Chapter XIII. Of The Arraignment And Condemnation Of Father Garnett.
Whereas it was now plainly and directly known unto the Council (by the means and in the manner aforesaid) how far this matter could be laid unto Father Garnett's charge; and that they had no further expectation to find him guilty of any help or furtherance at all given by him to this Powder Treason, it was resolved to proceed against him only upon his simple knowledge thereof which he had received in confession; esteeming it not fit to let go this opportunity, sith no greater advantage could be gotten; especially seeing by this time all men were full of expectation what would become of the matter after so long time of trial and so many and strict examinations. It was hoped also, that howsoever he might excuse himself from fault in the sight of God for not revealing the seal and secret of confession, yet that he could not justify it before the world: it being accounted treason by the laws of England to know of treason intended and not to reveal it. In which law (now) the knowledge which is had by confession is not excepted; because confession itself being in England rejected, the good and necessity of the secrecy thereof is not so much esteemed, as their public peace and prosperous proceedings in their worldly estate. Upon this ground therefore it was hoped they had matter enough against Father Garnett both to make him odious to the people, and all Jesuits for his sake; and therefore it was intended, that his trial should be performed in the most public and solemn manner they could devise, thereby to [pg 225] disgrace the more both him and his religion; for so in express words the Earl of Salisbury did twice publicly affirm in the time of his arraignment; and that otherwise such preparation and solemnity had not been needful for the arraignment of a poor religious man, and said “he held himself much honoured that day to be an assistant where God's cause should be so much honoured” (meaning the Protestants' religion). And how should this be performed? “By discrediting,” said he, “the person of Garnett, on whom the common adversary had thought to confer the usurpation of so eminent jurisdiction.” So that one may see plainly the whole day's work was bent against religion; and whatsoever was pretended against Father Garnett in this matter, all was directly intended “in odium Catholicæ Fidei.”[408] And so we may see in the process of the accusation, when the Attorney brought against Father Garnett all other former matter that had been forged against the martyrs in Queen Elizabeth's time, with which (if they had been true) yet they could no more have charged Father Garnett with them in justice, than the child that was then unborn.
Therefore the day appointed being come, which was a Friday, the 28th March, about eight of the clock, he was brought from the Tower in a coach with the Lieutenant of the Tower, Sir William Wade, and another Knight, the curtains being close drawn about them. Which manner of carriage to judgment being very extraordinary and not used to any before him, the people did much wonder at it, and thought it strange he should be so carried, considering that most of those that were indeed conspirators in the treason were men of better birth and blood than he (which by them is much respected) and yet were used in much different manner. But some did more truly guess that this was not done for any grace unto him (whom they sought to disgrace in all they could), but [pg 226] to grace their own cause, by making him seem a man of greatest account amongst the Papists, against whom they meant to object and hoped to prove the Powder Treason, and so all Papists to be as it were proved guilty in him they chiefly esteemed and followed. But the curtains doubtless were kept close, that the people might not be moved with the sight of so reverend a man, or he moved upon any occasion to speak unto them in his own clearing.
There were set in place of judgment in the Guildhall the Lord Mayor of London (who in that Court is the King's Lieutenant), the Lord Charles Howard, Earl of Nottingham, the Lord Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, the Lord Somerset, Earl of Worcester, the Lord Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, the Lord Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, with Sir John Popham, Lord Chief Justice of England, the Lord Chief Baron, and Justice Yelverton, Commissioners for His Majesty in that behalf, The Lieutenant of the Tower being come with Father Garnett to the place of judgment, he returned his writ unto the Council (by virtue whereof he had kept the prisoner) together with the body of the prisoner there present.[409]
The indictment was read and the prisoner called to hold up his hand at the bar, as the fashion is. The effect of the indictment was this. “That Henry Garnett, alias Walley, alias Farmer, alias Darcy, had conspired with Robert Catesby and the rest of his confederates (the 9th of June last past, in the parish of St Michael in the ward of Queenhithe in London) to withdraw the hearts of the subjects from their due obedience to God and their King, and to deprive the King of his crown, to kill him and the Prince, and to slaughter the whole Parliament assembled, to raise rebellion, to change religion, to ruin the commonwealth and to bring in strangers: and that this 9th of [pg 227] June he met with Catesby and Tesimond and did treat of means to accomplish the same, and did conclude that Winter, Faulks and others should blow up with powder the Parliament House.” To this indictment the prisoner pleaded “not guilty,” and for his trial referred himself to God and his country as the manner is. Whereupon a jury of substantial citizens was impanelled, and twelve of them sworn to try the issue between His Majesty and Henry Garnett according to the evidence produced against him; which being done, the indictment was read the second time, and then Sir John Crooke, Knight, the King's Serjeant, began to plead in this manner (as near as it could be remembered by two or three sufficient men that were present and did carefully observe both that and all the other speeches).
The speech of Mr. Crooke, the King's Serjeant.
“ ‘Nihil est occultum,’ ” said he, “ ‘quod non manifestabitur; nihil secretum quod non revelabitur.’[410] Thus saith the Truth itself, ‘qui consilium pravorum dissipat:’[411] which as it is generally true, so is the truth thereof laid open in the discovery of the late horrible treason, which though it were closely carried, yet by the providence of God, it hath been most apparently revealed. And truly when I cast mine eyes upon this prisoner, the rotten root of this corrupted tree of treason, I am stricken with great horror to think that under the cover of so grave a countenance, should lurk such a poisoned heart. He is a man, ‘multorum nominum sed nullius boni nominis’[412]—of no good name, nor honest conversation, but infamous for many treasons, and especially for this last and most abominable treason, whereby he intended the subversion of the King, Queen, Prince, State, and religion; and for testimony of his guiltiness therein,” he said, “they should have ‘loquentia [pg 228] signa, testimonia rerum,’ and ‘confitentem reum,’ nay, ‘reos confitentes,’[413] that is the persons guilty accusing one the other. We have,” said he, “Garnett and Hall accusing Greenway, as shall be laid open by the ensuing discourse of him to whom it belongeth.”
The speech of the Attorney-General.
This speech being ended, Sir Edward Coke, His Majesty's Attorney-General, began his speech with a low voice, that so his words could not at the first be so distinctly heard: but it tended to this effect. “That this was a later act of this horrible Powder Treason, that first he craved pardon of their Lordships that he might reiterate some things of which he had formerly discoursed, ‘quia nunquam nimis dicitur, quod nunquam satis discitur.’[414] Secondly, he craved pardon that without offence to any he might nominate some great persons, who were sometimes interested in some of these causes; but he would do it without any disgrace at all unto their persons, because,” said he, “there is great difference to be made between times of hostility and times of amity. Thirdly, he desired to satisfy two sorts of people that might marvel this execution of justice should be so long deferred; the first of such, as might think such delays inconvenient lest the impunity of the malefactors might seem to patronize the offence; the second of such persons, as might think the delay of trial argued his clearness in the cause. To those both he answered, that the Lords of the Council (whose great wisdom he would not in that place much commend, because ‘coram laudare est clam vituperare’[415]) had spent many days in examinations of those affairs, and that the prisoner had been twenty-three [times] examined; so that the trial could not have been much sooner.” (But this seemed to many rather an excuse than [pg 229] accusation to the prisoner, in whom there could not with so much labour and in so long time be found any crime to be justly imposed, for “frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora.”[416]) “But to draw nearer the cause of the prisoner,” said Mr. Attorney. “Henry Garnett, alias Walley, &c, is a man grave, discreet, wise, learned, and of excellent ornaments both of nature and arts.” (He might have added grace also, if he had had grace to see it.) “And one that, if he will, may do His Majesty as much good service as any subject I know in England.” (By this and the like speeches which it seems they used often, to work him to yield from profession of his faith, it is apparent they would have given him both life and much preferment, if he had not rather chosen to die for God than to live to the world.) “Besides this man,” saith he, “was a scholar in Winchester, from thence went to Oxford, and there was well esteemed.” (This Mr. Attorney did mistake, for he was never student in Oxford.) “But he hath abused his learning to the ruin of his country, as we shall hereafter declare in the discourse following, wherein I will speak of nothing but of this late horrible treason; which treason for distinction sake, I will call the Jesuits' treason: for the Jesuits were the authors thereof; therefore I will not do them the wrong to take from them anything which is theirs, especially seeing in every crime ‘plus peccat author quam actor,’[417] as it appeareth by Adam and Eve and the serpent.” (But here he presupposeth Father Garnett had counselled the Plot, as the indictment had said before, but that never was, nor ever can be proved.) “In this discourse I will speak of circumstances and observations touching the matter in hand: of no other circumstances but of treason, and of no other treasons but the Jesuits' treasons; and of no other Jesuits' treasons but such as shall particularly concern this prisoner, seeing all have been practised, since he was [pg 230] their Superior; and these circumstances I will divide into precedent, concurrent, and subsequent.
