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

undertook to seize and carry off Duke Charles; and again,179 that, despairing of being able to lay hands upon him, they resolved "to serve themselves with the Lady Elizabeth," and that Percy was one of those who made arrangements for seizing her;180 and again, that having learnt that Prince Henry was not to go to the House, they determined to surprise him, "and leave the young Duke alone;"181 and once more, that they never entered into any consultation or formed any project whatever as to the succession.182

      Still more serious are the contradictions on another point. We are told, on the one hand, that a proclamation was drawn up for the inauguration of the new sovereign – whoever this was183– and, on the other, that the associates were resolved not to avow the explosion to be their work until they should see how the country took it, or till they had gathered a sufficient force,184 and accordingly that they had no more than a project of a proclamation to be issued in due season. But, again, it is said185 that Catesby on his way out of town, after the event, was to proclaim the new monarch at Charing Cross, though it is equally hard to understand, either how he was to know which of the plans had succeeded, and who that monarch was to be, – whether a king or a queen, – or what effect such proclamation by an obscure individual like himself was expected to produce; or how this, or indeed any item in the programme was compatible with the incognito of the actors in the great tragedy.

      Amid this hopeless tangle one point alone is perfectly clear. Whatever was the scheme, it was absolutely insane, and could by no possibility have succeeded. As Mr. Gardiner says:186 "With the advantage of having an infant sovereign in their hands, with a little money and a few horses, these sanguine dreamers fancied that they would have the whole of England at their feet."

      Such is in outline the authorized version of the history concerning what Father John Gerard styles "this preposterous Plot of Powder;" and preposterous it undoubtedly appears to be in more senses than he intended. It is, in the first place, almost impossible to believe that the important and dramatic episode of the mine ever, in fact, occurred. We have seen something of the difficulties against accepting this part of the story, which the circumstantial evidence suggests. When, on the other hand, we ask upon what testimony it rests, it is a surprise to find that for so prominent and striking an incident we are wholly dependent upon two documents, published by the government, a confession of Thomas Winter and another of Faukes, both of which present features rendering them in the highest degree suspicious. Amongst the many confessions and declarations made by the conspirators in general, and these individuals in particular, these two alone describe the mining operations.187

      On the other hand, it is somewhat startling to find no less a person than the Earl of Salisbury himself ignorant or oblivious of so remarkable a circumstance. In Thomas Winter's lodging was found the agreement between Percy and Ferrers for the lease of the house, which was taken, as has been said, in May, 1604. This is still preserved, and has been endorsed by Cecil, "The bargaine between Percy and Ferrers for the bloody sellar…" But this contract had nothing to do with the "bloody sellar," which was not rented till ten months later. Again, writing November 9th, 1605, to Cornwallis and Edmondes, Cecil says: "This Percy had about a year and a half ago hired a part of Vyniard's house in the old Palace, from whence he had access into this vault to lay his wood and coal, and as it seemeth now [had] taken this place of purpose to work some mischief in a fit time." When this was written the premises had been for four days in the hands of the government. It is clearly impossible that the remains of the mine, had they existed, should not have been found, and equally so that Cecil should not have alluded to the overwhelming evidence they afforded as to the intention of Percy and his associates to "work some mischief," but should, again, have connected the tenancy of the house only with the "cellar."

      It will, moreover, be found by investigators that when exceptional stress is laid on any point by Sir E. Coke, the Attorney General, a prima facie case against the genuine nature of the evidence in regard of that point is thereby established. In his speech on the trial of the conspirators we find him declaring that, "If the cellar had not been hired, the mine work could hardly, or not at all, have been discovered, for the mine was neither found nor suspected until the danger was past, and the capital offenders apprehended, and by themselves, upon examination, confessed." That is to say, the government could not, though provided with information that there was a powder-mine under the Parliament House, have discovered this extraordinary piece of engineering; and moreover, after its abandonment, the traces of the excavation were so artfully hidden as to elude observation till the prisoners drew attention to them. Such assertions cannot possibly be true; but they might serve to meet the objection that no one had seen the mine.

      We likewise find that in his examination of November 5th, Faukes is made to say: "He confesseth that about Christmas last [1604], he brought in the nighttime Gunpowder to the cellar under the upper house of Parliament," that is some three months before the cellar was hired. Moreover, the words italicised have been added as an interlineation, apparently by Cecil himself. Evidently when this was done the mine was still undiscovered.

      Yet more remarkable is the fact that it would appear to have remained undiscovered ever afterwards, and that no marks seem to have been left upon the wall which had been so roughly handled. It is certainly impossible to find any record that such traces were observed when the building was demolished, though they could scarcely have failed to attract attention and interest. On this subject we have the important evidence of Mr. William Capon, who carefully examined every detail connected with the old palace, and evidently had the opportunity of studying the foundations of the House of Lords when, in 1823, that building was removed.188 He does, indeed, mention what he conceives to be the traces of the conspirators' work, of which he gives the following description: