Chapter XVII: A Catalogue Of The Laws Against Catholics Made By Queen (10)

Lastly, when examined(185) by the Attorney General, after having received a letter from Father Garnett, warning him to prepare himself for death, and after having freely confessed that he was a Priest and a Jesuit, and that he had reconciled others to the Pope, and drawn them away from the faith and religious profession which was approved in England, “answers,” he says himself, “which furnished quite sufficient matter for my condemnation, according to their laws,” and after having denied that he had meddled in political matters; his examination proceeded as follows.

“Hereupon Mr. Attorney kept silence for a time, and then he began afresh to ask me what Catholics I knew; did I know such-and-such? I answered, ‘I do not know them.’ _And I added the usual reasons why I should still make the same answer even if I did know them._(186) Upon this, he digressed to the question of equivocation, and began to inveigh against Father Southwell, because on his trial he denied that he knew the woman who was brought forward to accuse him.(187) She swore that he had come to her father’s house and was received there as a Priest; this he positively denied, though he had been taken in that house and was found in a hiding-place, having been betrayed by this wretched woman. (A dutiful daughter truly, who thus betrayed to death both her spiritual and her natural father! Christ our Lord, however, came not to send peace, but a sword to divide between the good and the bad; and in this case he divided the bad daughter from the good parents.) Good Father Southwell, then, though he marvelled at the impudence of this miserable wench, yet denied what she asserted, and _gave good reasons for his denial_, well knowing and solidly proving that it was not lawful for him to do otherwise, lest he should add to the injury of those who were already suffering for the Faith, and for charity shown to him. Taking this occasion, therefore, he showed very learnedly that it was lawful in some cases, nay, even necessary perhaps, to use equivocation; which doctrine he established and confirmed by strong arguments and copious authorities, drawn as well from Holy Scripture as from the writings of the Doctors of the Church.

“The Attorney General inveighed much against this, and tried to make out that this was to foster lying, and so destroy all reliable communications between men, and, therefore, all bonds of society. I, on the other hand, maintained that this was not falsehood, nor supposed an intention of deceiving, which is necessary to constitute a lie, but merely a keeping back of the truth, and that where one is not bound to declare it: consequently there is no deception, because nothing is refused which the other has a right to claim. I showed, moreover, that our doctrine did no way involve a destruction of the bonds of society, because the use of equivocation is never allowed in making contracts, since all are bound to give their neighbour his due, and in making of contracts truth is due to the party contracting. It should be remarked also, I said, that it is not allowed to use equivocation in ordinary conversation to the detriment of plain truth and Christian simplicity, much less in matters properly falling under the cognizance of civil authority,(188) since it is not lawful to deny even a capital crime if the accused is questioned juridically. He asked me, therefore, what I considered a juridical questioning. I answered that the questioners must be really superiors and judges in the matter under examination; then, the matter itself must be some crime hurtful to the common weal, in order that it may come under their jurisdiction; for sins merely internal were reserved for God’s judgment. Again, there must be some trustworthy testimony brought against the accused; thus, it is the custom in England that all who are put on their trial, when first asked by the Judge if they are guilty or not, answer, ‘Not guilty,’ before any witness is brought against them, or any verdict found by the jury; and though they answer the same way, whether really guilty or not, yet no one accuses them of lying. Therefore I laid down this general principle, that no one is allowed to use equivocation except in the case when something is asked him, either actually or virtually, which the questioner has no right to ask, and the declaration of which will turn to his own hurt, if he answers according to the intention of the questioner. I showed that this had been our Lord’s practice, and that of the Saints. I showed that it was the practice of all prudent men, and would certainly be followed by my interrogators themselves in case they were asked about some secret sin, for example, or were asked by robbers where their money was hid.

“They asked me, therefore, when our Lord ever made use of equivocations; to which I replied, ‘When He told His Apostles that no one knew the Day of Judgment, not even the Son of Man; and again, when He said that He was not going up to the Festival at Jerusalem, and yet He went; yea, and He knew that He should go when He said He would not.’

“Wade here interrupted me, saying, ‘Christ really did not know the Day of Judgment, as Son of Man.’

“ ‘It cannot be,’ said I, ‘that the Word of God Incarnate, and with a human nature hypostatically united to God, should be subject to ignorance; nor that He Who was appointed Judge by God the Father should be ignorant of those facts which belonged necessarily to His office; nor that He should be of infinite wisdom, and yet not know what intimately concerned Himself.’ In fact, these heretics do not practically admit what the Apostle teaches (though they boast of following his doctrines), namely, that all the fulness of the Divinity resided corporally in Christ, and that in Him were all the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God. It did not, however, occur to me at the moment to adduce this passage of St. Paul.”

In every one of these instances words are carefully introduced to show that the denials in question were uttered not with the intent of deceiving the hearers (though even that, according to the grave Protestant authorities recently quoted, would have been lawful), nor of allowing them to deceive themselves if they did not choose to advert to the circumstances in which the denials were made (as Catholic divines would have permitted);(189) but avowedly in order that they might not be available as legal evidence against the speaker or his friends.

