square-headed aperture in Smith's view agrees so well with that in the view at p. 89, that it can be accepted without doubt as the one in which Percy's new door was substituted for a grating, and which led out of the covered passage opening from the court leading from Parliament Place. [Illustration: Four walls of the so-called cellar under the House of Lords. From Smith's _Antiquities of Westminster_, p. 39.] Though it is possible that Whynniard might, if he chose, come into the plotters' 'cellar,' we are under no compulsion to accept Father Gerard's assertion that Winter declared 'that the confederates so arranged as to leave the cellar free for all to enter who would.'[182] "It is stated," writes Father Gerard, in another place, "in Winter's long declaration on this subject, that the barrels were thus completely hidden 'because we might have the house free to suffer anyone to enter that would,' and we find it mentioned by various writers, subsequently, that free ingress was actually allowed to the public."[183] As the subsequent writers appear to be an anonymous writer, who wrote on _The Gunpowder Plot_ under the pseudonym of L., in 1805, and Hugh F. Martyndale, who wrote _A Familiar Analysis of the Calendar of the Church of England_ in 1830, I am unable to take them very seriously. The extraordinary thing is that Father Gerard does not see that his quotation from Winter is fatal to his argument. Winter says that Fawkes covered the powder in the cellar 'because we might have the house free to suffer anyone to enter that would.[184] The cellar was not part of the house; and, although the words are not entirely free from ambiguity, the more reasonable interpretation is that Fawkes disposed of the powder in the cellar, in order that visitors might be freely admitted into the house. Winter, in fact, makes no direct statement that the powder was moved, and it is therefore fair to take this removal as included in what he says about the faggots. As for the quantity of the gunpowder used, the opinion of the writer discussed in the _Edinburgh Review_ (January, 1897), appears reasonable enough:--