THE TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF GARNET, THE JESUIT—THE ALLEGED MIRACLE OF
THE STRAW—IS DECLARED A MARTYR.
Some time elapsed before Garnet was taken. He concealed himself in
various places during the few months immediately subsequent to the
discovery of the plot; the strictest search, however, was made; rewards
were offered for his apprehension; and at last he was taken with Hall,
another jesuit, and his own servant, in the house of a Roman Catholic.
The servant became his own executioner in the prison. The proclamation
against Garnet and the other jesuits, is dated January 14, 1605-6; but
he was not taken at the end of the month when the other conspirators
were executed. He did not, however, long elude the pursuit which was
instituted.
On Friday, March 26, 1605-6, he was brought to trial at the Guildhall,
in the city of London, before the lord mayor, several members of the
king’s council, and certain of the judges. During his imprisonment he
was treated with much leniency, as he himself confessed on his trial. In
the indictment the various names of the prisoners were specified; from
which document we gather that he was known under different designations
according to circumstances. Wally, Darcy, Roberts, Farmer, Philips, were
the names assumed by Garnet on different occasions for the purpose of
concealment. The indictment charged the prisoner, with concurring with
Catesby, and the other conspirators, in the plot against the king and
the state. The jury were sworn, and the prisoner pleaded _not guilty_.
Sir Edward Coke, the attorney-general, proceeded to open the case: and
as this trial reflects much light on the whole conspiracy, I shall
notice all those parts which appear to me of the most importance.
The attorney-general stated in the outset, that this trial was but a
latter act of that dismal tragedy, commonly called the Powder Treason,
for which several had already suffered the extreme penalty of the law.
Throughout the trial he treated Garnet with great respect. From Sir
Edward Coke’s speech we learn, that Garnet was examined for the first
time February 13th, and that from that day to the 26th of March, when
the last examination took place, he was examined before the council more
than twenty times.
In speaking of the treason, Sir Edward remarks, “I will call it the
jesuits’ treason, as belonging to them, both _ex congruo et condigno_:
they were the proprietaries, plotters, and procurers of it.” He then
enters on a description of some of the treasons, which were planned in
the reign of Queen Elizabeth, in which also Garnet was concerned, as I
have noticed in a preceding chapter. Garnet confessed several
particulars respecting those transactions in which he had been engaged;
and among other things he admitted that the Romanists in England, after
the bull of excommunication had been issued against the queen, were
permitted to render her obedience with certain cautions and limitations,
namely, _Rebus sic stantibus_, and _Donec publica bullæ executio fieret
posset_. So that while things continued in their present state, and till
such time as the bull could be executed, the Romanists might obey the
queen. This was confessed by Garnet himself.
It appears that Garnet came over into England in the year 1586, two
years before the sailing of the _Spanish Armada_. As early as the reign
of Edward the First, the bringing in of a bull from Rome against any of
the king’s subjects, without permission, was adjudged to be treason; so
that Garnet was a traitor by the ancient laws of the land, for the bulls
against King James were committed to the keeping of that individual. The
attorney-general had declared, when speaking of Elizabeth, that four
years had never passed without a treason: and he adds, when he speaks of
King James, “and now since the coming of great King James, there have
not passed, I will not say four years, but not four, nay not two months,
without some treason.” In these treasons Garnet and other jesuits were
implicated. The bulls which had been sent to Garnet before the death of
Elizabeth, and which were intended to prevent the English Romanists from
receiving any but a popish sovereign, were burnt by him, as already
mentioned, when he perceived that King James’s accession could not be
prevented. There would have been danger in preserving them, therefore
they were committed to the flames. The prisoner admitted that he had
destroyed them.
It was shown on the trial that Garnet was privy to the plot in various
ways. Though Catesby was the only layman with whom he would converse on
the subject, yet he did not hesitate to confer with his brother jesuits
respecting all the particulars. Greenwell pretended to confess himself
to Garnet his superior. Confession is appointed by the church of Rome to
be performed by the penitent in a kneeling posture; but it seems that,
on this occasion, the two parties walked together; and during this walk
Garnet heard all the particulars of the treason—how it was to be
executed—and what was to take place subsequently. It was proved also
that he had proposed writing to the pope on the subject, and that he met
Catesby and some other of the conspirators in Warwickshire. It will be
seen that he prayed for the success of the great action; and it is also
a certain fact, that all the English Romanists prayed for the success
of the plot, whatever it might be, which they knew was in agitation,
though they were not acquainted with its precise nature.
On the morning of November the 6th, when the plot had failed, Catesby
and some of the other conspirators sent Bates to Garnet, who was then in
Warwickshire, to entreat his assistance in stirring up the people to
open rebellion. Greenwell was at this time with Garnet. Warwickshire was
appointed to be the place of meeting after the plot; and on this account
the jesuits assembled in that county.
I have mentioned that Garnet admitted that he was acquainted with the
plot, though he pretended that it was revealed to him in confession, and
that consequently he was not at liberty to reveal it, a point which I
shall notice in a subsequent page. The means adopted to procure his
confession were curious, and perhaps not strictly justifiable. A trap
was set for the prisoner into which he readily fell.
For some time he would confess nothing. In those days it was customary
to extort confessions from prisoners, by means of torture, a mode long
since abolished in this country; but the king and his ministers did not
wish to render themselve obnoxious to the Romanists by resorting to the
rack. Instead, therefore, of using torture, they employed craft; and
though Garnet was an adept in the art of dissimilation, yet he was
outwitted on this occasion. An individual was appointed as the keeper of
the prisoner, who, by pretending to deplore the condition of the
Romanists in England, as well as by complaints against the king and his
ministers, at length succeeded in inducing Garnet to believe that he was
well affected to the church of Rome. Two letters were written by Garnet,
and entrusted to this man, the one addressed to a lady, the other to a
priest. In the former letter he mentioned what things he had already
admitted in his examinations; but the second letter was the more
important. The letter was written on a sheet of paper, and appeared to
contain matters only of an ordinary kind, such as any one might read. He
had, however, left a very broad margin, which circumstance excited
suspicion in the breasts of the council. Nor were these suspicions
without foundation; for on examining the letter, by holding it to the
fire, it was found that he had written on the margin with the juice of a
lemon, beseeching his friends to deny the truth of those things which he
had already confessed. He also expressed his hope, that he should escape
from the powder plot from want of proof; yet he had confessed to the
lords of the council, that he was guilty. It appears, however, that he
did not really expect to escape; for in this same letter he applies the
words of Caiaphas, who used them when speaking of the Saviour, to
himself, _Necesse est ut unus homo moriatur pro populo_.
This letter, written with his own hand, was shown to him at the trial.
It is still in existence. Some years ago it was discovered by Mr. Lemon
in the State Paper Office, where it is still preserved, not only as a
proof of Garnet’s guilt, but also as evidence, that the principles of
the church of Rome are not misrepresented by Protestant writers.
The man who had taken the charge of these letters conveyed them
immediately to the lords of the council. The object was to have some
public confession of his guilt on his trial. They were apprehensive that
he might deny even what he had privately stated to the lords, which was
much less than what he had admitted in these letters. The trap which had
been set for him by the sage counsellors of his majesty was not set in
vain.
But other evidence was soon produced. The individual to whom the letters
were entrusted gained his entire confidence. Garnet told him that he was
very anxious to see Hall, another jesuit, known also by the name of
Oldcorn, who was then confined in the same prison. The keeper promised
to arrange a meeting between them. For this purpose they were so placed,
that they could converse together, while he, to avoid suspicion, took a
position so as to be seen by both. At the same time two other
individuals were secreted in the prison sufficiently near to hear all
that passed between the prisoners. They conversed freely respecting
their previous confessions and examinations—the excuses and evasions
which they had prepared, and many other matters connected with the plot.
During the conversation Garnet remarked to Hall, “They will charge me
with my prayer for the good success of the great action, in the
beginning of the parliament, and with the verses which I added at the
end of my prayer.” He added, that in his defence he should state, that
the success for which he prayed related to the severe laws, which he
apprehended would, during the session, be enacted against the Romanists.
The verses alluded to were as follows:—
Gentem auferte perfidam
Credentium de finibus,
Ut Christo laudes debitas,
Persolvamus alacriter.
The next day Garnet and Hall were examined separately, when they were
charged with having held a private conference. Garnet denied the fact in
the most decided terms. The parties who heard the conversation were then
produced: nor could Garnet object anything against their statements.
Garnet said on his trial that he once thought of revealing the plot, but
not the conspirators. Cecil asked who hindered him from making the
discovery; to whom he replied, “You, yourself; for I knew you would have
racked this poor body of mine to pieces, to make me confess.” Fuller
remarks on this assertion and in allusion to the interview with Hall,
that “never any _rack_ was used on Garnet, except a _witrack_, wherewith
he was worsted, and this cunning archer outshot in his own bow. For
being in prison with _Father Oldcorn alias Hall_, they were put into an
_equivocating room_ (as I may term it) which pretended nothing but
privacy, yet had a reservation of some invisible persons within it, ear
witnesses to all the passages betwixt them.”
