THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIESTS
It was unavoidable that the persecution to which Catholics were
subjected should bear most hardly on the priests, who were held guilty
of disseminating a disloyal religion. It is therefore no matter for
surprise that we find, about April 1604,[259] an informer, named Henry
Wright, telling Cecil that another informer named Davies, was able to
set, _i.e._ to give information of the localities of above threescore
more priests, but that he had told him that twenty principal ones would
be enough. Davies, adds Wright, will not discover the treason till he
had a pardon for it himself, and on this Father Gerard remarks 'that the
treason in question was none other than the Gunpowder Plot there can be
no question; unless, indeed, we are to say that the authorities were
engaged in fabricating a bogus conspiracy for which there was no
foundation whatever in fact.' Why this inference should be drawn I do
not know. If Davies was a renegade priest he would require a pardon, and
in order to get it he may very well have told a story about a treason
which the authorities, on further inquiry, thought it needless to
investigate further. It is to no purpose that Father Gerard produces an
application to James in which it is stated that Wright had furnished
information to Popham and Challoner who 'had a hand in the discovery of
the practices of the Jesuits in the powder plot, and did reveal the same
from time to time to your Majesty, for two years' space almost before
the said treason burst forth.'[260] That Wright, being in want of money,
made the most of his little services in spying upon Jesuits is likely
enough; but if he had come upon Gunpowder Plot two years before the
Monteagle letter, that is to say, in October, 1603, some five months
before it was in existence, except, perhaps, in Catesby's brain, we may
be certain that he would have been far more specific in making his
claim. The same may be said of Wright's letter to Salisbury on March 26,
1606, in which he pleads for assistance 'forasmuch as his Majesty is
already informed of me that in something I have been, and that hereafter
I may be, a deserving man of his Majesty and the State in discovering of
villainous practices.' Very gentle bleating indeed for a man who had
found out the Gunpowder Plot, as I have just said, before it was in
existence!
Nor is much more to be made of the remainder of Father Gerard's evidence
on this head. The world being what it was, what else could be expected
but that there should be talk amongst priests of possible risings--Sir
Everard Digby in his letter predicted as much--or even that some less
wise of their number should discuss half formed plans, or that renegade
priests should pick up their reckless words and report them to the
Government, probably with some additions of their own?[261] When Father
Gerard says that a vague statement by an informer, made as early as
April 1604, refers to the Gunpowder Plot, because Coke said two years
later that it did,[262] he merely shows that he has little acquaintance
with the peculiar intellect of that idol of the lawyers of the day. If
Father Gerard had studied, as I have had occasion to do, Coke's
treatment of the case of the Earl and Countess of Somerset, he would, I
fancy, have come to the conclusion that whenever Coke smelt a mystery,
there was a strong probability that it either never existed at all, or,
at all events, was something very different from what Coke imagined it
to be.
That the Government believed, with or without foundation, that there
were plots abroad, and that priests had their full share in them, may be
accepted as highly probable. It must, however, be remembered that in
Salisbury's eyes merely to be a priest was _ipso facto_ to be engaged in
a huge conspiracy, because to convert an Englishman to the Roman
Catholic faith, or to confirm him in it, was to pervert him from his due
allegiance to the Crown. Regarded from this point of view, the words
addressed by Salisbury to Edmondes on October 17, 1605, 'more than a
week,' as Father Gerard says, 'before the first hint of danger is said
to have been breathed,'[263] are seen to be perfectly in character,
without imagining that the writer had any special information on the
Gunpowder Plot, or any intention of making use of it to pave the way for
more persecuting legislation than already existed.
"I have received" writes Salisbury, "a letter of yours ... to which
there needeth no great answer for the present ... because I have
imparted to you some part of my conceit concerning the insolencies
of the priests and Jesuits, whose mouths we cannot stop better than
by contemning their vain and malicious discourses, only the evil
which biteth is the poisoned bait, wherewith every youth is taken
that cometh among them, which liberty (as I wrote before) must for
one cause or other be retrenched."[264]
This language appears to Father Gerard to be ominous of further
persecution. To me it appears to be merely ominous of an intention to
refuse passports to young men of uncertain religion wishing to travel on
the Continent.
We can now understand why it was that Salisbury and the Government in
general were so anxious to bring home the plot, after its discovery, to
some, at least, of the priests, and more especially to the Jesuits.
Three of these, Garnet, Greenway and Gerard, were in England while the
plot was being devised, and were charged with complicity in it. Of the
three, Garnet, the Provincial of England, was tried and executed; the
other two escaped to the Continent. My own opinion is that Gerard was
innocent of any knowledge of the plot,[265] and, as far as I am
concerned, it is only the conduct of Garnet and Greenway that is under
discussion. That they both had detailed knowledge of the plot is beyond
doubt, as it stands on Garnet's own admission that he had been informed
of it by Greenway, and that Greenway had heard it in confession from
Catesby.[266] A great deal of ink has been spilled on the question
whether Garnet ought to have revealed matters involving destruction of
life which had come to his knowledge in confession; but on this I do
not propose to touch. It is enough here to say that the law of England
takes no note of the excuse of confession, and that no blame would have
been due on this score either to the Government which ordered Garnet's
prosecution, or to the judges and the jury by whom he was condemned,
even if there had not been evidence of his knowledge when no question of
confession was involved.
In considering Garnet's case the first point to be discussed is, whether
the Government tampered with the evidence against the priests, either by
omitting that which made in favour of the prisoner, or by forging
evidence which made against him. An instance of omission is found in the
mark 'hucusque' made by Coke in the margin of Fawkes's examination of
November 9, implying the rejection of his statement that, though he had
received the communion at Gerard's hands as a confirmation of his oath,
Gerard had not known anything of the object which had led him to
communicate.[267] The practice of omitting inconvenient evidence was
unfortunately common enough in those days, and all that can be said for
Coke on this particular occasion is, that the examination contained many
obvious falsehoods, and Coke may have thought that he was keeping back
only one falsehood more. Coke, however, at Garnet's trial did not
content himself with omitting the important passage, but added the
statement that 'Gerard the Jesuit, being well acquainted with all
designs and purposes, did give them the oath of secrecy and a mass, and
they received the sacrament together at his hands.'[268] Clearly,
therefore, Coke is convicted, not merely of concealing evidence making
in the favour of an accused, though absent, person, but of substituting
for it his own conviction without producing evidence to support it. All
that can be said is, in the first place, that Gerard was not on trial,
and could not therefore be affected by anything that Coke might say; and
that, in the second place, even if Coke's words were--as they doubtless
were--accepted by the jury, the position of the prisoners actually at
the bar would be neither better nor worse.
Much more serious is Father Gerard's argument that the confession of
Bates, Catesby's servant, to the effect that he had not only informed
Greenway of the plot, but that Greenway had expressed approval of it,
was either not genuine, or, at least, had been tampered with by the
Government. As Father Gerard again italicises,[269] not a passage from
the examination itself, but his own abstract of the passage, it is
better to give in full so much of the assailed examination as bears upon
the matter:--
"Examination of Thomas Bate,[270] servant to Robert Catesby, the
4th of December, 1605, before the Lords Commissioners.
"He confesseth that about this time twelvemonth his master asked
this said examinant whether he could procure him a lodging near the
Parliament House. Whereupon he went to seek some such lodging and
dealt with a baker that had a room joining to the Parliament House,
but the baker answered that he could not spare it.
"After that some fortnight or thereabouts (as he thinketh) his
master imagining, as it seemed, that this examinant suspected
somewhat of that which the said Catesby went about, called him to
him at Puddle Wharf in the house of one Powell (where Catesby had
taken a lodging) and in the presence of Thomas Winter, asked him
what he thought what business they were about, and this examinant
answered that he thought they went about some dangerous business,
whereupon they asked him again what he thought the business might
be, and he answered that he thought they intended some dangerous
matter about the Parliament House, because he had been sent to get
a lodging near that House.
"Thereupon they made this examinant take an oath to be secret in
the business, which being taken by him, they told him that it was
true that they meant to do somewhat about the Parliament House,
namely, to lay powder under it to blow it up.
"Then they told him that he was to receive the sacrament for the
more assurance, and he thereupon went to confession to a priest
named Greenway, and in his confession told Greenway that he was to
conceal a very dangerous piece of work that his master Catesby and
Thomas Winter had imparted unto him, and that he being fearful of
it, asked the counsel of Greenway, telling the said Greenway (which
he was not desirous to hear) their particular intent and purpose of
blowing up the Parliament House, and Greenway the priest thereto
said that he would take no notice thereof, but that he, the said
examinant, should be secret in that which his master had imparted
unto him, because that was for a good cause, and that he willed
this examinant to tell no other priest of it; saying moreover that
it was not dangerous unto him nor any offence to conceal it, and
thereupon the said priest Greenway gave this examinant absolution,
and he received the sacrament in the company of his master Robert
Catesby and Mr. Thomas Winter.