“For the precedent circumstances; you must understand this man hath been in England this twenty years, and from the very first hour he set foot in England hath been a notorious traitor, because he came in contrary to a statute made the year before his coming in, Anno 27º. of our late sovereign of happy memory, whereby it was made high treason for any Priest that had received Orders from any authority derived from the See of Rome beyond the seas, which I beseech your Lordships to observe; for of Queen Mary's Priests nothing was spoken in the law.” (And the reason hereof is given in the former ——[418] chapter, but here it is apparent, that this treason so earnestly urged, was merely matter of religion, as in all former martyrs.) “Contrary to which statute this prisoner came in, and by consequence at that very instant was a traitor. But he will say, this is a new law; these laws were never heard of before Luther's days; this law is a cruel law, a bloody law, prohibiting men to exercise their function, to gain souls to God; and that their religion is the old religion, where ours is the new and confined in England, where on the contrary side their religion is universal and embraced of the greatest part of this Christian world. And thus for the maintenance of their rotten religion, do they seek to disgrace our gospel and do calumniate just laws with title of cruelty. But to this I answer,” saith he, “that if our religion be as ancient as Luther, it is more ancient than the Jesuits are.[419] Albeit it neither be contained in those narrow limits of place, nor bounds of time, which they feignedly imagine, having been ever since the time of Christ [pg 231] and His Apostles. For we do not deny but Rome was the Mother Church and had thirty-two virginal Martyrs for her Popes a row; and so continued till in succeeding ages it brought in a mass of errors and idle ceremonies. But you will ask, where our Church lurked before Luther's coming for some hundreds of years. But I say it makes no great matter where it was, so that I be certain it was; for as a wedge of gold, if it be mixed with a mass of other metal,” &c. (By your leave, Mr. Attorney, if I know not where the true Church is, I cannot be of it: if I be not of it, I cannot be saved: and if this be no matter to you, yet to God's children it is a great matter. And your simile of the wedge is lame of all the feet: for the Church if it be invisible to all men is gone, “quia ore fit confessio ad salutem,”[420] and so Christ had no true servants on earth; but this is like your dream before that the true Church could degenerate into errors, and yet those coming in, no man being able to name the time, the place, nor the person, that did alter any substantial point of faith. But can Mr. Attorney think that Christ our Lord would put His candle under a bushel, which He had lighted with so great labour? And that which He saith no man will do, as being an idle and foolish thing, yet will Mr. Attorney have the Wisdom of God to do? But good Mr. Attorney, give me leave to believe Christ our Lord before you; and therefore that the city could not be hid which Christ had built upon a hill. And so your imagined gold is turned into alchymy, and passeth away in smoke; but if the material wedge of gold be hid, men say you know where to find it, if you will but search your coffers with half the pains you took to find out this invisible wedge of gold. Pardon me for this digression, I could not well let such false follies pass without a word or two; but I will not trouble the reader any more, but leave it to others: neither should I or any other have had need to admonish Mr. Attorney, if Father Garnett had been [pg 232] suffered to speak at large, as he was often of set purpose interrupted. But let us proceed in Mr. Attorney his speech.) “For as a wedge of gold, if it be dissolved and mixed with a mass of brass or other metal, it doth not lose its nature, but remaineth gold still, although we cannot determine in what part of the mass it is contained, but the touch-stone will find that out; so though our Church hath ever been since Christ His time in the world, yet being mixed and covered with innovations and errors we cannot tell in what part it was.” (This is the truest word in all Mr. Attorney his speech, but presently linked with the contrary, for he saith:) “And I dare say it is now more extended than theirs is, for we have all England, all Scotland, all Germany, all Denmark, a great part of France, all Poland, and some part of Italy. Now as for the statute which they call a bloody and cruel statute, I will make it apparent to be the mildest law, the sweetest law, the law most full of mercy and pity,” (It is a great pity it were not executed upon Mr. Attorney:) “that ever was enacted by any Prince so injuriously provoked as she was. And if I prove not this, then let the world say that Garnett is an honest man. And to prove this, we must remember that Pius or rather Impius Quintus, the Pope, in the eleventh year of our late Queen deceased, sent over a Bull of Excommunication against Her Majesty, discharging all her subjects from their allegiance, whereupon arose the insurrection in the North, and other rebellions, for which divers were apprehended and executed. And here we may observe the misery of Popish Catholics, who if they do obey the Bulls of the Pope are apprehended and hanged as traitors; and if they do not obey them, are by the Pope excommunicated and cursed. But to go forward: from this excommunication also proceeded that the Popish Catholics refused to come to our churches; so that the reason of refusal is not religion, but the Pope's Bull, which now being not of force, there is no doubt but that they both may and will come to [pg 233] our churches.” (False.) “Then after the suppression of the rebels in the North, the Popish Catholics being thought too weak to make a party, then did the Pope give them a toleration ‘rebus sic stantibus et donec commoda executio Bullæ fieri posset.’[421] Then to make a party of Popish Catholics against the Queen, was sent in Campion and a crew of Priests with him, that laboured to pervert Her Majesty's subjects and draw them to bloody practices, which Her Majesty sought to prevent, and withal out of her singular clemency made a law, and that the fullest of pity that could be devised, to wit, That they should keep themselves there (beyond the seas), and not to come into her dominions under pain of high treason. Now tell me I pray you, was this law made to spill their blood?” (Yes, either to spill the Blood of Christ by the loss of souls, if the Priests came not in, or if they did, then theirs.) “No, it was made to save their blood, by keeping them there, which by coming hither would be spilt in bloody practices” (which were fathered upon them, that it might not seem to be cause of religion.) “Then comes in Garnett in the twenty-seventh year of the Queen. His purpose was to prepare the way against the great compounded navy, which may well be called a compounded navy, because it consisted of the ships of all nations in Christendom, that either they could beg, hire, or borrow. He came in, I say, to be the forerunner of this navy. The Pope was the inciter and the Spaniards the actors; and this great navy was overthrown, not so much by our power, as by themselves, their own ships severing and scattering them. So that we may well apply those verses to our late sovereign, which Claudian sung to his Emperor Theodosius:
O nimium dilecta Deo, cui militat æther,
Et conjurati veniunt ad classica venti.[422]
“But was this a sufficient warning to the Romish Catholics to desist from their treasonable practices? No, for when they saw that open invasion served not their turn, they took themselves to private treacheries; insomuch that I dare boldly say” (but not truly) “there passed no four years without some one or other treason. For shortly after came Patrick Collyn, sent from Father Holt and Father Sherwood, two Jesuits, to kill the Queen. Shortly after cometh Lopez to poison the Queen, incited likewise by the instigation of the Jesuits.” (This Lopez was a Jew, the Queen's physician, living in London, a rich man, and knew no Jesuit in the world, nor was acquainted with any Catholics in England that I know of.) “After him came Yorke and Williams from Father Holt, who likewise had plotted to kill the Queen. Not long after him comes Squire, sent by Father Walpole from Spain, to poison Her Majesty.” And here Mr. Attorney desired licence to advertise the Lords that each of these treasons were accompanied with some devilish book. “As for example, the plot of Patrick Collyn was accompanied with the book of Philopater written by Cresswell the Jesuit, their ledger in Spain. Then cometh Squire with his plot, and this was accompanied with another most pernicious book written by Dolman, alias Persons, their great ledger[423] in Rome. And now we are come to the Spanish treason, which was in the forty-fourth year of our late sovereign. And that you may know there was a Spanish treason, you shall understand that Thomas Winter, and Father Greenway, alias Tesimond, the Jesuit, went over commended by Garnett to offer their obedience and service to the King of Spain, and to promise him their assistance, when time should serve for advancement of his title to the crown of England, and withal to entreat him to send them an army, to be conveyed hither by the galleys of Spinola; which army, if it were great, should land in Kent; if it were small, it might land at [pg 235] Milford Haven; that they should bring with them a round sum of money, and in the meantime to bestow some annual pensions upon certain discontented persons here; and that they for their part would prepare two thousand horses, which in such attempts were like to be the greatest want. This motion being made to the King, they were brought unto him; from him they were directed to the Duke of Lerma, who received them gracefully, and finally for their answer they were referred to the Conde de Miranda, who assured them the King his master liked very well of their motion and would be ready to further them in their just request, and would henceforward account the English as his own Castilians. With this resolution Thomas Winter and Greenway returned, expecting the next summer the arrival of their navy. And here were not wanting the books I mentioned before; but what books? They had no books indeed; but that want was supplied with two Breves or Bulls, as we call them, and they were most pernicious and treacherous, which by God's providence came lately to light. The first was directed ‘Principibus et Nobilibus Catholicis totius Regni Anglicani.’