Part 4 (1/2)
Having heard the speech from the throne, the parliament was adjourned until the 21st of the ensuing January.
When the discovery of the plot was known on the Continent, several of the sovereigns sent to congratulate the king on his escape. In the case of some of these sovereigns, their congratulations were sincere; but in other cases the language of deceit must have been used. The king of Spain and the pope, were among the most forward to congratulate his majesty; and yet with great inconsistency they sheltered and protected some of those individuals who fled from their own country, and were privy to the conspiracy. Osborn a.s.sures us, however, that the pope could not refrain from laughing in the face of _Cardinal D'Ossat_, when he informed him, that the Spanish monarch had sent a special messenger to the English court for that express purpose. Indeed, all these congratulations were hollow and insincere; but they would have been exposed to censure as men and as sovereigns, if they had not so far acted the part of hypocrites as to pretend to rejoice at the escape of the English monarch.
That the pope and the king of Spain, and some other papal sovereigns, would have rejoiced at the success of the plot, can scarcely be doubted, since their subsequent actions, as will be noticed in another chapter, proved that they favoured those who were privy to the conspiracy. It can scarcely indeed be doubted that the Spanish sovereign, and his holiness, and perhaps some other sovereigns, were acquainted with the designs of the conspirators; at all events, if they were not aware of the particulars of the plot, they knew that some conspiracy was in agitation, which was intended to be executed during that winter. Many of the Romanists on the Continent knew that some great deed was to be attempted, though they did not know the particulars.
The parliament did not meet on the 5th of November; but the following entry stands on the journals of the House of Commons under that date:-”This last night the upper house of parliament was searched by Sir Thomas Knevett; and one _Johnson_, servant to Mr. Thomas Percye, was there apprehended, who had placed thirty-six barrels of gunpowder in the vault under the house, with a purpose to blow up the king and the whole company when they should there a.s.semble. Afterwards, divers other gentlemen were discovered to be of the plot[17].”
[Footnote 17: _Parl. Hist._ v. 125.]
On the 21st of January, the two houses a.s.sembled according to the previous arrangement, when a committee was formed ”to consider the laws already in force, that tend to the preservation of religion-what defects are in the execution of them, or what new laws may be thought needful[18].” The lord chancellor gave special directions to the clerk to notice the peers who should fail to attend in their places; for there was a suspicion that certain Roman Catholic lords were implicated in the treason. Some were in consequence imprisoned and fined. In the House of Commons the same subject was discussed the first day of the session. The minds of men indeed could dwell on nothing else; nor is it surprising that such was the case; for a most horrible plot had been discovered, and the traitors were already in prison awaiting the sentence of the law. At length a committee was appointed to decide upon some course to be taken against _jesuits_, _seminaries_, and other _papal agents_.
[Footnote 18: Ibid. v. 141.]
The conspirators were tried and convicted at common law, as will be related in the next chapter; but the parliament seemed anxious to award some new punishment, beyond that which was ordinarily inflicted on traitors, on such culprits, for the purpose of marking their sense of their crime. Accordingly a committee was appointed in the lords to consider what extraordinary punishments should be inflicted. While they were engaged in this business, it was reported to the house, that it was not convenient to delay longer the trial of the conspirators, and therefore the matter dropped. The commons were no less anxious on the subject than the lords. The question was debated at some length; but at last it was determined, that the conspirators should be left to the ordinary courts of justice. On the 25th of January, however, the commons framed and pa.s.sed a bill, which was sent up to the lords, ent.i.tled, _”An Act for Appointing a Thanksgiving to Almighty G.o.d every year on the Fifth of November.”_ When the bill was carried to the lords, the messengers stated, ”that the whole body of the commons having entered into consideration of the great blessing of G.o.d, in the happy preservation of his majesty and the state, from the late most dangerous treason intended to have been attempted by the instigation of _jesuits_, _seminaries_, and _Romish priests_, had framed and pa.s.sed the said bill in their house, as the first fruits of their labours, in this session of parliament, which they did very earnestly recommend to their lords.h.i.+ps.”
The lords read and pa.s.sed the bill in three days, without even going into a committee. This act is, therefore, the _first_ in the printed statutes of the session. Several bills were pa.s.sed against recusants and as a protection to the Protestant religion. On the 27th of May the session was terminated[19].
[Footnote 19: During this session an Act was pa.s.sed, by which every one was obliged to take the oath of allegiance-”a very moderate test,” says Hume, ”since it decided no controverted points between the two religions, and only engaged the persons who took it to abjure the pope's power of dethroning kings.” Mr.
Hallam's testimony is equally conclusive: ”We cannot wonder that a parliament so narrowly rescued from personal destruction, endeavoured to draw the cord still tighter round these dangerous enemies. The statute pa.s.sed on this occasion is by no means more harsh than might be expected.”-_Const. Hist._ i. 554-5.]
It may be mentioned, that the ceremony of examining the vaults is performed at the commencement of every session. Whether indeed it has been continued since the destruction of the two houses by fire, I am unable to determine; but as the cellar must still remain, I should imagine that the ceremony is still repeated. At all events, such was the case prior to the fire. The cellar is still designated Guy Fawkes's Cellar.
CHAPTER VI.
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 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 h.e.l.lish 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 c.o.ke, 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 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 c.o.ke, 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 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 c.o.ke: ”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 s.p.a.ce 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 true state of the case respecting the laws against recusants. Sir Edward c.o.ke 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 sithence 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 s.p.a.ce 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 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 a.s.sert that the priests and others did not endeavour to compa.s.s the death of Elizabeth, and to exclude King James from the throne?
[Footnote 20: King James's Works, fol. 336.]