* * * * *
"Thomas Bate,
Nottingham,
Suffolk,
E. Worcester,
H. Northampton,
Salisbury,
Mar,
Dunbar."
Indorsed:--"_The exam._ of Tho. Bate 4 Dec. 1605. _Greenway_,
Sec.."[271]
Out of this document arise two questions which ought to be kept
carefully distinct:--
1. Did the Government invent or falsify the document here partially
printed?
2. Did Bates, on the hypothesis that the document is genuine, tell
the truth about Greenway?
1. In the first place, Father Gerard calls our attention to the fact
that the document has only reached us in a copy. It is quite true;
though, on the other hand, I must reiterate the argument, which I have
already used in a similar case,[272] that a copy in which the names of
the Commissioners appear, even though not under their own hands, falls
not far short of an original. If this copy, being a forgery, were read
in court, as Father Gerard says it was,[273] some of the Commissioners
would have felt aggrieved at their names being misused, unless, indeed,
the whole seven concurred in authorising the forgery, which is so
extravagant a supposition that we are bound to look narrowly into any
evidence brought forward to support it.
Father Gerard's main argument in favour of the conclusion at which he
leads up to--one can hardly say he arrives at this or any other clearly
announced conviction--is put in the following words:--
"If, however, this version were not genuine, but prepared for a
purpose, it is clear that it could not have been produced while
Bates was alive to contradict it, and there appears to be no doubt
that it was not heard of till after his death."
The meaning of this is, that the Government did not dare to produce the
confession till after Bates's death, lest he should contradict it. If
this were true it would no doubt furnish a strong argument against the
genuineness of the confession, though not a conclusive one, because at
the trial of that batch of the prisoners among whom Bates stood, the
Government may have wished to reserve the evidence to be used against
Greenway, whom it chiefly concerned, if they still hoped to catch him. I
do not, however, wish to insist on this suggestion, as I hope to be able
to show that the evidence was produced at Bates's trial, when he had
the opportunity, if he pleased, of replying to it.
Father Gerard's first argument is, that in a certain 'manuscript account
of the plot,[274] written between the trial of the conspirators and that
of Garnet, that is, within two months of the former,' the author, though
he argues that the priests must have been cognizant of the design, says
nothing of the case of Bates's evidence against Greenway, 'but asserts
him to have been guilty only because his Majesty's proclamation so
speaks it.'[275] To this it may be answered that, in the first place,
the manuscript does not profess to be a history of the plot. It contains
the story of the arrest of Garnet and other persons, and is followed by
the story of the taking of Robert Winter and Stephen Littleton. In the
second place, there is strong reason to suppose, not only from the
subjects chosen by the writer, but also from his mode of treating them,
that he was not only a Staffordshire man, or an inhabitant of some
county near Wolverhampton, but that his narrative was drawn up at no
great distance from Wolverhampton. It does not follow that because his
Majesty's proclamation had been heard of in Wolverhampton, a piece of
evidence produced in court at Westminster would have reached so far.
Another argument used by Father Gerard in his own favour, appears to me
to tell against him. In a copy of a minute of Salisbury's to a certain
Favat, who had been employed by the King to write to him, we find the
following statement, which undoubtedly refers to Bates's confession, it
being written on December 4, the day on which it was taken:--
"You may tell his Majesty that if he please to read privately what
this day we have drawn from a voluntary and penitent examination,
the point I am persuaded (but I am no undertaker) shall be so well
cleared, if he forebear to speak much of this but ten days, as he
shall see all fall out to that end whereat his Majesty
shooteth."[276]
Father Gerard's comment on this, that the confession of Bates, here
referred to, 'cannot be that afterwards given to the world; for it is
spoken of as affording promise, but not yet satisfactory in its
performance.'[277] Yes; but promise of what? The King, it may be
presumed, had asked not merely to know what Greenway had done, but to
know what had been the conduct of all the priests who had confessed the
plotters. The early part of the minute is clear upon that. Salisbury
writes that the King wanted
'to learn the names of those priests which have been confessors and
ministers of the sacrament to those conspirators, because it
followeth indeed in consequence that they could not be ignorant of
their purposes, seeing all men that doubt resort to them for
satisfaction, and all men use confession to obtain absolution.'
Bearing this in mind, and also that Salisbury goes on to say that 'most
of the conspirators have carefully forsworn that the priests knew
anything particular, and obstinately refused to be accusers of them, yea
what torture soever they be put to,' I cannot see that anything short of
the statement about Greenway ascribed to Bates would justify Salisbury's
satisfaction with what he had learnt, though he qualifies his pleasure
with the thought that there is much more still to be learnt about
Greenway himself, as well as about other priests. An autograph
postscript to a letter written to Edmondes on March 8, 1606, shows
Salisbury in exactly the spirit which I have here ascribed to him:--
"You may now confidently affirm that Whalley[278] is guilty _ex ore
proprio_. This day confessed of the Gunpowder Treason, but he saith
he devised it not, only he concealed it when Father Greenway
_alias_ Tesmond did impart to him all particulars, and Catesby only
the general. Thus do you see that Greenway is now by the
superintendent as guilty as we have accused him. He confesseth also
that Greenway told him that Father Owen was privy to all. More will
now come after this."[279]
The tone of the letter to Favat is more subdued than this, as befitted
writing that was to come under the King's eye; but the meaning is
identical:--"I have got much, but I hope for more."
We now come to Father Gerard's argument that the charge against
Greenway of approving the plot was not produced even at Garnet's trial
on March 28, 1606, Bates having been tried on January 27, and being
executed on the 30th:--
"Still more explicit is the evidence furnished by another MS.
containing a report of Father Garnet's trial. In this the
confession of Bates is cited, but precisely the significant passage
of which we have spoken, as follows: 'Catesby afterwards discovered
the project unto him; shortly after which discovery, Bates went to
mass to Tesimond [Greenway] and there was confessed and had
absolution.'
"Here, again, it is impossible to suppose that the all-important
point was the one omitted. It is clear, however, that the mention
of a confession made to Greenway would _prima facie_ afford a
presumption that this particular matter had been confessed, thus
furnishing a foundation whereon to build; and knowing, as we do,
how evidence was manipulated, it is quite conceivable that the copy
now extant incorporates the improved version thus suggested."
Father Gerard has quoted the sentence about Bates and Greenway
correctly,[280] but he has not observed that Coke, in his opening
speech, is stated on the same authority to have expressed himself as
follows:--
"In November following comes Bates to Greenway the Jesuit, and
tells him all his master's purpose; he hears his confession,
absolves him, and encourageth him to go on, saying it is for the
good of the Catholic cause, and therefore warrantable."[281]
I acknowledge that Coke's unsupported assertion is worth very little;
but I submit that so practised an advocate would hardly have produced a
confession which, if it contained no more than Father Gerard supposes,
would have directly refuted his own statement. Father Gerard, I fancy,
fails to take into account the difficulties of note-takers in days prior
to the invention of shorthand. The report-taker had followed the early
part of Bates's examination fairly well. Then come the words quoted by
Father Gerard at the very bottom of the page. May not the desire to get
all that he had to say into that page have been too strong for the
reporter, especially as, after what Coke had said earlier in the day,
the statement that Bates 'confessed' might reasonably be supposed to
cover the subject of confession? 'Catesby ... discovered the project
unto him, shortly after which discovery' he confessed. What can he be
supposed to have confessed except the project discovered? and, if so,
Greenway's absolution implies approval.
Father Gerard, moreover, though he quotes from another manuscript
Garnet's objection that 'Bates was a dead man,' thereby meaning that
Bates's testimony was now worthless, entirely omits to notice that the
preceding paragraph is destructive of his contention. A question had
arisen as to whether Greenway had shown contrition.
"Nay," replied Mr. Attorney, "I am sure that he had not, for to
Bates he approved the fact, and said he had no obligation to reveal
it to any other ghostly father, to which effect Bates his
confession was produced, which verified as much as Mr. Attorney
said, and then Mr. Attorney added that he had heard by men more
learned than he, that if for defect of contrition it was not a
sacrament, then it might lawfully be revealed.
