He was the only man who could do so! He alone had “a general knowledge of Mr Catesby’s intention,”[187] untrammelled by the secresy of either oath or confessional, and he[188] “noticed the new intimacy that had sprung up between Catesby and Digby,”and surmised truly enough that Digby had been “drawn in.” Yet it is evident from Sir Everard’s letters from the Tower, that Father Garnet never lifted a finger nor uttered a word to hinder his host from joining, or proceeding in, the conspiracy which was to work his ruin. This is the more remarkable because Father Garnet might have been expected not only to wish to save Sir Everard from the guilt and the dangers of the Plot, but also to prevent a conspiracy which he so much dreaded from being strengthened by the support of a man of considerable wealth. The most probable origin of his inaction in this matter was the same weakness of character which had exhibited itself in his speech to Sir Everard about the Pope and the “stirrs,” and in his failure to reveal his “general knowledge, had of Mr Catesby out of confession,”whereby he said he offended God and the King. His silence and inaction were certainly not owing to any temporary revival of confidence in his mind. On the contrary, he wrote:—[189] “I remained in the greatest perplexity that ever I was in my life, and could not sleep a’ nights.”He added, “I did offer up all my devotions and masses that God of his mercy and infinite Providence would dispose of all for the best, and find means which were pleasing unto Him, to prevent so great a mischief”[as the Gunpowder Plot]. “I knew that this would be infinitely displeasing to my Superiors in Rome, in so much as at my second conference with Mr Greenway, I said, ‘Good Lord, if this matter go forward, the Pope will send me to the galleys, for he will assuredly think I was privy to it.’”
Far be it from me to presume to judge Father Garnet harshly; his opportunities may have been much less, his difficulties may have been much greater, than the evidence before us would seem to show; but, as a biographer of Sir Everard Digby, I feel bound to express my regret that it should appear as if Father Garnet might have saved him from the terrible troubles that followed and failed to do so.
I began this chapter with a reference to those who plead extenuating circumstances for Catesby. Let me end it by referring to somewhat similar-minded critics, who, while they condemn the Gunpowder Plot as a most dastardly outrage, regard it as the hot-blooded attempt of a small party of Catholics driven to desperation by their sufferings. Of the sufferings of the English Catholics there can be no sort of doubt or question; and none the less certain is it that, as a body, they bore them with patience and without any attempt at rebellion. Was, then, the small party of Catholics that conspired in the Gunpowder Plot composed of men so exceptionally exposed to sufferings for their faith as to be, more than any of their fellow-sufferers, “driven to desperation”? It is well worth while to inquire. We will consult a Catholic contemporary, most unlikely to represent their lot as too easy, namely, the oft-quoted Father Gerard.[190]
Let us begin with Catesby, the originator and leader of the enterprise. The losses of his father on account of his religion do not concern the objects of the plot, as they were incurred long before and during a different reign. Catesby himself had certainly lost money, and a great deal of money; but how?[191] “He spent much above his rate [income], and so wasted also good part of his living.”He was guilty of “excess of play and apparel.”He also had to pay “£3000 before he got out”of prison, where he had been put for joining in the ill-fated rising of Essex. Even after all these losses, he was able to live among men of wealth, if not in his own country-house at Lapworth, in Warwickshire.
Ambrose Rokeby was[192] “a gentleman of good worth in the county of Suffolk, and of a very ancient family, and himself the heir of the eldest house.”At the time of the plot he had a great many horses, and was evidently a rich man. John Grant was[193] “a man of sufficient estate.”Francis Tresham was[194] “a gentleman of Northamptonshire of great estate, esteemed then worth £3000 a year,”a sum, of course, equivalent to a very large income in these days. Robert Winter was[195] “a gentleman of good estate in Worcestershire.”Thomas Percy,[196] although not a rich landowner, held the lucrative post of agent and administrator to his cousin, the Earl of Northumberland. The “means were not great”of Robert Keyes, John and Christopher Wright, and Thomas Winter; but most of them seem to have been able to live in good society, and their want of money was for the most part owing to their being younger sons, being “very wild,”[197] or living “in good sort and of the best,”[198] when their circumstances did not justify their doing so. As for Sir Everard Digby, it is scarcely necessary to repeat that he had been a rich man to begin with, and had increased his wealth by marrying an heiress. These, then, are the men who, we are told, were driven to desperation by their sufferings, and conspired together to commit a most horrible and murderous crime, while thousands of Catholics who were literally ruined, by fines for their religion which they were unable to pay, bore their troubles in silence, and with Christian fortitude and resignation.
In connection with this matter, there is one more point to be considered. The sudden and unpremeditated assault of a man in despair is sometimes to be excused, and often to be regarded with comparative lenience. What looks like murder at first sight, at second may prove to be only man-slaughter, under such circumstances. Does any such excuse exist for the Gunpowder Plot? Was it a violent attempt made on the spur of the moment, or was it the result of lengthy, deliberate, and anxious forethought? Was it the work of an hour, a day, a week, or even a month. On the contrary, so far as can be ascertained, at least a year and a quarter, and more probably a year and a half, of careful scheming and calculation were devoted to it.[199]
It has been said, in excuse for the conspirators, that there are reasons for suspecting the idea of the Gunpowder Plot to have been conceived in the first instance by Cecil, who had it suggested to Catesby, through a third person—possibly Mounteagle—with the deliberate intention of bringing discredit upon the English Catholics, and thereby giving cause for the enactment of severer measures for their repression. This may remind some of my readers that, at the height of the agrarian crime in Ireland, during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, many good Irish Catholics were persuaded, or persuaded themselves, that the outrages were invented, instigated, and encouraged, if not actually perpetrated, at the suggestion of the authorities at Dublin Castle, in order to throw discredit upon “the poor, oppressed Irish peasantry,”and to give an excuse for “persecuting” them with renewed vigour.
As to the question whether Cecil originated the Gunpowder Plot as a bait with which to entrap Catholic priests, Jesuits, and laymen, if there be any grounds for it, it certainly has great historic interests; but whether Cecil, or the Devil, or both, put the idea into the heads of the conspirators, little, if at all, affects their guilt.
FOOTNOTES:
[171] Narrative of the G. P., Gerard, pp. 72-3.