Chapter XVII: A Catalogue Of The Laws Against Catholics Made By Queen (11)

“My Lord,—Not long since I received information that a manuscript
dissertation, with the title of _Brevis Inquisitio, &c._, had been
circulated in your parts; in the course of which it is pretended
that a certain person continues to glory, to the present day, that
by working under ground in the mine of Mr. Catesby and other
conspirators, by excavating and carrying out the soil with his own
hands, he has often found his shirt wet through and dripping with
sweat as copiously as if it had been dragged through a river; and
that this person is no other than myself, according to the opinion
expressed in the letter. I despised such an idle tale as
undeserving of an answer, knowing it, as most others must know it,
to be not only most false, but, moreover, most remote, from
probability. I only begged of a good Priest, who was setting out
for England, to make known to your lordship what I had heard
concerning such a deed laid to my charge, so contrary to all truth
and justice; and that I hoped you would not give credit to it, but
rather on hearing it mentioned by any one, would show the
falsehood as it is. But in the meantime, while the Priest is yet
on his journey, I have learned from good authority that the book
has been printed and published, curtailed indeed of that story,
which is, however, circulated in manuscript through the hands of
many, with every circumstance and embellishment; whence has arisen
the general opinion that I am the person there spoken of, the
testimony of a Priest being alleged, who says that he has heard me
boast of it. Truly I cannot sufficiently express my astonishment
on perceiving that there can be found a Catholic, and if a Priest
so much the worse, who has so shameless a conscience as to dare
assert what he must necessarily know to be false, and injurious to
one who never did him any harm or injury whatever. This I can
affirm of myself with respect to every Priest in England, to many
of whom I have often afforded assistance, but, to my knowledge,
have never offended one. Your lordship, moreover, must be aware
how very improbable it is that I should boast of a crime so false,
so horrible. Now, with all due reverence, I call God to witness
that I had no more knowledge of the conspiracy than a new-born
infant might have; that I never heard any one mention it; that I
had not even a suspicion of the provision of gunpowder for the
mine, excepting only when the Plot was detected, made public, and
known to every one, and when the conspirators appeared openly in
arms in the county of Warwick; then only did I hear of it for the
first time, by a message brought to the place where I resided; and
this place was so ill provided that of itself it proved I could
have no knowledge of the conspiracy, either from the expressions
of others or from my own suspicions; there being in that place
neither men nor arms sufficient to defend us from the marauders,
who on every occasion of similar commotions issue forth and unite
in bodies for plunder. Neither did this happen for want of
sufficient means to furnish and reinforce the house with men and
arms, but solely because we had no suspicion of a commotion, much
less any knowledge of a conspiracy. Besides this, the accomplices
in the Plot were subjected to the most rigorous examination, and
questioned concerning me; and although some of them under the
torture named one or others of those who were privy to the
conspiracy, nevertheless all constantly denied it of me. Sir
Everard Digby, who of all the others, for many reasons, was most
suspected of having possibly revealed the secret to me, protested
in open court and declared that he had often been instigated to
say I knew something of the Plot, but that he had always answered
in the negative, alleging the reason why he had never dared to
disclose it to me, because, he said, he feared lest I should
dissuade him from it. Therefore the greater part of the Privy
Councillors considered my innocence established, it being proved
by the concurrent testimony of so many, and by a letter in which I
defended and cleared myself from such a groundless suspicion. In
that letter, besides the reasons therein produced in proof of my
innocence, I protested before Heaven and earth that, so far from
being engaged in the conspiracy, I was as ignorant of it as man
could be. Being at that time in imminent danger of falling into
the hands of the Privy Councillors, who with the most refined
diligence sent in every direction in quest of me, I had thoughts
of surrendering myself up to every torment imaginable, and what is
more to be regarded, to the terrible and disgraceful charge of
perjury, if having me in their power they could convict me, by
legal proof, of being privy to the conspiracy. There was a time,
when under Elizabeth they held me prisoner for something more than
three years, during which period, many times and in as many ways
as they chose, did they examine me, to discover in general if I
had ever meddled in affairs of State. I challenged them to produce
in proof a single character in my hand, a single word, or anything
else sufficient to show it, and then to punish me when convicted
with the most cruel death that could be inflicted. There never was
brought forward the smallest trace or shadow of a proof. How much
more improbable is it that I should consent to a Plot so inhuman,
I who, from the natural disposition of my soul, independently of
supernatural motives, hold in abhorrence everything that has the
smallest appearance of cruelty. This I can affirm with truth, that
from the time I first embraced the profession of life in which I
am engaged, down to the present moment, I have never, by God’s
mercy, desired the grievous harm, much less the death, of any man
in the world, although he may have been my most inveterate enemy:
how could I then have had any hand or part in the sudden,
unexpected, and on that account tremendous death of so many
personages of such high quality, for whom I have ever borne the
greatest respect. A person was employed to scatter copies of my
forementioned letter through various streets of London, and one in
particular was delivered to the Earl of Northampton, and by him
laid before the King, on whom my reasons so far prevailed to his
satisfaction that he would have desisted from the rigorous search
made after me, had not Cecil, for his own private ends, rendered
him more violent than ever. For being persuaded that some of the
conspirators had plotted against his life in particular, and
knowing that most of them were my friends, he hoped if he could
once lay hold of me, to find out from me how many and who were the
conspirators. For this sole reason he never rested until he had
again persuaded the King, as a thing evidently known to him and
clearly demonstrated, that I was not only an accomplice but the
ringleader in the Plot, and therefore to be the first named in the
proclamation; which was so done. Perceiving from this that the
persecution was not likely to abate, and that I might be
discovered and arrested, I took the advice to withdraw myself for
a time, and to ‘give place to wrath,’ and, after so many years of
hard labour in England, with the Apostles ‘to come apart into a
desert place and rest a little:’ nor was there any other principal
motive of my leaving the kingdom. In fine, this is the simple
naked truth; I was totally ignorant of the provision of gunpowder
and of the mine; I was and I am as innocent of this and of every
other conspiracy as your lordship or any other man living; and
this I affirm and swear upon my soul, without any equivocation
whatsoever; in such sort, that if the facts do not correspond
truly to the meaning of the words, or if I had any information of
the forementioned Plot before it was made public to the whole
world, as I have before said, I own myself guilty of perjury
before God and men; and as far as it is true that I had no
knowledge of it, so far and no more do I ask mercy at the throne
of God: and it is very probable that it will not be long before I
must appear at the divine tribunal, considering my age and the
present contagion in the neighbourhood; for if it should reach us
it is hardly possible I can escape, on account of the assistance
which it is my duty to render to this Community, whose souls are
committed to my care.(218) Therefore I am induced to hope that
your lordship will not consider me so careless and prodigal of my
eternal salvation, after having spent so many years in no other
employment than that of seeking to know and to accomplish the will
of God, and of teaching the same to others, as to be now willing
to burthen my conscience and risk the salvation of my soul by a
protestation so solemn and spontaneous, if my conscience were not
pure, my cause evident, and my words true in all sincerity. Now,
as I doubt not that God, the Supreme Judge, Who sees and knows all
things, will pass sentence on my cause according to its merits, so
I hope that your lordship, now knowing me to be innocent, will not
wish me to appear guilty, by permitting to stand against me
without contradiction an accusation so false and of such enormous
infamy. Since this accusation derives its greatest force from the
authority of your lordship, who, it is publicly said, gives credit
and support to it, I beseech you, by that love which you have for
charity and justice, to oppose the falsity of the calumny by the
truth of this my justification. With respect to the Priest,
whoever he may be, by whose false allegation your lordship appears
to have been deceived, I desire with all my heart he may meet with
true repentance before he dies, so that we may all live together
and love God in a blessed eternity.”

