Footnotes:
[1] London: Osgood, McIlvaine & Co., 1897.
[2] Gerard, p. 48.
[3] Ib. p. 51, note 2.
[4] Goodman, i. 102.
[5] Gerard, pp. 46, 47.
[6] Gerard, p. 159.
[7] I imagine that the notes in Roman type proceed from Wood’s correspondent, and that Fulman’s marginal questions are omitted; but Father Gerard is not clear on this.
[8] I.e., the second Earl.
[9] ? this.
[10] Athenæ, iii. 902.
[11] Edin. Review, January 1897, p. 192.
[12] This is a mistake. The fine of 3,000l. was imposed for his part in the Essex rebellion. (See Jardine, p. 31.)
[13] Off and on, a fortnight at the end of January and beginning of February, and then again probably for a very short time in March.
[14] Fawkes was absent part of the time.
[15] Mrs. Everett Green in her ‘Calendar of Domestic State Papers,’ adds a sixth (Gunpowder Plot Book, No. 50); but this is manifestly the deposition of November 17. It must be remembered that, when she produced this volume, Mrs. Everett Green was quite new to the work. She was deceived by an indorsement in the handwriting of the eighteenth century, assigning the document to the 8th.
[16] The words between brackets are inserted in another hand.
[17] It was not actually hired till about Lady Day, 1605.
[18] Inserted in the same hand as that in which the words about the cellar were written. It will be observed that the insertion cannot serve any one’s purpose.
[19] Gracechurch Street.
[20] A mistake for Monday if midnight is to be reckoned with the day preceding it.
[21] The remainder of the draft is occupied with the discovery of the plot.
[22] Proclamation Book, R.O., p. 114.
[23] Bancroft to Salisbury, Nov. 5. Popham to Salisbury, Nov. 5—G. P. B. Nos. 7, 9.
[24] Points and names of persons.—S. P. Dom. xvi. 9, 10.
[25] Popham to Salisbury, November 5. (G. P. B. No. 10.) The P.S. only is of the 6th.
[26] Narrative, G. P. B. No. 129.
[27] In a letter of advice sent to the Nuncio at Paris, on Sept. 10/20, he is distinctly spoken of as a Catholic, as well as Worcester.—Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[28] On July 20/30, 1605, Father Creswell writes to Paul V. that Nottingham showed him every civility ‘that could be expected from one who does not profess our holy religion.’
[29] The ‘cellar’ was not really hired till a little before Easter, March 31.
[30] Second examination of Fawkes, November 6.—G. P. B. No. 16 A.
[31] Examination of Gibbons, November 5.—S. P. Dom. xvi. 14.
[32] “Mrs. Whynniard, however, tells us,” writes Father Gerard (p. 73), “that the cellar was not to let, and that Bright had not the disposal of the lease, but one Skinner.” What Mrs. Whynniard said was that the vault was ‘let to Mr. Skinner of King Street; but that she and her husband were ready to consent if Mrs. Skinner’s good will could be had.’ ‘Mr.’ in the first writing of the name is evidently a slip of the clerk’s, as Mrs. Whynniard goes on to speak of ‘Mrs. Skinner then, and now the wife of Andrew Bright.’—G. P. B. No. 39.
[33] Probably ‘Hippesley.’
[34] Father Gerard, (p. 91, note 5) accepts Goodman’s assertion that it was said that Whynniard ‘as soon as ever he heard of the news what Percy intended, he instantly fell into a fright and died: so that it could not be certainly known who procured him the house, or by whose means.’ That Whynniard was alive on the 7th is proved by the fact that Susan Whynniard is styled his wife and not his widow at the head of this examination. As he was himself not questioned it may be inferred that he was seriously ill at the time. That his illness was caused by fright is probably pure gossip. Mrs. Bright, when examined (G. P. B. No. 24) speaks of Mrs. Whynniard as agreeing to change the tenancy of the cellar, which looks as if the husband had been ill and inaccessible at least six months before his death.
[35] Properly ‘John.’
[36] S. P. Dom. xvi. 20.
[37] G. P. B. No. 37. Witnessed by Northampton and Popham only.
