"The Pope"s Nuncio," he wrote, "sent me a message, the effect whereof was that he had received authority and a mandate from Rome to call out of the King our master"s dominions the factious and turbulent priests and Jesuits, and that, at M. de Rosny"s[233]
pa.s.sage into the realm, he had advertised them thereof by a gentleman of his train, and that he was desirous to continue that service to the King, and further to stop such as at Rome shall move any suit with any such intent, and would advertise his Majesty of it; that he had stayed two English monks in that city whose names he sent me in writing, who had procured heretofore faculty from thence to negotiate in England among the Catholics for such bad purposes; that not long since a pet.i.tion had been exhibited to the Pope for a.s.sistance of the English Catholics with money promising to effect great matters for advancement of the Catholic cause upon receipt thereof; that his Holiness had rejected the pet.i.tion and sharply rebuked the movers; that he would no more allow those turbulent courses to trouble the politic governments of Christian Princes, but by charitable ways of conference and exhortation seek to reduce them to unity. Lastly his request was to have this message related to the King, offering for the first trial of his sincere meaning that, if there remained any in his dominions, priest or Jesuit, or other busy Catholic, whom he had intelligence of for a practice in the state which could not be found out, upon advertis.e.m.e.nt of the names he would find means that by ecclesiastical censures they should be delivered unto his justice."[234]
The last words are somewhat vague, and as we have not the Nuncio"s own words, but merely Parry"s report of them, we cannot be absolutely certain what were the exact terms offered, or how far they went beyond the offers previously made by the Nuncio at Brussels.[235] Nor does a letter written by the Nuncio to the King on Sept. 19/29, throw any light on the subject, as Del Bufalo confines himself to general expressions of the duty of Catholics to obey the King.[236] That the Nuncio"s proposals met with considerable resistance among James"s councillors is not only probable in itself, but is shown by the length of time which intervened before an answer was despatched at the end of November or the beginning of December.[237] The covered language with which Cecil opened the despatch in which he forwarded to Parry the letter giving the King"s authorisation to the amba.s.sador to treat with the Nuncio, leaves no doubt as to his own feelings.
"But now, Sir," writes Cecil, "I am to deliver you his Majesty"s pleasure concerning a matter of more importance, though for mine own part it is so tender as I could have wished I had little dealt in it; not that the King doth not most prudently manage it, as you see, but because envious men suspect verity itself."
Parry, Cecil went on to say, was to offer to the Nuncio a Latin translation of the King"s letter, and also to give him a copy of the instructions formerly given to Sir James Lindsay. The object of this was to prevent Lindsay from going beyond them. Cecil then proceeds to hint that Lindsay, who was now at last about to start from Italy, would not have been allowed to meddle further in the business but that it would disgrace him if he were deprived of the mission with which he had formerly been intrusted. The main negotiation, however, was to pa.s.s between Parry and the Nuncio, though only by means of a third person; and, as a matter of fact, Lindsay did not start for many months to come.
So far as concerns us, the King"s letter accepts the Pope"s objections to the sending of a "legatus," as he would be unable to show him proper respect; and then proceeds to contrast the Catholics who are animated by pure religious zeal with those who have revolutionary designs. With respect to both of these he professes his readiness to deal in such a way that neither the Pope nor any right-minded or sane man shall be able to take objection. In an earlier part of the letter he had a.s.sumed that the Pope was prepared actually to excommunicate those Catholics who were of an unquiet and turbulent disposition. Whether this were justified or not by the Nuncio"s words, it was an exceedingly large a.s.sumption that the Pope would bind himself to excommunicate Catholics practically at the bidding of a Protestant king.
On or about December 4/14, 1604, the King"s letter was forwarded by the Nuncio to Rome.[238] Nor did James confine his a.s.surances to mere words.
