Kitabı oku: «What Gunpowder Plot Was», sayfa 8

“Sir,” he replied, “nothing else can be done. These are the laws, and they must be observed. Their object is undoubtedly to extinguish the Catholic religion in this kingdom, because we do not think it fit, in a well-governed monarchy, to increase the number of persons who profess to depend on the will of other Princes as the Catholics do, the priests not preaching anything more constantly than this, that the good Catholic ought to be firmly resolved in himself to be ready to rise for the preservation of his religion even against the life and state of his natural Prince.²⁵¹ This is a very perilous doctrine, and we will certainly never admit it here, but will rather do our best to overthrow it, and we will punish most severely those who teach it and impress it on the minds of good subjects.”²⁵²

It is unnecessary to pursue the conversation further, or even to discuss how far Cranborne was serious when he expressed his intention of moderating the incidence of the laws which the Government had resolved to carry out. It is certain that they were not so moderated, and that the enforcement of law rapidly degenerated into mere persecution. What is important for our purposes is that the language I have just quoted leads us to the bed-rock of the situation. Between Pope and king a question of sovereignty had arisen, a question which could not be neglected without detriment to the national independence till the Pope either openly or tacitly abandoned his claim to excommunicate kings, and to release such subjects as looked up to him for guidance from the duty of obedience to their King. That the Pope should openly abandon this claim was more than could be expected; but he had not excommunicated James as his predecessor had excommunicated Elizabeth, and there was some reason to hope that he might allow the claim to be buried in oblivion. At all events, Clement VIII. had not only refused to excommunicate James, but had enjoined on the English Catholics the duty of abstaining from any kind of resistance to him. James had, however, wished to go further. Incapable – as most people in all ages are – of seeing the position with other eyes than his own, he wanted the Pope actively to co-operate with him in securing the obedience of his subjects. He even asked him to excommunicate turbulent Catholics, a thing to which it was impossible for the Pope – who also looked on these matters from his own point of view – to consent. In the meanwhile it was becoming evident that the Pope was not working for a Protestant England under a Protestant king, with a Catholic minority accepting what crumbs of toleration that king might fling to them, and renouncing for ever the right to resist his laws however oppressive they might be; but rather for a Catholic England under a Catholic King. This appeared in Clement’s demand that Prince Henry should be educated in a religion which was not that of his father, and it appeared again in the reports of Lindsay, which had caused such a commotion at Whitehall. “His Holiness,” wrote Lindsay, “hath commanded to continue to pray for your Majesty, and he himself stays every night two large hours in prayer for your Majesty, the Queen, and your children, and for the conversion of your Majesty and your dominions. This I may very well witness as one who was present.”²⁵³ We should have thought the worse of the Pope if he had done otherwise; but the news of it was hardly likely to be welcome to an English statesman. Who was to guarantee that, if the priests were allowed full activity in England a Roman Catholic majority would not be secured – or, that when such a majority was secured, the suspended excommunication would not be launched, and a rebellion, such as that of the League in France, encouraged against an obstinately Protestant Sovereign. We may be of opinion that those statesmen who attempted to meet the danger with persecution were men of little faith, who might have trusted to the strength of their religious and political creed – the two could not in those days be separated from one another; but there can be no doubt that the danger was there. We may hold Salisbury to have been but a commonplace man for meeting it as he did, but he had on his side nearly the whole of the official class which had stood by the throne of Elizabeth, and which now stood by the throne of James.

At all events, Salisbury’s doctrine that there was to be no personal understanding with the Pope was the doctrine which prevailed then and in subsequent generations. James’s attempt came to nothing through its insuperable difficulties, as well as through his own defects of character. A pleading, from a Roman Catholic point of view, in favour of such an understanding may be found in a letter written by Sir Everard Digby to Salisbury, which Father Gerard has shown to have been written, not in December, as Mrs. Everett Green suggested, but between May 4 and September, 1605, and which I ascribe to May, or as soon after May as is possible. The letter, after a reference to a conversation recently held between Digby himself and Salisbury, proceeds as follows: —

