_Note as to authenticity of “Thomas Winter’s Confession,” at Hatfield._ Whilst greatly admiring the erudition and dialectical skill displayed by the Rev. John Gerard, S.J., in his recent Gunpowder Treason Works, mentioned in the Prelude to this Book, I am of opinion that the Confession attributed to the conspirator, Thomas Winter, is authentic. The internal evidence for the genuineness of this document is too strong (_me judice_) to be upset. It is true that the change in the form of signature is undoubtedly a suspicious circumstance; but such change was probably due to a desire, on the prisoner’s part, _to let “a great gulf be fixed” between “Thos. Wintour,” the free-born gentleman, and “Thomas Winter,” the inchoately attainted traitor_. Moreover, the name Winter, or Wynter, _was_, at that time, certainly spelt with the “_er_” as well as with the “_our_,” just as the name “Ward” was spelt either with the final “e” or without the same. For instance, in Flower’s “_Visitation of Yorkshire_,” Edited by Norcliffe (Harleian Soc., London), Jane Ingleby is stated to be the “Wyff to George _Wynter_ son and heyr of _Robert Winter_ of Cawdwell in Worceshyre.” One would like to see from the pen of the Rev. John Gerard a translation of Father Oswald Tesimond’s Italian Narrative, known as “_Greenway’s Manuscript_.” Tesimond, it is almost certain, knew the bulk of the plotters more intimately than did the seventeenth century Father Gerard. Therefore, Tesimond’s Narrative, _pro tanto_, must surpass in value even the work of the Father Gerard of three hundred years ago. NOTES. [Footnote 1:——The following quotation is from the “_Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1603-1610_,” p. 254:——“Nov. 13 (1605) Declaration of Fras. Tresham——Catesby revealed the Plot to him on October 14th: he opposed it: urged at least its postponement, and offered him money to leave the kingdom with his companions: thought they were gone, and intended to reveal the Treason; has been guilty of concealment, but, as he had no hand in the Plot, he throws himself on the King’s mercy.” Now surely it stands to reason that if Tresham had penned the Letter——_Litteræ Felicissimæ_——he would have never addressed his Sovereign thus. He would have triumphantly gloried in the effort of his pen, and “worked” (as the phrase goes) “his beneficent action for all that it was worth.” Tresham was held back _by the omnipotence of the impossible_; anybody can see _that_ who reads his evidence.