These confessions, denials, evasions, and palliations were defended by
Garnet under the plea of lawful _equivocation_, a doctrine then at least
taught very generally in the church of Rome. Under shelter of this plea
the jesuits were prepared, not merely to conceal or to deny any fact,
but also to aver what they knew to be false. It was urged, and in books
too, that such a course might be adopted on the ground that the parties
reserved in their own minds a secret and private sense. Thus any
question might be eluded: and this practice was publicly defended in a
treatise licensed by Garnet and Blackwall. Certain instances are given
in the work as illustrations of the doctrine. The following is one of
these cases. A man arrives at a certain place, and is examined on oath
at the gate, whether he came from London, where the plague is supposed
to be raging at the time. The man, knowing that the plague is not in
London, or that he did no more than pass through that city, may swear
that he did not come from London. It is argued, that such an answer
would agree with their intention, who proposed the question simply with
a view to ascertaining, whether their own city would be endangered by
his entrance. Such was the doctrine of equivocation, under the plea of
which Garnet sheltered himself when he denied many things which were
proved against him, and which he had himself confessed. Even Sir Everard
Digby resorted to this papal doctrine of equivocation, as will be seen
from the following extracts from his letters discovered in 1675, and
published by Bishop Barlow, in 1679:—“Yesterday I was before Mr.
Attorney and my Lord Chief Justice, who asked me if I had taken the
sacrament to keep secret the plot as others did. I said that I had not,
because I would avoid the question of at whose hands it were.”—“I have
not as yet acknowledged the knowledge of any priest in particular, nor
will not do to the hurt of any but myself, whatsoever betide me.”
Speaking of a particular priest, he says in another letter; “I have not
been asked his name, which if I had, should have been such a one as I
knew not of.” Again; “If I be called to question for the priest, I
purpose to name him Winscombe, unless I be advised otherwise.” And,
alluding to the same in a subsequent letter—“You forget to tell me
whether Winscombe be a fit name. I like it, for I know none of it.” In
another letter—“As yet they have not got of me the affirming that I
know any priest particularly, nor shall ever do to the hurt of any one
but myself.” It is evident that he deemed it lawful to deny anything
calculated to bring reproach on his church; and that he did not scruple
to give a false name on his examination. From the manner in which he
speaks, there can be no doubt, that he believed he might lawfully
equivocate. And from whom had he learned this monstrous doctrine? From
the church and her authorized teachers!!
The earl of Salisbury alluded on the trial to his denial of the
conversation with Hall, reminding him that he was not questioned as to
the matter of their conferences, but simply as to the fact. Hall
confessed the fact, and Garnet, though he had so strongly denied it,
then admitted the whole. On being reminded of the matter by Cecil, he
replied, that when a man is asked a question before a magistrate he is
not bound to give an answer _quia nemo tenetur prodere seipsum_.
Tresham, who died in the Tower, accused Garnet of a previous treason in
entering into a league with the king of Spain against England. Before
his death he was permitted to see his wife, who was aware of his
confession respecting Garnet. Under her influence he dictated to his
servant, being too weak to use a pen himself, that he had not seen
Garnet during the last sixteen years, and retracted his previous
confession in which he admitted the contrary. Now it was proved, and
acknowledged by Garnet, that they had met several times within the last
two years. Garnet was asked to explain Tresham’s conduct; and his reply
was, “I think he meant to equivocate.”
Tresham died within three hours after dictating this letter. Mrs. Vaux,
however, confessed that she had seen Tresham with Garnet at her house
three or four times since the accession of King James, and that they had
dined together with her. Garnet also publicly acknowledged that he had
seen Tresham. A second confession of Mrs Vaux’s was also read in the
court, in which she admits that she was with Garnet at Tresham’s house
in Northamptonshire not long since.
