sioners were catholics or friendly to catholics. There is no reasonable motive to be assigned for such a superfluous and dangerous crime. There was evidence enough to hang the conspirators without it. The confession contains statements which the government would not think of putting into their mouths; and, on the other hand, it contains nothing of what the government most keenly desiderated—evidence to incriminate the priests. There was, moreover, no object in forging Winter's handwriting, seeing that no use was to be made of the original. The king himself was shown only a copy. The corrections and erasures referred to, besides being characteristic of Winter's writing, are in this case clearly those of an author, not of a copyist or forger. Indeed the one striking instance of apparent parablepsy, or skipping, adduced by Father Gerard—viz. that of writing inadvertently and afterwards erasing the word ‘reasons’ (which would make no sense as it stands, but occurs in its proper place, about the space of a line's length further on)—is rather a proof of genuineness. The word is plainly not ‘reasons’ but ‘tearms,’ which the writer erased to substitute ‘oath.’ The single unexplained difficulty is the unusual spelling of the signature, a difficulty which is far from being lessened by attributing it to an expert forger, who would certainly have before him specimens of Winter's usual signature.
Robert Winter (d. 1606), married to Gertrude, daughter of John Talbot of Grafton, is, as might be expected, not mentioned in connection with the conspiracy in his brother's confession. He was, however, admitted to the plot, together with his brother-in-law, John Grant, at Oxford by Thomas Winter and Catesby early in 1605, when the increasing cost of the undertaking required the aid of more wealthy confederates. He did not work at the mine, and the chief interest of his career lies in the adventures and hardships which he underwent after his flight from Holbeche (‘A true historicall relation,’ Harl. MS. 360; extracts in Jardine, ii. 89). On 6 Nov. the conspirators had spent some time at his house at Huddington. They thence rode to Holbeche, where Robert, less resolute than his younger brother, stole away before the encounter with the sheriff's men. In company with Stephen Littleton, he hid for two months in barns and poor houses in Worcestershire, and was finally run to earth at Hagley, the house of Humphrey Littleton. A proclamation had been issued for his capture on 18 Nov. He was in the Tower and under examination on 17 Jan., and on the 21st wrote a long letter to the commissioners (printed by Jardine, ii. 147) relating his share in the conspiracy. He was executed on 30 Jan., the day before his brother Thomas. Both brothers are depicted in Pass's engraving ad vivum of the gunpowder plot conspirators, now in the National Portrait Gallery, London.
John Winter, son of George, by his second wife, Elizabeth Bourne (FOLEY, ib.), was arraigned and condemned for conspiracy with his two half-brothers, but was executed at Worcester with Father Oldcorne and others on 7 April 1606.
[Besides Jardine's Narrative and other books already referred to, see Tierney's Dodd, iv. 7–9, 35–65, lii–liv; Condition of Catholics in the Reign of James I, containing Father Gerard's Narrative, edited by Father Morris, S.J., 1871; the Life of a Conspirator, being a biography of Sir Everard Digby, by one of his Descendants, 1895 (a carefully written and important book); Traditional History and the Spanish Treason of 1601–3, by the Rev. John Gerard (reprinted from the Month), 1896; What was the Gunpowder Plot? The traditional story tested by critical evidence, by John Gerard, S.J., 1897; What the Gunpowder Plot was (an answer to the preceding), by S. R. Gardiner, 1897; The Gunpowder Plot and Gunpowder Plotters, in reply to Professor Gardiner, by John Gerard, S.J., 1897; Thomas Winter's Confession and the Gunpowder Plot (with facsimiles), by the same; Letters in the Athenæum on Winter's Confession, by S. R. Gardiner, 26 Nov. 1897 and 10 Sept. 1898.]
WINTER, THOMAS (1795–1851), pugilist, styled ‘Tom Spring,’ was born at Witchend, near Fownhope, Herefordshire, on 22 Feb. 1795, his father being a butcher with a large business. After serving in his father's trade he, at the age of seventeen, made discovery of his fighting powers by gaining an unexpected victory over a local bully named Hollands. Two years later, in 1814, he accepted a challenge to fight Henley, a local boxer of repute, and vanquished him after eleven rounds. From this time he definitively took up boxing as a profession, and assumed the name of Tom Spring. Early in 1817 he went up to London, and on 9 Sept. met at Moulsey Hirst a Yorkshireman named Stringer, the stakes being forty guineas and a prize given by the Pugilistic Club. Spring won the match with some ease in thirty-nine minutes, after twenty-nine rounds, the last of which was said to have been the severest ever seen. He next fought the celebrated Ned Painter for two hundred guineas on Mickleham Downs on 1 April 1818, and achieved a victory after thirty-one rounds [see Painter, Edward]. Later in the year, on 1 Aug., he
