Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/113

 GUNPOWDER

83

GUNPOWDER

would neither have entered into practice [i. e. treason] nor missions nor combinations" ("True Relation", sig. M. 4). This was a boast of one of the king's min- isters, to show how far toleration had ever been from their policy. Now their object was to make the plot an excuse for increasing the persecution. The follow- ing words of Lord Salisbury (4 Dec, 1605), to a private secretary of James, will show the spirit and method with which they addressed themselves to their task: " I have received from you directions to learn the names of those priests, which have been confessors and ministers of the sacraments to those conspirators, because it foUoweth indeed in consequence that they could not be ignorant of their purposes. For all men that doubt, resort to them for satisfaction, and all men use confession to obtain absolution." He then goes on to say that most of the conspirators "have wilfully forsworn that the priests knew anything in particular, and obstinately refuse to be accusers of them, yea what tortures soever they be put to. " But, of course, the unfortunate victims were not able to resist indefinitely, and ere long the inquisitors discov- ered that the con- spirators had fre- quented the Jesuit fathers for confes- sion. So a proc- lamation was is- sued, 15 Jan., 16011, declaring that Fa- thers Henry Gar- net, John Gerard, and Oswald Green- way (or Greenweli; were proved to be co-operators in the plot " by divers confessions of

many conspira- tors". This accu-

CoN.'iFIRATuHS

(Coil tempo

sation was reaffirmed in no less than four Acts of Parlia- ment (James I, cc. 1, 2, 4, 5"), in the indictment of the conspirators, and in other public documents, though as yet the government knew nothing of the real state of the case, of which we shall now hear. Indeed Salis- bury afterwards confessed in an iniguarded moment that it was by the hole-in-the-wall trick that "the Lords had some light and proof of matter against you [Garnet], which must otherwise have been discovered by violence and coertion". The true extent of the intercourse of the conspirators with the priests will be best shown, going back to the commencement and following the historical order.

Catesby, then, had been acquainted with Garnet since the close of Elizabeth's reign, and probably since his conversion, for he was a visitor at the house of the Vauxes and Brookesbys, with whom Garnet lived as chaplain. And as far back as May, 1604, he had no- ticed Catesby's aversion of mind from the king and government. On 29 Aug., 1604, he wrote to his supe- riors in Rome (apropos of the treaty of peace with Spain, which he hoped might contain a clause in favour of the English Catholics): " If the affair of toleration go not well. Catholics will no more be quiet. Jesuits can- not hinder it. Let the pope forbid all Catholics to stir." Next spring (8 May, 1605) he wrote in still more urgent tones: "All are desperate. Divers Catholics are offended with Jesuits, and say that Jesuits do impugn and hinder all forcible enterprises. I dare not inform myself of their plans, because of the prohibition of Father General for meddling in such affairs, and so I cannot give you an exact account. This I know by mere chance." The "desperation" referred to here was caused by the serious increase of persecution at this time. In particular Garnet had in

mind the " little tumult "in Wales, where the Catholics had assembled in force (21 March, 1605) and had defi- antly buried with religious ceremonies the body of Mrs. Alice Wellington, after the parson had refused to do so, because she was, he said, excommunicated (t^ath. Record Society, ii, 291). Garnet's letter, which may have been backed by others, drew from Rome a letter ordering the archpriest Blackwell and himself, in mandato Pii/xr, " to hinder bv all possible means all conspiracies of Catholics". This prohibition was pub- lished by Blackwell, 22 July, 1605, and his letter is still extant (Record Office, Dom. Jac, xv, 13).

Till June, 1605, Garnet had no serious suspicions of Catesby. On 9 June, however, at Garnet's lodging in Thames Street, London, Catesby asked him whether it were lawful to explode mines in war, even though some non-combatants might be killed together with the enemy's soldiers. Garnet, as any divine might do, answered in the affirmative, and thought no more about it, until Catesby came up to him when they were alone, and promised him never to betray the answer he

had given. At this Garnet's suspicions were decidedly aroused, and at their next meeting, in July, he insisted on the need of pa- tience, and on the prohibitions that had come from Rome of all vio- lent courses. Cates- by's answer calmed the Father's fears for the time, but still at their next meeting Garnet thought well to read to him the MiiuDEH Plot pope's prohibition

rary Friut) of violent courses,

which Blackwell was about to publish. Catesby's answer was not submissive; he was not bound, he said, to accept Garnet's word as to the pope's commands. Garnet rather weakly suggested that he should ask the pope himself, and to this the crafty conspirator at once consented, for with careful management he could thvis stave off the papal prohibi- tion, until it would be too late to stop. Though here and elsewhere Garnet does not show himself possessed of the wisdom of the serpent, his mild and straightfor- ward conduct was not without its effect, even on the masterful Catesby. For only now, after having com- mitted himself so thoroughly to his desperate enter- prise, did he feel the need of consulting his confessor on its liceity, and told the story under the seal of con- fession to Father Greenway, and "so that he could re- veal it to none but Garnet" (Foley, iv, 104). Not knowing what to do in the presence of such a danger, Greenway (26 July) came and consulted Garnet, of course again under the seal. Garnet conjured Green- way to do everything he possibly could to stop Catesby's mad enterprise, and Greenway afterwards solemnly declared that he had in truth done his best, " as much as if the life of the pope had been at stake ' ' ("Apologia", 258).

Catesby did not refuse to obey, and Garnet too easily assumed, until too late, that the attempt was, if not given up, postponed tiU the pope should be consulted, though in truth the plotting con- tinued unchecked until all was discovered. Garnet afterwards asked pardon for this, admitting that be- tween hope and fear, embarrassment and uncertainty, he had not taken absolutely all the means to stop the conspirators, which he might perhaps have taken on the strength of his general suspicions, even though he