Back Aa

Guy Fawkes; or, A Complete History of The Gunpowder Treason, A.D. 1605

<h2>[67]CHAPTER VI.</h2> TRIAL OF THE CONSPIRATORS. The conspirators, who had been lodged in prison, were frequently examined respecting the plot in which they had been engaged. Fawkes, Thomas Winter, Tresham, and Sir Everard Digby, confessed that they were guilty of the treason charged against them; and several of the particulars, which I have detailed in the preceding chapters, were revealed in these confessions. Catesby and Percy were slain at Holbeach, or some other information respecting the origin of the plot might have been obtained. It is probable, too, that Percy might have been able to give some account of the mysterious letter. For though the conspirators did not suspect him as the writer, yet it is evident that such was the impression on the mind of Lord Monteagle. To this day the subject is involved in mystery. Several conjectures have been formed, but the matter has never been cleared up; and it is likely to continue to be involved in mystery, until that great day when all secrets shall be unravelled, and all difficulties removed. Tresham, as before observed, died in prison, and was thus spared the ignominy of a public execution. The other conspirators, Robert Winter, Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Robert Keys, and Thomas Bates, were arraigned and placed at the bar on the 27th of January, 1605-6. The names of Garnet, Tesmond, and Gerrard, all jesuits, were also specified in the indictment, though none of them were taken. Garnet was subsequently apprehended; but the other two jesuits evaded the pursuit [68]of the officers of justice altogether. The jesuits are specially charged in the indictment with persuading the other conspirators to act, on the ground that the king was a heretic, and that all heretics were accursed and excommunicated; and that, consequently, it was lawful, nay even meritorious, to kill the king, for the advancement of the see of Rome. The seven individuals before mentioned are then charged with consenting, and with contriving the plot, in conjunction with the jesuits. It appears to have been arranged by the conspirators, not to mention at first anything concerning a change of religion in the event of the success of the plot: and further, it was agreed not to avow the treason, until they should have acquired sufficient power to secure the completion of their plans. When the usual questions were asked they all pleaded Not Guilty. The indictment was opened by Sir Edward Philips, one of the king’s sergeants-at-law. This gentleman stated the case to the jury in a speech partly political and partly theological. Treason was the subject, but, said he, “of such horror, and monstrous nature, that before now, the tongue of man never delivered, the ear of man never heard, the heart of man never conceited, nor the malice of hellish or earthly devil ever practised.” In the course of his speech he further stated, that the object of the traitors was “to deprive the king of his crown; to murder the king, the queen, and the prince; to stir up rebellion and sedition in the kingdom; to bring a miserable destruction upon the subjects; to change, alter, and subvert the religion here established; to ruinate the state of the commonwealth, and to bring in strangers to invade it.” That such were their objects there can be no doubt. Sir Edward Coke, the attorney-general, followed in a long speech, in which he stated, and then animadverted on, all their proceedings, from the commencement of the plot [69]until its discovery. “Surely,” said Sir Edward, “of these things we may truly say, Nunquam ante dies nostros talia acciderunt, neither hath the eye of man seen, nor the ear of man heard, the like things to these.” The particulars recorded in the preceding chapters were many of them taken from the confessions of some of the conspirators; and the speech of the attorney-general was founded, in a great measure, on the same confessions. Many things, indeed, could not have been made known in any other way. Several days had been occupied in examining the parties in prison; so that the law officers of the crown came to the trial amply prepared with materials. In tracing the progress of the treason, Sir Edward remarked, “It had three roots, all planted and watered by jesuits and English Roman Catholics: the first root in England, in December and March; the second in Flanders, in June; the third in Spain, in July. In England it had two branches; one in December was twelve months before the death of the late queen of blessed memory; another in March, wherein she died.” He then specifies some of the acts in which Garnet and others were concerned, previous to the accession of James, and which have already been detailed in a preceding chapter. Some important particulars are stated in the speech of Sir Edward Coke, respecting the conduct of the government towards the papists, after James’s accession. During the reign of Elizabeth, severe measures were never adopted against recusants, as Roman Catholics were then usually designated in acts of parliament, until their own conduct, or at all events, the conduct of some members of the church of Rome, rendered it absolutely necessary. The laws, respecting which so much has been said by Roman Catholic writers, were enacted in self-defence. Had there been no treasons no such laws would have been devised; but when [70]the members of the church of Rome planned, and endeavoured to execute, treasons, and of such a nature that the existing laws did not meet them, it became necessary to devise such methods as should not permit the traitors to escape. The origin, therefore, of the penal laws against the Romanists, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, is to be found in their own treasonable practices; and the same remark will apply also to the reign of King James. Indeed, James was disposed to act with all possible leniency. Cruelty was foreign to his nature. Had the Romanists remained quiet, none would have been punished during his reign for their religious principles. Nay, so leniently did James act, even after the discovery of the gunpowder treason, that the puritans hesitated not to charge him with leaning towards popery. The question relative to the penal laws is clearly and forcibly stated by Sir Edward Coke: “Concerning those laws, which they so