Next, we find, in Father Henry More’s _History of the English Province S.J._,(219) a letter from Father Thomas Fitzherbert, Rector of the English College at Rome, of which house Father Gerard was then Confessor. It is not necessary for us to translate it from his Latin version, as it exists in English amongst the Stonyhurst MSS.(220) It is dated some months later than the foregoing letter of Father Gerard, and was sent by Mutius Vitelleschi, General of the Society, to the Bishop of Chalcedon, by the hands of Fathers Henry Floyd and Thomas Bapthorpe, who were at the same time bearers of a second letter from Father Gerard to Bishop Smith, extracts from which we subjoin, translated from Bartoli.(221)

“Right Rev. and my honorable good Lord,—Having understood that one
of our Society hath been of late traduced, _tacito nomine_, in a
printed book as to have bragged that he had sweat in working in
the Powder Plot, and that your lordship have named him, and as it
seemeth, dost believe him to be Father John Gerard, I think myself
obliged to represent to your lordship’s consideration some things
concerning him, and that matter, as well in respect of the common
bond of our religion and his great merits, as also for that he is
at this present under my charge (albeit I acknowledge myself
unworthy to have such a subject), and lastly for the knowledge I
have had many years of his innocency in that point ever since that
slanderous calumny was first raised by the heretics against him,
at which time I myself and many other of his friends and kinsmen
did very diligently and curiously inform ourselves of the truth
thereof, and found that he was fully cleared of it even by the
public and solemn testimony of the delinquents themselves, namely
of Sir Everard Digby (with whom he was known to be most familiar
and confident), who publicly protested at his arraignment that he
did never acquaint him with their design, being assured that he
would not like of it, but dissuade him from it; and of this I can
show good testimony by letters from London written hither at the
same time, bearing date the 29th of January, in the year 1606.
Therefore, to the end that your lordship may the better believe
it, I have thought good to shew the same to some very credible
persons, who are shortly to depart from hence, and do mean to
present themselves to your lordship, of whom you may (if it please
you) understand the truth of it. Besides that for your better
satisfaction, I have also by our right reverend Father General’s
express order and commission commanded him in their presence upon
obedience (which commandment we hold by our Rule and Institute to
bind, under pain of mortal sin) to declare the truth whether he
had any knowledge of that Powder Plot or no, and he hath in their
presence protested upon his salvation, that he had never any
knowledge of it, either by Sir Everard Digby, or any other, until
it was discovered, and that he came to know it by common fame;
besides that alleged many pregnant proofs of his innocency therein
which I omit to write, because he himself doth represent them to
your lordship by a letter of his own; and of this also the
witnesses aforesaid may inform your lordship if you be not
otherways satisfied. In the meantime, I have only thought it my
part to give this my testimony of his solemn protestation and
oath, and withal to send to your lordship the enclosed copies of
two clauses of letters from England and Flanders touching this
matter, not doubting but that your lordship’s charity will move
you to admit the same as sufficient to clear him of that calumny,
seeing there was never any proof produced against him, nor yet any
ground of that slander but the malicious conceit and suspicion of
heretics, by reason of his acquaintance with some of the
delinquents, in which case a solemn protestation and oath, as he
hath freely and voluntarily made, may suffice both in conscience
and law for a canonical purgation to clear him from all suspicion
as well of that fact as of all collusion or double dealing in this
his protestation, especially seeing he hath always been not only
_integerrimæ famæ_, but also of singular estimation in England for
his many years’ most zealous and fruitful labours there, and his
constant suffering of imprisonment and torments for the Catholic
faith. Besides that, he hath been ever since a worthily esteemed
and principal member of our Society, and given sufficient proof of
a most religious and sincere conscience, to the edification of us
all. This being considered, I cannot but hope that your lordship
will rest satisfied of his innocency in this point, and out of
your charity procure also to satisfy others who may have, by any
speech of your lordship’s, conceived worse of him than he hath
deserved; for so your lordship shall provide as well for the
reparation of his fame as for the discharge of your own
conscience, being bound both by justice and charity to restitution
in this case, as I make no doubt but that your lordship would
judge if it were another man’s case; yea, and exact also of others
if the like wrong had been done either to yourself, or to any
kinsman, dear friend, or subject of yours, all which he is to me;
and, therefore, I am the bolder, I will not say to expect this at
your lordship’s hands (because it doth not become me), but humbly
to crave it of you as a thing which I shall take for a favour, no
less to myself than to the Society; and so this to no other end, I
humbly take my leave, wishing to your lordship all true felicity,
this 15th of March, 1631.