[424] The tenour of this first was an admonition that ‘postquam contigerit miseram fœminam e vitâ excedere,’ ”[425] &c. Here you may mark this foul-mouthed monster that calleth our dread sovereign of happy memory, “miseram fœminam;” being one of the most renowned of Princes. (Here the reader indeed hath cause to mark a foul mouth, that durst call the Vicegerent of God Himself a foul-mouthed monster; nor will he mark that the Bull speaking only of the time after the Queen's death, was not to accompany the army, which, if any such were intended, was to come at a certain prefixed time; yea, it rather showeth the Pope would have nothing attempted in her lifetime.) “But well,” saith he, “what followeth in the Bull? Marry, when it shall happen that miserable woman [pg 236] shall depart this life, they shall not admit of any other to succeed in her place, ‘quâcumque propinquitate sanguinis niteretur,’[426] except that first they promise not only to tolerate the Catholic religion, but also do bind themselves by oath to maintain it and no other: and this to deprive King James from his rightful inheritance” (nay, rather to move him to be Catholic, and so to get him also a much greater kingdom in Heaven). “To exclude him therefore cometh this roaring Bull, that warned them also to give notice of her sickness or death, as soon as may be, when it should happen, to his Legate in Flanders. And so accordingly presently upon her indisposition, Christopher Wright was despatched with letters of commendation from Garnett the Jesuit, as appeared by a confession then produced and read. And here, my Lords, let me observe another circumstance very markable; that these peculiar traitors were severally commended by Garnett the Jesuit, as for example, Thomas Winter went over: wherefore? For treason; and yet was he commended by Garnett the Jesuit. Christopher Wright went over: wherefore? For treason; and yet was he likewise commended by Garnett the Jesuit. Guy Faulks was sent over: wherefore? For treason—that is, to solicit and deal with Owen, that Spinola and Sir William Stanley might draw their forces near to the sea-side, that when the time served they might come over with the more expedition: and yet he also is commended by Garnett the Jesuit. Sir Edward Baynham was sent over to acquaint the Pope with this business, when the blow should be given” (By this known untruth the rest may be judged of the better:) “which Edward Baynham was a fit messenger between the Pope and the devil; and yet he had also letters of commendation from Garnett the Jesuit. So that hereby it is apparent that Garnett was not only privy, but consenting to their several practices. Now when King James was settled in this kingdom, and received of all, then did Garnett burn the Bull. But out of [pg 237] that Bull did Catesby infer that it was lawful for him to entertain any practice against our sovereign that now is; for, said he, it is as lawful for us to expel him and cast him out now, seeing by experience he doth persecute religion, as by the Breve it was lawful to resist him and reject, when we did but fear he would not favour Catholics.” (True it is Mr. Catesby did argue thus; but was answered by Father Garnett, that the case was not like before and after admission, and that we must not by ourselves attempt anything, the Pope now commanding to be quiet.) “The other Bull was to the Archpriest and his associates, commending their patience and longanimity, and willing them to counsel all sorts of lay people to be forward in execution of the Pope's command. Well then, out of these circumstances, I infer that Garnett was not only privy, but an author and actor in this treason.
“But now let us consider other circumstances that are ‘omni acceptione majores.’[427] Your Lordships must understand that Garnett would not be known to any of the actors in these bloody practices, but only to Catesby, being a man ‘vafro et versuto ingenio et profundâ perfidiâ,’[428] so that all we have against him must be chiefly drawn from himself.” (Indeed Mr. Catesby was dead, and never affirmed any such thing, and the rest of the conspirators in their examinations and public speeches affirmed the contrary; so that Mr. Attorney did want proof very much, when he brought in a dead man to be witness, like to them that brought the sleeping soldiers at Christ His sepulchre to be witnesses that his body was stolen whilst they were asleep.) “Well then, this Garnett confesseth that Catesby had in general imparted to him that something would be done by the Catholics, but could not reveal in particular what it was without the consent of two others of his consorts, which Garnett saith he dissuaded him from; but how know we [pg 238] that he did so? Only by his own words, who useth to deal sincerely in nothing that concerneth himself. But I will prove that he did not dissuade them, but did encourage them, even to the Powder Treason itself.” (Here, by the way, I would gladly ask Mr. Attorney how he doth save the accusation recited in the indictment from a false slander, where it is said that Garnett and Greenway did in the beginning meet with Catesby at Queenhithe, and there conclude upon destroying the King and Queen and the Parliament House by powder? How could this be true, seeing that here now long after, and after the gentlemen had concluded as it seems of the matter, and bound one another to secrecy, so that as you see Mr. Catesby could not reveal it to Father Garnett without leave of two others, Father Garnett was all this while ignorant of it: yea, and now also had but a general knowledge of something to be done, from which also he dissuaded them? We may see in this contradiction Father Garnett his innocency; and that Mr. Attorney should be mindful of what he hath said, if he will not say the truth. But let us see how he seeketh to prove by likelihoods, that here Father Garnett, getting some knowledge of the thing in general, did persuade it in particular.) “For Father Garnett,” said he, “confesseth moreover that Mr. Catesby did in general terms propound a case unto him, whether it were not lawful to destroy many enemies assembled together to our ruin, although some innocents must needs be inwrapped in the slaughter. To this Garnett answered that in just war when a town or castle is besieged that could not be taken without battering the walls, and that not to be performed without perishing of some innocents, in that case, if the advantage which redounded to the general good by the death of those enemies were greater than the loss should be by the destruction of those innocents, that then it was lawful. I beseech your Lordships [pg 239] mark here, that Garnett approveth this fact in particular; for this resolution was Catesby's whole ground; and this I prove by Rookwood his confession (which he brought forth), and therein it appeared that when Catesby made the first overture of this matter unto him, he conceived great horror of the fact in respect of the innocents that were to be there, whereunto Catesby answered, that he had advice of the most learned, that it was lawful, not by proposing the case in particular, but in a like.” (Here Mr. Attorney, by his plain proof which he promised, hath proved himself to be guilty of a malicious and false inference, and Father Garnett to be clear from all furtherance to the Plot. For, first, this case was put to Father Garnett before the time this general notice of something in hand was given him by Mr. Catesby: though here Mr. Attorney did maliciously put it after, to make it seem that Father Garnett might gather some light what should be meant by them, hearing now this particular case out of the former general knowledge, which the Attorney saith he had before received. But the general knowledge came after, which I prove by these alleged words of Mr. Attorney. For here he saith, he had resolution in this case before he acquainted Rookwood; and that general knowledge was given after the matter was commenced: for, so he said, there was something in hand, but he could not tell him without leave of two; at which time Father Garnett refused to know the matter, but dissuaded it in general. Now that he proveth also Father Garnett clear from persuasion or consent, I prove by his own words, where he saith that Mr. Catesby persuaded Mr. Rookwood to yield, upon the resolution he had received of the like case, not of the same case; whereby it appears, they first concluded of it amongst themselves, and the rest consented to it, without Father Garnett his knowledge or privity, much less his counsel. Now whereas Mr. Attorney will needs conclude, that because Mr. Catesby did infer the lawfulness of the [pg 240] particular out of the resolution in general, therefore Father Garnett should be guilty of the powder; by the same reason he may prove many Doctors in the Schools, and the most learned writers that are or have been, to be guilty of the same treason; for they deliver the same doctrine in the same case, as it was put to Father Garnett. And as they, being wholly ignorant of the matter, cannot be touched with it, for delivering their true opinion, so Father Garnett, when that case was put, thought of nothing less than that they had any such intent. And afterward when he perceived something in general, that he also laboured to hinder by persuasion: and so no way to be blamed, but much to be commended, if he had his right).
