"Forasmuch as they knew not well how they should come by the person of the Duke Charles, being near London, where they had no forces (if he had not been also blown up) he confesseth that it was resolved among them that, the same day that this detestable act should have been performed, the same day should other of their confederacy have surprised the person of the Lady Elizabeth, and presently have proclaimed her Queen, _to which purpose a proclamation was drawn, as well to avow and justify the action, as to have protested against the Union, and in no sort to have meddled with religion therein, and would have protested also against all strangers_, and this proclamation should have been made in the name of the Lady Elizabeth. "Being demanded why they did not surprise the King's person, and draw him to the effecting of their purpose sayeth that so many must have been acquainted with such an action as it[59] would not have been kept secret. "He confesseth that if their purpose had taken effect, until they had had power enough, they would not have avowed the deed to be theirs; but if their power (for their defence and safety) had been sufficient, they themselves would then[60] have taken it upon them. They meant also to have sent for the prisoners in the Tower to have come to them, of whom particularly they had some consultation. "He confesseth that the place of rendezvous was in Warwickshire, and that armour was sent thither, but[61] the particular thereof[62] he knows not. "He confesseth that they had consultation for the taking of the Lady Mary into their possession, but knew not how to come by her. "And confesseth that provision was made by some of the conspiracy of some armour of proof this last summer for this action. "He confesseth that the powder was bought by the common purse of the confederates. "L. Admiral [Earl of Nottingham] } L. Chamberlain [Earl of Suffolk] } Earl of Devonshire } Attended by Mr. Earl of Northampton } Attorney-General Earl of Salisbury } [Coke]." Earl of Mar } Lord Chief Justice [Popham][63] } Father Gerard, who has printed this examination in his Appendix,[64] styles it a draft, placing on the opposite pages the published confession of Guy Fawkes on November 17. That later confession, indeed, though embodying many passages of the earlier one, contains so many new statements, that it is a misapplication of words to speak of the one as the draft of the other. A probable explanation of the similarity is that when Fawkes was re-examined on the 17th, his former confession was produced, and he was required to supplement it with fresh information.