What Gunpowder Plot Was Part 14

[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 t.i.tle--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 amba.s.sador, 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 pu 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 p.r.o.nto 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 pa.s.sage 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 endors.e.m.e.nt 'Mr. Secretary Conway' shows that it was not earlier than 1623. The further endors.e.m.e.nt 'touching Wright and his services performed in the d.a.m.nable 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 doc.u.ment 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 Sat.u.r.day 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.