(16) Father Henry Garnet, Oldcorne’s Superior, mysteriously changed his purpose expressed on the 4th October, of returning to London; and on the 29th October went from Gothurst to Coughton, in Warwickshire. (I think Garnet’s main reason for going to Coughton was in order to meet Catesby, and endeavour to induce him to discard Percy’s counsel and to seek refuge in flight.) (17) Father Oldcorne evaded giving a direct answer as to the Plot, when questioned by Littleton, after November 5th. (18) Hence, the facts _both before and after_ the delivery of the Letter are consistent with, and indeed converge towards, the hypothesis sought by this Inquiry to be proved. (19) The circumstance that Christopher Wright displayed a strangely marked disposition to “hang about” the prime conspirator, Thomas Winter, _after_ the sending of the Letter, is a suspicious fact, strongly indicative of a consciousness on Christopher Wright’s part of a special responsibility in connection with the revelation of the Plot; as showing anxiety for personal knowledge that the train of revelation lighted by himself had, so to speak, taken fire. (20) Christopher Wright lived not to tell the tale. (21) Hence, the hypothesis is a theory established, with moral certitude, mainly by Circumstantial Evidence, which latter “mosaics” perfectly. (22) Finally, the crowning proof of the theory sought by this Book to be established is found in these nine words of the _post scriptum_ of 21st October, 1605, to letter dated 4th October, 1605, under the hand of Father Garnet to Father Parsons, in Rome[A]: “This letter being returned unto me again, FOR REASON OF A FRIEND’S STAY IN THE WAY, I blotted out some words purposing to write the same by the next opportunity, as I will do apart:”——The word “stay” here being used to signify “check.” _Cf._, Shakespeare’s “King John,” II., 2: and see Glossary to Globe Edition (Macmillan). [Footnote A: This letter, I understand, is still extant, and is in the archives of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster. I wonder whether by any of the rigorous tests of modern science these “blotted out” words can be discerned. Probably they have some reference to the Plot. The late Rev. John Morris, S.J., thought they had not. But on this point I am obliged to differ, _in toto_, from that painstaking editor of much invaluable Elizabethan Catholic literature. See the learned Jesuit’s remarks on this letter of the 4th October, 1605, in “_The Condition of Catholics under James I._” (Longmans), p. 228. Father Morris contends that for Father Garnet to have inserted a reference to the Gunpowder Plot “between two such subjects as the choice of Lay-brothers and his own want of money,” would have been for Garnet to have exhibited a disposition “to be the most erratic of letter-writers.”