To Father Gerard’s defence of himself it may be as well to add that of Father Southwell,(190) who was assailed by Sir Edward Coke.

“The Father would have spoken further on this point [obedience to the laws] had they not attacked him on another,” objecting to him a statement of Anne Bellamy’s, who deposed that Father Robert had instructed her, that if asked by searchers or persecutors if there was a Priest in the house, she could say “No,” though she knew there was one: nay, that if asked on oath, she could swear there was not. No sooner was this brought out than the Judges and officers of the court showed themselves highly scandalized, and were for stopping their ears:(191) as if, forsooth, the seeking for Catholic Priests to put them to a traitor’s death, or force them to apostatize, were a proceeding so clearly and so indubitably just, as to make it as clearly and indubitably unjust to hide them from such an ordeal, or to deny them to their pursuers: nor, indeed, would the harm be confined to the cruel execution of the Priest, but with him the whole of the family in whose house he was found would be liable to the same death of traitors. Coke, therefore, the Attorney General, made the most he could of this matter, insisting that such a pernicious doctrine tended to destroy all truth, and all reliance of men in each other’s veracity, and if allowed to prevail, would upset all good government. Topcliffe also inveighed against it so exorbitantly, that Judge Popham silenced him. Father Robert then, as soon as he was allowed to reply, explained briefly what he had said to the witness, whose statement was not altogether exact, and addressing the Judge, said:

“ ‘If you will have the patience to listen to me, I shall be able to prove to you from the Holy Scriptures, from the Fathers, from theologians, and from reason, that in case a demand is made against justice and with the view of doing grievous harm to an innocent person, to give an answer not according to the intent of the questioner is no offence against either the divine law or the natural law. Nay, I will prove that this doctrine in no wise threatens the good government of states and kingdoms: and that, where the other necessary conditions of an oath are present, there is nothing wrong in confirming such an answer in that manner. Now I ask you, Mr. Attorney, Supposing the King of France (which God forbid) were to invade this country successfully, and having obtained full possession of this city, were to make search for Her Majesty the Queen, whom you knew to be hidden in a secret apartment of the palace: supposing, moreover, that you were seized in the palace and brought before the King, and that he asked you where the Queen was, and would receive no profession of ignorance from you except on oath: what would you do? To palter or hesitate is to show that she is there: to refuse to swear is equivalent to a betrayal. What would you answer? I suppose, forsooth, you would point out the place! Yet who of all who now hear me would not cry out upon you for a traitor? You would then, if you had any sense, swear at once, either that you knew not where she was, or that you knew she was not in the palace, in order that your knowledge might not become instrumental to her harm. Of this kind, in fact, was the answer of Christ in the Gospel, when He said that concerning the Day of Judgment no one had any knowledge, neither the Angels in Heaven, nor the Son: that is, according to the interpretation of the Fathers, such knowledge that He could communicate to others. Now this is the condition of Catholics in England: they are in peril of their liberty, their fortunes, and their lives, if they should have a Priest in their houses. How can it be forbidden them to escape these evils by an equivocal answer, and to confirm this answer, if necessary, by an oath? For in such a case, three things must be remembered: first, that a wrong is done unless you swear; secondly, that no one is obliged to answer everybody’s questions about everything; thirdly, that an oath is always lawful, if made with truth, with judgment, and with justice, all which are found in this case.’(192)

“He went on to exemplify his position by supposed queries of robbers and highwaymen; but he was interrupted by abuse.”

Father Garnett has defended himself at sufficient length in his speech on his trial;(193) but as he there refers to his previous answers, we have thought it best to give insertion here to an autograph paper of his preserved in the Public Record Office.(194)

“Concerning equivocation, which I seemed to condemn in moral
things, my meaning was in moral and human conversation, in which
the virtue of verity is required among friends, for otherwise it
were injurious to all humanity. Neither is equivocation at all to
be justified, but in case of necessary defence from injustice or
wrong, or the obtaining some good of great importance, when there
is no danger of harm to others, as in the case of Coventry,(195)
wherein I suppose it is a great advantage to me for to be
admitted, and no harm can ensue to the city. For the city seeketh
nothing but to be free from the sickness, and if it were possible
that the city knew me to be free of certainty, they would admit me
presently, which is confirmed by the custom of places beyond
[sea], where, though they know a man to come from a place
infected, yet after they have kept him in some several place, with
convenient diet, for forty days, they admit him.

“As for Mr. Tresham’s equivocation, I am loath to judge; yet I
think ignorance might excuse him, because he might think it lawful
in that case to equivocate for the excuse of his friend, yet would
I be loath to allow of it or practise it: he being not then urged,
but voluntarily offering it himself, contrary to that which he had
before set down, and especially being in case of manifest treason,
as I will after explain. But in case a man be urged at the hour of
his death, it is lawful for to equivocate, _with such due
circumstances as are required in his life_. An example we may
bring in another matter. For the divines hold that in some cases a
man may be bound to conceal _something in his confession_, because
of some great harm which may ensue of it. And as he may do so in
his life, so may he at his death, if the danger of the harm
continue still.

