Gunpowder Plot Scepticism

                      What was the real conspiracy ? 

                                                 Photo  of Westminster Hall kindly donated by  Gareth Nolan.

Recently read  'Guy: The Truth About Guy Fawkes' by Michael Fitzalan  A long quite involved novel, with huge chunks of history thrown in. Based on the notion that the Gunpowder Plot did not occur as a hideous treasonous conspiracy with the intention of devastating Westminster. 

In this novel, a group of Catholics facing huge fines for refusing to attend Anglican services, some of them already punished for taking part in the Essex Rebellion of 1601, launch a money making enterprise, partly centred at Westminster. A feasible notion as cellars and undercrofts by the Houses of Parliament were rented out for commercial purposes. They also have the use of Holbeche House in the West Midlands. 

Robert Cecil , the Secretary of State, essentially manipulates the conspirators to further his own anti-Catholic agenda. There are no trial scenes as such , but the implication is that the suspects have been framed, most likely with 'evidence' extracted under torture. 

Guido Fawkes appears as an Italian immigrant in London, and is recruited to help with the business. For  whole sections of the book , he doesn't particularly appear. Fawkes is not portrayed as a terrorist or subversive icon, but as a rather naive chap who goes bumbling into a world that he can not understand. 

Has got me wondering why Gunpowder  scepticism can still have an influence. And there are different sets of  doubts concerning what really happened in 1605. Firstly, the claim that Cecil knew of the Plot for some time beforehand, but decided to let it run. So many other plots of this era such at the Babington Plot , Main Plot, Bye Plot, etc were infiltrated so would be a surprise if the Gunpowder Plot was not. The argument would be that Cecil wanted to catch as many conspirators as possible, also he was trying to locate Jesuit priests in hiding, so kept the conspiracy under observation to the eleventh hour.  Moreover, a number of the key players were hardly 'clean skins' having been involved and arrested for their part in the 1601 Essex Rebellion, so their activities were probably already monitored to some extent. 

This leads on to the question -If the 'Plot was infiltrated , who was Cecil's informant ? Perhaps Robert Catesby the leader. Very charismatic fellow, already in trouble with the authorities via the  Essex Rebellion.  Francis Tresham, the last to join the 'Plot? Seems to have been recruited more for his wealth than anything else.  Tresham didn't even bother fleeing London when Guy Fawkes was captured. Later, he was interrogated and jailed in the Tower, only to die before being tried, though several claims have been made to suggest that Tresham escaped or was allowed to escape to the Continent for service rendered to the State.. DURST 

A key work relating to 'Gunpowder scepticism text' was written by Father John Gerard and titled  'What Was the Gunpowder Plot? The Traditional Story Tested by Original Evidence', first published in 1897.

If however, we cannot satisfy ourselves of the truth, it will be much to ascertain what is false; to convince ourselves that the account of the matter officially supplied and almost universally accepted, is obviously untrue, and that the balance of probability lies heavily against those who invented it, as having been the real plotters, devising and working the scheme for their own ends. 

In 1969, 'Guy Fawkes-The real story of the Gunpowder Plot? by Father Francis Edwards, then archivist of the English Society of Jesus ( Jesuits), was published. Another major text of Gunpowder scepticism. Father Edwards developed the connection between key participants from the Essex Rebellion -Francis Tresham, Robert Catesby, Christopher and John Wright and the Gunpowder Treason. Tresham and Catesby receive particular attention, both were heftily fined for taking part in the Essex Rebellion. Father Edwards then argues that they avoided a traitor's death, by being 'reserved for the Queen's service', in other words,by working for Robert Cecil. They in turn recruited Thomas Wintour, John Grant, and Guy Fawkes. The last three mentioned 'Plotters' were all expecting to get a last minute reprieve from execution once arrested and convicted.

Father Francis also stressed that Lord Monteagle - the Catholic lord who on 26th October 1605  received the famous letter warning him not to attend Parliament on 5th November 1605, also found himself on the 'wrong' side at the time of the Essex Rebellion, and began to work for  Cecil. Father Francis' work inspired the 1980 drama Gunpowder, Treason and Plot. 

And through to 'The Gunpowder Plot Deceit' by Martyn R. Beardsley in 2018.

I do, though, believe that the official and still widely-believed of the Gunpowder Plot, was cooked up by Cecil, who tampered with confessions and other evidence,who knew about the Plot, at least weeks and probably months before Guy Fawkes was arrested, and who was content to let it run till the last minute for propaganda  purposes. 

Well few people today would  agree that the judicial process against the accused would pass modern day tests to ensure the rights of suspects such as laid out in recent legislation as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. However, 17th century justice was not the same. For example, the lack of a defence counsel at the trial for the 'Plotters would have been usual practice in 1606. The trial of the key conspirators who were still alive was held on a few hours in one day at Westminster Hall on  27th January 1606 which hardly seemed 'fair' in today's terms for the accused who largely plead not guilty to such severe charges. The use of torture was permitted to generate 'confessions', though had to be sanctioned by official writ rather than routine, Well in theory at least-  it was highly likely that this procedure was breached .

