The Gunpowder Plot - Essay Example

The Gunpowder Plot In the early 1600s, there were a number of different plots and attempts to rid the country of King James I of England and VI of Scotland because of his stance on religion. In the long, drawn-out battle between Catholics and Protestants, James had embraced the Protestant faith, and due to a perception of political absolutism on the part of his citizens, Catholic members of the country felt their only means of achieving religious freedom was through revolt and extermination of James, his family and most of his Protestant aristocracy (Lindley, 1993: 44). Even before he officially took the English throne, James was the focus of at least two such plots, including the Main Plot and the Bye Plot (Magnussen, 2003: 409). This was in spite of the fact that he was the son of a devoutly Catholic mother, Mary, and was married to a recently converted Catholic queen. Thus, before one condemns James for the anti-Catholic sentiment in the country, these external, previously existing conditions must be considered. James took the throne in 1604 and was the subject of a more serious plot in 1605, now referred to as the Gunpowder Plot, but then called the Powder Treason (Fraser, 1997). The purpose of this paper is to discover more about this conspiracy by examining its origins, the planning involved in it, how it was discovered, the subsequent trials and executions, its impact on history and how it is remembered today. King James VI of Scotland accepted the crown of England in March of 1604 and, in response to the demands of his Protestant subjects, reinstated the penal laws first introduced by Elizabeth in response to Spanish and Papal threats during the latter portion of the 1500s. The penal codes began with the disputation of the legitimacy of Elizabeth’s reign in light of the fact that her mother was Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII. The Catholic Church recognized only the progeny of Catherine of Aragon as legitimate offspring and even published a papal bull excommunicating Elizabeth and effectively proclaiming all Catholics as traitors to the crown in England by releasing parishioners from any allegiance to her (Frasier, 2002). Under these laws, Catholics enjoyed severe restrictions in their movements, additional fines on their incomes and a constant fear of unwarranted trial or imprisonment. James’ willingness to continue these laws convinced many Catholics in the country that they would not be able to expect reduced restrictions and that the country would not revert back to the ‘true’ religion with the new monarch. It is generally acknowledged that Robert Catesby envisioned a Catholic future for England in which the current monarchy would be replaced by Catholic aristocrats serving under the 9-year-old Princess Elizabeth, who had been raised Catholic within James’ household (Fraser, 2002: xv). Other early plotters included Thomas Wintour and Guy Fawkes, both of whom had come together in the Netherlands as they fought within the same Spanish regiment under Sir William Stanley (Magnusson, 2003: 410). These men were invited to a secret meeting called by Catesby, who was a relative of Wintour and aware of his sentiments. Wintour himself couldn’t make it because of illness, but Fawkes went in his stead. Other attendants at this initial meeting included Robert Wintour, John Wright and Thomas Percy. “The five men swore an oath of secrecy upon a prayer book and Catesby unveiled an audacious plan to blow up the House of Lords on the opening day of parliament the following February” (Magnusson, 2003: 410). As the plot moved forward, additional conspirators were included such as Christopher Wright, Ambrose Rokewood, Robert Keyes, Sir Everard Digby, Francis Tresham and Thomas Bates. Father Henry Garnet was aware of the plot through ecclesiastical channels and was thus prevented from discussing them outside of the confessional. Although he protested against the action, he was included in the general response to follow, eventually drawn and quartered in 1606 (Caramon, 1964). The basic plan was to blow up the House of Lords during Parliamentary session, thereby killing King John and a devastating number of Protestant nobles. As a gentleman pensioner to the Earl of Northumberland, a position much like that of a bodyguard, Thomas Percy rented an apartment near Parliament House that had an underground store-room underneath the House of Lords. This apartment was occupied by the caretaker John Johnson, who was in reality Guy Fawkes, by now an expert on explosives (Magnusson, 2003: 410). Catesby provided the barrels of gunpowder that filled the corners of the store-room, boating them across the Thames at night and hiding them under wood. The thought was that all the plotters would plan to be out of town or at the fringes of town on the appointed opening day of Parliament with the exception of Fawkes, who would light the fuse under the house and then escape by boat down the Thames (Magnusson, 2003: 411). Following the explosion, the other plotters were to raise a rebellion in the Midlands and force their own choice of monarch onto the throne. However, Parliament continued to be delayed as a result of plague in the city and this delay enabled rumors of the plot time to reach advisors to the king. It goes without saying that the success of a plot such as this depended to a great extent upon its secrecy, particularly from anyone loyal to the King or any of those individuals who might be presumed to attend the fated meeting. As each of the plotters involved in the scheme had various relatives and friends and fellow Catholics among the Peers, rumors began flying about London regarding some sort of plot in the making. This was finally brought to a head with an anonymous letter that was received by Lord Mounteagle on October 26, 1605 warning him not to go to the meeting because “they shall receive a terrible blow, the Parliament, and yet they shall not see who hurts them” (Trueman, 2000). The origin of this letter has remained highly suspect to the present day. Although it was generally attributed to Francis Tresham, the brother-in-law of the recipient, there are several indications that Robert Cecil already knew of the plot and that the warning letter itself was expected not only by Mounteagle, whose relationship with several of the plotters seems to have been close enough that he should have known about the plot beforehand, but also by Cecil (Sidney, 1905). Having discovered that the plan was revealed, however, the conspirators determined to move forward with it anyway. A preliminary search through the houses around Parliament should have further tipped Fawkes