The Gunpowder Plot
Antonia Fraser (Phoenix, 1997)

448 pp. First reading.
Posted 5 November 2006.

In the early morning hours of 5 November 1605, just a few hours before Parliament was scheduled to sit, an armed patrol beneath the House of Lords in the British Parliament discovered and arrested a shadowy figure lurking in the darkness. In an adjacent room were found 36 barrels of gunpowder, and the man, Guy Fawkes, confessed he intended to use it to kill King James I and all others in attendance at Parliament. Under torture he revealed the names of his collaborators;  it became clear that the motive for the attack was to destroy the Protestant establishment of England and reinstall a Catholic king.

For fifty years the Catholic recusants of England had been suffering under the rule of Elizabeth I. Under English law anyone refusing to attend Anglican services faced serious fines, such that in time only the wealthiest families could afford to avoid them. To attend a Catholic Mass was also a criminal offence, punishable by fines and imprisonment. To preside at a Mass was the greatest offence of all, and priests apprehended on English soil were executed as traitors to the crown.

Under these conditions, the Catholic faithful of England withdrew from the public eye. Priests travelled in disguise and were known under pseudonyms. The estates of wealthy Catholic families became safe-houses where priests would hide, and to which people would come, sometimes in the dead of night, to celebrate the feast days of the Church. In time, as the persecution increased, the architecture of the large houses were modified to create 'priest-holes', cleverly designed hiding places into which a priest could escape if officials should arrive to search the premises. In this way, against the odds, the English Catholics struggled to survive.

Their endurance was made easier, no doubt, because they were not entirely without hope. Elizabeth, after all, would not live forever, and there was reason to believe that either of the two main contenders for the throne would be an improvement. Queen Isabella, monarch of the Spanish Netherlands, was herself a Catholic, and were a Catholic Queen to sit on the English throne it would certainly mean, at the very least, a royal decree of tolerance for Catholics. James VI of Scotland, on the other hand, was a Protestant, but a Protestant with close Catholic connections: his mother Mary Queen of Scots had been a Catholic, and his wife Anne was a Catholic. It was widely, though falsely, believed by the recusants that James would himself soon convert to Catholicism. Furthermore, there was always hope that the simmering antagonism between England and Spain would bring Spanish -- Catholic -- troops to English shores, and that the bastard Queen Elizabeth would be overthrown.

When Elizabeth died in 1603, therefore, the Catholics were hopeful that their troubles were coming to an end. King James of Scotland acceded to the throne and, as had been hoped, suspended the system of fines for practicing Catholicism and promised the Catholics toleration. It wasn't long, however, before the number of people defecting from the Anglican church to the Catholic increased enough to cause concern on the part of Church of England officials. The penalties were reinstated. At nearly the same time, England signed a peace treaty with Spain. In 1604, just one year after hopes had risen so high, Catholics realised that they had been in vain. There was now nothing to look forward to but further persecution.

It was against this background of desperation and disappointed hopes that the Gunpowder Plot was hatched. Robert Catesby, a charismatic man well-known among the recusants, was the originator of the plan, and he brought a handful of his close relations into the plot. Over the next year, as the plot ripened, the circle of conspirators would expand to include thirteen men, ten of whom had close family ties with one another. They were sworn to strictest secrecy.

Their plan, such as it was, had two acts. First, they would detonate enough gunpowder in Parliament to kill everyone present, including the king. Parliament was chosen because it was there that the unjust anti-Catholic laws had been enacted. Second, they would raise an army, use the inevitable chaos to seize control of the country, and install a new monarch. They planned, in fact, to kidnap James' daughter Elizabeth, then just nine years old, and declare her queen, with the understanding that she would then be easy to control.

This plan had its problems. It was, of course, deeply morally troubling, as indiscriminate killing must always be. Yet even if the detonation had succeeded, the second act of their attempted coup had not been thought through clearly. Where, for instance, would their army come from? They hoped that it would arise spontaneously when their fellow Catholics saw their chance, but it is not clear that their expectation was well founded.

In any case, their plan never reached the second act. Some days before the planned detonation, a certain Lord Monteagle approached the king with an anonymous letter which read, in part:


Though vague, it was enough to lead them to the gunpowder. They then waited for the plan to ripen, and at the appropriate time apprehended Guy Fawkes, the conspirator charged with actually detonating the powder. The king was saved, the plot was thwarted, and the troubles for England's Catholics were about to get much worse.

Rather than fleeing the country at the news that Fawkes had been arrested, the conspirators, led by Robert Catesby, foolishly tried to press on with their overthrow of the government. Yet they could raise no enthusiasm among their co-religionists. Several of the plotters, including Catesby, were cornered and shot. Others managed to hide for a time, but before long all were in custody, charged with high treason, facing torture and a painful death.

To their shame, the government was not content to punish only the guilty. Certain powerful figures saw the public horror at the Plot as providing an opportunity to finally destroy English Catholicism. They attempted to frame the Jesuits, who served the recusant community, alleging that they had planned and encouraged the Plot. In fact the priests had had nothing to do with it, and when, at a late date, several had learned of it, had done all they could do dissuade the Plotters and prevent their success -- all they could, that is, without violating the secrecy of the confessional. Of the three priests who were closest to the families involved in the Plot, two managed to escape to foreign soil. Father Henry Garnet, however, the Superior of the Jesuit order in England, was captured, tortured, tried (loosely speaking), and executed.

Priests were not the only innocents to die in the aftermath of the Plot. One particularly affecting portrait is that of Nicholas Owen, a dwarvish, crippled man who had, over the years, devised and constructed the many hiding places for priests in Catholic manors throughout England. He worked alone so that no-one would be endangered by their association with him, and his clever constructions are credited with saving the lives of many dozens of priests. As a cripple, English common law should have prevented his being tortured, but that nicety was overlooked by his interrogators. Subjected to the rack, he nevertheless maintained his silence -- so critical to the future survival of the Catholic community -- and died of his injuries. In 1970 Nicholas Owen -- now St. Nicholas Owen -- was formally recognized by Pope Paul VI as a martyr.

The Gunpowder Plot must be counted a disaster from beginning to end. While deploring their chosen means, one can certainly understand the frustration and desperation that led to the venture, and even admire the audacity and courage of those involved. Yet this plan, which had been the ambition of only a small group, resulted in greatly increased suffering for all English Catholics for many generations.

Antonia Fraser speaks several times as the Plotters as terrorists, but I'm not sure this is appropriate. Certainly their plan, if successful, would have resulted in the deaths of many who were innocent, a common aim of terrorists. But, unlike modern terrorists, they were not striking indiscriminately to sow terror among the people; they were striking very specifically at the king and the lords. In my opinion, their planned actions would better be described as a coup d'etat or a regicide.

This book is wonderfully written. Antonia Fraser does an excellent job conveying the tangle of political and religious issues that provoked the Plot, and brings the various characters to life in a way that helps one understand their motives. Her telling of the tale is brisk and compelling, and the book is a genuine page turner.

---

Back to Book Note Index

Back to Books