No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Investigating Gunpowder Plot
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 September 2015
Extract
ON 6 November 1605, the earl of Salisbury wrote jubilantly to the English Ambassador in France, Sir Thomas Parry, that it had ‘pleased Almighty God, out of his singular goodness, to bring to light the most cruel and detestable practise against the person of his Majesty and the whole estate of the Realm that ever was conceived by the heart of man, at any time, or in any place whatsoever’. But, when he wrote this, Salisbury was fully aware that, though the Lord might have revealed the bare existence of the Gunpowder plot, it would be left to men to discover the details and the ramifications of a complex treason that had been long in the planning.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1988
References
Notes
1 This paper draws considerably upon my Ph.D. thesis ‘Politics and Percies’ which examined the involvement of various members of the Percy family in Gunpowder plot. I would like to thank Colin Shrimpton, Archivist to His Grace the Duke of Northumberland, K.G., for his help and advice regarding manuscripts at Alnwick and Syon House.
2 P.R.O., S.P. 78/52, fol. 338. Although this draft is dated 6 Nov., the letter was probably sent to Parry on 9 Nov. along with similar letters to the ambassadors in Holland and Spain. See below, notes 25 and 44.
3 For some examples of later writers who follow Gerard's line to a greater or lesser extent see Hugh, Ross Williamson: The Gunpowder Plot (London, 1951),Google Scholar Francis, Edwards: Guy Fawkes: The Real Story of the Gunpowder Plot? (London, 1969),Google Scholar Paul, Durst: Intended Treason: What really happened in the Gunpowder Plot (London, 1970),Google Scholar and Northcote Parkinson, C.: Gunpowder, Treason and Plot (London, 1976).Google Scholar
4 Evidence coming to light since the 1890s has, by shedding light on hitherto obscure points, supported the traditional story. See, for example, Rodger, N. A. M.: ‘Ordnance Records and the Gunpowder Plot’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 53 (1980), pp. 124–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also ‘Politics and Percies’, pp. 263-9. While I do not wish to dwell long on the matter here, it is noticeable that those who doubt the ‘official’ version of events found many of their doubts on the occasional absence of original documents. But the history and security of the state papers before the nineteenth century leaves one suprised only that so many documents have survived, and several papers read during the 1606 trials which it can have been in no one's interest to destroy are among those missing (for example the testimony of Sir Allan Percy, Northumberland's brother, and others about the failure to ensure that Thomas Percy took the oaths required of a Gentleman Pensioner in 1604, read at the earl's trial: Cheshire County Record Office, De Tabley MS. DLT/B8 p. 172).
5 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/6, 16A, 19.
6 P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/11-17; 14/216/24, 25, 39.
7 Royal Proclamations, 1, p. 123; P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/9; 14/216/7, 9, 14, 15, 36. 234; Hatfield MS. 113/54.
8 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/10, 20, 20A See also Sir Edward Coke's painstaking list of ‘Proofs against (Thomas] Percy’ probably compiled on 6 Nov. and based on Fawkes's confessions up to that time (S.P. 14/16/18).
9 Guildhall, City of London Record Office, Journal of Common Council vol. 27, fol. 4. Nor were the citizens slow to comply, see Chamberlain Letters, 1, p. 213; Annates, p. 880.
10 See The Advocate of Conscience Liberty, or an apology for Toleration rightly staled ((London], 1673), p. 227. This is probably the reason why Ben Jonson, at that time still a Catholic, was asked by the Privy Council to find a priest willing to perform some undisclosed service. Jonson was soon forced to admit that ail his priestly contacts were too scared to come out of hiding (see De Luna, B. N.: Jonson's Romish Plot: a study of ‘Catiline’ and its historical context (Oxford, 1967], pp. 115–43)Google Scholar.
11 Keith, Thomas: Religion and the Decline of Magic (London, 1971), p. 312.Google Scholar
12 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/17.
13 P.R.O., S.P. 78/52, fols. 244, 272, 292; Thomas, Birch (ed.): An Historical View of the Negotiations between the courts of England, France, and Brussels from the year 1592 to 1617 (London, 1749), pp. 233–4.Google Scholar
14 For Watson's confession see P.R.O., S.P. 14/3/16; His Majesties Speach, sig. F2.
15 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/16. See also Dodd, A. H.: ‘The Spanish Treason, the Gunpowder Plot and the Catholic Refugees’, E.H.R. 53 (1938), pp. 643–6.Google Scholar
16 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/37.