“Then further,” says Mr. Attorney, “Garnett, under pretence of a journey to St. Winifred's Well, and I know not what marriage, retired himself into Warwickshire, which was the rendezvous for all the conspirators, pretending he had no place to abide in until the Parliament.” (It is well known to many Catholics that all the safe lodgings which Father Garnett had about London were lately before discovered, and that was a chief cause of his journey; and it was unfit to take a new house about London, before they might see what laws would be made at the Parliament, which were expected would be such as there would be no abiding there.) “He also made a prayer for the great business about the Parliament time, which was
Gentem[429] auferte perfidam
Credentium de finibus,
Ut Christo laudes debitas
Persolvamus alacriter.”[430]
Now for the subsequent circumstances Mr. Attorney produced, an interlocution between Father Garnett and Father Ouldcorne in the Tower; which thing is before declared at large and therefore needs not here be set down, the chapter growing too long by other points not before so much declared. Only this here is to be noted, that Mr. Attorney reported the matter otherwise than it was; for he said, that by reason the Tower was full of prisoners, the Lieutenant was constrained for want of room to lodge them in two chambers joining one upon another, which they perceiving did often discourse together, and being overheard by the Lieutenant's men passing to other prisoners, some of them were placed near adjoining to overhear them.[431] And so out of that interlocution, and Father Garnett his confession taken by the Lords after the same, he proved that Father Garnett was told in confession of the Powder Treason; which point alone he was able to prove against Father Garnett, and the which Father Garnett acknowledged, but proved it to be both lawful and necessary for him to proceed as he did therein. Then Mr. Attorney began to exaggerate the greatness of the treason, because it was intended against so worthy a Prince, and so noble a progeny, in whose praises he spent a long time; but not needful to be set down in this place. Then he praised and sought to please the City of London, affirming that the King, in desire to give contentment unto the city, had caused that solemn trial to be made in that place, which belonged to the public justice of the city.
Then he returned to Father Garnett, and said that he and the Jesuits had plotted these foresaid treasons against all these so worthy persons; and that the Jesuits were Doctors of four D's; first of Dissimulation, wherein he made an invective against the doctrine of equivocation, showing a [pg 242] written book of that matter which had been taken in some search, the title whereof was written with Father Garnett his own hand, “Against lying and untruths;” and, said Mr. Attorney,[432] “If this doctrine might be admitted, that men may swear and forswear what they list, there would be no martyrs: the holy Ridley, Cranmer, and Latimer would not have been martyred.” (These were three notorious heretics burnt in Queen Mary's time.) “The thirty-two Popes, that were virginal martyrs, would not have suffered on a row. This doctrine was begun by Arius, who having a schedule of the Catholic doctrine in his left hand, and another of his own opinion in his bosom, laid his right hand upon his breast and sware he believed and would maintain that doctrine he had in his hand during his life.” (Many such things he said against “equivocatio,” either mistaking or misreporting wholly the state of the question.) The second D, he said, was Deposing of Princes, for which he produced a place out of Philopater, affirming that heretics cannot bear rule over Catholics; and another out of Dolman's book of titles to the like effect, also two places of Simanha, whom he termed the Spanish Jesuit. The first, that all heretics were excommunicate de jure at Easter, and were excommunicate de facto. The second was that a Prince once excommunicate “amittit jus regnandi;”[433] and not only for himself, but for his heirs. The third D, is the Disposing of kingdoms, for proof whereof, he alleged that they would have disposed of the kingdom of England to the Infanta of Spain, without any memory of King James. The fourth and last D, was the Deterring of Princes with fear of their excommunications, and I know not what. And then, with some invectives against Jesuits, he dehorted all men from conversing with them, with this saying, “Qui cum Jesu itis, non itis cum Jesuitis.” “Neither,” said he, “are [pg 243] their Priests less perilous than they of whom I hope I may presage the destruction near at hand; for seeing I am informed they are in number about four hundred, they may fitly be resembled to the four hundred false prophets that Micheas had in his company;[434] for as they were possessed of lying spirits and then perishing, so may we hope that these Priests and Jesuits publicly teaching this doctrine of lying and equivocating are near their downfall.” And then making a low reverence he concluded his speech.
Father Garnett his speech.
Mr. Attorney having ended,[435] Father Garnett, having first made his reverence with a very modest countenance began his speech, first craving pardon for the weakness of his memory, if he should fail to give them satisfaction in any particular that had been objected against him. “But I trust,” said he, “with the help of Mr. Attorney, I shall fail in nothing of consequence. And considering the whole discourse of Mr. Attorney, I find the things by him treated of, may be reduced to four principal heads: the first, concerning our doctrine in general; the second, concerning recusants in general; third, concerning Jesuits in general; the last, concerning myself in particular.
