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

Оглавление

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

PREFACE

CHAPTER I. THE STATE OF THE QUESTION

CHAPTER II. THE PERSONS CONCERNED

CHAPTER III. THE OPINION OF CONTEMPORARIES AND HISTORIANS

CHAPTER IV. THE TRADITIONAL STORY

CHAPTER V. THE GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT

CHAPTER VI. THE "DISCOVERY."

CHAPTER VII. PERCY, CATESBY, AND TRESHAM

CHAPTER VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE

CHAPTER IX. THE SEQUEL

APPENDIX A. NOTES ON THE ILLUSTRATIONS

APPENDIX B. (p. 33)

APPENDIX C. (p. 34)

APPENDIX D. (p. 36)

APPENDIX E. (p. 60)

APPENDIX F. (p. 64)

APPENDIX G. (p. 94)

APPENDIX H. (p. 119)

APPENDIX I. (p. 140)

APPENDIX K. (p. 173)

APPENDIX L. (p. 227)

APPENDIX M

APPENDIX N

Отрывок из книги

On the morning of Tuesday, the 5th of November, 1605, which day was appointed for the opening of a new Parliamentary session, London rang with the news that in the course of the night a diabolical plot had been discovered, by which the king and legislature were to have been destroyed at a blow. In a chamber beneath the House of Lords had been found a great quantity of gunpowder, and with it a man, calling himself John Johnson, who, finding that the game was up, fully acknowledged his intention to have fired the magazine while the royal speech was being delivered, according to custom, overhead, and so to have blown King, Lords, and Commons into the air. At the same time, he doggedly refused to say who were his accomplices, or whether he had any.

This is the earliest point at which the story of the Gunpowder Plot can be taken up with any certainty. Of what followed, at least as to the main outlines, we are sufficiently well informed. Johnson, whose true name was presently found to be Guy, or Guido, Faukes,3 proved, it is true, a most obstinate and unsatisfactory witness, and obstinately refused to give any evidence which might incriminate others. But the actions of his confederates quickly supplied the information which he withheld. It was known that the "cellar" in which the powder was found, as well as a house adjacent, had been hired in the name of one Thomas Percy, a Catholic gentleman, perhaps a kinsman, and certainly a dependent, of the Earl of Northumberland. It was now discovered that he and others of his acquaintance had fled from London on the previous day, upon receipt of intelligence that the plot seemed at least to be suspected. Not many hours later the fugitives were heard of in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire, the native counties of several amongst them, attempting to rally others to their desperate fortunes, and to levy war against the crown. For this purpose they forcibly seized cavalry horses4 at Warwick, and arms at Whewell Grange, a seat of Lord Windsor's. These violent proceedings having raised the country behind them, they were pursued by the sheriffs with what forces could be got together, and finally brought to bay at Holbeche, in Staffordshire, the residence of one Stephen Littleton, a Catholic gentleman.

.....

Such is, in brief, the accepted version of the history, and of its substantial correctness there is commonly assumed to be no room for reasonable doubt. As Mr. Jardine writes,20 "The outlines of the transaction were too notorious to be suppressed or disguised; that a design had been formed to blow up the Parliament House, with the King, the Royal Family, the Lords and Commons, and that this design was formed by Catholic men and for Catholic purposes, could never admit of controversy or concealment." In like manner, while acknowledging that in approaching the question of Father Garnet's complicity, or that of other priests, we find ourselves upon uncertain ground, Mr. Gardiner has no hesitation in declaring that "the whole story of the plot, as far as it relates to the lay conspirators, rests upon indisputable evidence."21

Nevertheless there appear to be considerations, demanding more attention than they have hitherto received, which forbid the supposition that, in regard of what is most vital, this official story can possibly be true; while the extreme care with which it has obviously been elaborated, suggests the conclusion that it was intended to disguise facts, to the concealment of which the government of the day attached supreme importance.

.....