“The case being propounded, supposing that I knew Gerard
acquainted with this treason, and having been often demanded
thereof, I still denying it, by way of equivocation, whether at
the hour of my death, either natural or by course of justice, I
may by equivocation seek to clear him again.

“I answer, that in case I be not urged I may not, but I must leave
the matter in case in which it stand; but if I be urged, then I
may clear him by equivocation, whereas otherwise my silence would
be accounted an accusation. But all this I understand when the
case is such that I am bound to conceal Gerard’s treason, as if I
had heard it in confession. For this is a general rule, that in
cases of true and manifest treason,(196) a man is bound
voluntarily in utter and very truth by no way to equivocate, if he
know it not by way of confession, in which case also he is bound
to seek all lawful ways to discover, _salvo sigillo_.

“HENRY GARNETT.

“29° Martii.

“All the Doctors that hold equivocation to be lawful do maintain
that it is not lawful when the examinate is bound to tell the
simple truth, that is, according to the civil law, when there is a
competent judge, and the cause subject to his jurisdiction, and
sufficient proofs. But in case of treason a man is bound to
confess of another without any witness at all, yea, voluntarily to
disclose it; not so of himself.

“And how far the common law bindeth in cases that are not treason
a man to confess of himself, I know not. In the civil law, it is
sufficient to have _semiplenam probationem_, that is, _unum testem
omni exceptione majorem_, or _manifesta indicia_.

“Our law I take to be more mild, and that a man may put all to
witnesses without confessing, except in cases of treason. For,
according to our law, _non pervertitur judicium tacendo vel
negando_, as in the civil law, where is required _reus confitens_.
But generally, when a man is bound to confess, there is no place
of equivocation. And when he is not bound to confess according to
the laws of each country, then may he equivocate.”

In the last paper Father Garnett is not speaking of equivocation used in defence of an innocent person, but of what we may call the persistent plea of “Not guilty,” and he there draws an interesting distinction between the Roman civil law and our own, which he calls “more mild,” in that it professed to regard a prisoner as innocent till he is proved to be guilty. Happily this is our practice now, as well as our profession, and our quotations are needed to enable us to form judgments of conduct in times that have happily passed away.

But with regard to the trustworthiness of Father John Gerard’s evidence, as we have it before us in his Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot, even if the lawfulness of his proceedings were not admitted, all that we are concerned to show is, that untrue statements, made by a man under circumstances which, rightly or wrongly, he considers to justify him in making them, furnish no presumption whatever that, under other circumstances, affording to his conscience no such justification, his word cannot be trusted. It is an evident instance of the maxim that the exception proves the rule. Restraining himself carefully within the limits of what he held to be lawful under circumstances of extreme difficulty and great personal danger, are we not rather to conclude that, under far less pressure, he will as carefully confine himself to the laws imposed by his conscience? Clearly there is nothing in Father Gerard’s practice under examination to cause us to hesitate in placing implicit trust in his word when he speaks as an historian; and, in addition, we are sure that no one will rise from the perusal of the exculpatory letters which we propose to subjoin, without a full conviction of his innocence and truthfulness.

XXXI.

But before we close this subject by producing these letters, we think it desirable to answer in detail two particular accusations that have been brought against Father Gerard’s veracity by a modern writer. Canon Tierney says:(197) “To show how very little reliance can be placed on the asseverations of Gerard when employed in his own vindication, it is only right to observe that, referring to this transaction” [the Communion of the conspirators after their oath of secresy] “in his manuscript narrative, he first boldly and very properly asserts, on the authority of Winter’s confession, that the Priest who administered the Sacrament was not privy to the designs of the conspirators; and then ignorant of Faukes’ declaration which had not been published, and supposing that his name had not transpired, as that of the Clergyman who had officiated upon the occasion, he returns at once to the artifice which I have elsewhere noticed, of substituting a third person as the narrator, and solemnly protests on his salvation that he knows not the Priest from whom Catesby and his associates received the Communion!”

Dr. Lingard also says simply that the Communion was received by the conspirators “from the hand of the Jesuit missionary Father Gerard,”(198) apparently unconscious that he had ever denied it.

We have little doubt that the house in which the oath of secrecy was taken and holy Communion received, was really Father Gerard’s house. The “house in the fields behind St. Clement’s Inn,” as Faulks calls it; “behind St. Clement’s,” as it appears in Winter’s confession, seems to be the house described by Father Gerard as that which he occupied up to the time of the Powder Plot, “nearer the principal street in London, called the Strand,”(199) in which street most of his friends lived. But he was not the only Priest who lived in that house. At least two other Priests(200) resided habitually with him. One was Father Strange, who was in the Tower when the Autobiography was written; the other, whose name he does not give, “was thrown into Bridewell, and was afterwards banished, together with other Priests.” Then there was also Thomas Laithwaite,(201) who afterwards became a Jesuit, who frequented the house if he did not live there. Father Gerard says, “There I should long have remained, free from all peril or even suspicion, if some friends of mine, while I was absent from London, had not availed themselves of the house rather rashly.” What meaning can this have but that Catholics were allowed, in Father Gerard’s absence, to come to the house too freely to receive the Sacraments, so that it became too widely known that it was his house?