1. Concerning Catholic doctrine in general.
“And for the first, Mr. Attorney inveigheth greatly against that point of doctrine wherein we teach that equivocations in some cases may be lawfully used, as a doctrine which he supposeth to hinder Martyrs from their crowns and to break the bonds of human society; neither of which can ensue out of that doctrine, as we do teach it. For we do not teach (as Mr. Attorney affirmeth) that it is lawful to equivocate in matters of faith; but we teach the contrary most expressly, rejecting that doctrine as an heresy, condemned long since in the Priscilianists. Yea, some Catholics have suffered death for answering [pg 244] directly to questions which they might have avoided, but that they feared they should then equivocate in matters of faith, or seem to deny their religion. And, my Lords, because I have discoursed to your Lordships of this point heretofore, and to other learned men sent to me in the Tower, I will be the shorter at this present: and as I say, it is never lawful to equivocate in matters of faith, so also in matters of human conversation, it may not be used promiscually, or at our pleasure; as in matters of contract, in matters of testimony, or before a competent judge, or to the prejudice of any third person: in which cases we judge it altogether unlawful. But only we think it lawful when it is no way prejudicial to others and to be used for our own or our brother's good, or when we are pressed to questions that are hurtful to be answered unto, or urged upon examination to answer to one who is no competent judge, or who would force us to open matters not liable to his court: as if they should examine me of the secrets of my heart, or the secrets I have heard in confession; because these secrets are not liable to any external court, I may in these cases, for avoiding of inconvenience, and redeeming my own vexation, lawfully use some reservation. Neither doth this liberty prejudice any whit human conversation; but it is conformable to reason, agreeable to the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and to the consent of all learned men, without contradiction of any one that ever I heard or read of, who teach generally with St. Thomas of Aquin, affirming the same which I have said, in several places, and specially in that place where he teacheth that if a Confessor should by any man whosoever be examined concerning points which he knoweth only by confession, he may lawfully, yea, he is bound to disavow them. And this doctrine is also found in the Scripture itself; for confirmation whereof, I will cite only two places. The first is that place where our Saviour being demanded concerning the Day of Judgment by His disciples made answer, ‘De [pg 245] die illâ nemo novit, neque Angeli Dei, neque filius hominis, nisi solus Pater.’[436] But certain it is that Christ our Saviour did know of the Day of Judgment, not only as He was God, but as He was Man also, as all holy Doctors and Divines do constantly affirm. Wherefore it cannot be denied but therein He used some mental reservation. For lying can no ways be tolerable and much less practised by Him that is the rule and measure of all truth, as St. Augustine excellently proveth in that place where he distinguisheth eight kind of lies, all of them being sins; and the least of those when it is ‘mendacium officiosum,’ to the good of some, without the hurt of any. So that seeing this saying of our Saviour cannot be verified otherwise but, as St. Augustine expoundeth it, with this secret reservation that He knew it not to reveal it, it cannot be denied but these reservations in some cases are lawful. The second example is, where He said to His Disciples, ‘Vos ascendite ad diem festum hunc: ego autem non ascendo ad diem festum istum.’[437] And yet, notwithstanding, the Evangelist affirmeth that after they were gone to the feast, ‘tunc et ipse ascendit ad diem festum non manifeste, sed quasi in occulto,’[438] which argueth that in this general denial to go, He meant only that He would not go in public, which in His mind He reserved.”
Here my Lord of Salisbury interrupted the prisoner and said, that because the truth was oftentimes more plainly discovered by interposition of questions and answers, than by a continual speech delivered together, he would ask of Mr. Garnett one question concerning that doctrine he delivered. “For you teach it,” said he, “to be unlawful to equivocate before a competent judge, and I trust you take [pg 246] us to be such. At the least I do. Now did not you deny in the Tower unto me with earnest asseveration, that you had not any conference with Hall, until the witness was produced against you, and then you confessed it? Is not this to equivocate before a competent judge, and in a matter of small consequence?” To this the prisoner answered that he did so because, until the witness came, he did think the matter wholly secret, and therefore not liable to the examination of any judge, though otherwise competent; besides he deemed it prejudicial to a third person, whom then he accounted an honest man. Then he went forward in his speech.
“The second point of our doctrine,” said he, “that Mr. Attorney greatly inveigheth against, is the doctrine of deposing of Princes and excommunicating of Kings. Whereof although I could discourse at large, yet for that I am unwilling in this honourable assembly to speak anything which may be offensive to His Majesty or to them, I will only say a word or two in just excuse of myself and my brethren, the Catholics of England. And, first, I beseech your Lordships to consider that our doctrine in this point is the very same which is taught and holden by all Catholic Divines and other subjects in all Catholic Universities and countries of the Christian world, which subjects are not by their Princes censured for this doctrine or condemned as traitors, nor their doctrine judged to be seditious or treasonable. And therefore I cannot see why we, concurring with them and with all our predecessors in this kingdom, without innovation or changing any one principle or tittle in that matter, should be so severely branded with such notes of infamy. Secondly, for clearing our case the more, I will observe a great difference to be made between our Sovereign that now is, and other Princes that have once embraced and professed the Catholic faith and do afterwards revolt and decline into heresies, parting themselves from that body unto which they were before united, disjoining [pg 247] and dividing themselves from that Head to whom before they had submitted themselves and by whom they were governed; for they incur the censures which those authors, cited by Mr. Attorney, do speak of, and are punishable by that power which in precedent times they admitted. But His Majesty's case is different from theirs; for he maintaineth no other doctrine than that which from his cradle he hath been nourished and brought up in. And therefore those general sentences are not by any private man to be applied to his case in particular.” Here the Earl of Salisbury again interrupted him and demanded if the Pope could excommunicate King James, his Sovereign. The prisoner answered, “My Lord, I cannot deny the authority of His Holiness.” Then my Lord of Salisbury demanded, whether if he should be excommunicated, it were lawful for his subjects to rebel against him. “My Lord,” said he, “I have already answered that point. I beseech your Lordship to press me no further. You have my opinion in the Canon of Nos Sanctorum which I before alleged.” Then Mr. Attorney produced the Canon, which was publicly read with derision of divers standers-by, who thought it ridiculous that the Pope should have such authority over Princes.
2. Concerning recusants in general.
After this the Father proceeded and the second thing he would answer unto, should be recusants in general, “who,” saith he, “are accused by Mr. Attorney that they only grounded their recusancy upon the excommunication of the Queen by Pius Vtus, which, if it were true, then Mr. Attorney did infer that, seeing that our Sovereign that now is stands not excommunicate, it were lawful to repair to the churches and service of England. But if this were lawful, doubtless Catholics would have done it before this, thereby to avoid the penalty of those statutes which in that case are enacted. Neither is it true, that Mr. Attorney so constantly avoucheth, that till the eleventh [pg 248] year of Queen Elizabeth all Catholics did resort to their churches. For I knew many Catholics at that time living, that I am certain never went to Protestants' churches in their lives. And Sir Thomas Fitzherbert of my knowledge did not only refuse it before that time himself, but also had written a treatise to prove that it could not be tolerated in any Catholic; and it is apparent to the world that before that time many Catholic Bishops and Priests were imprisoned for their refusal. Whereby it is evident that their recusancy is not founded upon any excommunication; but only upon mere matter of conscience, judging it unlawful to communicate in their service[439] with such as have separated themselves from the Church. Which doctrine is as ancient as the condemnation of the Arian heresy; for even then the Catholics refused in divinis to communicate with the Arians, albeit they had Priests, Masses, Altars and their whole service, the same both in substance and ceremony. Which doctrine hath also been taught by the most learned of the Protestants, Calvin, Luther, Beza and others, who all teach it to be unlawful to be present at our service, not only at Mass, which they count idolatry, but at Evensong also. Yet I grant this point was not so clearly understood by Catholics here until the Council of Trent, where twelve most grave and learned men were appointed to consult and conclude of this matter; who without controversy determined, that it was in no case lawful to communicate with the heretics in their service, no, not to avoid any torment whatsoever. And their decision was by the whole Council approved; although the same was also concluded of by the Council of Nice above 1,300 years ago.” Here again he was interrupted by my Lord of Salisbury, saying, “You go about to seduce the people.” The rest of his speech only tended to the City of London, and seemed to tell them they should see such an anatomy of the Popish doctrine, that he hoped after that it would [pg 249] not have so many followers, with other words to like effect; which speech being ended, the prisoner resumed his discourse and said:
3. The Jesuits in general.
“The third thing I determined to speak of was the Jesuits in general; of whom some have been by Mr. Attorney accused of undertaking several treasonable attempts, as the matters of Patrick Collyn, Yorke, Williams, and Squire, of all which I can say no more but this, that I have had the hands and protestations of those Fathers that are accused, as Father Holt and Father Walpole, who on their salvations affirm they never treated with the parties concerning any such matter; and that it was very unlikely, seeing the enterprisers of them were no Catholics, or but feigned Catholics, as Yorke and Squire were, who died Protestants, and were of so little acquaintance with those Fathers that it was no way probable they would employ them in matters of such weight. And howsoever they might in time of torture, or for fear, be brought to accuse themselves, yet at their death some of them discovered the practices and protested they died innocent of the facts for which they suffered, as Williams and Squire did. And for Father Sherwood, accused also by Mr. Attorney, there neither is nor was any such Father of the Society. Indeed there was one of that name that entered the Society; but he died before he came to be Priest. But I am sure there was none such of the Society, as Mr. Attorney accuseth.
