- [1]
- Carte, Life of the Duke of Ormond.
- [2]
- A famous fanatic pamphlet against the government.
- [3]
- This spelling of the General's name has been disputed of late, such authorities as Professor Firth and Mr. Willcock preferring Monck. But the form here used seems as good, it has much tradition and authority on its side, and the point is, after all, of no special importance.
- [4]
- Blood's story of this exploit differs in some unimportant details, all reflecting credit on himself. He puts the number of his party at four, that of Darcy at eight. He tells how he happened on Darcy at an inn near Doncaster when almost ready to abandon the pursuit. He explains that two of Mason's party lingered behind and were put out of action by Blood and one of his companions, who then rode on to demand Mason from his guards and maintained an unequal fight with the seven men in Darcy's party for some time before reinforced by their two fellows. But Darcy's account supplemented by Leving's is much clearer and at least more plausible.
- [5]
- The Somers Tracts account says that it was Edwards' son and a pretended daughter of Blood, but this is almost certainly incorrect.
- [6]
- Though there is some confusion here. The cobbler who seized him exclaimed, "This is Tom Hunt who was in the bloody business against the Duke of Ormond," and Edwards' account to Talbot (Biog. Britt. II, 366) speaks of him as Blood's son-in-law. But his pardon was certainly made out to Thomas Blood, Jr., and there is no mention of the name Hunt. The explanation probably is that he was Thomas Hunt, Blood's son-in-law, but was called Blood by his father-in-law, and, like many men in that time, used either of the two names indifferently. It appears from Talbot's account that the cobbler and a constable who came up took Hunt to a nearby Justice of the Peace, one Smith, who was about to release him when news came of the attempt on the crown, and Hunt was then taken back to the Tower.
- [7]
- He seems also to have been examined by Dr. Chamberlain and Sir William Waller.
- [8]
- It was hinted that Buckingham had set Blood on to steal the crown in pursuance of some of his mad schemes for ascending the throne. And it is also charged that the King himself had employed the outlaw to get the jewels, pawn or sell them abroad and divide the proceeds. Beside such suggestions as these even Blood's letter sinks into the commonplace. At all events, as in the Ormond affair, it was and is generally believed that there were other influences at work behind his exploit.
- [9]
- Variously noted as 20, 24 and 27.
- [10]
- Thus Wheatley and Cunningham. John Timbs, in his Romance of London, says Blood lived first in Whitehall, then, according to tradition, in a house on the corner of Peter and Tufton Streets.
Transcriber's Note: Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note. Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained as printed. |
  |