“One part of your Lordship’s speech, as I remember, was that the King could not get so much from the Pope (even then, when his Majesty had done nothing against the Catholics) as a promise that he would not excommunicate him, wherefore it gave occasion to suspect that, if Catholics were suffered to increase, the Pope might afterwards proceed to excommunication if the King would not change his religion.²⁵⁴ But to take away that doubt, I do assure myself that his Holiness may be drawn to manifest so contrary a disposition of excommunicating the King, that he will proceed with the same course against all as shall go about to disturb the King’s quiet and happy reign²⁵⁵; and the willingness of Catholics, especially of priests and Jesuits, is such as I dare undertake to procure any priest in England (though it were the Superior of the Jesuits) to go himself to Rome to negotiate this business, and that both he and all other religious men (till the Pope’s pleasure be known) shall take any spiritual course to stop the effect that may proceed from any discontented or despairing Catholic.

“And I doubt not but his return would bring both assurance that such course should not be taken with the King, and that it should be performed against any that should seek to disturb him for religion. If this were done, there could then be no cause to fear any Catholic, and this may be done only with those proceedings (which, as I understood your Lordship) should be used. If your Lordship apprehend it to be worth the doing I shall be glad to be the instrument, for no hope to put off from myself any punishment, but only that I wish safety to the King and ease to the Catholics. If your Lordship and the State think it fit to deal severely with Catholics within brief there will be massacres, rebellions and desperate attempts against the King and State. For it is a general received reason amongst Catholics that there is not that expecting and suffering course now to be run that was in the Queen’s time, who was the last of her line, and the last in expectance to run violent courses against Catholics; for then it was hoped that the King that now is would have been at least free from persecuting, as his promise was before his coming into this realm, and as divers his promises have been since his coming, saying that he would take no soul-money nor blood. Also, as it appeared, was the whole body of the Council’s pleasure when they sent for divers of the better sort of Catholics (as Sir Thomas Tresham and others) and told them it was the King’s pleasure to forgive the payment of Catholics, so long as they should carry themselves dutifully and well. All these promises every man sees broken, and to thrust them further in despair, most Catholics take note of a vehement book written by Mr. Attorney, whose drift (as I have heard) is to prove that only being a Catholic is to be a traitor, whose book coming forth after the breach of so many promises, and before the ending of such a violent Parliament, can work no less effect in men’s minds than a belief that every Catholic will be brought within that compass before the King and State have done with them. And I know, as the priest himself told me, that if he had not hindered, there had somewhat been attempted, before our offence,²⁵⁶ to give ease to Catholics. But being so safely prevented, and so necessary to avoid, I doubt not but your Lordship and the rest of the Lords will think of a more mild and undoubted safe course, in which I will undertake the performance of what I have promised, and as much as can be expected; and when I have done I shall be as willing to die as I am ready to offer my service, and expect not nor desire favour for it, either before the doing it, nor in the doing it, nor after it is done, but refer myself to the resolved course for me.”²⁵⁷

I have thought it well to set forth the pleadings on both sides, though it has led me somewhat out of my appointed track. Though our sympathies are with the weaker and oppressed party, it cannot be said that Digby’s letter meets the whole case which Salisbury had raised. Whether that be so or not, it is enough, for our present purpose if we are able to discern that Salisbury had a case, and was not merely manœuvring for place or power. At all events, his opinion, whether it were bad or good, had, in the spring of 1605, been accepted by James, and he was therefore in less need even than in the preceding year of producing an imaginary or half-imaginary plot to frighten to his side a king who had already come round to his ideas.