[38] The letter to Cornwallis, printed in Winwood’s Memorials, ii. 170, is dated Nov. 9, as it is in Cott. MSS. Vesp. cix. fol. 240, from which it is printed. That volume, however, is merely a letter book. The letter to Edmondes, on the other hand, in the Stowe MSS. 168, fol. 213, is the original, with Salisbury’s autograph signature, and its date has clearly been altered from 7 to 9.
[39] Waad to Salisbury, Nov. 7.—Hatfield MSS.
[40] Waad to Salisbury, Nov. 8.—G. P. B. No. 48 B.
[41] In ‘The King’s Book’ it is stated that Fawkes was shown the rack, but never racked. Probably the torture used on the 9th was that of the manacles, or hanging up by the wrists or thumbs.
[42] The principal ones were either killed or taken at Holbeche on that very day.
[43] Thomas Winter.
[44] Catesby, Percy, and John Wright.
[45] I.e. Catesby. In a copy forwarded to Edmondes by Salisbury (Stowe MSS. 168, fol. 223) the copyist had originally written ‘three or four more,’ which is altered to ‘three.’
[46] ‘Then,’ omitted in the Stowe copy.
[47] Christopher Wright.
[48] ‘Unto,’ in the Stowe copy.
[49] Robert Winter. The question whether Keyes worked at this time will be discussed later on.
[50] ‘Any man,’ in the Stowe copy.
[51] ‘Others,’ in the Stowe copy.
[52] ‘One’ is inserted above the line.
[53] This is an obvious mistake, as the widow Skinner was not at this time married to Bright, but one just as likely to be made by Fawkes himself as by his examiners.
[54] ‘Viewed it,’ in the Stowe copy.
[55] ‘Taken,’ in Stowe copy.
[56] ‘Thence,’ in Stowe copy.
[57] Percy.
[58] The words in italics are marked by penstrokes across them for omission.
[59] ‘With that practice, that,’ in the Stowe copy.
[60] ‘Then,’ omitted in the Stowe copy.
[61] ‘But,’ omitted in the Stowe copy.
[62] ‘Whereof,’ in the Stowe copy.
[63] G. P. B., No. 49. In the Stowe copy the names of the Commissioners are omitted, and a list of fifteen plotters added. As the paper was inclosed in a letter to Edmondes of the 14th, these might easily be added at any date preceding that.
[64] Gerard, p. 268.
[65] Stowe MSS., 168, fol. 223.
[66] Gerard, p. 170.
[67] Gerard, p. 169.
[68] S. P. Dom. xii. 24.
[69] Gerard, p. 175. Coke’s questions are in S. P. Dom. xvi. 38.
[70] The handwriting is quite different.
[71] This declaration, therefore, was not, as Mrs. Everett Green says, ‘made to Salisbury.’
[72] If anyone chooses to argue that this examination was drawn up regardless of its truth, and only signed by Fawkes after torture had made him incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood, he may be answered that, in that case, those who prepared it would never have added to the allegation that some of the conspirators had received the Sacrament from Gerard the Jesuit to bind them to secrecy, the passage:—“But he saith that Gerard was not acquainted with their purpose.” This passage is marked for omission by Coke, and it assuredly would not have been found in the document unless it had really proceeded from Fawkes.
[73] About whom more hereafter.
[74] Gerard afterwards denied that this was true, and the late Father Morris (Life of Gerard, p. 437) argues, with a good deal of probability, that Fawkes mistook another priest for Gerard. For my purpose it is not a matter of any importance.
[75] This should be John.
[76] Probably, as Father Gerard suggests, what would now be known as a coursing match.
[77] Proclamation Book, R.O. p. 117.
[78] A late postscript added to the letter to the Ambassadors sent off on the 9th (Winwood, ii. 173) shows that before the end of the day Salisbury had learnt even more of the details than were comprised in the Sheriff’s letter.
[79] Nov. 5.
[80] Nov. 6.
[81] Nov. 7.
[82] Nov. 8.
[83] The question whether Winter or Keyes was one of two workers will be subsequently discussed.
[84] Mrs. Everett Green suggests Nov. 8 (G. P. B. No. 133), but this is merely a deduction from her mistaken date of the examination of the 17th (see p. 17, note 1). In Fawkes’s confession of the 9th Keyes’s Christian name appears to have been subsequently added.
