What Gunpowder Plot Was Part 9

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 Ess.e.x 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 indors.e.m.e.nt in the handwriting of the eighteenth century, a.s.signing the doc.u.ment 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 a.s.sertion 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 princ.i.p.al 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.