“Your lordship’s humble servant,

“THOMAS FITZHERBERT.”

“Ex literis P. Ægidii Schondonchii Seminarii Audomarensis Rectoris
1 Martii 1606:

“ ‘Dum has scribo accepi literas recentissime datas a viro claro
quibus significavit Dominum Everardum Digbæum, dum a Judicibus
pronuntiaretur in eum mortis sententia, coram eisdem protestatum
esse nullum penitus in Anglia Jesuitam hujus rei fuisse conscium,
Nam, inquit, familiaris Patri Gerardo si quis alius, neque unquam
ausus fui indicare tantillum, veritus ne conaretur frangere
nostros conatus. Itaque sancte asseruit se id solo ex puro
Catholicæ ac Romanæ Ecclesiæ zelo neque ullo alio humano respectu
suscepisse.’

“Out of the letter of Father Michael Walpole written to Father
Persons, the 29th of January, 1606:

“ ‘Touching Gerard’s letter which I have seen, I can only say this
much, that it seemeth to me to be so effectual, as nothing can be
more, so that I am fully persuaded that the King’s Majestie
himself and the whole Council remain satisfied of him [in] their
own hearts, and his Majesty is reported for certain to have
declared so much in words upon the sight of his letter.’

“In the end, after his name, he writeth as followeth:

“ ‘This letter is confirmed since by Sir Everard Digby’s speech at
his arraignment, in which he cleared all Jesuits and Priests (to
his knowledge) upon his salvation. And in particular, that though
he was particularly acquainted with Gerard, yet he never durst
mention this matter, being fully assured that he would be wholly
against it, to which my Lord of Salisbury replied, affirming the
contrary, and that he knew him to be guilty.’ ”

The first extract of the letter enclosed from Father Gerard runs thus:

“It is known to all how those of any blood have loved and served
King James. My father knew it to his cost, for he was twice
imprisoned for attempting to set free the glorious Queen Mary, the
King’s mother, and to secure the succession to her children: which
intent of his own was so clear to the Ministers of State, that
besides imprisonment, to purchase his life of them cost him some
thousands of crowns, especially the first time when there were but
three accused and he one of them, and of the other two, one lost
his life. Of all which King James was mindful when he came from
Scotland to be crowned King of England, and my brother at York
offered him his service and that of all his house. ‘I am
particularly bound,’ said he, ‘to love your blood, on account of
the persecution that you have borne for me, and of that his love
he there gave him the first pledge by making him a Knight.’ ”(222)

The remaining extract concludes our series of exculpatory letters:

“I send your lordship a copy of the three letters that I wrote to
three Councillors of State, that you may see in them how I trusted
to my innocence, when I offered to put it to the proof in the two
ways which I there proposed to them. Further than this, though the
conspirators had been put to death, and I saw that the course
proposed by me to the Councillors was not accepted, while the
matter was fresh, and I yet in London, I requested of our Fathers
that I might present myself in person to the Council of State,
which I would have done had they but given me leave; and if the
Council would have proceeded against me, not on the score of
religion, but for the conspiracy only, which alone was in
question, and for which, if they had found me guilty of it, they
might have done to me their very worst. This request I can swear
that I made and renewed several times to our Fathers, and there
are some yet alive who can bear witness to it; but it did not seem
good to them to consent to it.”

The matter does not seem to have rested here, unless there is some mistake in a date, for Dr. Lingard(223) quotes from a MS. copy, dated April 17, 1631, an affidavit made by Anthony Smith, a Secular Priest, before the Bishop of Chalcedon, “that in his hearing, Gerard had said in the Novitiate at Liége, that he worked in the mine with the lay conspirators till his clothes were as wet with perspiration as if they had been dipped in water; and that the general condemnation of the Plot was chiefly owing to its bad success, as had often happened to the attempts of unfortunate generals in war.” It would seem as if this were a repetition of the original accusation, in answer to which the letters given above were written. Of the attack on Father Gerard, Dr. Lingard says, “For my own part, upon having read what he wrote in his own vindication, I cannot doubt his innocence, and suspect that Smith unintentionally attributed to him what he had heard him say of some other person.”(224)

XXXIV.

