Every year people are allowed to annoy their neighbours and terrify the local animals by setting off legally bought and potentially lethal explosives. Why do they do it? To celebrate the fact that in 1605, a man called Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up the House of Commons with the King inside, but was caught before any serious good was done.           Who was he? Do those who place effigies of him on bonfires ever ask themselves what could have made him contemplate mass murder? Was he just a terrorist - is anyone ever just a terrorist?           Guy was born in 1570, and at some point in his youth he became a Catholic. This might not have made much odds today, but in his time it was a momentous, and very costly, decision, because the statute books were full of legislation discriminating against practising Catholics. Between 1587 and 1593 more Acts were passed, the worst of which confiscated all lands and rights of those who did not attend the Anglican Services, made void all dealings in their property and could have confiscated all their goods. Fines were levied on those who absented themselves from Church services at 20 shillings (a huge sum) a month. Only the rich could possibly afford such fines and it was an effective (and profitable) way to ensure conformity of the vast majority of the people to the new State religion. Those who refused were known as recusants. In addition, the consequence of harbouring - or being - a (Catholic) priest was death. So why didn't he seek to change the law through peaceful means? Because getting the law changed required an Act of Parliament. To have much chance of getting an act passed you need to be a Member of Parliament, or have a lot of influence with one. Just one small problem. Catholics were barred from standing for Parliament. So he couldn't enter parliament himself and no, his MP wasn't likely to take up his case either. He used direct action for the same reason the likes of Nelson Mandela did - because the govenrment had put all other means beyond his reach. And his violence was at least aimed at the people responsible for passing unjust laws in the first place; it wasn't random. Do we know for certain he did it? Well, no, actually. He pleaded not guilty at the trial. But he had signed a confession, if you can call a few faint scribbles signing. They were all he was capable of, which wasn't really surprising. He had been tortured on a rack and also with manacles. Manacles are iron handcuffs fastened around a victim's wrists, from which he could be hung with his feet off the floor. A prisoner held in this way for a long period of time experienced extreme pain and might have difficulty using his hands for a time afterwards. This would account for the signature.           He probably was one of the conspirators, but no court today would have convicted on the basis of that confession. There is also the awkward matter of how far the state had acted as agent provocateur. Neither Guy nor the Angel Gabriel could have filled the parliament cellar with barrels of gunpowder without someone noticing. King James I had inherited from his predecessor Elizabeth a highly efficient secret service, which probably knew about the conspiracy from an early stage and may have encouraged it for propaganda purposes, thus effectively inciting to crime.           He was executed by hanging, drawing and quartering. Everyone knows the phrase but few ever ask themselves what exactly it means. For the record:           It should properly be called drawing, hanging and quartering as the condemned was drawn to the place of execution on a hurdle (similar to a piece of fencing made from thin branches interwoven to form a panel.) He was tied to the hurdle which was dragged by a horse. This hurts more than you might think, though nowhere near as much as what comes next. Once there the prisoner was hanged in the normal way (only without a drop to ensure that the neck was not broken) but cut down whilst still conscious. The penis and testicles were cut off and the stomach was slit open. The intestines were removed and burned while the prisoner, if still alive, watched.           At some point in this agonising process the prisoner inevitably died of strangling and/or haemorrhage and/or shock and damage to vital organs but it often took a long time to happen.           The other organs were torn out and finally the head was cut off and the body divided into four quarters.           The head and quarters were parboiled to prevent them rotting too quickly and then displayed upon the city gates as a grim warning to all.           Well now, there's something to celebrate. Read more here

• Reputations home page
• William Bligh