A person who left England on January 11,[239] 1604, a.s.sured the Nuncio that peaceful Catholics were living quietly, and that those who were devout were able "to serve G.o.d according to their consciences without any danger." He himself, he added, could bear witness to this, as, during the whole time he had been in London, he had heard ma.s.s daily in the house of one Catholic or another.[240]
This idyllic state of things--from the Roman Catholic point of view--was soon to come to an end. Clement VIII. refused, at least for the present, either to send a representative to England or to promise to call off turbulent persons under pain of excommunication.[241] Possibly nothing else was to be expected, as the idea of turning the Pope into a kind of spiritual policeman was not a happy one. Still, it is easy to understand that James must have felt mortified at the Pope"s failure to respond to his overtures, and it is easy, also, to understand that Cecil would take advantage of the King"s irritation for furthering his own aims. Nor were other influences wanting to move James in the same direction. Sir Anthony Standen had lately returned from a mission to Italy, and had brought with him certain relics as a present to the Queen, who was a Roman Catholic, and had entered into communication with Father Persons.
Still more disquieting was it that a census of recusants showed that their numbers had very considerably increased since the King"s accession. No doubt many of those who apparently figured as new converts were merely persons who had concealed their religion as long as it was unsafe to avow it, and who made open profession of it when no unpleasant consequences were to be expected; but there can also be little doubt that the number of genuine conversions had been very large. From the Roman Catholic point of view, this was a happy result of a purely religious nature. From the point of view of an Elizabethan statesman, it const.i.tuted a grave political danger. It is unnecessary here to discuss the first principles of religious toleration. It is enough to say that no Pope had reprimanded Philip II. for refusing to allow the spread of Protestantism in his dominions, and that James"s councillors, as well as James himself, might fairly come to the conclusion that if the Roman Catholics of England increased in future years as rapidly as they had increased in the first year of the reign, it would not be long before a Pope would be found ready to launch against James the excommunication which had been launched against Elizabeth, and that his throne would be shaken, together with that national independence which that throne implied.
For the time James--pushed hard by his councillors,[242] as he was--might fancy that he had found a compromise. There was to be no enforcement of the recusancy laws against the laity, but on February 22, 1604, a proclamation was issued ordering the banishment of the priests[243]. It was not a compromise likely to be of long endurance.
For our purposes the most important of its results was that it produced the Gunpowder Plot. A few days after its issue that meeting of the five conspirators took place behind St. Clement"s, at which they received the sacrament in confirmation of their mutual promise of secrecy. All that has been said of the tyranny of the penal laws upon the laity, as affording a motive for the plot, is so much misplaced rhetoric.
Moreover, if we accept Fawkes"s evidence[244] of the date at which he first heard of the plot as being about Easter, 1604, _i.e._ about April 8, the communication of the design to Winter must have taken place towards the end of March, that is to say after the issue of the proclamation and before any other step had been taken to enforce the penal laws. Consequently all arguments, attributing the invention of the plot to Cecil for the sake of gaining greater influence with the King fall to the ground. He had just achieved a triumph of no common order, the prelude, as he must have been keen enough to discern, of greater triumphs to come. Granted, for argument"s sake, that Cecil was capable of any wickedness--we at least require some motive for the crime which Father Gerard attributes to him by innuendo.
As time went on, there was even less cause for the powerful minister to invent or to foster a false plot. It is unnecessary to tell again in detail the story which I have told elsewhere of the way in which James fell back upon the Elizabethan position, and put in force once more the penal laws against the laity. On November 28, 1604, he decided on requiring the 20_l._ fines from the thirteen wealthy recusants who were liable to pay them, and on February 10, 1605[245]--a few days after the plotters had got half through the wall of the House of Lords--he announced his resolution that the penal laws should be put in execution.
On May 4, 1605, Cecil, who in August, 1604, had been made Viscount Cranborne, was raised to the Earldom of Salisbury. Yet this is the politician who is supposed by Father Gerard to have been necessitated to keep himself in favour by the atrocious wickedness he is pleased to ascribe to him. In plain truth, Salisbury did not need to gain favour and power. He had both already.