[85] Extracts from the Council Registers, Add. MSS. 11,402, fol. 108. The volume of the Council Book itself which recorded the transactions of these years has been lost.
[86] G. P. B. No. 101. There is a facsimile in National MSS. Part iv. No. 8.
[87] See pp. 18, 20.
[88] Gerard, p. 174.
[89] Gerard, p. 268.
[90] The erasure of Winter’s name, and the substitution of that of Keyes, will be dealt with later.
[91] Gerard, p. 168.
[92] Father Gerard appears to show his dislike of Salisbury by denying him his title.
[93] All Saints Day.
[94] Compare this with Fawkes’s declaration at his second examination (G. P. B. 16, A.) “Being demanded when this good act had been done which must have brought this realm in peril to be subdued by some foreign prince, of what foreign prince he and his compliees could have wished to have been governed, one more than another, he doth protest upon his soul that neither he nor any other with whom he had conferred would have spared the last drop of their blood to have resisted any foreign prince whatsoever.” Are we seriously asked to believe that Salisbury placed this crown of sturdy patriotism on the brows of those whom he wished to paint as the most atrocious villains?
[95] Juan de Velasco, Duke of Frias, Constable of Castile, arrived at Brussels about the middle of January 1604 to conduct a negotiation for peace with England. There he remained, delegating his powers to others. This date of the Constable’s arrival is important, as showing that Winter’s conversation with Catesby cannot have taken place earlier than the second half of January.
[96] Hugh Owen was, as Father Gerard says (p. 173, note 1), ‘A soldier and not a priest, though in the Calendar of State Papers he is continually styled “Father Owen,” or “Owen the Jesuit.”’ He is however mistaken in saying that Mrs. Everett Green inserted the title without warrant in the original documents. A paper of intelligence received on April 29, 1604, begins, “Father Owen, Father Baldwin and Colonel Jaques, three men that rule the Archduke at their pleasure,” &c.
[97] In 1604 Easter term began on April 25, and ended May 21.
[98] This distinctly implies that Percy did not know the secret before, and I therefore wish to retract my former argument—which is certainly not conclusive—in favour of an earlier knowledge by Percy. Hist. of Engl. 1603-1642, i. 235, note 1.
[99] “In his declaration, November 8th, however,” writes Father Gerard (p. 91, note 1), “he gives as a reason for going abroad, ‘lest, being a dangerous man, he should be known and suspected.’” I see no discrepancy between the two statements. Having been long abroad, Fawkes’s face would not be known to the ordinary Londoner as that of a Recusant, and he was therefore better qualified to act as a watchman than others who were so known. On the other hand, when there was no need for anybody to watch at all, somebody who had known him in Flanders might notify the Government of his appearance in England, and thereby raise suspicions against him. Besides, there were other reasons for his going over which Fawkes did not think fit to bring to the notice of the Government.
[100] Began October 9, ended November 28.
[101] Marginal note: “This was about a month before Michaelmas.”
[102] The Duke of York, afterwards Charles I.
[103] Some such words as ‘we resolved’ are probably omitted here.
[104] In MS. ‘taken it before.’
[105] Interlined in the King’s hand ‘which was about four thousand pounds.’
[106] Altered in the King’s hand to ‘to the number of ten,’ with a marginal note ‘unclear phrase,’ in the same hand.
[107] Prince Henry.
[108] Perhaps the Prince was with his mother at Greenwich.
[109] Oct. 27.
[110] Oct. 31.
[111] Nov. 1.
[112] Nov. 2.
[113] Nov. 3.
[114] Nov. 4.
[115] 5 A.M. on Nov. 5.
[116] Nov. 6.
[117] Nov. 7.
[118] Nov. 8.
[119] The attestation in brackets is in Salisbury’s hand.
[120] Gerard, p. 182.
[121] I.e., Thomas Winter.
[122] Mrs. Everett Green’s abstract of this, to the effect that Fawkes said that the conspiracy ‘was confined to five persons at first, then to two, and afterwards five more were added,’ has no foundation in the document she had before her.
[123] G. P. B. No. 49.
[124] G. P. B. No. 37.
[125] G. P. B. No. 133.