calumniate as unjust, it shall in a few words plainly appear, that they were of the greatest, both of moderation and equity, that ever were any: for from the year I Eliz. unto XI. all papists came to our church and service without scruple. I myself have seen Cornewallis, Beddingfield, and others at church. So that then, for the space of ten years, they made no conscience nor doubt to communicate with us in prayer; but when once the bull of Pope Pius Quintus was come and published, wherein the queen was accursed and deposed, and her subjects discharged of their obedience and oath, yea, cursed if they did obey her: then did they all forthwith refrain from church, then would they have no more society with us in prayer. So that recusancy in them is not for religion, but in an acknowledgment of the pope’s power, and a plain manifestation what their judgment is concerning the right of the prince in respect of regal power and place.” This is the [71]true state of the case respecting the laws against recusants. Sir Edward Coke specifies various treasons during the queen’s reign, and then adds: “Anno XXIII. Eliz. after so many years sufferance, there were laws made against recusants and seditious books.” He then alludes to the coming over of the seminary priests, who were Englishmen, educated and ordained on the Continent, and who came over into this country for the express purpose of stirring up rebellion, and to bring over the queen’s subjects to the see of Rome. “Then,” says he, “XXVII. Eliz. a law was made, that it should be treason for any, (not to be a priest and an Englishman, born the queen’s natural subject,) but for any being so born her subject, and made a Romish priest, to come into her dominions, to infect any her loyal subjects with their treasonable practices; yet so, that it concerned only such as were made priests since her majesty came to the crown, and not before.” “Concerning the execution of these laws,” he adds, “it is to be observed likewise, that whereas in the quinquencey of Queen Mary, there were cruelly put to death about three hundred persons for religion: in all her majesty’s time, by the space of forty-four years and upwards, there were for treasonable practices executed in all not thirty priests, nor above five receivers and harbourers of them; and for religion not any one.” He proceeds: “Now, against the usurped power of the see of Rome, we have of former times about thirteen several acts of parliament, so that the crown and king of England is no ways to be drawn under the government of any foreign power whatsoever.” This is an important point. It was no new thing in England to enact laws against the papal jurisdiction. The words of King James himself are very strong: “I do constantly maintain, that no man, either in my time, or in the late queen’s, ever died here for his conscience. For let him be never so [72]devout a papist, nay, though he profess the same never so constantly, his life is in no danger by the law, if he break not out into some outward act expressly against the words of the law, or plot not some unlawful or dangerous practice or attempt; priests and popish churchmen only excepted, that receive orders beyond the seas; who for the manifold treasonable practices that they have kindled and plotted in this country, are discharged to come home again under pain of treason, after their receiving of the said orders abroad; and yet without some other guilt in them than bare homecoming, have none of them been ever put to death[20].” The laws regarded not their religious opinions, but their practices. Will any papist assert that the priests and others did not endeavour to compass the death of Elizabeth, and to exclude King James from the throne? It is remarked by Sir Edward Coke, in the address to the jury, that during the year and four months since James’s accession, no penalty had been inflicted on any recusant. The conspirators could not, therefore, allege that they were driven to such a desperate course, by the harsh treatment which they had received. The plea of religion was, however, urged by these men: and that plea was especially grounded on the laws which had been enacted in the late reign against recusants. They appeared to exult in the fact, that the place in which the unjust laws, as they termed them, had been framed, would be the scene of vengeance. When the attorney-general had finished his address to the jury, the confessions of the conspirators were read, and acknowledged by the parties. It was proved on the trial that Hammond, a jesuit, after the discovery of the treason, actually gave the conspirators absolution on Thursday, November the 7th. This act is conclusive as to the part taken by the jesuits in the plot. [73]A verdict of guilty was returned against the whole number who were arraigned at the bar. They were asked in the usual form why sentence of death should not be pronounced. Thomas Winter merely desired that his brother might be spared, because he was implicated in the treason by his persuasion. Fawkes objected to certain parts of the indictment, of which he said he was ignorant; when he was told that they were inserted as a matter of form. Bates supplicated for mercy, and did not deny his guilt. Robert Winter pursued the same course. Grant, after remaining silent some time, confessed that he was guilty of a conspiracy intended, but never executed. Rookwood at first attempted to justify himself, but at last acknowledged his offence, admitting that he justly deserved to undergo the penalty of the law; still he supplicated for mercy on the ground that he was neither the author of the plot nor an actor in it, but merely drawn into it by his affection for Catesby. At this stage of the business a circumstance was mentioned to the court which had transpired in the prison. On Friday before the trial commenced Robert Winter and Fawkes were permitted to converse together in their cells. The former said that he and Catesby had sons, and that boys would be men, and he hoped that they would avenge the cause. They also expressed their sorrow that no one had set forth a defence or justification of the plot. Sentence was not immediately pronounced; but Sir Everard Digby, who had been some time in custody, was arraigned at the bar on a separate indictment. He was charged with being privy to the plot,—with having taken the oath of secresy,—and also with open