The  only  admissible  meaning  of  ClarendcMQ'a
words  isj,  that  ^'  Lord  Hertford  (afterwards
Duke  of  Somerset)  had  satisfied  the  King-'  of
the  impropriety  of  speaking  on  the  subiect.
We  must  otherwise  suppose  that  the  King
and  Clarendon  had  been  ^^  satisfied,"  or  per-
fectly convinced,  that  Charles  was  the  writer
of  the  Icon; — a  supposition  which  would-
convert  the  silence  of  the  Chancellor  and
the  levity  of  the  Monarch  into  heinous  of-
fences. The  message  of  Morley  to  Claren-
don demonstrates  that  they  had  previous
conversation  on  the  subject.  The  answer
shows  thaX  both  parties  knew  of  information
having  been  given  by  Somerset  to  the  King,
before  Gauden's  nomination  to  Exeter :  but
Gauden  had  at  that  time  appealed,  in  his
letters,  both  to  Morley  and  Somerset  as  his
witness.  That  Clarendon  therefore  knew  all
that  Morley  and  Somerset  could  tell,  is  no
longer  matter  of  inference,  but  is  estabhsbed
by  the  positive  testimony  of  the  two  survi-
vors in  1674.  Wa£staffe  did  not  peroeive
the  consequences  ofthe  letter  which  he  pnb*
liffhed,  because  he  had  not  seen  the  whole
correspondence  of  Gauden.  But  it  is  much
less  easy  to  understand,  how  those  w  ho  have
compared  the  letters  of  Gauden  with  the
messages  between  Clarendon  and  Morley^
should  not  have  discovered  the  irresistible
inference  which  arises  from  the  oomparison.