17 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/22.
18 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/35.
19 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/37.
20 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/23.
21 Annates, p. 880. Stow (pp. 879-80) gives a graphic description of the general air of uncertainty which prevailed among all the social classes in the capital before the news that the rebellion had been suppressed reached London.
22 Royal Proclamations, 1, pp. 124-6.
23 The course of the rebellion can be pieced together from many documents in ‘Gunpowder Plot Book’ (S.P. 14/216—a nineteenth-century collection of state papers relating to, or appearing to relate to, the plot), for example P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/119, 135. See George, Blacker Morgan: The Great English Treason for Religion, known as Gunpowder Plot … (Oxford, 1931–2), 2, pp. 177–250;Google Scholar David, Jardine: A Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot (London, 1857), pp. 105–17.Google Scholar
24 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/55.
25 See the postscript to Salisbury's letter to Sir Thomas Edmondes, with the altered date (B. L., Stowe MS. 168, fol. 213).
26 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/49, 54.
27 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/129. See John, Bellamy: The Tudor Law of Treason (London, 1979), pp. 105–6.Google Scholar
28 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/54.
29 P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/62, 63.
30 In the late summer and autumn of 1605, Ambrose Rookwood and Sir Everard Digby were brought into the plot for the same reason (S.P. 14/216/135, 136; Hatfield MS. 113/54).
31 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/87. Compare this procedure with that adopted in 16th century treasons (Bellamy: Tudor Law of Treason, pp. 104-5).
32 P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/57.
33 P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/58-61.
34 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/88.
35 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/89.
36 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/90.
37 B.L., Additional MSS. 11402, fol. 108; 12503, fol. 368.
38 B.L., Additional MS. 11402, fol. 108.
39 Ibid. For Montagu's earlier efforts to explain away recent contacts with Catesby, see P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/48A, 74, 86.
40 Stow (Annates, p. 881) wrote that he was confined to his house on 7 Nov. and sent to Lambeth later, but the Northumberland household accounts record that the earl's night clothes were taken to Lambeth on the seventh (Batho, G. R. (ed.]: The Household Papers of Henry Percy, ninth earl of Northumberland (1564-1632) (Camden Society, London, 1962], p. 6).Google Scholar
41 Hatfield MS. 113/172; B. L., Additional MS. 11402, fol. 108.
42 Royal Proclamations, 1, pp. 127-8.
43 Journals of the House of Lords, 2, pp. 356–9.Google Scholar
44 See above, notes 1 and 25; Edmund, Sawyer (ed.): Memorials of Affairs of State … Collected(chiefly) from the Original Papers of Sir Ralph Winwood … (London, 1725), 2, p. 170.Google Scholar
45 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/129.
46 His Majesties Speach, sigs. Bv-B2. Cf. Chamberlain Letters, 1, p. 213.
47 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/49, a copy from a missing original.
48 William, Barlow: The Sermon Preached at Paules Crosse, the tenth day of Nouember, being the next Sunday after the Discouerie of this late Horrible Treason (London, 1606), sigs. Dv, E.Google Scholar
49 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/6.
50 See Thomas Winter's confession, Hatfield MS. 113/54. In the same confession, Winter claimed that he had heard in October—from Lord Monteagle—that Prince Henry might not attend parliament after all. Catesby had apparently been considering making an attempt to capture Charles—Percy seemed keen on the idea—but when told the news he had said: ‘Then must we have our horses beyond the water, and provision of more company, to surprise the prince and leave the young duke alone.’ Nothing further seems to have been arranged at this late stage. The reference to Monteagle, by then a national hero, was omitted from the published version (His Majesties Speach, sig. K2v). For Percy'splans see P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/35.
51 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/100.
52 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/101.