Immediately after binding themselves by oath to secrecy, the minds of the conspirators must have been preoccupied with the thoughts of the tremendous undertaking to which they had just pledged themselves; and it is very unlikely that mention should be made, in subsequent conversation among them, of the name of the Priest, whom they had only seen at the altar, especially as he “was not acquainted with their purpose.”(202) The only two conspirators who mention Father Gerard’s name are Faulks and Thomas Winter. Faulks was a stranger, who had “spent most of his time in the wars of Flanders, which is the cause that he was less known here in England.”(203) We have no trace of any personal intercourse between Thomas Winter and Father Gerard. What can have been more natural than that they should have been told to meet at Father Gerard’s house, and that those who did not know him by sight should have concluded that it was Father Gerard’s Mass that they heard? It surely is more probable that they should have been mistaken in a name than that Father Gerard should have been guilty of perjury in contradicting, from a place of safety, that which was no accusation against him, but a harmless statement that, in ignorance of the oath taken, he had given Communion to certain Catholics.

Faulks’ confession was extorted by torture. King James had given orders, “The gentler tortours are to be first usid unto him, _et sic per gradus ad ima tenditur_, and so God speede your goode work.”(204) Faulks was under none of the “gentler tortures” when in a tremulous hand he wrote “Guido” on that declaration. “The prisoner is supposed to have fainted before completing”(205) the signature. Before the words exculpating Father Gerard from all knowledge of the conspirators’ purpose, the word _Hucusque_ appears in the handwriting of Sir Edward Coke, who has underlined the sentence in red. The ideas of justice of this great lawyer permitted him to publish the mention there made of Father Gerard’s name, and to suppress the statement of his innocence. There is also a red line drawn beneath the following words in Thomas Winter’s examination: “But Gerard knew not of the provision of the powder, to his knowledge.”(206)

The second accusation brought by the same writer,(207) is couched as follows: “Relying upon the fidelity of Gerard, who declares _upon his conscience_, that he has ‘set down Father Garnett’s words truly and sincerely as they lie in his letter,’ Dr. Lingard has printed what is given by that writer, and from it has argued, with Greenway, that Garnett on the 4th of October, the date assigned to it both by Gerard and Greenway, was still ignorant of the nature of the Plot. The truth, however, is, that although the _letter_ was written on the _fourth_, the _postcript_ was not added until the _twenty-first_ of October; that from this postscript the two Jesuit writers have selected a sentence, which they have transferred to the body of the letter; and then, concealing both the existence of the postscript and the date of the 21st, have represented the whole as written and dispatched on the 4th. The motive for this proceeding, especially on the part of Greenway, is obvious. That writer’s argument is, that the Parliament had been summoned to meet on the 3rd of October, that Garnett had not heard of the intention to prorogue it to the following month (this, to say the least, is very improbable); that, for anything he could have known to the contrary, the great blow had already been struck, at the very time when he was writing; and, consequently, that, had he been acquainted with the intentions of Catesby and his confederates, he would never, at such a moment, have thought of proceeding, as he says he was about to proceed, towards London, and thus exposing himself to the almost inevitable danger of falling into the hands of his enemies.... Now the whole of this reasoning is founded on the assumption that the letter bore only the single date of the 4th. On the 21st, the supposed danger of a journey to London no longer existed. At that period, too, Garnett, instead of proceeding towards the metropolis, had not only removed in the opposite direction, from Goathurst, in Buckinghamshire, to Harrowden, the seat of Lord Vaux, in Northamptonshire, but was also preparing to withdraw himself still further from the capital, and by the end of the month, was actually at Coughton, in the neighbourhood of Alcester. In fact, what was written on the 4th, he had practically contradicted on the 21st, and to have allowed any part of the letter, therefore, to carry this later date, would have been to supply the refutation of the very argument which it was intended to support. Hence the expedient to which this writer has had recourse. The postscript and its date are carefully suppressed; and we are told that, looking at the contents of the letter, Garnett, when he wrote it, could have known nothing of the designs of the conspirators: ‘Quando scrisse questa lettera, che fu alli quattro d’Ottobre, non sapeva niente del disegno di questi gentilhuomini, altro che il sospetto che prima havea havuto’ (Greenway’s MS., 51b). Without stopping to notice the falsehood contained in the concluding words of this sentence, and without intending to offer an opinion here, as to the principal question of Garnett’s conduct, I may still remark that even the friends of that Jesuit universally admit him to have received the details of the plot from Greenway about the 21st; and that this fact alone may be regarded as supplying another and a sufficient motive both to the latter and to Gerard, for the suppression of that date.”