CHAPTER VII
THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIESTS

It was unavoidable that the persecution to which Catholics were subjected should bear most hardly on the priests, who were held guilty of disseminating a disloyal religion. It is therefore no matter for surprise that we find, about April 1604,²⁵⁸ an informer, named Henry Wright, telling Cecil that another informer named Davies, was able to set, i. e. to give information of the localities of above threescore more priests, but that he had told him that twenty principal ones would be enough. Davies, adds Wright, will not discover the treason till he had a pardon for it himself, and on this Father Gerard remarks ‘that the treason in question was none other than the Gunpowder Plot there can be no question; unless, indeed, we are to say that the authorities were engaged in fabricating a bogus conspiracy for which there was no foundation whatever in fact.’ Why this inference should be drawn I do not know. If Davies was a renegade priest he would require a pardon, and in order to get it he may very well have told a story about a treason which the authorities, on further inquiry, thought it needless to investigate further. It is to no purpose that Father Gerard produces an application to James in which it is stated that Wright had furnished information to Popham and Challoner who ‘had a hand in the discovery of the practices of the Jesuits in the powder plot, and did reveal the same from time to time to your Majesty, for two years’ space almost before the said treason burst forth.’²⁵⁹ That Wright, being in want of money, made the most of his little services in spying upon Jesuits is likely enough; but if he had come upon Gunpowder Plot two years before the Monteagle letter, that is to say, in October, 1603, some five months before it was in existence, except, perhaps, in Catesby’s brain, we may be certain that he would have been far more specific in making his claim. The same may be said of Wright’s letter to Salisbury on March 26, 1606, in which he pleads for assistance ‘forasmuch as his Majesty is already informed of me that in something I have been, and that hereafter I may be, a deserving man of his Majesty and the State in discovering of villainous practices.’ Very gentle bleating indeed for a man who had found out the Gunpowder Plot, as I have just said, before it was in existence!

Nor is much more to be made of the remainder of Father Gerard’s evidence on this head. The world being what it was, what else could be expected but that there should be talk amongst priests of possible risings – Sir Everard Digby in his letter predicted as much – or even that some less wise of their number should discuss half formed plans, or that renegade priests should pick up their reckless words and report them to the Government, probably with some additions of their own?²⁶⁰ When Father Gerard says that a vague statement by an informer, made as early as April 1604, refers to the Gunpowder Plot, because Coke said two years later that it did,²⁶¹ he merely shows that he has little acquaintance with the peculiar intellect of that idol of the lawyers of the day. If Father Gerard had studied, as I have had occasion to do, Coke’s treatment of the case of the Earl and Countess of Somerset, he would, I fancy, have come to the conclusion that whenever Coke smelt a mystery, there was a strong probability that it either never existed at all, or, at all events, was something very different from what Coke imagined it to be.

That the Government believed, with or without foundation, that there were plots abroad, and that priests had their full share in them, may be accepted as highly probable. It must, however, be remembered that in Salisbury’s eyes merely to be a priest was ipso facto to be engaged in a huge conspiracy, because to convert an Englishman to the Roman Catholic faith, or to confirm him in it, was to pervert him from his due allegiance to the Crown. Regarded from this point of view, the words addressed by Salisbury to Edmondes on October 17, 1605, ‘more than a week,’ as Father Gerard says, ‘before the first hint of danger is said to have been breathed,’²⁶² are seen to be perfectly in character, without imagining that the writer had any special information on the Gunpowder Plot, or any intention of making use of it to pave the way for more persecuting legislation than already existed.

“I have received” writes Salisbury, “a letter of yours … to which there needeth no great answer for the present … because I have imparted to you some part of my conceit concerning the insolencies of the priests and Jesuits, whose mouths we cannot stop better than by contemning their vain and malicious discourses, only the evil which biteth is the poisoned bait, wherewith every youth is taken that cometh among them, which liberty (as I wrote before) must for one cause or other be retrenched.”²⁶³

This language appears to Father Gerard to be ominous of further persecution. To me it appears to be merely ominous of an intention to refuse passports to young men of uncertain religion wishing to travel on the Continent.

We can now understand why it was that Salisbury and the Government in general were so anxious to bring home the plot, after its discovery, to some, at least, of the priests, and more especially to the Jesuits.

Three of these, Garnet, Greenway and Gerard, were in England while the plot was being devised, and were charged with complicity in it. Of the three, Garnet, the Provincial of England, was tried and executed; the other two escaped to the Continent. My own opinion is that Gerard was innocent of any knowledge of the plot,²⁶⁴ and, as far as I am concerned, it is only the conduct of Garnet and Greenway that is under discussion. That they both had detailed knowledge of the plot is beyond doubt, as it stands on Garnet’s own admission that he had been informed of it by Greenway, and that Greenway had heard it in confession from Catesby.²⁶⁵ A great deal of ink has been spilled on the question whether Garnet ought to have revealed matters involving destruction of life which had come to his knowledge in confession; but on this I do not propose to touch. It is enough here to say that the law of England takes no note of the excuse of confession, and that no blame would have been due on this score either to the Government which ordered Garnet’s prosecution, or to the judges and the jury by whom he was condemned, even if there had not been evidence of his knowledge when no question of confession was involved.