Garnet made a long defence at the bar; and on the question of
equivocation he defended himself with much subtilty. He declared that
the church of Rome condemned lying; but he justified equivocation,
which, he said, was “to defend the use of certain propositions. For a
man may be asked of one, who hath no authority to interrogate or
examine, concerning something which belongeth not to his cognizance who
asketh, as what a man thinketh, &c. So then no man may equivocate when
he ought to tell the truth, otherwise he may.” When he was reminded that
he had denied that he had written to Tesmond _alias_ Greenwell, or sent
messages to him, he said he would not have denied his letters if he had
known that the lords had seen them; but supposing that they had not
been seen he did deny them, and that he might lawfully do so. This has
been confirmed by the papers in the State Paper Office. There is amongst
these papers an original letter, in Garnet’s own hand, to Mrs. Vaux, in
which he acknowledged that he was so pressed by the testimony of two
witnesses who overheard the conversation between Hall and himself, that
he was, at length, determined to confess all rather than stand the
torture or trial by witnesses.
Garnet endeavoured to shelter himself from the guilt of the plot, under
the plea, that the treason was revealed to him under the seal of
confession. At first he endeavoured to deny that he was acquainted with
any particulars; but being forced from this subterfuge, he admitted his
knowledge, but contended that he was bound to conceal all that he knew.
He acknowledged also that he had concealed the treason with Spain.
“Only,” says he, “I must needs confess, I did conceal it after the
example of Christ, who commands us, when our brother offends to reprove
him, for if he do amend we have gained him.” With respect to the Powder
Treason he acknowledged, that Greenwell came to him in great perplexity
in consequence of what Catesby had intimated. He consented to hear it,
provided the fact of his doing so should not be revealed to Catesby, or
to any other person. Greenwell then revealed the whole plot. He
confessed that he was greatly distressed on the subject, “and sometimes
prayed to God that it should not take effect.” On being questioned why
he did not reveal the conspiracy he stated that, “he might not disclose
it to any, because it was matter of secret confession, and would
endanger the lives of divers men.” Cecil said, “I pray you, Mr. Garnet,
what encouraged Catesby that he might proceed, but your resolving him in
the first proposition? What warranted Faukes, but Catesby’s explication
of Garnet’s arguments? As appears infallibly by Winter’s confession,
and by Faukes, that they knew the point had been resolved to Mr.
Catesby, by the best authority.” It was evident, therefore, that he did
not merely conceal the matter; but that he was an active instigator of
the conspiracy.[22]
[Footnote 22: Mr. Hallam observes; “The Catholic writers
maintain that he had no knowledge of the conspiracy, except by
having heard it in confession. But this rests altogether on his
word; and the prevarication of which he has been proved to be
guilty (not to mention the damning circumstance that he was
taken at Hendlip in concealment along with the other
conspirators), makes it difficult for a candid man to acquit him
of a thorough participation in their guilt.”—_Const. Hist._ i.
554-5.]
With respect to Garnet’s knowledge of the conspiracy, it is perfectly
clear that the matter was not merely revealed in confession, but that he
was one of the actors therein. Nor was the plea of confession consistent
with some of his own declarations during his examinations. He admitted,
that the treason was mentioned to him in the way of consultation, as a
thing not yet executed; and moreover Greenwell did not implicate
himself; he merely told of others, and consequently the seal of
confession would not have been broken, even if Garnet had revealed the
whole to the government. He chose, however, on his trial, to adopt this
line of defence, namely, that he was not at liberty to disclose anything
which was revealed to him in sacramental confession. One of the lords
asked him if a man should confess to-day, that he intended to kill the
king to-morrow with a dagger, whether he must conceal the matter? Garnet
replied that he must conceal it. Parsons, the jesuit, maintains the same
opinion. Speaking of Garnet, he remarks, that nothing was proved, “but
that the prisoner had received only a simple notice of that treason, by
such a means as he could not utter and reveal again by the laws of
Catholic doctrine, that is to say, in _confession_, and this but a very
few days before the discovery, but yet never gave any consent, help,
hearkening, approbation, or co-operation to the same; but contrariwise
sought to dissuade, dehort, and hinder the designment by all the means
he could. He, dying for the bare concealing of that, which, by God’s,
and the church’s ecclesiastical laws, he could not disclose, and giving
no consent or co-operation to the treason itself, should have been
accounted rather a _martyr_ than a _traitor_.”—See an answer to Sir
EDWARD COKE’S _Reports_, 4to. 1606.
It is remarkable that in a treatise published A.D. 1600, on auricular
confession, a case is put to this effect; namely, whether if a
confederate discover, in confession, that he or his companions have
secretly deposited gunpowder under a particular house, and that the
_prince_ will be destroyed unless it is removed, the priest ought to
reveal it. The writer replies in the negative, and fortifies his opinion
by the authority of a bull of Clement VIII., against violating the seal
of confession. This treatise was published at _Louvain_. Bishop Kennet
remarks on this treatise, in his Sermon, November 5th, 1715, that it
appeared “as if the writer had already looked into the cellar and had
surveyed the powder, and had heard the confessions of the conspirators.”