This note by Canon Tierney produced its effect on Dr. Lingard, and that historian, in the edition of his work published in 1849, remarks upon the matter as follows.(208) “The object for which this letter was made up in the shape which it thus assumes in Gerard’s MS., is plain from the reasoning which both he and Greenway found upon it. They contend that, if Garnett had been privy to the conspiracy, he must have believed on the 4th that the explosion had already taken place on the 3rd, the day on which the Parliament had been summoned to meet; though no reason is assigned why he might not, as well as others, have been aware of the prorogation to the 5th of November, and they add that, under such belief, he would never have resolved to encounter the dangers of making, as he proposed to do, a journey to London, though in fact he made no such journey, but changed his route, and was actually, at the time in which he wrote, on his way to the meeting appointed at Dunchurch. Hence it became necessary to suppress the postscript, because it was irreconcileable with such statements. There was, moreover, this benefit in the suppression, that it kept the reader in ignorance (1) of the real date of the letter, the 21st of October, the very time when it is admitted that Greenway made to Garnett a full disclosure of the Plot; and (2) that Garnett took that opportunity of blotting out a most important passage in the letter written on the 4th, with a promise to forward the same passage later in an epistle apart; two facts which would furnish strong presumptions against the alleged innocence of the Provincial.”

One word in passing, in reply to the “two facts which would furnish strong presumptions against” Father Garnett’s innocence. 1. Dr. Lingard has forgotten that “the full disclosure of the Plot” was made in confession, and that Father Garnett could make no use of it in any way, until the conjuncture arose when the penitent gave him leave. 2. It is true that a passage, written to Father Persons on the 4th October, was erased by Father Garnett on the 21st; but what presumption does this furnish? The “promise to forward the same passage later in an epistle apart,” could not mean that he would write him word of the Powder Plot when it was safe to do so. Is it likely that a conspirator would have written to his friend, with all the chances of a letter being intercepted, that they were proposing to blow up the Houses of Parliament? What would he have gained even had he but risked a phrase as oracular as that of the letter to Lord Mounteagle? Such a supposition assumes that Father Garnett was not only guilty of the Plot, but that he had lost all common sense and ordinary caution; and that he was indebted to the accidental return of his letter to his hands, seventeen days after he had written it, for an opportunity of destroying proof under his own hand that he was guilty. If this consideration is not conclusive, we have but to refer to the context, as given from the original by Mr. Tierney himself,(209) and our sense of the ridiculous must settle the question. Father Garnett must have been the most erratic of letter-writers, if he could insert a reference to the Gunpowder Treason, or to any other treason, between two such subjects as the choice of Lay-brothers and his own want of money. The letter ends as follows.

“ ‘I pray you send word how many Coadjutors’ ” [Jesuit Lay-brothers] “ ‘you will have. I have one, a citizen of London, of very good experience, which may benefit us, in buying and selling without taxes. But he is fifty years old: and I think it not amiss to have, at the first, some ancient men for such. Send your will herein.’

“_A short but separate paragraph of three lines is here carefully obliterated._

“ ‘I am in wonderful distress, for want of the ordinary allowance from Joseph’ ” [Creswell, the Superior in Spain]. “ ‘I pray you write for all the arrearages, which, if it may all be gotten, I can spare you some. Thus, with humble remembrance to Claud’ ” [Aquaviva, the General], “ ‘Fabio, Perez, Duras, and the rest, I cease, 4o Octobris.’ ”

But let us address ourselves to the grave accusation made against Gerard and Greenway. That Dr. Lingard should have made such a statement at all is owing, first, to the fact that at the time when he was preparing the new edition of his History, he had no longer access to the manuscript of Father Gerard, of which he had had the use(210) when originally compiling his work. The reader, who has Gerard’s Narrative now beneath his eyes, can speedily convince himself of this fact. And, secondly, to a misunderstanding of Canon Tierney’s note, for which that writer’s expressions are to blame. If it had been true, as Dr. Lingard understood Mr. Tierney to say, that Gerard and Greenway drew the same argument from the date of Father Garnett’s letter, their conduct would have been entirely indefensible, and they would have deserved the blame brought against them.

The truth however is, and in this lies an ample defence for both of them, that this is not so. Father Gerard quotes Father Garnett’s letter only and solely to illustrate the state of the Catholics in England. For this purpose, the date of the letter he was quoting was entirely unimportant. Indeed, he originally quoted the letter without any date; and then he interlined the date of Oct. 4th, but laying no more stress upon it than he had laid on the dates of the other letters of July 24th and August 28th. For the same reason it would not occur to him to note that the passage respecting Ireland was taken from a postcript. It was enough for him that he gave Father Garnett’s very words, as he declared “upon his conscience” that he did; and that he had Father Garnett’s authority for the account that he was giving of the condition and state of feeling of Catholics. When he turned to the letter for a date, it was natural enough that he should take that which was endorsed upon it by Father Persons, who, having erased the date of the 21st which he had originally written upon it, had substituted the 4th, and “in another corner of the paper also, where it appears most likely to catch the eye, inscribed the same date thus, ‘4° 8bris.’ ”(211) As there is no ground for blaming Father Persons for thus endorsing a single date on a letter which continued to bear two, so neither is it reasonable to blame Father Gerard for quoting the letter under one date only. It is clear, therefore, that there is no accusation whatever against Father Gerard, and if Father Greenway had not drawn from the date of the letter the argument regarding Father Garnett, none would ever have been made. It is gravely to be regretted that Mr. Tierney should have said that there was “a sufficient motive both to the latter _and to Gerard_ for the suppression of that date.” This expression evidently misled Dr. Lingard, and led him erroneously to speak of “the reasoning which both he [Gerard] and Greenway found upon it.” Had Dr. Lingard not trusted to Mr. Tierney, but referred to Gerard’s Narrative, he would have said of the whole charge that which he has said(212) of the alterations of names in the first part of the letter. Of this his expression is, “Had his object been only to present the public with an account of the persecution to which the English Catholics were at that moment subjected, there would not have been great cause to complain.” This _was_ his only object,(213) and therefore there was, in Dr. Lingard’s judgment, no great cause to complain.