It remains for us only to give an account of the manuscripts that have been used as well in the Narrative of the Powder Plot as in the Autobiography of its author.

Father Christopher Grene, who was English Penitentiary at St. Peter’s, died in Rome in 1697.(225) This Father was a most diligent collector of all the documents that related to the history of the persecutions of Catholics in England.(226) He copied volumes of such documents, several of which are still extant. In one which is preserved at Stonyhurst, entitled by him, _Miscellanea de Martyribus et Persecutione in Anglia signanda lit._ M. ... _incept. anno 1690_, he informs us that there were various books called _Collectanea_ in the Archives of the English College at Rome, distinguished by the letters of the alphabet, of the contents of which he gives us an account. At folio 51 we have: “Ex libro Collectaneorum in folio signato lita _C_ in Archo Colli Angl. hoc die 24 Jan. 1689. A relation of ye Gunpowder Treason and of Father Garnett’s araignmt and martyrdome, &c., written by Father John Gerard: ’tis ye the original written soon after ye sayd martyrdome. It contains 85 sheetes of paper, and is an excellent work, and should be printed.” After a short analysis of the book, the pages quoted agreeing with the Stonyhurst MS. of the Narrative, we have, “A p. 176 in eod. libro Collectan. _C_ una relatione del P. Filippo Bemondo(227) della sua Missione in Inghilta,” &c. The last page of the Stonyhurst MS., bearing the endorsement, “A Relation of ye Gunpowder Treason, ye execution, &c. Also of F. Garnett’s arrayment,” is numbered 176. The first page bears in Father Grene’s handwriting the inscription, “Of the Gunpowder Treason, written by F. John Gerard, _alias_ Tomson, it is the originall.” We are thus enabled to recognize our manuscript as the commencement of Father Grene’s volume _C_. The subsequent history of the MS. is related in the two following letters, which Dr. Oliver appended to the copy that he made of the Narrative. It is only necessary to add that the Rev. Marmaduke Stone, to whom the second letter is addressed, transferred the Academy of Liége (as it was called after the suppression of the Society), of which he was made President in 1790, to Stonyhurst, in 1794. In 1803 he was appointed Provincial in England by the General of the Society in Russia. In all probability, therefore, the MS. was given by Father Thorpe to Father Stone, at Liége, and by him was brought to Stonyhurst, where it now is.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The following extract is taken from a letter addressed by the Rev. John Thorpe from Rome, August 12, 1789, to Henry, eighth Lord Arundell.

“The collection of ancient papers at the English College here
consisted of two sorts. The first belonged to the Stuart family,
and was deposited there only after the old Chevalier retired into
Italy. Neither Rector nor any other person in the College knew
anything of the contents, which were locked up in a strong
chamber, of which the keys were kept in the Palace of SS.
Apostoli, and everything was carefully removed to that palace
several months before the oppression of the Society. The other
collection related to ecclesiastical matters, from the time of
Henry VIII. to the beginning of the present century; it had been a
repository of all papers and letters of many indefatigable men in
preserving a faithful remembrance of whatever was interesting to
religion during that period. But different removals of these
papers, which were very many, had thrown them into disorder.
Father Booth can tell in what state he left them. I have before
mentioned to your lordship a MS. relating to our British saints,
written in the manner of a calendar, in which many curious
passages of history frequently occurred. I do not think it had
been seen either by Father Alford (who wrote the annals of our
British Church up to the year 1180) or by Mr. Wilson, who digested
the English Martyrology that was daily read at St. Omer. Other
MSS. of this kind were also in the same place, while I lived in
the College. Afterwards, when the storm began to blacken over us,
divers attempts were made to put these papers into a place of
security; but every means miscarried. They never belonged to the
College, and among what are the College archives many very
interesting papers remain belonging to the Jesuits. The papers
above mentioned were finally destroyed by one accident or another,
to prevent further fears of molestation in those days of arbitrary
persecution. If anciently there had been any valuable MSS. in the
old hospital, they were supposed to have been removed when it was
converted to the purpose of a College, because scarce anything
more than accounts of pilgrims, house expenses, and like articles,
remained under that date, and even these in no regular order. Thus
I apprehend that no material intelligence of remote historical
facts can be gathered from hence.

“I will now venture to tell your lordship of a curious MS. that a
very unforeseen accident brought into my hands, at a considerable
distance of time from the oppression of the Society, and from the
total removal of the Jesuits from the College. It is a long
account of the Gunpowder Plot, from beginning to the end in the
original handwriting of Father John Gerard. It is a folio volume
of about 300 pages, composed with an extensive knowledge of the
persons concerned, and of whom several curious anecdotes are
recounted. Father John Gerard suffered much on occasion of that
Plot, wherein the prosecutors tried every means to involve him in
one manner or another. During the plundering and ransacking of the
Houses at the oppression, such an account was reported to have
been found in the Novitiate by the notorious Alfani, and it
immediately was sought for by our countrymen, and instructions
were said to have come from our Court at London for obtaining it
at any price. But on further examination that account contained no
more than relations of the religious lives and edifying death of
those Jesuits who suffered on that occasion. I have never heard
what became of those papers, but suppose them to have been
destroyed, with very many others of no less edification. I must
find some good place wherein to deposit the relation above
mentioned; it is very curious, though it contains no new
intelligence of the fact described in it. It is written with a
singular candour that distinguishes the good religious man, and
with a politeness that marks the gentleman. Your lordship may
signify all this with my best respects to Mr. More” [the last
English Provincial before the suppression], “desiring his counsel
on the manner of disposing of this valuable MS., every line of
which may be esteemed a relic for the eminent sanctity of the
writer.”