A policy of intolerance is so opposed to the instincts of the present day, that it is worth while to hear a persecutor in his own defence. On March 7, 1605, less than a month after the King"s p.r.o.nouncement, Nicolo Molin, the Venetian amba.s.sador, writes, that he had lately spoken to Cranborne on the recent treatment of the Catholics.
"He replied that, through the too great clemency of the King, the priests had gone with great freedom through all the country, the City of London and the houses of many citizens, to say ma.s.s, which they had done with great scandal, and thereupon had arrived advices from Rome that the Pope had const.i.tuted a congregation of Cardinals to treat of the affairs of this kingdom which gave occasion to many to believe that the King was about to grant liberty of conscience,[246] and had caused a great stir amongst our Bishops and other ministers, the Pope having come to this resolution mainly through the offices of that light-headed man Lindsay,[247] and then his Majesty, whose thoughts were far from it, resolved to use a rather unusual diligence to restrict a little the liberty of these priests of yours, as also to a.s.sure those of our religion that there was not the least thought of altering things in this direction. Sir James Lindsay, he said, had disgusted his Majesty, and the Pope would in the end discover that he was a lightheaded, unstable man. I understood, said I, that he had gone to Rome with the King"s permission. It is quite true, said he, and if your Lordship wishes to understand the matter I will explain it. Sir James Lindsay, he continued, a year before the death of Queen Elizabeth asked leave to go to Rome, and his request was easily granted. When he arrived there he got means, with the help of friends, to be introduced to the Pope to whom, as is probable, he addressed many impertinencies, as he has done at the present time.
In short, he was presented to the Pope, and got from him a good sum of money, perhaps promising to do here what he will never do, and obtained an autograph letter from the Pope to our King to the effect that he had understood from Sir James Lindsay his Majesty"s good disposition, if not to favour the Catholic religion, at least not to persecute it, for which he felt himself to be under great obligations to him, and promised to a.s.sist him when Queen Elizabeth died, and to help him as far as possible to gain the succession to her realm as was just and reasonable, but that if his Majesty would consent to have the Prince, his son, educated in the Catholic religion, he would bind himself to engage his state and life to a.s.sist him, and would do what he could[248] that the Christian Princes should act in union with the same object.[249] With this letter Sir James arrived, two months before the Queen"s death, repeating to his Majesty many things besides to the same effect.
The King was willing enough to look at the letter, as coming from a Prince, and filled with many affectionate and courteous expressions, but he never thought of answering it, though he was frequently solicited by Sir James. The reason of this was that it would be necessary in writing to the Pope to give him his t.i.tles of Holiness and Blessedness, to which, being held by us to be impertinent, after the teaching of our religion, his Majesty could not be in any way persuaded, so that the affair remained asleep till the present time. Then came the Queen"s death, on which Sir James again urged the King to answer the letter, a.s.suring him that he would promise himself much advantage from the Pope"s a.s.sistance if occasion served; but it pleased G.o.d to show such favour to the King that he met with no opposition, as every one knows. Some months ago, however, it again occurred to Sir James to think of going to Rome; he asked licence from his Majesty, and obtained it courteously enough. At his departure he said, "I shall have occasion to see the Pope, and am certain that he will ask me about that letter of his. What answer am I to make?" "You are to say,"
replied the King, "that you gave me the letter, and that I am much obliged to him for the love and affection he has shown me, to which I shall always try to correspond effectually." "Sire," said Sir James, "the Pope will not believe me. Will your Majesty find some means of a.s.suring the Pope of the truth of this?" On which his Majesty took the pen and drew up a memoir with his own hand, telling Sir James that if he had occasion to talk to the Pope he should a.s.sure him of his desire to show, by acts, the good will of which he spoke, and the esteem he felt for him as a temporal Prince. He then directed Sir James to dwell on this as much as he could, and that as to religion[250] he wished to preserve and maintain that in which he had been brought up, being a.s.sured that it was the best, but that, not having a sanguinary disposition, he had not persecuted the Catholics in their property or their life, as long as they remained obedient subjects. As to instructing the Prince, his son, in the Catholic religion, he would never do it, because he believed it would bring down on him a heavy punishment from G.o.d, and the reproach of the world, if he were willing, whilst he himself professed a religion as the best, to promise that his son should be brought up in one full of corruptions and superst.i.tions. Cecil then recounted the substance of the memoir, which was sealed with the King"s seal, in order that the Pope and every one else might give credence to it on these points. Now, Sir James, to gain favour and get money, has transgressed these orders, as we understand that he has given occasion to the Pope to appoint a congregation of Cardinals on our affairs, and to us to have our eyes a little more open to the Catholics, and especially to the priests. To this I replied that I did not think that his Majesty should for this reason act against his constant professions not to wish to take any one"s property or life, on account of religion.
