_Item._ Were not Edw. Neville, calling himself Earl of Westmorland, Mr.

Dacre, calling himself Lord Dacre, or any of the n.o.bility, privy to it?

How many of the n.o.bility have you known at Ma.s.s? What persons in the Tower were named to be partakers with you?

[357] To Edmondes, November 14th, 1605. (Stowe MSS.)

[358] _Viz., The True and Perfect Relation._ The confession of Bates is mentioned but not textually quoted. It is in the "King's Book" that the confessions of Winter and Faukes are given.

[359] "The great object of the government now was to obtain evidence against the priests."--Gardiner, _History of England_, i. 267.

[360] See Rokewood's examination, December 2nd, 1605. (_Gunpowder Plot Book_, 136.) In the confession of Keyes, November 30th, 1605 (_Gunpowder Plot Book_, 126) we read: "He sayth that the reason that he revealed not the project to his ghostly father was for that Catesby told him that he had good warrant and authoritie that it might safely and with good conscience be done," etc.

[361] _Gunpowder Plot Book_, 145.

[362] This is shown by a mark (--) in the margin opposite the important pa.s.sage, attention being called to this by the same mark, and the name "Greenway" in the endors.e.m.e.nt.

[363] Brit. Mus., Harleian 360, f. 96.

[364] Brit. Mus., Harleian 360, f. 109, etc. The reporter had clearly been present.

[365] Brit. Mus., MSS. Add. 21, 203; Plut. ciii. F. Printed by Foley, _Records_, iv. 164 _seq._

[366] _Narrative_, p. 210.

[367] Plut. ciii. F. -- 39.

[368] Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6178, -- 625.

[369] _Dom. James I._ xvi. 116.

[370] In the _Calendar of State Papers_, Mrs. Everett Green, as has been said, quite gratuitously and without warrant from the original doc.u.ments, uniformly describes him as "Father Owen," or "Owen the Jesuit." Mr. Gardiner (_Hist._ i. 242) has been led into the same error.

It is not impossible that Owen had some knowledge of the conspiracy, though the course adopted by his enemies seems to afford strong presumption to the contrary. It must, moreover, be remembered that, as Father Gerard tells us, he and others similarly accused, vehemently protested against the imputation, while in his case in particular we have some evidence to the same effect. Thomas Phelippes, the "Decipherer," of whom we have already heard, was on terms of close intimacy with Owen, and in December, 1605, wrote to him about the Plot in terms which certainly appear to imply a strong conviction that his friend had nothing to do with it.

"There hath been and yet is still great paynes taken to search to the bottom of the late d.a.m.nable conspiracy. The Parliamente hit seemes shall not be troubled with any extraordinarie course for their exemplarye punishment, as was supposed upon the Kinges speeche, but onlye with their attaynder, the more is the pitye I saye."--_Dom. James I._ xvii.

62.

[371] Stowe MSS. 168, 54.

[372] This version of the deposition is interesting as being a form intermediate between the draft of November 8th and the finished doc.u.ment of November 17th. The pa.s.sages cancelled in the former are simply omitted without any attempt to complete the sense of the pa.s.sages in which they occurred. Those "ticked off" are retained.

[373] Stowe MSS. 168, 58.

[374] _I.e._, the Archduke Albert, and his consort the Infanta, daughter of Philip II., who, as governors of the Low Countries, were usually so designated.

[375] "Nous avons bien voulu aussy par ces presentes, nous mesmes vous a.s.seurer que ce qu'il [Edmondes] vous en a desja declare, est fonde sur tout verite; et vous dire en oultre, que ces meschantes Creatures d'Owen et Baldouin, gens de mesme farine, ont eu aussi leur part en particulier a ceste malheureuse conspiration de Pouldre."--_Phillipps' MS._ 6297, f.

129.

[376] Stowe, 168, 65.

[377] Winwood, ii. 183.

[378] _Dom. James I._ xix. 94.

[379] 3^o _Jac. I._ c. 3. On the 21st of June following, Salisbury forwarded to Edmondes a fresh copy of this Act, "because in the former there was a great error committed in the printing." (Phillipps, f. 157.) It would be highly interesting to know what the first version was. In that now extant it is only said regarding Owen, that inasmuch as he obstinately keeps beyond the seas, he cannot be arraigned, nor can evidence and proofs be produced against him. (_Statutes at large._)

[380] Stowe, 168, 76; Phillipps, f. 141.

[381] Edmondes to Salisbury, January 23rd, 1605(6). P.R.O., Flanders, 38.

[382] April 19th, 1606, _ibid._

[383] Edmondes to Salisbury, April 5th, 1606, _ibid._

[384] Phillipps, f. 150.

[385] Phillipps, f. 152.