53 W. W.G.P., pp. 169-77, 268-77; John, Gerard: The Gunpowder Plot, and the Gunpowder Plotters (London, 1897), pp. 7–12.Google Scholar
54 His Majesties Speach, sigs. H3, K2. Fawkes does not seem to have mentioned Owen in this context until 20 Jan. 1606 (Bodleian MS. Tanner 75, fol. 142). Like that confession, however, other statements made by Fawkes survive only in partial copies, including two made on 25 and 30 Nov. 1605 (Robert, Abbot: Antilogia adversus Apologiarn Andrae Eudaemon-loannts lesuttae pro Henrico Garneto Iesuita Proditore … (London, 1613), pp. 137, 138,Google Scholar 139v-40, 160, 161v; B. I.… Harley MS. 360, fols. 115**v, 116v; Bodleian MS. Tanner 75, fols. 141V-142, 203 (Sancroft transcripts]; Mark, A. Tierney [ed.]: Dodd's Church History of England [London. 1839–43], 4,Google Scholar appendix, pp. lii-liv; P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/175. 14/20/52. (See also S.P. 14 19 93. Coke's list of evidences prepared for use at Garnett's trial). It is possible that these copies owe something to later ‘embellishment’, yet several at least were read during the trials in 1606, supplying then the same points that the surviving extracts show today. Of the above list, some of Fawkes's depositions, for example, were read at Northumberland's trial, see below note 148.
55 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/55.
56 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/87; Hatfield MS. 113/54.
57 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/89.
58 Robert Barker, the king's printer.
59 His Majesties Speach, sig. H4v.
60 W.W.G.P., pp. 167-9; W.G.P.W., pp. 54-71; Gerard. Gunpowder Plot and Gunpowder Plotters, pp. 12-23; John, Gerard: Thomas Winter's Confession and the Gunpowder Plot (London, 1898);Google Scholar The Athenaeum, 3658 (4 Dec. 1897), pp. 785-7; 3660 (18 Dec. 1897), pp. 855-6; 3698 (10 Sep. 1898). pp. 352-3; 3700 (24 Sep. 1898), p. 420. See also issue no. 3662 (1 Jan. 1898), p. 23. Most books on the plot written since then have had something to say on the matter. So too have Herbert, Thurston. G. and Jenkins, H., Christopher, Devlin and Hugh, Ross Williamson in The Month, 150 (1927), pp. 500–10;Google Scholar NS 4 (1950), pp. 243-51; NS 6 (1951), pp. 304-6; NS 7 (1952), pp. 83-8. 162-76. 231-3, 290-305. See also the exchange in the Times Literary Supplement for 1951. pp. 691, 731, 749. 765. 785.
61 Hatfield MS. 113/54. There is a facsimile in Gerard: Thomas Winter's Confession.
62 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/114.
63 See especially Williamson's articles in note 60 for the development of Gerard's argument.
64 The Athenaeum 3658, p. 786.
65 Hatfield MS. 113/24.
66 His Majesties Speach, sigs. I-L.
67 W.G.P.W., p. 74n. See also David, Jardine (ed.): Criminal Trials (London, 1832–5), 2, p. 5.Google Scholar
68 B. L., Additional MS. 12497, fols. 285-91, Sir Julius Caesar's papers.
69 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/134.
70 B.L., Additional MS. 12497, fol. 380.
71 Ibid., fols. 378-9.
72 B.L., Additional MSS. 12503, fol. 368; 12497, fols. 370, 372.
73 Essex was executed seventeen days after his rebellion, and all the trials in connection with those treasons were over within a month, although some lesser figures were fined in Star Chamber in May 1601 (P.R.O. Deputy Keeper's Fourth Report [London, 1843], appendix 2, pp. 292-7; Jones, H.V. [ed.]: ‘The Journal of Levinus Munck’, E.H.R. 68 [1953], pp. 241–2).Google Scholar
74 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/108, 111, 118. 119, 121, 123, 128, 138, 139, 140. 142. 144. 153. 157, 159. 161, 240; P.R.O. 31/6/1 (transcripts from Phelipps papers at Montacute House).
75 I., H. Jeayes (ed.): Letters of Philip Gawdy of West Harling, Norfolk, and of London to various members of his family, 1579-1616 (London, 1906), pp. 162–3.Google Scholar Stourton, like Mordaunt. was a friend of Catesby and had intended to miss the opening of parliament. Huddlestone had unwittingly associated with the plotters during their flight from London on 5 Nov.
76 Hatfield MS. 113/50.
77 For example, see P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/116. 124, 126, 135, 136, 146; Bodleian MS. Tanner “5. fols. 141v-142, 203.
78 P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/38, 57, 100, 101, 116.
79 P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/116. See also 14/16/38, an earlier list.
80 At Northumberland's trial, both William Watson's confession of 10 Aug. 1603 (S.P. 14 3 16) and that of Lord Cobham taken on 22 Nov. 1603 (S.P. 14/4/91) were read (Cheshire C.R.O., De Tablcy MS. DLT/B8, p. 172).