4. Father Garnett in particular.
“Now for myself in particular. First I protest I am clear from approving, and much more from furthering, either this or any other treasonable attempts, and have ever thought and taught them to be unlawful; and have by all my best endeavours laboured to divert and suppress them. True it is,[440] that I did understand in general by Mr. Catesby,[441] that [pg 250] he would have attempted something for the good of Catholics; which I dissuaded him from so effectually, that I well hoped he would have desisted from all such pretences. And this I revealed not, because as a Religious Priest I thought to suppress it between him and me; which course our Saviour prescribeth, warning us, that if our brother offend in anything, we should admonish him between him and us: and if this prevail, ‘Lucratus es fratrem tuum,’[442] saith our Saviour; and if that reclaim him not, then we may proceed further. Now, my Lords, because I was persuaded that upon this admonition he would give over his former designs, I held myself in conscience discharged from making any further discovery of that practice. Howbeit that in your common law I think that insufficient, in regard it deemeth it not convenient to leave the safety of the commonwealth depending on the discretion or peculiar provision of any private person. But yet, my Lords, that I did dislike such proceedings, and as much as I could did endeavour to reclaim them, your Lordships may gather by the express commandment which I procured by means of our Superior, whereby was expressly forbidden all attempts against the King in general, and also by the endeavours I used as seriously as I could to procure the like prohibition, and that under pain of some heavier censure: which I would never have endeavoured, if I had any way approved it. And I knew very well His Holiness much disliked all such courses; and, as I was informed, commended my care and vigilancy in seeking to repress the former stirs, wherein Watson and Clarke did join with others the first year of the King's coming into England. And lastly, in that I knew them to be contrary to our Religious obedience (of which virtue in the Society we make special account), by which we were expressly forbidden to meddle in any such causes.”
Here Mr. Attorney interrupted him and said, that he [pg 251] did not forbid them, for he could prove no such matter, but only by his words, who used to speak the best in favour of himself, “and,” said he, “for that prohibition which you procured, I do not think you did it for love to us, but for your own ends, lest that by some matter of small importance your main plot should be prevented and hindered.” To this he answered, “That all were prohibited in general, and therefore it could not be in favour of any one in particular.” (Besides that prohibition was procured long before Father Garnett knew of this particular designment of those gentlemen, which as it appears by all proofs, was long after the powder was all placed, and but a little time before it should have been put in execution.) “And, Mr. Attorney,” said Father Garnett, “howsoever you labour to misconstrue my intentions, my meaning was so as I have said. And to proceed further, I am blamed also for giving letters of commendation to Mr. Thomas Winter and Faulks and others that went over (as now it appears) for accomplishing of treasons. And to this I answer, that I gave them indeed letters of commendation; but I protest I knew not that they went over about matters of treason, for that I never inquired of their businesses. But if I knew them to be Catholic men and of good conversation, then,[443] without further inquiry, I gave them letters to testify so much to my friends beyond seas, desiring their favours and furtherance for them in any ordinary matter of courtesy or charity. And the like letters I have given to divers other Catholics that were no ways to be touched with any treacherous attempts: and these were altogether unknown to me.”
Here my Lord of Salisbury did interrupt him. “Mr. Garnett,” said he, “did you give them the letters without knowing the end why they were sent over?” “Yea, my Lord,” said he. “Why,” said my Lord of Salisbury, “did not you yourself tell me that you did nominate Sir Edmond Baynham as a fit man to go over to the [pg 252] Pope?” “My Lord,” said Father Garnett, “I told your Honour thus much: that it was thought convenient that some one should inform His Holiness of the estate of our country, and that it was a great charge to send over one of purpose for that business; knowing therefore that Sir Edmond Baynham was going over, and had been so resolved for above two years, I thought it better, that now he might discharge that care and save that charge, than that one should be sent over to the Pope of set purpose to inform of the state of England.” “Nay,” said my Lord of Salisbury, “you told me that Sir Edmond Baynham went over to acquaint the Pope with this Plot of Treason, and that therefore you would not have him said to be sent by you, because the Pope would be offended that you employed a layman in that business.” “My Lord,” said Father Garnett, “at the going over of Sir Edmond Baynham I did not know of that treason myself, and therefore could not think that Sir Edmond went to acquaint him with it.” (Note the modesty of this Father that would not contradict the Earl, although the matter touched him very near; but rather proved, by a necessary consequence, that he could not say so unto him, than he would seem to aver the other had misreported his words.) “Nay I am persuaded,” said the Father, “that Mr. Catesby would not have revealed the matter in particular to the Pope himself. Howbeit, afterwards I imagined with myself that peradventure Mr. Catesby by his means might intend to acquaint His Holiness with some pretence in general for the Catholic cause, which they would undertake if His Holiness should approve it And this I supposed only because Mr. Catesby promised me that he would not go forward with any attempt till the Pope had been acquainted and made privy to it And I said to your Lordship, that therefore I would not that Sir Edmond should be sent from us; for that it would displease the Pope we should send or employ any person whomsoever in the [pg 253] affairs of England; but refer them to others, whom it more concerned.”[444]
Then Mr. Attorney replied that Mr. Faulks had confessed that Sir Edmond Baynham was to give notice unto the Pope of this their attempt: and to this effect was produced a confession of Faulks which said that Sir Edmond Baynham was sent to Rome to acquaint the Pope with the matter when the blow should be given, and to crave his assistance and furtherance in all. To this he answered: “What they determined, I know not. And it may be, they thought at that time to have conveyed him some letter to give him notice thereof. But it is more than I know, and very unlikely that the first news should come by me, for the common fame and rumour thereof would have prevented my letters by a great while.” Then said Mr. Attorney: “You see, my Lords, what great care this man had for the preventing of this so great a danger; and yet he saith he did not approve nor consent to it. But I will prove that he did both; for, as I have said before, he gave Catesby the resolution that it was lawful to be done not in that case, but in another like to it; which notwithstanding was the sole ground Catesby stood upon, as appeareth by Rookwood's confession, before alleged and now again produced and read. Besides he made a prayer for the good success of the Powder Treason, about the time it should have been put in practice, he having known thereof in particular before by Greenway his confession.”
The case concerning innocents, answered by Father Garnett.
To this the prisoner answered: “That the case was proposed to him in general, and so he resolved it, being a case common in all just wars, where if a town could not be taken, or a wall beaten down without the death of some innocents, all casuists do hold that fact to be lawful. But that Mr. Catesby misapplied this general question, was neither fault nor approbation of mine; which when I heard [pg 254]
The prayer objected to Father Garnett answered by him.
of, I conceived a great horror at the thing itself, and thought it would be a scandal and disgrace to Catholics; and therefore, besides the former means which I had used to suppress it, I did also in my prayers desire some milder course might be taken, if it were God's will.” “Nay,” said my Lord of Salisbury, “you prayed not with that condition; for you said to me in the gallery, that although we did not approve of your Masses, yet you did think assuredly that they had done us good; for you prayed heartily that it might not come to pass, except it were for the good of the Church.” Father Garnett answered “that he said not so; but that he desired God to make a milder course, if it were His holy will. As for the prayer upon All-Hallow Day, wherein you note those words so precisely, ‘Gentem auferte perfidam,’ you must understand it was the hymn of the same Feast, which in my exhortation I admonished the hearers to iterate unto Almighty God for the Catholic cause, the Parliament being then at hand, and great fears in us of more severity ensuing towards us; and therefore I meant not the Powder Treason, but to desire God that He would put in the mind of His Majesty and the Lords there assembled in the Parliament not to permit those rigorous laws to pass against us, which we feared would at that time be concluded of, and to restrain the too much forwardness of some others in the company that were more violent against us.” “Indeed,” said Mr. Attorney, “you said you would so colour it.” “No, in truth,” said the Father, “that was my true intention.”