Lastly, we have an extract from a letter written from Rome, March 26, 1791, by the Rev. John Thorpe to the Rev. Marmaduke Stone, President of the English Academy at Liége.

“Among other things with me is one very singular piece, which I
look upon as a kind of property of your House, at least in the
light wherein it stood twenty years ago. It is an original folio
MS. all in the handwriting of venerable Father John Gerard,
wherein he gives an ample relation of the Gunpowder Plot; and it
is, I believe, the only relation extant that was written by a
person accused of being in any manner acquainted of it. This
article demands your secrecy, and it is earnestly recommended to
it; but your counsel is also asked, where and how this rare
_depositum_ should be placed. Religion has nothing to fear from
it. A summary of its contents was sent some time ago to England,
and was in the hands of Lord Arundell. At the time of the
Society’s suppression here, a commission came hither from England
(supposed to be given by the Court) for purchasing at any rate, if
any such relation should be found among the Jesuits’ archives. A
long Latin account of Father Garnett’s sufferings was triumphantly
seized among the papers of the Novitiate, and occasioned the
vulgar mistake of what was sought being really found; but the
contents, when understood, notoriously demonstrated the contrary.
This is written in English, in that easy devout style for which
everything of the writer is remarkable. It is a valuable relic.”

Though we cannot exactly determine the date of the MS., we can approximate to it pretty nearly. First of all, it is clear from the mention of Sir Thomas Gerard’s knighthood at p. 27, that the book was written before the creation of baronets in 1611. At page 282, Father Southwell’s martyrdom is said to have happened eleven years before. As he died in 1595, and Father Gerard escaped from England in May, 1606, the Narrative would seem to have been written in the latter part of that year. We have, besides, Father Grene’s statement that it was “written soon after the martyrdom” of Father Garnett, and Father Gerard’s own assertion in his Autobiography: “I myself, when I came from England to Rome, was ordered to put in writing an account of the whole affair, and did so as well as I could.”

The original MS. of the Autobiography no longer exists. Father Grene had seen it; for an analysis of it, _transcript. ex autographo ipsius_, in his hand is in the second volume of the MSS. kept at Stonyhurst under the name of _Collectanea_, which we have quoted under the letter _P_. The MS. we have used,(228) which belongs to Stonyhurst, bears the title, “Narratio Patris Joannis Gerardi de rebus a se in Anglia gestis.” It purports to be a copy from an original at the Novitiate of St. Andrew, in the hands of Father Francis Sacchini, the historian. We have no means of knowing whether it is the same copy as that which existed, according to Father Grene,(229) in the volume of the _Collectanea_ called _D_, in the English College at Rome. He mentions it under the title of “Narratio P. Joannis Gerardi de tota vita sua. Copia.” The Autobiography was composed in 1609, as is plain from the mention of Robert Drury’s martyrdom, which our author says happened two years before the time when he was writing. This good Priest suffered at Tyburn, Feb. 26, 1607.

We now leave Father John Gerard in the hands of the reader, parting from him with sincere respect, and sharing good old Father Grene’s affection for him, who in some notes, written in preparation, apparently, for an English Menology, has set down as applicable to Father Gerard the phrases, “Non ipse martyrio, sed ipsi martyrium defuit,” and, again, the Church’s antiphon for St. Martin, “O beatum virum, qui totis visceribus diligebat Christum! O sanctissima anima, quam etsi gladius persecutoris non abstulit, palmam tamen martyrii non amisit.”

Additional Notes.

P. x. and p. 26.—Elizabeth, the mother of John Gerard, was the eldest of the three daughters and co-heiresses of Sir John Port, and at her father’s death, June 6, 1557, Etwall became the property of Sir Thomas Gerard. This is the “dwelling-house within two miles of” Tutbury “Castle where” Mary Queen of Scots “was kept,” where Father Gerard lived when a child for three years. Sir John’s second daughter, Dorothy, took Dale Abbey in Derbyshire to her husband, George Hastings fourth Earl of Huntingdon; and Margaret, the third daughter, by her marriage conveyed Cubley in the same county to Sir Thomas Stanhope, grandfather of the first Earl of Chesterfield.

Father Gerard had three sisters, Mary, wife of John Jenison; Dorothy, wife of Edmund Peckham; and Martha, wife of Michael Jenison. In the British Museum (Harl. MSS. 6998, f. 197) there is a report, dated June 16, 1595, from Edward Cokayne, evidently a Derbyshire magistrate, of assistance given by him to William Newall, “one of the messengers of Her Majesty’s Chamber,” in searches in that county. The following paragraph relates to one of Father Gerard’s sisters: “The first house that we searched according to his direction was the house of one Mr. Jenison, that married one of my Lady Gerard’s daughters, she being a great recusant, and not her husband: howsoever, it is reported that there is great resort of strangers, but what they be, we cannot learn, neither at this time did we find any there, but pictures in the chambers according to their profession. Only one West that was a messenger between the seminaries was fled six weeks before we came, and whither he is gone, as yet we cannot learn.”