81 For the suspicions over Northumberland's part in Gunpowder plot see ‘Politics and Percics’, pp. 200-32.
82 P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/116.
83 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/113, 113A, 122; 14/16/116; Hatfield MSS. 113 43. 134 86.
84 P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/116.
85 Hatfield MS. 112/91.
86 For example P.R.O., S.P. 14/216 124, 125; Bodleian MS. Tanner 75, fols. 141v-142.
87 P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/116. Fawkes had supplied details of his mission before Winter's statement regarding the earlier treason (Bodleian MS. Tanner 75, fol. 141v). For his mission in 1603, see Loomie, Albert J.: ‘Guy Fawkes in Spain: The “Spanish Treason” in Spanish Documents’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research Special Supplement number 9 (London, 1971). pp. 17–35.Google Scholar
88 See P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/37; 14/16/100, 101; Hatfield MSS. 107/108; 113/25 and 33. See also John, W. Shirley: Thomas Harriot: A Biography (Oxford, 1983), p. 334.Google Scholar
89 P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/116.
90 Bodleian MS. Add. C86, fol. 3-3v.
91 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/176.
92 Trevor-Roper, H. R.: Historical Essays (London, 1957), p. 109.Google Scholar
93 John, Bossy: ‘The English Catholic Community, 1603-1625’, in Smith, A. G. R. (ed.): The Reignof James VI and I (London, 1973), p. 95.Google Scholar
94 Jenny, Wormald: ‘Gunpowder, Treason, and Scots’, Journal of British Studies 24 (April 1985), pp. 141–68.Google Scholar
95 Joel, Hurstfield: ‘A Retrospect: Gunpowder Plot and the politics of dissent’, in Freedom, Corruption and Government in Elizabethan England (London, 1973), pp. 341, 347.Google Scholar
96 Somerville, J. P.: Politics and Ideology in England, 1603-1640 (London, 1986), pp. 44-6, 217–20Google Scholar
97 Bossy: ‘Engish Catholic Community’, p. 95.
98 Royal Proclamations, 1, pp. 124-5.
99 His Majesties Speach, sigs. C2-C2v.
100 See Roland Usher, G.: The Reconstruction of the English Church (New York, 1910), 2, pp. 97–102.Google Scholar
101 For example, the anonymous author of Feareful Newes of Thunder and Lightning (1606), see Gifford, J. V.: ‘The Controversy over the Oath of Allegiance’ (Oxford thesis, 1971), pp. 26–7.Google Scholar
102 We still await a satisfactory biography. For his later career, the best source is Thomas M. Coakley's doctoral thesis: ‘The Political Position and Domestic Policy of Robert Cecil, 1603-1612’ (Minnesota, 1959), esp.. pp. 218-45 in this context. See also Coakley's article: ‘Robert Cecil in Power: Elizabethan Politics in two reigns’, in Reinmuth, H. S. (ed.): Early Stuart Studies: essays in honor of David Harris Willson (Minneapolis, 1970), pp. 64–94.Google Scholar For a brief but significant study see Joel, Hurstfield: ‘Robert Cecil, earl of Salisbury: minister of Elizabeth and James I’, History Today 7 (1957), pp. 279–89,Google Scholar esp. p. 286. For a less enthusiastic character sketch see Francis, Edwards: ‘Robin Goodfellow or Robinthe Devil? The enigma of the first Earl of Salisbury’, The Month NS 30 (1963), pp. 12–21.Google Scholar
103 Willson, D. H. (ed.): The Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer (New York, 1931, reprinted 1971), pp. 28-9, 86.Google Scholar
104 John, J. La Rocca: ‘“Who Can't Pray With Me, Can't Love Me”: Toleration and the Early Jacobean Recusancy Policy’, Journal of British Studies 23 number 2 (1984), pp. 30–6;Google Scholar Kenneth, Fincham and Peter, Lake: ‘The Ecclesiastical Policy of King James I’, Journal of British Studies 24 (April 1985), pp. 185–6;Google Scholar Alan, Dures: English Catholicism 1558-1642: Continuity and Change (London, 1983), pp. 44–7.Google Scholar
105 Hatfield MS. 113/77.
106 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/145.