"Mr. Garnet rejoined that Bates was a dead man, and therefore
although he would not discredit him, yet he was bound to keep that
secret which was spoken in confession as well as Greenway."[282]
Having thus shown that Father Gerard's argument, that the statement
about Greenway was not produced at Garnet's trial, cannot be maintained;
that his argument drawn from the account of the arrest of Garnet and
others is irrelevant, and that Salisbury's letter to Favat, so far from
contradicting the received story, goes a long way to confirm it, I
proceed to ask why we are not to accept the report of _A true and
perfect relation_, where Coke is represented as giving the substance of
the confession of Bates, beginning with Catesby's revelation of the plot
to him, followed by his full confession to Greenway and Greenway's
answer, somewhat amplified indeed, as Coke's manner was, but obviously
founded on Bates's confession of December 4, 1605.
"Then they," _i.e._ Catesby and Winter, "told him that he was to
receive the sacrament for the more assurance, and thereupon he went
to confession to the said Tesmond the Jesuit, and in his confession
told him that he was to conceal a very dangerous piece of work,
that his master Catesby and Thomas Winter had imparted unto him,
and said he much feared the matter to be utterly unlawful, and
therefore thereon desired the counsel of the Jesuit, and revealed
unto him the whole intent and purpose of blowing up the Parliament
House upon the first day of the assembly, at what time the King,
the Queen, the Prince, the Lords spiritual and temporal, the
judges, knights, citizens, burgesses should all have been there
convented and met together. But the Jesuit being a confederate
therein before, resolved and encouraged him in the action, and said
that he should be secret in that which his master had imparted unto
him, for that it was for a good cause, adding, moreover, that it
was not dangerous unto him nor any offence to conceal it; and
thereupon the Jesuit gave him absolution, and Bates received the
sacrament of him, in the company of his master, Robert Catesby, and
Thomas Winter."[283]
We have not, indeed, the evidence set forth, but we have a distinct
intimation that amongst the confessions read was one from which 'it
appeared that Bates was resolved from what he understood concerning the
powder treason, and being therein warranted by the Jesuits.'[284]
2. Being now able to assume that the confession ascribed to Bates was
genuine, the further question arises whether Bates told the truth or
not. We have, in the first place, Greenway's strong protestation that he
had not heard of the plot from Bates. In the second place, Father Gerard
adduces a retractation by Bates of a statement that he thought Greenway
'knew of the business.' Now, whatever inference we choose to draw, it is
a curious fact that this has nothing to do with Bates's confession of
December 4--the letter of Bates printed in the narrative of the Gerard
who lived in the seventeenth century running as follows:--
"At my last being before them I told them I thought Greenway knew
of this business, but I did not charge the others with it, but that
I saw them all together with my master at my Lord Vaux's, and that
after I saw Mr. Whalley," _i.e._ Garnet, "and Mr. Greenway at
Coughton, and it is true. For I was sent thither with a letter, and
Mr. Greenway rode with me to Mr. Winter's to my master, and from
thence he rode to Mr. Abington's. This I told them, and no more.
For which I am heartily sorry for, and I trust God will forgive me,
for I did it not out of malice but in hope to gain my life by it,
which I think now did me no good."[285]
This clearly refers not to the confession of December 4, but to that of
January 13,[286] in which these matters were spoken of, and it is to be
noted that Bates does not acknowledge having spoken falsely, but of
having told inconvenient truths.
Bates's entire silence in this letter as to the confession of December 4
may receive one of two interpretations. Either Greenway was not
mentioned in that confession at all--a solution which in the face of
Salisbury's letter to Favat seems to be an impossible one--or else
Bates knew that he had at that time made disclosures to which he did not
wish to refer. It is, perhaps, not so very unlikely that he compounded
for what would in any case be regarded as a great fault by disclosing a
smaller one.
Are we, then, shut up to the conclusion that Father Greenway sheltered
himself by telling a deliberate lie? I do not see that it is absolutely
necessary; though I suppose, under correction, that he might feel
himself bound to aver that he had never heard what he had only heard in
confession. Is it not, however, possible that Bates in confessing to
Greenway did not go into the details of the plot, but merely spoke of
some design against the Government with which his master had entrusted
him, and that Greenway told him that it was his master's secret, and he
might be content to think that it was in a good cause?[287] As time went
on Bates would easily read his own knowledge of the plot into the words
he had used in confession, or may even have deliberately expanded his
statement to please the examiners. Life was dear, and he may have hoped
to gain pardon if he could throw the blame on a Jesuit. Besides,
Greenway, as he probably knew, had not been arrested, and no harm would
come if he painted him blacker than he was. This is but a conjecture,
but if it is anywhere near the mark, it is easy to understand why Bates
should not have been eager to call attention to the confession of
December 4, when he wrote the letter which has been already
quoted.[288] On the other hand Catesby seems to have had no doubt of
Greenway's adherence, as is shown by his exclaiming on the priest's
arrival at Coughton, that 'here, at least, was a gentleman that would
live and die with them.'
In any case, the general attitude of the priests is not difficult to
imagine. Not even their warmest advocates can suppose that they received
the news of a plot to blow up James I. and his Parliament with quite as
much abhorrence as they would have manifested if they had heard of a
plot to blow up the Pope and the College of Cardinals. They were men who
had suffered much and were exposed at any moment to suffer more. They
held that James had broken his promise without excuse. But they had
their instructions from Rome to discountenance all disturbances; and we
may do them the justice to add that both Garnet and Greenway were
shocked when they were informed of the atrocious character of the plot
itself; but, at all events, Sir Everard Digby was able to write from
prison to his wife:--
"Before that I knew anything of the plot, I did ask Mr. Farmer,"
_i.e._ Garnet, "what the meaning of the Pope's Brief was; he told
me that they were not (meaning priests) to undertake or procure
stirs; but yet they would not hinder any, neither was it the Pope's
mind they should, that should be undertaken for the Catholic good.
I did never utter thus much, nor would not but to you; and this
answer with Mr. Catesby's proceedings with him and me give me
absolute belief that the matter in general was approved, though
every particular was not known."[289]
Whatever may be thought of the value of this statement Garnet's attitude
towards the plot was, on his own showing, hardly one of unqualified
abhorrence. Assuming that all that Greenway had informed him of on one
particular occasion, when the whole design was poured into his ears, was
told under the sanction of the confessional, and that not only the rule
of his Church, but other more worldly considerations, prohibited the
disclosure of anything so heard, there was all the more reason why he
should take any opportunity that occurred to learn the secret out of
confession, and so to do his utmost to prevent the atrocious design from
being carried into execution. Let us see whether he did so or not, on
his own showing.
On June 8 or 9, 1605,[290] Catesby asked Garnet the question whether it
was lawful to kill innocent persons, together with nocents, on the
pretence that his inquiry related to the siege of a town in war. At
first Garnet treated the question as of no other import. "I ... thought
it at the first but as it were an idle question, till I saw him, when we
had done, make solemn protestation that he would never be known to have
asked me any such question so long as he lived." On this Garnet began to
muse within himself as to Catesby's meaning.
"And," he continues, "fearing lest he should intend the death of
some great persons, and by seeking to draw them together enwrap not
only innocents but friends and necessary persons for the
Commonwealth, I thought I would take fit occasion to admonish him
that upon my speech he should not run headlong to so great a
mischief."
Garnet accordingly talked to him when he met him next, towards the end
of June, telling him that he wished him 'to look what he did if he
intended anything, that he must not have so little regard of innocents
that he spare not friends and necessary persons to a Commonwealth, and
told him what charge we had of all quietness, and to procure the like of
others.' It was certainly rather mild condemnation of a design which, as
Garnet understood, would involve considerable loss of life.
Soon afterwards Garnet received a letter from the General of the
Society, directing him, in the Pope's name, to hinder all conspiracies,
and this letter he showed to Catesby when next he saw him:--
"I showed him my letter from Rome," wrote Garnet afterwards, "and
admonished him of the Pope's pleasure. I doubted he had some device
in his head, whatsoever it was, being against the Pope's will, it
could not prosper. He said that what he meant to do, if the Pope
knew, he would not hinder, for the general good of the country. But
I being earnest with him, and inculcating the Pope's prohibition
did add this _quia expresse hoc Papa non vult et prohibet_, he told
me he was not bound to take knowledge by me of the Pope's will. I
said indeed my own credit was but little, but our General, whose
letter I had read to him, was a man everywhere respected for his
wisdom and virtue, so I desired him that before he attempted
anything he would acquaint the Pope. He said he would not for all
the world make his particular project known to him, for fear of
discovery. I wished him at the last in general to inform him how
things stood here by some lay gentleman."
This suggestion took shape in the mission of Sir Edmund Baynham. We are
only concerned here with Garnet's expostulations, and again it must be
said that they appear to have been singularly mild, considering all that
Catesby had admitted.
