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.