Then witnesses were called into the Court which had heard the interlocution; and Mr. Attorney spake in commendation of one of them, saying he was a great linguist, a Justice of Peace, and a learned man, and one that would do wrong to no man. Father Garnett said he thought so too, but he might be mistaken, for that which he said was no more but that he could answer that point very well, for he [pg 255] would say (as in truth it was) that he meant, that the laws intended might not pass against us. “And how say you, Mr. Fawcet, bethink yourself, were you not mistaken?” (Here one may see the good Father had some hope left, that some sparks of grace and true dealing had been left in the man according to his former promises of friendly meaning; but he found the contrary, and that they were agreed together what they would aver, “convenientes in unum adversus christum Domini,”[445] for he answered,) “No,” said he, “we both understood it so and writ it down so, and have had so great care to do you no wrong, that we omitted divers things wherein we agreed not, and nothing was set down, but with both our consents.” “No,” saith my Lord of Salisbury, “if we would touch you with the testimony of one witness, we could charge you with further matters than these, but we will not do so, that the world may see what mildness and mercy we use in execution of justice, and to this end my Sovereign determined that your trial should be in this honourable assembly. For who is Garnett that he should be called hither; or we should trouble ourselves in this Court with him? which I protest were sufficient for the greatest Cardinal in Rome, if in this case he should be tried. No, Mr. Garnett, it is not for your cause that you are called hither, but to testify to the world the foulness of your fact, the errors of your religion, and His Majesty's clemency. For these causes His Majesty ordained your trial should be in this Court before this honourable assembly, wherein we may glory as much as if the greatest Cardinal in Rome were pleading at the bar. And, therefore, the witness is a man of reputation and who would do you no wrong.”
Mr. Garnett said he thought so too, but he might be mistaken. “No,” said my Lord of Salisbury, “he was near you enough to understand your words: for Hall and you, of policy, were lodged so near one to the other and in such a [pg 256] place where your interlocutions might be easily heard.” (Here it appears Mr. Attorney his speech was idle when he said it was for want of rooms and by chance that they were overheard; but he did not foresee that the Earl meant to make the truth in this point of policy serve his turn for a further policy, as here it appeareth. Unto which end also the good usage was directed to satisfy the Ambassadors who were then present, and others that were like to inquire of his usage in particular.) “For Christian policy is not to be condemned in any well-governed commonwealth, and if we should not use such courses, I know not how we should deal with such people as you. You have in your pamphlets so described us for cruelties and persecutions. But let him testify that is here at the bar, whether he hath not been used with extraordinary favour? How say you, Mr. Garnett, is it not so?” “My Lord,” said the Father, “I must acknowledge my entreaty to have been very honourable, for which I esteem myself much bound to His Majesty.”
Then my Lord of Salisbury urged that he was bound to have discovered the Powder Treason which he knew by Greenway his confession, “being no sacramental confession by your own laws,” said he, “for it had no contrition and was de futuris, and so could not be a Sacrament in your own religion.” (This point is answered where the thing itself is particularly declared at the time and place when it happened. Here the Father did only answer to the Earl's chief intention and said:) “Though he nothing doubted but Mr. Greenway had contrition and all things needful to make it a sacramental confession, yet howsoever the party were penitent or not, the Confessor may not reveal it without mortal sin, if he utter himself in confession, and not in derision of the Sacrament.” Then said the Earl of Northampton, “Mr. Garnett, Greenway in his reservative clause was more careful of you than of the King or commonwealth, in giving liberty to you to reveal [pg 257] it in time of your own danger, which should have been rather to have prevented the danger to the King and commonwealth.” Father Garnett answered that Mr. Greenway having it himself also from them by confession, was restrained and limited how far he should give leave to open it; and that the Confessor hath no extensive liberty at all further than the penitent gives unto him.
Then said the Earl of Nottingham, “Mr. Garnett, if a man should tell you in confession that he would stab the King with a dagger to-morrow, are you not bound to reveal it?” “My Lord,” said he, “unless I could know it by some other means, I might not.” Hereupon the people fell into a great laughter, not understanding that the secrecy of confession concerneth a greater good in the life of many souls, than the corporal life can be of any particular man. When the laughter ceased, the Father proceeded and said, “In that case, my Lord, my duty were to dissuade the party from it, to refuse to give absolution, and by all[446] means to labour to divert it, which might not open the confession.”
Then said the Earl of Northampton, “Mr. Garnett, you were consenting to the Powder Treason, for you did not forbid it: and it is a case by every good Priest approved, that ‘Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet.’ ”[447] “My Lord,” said the Father, “I did prohibit it, as much as in me lay.” My Lord of Northampton replied, “Why did you not then make it known to those that could and would have hindered it?” Father Garnett answered, as before, that he could not do it, because he knew it only in confession. Then the Attorney pressed him in this manner. “Although you could not discover Mr. Greenway, by whose confession you knew it, yet might you have well discovered what you understood concerning Catesby and his associates, whose confessions you heard not.” The Father answered, “What sin soever is [pg 258] heard in confession, although it concern not the penitent but some other, cannot lawfully be revealed.”
Mr. Attorney then urged him with his being in Warwickshire at that time when these troubles should have happened, amplifying it again, as in his former speech he had done. To which Father Garnett answered that by reason of a journey which he had made that summer to St. Winifred's Well, he passed through that country, and was by the entreaty of some of his friends and some occasion also of business detained there for a time, not suspecting any such troubles would have happened in that place: which, if by any forecast he could have foreseen, they might well imagine he would in discretion have been a good way off from that place and country.
“But,” said my Lord of Salisbury, “what did you, Mr. Garnett, the 6th day of November, when Bates came to you with a letter from Catesby, after the Plot was discovered and they in open rebellion?” “My Lord,” said Father Garnett, “I said I would not meddle with him that had wrought himself into such treasonable attempts, and thereby endangered himself and his friends.” “Yea, but,” replied the Earl of Salisbury, “did not you send Greenway to Catesby, who went to raise the countries abroad?” “My Lord,” said Father Garnett, “he went without my knowledge; neither could I gather by any speech of his that he had any such intention, as Bates could testify, if he were alive.” And indeed Bates had said as much as that in his letter, before set down verbatim in the 11th chapter, which was more than Father Garnett could know of.
Then, for conclusion, Mr. Attorney desired license to read a letter written by Mr. Tresham, lying upon his death-bed in the Tower, wherein upon his salvation he cleared Father Garnett of any notice of the Spanish treason, protesting that he had wronged him in it, and that he had not seen Father Garnett of [pg 259] fourteen years before. “Now,” said Mr. Attorney, “to prove this untrue, here is a confession of Mrs. Ann Vaux, who (though otherwise a very obstinate woman) yet in this she confesseth plainly, that within these three years Tresham had been several times at her house with Father Garnett, and twice this last year, at which times Father Garnett had given him very good counsel. So that you see,” saith Mr. Attorney, “they will swear and forswear anything.” The like said my Earl of Salisbury upon the same occasion.