[126] The name ‘Key’ or ‘Keyes’ occurs in both of them without his Christian name.
[127] Proclamation Book, R.O.
[128] G. P. B. No. 129.
[129] ‘The Discourse of the Powder Treason,’ published in Bishop Montague’s Works of James I., p. 233, only forms part of the original so-called ‘King’s Book,’ which was published anonymously in 1605 (i.e., before March 25, 1606) under the title of His Majesty’s Speech in this last Session of Parliament ... together with a Discourse of the Manner of the Discovery of this late Intended Treason, joined with the Examination of Some of the Prisoners.—Brit. Mus., Press Mark E. 1940, No. 10. In the Preface directed by the Printer to the Reader, the Printer states that he was about to commit the Speech to the press when there came into his hands ‘a discourse of this late intended most abominable treason,’ which he has added. The King’s speech was delivered on November 9, and, if it was to be published, it is not likely to have been long kept back. The discourse consists of four parts—1. An account of the discovery of the plot, and arrest of Fawkes. 2. Fawkes’s declaration of the 17th. 3. Winter’s confession of the 23rd. 4. An account of the flight and capture of the conspirators. The whole composition shows signs of an early date. Part 1 knows nothing of any names except those of Percy and Johnson alias Fawkes, and was probably, therefore, drawn up before the confession of the 9th. At the end it slips off from a statement that Fawkes, having been ‘twice or thrice examined when the rack having been only offered and showed unto him, the mask of his Roman fortitude did visibly begin to wear and slide off his face, and then did he begin to confess part of the truth,’ into ‘and thereafter to open up the whole matter as doth appear by his depositions immediately following.’ Then comes the declaration of November 17, with Winter amongst the diggers and Keyes amongst those afterwards made privy. Between Parts 2 and 3 we have the following statement: “And in regard that before this discovery could be ready to go to the press, Thomas Winter, being apprehended and brought to the Tower, made a confession in substance agreeing with this former of Fawkes’s, only larger in some circumstances. I have thought good to insert the same likewise in this place, for the further clearing of the matter and greater benefit of the reader.” May we not gather from this that the ‘discourse’ was finally made up for the press on or very soon after the 23rd? Winter, it may be noted, does not mention the name either of his brother or of Keyes.
[130] Gerard, App. E., p. 251.
[131] This note is on too small a scale to be reproduced in the frontispiece.
[132] This name is given at a later time to the ‘Passage leading to the Parliament Stairs’ of Capon’s plan, and I have, for convenience sake, referred to it throughout by that name.
[133] See p. 22.
[134] Gerard, p. 62.
[135] Gerard, pp. 141, 142.
[136] I suppose Thomas Barlow is meant. William Barlow, who was Bishop of Lincoln in the reign of James I., did not write about the plot.
[137] Speed’s History, ed. 1611, p. 891.
[138] March 24th, 1604.
[139] Copy of the Agreement, G. P. B., No. 1.
[140] Pat. 44 Eliz., Part 22.
[141] Gerard, p. 60, note 1.
[142] Smith’s Antiquities of Westminster, p. 39. The question of the number of doors in the cellar will be dealt with hereafter.
[143] Gerard, p. 67.
[144] Gerard, p. 65.
[145] P. 56.
[146] Pat. 4 Edw. VI., Part 9.
[147] Pat. 6 Edw. VI., Part 5.
[148] Pat. 30 Eliz., Part 10.
[149] Parliament Place.
[150] Assignment, July 17, 42 Eliz., Land Revenue Records Office, Inrolments v. fol. 104. I have been unable to trac Whynniard’s tenure of the house I have assigned to him. It was within the Old Palace, and was probably the official residence of its keeper. Whynniard was appointed Keeper of the Old Palace in 1602. Pat. 44 Eliz., Part 22.
[151] See plan at p. 81. Was this the baker in whose house Catesby tried in vain to secure a room?—‘Bates’s Confession, Dec. 4, 1605’; G. P. B. No. 145.
[152] Whynniard was Keeper of the Wardrobe at Hampton Court, which would account for his servant being concerned in the Queen’s removal.
[153] Otherwise Parliament Stairs.
