The Condition of Catholics Under James I. / Father Gerard's Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot

by John Gerard

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.