The proceedings were at length brought to a close; and judgment was
demanded against the prisoner. When the clerk of the crown asked what he
had to say why judgment should not be given, Garnet replied that “he
could say nothing, but referred himself to the mercy of the king and God
Almighty.” Judgment was pronounced in the usual form, that the prisoner
should be hanged, drawn, and quartered.
On the third of May 1606, the prisoner was executed on a scaffold
erected at the west end of St. Paul’s church-yard. Overal, dean of St.
Paul’s, with the dean of Winchester, exhorted him to make a plain
confession to the world of the offence of which he had been convicted.
Garnet desired them not to trouble him, as he came prepared to die, and
was resolved what he should do. The recorder asked if he had anything to
say to the people before his death, reminding him that it was not the
time to dissemble, and that his treasons were manifest to the world.
Garnet evidently had no wish to address the crowd; and without refusing
the permission, he alleged that his voice was weak, his strength
exhausted, and that the people would be unable to hear him, except in
the immediate vicinity of the scaffold. To those who stood near,
however, he said that the intention was wicked, and the fact would have
been cruel, and that he entirely abhorred it. He was reminded that he
had confessed his own participation in the plot. It was also stated,
that he had acknowledged, under his own hand, that Greenway had asked
him who should be protector? and that he had replied that the matter was
to be deferred until the blow was actually struck. He confessed that he
had erred in not revealing all that he knew of the plot; but he refused
to make any further declaration on the scaffold.
He kneeled down at the foot of the ladder; but so distracted was he
during his prayer, that he constantly paused and looked about him, as if
in expectation of a pardon. He now expressed his sorrow in dissembling
with the lords, but justified himself by saying, that he was not aware
that they were in possession of such proofs against him. Then exhorting
all Romanists to abstain from treasonable practices, he was launched
into eternity.
Garnet was viewed as a martyr by his church after his death. Yet he had
confessed himself guilty. When asked by some of the lords on his
examination, if he approved that the church of Rome should one day
declare him a martyr, he cried, _Martyrem me, O qualem Martyrem_. The
church of Rome could not declare him a martyr however, unless they could
allege that a miracle had been wrought at his death, or subsequent to
it. A miracle therefore was feigned, in order to pave the way into the
martyrology. This circumstance I will now relate.
While the body was quartered by the executioner, some drops of blood
fell upon the straw with which the scaffold was strewed. A man of the
name of Wilkinson, who was present, was anxious to preserve some relic
of the deceased, and therefore carried home with him some of the straws
sprinkled with Garnet’s blood. These relics were committed to the care
of a woman, who preserved them under a glass case. Wilkinson had come
over from St. Omer’s on purpose to be present at the execution. It was
reported, that the straws which had been carried away by Wilkinson
leaped up from the scaffold, or from the basket in which the dissevered
head was deposited, upon his person. Some weeks after, on examining the
straws, the parties pretended, that they discovered a likeness of Garnet
on one of the husks which contained the grain. Wilkinson and several
other persons asserted that they perceived a likeness. The matter was
soon noised abroad, and the Romanists proclaimed that a miracle had been
wrought. It was thought necessary to institute an examination into the
matter; and accordingly several witnesses gave their evidence before the
archbishop of Canterbury. Some persons had reported, that the head on
the ear of corn was surrounded with _glory_, or with streaming rays; but
Griffith, the husband of the woman who had preserved the straw,
declared, before the archbishop, that he discovered nothing of the sort,
and that the face was no more like Garnet’s than that of any other man
who had a beard. Another witness deposed, that he believed that a good
artisan could have drawn a better likeness.
The matter, however, was not permitted to be forgotten; and at Rome a
print of the straw was published and publicly exhibited. Some months
afterwards Garnet was declared to be a martyr by the pope; in which
light he is still regarded by Romanists. The miracle was undoubtedly
intended to afford the pope an excuse for his _beatification_, which is
the lowest degree of celestial dignity. “This he did,” says Fuller, “to
qualify the infamy of Garnet’s death, and that the perfume of this new
title might outscent the stench of his treason.”
The Romanists of that day made the most of this miracle. In a work
published soon after, entitled, _The True Christian Catholic_, it is
boldly asserted that the sight of Garnet’s straw caused at least five
hundred persons to embrace the Roman Catholic faith. The miracle was
published in all the Romanist states; but in England, it was said, that
the man who had been educated at Rome, and commissioned to enter into a
conspiracy against his native country, deserved to be pictured in blood.