[154] I suspect that this was what was afterwards known as Cotton Garden. I have been unable to trace the date at which it was conveyed to Sir Robert Cotton.
[155] G. P. B. No. 40.
[156] See p. 63.
[157] See p. 90.
[158] This we know from Capon’s pencilled notes to the sketch in the frontispiece.
[159] The late Chairman of the Works Department of the London County Council; than whom no man is better qualified to speak on such matters.
[160] There are indeed old walls marked in Capon’s plan beneath the ground, but we do not know of what substance they were composed or how near the surface they came.
[161] Speed, no doubt, rested this assertion on Winter’s evidence that ‘we underpropped it, as we went, with wood.’ (See p. 64.)
[162] Gerard, pp. 66, 67.
[163] See the remarks of the Edinburgh Reviewer on the ease with which Baron Trenck executed a far harder piece of work without being discovered for a considerable time.
[164] Used as such, Father Gerard notes, till the Union with Ireland in 1800.
[165] This was true of the general line of the bank, but, as will be seen at pp. 81, 83, there was a kind of dock which brought the water within about thirty yards of the house.
[166] Gerard, pp. 59, 60.
[167] G. P. B. No. 129.
[168] This is clearly a slip. The cellar was not under the house hired by Percy.
[169] For its possible situation see p. 91; or it may have been erected in the courtyard shown in the plans at pp. 82, 83.
[170] See pp. 34, 65. The difficulty of measuring the thickness of the wall was not so great as Father Gerard fancies. In 1678 Sir Christopher Wren reported that ‘the walls are seven feet thick below’ (Hist. MSS. Com. Report XI. App. ii. p. 17). As he did not dig below the surface this must mean that they were seven feet thick at the level of the floor of the so-called cellar, and this measurement must have been known to the conspirators after they had access to it. I am informed that in the case of a heavy wall, especially when it is built on light soil, as was the case here, the foundations are always constructed to be broader than the wall itself. The diggers, observing the angle of the face they attacked, might roughly calculate that a foot on each side might be added, thus reaching the nine feet.
[171] Father Gerard (p. 64, note 2) writes: “There is, as usual, hopeless confusion between the two witnesses upon whom, as will be seen, we wholly depend for this portion of the story. Fawkes (November 17, 1605) makes the mining operations terminate at Candlemas, and Winter (November 23) says that they went on to ‘near Easter’ (March 31). The date of the hiring the ‘cellar’ was about Lady Day (March 25).” I can see no contradiction. The resumption of work for a third time in March was, from Winter’s mode of referring to it, evidently for a very short time. “And,” he says, “near to Easter, as we wrought the third time, opportunity was given to hire the cellar.” Fawkes, though less clear and full, implicitly says much the same thing. He says that ‘about Candlemas we had wrought the wall half through,’ and then goes on to describe how he stood sentinel, &c. Then at the beginning of another paragraph we have “As they were working upon the wall they heard a rushing in a cellar, &c.” Fawkes gives no dates, but he says nothing to contradict the third working spoken of by Winter.
[172] Gerard, pp. 65, 66.
[173] Goodman, i. 104.
[174] G. P. B. No. 40. Father Gerard (p. 142) says that we learn on the unimpeachable testimony of Mrs. Whynniard, the landlady, that Fawkes not only paid the last instalment of rent on Sunday, November 3, but on the following day, the day immediately preceding the intended explosion, had carpenters and other work folk in the house for mending and repairing thereof (G. P. B. No. 39). “To say nothing of the wonderful honesty of paying rent under the circumstances, what was the sense of putting a house in repair upon Monday, which on Tuesday was to be blown to atoms?” The rent having fallen due at Michaelmas, is it not probable that it was paid in November to avoid legal proceedings, which might at least have drawn attention to the occupier of the house. As to the rest, the ‘unimpeachable testimony’ is that—not of Mrs. Whynniard, but of Roger James (G. P. B. No. 40), who says that the carpenter came in about Midsummer, not on November 4.
[175] Gerard, p. 69.
[176] G. P. B. No. 101.
[177] See p. 108.
[178] G. P. B. No. 39.
[179] Gerard, p. 87.
