[Illustration: SIGNATURES OF FAUKES AND OLDCORNE.[353]]
The printed version exhibits other points of interest. There was in the Archduke's service, in Flanders, an English soldier, Hugh Owen,[354] whom the government were for some reason, excessively desirous to incriminate, and get into their hands. For this purpose, a passage was artfully interpolated in the statement of Faukes, whereof no trace is found in the original. In the "King's Book," the passage in question stands thus, the words italicised being those fraudulently introduced:
"About Easter, the parliament being prorogued till October next, we dispersed ourselves, and I retired into the Low-countries, _by advice and direction of the rest; as well to acquaint Owen with the particulars of the plot, as also_, lest, by my longer stay, I might have grown suspicious." But of Owen we shall see more in particular. It must not be forgotten that on several other days besides those named above, Faukes made declarations, still extant, viz., November 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 16th, and January 9th and 20th. The most important items of information furnished by that selected for publication were not even hinted at in any of these.
Farther light appears to be thrown on the manner in which this important declaration was prepared by another document found amongst the State Papers. This is an "interrogatory" drawn up by Sir E. Coke on November 8th, the very day of the "draft," expressly for the benefit of Faukes.[355] That the "draft" was composed from this appears to be shown by a curious piece of evidence. We have already noticed the strange phraseology of one of the passages attributed to Faukes: "He confesseth that the same day that this detestable act should have been performed the same day should other of their confederacy have surprised the person of the Lady Elizabeth," etc. Precisely the same repetition occurs in the sixth of Mr. Attorney's suggested questions. "_Item_, was it not agreed that the same day that the act should have been done, the same day or soon after the person of the Lady Elizabeth should have been surprised," etc.?
Moreover, it is apparent that this interrogatory is not founded on information already obtained, but is, in fact, what is known as a "fishing" document, intended to elicit evidence of some kind. In the first place, some of its suggestions are mutually incompatible. Thus in another place it implies that not Elizabeth but her infant sister Mary was the choice of the queen-makers:--"Who should have been protector of the Lady Mary, who, being born in England, they meant to prefer to the crown. With whom should she have married?" (She was then seven months old.) Again it asks: "What should have become of the Prince?" as though he might after all be the sovereign intended.