A few days later Garnet learnt the whole truth from Greenway, in a way
which is said to have been tantamount to confession. Admitting once more
that he may have been bound to keep silence to others on these details,
he could not keep silence to himself. There are no partitions in the
brain to divide what one wishes to know from what one wishes not to
know, and if Garnet thoroughly abhorred the plot, he was surely bound to
take up Catesby's earlier self-revelations, and to strive to the
uttermost to probe the matter to the bottom, in all legitimate ways. No
doubt he had moments in which his conscience was sorely troubled, but
they were followed by no decisive action, and it is useless to say that
he expected to meet Catesby at 'All-hallowtide.' With all the Jesuit
machinery under his hands, he could surely have found Catesby out
between July and November, and this omission is perhaps the most fatal
condemnation of Garnet's course. If he had for many months known enough
otherwise than in confession to enable him to remonstrate with Catesby
in November, why could he not have remonstrated four months before with
much more hope of success?
Still more serious is Garnet's own account of his feelings when Greenway
imparted the story to him, saying that he thought the plot unlawful, and
'a most horrible thing.' He charged Greenway 'to hinder it if he could,
for he knew well enough what strict prohibition we had had.' Greenway
replied 'that in truth he had disclaimed it, and protested that he did
not approve it, and that he would do what lay in him to dissuade it.'
Yet up to the discovery of the plot, Garnet, though he met Greenway at
least once, took no means of inquiring how Greenway had fared in his
enterprise. "How he performed it after," he explained, "I have not heard
but by the report of Bates's confession."[291]
On July 24, Garnet writes a letter to the General of his Society, in
which, as we are told, nothing learnt only in confession ought to have
been introduced. Accordingly, either in this or a later letter,[292] he
merely speaks in general terms of the danger of any private treason or
violence against the King, and asks for the orders of his Holiness as to
what is to be done in the case, and a formal prohibition of the use of
armed force. Surely some stronger language would be expected here. It is
true that, according to his own account, Garnet remained 'in great
perplexity,' and prayed that God 'would dispose of all for the best, and
find the best means which were pleasing to Him to prevent so great a
mischief.' He tells us, indeed, that he wrote constantly to Rome 'to get
a prohibition under censures of all attempts,' but as the answer he got
was that the Pope was of the opinion that 'his general prohibition would
serve,' it does not seem likely that Garnet enlarged on the real danger
more than he had done in the letter referred to above. He expected, he
says, some further action; 'and that hope and Mr. Catesby's promise of
doing nothing until Sir Edmund had been with the Pope made me think that
either nothing would be done or not before the end of the Parliament;
before what time we should surely hear, as undoubtedly we should if
Baynham had gone to Rome as soon as I imagined.'[293] In a further
declaration, Garnet disclosed that there was more in his conduct than
misplaced hopefulness. Speaking of Catesby's first consultation with
himself, he adds:--
"Neither ever did I enter further with him then, as I wrote, but
rather cut off all occasions (after I knew his project) of any
discoursing with him of it, thereby to save myself harmless both
with the state here, and with my superiors at Rome, to whom I knew
this thing would be infinitely displeasing, insomuch as at my
second conference with Mr. Greenwell," _i.e._ Greenway, "I said
'Good Lord, if this matter go forward, the Pope will send me to the
galleys, for he will assuredly think I was privy to it.'"[294]
To say that Garnet had two consciences, an official and a personal one,
would doubtless err by giving too brutally clear-cut a definition of the
mysterious workings of the mind. Yet we shall probably be right in
thinking not only that, as a Catholic, a priest, and a Jesuit, he was
bound to carry out the directions conveyed to him from the Pope, but
that those directions commended themselves to his own mind whenever he
set himself seriously to consider the matter. It was but human
weakness[295] to be so shocked by the persecution going on around him as
to regard with some complacency the horrors which sought to put a stop
to it, or at least to find excuses for omitting to inquire, where
inquiry must necessarily lead to active resistance. The Government
theory that Garnet and the other Jesuits had originated the plot was
undoubtedly false, but, as far as we are able to judge, they did not
look upon it with extraordinary horror, neither did they take such means
as were lawful and possible to avert the disaster.
To sum up the conclusions to which I have been led. There may be
difference of opinion as to my suggested explanations of some details in
the 'traditional' story; but as a whole it stands untouched by Father
Gerard's criticisms. What is more, no explanation has been offered by
any one which will fit in with the evidence which I have adduced in its
favour. As for the plot itself, it was the work of men indignant at the
banishment of the priests after the promises made by James in Scotland.
The worse persecution which followed no doubt sharpened their
indignation and led to the lukewarmness with which Garnet opposed it;
but it had nothing to do with the inception of the plot.
As to the action of the Government, it was in the main straightforward.
It had to disguise its knowledge that James did not discover the plot by
Divine inspiration, and having firmly persuaded itself that the Jesuits
had been at the bottom of the whole affair, it suppressed at least one
statement to the contrary, which it may very well have believed to be
untrue, whilst the Attorney General--not a man easily restrained--put
forward his own impression as positive truth, though he had no evidence
behind it. On the other hand, James, having before him in writing
Garnet's account of the information gained from Greenway in confession,
refused to allow it to be used against the prisoner.
The attempt to make Salisbury the originator of the Plot for his own
purposes breaks down entirely, if only because, at the time when the
plot was started, he had already pushed James to take the first step in
the direction in which he wished him to go, and that every succeeding
step carried him further in the same direction. It is also highly
probable that he had no information about it till the Monteagle letter
was placed in his hands. That there was a plot at all is undoubtedly
owing to James's conduct in receding from his promises. Yet, even his
fault in this respect raises more difficult questions than Roman
Catholic writers are inclined to admit. The question of toleration was a
new one, and James may be credited with a sincere desire to avoid
persecution for religion. He was, however, confronted by the question of
allegiance. If the Roman Catholics increased in numbers, so far as to
become a power in the land, would they or the Pope tolerate a 'heretic'
King? This was the real crux of the situation. In the nineteenth century
it is not felt, and we can regard it lightly. In the beginning of the
seventeenth century men could remember how Henry IV. had been driven to
submit to the Papal Church on pain of exclusion from the throne. Was
there ever to be a possibility of the like happening to James? There can
be no doubt that he believed in the doctrines of his own Church as
firmly as any Jesuit believed in those which it was his duty to
maintain. But, though this question of doctrine must not be left out of
sight, it must by no means be forced into undue prominence. It was the
question of allegiance that was at stake. James tried hard to avoid it,
and it must be acknowledged that his efforts were, to some extent,
reciprocated from the other side,[296] but the gulf could not be bridged
over. In the end the antagonism took its fiercest shape in the
disputation on the new oath of allegiance enjoined on all recusants in
1606. The respective claims of Pope and King to divine right were then
brought sharply into collision. Now that we are removed by nearly three
centuries from the combatants, we may look somewhat beyond the
contentions of the disputants. Behind the arguments of the Royalist, we
may discern the claim of a nation for supreme control over its own
legislation and government. Behind the arguments of the Papalist, we may
discern an anxiety to forbid any chance occupant of a throne, or any
chance parliamentary majority, from dictating to the consciences of
those who in all temporal matters are ready to yield obedience to
existing authority.
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] _Athenae_, iii. 902.
[11] _Edin. Review_, January 1897, p. 192.
[12] This is a mistake. The fine of 3,000_l._ 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, 2_s._ at that time was
certainly not worth 1_l._ 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
30,000_l._, 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
sara vero, ne 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
facolta di chiamare sotto pena di scomunica i torbolenti, non ci par da
darla per adesso, perche 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, perche dubitiamo che essendo tanta
gelosia tra Francia e Spagna non intrassimo in grandissima difficolta. E
meglio aspettare la conclusione della Pace secondo noi, perche 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 e 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 puo far di meno di non observar le leggi,' the
'non' being incorrectly repeated.
[252] "Non predicando li preti nessuna cosa piu 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 Eudaemon 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_.
[290] The Saturday or Sunday after the octave of Corpus Christi, _i.e._,
June 8 or 9, old style, which seems to have been used, as the same day
is described as being about the beginning of Trinity Term, which began
on May 31.
[291] Garnet's Declaration, March 9.--_Hist. Rev._, July 1888 pp.
510-517.
[292] The letter is printed in Tierney's _Dodd_, iv. App. cix., where
there is an argument in a note to show that the part from which I am
about to quote came from a later letter. For my purpose the date is
immaterial.
[293] Garnet's Declaration, March 9.--_Hist. Rev._, July 1888, pp.
510-517.
[294] Garnet's Declaration, March 10. _Hist. Rev._, July 1888, p. 517.