off to the fact that he was discovered, but he followed through with the entirety of his role so far as he was capable. He was captured just outside the house with the gunpowder in it on November 4, 1605, just before midnight of the day in which the event was to have taken place. The capture of Guy Fawkes was the beginning of the end for the conspirators. He staunchly denied the existence of other conspirators in the plot to blow up the Parliamentary building, insisting it had been his idea alone to “blow the beggarly Scots back to their native mountains” (cited in Sidney, 1905: 81). However, before dawn broke on November 5, he was imprisoned in the Tower with express instructions to his guards to use torture to convince him to reveal the names of his partners as well as the exact nature of his relationship with Thomas Percy, the ostensible tenant of the apartment in question. In the meantime, the other conspirators fled the city to Holbeach in Worcestershire, making incredible time but with the sheriffs of the surrounding districts strong on their trail. This provides yet more evidence that the Cecil, as secretary of state, had some advance knowledge of the details and persons involved in the plot (Sidney, 1905). Although these men had attempted to pull off the revolt in the Midlands that had been originally planned, they were unsuccessful in doing so partly because of the fast response of the government in containing them. By November 10, eleven of the original thirteen conspirators were rendered incapable of causing further mischief. “Catesby, Percy and the Wrights were dead; Guy Fawkes was in the Tower; Digby, Thomas Wintour, Grant, Keyes, Bates and Rookewood were on their way thither” (Sidney, 1905: 95). Only Francis Tresham and Robert Wintour remained on the loose. Tresham was arrested by November 12 and Wintour remained in hiding for approximately two months before he was finally discovered, thanks to a tip from a household servant in the Lyttleton house in which he was hiding (Sidney, 1905: 102). However, it was the capture of Wintour that led to the capture of Garnet and Oldcombe, the Jesuit ministers involved in the plot. Tresham ended up dying suddenly in prison from an unknown illness, but the other conspirators were tried on January 27, 1606 in Westminster Hall, all found guilty and all hung then drawn and quartered in punishment. The immediate result of the disarming of the gunpowder plot was manifold. Although James had entered his monarchy with a half-hearted attempt at providing Catholics with greater freedoms, initially demonstrated through his brief reduction of the Catholic tax, this plot coupled with the protests of his Protestant advisors served to ensure that the Catholics would not gain any further freedoms. To avoid further violence, James publicly recognized that the plot was the result of the delusions of a few Catholics in the country rather something agreed upon by all of them. He also went on to form the Hampton Court Conference, which was an attempt by James to find a happy compromise between the various religious factions within his realm and eventually led to the creation of the King James Bible (Magnusson, 2003). Numerous investigations by a variety of people, including Shakespeare, were conducted in fiction and non-fiction works into the question of demonology, a subject James himself had started to investigate before being made king. Finally, the national relief that the new monarch was delivered of such a devastating end won James greater support and loyalty than he would have otherwise had in his early years as King of England. This enabled him to gain several concessions from his parliament that may have been withheld (Fraser, 2002). The relief of the country was demonstrated almost immediately in the form of a giant bonfire held the night of November 5, 1605 in celebration of Fawkes’ capture near the site of the intended explosion. Since 1605, celebrations have continued to be held on what has become known as Guy Fawkes Night, Fireworks Night or Bonfire Night. In the years following the event, these ceremonies were held unofficially in the form of special church sermons, the ringing of church bells or special community-wide bonfires. An act of Parliament was drafted to commemorate the event every fifth of November that remained in effect through 1859. This long-standing tradition, though, has proven to outlast the flimsy promise of paper with several communities throughout Britain and Scotland continuing to hold special events on or around November 5. In the days leading up to these bonfires, children have been known to construct ‘guys’, effigies of Guy Fawkes himself, by stuffing old clothes with newspaper to be added as fuel for the fires. Creativity counts as these effigies are paraded through the streets as a means of raising money from onlookers to purchase the necessary fireworks for the grand celebration. Guards continue to search the Houses of Parliament prior to each opening day and commemorative coins and other special celebrations have been held to acknowledge important anniversaries, such as the recent 400 year anniversary. Works Cited Caraman, Phillip. Henry Garnet, 1555-1606, and the Gunpowder Plot. London: Farrar, 1964. Fraser, Antonia. Faith and Treason: The Story of the Gunpowder Plot. New York: Anchor Books, 1997. Fraser, Antonia. The Gunpowder Plot, Terror and Faith in 1605. London: Phoenix, 2002. Lindley, David. The Trials of Frances Howard: Fact and Fiction at the Court of King James. London: Routledge, 1993. Magnussen, Magnus. Scotland: The Story of a Nation. London: Grove Press, 2003. Sidney, Philip. A History of the Gunpowder Plot: The Conspiracy and its Agents. London: Religious Tract Society, 1905. Trueman, Chris. “Lord Mounteagle and the Gunpowder Plot.” History Learning Site. (2000). January 25, 2008 < http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/2132.htm> Outline Introduction Historical context Thesis: The purpose of this paper is to discover more about this conspiracy by examining its origins, the planning involved in it, how it was discovered, the subsequent trials and executions, its impact on history and how it is remembered today. Origins Penal codes Originating factors James’ involvement Plotters Original Those who joined later Planning Basic plot Steps taken Delays in execution Discovery Rumors Mounteagle’s letter Capture of Fawkes Capture Fawkes and the initial plunge Fawkes Conspirators at Holbeach Cecil’s reaction The conspirators and their fate The other conspirators Robert Wintour and Lyttleton The end result Impact Hampton Court Conference Literature Bonfire Today Bonfires Traditions Commemoration Read More