"Sir," he replied, "be content as to blood, so long as the Catholics remain quiet and obedient. As to property, it is impossible to do less than observe[251] the laws in this respect, but even in that we shall proceed dexterously and much more gently than in the times of the late Queen, as the Catholics who refuse to attend our churches, and who are rich, will not think it much to pay 20 a month. Those who are less rich and have not the means to pay as much, and from whom two thirds of their revenue is taken during their lifetime will now have this advantage by the King"s clemency that whereas in the Queen"s time their property was granted to strangers who, to get as much as they could, did not hesitate to ruin their houses and possessions, it will now be granted to their own patrons, at the lowest rate, so that they will pay rather a quarter than two thirds of their estate. This arrangement has been come to in order not to afflict the Catholics too much, and to prevent our own people from believing that we wish to give liberty to the Catholic religion, as they undoubtedly will if the payments are absolutely abolished."
After a further remonstrance from the amba.s.sador, Cranborne returned to the charge.
"Sir," he replied, "nothing else can be done. These are the laws, and they must be observed. Their object is undoubtedly to extinguish the Catholic religion in this kingdom, because we do not think it fit, in a well-governed monarchy, to increase the number of persons who profess to depend on the will of other Princes as the Catholics do, the priests not preaching anything more constantly than this, that the good Catholic ought to be firmly resolved in himself to be ready to rise for the preservation of his religion even against the life and state of his natural Prince.[252] This is a very perilous doctrine, and we will certainly never admit it here, but will rather do our best to overthrow it, and we will punish most severely those who teach it and impress it on the minds of good subjects."[253]
It is unnecessary to pursue the conversation further, or even to discuss how far Cranborne was serious when he expressed his intention of moderating the incidence of the laws which the Government had resolved to carry out. It is certain that they were not so moderated, and that the enforcement of law rapidly degenerated into mere persecution. What is important for our purposes is that the language I have just quoted leads us to the bed-rock of the situation. Between Pope and king a question of sovereignty had arisen, a question which could not be neglected without detriment to the national independence till the Pope either openly or tacitly abandoned his claim to excommunicate kings, and to release such subjects as looked up to him for guidance from the duty of obedience to their King. That the Pope should openly abandon this claim was more than could be expected; but he had not excommunicated James as his predecessor had excommunicated Elizabeth, and there was some reason to hope that he might allow the claim to be buried in oblivion. At all events, Clement VIII. had not only refused to excommunicate James, but had enjoined on the English Catholics the duty of abstaining from any kind of resistance to him. James had, however, wished to go further. Incapable--as most people in all ages are--of seeing the position with other eyes than his own, he wanted the Pope actively to co-operate with him in securing the obedience of his subjects. He even asked him to excommunicate turbulent Catholics, a thing to which it was impossible for the Pope--who also looked on these matters from his own point of view--to consent. In the meanwhile it was becoming evident that the Pope was not working for a Protestant England under a Protestant king, with a Catholic minority accepting what crumbs of toleration that king might fling to them, and renouncing for ever the right to resist his laws however oppressive they might be; but rather for a Catholic England under a Catholic King. This appeared in Clement"s demand that Prince Henry should be educated in a religion which was not that of his father, and it appeared again in the reports of Lindsay, which had caused such a commotion at Whitehall. "His Holiness," wrote Lindsay, "hath commanded to continue to pray for your Majesty, and he himself stays every night two large hours in prayer for your Majesty, the Queen, and your children, and for the conversion of your Majesty and your dominions. This I may very well witness as one who was present."