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.