[329] "George Bartlett, Mr. Catesby's servant," appears amongst the suspected persons whose names were sent up to Cecil by the justices of Warwickshire, November 12th, 1605. (_Gunpowder Plot Book_, 134.) [330] _Criminal Trials_, ii. 188. [331] _Gunpowder Plot Book_, 130. CHAPTER VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE. WE have hitherto confined our attention to sources of information other than those with which the authors of the official narrative have supplied us, and upon which they based the same. It remains to inquire how far the evidence presented by them can avail to substantiate the traditional history, and to rebut the various arguments against its authenticity which have been adduced. For brevity and clearness' sake it will be advisable to divide this investigation under several heads. i. _The Trial of the Conspirators._ On the threshold of our inquiry we are met by a most singular and startling fact. As to what passed on the trial of the conspirators, what evidence was produced against them, how it was supported,--nay, even how the tale of their enterprise was told--we have no information upon which any reliance can be placed. One version alone has come down to us of the proceedings upon this occasion--that published "by authority"--and of this we can be sure only that it is utterly untrustworthy. It was issued under the title of the _True and Perfect Relation_, but, as Mr. Jardine has already told us, is certainly not deserving of the character which its title imports. "It is not true, because many occurrences on the trial are wilfully misrepresented; and it is not _perfect_, because the whole evidence, and many facts and circumstances which must have happened, are omitted, and incidents are inserted which could not by possibility have taken place on the occasion. It is obviously a false and imperfect relation of the proceedings; a tale artfully garbled and misrepresented ... to serve a State purpose, and intended and calculated to mislead the judgment of the world upon the facts of the case."[332] Again the same author remarks,[333] "that every line of the published trial was rigidly weighed and considered, not with reference to its accuracy, but its effect on the minds of those who might read it, is manifest." Moreover, the narrative thus obviously dishonest, was admittedly issued in contradiction of divers others already passing "from hand to hand," which were at variance with itself in points of importance, and which it stigmatized as "uncertain, untrue, and incoherent;" it justified its appearance on the ground that it was supremely important for the public to be rightly informed in such a case:[334] and so successful were the efforts made to secure for it a monopoly, that no single document has come down to us by which its statements might be checked. In consequence, to quote Mr. Jardine once more,[335] there is no trial since the time of Henry VIII. in regard of which we are so ignorant as to what actually occurred.[336]