[254] We should have thought the worse of the Pope if he had done otherwise; but the news of it was hardly likely to be welcome to an English statesman. Who was to guarantee that, if the priests were allowed full activity in England a Roman Catholic majority would not be secured--or, that when such a majority was secured, the suspended excommunication would not be launched, and a rebellion, such as that of the League in France, encouraged against an obstinately Protestant Sovereign. We may be of opinion that those statesmen who attempted to meet the danger with persecution were men of little faith, who might have trusted to the strength of their religious and political creed--the two could not in those days be separated from one another; but there can be no doubt that the danger was there. We may hold Salisbury to have been but a commonplace man for meeting it as he did, but he had on his side nearly the whole of the official cla.s.s which had stood by the throne of Elizabeth, and which now stood by the throne of James.
At all events, Salisbury"s doctrine that there was to be no personal understanding with the Pope was the doctrine which prevailed then and in subsequent generations. James"s attempt came to nothing through its insuperable difficulties, as well as through his own defects of character. A pleading, from a Roman Catholic point of view, in favour of such an understanding may be found in a letter written by Sir Everard Digby to Salisbury, which Father Gerard has shown to have been written, not in December, as Mrs. Everett Green suggested, but between May 4 and September, 1605, and which I ascribe to May, or as soon after May as is possible. The letter, after a reference to a conversation recently held between Digby himself and Salisbury, proceeds as follows:--
"One part of your Lordship"s speech, as I remember, was that the King could not get so much from the Pope (even then, when his Majesty had done nothing against the Catholics) as a promise that he would not excommunicate him, wherefore it gave occasion to suspect that, if Catholics were suffered to increase, the Pope might afterwards proceed to excommunication if the King would not change his religion.[255] But to take away that doubt, I do a.s.sure myself that his Holiness may be drawn to manifest so contrary a disposition of excommunicating the King, that he will proceed with the same course against all as shall go about to disturb the King"s quiet and happy reign[256]; and the willingness of Catholics, especially of priests and Jesuits, is such as I dare undertake to procure any priest in England (though it were the Superior of the Jesuits) to go himself to Rome to negotiate this business, and that both he and all other religious men (till the Pope"s pleasure be known) shall take any spiritual course to stop the effect that may proceed from any discontented or despairing Catholic.
"And I doubt not but his return would bring both a.s.surance that such course should not be taken with the King, and that it should be performed against any that should seek to disturb him for religion. If this were done, there could then be no cause to fear any Catholic, and this may be done only with those proceedings (which, as I understood your Lordship) should be used. If your Lordship apprehend it to be worth the doing I shall be glad to be the instrument, for no hope to put off from myself any punishment, but only that I wish safety to the King and ease to the Catholics.
If your Lordship and the State think it fit to deal severely with Catholics within brief there will be ma.s.sacres, rebellions and desperate attempts against the King and State. For it is a general received reason amongst Catholics that there is not that expecting and suffering course now to be run that was in the Queen"s time, who was the last of her line, and the last in expectance to run violent courses against Catholics; for then it was hoped that the King that now is would have been at least free from persecuting, as his promise was before his coming into this realm, and as divers his promises have been since his coming, saying that he would take no soul-money nor blood. Also, as it appeared, was the whole body of the Council"s pleasure when they sent for divers of the better sort of Catholics (as Sir Thomas Tresham and others) and told them it was the King"s pleasure to forgive the payment of Catholics, so long as they should carry themselves dutifully and well. All these promises every man sees broken, and to thrust them further in despair, most Catholics take note of a vehement book written by Mr.