[386] _Dom. James I._ xx. 52.

[387] This is obvious from a marginal note in c.o.ke's own hand, arguing that Owen must be guilty in this instance, as he has been guilty on former occasions, and "Qui semel malus est semper praesumitur esse malus in eodem genere mali."

[388] It will be noticed that the confession of Faukes cited against Owen is dated two months after he had first been declared to be proved guilty by Faukes' testimony.

[389] These are dated November 5th, 6th [bis], 7th, 8th [the "draft"], 9th, 16th, 17th, January 9th, 20th, 26th.

[390] Thus, to confine ourselves to the confession of January 20th, with which we are particularly concerned, we have the following variations:

_Tanner transcript._ "At my going over M^r Catesby charged me two things more: the one to desire of Baldwin & M^r Owen to deal with the Marquis [Spinola] to send over the regiment of which he [Catesby] expected to have been Lieutenant Colonel under Sir Charles [Percy].... He wished me secondly to be earnest with Baldwin to deal with the Marquis to give the said M^r Catesby order for a Company of Horse, thinking by that means to have opportunity to buy Horses and Arms without suspition."

According to _Abbot_, Faukes was to give instructions that when the time of Parliament approached, Sir Wm. Stanley was on some pretext to lead the English forces in the archduke's service towards the sea, and with them any others he could manage to influence. He also mentions the conspiracy of Morgan, as spoken of by c.o.ke.

In addition to all this, Abbot cites from the same confession the following extraordinary particulars (p. 160): Faukes, when he came to London, with T. Winter, went to Percy's house and found there Catesby and Father Gerard. They talked over matters, and agreed that nothing was to be hoped from foreign aid, nor from a general rising of Catholics, and that the only plan was to strike at the king's person: whereupon Catesby, Percy, John Wright, Winter, and himself, were sworn in by Gerard.

[This is in absolute contradiction to Winter's evidence (November 23rd) that Percy was initiated in the middle of the Easter term, the other four having agreed on the scheme at the beginning of the same term; and to that of Faukes himself (November 17th) that he and Winter first resolved on a plot for the benefit of the Catholic cause, and afterwards imparted their idea to Catesby, Wright, and Percy.]

_Sir E. c.o.ke's Version._ "After the powder treason was resolved upon by Catesbye, Thomas Winter, the Wrightes, my self, and others, and preparation made by us for the execution of it, by their advise and direction I went into fflanders and had leave given unto me to discover our project in every particular to Hughe Owen and others, but with condicion that they should sweare first to secrecie as we our selves had done. When I arryved in fflanders I found M^r Owen at Bruxelles to whom after I had given the oathe of secrecye I discovered the whole busines, howe we had layed 20 whole barrells of powder in the celler under the parliament howse, and howe we ment to give it fire the first day of the parliament when the King, the prince, the duke, the Lords spirituall and temporall, and all the knights, citizens, and burgesses of parliament should be there a.s.sembled. And that we meant to take the Ladye Elizabeth and proclaime hir for we thought most like that the prince and duke would be there with the king. M^r Owen liked the plott very well, and said that Thomas Morgan had once propounded the very same in quene Elizabeth's time, and willed me that by ani meanes we should not make any mencion of religion at the first, and a.s.sured me that so soone as he should have certaine newes that this exploit had taken effect that he would give us what a.s.sistance he could and that he would procure that Sir W^m Stanley should have leave to come with those English men which be there and what other forces he could procure."

The confession of Faukes in the Record Office, dated the same, January 20th, is thus summarized in the _Calendar of State Papers_ (_Dom. James I._ xviii. 28): "Talked with Catesby about n.o.blemen being absent from the meeting of Parliament; he said Lord Mordaunt would not be there, because he did not like to absent himself from the sermons, as the king did not know he was a Catholic; and that Lord Stourton would not come to town till the Friday after the opening."

[391] The powder design of Morgan is an instance in point. The Thomas Morgan in question was doubtless the same as the partisan of Mary Queen of Scots.

[392] _E.g._: "Winter came over to Owen, by him and the Fathers to be informed of a fit and resolute man for the execution of the enterprise.

This examinate (being by the Fathers and Owen recommended to be used and trusted in any action for the Catholicks) came into England with Winter."--Faukes, November 19th, 1605 (Tanner MSS.).

Abbot, whose whole object is to incriminate the Jesuits, does not mention this remarkable statement.

Again we read, November 30th (_ibid._): "Father Baldwin told this examinate that about 2,000 horses would be provided by the Catholicks of England to join with the Spanish forces ... and willed this examinate to intimate so much to Father Creswell, which this examinate did."

[393] Oliver, _Collectanea_, sub nom.; Foley, _Records_, iv. 120, note.