P. xii.—It is not easy to reconcile the dates at this period of Father Gerard’s life. He could not have been nineteen when he went to France, for he lived at Rhemes three years, one at Clermont, and about a year in England before he was committed to the Marshalsea; he was a full year in that prison, and after his discharge his recognizances were renewed for perhaps another year before leaving England for Rome, and he was in the College about seventeen months before he was ordained Priest towards the close of 1587, when he yet wanted several months of the canonical age for the Priesthood, that is, twenty-five. From this we should gather that when he first went to Rhemes he was under seventeen, which would have been in 1580.

On the other hand, it is equally difficult to understand the date given in the Douay Diary, August or September, 1577, which would make him fourteen. Perhaps this was a visit to the continent before going to Oxford, which he says was when he was fifteen, spending a year there and two years afterwards with Mr. Leutner as a tutor. The Douay Diary has the following entry. “1577. Aug. 29 die, advenerunt ex Anglia Mr. Paschallus vir nobilis, et quidam Aldrigius mercator: eodem etiam tempore adventavit Mr. Gerrardus D. Tho. Gerrardi Equitis Aurati filius.”

P. xv.—The following is the entry respecting Father John Gerard in the _Liber Annalium_ of the English College at Rome: “Joannes Gerardus Anglus dioecesis Lichfeldiensis annum agens 23m, aptus ad theologiam positivam, receptus fuit in hoc Anglorum Collegium inter alumnos SSmi. D. N. Sixti V. a P. Gulielmo Holto hujus Collegii Rectore de mandato Illmi. Hippoliti Cardis. Aldobrandini Viceprotectoris sub die 5o Aprilis Anno Dni. 1587, cum fuisset antea Convictor per septem menses.

“Anno Dni. 1587 mense ... accepit ordines minores, et mense Augusto Subdiaconatum, et Diaconatum 9o mense die 16.”

His name appears in the Pilgrims’ Register of the English College, as having been there received Aug. 5, 1586 (Stonyhurst MSS., Father Grene’s _Miscell. de Coll. Angl._, p. 19).

P. xvi.—The Douay Diary gives us the dates of Father Gerard’s arrival at Rhemes and his departure thence, together with the names of his fellow-travellers. It is clear that if they left Rhemes on the 26th of September, and remained at Eu until they could receive an answer from Rome, they could not possibly have landed in England so soon as the end of October. “1588. Sept. 21 die, Roma ad nos venerunt D. Rodolphus Buckland, D. Joannes Gerard filius D. Thomæ Gerard Equitis Aurati, D. Arthurus Stratford” [whom Gifford, the spy, called Shefford], “D. Edouardus Oldcorn presbyteri. Die 26 Angliam ituri discesserunt D. Jo. Gerard, D. Rodolphus Buckland, D. Arthurus Stratford et D. Edouardus Oldcorn.”

P. xxx.—In the Public Record Office (_Domestic, Eliz._, vol. 244, n. 7) are two forms of indictment of Richard Jackson, Priest, for saying Mass, and of various members of the Wiseman family for being present at Mass, on the 25th August and the 8th September, 34 Eliz., 1592. The endorsement is “Masse-mongers.”

P. xxxviii.—Line 22, for “Worcestershire” read “Warwickshire.” See p. 282.

Pp. xlv., lxx.—In his examination Brother Emerson frankly acknowledged himself to be a Jesuit Lay-brother, and “sometime Campion’s boy.” A copy of his examination is in the British Museum (Harleian MSS., 6998, f. 65). It is dated April 17, 1593, and bears the marginal note “Ley Jesuite.” “Ralph Emerson of the bishopric of Durham, scholar, of the age of forty-two years or thereabouts, examined before Sir Owen Hopton, Knight, Mr. Doctor Goodman, Dean of Westminster, Mr. Dale, Mr. Fuller, and Mr. Young, who refuseth to be sworn, but saith first that he hath [been] in prison these nine years—namely, three years and a quarter in the Counter in the Poultry, and the rest of that time hath been in the Clink—committed by Mr. Young for bringing over of books, called my Lord of Leicester’s books as he saith, and hath been examined before Sir Francis Walsingham, and before Mr. Young, and before others divers times, and was never indicted to his knowledge.

“Item, he confesseth that he is a Lay Jesuit, and took that degree at Rome fourteen years since, and was sometime Campion’s boy, and sayeth when he took that Order he did vow chastity, poverty, and obedience to the Superior of their House, and if he sent him to the Turk he must go.

“Item, being urged to take the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, refuseth the same, and saith he may not take any oath.

“Item, he saith he hath neither lands, goods, nor other living, but will not set down by whom he is maintained and now relieved.

“Item, he refuseth to be reformed, and to come to Church, affirming that he will live and die in his faith.

“Item, being demanded whether if the Pope should send an army into this realm, to establish that which he calleth the Catholic Romish religion, he would in the like case fight for the Queen’s Majesty on her side against the said army, or on the army’s side, saith that he will never fight against Her Majesty, nor against the religion which he professeth.

“Concordat cum originali.—H. Fermor.”

P. xlvi.—Father Tesimond, in the Italian narrative already mentioned (p. ccxlviii) as forming part of Father Grene’s volume _C_ (fol. 185), says that, when he came to England in 1597, Father Garnett was living in a house called Morecroftes, at Uxbridge, twelve or thirteen miles from London. There may have been a friendly house at Brentford, for this was their place of meeting on one occasion when they had suddenly to leave Uxbridge on account of a search.

