque custom rather than as a serious anti-terrorism precaution.[154]
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 were exhibited in the street, to collect money for fireworks, although this practice has become less common.[155] 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.[154]
November the 5th firework displays and bonfire parties are common throughout Britain, in major public displays and in private gardens.[154] In some areas, particularly in Sussex, there are extensive processions, large bonfires and firework displays organised by local bonfire societies, the most elaborate of which take place in Lewes.
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.[156]
Reconstructing the explosion
In the 2005 ITV programme The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend, a full-size replica of the House of Lords was built and destroyed with barrels of gunpowder. The experiment was conducted on the Advantica Spadeadam test site, and demonstrated that the explosion, if the gunpowder was in good order, would have killed all those in the building.[157] The power of the explosion was such that the 7-foot (2.1 m) deep 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 explosion; 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 330 feet (100 m) of the blast could have survived, and all of the stained glass windows in Westminster Abbey would have been shattered, as would all of the windows in the vicinity of the Palace. The explosion would have been seen from miles away, and heard from further away 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.[157]
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 its containment 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.[158]
Some of the gunpowder guarded by Fawkes 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, written in the 19th century, confirmed this provenance, but in 1952 the document acquired a new comment: "but there was none left".[159]
See also
References
- Notes
- ^ Salisbury 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".[3]
- ^ 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.
- ^ James assumed the English throne without the help of any foreign powers, or the Catholic community.[7]
- ^ 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 or threat of torture, and may also have been subject to government interference, and should therefore be viewed with caution.
- ^ According to his confession.
- ^ Haynes (2005) writes that Tesminond took Thomas Bates' confession.[58]
- ^ Anne Vaux was related to Catesby, and to most of the other plotters. Her home was often used to hide priests.[59]
- ^ Gunpowder could be purchased on the black market from soldiers, militia, merchant vessels, and powdermills.[63]
- ^ Thomas Tresham had paid Francis's fine in full and part of Catesby's fine.
- ^ The playwright Ben Jonson was present at one of these parties, and following the discovery of the plot was forced to work hard at distancing himself from the conspirators.[74]
- ^ Robert inherited Huddington Court near Worcester, along with a small fortune. The building became a refuge for priests, and secret Masses were often celebrated there.[32]
- ^ 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".[95]
- ^ The gunpowder was moved to the Tower of London, where it was described as 'decayed'.[94]
- ^ James said that it did not follow "that all professing that Romish religion were guilty of the same"
- ^ Vaux had written a letter to Wenman regarding the marriage of her son Edward Vaux. The letter contained certain phrases which were open to interpretation, and was intercepted by Richard Wenman, who thought it suspicious.[117]
- Footnotes
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 1–4
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 12
- ^ Willson 1963, p. 154
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 15
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. xxv–xxvi
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. xxv
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 18
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. xxvii–xxix
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 27
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 20
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 46
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. xxxv–xxxviii
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, p. 91
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 7
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 70–74
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 74
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 32–39
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 76–78
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 41–42
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 100–103
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 103–106
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 106–107
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 108
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 47
- ^ 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.
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 48–49
- ^ Northcote Parkinson 1976, pp. 45–46
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 93
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 90
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 50
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, pp. 59–61
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 58
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 84–89
- ^ a b c Nicholls, Mark (2004-09), Winter, Thomas (c.1571–1606), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/29767, retrieved 2009-11-16
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ 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
- ^ Northcote Parkinson 1976, p. 52
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 54–55
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 122–124
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 130–132
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 133–134
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 55–59
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 59–61
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 56–57
- ^ Nelthorpe, Sutton, Twigmore and the Gunpowder Plot (n (1934-36) ed.), Lincolnshire
Magazine, p. 229
{{citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help); line feed character in|publisher=
at position 16 (help) - ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 136–137
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 57
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 144–145
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 59
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 62
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 65–66
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 62–65
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 65–67
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 158
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, pp. 146–147
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 159–162
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 171–173
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 110
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 79–80, p. 110
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 173–175
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 159–162, pp. 168–169
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 175–176
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 80
