"This advertisement being made known to his Majesty and the Lords,
their Lordships found not good, coming as it did in that fashion,
to give much credit to it, or to make any apprehension of it by
public show, nor yet so to contemn it as to do nothing at all in
it, but found convenient the night before under a pretext that some
of his Majesty's wardrobe stuff was stolen and embezzled to make
search about that place, and to appoint a watch in the old palace
to observe what persons might resort thereabouts, and appointed the
charge thereof to Sir Thomas Knyvet, who about midnight going by
change into the vault by another door, found the fellow, as is said
before,[206] whereupon suspicion being increased, he caused some
few faggots to be removed, and so discovered some of the barrels of
powder, merely, as it were, by God's direction, having no other
cause but a general jealousy."[207]
If the word 'chance' had been found in the real letter, it could hardly
be interpreted otherwise than to imply a negative of the earlier visit
said to have been followed by a resolve on the King's part to search
farther. As the word stands, it may be accepted as evidence that an
earlier visit had taken place. How could Knyvet go 'by change' into the
vault by another door, unless he or someone else had gone in earlier by
some other approach? It is, however, the positive evidence which may be
adduced from this letter, which is most valuable. The letter is, as I
said, a mere hurried draft, in all probability never sent to anyone. It
is moreover quite inartistic in its harking back to the story of the
arrest after giving fuller details. Surely such a letter is better
calculated to reveal the truth than one subsequently drawn up upon
fuller consideration. What is it then, that stares us in the face, if we
accept this as a genuine result of the first impression made upon the
writer--whether he were Munck or Salisbury himself? What else than that
the Government had no other knowledge of the plot than that derived from
the Monteagle letter, and that not only because the writer says that the
discovery of the powder was 'merely as it were, by God's direction,
having no other cause but a general jealousy,' but because the whole
letter, and still more the amplified version which quickly followed, is
redolent with uncertainty. Given that Suffolk's mission in the afternoon
was what it was represented to be, it becomes quite intelligible why the
writer of the draft should be inclined to leave it unnoticed. It was an
investigation made by men who were afraid of being blown up, but almost
as much afraid of being made fools of by searching for gunpowder which
had no existence, upon the authority of a letter notoriously ambiguous.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account