Father Greenway derived his information of the letter from Father Gerard’s Narrative, of which he was translator. Whether the argument he has founded on the date of the letter has any and what force is not here under discussion, but it is evident that he propounded it in good faith. The original letter was in existence to confute him. If he had seen it or noticed the postscript and its date, he would never have exposed himself to such a confutation. He was misled, innocently enough, but seriously, by the manner in which the letter appeared in Father Gerard’s pages which he was translating.

In a word, the accusation is this. Gerard and Greenway found an argument on the fact that a letter of Garnett’s was dated the 4th of October, when they knew that it was in his hands on the 21st. And the answer is this. Gerard may have known, but had no need to notice, the fact of the double date, as he founded no argument whatever upon it: Greenway, who did found an argument on it, had no reason for suspecting the existence of a later date on the letter.

XXXII.

Having thus vindicated the fair fame of these Fathers from the unmerited imputations brought against them, it remains for us to produce the letters which were written expressly to prove Father Gerard’s innocence of all complicity with the conspiracy. We first take from the Public Record Office(214) his letter to the Duke of Lenox, enclosing letters to the Earl of Salisbury and Sir Everard Digby. These are the letters described by Father Gerard himself in the twelfth chapter of his Narrative.(215)

“Right Honourable,—Seeing all laws, both divine and human, do
license the innocent to plead for himself, and the same laws do
strictly require and highly commend an open ear in any of
authority to give audience and equal trial to a plaintiff in such
a case, my hope is that your Grace will excuse this my boldness in
offering up by your hands my humble petition for trial of my
innocence touching the late most impious treason, whereof I am
wrongfully accused, by some lost companions, I assure me, who, to
save themselves from deserved punishment, will not stick to accuse
any innocent of any crime wherein their bare word may pass for
proof. There is none so innocent but may be wrongfully accused,
sith innocency itself in our Lord and Master was accused and
condemned as an enemy to the State and no friend to Cæsar. The
servant must not look to be more free from wrongs than his Master
was. But happy is that man by whom the truth is tried in judgment
and innocency cleared.

“I durst not presume, being branded with the odious name of
traitor, to offer my petition to my Sovereign (to whom, as God is
witness, I wish long life and all happiness as to my own soul).
But if by your Grace’s means (of whose piety and worthy
disposition I have heard so much good) the humble suit of a
distressed suppliant (prostrate at His Majesty’s feet) may be
offered up, I hope it shall be found not unfit for your Grace to
offer, and most fit and reasonable for so wise and righteous a
Prince to grant.

“My humble petition is only this. That, whereas I have protested
before God and the world, I was not privy to that horrible Plot of
destroying the King’s Majesty and his posterity, &c., by powder
(wherewith I am now so publicly taxed in the proclamation), that
full trial may be made, whether I be guilty therein or not. And if
so it be proved, that then all shame and pain may light upon me;
but if the truth appear on the contrary side, that then I may be
cleared from this so grievous an infamation and punishment not
deserved. Two kinds of proofs may be made in this cause, which I
humbly beseech your Grace, for God’s cause, may be performed. One
is, that all the principal conspirators (with whom I am said to
have practised the foresaid Plot of Powder against the Parliament
House) may be asked at their death, as they will answer at the
dreadful tribunal unto which they are going, whether ever they did
impart the matter to me, or I practise the same with them in the
least degree, or whether they can but say of their knowledge that
I did know of it. And I know it will then appear that no one of
them will accuse me, if it be not apparent they do it in hope of
life, but do give signs that they die in the fear of God and hope
of their salvation.

“And as by this trial it will appear (in this time most fit for
saying truth) that there is not sufficient witness against me, so
I humbly desire also trial may be made by examining a witness, who
can, if he will, fully clear me, and I hope he will not deny me
that right, especially being(216) ... the place of right and
justice himself. Sir Everard Digby can testify for me, how
ignorant I was of any such matter but two days before that
unnatural parricide should have been practised. I have, for full
trial thereof, enclosed a letter unto him, which I humbly beseech
may be delivered before your Grace and the other two lords, whose
favour and equity I have likewise humbly entreated by these
letters unto them. All which I am bold to direct unto your Grace’s
hands, presuming upon your gracious furtherance, not having other
means, in this my distressed case, to have them severally
delivered. God of His goodness will reward, I hope, in full
measure, this your Grace’s favour and pity showed to an innocent
wrongly accused, who would rather suffer any death than not to be
found ever faithful to God and his Sovereign,

“JOHN GERARD.