Attorney, whose drift (as I have heard) is to prove that only being a Catholic is to be a traitor, whose book coming forth after the breach of so many promises, and before the ending of such a violent Parliament, can work no less effect in men"s minds than a belief that every Catholic will be brought within that compa.s.s before the King and State have done with them. And I know, as the priest himself told me, that if he had not hindered, there had somewhat been attempted, before our offence,[257] to give ease to Catholics.
But being so safely prevented, and so necessary to avoid, I doubt not but your Lordship and the rest of the Lords will think of a more mild and undoubted safe course, in which I will undertake the performance of what I have promised, and as much as can be expected; and when I have done I shall be as willing to die as I am ready to offer my service, and expect not nor desire favour for it, either before the doing it, nor in the doing it, nor after it is done, but refer myself to the resolved course for me."[258]
I have thought it well to set forth the pleadings on both sides, though it has led me somewhat out of my appointed track. Though our sympathies are with the weaker and oppressed party, it cannot be said that Digby"s letter meets the whole case which Salisbury had raised. Whether that be so or not, it is enough, for our present purpose if we are able to discern that Salisbury had a case, and was not merely manoeuvring for place or power. At all events, his opinion, whether it were bad or good, had, in the spring of 1605, been accepted by James, and he was therefore in less need even than in the preceding year of producing an imaginary or half-imaginary plot to frighten to his side a king who had already come round to his ideas.
CHAPTER VII
THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIESTS
It was unavoidable that the persecution to which Catholics were subjected should bear most hardly on the priests, who were held guilty of disseminating a disloyal religion. It is therefore no matter for surprise that we find, about April 1604,[259] an informer, named Henry Wright, telling Cecil that another informer named Davies, was able to set, _i.e._ to give information of the localities of above threescore more priests, but that he had told him that twenty princ.i.p.al ones would be enough. Davies, adds Wright, will not discover the treason till he had a pardon for it himself, and on this Father Gerard remarks "that the treason in question was none other than the Gunpowder Plot there can be no question; unless, indeed, we are to say that the authorities were engaged in fabricating a bogus conspiracy for which there was no foundation whatever in fact." Why this inference should be drawn I do not know. If Davies was a renegade priest he would require a pardon, and in order to get it he may very well have told a story about a treason which the authorities, on further inquiry, thought it needless to investigate further. It is to no purpose that Father Gerard produces an application to James in which it is stated that Wright had furnished information to Popham and Challoner who "had a hand in the discovery of the practices of the Jesuits in the powder plot, and did reveal the same from time to time to your Majesty, for two years" s.p.a.ce almost before the said treason burst forth."[260] That Wright, being in want of money, made the most of his little services in spying upon Jesuits is likely enough; but if he had come upon Gunpowder Plot two years before the Monteagle letter, that is to say, in October, 1603, some five months before it was in existence, except, perhaps, in Catesby"s brain, we may be certain that he would have been far more specific in making his claim. The same may be said of Wright"s letter to Salisbury on March 26, 1606, in which he pleads for a.s.sistance "forasmuch as his Majesty is already informed of me that in something I have been, and that hereafter I may be, a deserving man of his Majesty and the State in discovering of villainous practices." Very gentle bleating indeed for a man who had found out the Gunpowder Plot, as I have just said, before it was in existence!