It appears from Osborne, a contemporary writer, that more than one
likeness was pretended. From his statement it seems, that it was
circulated, that all the husks in the ears on the straws bore similar
impressions of Garnet’s features. Osborne says, that he had had some of
these straws in his hand; but that he could discover no resemblance to a
human face; “yet,” says he, “these no doubt are sold and pass at this
day for relics, as I know they did twenty years after, and he for a holy
saint[23].”
[Footnote 23: OSBORNE’S _Works_, p. 436.]
Many false reports were circulated on the Continent respecting his
death. It was said that he evinced much readiness to die, whereas he
manifested great fear. It was also reported that the people interposed
and prevented the executioner from quartering him while he was alive,
but this favour was granted by the command of the king; that the crowd
nearly destroyed the hangman, whereas no violence of any sort was used;
and that the people were perfectly silent when the head was held up on
the scaffold, whereas that act was attended with loud acclamations. On
the contrary, the people were with difficulty restrained from taking the
law into their own hands, and inflicting summary punishment. The people
also understood that Spain and the pope had been plotting with the
traitors; and so high was their indignation, that it was necessary for
the Spanish ambassador to apply to the government for a guard to protect
him from the fury of the populace. These reports were intended to divert
attention from his crime, and from the ignominy of his death. That
Garnet was a traitor against his sovereign and his country, cannot be
denied by any Romanists, without resorting to the usual arts and
sophistry of the jesuits, who contrive to deny anything which it may be
inconvenient to acknowledge. Yet Bellarmine has defended him on the
ground that the treason was revealed in confession: “Why,” says he, “was
Henry Garnet, a man incomparable for learning in all kinds and holiness
of life, put to death, but because he would not reveal that which he
could not with a safe conscience?” Garnet, however, as has been shown,
acknowledged that he ought to have revealed it; and besides, it was
proved on the trial, that he was acquainted with the treason by other
means than confession. He admitted that the plot was revealed to him as
they were walking, and consequently not under the seal of confession.
The recently discovered papers in the State Paper Office, confirm all
the charges advanced against Garnet and the other conspirators at their
trial. In these documents there is an account of Garnet’s examination.
He is asked whether he took Greenwell’s discovery of the plot to be in
confession or not? he answered, “Not in confession, but by way of
confession.”
It has already been proved that, by the ancient laws even, it was
treason to bring in a bull from Rome; yet Garnet acknowledged that he
held three such documents at King James’s accession. And on his trial,
he justified himself, or rather palliated his offence, by stating, that
he had shown them to very few of his own party, when he understood that
the king was peaceably put in possession of the throne. He committed the
bulls to the flames, but not till he had ascertained that they could not
be executed, and that it would be dangerous to retain them, lest they
should be discovered in the event of his being taken.
I have already alluded to the mode, in which the continuator of Sir
James Mackintosh’s _History of England_ in _Lardner’s Cyclopædia_,
writes the history of his country. Another short sentence respecting
Garnet, will show how utterly regardless the writer is of truth in his
statements: “His guilt or innocence is a question of dispute to this
day.” He gives a reference to Lingard; but the words are not given as a
quotation. Yet Garnet acknowledged his guilt, and it was clearly proved
on the trial. Thus, in a history intended for popular use, the guilt of
a notorious offender is questioned, and the principles of the church of
Rome indirectly defended. The writer further remarks,—“that Garnet’s
admissions were obtained by the most perfidious and cruel acts of the
inquisition; that conviction under the circumstances of his trial, is
scarcely a presumption of guilt.” This is exactly the strain in which
Romanists are accustomed to speak of the plot. In short, the writer has
written as a Romanist, and appears to have followed Lingard in every
particular. Is such a man qualified to write a history for popular use?
But to disprove all his assertions on this point, I simply quote a
passage from the _Trial_, which will prove that no cruel means were
resorted to in the case of Garnet. In addressing Garnet, the earl of
Salisbury said: “You do best know that since your apprehension, even
till this day, you have been as Christianly, as courteously, and as
carefully used, as ever man could be, of any quality, or any profession;
yea, it may truly be said, that you have been as well attended for
health or otherwise, as a nurse-child. Is it true or no?” said the earl.
“It is most true, my lord,” said Garnet, “I confess it.” Now, I ask,
what dependence can be placed on the continuator of the history in
question? Yet such men are employed in the present day to write books
for popular use.