In considering Garnet’s case the first point to be discussed is, whether the Government tampered with the evidence against the priests, either by omitting that which made in favour of the prisoner, or by forging evidence which made against him. An instance of omission is found in the mark ‘hucusque’ made by Coke in the margin of Fawkes’s examination of November 9, implying the rejection of his statement that, though he had received the communion at Gerard’s hands as a confirmation of his oath, Gerard had not known anything of the object which had led him to communicate.²⁶⁶ The practice of omitting inconvenient evidence was unfortunately common enough in those days, and all that can be said for Coke on this particular occasion is, that the examination contained many obvious falsehoods, and Coke may have thought that he was keeping back only one falsehood more. Coke, however, at Garnet’s trial did not content himself with omitting the important passage, but added the statement that ‘Gerard the Jesuit, being well acquainted with all designs and purposes, did give them the oath of secrecy and a mass, and they received the sacrament together at his hands.’²⁶⁷ Clearly, therefore, Coke is convicted, not merely of concealing evidence making in the favour of an accused, though absent, person, but of substituting for it his own conviction without producing evidence to support it. All that can be said is, in the first place, that Gerard was not on trial, and could not therefore be affected by anything that Coke might say; and that, in the second place, even if Coke’s words were – as they doubtless were – accepted by the jury, the position of the prisoners actually at the bar would be neither better nor worse.

Much more serious is Father Gerard’s argument that the confession of Bates, Catesby’s servant, to the effect that he had not only informed Greenway of the plot, but that Greenway had expressed approval of it, was either not genuine, or, at least, had been tampered with by the Government. As Father Gerard again italicises,²⁶⁸ not a passage from the examination itself, but his own abstract of the passage, it is better to give in full so much of the assailed examination as bears upon the matter: —

“Examination of Thomas Bate,²⁶⁹ servant to Robert Catesby, the 4th of December, 1605, before the Lords Commissioners.

“He confesseth that about this time twelvemonth his master asked this said examinant whether he could procure him a lodging near the Parliament House. Whereupon he went to seek some such lodging and dealt with a baker that had a room joining to the Parliament House, but the baker answered that he could not spare it.

“After that some fortnight or thereabouts (as he thinketh) his master imagining, as it seemed, that this examinant suspected somewhat of that which the said Catesby went about, called him to him at Puddle Wharf in the house of one Powell (where Catesby had taken a lodging) and in the presence of Thomas Winter, asked him what he thought what business they were about, and this examinant answered that he thought they went about some dangerous business, whereupon they asked him again what he thought the business might be, and he answered that he thought they intended some dangerous matter about the Parliament House, because he had been sent to get a lodging near that House.

“Thereupon they made this examinant take an oath to be secret in the business, which being taken by him, they told him that it was true that they meant to do somewhat about the Parliament House, namely, to lay powder under it to blow it up.

“Then they told him that he was to receive the sacrament for the more assurance, and he thereupon went to confession to a priest named Greenway, and in his confession told Greenway that he was to conceal a very dangerous piece of work that his master Catesby and Thomas Winter had imparted unto him, and that he being fearful of it, asked the counsel of Greenway, telling the said Greenway (which he was not desirous to hear) their particular intent and purpose of blowing up the Parliament House, and Greenway the priest thereto said that he would take no notice thereof, but that he, the said examinant, should be secret in that which his master had imparted unto him, because that was for a good cause, and that he willed this examinant to tell no other priest of it; saying moreover that it was not dangerous unto him nor any offence to conceal it, and thereupon the said priest Greenway gave this examinant absolution, and he received the sacrament in the company of his master Robert Catesby and Mr. Thomas Winter.