P. liii.—Dominam ipsam domus in suo cubiculo cum puellis suis clauserunt (MS.) More probably “with her daughters” than “with her maids.” William and Jane Wiseman had three children, Jane, Dorothea, and Winifred. John who married Mary, daughter of Sir Rowland Rydgeley, had two daughters, Lucy and Elizabeth, and an only son, Aurelius Piercy Wiseman, who was killed in a duel in London in 1680. The following inscription on his grave, in Wimbish Church, is given by Wright (_History of Essex_, vol. ii., p. 134): “Here rest the sad remains of Aurelius Piercy Wiseman, of Broad Oak, in this parish, Esq., the last of the name of that place, and head and chief of that right worshipful and ancient family, who was unfortunately killed in the flower of his age, December 11, 1680.”

P. lvii.—From the _Life of Anne Countess of Arundel_, published in 1857 by the Duke of Norfolk (p. 308), we learn that, during the Earl’s imprisonment, “she hired a little house at Acton, Middlesex, six miles distant from London.”

P. cxl.—Father Tesimond relates a search some two years earlier than this, in which Father Joseph Pollen escaped capture (Stonyhurst MSS., C, fol. 184).

Pp. clxvi. and cciii.—Sir Oliver Manners wrote the following letter in Italian to Father Aquaviva, General of the Society, from Turin, April 17, 1612, shortly before his eldest brother’s death (Stonyhurst MSS., _Angl. A._, vol. vi.). “I cannot tell you what comfort I received from the letters of your Paternity. The troubles I then had will tell it better than I can, for, when I was seriously ill, my brother the Earl sent to say that I was to expect no more help from England, as the King has entrusted my houses and estates to him, and would not permit him to send me a penny. Precisely at that moment the letters of your Paternity reached me, and seemed to me sent by the Lord to make me touch with my hand how His Divine Majesty never abandons those who hope in Him and suffer for His love; and as at that time I had a great desire of suffering more and more, if so it should please our Lord, so my strength returned to me far more rapidly than I could have expected, and thus I assured myself that it was the Divine will that I should reach my intended goal, there to do something for His service, _sive per vitam sive per mortem_. And so I undertook my journey, and have already reached Turin. To-morrow I start for Lyons. In England I cannot expect anything better than that which has befallen the Baron” [Vaux], “my companion, who is in prison by the King’s express orders, and expects to lose all he has; for his mother is already condemned to the punishment called _præmunire_, that is, the loss of all temporalities and perpetual imprisonment, for refusing the oath of allegiance, as they call it. The grace I ask from God is so to bear myself that I may always show myself grateful for the many favours of your Paternity, as becomes a disciple of the Society, and for this intention with all humility I asked to be armed with your blessing, and I beg to be partaker of the Holy Sacrifices and prayers of your Paternity and of all the Society. In conclusion with all reverence I kiss your hand.”

P. clxxxiv.—The following is the confidential report made to the General respecting Father Gerard, previous to his profession. By a singular chance the paper in which it is contained is the only one of similar reports that has come to our hands. It is amongst the Stonyhurst MSS. (_Angl. A._, vol. vi.). Father Gerard’s name is the ninth on the paper. We translate from the Latin: “Father John Gerard, English, forty-five years old, nineteen in the Society, twenty-one on the English mission.” [The writer was not aware of the true date of his admission into the Society.] “He studied at Rome in the English College controversy and cases of conscience for four years.” [These four years must include his three years residence at Rhemes.] “He was admitted in England, where he made his noviceship. He is a very spiritual man; he is endowed with an admirable power of gaining souls; he has also more than middling talent for preaching; and he is held to be not unfit for government. If these talents can supply the defect of learning, taking also into account all that he has suffered for the Catholic faith, then he is proposed for the four vows. It would be a consolation both to himself and to the many Catholics of note, by whom he is held in high esteem. But if not, then he is proposed for profession of the three vows.”

P. cxc.—Among the papers of Sir Edward Phelips, preserved at Montacute House, Somersetshire, of which a copy has been deposited in the Public Record Office by the Historical MSS. Commission, we have the examinations of two of Mrs. Vaux’ servants, one of whom is the “Ric. the butler” of whom Lady Markham speaks.

“The examination of Francis Swetnam, servant to Mrs. Elizabeth Vaux, and served her in the bakehouse, taken the third of December, 1605. Saith that he hath been a recusant these two years, but will now come to the Church, for that he had rather adventure his own soul than loosen his five children, but cannot give any reason why he should adventure his soul by coming to Church. Saith that he was taken in his mistress’ house and brought up with her to London, but denieth that he was ever at any Mass, or that he knoweth any Priest, and cannot deliver any other material thing to be set down. The mark of Francis Swetnam, Jul. Cæsar, Rog.r Wilbraham, E. Phelipps, Jo. Croke, George More, Walter Cope, Fr. Bacon, John Doddridge” (f. 25).

“The examination of Richard Richardson, butler to Mrs. Vaux. He saith he hath served his mistress about six years, and hath not come to Church since he was eleven year old. Saith that since Midsummer last Catesby was at Harwardds [Harrowden] only one time, which was about St. Luke’s Day; and Sir Everard Digby was there only twice, the former time about the 6th of August and the later time about St. Luke’s Day; and that Francis Tresham was not there this twelvemonth; Mr. Rookwood these three years; and that Winter, Grant, Percy, Morgan, were never there during his service. And for matter of faith or revealing of Priests or Masses, he desireth to be spared, because it concerneth his soul. Richard Richardson, Jul. Cæsar, Rog.r Wilbraham, Jo. Croke, John Doddridge, Walter Cope, George More, Fr. Bacon.” _Endorsed_—“6° December, 1605” (f. 32).