[180] Here is another ‘discrepancy,’ which Father Gerard has not noticed. As the ‘cellar’ was not taken till a little before Easter, Percy could not make a door into it about the middle of Lent. My solution is, that in his second examination, on November 6th, Fawkes was trying to conceal the existence of the mine, in order that he might not betray the miners, and therefore antedated the making of the door. See p. 25.
[181] Gerard, p. 88.
[182] Gerard, p. 89.
[183] Gerard, p. 74.
[184] See p. 66.
[185] See the table in State Papers relating to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada, ed. by Prof. Laughton for the Navy Records Society, i. 339.
[186] Edinburgh Review, January 1897, p. 200.
[187] Gerard, p. 148.
[188] We know that Percy visited the house at Westminster at Midsummer. See p. 104.
[189] Grange to Salisbury, Nov. 5.—G. P. B. No. 15.
[190] Justices of Warwickshire to Salisbury, Nov. 12.—Ib. No. 75.
[191] Goodman, i. 102.
[192] Gerard, p. 151.
[193] Goodman, i. 105.
[194] Gerard, p. 152.
[195] Warrant, Feb. 8; Commission, Feb. 21; Pass, Oct. 25, 1605.—S. P. Dom., xii. 65; Docquet Book, 1605; S. P. Dom., xv. 106.
[196] To the theory that Salisbury wanted inconvenient witnesses disposed of, because the man who shot Percy and Catesby got a pension of two shillings a day, I reply that the Government was more afraid of a rebellion than of testimony. At all events, 2s. at that time was certainly not worth 1l. now, as Father Gerard assumes here, and in other passages of his book. It is usual to estimate the value of money as being about four or five times as much as it is in the present day. The relative price, however, depended so much on the commodities purchased that I hesitate to express myself positively on the subject. The only thing that I am quite clear about is that Father Gerard’s estimate is greatly exaggerated. It is true that he grounds his errors on a statement by Dr. Jessopp that 4,000 marks was equivalent to 30,000l., but the very exaggeration of these figures should have led him to suspect some error, or, at least—as I have recently been informed by Dr. Jessopp was the fact—that his calculation was based on other grounds than the relative price of commodities.
[197] Father Greenway’s statement, that while the rebels were in the field, messengers came post haste continually one after the other, from the capital, all bearing proclamations mentioning Percy by name (Gerard, p. 155) is disposed of by the fact that there were only three proclamations in which Percy’s name was mentioned, dated the 5th, the 7th, and the 8th. Percy was killed on the morning of the 8th, and even the messenger who started on the 7th can hardly have known that the sheriff had gone to Holbeche, and consequently could not himself have reached that place while Percy was living.
[198] See p. 11.
[199] T. Winter’s examination, November 25 (G. P. B. No. 116). Compare Tresham’s declaration of November 13 (ib. No. 63).
[200] Jardine’s Gunpowder Plot, p. 91.
[201] Add. MSS. 11,402, fol. 109.
[202] Smith’s Antiquities of Westminster, p. 41.
[203] See p. 31.
[204] On this, see p. 110.
[205] Gerard, p. 126, note 1.
[206] In an earlier part of the letter we are told of ‘Johnson,’ that ‘on Tuesday at midnight, as he was busy to prepare his things for execution was apprehended in the place itself, with a false lantern, booted and spurred.’
[207] S. P. France.
[208] See p. 31. I give the extract in the form received by Edmondes, that printed in Winwood, ii. 170, received by Cornwallis, being slightly different.
[209] i.e. ‘owned.’
[210] Gerard, p. 127.
[211] Winwood, ii. 170.
[212] Chamberlain to Carleton, November 7.—S. P. Dom. xvi. 23.
[213] See p. 99.
[214] G. P. B. No. 129.
[215] Winwood, ii. 170.
[216] These words look as if he had been found not in the passage but in the court.
[217] He was a favourite dependent of Knyvet’s, who, on April 10, 1604, had recommended him for an office in the Tower.—S. P. Dom. vii. 18.
[218] See my History of England, 1603-1642, i. 80, 81.
[219] I.e. Guardians.
[220] Correspondence of King James VI. with Sir Robert Cecil, pp. 31, 33, 36.
[221] Correspondence of King James VI. with Sir Robert Cecil, p. 75.
