Who was responsible for the Gun powder plot?

The following essay is about the two views behind the gun powder plot, one of which is the accurate, historical one according to what the sources tell us. The gunpowder plot was attempted by a small group of Catholics, lead by Robert Catesby. On the first conference Catesby was accompanied by his companions, Thomas Wintour, Jack Wright, Thomas Percy and Guido (Guy) Fawkes. This was when the plan was first put together. The traditional view is that the conspirators were to blame for attempting to blow up parliament. The plotters were all Catholics not happy with the protestant king. The two main people that were involved were Robert Catesby, the person who led the conspirators, and Guido Fawkes the explosives specialist. Guido had just come back to distinctively position the explosives. Source B by an historian called Lady Callcott says King James I dealt severely with Catholics, from whom he took a lot of money. This shows why it would urge the conspirators to attempt such a thing. Also one of the plotters called Francis Tresham had a brother-in-law named Lord Mounteagle working in parliament, to whom he wrote a letter explaining what they would do, begging him not to go to parliament on this day. This shows that Francis was simply thinking of his brother-in-laws wellbeing when he sent the letter. Now obviously Lord Mounteagle had colleagues working with him in parliament, who were also his good friends. In order to keep them safe showed the letter to the kings council. He did this a few days after he received this information in order to let everyone know nearer to the time. The king immediately took action and had ordered a search in the basement of the parliament, and then Guy was caught and tortured in the tower of London. He had also revealed the identities of the other plotters, as he was getting tortured. Source D shows an extract of the letter sent to Lord Mounteagle. Its basically giving away what they were doing. Source E, By Robert Cecil in 1602, he mentions The priests preach that Catholics must kill the King to help their religion This also shows that they were very angry with the way Catholics were being treated at the time.

The second view is the modern view of the gunpowder plot; this is that the conspirators were framed by the Protestants. Source F by an historian called Mr Huggins, in 1998 says Lord Mounteagle told the King about the plot on 27 th October and yet the government took no action until 4 November. At that time all gunpowder was carefully controlled by the government and had to be kept in the Tower of London. The records for 1605 have mysteriously disappeared. This could back up the fact that the conspirators were being framed because the government had kept it more to a last minute thing even though it wasnt, this makes it sound and look more severe, the fact that they were really close to blowing up. The plotters were framed by King James chief minister, Robert Cecil. Robert hated the Catholics, and wanted to show them up, as being against the country. People think Francis Tresham the guy who sent the warning letter to Lord Mounteagle, could have been working for Cecil. Lord Mounteagle had been given the warning letter at night. It is said that the night he had gotten it was the only night that he had stayed at home, did he expect it? Also the parliament basement was rented out by the conspirators by a close friend of Cecil. This can also mean that it was planned and framed. When all the plotters had received their punishments, all were executed except from Francis Tresham...Which means he could have been part of it, and therefore is another statement to back up this view. Source H shows us that Guidos signature did not match the one he used for his confession. This could mean that he was warned or told not to use his real signature, but its pointless, because he still got caught. To conclude, i think the traditional view is more accurate, because it was the closest to the actual incident, and the way James the First was treating Catholics was out of order so it caused them to rebel. Also theyre good points made in the sources and the more modern view sounds a bit uncertain and questionable. Obviously the conspirators were trying to do something for their own good and restoring peace for Catholics but plotting and attempting to blow up parliament was not sensible because they ended up being tortured, burnt and killed. Then again everyone should be equal with all rights, just because the kings protestant doesnt mean everyone has to be.