rebellion in the country with the rest of the conspirators, subsequent to the discovery. He had previously made a confession of his guilt, and, therefore, did not attempt to defend himself [74]before the court. As he was preparing to address the court, he was informed that he must first plead either guilty or not guilty. He immediately confessed that he was guilty of the treason charged against him in the indictment. Sir Everard Digby evidently would not have been implicated in this conspiracy, but for his zeal in behalf of the church of Rome. So strong was his attachment to the papal creed, that he appears to have imagined that he should do God service by concurring with others in the destruction of heretics. Having pleaded guilty to the charge of treason, he addressed the court respecting the motives that had induced him to enter upon such a course. He declared that neither ambition nor discontent induced him to unite with the other conspirators, but affection for Catesby the leader. He also confessed that he was influenced in his decision by religious considerations. Perceiving, as he said, that religion was in danger, he had resolved to hazard his property, and even his life, to preserve it, and to restore Romanism in this country. It appears that the Romanists were apprehensive of more severe laws being enacted under King James than those which had been carried by the late queen. There was no ground for such an apprehension, since King James was really anxious to treat his Roman Catholic subjects with great lenity. Sir Everard also requested that his wife and children might not suffer on his account. His last request was that he might be put to death by being beheaded, and not as an ordinary traitor. The attorney-general replied to his address in a strain not unusual in that age, but which would not be adopted in the present day against the greatest criminal. Alluding to his very natural plea for his wife and children, Coke reminded him, in an insulting and sneering tone, of his attempt to kill the king and queen with the nobility of the [75]country, asking where his piety and affection were when this scheme was devised? When Coke charged him with justifying the fact he denied the charge, confessing that he deserved to suffer, but that he was a petitioner for his majesty’s mercy. The attorney-general replied, that, having abandoned every principle of religion and honour, he could not expect to receive any favour from his majesty. The earl of Northampton also addressed the prisoner, and in a strain somewhat milder than Coke. It would shock the feelings of the present age were the judge on the bench to revile the criminal at the bar, however notorious his guilt; but at that time such a practice was common. The earl of Northampton told him, that he had only himself and his evil councillors to thank. He also reminded him of his favour with Queen Elizabeth; and that King James was not ill disposed either towards him or the members of his church generally. Judgment was now demanded by the king’s sergeant on the seven prisoners mentioned in the first indictment, on the verdict of the jury; and on Sir Everard Digby, on his own confession. The lord chief-justice proceeded to pronounce judgment. He first took a review of the laws which had been enacted in the reign of Elizabeth against recusants, priests, and the receivers of priests, specifying the causes which gave rise to those enactments, and demonstrating that they were necessary, mild, equal, moderate, and capable of being justified to the whole world. Sentence was then pronounced in the usual form. Sir Everard Digby bowing to the lords who were seated on the bench, said, “If I may but hear any of your lordships say you forgive me, I shall go more cheerfully to the [76]gallows.” The lords instantly replied, “God forgive you, and we do.” On Thursday, January 30, 1605-6, Sir Everard Digby, Robert Winter, John Grant, and Thomas Bates, were executed at the west end of St. Paul’s church; and on Friday, January 31st, the sentence of the law was carried into effect on Thomas Winter, Ambrose Rookwood, Robert Keys, and Guy Fawkes, in Old Palace-yard, Westminster, and at no great distance from the House of Lords, the scene of their recent treason. Most of these wretched men evinced much penitence, both in prison and on the scaffold. It is remarkable that Fawkes, the most desperate of the whole number, appeared to be the most penitent at the time of his execution. They all declared their adherence to the church of Rome, dying, as they had lived, in her communion. They requested that the officers in attendance would communicate this their dying declaration to the world. After the execution, their bodies, being quartered, were hung up in various parts of the city, as was the custom at that time with those who were put to death for treason. The heads of Catesby and Percy were fixed upon the House of Lords, where they remained some years after, when Osborne wrote his Memoirs of King James; unless, as he intimates, they had been removed, and others substituted in their room. It was reported when he wrote, that the heads then fixed on the House of Lords were not those of the two conspirators, but the heads of two other individuals procured, probably, from some church-yard, by the friends of Catesby and Percy, and fixed upon the poles for the purpose of preventing the discovery of the theft[21]. James acted with great lenity towards the families of [77]the conspirators. By the statute respecting treason the property of the convicted traitor is forfeited to the crown; but in the cases of these individuals the children or heirs of those who were in possession of property were permitted to enjoy it. There was nothing vindictive in James’s character; and he would have spared even these conspirators, if it had been possible. Such was the fate of men who appear to have been guiltless of any other crime, and who would not have been implicated in this horrible treason, but for the influence of those principles which the church of Rome instilled into the minds of her deluded followers. <div class="footnotes">Footnotes: <div class="footnote">[20] King James’s Works, fol. 336. </div> <div class="footnote">[21] Osborne’s Works, p. 434. </div> </div> <div style="break-after:column;"></div>

1 of 2

2 of 2

Update Required To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.