107 On that day Fawkes was questioned about the role Sir Edmund Baynham had played in the plot (S.P. 14/216/163). For Baynham, see the biography of Sprott, S. E. in Recusant History 10, pp. 96–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Winter was asked about Father John Gerard's part when the original five plotters had taken their initial oath of secrecy (S.P. 14/216/164).
108 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/165, 166, 170, 171, 175, 177, 178; 14/18/13.
109 Royal Proclamations, 1, pp. 131-3.
110 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/168, 172.
111 See Philip, Caraman: Henry Garnet, 1555-1606, and the Gunpowder Plot (London, 1964), pp. 330–41.Google Scholar
112 Journals of the House of Commons, I, p. 259; Willson: Bowyer's Diary, p. 7.
113 See Garnett's declaration of 8 Mar. 1606 (Hatfield MS. 110/30, edited by Gardiner in E.H.R. 3(1888), pp. 510-17, esp.. pp. 513-15).
114 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/165. See also 14/216/197.
115 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/54.
116 John, Morris (ed.): The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, related by themselves 1 (London, 1872), p. 143;Google Scholar Philip, Caraman (ed.): John Gerard: The Autobiography of an Elizabethan (London, 1956), pp. 197–209.Google Scholar
117 See Jardine: Criminal Trials, 2, pp. 190-403; Foley, 4, pp. 145-93; Caraman: Henry Garnet, pp. 348-429.
118 Hence the diplomatic efforts to secure the extradition of Hugh Owen. See W. W.G.P., pp. 184-93; Albert, J. Loomie: The Spanish Elizabethans (London, 1964), pp. 83–92.Google Scholar A few years later, indeed, extra legal means of securing Owen were considered, see Francis Edwards: ‘The Attempt in 1608 on Hugh Owen, Intelligencer for the Archdukes in Flanders’, Recusant History, pp. 140-57.
119 See, for example, W.W.G.P., pp. 259-60; Williamson: The Gunpowder Plot, p. 193.
120 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/17. After the plotters had been executed, however, two Privy Council warrantswere issued authorising the use of torture on Chambers, Owen, and possibly others ‘inferior prisoners’ then in detention. The Council first permitted the use of manacles, later allowing the rack to beemployed as well (B. L., Additional MS. 11402, fols. 109v, 110, Council orders of Feb. 1606).
121 Gunpowder-Treason, pp. 229-63. Admittedly the originals do not survive, and Barlow's history is hardly impartial, but these letters do not give the impression of having been invented or ‘modified’. Barlow, one feels, published them to speak for themselves, no doubt hoping that they would show how blind adherence to his Catholic beliefs had brought Digby low. To a more sympathetic audience, however, the letters portray Sir Everard in a kinder light: as an idealistic, poetic young man, devoted to his family and to his faith. The points therein which augment our knowledge of the treason-investigations, illuminating as they are, would not have satisfied a forger who, presented with such scope for invention, could hardly have failed to do a more thorough job.
122 Ibid., p. 248.
123 Public Record Office Deputy Keeper's Fifth Report (London, 1844), appendix 2, p. 142;Google Scholar Clare, Talbot (ed.): Recusant Records (C.R.S., Miscellanea, London, 1961), p. 272 Google Scholar (B. L., Additional MS. 41257, fol. 36).
124 John, Morris (ed.): The Condition of Catholics under James I. Father Gerard's Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot … with his life … (London, 1872), p. 210.Google Scholar
125 ‘Politics and Percies’, p. 276.
126 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/20A.
127 Howell, T. B. and others (eds.): A Complete Collection of State Trials and proceedings for hightreason and other crimes and misdemeanors (London, 1809–28), 2, col. 186.Google Scholar
128 Oldys, W. (ed.): The Harleian Miscellany (London, 1808–13), 3, p. 134.Google Scholar
129 Francis, Edwards (ed.): The Gunpowder Plot: The Narrative of Oswald Tesimond alias Greenway (London, 1973), p. 229.Google Scholar
130 Compare P.R.O., S.P. 14/16/94 with 14/16/95.
131 Gunpowder-Treason, p. 241.
132 P.R.O., S.P. 14/17/10.
133 Gunpowder-Treason, p. 245. This would seem to refute Gerard's argument, supported by Gardiner, that Digby made his offer while still a free man (If. W.G.P., pp. 245-9; W.G.P. W., p. 169).