But what is stranger is that how come the Gunpowder Treason crew  bonded together if there was no conspiracy? Father Edwards suggested that the men were planning to form an English Catholic regiment to fight in the Low Countries, to assist the Spaniards. This would not have been unlawful in 1605, as England and Spain were no longer at war following the Treaty of London of 1604. So why the clandestine activity? Why did this have to be centred in Westminster when most of the men were based elsewhere?

But what is more surprising is that once word got out that Fawkes was captured on the night of 4th to the 5th November 1605, many of the key plotters fled London ( Catesby, Thomas Wintour, the Wright Brothers ) . They then met up with other conspirators ( including Robert Wintour, John Grant, Everard Digby) at The Red Lyon inn at  Dunchurch and launched a failed rebellion, which ended in defeat whilst facing the Sheriff of Worcester's men at Holbeache House, Staffordshire on 8th November 1605. This is not the behaviour of innocent men. And anyone who took part in the three day rebellion, which also included horse theft and the stealing of arms and other supplies would be guilty of Treason by the standards of the day, even if there was no attempt to devastate Westminster. The most likely common connection between the conspirators was a desire to launch an insurrection. Also why was Guy Fawkes sought out to be involved, apart from his knowledge of gunpowder from fighting in the Low Countries? Unlike most of the others, he had no family connections to other conspirators. 

Furthermore, the Gunpowder sceptics stress the role of government and royal propaganda in creating the official version of events such as 'The King's Book' that was printed and circulated in the reign of James' I. But this overlooks two important sources ....the writings of Father Oswald Tesimond ( whose account appeared as 'The Gunpowder Plot: The narrative of Oswald alias Greenway')  along with  Father John Gerard (not to be confused with the priest of the same name from the Victorian era. This John Gerard fled England in 1606, hidden amongst the members of a Spanish diplomatic mission. Gerard wrote an account of 'The Condition of  Catholics under James I' and  his own ' Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot' ). Yet these sources, however opposed  to the authorities point of view, do not suggest that the Gunpowder Plot was fabricated. 

Certainly, it had useful propaganda value for the authorities to make out that James I and Cecil had saved the country at the very last minute, or that there was even some divine intervention to deliver  Protestant England from mass murder planned by the Catholics. And the commemorations via Bonfire Night still carry on 400 hundred years later, which is quite an achievement. 

But the question of the obtaining of  gunpowder itself is significant. Hillaire Belloc used the argument that it would have been impossible for the Conspirators to have obtained so much gunpowder-when there was a virtual government monopoly on the substance- without the authorities being aware that something illicit was afoot.BELLOC

On the other hand, if the authorities were aware of or even involved with the 'Plot, then it is questionable that they would have permitted such a huge quantity of gunpowder to be stored so close to Westminster in the hands of some very dubious characters.  People at the time were aware of how dangerous gunpowder could be. Even Francis Edwards reminded his readers that there had already been an explosion at Dublin Quays in 1597,and the risk an accidental explosion would be very high. 

But then again, Robert Cecil was warned by Lord Monteagle immediately on receiving his warning letter, but it still took some nine days to capture Fawkes, supposedly guarding his supply of gunpowder. The lack of urgency is striking. And the question of keeping the gunpowder in a fit state to ignite, without the risk of it's potency decaying in a damp undercroft, raises further questions. 

So perhaps we get to the ultimate conspiracy, a Gunpowder Plot with not so much gunpowder. The sceptics have raised some very important questions concerning the official version of what was allegedly intended. Yet the failed rebellion that conspirators launched in the Midlands seems the hardest to explain away if no Treason was planned. 

Sources

Online texts 

Characters of the Reformation Hillaire Belloc, First published in 1936 has a short chapter on James I .

What was the Gunpowder Plot ?   Digital version of the 1897 work by John Gerard. 

What the Gunpowder Plot Was      Digital version of the 1897 response to Gerard above by Samuel Rawson Gardiner 

Books

'The Gunpowder Plot Deceit' by Martyn R. Beardsley in 2018, Pen and Sword Books, also on kindle 

'Intended Treason-What Really Happened in the Gunpowder Plot', Paul Durst, W.H.Allen' 1970 

'The Gunpowder Plot: The narrative of Oswald alias Greenway' Father Oswald Tesimond. 

' Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot'  John Gerard , 

Related Links 

Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot Facebook ( public group) welcomes new members 

Some Other blog pages about the Gunpowder Treason from 'A Burnt Ship'

The Third Wintour Brother Part one

The Third Wintour Brother Part two  

Researching the life  and execution of John Wintour, younger half brother to Robert and Thomas Wintour, who were leading conspirators in the Gunpowder Treason. 

'Guy Fawkes' 1841 novel Review of William Harrison Ainsworth's fictionalised life of Fawkes

In Quintum Novembris Poetry related to the Gunpowder Treason 

Other blogs by Michael Bully 

New blog launched 2nd February 2023 BleakChesneyWold  Charles Dickens & 'dark' 19 century history 

1685 Monmouth Rebellion  Soon to be updated. 

13th Century History           Not currently active

World War 2 poetry             Not currently active 

Thank you again to all visitors to this blog from around the world. Hoping that you stay safe  and well in such turbulent times. 

Please consider following 'A Burnt Ship' to be made aware of future updates.

Also on 'Twitter' as A Burnt Ship@ShipBurnt 

Michael Bully

20th March 2022

Brighton,

England