[295] The author of Sir Everard Digby's life writes:--"I fully admit
that if Father Garnet was weak, his weakness was owing to an excess of
kindheartedness and a loyalty to his friends that bordered on
extravagance." (_The Life of a Conspirator_, by 'One of his
Descendants,' p. 134.) It will be noticed that I am inclined to go
further than this.
[296] In addition to what has been already said, a letter from the
Nuncio at Brussels to Dr. Gifford, written on July 22/Aug. 1, 1604,
may be quoted. He says that the Pope 'paratissimum esse ea omnia pro sua
in Catholicos authoritate facere quae Serenissimae suae Majestati
securitatem suae personae, et status procurare possunt, eosque omnes e
regno evocare quos sua Majestas rationabiliter judicaverit regno et
statui [MS. statuti] suo noxios fore.'--_Tierney's Dodd_, App. No. 5.
INDEX
Aldobrandino, Cardinal, report by the Nuncio at Paris to, 151
Bancroft, Archbishop, informs Salisbury that Percy had ridden towards
Croydon, 23
Banishment of the priests, 160
Barlow, Bishop, mistaken reference to a book of, 84
Barneby, reports to the Nuncio at Paris, 153
Bartlet, George, said to have stated that Catesby visited Salisbury
House, 11
Bates, Thomas, arrest of, 47;
examination of, 179;
value of the evidence of, 182-189;
charge brought against Greenway by, 189
Baynham, Sir Edmund, mission of, 195
Brewer, Mr. H. W., author of a conjectural view of the neighbourhood
of the old House of Lords, 93
Brick, softer in 1605 than at present, 97
Bright, Mrs., evidence of, 28.
_See_ Skinner, Mrs.
Buck, Master, alleged statement by, 7
Bufalo, del, _see_ Nuncio in Paris
Capon, William, mistakes the position of Percy's house, 77;
worthlessness of the evidence of, 107
Catesby, Robert, said to visit Salisbury, 11;
cannot have given information, 121;
informs Greenway of the plot, 177;
his relations with Garnet, 192
Cecil, Sir Robert, corresponds with James on toleration, 143-148;
forwards James's reply to the Nuncio's overtures, 156;
has no motive for inventing Gunpowder Plot, 160.
_See_ Cranborne, Viscount, and Salisbury, Earl of
Cellar, the, Fawkes antedates the hiring of, 18, 20;
new door made into, 25;
evidence on the lease of, 28;
supposed bargain between Ferrers and Percy for, 30;
Fawkes's account of the hiring of, 34;
Winter's account of the hiring of, 65;
partly let to Mrs. Skinner, 100, 101;
leased to Percy, 105;
the miners said to be ignorant of the position of, 105;
Capon's evidence on the details of, 107;
new door into, _ib._;
entrances into, 110;
alleged public access to, 111;
Knyvet's visit to, 129;
Suffolk's search in, 131
Clement VIII., Pope, writes to James, 150;
annotates a report from the Nuncio at Paris, 151, 152;
rejects James's proposals, 158;
his conduct towards James, 167;
Lindsay's report on the proceedings of, 168
Cobham, Lord, reports a saying of James I., 8
Coe, Thomas, as informer, 175, _note_ 1
Coke, Attorney-General, conducts the first examination of Fawkes, 17;
attends the commissioners for the examination of the plot, 25;
his fishing inquiry, 40;
omits a passage in Fawkes's confession, and brings a false charge
against Gerard, 178
Cornwallis, Salisbury's letter to, 31
Cranborne, Viscount, his conversation with the Venetian ambassador,
162-166.
_See_ Cecil, Sir Robert, and Salisbury, Earl of
Davies, an informer, 173
Devonshire, Earl of, a commissioner to examine the plot, 24
Digby, Sir Edward, misstatement about the knighting of the sons of, 10;
arrest of, 47;
writes to Salisbury, 169;
receives a letter about an otter hunt, 175, _note_ 1;
his evidence against Garnet, 192
Digby, Sir Kenelm, alleged statement by, 10
Doubleday, Edmond, secures Fawkes, 135-137
Dunchurch, hunting-match at, 30
_Edinburgh Reviewer_, the, negative criticism of, 3;
his summary of the story of the plot, 14
Edmondes, Salisbury's letter to, 31
Favat, Salisbury's letter to, 183, 184
Fawkes, Guy, first examination of, 17;
assumes the name of Johnson, 18;
shields his companions by false statements, 19;
alleged alteration of the examination of, 20;
confesses the whole of the design, 21;
second examination of, 25;
third examination of, 26;
fourth examination of, 30;
threatened with torture, 32;
fifth examination of, 33;
relation of the fifth examination of, with that of Nov. 17, 37;
his declaration under torture, 43;
gives the names of the plotters, 44;
examined on the hints given to noblemen to absent themselves from
Parliament, 48;
a watch bought for, 49;
doubts as to the genuineness of his full account of the plot
examined, 50-54;
capable of directing mining operations, 78;
ascertains that the cellar is to be let, 109;
alleged discrepancies in the accounts of the seizure of, 127;
arrest of, 132-136
Ferrers, or Ferris, Henry, gives up his house to Percy, 29;
agreement for the lease by, 89
Fulman's Collection, notes on the plot preserved in, 9
Garnet, Henry, receives information of the plot from Greenway, 177;
Digby's evidence against, 192;
his knowledge of the plot, 193-199
Gerard, John (Jesuit in the 17th century), not to be trusted when in
ignorance of the facts, 7;
said to have given the sacrament to the conspirators, 44;
probably ignorant of the plot, 177;
false charge brought by Coke against, 178
Gibbons, Mrs., has charge of the house, 28
Goodman, Bishop, thinks Salisbury contrived the plot, 7
Grant, John, his name erroneously given as digging the mine, 73
Greenway (_alias_ for Oswald Tesimond), informs Garnet of the plot, 177;
said to have been informed of the plot by Bates, 180;
discussion on Bates's evidence against, 183-192;
his relations with Garnet, 195-198
Grene, Father, reports a saying of Usher's, 8
Gunpowder stored by the plotters, exaggerations about the amount of, 112;
disposal of, 113
Holbeche House, capture or death of the plotters at, 46
House hired by Percy, the, Fawkes's statement about, 18;
in charge of Mrs. Gibbons, 28;
evidence on the lease of, 29;
situation of, 77-91;
alleged smallness of, 91;
alleged populousness of the neighbourhood of, 92;
position of the garden belonging to, 96;
powder brought to, 102;
a carpenter admitted to, 104
House of Lords, the old, description of, 100
James, Roger, evidence of, 91
James I. said to have called November 5 Cecil's holiday, 8;
orders the use of torture, 26;
said to have interpreted the Monteagle letter by inspiration, 114,
125, 126;
his relations with the Catholics, 141-142;
refuses to sign a letter to the Pope, 143;
corresponds with Cecil on toleration, _ib._;
letter falsely attributed to, 150;
interruption of Lindsay's mission from, 151;
receives overtures from the Nuncio at Brussels, 151;
his position towards the recusants, 153;
is assured of the Pope's desire to keep the Catholics in obedience,
154;
banishes the priests, 160
Keyes, Robert, inquiry into the movements of, 24;
arrest of, 47;
confusion about his working in the mine, 71;
acknowledges that he worked at the mine, 74;
mistake in the 'King's Book' about, _ib._;
brought from Lambeth, 102
'King's Book,' the, erroneous account of Robert Winter's proceedings
in, 74;
probable date of the issue of, 74, _note_ 1
Knyvet, Sir Thomas, visits the cellar, 128, 136
Lenthall said to have been told that Salisbury contrived the plot, 10;
Wood's character of, 12
Lindsay, Sir James, carries a letter from the Pope to James, 150;
is unable to return with the answer, 151;
starts for Italy, 156;
Cranborne's opinion of, 162;
reports from Rome, 168
Mar, Earl of, is a commissioner to examine the plot, 24
Mine, the, silence of Fawkes about, 20;
Mrs. Whynniard ignorant of, 29;
the Government ignorant of, 30;
first mentioned by Fawkes, 33;
described by Winter, 63;
position of, 96;
made through the wall of Percy's house, 97;
alleged inexperience of the makers of, 98;
precautions to avoid noise in, 99;
penetrates the wall under House of Lords, 102;
disposal of the earth and stones from, 103;
the Government ignorant of the position of, 104
Montague, Lord, sent to the Tower, 48
Monteagle, Lord, the letter addressed to said to have been known
beforehand, 10;
false statements about the interpretation of, 114;
Salisbury said to have been previously informed of, 115;
delivery of, 122;
taken to Salisbury, 123
Mordaunt, Lord, sent to the Tower, 48
Northampton, Earl of, a commissioner to examine the plot, 24;
is a Catholic, 25
Nottingham, Earl of, a commissioner to examine the plot, 24;
his relations to the Catholics, 25
Nuncio at Brussels, the, makes overtures to James, 151
Nuncio at Paris, the, reports on James's proceedings, 151;
writes to Parry on the Pope's desire to keep the Catholics in
obedience, 154;
writes to James, 155;
James's reply to the overtures of, 156;
sends the reply to Rome, 157
Osborne, Francis, thinks the plot a device of Salisbury, 7
Owen, Hugh, not a priest, 60, _note_ 1
Parry, Sir Thomas, draft of a letter to, 22;
uncertainty when Salisbury's letter was sent to, 31;
receives overtures from the Nuncio, 154
Percy, Thomas, Fawkes's statement about the hiring of the house and
cellar by, 18;
proclamation for the apprehension of, 23;
rumours about the movements of, _ib._;
search of his house, 24;
enters into possession of the house and cellar, 29;
reward offered for the apprehension of, 44;
the Sheriff of Worcestershire announces the death of, 44;
buys a watch for Fawkes, 49;
Winter's account of the proceedings of, 62-69;
agreement for the lease of the house to, 85;
not likely to be turned out when Parliament met, 86;
takes the cellar, 105;
alleged bigamy of, 115;
said to have visited Salisbury, 117;
displays his connection with the Court, 118;
receives a pass for post-horses, _ib._;
alleged secret orders to kill, 119
Pope, the (_see_ Clement VIII.)