134 Compare letters of John, Chamberlain (Chamberlain Letters, 1, pp. 212–13),Google Scholar Sir Edward, Hoby (Thomas, Birch [ed.]: The Court and Times of James I [published posthumously by Robert Folkstone Williams, London, 1849], 1, p. 38;Google Scholar B. L., Stowe MS. 168, fol. 232v), and Salisbury (to the earl of Dunfermline, P.R.O., S.P. 14/17/2), all written within a month of the plot's discovery.
135 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/181, 182.
136 William, P. Baildon (ed.): Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata, 1593-1609, [by] John Hawarde (London, 1894), pp. 287–92;Google Scholar B. L., Harley MS. 1330, fols. 9v-10v; The English Reports (Edinburgh, 1900-32), 72, pp. 901-2, from Francis Moore's reports.
137 The nearest that the authorities came to such a discovery was when Fawkes admitted that Percy had expressed his desire to preserve both Northumberland and Lord Monteagle from the blast (Bodleian MS. Tanner 75, fol. 203). With Percy then thought to have been the author of the anonymous letter received by Monteagle (see, for example, Hatfield MS. 113/91), such an admission was damaging to the earl.
138 They had long been close, a letter expressing Beaumont's sympathy for the imprisoned earl, once thought to have been written in 1605 (P.R.O., S.P. 78/52, fol. 353) probably dates from the summer of 1603, when Northumberland was in temporary disgrace after spitting in the face of Sir Francis Vere whilst in the presence of the king, (see ‘Politics and Percies’, pp. 92-7). A friend to the last, the earl presented Beaumont with his picture as a keepsake on the ambassador's departure (Petworth House MS. 5726, unfoliated; Gloucester Library, Smyth of Nibley Papers, vol. 7, fol. 70).
139 B. L., Stowe MS. 168, fol. 232v.
140 P.R.O., S.P. 78/52, fol. 340v.
141 His Majesties Speach, sigs. C2v-C3.
142 Horatio, F. Brown (ed.): Calendar of State Papers relating to Affairs … in the Archives and Collections of Venice, 1603-1607 (London, 1900), p. 293.Google Scholar
143 Few of his contemporaries had any sympathy for Northumberland. After his trial, one diarist noted laconically that the earl had been punished ‘for the fact of the 5th of November’ (George, Roberts [ed.]: Diary of Walter Yonge Esq., Justice of the Peace, and MP for Honiton, written at Colyton and Axminster, co. Devon, from 1604 to 1628 [Camden Society, London, 1848], p. 9)Google Scholar and according to a Jesuit source he was ‘not much pitied’ (Stonyhurst MS. Anglia VI/62). I am grateful to Father Francis Edwards S. J. for his assistance with this last reference.
144 P.R.O., S.P. 14/216/37, 126, 176; 14/17/9; Hatfield MS. 113/54. See also E.H.R. 3, p. 515, for what Garnett had to say on the subject.
145 Bodleian MS. Perrott 7, fols. 203v-204.
146 Ibid., fol. 202.
147 Something that Northumberland realised only too well. When he first heard reports that Percy had merely been wounded at Holbeach, the earl wrote to his fellow Privy Councillors reminding them that gun wounds often proved fatal and urging them to examine the injured man swiftly, for ‘none but he can show me clear as the day, or dark as the night’ (P.R.O.. S.P. 14/216/225).
148 See my communication ‘The Wizard Earl in Star Chamber’, The Historical Journal 30 (1987), pp. 173-89.
149 Linda, Levy Peck: Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James 1 (London. 1982), pp. 4, 12, 70-1, 111-13, 179–80;Google Scholar Albert, J. Loomie: ‘A Jacobean Crypto-Catholic: Lord Wotton’. Catholic Historical Review 53 number 3 (1967), pp. 328–45.Google Scholar
150 Thomas, Rymer: Foedera … (The Hague, 1739–45), 7 part 2, pp. 122–3;Google ScholarPubMed above, note 104.
151 P.R.O., S.P. 14/65/26, 83i; 14/66/28i-iv.
152 Sawyer: Witnwood Memorials, 3 pp. 287-8.
153 see ‘Politics and Percies’, pp. 249-61.
154 Howell: State Trials, 2, col. 167.
155 P.R.O., S.P. 14/81/66, 66i, 103.
- 2
- Cited by