FINIS 411 ERRATA. The author regrets to have to request his indulgent readers to be kind enough to make the following corrections [Transcriber’s Note: These have been applied.]:—— Page 19, line 14 from top.——Put ) after word “conspirators,” _not_ after word “_Tresham_.” Page 77, line 9 from top.——Read: and “great great grandfather of Philip Howard Earl of Arundel,” _instead of “great-grandfather.”_ Page 79, in note, line 5 from top.——Read: “ninth Earl of Carlisle,” _instead of “seventh Earl of Carlisle.”_ Page 87, in note, line 8 from bottom.——Read: “Burns & Oates.” Page 117, line 5 from top.——Read: “William Abington,” _instead of “Thomas Abington.”_ Page 122, in note, line 2 from top.——Read: “Duke of Beaufort,” _instead of “Duke of St. Albans.”_ Page 140, line 4 from top.——Read: “incarcerated,” _instead of “inccarerated.”_ Page 285, in note, line 2 from top.——Read: “kinswoman,” _instead of “kinsman.”_ Page 321, line 16 from top.——Read: “Deprave,” _instead of “depeave.”_ PRELUDE. In order that the problem of the Gunpowder Plot may be understood, it is necessary for the reader to bear in mind that there were three movements——distinct though connected——against the Government on the part of the oppressed Roman Catholic recusants in the year 1605. The first of these movements was a general wave of insurrectionary feeling, of which there is evidence in Yorkshire as far back as 1596; in Lancashire about 1600; and in Herefordshire, at a later date, much more markedly. Then there was the Gunpowder Plot itself. And, lastly, there was the rebellion that was planned to take place in the Midlands, which, to a very limited extent, did take place, and in the course of which four of the conspirators were slain. That Salisbury’s spies and decoys——who were, like Walsingham’s, usually not Protestants but “bad Catholics”——had something to do with stirring up the general revolutionary feeling is more than probable; but that either he or they planned, either jointly or severally, the particular enterprise known as the Gunpowder Treason Plot——which was as insane as it was infamous——I do not for a moment believe. All students of English History, however, are greatly indebted to the Rev. John Gerard, S.J., for his three recent critical works on this subject; but still that the main outlines of the Plot are as they have come down to us by tradition, to my mind, Dr. Samuel Rawson Gardiner abundantly proves in his book in reply to the Rev. John Gerard.