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 182–185
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 85–86
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 179
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, pp. 178–179
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 78–79
- ^ Northcote Parkinson 1976, pp. 62–63
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 82
- ^ Haynes 1999, p. 89
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 180–182
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 187–189
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 90
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 193–194
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 92
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 196–197
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 199–201
- ^ Guy Fawkes's Lantern, ashweb2.ashmus.ox.ac.uk, retrieved 2009-11-20
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 201–203
- ^ Northcote Parkinson 1976, p. 73
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 94–95
- ^ Declaration of Ambrose Rookewood, 2 December 1605 (TNA: PRO SP 14/216/136), cited in Mark Nicholls, 'Catesby, Robert', in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (OUP, 2004)
- ^ Nichols 1828, p. 584
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 203–206
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, p. 226
- ^ Stewart 2003, p. 219
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 207–209
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 211–212
- ^ Scott 1940, p. 87
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 215
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 216–217
- ^ Scott 1940, p. 89
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 218–222
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 222–225
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, pp. 235–236
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 237–241
- ^ a b McCoog, Thomas M. (2004-09), Garnett, Henry (1555–1606), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/10389, retrieved 2009-11-16
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Croft 2003, p. 64
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 228
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, pp. 232–233
- ^ Willson 1963, p. 226
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 241–244
- ^ Haynes 1999, p. 106
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 242–245
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 93
- ^ Nicholls, Mark (2004-09), Percy, Henry, ninth earl of Northumberland (1564–1632), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/21939, retrieved 2009-11-16
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 125–126
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 151–152
- ^ Griffiths, Jane (2004), Wenman , Agnes, Lady Wenman (d. 1617), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/29044, retrieved 2009-11-16
- ^ Reeve, L. J. (2004-09), Carleton, Dudley, Viscount Dorchester (1574–1632), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/4670, retrieved 2009-11-16
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Fraser 1999, p. 249
- ^ Nicholls, Mark (2004-09), "Tresham, Francis (1567?–1605), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/27708, retrieved 2009-11-16
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Haynes 2005, p. 104
- ^ McCoog, Thomas M. (2004), Gerard, John (1564–1637), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/10556, retrieved 2009-11-20
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 79
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 255–256
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 256–257, p. 260, p. 261
- ^ Fraser 1999, p. 263–265
- ^ a b c d Haynes 2005, pp. 110–111
- ^ a b Fraser 1999, pp. 266–269
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 270–271
- ^ Nicholls, Mark (2004-09), Digby, Sir Everard (c.1578–1606), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/7626, retrieved 2009-11-16
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Fraser 1999, p. 273
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 113
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 116–119
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 120
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 115–116
- ^ Nicholls, Mark (2004-09), Rookwood, Ambrose (c.1578–1606), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/24066, retrieved 2009-11-16
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Northcote Parkinson 1976, pp. 91–92
- ^ Fraser 1999, pp. 279–283
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 129
- ^ Northcote Parkinson 1976, pp. 114–115
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 131
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 131
- ^ Haynes 2005, p. 140
- ^ Haynes 2005, pp. 148–154
- ^ Huntley, Frank L. (1964-09), Macbeth and the Background of Jesuitical Equivocation, vol. 79, PMLA, pp. 390–400
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Cressy, David (1989), Bonfires and bells: national memory and the Protestant calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England
- ^ Hutton, Ronald (2001-04-01), What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?, bbc.co.uk, retrieved 2008-11-07
- ^ Marshall, Peter (2003), Reformation England 1480–1642, London, pp. 187–188
{{citation}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ 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 Aftermath: Commemoration, gunpowderplot.parliament.uk, 2005–2006, retrieved 2009-10-06
- ^ a b c d e Houses of Parliament factsheet on event (PDF), parliament.uk, 2006-09, retrieved 2007-03-06
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Bonfire Night: A penny for the Guy, icons.org.uk, retrieved 2009-10-06
- ^ Forbes 1999, p. 94
- ^ a b Sherwin, Adam (2005-10-31), Gunpowder plotters get their wish, 400 years on, timesonline.co.uk, retrieved 2008-01-18
- ^ Govan, Fiona (2005-10-31), Guy Fawkes had twice the gunpowder needed, telegraph.co.uk, retrieved 2008-01-18
- ^ Guy Fawkes' gunpowder 'found', news.bbc.co.uk, 2002-03-21, retrieved 2009-11-03
- Bibliography
- Croft, Pauline (2003), King James, Macmillan, ISBN 0-333-61395-3
- Forbes, Esther (1999) [1942], Paul Revere and the Times He Lived In, Houghton Mifflin
- Fraser, Antonia (1999), The Gunpowder Plot, Phoenix, ISBN 0753814013
- Haynes, Alan (2005) [1994], The Gunpowder Plot: Faith in Rebellion, Hayes and Sutton, ISBN 0750942150
- Neale, J. E. (1954) [1934], Queen Elizabeth I: A Biography, London: Jonathan Cape
- Nichols, John (1828), The Progresses, Processions, and Magnificent Festivities of King James the First, His Royal Consort, Family, and Court, J. B. Nichols
- Northcote Parkinson, C. (1976), Gunpowder Treason and Plot, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-77224-4
- Scott, George Ryley (1940), History of Torture Throughout the Ages, ISBN 0766140636
- Stewart, Alan (2003), The Cradle King: A Life of James VI & 1, Chatto and Windus, ISBN 0-7011-6984-2
- Willson, David Harris (1963) [1956], King James VI & I, Jonathan Cape, ISBN 0224605720
External links
- The Gunpowder Plot (Website exploring the history of the plot for younger users)
- The Gunpowder Plot (House of Commons Information Sheet)
- What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?
- A contemporary account of the executions of the plotters
- Interactive Guide: Gunpowder Plot Guardian Unlimited
- Website of a crew member of ITV's Exploding the Legend programme, with a photograph of the explosion