Popham, Chief Justice, examines Fawkes, 17;
sends to Salisbury a rumour of Percy's movements, 23;
makes inquiries into the movements of Catholics, 24;
a commissioner to examine the plot, 25
Priests, the banishment of, proclamation for, 160
Privy Councillors, form of publishing the signatures of, 40
Recusants, their fines remitted, 149;
fines reimposed on, 161
Rokewood, Ambrose, examination of the landlady of, 24
Salisbury, Earl of, alleged to have invented the plot, 7;
said to have told his son that he had contrived the plot, 10;
writes an account of the plot to Parry, 22;
is a commissioner for the examination into the plot, 24;
his letter to the ambassadors, 31;
cannot have deceived his fellow-commissioners, 41;
said to have known of the plot before the Monteagle letter, 115;
said to have received visits from Percy, 117;
said to have issued orders not to take Percy alive, 119;
the Monteagle letter delivered to, 123;
probably knew nothing of the plot independent of the letter, 124;
was the probable interpreter of the letter, 125;
receives a letter from Sir E. Digby, 169;
has no motive for inventing the plot, 172;
expects plots, 176;
writes to Favat, 183;
failure of the charge against, 200
Shepherd, John, evidence of, 77
Skinner, Mrs., gives up the cellar to Percy, 28, 105
Spedding, James, his canon of historical evidence, 5
Speed, John, his statement that Percy's house was only to be let when
Parliament was not sitting, 85
Standen, Sir Anthony, mission of, 158
Suffolk, Earl of, a commissioner for examining the plot, 24;
friendly to the Catholics, 25;
sent to search the cellar, 131
Talbot of Grafton, John, summoned before the Council, 48
Tresham, Francis, informed of the plot, 66;
probably informs the Government, 121;
his connection with the letter to Monteagle, 122
Usher, language used about the plot by, 8
Vaux, Mrs., committed to the charge of an alderman, 48
Vowell, Peter, said to assert the plot to have been invented, 10
Waad, Sir William, gives information of Percy's movements, 23;
pronounces Fawkes obstinate, 32;
informs Salisbury that Winter is ready to confess, 70
Walsh, Sir Richard, writes to announce the death or capture of the
plotters, 45
Whynniard, John, Fawkes's evidence about his lease to Percy, 18;
position of the house of, 77;
appointed keeper of the Old Palace, 86;
history of the land held by him, 93, 94;
position of the garden of, 95;
leases the cellar to Percy, 105
Whynniard, Mrs., consents to the lease of the cellar, 28
Winter, Robert, arrest of, 47;
incorrectly stated to have worked in the mine, 71;
his name substituted for that of Keyes, 73
Winter, Thomas, inquiry into the movements of, 24;
captured at Holbeche, 46;
doubts as to the genuineness of his full account of the plot
examined, 54-67;
his account of the plot, 57-69;
no evidence of the torture of, 70;
explanation of the confusion between Keyes and, 72;
Coke wishes to examine, 74
Wood, Anthony, statements by a correspondent of, 9;
his character of Lenthall, 12
Worcester, Earl of, a commissioner to examine the plot, 24;
is understood to be a Catholic, 25
Wotton, Sir Henry, says that Cecil invented plots, 10
Wright, Christopher, death of, 46, 47;
Robert Winter's name substituted for, 73
Wright, Henry, an informer, 173, 174
Wright, John, killed at Holbeche, 46, 47
MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.'S
CLASSIFIED CATALOGUE OF
WORKS IN GENERAL LITERATURE.
History, Politics, Polity, Political Memoirs, &c.
Abbott.--A HISTORY OF GREECE. By EVELYN ABBOTT, M.A., LL.D.
Part I.--From the Earliest Times to the Ionian Revolt. Crown 8vo.,
10s. 6d.
Part II--500-445 B.C. Cr. 8vo., 10s. 6d.
Acland and Ransome.--A HANDBOOK IN OUTLINE OF THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ENGLAND TO 1894. Chronologically Arranged. By A. H. DYKE ACLAND, M.P., and
CYRIL RANSOME, M.A. Crown 8vo., 6s.
ANNUAL REGISTER (THE). A Review of Public Events at Home and Abroad, for
the year 1895. 8vo., 18s.
Volumes of the ANNUAL REGISTER for the years 1863-1894 can still be
had. 18s. each.
Arnold (T., D.D.), formerly Head Master of Rugby School.
INTRODUCTORY LECTURES ON MODERN HISTORY. 8vo., 7s. 6d.
MISCELLANEOUS WORKS. 8vo., 7s. 6d.
Baden-Powell.--THE INDIAN VILLAGE COMMUNITY. Examined With Reference to
the Physical, Ethnographic, and Historical Conditions of the Provinces;
chiefly on the Basis of the Revenue-Settlement Records and District
Manuals. By B. H. BADEN-POWELL, M.A., C.I.E. With Map. 8vo., 16s.
Bagwell.--IRELAND UNDER THE TUDORS. By RICHARD BAGWELL, LL.D. (3 vols).
Vols. I. and II. From the first Invasion of the Northmen to the year 1578.
8vo., 32s. Vol. III. 1578-1603. 8vo., 18s.
Ball.--HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE SYSTEMS OPERATIVE IN IRELAND,
from the Invasion of Henry the Second to the Union (1172-1800). By the Rt.
Hon. J. T. BALL. 8vo., 6s.
Besant.--THE HISTORY OF LONDON. By Sir WALTER BESANT. With 74
Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 1s. 9d. Or bound as a School Prize Book,
2s. 6d.
Brassey (LORD).--PAPERS AND ADDRESSES.
NAVAL AND MARITIME, 1872-1893. 2 vols. Crown 8vo., 10s.
MERCANTILE MARINE AND NAVIGATION, 1871-1894. Crown 8vo., 5s.
IMPERIAL FEDERATION AND COLONISATION FROM 1880 to 1894. Cr. 8vo.,
5s.
POLITICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS, 1861-1894. Crown 8vo., 5s.
Bright.--A HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By the Rev. J. FRANCK BRIGHT, D.D.
Period I. MEDIAEVAL MONARCHY: A.D. 449 to 1485. Crown 8vo., 4s. 6d.
Period II. PERSONAL MONARCHY: 1485 to 1688. Crown 8vo., 5s.
Period III. CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY: 1689 to 1837. Cr. 8vo., 7s.
6d.
Period IV. THE GROWTH OF DEMOCRACY: 1837 to 1880. Cr. 8vo., 6s.
Buckle.--HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE, SPAIN AND
SCOTLAND. By HENRY THOMAS BUCKLE. 3 vols. Crown 8vo., 24s.
Burke.--A HISTORY OF SPAIN, from the Earliest Times to the Death of
Ferdinand the Catholic. By ULICK RALPH BURKE, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo., 32s.
Chesney.--INDIAN POLITY: a View of the System of Administration in India.
By General Sir GEORGE CHESNEY, K.C.B. With Map showing all the
Administrative Divisions of British India. 8vo. 21s.
Creighton.--A HISTORY OF THE PAPACY FROM THE GREAT SCHISM TO THE SACK OF
ROME (1378-1527). By M. CREIGHTON, D.D., Lord Bishop of London. 6 vols.
Cr. 8vo., 6s. each.
