Whatever else may be thought of the above statements, they at least serve to contradict Mr. Jardine's assertion,[330] that the notion of Cecil's complicity,--which he terms a strange suggestion, scarce worthy of notice,--was first heard of long after the transaction, and was adopted exclusively by Catholics. Clearly it was not unknown to Protestants who were contemporaries, or personally acquainted with contemporaries, of the event. Yet the document here cited was known to Mr. Jardine, who mentions one of its statements, that relating to Lord Monteagle, but says nothing of its more serious allegations. It must also be remarked that we find some traces in the evidence which remains of certain mysterious conspirators of great importance, concerning whom no investigation whatever appears to have been made, they being at once permitted to drop into the profoundest obscurity, in a manner quite contrary to the habitual practice of the authorities. One such instance is afforded by the testimony of a mariner, Henry Paris, of Barking,[331] that Guy Faukes, _alias_ Johnson, hired a boat of him, "wherein was carried over to Gravelines a man supposed of great import: he went disguised, and would not suffer any one man to go with him but this Vaux, nor to return with him. This Paris did attend for him back at Gravelines six weeks. If cause require there are several proofs of this matter." None of these, however, seem to have been sought. FOOTNOTES: [292] That of Mr. Pound. [293] Jardine, _Criminal Trials_, ii. 38, n. [294] _E.g._, the author of the _Politician's Catechism_. [295] "About the time of my Lord Essex his enterprise he became Catholic" (_i.e._ 1601). Father Gerard, _Narrative_, p. 58. [296] P.R.O. _Gunpowder Plot Book_, n. 4. [297] Justice Grange, of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, to Salisbury, November 5th, 1605. Justices of Warwickshire, to the same, November 12th. [298] MS., f. 31-32. [299] Tanner MSS., _ut sup._, f. 167. [300] P.R.O. _Dom. James I._, November 7th, 1605. [301] The case of Carleton is not without mystery. At the time of the discovery he was at Paris, as secretary to the English ambassador, but about the middle of the month was ordered home in hot haste and placed "in restraint." On February 28th, 1605-6, he wrote to his friend Chamberlain that he was airing himself on the Chilterns to get rid of the scent of powder, asking his correspondent to consult a patron as to his best means of promotion (_Dom. James I._ xviii. 125). Far from being injured by any suspicion that he might seem to have incurred, he subsequently rose rapidly in favour, was intrusted with most important diplomatic missions, and was finally created Viscount Dorchester. [302] _Court of King James_, i. 105. [303] To the ambassadors, November 9th. [304] _Dom. James I._ xv. 106. [305] _Catholique Apology_, p. 415. [306] Goodman's _Court of King James_, i. 121, note.