Having premised this remark as a caution against examining the document too narrowly, we may admit that the three statements differ about the date at which the Monteagle letter was received--(_a_) says it was some four or five days before the Parliament; (_b_) that it was eight days; (_c_) that it was ten days. The third and latest statement is accurate; but the mistakes of the others are of no importance, except to show that the draft was carelessly drawn up, probably by Munck, Salisbury's secretary, in whose handwriting it is; and that the mistake was corrected with an approach to accuracy three days later, and made quite right further on. With respect to the more important point raised by Father Gerard that--while (_a_) does not mention Suffolk's search in the afternoon, (_b_) does not mention the presence of Fawkes at the time of the afternoon visit--it is quite true that the hurried draft does not mention Suffolk's visit; but it is not true that it in any way denies the fact that such a visit had taken place. Father Gerard abbreviates the story of (_a_) as follows:-- "It was accordingly determined, the night before, 'to make search about that place, and to appoint a watch in the Old Palace to observe what persons might resort thereunto.' "Sir T. Knyvet, being appointed to the charge thereof, _going by chance, about midnight, into the vault, by another door,[204] found Fawkes within_. Thereupon he caused some few faggots to be removed, and so discovered some of the barrels, '_merely, as it were, by God's direction, having no other cause but a general jealousy_.'"[205] The italics are Father Gerard's own, and I think we are fairly entitled to complain, so far as the first phrase thus distinguished is concerned, because being printed in this manner it looks like a quotation, though as a matter of fact is not so. This departure from established usage is the more unfortunate, as the one important word--'chance'--upon which Father Gerard's argument depends, is a misprint or a miswriting for the word 'change,' which is to be seen clearly written in the MS. The whole passage as it there stands runs as follows:--