Cuningham.--A SCHEME FOR IMPERIAL FEDERATION: a Senate for the Empire. By
GRANVILLE C. CUNINGHAM of Montreal, Canada. Cr. 8vo., 3s. 6d.
Curzon.--PERSIA AND THE PERSIAN QUESTION. By the Right HON. GEORGE N.
CURZON, M.P. With 9 Maps, 96 Illustrations, Appendices, and an Index. 2
vols. 8vo., 42s.
De Tocqueville.--DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. By ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE. 2 vols.
Crown 8vo., 16s.
Dickinson.--THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARLIAMENT DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
By G. LOWES DICKINSON, M.A. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Eggleston.--THE BEGINNERS OF A NATION: A History of the Source and Rise of
the Earliest English Settlements in America, with Special Reference to the
Life and Character of the People. By EDWARD EGGLESTON. With 8 Maps. 8vo.,
7s. 6d.
Ewald.--THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL. By HEINRICH EWALD. 8 vols., 8vo., L5
18s.
Follett.--THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. By M. P. FOLLETT.
With an Introduction by ALBERT BUSHNELL HART, Ph.D. of Harvard University.
Crown 8vo., 6s.
Froude (JAMES A.).
THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND, from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the
Spanish Armada.
Popular Edition. 12 vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
'Silver Library' Edition. 12 vols. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. each.
THE DIVORCE OF CATHERINE OF ARAGON. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d.
THE SPANISH STORY OF THE ARMADA, and other Essays. Cr. 8vo., 3s.
6d.
THE ENGLISH IN IRELAND IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
Cabinet Edition. 3 vols. Cr. 8vo., 18s.
'Silver Library' Edition. 3 vols. Cr. 8vo., 10s. 6d.
ENGLISH SEAMEN IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. Crown 8vo., 6s.
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. Cr. 8vo., 6s.
SHORT STUDIES ON GREAT SUBJECTS. 4 vols. Cr. 8vo., 3s. 6d. each.
CAESAR: a Sketch. Cr. 8vo., 3s. 6d.
Gardiner (SAMUEL RAWSON, D.C.L., LL.D.).
HISTORY OF ENGLAND, from the Accession of James I. to the Outbreak of
the Civil War, 1603-1642. 10 vols. Crown 8vo., 6s. each.
A HISTORY OF THE GREAT CIVIL WAR, 1642-1649. 4 vols. Cr. 8vo., 6s.
each.
A HISTORY OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE PROTECTORATE, 1649-1660. Vol.
I., 1649-1651. With 14 Maps. 8vo., 21s.
CROMWELL'S PLACE IN HISTORY. Founded on Six Lectures delivered at
Oxford.
WHAT THE GUNPOWDER PLOT WAS: A Reply to Father Gerard.
THE STUDENT'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. With 378 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo.,
12s.
Also in Three Volumes, price 4s. each.
Vol. I. B.C. 55--A.D. 1509. 173 Illustrations.
Vol. II. 1509-1689. 96 Illustrations.
Vol. III. 1689-1885. 109 Illustrations.
Greville.--A JOURNAL OF THE REIGNS OF KING GEORGE IV., KING WILLIAM IV.,
AND QUEEN VICTORIA. By CHARLES C. F. GREVILLE, formerly Clerk of the
Council.
HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES:
THE SUPPRESSION OF THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE TO THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, 1638-1870. By W. E. B. DU BOIS. 8vo., 7s. 6d.
THE CONTEST OVER THE RATIFICATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN
MASSACHUSETTS. By S. B. HARDING, A.M. 8vo., 6s.
A CRITICAL STUDY OF NULLIFICATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA. By D. F. HOUSTON,
A.M. 8vo., 6s.
NOMINATIONS FOR ELECTION OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES. By FREDERICK W.
DALLINGER, A.M. 8vo., 7s. 6d.
Other Volumes are in preparation.
Hearn.--THE GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND: its Structure and its Development. By
W. EDWARD HEARN. 8vo., 16s.
Historic Towns.--Edited by E. A. FREEMAN, D.C.L., and Rev. WILLIAM HUNT,
M.A. With Maps and Plans. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. each.
Bristol. By Rev. W. Hunt.
Carlisle. By Mandell Creighton, D.D.
Cinque Ports. By Montagu Burrows.
Colchester. By Rev. E. L. Cutts.
Exeter. By E. A. Freeman.
London. By Rev. W. J. Loftie.
Oxford. By Rev. C. W. Boase.
Winchester. By G. W. Kitchin, D.D.
York. By Rev. James Raine.
New York. By Theodore Roosevelt.
Boston (U.S.). By Henry Cabot Lodge.
Joyce.--A SHORT HISTORY OF IRELAND, from the Earliest Times to 1608. By P.
W. JOYCE, LL.D. Cr. 8vo., 10s. 6d.
Kaye and Malleson.--HISTORY OF THE INDIAN MUTINY, 1857-1858. By Sir JOHN
W. KAYE and Colonel G. B. MALLESON. With Analytical Index and Maps and
Plans. Cabinet Edition. 6 vols. Cr. 8vo., 6s. each.
Knight.--MADAGASCAR IN WAR TIME: the Experiences of The Times Special
Correspondent with the Hovas during the French Invasion of 1895. By E. F.
KNIGHT. With 16 Illustrations and a Map. 8vo., 12s. 6d.
Lang (ANDREW).
PICKLE THE SPY, or, The Incognito of Prince Charles. With 6 Portraits.
8vo., 18s.
ST. ANDREWS. With 8 Plates and 24 Illustrations in the Text by T.
HODGE. 8vo., 15s. net.
Laurie.--HISTORICAL SURVEY OF PRE-CHRISTIAN EDUCATION. By S. S. LAURIE,
A.M., LL.D. Crown 8vo., 12s.
Lecky (WILLIAM EDWARD HARTPOLE).
HISTORY OF ENGLAND IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
Library Edition. 8 vols. 8vo., L7 4s.
Cabinet Edition. ENGLAND. 7 vols. Cr. 8vo., 6s. each. IRELAND. 5
vols. Crown 8vo., 6s. each.
HISTORY OF EUROPEAN MORALS FROM AUGUSTUS TO CHARLEMAGNE. 2 vols. Crown
8vo., 16s.
HISTORY OF THE RISE AND INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT OF RATIONALISM IN
EUROPE. 2 vols. Crown 8vo., 16s.
DEMOCRACY AND LIBERTY. 2 vols. 8vo., 36s.
THE EMPIRE: its Value and its Growth. An Inaugural Address delivered
at the Imperial Institute, November 20, 1893. Crown 8vo., 1s. 6d.
Lowell.--GOVERNMENTS AND PARTIES IN CONTINENTAL EUROPE. By A. LAWRENCE
LOWELL. 2 vols. 8vo., 21s.
Macaulay (LORD).
THE LIFE AND WORKS OF LORD MACAULAY. 'Edinburgh' Edition. 10 vols.
8vo., 6s. each.
Vols. I.-IV. HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
Vols. V.-VII. ESSAYS; BIOGRAPHIES; INDIAN PENAL CODE; CONTRIBUTIONS TO
KNIGHT'S 'QUARTERLY MAGAZINE'.
Vol. VIII. SPEECHES; LAYS OF ANCIENT ROME; MISCELLANEOUS POEMS.
Vols. IX. and X. THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF LORD MACAULAY. By the Right
Hon. Sir G. O. TREVELYAN, Bart., M.P.
This Edition is a cheaper reprint of the Library Edition of LORD
MACAULAY'S Life and Works.
COMPLETE WORKS.
Cabinet Ed. 16 vols. Post 8vo., L4 16s.
Library Edition. 8 vols. 8vo., L5 5s.
'Edinburgh' Edition. 8 vols. 8vo., 6s. each.
HISTORY OF ENGLAND FROM THE ACCESSION OF JAMES THE SECOND.
Popular Edition. 2 vols. Cr. 8vo., 5s.
Student's Edit. 2 vols. Cr. 8vo., 12s.
People's Edition. 4 vols. Cr. 8vo., 16s.
Cabinet Edition. 8 vols. Post 8vo., 48s.
'Edinburgh' Edition. 4 vols. 8vo., 6s. each.
Library Edition. 5 vols. 8vo., L4.
CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL ESSAYS, WITH LAYS OF ANCIENT ROME, in 1
volume.
Popular Edition. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d.
Authorised Edition. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d., or 3s. 6d., gilt edges.
Silver Library Edition. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d.
CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL ESSAYS.
Student's Edition. 1 vol. Cr. 8vo., 6s.
People's Edition. 2 vols. Cr. 8vo., 8s.
'Trevelyan' Edit. 2 vols. Cr. 8vo., 9s.
