What Gunpowder Plot Was

dence, and has deduced from his examination a result which, though somewhat vague in itself, leaves upon his readers a very distinct impression that the celebrated conspiracy was

his book. Lest, however, I should in any way do him an injustice, I proc

points: that the true history of the Gunpowder Plot is now known to

he Government were not aware of the Plot

ceedings of the conspirators were actual

ry and the evidence as presented to the world, and that the points upon

contrived for the purpose which in fact it opportunely served, by those who alone reape

y in consequence of what is now known to all historical students to have been the entirely false charge that the plot emanated from, or was approved by the English Roman Catholics as a body, but this false belief prevailed so widely that it must have hindered, to no slight extent, the spread of that organisation which he regards as having been set fo

consistent with physical facts, so that things cannot possibly have happened as they are said to have happened in confessions attributed to the conspirators themselves. I can only speak for myself when I say that after reading much hostile criticism of Father Gerard's book-and I would especially refer to a most able review of it, so far as negative criticism can go, in the Edinburgh Review of January last-I did not feel that all difficult

a certain thing happen, I should be much more likely to believe that it was so than if a person, whom I knew to be untruthful, informed me that he had himself witnessed something at the present day. The historian is not bound, as the lawyer is, to reject hearsay evidence, because it is his business to ascertain the truth of individual assertions, whilst the lawyer has to think of the bearing of the evidence not merely on the case of the prisoner in the dock, but on an unrestricted number of possible prisoners, many of whom would be unjustly condemned if hearsay evidence were

working of the nature of the persons to whom the action in question is ascribed? Father Gerard, for instance, lavishly employs this test. Again and again be tells us that such and such a statement is incredible, because, amongst other reasons, the people about whom it was made could not possibly have acted in the way ascribed to them. If

ence whatever? If hearsay evidence can be taken as an argument of probability, and, in some cases, of strong probability, it is where some one material fact is concerned. For instance, I am of opinion that it is very likely that the story of Cromwell's visit to the body of Charles I. on the night after the King's execution is true, though the evidence is only that Spence heard it from Pope, and Pope heard it, mediately or immediately, from Southampton, who, as is allege

asserted, in 1658, 'that Cecil was the contriver, or at least the fomenter, of [the plot],' because it 'was testified by one of his own domestic gentlemen, who advertised a certain Catholic, by name Master Buck, two months before, of a wicked design his master had against Catholics.'[3] Was Salisbury such an idiot as to inform his 'domestic gentleman' that he had made up his mind to invent Gunpowder Plot? What may reasonably be supposed to have happened-on the supposition that Master Buck reported the occurrence accurately-is that Salisbury had in familiar talk disclosed, what was no secret, his animosity against the Catholics, and his resolution to keep them down. Even the Puritan, Osborne, it seems, thought the discovery 'a neat device of the Treasurer's, he being very plentiful in such plots'; and the

s actual words before us we should know whether he meant more than this. At present we are entirely in the dark. As for the evidence of Goodman and Osborne, it proves no more than this, that there were rumours about to the effect that the plot was got up by Salisbury. Neither Osborne nor Goodman are exactly the authorities which stand high with a cautious inquirer, and they had neither of them any personal acquaintance with the facts. Yet we may fairly take it from them that rumours damaging to Salisbury were in circulation. Is it, however, necessary to prove this? It was inevitable that it should be so. Grante

brought against Salisbury nearer home. He produces certain notes by an anonymous correspondent of

tions and objections, to which the writer always supplied definite replies. In the following version this

r is as

t the Fifth of November. It was without all peradventure a State

hall it was his father's contrivance; which Lenthall soon after told one M

cil to create plots that he might have the

er to be sent to him before it came. (Kno

to disengage the king of his promise to the Pope and the King of Spain to indulge the Catholics if ever he c

ecuted in the Rump time

s master went to Salisbury House several nights before the di

e words imply that Lenthall was dead when they were written down, and as his death occurred in 1681, they relate to an event which occurred at least seventy-six years before the story took the shape in which it here reaches us. The second Earl of Salisbury, we are told, informed Lenthall that the plot was 'his father's contrivance,' and Lenthall told Webb. Are we quite sure that the story has not been altered in the telling? Such a very little change would be sufficient. If the second Earl had only said, "People talked about my father having contrived the plot," there would be nothing to object to. If we cannot conceive either Lenthall or Webb being guilty of 'leaving the story better than they found it,'-though Wood, no doubt a prejudiced witness, says that Lenthall was 'the grand braggadocio and liar of the age

n of a historian for honestly avowing that he has not sufficient evidence to warrant a positive conclusion. What I do complain of is, that Father Gerard has not started any single hypothesis wherewith to test the evidence on which he relies, and has thereby neglected the most potent instrument of historical investigation. When a door-key is missing, the householder does not lose time in deploring the intricacy of the lock, he tries every key at his disposal to see whether it will fit the wards, and only sends for the locksm

r Gerard's inferences. I am certain that if this hypothesis of mine be false, it will be found to jar somewhere or another with established facts. In that case we must try another key. Of course there must be s

told by writers who have in the present century availed themselves of the manuscript treasures now at our disposal, and which are for the m

Robert Keyes, and a few more; but all, with the exception of Thomas Bates, Catesby's servant, men of family, and for the most part of competent fortune, though Keyes is said to have been in straitened circumstances, and Catesby to have been impoverished by a heavy fine levied on him as a recusant.[12] Percy, a second cousin of the Earl of Northumberland, then captain of the Gentleman Pensioners, was admitted by him into that body in-it is said-an irregular manner, his relationship to the earl passing in lieu of the usual oath of fidelit

and powder, to the amount of thirty-six barrels, was brought into the cellar, where it was stowed under heaps of coal or firewood, and so remained under the immediate care of Guy Fawkes,[14] till, on the night of November 4, 1605-the opening of Parliament being fixed for the next day-Sir Thomas Knyvet, with a party of men, was ordered to examine the cellar. He met Fawkes coming out of it, arres

rt of the matter, let us put aside for the present all questions arising out of the alleged discovery of the plot through the letter received by Monteagle, and