Nor is much more to be made of the remainder of Father Gerard"s evidence on this head. The world being what it was, what else could be expected but that there should be talk amongst priests of possible risings--Sir Everard Digby in his letter predicted as much--or even that some less wise of their number should discuss half formed plans, or that renegade priests should pick up their reckless words and report them to the Government, probably with some additions of their own?[261] When Father Gerard says that a vague statement by an informer, made as early as April 1604, refers to the Gunpowder Plot, because c.o.ke said two years later that it did,[262] he merely shows that he has little acquaintance with the peculiar intellect of that idol of the lawyers of the day. If Father Gerard had studied, as I have had occasion to do, c.o.ke"s treatment of the case of the Earl and Countess of Somerset, he would, I fancy, have come to the conclusion that whenever c.o.ke smelt a mystery, there was a strong probability that it either never existed at all, or, at all events, was something very different from what c.o.ke imagined it to be.
That the Government believed, with or without foundation, that there were plots abroad, and that priests had their full share in them, may be accepted as highly probable. It must, however, be remembered that in Salisbury"s eyes merely to be a priest was _ipso facto_ to be engaged in a huge conspiracy, because to convert an Englishman to the Roman Catholic faith, or to confirm him in it, was to pervert him from his due allegiance to the Crown. Regarded from this point of view, the words addressed by Salisbury to Edmondes on October 17, 1605, "more than a week," as Father Gerard says, "before the first hint of danger is said to have been breathed,"[263] are seen to be perfectly in character, without imagining that the writer had any special information on the Gunpowder Plot, or any intention of making use of it to pave the way for more persecuting legislation than already existed.
"I have received" writes Salisbury, "a letter of yours ... to which there needeth no great answer for the present ... because I have imparted to you some part of my conceit concerning the insolencies of the priests and Jesuits, whose mouths we cannot stop better than by contemning their vain and malicious discourses, only the evil which biteth is the poisoned bait, wherewith every youth is taken that cometh among them, which liberty (as I wrote before) must for one cause or other be retrenched."[264]
This language appears to Father Gerard to be ominous of further persecution. To me it appears to be merely ominous of an intention to refuse pa.s.sports to young men of uncertain religion wishing to travel on the Continent.
We can now understand why it was that Salisbury and the Government in general were so anxious to bring home the plot, after its discovery, to some, at least, of the priests, and more especially to the Jesuits.
Three of these, Garnet, Greenway and Gerard, were in England while the plot was being devised, and were charged with complicity in it. Of the three, Garnet, the Provincial of England, was tried and executed; the other two escaped to the Continent. My own opinion is that Gerard was innocent of any knowledge of the plot,[265] and, as far as I am concerned, it is only the conduct of Garnet and Greenway that is under discussion. That they both had detailed knowledge of the plot is beyond doubt, as it stands on Garnet"s own admission that he had been informed of it by Greenway, and that Greenway had heard it in confession from Catesby.[266] A great deal of ink has been spilled on the question whether Garnet ought to have revealed matters involving destruction of life which had come to his knowledge in confession; but on this I do not propose to touch. It is enough here to say that the law of England takes no note of the excuse of confession, and that no blame would have been due on this score either to the Government which ordered Garnet"s prosecution, or to the judges and the jury by whom he was condemned, even if there had not been evidence of his knowledge when no question of confession was involved.
In considering Garnet"s case the first point to be discussed is, whether the Government tampered with the evidence against the priests, either by omitting that which made in favour of the prisoner, or by forging evidence which made against him. An instance of omission is found in the mark "hucusque" made by c.o.ke in the margin of Fawkes"s examination of November 9, implying the rejection of his statement that, though he had received the communion at Gerard"s hands as a confirmation of his oath, Gerard had not known anything of the object which had led him to communicate.[267] The practice of omitting inconvenient evidence was unfortunately common enough in those days, and all that can be said for c.o.ke on this particular occasion is, that the examination contained many obvious falsehoods, and c.o.ke may have thought that he was keeping back only one falsehood more. c.o.ke, however, at Garnet"s trial did not content himself with omitting the important pa.s.sage, but added the statement that "Gerard the Jesuit, being well acquainted with all designs and purposes, did give them the oath of secrecy and a ma.s.s, and they received the sacrament together at his hands."[268] Clearly, therefore, c.o.ke is convicted, not merely of concealing evidence making in the favour of an accused, though absent, person, but of subst.i.tuting for it his own conviction without producing evidence to support it. All that can be said is, in the first place, that Gerard was not on trial, and could not therefore be affected by anything that c.o.ke might say; and that, in the second place, even if c.o.ke"s words were--as they doubtless were--accepted by the jury, the position of the prisoners actually at the bar would be neither better nor worse.