[222] Degli Effetti to Del Bufalo, June 16/26.—Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[223] Degli Effetti to Del Bufalo, July 21/31.—Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[224] See p. 142.
[225] Hist. of England, 1603-1642, i. 81.
[226] S. P. Scotland, lxix. 20.
[227] James I. to Sir T. Parry, Nov., 1603.—Tierney’s Dodd, iv.; App. p. 66.
[228] Degli Effetti to Del Bufalo, June 30/July 10 (Roman Transcripts, R.O.). There is a plain-spoken marginal note in the Pope’s hand, ‘Non sarà vero, nè noi gli habbiamo dato quest’ ordine.’ In the instructions by the Nuncio at Brussels to Dr. Gifford, July 22/August 1 (Tierney’s Dodd, iv.; App. lxvi.), nothing is said about this mission, but a definite promise is given ‘eosque omnes e regno evocare quos sua Majestas rationabiliter judicaverit regno et statui suo noxios fore.’
[229] ‘Salute.’ Does this mean safety or salvation, or is it left doubtful?
[230] I.e. to James and to Henry IV. Del Bufalo to Cardinal Aldobrandino, July 11/21.—Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[231] Del Bufalo to Cardinal Aldobrandino, July 20/30.—Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[232] Barneby to Del Bufalo, Aug. 8/18.—Roman Transcripts, R.O. (The original is in Latin.)
[233] Afterwards Duke of Sully.
[234] Parry to Cecil, Aug. 20, 1603.—S. P. France.
[235] See p. 151, note 2.
[236] Del Bufalo to James I. Sept. 19/29; compare Del Bufalo to Cardinal Aldobrandino, Sept. 21/Oct. 1.—Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[237] We have two copies of James’s letter to Parry translated into Latin, but undated (S. P. France.) Cecil’s covering letter (ib.) is in draft and dated Nov. 6. It must, however, have been held back, as both Parry’s and Del Bufalo’s despatches show that it did not reach Paris till early in December.
[238] Del Bufalo to Cardinal Aldobrandino, December 4/14.—Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[239] January 11/21.
[240] Information given to Del Bufalo.
[241] He wrote on the margin of Del Bufalo’s letter: “Quanto alla facoltà di chiamare sotto pena di scomunica i torbolenti, non ci par da darla per adesso, perchè trattiamo con heretici, e corriamo pericolo di perdere i sicuri, si come non ci par che il Nuntio debba premere nella cosa di mandar noi personaggio, perchè dubitiamo che essendo tanta gelosia tra Francia e Spagna non intrassimo in grandissima difficoltà. E meglio aspettare la conclusione della Pace secondo noi, perchè non sapiamo che chi mandassimo fosse per usar la prudentia necessaria.”
[242] He told the Spanish Ambassador, ‘che quelli del Consiglio gli havevano fatto tanta forza che no haveva potuto far altro, ma che no si sarebbe eseguito con rigore alcuno.’ (Del Bufalo to Aldobrandino, March 27/April 6.)—Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[243] Precisely the course he had recommended in his letter written to Cecil whilst he was still in Scotland, see p. 144.
[244] See p. 33.
[245] A news-letter gives an account of the Council meeting, from which it appears that James began by haranguing against the Puritans, but Cranborne—Cecil was now known by this title—and others asked why the Catholics were not put on the same footing, on which the King got angry, and finally directed that the Catholics should also suffer. (Advices from London, Feb. 19/March 1).—Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[246] In those days liberty of conscience meant what we should call liberty of worship.
[247] Lindsay at last got off to Rome in November 1604. On his proceedings there see History of England, 1603-1642, i. 224.
[248] In the MS. ‘et non haverebbe.’ Mr. Rawdon Brown, amongst whose papers, now in the Record Office, this despatch is found, remarks that mistakes of this kind frequently occur in letters first ciphered and then deciphered.
[249] In the margin is ‘Questo poi è troppo,’ perhaps an addition by the ambassador, or even by Mr. Rawdon Brown.
[250] ‘Religione’ is suggested by Mr. Rawdon Brown for the ‘ragione’ of the decipherer.
[251] In the copy ‘non si può far di meno di non observar le leggi,’ the ‘non’ being incorrectly repeated.
