again? We are so accustomed to the idea of darkness and obscurity in connection with him and his business, as perhaps to forget that his project was to have been executed in the very middle of the day, about noon or shortly afterwards. The king was to come in state with retinue and guards, and attended by a large concourse of spectators, who, as is usual on such occasions, would throng every nook and corner whence could be obtained a glimpse of the building in which the royal speech was being delivered.' It cannot be doubted, in particular, that the open spaces adjacent to the House itself would be strictly guarded, and the populace not suffered to approach too near the sacred precincts, more especially when, as we have seen, so many suspicions were abroad of danger to his sacred Majesty, and to the Parliament. On a sudden a door immediately beneath the spot where the flower of the nation were assembled, would be unlocked and opened, and there would issue therefrom a man, "looking like a very tall and desperate fellow," booted and spurred and equipped for travel. He was to have but a quarter of an hour to save himself from the ruin he had prepared. What possible chance was there that he would have been allowed to pass? 1 In Herring's Pietas Pontificia (1606) the king is described as coming to the House: "Magna cum Pompa, stipatorumque Caterva, Palmatisque, Togis, Gemmis, auroque refulgent: Turbis se adglomerant densis, spectantque Triumphum." 2 Faukes himself says-examination of November 16th-that the touchwood would have burnt a quarter of an hour. As to his further plans, we have the most extravagant and contradictory accounts, some obviously fabulous. According to the least incredible, a vessel was lying below London Bridge ready at once to proceed to sea and carry him to Flanders; while a boat, awaiting him at the Parliament stairs, was to convey him to the ship.2 If this were so, it is not clear why he equipped himself with his spurs, which, however, are authenticated by as good evidence as any other feature of the story. It would also appear that, here again, the plan proposed was altogether impracticable, for at the time of his projected flight the tide would have been flowing, and it is well known that to attempt to pass Old London Bridge against it would have been like trying to row up a waterfall. Neither does it seem probable that the vessel would have been able to get out of the Thames for several hours, before which time all egress would doubtless have been stopped. Such considerations must at least avail to make us pause before we can unhesitatingly accept the tradi 1 See Appendix K, Myths of the Powder Plot. 2 In connection with this appears an interesting example of the natural philosophy of the time, it being said that Faukes selected this mode of escape, hoping that water, being a nonconductor, would save him from the effects of the explosion. 3 I am informed on high authority that on the day in question it was high water at London Bridge between five and six p.m. In his Memorials of the Tower of London (p. 136) Lord de Ros says that the vessel destined to convey him to Flanders was to be in waiting for Faukes at the river side close by, and that in it he was to drop down the river with the ebb tide. It would, of course, have been impossible for any sea-going craft to make its way up to Westminster; nor would the ebb tide run to order. tional history, even in those broad outlines which appear to be best established. The main point is, however, independent of their truth. Though all be as has been affirmed concerning the "cellar" and its contents, and the plan of operations agreed upon by the traitors, the question remains as to the real nature of the "discovery." We have seen, on the one hand, that the official narrative bristles with contradictions, and, whatever be the truth, with falsehoods. On the other hand, the said narrative was avowedly prepared with the object of obtaining credence for the picturesque but unveracious assertion that the plotters' design was detected "very miraculously, even some twelve hours before the matter should have been put in execution." On the Earl of Salisbury's own admission, it had been divined almost as many days previously, and it was laid open at the last moment only because he deliberately chose to wait till the last moment before doing anything. No doubt a dramatic feature was thus added to the business, and one eminently calculated to impress the public mind: but they who insist so loudly on the miraculousness of an event which they alone have invested with the character of a miracle, must be content to have it believed that they knew still more than in an unguarded moment they acknowledged, and arranged other things concerning the Plot than its ultimate disclosure.' It is frequently said that the testimony of Bishop Goodman, who has been so often cited, is discredited by the fact that he probably died a Catholic, for he was attended on his death-bed by the Dominican Father, Francis à S. Clara (Christopher Davenport), chaplain to Queen Henrietta Maria, a learned man who indulged in the dream of corporate reunion between England L and Rome, maintaining that the Anglican articles were in accordance with Catholic doctrine. In his will Goodman professed that as he lived, so he died, most constant in all the articles of the Christian Faith, and in all the doctrine of God's holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, "whereof," he says, "I do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Mother Church. And I do verily believe that no other church hath any salvation in it, but only so far as it concurs with the faith of the Church of Rome." On this, Mr. Brewer, his editor, observes that a sound Protestant might profess as much, the question being what meaning is to be given to the terms employed. Moreover, the same writer continues, Goodman cannot have imagined that his life had been a constant profession of Roman doctrine, inasmuch as he advanced steadily from one preferment to another in the Church of England, and strongly maintaining her doctrines formally denounced those of Rome. What is certain, however, is this, that in the very work from which his evidence is quoted he speaks in such a manner as to show that whatever were his religious opinions, he was a firm believer in the Royal Supremacy and a lover of King James, whom he thus describes: “Truly I did never know any man of so great an apprehension, of so great love and affection, —a man so truly just, so free from all cruelty and pride, such a lover of the church, and one that had done so much good for the church." (Court of King James, i. 91.) CHAPTER VII. PERCY, CATESBY, AND TRESHAM. ON occasion of a notorious trial in the Star Chamber, in the year 1604,1 Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, made the significant observation that nothing was to be discovered concerning the Catholics "but by putting some Judas amongst them." That amongst the Powder Plot conspirators there was some one who played such a part, who perhaps even acted as a decoyduck to lure the others to destruction, has always been suspected, but with sundry differences of opinion as to which of the band it was. Francis Tresham has most commonly been supposed at least to have sent the warning letter to Monteagle, which proved fatal to himself and his comrades: some writers have conjectured that he did a good deal more. Monteagle himself, as we have seen, has been supposed by others to have been in the Plot and to have betrayed it. It would appear, however, that neither of these has so strong a claim to this equivocal distinction as one whose name has been scarcely mentioned hitherto in such a connection. The part played in the conspiracy by Thomas 1 That of Mr. Pound. 2 3 Jardine, Criminal Trials, ii. 38, n. E.g., the author of the Politician's Catechism. |