······

Indorsed: – “The exam. of Tho. Bate 4 Dec. 1605. Greenway, §.”²⁷⁰

Out of this document arise two questions which ought to be kept carefully distinct: —

1. Did the Government invent or falsify the document here partially printed?

2. Did Bates, on the hypothesis that the document is genuine, tell the truth about Greenway?

1. In the first place, Father Gerard calls our attention to the fact that the document has only reached us in a copy. It is quite true; though, on the other hand, I must reiterate the argument, which I have already used in a similar case,²⁷¹ that a copy in which the names of the Commissioners appear, even though not under their own hands, falls not far short of an original. If this copy, being a forgery, were read in court, as Father Gerard says it was,²⁷² some of the Commissioners would have felt aggrieved at their names being misused, unless, indeed, the whole seven concurred in authorising the forgery, which is so extravagant a supposition that we are bound to look narrowly into any evidence brought forward to support it.

Father Gerard’s main argument in favour of the conclusion at which he leads up to – one can hardly say he arrives at this or any other clearly announced conviction – is put in the following words: —

“If, however, this version were not genuine, but prepared for a purpose, it is clear that it could not have been produced while Bates was alive to contradict it, and there appears to be no doubt that it was not heard of till after his death.”

The meaning of this is, that the Government did not dare to produce the confession till after Bates’s death, lest he should contradict it. If this were true it would no doubt furnish a strong argument against the genuineness of the confession, though not a conclusive one, because at the trial of that batch of the prisoners among whom Bates stood, the Government may have wished to reserve the evidence to be used against Greenway, whom it chiefly concerned, if they still hoped to catch him. I do not, however, wish to insist on this suggestion, as I hope to be able to show that the evidence was produced at Bates’s trial, when he had the opportunity, if he pleased, of replying to it.

Father Gerard’s first argument is, that in a certain ‘manuscript account of the plot,²⁷³ written between the trial of the conspirators and that of Garnet, that is, within two months of the former,’ the author, though he argues that the priests must have been cognizant of the design, says nothing of the case of Bates’s evidence against Greenway, ‘but asserts him to have been guilty only because his Majesty’s proclamation so speaks it.’²⁷⁴ To this it may be answered that, in the first place, the manuscript does not profess to be a history of the plot. It contains the story of the arrest of Garnet and other persons, and is followed by the story of the taking of Robert Winter and Stephen Littleton. In the second place, there is strong reason to suppose, not only from the subjects chosen by the writer, but also from his mode of treating them, that he was not only a Staffordshire man, or an inhabitant of some county near Wolverhampton, but that his narrative was drawn up at no great distance from Wolverhampton. It does not follow that because his Majesty’s proclamation had been heard of in Wolverhampton, a piece of evidence produced in court at Westminster would have reached so far.

Another argument used by Father Gerard in his own favour, appears to me to tell against him. In a copy of a minute of Salisbury’s to a certain Favat, who had been employed by the King to write to him, we find the following statement, which undoubtedly refers to Bates’s confession, it being written on December 4, the day on which it was taken: —

“You may tell his Majesty that if he please to read privately what this day we have drawn from a voluntary and penitent examination, the point I am persuaded (but I am no undertaker) shall be so well cleared, if he forebear to speak much of this but ten days, as he shall see all fall out to that end whereat his Majesty shooteth.”²⁷⁵

Father Gerard’s comment on this, that the confession of Bates, here referred to, ‘cannot be that afterwards given to the world; for it is spoken of as affording promise, but not yet satisfactory in its performance.’²⁷⁶ Yes; but promise of what? The King, it may be presumed, had asked not merely to know what Greenway had done, but to know what had been the conduct of all the priests who had confessed the plotters. The early part of the minute is clear upon that. Salisbury writes that the King wanted

‘to learn the names of those priests which have been confessors and ministers of the sacrament to those conspirators, because it followeth indeed in consequence that they could not be ignorant of their purposes, seeing all men that doubt resort to them for satisfaction, and all men use confession to obtain absolution.’