“This 23rd of January.”

_Addressed_—“To the Right Honourable the Duke of Lenox, these
deliver.”

_Endorsed in Cecil’s hand_—“Gerard the Jesuit to the Duke of
Lenox.”

“Right Honourable,—Although I can expect no other from one in your
place, but that you should permit the course of justice to proceed
against any that are proved guilty of treason to His Majesty and
the State, especially in so foul and unnatural a treason as was
lately discovered, yet I cannot but hope where there is so much
wisdom, and so vigilant a care for the preservation of this State,
your lordship will also be pleased to hear, and forward to make
trial, who may be wrongfully accused, knowing right well that it
is as necessary in any Government to protect the innocent as to
punish the offenders.

“What proof there is of my accusation I know not, and therefore
cannot answer it. But this I know: that none can truly produce the
least proof that ever I was made privy to that treason of which I
am accused, and much less a practiser with the principal
conspirators in the same, as I am denounced to be. Therefore, sith
I know not my accusers, God I hope will be judge between them and
me, to Whom I refer my cause, and in Whom my trust is, and ever
shall be, that He will right me.

“In the meantime my humble request is, that your lordship, who
have been so often seen to be pitiful towards any in distress, and
a potent helper to those who were oppressed (a special ornament in
so eminent a person, and much commended and rewarded by God
Himself), will show your accustomed commiseration in my case, and
afford me therein such audience as may be sufficient to make trial
of my innocency. Wherein your lordship shall imitate the just
proceeding of the highest Lord, from Whom both yourself, and all
that govern, have all your power. For God Himself, although He
know all things before He call us to account, yet, to give us the
form of just proceeding, is said in Holy Scripture to be ever
careful in hearing what the accused can say for himself before He
proceeds to give sentence. So we read that God said to Abraham,
‘Clamor Sodomorum etc., multiplicatus est, etc., descendam et
videbo utrum clamorem qui venit ad me opere compleverint, an non
est ita, ut sciam.’ So again in the Gospel when He heard a
complaint against His steward, He would not proceed against him
without full audience, but called him and said, ‘Quid hæc audio de
te? redde rationem villicationis tuae.’ These most high and worthy
examples I trust your lordship will follow in my case, as you have
been known to do with others. And then I doubt not but that shall
appear true which I have most sincerely protested before God and
the world.

“My humble petition therefore is, that a witness may be asked his
knowledge who is well able to clear me if he will, and I hope he
will not be so unjust in this time of his own danger as to conceal
so needful a proof being so demanded of him. Sir Everard Digby
doth well know how far I was from knowledge of any such matter but
two days before the treason was known to all men. I have therefore
written a letter unto him, to require his testimony of that which
passed between him and me at that time. Wherein, if I may have
your lordship’s furtherance to have just trial made of the truth
whilst yet he liveth, I shall ever esteem myself most deeply bound
to pray for your lordship’s happiness both in this world and in
the next. In which hope I will rest, your lordship’s prone and
humble suppliant, never to be proved false to King and country,

“JOHN GERARD.

“This 23rd of January.”

_Addressed_—“To the Right Honourable the Earl of Salisbury,
Principal Secretary to His Majesty, these.”

_Endorsed in Cecil’s hand_—“Gerard the Jesuit to my son.”

“Sir Everard Digby,—I presume so much of your sincerity both to
God and man, that I cannot fear you will be loath to utter your
knowledge for the clearing of one that is innocent from a most
unjust accusation, importing both loss of life to him that is
accused, and of his good name also, which he much more esteemeth.

“So it is that upon some false information (given, as I suppose,
by some base fellows, desirous to save their lives by the loss of
their honesty) there is come forth a proclamation against my
Superior, and one other of the Society, and myself, as against
three notorious practisers with divers of the principal
conspirators in this late most odious treason of destroying the
King’s Majesty and all in the Parliament House with powder. And
myself am put in the first place, as the first or chiefest
offender therein.