These papers (f. 58 et seq.) likewise contain Serjeant Phelips’ Brief for the prosecution of Sir John Yorke for complicity with the Powder Plot, about 1612. The first three of “five general heads” of accusation are: “1. That Gerard was received by Sir John Yorke both before and after the Powder Treason. 2. That secret passages and places were made for Gerard at Golthwaite. 3. That a private diet was provided for him.” A few specimens of the evidence will show that, whoever it was who frequented Sir John Yorke’s house, at all events it was not Father Gerard, who never set foot in England after May, 1606. Francis Brown: “He hath seen Gerard the Jesuit at Sir John Yorke’s house called Golthwaite both before and after the Powder Treason. He hath seen Gerard the Jesuit within this seven years at least twenty times. The last time was at Audebroughe in Christmas last [1610], when Gerard lay secret in the house all the Christmas. And once he went up into the chamber where Gerard was sitting by the fire. And resteth assured that Sir John Yorke knows where Gerard is. That there was no half year passed since the Powder Treason but he saw him at one of Sir John Yorke’s houses, and mentioneth four particular times.” The marginal note is, “The servants to Sir John Yorke all deny the conveying of Gerard or the knowledge of him, whereof Johnson was put to torture and denied it.” William Browne the elder “names the place where he met him in North Wales, soon after the Powder Treason and before the Proclamation.” William Browne the younger: “On Martinmas Day was two years, in a Close called Burnings, near Sir John Yorke’s house, near a ford, he met Johnson on foot, and a man like to the person described by the Proclamation to be Gerard on a mare of Sir John Yorke’s called White Friar.” Robert Joye: “As he was working in the hall at Golthwaite in the summer before the Powder Treason, about the later Lady Day in harvest, Marmaduke Lupton, the steward to Sir John Yorke, came to him and told him it was my lady’s pleasure he should remove out of the hall and work in the buttery. Whereupon he removed into the buttery, and Lupton put the door to. Whereat he marvelling pulled open the door a little, and saw Lupton bring in a reasonable broad man. And the Lady Yorke came out of the parlour and met him in the entry that goeth to the kitchen, and up the stairs to the garret she said, ’Welcome, Mr. Gerard,’ which this examinate perfectly heard, for there was but an inch board between. Mr. Gerard was carried up to the garret chamber, and remained there a month, not coming openly down. Heard Lupton, Grange, and Almond many times severally ask the cook secretly whether Mr. Gerard’s meat were ready.” Sampson Baines: “The Lady Yorke did use to appoint what meat he should dress for dinner, and what for the chamber, which was commonly two dishes and no more.” The margin here has, Margaret Almond: “She carried no meat at any time to any strangers, saving such as were her master’s and lady’s friends. She made shift to carry up meat, though she go with a crutch and have but one leg.”

P. cxciii.—From the following letter it appears plain that the names of the Ambassadors are wrongly given. And a witness named Parsons, examined Dec. 12, 1605, says that a “Priest named Tempest went over with the Spanish Ambassador about Bartholomew-tide last” (Montacute Papers, f. 46). So the Conde de Villa Mediana left England in the latter part of August, 1605.

Father Baldwin from Brussels to Father Persons at Rome, May 20,
1606. “Since my last, five days ago, arrived at —5 (St. Omers),
469 (Father Gerard), where also is one” [Richard Fulwood] “whom
456 (H. Garnett) was wont to use in all his chief business of
passage, receiving and retaining of all things. I take it he be
229 (Jesuit) also. They are yet 627 (secret), and so it is
requisite for a time, especially in that the 194 225 (Marquis
Ambassador) brought them, and by his dexterous and courteous
manner had great care of them. The Marquis of St. Germain came
hither two days ago, and both he and D. Blasco de Arragon came as
well informed of our English matters as I could wish. They have
made relation accordingly to the Nuncio, and this morning to me,
who have been with them a long while. They praise the courage and
constancy of Catholics marvellously, and have an apprehension of
the daily increase of them, as also that the better sort in
England are inclined Catholicly and such in profession. They speak
much of the zeal of the Lady of Shrewsbury and of the indignation
of the King, who, hearing of the manner of Father Ouldcorne’s
death and requesting all Catholics to pray for him and say _De
profundis_, there were found so many to say that aloud, as they
were esteemed a great part of the number, and so many by signs and
voices to have given show of Catholic profession, as all were
amazed. Thus they report; and also that Father Garnett was to be
executed the day which they came away, in Paul’s Churchyard,
although another writing from St. Omers says that it was deferred
the day following, for that the day first appointed was May Day,
and Father Garnett, being advertised of his death, should answer,
‘What then, will you make a May-game of me?’ Howsoever, it is held
for certain that he is dead, and that Marquis told the Nuncio that
therefore he departed the sooner, as unwilling to be present at
such a tragedy.... I think Father Gerard may live in these
countries after that Mr. Owen is delivered (of whom the Archduke
mindeth to have great care), yet he who is said to have had
correspondence with him, one Philips the decipherer, is now
committed to the Tower. And it were very necessary one of ours
remain in Paris, for which place Father Keynes might serve for a
time, at least in that he is not a man noted, and hath the French
tongue, as having lived there. Father Schondonch is of my opinion,
and Father Gerard will do well in his place after some month or
two, if things alter not much, for he can hardly be in any other
place in regard of his indisposition, if it be as I have heard. I
shall soon know more thereof. Father Lee were good in England in
my opinion, for the consolation of many of ours, and Father
Gerard’s friends, all which I remit to your consideration.”