[252] “Non predicando li preti nessuna cosa più constantemente di questa che il buon Cattolico bisogna che habbia questa ferma rissolutione in se medesimo di esser per conservar la Religione pronto a solevarsi etiam contra la vita e stato del suo Principe naturale.”
[253] Molin to the Doge, March 7/17, 1605, Venetian Transcripts, R.O.
[254] Lindsay to James I. Jan. 26/Feb. 5, 1605, S. P. Italian States.
[255] Compare the last passage quoted from Molin’s despatch, p. 161.
[256] This is, however, precisely what James had failed to induce the Pope to do.
[257] Father Gerard asks what ‘our offence’ was. It was clearly nothing personal to the writer, and I am strongly inclined to interpret the words as referring to Lindsay’s proceedings at Rome, of which so much had been made.
[258] Sir Everard Digby to Salisbury (S. P. Dom. xvii. 10.) As Father Gerard says, the date cannot be earlier than May 4, 1605, when the Earldom was conferred on Cranborne.
[259] Father Gerard gives the date of Davies’s pardon from the Pardon Roll as April 25, 1605. It should be April 23, 1604.
[260] Gerard, 94, 95, 254. Father Gerard ascribes this application to ‘a later date’ than March 1606. It was, in fact a good deal later, as the endorsement ‘Mr. Secretary Conway’ shows that it was not earlier than 1623. The further endorsement ‘touching Wright and his services performed in the damnable plot of the Powder Treason,’ proves nothing. What did Conway’s clerk know beyond the contents of the application itself?
[261] Father Gerard (p. 98) tells us of one Thomas Coe, who wrote on Dec. 20, 1605, telling him that he had forwarded to the King ‘the primary intelligence of these late treasons.’ If this claim was justified, why do we not find Coe’s name, either amongst the State Papers or on the Patent Rolls, as recipient of some favour from the Crown? A still more indefensible argument of Father Gerard’s is one in which a letter written to Sir Everard Digby about an otter hunt is held (p. 103) to show the existence of Government espionage, because though written before Digby was acquainted with the plot it is endorsed, ‘Letter written to Sir Everard Digby—Powder Treason.’ Any letter in Digby’s possession would be likely to be endorsed in this way whatever its contents might have been.
[262] Gerard, pp. 95, 96.
[263] Gerard, p. 106.
[264] Salisbury to Edmondes, Oct. 17, 1605.—Stowe MSS. 168, fol. 181.
[265] See History of England, 1603-1642, i. 238, 243.
[266] Garnet’s Declaration, March 9, 1606.—Hist. Rev. July, 1888, p. 513.
[267] Father Gerard gives a facsimile, p. 199.
[268] Harl. MSS. 360, fol. 112 b.
[269] See p. 128.
[270] As in the case of the merchant who refused to pay the imposition on currants, ‘Bate’ and ‘Bates’ were considered interchangeable.
[271] G. P. B., No. 145. The words in italics are added in a different hand. Dunbar’s name does not occur in the list of Commissioners at p. 24.
[272] See p. 41.
[273] Gerard, p. 179. I do not think his argument on this point conclusive, but obviously it would be useless to forge a document unless it was to be used in evidence.
[274] Harl. MSS. 360, fol. 96.
[275] Gerard, p. 170.
[276] Salisbury’s Minute to Favat, Dec. 4, 1605.—Add. MSS. 6178, fol. 98.
[277] Gerard, p. 181.
[278] An alias for Garnet.
[279] Salisbury to Edmondes, March 8, 1606.—Stowe MSS. 168, fol. 366.
[280] Harl. MSS. 360, fol. 117.
[281] Ib. fol. 113.
[282] Add. MSS. 21203, fol. 38 b.
[283] A true and perfect relation. Sig. G., 2, verso.
[284] Ib., Sig. K., 3.
[285] Morris’s Condition of Catholics, 210. A Latin translation of part of the letter was printed in 1610, by Eudæmon Joannes, Ad actionem proditoriam, &c., p. 6.
[286] G. P. B., No. 166.
[287] See the express words ascribed to Bates at p. 180.
[288] See p. 190.
[289] Sir E. Digby’s Papers, No. 9, published at the end of Bishop Barlow’s reprint of The Gunpowder Treason.