“Now God I call to witness, Who must be my Judge, that I did never
know of it before the rumour of the country brought it to the
place where I was, after the treason was publicly discovered. And
if this protestation be not sincerely true, without any
equivocation, and the words thereof so understood by me, as they
sound to others, I neither desire nor expect any favour at God’s
hand when I shall stand before His tribunal. But because this
protestation doth only clear me in their opinion who are so
persuaded of my conscience that they think I would not condemn my
soul to save my body (which I hope by God’s grace shall never be
my mind): therefore, to give more full proof of my innocency to
those also may doubt the truth of my words, I take witness to
yourself whether you, upon your certain knowledge, cannot clear
me. I wrote a letter before Christmas which I hoped would be
sufficient to have cleared me; wherein, beside a most serious
protestation (such as no honest man can use if he were guilty, as
for my part my conscience doth persuade me), I alleged some other
reasons which did make it more than probable, in my opinion, that
I was neither to be charged with this late treason, nor chargeable
with former dealing in State matters. But I did of purpose forbear
this proof (which now I allege), although I did assure myself it
would clear me from all just suspicion of being privy to that last
and greatest treason; and I did forbear to set it down, in regard
I would not take knowledge of any personal acquaintance with you,
especially at your own house, not knowing how far you were to be
touched for your life, and therefore would not add unto your
danger. But now that it appears by your confession and trial in
the country that you stand at the King’s mercy for greater matters
than your acquaintance with a Priest, I hope you will not be loath
I should publish that which cannot hurt you, and may help myself
in a matter of such importance. And as I know you could never like
to stoop to so base and unworthy a humour as to flatter or
dissemble with any man, so much less can I fear that now (being in
the case you are in) you can ever think it fit to dissemble with
God, or not to utter your every knowledge, being required as from
Him, and in the behalf of truth. Therefore I desire you will bear
witness of the truth which followeth (if it be true that I affirm
of my demand to you, growing upon my ignorance in the matter then
in hand) as you expect truth and mercy at God’s hand hereafter.

“First, I desire you to bear witness whether, coming to your house
upon All Souls’ Day last, before dinner, with intention and hope
to celebrate there, and finding all things hid out of the way and
many of your household gone, you did not perceive me to be
astonished at it, as a thing much contrary to my expectation.
Whereupon I asked you what was become of them. And when you told
me you had sent them into Warwickshire, and your hounds also, and
yourself were going presently after, about a hunting match which
you had made, though I seemed satisfied for the present because a
stranger was there with you, yet whether I did not soon after
(when I had compared many particulars together which seemed
strange unto me) draw you into a chamber apart, and there urge you
to tell me what was the reason both of that sudden alteration in
your house and of divers other things which I had observed before,
but did not until then reflect upon them so much, as, for example,
the number of horses that you had not long before in your stable,
the sums of money which I had been told you had made of your stock
and grounds, which (said I) in one of your judgment and provident
care of your estate, are not likely to be done without some great
cause, and seemed to think you had something in hand for the
Catholic cause. Your answer was, ‘No, there was nothing in hand
that you knew of, or could tell me of.’ And when I replied that I
had some fear of it by those signs, considering you would not hurt
your estate so much in likelihood without some cause equivalent
(for I knew very well you meant to pay the statute, and so stood
not in fear of losing your stock), and therefore willed you to
look well that you followed counsel in your proceedings, or else
you might hurt both yourself and the cause, your answer was (which
I have remembered often since), ‘That you respected the Catholic
cause much more than your own commodity, as it should well appear
whensoever you undertook anything.’ I asked you once again
whether, then, there were anything to be done, and whether you
expected any help by foreign power, whereunto you answered,
holding up the end of your finger, that you would not adventure so
much in hope thereof. Then I said, ‘I pray God you follow counsel
in your doings. If there be any matter in hand, doth Mr. Walley
know of it?’ You answered, ‘In truth, I think he doth not.’ Then I
said further, ‘In truth, Sir Everard Digby, if there should be
anything in hand, and that you retire yourself and company into
Warwickshire, as into a place of most safety, I should think you
did not perform the part of a friend to some of your neighbours
not far off, and persons that, as you know, deserve every respect,
and to whom you have professed much friendship, that they are left
behind, and have not any warning to make so much provision for
their own safety as were needful in such a time, but to defend
themselves from rogues.’ Your answer was (as I will be sworn), ‘I
warrant you it shall not need.’ And so you gave me assurance that,
if there had been anything needful for them or me to know, you
would assuredly have told me. So I rested satisfied and parted
from you, and after that I never saw you nor any of the
conspirators. These were my questions unto you. And thus clear I
was from the knowledge of that Plot against the Parliament House,
whereof, notwithstanding, I am accused and proclaimed to be a
practiser with the principal conspirators. But I refer me to God
and your conscience, who are able to clear me, and I challenge the
conscience of any one that certainly expecteth death, and desireth
to die in the fear of God and with hope of his salvation, to
accuse me of it if he can. God, of His mercy, grant unto us all
grace to see and do His will, and to live and die His servants,
for they only are and shall be happy for ever.

“Your companion in tribulation though not in the cause,

“JOHN GERARD.”

_Postcript_—“I hope you will also witness with me that you have
ever seen me much averted from such violent courses, and hopeful
rather of help by favour than by force. And, indeed, if I had not
now been satisfied by your assurance that there was nothing in
hand, it should presently have appeared how much I had misliked
any forcible attempts, the counsel of Christ and the commandment
of our superiors requiring the contrary, and that in patience we
should possess our souls.”

_Addressed_—“To Sir Everard Digby, prisoner in the Tower.”

_Endorsed in Cecil’s hand_—“Gerard the Priest to Sir Everard
Digby.”

From Father Bartoli(217) we take a letter written from Rome, twenty-five years after the Powder Plot, addressed by Father Gerard to Dr. Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon, and Vicar Apostolic of England. The translation from Bartoli’s Italian version is a very old one; the date of the letter is September 1, 1630.