Much more serious is Father Gerard"s argument that the confession of Bates, Catesby"s servant, to the effect that he had not only informed Greenway of the plot, but that Greenway had expressed approval of it, was either not genuine, or, at least, had been tampered with by the Government. As Father Gerard again italicises,[269] not a pa.s.sage from the examination itself, but his own abstract of the pa.s.sage, it is better to give in full so much of the a.s.sailed examination as bears upon the matter:--
"Examination of Thomas Bate,[270] servant to Robert Catesby, the 4th of December, 1605, before the Lords Commissioners.
"He confesseth that about this time twelvemonth his master asked this said examinant whether he could procure him a lodging near the Parliament House. Whereupon he went to seek some such lodging and dealt with a baker that had a room joining to the Parliament House, but the baker answered that he could not spare it.
"After that some fortnight or thereabouts (as he thinketh) his master imagining, as it seemed, that this examinant suspected somewhat of that which the said Catesby went about, called him to him at Puddle Wharf in the house of one Powell (where Catesby had taken a lodging) and in the presence of Thomas Winter, asked him what he thought what business they were about, and this examinant answered that he thought they went about some dangerous business, whereupon they asked him again what he thought the business might be, and he answered that he thought they intended some dangerous matter about the Parliament House, because he had been sent to get a lodging near that House.
"Thereupon they made this examinant take an oath to be secret in the business, which being taken by him, they told him that it was true that they meant to do somewhat about the Parliament House, namely, to lay powder under it to blow it up.
"Then they told him that he was to receive the sacrament for the more a.s.surance, and he thereupon went to confession to a priest named Greenway, and in his confession told Greenway that he was to conceal a very dangerous piece of work that his master Catesby and Thomas Winter had imparted unto him, and that he being fearful of it, asked the counsel of Greenway, telling the said Greenway (which he was not desirous to hear) their particular intent and purpose of blowing up the Parliament House, and Greenway the priest thereto said that he would take no notice thereof, but that he, the said examinant, should be secret in that which his master had imparted unto him, because that was for a good cause, and that he willed this examinant to tell no other priest of it; saying moreover that it was not dangerous unto him nor any offence to conceal it, and thereupon the said priest Greenway gave this examinant absolution, and he received the sacrament in the company of his master Robert Catesby and Mr. Thomas Winter.
"Thomas Bate, Nottingham, Suffolk, E. Worcester, H. Northampton, Salisbury, Mar, Dunbar."
Indorsed:--"_The exam._ of Tho. Bate 4 Dec. 1605. _Greenway_, --."[271]
Out of this doc.u.ment arise two questions which ought to be kept carefully distinct:--
1. Did the Government invent or falsify the doc.u.ment here partially printed?
2. Did Bates, on the hypothesis that the doc.u.ment is genuine, tell the truth about Greenway?
1. In the first place, Father Gerard calls our attention to the fact that the doc.u.ment has only reached us in a copy. It is quite true; though, on the other hand, I must reiterate the argument, which I have already used in a similar case,[272] that a copy in which the names of the Commissioners appear, even though not under their own hands, falls not far short of an original. If this copy, being a forgery, were read in court, as Father Gerard says it was,[273] some of the Commissioners would have felt aggrieved at their names being misused, unless, indeed, the whole seven concurred in authorising the forgery, which is so extravagant a supposition that we are bound to look narrowly into any evidence brought forward to support it.
Father Gerard"s main argument in favour of the conclusion at which he leads up to--one can hardly say he arrives at this or any other clearly announced conviction--is put in the following words:--