unpowder: the very same suspicion also crossed
the mind of the earl of Suffolk, the lord chamberlain. This suspicion,
however, was concealed from the king by the two statesmen. His majesty
instantly took the same view of the letter, though he was totally
unacquainted with the opinions of his two councillors. Popish authors
have laboured to prove, that the treason was either planned by, or at
least known to, the court, because the king so readily referred the
letter to an explosion by gunpowder. Cecil and Suffolk had conceived the
same opinion, though it does not appear that they thought of gunpowder
secreted under the House of Lords. But what proof does this circumstance
furnish of any previous knowledge even, on the part of the court, much
less of contrivance? Was it strange that they should thus interpret such
a mysterious letter? Cecil and Suffolk were fully aware of the plots
which had been devised against Elizabeth; they knew that on more than
one occasion, the traitors had contemplated the death of the queen by
means of gunpowder. With these facts fresh in their recollection, it was
perfectly natural to interpret the letter to signify some attempt of the
same kind. In short, no other interpretation could have reasonably been
put upon it. That the king himself should have suspected some attempt by
means of gunpowder was also to be expected. He was well aware of the
practices of the church of Rome; and it is probable that, on this
occasion, he recollected the fate of his father, King Henry, whose death
was accomplished by an explosion of gunpowder. To King James, therefore,
really belongs the honour of discovering the gunpowder treason; for,
though Cecil and Suffolk had conceived the same idea, yet they do not
appear to have entertained the notion of a mine under the House of
Lords. Besides, the two lords did not communicate their suspicions to
the king. The remarkable part of the business, therefore, is the fact,
that the three individuals should have so readily struck upon the same
idea. It must, however, be stated that the interpretation put by the
king upon the clause relative to the burning of the letter was not the
true one: for it is pretty clear, that the writer wished Monteagle to
absent himself from the parliament, and to burn the letter to avoid
suspicion of being privy to the plot. But, though we may admit, that the
king's interpretation of the clause was not that, which the writer
intended, yet we must ac