Bearing this in mind, and also that Salisbury goes on to say that ‘most of the conspirators have carefully forsworn that the priests knew anything particular, and obstinately refused to be accusers of them, yea what torture soever they be put to,’ I cannot see that anything short of the statement about Greenway ascribed to Bates would justify Salisbury’s satisfaction with what he had learnt, though he qualifies his pleasure with the thought that there is much more still to be learnt about Greenway himself, as well as about other priests. An autograph postscript to a letter written to Edmondes on March 8, 1606, shows Salisbury in exactly the spirit which I have here ascribed to him: —

“You may now confidently affirm that Whalley²⁷⁷ is guilty ex ore proprio. This day confessed of the Gunpowder Treason, but he saith he devised it not, only he concealed it when Father Greenway alias Tesmond did impart to him all particulars, and Catesby only the general. Thus do you see that Greenway is now by the superintendent as guilty as we have accused him. He confesseth also that Greenway told him that Father Owen was privy to all. More will now come after this.”²⁷⁸

The tone of the letter to Favat is more subdued than this, as befitted writing that was to come under the King’s eye; but the meaning is identical: – “I have got much, but I hope for more.”

We now come to Father Gerard’s argument that the charge against Greenway of approving the plot was not produced even at Garnet’s trial on March 28, 1606, Bates having been tried on January 27, and being executed on the 30th: —

“Still more explicit is the evidence furnished by another MS. containing a report of Father Garnet’s trial. In this the confession of Bates is cited, but precisely the significant passage of which we have spoken, as follows: ‘Catesby afterwards discovered the project unto him; shortly after which discovery, Bates went to mass to Tesimond [Greenway] and there was confessed and had absolution.’

“Here, again, it is impossible to suppose that the all-important point was the one omitted. It is clear, however, that the mention of a confession made to Greenway would primâ facie afford a presumption that this particular matter had been confessed, thus furnishing a foundation whereon to build; and knowing, as we do, how evidence was manipulated, it is quite conceivable that the copy now extant incorporates the improved version thus suggested.”

Father Gerard has quoted the sentence about Bates and Greenway correctly,²⁷⁹ but he has not observed that Coke, in his opening speech, is stated on the same authority to have expressed himself as follows: —

“In November following comes Bates to Greenway the Jesuit, and tells him all his master’s purpose; he hears his confession, absolves him, and encourageth him to go on, saying it is for the good of the Catholic cause, and therefore warrantable.”²⁸⁰

I acknowledge that Coke’s unsupported assertion is worth very little; but I submit that so practised an advocate would hardly have produced a confession which, if it contained no more than Father Gerard supposes, would have directly refuted his own statement. Father Gerard, I fancy, fails to take into account the difficulties of note-takers in days prior to the invention of shorthand. The report-taker had followed the early part of Bates’s examination fairly well. Then come the words quoted by Father Gerard at the very bottom of the page. May not the desire to get all that he had to say into that page have been too strong for the reporter, especially as, after what Coke had said earlier in the day, the statement that Bates ‘confessed’ might reasonably be supposed to cover the subject of confession? ‘Catesby … discovered the project unto him, shortly after which discovery’ he confessed. What can he be supposed to have confessed except the project discovered? and, if so, Greenway’s absolution implies approval.

Father Gerard, moreover, though he quotes from another manuscript Garnet’s objection that ‘Bates was a dead man,’ thereby meaning that Bates’s testimony was now worthless, entirely omits to notice that the preceding paragraph is destructive of his contention. A question had arisen as to whether Greenway had shown contrition.

“Nay,” replied Mr. Attorney, “I am sure that he had not, for to Bates he approved the fact, and said he had no obligation to reveal it to any other ghostly father, to which effect Bates his confession was produced, which verified as much as Mr. Attorney said, and then Mr. Attorney added that he had heard by men more learned than he, that if for defect of contrition it was not a sacrament, then it might lawfully be revealed.

“Mr. Garnet rejoined that Bates was a dead man, and therefore although he would not discredit him, yet he was bound to keep that secret which was spoken in confession as well as Greenway.”²⁸¹

Having thus shown that Father Gerard’s argument, that the statement about Greenway was not produced at Garnet’s trial, cannot be maintained; that his argument drawn from the account of the arrest of Garnet and others is irrelevant, and that Salisbury’s letter to Favat, so far from contradicting the received story, goes a long way to confirm it, I proceed to ask why we are not to accept the report of A true and perfect relation, where Coke is represented as giving the substance of the confession of Bates, beginning with Catesby’s revelation of the plot to him, followed by his full confession to Greenway and Greenway’s answer, somewhat amplified indeed, as Coke’s manner was, but obviously founded on Bates’s confession of December 4, 1605.