But they did not (or would not) mark, that Mrs. Ann Vaux her confession doth make nothing at all against Mr. Tresham his protestation; for he said not he had not seen Father Garnett within the last three years; but that he had not seen him of fourteen years before the Spanish treason, which was the year before the Queen's death; as his words are plain, and the cause also of his writing doth make it plain, for his intention was only to clear the Father of the Spanish treason, which he had wrongfully accused him of, and therefore it was a very material proof that he had not seen him of fourteen years before that business;[448] but they would needs draw his meaning to be, that he had not seen him of fourteen years before the writing of the letter. But this was their misconstruing, not his equivocating; yea, then his words had been very unproper, for he should rather then have said, “I have not seen him of fourteen year, or this fourteen years;” but whereas he said, “I did not see him of fourteen years before,” he must needs mean of fourteen years before the time he spake of, which was the Spanish treason. Therefore they were to blame, that did so much insult upon Mr. Tresham after his death, as though he had been found to have protested an untruth. But they did it to take occasion to infer thereby that other protestations also were like to be untrue, which divers of the conspirators had [pg 260] made before their death to clear the Fathers. But against theirs, no pretence of exception could be alleged; but only that theirs might be false, because this was false: which had been an evil consequence, although this had not been true. But this of Mr. Tresham's was true: and the others undoubted, and no ways to be disproved. And it is worthy to be noted how Almighty God did permit them now, at the end of this long day's trial of Father Garnett, to bring forth this letter (whereby they thought so clearly to disprove such testimonies as might be afterwards brought for Father Garnett), which letter did indeed so clearly prove him innocent in that former dealing with Spain, whereof there were more likely presumptions against him than about this Powder Treason.
The cause and manner of writing this letter was this. Mr. Thomas Winter had confessed that six gentlemen were acquainted with that Plot, but could say nothing of Father Garnett, that he did so much as know of it. Mr. Tresham acknowledged in his first examinations that himself was acquainted with it, vdlt., that money and men should have come from thence; and being found more fearful and easy to be wrought upon than the rest, he was urged to confess Garnett to be privy thereunto; to which he answered, “Perhaps he was.” On which words reflecting afterwards when he lay in extremity of sickness in the Tower, and prepared himself to die, he thought the Council would take advantage against Father Garnett by that which he had said: therefore before his death he caused his man to write in his name unto the Earl of Salisbury, protesting upon his salvation, that Mr. Garnett was not acquainted therewith, &c, as before was set down out of the letter read. This letter he was not then able to sign himself, he was so weak at that time, and therefore caused his wife to do it, and commanded her, as she would answer it before God, to deliver it to my Lord of Salisbury, for the discharge of his conscience; but afterwards growing [pg 261] somewhat better, he did call for the writing again, and signed it with his own hand. And his wife after his death, because she could not be admitted to come to my Lord of Salisbury, inclosed it in a letter of her own, and sent it to his Lordship. And the man that wrote this letter, being afterwards taken by Sir William Wade, Lieutenant of the Tower, for fear of his threats, affirmed his master had written the letter himself (not daring to be known, that he had written it at his master's appointment), but afterwards being at liberty, he went to the Recorder and affirmed before him, that it was his master that had caused him to write it, and had himself subscribed it: and for this the man was committed to a close and strait prison, to Bridewell, the worst prison about London.
Notwithstanding all this, upon the reading of this letter, my Lord of Salisbury presupposed it as granted that Mr. Tresham did mean to equivocate in this letter, which the good Father did not contradict, not observing perhaps the circumstance of Mr. Tresham his words before alleged, which was no marvel, being clean wearied out with so long standing at the bar, and answering to every man's questions before, which more concerned himself; and himself so often interrupted in his own discourse, that it was misliked by divers of the standers-by; yea, the King himself, who was there in private, sent word at length to my Lord of Salisbury, he should give the prisoner leave to speak freely. My Lord of Salisbury therefore took occasion upon this supposition to speak at large, and said, though he would not meddle with Mr. Garnett in matters of divinity, yet because he had been particularly employed in that service, he desired to demonstrate with what sincerity and moderation His Majesty's justice was carried in all points. And so he discoursed of the manner of the proceeding therein, and said it was not performed with such solemnity in respect of Garnett, who was but a private man, but to discredit in his person his religion, and to credit the [pg 262] Gospel, and also to show the King's just proceedings to the world, and withal to favour the City of London, in doing it in the sight of the city. Then he showed how gently Father Garnett had been used, more like a nurse-child than otherwise, and that in this arraignment divers things had been permitted to be read, which made for Father Garnett; as namely this testimony of Mrs. Vaux, who, said the Earl, would sacrifice her life to do him good. And so he concluded, affirming that the whole course of proceedings in that matter had been mixed with such clemency, as he thought there was none so malicious that could calumniate. My Lord of Northampton also made a speech much to the like effect, to show the foulness of the Plot of Powder, the just and merciful proceedings of the King, and the presumptions of Father Garnett his being guilty.
Which done, the jury was willed to go together, and Father Garnett, ere they departed, desired them they would take such things as he had denied, to be justly and truly disavowed, except they had more evidence to the contrary; and desired them to give their verdict only upon that which was acknowledged to be true, and not upon any other presumptions. And so indeed (by God's providence) it was performed: for they went together for a short time, and presently returned and pronounced him guilty directly for not revealing this treason.[449]
He was then asked whether he had any more to say for himself, and my Lord of Salisbury told him it was the King's pleasure he should have free leave to speak (but this leave was pronounced very late, after so many hours of continual interruption). The Father answered he had no more to say but God save the King; and referred himself to the mercy of God and the King, and that he desired their Lordships to recommend his cause unto His Majesty, whom if it would please to grant him life, he would labour to deserve it the best he [pg 263] could, his conscience reserved. If otherwise, he was prepared to die.
Then Serjeant Crooke prayed judgment might be given. The crier was willed to proclaim silence. The Lord Chief Justice, Sir John Popham, pronounced sentence of judgment against him, which was, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.
The Earl of Northampton made a second speech to this effect unto the prisoner. “Nothing is, that hath not been: nor nothing hath been, that is not. That all which hath been spoken this day might be rightly understood, you are condemned not for religion or your profession; but for treason verified by pregnant proofs. It is necessary to look into the ground of this action and safety of the King; which by the Scripture is sufficiently commanded and proved, that there is no cause sufficient to depose Princes, neither tyranny, nor adultery, nor idolatry, nor apprehending of Priests, nor simony, nor heresy, nor apostacy. No power upon earth can dispossess him. That Popes have attempted it sometimes, hath been abuse crept in within these five or six hundred years, but the ancient Popes would never do it, yea, St. Gregory calleth the Emperor, his Lord. No man may lay hands upon the King, as is proved by many examples in the Old Testament. You are commanded in the New Testament to obey your Princes; and so all the ancient Fathers teach. For the Prince's life is in no man's power, but in the hands of God Himself. All examples of Scripture prove you ought not to touch his body, but to persuade his soul. You allege the Canon of Nos Sanctorum to prove it in the Pope's power to depose Princes for some causes; but it never can be proved lawful by any learning or law for this 1600 years. Therefore whosoever doth maintain it, is in a foul and most gross and grievous error.”
This was about six or seven o'clock at night. Then the Court broke up; and Father Garnett being condemned [pg 264] to die was returned back to the Tower until the day of his execution. The King as he went from the place of trial, where he had been in private, was heard to say, they had done the prisoner wrong to interrupt him so often; and also, that if he had been in the prisoner's place he could have defended himself better in some points. The Protestants were generally much appalled at the beginning of Father Garnett his speech, and some that came from the hall said, that never any man did speak so at that bar. But towards the end, they did weary him exceedingly with so many interruptions and interrogations. But it did comfort the Catholics much that he was condemned only for concealing the treason which he had only heard in confession; and consequently his condemnation and death was only for concealing confession, which is a most happy cause, and the case of a martyr, as all the Catholics did then account him, and as the justice of his cause did then approve him: and God hath since his death declared by diverse signs, of which I will afterwards speak in their fit place.