Cabinet Edition. 4 vols. Post 8vo., 24s.
Library Edition. 3 vols. 8vo., 36s.
ESSAYS which may be had separately, price 6d. each sewed, 1s. each
cloth.
Addison and Walpole.
Croker's Boswell's Johnson.
Hallam's Constitutional History.
Warren Hastings.
The Earl of Chatham (Two Essays).
Frederick the Great.
Ranke and Gladstone.
Milton and Machiavelli.
Lord Byron.
Lord Clive.
Lord Byron, and The Comic Dramatists of the Restoration.
MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS.
People's Edition. 1 vol. Cr. 8vo., 4s. 6d.
Library Edition. 2 vols. 8vo., 21s.
Popular Edition. Cr. 8vo., 2s. 6d.
Cabinet Edition. Including Indian Penal Code. Lays of Ancient
Rome, and Miscellaneous Poems. 4 vols. Post 8vo., 24s.
SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF LORD MACAULAY. Edited, with Occasional
Notes, by the Right Hon. Sir G. O. Trevelyan, Bart. Cr. 8vo., 6s.
MacColl.--THE SULTAN AND THE POWERS. By the Rev. MALCOLM MACCOLL, M.A.,
Canon of Ripon. 8vo., 10s. 6d.
Mackinnon.--THE UNION OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND: a Study of International
History. By JAMES MACKINNON, Ph.D., Examiner in History to the University
of Edinburgh. 8vo., 16s.
May.--THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND since the Accession of George
III. 1760-1870. By Sir THOMAS ERSKINE MAY, K.C.B. (Lord Farnborough). 3
vols. Crown 8vo., 18s.
Merivale (THE LATE DEAN).
HISTORY OF THE ROMANS UNDER THE EMPIRE. 8 vols. Cr. 8vo., 3s. 6d.
each.
THE FALL OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC: a Short History of the Last Century of
the Commonwealth. 12mo., 7s. 6d.
Montague.--THE ELEMENTS OF ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. By F. C.
MONTAGUE, M.A. Cr. 8vo., 3s. 6d.
O'Brien.--IRISH IDEAS. REPRINTED ADDRESSES. By WILLIAM O'BRIEN. Crown
8vo., 2s. 6d.
Richman.--APPENZELL: Pure Democracy and Pastoral Life in Inner-Rhoden. A
Swiss Study. By IRVING B. RICHMAN, Consul-General of the United States to
Switzerland. With Maps. Crown 8vo., 5s.
Seebohm (FREDERIC).
THE ENGLISH VILLAGE COMMUNITY Examined in its Relations to the
Manorial and Tribal Systems, &c. With 13 Maps and Plates, 8vo., 16s.
THE TRIBAL SYSTEM IN WALES: being Part of an Inquiry into the
Structure and Methods of Tribal Society. With 3 Maps. 8vo., 12s.
Sharpe.--LONDON AND THE KINGDOM: a History derived mainly from the
Archives at Guildhall in the custody of the Corporation of the City of
London. By REGINALD R. SHARPE, D.C.L., Records Clerk in the Office of the
Town Clerk of the City of London. 3 vols. 8vo. 10s. 6d. each.
Sheppard.--MEMORIALS OF ST. JAMES'S PALACE. By the Rev. EDGAR SHEPPARD,
M.A., Sub-Dean of H. M. Chapels Royal. With 41 full-page Plates (8
photo-intaglio), and 32 Illustrations in the Text. 2 Vols. 8vo, 36s.
net.
Smith.--CARTHAGE AND THE CARTHAGINIANS. By R. BOSWORTH SMITH, M.A., With
Maps, Plans, &c. Cr. 8vo., 3s. 6d.
Stephens.--A HISTORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. By H. MORSE STEPHENS, 3
vols. 8vo. Vols. I. and II., 18s. each.
Stubbs.--HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN, from its Foundation to the
End of the Eighteenth Century. By J. W. STUBBS. 8vo., 12s. 6d.
Sutherland.--THE HISTORY OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND, from 1606 to 1890.
By ALEXANDER SUTHERLAND, M.A., and GEORGE SUTHERLAND, M.A. Crown 8vo.,
2s. 6d.
Taylor.--A STUDENT'S MANUAL OF THE HISTORY OF INDIA. By Colonel MEADOWS
TAYLOR, C.S.I., &c. Cr. 8vo., 7s. 6d.
Todd.--PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT IN THE BRITISH COLONIES, By ALPHEUS TODD,
LL.D. 8vo., 30s. net.
Wakeman and Hassall.--ESSAYS INTRODUCTORY TO THE STUDY OF ENGLISH
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. By Resident Members of the University of Oxford.
Edited by HENRY OFFLEY WAKEMAN, M.A., and ARTHUR HASSALL, M.A. Crown 8vo.,
6s.
Walpole.--HISTORY OF ENGLAND FROM THE CONCLUSION OF THE GREAT WAR IN 1815
TO 1858. By SPENCER WALPOLE. 6 vols. Crown 8vo., 6s. each.
Wolff.--ODD BITS OF HISTORY: being Short Chapters intended to Fill Some
Blanks. By HENRY W. WOLFF. 8vo., 8s. 6d.
Wood-Martin.--PAGAN IRELAND: an Archaeological Sketch. A Handbook of Irish
Pre-Christian Antiquities. By W. G. WOOD-MARTIN, M.R.I.A. With 512
Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 15s.
Wylie.--HISTORY OF ENGLAND UNDER HENRY IV. By JAMES HAMILTON WYLIE, M.A.,
one of H. M. Inspectors of Schools. 3 vols. Crown 8vo. Vol. I., 1399-1404,
10s. 6d. Vol. II. 15s. Vol. III. 15s. [Vol. IV. in the press.
Biography, Personal Memoirs, &c.
Armstrong.--THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF EDMUND J. ARMSTRONG. Edited by G. F.
ARMSTRONG. Fcp. 8vo., 7s. 6d.
Bacon.--THE LETTERS AND LIFE OF FRANCIS BACON, INCLUDING ALL HIS
OCCASIONAL WORKS. Edited by J. SPEDDING. 7 vols. 8vo., L4 4s.
Bagehot.--BIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES. By WALTER BAGEHOT. Cr. 8vo., 3s. 6d.
Blackwell.--PIONEER WORK IN OPENING THE MEDICAL PROFESSION TO WOMEN:
Autobiographical Sketches. By Dr. ELIZABETH BLACKWELL. Cr. 8vo., 6s.
Boyd (A. K. H.). ('A.K.H.B.').
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF ST. ANDREWS. 1865-1890. 2 vols. 8vo. Vol. I.,
12s. Vol. II., 15s.
ST. ANDREWS AND ELSEWHERE: Glimpses of Some Gone and of Things Left.
8vo., 15s.
THE LAST YEARS OF ST. ANDREWS: September, 1890, to September, 1895.
8vo., 15s.
Brown.--FORD MADOX BROWN: A Record of his Life and Works. By FORD M.
HUEFFER. With 45 Full-page Plates (22 Autotypes) and 7 Illustrations in
the Text. 8vo., 42s.
Buss.--FRANCES MARY BUSS AND HER WORK FOR EDUCATION. By ANNIE E. RIDLEY.
With 5 Portraits and 4 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 7s. 6d.
Carlyle.--THOMAS CARLYLE: a History of his Life. By JAMES A. FROUDE.
1795-1835. 2 vols. Crown 8vo., 7s. 1834-1881. 2 vols. Crown 8vo., 7s.
Digby.--THE LIFE OF SIR KENELM DIGBY, by one of his Descendants, the
Author of 'The Life of a Conspirator,' 'A Life of Archbishop Laud,' etc.
With 7 illustrations. 8vo., 12s. 6d.
Erasmus.--LIFE AND LETTERS OF ERASMUS. By JAMES A. FROUDE. Crown 8vo.,
6s.
Fox.--THE EARLY HISTORY OF CHARLES JAMES FOX. By the Right Hon. Sir G. O.
TREVELYAN, Bart. Library Edition. 8vo., 18s. Cabinet Edition. Crown
8vo., 6s.
Halford.--THE LIFE OF SIR HENRY HALFORD, Bart., G.C.H., M.D., F.R.S. By
WILLIAM MUNK, M.D., F.S.A. 8vo., 12s. 6d.
Hamilton.--LIFE OF SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON. By R. P. GRAVES. 8vo. 3 vols.
15s. each. ADDENDUM. 8vo., 6d. sewed.
Hammond.--A WOMAN'S PART IN A REVOLUTION. By Mrs. JOHN HAYS HAMMOND. Crown
8vo., 2s. 6d.